This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Creating Washington, D.C..

Capitol outside

This page has annotations:

Contents of this annotation:

This page is referenced by:

The Three Branches
A Separation of Powers

Before the city was built, Washington and Jefferson had concerns over the separation of powers and the influence the branches of government would have over each other within the city. Without a permanent location, Congress and the President often worked in different cities and thus were not accustomed to working in such close proximity. Would the locations of the Capitol and the White House lead to one branch having power over the other? Why didn't the Supreme Court have its own building in the early capital? Explore how the relationships between the three branches of government are reflected in the design of the capital, along with the implications of this design.

Different Styles for Different Branches
In previously cited letters, Jefferson and Washington focus on acquiring land rather than the architectural design of the buildings that will house the government. In a letter from April 1791, Jefferson communicates his preferences to L’Enfant. He states that he prefers the “adoption of some one of the models of antiquity which have had the approbation of thousands of years” for the Capitol building while favoring “the celebrated fronts of Modern buildings which have already received the approbation of all good judges,” citing “the Galerie du Louvre, [...] and two fronts of the Hotel de Salm” as examples of these “modern buildings” (Founders, April 10, 1791). Whether or not L’Enfant altered his plans to match Jefferson’s expectations is less significant than Jefferson’s preferences themselves. Often, “a monarch’s palace, an imperial house of government, a national capital, a city capital—these artifacts of governance are intended to evoke awe and sustain sovereignty” (Hise 2008, 173). In relation to his designation of different architectural styles to the different branches, this idea of “sustain[ing] sovereignty” can perhaps explain Jefferson’s different preferences for the branches. While the branches do not have total sovereignty over the entire United States, the different styles for each building can represent each branch having sovereignty over its enumerated powers—the White House and the Capitol should look different because they are different governing bodies, both with different powers.
Distance Between Congress and the President
Although Jefferson’s different styles for different branches may indicate his view of the separate branches, Washington worried about the influence of Congress in presidential affairs. To ensure that the Congress would not be able to overpower the President, L’Enfant writes to Washington, stating that “the distance from the congressional House will not be to[o] great as what Even the activity of business may be no mesage to, nor from the president is to be made without a sort of decorum which will doubtless point out the propriety of committees waiting on him in carriage should his palace be Uncontigous to Congress” (Founders, June 22, 1791). By ensuring that the Capitol will be close enough to the Executive building to allow for Executive oversight, L’Enfant's design exemplifies the idea that “states transform space into territory as a means towards sovereignty” (Hise 2008, 173). By keeping the Capitol close to the Presidency, the Executive exerts some control over the Congress—Congressmen will have to travel to the President if necessary, the President will be able to check up on Congressional activities, and so on. Moreover, L’Enfant goes beyond keeping Congress close but he also “placed the three grand departments of state Contigous to the presidial palace,” (Founders, June 22, 1791) emphasizing that these departments are meant to answer to the President, not the Congress. Usually, “architectural historians view states as clients for buildings to glorify established regimes” (Hise 2008, 173), but with L’Enfant’s design, early leaders were using buildings to establish a regime.
The Separated Supreme Court
While the White House and the Capitol building were part of L'Enfant's original plan for the capital, the Supreme Court building hidden in his plan was not built along with the other government edifices. In fact, construction of the Supreme Court building was completed in 1935. Prior to having its own building, the Court actually operated in the basement of Capitol building (Young 1966, 76). This exclusion of L'Enfant's planned Supreme Court building has been seen as a signal that at the time of construction, the judicial branch was not seen as "an equivalent power" compared to the legislative and executive branches (Sonne 2005, 82). While representatives chose to live near Capitol Hill and members of the Executive branch resided across the Capitol on the other side of the Tiber river, the Supreme Court justices lived together in a home near Capitol Hill (Young 1966, 76). Despite living near Capitol Hill like the Congressmen, the justices were "secretive about their activities" in their home and "lived such a reclusive existence, [...] rarely ventur[ing] out of their lodgings after hours" (Young 1966, 77). The extent of the separation between the judiciary and the other branches is emphasized with "Justice Paterson travel[ing] a full day in a stagecoach with Thomas Jefferson" yet "neither man [was] aware of the other's existence" (Young 1966, 77). The physical distance between the White House and the Capitol building can explain the separation between lawmakers and executives in the Washington community, but the justices consciously chose to separate themselves from representatives, despite both working from the Capitol building and living in relatively nearby locations (Young 1966, 78). To account for this conscious social separation, political scientist James Young suggests that perhaps the Justices did not associate with lawmakers with "the interest of the Judiciary in maintaining its own independence" from the "political branches" (Young 1966, 79).

The Constitution Personified
As a whole, Young argues that the members of the branches lived separately within the same city because members felt more loyal to their branch than they did to the city. He writes, "such a preference for nonpartisan, constitutionally sanctioned roles fully accords with" the members early fears of power (Young 1966, 79-80). By living separately and avoiding contact with the other branches, the members of each branch "literally translated constitutional principles of organization into social realities" (Young 1966, 80). These "social realities" ensured that the members of each branch remained loyal to their work and did not intrude in the business of other branches. The members lived separate lives, allowing some clashes between branches to occur over politics while still maintaining the principles of the Constitution. Perhaps the branches maintained a good amount of separation despite some competition because they lived and existed in different social spheres. Today we see close relationships between members of different branches yet we also see more arguments over which branch has the power in specific situations. Ultimately, in early Washington, D.C. members of the branches lived disconnected lives out of concern over the limits of the power they had just established with the Constitution.