Talk:United States Capitol

New Photo

I have uploaded a new photo to the Commons of the Capitol; feel free to use it.

U.S. Capitol Building

Reference to Improvised Explosive Device is incorrect.

Article currently reads as follows:

One improvised explosive devices was found in the Capitol during the subsequent clearing of the premises.[54][55]

Source 55, Politico, states that "D.C. police officials also say two pipe bombs were recovered, one outside the Democratic National Committee and one outside the Republican National Committee." While the original source, 54, does incorrectly state that one device was found within the Capitol, current reliable sources match the politico sourcing. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-inaugurations-capitol-siege-8828a6a920198d0ea1ee0c73a49d8847 "It was around 12:45 p.m. Wednesday when U.S. Capitol Police and agents from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were called to the Republican National Committee’s office after a pipe bomb was found outside. About 30 minutes later, as the agents and bomb technicians were still investigating at the RNC, another call came in for a second, similar explosive device found at the Democratic National Committee headquarters nearby."

Neither the RNC or DNC office are within the Capitol or it's grounds. Accordingly, this statement of fact should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.186.168 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right, but due to our policies I don't think we can change it unless we find a news article that says that no bomb was found at the US Capitol after all. The current statement is well sourced. As soon as you find a news article that says it, please post it here and we can make the correction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed my mind and removed this sentence today. It's been a month with no reporting on this, and lots of reporting on DNC/RNC bombs by both reliable sources and the FBI. I think this was incorrect first day reporting, and there is an argument to be made that pipe bombs in the US Capitol is now WP:FRINGE due to lack of reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Did enslaved African-Americans "build" the Capitol?

Under the heading "House and Senate wings", it states "When the Capitol was expanded in the 1850s, some of the construction labor was carried out by slaves 'who cut the logs, laid the stones and baked the bricks'. The original plan was to use workers brought in from Europe; however, there was a poor response to recruitment efforts, and African Americans, some free and some enslaved, composed the majority of the work force." (emphasis mine) The first source cited was from the Washington Times, a newspaper that is widely considered to be biased and of low credibility. That source makes this assertion: "Slaves cut trees on the hill where the Capitol would stand, cleared stumps from the new streets, worked in the stone quarries where sandstone was cut and assisted the masons laying stone for the walls of the new homes of Congress and the president. They also were involved in the expansion of the Capitol in the late 1850s." It's worth noting that there is no sandstone in the Capitol building. The earlier iteration used sandstone, but at the time of the full build-out in the 1850s and '60s, which resulted in the building we now know as the Capitol, it was all removed and marble was used in its place. The second source supplied is from the White House Historical Association's website, albeit to a page that is no longer active, although accessible through web.archive.org . It states "Master stonemason, Collen Williamson, trained slaves on the spot at the government’s quarry at Aquia, Virginia. There slaves quarried and cut the rough stone that was later dressed and laid by Scottish stonecutters to erect the walls of the President’s House. Sawyers listed on government payrolls, such as 'Jerry', 'Jess', 'Charles', 'Len', 'Dick', 'Bill' and 'Jim' undoubtedly were slaves leased from their masters. Free and slave blacks burnt bricks used to line the stone walls in temporary ricks on the President’s House grounds. Often working seven days a week during the high construction summer months alongside white workers and artisans, black laborers proved vital to the work force that created both the White House and U.S. Capitol."
There is no disputing that enslaved African-Americans provided some of the labor required to build the Capitol. However, that is not the same as "slaves built the Capitol", an assertion frequently made on revisionist websites, some of which refer to this page. Nor does the phrase "African Americans...composed the majority of the workforce" seem to be supported by either source. "Majority" in this context, is largely meaningless. It would be like saying that "the majority of the workforce involved in making a Hollywood feature film is comprised of the carpenters who build the sets". If one is counting human involvement, it's possible that carpenters are the largest single unit, but it would inaccurately suggest that the actors, the director, editors, camera operators, et al, were less important simply because they were fewer in number. The building trades have always been careful to maintain a system whereby only those who can prove themselves skilled in any component in it are allowed to work, and many such occupations demanded years of apprenticeship to become qualified in. At the same time, it was a standard convention of the antebellum south that slaves were not allowed to learn trades, as the competition would threaten white tradesmen. The construction of a building at that time would've required specialized framing carpentry, the precise cutting and fitting of stone blocks, making roofing of lead or copper, finish carpentry and plasterwork of interiors, and so on. It is highly unlikely that any enslaved people were taught these skills, which typically require many years to learn. It seems to be more likely that they were, as the two sources listed say, largely confined to providing unskilled labor for clearing the site, conveying materials to the site, helping quarry stone blocks, and so on. This is not to suggest that the enslaved workers weren't capable of learning these specialized trades, but rather that they did not have the opportunity to learn them due to racial segregation and the guild system, and consequently would not have helped in the actual construction. Their involvement may well have been essential to the overall project, but that is not the same as having "composed the majority of the work force", as is asserted. Interestingly, the official website of the Architect of the Capitol (who maintain the structure) never mentions slave labor or African-Americans in their description of the building process. Bricology (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to WP:BITE, but that is a lot of text. Can you add paragraph breaks and/or summarize it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Technically, the summary is in this talk-section's header. "True or not, slaves built". I'll WP:BITE because, well... Although I understand your sentiment regarding a wall of text, the OP is fine in my mind. Paragraphs and white space are for official reports and the un-motivated reader. :) 2600:8800:5105:2B01:50D5:45AE:CFB5:4688 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that "slaves built the Capitol" is motivated by wanting recognition where not much has been given before, and probably as a demonstration of past racial injustice. So, it's a trope that's not easy to evaluate carefully without motives being suspect. Slaves must have worked under supervision, if only to satisfy sensibilities of racial hierarchy. Literacy was for the most part discouraged, but there were literate slaves. Stampp's The Peculiar Institution talks of slaves being "valued craftsmen", including being stone masons, albeit on farms where standards probably weren't rigorously applied, these skills most likely being learned empirically or by rote, rather than by literate acquisition, and this even in Louisiana, where the slave regime seems to have been particularly cruel. Washington DC, being near the tobacco farms where even skilled agricultural labor was necessary and thus slave intelligence and care must have been prized, and with Virginia masters being notoriously lenient, might have had access to an especially skilled slave workforce, keeping in mind the opinion of Abigail Adams that slave laborers at the White House weren't efficient compared to free laborers. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely unremarkable that slave-labour would have been used in the building works, since slavery was still legal in D.C. until mid-1862. This is diversity-editing at its most obvious and most unnecessary. Valetude (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Part of the OP's contention was that slaves were not taught building skills and my contention was that they were apt to have learned such, by experience if not through formal training. It's a matter of how skilled was the labor used, not the mere use of it. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bricology, FYI: your statement "It's worth noting that there is no sandstone in the Capitol building" is incorrect, according to the official Architect of the Capitol website here, which says "Builders originally used sandstone for the exterior of the U.S. Capitol as well as for interior floors, walls and other elements. Because sandstone is a soft material, the exterior eventually wore down and most was either covered over or replaced with harder stone; the interior features remain visible. [...] Sandstone from a newly acquired quarry in Aquia Creek, Virginia, was used for floors, walls, columns, and the exterior cladding of the building. By the time that the Capitol's House and Senate extensions were constructed in the mid-18th century, marble took the place of sandstone. For the mid-20th-century extension of the east central front, the sandstone façade was replicated in marble. The old walls were left in place to become a part of the interior wall; the exterior columns were removed and now stand at the National Arboretum. During the 1980s, the U.S. Capitol's original sandstone west front was restored in a project that included replacing 40 percent of the sandstone with limestone. Today, the largest expanse of the building's original sandstone can be seen in the Rotunda walls, which support the cast-iron dome. The U.S. Capitol Visitor Center built in the 2000s has walls and columns faced in sandstone chosen for its resemblance to the Rotunda walls." AmateurEditor (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

AmateurEditor: thank you for this information. It is contrary to what I have heard from other sources, but given the authority of its source, I have no reason to doubt it. Bricology (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wording

@47.184.19.189: I would rather not get into an edit war, so let's discuss here. When referencing articles on Wikipedia, we use the language they use. We are not here to impose (or take away) analysis, we just reconvey what others have said. Secondly, there has already been a consensus on this page when referring to the claims Trump has made. If you would like to make a change like this, you will need to gain consensus from a majority of users. ChipotleHater (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Trim "storming of the US capitol" section?

I notice that the War of 1812 section on the US Capitol getting lit on fire and rendered completely unusable gets ONE SENTENCE on the day's events. Not long after the completion of both wings, the Capitol was partially burned by the British on August 24, 1814, during the War of 1812. Whereas the storming of the US capitol (where the damage was basically some windows getting broken) gets nine sentences on the day's events. Perhaps we are giving this too much WP:WEIGHT. Maybe WP:RECENT applies here and we should trim it down. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Only one sentence for the War of 1812? That is remarkable. What we have now can be trimmed when the interest dies down and we have a better view of the current situation in retrospect. Given the dynamics of Wikipedia, I suspect it would be hard to do at this point in time. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be trimmed, undue weight and recentism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I just re-read the section, and I think I changed my mind. Two paragraphs and an image. Clearly a big event with tons of weight in the media. Also interesting to our readers. The section is a similar size to other sections in the history section. It's probably OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If we're not going to trim the 2021 event then maybe we should be building the 1812 coverage until it is of larger size? HearthHOTS (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Then-tallest structure in the world?

According to the List of tallest structures built before the 20th century, the U.S. Capitol was the world's tallest structure in the world from the completion of the new dome in 1866 to the construction of the Washington Monument in 1884. Shouldn't this notable fact be in the Height section? 24.208.2.219 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is a bit confusing; it lists tall buildings in order of construction, not height. The U.S. Capitol was never the tallest building in the world. 37.166.214.92 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)