1. The Biography and Design of Latrobe’s “Clifton”, Richmond, Virginia
Jessica Marie Bankston
A Research Project Prepared
Under the Direction of Dr. Charles E. Brownell
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
ARTH 789
Department of Art History
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, Virginia
April 2010

2. 1
Introduction.
Do you find this image lackluster (fig. 1)? The research that has been published on this design isn’t
much better. I’m showing you a 19th century Richmond landmark. In 1808, Benjamin James Harris
acquired the parcels of land that soon would hold this structure, “The Clifton House.” Clifton stood near
what is today Old 14th and Bank Streets (fig. 2), and was demolished in the summer of 1903. Scholars and
historians have attributed the design of this dwelling to B. Henry Latrobe, due to its striking similarity to the
design illustrated in this perspective for an undated, unnamed house in Richmond, coupled with the uncanny
match to the site depicted in the drawing. Mystery has surrounded how the commission came to be, but
this research will examine the sequence of events, as well as the characters involved. Before this
presentation is through, older architectural historians will have reason to hang their heads.
This research is organized into three parts, or surprises. Surprise number one will begin by closely
examining the first design documentation for this structure: Latrobe’s perspective and a corresponding site
plan. This examination will uncover nine clues to reveal the first surprise, and ultimately unveil a new
hypothesis that the drawings were intended for a different, much earlier, patron than Benjamin James Harris.
Surprise number two looks at Latrobe’s professional exposure from as early as his initial years in the
office of S.P. Cockerell in late 18th-century England. This understanding, coupled with an assessment of the
last surviving design documentation for the executed structure, will allow for a proposal of a direct lineage
behind the design Latrobe presented for this site. Also, a closer study of this last recorded account of the
executed design prior to its demolition will shed light on the possible proposed interior floor plan.
For surprise number three, we will meet George Russell Tolman, an early 20th-century architect
worth remembering who documented and made drawings of the Clifton site, which no Richmond audience
has yet seen. We learn this man was only briefly a resident of Richmond, but his time spent in the office of
Marion J. Dimmock, architectural contributions to the U.S. Life Saving Service, and colorful background
make him an architect worthy of knowing and now remembering. So let’s dive into surprise number one!

3. 2
Surprise One — An Unexpected Guest.
B. Henry Latrobe’s drawings for a house in the City of Richmond situated on a hillside along the
James River have for many years been confirmed as the altered Benjamin James Harris house that came to
be known as “Clifton.” VCU student James Bodman has argued this house was built by George Winston1 ,
the eminent Richmond contractor, who altered the design considerably. A perspective of the original
dwelling and corresponding site plan proposed by Latrobe are housed in cold storage in the Prints and
Photographs Division of the Library of Congress 2 in Washington, D.C., and an appointment to view the
originals housed there was granted for this research.
The first clue to the surprise was Latrobe’s perspective itself. This illustration in particular stands as
a work of art in its own right (fig. 1). One simply cannot grasp the level of detail from reproductions in books,
and in person, gains a much clearer understanding of the detail and exactness of the site and surrounding
landscape imparted by Latrobe. He communicated this vision beginning by lightly sketching the site
topography and structure in pencil, followed by inked lines over the structural walls of the dwelling and its
details (ornament, figures, fence and carriage), as well as the depiction of the city below the hillside,
warehouses, and ships in the James River and docking at Rocketts. His final step was washing the entire
illustration in color.
Latrobe made this particular dwelling on this particular site come to life. Just as he had done with
previous, important presentation drawings for residential commissions such as the Pennock House (fig. 3) or
Sedgeley Villa, he depicted the owners of the home engaged in some activity, and even illustrated the same
model of carriage from the latter (fig. 4): a Post-Chaise3 pulled up to the front entryway with a passenger
1 For more on George Winston, see Bodman’s masters thesis “The Building Career of George Winston (1759-1826).”
2 The Library of Congress received the two drawings as a general transfer from the Architect of the Capitol in 1872. In
1897 they were deposited in the newly formed Department of Graphic Arts, which became the Division of Prints in 1899.
The provenance of the drawings prior to 1872 is less clear; the curator and archivist of the Architect of the Capitol has no
record of how long their department had the drawings or where they came from. It is possible that the transfer was so
informal that there was no documentation created. For more information on the issue of provenance, see Woan, “The
Delicate Issue of Provenance.”
3 Carriage Museum of America. This carriage, called a Post-Chaise was driven by postillion and originally built to carry
mail in England. They were popular as private coaches in the colonies and Europe, accommodating two passengers
comfortably, and allowing for baggage to be placed on the back and the roof for long distances. It is believed that
Colonial Williamsburg has one in use and the Henry Ford Museum has one on display.

4. 3
waiting inside (fig. 5). Here we see Latrobe putting a personal touch on the drawing, perhaps indicating an
unconscious or even conscious objective to make the proposal sing.
Below the elevated plateau on which this house sits is an extraordinarily accurate record of the
surrounding Richmond landscape (fig. 6). Nearly every feature illustrated in this portion of the drawing can be
corroborated by other early 19th-century Virginia landscapes or Richmond maps. The first fire insurance
declaration known to be associated with this building and structure tells us that the site is “...situated on a
part of the ground formerly appertaining to the Old Council Chamber...,”4 which was a spur of the Shockoe
Hill Plateau. Old Council Chamber became known as Mayo’s hill5, as the Mayo family owned this as well as
the sloping land behind the house and descending tree line. T. Tyler Potterfield, authority on the historic
landscape of Richmond, was generous with his expertise and offered some insights as to the
correspondence of the drawing and the Richmond landscape:
“The trees in the foreground probably are landmarks of the Shockoe Creek slope. The Mayo Family
would shortly after this image terrace this area into Mayo’s addition at right angles to the creek...The
buildings just beyond the trees are on or adjacent to Main Street west of Pear Street. The house on the
hill appears to be situated on Libby Hill about on the site of the Soldier’s and Sailor’s Monument...Just
east of that is Bloody Run Valley, followed by Chimborazo Hill. The ships are located at the mouth of
Gillies’s Creek at Rocketts. The long buildings are probably warehouses. There is tall Mill or warehouse
beyond them. At the far right of the image is an outline of what may be Powhatan’s seat.” 6
Nearly everything in what Potterfield describes is brought into even clearer focus with Latrobe’s
earlier sketch of this area from “Mr. Nicolson’s house above Rocketts” (fig. 7). The house on the hill could in
fact be Mr. [George] Nicolson’s, once mayor of the city, as it is described to have sat on one of the “most
commanding heights over looking the city and surrounding country.” 7 Also in this 1796 sketch we see
crisper, closer views of Rocketts, the tall mill and the farther warehouses. Missing from this illustration are the
nearer warehouses, which perhaps means they were not yet built or we out of view from this angle.
4 Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia declaration 1086 (March 1818).
5 Richmond City Deeds, Book 29, Page 596.
6 Potterfield, message to author.
7 Mordecai, Richmond In By-Gone Days, 103.

5. 4
The level of detail Latrobe executed beyond the structure and site itself to the developing City of
Richmond, Shockoe Bottom and Rockett’s in the distance, speaks to the possible objectives of the work.
As a lover of the 17th century landscape painter Claude Lorrain, he strove to create little kingdoms you could
travel through. 8 The Latrobe that illustrated these drawings had an objective to do just that for the viewer,
while offering the vision of a stately, palatial dwelling that overlooked all of the town and landscape below,
and he had the time available to create the means to achieve that objective.
Shockoe Creek, just east of this hill, is out of view and rightfully not depicted in the perspective, but
is clearly delineated in the site plan. From the lavish detail and skillful atmospheric perspective or the
accurate site plan, we understand a substantial site that was perfect for a stately dwelling oriented to
overlook the river and town, as well as encompass sloping gardens, trails, and a large “stable yard and
offices” complex. It would have sat on the upper part of this hill, adjacent to the major civic buildings,
churches and theaters. Our second clue is how strangely the the size of the property illustrated differs so
dramatically from the size of the ground transferred to Harris in May 1808; only two lots totaling 60 feet in
width and 100 feet deep9, and lower on the slope, closer in to the more proletarian activities of town.
Nearly every mention of Clifton in 20th century research will maintain that the structure was built
between 1807 and 1809. In 1950, Mary Wingfield Scott was the first to connect the executed house with
Latrobe’s perspective and site plan, but does not provide any explanation for her believed 1808 year of
construction. In various publications, where citations on this date exists one is pointed to fire insurance
policies of 1818 or 1822, only adding to the mystery. Harris’s purchase of the lots in May 1808 would’ve left
left little time to complete construction on a house of this magnitude, and it is unlikely that construction was
underway before he owned them.
If in fact Clifton was built during this period, timing is our third clue. For more than 30 years, it has
puzzled Dr. Brownell how Latrobe and Harris made contact. There is no correspondence in Latrobe’s
detailed letterbooks, which cover the years 1803-17 in detail. Brownell has proposed that Latrobe and
Harris made contact during the trial of Aaron Burr in Richmond in 1807, in which Latrobe would testify. The
8 For a further discussion on Claude Lorrain’s influence on Latrobe’s landscapes, see Latrobe’s View of America, 18-29.
9 Richmond City Deeds, Book 5, Page 214.

6. 5
level of detail and labor applied to the perspective and site plan would have required Latrobe to be on the
site, and the time consuming process of sketching, inking over, and layering color wash seems highly
unfitting for him to make time for during his June and September visits. In his correspondence between
March 1807 and October 1807 10 Latrobe specified at least eight times to various individuals the heaviness of
his work load that “occupies [him] day and night.” 11 During this time, Latrobe was consumed with moving
his family to Washington and working on the U.S. Capitol, in addition to projects at the Navy Yard, the
Treasury, the White House, other engineering projects, and recently awarded commissions for the New
Orleans Customs House and the Philadelphia Bank. In addition, as a result of the martial fervor aroused by
British aggression, Jefferson called for an early meeting of Congress on October 26th. This put Latrobe
under sudden pressure to complete the enormous Hall of Representatives. It hardly makes sense that a man
with such obligations would make the time required to produce this landscape for Harris, of whom Latrobe
kept no record of and who did not yet even own the land on which the structure would eventually stand.
Latrobe would not have accepted this commission at this point in time.12
Upon examining Latrobe’s site plan for this proposal, one soon observes that trimming along the left
side has cropped off an inscription original to the drawing (fig. 8), leaving only the descenders of the
architect’s distinctive letters. The notion of figuring out what Latrobe wrote was quickly admonished to an
unlikely fancy. Instead, the site plan was compared against recorded plans and plats of the city during this
time. If accepting the belief that this dwelling was constructed in 1808 or 1809, Richard Young’s map from
about 1809-1810 (fig. 9) offered the closest Richmond comparison to go by. The open, undeveloped space
correlated with the large site mapped by Latrobe, but lacked the identification of what was expected for this
period, Council Chamber Hill and/or Mayo’s hill. The presumed mis-identification appears again on Robert
James’ 1804 map, stating “Watson’s” across the area. We learn from a 1798 fire insurance declaration that
10Latrobe’s correspondence during this period is highly documented due to his acquisition of a polygraph pen, with
which he created copies of all of his letters. Any activity between 1807-1808 is most likely recorded in the volumes of
The Papers of Benjamin Henry Latrobe.
11 Latrobe, The Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers, vol. 2, to Mary Elizabeth Latrobe, 396; to John Carroll, 434;
to Issac Hazelhurst, 450 and 458; to Samuel Hazelhurst, 468; to John Welsh and Thomas Ross, 479; to Albert Gallatin,
486; to Lewis DeMun, 490.
12 Latrobe even says of his assistant Adam Traquair during this same period, “[he] is like all young beginners in business:
so much afraid of losing any part of what is offered to him, that he puts it out of his power to execute anything
satisfactorily.” Latrobe, The Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers, vol. 2, 486.

7. 6
Col. John Mayo did in fact own the land. The parcel comprised several government buildings including the
one-story 32’ x 30’ brick Council Chamber building 13 that Mayo converted to his city dwelling to oversee
construction and activity of his 14th Street Bridge14. The policy notes that the property lies on what is
referred to as “Watson’s tenement,” which likely meant Mr. Watson tended and leased part of the property. It
is not until Young’s 1817 map15 do we see the parcel clearly identified and still belonging to “J. Mayo” and
get a much clearer understanding of how Latrobe’s plan would have integrated into the area. Overlaying the
Latrobe site plan on this map so that it is situated between Broad and Franklin Streets results in the east and
west borders of the proposed estate almost lining up exactly with the “old bed” of Shockoe Creek and the
western line of Mayo’s property on Council Chamber Hill (fig. 10). The entrance to this proposed estate,
indicated by two pillars about midway on the left side of the drawing, would also line up almost perfectly with
Ross Street, creating a stately entryway. However, supposing the Benjamin James Harris house was built by
this time, only lower on the hill, there is more conflict. The map still says “Mayo” and the lower area where
Clifton eventually stood on the two narrow lots purchased in 1808 demonstrate that Harris never received the
proposed grand grounds along with this house. This was Mayo’s land, with which this Latrobe site plan
perfectly corresponded.
The accurate match between Latrobe’s site plan and this parcel of land belonging to John Mayo
makes one stop and think — and revisit the cropped inscription earlier mentioned, which becomes our fourth
clue. Could the drawings have been intended for Col. John Mayo? Putting this infant notion to the true test
was authorized with the availability of a sketch Latrobe had made of the Hermitage, Col. Mayo’s rural seat
(fig. 11). He had visited the Colonel at his country home in July, 1797, which was located near where the
Science Museum of Virginia stands today. Latrobe drew the house and fully inscribed the drawing at the
bottom. With the magic of Photoshop, an unmistakable match was made apparent (fig. 12), resulting in new
evidence. Suddenly more clues snapped into focus. Number five: wouldn’t a Colonel require stable yards
and offices, especially one with as much Richmond clout John Mayo, a member of the eminent Mayo family,
13 Scott, Old Richmond Neighborhoods, 121.
14 For more on Mayo’s Council Chamber Hill and suburban residences, Hermitage and Belville, see Mordecai, Richmond
In By-Gone Days, 39-40.
15The dotted line through Mayo’s parcel on Young’s 1817 map is probably indicative of a ward division line, hence the
word “division” just above the line north of Broad Street.

8. 7
and representative of Henrico in the Virginia General Assembly? 16 At the Hermitage, this was in fact the
case. An 1885 description of the property notes brick outbuildings that included “kitchen, laundry, servants’
houses, and stables.”17 Clue number six: unlike Harris, there are multiple instances of documentation putting
Latrobe and Col. John Mayo not just in contact with one another, but in the presence of one another. Before
visiting The Hermitage, Latrobe tells of earlier in May 1797, he had been with Mayo to visit his new mill “two
or three times.” 18
The strengthening conception that Latrobe’s presentations were created for a new Col. Mayo
residence on Council Chamber hill were all but solidified with several final facts. By 1798, while still in
Richmond, Latrobe made a sketch of a view of Richmond east of Capitol Square from the banks of the
James River (fig. 13). He noted in the description Col. Mayo’s city home, which was the old Council
Chamber building mentioned earlier that he had converted to a residence. Mayo benefited from this
convenient location, “for, with a spy-glass, he could see from thence all that was passing on his bridge.”19
The dwelling had been damaged by a lightning strike,20 and was then rented to Mr. McRae “of the Council of
State.”21 He was then living full time at Hermitage, but regardless enters clue number seven. Mayo likely
desired an urban dwelling to continue oversight of the activity and construction on his new toll bridge. Could
he have discussed with Latrobe a design for this site? The answer is unequivocally yes, if we look at a
Latrobe sketchbook called “Designs of Buildings Erected or Proposed to be Built in Virginia.” The book is
unfinished. In it, on the back of the plans for “Shockoe Church” (fig. 14) on Broad Street, Latrobe noted to
leave “10 Blank Leaves after this for John Mayos house...,” 22 and other designs. No one has ever been able
to find any further information on “John Mayo’s house,” our eighth clue.
16 Burr, “Camp Lee,” 562.
17 ____, “Camp Lee,” 561.
18 Latrobe, The Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers, vol. 1, 46.
19For a brief history on Mayo’s bridge and relationship to Council Chamber hill, see Mordecai’s Richmond In By-Gone
Days, 39-40, 243.
20 Cohen and Brownell, The Architectural Drawings of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 81.
21 Carter, Van Horne and Brownell, Latrobe’s View of America, 144. Interestingly, probably the same Mr. (Alexander)
McRae, a lawyer and later Consul to Paris, who in 1802 purchased and moved to 311 North Ninth Street and by 1809
created his own double-bowed dwelling; see Jurgens, “The Hancock-Wirt-Caskie House, Richmond, 1808-1809,” 288.
22 Fazio and Snadon, The Domestic Architecture of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, cat. 621.

9. 8
Our ninth and final clue comes from John Mayo, himself. In March 1797 Mayo wrote a letter to one
of his tenants, a Mr. Boulton. On the back of the letter is an eerily comparable sketch of a five part villa with
columns in the rear wings (fig.15). It appears the sketch has no relationship to the content of the message,
but could indicate the beginning conversations of and ideas for Latrobe’s plan, not yet incorporating the
double bows.
All of these clues also mean that Latrobe’s finished perspective and site map drawings were
completed by Latrobe circa 1798, when he was living in Richmond, when he would have had more time to
complete such a detailed proposal, and as he says himself, when “the application to me for designs were
very numerous, and my fancy was kept employed in building castles in the air...”23 This perspective and site
plan is, in fact, the Mayo House. Let us give a new name to the drawings and the built structure: The Mayo-
Harris House. This a happy discovery for Latrobe historians, and it leads us to our next surprise.
Surprise Two — Ancestors Revealed.
When Latrobe arrived in Virginia in 1796 he was the first professionally trained architect practicing in
the country. He brought with him experience and planning ideas that when applied to the first Virginia
dwelling commissions would sometimes work, other times fail, but ultimately leave a marked influence. At
the Mayo-Harris House, he applied double bows on the south and rear facade, a center cupola, and wings
at either side creating a five-part villa plan. We see Latrobe endeavoring for this composition time and time
again after arriving in Virginia, but it never quite sees reality. When considering the measured drawings from
Tolman’s 1903 inspection against five “relatives,” the possible interior arrangement at Clifton can be found.
Latrobe’s first exposure to a double canted bay facade could have been when he worked in S. P.
Cockerell’s office on the remodeling of Wyndham House24 in Salisbury, England (fig. 16). The project arose in
1788-90 and it is possible that Latrobe was involved in the design. The renovated house resulted in a
double canted bay facade on the east front, and also featured a recessed center entryway and oculi
skylights. Around the same time, Cockerell’s office undertook another renovation on Daylesford (1788-92) 25,
23 Cohen and Brownell, The Architectural Drawings of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 80.
24 Fazio and Snadon, The Domestic Architecture of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 41.
25 Ibid, The Domestic Architecture of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 47.

10. 9
in Gloucestershire (fig. 17), which also resulted in a double canted bayed facade. It was during this period
that this combination on the facade was ingrained in Latrobe’s repertoire.
The next important example in the line of descent was Alderbury House (1791-1796) 26 near
Salisbury (fig. 18). Latrobe copied this plan into his “English notebook,” which he brought with him to
Virginia, and is now in the Library of Congress. Here Cockerell’s firm, and perhaps Latrobe himself, executed
double canted bays on the northern front facade with a recessed entryway. Note the increased similarity
between the Mayo-Harris perspective and Alderbury’s roof, chimney and entry treatments. The interior plan
featured an oculus skylight (fig. 19) at the upper center stair hall. Most notably, Clifton as executed and
Alderbury measure approximately 60’ in length, and share partially uniform room arrangements.
Once in the United States, Latrobe took this English country estate idea to the extreme, with Mill Hill
(fig. 20). Plans for this massive 7,000 square foot country estate are dated 1796, were unbuilt, and for an
unknown client. Mill Hill offers a study in Latrobe’s attempt to apply his experience with large English country
estates to the American climate and social context of the Virginia gentry, but as Michael Fazio and Patrick
Snadon observe, this vision "had not fully matured." 27 Here Latrobe introduced the five-part villa plan created
by the introduction of wings at either side as a development devised to answer the climate requirements, but
did not answer it correctly. Instead, vernacular builders like George Winston got the right answer with the
application of a long porch along a facade. Mill Hill omits a cupola or rotunda of any sort, and the bays are
positioned on the north and main elevation, where one housed the servant staircase, alongside other service
areas and lesser used rooms such as the kitchen and passageways. This combined with placing principal
rooms along the south facade became Latrobe’s lifelong principle of residential design.
It is likely that the next use of this combination of elements came to pass for Col. Mayo around
1798. Whether to Latrobe’s knowledge or not, the plan was ultimately and severely altered years later for
Benjamin J. Harris. In lieu of an oculus skylight, Latrobe proposed a cupola and rotunda, which was lost.
However, Latrobe’s major refinement of relocating the double bows to the south facade along with the
principal rooms in order to allow the client to enjoy any sweeping views, was retained. double bows to the
26 Ibid, The Domestic Architecture of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 63.
27 Fazio and Snadon, The Domestic Architecture of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 229.

11. 10
south facade along with the principal rooms in order to allow the client to enjoy any sweeping views, was
retained with the main entry again on the north facade.
Latrobe probably made a final recommendation to his office assistant Adam Traquair to prepare a
version of the plan around 1801 for the Stier family at Riversdale (fig. 21), just north of Washington, near
Bladensburg, Maryland. This design was almost a twin to the Mayo-Harris house, and replicates all the key
elements: a five-part villa plan with wings, double bows on the south facade, roof line, chimneys and even a
cupola, which we see drawn on the north elevation. Here we can peek into what Latrobe had possibly
proposed for Mayo with Riversdale’s 2nd story plan. Beneath the rotunda we find a proposed “gallery,”
which Dr. Brownell has interpreted to have been meant to house part of the Stier family’s outstanding
collection of over sixty paintings, by many great masters. If the Mayo-Harris house came first, the idea that a
gallery was intended for the Stier art collection is dashed. We saw how Latrobe had worked with oculus
skylights in prior designs. It is possible that Latrobe simply encouraged a cupola over rotunda in these
Virginia homes as a stylish feature, as in his recently proposed Tayloe house of 1796. This would make more
sense than to suit an art collection, on which curved walls with poor lighting would be difficult to display.
If we overlay the Mayo-Harris unmeasured footprint with Riversdale, we see how close the five-part
villa plan really is. Then, comparing the executed Clifton to Riversdale shows us the south facade’s double
bows and center hall division as a marked match. If Riversdale was a project delegated to Traquair to work
up in the simplest way possible, it is likely that plan represents what Latrobe proposed for Mayo. In the
executed structure, the wings were eliminated to suit the width of Harris’s two lots, and the purpose of them
was improved by adding a long porch between the two canted bays. The body of the plan was compressed
to roughly half the depth, losing the classic Latrobe northern plan. It it not so much a surprise how close the
connection is between Riversdale and Clifton; the two have always been tightly associated. The larger
surprise is in how far back the idea runs, and how close the executed structure — and the surviving Latrobe
ideas — match the early strand, specifically in the Alderbury plan. Reviewing this lineage has been an eye-
opener to how this design evolved. Now, let us enjoy one final surprise.

12. 11
Surprise Three — A Welcome Addition.
At the close of this research there is still much to learn about George Russell Tolman, the architect
who completed the only formal architectural study of Clifton, just prior to its demolition in the summer of
1903. However, Richmond can now meet an architect who practiced locally and nationally, and trained and
worked with some of the best known Richmond architects from the turn of the 20th century. Tolman was
born in Boston on December 5, 1848. He started out as a draftsman and by the 1870s, partnered with
George F. Moffette to form the Boston firm, Moffette and Tolman. The firm designed the Charlestown
Savings Bank in 1876 (fig. 22), a design mix of high Victorian gothic and the modern french executed just ten
years earlier than our very own Founders Hall, in the same taste.
Over the next decade most the activity documented in Tolman’s life highlights his work as a skilled
illustrator in Boston. In 1882 Tolman illustrated “12 Sketches of Old Boston buildings,” which was praised for
it’s artistic merit by members of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 28 Then came Edwin G. Porter’s
Rambles in Old Boston, New England in 1887, also illustrated by Tolman, where he appeared to employ the
“dazzle style” of illustration (fig. 23). The work was highly praised as “a sumptuous record of rambles in the
north end of Boston, where most of the lingering vestiges of the colonial epoch are to be sought.”29
However shortly after this point Tolman’s personal life would become the focus of his energies. In October
1888 he married Eva Frances Stover, but in less than nine months, left his new wife. In a suit filed November
1893 it was recorded that one child was born to the couple, which died within a few days of it’s birth, and
that Tolman denied its paternity.30 In the record he also states that he offered his wife to come live with him
as man and wife but that she refused, reasoning she was afraid of him. Tolman was ordered to pay his wife
alimony, but evidently never did, as the case was appealed and dragged out for the next two years.
In the meantime, Tolman’s career hit its stride. He was hired by the government, initially with the
Treasury Department as a draftman, Perhaps his brother Albert Tolman assisted in getting him this position,
as in the U.S. Census of 1880, Albert is listed specifically as “Architect with the US Treasury,” while George
was only listed as “architect.” Here he worked on projects at the Kittery, Maine Navy Yard, then designed the
28 Ellis, et al, “June Meeting, 1882. Letter from William H. Whitmore...George S. Hillard," 335.
29 "Current American Literature." Rev. of Rambles In Old Boston, 320.
30 “George Russell Tolman, Appellant, V. Eva Frances Tolman.” Washington Law Reporter, 771.

13. 12
Marine Barracks for the Norfolk, Virginia Navy Yard. By 1890 Tolman was residing in Washington, D.C.
Within a year he succeeded Albert Bibb as architect for the U.S. Life Saving Service, which would eventually
turn into the U.S. Coast Guard. Tolman’s largest contributions there included the design of a station for
Quonochontaug at Charlestown, Rhode Island. A modification of this station was included in the
government exhibit at the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition of 1893. 31
Tolman’s design for the station was even used in 1903 in Virginia Beach at what is now known as
the Old Coast Guard Station at 24th Street & Oceanfront, and was featured in the Society of Architectural
Historians volume for Buildings of Virginia: Tidewater and Piedmont, in 2002. He continued to design
stations for the U.S. Life Saving Service, including the “Duluth” prototype (fig. 24), which “utilized the
architectural features popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, specifically the Shingle
Style with Colonial Revival elements.” 32 However, the separation from his wife continued to cause
disturbances in his life, as Tolman failed to pay alimony as ordered, resulting in a warrant issued. Ultimately
he was quietly released from the U.S. Lifesaving Service in July 1896.
Little is known of Tolman’s life between this point and his arrival in Richmond, sometime around
1902. Upon his arrival, Tolman partnered with “the dean of the architectural profession” Marion J. Dimmock
for two notable projects. For the Capitol expansion competition, the team submitted a proposal for a
northern addition (fig. 25), which did not get selected. Dimmock and Tolman were more successful with their
proposal for the wing additions at one of the greatest 18th century Virginia houses, Westover plantation (fig.
26). Tolman’s submersion in New England and close studies there of 18th and 19th century American
architecture probably qualified him as a proficient colonial revivalist and neoclassicist in practice, making him
a complimentary partner for Dimmock, and possibly owed attribution for colonial revival style commissions
produced during his time in Richmond. Of course, in the summer of 1903 he studied the Clifton site while
demolition was underway, which was later published in the American Architect and Building News the
following January. Drew Carneal, the praised historian and author of Richmond’s Fan District, has credited
Tolman with training architect W. Duncan Lee, possibly opening the door for Lee to join Dimmock’s firm in
31 York, “The Architecture of the United States Life-Saving Stations,” n.p.
32 "Connolly & Hickey, Portfolio, Squan Beach Life Saving Station."

14. 13
1907. It appears George Tolman left Richmond sometime around 1906, as he was no longer listed in the
Richmond city directory.
With additional research more may be known about what happened to Tolman after his departure
from Richmond and where his career ultimately led. The last bit of information this researcher could
determine was that he eventually returned to Massachusetts, and according to the 1930 U.S. Census, was
living with nieces and nephews in Plymouth at the age of 82. 33
Conclusion.
This research has established new theories on the origination of B. Henry Latrobe’s drawings for a
stately dwelling sited on Council Chamber Hill, just east of the capitol of Richmond. It has proposed the
original intentions of the architect, his professional maturity and corroborated his understanding of the
American climate and residential needs. By examining the last surviving documentation of the built structure,
other works by Latrobe in Virginia, and works he was familiar with in England, this research has determined a
line of ancestry for the proposed design.
Lastly, this research has uncovered an unknown Richmond architect who was a consummate
colonial revivalist, who played an important role in the design of late nineteenth century lighthouses of the
U.S. Life Saving Service, and possibly had a hand in some of the colonial revival structures erected in
Richmond just after 1900. Any other individual with different experiences and competencies may not have
provided us with this incredibly accurate and historically important rediscovered record documenting a
distinguished lost structure once hailed as “the finest house ever built in Richmond,” 34 the Mayo-Harris
house.
33 Tolman perhaps died within the decade, but Massachusetts records indicates another George R. Tolman who was an
archival scholar from the Concord area, and who passed away in 1909. Who’s Who In American Art 1564-1976: 400
Years of Artists in America, Vol III published in 1999 has an entry for a George Tolman as a painter, architect and
illustrator, born in 1848 but mistakenly gives the death date of the other George Tolman; 1909.
34 “A Glimpse of the Past: Old Houses in Richmond.” The Richmond Dispatch, 2.