Hubbry Logo
Residence ActResidence ActMain
Open search
Residence Act
Community hub
Residence Act
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Residence Act
Residence Act
Residence Act
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Residence Act of 1790
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States
Enacted bythe 1st United States Congress
Citations
Public lawPub. L. 1–28
Statutes at Largech. 28, 1 Stat. 130
Legislative history
  • Passed the Senate on July 1, 1790 (14-12)
  • Passed the House of Representatives on July 9, 1790 (32-29)
  • Signed into law by President George Washington on July 16, 1790
Major amendments
Act to allow the capital to encompass areas to the south of the Eastern Branch, including Alexandria, Virginia (1791), ch. 17, 1 Stat. 214–215
Act to retrocede Alexandria County, D.C. to the State of Virginia (1846), ch. 35, 9 Stat. 35
The Residence Act of 1790
A sketch of Washington, D.C. by Thomas Jefferson in March 1791

The Residence Act of 1790, officially titled An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States (1 Stat. 130), is a United States federal statute adopted during the second session of the 1st United States Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on July 16, 1790. The act provides for a national capital and permanent seat of government to be established at a site along the Potomac River and empowered President Washington to appoint commissioners to oversee the project. It also set a deadline of December 1800 for the capital to be ready, and designated Philadelphia as the nation's temporary capital while the new seat of government was being built. At the time, the federal government operated out of New York City.

Congress passed the Residence Act as part of the Compromise of 1790 brokered among James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Madison and Jefferson favored a southerly site for the capital on the Potomac River, but they lacked a majority to pass the measure through Congress. Meanwhile, Hamilton was pushing for Congress to pass the Assumption Bill, to allow the federal government to assume debts accumulated by the states during the American Revolutionary War. With the compromise, Hamilton mustered support from the New York State congressional delegation for the Potomac site, while four delegates (all from districts bordering the Potomac) switched from opposition to support for the Assumption Bill.[1]

Background

[edit]
Further information: List of capitals in the United States

At the outset of the Revolutionary War, the Second Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House. On account of British military actions, the Congress was forced to relocate to Baltimore, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and then York, Pennsylvania for a time before it returned to Philadelphia.[2] Upon ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, the Congress of the Confederation was formed, and Philadelphia became the new nation's first seat of government. However, Congress did not remain in the city long, for in June 1783, a mob of angry soldiers converged upon Independence Hall demanding payment for their service during the war. Congress requested John Dickinson, the governor of Pennsylvania to call up the militia to defend Congress from attacks by the protesters. In what became known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, Dickinson sympathized with the protesters and refused to remove them from Philadelphia. As a result, Congress was forced to flee to Princeton, New Jersey on June 21, 1783,[3] and met in Annapolis and then Trenton, before ending up in New York. On October 6, 1783, while still in Princeton, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, to take into consideration, respecting a place for the permanent residence of Congress.[4] The following day, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts motioned "that buildings for the use of Congress be erected on the banks of the Delaware near Trenton or of the Potomac, near Georgetown, provided a suitable district can be procured on one of the rivers as aforesaid, for a federal town".[5]

During the mid-1780s, numerous locations were offered by the states to serve as the nation's capital, but the Continental Congress could never agree on a site because of regional loyalties and tensions.[6] Proposed sites included Kingston, New York; Nottingham Township in New Jersey; Annapolis; Williamsburg, Virginia; Wilmington, Delaware; Reading, Pennsylvania; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; New York City; Philadelphia; and Princeton. The Southern states refused to accept a capital in the North and vice versa. Another suggestion was to have two capitals: one in the North and one in the South.[7][8]

The United States Congress was established in 1789, after the ratification of the United States Constitution, and New York City remained the temporary capital.[6][9] Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the new constitution authorized Congress to create a federal district outside of the state structure as the nation's permanent seat of government and granted Congress exclusive governing jurisdiction over it.[10] The choice of a site was left for the new Congress to decide.

During the debate, two sites became serious contenders: one site on the Potomac River near Georgetown; and another site on the Susquehanna River near Wrights Ferry (now Columbia, Pennsylvania). The House approved the Susquehanna River site in September 1789, and the Senate bill specified a site on the Delaware River near Germantown, Pennsylvania. The House and Senate were not able to reconcile their two bills.[2]

Compromise and adoption

[edit]
Further information: Compromise of 1790
The Residence Act was passed in 1790, while Congress was convening at Federal Hall in New York City.

The selection of a location for the capital resurfaced in the summer of 1790. At the same time, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was pushing for Congress to pass a financial plan. A key provision of Hamilton's plan involved the federal government assuming states' debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War. Northern states had accumulated a massive debt during the war, amounting to 21.5 million dollars, and wanted the federal government to assume their burden. The Southern states, whose citizens would effectively be forced to pay a portion of the debt if the federal government assumed it, balked at this proposal. Some states, including Virginia, had paid almost half of their debts and felt that their taxpayers should not be assessed again to bail out the less provident. Further, they argued that the plan exceeded the scope of the new constitutional government. James Madison, then a representative from Virginia, led a group of legislators from the south in blocking the provision and preventing the plan from gaining approval.[11]

When Jefferson met Hamilton at President Washington's residence in New York City in late June 1790, Jefferson offered to host a dinner to bring Madison and Hamilton together. Subsequently, a compromise was reached, in which the northern delegates would agree to the southerly Potomac River site, and in return, the federal government would assume debts accumulated by the states during the American Revolutionary War. Jefferson wrote a letter to James Monroe explaining the compromise.[11]

Congress agreed to the compromise, which narrowly passed as the Residence Act. Jefferson got the Virginia delegates to support the bill with the debt provisions, and Hamilton convinced the New York delegates to agree to the Potomac site for the capital. The bill was approved by the Senate by a vote of 14 to 12 on July 1, 1790, and by the House of Representatives by a vote of 31 to 29 on July 9, 1790.[12] Washington signed the act into law one week later on July 16.[12] The Assumption Bill narrowly passed the Senate on July 16, 1790, followed by passage in the House on July 26.[13]

The Residence Act specified that the capital be located along the Potomac River between the Eastern Branch (the Anacostia River) and the Connogochegue (near Williamsport and Hagerstown, Maryland), and encompass an area of no more than "ten miles square" (10 miles (16 km) on a side, for a maximum area of 100 square miles (259 km2)).[12]

The act gave US president George Washington the authority to decide the exact location and hire a surveyor. The President was required to have suitable buildings ready for Congress and other government offices by the first Monday in December 1800 (Monday, December 1, 1800); the federal government would provide financing for all public buildings.[12]

The act specified that the laws of the state from which the area was ceded would apply in the federal district. Thus, Maryland laws applied on the eastern side of the Potomac, and Virginia laws applied on the western side in the District of Columbia until the government officially took residence. Upon assuming control of the federal district in 1800, Congress would have full authority over local matters within the District of Columbia.[12]

To garner enough votes to pass the Assumption Bill, Hamilton also needed votes from the Pennsylvania delegates. That led to the decision to designate Philadelphia as the temporary capital city of the United States federal government for ten years until the permanent capital was ready.[14] Congress reconvened in Philadelphia on December 6, 1790, at Congress Hall.[15]

Implementation

[edit]
Further information: History of Washington, D.C. and Timeline of Washington, D.C.
President's House in Philadelphia residence of the president of the United States from 1790 to 1800
First page of the proclamation issued by President George Washington on March 30, 1791, specifying the boundaries of the proposed federal city

Soon after signing the act, George Washington began work on the project. He and Thomas Jefferson personally oversaw the process as plans were developed and implemented.[16] Even as the project began to move forward, some held out hope that it would fail and that the capital would remain permanently in Philadelphia.[17] Pennsylvania's congressional delegation attempted to undermine the plan by introducing legislation allocating funds for federal buildings and a house for the president in Philadelphia.[18]

Although the legislation did not specify an exact location, Georgetown was assumed to be the capital. Washington began scouting the area to the southeast of Georgetown, near the Anacostia River (Eastern Branch). Some property owners told him they would sell land for the capital. Washington also looked at other sites along the Potomac. He decided that a few sites should be surveyed to provide specific details about the land and its ownership. Washington returned to Philadelphia in late November 1790 to meet with Jefferson. Then, the decision was reached to locate the capital at or adjacent to Georgetown,[2] just below the Fall Line and the farthest inland point for navigation.[19]

In January 1791, the president proceeded to appoint, in accordance with the Residence Act, a three-member commission consisting of Daniel Carroll, Thomas Johnson, and David Stuart, to oversee the surveying of the federal district, and appointed Andrew Ellicott as surveyor. Washington informed Congress of the site selection on January 24. It suggested that Congress amend the act to allow the capital to encompass areas to the south of the Eastern Branch, including Alexandria, Virginia. Congress agreed with the suggestion, passing an amendment to the act that Washington approved on March 3, 1791. However, consistent with language in the original Act, the amendment expressly prohibited the "erection of the public buildings otherwise than on the Maryland side of the river Potomac."[2][20]

On March 30, 1791, Washington issued a presidential proclamation that established "Jones's point, the upper cape of Hunting Creek in Virginia" as the starting point for the federal district's boundary survey and the method by which the survey should determine the district's boundaries.[21]

During the early spring of 1791, Pierre (Peter) Charles L'Enfant began working on a plan for the capital city that identified the future sites of the "Congress House" (the United States Capitol) and the "President's House" (the White House).[22] Design competitions were then held to solicit designs for each of those structures. Architect James Hoban was selected to design the President's House, and no satisfactory drawings were submitted for the Capitol.[23] A late submission by William Thornton was selected for the Capitol.[24][25] Stephen Hallet was hired to oversee construction, which got underway in September 1793. Hallet proceeded to make alterations to the design against the wishes of Washington and Jefferson and was then dismissed. George Hadfield was hired in October 1795 as superintendent of construction but resigned three years later in May 1798 due to dissatisfaction with Thornton's plan and the quality of work done thus far.[26]

The original intention of the Residence Act was to use proceeds from selling lots in the District to cover the costs of constructing federal buildings in the capital. However, few were interested in purchasing lots. A shortage of funds further contributed to the delays and problems in building the Capitol and other federal buildings in Washington.[27]

In early June 1800, President John Adams made his first official visit to Washington, which lasted for several days. Amid the "raw and unfinished" cityscape, the president found the public buildings "in a much greater forwardness of completion than expected." The Senate (north) wing of the Capitol was nearly completed, as was the White House.[28] The president moved into the White House on November 1. First Lady Abigail Adams arrived a few weeks later. The Senate of the Sixth Congress met in the Capitol for the first time on November 17, and on November 22, Adams delivered his fourth State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress in the Senate chamber.[29] The House (south) wing was not completed until 1811. Nonetheless, the House of Representatives began meeting there in 1807.[citation needed]

In February 1801, Congress approved the District of Columbia Organic Act, which officially organized the District of Columbia. Congress then became the district's exclusive governing authority.[citation needed]

Retrocession

[edit]
Main article: District of Columbia retrocession

In 1846, based on a petition to Congress by the residents of the Virginia portion of the district (Alexandria County) and the City of Alexandria, the area of 31 square miles (80 km2) which was ceded by Virginia was returned,[30] leaving 69 square miles (179 km2) of territory originally ceded by Maryland as the current area of the district in its entirety.[31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Residence Act

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Residence Act of 1790 was a United States federal statute enacted by the First Congress on July 16, 1790, and signed into law by President George Washington, which established Philadelphia as the temporary seat of the national government until December 1800 while authorizing the creation of a permanent federal district of up to ten miles square along the Potomac River, to be selected by the president and developed under federal oversight as a new capital city free from state jurisdiction. The act empowered Washington to appoint three commissioners to plan and construct federal buildings, including the presidential residence and congressional halls, and to acquire land through purchase or donation from Maryland and Virginia, reflecting a deliberate choice for a southern location to balance regional interests in the young republic. This legislation emerged from the Compromise of 1790, a pivotal political bargain in which Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton secured congressional support for federal assumption of state war debts by conceding to southern demands for a capital distant from northern commercial influence, thereby resolving a deadlock that had stalled governance since the Constitution's ratification. Implementation began promptly, with Washington designating the site in early 1791 and breaking ground on the new city—later named Washington, D.C.—ensuring the transfer of government functions by the deadline and laying the foundation for the federal city's enduring role as the nation's political center.

Historical Background

Constitutional Framework for the Seat of Government

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution empowers "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of , become the Seat of the Government of the ." This clause establishes the constitutional basis for a independent of any state , ensuring the national government's operations occur within territory under direct congressional control. The provision limits the district's size to ten square miles to balance federal authority with practicality, requiring cession from states and congressional acceptance for legitimacy. The framers included this framework to prevent the federal government from being dependent on or vulnerable to any single state, a concern rooted in experiences under the , where Congress frequently relocated due to local hostilities or lack of protection. , in Federalist No. 43, emphasized the "indispensable necessity of complete authority at the ," noting that such power is universally exercised by legislatures to avoid external interference, as evidenced by historical precedents and the risks of state dominance over national institutions. This autonomy was deemed essential to safeguard the federal structure, allowing Congress to legislate without state veto or coercion, thereby promoting national . By delegating the selection and governance of the seat to , the provided flexibility for post-ratification decisions while embedding principles of federal supremacy and neutrality. The clause's emphasis on extended to all matters within , blending local and national legislative powers under , a intended to insulate the capital from partisan state influences. This framework directly informed subsequent legislation, including the Residence Act of 1790, which operationalized the provision by specifying a location.

Early Proposals and Regional Disputes

Following the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, the First Congress convened in on March 4, 1789, at , prompting initial discussions on selecting a permanent as authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Early proposals reflected a desire for a neutral independent of state control, building on pre-Constitutional ideas from 1783 when Congress under the had briefly endorsed dual capitals—one near Trenton on the and another near Georgetown on the Potomac—to address sectional divisions, though Southern opposition later stalled funding for a single site near Trenton. In the during the first session, members proposed retaining temporarily while designating a permanent location on the , such as at Wright's Ferry (now ), to centralize access for inland states. The Senate countered with a site in Germantown, Pennsylvania, approximately seven miles northwest of Philadelphia, emphasizing proximity to established infrastructure and population centers. Representative James Madison moved to postpone the bill until the second session, delaying resolution amid competing interests. By early 1790, over two dozen sites had been publicly suggested, clustered along rivers including the Delaware, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, Patuxent, Chesapeake, and Potomac, with specific nominations encompassing Lancaster and Germantown in Pennsylvania, Fredericksburg in Virginia, and tracts straddling the Maryland-Virginia border on the Potomac. Philadelphia advocates, including figures like Tench Coxe and Robert Morris, lobbied aggressively for regional sites such as Southwark, Northern Liberties, or Byberry, highlighting the city's existing public buildings and commercial advantages. Regional disputes intensified along North-South lines, with Northern states favoring locations in or New York for logistical ease, economic stimulus to urban commerce, and alignment with population concentrations east of the . Southern representatives, prioritizing agrarian expansion and slaveholding interests, pushed for Potomac-area sites to counter perceived Northern dominance, fearing a northern capital like would amplify abolitionist pressures and disadvantage Southern influence in . Western members opposed eastern Pennsylvania bids, suspecting undue influence from elites, while broader sectional tensions pitted commercial Northern priorities against Southern visions of future growth tied to riverine access and territorial expansion. These conflicts underscored the Constitution's deliberate ambiguity on the capital's placement, intended to foster but revealing deep divides over federal power's geographic embodiment.

The Compromise of 1790

Federal Assumption of State Debts

, as Secretary of the Treasury, outlined the federal assumption of state debts in his First Report on Public Credit, submitted to on January 9, 1790. The proposal called for the national government to take responsibility for approximately $25 million in state debts incurred primarily during the Revolutionary War, funding them on the same terms as the federal debt through interest-bearing securities. This measure aimed to consolidate all public obligations under federal authority, with the total U.S. public debt—federal and state—estimated at around $54 million, including principal and accrued interest. Hamilton justified assumption as essential for establishing a robust national credit system, arguing that uniform treatment of creditors would foster equity, prevent competitive state funding that could undermine federal securities, and bind states more closely to the Union by making their financial interests interdependent with the central government. He contended that disparate state provisions for debt repayment would create confusion, inequality among holders of public paper, and potential instability, while federal assumption would signal fiscal reliability to domestic and foreign investors, enabling lower interest rates and economic growth. Without it, Hamilton warned, the young republic risked perpetual financial weakness and diminished international standing. The plan encountered fierce resistance, particularly from southern representatives, who viewed it as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power and an inequitable subsidy for northern states with higher outstanding debts. States like and had repaid much of their Revolutionary War obligations through taxation and land sales, leaving them with relatively low balances—Virginia, for instance, had assumed debts totaling under $3 million—while northern states such as carried burdens exceeding $4 million authorized for assumption. Critics, including , argued that assumption rewarded speculators who had purchased depreciated state securities at discounts and violated the principle of state sovereignty under the , as the federal government had not directly incurred these debts. Initial votes in the in April 1790 rejected the measure, stalling Hamilton's broader fiscal program. Assumption was ultimately enacted on August 4, 1790, as part of the Funding Act, authorizing the federal government to assume up to $21.5 million in state debts, though actual assumed amounts totaled about $18.3 million after state certifications. This provision redeemed state debts with federal securities at , funded by new taxes and tariffs, thereby integrating state creditors into the national debt structure and advancing Hamilton's vision of centralized finance. The policy's passage hinged on reciprocal concessions in the , but its core effect was to solidify federal , with states gradually retiring their certificates in exchange for federal bonds bearing 6% .
StateAuthorized Amount ($)Assumed Amount ($)
4,000,0003,081,733
Virginia (incl. )6,500,0002,934,416
4,000,0003,999,652
Total21,500,00018,271,786

Negotiation Dynamics and Key Figures

The negotiations surrounding the Residence Act unfolded amid deep sectional divisions, with Northern representatives pushing to retain the in established commercial centers like or New York to bolster economic ties and federal authority in populated regions, while Southern delegates insisted on a location to counter perceived Northern dominance and protect slaveholding interests from abolitionist pressures in more urban northern states. This impasse was exacerbated by concurrent debates over federal financial policy, particularly Hamilton's plan for the national government to assume states' Revolutionary War debts, which Southern states opposed as they had already repaid much of their obligations, viewing it as an unfair subsidy to Northern creditors. The breakthrough hinged on private, high-level bargaining that linked debt assumption to capital relocation, reflecting pragmatic deal-making rather than unanimous consensus. Hamilton, seeking to establish national credit and a robust federal fiscal system, offered concessions on the capital's site to secure Southern votes for assumption, recognizing that without it, his broader economic vision—including a national bank—risked collapse. In turn, Southern negotiators calculated that a Potomac capital would geographically balance power, facilitate trade, and insulate the region from Northern moral and economic encroachments on . These dynamics involved discreet lobbying, with Hamilton enlisting allies like Robert Morris to sway delegates, while Southerners leveraged the threat of relocating the government back to Princeton or Annapolis to pressure Northern holdouts. Pivotal among the key figures was , whose strategic maneuvering as Secretary of the Treasury framed the capital issue as a for fiscal stability; he reportedly volunteered influence to shift the site southward during backchannel talks. , newly appointed Secretary of State and a native skeptical of concentrated federal power, hosted the decisive June 20, 1790, dinner at his New York residence—known as the "Dinner Table Bargain"—to mediate between Hamilton and , agreeing to prioritize assumption's passage in exchange for Potomac commitments. Madison, a key House leader from who had vehemently opposed assumption as discriminatory, pledged to remain neutral and rally sufficient Southern support, marking a rare concession driven by regional priorities over ideological purity. President exerted indirect influence, favoring a Potomac site near his Mount Vernon estate for its defensibility and equidistance between North and South, though he avoided overt intervention to preserve congressional autonomy; his tacit endorsement lent weight to the emerging consensus. Other influencers included Senator Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, who facilitated intra-Northern compromises by accepting a temporary Philadelphia residence until 1800, and Virginia's , whose earlier advocacy for a southern capital shaped the broader Southern stance despite his personal reservations about federal overreach. This cadre of figures, through closed-door diplomacy, resolved a deadlock that had stalled governance, underscoring how personal relationships and calculated trades propelled the Act's framework.

Linking Financial Policy to Capital Location

Alexander Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit of January 9, 1790, advocated for the federal government to assume outstanding state debts from the Revolutionary War, totaling approximately $25 million, to strengthen national credit and unity. Southern states, having repaid a larger share of their debts— alone had redeemed over 40%—opposed assumption, arguing it unfairly subsidized northern states with higher remaining liabilities, such as at $6.5 million versus 's $1.5 million. This stance created a legislative impasse in , where assumption bills repeatedly failed due to insufficient southern votes. To break the deadlock, Hamilton sought allies among southern leaders, leading to informal negotiations brokered by . On June 20, 1790, Jefferson hosted a dinner attended by Hamilton and , where Madison pledged to withhold active opposition to assumption and influence southern representatives to support it, in exchange for Hamilton's backing of a permanent capital site favorable to southern interests along the . This addressed southern concerns over financial burdens by granting geographic and symbolic influence, as a Potomac location—near and —aligned with agrarian southern priorities over northern commercial hubs like or New York. The linkage proved pivotal: Congress passed the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, authorizing a on the Potomac, followed by the Funding Act on August 4, 1790, which incorporated debt assumption with provisions for southern compensation, such as crediting $1.2 million in Virginia's prior payments. This sequencing ensured southern votes for financial measures only after securing capital relocation commitments, demonstrating how intertwined with sectional bargaining to sustain the young republic's cohesion.

Enactment of the Residence Act

Congressional Debates and Voting

The congressional debates on the Residence Act of 1790, held primarily in June and July, revolved around the proposed location of the permanent federal capital along the Potomac River between and , as opposed to northern sites such as , the , or the . Northern representatives, particularly from and , argued that a capital in a major commercial center like would facilitate trade, accessibility, and economic integration, emphasizing the existing infrastructure and population density in those areas. Southern members, led by figures like of , countered that a Potomac location would provide geographic centrality, reduce dependence on any single state's influence, and ensure a neutral independent of state politics, thereby promoting national unity. A significant point of contention was the bill's delegation of site selection authority to President , with critics in the , including of , raising constitutional objections under Article I, Section 8, claiming it improperly transferred legislative power to the executive and failed to specify the exact location as required by the . Proponents, including Madison, defended the delegation as a practical necessity for flexibility in surveying suitable land, arguing that retained ultimate control by defining the general parameters, such as the district's size not exceeding ten miles square and its Potomac placement. The debates also addressed the temporary residence provision, establishing as the interim seat until 1800 to accommodate northern interests while securing southern support for the permanent southern location. The , with sessions closed to the public, approved the bill on July 1, 1790, by a of 14 to 12, reflecting partisan and sectional divisions where northern senators largely opposed the Potomac compromise. The , after extended debate, passed it on July 9, 1790, by a vote of 32 to 29, with and delegations providing the decisive support amid abstentions and absences that underscored the bill's precarious passage. These razor-thin margins highlighted the Residence Act's origins in the extralegislative , where federal assumption of state debts was traded for the capital's southern placement, though some members decried the linkage as undue . The Residence Act, officially titled "An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States," was approved by President George Washington on July 16, 1790. The legislation comprised six sections that delineated the location, administration, and transitional arrangements for the federal capital. It authorized a permanent federal district not exceeding ten miles square along the Potomac River, specifically between the mouths of the Eastern Branch (now Anacostia River) and the Conococheague River, to be formed from lands in Maryland and Virginia upon their cession to the United States. State laws were to remain in force within the district until Congress enacted otherwise, ensuring continuity of governance during the transition. Section 2 empowered the President to appoint three commissioners, who, under his direction, were tasked with surveying and defining the district's boundaries. This delegation aligned with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants authority to exercise exclusive legislation over a , but outsourced execution to executive appointees for efficiency. Section 3 further directed the commissioners—or any two of them—to purchase or accept donations of land within the district as approved by the President, prioritizing sites suitable for public buildings. They were required to construct facilities for , the President, and executive offices by December 1, 1800, vesting them with broad procurement and planning authority subject to presidential oversight. Section 4 permitted the President to accept financial grants from states or individuals to fund land acquisition and , facilitating resource mobilization without immediate federal appropriation. Sections 5 and 6 addressed the temporary : executive offices were to relocate to by December 1790, with the next congressional session convening there, remaining until the permanent district was ready in 1800. Upon completion, the government would transfer to the new capital, with relocation expenses defrayed by duties on imports and , underscoring the act's fiscal . These provisions ensured a phased , balancing regional interests with national administrative needs.

Presidential Approval and Immediate Effects

President signed the Residence Act into law on July 16, 1790, formalizing the establishment of a permanent federal capital district along the . The act's provisions took immediate effect by designating as the temporary , requiring to convene there pending construction of appropriate facilities and stipulating relocation to the new district no later than the first Monday in December 1800. This arrangement facilitated a smooth transition from , where the federal government had been operating, while allocating $15,000 for initial accommodations in . Washington was empowered to select the precise location within specified boundaries and appoint three commissioners to oversee surveying, land acquisition from and , and development planning for the ten-mile-square territory. He promptly exercised this authority by appointing Thomas Johnson, , and David Stuart as commissioners in October 1790, setting in motion the federal district's formation through land cessions confirmed by state legislatures and the subsequent proclamation of boundaries on January 24, 1791.

Implementation and Development

Site Selection Process

Following the Residence Act's enactment on July 16, 1790, President initiated the site selection process by evaluating potential locations along the , as authorized by the legislation to establish a federal district not exceeding ten miles square between the river's headwaters and the Eastern Branch (now ). The Act required inclusion of lands from both and to foster sectional balance, with Washington tasked to appoint commissioners for surveying and land acquisition. On January 22, 1791, Washington appointed Thomas Johnson and of , and David Stuart of , as the initial three commissioners to oversee the district's demarcation and development. Two days later, on January 24, 1791, he issued a instructing the commissioners to run four "lines of experiment" starting from a point on the Eastern Branch, approximately ten miles below the Potomac's forks, to precisely locate the diamond-shaped district and ensure the Potomac traversed its center. This methodical surveying accounted for navigational access, healthful elevations, and defensible terrain, drawing on Washington's firsthand knowledge of the region's geography from prior military campaigns. Washington conducted personal inspections, including tours in October 1790 and March 1791, consulting with local landowners and federal officials like to assess sites near existing settlements such as Georgetown and . Jefferson's March 1791 sketch of the proposed area highlighted prospective building sites and river views, aiding Washington's deliberations. Factors prioritized included the site's visibility toward for aesthetic and strategic prominence, avoidance of flood-prone lowlands, and equitable land apportionment—ultimately yielding approximately one-third of the 100-square-mile territory to Maryland's two-thirds. By early March 1791, following the Act's amendment on March 3 to clarify Virginia's inclusion, Washington finalized the boundaries, directing permanent stone markers to be placed along the perimeter in 1791 and 1792. This selection process underscored causal considerations of regional equity and practical utility over mere proximity to commercial hubs, ensuring a purpose-built insulated from state influence.

Establishment of the Federal District

Following the enactment of the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, President George Washington selected a site for the federal district along the Potomac River, specifying a territory not exceeding ten miles square between the Eastern Branch (now Anacostia River) and the Conococheague Creek, to include the ports of Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia. This choice aimed to balance regional interests by placing the capital in southern territory while ensuring navigable access and neutrality from state influence. On January 22, 1791, Washington appointed three commissioners—Thomas Johnson and from , and David Stuart from —to direct the survey of boundaries, negotiate land purchases from owners, and superintend planning and construction within the district. These individuals, selected for their local knowledge and prominence, were empowered under the Act to acquire up to 6,000 acres through purchase or donation, with landowners compensated at based on pre-Act appraisals to avoid speculation-driven inflation. Two days later, on January 24, 1791, Washington issued a delineating the exact boundaries: commencing at Jones Point on the shore opposite , extending one mile up the Potomac to the head of a creek, then eastward parallel to the river, northward to enclose Georgetown, and westward to close the square, ensuring the district spanned approximately 69 square miles initially before adjustments. The directed the commissioners to execute the survey forthwith, marking the formal establishment of the of Columbia as federal territory. Maryland and Virginia had preemptively authorized cessions—Virginia on December 3, 1789, and via 1788 confirmed in December 1790—with formally transferring jurisdiction on December 19, 1791, vesting exclusive legislative authority in per the . This setup created a enclave free from state taxation or interference, though initial implementation faced challenges in land acquisition, as some owners resisted sales until federal credit was assured. By spring 1791, surveying teams under Andrew Ellicott, assisted by , began marking boundaries, laying groundwork for Pierre Charles L'Enfant's submitted that year.

Construction Efforts and Administrative Challenges

Following the selection of the federal district site in January 1791, President appointed three commissioners—Thomas Johnson, , and David Stuart—on to oversee , , and development under the Residence Act's provisions. These officials directed initial efforts, including the engagement of as engineer to devise the city's layout, which he presented in February 1791, envisioning a grand design with radiating avenues and public buildings on elevated sites. L'Enfant supervised early and road clearing, but administrative tensions arose from his independent actions, such as withholding the city plan from public view during October 1791 lot auctions to maximize sales prices and ordering the unapproved demolition of a private house on November 20, 1791, which encroached on intended public grounds. These conflicts culminated in L'Enfant's dismissal in February 1792 after he repeatedly bypassed the commissioners' authority, prompting surveyor Andrew Ellicott to complete boundary work with Benjamin Banneker's assistance. Construction commenced amid ongoing administrative hurdles, including commissioner turnover—Johnson resigned in August 1791 over funding disputes—and reliance on private lot sales for revenue, which fell short of expectations. The President's House foundation was laid on October 13, 1792, under James Hoban's design, while the Capitol's cornerstone was set by Washington on September 18, 1793, following William Thornton's winning plan approved April 5, 1793. Efforts faced persistent funding shortages, as congressional appropriations proved insufficient and a 1795 syndicate defaulted on land purchase payments, straining the commissioners' ability to pay contractors. Labor challenges compounded delays, with workforce shortages met partly by hiring enslaved individuals—at least 200 documented for the Capitol alone—from and owners at $55–$65 annually, performing quarrying, , and sawing under harsh conditions from sunrise to sunset six days a week. Material transport, such as Aquia from quarries, added logistical burdens, while environmental factors like seasonal flooding hindered progress. By late 1800, when the government relocated from , key structures remained incomplete: the Capitol's north wing housed but lacked full interiors, and the President's House was roofed yet unoccupied until 1801. These administrative and logistical impediments, rooted in limited federal resources and inter-personal disputes, extended major building timelines into the 19th century, underscoring the Act's ambitious scope against nascent governmental capacities.

Subsequent Modifications

Transition from Philadelphia

The Residence Act of July 16, 1790, designated as the temporary seat of the federal government until the permanent capital along the was prepared, with the relocation mandated no later than December 1800. relocated from New York to on December 6, 1790, convening in , a structure originally built as a county courthouse and expanded for legislative use. During this decade, hosted all sessions of the First through Sixth Congresses, accommodating legislative debates, committee work, and key enactments amid the young nation's administrative growth. As the 1800 deadline approached, preparations in the progressed unevenly, with the Capitol's north wing partially completed but the full city infrastructure lagging. On May 15, 1800, the Sixth concluded its session, initiating the government's southward transfer. President John Adams relocated to the President's House in Washington by November 1, 1800, followed by convening in the new capital on November 17, 1800, in the unfinished Capitol building despite ongoing construction delays and rudimentary accommodations. This shift marked the end of 's interim role, fulfilling the Residence Act's timeline while exposing early federal reliance on incomplete facilities for continuity of governance.

Virginia Retrocession and Territorial Changes

In 1789, prior to the enactment of the Residence Act, the approved the of approximately 36 square miles of territory, including the town of and surrounding Alexandria County, to form part of the along the . This was formalized in December 1789 and integrated into the District of Columbia established under the Residence Act of 1790 and subsequent boundary surveys completed by 1792. The Virginia-contributed land lay south of the Potomac, contrasting with the north of the river, where federal development concentrated. By the 1820s, residents of began advocating for retrocession to , driven primarily by economic neglect: federal investments, including infrastructure and government buildings, were directed almost exclusively to the Maryland side, leaving Alexandria's port and commerce to decline amid competition from Georgetown and Washington City. Petitions highlighted the absence of improvements like canals or roads funded by , as well as the lack of voting representation in 's after cession. Secondary concerns included protection of local practices, as Alexandria's economy relied on enslaved labor and residents feared oversight by an increasingly abolitionist-leaning , which had jurisdiction over without state protections. On July 9, 1846, passed "An Act to retrocede the county and town of , in of Columbia, to the State of ," authorizing the transfer contingent on majority approval from local residents via . The vote occurred on September 2, 1846, with 763 in favor and only 22 opposed, reflecting strong local support. President issued a on September 7, 1846, certifying the results and effecting the retrocession, which formally accepted the following year. The retrocession reduced the District's territory by about one-third, reshaping its boundaries to exclude the portion and confining it to the Maryland cession, thereby restoring Virginia's pre-1790 frontier along the Potomac. No significant federal facilities had been built in the retroceded area, minimizing disruption, though it permanently altered the District's original 100-square-mile diamond configuration envisioned under the Residence Act. Subsequent proposals in the early to reverse the retrocession and restore the full boundaries failed in .

Long-Term Boundary and Governance Issues

The original boundaries of the federal district, authorized under the Residence Act of July 16, 1790, were surveyed between 1791 and 1792 by Andrew Ellicott's team, encompassing a roughly 10-mile square territory straddling the Potomac River, with land ceded by Maryland and Virginia. Forty sandstone boundary markers were placed at one-mile intervals along the perimeter, marking the oldest federal monuments in the United States; of these, 36 survive in or near their original positions, though 14 fell within the retroceded Virginia portion. These markers defined a diamond-shaped district centered near the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, intended to balance regional influences and ensure neutrality from state dominance. A significant long-term boundary alteration occurred on July 9, 1846, when approved the retrocession of the Virginia-ceded portion—approximately 40 square miles including —back to , reducing the district's area to about 60 square miles mostly on the side of the Potomac. This move stemmed from 's economic stagnation under federal neglect, including unfulfilled promises of and improvements, coupled with 's interests in reclaiming taxable land and bolstering its slaveholding population amid rising abolitionist pressures in the district. Local Black residents opposed the transfer, citing greater legal protections and access to in the district compared to 's slave state policies. The irregular resulting shape has persisted, with minor 20th-century adjustments for like highways, but no major changes since, preserving the markers as historical artifacts now split between jurisdictions. Governance of the district, rooted in Congress's exclusive legislative authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and enabled by the Residence Act's territorial framework, evolved through successive organic acts amid population growth from 5,000 in 1800 to over 700,000 by 1950. Initially, Maryland and Virginia laws applied until Congress intervened; the Organic Act of 1801 established a territorial government with a governor and judges, followed by the 1871 consolidation of Washington and Georgetown into a single municipal corporation under presidentially appointed commissioners. The 1878 Organic Act imposed a three-commissioner system with congressional funding control, lasting until 1967 reforms amid civil rights-era demands for self-rule. The District of Columbia Act of devolved limited powers to an elected and city council, while retaining a non-voting delegate (elected since 1971) and no senators, but retained veto power over all local legislation and annual budget approval. This structure has sparked persistent issues, including over 100 congressional interventions since 1975, such as blocking local regulations, marijuana , and death penalty repeals, highlighting tensions between federal oversight and local autonomy. Critics argue this perpetuates "taxation without representation," fueling proposals for statehood—advanced in votes in 2021 but stalled in the —or retrocession to , though constitutional amendments would likely be required for full enfranchisement given the district's creation as a non-state enclave. Proponents of the status quo emphasize the original intent of a neutral federal seat insulated from partisan state influences, as envisioned in the Residence Act's compromise.

Significance and Evaluations

Role in Forging Federal Union

The Residence Act of 1790, enacted on July 16, constituted a cornerstone of the , which resolved entrenched sectional disputes and thereby reinforced the fragile federal union forged by the . Northern members of , primarily concerned with Hamilton's proposal for federal assumption of state Revolutionary War debts, traded their support for a southern location of the national capital in return for southern votes favoring the funding measures. This , orchestrated through negotiations involving Hamilton, , and —often traced to a dinner hosted by Jefferson—enabled the simultaneous advancement of fiscal centralization and geographic compromise, staving off threats of disunion amid fears that unresolved gridlock could unravel the new government. By designating a ten-mile-square district along the —straddling lands ceded by and —the Act not only appeased southern interests wary of northern commercial dominance but also instantiated a deliberate exempt from state sovereignty, underscoring the Constitution's allocation of exclusive legislative authority to over such territory under Article I, Section 8. President , empowered by the legislation to appoint commissioners and select the site, actively surveyed potential locations in , viewing the project as instrumental to cultivating national cohesion by anchoring the government in a symbolically neutral, southern-leaning position that balanced regional power dynamics. The Act's enactment thus exemplified pragmatic in action, demonstrating how targeted concessions could sustain the union against centrifugal forces; without it, the over capital location—debated since the 1787 Constitutional Convention—might have exacerbated North-South fissures, potentially mirroring the weak confederation it supplanted. Historians note that this resolution, alongside the Funding Act of August 1790, marked an early triumph of legislative bargaining, embedding mechanisms for interstate accommodation that proved vital to the republic's endurance.

Economic Ramifications and Regional Balance

The Residence Act of 1790 formed a critical component of the , a sectional bargain that resolved impasse over federal finances and capital location to preserve national unity. Northern advocates, led by , secured Southern support for the federal assumption of state Revolutionary War debts—totaling about $25 million, with Northern states holding the majority—by conceding to a permanent seat of government south of the existing temporary locations in New York and . In return, Southern leaders like gained a politically neutral district on the , strategically positioned to counterbalance Northern commercial dominance and alleviate fears of perpetual Northern legislative control. This arrangement addressed regional disparities, as Southern states had repaid more of their debts proportionally, viewing assumption as subsidizing Northern speculators; the capital's southern tilt thus redistributed influence, fostering a fragile equilibrium between agrarian Southern interests and emerging Northern financial power. Economically, the Act catalyzed development in the Potomac Valley by directing federal resources toward site preparation, infrastructure, and . President Washington appointed commissioners on October 8, 1790, who acquired over 6,000 acres from and landowners, with land sales proceeds designated to finance public buildings, including the future Capitol and President's House. This infusion spurred local commerce, navigation improvements on the Potomac, and speculative investments, though initial progress was hampered by outbreaks and funding shortfalls, delaying full economic momentum until the early 1800s. The compromise's financial pillar, via the Funding Act, enhanced federal borrowing capacity through tariffs and excises, stabilizing credit markets and indirectly supporting regional growth by enabling national investments in canals and roads that benefited the Mid-Atlantic corridor. Over time, the capital's placement reinforced regional balance by concentrating administrative and activities in a location, mitigating Southern anxieties about sectional marginalization while integrating the District into broader trade networks linking the to interior valleys. However, it entrenched dependency on federal , as the District's hinged on contracts and influx, contrasting with the decentralized growth in Northern ports. This dynamic underscored the Act's role in prioritizing political cohesion over immediate economic optimization, with long-term effects including heightened Potomac navigation traffic but persistent underdevelopment relative to until infrastructure like the C&O Canal advanced in the –.

Contemporary Criticisms and Modern Reassessments

In recent decades, scholars and commentators have critiqued the Residence Act's establishment of a as perpetuating a geographically peripheral capital ill-suited to the continental scale of the modern . The Act's compromise, favoring Southern interests for a site between and , positioned the on the Eastern Seaboard, which critics argue entrenches coastal elite perspectives and diminishes representation of interior states' and economies. A 2023 analysis notes that this location exacerbates policy biases toward maritime commerce and urban centers, disconnected from the agrarian and industrial heartland that comprised 95% of the in 1790 but now reflects a more dispersed national geography. The metaphorical depiction of , as a "swamp" has gained traction in political since the , symbolizing bureaucratic entrenchment and resistance to , which some trace to the Act's creation of an insulated free from state influence. Proponents of this view, including figures in the Trump administration, contend that the district's design fosters and dominance, with over 2 million federal employees and $136 billion in annual salaries insulating policymakers from broader . Empirical studies counter the literal swamp narrative, confirming the site was marshy but engineered with drainage by the early 1800s; nonetheless, the term persists as a of causal inefficiencies in stemming from centralized power. Reassessments also highlight democratic legitimacy issues arising from the Act's federal district model, which denies full congressional voting representation to approximately 700,000 residents despite their tax obligations, a structure unchanged since and amplified by . Legal scholars argue this mismatch undermines republican principles in a nation now over 80% urban, where D.C.'s liberal-leaning contrasts with rural-conservative majorities elsewhere, potentially skewing federal priorities. Proposals for relocation to a more central site, such as or , or decentralizing agencies to regional hubs, have surfaced in policy debates, citing precedents like post-1814 War considerations and modern flood vulnerabilities from the original low-lying terrain. These critiques, while varied, emphasize causal realism in evaluating the Act's long-term effects: its regional bargain secured early union but now invites reassessment amid national expansion, with empirical data on costs and representation gaps supporting calls for adaptation over veneration of historical precedent.

References

  1. https://guides.loc.gov/residence-act
  2. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/residence-act-of-1790
  3. https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/37006
  4. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/compromise-1790
  5. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-philadelphia-lost-the-nations-capital-to-washington
  6. https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/building-the-new-nations-capital
  7. https://www.senate.gov/about/historic-buildings-spaces/meeting-places/washington-dc.htm
  8. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-17/
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17
  10. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C17-1-2/ALDE_00001080/
  11. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/the-constitution-and-the-district-columbia
  12. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s3.html
  13. https://supreme.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/federalist43.html
  14. https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation43.html
  15. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-17/seat-of-government-doctrine-and-practice
  16. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0201
  17. https://www2.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p12/
  18. https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/capital-of-the-us-selection/
  19. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-philly-lost-the-nations-capital-to-washington
  20. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-20-02-0001-0001
  21. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/where-oh-where-should-the-capital-be-white-house-history-number-34
  22. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-06-02-0076-0002-0001
  23. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=2973
  24. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2015/05/31/the-compromise-of-1790/
  25. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1880/vol-07-valuation-taxation/1880v7-09.pdf
  26. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0117
  27. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1790-jefferson-memorandum-on-the-compromise-of-1790
  28. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/funding-act-1790-1105
  29. https://www.sethkaller.com/item/1078-23219-Jefferson-Signs-the-Funding-Act%2C-a-Key-Part-of-Hamilton%25E2%2580%2599s-Assumption-Plan-%28SOLD%29
  30. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/hamilton-dinner-table-bargain-june-1790/
  31. https://www.monticello.org/the-art-of-citizenship/the-art-and-science-of-compromise/the-room-where-it-happens/
  32. https://www2.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p14/
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1922168
  34. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2019/q1/economic_history
  35. https://guides.loc.gov/residence-act/digital-collections
  36. https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/03/03_residenceact_1790.htm
  37. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/16/president-washington-signs-residence-act-july-16-1790-240468
  38. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0214
  39. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-07-02-0144
  40. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/gwproc04.asp
  41. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-1-defining-the-boundaries-the-district-columbia
  42. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/a-beautiful-spot-capable-of-every-improvement
  43. https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/washington-dc/
  44. http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/dcboundary.html
  45. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/buildings-grounds/capitol-building/history
  46. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/wiho/admin.pdf
  47. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-07-02-0153
  48. http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/retrocession.html
  49. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/benjamin-banneker-surveyor-city-planner-astronomer/
  50. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0176
  51. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-09-02-0124
  52. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/enslaved-labor-and-the-construction-of-the-u-s-capitol
  53. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/a-communication-between-these-offices
  54. https://www.senate.gov/about/historic-buildings-spaces/meeting-places/philadelphia.htm
  55. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/congress-convenes-in-philadelphia-dec-6-1790-232176
  56. https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/u-s-congress-1790-1800/
  57. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-interim-federal-capital-in-Philadelphia/
  58. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/11/on-this-day-congress-moves-to-washington-d-c/
  59. https://www.senate.gov/about/historic-buildings-spaces/past-chambers.htm
  60. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/early-capitals-united-states
  61. https://boundarystones.weta.org/2016/07/08/alexandria-retrocession-1846
  62. https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/AAHT-3-Retrocession.pdf
  63. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/TE/HTML/TE10081.html
  64. https://thezebra.org/2018/09/08/backyard-history-sept-2-1846-when-alexandria-retroceded-from-dc/
  65. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-48-announcement-vote-retrocede-the-county-alexandria-the-state-virginia
  66. https://ghostsofdc.org/2023/10/30/alexandria-retrocession-taft-wilson/
  67. https://www.boundarystones.org/
  68. https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2017/05/modest-monuments-the-district-of-columbia-boundary-stones/
  69. https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Project-Types/Local-Historic-District/Boundary-Markers
  70. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/the-constitution-created-the-district-columbia-and-only-the-constitution
  71. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained
  72. https://www.acludc.org/news/dc-home-rule-what-it-how-it-works-and-why-it-matters/
  73. https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000060/000000/000001/restricted/megafile/ecp/4/00486/pdf/05a0001.pdf
  74. http://www.whilbr.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Unrau10_EconomicImpact2.pdf
  75. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/july-16/congress-declares-washington-d-c-new-capital
  76. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2940&context=faculty_publications
  77. https://www.newsweek.com/it-time-move-capital-opinion-1786706
  78. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/12/29/the-administrative-state-its-size-scope-and-resistance/
  79. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/draining-swamp-guide-outsiders-and-career-politicians-180962448/
  80. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/dc-low-lying-city-flood-risks/
  81. https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/government-departments-should-be-spread-out-price
  82. https://thecentersquare.com/virginia/article_117d2c3a-12ca-4baa-90e6-698dde7657bf.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.