Going by some old DC books I have, I'm virtually certain the two towers there are from the Trinity Episcopal Church (this one), which was located on the northeast corner of 3rd and C streets NW. The buildings in front would then have been along Indiana avenue, between 3rd and 4½ street. The other road angling off to the left (you just see a small portion between the trees and the edge of the picture) would be D street. The photo would have been taken from the City Hall, today the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the trees in front would have been the bottom edge of the park the City Hall was located in. The church, and most of those buildings, are today occupied by the Department of Labor building. That angled stretch of Indiana Avenue no longer exists (though the the mirror section on the other side of 5th street still does), as the Department of Labor building sits on that entire area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mystery building. NYPL's tentative identification as "Art Gallery?" is probably based on where someone filed it; it might have been misfiled, because someone who didn't look closely might have mistaken it for the Corcoran. - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was the "Louise Home", established by Corcoran himself (thus the possible title confusion) as "a residence for genteel but impoverished ladies", and named after Corcoran's wife and daughter. It took the entire block between 15th and 16th streets NW, fronting on the south side of Massachusetts avenue. It was built in 1871, architected by Edmund G. Lind, of Baltimore, and it was torn down in 1949. The organization had sold the building in 1947, and moved to a Codman House on Decatur and 22nd, and lasted until 1976, when it formed part of the Lisner-Louise Home (I guess today this place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not wrong, actually. That building was constructed in 1865 and 1866, and was meant to be the building for the Washington City Orphan Asylum (see another photo here). The Secretary of State (Seward) apparently made an urgent appeal for the building, and it was leased to the Department of State upon completion as their headquarters for "a decade" (according to the book I'm looking at). The 1865 State Department building seen in the wiki article was torn down in 1866 to make room to finish the (current-day) Treasury Department building. Afterwards, the orphanage did get to move in. The building was torn down in 1963, and was located at 14th and S streets NW, southeast corner. The orphanage (today known as Hillcrest) had earlier moved to other buildings in the 1920s or 1930s. The architect was John C. Harkness. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, a school named "Summer School" isn't the easiest thing to search for. Anyone know anything about this one? - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know anything about this (presumably former) monument, or about the church? The church appears to be the Israel Metropolitan Church; a bit of quick Googling suggests that was an important African American church that merits a Wikipedia article, but lacks one. - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the books, I would have pegged that for the Metropolitan Methodist Church, located on the southwest corner of C Street NW and John Marshall Place (I think called 4½ street at the time). Another image of it here. I was having trouble reconciling that with the monument though until I came across this, which describes a white marble monument right in front of the City Hall, with a pillar 35 feet high, on top of which was a life-size statue of Abraham Lincoln done by Lot Flannery (a former U.S. Army lieutenant). That all meshes perfectly then; the photo was taken from in front of City Hall (today the District of Columbia Court of Appeals), looking due south down John Marshall Place, and that would indeed be the Metropolitan Methodist Church. Construction on the church started in 1854 but was interrupted by the Civil War, and the church was dedicated in 1869. The steeple was not finished until 1872, and at 240 feet high was the tallest privately owned building at the time. It was apparently a long-time D.C. landmark. The spire was torn down in 1935, and the rest of the church was torn down in 1956. The architects were Teckritz and Mundell, of New York. The site today is the Canadian Embassy I think. The street shown no longer exists... I think half of it is now John Marshall Place Park. The statue though still exists in that same area, but on a shorter pedestal -- the pillar is gone. Photo of it on the pillar here; and after the pillar here (much like it is today). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Particular thanks on this one. I had thought of the monument in front of City Hall but presumed this couldn't be that because of the tall pillar. Hadn't considered that the pillar might have been changed. - Jmabel ! talk18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the first president to have a reviewing stand was Garfield. The West Point cadets started marching in 1873, but 1885 was their last year until 1901. The 1881 Garfield stand looks a lot bigger (if that is in fact the stand pictured), so my guess is either 1885, or the early 1900s. Apparently Taft had two parades; the actual inaugural day was a blizzard, so they had another parade when the weather got better. Per here anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. Look at the photos here from 1905 (Theodore Roosevelt's inauguration parade); they capture nearly the same angle. The four white pillars on either side of the street are there, with the same decorations hanging off of them. While it's possible they reused those props in other years, that seems unlikely. Other LoC photos do show the West Point cadets marching that day as well, and the linked photos show it was also a sunny day, same as this one (though 1897 and 1901 were also sunny). My guess is definitely 1905 for this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pension Office"; presumably a predecessor to the Pension Bureau Building that is now the National Building Museum. Or flat-out misidentified. Anyone know where it was? "135 Penn Ave." on the card is the publisher's address, nothing to do with this building. - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Shepherd Centennial Building, located on the northeast corner of 12th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. It was apparently built in 1875-1876 by Alexander Robey Shepherd (the mayor) as an investment, but he went bankrupt and sold it in 1878 (and fled to Mexico in 1880). The upper floors were rented by the Pension Office from 1876 to 1885, as they apparently had to use multiple private office buildings until their big new building was ready (the National Building Museum today). The ground floor on the Penn Ave. side was rented by the Palais Royal department store in 1877. They moved out in 1893, and this building was converted into a hotel, called the Raleigh Hotel. The hotel expanded rapidly, building more floors and additions alongside, and this portion was torn down in 1911 to build a new central Raleigh Hotel building, which itself was torn down in 1964. The photo in my book is virtually identical to the one you have, and is also a stereoscope card, and credited to the Architect of the Capitol (owners I presume not authors). It is taken from a virtually identical angle, and the building is decked out in the exact same way, and people are milling about on the sidewalk in the same way. However, it is a different photo, as the placement of the people are different, and the photo in the book is more obscured by branches of a tree in the lower left corner than this one is. Maybe the photos are from the building's opening in 1876, but maybe it was decorated that way all the time, who knows. The book says it was the "most modern office building in Washington" when it opened. This page has a photo of the Raleigh Hotel after they added one portion but before they modified the Shepherd part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John R. French was the sergeant-at-arms of the U.S. Senate from 1869-1879. I don't think he was a general, but that seems a lot more likely. Per this book the sergeant-at-arms had an office in the Senate wing... looks like the very northeast corner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely the same room; look closely. It's just cut off at the height of the main door, and all the pictures on the walls are not there. The mini-arches on the door, for example. Same carpet, same sofa, same chair by the door in back, same work chair in the middle of the room. Also the same square pattern on the wall, behind the pictures in this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pennsylvania Ave. on Carnival Day". NYPL dates this 1860–1880. Anyone know anything about "Carnival Day" in D.C. in this era? - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find many specific references to it... almost like people were assumed to know what it meant. Based on this and this, I'm thinking it refers to w:Carnival (i.e. Mardi Gras). That seems to have been a more deep southern tradition, but perhaps there were enough transplanted southerners to have a festival (or maybe it sporadically spread). People seem fairly bundled up, so maybe it was that time of year. Not positive of course, and the year will be near-impossible to determine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that possibility; I'm still wondering, though. Mardi Gras is pretty specifically a Catholic thing, and in the relevant era (post-Civil War, pre-1900, I'd assume) there was a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment. It's a little hard to imagine it happening in D.C., though I suppose it could have. - Jmabel ! talk07:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not convinced myself. You'd think something would be mentioned... chroniclingamerica.loc.gov doesn't even turn up hits in D.C. newspapers for the most part (one on the Italian celebration, and one as a generic term). Maybe I need to think of different searches. I am finding hits on parades for Washington's birthday... maybe the photographer guessed wrong on the reason for the event :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, these urban stereo cards are running maybe 5% misidentifications, if we include the non-obvious typos (e.g. "Summer School" for "Sumner School"). The photographer probably knew what it was, but then it came (at least) through a publisher and someone at NYPL who may or may not have known the subject at all. - Jmabel ! talk20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "Carnival Day" is right from the back (shame those were not uploaded as well), so that was the original caption. I did not realize we had high-res versions of some of these... makes identification a bit easier. With this one, you can make out the Capitol at the far end. Given the foreground details, that is definitely taken from the south end of the Treasury Building, looking down Pennsylvania Avenue. The marble railing the people in the foreground are leaning on is still there, and there is a similar (but different) iron fence still in place today. All the other details (relative heights, angles, etc.) seem to correlate. If you look at modern pictures, you can see the terrace above the steps which obviously was where the photo was taken from. Near the left side, there is a 37-star U.S. flag, which was in use from 1867-1877. The building at the end of the first block on the left was the early Willard Hotel. Looking more at the D.C. newspapers, I ran across this, which (column 1) describes a one-off carnival which took place on February 21 and 22, 1871, and discusses possible plans to have more of them in the future. Unfortunately, the 1871 issues of that newspaper don't seem to be online. There are 1877ish articles, complaining loudly about these over-the-top "carnivals" when there are homeless people etc. (though describing events in other cities too... so not sure if they were in D.C.) This 1900 book describes the carnival as occurring on February 20 and 21, and the reason was to celebrate the paving of Pennsylvania Avenue from 1st to 17th streets (apparently with wood blocks; they didn't last and had to be replaced later in the 1870s). This book says the event was organized by Shepherd (the same one from that other office building). That and some other ones hint that the carnival started on the 21st. In a rather interesting twist, February 21, 1871 is the day that President Grant signed a bill which changed the structure of the District of Columbia government, and that is considered the date the city officially incorporated. While looking for more info in another book (ISBN978-1580930918), on page 100, I came across this exact photo (credited to the "Leroy O. King Collection"). The caption indeed does say it was taken from the terrace of the Treasury Building in 1871, and describes the event as a celebration of "the reopening of the avenue after it had been paved with wood blocks". So... I think we have it. February 21 or 22, 1871. Knowing what to search for, there are a number of hits on Google Books, but most I have found so far just mention the carnival in passing. For the record, I think Shrove Tuesday was the following week ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks! One remark: when I mention the "publisher" not always knowing what they are talking about, it would typically be a publisher, not the photographer, who wrote the caption. For example, when I've (more than occasionally) found mis-identified churches, I'm sure the photographer knew where he was; it would have been the publisher who introduced the confusion. - Jmabel ! talk06:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A statue of Lincoln in the U.S. Capitol, but not the Vinnie Ream statue. Anyone know who would be the sculptor (or anything else about this statue)? - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta admit, this one has me stumped. I can't find references to any Lincoln statue in the Capitol in those days other than the Ream one (and a head-only bust). That is the rotunda; the painting in back is the "Surrender of Lord Cornwallis" painting[1] (ironically the Ream statue is right next to that today). This photo must be having some fun with perspective; that is a huge painting, so presumably the statue is more in the middle of the room and not near the edge. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was probably a large statue. I'm guessing it probably was intended for outdoor display, on temporary display at the Capitol. It doesn't seem to match the one in front of City Hall, which was my first guess. - Jmabel ! talk16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was truly that large, it wouldn't fit in the door, or probably be supported by the floor :-) I'm thinking it was more in the middle of the room, with the camera relatively close to the statue. Which in turn would likely mean it was probably not a permanent thing, but there on temporary display, yeah. It is definitely not the one from City Hall, correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of possibilities (wish we had a high-res version of this). First, this book mentions a Lincoln statue in the rotunda. What makes that interesting is that the book was supposedly published in 1870, and the Ream statue was unveiled on January 25, 1871, so it's possible there was another statue which was there earlier. The second one is a lot more interesting; for background Ream had been granted $5,000 upon completion of a plaster version, and a further $5,000 for the finished marble version. This magazine, from London in May 1870, describes some of Ream's in-progress work: She has been working on it now two years, and the model has been approved by the committee, but under the advice of some friends she is making a few alterations before she begins it in marble. This great work, for which the Government has contracted for 108,000[sic; was $10,000] dollars, will, when completed, be placed in the Capitol. It stands 6 feet 5 inches in height, and is said to be an excellent likeness of the distinguished patriot. Its pose is easy and natural. Miss Ream has wonderfully surmounted the difficulties of modern costume by throwing a cloak over the left shoulder, which is grasped or held by the left hand, while in his right he holds the Charter of Emancipation. That description seems to apply very much to our pictured statue, but I think does not apply to the Ream statue now in the Capitol (the marble one). I'm now wondering if the pictured statue was in fact Ream's plaster model, and the marble version then did have the mentioned "alterations" to end up as the one we see today (which does have a roll of paper in his right hand, but extended out, and the cloak in the left hand is not over the left shoulder but is being held just off the ground). Have not been able to determine the dates of any of this (presumably she needed the plaster model back to make the marble version), but it at least seems plausible. This book appears to be historical fiction but also has a similar description. Okay, this book says she actually made the plaster version in a studio in the Capitol, then after it was approved, had it sent to Rome in 1869 where she worked on the marble version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good theory. This statue looks like a less good version of the same concept Ream eventually executed. I'd consider it still unconfirmed, but it's a great working hypothesis. - Jmabel ! talk17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed, but the backs of all three stereoscope slides give a (copyright) date of 1866 for the photos. That seems a bit early if this is the model, as Ream was awarded the commission in that year, but it's still possible I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone was already working on the statue when he was alive, they'd have had to work pretty fast to have it completed in 1866. I know that Vinnie Ream was at least sketching Lincoln from life in what turned out to be the last few months of his life. - Jmabel ! talk01:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This is a pretty good article on Ream's Lincoln statue saga, written by a biographer of hers. He does say there is evidence she did have few sit-down sessions with Lincoln (though Mills, the sculptor she was apprenticing to, also had had a life mask made of Lincoln in 1865 which also helped... image of that here). She apparently did a series of busts and medallions of Lincoln (the article has a photo of her with one of the busts... that photo is also at the Library of Congress). I have also come across this book, which came out in 1871 but describes seeing the plaster model before it was shipped to Italy. The description there does match the finished marble one... though by the wording, I can't quite tell if they are describing the plaster model, or the actual finished marble statue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22-inch statues of Lincoln given out in Springfield (photos here) look very close, actually. Not quite the same (bottom of coat is above the knees there), but close. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a lot more stuff now (discard previous theory, almost certainly). Found another photo of it here, in the rotunda in August 1868 while Thaddeus Stevens was lying in state. This book mentions the lying-in-state photo, and describes another carte de visite photo of the same statue, credited to "Rice, Union Photograph Gallery 520 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D. C,", labeled on the back "Statue of President Lincoln by Ellicott", and on the front "Statue now in Capitol (June '67) by Ellicott." That article actually claims the original photo was of Lincoln lying in state, but that was proven incorrect, as this book has the Thaddeus Stevens info (and the photo I linked above appears to be the one discussed). That book also says that newspapers of the time describe the statue as made of plaster. That books also says the Lincoln Monument Association had a contest for a Lincoln statue, and many clay models were submitted, and speculates this was one of them (I wonder if Ream submitted something). He also says all the Ellicott literature does not mention a realized statue of Lincoln, so he suspects this one was destroyed. The contest was eventually won by Lot Flannery (resulting in the statue in front of the City Hall, put up in April 1868). So, unless the described captions are all wrong, this was a plaster model done by Henry Jackson Ellicott (June 27, 1846 - February 11, 1901), which remained in the rotunda for quite some time. If that birthdate is correct, he was pretty young himself at the time. Given that there is/was another dated photo in mid-1867, I would think the 1866 date on our photo is likely correct as well. The contest was initiated shortly after Lincoln died, so it seems pretty reasonable there could have been a plaster submission by then (in San Francisco I think, a Pietro Mezzara publicly displayed a plaster statue of Lincoln in August 1865). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further couple of items -- found an article called "The Curious Story of Ellicott's 'Lincoln'" in a 1947 issue of the Lincoln Herald, which goes into the Stevens photo in much greater detail, but the gist is the still the same as the above (the pedestal actually had a plate with "Henry J. Ellicott" on it, so the attribution is not really in doubt). Most likely he was born in June 1847, actually, so he was quite young when he made this, though the story does mention he made a bust of someone while still in grade school and got a lot of education in that area. They had the same guess, that the statue was part of the contest eventually won by Lot Flannery. I found a copy of the Stevens photo at the National Archives; uploaded at File:ThaddeusStevensLyingInState.png. Not high-res, but maybe someday the Archives will make that available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Heh, nice. The location of the lamps (or whatever those are) around the paintings is the same as the 1866 one here, different than the 1868 one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any guesses about the precise occasion, or anything more specific about the people marching beyond them being U.S. military? - Jmabel ! talk06:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you have already noted, that's taken from near the south end of the Treasury building looking down Pennsylvania Avenue... that's the Old Post Office (opened 1899, but built during the 1890s) on the right, and the capitol is in the distance. I presume this is an inauguration parade. On the left... that would have to be the Willard Hotel, and that would be the old four-story version, and not the new 12-story building which opened in 1901. Can't imagine it was still four stories in the 1901 inauguration... maybe this was 1897, when the post office was under construction. Or some other parade in that time frame. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, here is another photo of the 1897 parade, with the Willard in the middle, and it's decorated in the same way. Pretty sure this is the 1897 inauguration. If not, it has to be a non-inauguration parade, and that seems unlikely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a pamphlet on the scheduled parade participants, if you want to try and figure out who is marching there. I doubt I can (maybe with a high-res version, some other details would be visible). That does have a drawing of the post office, so the building would have been pretty much completed by then (I think I saw a reference it was ready for occupation in 1897, but it didn't actually happen until 1899). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I wish I had gone and looked at the back of the card first. It says: Every one is interested in the proceedings when a citizen becomes the chief executive of this great nation, and especially in the principal figures taking part in the ceremony. To enable you who had not the time and opportunity to be present to witness the Inaugural ceremonies of March 4th, 1897, we, through the efforts of our agents, have placed these stereo photographs within your reach so that you may be able to see, sitting at your own fireside, the principal features of the great event. Military Cadets in line of march, Pennsylvania Avenue.Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting. I hadn't been clicking through to NYPL to get the backs of these cards. I wonder why no one saw fit to upload those as well. - Jmabel ! talk01:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would have been nice on several occasions. Some of them don't have anything more, but some definitely have more detail. Weird that the NYPL archivers didn't look on the back for more accurate title info, though. One thing -- per one of the above discussions, the West Point cadets did not march in 1897, so those would be cadets from somewhere else. VMI cadets seemed to often take part, but I don't see them in the listing either. The only ones I see in the parade listing above are a "High School Cadet Regiment of Infantry". There is an "Elkins Cadets, Wheeling" listing (from West Virginia), but it looks to be at the end of the parade and no other military units nearby. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Aside: kind of funny to call cadets "the bravest of the brave." I'd normally reserve that for soldiers who'd actually seen combat.) - Jmabel ! talk17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Office of Secretary of State". Three possible buildings this could have been in depending on the date (pre-1866, 1866-1876, and the Old Executive Office Building). I'd guess the last, but I could be wrong. Carl, you seem to have amazing resources on almost everything I've been asking, any guesses on this? - Jmabel ! talk07:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to en:E. & H. T. Anthony & Company, the company was formed in 1877, and I think the State Department moved into the State, War & Navy building in 1876 (the Navy and War wings were still under construction, but the State department wing was finished enough in 1875). That room appeared kind of small and plain for a room in that building (oppose the navy secretary's office), but on closer look I think it's bigger than it appears on first glance. According to this page, the office was "decorated with carved wood, Oriental rugs, and stenciled wall patterns". Not sure on the rug, but that *might* apply. And, photographs here, here, here, here, here, and here do seem to show a fairly plain room, with a very, very similar door style. The moldings are fancier in the later photographs, but those could have been changed at some point. I'd have to say it's the State, War, & Navy building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, a bit less sure -- found this, which is an engraving of the Secretary of State's office in the 1876 building (the article even has an engraving of the building with just the State Department wing completed). Definitely not the same room. Also, per the conservatory image below, E & H T Anthony obviously made a practice of re-using older photographs for their cards. Still, the similarity of door style on the photographs linked above is hard to shake for me... perhaps this is a nearby room in the same building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the Capital Losses book as the "Southern Railway Building". It was built in 1871 by the National Republican newspaper, thus the (accurate) name. It was located on the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 13th Street, NW, architect unknown. The lot had apparently been vacant since 1855 when a fire destroyed the old Apollo Theater. Today, the site would be a corner of the Ronald Reagan building. It was built of brownstone. William J. Murtagh and F. P. Hanscom were the owners of the newspaper, and thus the building I guess (though here are some 1878 Congressional hearings on some of the financing; sounds messy). According to this, the Lighthouse Board rented a few rooms there. The newspaper moved out in 1880, and sold the building in 1886 to the Richmond and Danville Railroad. In 1893, an addition was added (on the right side from this photo), basically doubling the building. The first four floors looked the same but had a different roof... looks pretty odd. In 1899, it was expanded again, and all the roofs were replaced to make it all look like a single building (photo of that stage here, though the date is wrong). The building was severely damaged by fire in 1916, and was demolished. A blander replacement building was made there (I guess seen here, between the Old Post Office and the en:John A. Wilson Building. The original Republican/Southern Railroad Building was aligned with Pennsylvania Avenue, like the Old Post Office; the photo above would have been taken from the other side of Penn Ave, on the northeast corner of the intersection. The railroad moved out in 1929, and it was sold to the federal government. That building was then torn down in 1971, and was a parking lot until the Ronald Reagan building was constructed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is the Old Naval Observatory. The building still exists, but it's part of a much larger complex, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Looking at a map showing what 1860 Washington looked like, it was located on a tract bounded by E street on the north, 23rd street on the east, 25th street on the west, and the Potomac River on the south. (24th street ended at E street, with the Observatory driveway on the other side.) The Potomac river side is roughly equivalent to C street, but is angled (higher than C street on 25th street side, but below it on 23rd, such that there was an Upper Water street below C, but that was it). By 1900, Upper Water street had been extended along the old shoreline so it became the southern boundary, but the entire area south was being landfilled (eventually used for the Lincoln memorial). Nowadays of course that area is completely changed... 23rd street is still there, but the rest of the rectangular street grid is gone. It's near the Kennedy Center, and Google Maps still points out the "Old Naval Observatory". (It also shows an outline of what was the angled Upper Water Street on the grounds of the National Academy of Sciences, interesting). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "French Minister" bit is just part of the story :-) This is in Capital Losses as the "Corcoran House". The original house on the property was built in 1828 (architect unknown) by Thomas Swann, a Maryland attorney, located on the corner of H and Connecticut streets, across from the northwest corner of Lafayette Square. It was given to Daniel Webster in 1840 or so; the en:Webster–Ashburton Treaty was negotiated in the house. Webster sold it to Corcoran in 1848, who had architect James Renwick Jr. completely remodel and expand it in 1849. Photo of it here. Corcoran was a Southern sympathizer, so he left for Europe at the outbreak of the Civil War, renting the house to the French Legation, which gave it diplomatic immunity. (Another of his buildings a block away, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, also designed by Renwick and built in 1858, was seized by the U.S. Government, though given back after the war -- today it is the Renwick Gallery). He returned from France right at the end of the war, so I guess this was taken during the Civil War sometime. Corcoran died in 1888 and left the house to his grandson, who rented it to a "succession of prominent senators and government officials". It was torn down in 1922 to make way for the Chamber of Commerce building, which is there today. The book has a bunch of Frances Benjamin Johnston photographs made of the house, including some interior ones (pretty spectacular) credited to the Library of Congress; looks like a few are online here, here, here, and an interior one here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From multiple books, the southwest corner of 17th and F streets NW. Photo of it here, in the 1920s, after a major 1885 alteration. In 1865, this was two buildings, and I think Grant's headquarters were the right one (on the corner) in this photograph. It is in Capital Losses as "Towson House"; it was built in 1827 by en:Nathaniel Towson, paymaster general of the US Army. He died in 1854, and the government leased the building from then on. It was Winfield Scott's headquarters at the outset of the Civil War (and was the house where Scott asked Robert E Lee for allegiance to the Union; Lee resigned the following day). Portraits of Scott here and here were taken on the rear porch of the house. Scott left in October 1861. Immediately after Appomattox, Grant returned to Washington and made his headquarters there. Another book has a "Washington City, 1869" engraving which describes it as being his headquarters at the time, still. In 1885, the government needed more space, and built a left wing (replacing the left-hand building in this photo, or maybe subsuming it), and added a full third floor. It was occupied by various offices, then sold and torn down in 1947. The site was afterwards an office for the United Steelworkers of America, and today is the site of the FDIC headquarters. The taller building in the background on the right is the Winder Building, on the northwest corner of F and 17, which still exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely that the Towson / Grant house was ever used by Lt. General Winfield Scott. Washington City Directories for 1860, 1862, and 1863 (no directory was published for 1861) all show the house on 17th Street NW at F Street (southwest corner) was occupied by the ambassador of the Netherlands, Roest Van Limbourg. The address was 545 17th Street. Limbourg was married to Isabella, the daughter of Lewis Cass, secretary of state for James Buchanan. Limbourg's correspondence notes that he gave up the house when he left Washington for New York City just before the Battle of Gettysburg in June 1863. Limbourg did not leave Washington during 1861 as it was his job to take the measure of the new president for his government (J.W. Schulte Nordholt, “Civil War Letters of the Dutch Ambassador,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (Springfield: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, Winter 1961) Vol. 54, 371). The Washington Evening Star reported in October 1863, that Maj. Gen. Henry Halleck was making that house his headquarters, taking it from Col. Rucker who had just begun to use it as the depot quartermaster office (“Removal of Headquarters,” Evening Star, October 15, 1863, 2). Further, pictures of Gen. Scott purporting to have been posed on the back porch of the Grant House, need to be compared with the group photo of Gen. Scott with his staff (Library of Congress and National Archives). The woodwork, brickwork and shutters of that group shot as well as Scott's chair, are all identical to the background in the Scott portraits. The number "159" on the porch post of the group picture tells us that was the general's residence on Pennsylvania Avenue and not his office on 17th Street. There is no documentation record with the Scott photos describing where or when they were taken. The first published mention of a Scott association with the Grant House doesn't appear until about 1950 (John Clagett Proctor, “The Old Army Headquarters,” Proctor’s Washington and Environs (Washington, D.C.: Sunday Star Press, 1949) 269-71.
OK, I know this is the conservatory that used to be west of the White House, but the question is who is in the picture. Presumably Lincoln at right. Are any of these other people identifiable? - Jmabel ! talk05:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was this may be the Old Soldier's Home, where Lincoln and other presidents spent parts of the summer, but I think you are right, it does look like the White House conservatory. It looks like this page has a copy of this stereocard (very bottom of the page), though the images themselves are missing. They identify the person on the right as John G. Nicolay, and that could well be correct. They mention the next two images in E&HT Anthony's series were also in the conservatory and dated March 27, 1863. Kind of odd given that E & HT Anthony was supposedly not founded until 1877, but maybe they just obtained old photographs. That page speculates the other person is a visiting Englishman. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More corroborating stuff, but not definitive. There is no way that is Lincoln on the right though. This is Anthony card #2733; images of #2734 and #2735 are on this thread, which is of the Indian delegation mentioned. It looks like those were taken in the other direction in the same area, and is highly suggestive of being taken the same day. The Smithsonian also has both of them, 2734 and 2735. The Library of Congress has a high-res version of 2735, but it is a Mathew Brady imprint, and wider, and does not have "2735" scratched into it. So, these would appear to be Brady photos (company or person, not sure), later cropped and made into stereo cards by Anthony. The man at the center in the back of that 2735 photo is identified on the Library of Congress version as John Nicolay (dressed fairly similarly as this photo too). The men at the top left have been identified as well, but are not the other person in this photo. There are quite a few similarities... even the wet area under the railing on the left (in this photo) looks pretty similar. There are however a couple of supports? or something resting on the railing in this photo, but are not present in these other two -- maybe they were removed before the portrait photos, or maybe this is a different area of the conservatory (unlikely), or maybe it was a different day. Nicolay appears to be holding flowers in his hand (artificially colored here), which may have been part of the Indian delegation ceremony, who knows. Been trying to look at the Lincoln Log to see if there are any interesting names, but thus far I haven't run across any photo which made me really think "that's him". A couple of interesting possibilities with similar hairstyles, but that's it so far. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In 1867, Sumner moved into a new house he built on the corner of H street and Vermont avenue (northwest corner), which is where lived until he died. Prior to that, his main residence was in Boston (the en:Charles Sumner House). There is a description and engraving of the house here; it describes a multitude of fine arts that Sumner collected and brought there, which fits the picture. If the "reception room" is the one where you walk in, that would seem to make sense -- the photographer would have walked in the door, turned right, and taken the photo (as the door was on the left side of the room, looks like). It also appears the right-hand wall on the back room is not as deep as the room the photographer is standing in, which also matches the image of the house -- the center portion is closer to the street. So, I'm guessing this is that house. In 1869, Corcoran built the Arlington Hotel next door, on the corner of Vermont & I street. Some views of that here; a couple of which have Sumner's house on the left side. In 1889, Corcoran bought this house, and had it attached to the Arlington Hotel as an additional wing. It sounds like the Arlington Hotel (and presumably this building too) was torn down in 1912, to make way for a bigger and better hotel, which ran into financing issues and never materialized. It sounds like the site was vacant for a few years, until the government helped finance (and later bought) a new building on the site, which is now the Department of Veterans Affairs building. A new (smaller) Arlington Hotel was built a few blocks north. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably an earlier 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue [nope][edit]
State, War, and Navy Building (today the Eisenhower Executive Office Building). Other side from the Treasury. For what was there before the current two buildings, see this image (from this loc.gov page, towards the bottom). Here is the NYPL page; bit bigger version. There were four similar buildings near the White House, with the State Department and Treasury on the east side of the White House, and the Navy and War on the west. Those were built after the original buildings were burned by the British (though I think only one of them existed at the time, and the four new ones were copies of the same design). Treasury was the first to go, and the current building was started, working its way north over a few decades. That 1865 photo we have of the state department actually shows that same building, but with the Treasury building completed all the way up to and touching it. The State building was torn down the next year so the Treasury building could be finished, and they moved into temporary quarters for 9-10 years, while the Navy and War on the other side were torn down and the State, War, and Navy building was erected (starting from the south end, and the State department was the first wing). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was much further away from the building then, when it was on the taller pedestal. They probably had to move it in order to widen the street in front. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statues are barely legible enough to be interesting, but we might as well identify them. I think the farther away one is the Andrew Jackson equestrian sculpture; I have no idea what would be in the relative foreground. - Jmabel ! talk04:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one threw me for a loop for a while. This was taken from the driveway on the north front of the white house, looking out across the north lawn and the statue of Jefferson which used to be there, across Pennsylvania Avenue to Lafayette Park, where you do see the statue of Jackson in the distance. See some of the photos here. And here and File:1860s White House.jpg. The statue was apparently placed in there in 1848 during Polk's administration and was made of bronze; according to w:North Lawn (White House), the statue was removed in 1871, and placed in the Capitol (it is in the Rotunda today). There is a model for it in New York, per this page; they say it was by Pierre-Jean David D'Angers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The back says: Naval Monument, near the western entrance to the Capitol. It was erected by the officers of the Navy in memory of their brother officers who fell in the war with Tripoli. That is apparently the oldest military statue in the U.S., carved in 1806 or so in Italy and brought to the U.S., originally at the Navy Yard. In 1830, it was moved to the west terrace of the Capitol, which is where the above photo is from. Another photo of it here. In 1860, it was moved to the grounds of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, where it still is today. Lots of photos and information on it here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell for sure due to the low resolution, but after looking for a while, I think that is the 1897 Rudolf Siemering statue of George Washington near the Art Museum in Philadelphia. Photo of it here taken from the Art Museum steps. If so, the road layout has changed considerably around there since. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Genius of AmericaThe Statue of Liberty, near the Capitol
First card says "The Genius of America" and credits it to [Thomas] Crawford; second—clearly the same statue—calls it "The Statue of Liberty, near the Capitol". I don't know this one. If the first card is to be trusted, it's got the title of one sculpture on the Capitol and was sculpted by the principal sculptor of a different sculpture on the Capitol. Any idea whether it's still there, and if so what it might be most commonly called now? - Jmabel ! talk04:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting. That is the central portion of the pediment over the East entrance to the Senate wing of the Capitol, called the "Progress of Civilization" (see here and here) which was made by Crawford. That portion does represent "America", although these days at least the specific "Genius of America" title seems to be the name of the pediment over the central east entrance of the Capitol, done years earlier than that (see here). The back of the card does not capitalize "genius" though. Apparently, the statues were done well before the portion of the Capitol was completed, and (per here) most of the other parts were set up in the statutory hall portion of the Capitol, but that part was too big so it was set up on a pedestal in the "eastern park". I presume that was on the Capitol grounds; Washington Through Two Centuries has a map depicting the 1860 state of the city, and does show what might be the statue in the park, aligned with the Capitol dome and close to the street (east first street). Getty images has another photo of it here... actually that looks like one of the above photos exactly. Corbis has an image here of the assembled pediment before it got raised up. Apparently the pediment was installed in 1863, so that is the outer limit for these photos. The back of the first photo has the long caption: This really beautiful work of art, designed by the lamented Crawford, represents the genius of America, behind which the rising sun typifies youth and prosperity. It is intended for the centre of the pediment of the north wing of the Capitol, Washington, while on either side will be arranged figured emblematic of the mechanic, the pioneer, the soldier, youth, education, commerce, the hunter and the Indian chief and his family, the whole designed by the same able hand, and executed in American marble, by Italian artists resident in Washington. Together these groups will form a triumph of art worthy the country the capital of which they are to adorn.Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that specific location; that was where Horatio Greenough's statue of Washington was from 1843 to 1908 (see here for info on the statue, and here, here, and here for photos of it in place), which is now in the Smithsonian. The Washington statue was in a similar circular enclosure with an iron fence, but not the same one. At some point it was moved closer to the Capitol, see here. So, not sure precisely where the Crawford statue was temporarily located. Two more photos of the Crawford statue outdoors here and here, but still can't get a feel for where it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2 statues in the Capitol. I believe the one on the left is Nathanael Greene, but can't identify the one on the right. Any idea? - Jmabel ! talk05:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely in the Statuary Hall, but no idea yet on the sculpture itself. It has a circular base, which hardly any of the statues there have. Carl Lindberg16:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Il Penseroso by Joseph Mozier, done in 1866. Here is a description of the statues in the hall in 1874, which mentions it. It was not part of the official Statuary Hall collection, but other works were placed in that room until enough statues were submitted from the states. Several of those statues are now in the rotunda, but this one was apparently moved to the Smithsonian, and per here is now at the American Art Museum, third floor, Luce Foundation Center. Per here it was moved in 1888. The back of the card says "E. Totherick, photo" which is not mentioned in the NYPL writeup. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
,_b._1850_5.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_from_Robert_N._Dennis_collection_of_stereoscopic_views.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_b._1850_4.jpg)
,_b._1850_3.jpg)