Proslavery Politics and Classical Authority Antonio Canovas George

PROSLAVERY POLITICS AND CLASSICAL AUTHORITY: ANTONIO CANOVA'S "GEORGE
WASHINGTON"
Author(s): Christopher M. S. Johns
Source: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 47 (2002), pp. 119-150
Published by: University of Michigan Press for the American Academy in Rome
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238795
Accessed: 18-08-2015 16:26 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Academy in Rome and University of Michigan Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:26:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PROSLAVERY
POLITICSAND CLASSICAL
AUTHORITY:
ANTONIOCANOVA'S
GEORGEWASHINGTON
M. S. Johns,Universityof Virginia
Christopher
f all the public monuments executed by Antonio Canova in a career that began in
the ancien regime and ended during the Restoration, George Washingtonis arguably the least well known today. Paradoxically,Washingtonwas the era's most widely respected and admired hero, and not only in the United States. A statue of him made by
Europe's most celebrated artist created an unprecedented degree of excitement on both
sides of the Atlantic. Unfortunately,a fire in remote Raleigh, North Carolina, destroyed
the statue in 1831. This tragic loss, coupled with a shift in artistic taste away from the
neoclassical aesthetic, soon consigned George Washingtonto near oblivion, despite the
fact that Canova'soriginal scale modello survives (fig. 1). In addition, a large number of
engravings record the sculpture's appearance,albeit with widely varying degrees of mediation. Even today, in an era more tolerant of classically engaged art, George Washington is known only to specialists.'
In this article I argue that conflagrationsand modernistaesthetic aversionare not the
only reasons this late masterpieceby Canovais so little known and appreciated.Commissioned partly as a public symbol of planter-aristocraticrule by the political elite of a
slaveholdingstate, Canova'sGeorgeWashington,in its antebellumNorth Carolinacontext,
overturnedneoclassicalexpectationsregardingmonumentsto antiquevirtueandtransgressed
againstreceivedtraditionsof heroic emulation.Indeed, the planterpoliticos of the TarHeel
State saw in George Washingtonnot only a model patriot and disinterestedstatesmanbut
also a marbleembodimentof their own rightto rule. This deeply conservativeand antidemocratic agendahas generallybeen more intuited than explicitlyrecognizedand has, I believe,
tended to divert scholarlyscrutinyfrom this highly significantwork of art. A carefulreconstructionof the monument'scontext-from the termsof the commissionto its official reception in Raleighin 1821-should help not only to clarifythe sculpture'ssignificancefor the
developmentof nineteenth-centuryAmericanartbut also to illuminatethe politicalexpectations for public art in the Old South. George Washingtonalso marks a crucial shift in the
culturalpolitics of the classicaltradition.Graeco-Romanprecedent,once deployedto visualize a utopianfuture,was reconceptualizedas a justificationof the status quo.
Q
I wish to thank MaurieD. McInnis,JeffreyL. Collins,

ElizabethA. Meyer,andthe anonymousreadersfor severalsuggestionsthathavesubstantiallyimprovedmy article. I also thankDonald McColl for a kind invitation
to lecture on Canova'sGeorgeWashingtonat Washington Collegein 2001.
1 The statue, mentionedonly brieflyin the Canovalit-
eratureandin historiesof Americansculpture,has been

the focus of only one sustainedinvestigation,the outdatedbut still usefulaccountof Connor1910.Thispublicationwasthe sourcefor muchof Fehl 1968.Bothpublications are valuable sources for relevantdocuments
pertainingto the commissionbut make no attemptto
place the work in its politicalcontext.
MAAR47, 2002
120
CHRISTOPHERM. S. JOHNS
Fig. 1. Antonio Canova,GeorgeWashington,c. 1816 1817. Possagno,GipsotecaCanoviana.
1. The History of the Commission

On 16 December 1815, shortly after the end of hostilities between Great Britain and the
United States in the War of 1812, the Senate and House of Commons of the state of North
- length+n
-afull
Carolina
jointly resolved~~~~~~~~+,
to co"mmissio;e*%n
sttu,I. of4G-,eo*rge
Washington
for,% +%
the
PROSLAVERY
POLITICSAND CLASSICALAUTHORITY
121
state house in Raleigh.Commander-in-chief

of the Americanarmiesduringthe Warof Independence (1775-1783), Washingtonalso servedas the first presidentof the new nation,retiring from public life at the end of his second termin 1797. He died two yearslater in 1799 at
Mt. Vernon, his Virginiaplantationon the banks of the Potomac River,opposite the new
national capital that had been named in his honor. It would be difficult to exaggeratethe
significanceof Washington'spersonalitycult duringthe earlynationalera, and his reputation
for patriotism,determination,modesty,and disinterestednessmadehim the model statesman
for the new republic.That he was a slaveholdingplanter-aristocrat
who possessedgreatmilitary and political power and voluntarily surrenderedit to return to plantation life, a la
Cincinnatusreturningto the plow, particularlyendeared him to Southernpoliticianswho
wished to see themselvesreflectedin his image.
North Carolinawas not alonein its desireto honorthepaterpatriae.Manystates,counties,
and municipalitieshad discussedvarioustypes of monumentsto honorWashingtonin the period followinghis death,but manyof these took yearsto realize,and the vast majorityof the
proposalscameto nothing.Whatmakesthe Raleighstatueso unusualis the alacritywithwhich
the legislativedecisionwas made,the intelligentcanvassingof the most sophisticatedaesthetic
opinionavailable,the relativefreedomgivento the artistandto the liaison(ThomasAppleton)
for the projectin Italy,and the unflinchingacceptanceof the statue'sveryhigh priceby a state
notoriousfor resistanceto almostall formsof taxationand public expenditure.Most remarkable, however,was the choice of Antonio Canovafor the commission.No expensewas to be
spared,and the legislatureclearlynot only envisionedthe monumentas a tributeto the first
presidentbut also believed it would be a tangibleproof of state supportfor the arts. Such
attitudesin Charleston,Baltimore,Philadelphia,or New Yorkwould be unsurprising,but in
1815Raleighhad fewerthan2,000 inhabitants,andNorth Carolinawas the pooreststatein the
Union.Astonishingly,
the entireexpenditurefor all aspectsof the commissiontotaled$12,487.50,
while public revenuesin the state peaked at $137,712.74in 1818.2Thus, the Canovastatue's
cost was a noteworthypercentageof the state'sincome duringthe lean yearsimmediatelyfollowing the Warof 1812. For financialreasonsif for no other,there can be no questionthat
Canova'sGeorgeWashington
was of the utmostsignificanceto the politicianswho paid for it.3
Popular enthusiasmfor the War of 1812 was widespreadin North Carolina,and it revived fadingmemoriesof the heroesof the first strugglefor independencefromBritain,above
all the memoryof George Washington.Thus, martialardorand patriotismwere majorfactors in the legislature'sdecision to commissiona statue of Washingtonfor the state house.It
is said that a Fourthof July speechin Raleighin 1815 by legislatorA. G. Glynnwas the direct
inspirationfor the monument,but there is considerableevidence to suggest that discussion
about a statue of Washingtonwas commonplace.4When the legislative session opened in
2 In 1820 North Carolina had
the smallest per capita in-
come in the country. Connor [1929] 1973, 1:445. The

costs for the monument break down as follows:
To Canova: $7,107;
To Trentanove, for the pedestal reliefs: $4,044;
Transport, customs, the agent Thomas Appleton's expenses, etc.: $336.50;
Appleton's honorarium: $500;
Total: $12,487.50.
3
See Fehl 1968, 542, who cites the primary documents.
See Connor [1929] 1973, 1:463-469, with additional

bibliography. The costs for the renovation of the capitol are not included in this figure but are obviously a
collateral expenditure to be considered in relation to
the statue.
I Williams 1957-1958, 23; see also Lemmon
1971. The
Glynn speech, highly laudatory of Washington and the
"patriots of 1776," was reprinted in the 7 July 1815 issue of the Raleigh Register, a newspaper with strong ties
to the Democratic-Republican Party.
122
November,a monumentto Washingtonwas an earlytopic of debate.The bill authorizingthe

commissionpassed easily, even though there was considerableopposition to the expenditure, especiallyfromthe state'swesterncounties,the importanceof which will be considered
in due course. On 3 January1817 the Raleigh Registerproclaimed that "in order to perpetuate the memory of [Washington] the Legislature have ordered a superb MARBLESTATUE,
to be erected by the first ARTIST in the WORLD, the celebrated CANOVA of Rome . . . and
which will no doubt be the finest piece of sculpturein the U. States."This notice was picked
up by several other newspapersand generatedmuch favorablepublicity for the state. Significantly for the present argument, most outside interest in the statue came from the
slaveholdingstates.5
Workingout the particularsof the commission,however,took most of the year 1816 to
complete. These detailednegotiationsare crucialto understandingthe agendaof the North
Carolinapoliticiansin decidingto pursuethe project.At the suggestionof ThomasJefferson,
whose opinion had been solicited by state officials,ThomasAppleton, United Statesconsul
in Livorno(Leghorn),the majorport in the GrandDuchy of Tuscany,was selectedby Governor William Miller to serve as liaison between the legislature and Canova. Appleton had little
difficulty in persuading the overworked sculptor to accept the commission, undoubtedly because of the person whom the statue was to honor. Appleton forwarded Canova's response to
Jefferson and sent a translation to Governor Miller in Raleigh. The artist's reasons for accepting the task are worth considering:
Sir,I am respondingimmediatelyto the graciousletterwith which you havebeen pleased
to offer me the commissionfor a marblestatue of the immortalWashington,for one of
the statesof the United Statesof America.Trulythe manyworksto which I am obligated
for manyyearsto come oughtto meanthatI would only thankyou for this honorabletask
[and declineit], but my admirationfor the greatGeniuswho performedsuch greatdeeds
and for the health and libertyof his nation demandthat I adopt everyforce.... I therefore accept the commission.6
It should also be acknowledged that Canova, at the zenith of his fame, was eager to send an
example of his art to the United States.
Before discussing the iconography of Canova's George Washington, which is one of the
primary keys to its interpretation, I would like to call attention to the extraordinary proactive legislative efforts to protect the statue from the public. The revolutionary epoch had
witnessed spectacular acts of political iconoclasm, above all to public sculpture, but the state's
obsession with the issue is nonetheless surprising, given the almost universal veneration for
Washington.7 In a poem addressed to Canova published by an anonymous author in a newspaper in 1817, the possibility of the statue's defacement is addressed directly:
I
Alexandria (Va.) Herald, 20 January 1817; Richmond

(Va.) Commercial Compiler, 7 February 1817; Savannah
(Ga.) Repuhlican, 9 January 1817; among many others.
Quoted in Fehl 1968, 530.
The politicization of public sculpture in late eighteenthcentury France has been intelligently discussed by
Merrick 1991. The destruction of royalist and ecclesiastical monuments all over Europe during the Revolution7
ary and Napoleonic era deeply shocked many artists. For

Canova's negative reaction to iconoclasm and its influence on his public sculpture, see Johns 1998, esp. chap.
3. The most spectacular loss was Edme Bouchardon's
Louis XV, a colossal bronze equestrian monument that
had stood in the Place Louis Quinze. See McClellan
2000, with additional bibliography. In the early days of
the American Revolution a statue of George III in New
York City was destroyed by an iconoclastic mob; see
Marks 1981.
PROSLAVERY
123
'Tis gratitudethat consecratesthe Shrine

No commontask, greatartist,then, is thine.
No prettydecorationsshould disgrace,
(To tempt the idle trav'lerto deface
This noble tributeto his honor'dname:)
No pen of history!-No trumpof Fame!8
This ambiguous bit of doggerel may be an attack on the complicated allusions ("pen of
history!") and allegories ("trumpof Fame!") often encounteredin Europeanmonumental
sculpture, but the phrase "Totempt the idle trav'lerto deface" is more difficult to interpret. Could it be directed to a foreign, possibly a British, tourist? Since it was generally
known that the statue was to be set up in an interior,protected space-the state houseratherthan a public square, this concern seems even more puzzling. Indeed, the issue of
possible harm being done to the monumentoccasioned more discussion in the legislature
than did the original commission.
On 29 December 1821, shortly after Canova'sstatue arrivedin Raleigh,the governor
signed a bill into law makingit a crimeto "injureor deface"the sculpture.Both the Senate
and the Commons debated the bill at length, adding "spit on" and "in any way stain" to
"injureor deface"as "indictableoffenses."9Such stipulationsindicatean uneasinessover the
sculpture'svulnerabilityand were doubtless wise precautionsto protect an importantand
expensive work of art. I wonder,however,if an image of Washington,a symbol (at least to
some viewers) of planter aristocracyand elite governmentby a landed, slaveholdingminority, may also have needed protectionfrom politicallymotivatedabuse. Moreover,could the
slaves who worked in the state house and who were chargedwith cleaningthe statue have
been perceivedas a threat to the monument'ssafety?In any event, the fact that the legislators believed it necessaryto take legal steps to protect a statue placed only a few steps away
fromwhere they convenedto make and interpretthe state'slaws is perhapsevidence,admittedly speculative,that Washington'spopularlegacy may have been more politicizedin 1821
than it was in the yearsimmediatelyfollowinghis deathin 1799.
2. TheIdeologyof Iconography
One of the most remarkablefeaturesof Canova'sGeorgeWashington,and the aspect of the
statue that occasioned the most commentat the time, was the ancient Romanmilitarycostume. In worksof artAmericanshad rarelyseen Washingtonwearinganythingother thanhis
8 The poem is
addressed"ToSignorCanova,at Rome,
on His Being Chosenby the Legislatureof North Carolina, to Execute a Marble Statue of Washington,with
AppropriateEmblemsto be Leftto His OwnTaste."The
artist,who had some readingknowledgeof English,almost certainlynever saw it (nor was he probablyever
intended to see it). It was published in the Daily National Intelligencer in Washington,D.C., on 15 January
1817. Published Courtesyof the ResearchFiles of the
Museumof EarlySouthernDecorativeArts, WinstonSalem,North Carolina.
9 "Thebill makingit an indictable offense to injureor
deface the statue of General Washington was read,

and, on motion of Mr. Seawell, was amendedby adding in the sixth line of the first section, the words 'spit
on' and on motion of Mr. Williamson, the same was
further amendedby adding in the said line the words
'or in anyway stain.' Whereuponthe said bill was read
the second and third time, as amended, and passed."
Journal of the Senate and House of Commonsof the
General Assembly of North Carolina, 29 December
1821, quoted in Fehl 1968, 536-537. The "in any way
stain"mayreferto either urineor, morelikely,tobacco
juice.
124
Fig. 2. Jean-AntoineHoudon, George

1786-1792. Richmond, Va.,State
Washington,
CapitolRotunda (photo VirginiaState Library).
X j,
a>,<
.e
| 1
|- )'
t t.,'2
,{'...S....*.....l
''?,'i}227,'(
,',
..........................................................
p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
....
Continental Army regimental uniform or the elegant but understated civilian attire of the
late eighteenth-century gentleman. In sculpture, Jean-Antoine Houdon's George Washington
in Richmond, Virginia, was the prototype (fig. 2). Painted portraits by Charles Willson Peale,
John Trumbull, and especially Gilbert Stuart, among myriad other artists, were familiar to
many through copies and inexpensive engravings. The issue of costume for Canova's statue
was extensively debated, but the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, Senator Nathaniel Macon of
North Carolina, and other prominent Americans with a reputation for knowledge of the fine
arts convinced Governor Miller to stipulate classicizing Roman military dress for the statue,
although the sculptor was given a relatively free hand in most other respects. Such a
historicizing solution marks an important departure from the Benjamin West-inspired emphasis on contemporary dress in the neoclassical treatment of subjects from modern history.
This phenomenon is possibly connected to the broader shift in Washington's personality cult
from a larger-than-life but still accessible modern hero to the realm of the remote, mythic,
and eternal deity for the ages. Given Canova's aesthetic preferences, Roman dress in all likelihood would also have been his personal choice.'0
10 Given the problems with nudity Canova encountered
with Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker (1803-1806), rep-
resenting Washington in the buff would likely not have

been considered a viable option; see Johns 1990, 368-
PROSLAVERY
125
The best contemporary description of the costume of the original statue of Washington I have encountered was published in the Norfolk (Va.) Herald on 22 June 1821, months
before it arrived from Rome, and very likely written by someone who had seen it on display
in Canova's studio:
He is clad in the Romancostume,the head and neck bare, a close vest with braccie,with
a girdle round the waist, upon which is displayedMedusa'ssnakyhead, and other emblems of the Romantaste. The toga, or cloak, is drawnclose round the neck, and descends in luxuriantfolds to the floor. The legs bare to the knee, the feet coveredwith
sandals....11
As Andrew McClellan has pointed out, costume alla romana enjoyed universal authority and
legibility in ancien regime Europe. Even Etienne Maurice Falconet, an outspoken proponent
of modern dress in sculpture, favored Roman attire for imperial images that demanded heightened respect and augmented dignity.12 Even so, there was no real consensus as to the superiority of ancient or contemporary dress for monumental public sculpture, at least in the United
States. Thus, in terms of costume, the Raleigh George Washington generated considerable
controversy.
What would have been less clear to most American viewers who felt uneasy about the
first president appearing in Roman armor, however, was the fact that the perfectly conventional European accessories (sandals, breastplate, stylus, etc.) that the sculptor used to make
the costume philologically correct were standard stuff in Italy and were not an attempt to
impose on American sensibilities. The fact that Canova based the pose on a celebrated antiquity-the Ludovisi Mars-was also fully in keeping with neoclassical sculptural practice.
Houdon earlier had included the antique fasces with his otherwise contemporary rendering
of the Father of the Nation, and even such canonical painted portraits of Washington in modern dress as those by Gilbert Stuart and Thomas Sully deploy ordnance from the venerable
arsenal of the seventeenth-century baroque princely portrait. In sum, for many Americans
understanding of a "modern" portrait was largely limited to contemporary clothing and a
specific physiognomy. Classical allusions and accessories could be tolerated if the likeness
was convincingly "real."
Through the agency of Senator Nathaniel Macon, Thomas Jefferson became the leading proponent of antique dress for the North Carolina George Washington. As soon as the
state legislature passed the bill in favor of the monument, Governor Miller wrote to the
state's senators in Washington, D.C., asking them to solicit expert opinion. Jefferson, a
political ally of Macon, was the first to respond to the appeal, and his intervention was
decisive. In addition to stating authoritatively that the sculpture could only be executed in
3 82 and Johns 1994, with additional bibliography. Several early sources say that Canova read Botta 1809 while
he was working on the statue of Washington. This
multivolume history was translated into English by
George Alexander Otis and published in Philadelphia
in 1820-1821.
11The story was repeated in the Maryland Gazette of
Annapolis on 5 July 1821. The notice continues: "With
regard to the dress, it is said he [Canova] could not hazard his reputation by attempting any other than that
which was most familiarwith him, and which is best

adaptedto his taste and genius. In the opinion of amateurs, this is Canova'shappiesteffort-so he has been
heard to declare himself, and the Pope [Pius VII
Chiaramonti]and Cardinal[Ercole] Consalvihave expressedthe sameopinion."Consalviwas the papalsecretaryof state. Courtesyof the ResearchFiles of the
Museumof EarlySouthernDecorativeArts, WinstonSalem,North Carolina.
12 McClellan2000,
18, who quotes Falconet1781.
126
}~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . ......:..:
.................................................................................................
...,.
',,
,'
5-N
,,
/M
.;
'
|u
l.
:!'
v. ....
: . ''5 l '5, X5, i | | |
.|E l w
.;s/
} *.........
..._..
......
1_
g Sg
.. ... .........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| | . ...........................
.... ...... ...... ...
,....
.....
~~~~~
/
#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-- ---
Fig. 3. ThomasJefferson,State Capitol,Richmond,Va., 1785-1 789 (photo VirginiaState Lihrary).
Italy and that "old Canove" in Rome was the only sculptor who could do justice to the commission, Jefferson also emphatically advocated ancient Roman dress for the statue. In an important letter written to Macon from Monticello on 22 January 1816 Jefferson declared: "As to
the style or costume, I am sure the artist, and every person of taste in Europe would be for the
Roman, the effect of which is undoubtedly of a different order. Our boots and regimentals have
a very puny effect."'3
The "puny effect" of modern military dress raises some highly interesting issues related
to Jefferson's earlier involvement with Houdon's George Washington in the Virginia capitol,
a building he had designed in a progressive neoclassical style (fig. 3). Early in 1786, Jefferson
wrote to Washington to ask his opinion about costume for the Richmond monument. He
modestly demurred but mentioned West's preference for contemporary dress for modern
themes, as in the famous Death of General Wolfe of 1771 (fig. 4). Jefferson obligingly conformed to Washington's clear but unstated preference for the modern. Epistolary evidence,
however, suggests that Jefferson also favored modern dress at the time, despite H. H.
Arnasson's claims to the contrary, and that his views on the issue had changed dramatically
by 1816.14 It should also be considered that Jefferson's change from modern to ancient dress
13 Quoted in Connor 1910, 23-26. This letter was forwarded to the governor in Raleigh, who was guided by it
in every respect.
14 Arnason 1975, 72-73 argues that, although Jefferson

preferred antique dress for Houdon's statue, he acquiesced to Washington's desire to be shown in his uniform.
PROSLAVERY
127
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
,_|s . .. ...
.........
*...,..............................
.....
Fig. 4. Benjamin West,The Deathof GeneralWolfe, 1771. Ottawa, National Galleryof Canada.
for images of Washington may be due to more than simply changing taste. The Sage of
Monticello was politically more conservative in 1816 than he had been in the 1780s, and
ancient tradition and aesthetic authority, above all in the public sphere of patrician,
slaveholding, agrarian government, may have had an enhanced appeal.
As a visualization of ancient Roman auctoritas grafted onto the political context of the
early American republic, Canova's use of antique military dress was highly successful. Many
in the new nation, however, deeply resented European cultural imports of any kind and vociferously objected to the latinization of the pater patriae. Some attacks on antique costume
had a decidedly chauvinistic and xenophobic tone. A letter published in the American Recorderin Washington, D.C., on 29 January 1819, signed simply "A Plain Man," is a characteristic example of this type of criticism. Written in response to a discussion about a proposed
equestrian monument to Washington attired alla romana, "Plain Man" clearly had in mind
newspaper descriptions of the Raleigh statue when he pontificated:
I will not attemptto state my ideas of the proprietyof our erectingstatues,etc. (which
have everbeen the toys of ambitiousmonarchs)... but I do hope, that if any such statue
A letter written later in 1786 by Jefferson warmly champions contemporary dress and denigrates the antique.
See Hallam 1978, 75-77, who publishes the text of the
letter. Houdon, unlike Canova, had little input in the
decision, although he probably wanted to portray Wash-
ington in ancient garb, possibly as a proof of his abilities

in the heroic genre, hoping to receive the commission
for a colossal equestrian monument then being promoted
by Jefferson; see Arnason 1975, 73.
CHRISTOPHER
M.S.JOHNS
128
George
Fig.5. HoratioGreenough,
1832-1841.
Washington,
Institution.
Washington,
D.C.,Smithsonian
..
. .
. i.
should be erected ... it will representour hero in his proper[emphasismine] dress ...
and not in the robes and nakedness of ancient statues, with a truncheon in his hand.
This may be an uncouth and awkwardopinion; but I was never more forcibly struck
with the propriety . .. than on entering the capitol in Richmond, and seeing there a
statue of the illustrioushero, in the militarydress of the Revolution. .. . I was pleased
with the independence[emphasishis and mine] of the dress. Our little gentlemenmay
have formed their taste in antiquemoulds, but I do not think this is any consent that it
is correct."
In this amusingly self-righteous letter to the editor, contemporary dress for statues is equated
with patriotism and to a great degree defines the artistic quality of being "American." The
"little gentlemen," including Jefferson, are all but accused of being unpatriotic (with a hint
of a charge of effeminacy) for their cosmopolitan aesthetic notions. Representative of a growing segment of public opinion, this anonymous tirade helped to prepare the ground for the
wholesale rejection of Horatio Greenough's George Washington (fig. 5). Unfortunately for
the sculptor, by the early 1840s the American public usually associated overt classicism and
sculptural nudity with "decadent" European traditions that seemed not only alien but morally tainted. To portray a cultural icon and ur-patriot like George Washington in such a manner was little short of blasphemous.
15
Courtesyof the ResearchFiles of the Museumof Early
--1-__
__
T
Sou-thernD c- - -ai--.- -Ar---I'Vts,
W --s-- - --C'
- -lI - -' North
C -r_1Ina.
PROSLAVERY
129
Much greaterdamagewas done to the reputationof Canova'sGeorgeWashingtonand

its antique garb by the art critic Edward Everett, who published in the North American
Review the first analysisof the sculptor'scareerto appearoutside Europe.16Based largely
on translationsof Italian and Germanbiographiesof Canovaand on newspaperaccounts
of individual sculptures, Everett went out of his way to condemn the choice of antique
dress for the Raleigh monument. In addition, he pronounced the head an unsatisfactory
likeness although he obviously had never seen the statue. Many of the errors and inventions in the article have been repeated in the literatureon the artist and the sculpture to
the present day.Everett claimedthat Canovahad complainedof a lack of adequatemodels
for the portrait,a mendaciouschargethat all reliable accounts refute.'7Moreover,he erroneously states that Washingtonis portrayedin the act of writing the Constitution(!) with a
stylus on a tablet when, in fact, the intended text was the salutationof the celebrated"Farewell Address." After briefly describing the Roman clothing, Everett adds: "This dress is
criticized [supposedly by people who, unlike Everett, had actuallyseen the sculpture] as
unbecoming,besides being inconsistentwith the legislativeor civil occupationrepresented,"
concludingthat it "willnot suit the Americantaste."'8Althoughthe circulationof the North
AmericanReview was limited, excerpts from the essay were picked up by severalnewspapers, prejudicingmany against the statue even before it arrivedin North Carolina.More
significantly,it helped foment public opposition to ancient allusion in public sculpturein
Americathat would have graveimplicationsfor the rising generationof Americanneoclassicists, above all Horatio Greenough.
The centralconceit of Canova'sstatueis Washingtoncomposingthe "FarewellAddress."
This act is crucial to its political interpretationin context. The hero preparingto leave
public office to returnto the plantationafteryearsof public servicewas a vital messagethe
Raleighpoliticians wished to convey in the monument.Thus, Everett'smistakein identifying the proposed text is strange when one considers the legislative agenda and the keen
popularinterest in the famous published orationin the yearsfollowing the Warof 1812. In
1818, the Raleigh Minervaran an advertisementfrom a Philadelphiapublisher soliciting
subscriptionsfor a luxury edition of the revereddocument,marketedby Gideon Fairman,
John Binns, and Charles H. Parker.The notice was titled simply "To the People of the
United States," repeating the opening words of Washington'ssalutation in the "Farewell
Address,"which was penned to commemoratehis retirementfrom the presidencyin 1797
at the end of his second term.19Many people, especially Europeans,marveledthat such a
powerful and popularleader would voluntarilysurrenderpower (they were thinkingabove
all of Napoleon), and it became a majorcomponent of the Washingtonmystique. Canova
16
[Everett]1820.
17 Canova used a plaster cast taken from the original bust

executed from the life by Giuseppe Ceracchi, a work that
belonged to Thomas Appleton in Livorno. More will be
said about this portrait later. It was reported by American visitors to Canova'sstudio that the head was "esteemed
an excellent likeness" (Norfolk Herald, 22 June 1821).
18 [Everett] 1820, 385-386. Among the newspapers
that
published parts of the North American Review article
was the Cincinnati, Ohio, Western Spy and Literary Cadet, 29 June 1820. Courtesy of the Research Files of the
Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, WinstonSalem, North Carolina. Mixed opinion about the statue
and the likeness is recorded in Cooper 1993, 231. The
author misses the point in saying that "one can only imagine the reaction of North Carolina planters upon viewing the great American general as Cincinnatus, half-naked, with tablet and pen in hand." Such a dismissive
statement reveals not only a lack of knowledge of the
commission but only a superficial understanding of the
sculpture's appearance and iconography.
19
Raleigh Minerva, 7 August 1818. I do not know whether
this particular edition was ever published.
130
sculpted Washingtonpoised to write the salutation,but the sculptoralmostcertainlyleft the

tablet blank, to be filled in by his patronsin North Carolina.Still, he knew what text was
intended, since he put the words "Al popolo e concittadinidegli stati uniti di America"on
the tablet in the scale modello that was exhibited in his studio. Such a renderingon the
marble statue, however,would have been highly opaque to the "popolo e concittadini"in
Raleigh. Political leave-takingis crucial to the political significance attached to the work
by its patronssince the chief virtue of "disinterested"planterrule is the idea of "returning
to the plow" in emulationof the Romanrepublicanworthy Cincinnatus,who gave up dictatorialpowerto resumeagriculturalpursuits(andthe supervisionof his slaves).Cincinnatus
was a frequentlyevoked prototype for George Washington,and the plow and fasces (symbol of juridicalauthorityin ancient Rome) figure prominentlyin the rearview of Houdon's
statue in Richmond.The Romanmilitarydress (Cincinnatuswas also a dictator-generalin a
time of national emergency)in Canova'sstatue makes implicit the flattering reference to
Cincinnatus.
The allusion to Cincinnatusin the Raleighmonument occurs even more explicitly on

the base. In the commissionto Canovanegotiated by Appleton, the choice of subjects for
the relief sculpturesthat were to adornthe pedestal was left to the artist,who, in the event,
was prompted by the diplomat after an initial proposal from North Carolinawas rejected
by both men. This scheme, offered in the form of a sketch, sheds considerablelight on how
the North Carolinalegislatorsviewed the entire undertaking.Accordingto Appleton'sdescription of the lost drawing,the sketch representeda laudatoryinscriptionflankedby two
female figures, one representing the goddess of agriculture Ceres and the other Liberty.20It
would be difficult to imagine a more explicit political message for the monument-Washington, the modern Cincinnatusand role model for the Southernlegislator,supported by
liberty and farming.I believe the honorific intent of the sculpturewas equallybalancedby
a desire to commemoratethe rule of planter-politicians,and the original proposal for the
pedestal decoration seems to confirm this idea. That Appleton and Canovaboth objected
to the plan was not due to the iconographybut to notions of narrativeunity and the need
to adorn all four sides of the pedestal since it was determinedearly on that the sculpture
was to be viewed in the round. Thus, the base was articulatedwith three scenes in marble
relief from Washington'slife: GeneralCornwallissurrenderinghis sword afterthe battle of
Yorktownin 1781; the commanderin chief relinquishinghis militarycommandat the end
of the war in 1783; and Washingtonunanimouslyelected first president of the nation in
1788. The fourth relief was emblematic and associative: "Washingtonholding a plough
drawn by two oxen, behind, is a humble cottage, near to which are seen Ceres and Mercury,with their suitable emblems."'21
So "Cincinnatusreturnedto the plow" made its appearance on the pedestal, accompaniedby the fecund goddess of agriculture.It may be
supposed that Mercuryis present in part in his capacityas divine herald, readyto call the
hero back to the public sphere should the necessity arise.22
20
This discussionis based on a letter fromAppletonto

JeffersondatedLeghorn,27 September1816, quotedin
Fehl 1968, 530-531.
Trentanove, a Canova pupil of Tuscan origin whose sister was allegedly Appleton's mistress.
22
It is also possible that Mercury is present in his role as
From a letter from Appleton to GovernorMiller in god of commerce, here wedded to agriculture, helping to
Raleighdated 11 June 1818. Quoted in Connor 1910, clarify the vision of plantation farming for export rather
39-40. The pedestalreliefswere sculptedby Raimondo than symbolizing subsistence farming by smallholders.
21
PROSLAVERY
<'
131
Fig. 6. GiuseppeCeracchi,GeorgeWashington,
1796. Charleston,S.C., GibbesMuseum of Art.
3. Canova'sStatue and Other WashingtonMonuments

Canova's George Washington was certainly not the only monument contemplated by political
entities in the United States in the generation following the War for Independence. Most of
these schemes were both fanciful and extremely expensive, sparking considerable public debate about the suitability of grand monuments to glorify worthy individuals in a democratic
society. Many who approved such public expressions of gratitude nonetheless called into question the appositeness and compatibility of honorific monuments and American political principles. This debate was fueled by the fact that so many of the initial proposals envisioned
either colossal equestrian statues or imposing architectural tombs. Unsurprisingly, the publicity generated by the proposals attracted the attention of sculptors and architects, both foreign and domestic. The Italian expatriate sculptor Giuseppe Ceracchi, whose bust portrait
of Washington was used by Canova as a model for the North Carolina statue and still exists
in a number of marble versions (fig. 6), came to the United States in hopes of winning such a
spectacular public commission.2 In its humanized scale and interior setting, not to mention
its highly localized political agenda, Canova's Washington stands apart from almost all competing honorific initiatives. Monument mania, however, had an impact on the North Carolina legislature and gives interpretive nuance to the statue, casting its unique features into
specific relief.
Jean-Antoine Houdon was deeply interested in the
possibility of such a grand commission. For Ceracchi and
Washington, see Desportes 1963. Gerdts 1973, 100-101
23
incorrectly states that Houdon was the only foreign artist who made a portrait of Washington from life; see also
Johnston 1882, 170-171.
132
In 1800 a national monument in honor of Washington was proposed in Congress only

a few weeks after his death. The most controversial plan, which enjoyed wide popular support, called for a huge granite pyramid to serve as a mausoleum. Rival schemes included a
heroically scaled bronze equestrian statue and an enormous standing figure, both to be
placed outside the capitol then under construction. Nathaniel Macon, a member of the
House of Representatives from eastern North Carolina who as senator became a major advocate for the Canova statue, opposed all such federal monuments, especially the mausoleum, at considerable political risk. As I shall soon demonstrate, the reasons for the change
in Macon's attitude toward public monuments are of deep significance for understanding
the political agenda of the Raleigh Washington. Macon's antipathy to the mausoleum was
partly pragmatic-he objected to the staggering projected expense. More important for
the present context was his ideological objection, in which he described such works of art
as "useless and pernicious ostentation" and claimed that a biography of Washington to
teach schoolchildren lessons in virtue would be a far more appropriate "memorial." He
warned the House of Representatives that "the precedent we now establish will be auspicious to our future measures. If we decline raising a mausoleum to Washington, no man
who succeeds him can ever expect one reared to his memory."24 The privileging of text over
image is predictable in a bourgeois republic, and the subtext of Macon's remarks is that
monuments are intrinsically dynastic, aristocratic, and essentially un-American. In addition, their interpretation is more difficult to control since the language of visual form is
more open to ambiguity and subversion. Thus, his support for the Canova statue sixteen
years later represents a crucial ideological shift. The reasons for Macon's change of heart
will be examined in detail in due course.
The national debate about the necessity for a monument to Washington in the nation's
capital and the visual form it should take continued for several years. After the War of 1812,
fewer voices were raised against public monuments in principle, I believe partly because most
of those proposed for such commemorations were deceased, it being at the time politically
safe to praise the dead (but how times have changed). Given this sea change in public attitudes about honorific monuments to past leaders, the North Carolina project was used as a
reproach to the federal government's inactivity. Moreover, the pedagogical advantages of
Canova's statue for the emerging American school of artists began to be appreciated. A Washington, D.C., newspaper proclaimed in 1819:
[T]here is an admirableproprietyin the whole of this proceeding [the Raleighmonument].... This statuewill kindle in the mindsof our countrymenan enthusiasmfor this
noble art;and it is not improbablethat an Americanschool of statuarywill take its rise
from this workmanshipof Canova.25
This article was reprinted a few days later by the Baltimore Morning Chronicle. As early as
1813, in the aftermath of the battle of Fort McHenry, a member of the advisory board for a
monument to Washington to be erected in Baltimore suggested that Canova be approached
for the commission, but nothing came of it.26My point here is that the victory in the second
24
Quoted in Dodd 1903, 153-154.
American Recorder, 4 June 1819. Courtesy of the Research Files of the Museum of Early Southern Decora25
tive Arts, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

26
Alexander 1974, 71-72.
PROSLAVERY
..............
133
Fig. 7. GilbertStuart,George
Washington, 1796. Boston, Mass.,
Museum of Fine Arts.
7.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
.~
....
......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....
....:
........ ...
. ....
...
....
...
. .
.... H ,.
. .:
.....
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
. ......_......
.s
...........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
... .........
thoe of Euoe
. .....
.. .
... ....
.. B..
4...The.Raleigh.State
House.and.Other
Images.of
Washington
The statue of the pater patriae commissioned for the state capitol was neither the first nor the
only image of Washington planned for the building. In its first session after Washington's
death, the North Carolina legislature authorized Governor John Branch to obtain two portraits of the late president, one for the Senate chamber and one to be placed behind the
speaker's podium in the House of Commons. What the lawmakers had in mind were copies
of Gilbert Stuart's famous Athenaeum original (fig. 7), but the artist's quote of $1,500 for the
framed pair so shocked the parsimonious solons that the entire idea was dropped. In the
wake of the Canova commission, however, the proposal was revived. Rembrandt Peale and
Thomas Sully, two of the era's leading society portraitists, were approached for pictures, meaning framed copies of the Stuart original. Peale asked for so much money for the work that
attention soon focused solely on Sully. To the delight of the governor, the artist demanded
only $400 for each copy or $600 for one copy and an original historical portrait of his own
134
invention, proposing the passage of the Delaware River on the eve of the battle of Trenton as
the subject.27The state agreed to the second proposition and must have been well satisfied
with the bargain, considering how much money had already been committed to Canova. Sully's
copy of the Stuart George Washington (fig. 8) arrived in Raleigh in November 1818, and the
painter began Washington's Passage of the Delaware (fig. 9) the following summer. Sully had
no instructions concerning the size of the room in the state house designated to receive the
painting, and he made it far too large for any available space (19' x 14' framed). Governor
Branch and the legislature, with Sully's approval, voided the contract for the second picture
and settled for the single copy of the Stuart portrait.28I think it very likely that Sully made
Washington's Passage of the Delaware extraordinarily large because he had no intention of
actually sending it to North Carolina. Hoping to cash in on the Washington craze sweeping
the nation after 1815, the artist decided to send his picture on tour, charging admission to
visitors who lined up to see it. In addition, large dimensions and a compelling historical subject, seen by more people than ever would have been possible in provincial Raleigh, helped
to satisfy Sully's desire, shared by many other portrait painters, to transcend the lesser genre
by painting "half-history pictures."29
The commissions for the Canova statue and the Sully paintings reveal a desire on the
part of the governor and the legislature to enhance the authority of the state government,
symbolized visually by the capitol building. Principles of states' rights were cherished in North
Carolina as elsewhere in the South, and the glorification of the seat of government was in
part a concrete assertion of this ideological position. The direct consequence of the imminent arrival of George Washington in Raleigh was the decision to make extensive alterations
to the architectural fabric of the state house, which was an incommodious, antiquated relic
of the immediate post-Revolutionary years. As the legislature was considering how to display
the Canova statue to best advantage, the utter inadequacy of the building came into focus. It
was rather like buying new shoes only to discover how shabby an old suit actually looks.
Given the highly favorable publicity the statue's commissioning had generated for the state,
it was vital to showcase it properly. There is almost an element of panic in minutes of the
committee debates on what ought to be done. Alfred Moore, a member of the House of Commons from coastal Brunswick County, penned the report submitted to the full legislature
regarding accommodation for the statue and expressed full awareness of the state's responsibility toward such an important monument. He concluded:
The absolutenecessityof preservingan exactrelativeconformityin allthe accompanyments
[sic]of a work of taste and of art so forciblyimpressedon the minds of the committee,
that they cannotrefrainfromthe expressionof it. Let, therefore,the plan adoptedby the
27 Sully'scopy of the Stuartwas to be the full-lengthportraitin the PennsylvaniaAcademyof Fine Artsin Philadelphia,where Sully'sportraitpracticehad been established for severalyears.English-bornbut broughtup in
CharlestonandRichmond,Sullymayhaveseemedespeciallyappealingbecauseof his Southernconnections.See
Fehl 1973, with additionalbibliographyand citationof
the primarysources.
28
Fehl 1973, 584. Fehl states that Sully had second
thoughtsaboutsendingthe workto North Carolina,but
I think he had a tour in mind when he made the pro-
posal, drawingattentionto the work not as a speculation but as an actual commissionfrom a state government. Makingsuch a grand paintingwithout explicit
instructions,especiallyfor only $200, would otherwise
seem foolhardy.
29 For Sully'sambitionsto
workin the historicalgenrein

the traditionof JoshuaReynoldsand HenryFuseli, see
Johns 1983, with additionalbibliography.For a different readingof Washington's
Passageof the Delaware,see
Myers2000, 524, n. 6.
PROSLAVERY POLITICS AND CLASSICAL AUTHORITY
g.
~~~~~Fig. 8. ThomasSully,GeorgeWashington(afterGilbert
|_
_
ITa,2.,
.,t',lD
.......
~ ~ ~~~~Fg
__,~ .
......
...
~ ~ ~
.......... .
Stuart),1818.Raleigh,N.C.,OldStateHouse(photoNorth
MuseumOfHilstory).
l'.07
t~~~~~~~arolina
...~_
Thma
Suly
Wahngo'
PsaeothDlwr,
.. . .......
.. .. ... ......
...11.
....
w
135
11s
......
...:. . _...
I..
_.....
.......:,
I_
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------I
-----:.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
.
....
CHRISTOPHER
M.S.JOHNS
136
legislature,be what it may,they earnestlyrecommendthat this idea maynot be lost sight

of for a moment.To fail, is to become rediculous[sic].30
The newspapers agreed. After eulogizing Washington and lauding Canova, the Raleigh Minerva
wondered:
where are we to put the statuewhen we get it? Supposingit be placed in the passageof
the State House, some of our naughtyboys would mutilateit within six weeks time;besides that there is neitherlight nor elevationfor it there. The only plan then will be, to
adopt the plan of enlargingand alteringthe presentbuilding.31
Even in the urgency to determine a fitting place to set up the statue there is concern for its
security, in this case fear of mutilation by "naughty boys." It could be argued that this category would include male slaves of any age but would not be limited only to them.
The legislature took prompt action, voting to sell land in nearby Wake County to pay for
the renovation and expansion of the capitol, an undertaking estimated to cost $25,000, twice as
much as the Canova statue. William Nichols, an English-born architect active in the Carolinas,
Tennessee, and Alabama, was named superintendent of public buildings to oversee the project.
Nichols's plan called for the addition of a second story to the existing structure, the extension
and widening of hallways, the construction of an annex to house offices and a gallery, and the
replacement of the small cupola with a simple, elegant dome, under which Canova'smonument
was to be placed.32Completed in 1822, a few months after the arrival of the statue from Italy,
the cramped, homely brick structure was transformed into an early example of classical revival
architecture in the South (fig. 10). It should be noted, however, that the building's classicism is
more closely related to the aristocratic villa and palace models of Palladio than to the genuinely
progressive neoclassicism of Virginia's capitol building, a fact that further underscores the altered nature of neoclassicism in the early decades of the nineteenth century.
The highly ambitious initiative to provide the North Carolina state house with a monument to George Washington sculpted by the world's most famous and expensive artist, coupled
with the additional commission to obtain two painted portraits of the hero, was a highly remarkable cultural undertaking in the nation's poorest state. When one also takes into account the large expenditure for the renovation of the capitol (admittedly long overdue) to
receive and display a work of art, the endeavor seems necessarily fraught with political significance. Considering the history of bitter opposition in the state government to public money
being used to fund schools, pave roads, dig canals, construct bridges, and support other internal improvements, the decision to spend such a staggering sum on things of largely symbolic value demands explanation beyond the patriotic desire to honor the first president and
to relieve overcrowding in the halls of the legislature. What could they hope to gain with
Canova's statue, Sully's paintings, and Nichols's renovations? Other states-richer, more populous, and presumably no less patriotic-attempted nothing on a proportionately similar scale.
A crucial part of the explanation, I believe, lies in the changing political landscape of
North Carolina following the War of 1812. At that time, national debate came to center more
30 Quoted in Fehl 1973, 598.
Raleigh Minerva, 23 April 1819. Courtesy of the Research Files of the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
31
For a brief summary of Nichols's alterations, see Elliot

1958. For Nichols's career in the United States, see
Peatross and Mellown 1979 and Lane 1985, 146-153,
with additional bibliography. See also Murray 1983, 251255, with additional bibliography.
32
PROSLAVERY
..S
.............
..
~~~~~~~~~..
....|
-"w
137
-- ,--
Fig. 10. WilliamNichols, State House, Raleigh, N.C., destroyed1831 (photo North CarolinaMuseum of History).
and more on the issues of states' rights, greater democratization of the political process, and,
above all, slavery. These issues gained immediacy during the bitter debates on the Missouri
issue from 1819 to 1821, while the statue was being carved, but were incubating as early as
1815, when it became clear that Missouri's future admission to the Union would upset the
free state/slave state balance in the Senate. At the state level, the power of the slaveholding
planters of eastern North Carolina was being increasingly opposed by the small farmers of
the western and Piedmont counties, who only rarely owned slaves. The choice of Canova for
the Raleigh monument indicates an attraction to fame and a commitment to classicism, but it
also reveals just how much was at stake. The cultural politics of the statue can only be understood in relation to the multivalent expectations of its patrons. Canova's George Washington
is an excellent case study of the profound change in the aesthetic ideology of public art that
will come to characterize the middle decades of the nineteenth century.
5. SenatorNathanielMacon and Canova'sWashington

On New Year's Eve 1815, as I have already mentioned, Governor William Miller wrote a
letter to North
Carolina's
two snnators
in Washington
Asking them .tlicit
advice
about the
138
monumentto George Washingtonrecently approvedby the legislature.James Turner,the

senior senator,seems to have done little about it, but NathanielMacon, recentlyappointed
to the Senateby Miller,took up the task with enthusiasm,writingthat he would "cheerfully
give everyaid in my powerto procurethe statueof GeneralWashington."33Maconhad vehemently opposed a national monumentin Washington'shonor in 1800 when he was in the
House of Representatives,so his ardent support for a similarmonumentin 1816 is highly
curious. Macon immediatelybecame the majorpolitical playerin the commission,and it is
difficult to imaginethe projectbeing realizedin its final form without his intervention.As
North Carolina'smost prominent statesman,Macon, a slaveholdingplanter from Warren
Countyin the east-centralsection of the state, was a characteristicexampleof the Southern
agrarianlegislator.An examinationof his decisive role in the CanovaGeorge Washington in
light of his deeply conservativepolitical ideals will shed considerablelight on why the state
of North Carolinawanted the monumentin the first place and why it decided on the commissionwhen it did. For my argument,"when"is as importantas "why,"and Macon'ssocial
and politicalideology is the key for providingplausibleanswersto both of these questions.
Macon'sfirst activityin favorof the monumentwas to write to individualshe considered
qualifiedto offer advice.That he knew to whom he should addresshimselfis evidenceof his
own relativeexpertise. ThomasJefferson'sresponsehas alreadybeen discussed,but others
expresseda varietyof opinionsthat Maconhad to evaluatebefore makinga recommendation
to the governor.These little-knownletters shed light on the genesis of the commissionand
on the historyof sculpturein Americain the earlyyearsof the nineteenthcentury.
The first to respondto Macon'sinquirywas WilliamThornton,a politicianwho had connections to the artisansinvolvedin the constructionof the new capitolin Washington.Quoting an ItaliansculptornamedGiuseppeValaperta,who doubtlesswas interestedin the commission, Thorntontold Macon that the monumentcould be made in the United States for
about $5,000. Perhaps respondingto a prompt from Macon, he added: "[I] enquired [of
Valaperta]how much would be demandedby the great statuaryCannova[sic], an artistin
Rome,whose worksequalthe best antiques?He answeredabout the samesum."34 This is the
firstexplicit referenceI havefound to Canovain relationto the Raleighcommission.Whether
the originalidea came from Macon or Thorntonis uncertain,but Jefferson'srecommendation of "old Canoveof Rome"less than a fortnightlater determinedMaconto tell the governor that it must be Canova.35
Another"gentlemanof taste"solicitedfor advicewasJosephHopkinson,a Philadelphian
who lived in Washington,D.C. In a letter dated 2 February 1816 Hopkinson seconded
Jefferson'sopinion that no one in Americacould makethe statue and that Canovawould be
the best choice: "Of the Europeanartists,Canova,residingat Rome,shouldhave the preference, not only on accountof his superiorexcellencein the art;but from a desirehe is known
to possessto sendsomespecimenof his powerto this Country.He wouldbe particularly
pleased
3 The letter to Miller is dated 6 January 1816; quoted in
Connor 1910, 13-14. Macon responded to Miller's question about whether the statue could be made in the
United States by writing: "I am almost certain that there
is not a statuary in the U.S." capable of executing such a
monument. This opinion was soon confirmed by
Jefferson and indicates a broader knowledge of the arts
than his peers in North Carolina probably possessed.
34
Quoted in Connor 1910, 15-16.
Valaperta'sestimateof $5,000 is surprising,given his likely

desire to receive such a commission. Perhaps he wanted to
enhance his own professional profile by putting himself
into the same price range as "the modern Phidias." In
any event, the lack of suitable marble and questions about
the abilities of stonecarvers to execute large marble statues turned Macon's attention immediately to Europe.
35
PROSLAVERY
139
with this subject."36Although Hopkinson did not mention it to Macon, an unpublished letter
reveals that his information came from Joseph Allen Smith, an extremely wealthy Charlestonian who lived part of the year in Philadelphia and who had spent several years in Europe,
where he amassed a considerable art collection.37 Smith responded to Hopkinson's letter asking for advice just a few days before the latter replied to Nathaniel Macon. The cultivated
South Carolinian's opinion is worth quoting in its entirety.
I have receivedthe letter which you did me the honourto write to me, & do not hesitate
to declareto you-lst that I do not think thereis anystatuaryin this Countrycapableof
executingin a fine style, a marblestatueof Gen.l Washington,2d nor haveI everheardof
anymarblehavingbeen found in this Countryequal,for the purposeintended,to that of
Carera[sic] in Italy-3d UndoubtedlyCanova,residingat Rome, is without exception
the most distinguishedSculptor that has existed in modern times-A statue from his
handswould alwaysdo honourto the Countryin whichit was placed,and the judgement
and taste of those personswho orderedit-The price would be from 10. to 15,000 dollars-It is probablethat the desireof sendinga Monumentof his Art to the New World,
& the honour attachedto the executing of a Statueof such a man as Gen. Washington
would induce Canovato undertakethe work . .. without doubt Canovashould be the
artist applied to. It may be a question whether the Arts ought to be introducedinto a
Republic,but there can be none, thatwhatis introducedshouldbe of the presenttaste.38
The major points of Smith's letter were summarized by Hopkinson and sent to Macon. Like
Jefferson, the North Carolinian was convinced that Canova was the only artist worthy of the
commission. He wrote to that effect to Governor Miller, appending copies of the letters from
Jefferson, Hopkinson, and Thornton. The governor faithfully followed Macon's advice and
offered the commission to Canova through the agency of Thomas Appleton, whose services
to the state had been secured by the diplomat William King, who had been asked to approach the sculptor as a favor to Miller.39
Macon's intense interest in Canova's George Washington continued long after he had responded to Miller's appeal for advice. Jonathan Russel, a diplomat who had been accredited
to the Swedish court and who had seen the statue nearing completion in Canova's studio,
wrote to Macon about its appearance and the critical response it had elicited in Rome. Macon released to the press a summary of the highly favorable letter. The Raleigh Minerva announced that the sculpture "has received the unqualified praise of those competent judges
from whom, even in Rome [emphasis in original], there is no appeal."40The report goes on to
discuss the costume and the text about to be composed on the stylus, concluding that
"[N]othing could surely better evince the judgment of the sculptor: As this was the last great
act of the father of his country."'41
It was also Senator Macon who introduced a bill in the
Quoted in Connor 1910,26-27. Hopkinson estimated
the statue would cost about $10,000.
36
37
fromNorthCarolinafrom1811to 1816,a partisanof the

Jeffersonianpartyin Congressrepresentingthe interests
of the planterelite fromthe easternpartof the state.
McInnis 1999, 42-47, with additional bibliography.
The letter, dated 29 January 1816, is preserved in the

Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Hopkinson Family
Papers, 9:13. I thank my colleague Maurie D. McInnis
for bringing this important document to my attention.
The articleis dated17 March1820.Courtesyof the ResearchFilesof the Museumof EarlySouthernDecorative

Arts,Winston-Salem,
NorthCarolina.It waspickedup in
the 20 April1820editionof the CincinnatiAdvertiser and
the WashingtonInvestigator,amongotherpapers.
39King was a member of the House of Representatives
41
40
38
Raleigh Minerva, 4 February1820.
140
Senateto exempt the monumentfrom import duties and helped to arrangefor public transport from Italy with the secretaryof the navy,facts also duly recordedin the newspapers.
Thus, it seems plausible to suggest that Macon had a personal as well as a political investment in the statue'ssuccess and was willing to use the prestigeof his office to promoteit.
The salientpolitical principlesespoused by NathanielMaconwere oppositionto almost
all forms of taxation, above all those levied on land and slaves, and resolute resistanceto
However,when one conspendingpublic moneyfor internalimprovementsand education.42
siders Macon'sideological defense of agrarianelite rule, states' rights, and slavery,his promotion of Canova'sstatue for Raleighseems logical, almost inevitable.The North Carolina
monumentcould arguablybe interpretedas a validation,even a reification,of the political
ideology of Macon and the rulingplanterclass. For this reason,GeorgeWashingtonrewards
studyin the context of a social and politicalsystemunderincreasingattack,both fromwithin
the state and from outside, in the yearsfollowingthe Warof 1812.
The debateoverthe admissionof Missourito the Unionwas the firstsustainedattackat the
nationallevel on the legal rightof slaveryto exist. Maconwas one of the first Southernersto
understandthe implicationsof this polemicfor his class,his state,andhis region.Between1816
and 1820,at preciselythe timeCanovawasmakingthe statueof GeorgeWashington,slaveholders
in Missouriandin otherpartsof the LouisianaPurchasewerepreparingfor statehood.Manyin
the freestatesopposedthe extensionof "thepeculiarinstitution"intothe territoriesand,thereby,
the augmentationof Southernpoliticalinfluence,especiallyin the Senate.Afterthe war,slavery
and states'rightshad replacedforeignaffairsas the mainfocus of nationalpolitics,andthe Missouri issue revealed a highly polarized body politic.43A letter Macon wrote in 1824 to Bartlett
indicatesthathe wasfullyawareof whatwas at issue

Yancey,a NorthCarolinaplanter-politician,
movement.
in Missouriandrevealsa mountingsenseof fearof the antislavery
theycanfreeany
If Congresscanmakebanks,roadsandcanalsunderthe Constitution;
soI longsincehavetoldyou[emphasis
mine].... Thespiritof
slaveintheUnitedStates,
withthosewhohaveno slavesneverdies,it maysleepnowandthen. ..
emancipating
onlyto awakemorevigorous;earlyin CongressI discovered. .. a desireto meddlewith
the conditionsof the slaves,andeverydebatesince,in whichtheyhavebeenmentioned
strongerandstrongergroundhasbeentaken;to freethemin the South,wouldbe the
meansof destroying
eithertheblacksorwhites,as at SanDomingo.44
I believe this letter is an importantdocumentin the proslaverymovement,which was well
under way by 1820, despite the assertionsof historianLarryE. Tise.45Macon wrote to his
Connor [1929] 1973, 1:505-506. Macon voted against
every bill for federal expenditure for anything other than
defense, security, and the "maintenance of individual liberty." It was a pay-as-you-go system that allowed government to do nothing he believed the people could and should
do for themselves. He saw no reason why one man should
be taxed to pay to educate the son of someone else. Thomas Jefferson said that when Macon died, there would be
no more "Romans"in the Senate, a significant recognition
of the connection between conservative Southern politics
and the severe, principle-driven system of the ancient Roman Republic, epitomized by Cato the Elder. For more on
Macon's politics, see especially Calhoon 1979, with additional bibliography. See also Cotten 1840, 133-137.
42
4 For the historyof the Missouribills, see Moore 1953,

with additionalbibliography.Thishighlysignificantpolitical crisisneeds additionalstudy.
The letter is dated from Washington,26 December

1824. "SanDomingo"refersto the successfulslaverevolution of ToussaintL'Overtureand the establishmentof
the Republicof Haiti. Quoted in Wilson 1900, 71-74.
4'
Tise 1987. The chief flaw of this admirablestudy is

the downplayingof Southernproslaveryideology from
1815to 1830 andthe insistenceon its emergenceonly in
the 183Osas well as its causalrelationto the politicssurroundingthe nullificationcrisisin South Carolina.
45
PROSLAVERY
141
friend only two years after the DenmarkVesey slave insurrectionconspiracyin Charleston
was uncovered.Fueled by fear, antislaveryrhetoric,and the desire to maintainplanterrule,
the Southerndefense of slaverywas takinga harderline by 1816. This position was arguably
crucialto the legislature'ssupportfor GeorgeWashington.Maconand his colleagues,at least
in part, saw the monumentas a public affirmationof their political and social values;neoclassicismhad been embracedby the proponentsof the status quo. In the antebellumSouth
and elsewhere,the classicaltraditionbecame increasinglyidentified with an ultraconservative, reactionaryworldview,as will soon be demonstrated.
Trueto his convictions,Maconwas one of only two Southernsenatorsto vote againstthe
MissouriCompromise,not because he favoredthe restrictionof slaverybut because he denied the federalgovernment'scompetenceto restrictslaveryanywhere,believingsuch an initiative could come only from a state. In the Senate debates on the various Missouribills,
Macon arguedthat slaverywas "a positive good," claimingthat Southernslaves were more
kindly treated and more content than the free, laboringpoor in other parts of the country.
This assertionmarksa significantshift in rhetoricfrom the "necessaryevil" justificationassociated with Jeffersonianismand is an adumbrationof apologies for slaverythat became
commonplacein the 183Os.On a pragmaticnote, Maconpointedout thatemancipationwould
increaseSouthernpolitical power in the House of Representativessince all, ratherthan only
three-fifths,of the former slaves would be counted as citizens.46In sum, NathanielMacon
was deeplyinvestedin the causeof planterpolitics and states'rights,the cornerstoneof which
was chattel slavery.And surely these ideas did not spring full-grownfrom his forehead in
1819 but ratherreflect the state of his political thinkingas it had maturedfor severalyears.
Thus, his tirelessactivityin favorof Canova'sWashingtonis fully in keepingwith his view of
the first president, the AmericanCincinnatus,as a role model for planter-politicians.The
fact that Washingtonhad manumittedhis slaveswhen he died does not seem to have shaken
Macon's resolute opinions on the issue. As the only founder who emancipatedhis slaves,
Washingtonwas unique, but it should also be consideredthat he did not free them immediately;they remainedhis widow's propertyuntil she died. Washingtonalso had no children,
so his manumission was not perhaps as morally motivated as might be imagined.
Unsurprisingly,I have not found a single referenceto Washington'stestamentarymanumission in any of the documentsrelatedto the Canovacommission.
6. Proslavery
RhetoricandClassicism
in theSouth
The Southernelite that defended "the peculiar institution"took great comfort in the fact
that the paradigmaticancientcivilizationswere built on the social bedrockof slavery.Classical precedentwas widely cited in defense of humanbondage, and it is no accidentthat the
triumphof aestheticclassicismin Southernart and architecturecoincidedwith the intensification of the slaverydebate after 1815. While importanteverywherein America,the classical
tradition carriedan especiallypotent political chargein the South. It was argued that the
similarityof the Southernand the Mediterraneanclimatesnecessitatedslaveryin order to
develop agriculturefully and that Romanlatifundiawere the prototypesfor Southernplantations. Moreover,the oligarchicmodel of democracyand republicanismin ancient Greece
46
Moore 1953, 109-128.
142
and Rome sanctionedrule by an agrarianelite.47As the most importantneoclassicalwork of

art in the South, GeorgeWashington,attiredin Romanarmorand posed like a Greek philosopher-king,necessarilyhad considerablepolitical resonance.I believe this maybe one of
the main reasonswhy Macon,Jefferson, and other Southernpoliticianssupported antique
dress for the sculptureinstead of modern clothing. The authorityof classicism,in both the
culturaland political contexts,was a powerfulforce in the Southernpsyche and did much to
conditionthe responseto the statue.
Proslaveryrhetoricrarelyfailed to emphasizethe compatibilityof republicanlibertyand
chattelslavery,howeverbizarrethat mayseemto modernsensibilities.The clergymanThomas
R. Dew wrotein 1832:"Inmoderntimes,too, libertyhas alwaysbeen moreardentlydesiredby
"48Jefferson'sdefenseof slavery,basedpartlyon the "necessaryevil"
slaveholdingcommunities.
argumentandrhetoricallysupportedby antiqueassociation,waswidelyinfluentialinto the 1820s
and was a type of cynicaltwilightof Enlightenmentideology.49
Antiquityand the Bible were
increasinglysearchedfor proslaveryarguments,especiallyafterthe shockto Southernersoccasioned by the antislaverysentimentsexpressedby so manyNorthernRepublicansduringthe
Missouridebates.'0It shouldalso be kept in mindthat manycities and townsin the Southhad
classicallyinspirednames-Rome, Athens, Carthage,Sparta,Corinth,Memphis,Alexandria,
Smyrna,Cairo,and Troy,to nameonly a few-and thatmastersfrequentlygave ancientnames
to theirslaves,suchasPortia,Cato,Cicero,Julius,Zenobia,Semiramis,
Pericles,Plato,Augustus,
Calpurnia,and manyothers.Whileit is also truethatNorthernplacenamesoften had classical
referentsin the earlynationalera, the combinationof ubiquitousGraeco-Romanplace names
and slavenamesgave such ancientreferentsan intensifiedresonancein the South.Classically
based apologiaeoften stressedthe "humanitarian"
dimensionof white paternalism,invoking
the sternbut benignRomanpaterfamilias,
hopingto allayNorthernfearsaboutthe realbrutality of the institution.Suchrhetoricwas also deeplyreassuringto manyambivalentSoutherners,
who felt considerableanxietyabout the moral complexityof the issue. Duringthe Missouri
debatesSenatorWilliamSmithof SouthCarolinaclaimedthat
Allthenationsof theEastheldslavesin abundance.
TheGreeksandtheRomans,at the
mostenlightened
periodsof thoserepublics.
Athens,theseatof theMuses,heldslaves....
TheSpartans
approached
nearerto a puredemocracy
thananyotherpeopleeverdid;yet
theyheldslavesin abundance
too.JuliusCaesarsoldatonetimefiftythousandslaves,yet
Caesarwasneverheldto be a cruelor barbarous
man.51
Southernlegal codes that affordedslavessome protectionfrom physicalabusewere also
cited in defenseof "humanitarian"
slaveholding.A slaveis "protectedby the humanityof our
McInnis 1996, 68. It should be noted that neoclassicism in the South was part of a broader current of retrospective, historicist nostalgia that perhaps may best be
characterized as romantic; see Miles 1971. For the visual arts, see Feld and Garrett 1991.
47
48
Quoted in Harrington 1989, 61-62.
Wiltshire 1977, 33-35. Southern intellectuals were increasingly isolated from the national mainstream by
proslavery positions; see Wiesen 1976 and 1980.
49
50
Fehrenbacher 1980, 12-19, with additional bibliography.
History of Congress: Senate (January1820) 260-266.

SenatorSmithwas born in North Carolina.It is significant for the presentdiscussionto rememberthat in the
earlyyearsof the nineteenthcenturythe Americanfoundationmythshiftedfromthe Adamic/Edenicmetaphor
to the classicallyengagedmodelof the Vergiliansaga.In
this interpretation,George Washingtonbecomes the
personifiedAeneas,the embodimentof the "piousbeliever and the best familyvalues,"and the basis for this
associationwas his devotion to duty, unsurpassedvirtue, championshipof familyhierarchies,and respectfor
all formsof politicallyand legallyconstitutedauthority.
See Shields2001, 168-174,with additionalbibliography.
5'
PROSLAVERY
143
In most Southern
laws, both in his life and in his limbs, from any brutalattackon either."52
states, includingNorth Carolina,it was a capitaloffense to murdera slave, but even many
apologistsacknowledgedthat legal protectionwas dependenton the goodwillof masters.My
point here is that the classicalreferentsemployedto defend slaveryhad a strong "humanitarian"elementthat alignedit to the humanisticintellectualtraditionsof the EuropeanEnlightenment. Neoclassicalartwas universallyunderstoodto be the visualexpressionof such ideology,
and its appropriationby the antebellumSouthin the serviceof proslaverypoliticswas highly
logical. In this context, Canova'sGeorgeWashingtoncould arguablybe interpretedas an eloquentstatementof the politicalagendait was, I believe,commissionedto promote.
The capacityof classicizingart to communicateproslaveryideology (or anythingelse)
was predicatedon the widespreadknowledge of ancient history,literature,and culture in
America.Southernelites, like their Northern and Europeancounterparts,were steeped in
the classics that formed the core of their educationalcurriculum.In this particular,North
Carolinawas not backward.Despite the fact that public educationwas a very low governmentalpriority,the classics occupied the apex of the pyramidof learning.Accordingto the
RaleighStar,in 1810 therewere only about twentyacademiesin the state that taughtclassical
subjects, and the Universityof North Carolina,the nation'soldest state-supportedinstitution of higherlearning,had only sixty-fivestudents.53
Nevertheless,privatetutorsand out-ofstate attendanceat such schools as Princeton,Williamand Mary,and Yalewere the normfor
privilegedNorth Carolinianswho desiredhighereducation,althoughsome also attendedthe
state universityin ChapelHill.
The literate public's familiaritywith classical civilizationwas everywhereapparent,as
two examplesfrom the RaleighMinerva(namedfor the Romangoddess of wisdom) will attest. In 1816, the paper published an articlepraisingan initiativein Richmond,Virginia,in
favor of the establishmentof a public museumto house plastercasts of importantworks of
antique sculptureas a step toward improvingpublic "taste."Similarprojectsin New York
and Philadelphiawere also applauded.On 2 July 1816 the Minervaprinted a plea from the
Raleighlendinglibraryfor the returnof overduebooks. Most of the tardyvolumesrelatedto
Graeco-Romanart, literature,and philosophyand included RobertAdam'sRomanAntiquities, Seneca'sMoralEssays,the Orationsof Demosthenes,and variousvolumesof Plutarch's
Lives, amongothers.54
Thus the readingpublic, undeniablythe primeaudiencefor Canova's
Washington,was thoroughlyfamiliarwith the antiqueassociationsof the statue and would
have understoodits contemporarypolitical relevance.
7. Canova's
WashingtonandNorthCarolinaPolitics
The slaveholdingplantersof easternNorth Carolinawho dominatedstate governmentwere
the same men who overwhelminglysupported the extraordinarypublic expenditurefor a
Quoted in Greenberg 1976, 378. The original source
is Holland 1822.
52
Connor [1929] 1973, 1:439-441. From about 1810

to 1830 the legislature often debated bills to improve
public education, but the conservative eastern planters
frustrated all efforts in this direction. Certainly
53
Nathaniel Macon in Washington would have disapproved of such initiatives back at home. The University of North Carolinawas establishedin 1789 but was
grosslyneglectedby the state duringthe first half-century of its existence.
54
Raleigh Minerva, 18 October 1816 and 12 July 1816.
144
GATES
SHE
BUNCOMBEl
IREDELF
L X
RaleigHERF I
HAM=TaNI
,
I'
"
HERTFORE
-eileNwn-
monument to George Washington but who steadfastly opposed most bills in favor of public
education and internal improvements. Such measures were popular in the central and western counties, but in 1816 these areas of the state had relatively little political clout. Many
believed that slavery inhibited public education since it consumed most available capital and
degraded labor. There was also the idea that public education was liberal and democratic
while slaveholding was aristocratic and ultraconservative, notions based on class privilege
rather than equality of opportunity. By 1830, one-third of North Carolinians were slaves, and
of these two-thirds lived in the eastern counties, where in some places they outnumbered
whites.55The impact of the War of 1812 in North Carolina was largely limited to the coastal
counties, and, fearing an attack in 1813-1814, the authorities in New Bern and Wilmington,
the major ports, pleaded with Governor William Hawkins to send more troops "to guard
against a rebellion of the blacks, so probable, and so much to be dreaded in this section of
the state."56Regional divisions within North Carolina created considerable animosity in Raleigh and were, I believe, an important aspect of the cultural politics of Canova's George
Washington. A brief examination of what issues divided east from west will also help illuminate the political agenda of the planter-dominated legislature that commissioned the statue.
The superficially democratic state constitution was in fact exceptionally elitist in practice and gave the agrarian oligarchy absolute control of the government. This class was by far
the most conservative element in North Carolina society. The politics of class determined the
constitutional provisions for representation in the legislature. All counties were allowed two
members of the House of Commons and one senator. Settled first, and far more conducive to
the large-scale planting of cash crops such as cotton and tobacco that demanded the use of
slave labor, the eastern counties were far more numerous than those in the central Piedmont
and the west (fig. 11). Moreover, one had to own at least fifty acres of land to be eligible to
vote for members of the Senate. Land ownership was required for election to both houses of
the legislature-100 acres for the Commons and 300 for the Senate- allowing a few slave
55
Connor [1929] 1973, 1:445-447.
56
Quoted in Lemmon 1971, 33.
PROSLAVERY
145
owners from the west to enter the state government, where some of them supported their
class at the expense of their region. Governors had to own land valued at more than $5,000
and were chosen by the legislature, not by the voters. Since land in the eastern counties was
more valuable, this section provided more gubernatorial hopefuls. Indeed, William Miller
(1814-1817) and John Branch (1817-1820), the governors who negotiated with Canova and
Appleton, were from the bastion of planter power in the east-Warren and Halifax counties
respectively. Nathaniel Macon was also from Warren County. Even more class based was the
selection of state bureaucrats, judges, and United States senators, all of whom were selected
by the legislature and appointed by the governor. The counties east of Raleigh had fewer
than 10 percent of the state's eligible voters but controlled all important aspects of state government. Deeply committed to the status quo, the planters did everything in their power to
limit the influence of the small farmer-dominated majority of the white population.57It may
be significant in the present context that most of the negative votes on the bill of appropriation for George Washington came from legislators from the western part of the state.'8
The political domination of the eastern counties seems all the more undemocratic when
one considers that this section of the state was actually losing population by 1815. Emigration to Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, and Indiana had become a major problem as planters went
south and west seeking new land for their cash crops, while small farmers moved north to
escape competition from large-scale slave agriculture. The state experienced only limited
growth in the first quarter of the century, and this was wholly limited to the Piedmont and
western counties. Emigration west was common in the Atlantic seaboard states in this period; most were more than compensated for the loss in population through immigration from
Europe, but not North Carolina.59
Power politics, class competition, and population shifts were not the only divisive sectional
issues in North Carolina in the early national era. Slavery was also controversial, more so than
in any other Southern state with the possible exceptions of Virginia and Tennessee. Slavery in
North Carolina had a different character than in other Southern states, especially since its colonial codes had been more "humanely" revised than elsewhere. Before 1830, most newspapers
in the Piedmont and western counties openly endorsed abolition, including the Raleigh Minerva
and the GreensboroughPatriot. Predictably, many of these journals also advocated the restriction of slavery in the territories and supported "Northern" positions in the Missouri debates.
The Carolina Manumission Society, the Moravians, and the Society of Friends (Quakers) were
more active in abolitionist and recolonization causes in the Tar Heel State than anywhere else
in the South. While these efforts accomplished little in the political arena, they worried the
planter oligarchs in the east and made them more determined to maintain control of the state
government and secure their own interests.60Given these insecurities, it is not surprising that a
classicizing statue of George Washington in the role of lawgiver, planter, and slaveholder, a la
Cincinnatus of old, was reassuring to a ruling class that was clearly in crisis.
Connor [1929] 1973, 1:469-470. When population
shifts necessitated new counties in the west, the legislature simply subdivided existing counties in the east in
order to ensure their hegemony.
shouldalsobe keptin mindthatsomePiedmontandwestern politiciansvoted with theireasterncounterpartsand

vice versa,but generallyspeakingtherewas a cleardifferencebetweenthe politicalideologiesof the two regions.
I do not suggest that this was due to lack of respect for

Washington but rather to the lavish expenditure for such a
project when western bills for internal improvements and
education were invariably defeated by eastern interests. It
59
57
58
Connor [1929] 1973, 1:462-463.
60
Connor [1929] 1973, 1:448-450. See also Moore 1953,
231.
146
Fig. 12. EmanuelLeutze,The

Marquisde LafayetteViewing
in
Canova'sGeorgeWashington
the State House in Raleigh,print,
1824(photoNorthCarolina
Museumof History).
11 I I 11
_1,~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
4.
~~~~
< ,
....
..
...:.:U:.:?=. .' ::::sX' ' '
''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
'''.
.......; ....
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
......................................................
8. Conclusion
Early in 1821, George Washington was carried in a cart from Canova's studio down to the
Tiber River, where it was loaded onto a barge that floated it downstream to the port of Ostia.
From there, a small coastal cutter took it in stages up to Livorno, where Consul Thomas
Appleton received it on behalf of the state of North Carolina. Senator Macon was successful
in his efforts to have a United States warship bring the monument across the Atlantic. Packed
securely, it arrived in Boston and was transferred to a smaller ship, which carried it down the
coast to Wilmington, North Carolina. Packed carefully into a sturdy wagon, it was floated by
barge up the Cape Fear River to Fayetteville and then sent over the post road to Raleigh,
where it arrived without incident just before Christmas. It was unveiled in an impressive ceremony in the state house rotunda on 24 December 1821 to great popular acclaim. Indeed,
crowds had watched the monument's progress into Raleigh in the manner of an ancient Roman triumph. The state government basked in reflected glory, as a letter to Thomas Jefferson
from Governor Gabriel Holmes written in 1823 indicates: "North Carolina can justly boast
of the possession of a splendid monument, unrivaled in the Western Hemisphere, and a capitol whose Eulogy by comparison is not diminished in the United States-if we may rely on
PROSLAVERY
147
the opinions and declarations expressed by travelers foreign and domestic."61 This is a remarkable claim when one remembers that it was made to the architect of the prestigious
capitol building in Richmond that housed Houdon's celebrated George Washington. Incidentally, I strongly suspect that North Carolina's traditional inferiority complex vis-ad-visits more
prosperous and populous northern neighbor may also have been a factor in the plan to enlarge and embellish the state house.
Raleigh's most distinguished visitor during the statue's brief existence was definitely foreign-the Marquis de Lafayette, who undertook an extended American tour in 1824. Received with tumultuous acclaim everywhere, Lafayette was idolized as one of the few remaining links to the heroic generation of the founders of the Republic.62In a touching, if highly
mediated, popular print, Lafayette is shown examining Canova's Washingtonin the state house
rotunda (fig. 12). The room's verticality has been exaggerated, as has the height of the pedestal. In addition, the familiar Gilbert Stuart portrait features have been substituted for those
of the classicizing Ceracchi model used by Canova, a likeness that seemed less and less "authentic" in an era that had already witnessed Washington's passage into national mythology,
a transit that necessitated a single, universal, and canonical image. In any event, the North
Carolina politicians were highly pleased with their acquisition and with the impressively renovated building that housed it, both for aesthetic reasons and, I argue, as a permanent reminder of their own prestige, authority, and right to rule.
Alas, permanence may be illusory, even in such durable materials as brick, stone, and
marble. On 21 June 1831, less than a decade after its spectacular debut, George Washington was almost completely destroyed in a conflagration that also consumed the state house.
North Carolina's ruling class, unlike many, did know what they had even after it was gone,
and there was an immediate attempt to see if the monument could somehow be restored
from the charred, broken fragments. A sculptor named Ball Hughes was eagerly believed
when he claimed he could restore the statue, but he simply took the advance payment
and some of the fragments and left Raleigh, never to return. Wayne Craven has rightly
pointed out that the fire also partly destroyed the sculpture's reputation and its historical role as one of the crucial formative works in the establishment of American neoclassical sculpture.63
In a report to the legislature on the feasibility of having the statue restored, House of
Commons member William Gaston penned a fitting epitaph for George Washington, a eulogy
that recognizes the political power of images, claiming that:
the people of the United Stateshad a rightto be proudof the evidencetheyhad exhibited
of the intensitywith which they delightedto cherishhis [Washington's]memory.Limited
in their means, plain in their habits, and economicalin their expenditures,on this one
subjectthey had indulgeda generousmagnificence.... A monumentlike this was a book
which all could read.... To the legislator,as he passedby to the Councilhall of the State
... it taughta lesson the most salutary,and not the less impressivebecauseit was communicatedwithout the formalitiesof instruction.64
61
The letter, written in Raleigh, is dated 6 October 1823;

quoted in Fehl 1968, 540.
62
For Lafayette'svisit to North Carolina, see esp. Klamkin

1975, 122-124. For the national impact of the French
hero's travels in the United States, see Idzerda et al. 1989.
Craven 1968, 63-64. I thank Professor Craven for

stimulating my interest in American sculpture many years
ago when I was a graduate student at the University of
Delaware.
63
64
Quoted in Connor 1910, 65-67.
148
Fig. 13. Canova (copyafter), GeorgeA

1975. Raleigh, N.C., Old
Washington,
State House (photo North Carolina
Museum of History).
iTA..
s:.
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ , ........>'.>
SS
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
-_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WO} e<US... ... ... ... .......

.........
*-f
y>sy,>gB5Bg
Today, a marble replica of the statue made from the original plaster model preserved at the
Gipsoteca Canoviana in Possagno (Canova's hometown) may be viewed in the state house
constructed to replace the burned building (fig. 13). Original context, however, can rarely be
reconstructed, and the replacement statue is simply a museum display visited primarily by
groups of schoolchildren who fail to recognize the Father of the Nation in his antique disguise.65 Little do they suspect that the ideology the statue originally embodied in its politicized context still impacts their lives, even if in a diluted and transmogrified form.
For an engaging account of the problematic intersection of national icons and slavery in postmodern America,
see Briley 2001.
65
PROSLAVERY
149
Bibliography
WORKS
CITED
Alexander, R. L., The Architecture of Maximilian Godefroy (Baltimore and London 1974).
Arnason, H. H., The Sculptures of Houdon (New York 1975).
Botta, C., Storia della guerra dell'independenza degli Stati Uniti d'America, 4 vols. (Paris 1809).
Briley, R., "More than Just a Slave Holder? George Washington, Adolescents, and American Culture in
the 1990s," in George Washington in and as Culture, ed. K. L. Cope (New York 2001) 215-237.
Calhoon, R. M., "A Troubled Culture: North Carolina in the New Nation, 1790-1834," in Writing
North Carolina History, ed. J. J. Crow and L. E. Tise (Chapel Hill, N.C. 1979) 76-110.
Connor, R. D. W., Canova's Statue of Washington (Raleigh, N.C. 1910).
, North Carolina: Rebuilding an Ancient Commonwealth, 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, N.C. 1929; reprinted Spartanburg, S.C. 1973).
Cooper, W. A., Classical Taste in America, 1800-1840 (New York and Paris 1993).
Cotten, E. R., Life of the Hon. Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina in Which There Is Displayed Striking
Instances of Virtue, Enterprise, Courage, Generosity, and Patriotism (Baltimore 1840).
Craven, W., Sculpture in America (New York 1968).
Desportes, U., "Giuseppe Ceracchi in America and His Busts of George Washington," Art Quarterly
26 (1963) 140-178.
Dodd, W. E., The Life of Nathaniel Macon (Raleigh, N.C. 1903).
Elliot, C. D., "The North Carolina State Capitol," The Southern Architect (1958) 23-26.
[Everett, E.], "Canova and His Works," North American Review n.s. 1 (1820) 372-386.
Falconet, E. M., "Observations sur la statue de Marc-Aurele," Oeuvres compMtes(Lausanne 1781) 320323.
Fehl, P. P., "Thomas Appleton of Livorno and Canova's Statue of George Washington," in Festschrift
Ulrich Middeldorf, ed. A. Kosegarten and P. Tigler (Berlin 1968) 523-552.
"Thomas Sully's 'Washington's Passage of the Delaware': The History of a Commission," Art
Bulletin 55 (1973) 584-599.
Fehrenbacher, D. E., The South and Three Sectional Crises (Baton Rouge, La. 1980).
Feld, S. P., and W. Garrett, Neo-Classicism in America: Inspiration and Innovation, 1810-1840 (New
York 1991).
Gerdts, W. H., American Neo-Classic Sculpture: The Marble Resurrection (New York 1973).
Greenberg, K. S., "Revolutionary Ideology and the Proslavery Argument: The Abolition of Slavery in
Antebellum South Carolina," Journal of Southern History 42 (1976) 365-384.
Hallam, J. S., "Houdon's 'Washington' in Richmond: Some New Observations," American Art Journal
10 (1978) 72-80.
Harrington, J. D., "'ClassicalAuthority and the Proslavery Argument," Slavery and Abolition 10 (1989)
60-72.
History of Congress:Senate (January 1820).
Holland, E. C., A Refutation of the Calumnies Circulated against the Southern and Western States, Respecting the Institution and Existence of Slavery among Them (Charleston, S.C. 1822).
Idzerda, S. J., A. C. Loveland, and M. H. Miller, Lafayette, Hero of Two Worlds: The Art and Pageantry
of His Farewell Tour of America, 1824-1825 (Hanover, N. H. and London 1989).
Johns, C. M. S., "Theater and Theory: Thomas Sully's 'George Frederick Cooke as Richard III'%"
Winterthur Portfolio 18 (1983) 27-3 8.
, "Antonio Canova's 'Napoleon as Mars': Nudity and Mixed Genre in Neoclassical Portraiture,"
Proceedings of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe (1990) 362-382.
,"Portrait Mythology: Antonio Canova's Representations of the Bonapartes," Eighteenth-Century Studies 28 (1994) 115-129.
150
Johns, C. M. S., Antonio Canovaand the Politicsof Patronagein Revolutionaryand NapoleonicEurope

(Berkeley1998).
Johnston, E. B., OriginalPortraitsof WashingtonIncludingStatues,Monumentsand Medals(Boston
1882).
Klamkin,M., TheReturnof Lafayette,1824-1825 (New York1975).
Lane, M., Architectureof the Old South:NorthCarolina(New York 1985).
Lemmon,S. M., NorthCarolinaand the Warof 1812 (Raleigh,N.C. 1971).
Marks,A. S., "TheStatueof King George III in New Yorkand the Iconologyof Regicide,"American
Art Journal13 (1981) 61-82.
McClellan,A., "The Life and Death of a Royal Monument:Bouchardon's'Louis XV'," OxfordArt
Journal23 (2000) 1-28.
McInnis,M. D., "ThePolitics of Taste:Classicismin Charleston,South Carolina,1815-1840" (Ph.D.
diss., YaleUniversity1996).
Abroad,1740-1860 (Columbia,S.C. 1999).
, In Pursuitof Refinement:Charlestonians
France,"FrenchHistory5
Merrick,J., "Politicson Pedestals:RoyalMonumentsin Eighteenth-Century
(1991) 234-264.
Miles, E. A., "The Old South and the ClassicalWorld,"North CarolinaHistoricalReview48 (1971)
258-275.
Moore, G., TheMissouriControversy,1819-1821 (Lexington,Ky. 1953).

Murray,E. R., Wake:CapitalCountyof NorthCarolina(Raleigh,N.C. 1983).
Myers, K. J., "Artand Commercein JacksonianAmerica:The Steamboat'Albany'Collection,"Art
Bulletin82 (2000) 503-528.
Peatross,C. F., and R. 0. Mellown,WilliamNicholas,Architect(Tuscaloosa,Ala. 1979).
Shields,J. C., TheAmericanAeneas:ClassicalOriginsof the AmericanSelf (Knoxville,Tenn.2001).
Tise, L. E., Proslavery:A Historyof the Defense of Slaveryin America,1701-1840 (Athens,Ga. and
London 1987).
Wiesen,D. S., "TheContributionof Antiquityto AmericanRacialThought,"in ClassicalTraditionsin
America,ed. J. W. Eadie (AnnArbor 1976) 191-212.
"Herodotusand the ModernDebate overRaceand Slavery,"TheAncientWorld3 (1980)3-16.
Williams,B. F., "AVisit to Possagno,"NorthCarolinaMuseumof Art Bulletin 1 (1957-1958) 23-32.
Wilson,E. M., The CongressionalCareerof NathanielMacon(ChapelHill, N.C. 1900).
Wiltshire,S. F., "Jefferson,Calhounand the SlaveryDebate: The Classicsand the Two Minds of the
South,"SouthernHumanitiesReview 11 (1977) 33-40.
NEWSPAPERS
Alexandria(Va.)Herald
Maryland(Md.)Gazette
Cincinnati(Ohio)Advertiser
Cincinnati(Ohio)WesternSpyand LiteraryCadet
Greensborough
(N.C.)Patriot
Norfolk(Va.)Herald
Raleigh(N.C.)Minerva
Raleigh(N.C.)Register
Richmond(Va.)CommercialCompiler
Savannah(Ga.) Republican
Washington(D.C.)AmericanRecorder
Washington(D.C.)Daily NationalIntelligencer
Washington(D.C.)Investigator

Proslavery Politics and Classical Authority Antonio Canovas George

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Proslavery Politics and Classical Authority Antonio Canovas George

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PROSLAVERY POLITICS AND CLASSICAL AUTHORITY: ANTONIO CANOVA'S "GEORGE

I wish to thank MaurieD. McInnis,JeffreyL. Collins,

eratureandin historiesof Americansculpture,has been

Fig. 1. Antonio Canova,GeorgeWashington,c. 1816 1817. Possagno,GipsotecaCanoviana.

1. The History of the Commission

state house in Raleigh.Commander-in-chief

come in the country. Connor [1929] 1973, 1:445. The

See Fehl 1968, 542, who cites the primary documents.

See Connor [1929] 1973, 1:463-469, with additional

November,a monumentto Washingtonwas an earlytopic of debate.The bill authorizingthe

Alexandria (Va.) Herald, 20 January 1817; Richmond

Quoted in Fehl 1968, 530.

ary and Napoleonic era deeply shocked many artists. For

'Tis gratitudethat consecratesthe Shrine

deface the statue of General Washington was read,

Fig. 2. Jean-AntoineHoudon, George

resenting Washington in the buff would likely not have

which was most familiarwith him, and which is best

18, who quotes Falconet1781.

: . ''5 l '5, X5, i | | |

Fig. 3. ThomasJefferson,State Capitol,Richmond,Va., 1785-1 789 (photo VirginiaState Lihrary).

14 Arnason 1975, 72-73 argues that, although Jefferson

ington in ancient garb, possibly as a proof of his abilities

Courtesyof the ResearchFiles of the Museumof Early

Much greaterdamagewas done to the reputationof Canova'sGeorgeWashingtonand

17 Canova used a plaster cast taken from the original bust

sculpted Washingtonpoised to write the salutation,but the sculptoralmostcertainlyleft the

The allusion to Cincinnatusin the Raleighmonument occurs even more explicitly on

This discussionis based on a letter fromAppletonto

It is also possible that Mercury is present in his role as

3. Canova'sStatue and Other WashingtonMonuments

In 1800 a national monument in honor of Washington was proposed in Congress only

Quoted in Dodd 1903, 153-154.

tive Arts, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Alexander 1974, 71-72.

workin the historicalgenrein

PROSLAVERY POLITICS AND CLASSICAL AUTHORITY

legislature,be what it may,they earnestlyrecommendthat this idea maynot be lost sight

For a brief summary of Nichols's alterations, see Elliot

5. SenatorNathanielMacon and Canova'sWashington

Asking them .tlicit

monumentto George Washingtonrecently approvedby the legislature.James Turner,the

Quoted in Connor 1910, 15-16.

Valaperta'sestimateof $5,000 is surprising,given his likely

fromNorthCarolinafrom1811to 1816,a partisanof the

McInnis 1999, 42-47, with additional bibliography.

The letter, dated 29 January 1816, is preserved in the

The articleis dated17 March1820.Courtesyof the ResearchFilesof the Museumof EarlySouthernDecorative

39King was a member of the House of Representatives

Raleigh Minerva, 4 February1820.

indicatesthathe wasfullyawareof whatwas at issue

4 For the historyof the Missouribills, see Moore 1953,

The letter is dated from Washington,26 December

Tise 1987. The chief flaw of this admirablestudy is

Moore 1953, 109-128.

and Rome sanctionedrule by an agrarianelite.47As the most importantneoclassicalwork of

Quoted in Harrington 1989, 61-62.

Fehrenbacher 1980, 12-19, with additional bibliography.

History of Congress: Senate (January1820) 260-266.

Connor [1929] 1973, 1:439-441. From about 1810

Raleigh Minerva, 18 October 1816 and 12 July 1816.

Connor [1929] 1973, 1:445-447.

Quoted in Lemmon 1971, 33.

shouldalsobe keptin mindthatsomePiedmontandwestern politiciansvoted with theireasterncounterpartsand