the federal government. he's been very active and interested in particularly researching the seat of government. he's been the author of many book and articles. throughout most of his professional life, he's been the co-editor of documentary history of first federal congress. i do want to say one thing about one of his books, which i think is a real classic now, that's the creation of washington, d.c., which is published back in 1991. if anybody wants to know about behind the scenes and proceedings and meetings and all the things that went on in terms of the location of national capital, this book is a must read. i'd like you to welcome kenneth bolling. [ applause ] >> thank you, bill. rather than thank the individual organizations, i just want to say i think most of us would agree that this conference just rocks. [ laughter ] >> i would like to thank in particular the editor of our papers for the fine job they are doing. fiona griffin and marsha anderson. [ applause ] one of the things i have in common with the next speaker, is we tend to edit and revise our talks to about the last minute. so i apologize if suddenly i can't read my own handwriting. some water. thank you. this is going to have to sit up here. in late june 1790, james hemings, the enslaved half brother of thomas jefferson's deceased wife prepared dinner for the secretary of state and two guests. jefferson had invited secretary of the treasury alexander hamilton and representative james madison of virginia in an attempt to resolve a stalemate that despite weeks and weeks of off the floor negotiations threatened to break up congress and some thought the union itself. hamilton needed a few southern votes in order to achieve congressional passage of a key component of his plan for funding the federal debt. that is the assumption into it of much of the revolutionary war debt of the states. madison did not need any votes to achieve his and george washington's longtime goal, the location of the seat of federal government on the potomac river. not for the first time he and his southern allies had come to an arrangement by which pennsylvania would provide votes for that location in exchange for a temporary residence in philadelphia. each time such an agreement had been reached, new england and new york congressmen succeeded in blocking it by promising pennsylvania to support a permanent location in persons while remaining at new york. congress had been at new york since 1785. madison needed assurance that new york and new england wouldn't do this again. at dinner hamilton promised to talk to his northern supporters and madison agreed to find necessary votes for assumption provided a potomac residence act had first been signed by president washington. as the documentary record shows, hamilton was successful. and a month later the president signed such an act. soon thereafter congress agreed to assume $21.5 million in state revolutionary war debt. this has become known as the compromise of 1790, the first of the three great sectional compromises that came like clock work every 30 years and held the union together, except for the last. from the moment the federal government arrived on the potomac river at the end of 1800, residents of washington, d.c. lived under the constant threat that congress would move elsewhere. the concern remained until 1870 when the republican party and best friend washington, d.c. has ever had in the white house, that great american president ulysses s. grant put an end to it. grant believed the 1790 decision to have been of such constitutional magnitude that the question of removal, quote, should go through the same process at least as amendments to the constitution. even if there be a constitutional power to remove it, which is not settled, unquote. his implied threat to veto any removal bill on grounds of unconstitutionality or the absence of a supermajority established the district of columbia at last as the permanent seat of government. after that the republican party included the physical and symbolic reconstruction of the city as part of its reconstruction of the south only then -- only then did americans outside of washington, d.c. begin to refer to it as the capital of the united states. rather than the seat of federal government. the issue of removal first came before congress in 1805. senator john quincy adams became the first member to argue the constitution did not give congress the power to remove the seat of government. only the power to locate, build, and govern it. his colleague from georgia, james jackson, pointed out that $21.5 of assumed state debt had been pledged to the location. in late 1807 when philadelphia launched campaign for removal to their city. they lost the campaign. john adams reminded his dear friend james rush, that pennsylvania must accept responsibility not only for the potomac location but also for the domination of the federal government that it had given the slave holding south." when the decision reached the house of representatives in february of 1808, opponents of washington, d.c. had nothing, nothing positive to say about a place they considered miserable, sickly, and wretched in appearance, totally unfit for the seat of a great and powerful empire. it was badly planned with public buildings, distant from each other. perhaps the solitary block on george washington's character, in fact, washington, d.c. was one of the greatest evils the people of the united states suffered. it should be destroyed and annihilated. [ laughter ] that's all from the house debate. members of both sides of the issue indicated their awareness that the decision to come south to the potomac had been a matter of barter. a north carolina representative threatened that if the removal bill passed the house, he would immediately call for the repeal of the 1790 funding act. after a week of consideration, a motion to continue debate failed 51-35. on august 24th, 1814, british general robert ross burned several buildings in washington. [ laughter ] americans at the time, and as pointed out this morning, british after the fact considered it retaliation for the american burning of government buildings at york, canada. perhaps only one government building and perhaps not the american army after all. this provided the burning of the public buildings provided opponents of the location with an opportunity to argue for removal without having to demean the city. during the month prior to convening of congress in late september 1814, residents expressed fears that the opponents of the city might prevail. washington socialite eliza p. custis, granddaughter of martha washington, went so far as to accuse secretary of war john armstrong, jr., of allowing the british to capture the city in order to give ammunition to those who wished to move from the potomac and win himself political support in what might have been an upcoming presidential campaign. the 13th congress reconvened in the patent office on september 19th. while members talked privately about the possibility of an immediate removal, president james madison assured them that the buildings were only -- the burning of the buildings were only a temporary inconvenience. but within a week, representative john fisk of new york introduced a resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the expediency of leaving. opponents argued that it was unconstitutional as well as degrading to respond to british predation by fleeing the city and a violation of contracts and public faith with the original proprietors, as well as the states of maryland and virginia, which had provided funds. more broadly, they maintained that the federal convention had given congress the power to create a seat of government that would be permanent in order to harmonize and cement the union that it was the strongest link in the federal chain, that the preservation of the union was at stake and that the debates on the subject and the first federal congress indicated that its members understood the location to be essential for the perpetuity of the union. some of the most interesting discussion occurred in the press, particularly in washington and georgetown. alexandria, which also had a newspaper, was less interested. many alexandrians having come to the conclusion long before retro session in 1836 that their inclusion in the district of columbia had been a disaster. the day after fisk released it, the national intelligence, there could not be a majority in the house that would vote for such a bill. if there were, quote, we well know there will always be one-third of congress firm enough to support the excessive -- executive in refusing his signature to allow a law fraught in such dangerous circumstances, unquote. three days later the editors reported they had received many communications from the public regarding removal but would only print two of these until congress finished the debate. the first of these signed "justice" focused on the history of the location and development of washington. the second had been handed to the editors three weeks earlier. but a lack of space and disbelief that congress would discuss the subject as well as thinking it premature prevented the article's insertion at the time. the author laid out several reasons forever forbade removal of the federal seat of government from potomac. the father of the country had chosen the location. contracts had been made with states and individuals, the binding force of which were guaranteed by constitution. millions of dollars had been invested in the city, the whole of which would be lost if the government left. it would be an international disgrace if great britain or the world came to believe that a mere handful of men could drive the united states from its seat. it would indicate rapid progress towards resubjugation by great britain. it would affect the peace negotiations, and it would lessen the united states in the estimation of europe. the atlantic states, the author of the article warned, would have much to fear were congress to set a precedent for removal. because population growth was gaining weekly, daily, monthly and certainly yearly in the west. if the precedent had been set, the atlantic states as a whole would lose the seat of government. finally, the author asked, was it unreasonable of washington residents to expect their interests to be protected by congress, especially when they had no representation of their own in it. one of the people printed in a georgetown paper, so hyperbolic it was reminiscent of the claims made on behalf of many of the more than 50 places that contended for the seat of government between 1783 and 1790, particularly those written by people who suffered from potomac fever, that dilution inducing obsession with the beauty and commercial potential of the river. george washington being the most famous victim. an article published in the national intelligencia called on the city's free holders to petition congress on the ground that, quote, national honor and justice for bid destruction of metropolis. only memory to the namesake, readers were probably shocked to read in a letter we printed from a baltimore newspaper that georgetown had offered congress accommodations at the college if it would move the seat of government to the other side of rock creek. while residents of georgetown agreed with washingtonians that the district must be the permanent seat, they mistakenly agreed congress and federal buildings could be situated anywhere in it. actually, the buildings had to be on the east side of the potomac. so georgetown would have been one of the places, whereas alexandria would not have been. georgetown's daily newspaper reported on 10 october that the madison administration, quote, instead of countenancing the plan of running away from the district and, thus, accomplishing the views of the enemy, unquote, intended to call forth all the energies of the nation rather than submit to further degradation by the british and had determined at any cost to provide adequate defenses for the city and to see that it rose again. if the influence of the executive is effective, the paper predicted the public buildings would be more magnificent than the ones burned and become, quote, the pride and boast of a great and increasing empire, unquote. after congress killed the bill, games and seton wrote a piece expressing hope that attempts to remove from washington the seat designated and the city planned by until mortal hero and patriot whose name it bears had been put to sleep forever. the matter concerned not only the residents of the district and the surrounding area but also the entire union. quote, the seat of government was solemnly located with a view to its central position. other circumstances intimately connected with certain early acts of the government, which entered into the compact or compromise in consequence of which the seat of government was settled here in 1790, unquote. at its conclusion, they used the opportunity to clarify the remarks they had made in late september about presidential veto. they had no direct knowledge of madison's sentiments on the bill but claimed because of the role he assumed during the first federal congress and other reasons, quote, we would not doubt but he would reject any bill for removal, which should have passed congress by bare majority only. in 2004, christy's auctioned a 4 1/2 page undated document titled "seat of government, memorandum or statement of the compromise or arrangement originally made in congress between the friends of the establishment of the permanent seat of government in the district of columbia and the funding system," unquote. written to influence the outcome of the 1840 residents' debate, the published text and description indicates almost certainly that it was prepared for the massachusetts house delegation probably in an attempt to convince it not to renege on the compromise of 1790. the unsigned document is in the easily recognizable hand of former representative richard bland lee who in the first federal congress had represented that part of virginia along the potomac river from harpers ferry to fredericksburg. he was one of the southerners madison persuaded to change his vote on assumption so that the federal government would be seated on that river. he may even have been told that alexandria would be included in the federal district, because that was george washington's intention. of the men most instrumental of bringing about the compromise of 1790, none took greater pride in his role than lee. as he expressed it late in life, quote, i was particularly amongst those few southern members when the angry contentions between various sections of the union threatened the destruction of the constitution, who ventured by a general compromise of interests, unquote, to relieve new england of its oppressive state debts, conciliate pennsylvania by making philadelphia the seat of government and secure potomac for the southern and western states. lee indicated to thomas jefferson immediately after his vote for assumption in 1790 that he cast it as a willing potential victim in the upcoming second federal election. quote, if the government should be established and prosper because of my vote, i am, as he said, a willing victim. he was not reluctant to use his role as an argument for a federal job in 1815 when he reminded president madison that my agency, in fixing the seat of government at this place is well-known to you. in the end, factors other than congressional and newspaper arguments killed the 1814 removal bill. first, the madison administration adamantly opposed it and exerted pressure on republicans. second, its advocates had disingenuously argued that the removal would only be temporary, until washington's defenses could be improved and the public buildings rendered capable of accommodating the government. near the end of the bill's second reading on october 15th, virginia representative joseph lewis, richard bland lee's representative, incidentally, successfully moved an amendment to the bill appropriating half a million dollars for the reconstruction of the public buildings at washington. with their bluff called, enough supporters of the bill abandoned it and voted with opponents 83-74 not to engross the bill for a third reading. as i mentioned earlier, it would be the last time the issue of removal came before congress until after the civil war. in part, this was because ironically the outrage over the burnings caused americans to begin at last to take pride in their alternately muddy or dusty seat of federal government. thank you very much. [ applause ] any questions? yes. >> i'm wondering if i could ask you maybe to hypothesize a little bit with me, especially in the face of those terrible quotations about washington city and how horrible it was. this is the kind of thing that's so very hard to prove directly unless you're lucky to get a really good source. one of the reasons i thought that removal didn't work in 1814, in spite of itself, washington city was growing into a town by, for, and about politics. and that some politicians, senators and congressmen, didn't want to leave washington because they had built networks of influence. my work is about women building a kinds of drag -- bureaucracy next to the official bureaucracy. if they moved to philadelphia or new york, they would not be the only game in town. they would have to cope with local elites. they would have to cope with important families in economic spheres or social spheres but here they had it all in one place. i wondered if you had any thoughts about that? >> my first thought is that really dolly madison saved the city. >> bless your heart. [ laughter ] [ applause ] well, that is for cheap applause but i thank you for it. [ laughter ] >> by 1814 or 1815, there was a significant change. comparing washington in 1815 with 1800, there is a significant difference not so much in the size but what's happening here. congress, however -- even though there was a network as you describe it, there was a large group of members, almost a majority from the north who wanted to get out of here. they would try any means they could. newspapers go on about this, i didn't mention it. even though the president isn't allowing them to remove now, what the congress has the power to do is to block appropriations for recreating the building and thus force the president to move. i would like to hear more, if you want to say more about your theory. >> well, since you brought up dolly madison, i find it not a coincidence. it's going take a year to do it, not right at this moment. it's not a coincidence within a year dolley madison and the ladies of washington, including marsha van ness have pulled together and started the washington orphan asylum. it was called by the newspaper one of the jewels of washington city. it's gone on, became the louise home after that. but it was a kind of pledge of faith in the city. i see pledges of faith. the van nesses go on to build themselves into one of the largest mansions in the united states. van ness and madison and the ladies start this orphan asylum, which gets covered by the newspapers, which they never cover women's activities. these are all kinds of actions by locals and interested people to say, no, we're here to stay. >> afterwards that's very true. afterwards. columbian college, george washington university, plug for my employer, there's just a whole long list of institutions. scientific and agriculture and otherwise that are founded between the years 1815, 1822, 1823. there's no question in my mind the burning of the buildings in washington resulted in american -- a certain amount of american commitment to the location. there was still lots of opposition out there. people talked about it but not in congress. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? yes. >> poor old alexandria. alexandria subject to that cartoon where we have enough of your porter, enough of your perry, enough of your dark ale, enough of your pear cider, or was it enough of your captain perry and commodore perry. great pummel, that cartoon. going through these period of shame where these decisions were being made, was alexandria able to exert a voice or cowering in the district of columbia? >> exert a voice. unfortunately one of those voices, one of the two alexandria newspapers, no longer, no copies, extinct. the second one, there are a few copies from the fall of 1814. they don't have much to say. the reason i believe that's the case is because they wouldn't have been unhappy to get back to virginia. they had lost their votes, their representative in congress. for all his political wisdom, george washington, who believed that the location and the inclusion of alexandria would enrich the town, how many congressmen from boston, new york, philadelphia, baltimore, charleston, south carolina, and a dozen other places are going to vote federal funds to build wharfs and other facilities in ÷ so that money is not available. alexandria begins to decline. as a transatlantic commercial center. fortunately it's going to become a railroad center, et cetera. those petitions to retrocede the town or retrocede actually all of the district on the virginia side of the river, those petitions started very early. they were never effective until george washington park custis gave up protecting the dream of his grandfather for 100 square miles. when he signed in 1846, bingo, the legislation flew through congress. in his first, i think, speech to congress, address to congress, president abraham lincoln called on congress to take back those 37 square miles and reincorporate them into the district. obviously it didn't happen. yes? >> not mentioned the "s" word, slavery. of course, washington was probably the largest american slave trading city prior to 1850. how much did slavery influence whether the capital should be relocated? >> i did not see any evidence during september and october of 1814 that the issue of slavery in any way played a role. i did not see any evidence one way or the other in 1790 that it played a role in the location, but it was the decision to locate here. it was as many historians of the early republic pointed out. it was the bull in the china shop. it was the thing you didn't mention. it very well may have been people, northerners, who were opposed to slavery who saw this as an opportunity. but i don't see it actually in the sources. and by the way, since you mentioned washington and george washington, it gives me an opportunity to say because i'm trying to make the case that one of the most important abolitionists in the united states at the time was george washington himself who had become an abolitionist before he became president of the united states. so think about that. okay. anything else? thank you very much. [ applause ] with congress returning monday, here's a message to congress from one of this year's c-span's student cam competition winners. >> throughout the years we have encountered be a handful of friends that struggled with mental illness and throughout those years we have seen how lack of support for treatment can result in devastating events, as well as emotional distress for those individuals and their families. >> my name is felix schmidt and i was diagnosed with schizophreniao-affective bipolar disorder. i ended up in the hospital after an episode, like an attack sent me there. i went straight to being an inpatient. they diagnosed me there after five minutes or so of talking to me as bipolar and treated me for two weeks. i got out of the hospital and went from doctor to doctor, looking for someone who would actually listen. it took me over a year to find a doctor who actually did listen. >> we strongly encourage congress to continue from provide funding for those who struggle with mental illness and continue to allocate resources and develop new programs for those in need. join us next wednesday during washington journal for the theme of the 2015 c-span student cam documentary competition. now more from this week's war of 1815 sim posey automaker with pamela scott co-author of the buildings of the district of columbia. she discusses how it was rebuilt after the war. this is 50 minutes. thank you. our next speaker will be pamela scott, and pam is an old friend. i have known her for many, many years, and she is, i think, the authority on the history of public buildings in washington, d.c. she has been an architectural historian here in washington specializing in the architectural landscape and planning histories of the city and i have learned a tremendous amount from her over the years. some of her books include "the temple of liberty," "buildings of the district of columbia," "designing the nation's capitol", and "the fortress of finance," and pam is going to talk about benjamin henry latrobe's work at the capitol. i month don is thrilled about that. ready to have the capitol become front and center in the limelight. and, of course, latrobe is also the architect of decatur house and st. john's across the square, and so hopefully you'll learn a great deal about this architectural genius this afternoon and enjoy the house tonight at the reception. thank you. come on, pam. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, bill. your friendship over the years has meant a great deal to me as well. i want to add my thanks to the many, many thanks to the people who have organized this wonderful symposium. i have learned so much and have enjoyed it so much and i'm sure that we all feel that way about what is almost over but still ongoing. today i'm talking about benjamin henry latrobe's capitol. i am an architectural historian, and i hope that i have watered down a little bit of my rhetoric enough so that i can be understandable to you all. the burning of the capitol on august 24th, 1814, was a reprieve rather than a disaster for benjamin henry latrobe. he now had the unexpected opportunity to repair some of his capitol's interiors and rebuild others into exemplars of greek revival architecture. during his first tenure, latrobe was constrained by william thornton's 1792 winning design for the exterior envelope and stephen hallet's for the interior's. a succession of short-term architects finished much of the senate wing before latrobe's arrival. that was in 1803. the capitol latrobe inherited was that wing and the oven, the oval hall built in 1801 to accommodate the house of representatives. all these designs were a fusion of 18th century neo classism derived from roman and renaissance architecture as interpreted by italian, french, and english sources, as well as ancient ones depending on the education and tastes of the various architects involved. latrobe disliked the capitol he inherited. on both aesthetic and ideological grounds. fortunately, its decade long halting construction proved to be poor and he was able to rebuild the senate ring's interiors and to build much of the house wing before construction was halted by the war in 1812. missed one of my slides. this is latrobe -- this is thornton's exterior on your left and then hallet's interior plan. note on the interior plan the oval rooms for both the house and the senate. latrobe soon found himself in 1803 supported and bedeviled in his collaboration with president thomas jefferson who had been involved with designs for the capitol since 1791. president washington had sanctioned hallet's oval senate and house of representatives, so their shapes remained in force when latrobe made this plan for the capitol in 1806. jefferson collaborated in the redesign of the east front which added a monumental staircase leading directly to the rotunda labelled, hall of the people in latrobe's plan. in may 1807 while in battle with jefferson over the house chamber's vaulting, latrobe expressed to the president his fundamental architecture credo. my principles of good taste are rigid. in grecian architecture i am a bigoted greek. [ laughter ] to the condemnation of the roman architecture of balba, all the buildings erected subsequent to hadrian's reign. he admired the bold plans of early roman architecture but think their details absurd beyond tolerance. wherever therefore the grecian style can be copied without impropriety, i love to be a mirror, i would say a slavish copyist but the forms and distribution of the roman and greek buildings which remain are in general inapplicable to the objects and uses of our public buildings. our government, our legislative assemblies, and our courts of justice buildings are based on entirely different principles from their basilicas and our amusements could not possibly be performed in their theaters or amphitheaters. yet despite these caveats, latrobe went on to infuse the capitol's rebuilt interiors and his new ones with direct references to greek architectural forms, greek architectural orders, and sculptural decorations. he adapted them, however, to his own purposes as he integrated them with other historical traditions. he had pioneered the revival of greek architecture in america in 1798 and even took it upon himself to educate congressmen about correct principles of public architecture. latrobe's 1815 plan that you see here made after the fire depicts his semi circular senate chamber that he had built during his first campaign and his new designed semicircular plan for the house of representatives to replace the one destroyed by the british. he conceived both as ancient theaters. the best shape for seeing and hearing in both chambers. in november 1816 latrobe penned a diatribe against those american architects who were said to be building in a taste. the idea suggested it is it unites the most elegant proportions with the most severe simplicity. he condemned these architects for being the mere copyists of the absurdities of the roman luxury of the age when taste and morals were in the decline. in veiled references to thornton's capitol exterior and the president's house, he noted even our national buildings remind us of the palaces of european kings by the taste of their external decorations rather than of athenian freedom by their beautiful, magnificent, and permanent simplicity. he concluded his essay by defining architecture as combining the most exalted science with the most perfect art to achieve the most perfect record of the public spirit, the wealth, the civilization, and the taste of nations. latrobe hoped the capitol would be his most lasting architecture legacy in america and wanted to make his position about its architecture hegemony clear for posterity. in 1810, 1811, latrobe redesigned part of the capitol's exteriors to be more in accord with his greek revival interior spaces. he planned a new west entrance in the form of a greek portico based on the entrance to the athenian acropolis but altered its intercolumnation and added features from other athenian buildings. the main purpose of the capitol's entrance was to provide housing for the door keepers of the senate and the house while freeing up space for the committee rooms but also to improve the pedestrian approach to the capitol from the mall. the massiveness of his six greek doric columns 32 feet high vibed with a slightly taller roman corinthian capped columns in the loggia dictated by thornton's original choice. the sandstone walls of the capitol's wings were already painted white but latrobe's watercolor depicted his in the stone's natural light brown color. he may have intended it to remain unpainted in order to visually separate the capitol's two distinctly different historical sources, roman and greek. instead of the open balustrades atop the house and senate wings, latrobe planned solid ones for his center building. he designed a monumental statue of athena as american liberty for its central stepped podium, a reference to the cult statue of athena in the parthenon. the greek athena wore a helmet, her left hand resting on her shield and right one raised holding the palladium, the small statue that represented civic power in the greek world. she wears a liberty cap and her awkward stance in this drawing suggests latrobe may have drawn her in reverse to accommodate the sculptor. when cast in bronze, athena liberty would be reversed, that is her left hand resting on a stone tablet signifying the constitution, her right arm raised with palm open and cupped to express the openness of american government. congress itself being the american palladium. athena underwent a sea change in america during the revolutionary era. pierre's 1776 design for the great seal of the united states included a figure of american liberty as athena holding the constitution. when congress chose the eagle, the bird associated with the power of european kings for the great seal's final design, it was stated specifically that the eagle represented congress as power was passed from kings to the representatives of the people. latrobe's athena liberty was an allegorical reminder of greek democracy, the common heritage of euro americans. latrobe altered thornton's roman pantheon inspired dome to be more greek. one way of achieving an acceptable architectural fusion of greek and roman architecture elements. he added a hexagonal drum and a series of stepped rings. from which thornton's low roman dome emerged. this perspective from the northeast shows a distinctly greek frieze of figures decorating the drum. the timing suggests latrobe celebrated jefferson's retirement in 1809. the architect was now free to express the simplicity of greek architecture. on the exterior of the capitol to be in accord with his interiors. these designs were not just wishful thinking. he included them in his estimates until 1816 when he replaced the propylaea with the west wing to accommodate the library of congress. and additional congressional committee rooms. so much for the introduction. now the details. on april 17, 1815, when latrobe visited the capitol to visit -- view the melancholy spectacle of the ruins, he was encouraged by what remained intact. many important parts are wholly injured. what is read of mine the picturesqu entrance of the house of representatives with its handsome columns. the great staircase and the vault of the senate chairman are entirely free from any injury which cannot be easily repaired. the mischief is must more easily repaired than would appear at first site. i was less chagrinned than i had prepared myself to be. he wrote he wished british had burned the capital to the ground so he could have begun anew. his thinking was evolving. egyptian, greek, roman and medieval in such ways to create new and meaningful spaces. america has a nation of immigrants. the family fathers examined and debated western systems of governments governments ancient through modern. latrobe believed abstract representations of ideals were eternal and perfectly appropriate for the new nation of euro americans. all three of his designs, chamber were similar if shape and construction. the central space within a room. a semicircular arcade defining it. a screen of columns faced east. those many the second and third separated the space that you see here. classical architecture rules dictated as a ground floor room the supreme floor be dooric. they were built in the dawn of greek architecture. supreme court justices protected the constitution, the beginning of the united states. in the second courtroom latrobe designed to relieves to decorate the impost blocks. in may, 1817, carla franzoni, a seated justice in the figure she holds scales in her left hand and rest her right hand on the sword of justice. latrobe's former student later wrote that the sword points down rather than being raised because american justice is not punitive. an her right a young greek figure holds the constitution is seated in front of radiant sun. the constitution is a book rather than a charter because the court's laws interpreting the constitution continues to ensure the rights of americans. it was hallmark of latrobe as the capital's architect. the entrance to this wing was via his vestibule finished in 1810. it survived the fire and contains the first of latrobe's borders. he may have seen or was told about america's first border. the kcolumn capitals including stars raised to the sun. latrobe approached in an entirely different way. he used flora of native americans to represent the population. latrobe broke from the tradition of 1790 capital in other ways. drawing for the first senate included paintings of stars and state seals in its vaulted ceiling to express the chamber's function as representing the states. latrobe's first senate chamber finished in 1808 was directly above the courtroom. it was entered in the center of the semicircular side. those originated on one of two porches located on the acropolis. senators represented america's widely divergent regional history cultures and populations. greek figures of women supported the east gallery. they represented art, commerce, agriculture, science, military force and civil government. the range of occupations in which americans excelled as an independent nation. neither images or descriptions of them survived. latrobe designed in room in figures as a theater for the senate and a gallery or galleries supported for the people and a work of art in which the character and taste of russian architecture is preserved and a work of rational decoration in which that is reasonable is made to supply the decoration. all lost the 1814 fire.1ñ for his post-fire senate chamber they would stand atop the public gallery. latrobe's son remembered seeing some of these, figures of north and south carolina represented as sisters. the arm of one around the neck of the other. also massachusetts and maine. a mother leading her child for maine was in district only. one of these in shown in provile on the 1817 section drawing of the north wing. even highly educated euro americans. -- backwards. backwards. thomas law's elegant condemnation was not unique. everybody to whom i have spoken condemns them equally. the architect responded with a lengthy essay of how sentiments and abstract ideas are expressed on human faces, heard as human languages, written as records, and depicted in paintings and sculpture as signs and internal operation of the mind neither audible, visible, nor tangible. and this i'm quoting him now in extent. if then it is the intention of architectural writing to record events or to perpetuate sentiments, national customs, or private matters and it is admitted that such records are