George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial
Garden Club of Virginia / William D. Rieley 2014 Fellowship

James Carroll
Copyright (c) 2014 by The Garden Club of Virginia.

All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction:
All material contained herein is the intellectual property of
the Garden Club of Virginia except where noted.
Permission for reproduction, except for personal use,
must be obtained from:
The Fellowship Committee, Chair
The Garden Club of Virginia
The Kent-Valentine House
12 East Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23219
www.gcvirginia.org
(Cover photo: Olmsted Archives)
The George Washington

Masonic National Memorial
Alexandria, Virginia
Prepared for
Prepared By
James Carroll
2014 William D. Rieley Fellow
Fort Ellsworth Site
Ca
rli
Archaeological Dig
Parking
Lot 4
200
250
300
Parking
Lot 2
South Lawn
Parking
Lot 1
Main Drive
Rd
Upper Terrace Wall
Masonic Emblem
n
ha
lla
Ca
Ki
ng
St
.
e
iv
Dr
Memorial Entrance
Potomac Bluestone Walls

Potomac Bluestone Steps
Plaza
King St.
Duke St.
150
rk
Heating Plant
100
Pa
50
sle
Dr
.
CONTENTS
Early History of Shuters Hill
The Association
11
The Building
21
The Landscape
43
The Dedication Ceremonies
49
The Designers
55
Freemasonry
63
The American Skyscraper
69
Conclusion and Opportunities
ForEward and acknowledgments

This report attempts to provide the history of the George Washington Masonic National
Memorial (GWMNM). Constructed between 1923 and 1932, the GWMNM is a unique
memorial honoring Freemasonrys most important member, George Washington.
Built during what can be considered the golden age of Freemasonry in America, the
unprecedented project assembled the individual Grand Lodges of the states and
territories on a national scale. Originally intended to be a fireproof repository and
museum for artifacts associated with Washington, the project eventually encapsulated an
important moment in the history of American architecture and landscape design.
Further emphasis is given to the contributions of landscape architect Carl Rust Parker, of
the Olmsted Brothers. While the history of the building construction has been recorded,
little information on the history of the landscape is available in the public realm. This
report provides a more complete history of the alterations of the landscape that continue
today at this important site.
The Olmsted Archives in Brookline, Massachusetts provided valuable images and plans
pertaining to the history of the landscape design. Important correspondences between
Carl Rust Parker and key figures at the GWMNM, were provided by the Olmsted
Archives through the Library of Congress.
The GWMNM provided access to many direct sources during research for this document.
Director of Communications, Shawn Eyers, as well as Director of Collections, Mark
Tabbert, were particularly helpful throughout the creation of this document.
The Alexandria Library and the Alexandria Archaeology Museum were very helpful in
providing supplementary resources for this project. Kenneth Soergel provided valuable
information on completing the history of the landscape. Special thanks to Richard
Munaba for graphic design assistance
Many thanks are due to the Garden Club of Virginia whose sponsorship made this
research opportunity possible. Will Rieley, Karen Kennedy and Roxanne Brouse at
Rieley and Associates Landscape Architects provided endless support in the research
and production of this document.
(Olmsted Archives))
Early History of Shuters Hill
Fort Ellsworth Plan. (GWMNM Archives)
2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship
he hill on which the George Washington Masonic National Monument property sits
has been referred to as Shuters Hill since the late 18th century. The exact origin of
the name is unknown, but it is thought to refer to either a Shooters Hill in London, or to
a local resident named Shuter who lived in the area in the 1740s. The property that has
not been disturbed by the grading of the Memorial remains one of the few large tracts
of undeveloped and historic land in the area. This provides an excellent opportunity
to illuminate thousands of years of history, from its use by Native Americans, to its
development by colonial plantation owners, and its appropriation during the Civil War for
the construction of a defensive fort. The property is registered as an archaeological site
with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and has been investigated by a team
of archaeologists in Alexandria since 1995.1
Locations of Fort Ellsworth and the Mills/Lee/Dulaney Mansion. (Google Earth)
PreContact
The discovery of Native American artifacts, including spear points and pottery shards
on Shuters Hill in the 1930s confirmed that the site was used prior to the arrival of
Europeans. The bluff top was sporadically visited by Native Americans over a period
of 5,000 years, and its dense forests of oak and hickory would have provided bountiful
resources for hunters. A small stream that once ran through the property, now filled, may
been an ideal location for temporary campsites over time.2
Evidence of early Native American activity was articulated in the discovery of a spear
point, dating to around 3,500 BC, along with a stone hand axe and the remnants of
stone tool manufacturing. The items were most likely dropped at some point during
hunting expeditions.3
The house was large and roomy. You entered a large passage; to the right was a spacious
dining room elegantly furnished. A large press with glass door held with silver, glass and china.
Across the passage on the left was an elegantly furnished drawing room with mirrors down
to the floor, before which I danced many a day. We were waited on by three stately servants
in livery which was blue turned up with white, with buckskin short breeches with shoes and
stockings.4
The Lee family also established a cemetery nearby where several members of the family,
as well as subsequent residents of the property, were buried. The known burials were
later disinterred in 1948.5
In 1799, the mansion was purchased by Benjamin Dulany for use as a family summer
home. Nine years after the mansion was destroyed by fire in 1842, the Dulany family
sold a portion of the property to the Alexandria Water Company for the construction
of the citys first reservoir. The remaining property remained under ownership of the
Dulanys for over one hundred years in total.6
Mills/Lee/Dulany Mansion. (Alexandria Archaeology Museum)
Mills/Lee/Dulany Mansion 1781-1900

Use of the hilltop as an agricultural site prior to the 18th century has been indicated
by the deep plow-scars in early soil layers. However, the first documented European
structure was not built on the site by John Mills until circa 1781. A sketch from the 19th
century (above) portrays the structure as a two-story mansion with a large portico and
two one-story wings. In 1786, the Mills family sold the property to Ludwell Lee, an
attorney and planter who insured the mansion and two small frame houses, one for the
gardener and the other for laundry, for a total of $10,300. Lees daughters account offers
details about the large and stately home:
Two later buildings were erected by the Dulany family on the property they had retained.
Two years after the mansion burned down, the great grand-daughter of Benjamin,
Rebecca Dulany, wrote that she was living in a small house built by her grandmother
after the fire. However in 1873, this house burned down as well. A second house was
built nearby, most likely during the 1850s. Although there are no records indicating who
occupied the building, it was most likely inhabited by a member of the Dulany family. The
owners of the site at the time, Rebecca and Henry Dulany, were living at Welbourne, a
building in Loudoun County reputed to be a replica of the original Mills mansion. In 1905,
the building at Shuters Hill was once again burned down when sparks from the chimney
ignited a fire on the roof, consuming the building.7
African-American History
Archaeological digs have confirmed the location of the Lee family laundry building, which
continues to reveal valuable information on the lives of the slaves that operated it in the
18th century. The labor intensive duties of washing the clothes of the plantation residents
involved carrying 50 gallons of water, weighing in total 400 pounds, to wash, rinse and
boil just one load of clothing. The artifacts found on the laundry building site include:
wine bottle fragments, suggesting that the inhabitants consumed alcohol, perhaps as an
allotment from the plantation owner; a lice comb and toothbrush, revealing concerns for
personal hygiene; and a kaolin clay tobacco pipe, indicating moments of relaxation and
leisure after intense work. These items offer important clues about the day-to-day lives of
enslaved African Americans.8
The story of one particular washerwoman at Shuters Hill has been documented in detail.
The life of Esther provides insight into the perseverance that led to liberty for many
enslaved African Americans, many of whom often spent years saving money until they
could purchase the freedom of their friends and family members. A wealthy businessman
named William Hepburn purchased Esther from Benjamin Dulany and fathered her
three children. On February 1, 1816, Hepburn sold Esther and their children to Esthers
sister, Hannah Jackson, for $1,000. Esther and her children were granted freedom a few
days later, just before her death. Esthers son, Moses Hepburn, grew to be a prominent
member of the free African-American community in Alexandria prior to the Civil War.9
on the hill, not only in their ability to survey the surrounding landscape, but also in their
proximity to the two main arteries (King Street and Duke Street) running westward
into Confederate territory. Fort Dahlgren, positioned on the northeast side of the hill
overlooking King Street, was constructed by the New York Naval Brigade and had a
battery of four guns. The larger Fort Ellsworth, with a perimeter of 618 yards, occupied
the southwestern slope of the hill closer to Duke Street and had placements for 29
guns.12 The outline of Fort Ellsworth is still visible on the property of the GWMNM. On
foot, a slight depression in the ground marks where the trench had been, and from the
air a darker band of turf clearly outlines the boundary of the fort. The discoloration in
the turf is the result of the soil that was later used to backfill the trench, rather than the
high nitrogen levels from the gunpowder used during the war, as some have purported.13
On the eastern side of the hill, the Union Army built several other structures including
three officers quarters, two large barracks and a mess hall. The troops also occupied
the Dulanys large house on the hilltop nearby. John Peyton Dulany, a descendant of
Benjamin Dulany, wrote to his daughter describing the situation in 1861, The Northern
Army have taken possession of Shuters Hill and have nearly ruined it. Their home may
have served several functions throughout the war such as a hospital, soldiers quarters
and/or an observation post from its brick tower.14
Civil War
On May 24, 1861, the federal army invaded Alexandria after Virginia seceded from the
Union. The city served as a major supply depot, railroad center, as well as a hospital
station and offered a convenient location for assembling and transporting troops. A day
after the seizure of Alexandria, construction began on Shuters Hill for Fort Ellsworth and
Fort Dahlgren.10 These fortifications dramatically altered the landscape as reported by
one resident: Shuters Hill has been shorn of many of its attractions- a greater portion of
the beautiful trees have been felled, the fences destroyed, roads made in every direction,
and the hill is fortified at various points.11 The fortifications held a commanding position
Camp at Fort Ellsworth. 1864. (Library of Congress)
The Association
Birds Eye View of Alexandria by Charles Magnus. 1863. (Library of Congress)
A MEMORIAL TO GEORGE WASHINGTON

THE MASON
The origins for the conception of this memorial date back to 1799, the year George
Washington passed away. Washington had chartered the Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in
1788, and it became the reliquary for many of his belongings upon his death. Despite
his intermittent participation with the lodge and only having served as Master for twenty
months, the fraternity remained an important aspect of his life. That Martha Washington
made the first donation to the lodge his mantle clock, whose pendulum was cut at the
moment of his death, exemplifies George Washingtons close ties to Freemasonry.1
Marthas donation inspired others to make contributions of various items, many of which
were Masonic. The collection grew so large that the lodge petitioned the Alexandria
city council in 1818, for assistance in locating a larger repository for the relics. The
council donated a large space in the west wing of the city hall as a museum to display
the important Washingtonia, the term used to describe Washingtons belongings. The
Washingtonia were stored there for the next fifty years until 1871 when a fire consumed
much of city hall and the court house. Fortunately, the fire spared most of the artifacts.2
Three years later, a new city hall was built, and the lodge continued to rent space for
their meetings and museum. In 1896, a new trolley line connecting Washington with
Mount Vernon enabled a greater number of tourists traveling the pilgrimage route to
Washingtons home to stop in Alexandria. Despite being inaccessible to the general
public, the lodge received ever-increasing requests to view the Washingtonia. The
increase in tourist demands, coupled with growing concerns over the security of the
artifacts, caused the lodge to pursue the construction of a building to safely store and
display the Washingtonia.3
Proposed Monument to Washington as a Citizen. 1902. (Alexandria Library)
The project grew from a local initiative to a national one. In 1908, the Grand Master of
The initial fundraising difficulties were most likely a result of the confusion regarding the
California recommended that Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22 make a national
GWMNMAs goals. Many believed that the money was intended for the construction
appeal to the fraternity. Although debates ensued as to how to proceed, the Alexandria-
of a new temple for the Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22. After resolving some of
Washington Lodge officially proposed to create the George Washington Masonic
this confusion, the GWMNMA rejected a proposal for an alternative fundraising scheme
National Memorial Association (GWMNMA). The proposal was made during a meeting
involving a tiered donation system, and a single goal of constructing a memorial for no
with the American Grand Masters on February 22nd, George Washingtons birthday.
less than $500,000 was adopted.9
The first meeting of the GWMNMA was held exactly one year later and consisted of
representatives from all twenty four lodges in the United States and its territories.4
This goal was not achieved by Shyrock, who passed away in 1918. The second
president, Louis A. Watres, Grand Master of Pennsylvania, continued the efforts of
FUNDRAISING
The first objective of the GWMNMA was to raise funds for the creation of a Masonic
memorial to George Washington. Thomas J. Shyrock, Grand Master of Maryland, was
elected President and drafted the first Constitution. Under his guidance, the Ways
and Means Committee developed the first fundraising plans with the goal of attracting
the GWMNMA for the next twenty years. During his presidency, the GWMNMA was
incorporated in 1922 and promoted national fundraising. After appointing an executive
committee, he soon realized the construction of the memorial. By 1932, the year of its
completion, the project had accrued the cost of $3 million.10
1,000 Masons to each pledge a $100 life-time membership to the GWMNMA. Shyrock
SITE SELECTION
had hoped to raise $100,000 for the first phase of the project. Although prominent
During its initial fundraising efforts, the GWMNMA was also searching for a location for
Freemasons such as President Taft were successfully enlisted, the fundraising efforts
the memorial with special associations with George Washington. In 1915, during the
only reached $87,000 by 1917.5
GWMNMAs annual meeting, a parcel of land was considered next to Christ Church
where George Washington had attended service. After an appointed committee was sent
Supplementary funds of $3,000 were raised annually from 1913 to 1915 through selling
to inspect the site, however, it was decided to postpone the purchase.11
Charles H. Callahans book, Washington the Man and the Mason. 6 Callahan had
been a prominent member of the Alexandria-Washington Lodge and served as
A site for the memorial was soon selected on Shuters Hill, and the GWMNMA purchased
the Commissioner of Revenue, in Alexandria from 1898 until his death in 1944.7 His
the land in 1916. Since 1908 this property had belonged to the Washington Monument
writings on Washington were very influential and Callahan most likely coined the term
Association when it was dedicated as a subdivision known as George Washington
Washingtonia.8
Park. This separate organization had plans as early as 1901 to erect a monument
commemorating the centennial of Washingtons death (opposite page), honoring him
not only as a mason, but as a fireman, a surveyor and a farmer as well. Each of the
100 months, also sixty lots 50x100 feet. These lots will front upon the park through which
four sides of the pedestal of the monument would have displayed inscriptions relating to
Mount Vernon Avenue will run and upon King Street, for five dollars cash and five dollars
these four attributes. The major fundraising efforts to erect the monument surrounded
per month for 100 months. If interested in securing a home in what is destined to become
the minting and selling of coin medallions, authorized by the U.S. Treasury.12 The
the most beautiful and historic residential section of Alexandria; or in securing a safe and
monument would have been surrounded by park space and promising new real estate,
sound investment and aid in giving to ladies and children of the city a magnificent Park for
as described in this advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette in 1908:
recreation and health and at the same time honor the memory of Washington, purchase one
of the lots.13
The Washington Monument Association have options on these two splendid subdivisions and
propose donating from 40 to 50 acres for a Public Park, for the beautification and extension
However, in 1915, Charles Callahan used his own expenses to purchase ten lots from
of Alexandria, and as a fitting memorial to Alexandrias greatest citizen, George Washington.
the Washington Monument Association and gifted the property to the GWMNMA in order
One hundred lots have been sold in the Shooters Hill section which insures its purchase and
to build the memorial honoring George Washington the Mason.14 By 1921, there were
park. The Washington Monument Association now offers in Spring Park section two hundred
five houses already built on Washington Terrace, a bordering street that is now called
splendid lots not less than 25x100 feet for two dollars cash and two dollars per month for
Park Road.15 In the end, the total amount spent by the GWMNMA on what had expanded
to a thirty-five acre site amounted to $55,000, which was estimated at an inflated value of
$350,000 in 1929.16
The site held special significance because it was believed to have once been a proposed
by Thomas Jefferson as the site for the United States Capitol. George Washington
supposedly objected to the site, fearing that he would be criticized for personal gain from
the selection, as he owned many parcels of land nearby.17 However, this conjecture is
unsupported by documentation, suggesting that it was a myth used to add importance
to the site. Regardless of the veracity of the ties to Washington, both the Washington
Monument` Association and the GWMNMA found the site to be a perfect location for a
memorial with views of the Washington Monument, Capitol Building and large stretches
of surrounding land. The memorial would also be able to be seen for miles from
Alexandria, asserting the importance of Freemasonry and the nations most honorable
member.
Shuters Hill circa 1900. (Alexandria Library)
The GWMNMA Lot acquisitions

1915
1943
Current
Property Line
Existing
Buildings in 1921
part of 58 reserved for Col. Arthur Herbert
(GWMNM Archives, Olmsted Archives)

10
:B
3:
ng
ki
rt
fo
1910
1920
1930
ld
19
73
:B
ui
in
g
1940
ri
rio
of
th
1950
World War II
Great Depression
ed
et
on
io
at
ic
ia
or
em
ed
he
em
er
pl
co
io
ne
to
on
er
em
rS
ne
at
ic
ed
te
in
in
ui
ld
or
d
ce
so
To on ct s e s p
C
d
ci
w d ion nc la
or
at
co
er st o lo ce
be
io
nc
to ep f t si d
n
tt
pp o he ng in
r
on
a
e
nd
te
ed f to to M m
Sh
fo
O
w we we em em
ut
un
lm
ith r r o or
er
da
st
s
al conbeg rial ial
e
t
um s u H
H
io
d
ill
t
n
n
B
a
s
in ruc . ll
ro
be
um ti
co
t
h
o
er
gu
m
n n c
s
n.
ia om ple
:
te
l
pl
d
et
19
ed and
42
.
au
:G
di
W
to
M
riu
N
m
M
ro
A
of
si
19
gn
w
as
44
s
co
pl
:G
nt
ac
ra
ed
W
ct
M
w
i
th
N
Al
M
ex
A
an
as
dr
ia
ks
-W
C
as
o
hi
19
r
ng
b
56
to
et
:R
n
ta
Lo
oo
dg
m
n
d
s
e
in
to
P
bu
a
co
rk
ild
ns
in
e
tru
g
rf
ct
co
o
ne
m
re
pl
w
et
s
pa
tim
ed
rk
in
at
19
g
es
67
lo
to
:N
o
n
ew
n
so
co
ut
fe
h
nc
m
si
e
de
p
in
l
st
et
al
in
le
d
g
at
w
th
or
e
ba
k
an
ck
of
d
th
fo
e
rf
pr
op
ut
er
ur
ty
e
to
m
pr
ai
ev
nt
en
en
tu
nw
an
an
ce
te
d
us
e
of
th
e
gr
ou
nd
s
32
Feary 22n
d,
19
19 b
10
r
15
:M
:C u
a
ha
19 rles ry emori
al
16 Ca
to
l
2
l
: S aha 2 GW
Fe
hu n pro n Ofc
br
ua
te cure d, ially
Ju ry,
rs s t 1 pro
1
19ne 92
2:
22
H en lot 9 pose
-1 5t GW
N 923:hE, 1 MNM ill is s from 11: d by A
o xca 9 A v ch the F me
19 v
va 2 ot
os Was ir rican
1923- e
tio 2: ed
1
2 9 m
n G to
en hing st Gra
19 6-1 24
co
em
:
b
9
2
m
r
19 8- 28 G
as ton M m nd M
pl o plo
29 19 : E ran e
u
e
as
on
te n y H
19 -1 29 x it r
l
te
d. d e
um e
o
30 93 : C ter e c ,
r
e
Re b lm
c
-1 0: o ior ol 1
e
l
n
19 931: Secnstru wallumn 92 inforreae an atio t As tins
br
Fe
Building timeline
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
The Building
The George Washington Masonic National Memorial Under Construction. 1929. (Library of Congress)
11
INITIAL DESIGN
The GWMNMA created a special committee in 1917 in order to explore the preliminary
design of the building. They hired a photographer to document the property, but no
further actions were taken and the committee decided in 1918 to postpone the design in
order to focus on fundraising efforts.1
It was not until two years later that the executive committee decided to proceed
with the design and construction of the memorial. This decision coincided with the
drafting of a preliminary list of functional requirements for the building. Beyond storing
the Washingtonia other requirements included a meeting space for the AlexandriaWashington Lodge No. 22, a large auditorium, a library, and administrative office space
for the Association and other Masonic bodies.2
The building committee was given $25,000 to fund the design process. An architect,
whose identity is undocumented and whose plans appear to have been lost, produced
12
Corbetts initial sketch of the memorial design. (GWMNM Archive)
a design reflecting classical ideals of temples from antiquity.3 The issue of the building
design was presented to the newly formed executive committee which consisted of
president Louis A. Watres, Secretary-Treasurer Claude J. Keiper, Melvin M. Johnson,
Charles Homer, William Daniels and William Farmer. The purview of the executive
committee included the style and plans of the building, employment of an architect, and
other matters pertaining to the construction of the memorial.4
The committee sought recommendations on the design of the building from architecture
professors at several prominent schools including Harvard and New York University.
The professors, however, did not provide satisfactory suggestions, and the committee
proceeded to consider the different styles of architecture appropriate for the memorial. At
the time, Gothic architecture was believed to best represent the ideals of Freemasonry,
whereas a colonial revival approach seemed more appropriate for a memorial to George
Renderings of memorial design by Hugh Ferriss. 1922. (Olmsted Archives)
13
Washington. The committee planned to consult with two prominent architects known for
these two styles who could give them estimates for construction.5
Ultimately, the committee consulted with three architecture firms all of whom gave the
opinion that the classical style would be most appropriate. These firms were Paul P. Cret
of Philadelphia, John Russell Pope of New York, and Cram and Ferguson of Boston. In
September, 1921, the Executive Committee voted for a classical design then authorized
the hiring of an architect, as well as a landscape architect. At the time, the committee
favored Paul Cret, suggesting that the architect need not be a Mason.6
The committee however broadened their search and interviewed several other firms such
as Helmle and Corbett of New York, which was known for high-rise commercial designs.
After visiting the site, Corbett drew a quick sketch (page 10) on the train back to New
York. His design consisted of three stepped back tiers above a wide podium, topped by a
distinctly classical cap in the form of a temple. The committee became interested in this
design, and on October 21st, 1922, they commissioned the firm, along with the landscape
architectural firm, the Olmsted Brothers, to elaborate on the design.7
Over the next few months, Harvey Wiley Corbett, the principal architect of Helmle and
Corbett, worked directly with Charles Rust Parker of the Olmsted Brothers, and Eugene S.
Osgood, the consulting architect for the Association to develop the building and grounds.
The height of the tower in relationship to its podium and surrounding landscape was a
key topic of discussion. Osgood argued that the inclusion of a tower not only reduced the
effect of the podium, but also raised the cost of construction, the estimate of which had
risen to $5 million. Corbett revised the tower design in 1922, considering cost constraints
and the team completed the model and rendered site plans which were then accepted by
the committee on February 11 and the board of directors on February 20, 1922.8
14
Springfield Municipal Building, designed by Corbett. 1908-1913. (Library of Congress)
The buildings tower became a continually evolving feature. Originally influenced by a

restoration drawing of the lighthouse of the Roman Port of Trajan at Ostia by M. Garvez,
ALTERATIONS IN THE DESIGN

9
Corbett ended up creating fifteen different detachable models of the tower to experiment
with his design ideas. After the executive committee requested complete building plans
from Corbett, he agreed on the condition that he would be granted the ability to modify
Within the executive committee, a group of four individuals- Louis A. Watres, Melvin M.
Johnson, Claude J. Keiper and Charles Callahan- became increasingly responsible for
much of the memorials progress. Design alterations were initially to be presented to the
the design of the tower in order to create the most perfect an edifice as possible.10
executive committee for approval, however, as time went on more and more changes
The design that was approved in principle,11 although later altered, was a refined
occurred without their consent.
version of Helmle and Corbetts podium and tower scheme. The buildings main entrance
featured a large portico inspired by the proportions of the Parthenon, although the
memorial would only have six and columns, rather than eight. Windows were to be
installed between the rows of columns in each tier, but the third floor was intended to
remain open and serve as an observation deck. Perhaps the most obvious connotation
of Greco-Roman architecture was the inclusion of a gabled roof with antefix that topped
the third floor.
While the initial design of the exterior of the memorial was established, Corbett was
charged with accommodating several functions within the building as prescribed by the
Association in 1920, including an 1,500-seat auditorium, administrative offices, and a
fireproof museum and repository for the Washingtonia. It was determined early on that
all spaces would be organized around the column-lined Memorial Hall. It was thought
that the third floor would remain an observation deck while the first floor of the tower
would become an exact reproduction of the original Alexandria Lodge No. 22 room. It
was decided that other issues would be resolved after the groundbreaking ceremony in
September 1922.12
Corbett continued to revise the design of the building throughout construction. The first
major change was to the finished stonework of the building. After initially choosing
limestone, Corbett and the Executive Committee thought granite to be the better option
after visiting several buildings in Washington, D.C. The durability and longevity of
granite was an advantage, and so after the issue of the buildings lifespan was raised at
the GWMNMAs next annual meeting, it was officially decided to sheath the buildings
concrete reinforcement with granite, despite the $500,000 premium.13
Mosaic of the lighthouse at Ostia. (http://www.digiter.it/geoarcheologia/geoarchaeology-en/ostia-portus/)
15
In these later alterations, Corbett revealed his preoccupation with skyscraper designs for
which he later became known. The building maintained the three stepped back tiers, but
the columns had been replaced with pilasters and reduced in numbers to exaggerate the
height of the building. The openings on each floor utilized a different order of column; the
bottom tier Doric, the middle Ionic and the top Corinthian. Corbett also committed to a
pyramid-like treatment at the top of the building, as seen in earlier models. The pyramid
exemplified the art-deco then prevalent in skyscraper architecture, and was believed
by contemporaries to be of Aztec origins. The final detail to be altered was the feature
that terminated the pyramid. Originally envisioned as a Corinthian capital, it was later
redesigned as a highly stylized aluminum finial, an art-deco reinterpretation of the flame
of the lighthouses of antiquity.
The executive committee did not initially approve of these dramatic changes, resulting in
lengthy deliberations.14 In response, Corbett may have sought the help of John Russell
Pope in explaining the values of the redesign, who legitimized it as being suitable within
the context of the Commission of Fine Arts plans for Washington.
In style- in the classical feeling of your detail and mass, I think you have hit close to the spirit
of the time of George Washington. The plan of Washington by LEnfant was resurrected in
the McKim and Burnham plan of Washington in 1901. This plan of Washington undoubtedly
covers the question of character and style with more weight than any opinion I can think of.
The spirit of the plan is, as I feel it, that all memorial buildings in Washington should be of the
classical style as interpreted by our forefathers in the time of LEnfant and Jefferson.15
Despite these appeals to the prevailing classical character of the design, the executive
committee remained unconvinced. Keiper particularly did not agree with the original
tower concept, much less the new pyramidal top. However, the committee eventually
The final design depicted in a brochure printed in 1925. (Olmsted Archives)
16
deferred to Corbetts expertise.16
In 1925, a public brochure was published explaining the entire project in full detail
including the details of each level. The ground floor in the podium contained a large
Assembly Room surrounded by administrative spaces, restrooms, and a large auditorium
Substantial construction on the building occurred from 1922 to 1932 when it was
at the west end of the building. Memorial Hall was featured on the first floor, adjoined
completed, in terms of the shell of the building. Construction of some exterior walls,
by two lodges rooms to the north and south, the replica lodge room, support rooms,
pointing of the masonry work on the building and the interior construction were not fully
and the upper level of the Assembly Room. The fourth level was designated as a states
memorial, the sixth level was assigned as a library, the eighth level a museum, and the
ninth level as an observation deck. The remaining levels were left unassigned.17
To a great extent, the memorial was built according to the design published in the 1925
brochure. Only a few additional changes were made to the building, particularly in the
pyramidal top in order to accommodate an installation of chimes in 1929.18 Ultimately the
building was completed more or less to the final design released in 1925.
Photo showing the different models of the tower that were produced. (GWMNM Archives)
issues with construction
completed until 1973. The project endured many difficulties during the ten years of
construction pertaining to funding, site conditions, and the construction process. In order
to avoid any complications related to incurring debt from loans, the GWMNMA agreed
early on to proceed with construction only when funds were made available. President
Watres emphasized the need for efficient construction scheduling and organized funding
in order to avoid the fate of the Washington Monument which stopped midway and
stood unfinished for thirty years before work was recommenced.19 Although construction
17
frequently slowed and the number of workers decreased when funds were low, the
in July 1922, an engineering firm was required to test the soil before work could begin.
Association ultimately avoided any cessations in work on the GWMNM.
Boring samples proved that the hill, below a cap of gravelly soil, consisted almost entirely
of two forms of clay: down to a depth of twenty feet the clay was hard and dry and further
The first major delay in building construction resulted from the time-intensive site
down, the clay was soft and malleable. These findings meant that the foundation had to
preparation of Shuters Hill. While plans were being approved, Shuters Hill was being
be redesigned.21
reshaped and was graded from a height of 138 feet to an elevation of 107 feet.20
Although the Cranford Paving Company was awarded the contract for the building work
18
(GWMNM Archives)
Corbetts initial design focused the load of the building at its core, which would have
The tower section was constructed between 1928 and 1931. The work, like the rest of
settled unevenly on the clay-based soil.22 His revisions redistributed the load and
the project, was stalled by lack of funds and materials. The concrete core of the tower
deepened the foundation. Two days after excavation began on September 11, 1922, a
was poured in sections, using the granite facing as the forms. The blocks of granite
three inch protective mat of concrete was poured over the layer of clay substrate which
were secured into the concrete by bronze anchors and the concrete was poured for
would support the next layer of steel reinforced concrete.23
two courses of stone at a time. Eventually, a stone and concrete structure emerged.
After the pyramid was redesigned to accommodate the installation of chimes in 1929,
The new foundation required a continuous pour of concrete around the reinforced steel.
the installation of the aluminum finial marked the last major piece of construction on the
In order to complete this daunting task, the Cranford Paving Company built an on-site
tower before it was commemorated in 1932.26
concrete plant to the south of the construction area. On November 6, 1922, they began
pouring the fifteen interconnected slabs. The pour was divided into six runs and lasted
302 hours. The center section was poured first; after seven days of curing, the forms
were removed and the outer sections were completed. The construction joints between
the sections also served as expansion joints in the completed foundation. The entire
process required a total of 8,794 cubic yards of concrete with gravel aggregate and 719
tons of steel. Once the concrete was set, it was covered in Conway pink granite. By
El. 585
December 7, 1922, all of the main foundations were in place.24
In 1923, the executive committee requested a construction schedule and estimates for
each successive step in an attempt to maintain a consistent work pace and keep within
the budget, which at the time was $2 million. Between 1923 and 1927, the podium and
El. 441
El. 376
mezzanine were completed. However, the only interior elements completed during this
time were ones with a structural purpose. These included the monolithic Doric columns in
the Assembly Room and the Conway green granite Composite columns of the Memorial
Hall, each composed of three sections.25
100
200
300
400
500
The use of the lighthouse metaphor for the GWMNM was a way to consummate an
A MODERN LIGHTHOUSE
eclectic and multi-faceted project. The sleek and modern reinterpretation of an ancient
In the early 20th century, the lighthouse typology was an appealing way to reconcile the
turbulent changes in American architecture. Whereas Corbett specifically referenced the
ancient Roman lighthouse at the Port of Trajan at Ostia,27 grounding his design in the
Greco-Roman building form proved a successful design that balanced the deep meaning
of the memorial, the distinguished building site and its situation in the broader landscape,
and the mania for modern design during the 1920s.
legitimization of classicism, there were other precedents in New York City that utilized the
lighthouse metaphor within a more Beaux-Arts vernacular.
In 1908, the American architect Ernest Flagg designed a tower for his fourteenstory Singer Building, built in 1899. The addition was wildly popular and thousands
of travelers come to New York especially to see this Modern Tower of Babel, gladly
paying fifty cents to ride to the observation balcony. A similar detail was added to
the Metropolitan Life Building after the original building was eclipsed by the nearby
Flatiron Building. In 1909, the building was heightened by a tower in the style of the
campanile of San Marco. Both the Singer and Metropolitan Life towers were equipped
with searchlights, referencing the lighthouse. In the words of Rem Koolhaas, building
becomes Tower, landlocked lighthouse, ostensibly flashing its beams out to sea, but in
fact luring the metropolitan audience to itself.28
The lighthouse was one method of dealing with an unprecedented building style that
was incredibly successful during this period. Just as the GWMNM was an austere and
appropriate adaptation of the ancient lighthouse form, it was also a thoroughly modern
building that satisfied the publics mania for tall buildings. Perhaps the most recognizably
Art Deco feature of the GWMNM is the aluminum finial representing the burning flare of
the ancient lighthouse, one of the last changes made to the building during construction.
Using both a modern material and a distinctly angular and modern form, the finial caps
the pyramid referencing both ancient Roman architecture as well as then popular Art
Deco design.
20
The Singer Building (left) and the Metropolitan Life Building (right). 1994. (Koolhaas)
The Landscape
(Olmsted Archives)
21
Olmsted Brothers to work on a model-proposal.5 The firm wished to collaborate with
OLMSTED BROTHERS AND

CARL RUST PARKER
Helmle and Corbett early on in hopes of producing a cohesive design, and waited for
During the Board of Directors meeting in September, 1921, Andrew L. Randell proposed
time the firm also awaited the existing topography, as determined from a November 21st,
that the GWMNMA hire a landscape architect as well as an architect. The board agreed
1921 survey by an Alexandria engineer.7
the architectural model before beginning work on a model of the grounds.6 During this
and empowered the executive committee to begin this search for suitable candidates.1
The Association, after deliberating over several landscape architects, including some
within the fraternity, decided to contact the Olmsted Brothers firm in October. According
to Melvin M. Johnson who chaired the GWMNMA Board of Directors, Olmsted Brothers
were on top of the list of recommended firms.2
EARLY DESIGN PROCESS

Since the hill was such a prominent feature on the site, all agreed that determining
the proportions of the building as related to the terrace-like basin was a first priority.
Subsequent designs of the approach to the building and other secondary features would
After an early visit to the site, E. C. Whiting, an associate landscape architect with
Olmsted Brothers, sent Frederick Law a detailed description of the views to and from
Shuters Hill, offering that the round nose of the hill commanded a fine view down the
follow. While both firms agreed that the building should face southeast toward the
Potomac River, the Masons required it to face due east for ritualistic purposes.8
Early clay models illustrated the preliminary sculpting of the terrain in relation to the
Potomac River, but was marred by the railroad yards, round houses, coal pockets and
other transformations to the urban landscape of Alexandria. Despite these blemishes on
the vista, he mentioned that the hill was clearly visible from Washington and the railroad
approaching Alexandria from Washington.3
In October of 1921, Carl Rust Parker, an associate landscape architect with Olmsted
Brothers, attended a conference with members of the GWMNMA executive committee.
There, they discussed the names of potential architects for the building. Early prospects
included prominent figures such as Cass Gilbert and the firm of McKim, Meade and
White. Paul Cret was mentioned, but Parker stated that he was out because he is
Roman Catholic, revealing the Associations preference for designers within the
brotherhood.4
After hiring Helmle and Corbett as the architects, the executive committee authorized
An early model. (Olmsted Archives)
22
building as well as experimentations with plantings. Whereas an earlier rough model
execution in many ways.9 Parker and Corbett also disagreed over the quantities, sizes
featured small trees and shrubs punctuating the terraces, a more refined model of
and types of trees to be used in the models. Corbett had replaced large spruce trees on
various materials was later produced, articulating extensive shrub plantings along
the upper terrace with smaller box trees. While Parker agreed with Corbetts placement,
the lengths of the terraces. These early models also revealed some of the landscape
it fueled his distrust of the architect, fearing that Corbett would alter planting details
features that were later omitted either through the design or actual construction. These
without consent.
include the stone retaining walls along each terrace, the granite veneer of the upper
terrace walls and steps, the foot path along the main drive connecting to the upper
Whereas Parker initially distrusted the motives of Corbett, he perceived a potential ally in
terrace, and the clipped linden trees adjacent to the building.
Osgood, the consulting architect for the GWMNMA. In a 1921 correspondence, Parker
asserted that Corbett, like all architects, wants all the money for the building itself and is
Early tensions between the designers are revealed in an early report from Carl Rust
inclined to let the grounds take care of themselves. Osgood, who is a very broad-minded
Parker in which he described the model-making process. He complained that the model
man, I think, and one who commands the respect of all the Masons connected with this
is not at all in the class with models such as we are accustomed to making here and
project, looks at the matter differently and will, I think, be a good friend of ours as the
while it will probably serve the purpose, it is far from being accurate and lacks careful
work goes along.10
PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE

Parker criticized Corbett for his inability to efficiently present the plans for the project
at a meeting with the Association on Saturday, February 4th, 1922. While discussing
the finished model, he was rather nervous and upset and could not even explain his
own plans and made such a fizzle of it that Mr. Osgood stepped in and practically sold
the plan to the committee for Corbett. Parker believed that the committee was more
receptive to Osgoods presentation of the plans, as he was a 3rd degree Mason and
could better explain certain aspects of the project than Corbett, who would become a
master Mason one year later.
While the Association approved the scheme, the members feared that they would be
An early model showing different planting arrangements. (Olmsted Archives)
23
fiercely criticized for not hiring a landscape architect within the brotherhood to continue
In May 1922, Louis Watres, president of the GWMNMA, officially approved the
the project. They specifically required that Corbett deal directly with Parker, a mason,
appointment of Parker, who had previously been working alongside Olmsted, as the
whose name would be used on all plans and contracts representing Olmsted Brothers.
official landscape architect. In June, Parker and Olmsted visited the site to discuss the
Whether Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. predicted this is unknown, but considering the early
appointment of a clerk of works to oversee the grading as well as the details of the
role that Parker played in the design, it is likely that they would have given this work to
finalized plan. The contract allowed Olmsted Brothers and Parker control over both
this young associate regardless.
construction and plan development schedules.11 The first plans produced by the firm
illustrated the terraced grading of the approach to the building.
24
The final model presented to the GWMNMA committee. (Olmsted Archives)
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION AND

DESIGN ALTERATIONS
A groundbreaking ceremony commenced construction on June 5th, 1922. The schedule
for the first two years of work was based on a cornerstone dedication ceremony initially
planned for October 1923. The architects goal was to complete foundation and first floor
of the building, whereas the landscape architects focused on completing their master
grading plan, and shaping the terracing and roads on Shuters Hill.
By the end of August, Parker, under Olmsteds supervision, had completed the master
grading plan using a survey from David J. Howell and Sons, a local engineering firm.
Copies of this plan were used for many other parts of the project throughout the next
28 years.12 Although the rough grading of the site was periodically delayed by rain, by
February, 1923, Olmsted Brothers had significantly sculpted the hill. A total of 86,988
cubic yards of soil had been excavated, 1,000 linear feet, and 2,000 square yards of
walkways had been subgraded, 3,000 linear feet of drainage tiles had been laid, and 800
cubic yards of bricks had been laid to complete the lower steps.13
Other than maintaining the lawns and constructing roads, no significant work occurred
on the grounds over the next several years. The Great Depression and World War
II resulted in decreased GWMNM donations among the Masons and the landscape
veneer of Conway pink granite to match the building were left in the bare concrete when
the initial temporary wooden steps were replaced in 1942. Evidence of this intention may
still be seen on the surface of some parts of the steps where nails placed in the concrete
are exposed. Other features of the landscape, such as the complex planting plan for the
front of the property, were never fully realized.
An early grading plan. (Olmsted Archives)
continually bore the brunt of neglect. The steps that were meant to be finished in a
25
MASONIC INFLUENCE
Although it is unclear how Freemasonry may have influenced the design of the memorial,
both Corbett and Parker were practicing Masons. While it appears that Corbett joined
the fraternity after signing the contract in 1921, Parker was already a Mason prior to
being hired on the project. Other than the requirement that the memorial face east, no
other documentation beyond a 1934 letter from Parker could be found regarding Masonic
symbolism in the design of either the building or the landscape.
Maude L. Chambers, a scholar writing a textbook on American architecture, contacted

Carl Rust Parker for information on the Masonic significance of the design of the project.
In response, parker wrote,
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON

MEMORIAL PARKWAY
The George Washington Masonic National Memorial was only one of several projects
commemorating the bicentennial of George Washingtons birth. Another project, closely
related to the memorial, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, was planned to
connect Mount Vernon, George Washingtons home and burial site, with the city of
Washington.
The parkway was initially conceived by M. B. Harlow, a local businessman who served
as secretary treasurer for the city of Alexandria from 1876 to 1893. His many friends
and relatives had visited him during their pilgrimage to Mount Vernon, and in 1884 he
We regret that we cannot offer any particularly worthwhile information which would be of
advocated for the construction of a boulevard from the city of Washington to the tomb of
use to you in your new text book as to the motives influencing the design of these grounds.
the founder in Mount Vernon. Many local business and land owners became interested
Parts of the design were influenced to a very considerable extent by the principles of the
and the Mount Vernon Avenue Association (MVAA) was formed.15
Masonic Order, which of course cannot be explained in work such as you are preparing. We
think if your use of this Memorial as an example of American architecture is confined more
particularly to the building itself the article will be more interesting than if any attempt were
made to give more space to the descriptions of the design of the grounds.14
Because Parker never officially documented the details of these influences, his design
As plans became increasingly complex and different routes were considered, the
projects momentum slowed down considerably after the construction of the Washington,
Alexandria, and Mount Vernon Electric Railway which was completed by 1892. Although
the line was discussed early on, the Mount Vernon Avenue Association assumed it would
is open to interpretation. Like any work of art, a Mason is free to apply his own individual
complement rather than replace the boulevard. During this time, tourist traffic to Mount
interpretation to the landscape. While the possible Masonic symbols that could be
Vernon nearly doubled, rising from 31,964 visitors in 1890 to 69,446 in 1899. Some
interpreted are not within the scope of this document, it is interesting to highlight Parkers
traveled there by ferry, but most used the new electric railway line.16
preoccupation with the ideas of Freemasonry.

The project regained traction in 1899 when a competition to build a new bridge between
Washington and Arlington brought renewed interest to the boulevard. No significant
action took place until 1913, however, when the MVAA produced a pamphlet discussing
26
alterations to the project. The Daughters of the American Revolution became involved
tellingly valuable for motorists as such, are those which have a certain bigness of sweep
in 1910, advocating for the patriotic and didactic aspect of the highway. By the 1920s,
and can be seen and enjoyed from a considerable stretch of a road by one moving
however, the Mount Vernon Avenue Association had dissolved, failing to materialize their
rapidly along it.19
didactic vision of a statue-lined roadway. While landscape tastes and new conceptions
of roadways altered the original alignment, the emphasis on commemoration and history
With inside information on the decisions of the Commission of Fine Arts through
remained.17
Olmsted, Parker presented to the GWMNMA the potential impacts the memorial roadway
would have on construction of the roadways and plazas surrounding the memorial. In
In 1924, a national commission for the celebration of the bicentennial of George
1924, Parker wrote to Melvin M. Johnson, I feel quite sure that we need not worry about
Washingtons birth was formed. With the threat of serious congestion en route to Mount
the Mount Vernon Boulevard interfering with any of our plans for the development of the
Vernon, the memorial highway gained new importance. When the House Committee on
grounds between the terrace and the station...20
Roads met in April, Alexandria Congressman R. Walton Moore presented a memorial

highway bill, along with Charles C. Callahan who presented an authoritative statement
detailing the various sites along the proposed route relating to George Washington.18
The House Committee on Roads hesitated to put any plans into action until a
comprehensive survey was completed and in 1926, the committee voted to authorize
the Bureau of Public Roads to produce an official report. While many favored an
inland route, the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Park and Planning
Commission opted for a route along the Potomac shoreline.
This route was most likely first proposed by Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., the leading
landscape architect appointed on both the Commission of Fine Arts and the National
Capital Park and Planning Commission, both of which grew out of the McMillan
Commission. The degree to which the GWMNM project influenced Olmsteds emphasis
against an inland route is unknown, however this riverfront was relevant to Olmsteds
ideas concerning the design of urban parkways, on which he was an influential expert.
He explained in his publication on the subject in 1928: the kinds of landscapes most
An early proposed route for the Mt. Vernon Boulevard. 1913. (Library of Congress)
27
In 1926, however, a Bureau of Parks and Roads engineer named P. St. J. Wilson
Parker relayed this information in correspondences to Colonel Watres, president of
submitted a preliminary report on a revised alignment of the inland route that would pass
the GWMNMA, and produced a plan detailing how these changes would affect the
directly in front of the memorial. This route would ascend the hills and ridges between
construction of the lower approach to the memorial. While the committee was intrigued
Washington and Mount Vernon on grades as steep as 7% in order to offer the most
by the possibility of increasing visitation to the memorial, Parker stressed the negative
scenic views of the Potomac River Valley. The proposal also required that the road be
repercussions. Predicting that the railroad property would be given higher priority by
expanded to accommodate increased traffic in the future.
the Federal Government, he diagrammed two probable inland locations of the 200
wide roadway, one in close proximity to the railroad property, and one farther west.
Either location would have paved over the entrance plaza as designed. As the parkway
would continue parallel to Duke Street Extension, now called Callahan Drive, it would
have most likely cut considerably into the memorial property. This would not only have
interfered with the main drive, but it would also have necessitated the construction of a
ten-foot high wall in order to hold the grade of the hill.
Fortunately for the GWMNM, the Bureau for Public Roads chose the riverfront route for
its patriotic, aesthetic and recreational opportunities. Not only was the memorial spared,
but natural areas along Dyke Marsh and Jones Point were preserved in order to maintain
scenic views from the memorial. Views from the parkway were designed to emphasize
the commemorative aspect of the project. Just as the parkway was aligned to provide a
view of the Washington Monument north of Alexandria, the riverfront route was shifted
south of the city in order to allow an extended view of the GWMNM, incorporating the
memorial into the surrounding landscape.
General Path
Path closest to railroad property
Path farthest from railroad property
Diagram showing the potential impact of the boulevard on the GWMNM site. (Olmsted Archives)
28
ISSUES WITH CONTINUED WORK
the building when it is finished in 1931 or 32. If they are going to be content, as I do not
believe they will be, with the grounds left in their present incomplete condition, then we do
By 1928, tensions had arisen between Parker and the GWMNMA after Eugene S.
Osgood accused Olmsted Brothers of planning to terminate their contract and demanded
that Parker produce finalized plans in order to finish work on the grounds. In response,
Parker replied that he had no intention of producing new plans unless the committee
showed genuine interest in the landscape, and also requested payment for their share of
the work.
21
not need to worry very much about starting work this year, or next, but it is only fair to warn
everybody concerned that you cannot renew operations on the grounds a year previous to
the completion of the building and expect to get any decent results, results that we would be
proud of, or that we would expect the directors to be proud of... I honestly believe that the
funds can be found for this work just as well as they can be found for the building and we at
least ought to face the situation squarely.23
When the Association is ready to proceed with further landscape work, we shall be ready
and willing, of course, to proceed with the preparation of further plans, specifications, etc. as
they may be needed. You must realize as well as we do that it is a waste of time and money
for us to prepare detailed plans for portions of the work not yet determined upon, until such
time as the Association is ready to go ahead with this work. As I have repeatedly stated, a
general grading plan was prepared a number of years ago and has been on file with the
Association for a long period and as the work has progressed the necessary detailed plans
and specifications have been made. Our contract states very clearly that we shall receive
10% of the cost of the landscape work actually constructed and that in event the work is held
in abeyance, we are to receive the above-mentioned remuneration of $15,000. Not only has
the $150,000 been spent on the work, but the work has been held in abeyance.
There is nothing in our contract which states that we shall provide a complete set of working
drawings and specifications for all work to be done on the project before the work is ready to
proceed.22
Emphasizing the importance of completing the grounds in time for the buildings planned
1932 completion, Parker wrote to Secretary Treasurer Claude J. Keiper.
I think we ought to face the situation frankly and try to make the Board realize that one of two
things is bound to happen. If they do not decide this year to go on with their development
work outside and carry it through to a definite finish, they will not have a proper setting for
GWMNM under construction. 1928. (GWMNM Archives)
29
As the committee refrained from allocating money for the grounds, work was virtually
suspended. In 1931, Parker expressed his concerns over the lack of attention given to
the landscape by warning the committee that there were a great deal of unfavorable
comments in Washington at the present time regarding the condition of the grounds,
especially from those in high position who are interested in seeing the projects such
as the Mount Vernon Boulevard, the Memorial Project and other projects related to
the anniversary celebration next year properly completed.24 Despite these warnings,
the 1932 dedication ceremony occurred on a barren landscape that was still under
construction. With dwindling funds during the Great Depression, work on the grounds
was not renewed for another seven years.
30
ENVISIONING THE LANDSCAPE

While implementation of Olmsted Brothers plans lagged, Parker conveyed his design
vision to a group of painters at the American Arts Association (AAA) in Ohio, hired by
the GWMNMA to produce a rendering of the completed memorial as planned. Through
several correspondences with the AAA, Parker provided critical opinions on how
the grounds should be portrayed. Although the original painting is presumed lost or
destroyed, a printed reproduction in a calendar matches the detailed descriptions in his
correspondences.
(Olmsted Archives)
The AAA sent Parker a sketch of the overall composition for him to fill in with drawings
of the vegetation. Unhappy with the perspective as well as the cropping of the lower
terraces, Parker sent back a revised skeleton composition along with an original photo,
both of which were unfortunately lost in the mail.
Believing that the building itself should remain in focus, the AAA excluded the lower
terraces altogether. Parker offered more criticism, suggesting that the plantings needed
to be fuller, and that the cedars on the upper terrace should be replaced with clipped
lindens. He also requested more generalized tree masses in the lower right corner of the
painting, and that the lines of the terracing be softened. His written suggestions were
accompanied by a sketch noting where and how to present the plantings.
When they sent back a final draft of the painting in color, Parkers only remark was that
they adjust the tones of the vegetation on the upper terrace needed to be adjusted.
Having received final approval, painting was reproduced for advertising and merchandise
promoting the memorial.
PLANTING
Parker continuously recommended that the executive committee appropriate money for
the landscaping of the grounds. As early as February 14th, 1923, Parker expressed the
need to relieve the bareness of the grounds by extensively planting large trees in the
front section of the property.
It will...be most unfortunate to wait until the building is actually completed before attempting
any planting of this kind. Should a start be made on this work this year and continued
over a period of three or four years, you will then secure by the time the building itself is
completed a considerable portion of the surrounding tree growth, and the building, instead of
standing on a hill bare and unclothed, will, upon its completion, be surrounded with a proper
Final image produced by the AAA used in a printed calendar. (GWMNM Archives).
31
foliage setting of evergreens and deciduous trees, much as if it had been standing amid
After having visted the site, Parker expressed his concern in a letter to Secretary
such surroundings for many years. Your committee has been unanimous in agreeing that
Treasurer J. Claude Keiper.
the present work on the grounds has been and will be of great value to the Association in
I looked over the several memorial trees which have been planted, and was particularly
creating renewed interest in the project and in helping with the raising of additional funds for
the furtherance of the work.25
disturbed by the markers which have been placed near the trees, in some of which flags
were erected. The whole set-up gave one the impression of a cemetery, and I hope that it
Parker asked Watres to appropriate $25,000 for planting trees, shrubs and vines,
will not be necessary to have flags placed in these markers in the future. As a matter of fact,
including red oak, pin oak, European beech, tulip trees, American elm, katsura tree,
I think there is considerable danger in allowing this custom of putting in these memorial trees
flowering dogwood, Canadian hemlock, Carolina hemlock and Austrian pine.
to be continued, and my recommendation is that the Board turn down any further requests.28
However, the committee did not fund any planting until 1926, when they authorized
Parker to produce a planting plan focused on the lower terrace and eastern edges of the
property. Despite the approaching 1932 dedication ceremony, implementation of this plan
also lagged as only vines were planted along the upper terrace wall.
The first trees to be planted on the grounds were donated to the Association by other
affiliated groups. In 1934, a birch and a cedar of Lebanon, given by two unidentified
organizations, were planted in key locations along the drive. In order to fit in with future
plantings, as opposed to a location on the south side of the property as suggested by
Secretary-Treasurer Schondau, they were planted without markers or plaques honoring
the organizations. Parker suggested that the committee defer to him for the planting of
any future tree donations in order to select the best locations for them.26
Later in 1935, the Mary Washington Chapter donated money to plant a tree on the
grounds, and Parker was given authority to select its type and location. As this tree was
intended to commemorate Mary Washington, George Washingtons mother, Parker
selected an American holly, which is native to the area. Additionally, a red oak was
gifted to the Association by the American War Mothers. Both were planted that fall, in
locations where any plaque dedicating them could be seen from the drive, revealing the
importance of the organizations that donated them.27
General Planting Plan- Study Sheet. 1939. (Olmsted Archives)
32
It would not be until 1939, under the guidance of a new committee president, Dr. Elmer
Although a study plan for plan #112 illustrates a wider range of plantings on the southern
Arn, a self-proclaimed horticulturist, that additional plants were installed according
and northern side of the property and along the rear parking lots, the final 1939 planting
to Parkers newly created planting plan 112. In October of that year, Parker signed
plan, #112, emphasized the main drive, the terraces and the areas surrounding the
a contract enabling him to proceed with planting using a $2,500 appropriation. Arn
building. The plantings at the base of the building, however, were omitted soon thereafter
stressed his interest in the landscape in a letter that year, stating,
due to delays in construction on the front steps. The plantings along King Street were
As you recall, I was the only horticulturalist on the Board of Trustees and although I was
also postponed until the following year. Together with a local nurseryman, Parker staked
begging for beauty others felt I should be begging for ability in the completion of the
out areas along the terraces that would soon be authorized for planting.
memorial. Nevertheless, let me say to you now, that I shall be after them from year to
year until the thing is beautified by some of Natures plants of which your firm is Natures
In February 1940, Parker recommended that Arn appropriate another $2,500 for planting,
architect.29
which would cover a considerable amount of work but would not complete their goals.
(NARA)
33
Despite Arns interest in the landscape, his attention shifted to the more immediate needs
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPLETION

OF PLANS
of reconstructing the temporary steps. During this time, the Alexandria-Washington

Lodge was pushing for the construction of a new parking lot on the south side of the
On August 16th, 1944, Corbett informed Parker of the committees plans to expedite
building, which also detracted funds from the landscaping.
the completion of any remaining work and the creation of an endowment fund for any
After the terrace steps had been rebuilt in concrete in 1943, an appropriation of $1,500
necessary maintenance. He asked Parker to submit his estimates, for: the completion of
was given to Parker for additional planting.30 Of this, only $451.85 was spent on plants
the upper walls and steps in a veneer of granite; all remaining grading in the plaza area,
over the next two months, and Parker was allowed to use the remaining money for
as well as the north south and east sides of the building; planting specimen trees on
planting on either side of the main steps the following year.31 Yew and pyracantha bushes
upper terrace next to the building; planting border trees along east, west and rear of the
were planted here, and holes were dug for the installations of two southern magnolias.
building; evergreen plantings on terraces of box and yew, and soil preparations; irrigation
These trees, however, were never planted and this was the last installation of plants
systems for lawns and planting areas; yearly maintenance and the professional services
made by Parker.
of the landscape architect.32
The committee voted to lower his total estimate of $312,400 to $100,000, which
represented a 67% reduction.33 By comparison, Corbetts estimates were only cut by
21%.34 Parkers main objection regarded the cut in funding is that it would leave the
upper terrace and steps incomplete. Two years earlier, Arn confided in Parker, saying
I am sure that I never had any intentions of building permanent concrete steps to mar
the beauty of a four million dollar memorial. That type of thinking is purely asinine.35
Nonetheless, the steps were neither completed in granite nor the less expensive
alternative of Potomac bluestone that Parker had suggested.
34
GWMNM. Circa 1943. (Library of Congress)
The committees main concern at this time was the completion of a parking lot on the
south side of the building. While Parker had urged against this, he did produce a plan
showing the required grading and retaining wall that would be needed to protect the
reservoir. The committee decided to hire a local engineer to complete the parking lot,
without consulting with Parker.36 By 1950, it was clear that Parkers work had ended
as he told Shondau in his last letter to a member of the GWMNMA, I shall always
In 1969 the executive committee appropriated $500 for the creation of a master planting
be interested in the work, and hope to live long enough to see the grounds properly
plan, with certain members expressing interest in using long lived trees. After consulting
finished.37 Parkers dream of seeing the completed grounds was never fulfilled as the
with one very able landscape architect41 who was incapable of taking on the work due
GWMNMA merely maintained what had been planted on the grounds. Ironically it was
to health concerns, the secretary contacted Kenneth Soergel, a professor of Landscape
not until a year after Parkers death in 1966, that interest in the landscape would be
Architecture at the University of Maryland who agreed to create a plan within their
revitalized.
budget.
A NEW MASTER PLAN
The committee received the completed plans on February 22nd, 1970. Early
The Association continued to struggle raising funds for an endowment. Any funds
the corresponding plant list. Soergels list includes autumn flowering cherries, Kentucky
available for work went to maintenance and the completion of the interior of the building.
Interest in the landscaping was not renewed until 1967 when during an executive
committee meeting, Brother Ellis suggested that a landscape architect be hired to
produce a master plan for landscaping work. On August 25, 1967, the committee voted
suggestions by the committee included creating year-round interest42 are reflected in

coffee trees, and Japanese pagoda trees. The estimated cost for completing the
new design was estimated at $25,000 to $30,000 but the committee was only able to
appropriate $5,000.43 Kenneth Soergel agreed to complete a section of the plan with
this amount and by August 7th, 1970, the committee expressed satisfaction with the
to request an estimate for a master plan to be used from time to time as conditions
permit.38
During the following executive committee meeting, Brother Hessey stated that he
believed there to be Olmsted Brothers plans for the entire grounds. According to minutes
of the Associations 1967 annual meeting, there lingers the impression that the Olmsted
landscaping architects prepared a plan, but we have been unable to locate the plan
in the files of the Association.39 In order to obtain an up-to-date master plan for the
landscaping on the grounds of the memorial,40 the GWMNMA contacted the Olmsted
Associates as it was then known. The Association was informed that the front of the
memorial had been designed in detail, but that no complete planting plan had ever been
produced. The Association then renewed its efforts to find a landscape architect who
could produce a new master plan.
Rendered planting plan by Kenneth Soergel. Circa 1970. (Kenneth Soergel)

35
progress. The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts donated money towards continuing the
The plan showing the completed work was presumably lost over time, making it difficult
landscaping, as did the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin.
to ascertain which of todays trees originated from this plan. Shortly after these plantings
occurred, changes were recorded. In 1972, several trees were vandalized, reflecting
By February, 1971, Chairman Hessey gave positive remarks on the plantings that
the rise in crime that prompted the committee to increase spending on surveillance and
had been completed since the previous Spring. A plan showing the completed work
security measures throughout the property.46 Additionally, the autumn flowering cherries
had been created, showing that two-thirds of the master plan had been actualized. An
that had been planted between the building and the newly completed upper terrace wall
appropriation of $2,508.68 was made to assist in the completion of the remaining third,
were removed by the Association in 1983 after concerns were raised over the amount of
barely reaching the goal of $10,000 that was needed to complete all the plantings.44 The
damage that the roots would cause to the wall.47
executive committee suggested in 1972 that the remainder of work would have to be
completed when funds became available.45 In the end, Soergels plan met the same fate
Early in the discussion of renewing work on the landscape, the Association stated at an
as Parkers, as the money was never fully raised in order to manifest his complete plans
annual meeting that it would be happy to receive gifts in order to complete the grounds.48
for the grounds.
The association continued to accept donations of trees, despite Parkers warning against
the practice. Around 1972, the Tall Cedars of Lebanon donated several cedar trees for
Cherry trees planted on upper terrace. Circa 1973. (Kenneth Soergel)
36
Same view of the upper terrace, with the cherry trees removed. 2014. (James Carroll)
the south side of the building and they were officially dedicated on April 15th 1972.49
Like Carl Rust Parkers initial planting designs, these cedars did not reflect the plant list
used by Kenneth Soergel and there is no evidence that he had any influence in their
placement.
THE 50th Anniversary of the building

In 1982, the executive committee discussed the construction of a new entrance sign
at the base of the steps to the memorial to commemorate the following years 50th
anniversary of the completion of the building. Brother Charles Moody donated $15,000
towards the funding this project.50
It was suggested to use a bronze relief sculpture of George Washington gifted to the
Alexandria-Washington Lodge by the Eastman Kodak Company. This relief was originally
created by Isabell Giampietro-Knoll who was contracted by the company. It was first
installed at the Washington Monument as part of the 1976 Bicentennial celebrations.51
The new entrance was quickly completed and dedicated that year and consisted of a
concrete retaining wall bearing the sculpture, commemorative plaques, and an inscription
of a quote by George Washington reading: Let prejudices and local interests yield to
reason. Let us look to our national character and to things beyond the present. Along
with the construction of the sign, other improvements of the grounds included resurfacing
the concrete steps and replacing damaged shrubbery in front of the terrace wall adjacent
to the driveway facing the building.52
50th Anniversary commemorative entrance. (Authors photo)
37
1920
38
1930
1940
1950
1960
Duration of work with

Olmsted Brothers Firm
1970
1980
Duration of work with

Kenneth Soergel
1990
20
01
:D
ry
Tr
ee
2000
em
bl
Em
ar
rs
ve
ni
an
ic
on
ce
en
as
M
co
of
ra
Pr
og
0t
/5
de
ra
fo
of
st
er
s
pl
0
i
an
ne
g
tin
ed
n
ed
s g plan
to
co
ne
m
pl
w
et
e
00
0,
$1
el
on
d.
te
le
on
nc
ra
en
t
ed
ic
ed
at
ic
at
io
o
9:
D
19
9
ew
3:
N
98
th
io
n
th
e
fo
rt
bu
on
ild
in
an
pl
gr
ou
nd
s
or
he
or
aj
of
an
pl
et
pl
co
tin
an
pl
tru park te
irs
s
i
n
c
s
tru te g
al
t
ls uke
19
ct d lot th by
an
St
68
.
d
e
:
la
d on at be 67
nd
19 GWMN
on so co %
sc
ap
M
6
th uth mes
A
in
be
9
g
e
19
es
si perm
gi
:
72
w
n
t
i
:R
m
es de ane
K s to
at
em
e
t s of nt
en look
d
ai
by
ni
id th
ng
G
ne for ne
e e
W
2/
of b
M
3
w
N
th lan
of
M
th uild
So
A
ds
e
er
So cap
ge
bu ing
lP
e
ild
la
er archi
n
in
co
g tect
g
m
1
p
an
19
23
19 : T
2 e
19 4: mp
2 Lo o
19 8
31 : A
w rar
:M m
er y
aj
or er
ro ic
te oa
ad a
w n
rr k s
19
ay
ac te
35
s Ar
co t
:O
n
e p
ak
st W
ru o
st
w si
ct
r
ep
ed k
a
s
s
O
re
in ll ns
pl
ct aced
O a ta
hi n lle
o
w
d d
o
ith
19 b
c
G
s
o
eo
42 er
m te
rg
m
ia
:W 1
pi
is ps
19
ne
0
si
43
on c
t
o
19 : M
h
43 o
ed om
o
,1
19: Re re pl
d
to p
en 9
s a
19 4 urf nti
cr le
n
46 5 ac g
39
ea te
s
: G : ed do
G
t
ne
p
W
te
d
e
a
:
19 M W th a
ps C
a
51 NMA Ms be roun
pa
on
19 : P con N tweed co
r
in
e
n
M
51 ark trac n st cre
tin
p
t
r
g
l
: P in ts th A eps te s
19
ac ac
55
g e c cu , ro tep
of
: C er
ed t
th
m lot ons ts ads s, an
19
ity
e
56
an a truc P rep d
s
o
:G fA
nd tio a air ma
si
i
i
n
g
te
ra lex en
e
n
d in g
r
ni
a
f
d
t
o
k
n
c
nd
te
r
r
p
r
on e
ri
n
ar ive tem er anite
is a in
p
s
k
hi
w
s
in a orar e tep
cr d f
ng sta
l
l
g
s
y
s
y
on
et o
si
lo co asp stim
d
st
ep ew
h
t
e rf
c ns alt a
al
s
tin
gs
Landscape timeline
2010
Dedicatory
Tree Program
chronology of plantings
146
144
2000-Present
142
140
142
144
138
1988-1999
136
146
132
1970-1974
134
130
128
126
148
1926-1941
-1921
Cedrus Libani
(Tall Cedars of Lebanon)
1972
124
122
120
126
124
122
120
Ilex opaca
(Mary Washington Chapter No. 55)
1935
118
116
114
112
110
90 92 94
96 98 100
108
86 88
106
102
84
104
82
Cedrus Libani
(Unknown Organization)
1934
74
72
80
78
76
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
50
52
48
46
Quercus Rubra
(American War Mothers)
1935
44
42
40
38
36
39
THE Masonic Emblem

The latest and perhaps most noticeable construction on the grounds occurred in
the late 1990s. In 1996, discussions began regarding the creation of a memorial
to commemorate the 1999 bicentennial of George Washingtons death. Although
suggestions included a Million Mason March and a gas-fueled eternal flame in the
tower,53 the committee pursued a large masonic emblem which could be viewed from the
air and adjacent roadways. Justifying the unprecedented creation of what would become
the worlds largest Masonic emblem, Kent Gould, Grand Master Mason of Colorado,
explained
I think it is about time we let the world know that George Washington was a Master Mason
and that the George Washington Masonic National Memorial is Masonic Building by
having a Masonic Emblem there...We should also look at this as an opportunity to promote
Freemasonry. With the Masonic Emblem on the grounds of the memorial that can be seen
by anyone flying into the Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington D.C., one will
begin to ask questions about the Masonic Fraternity and about George Washington and his
association with Freemasonry.54
In 1997, the committee consulted with a landscape architect to create a design based
on a similar project at the Masonic Home in New Jersey.55 However, the project was
brought in-house under the direction of Don Robey. By August of 1998, an engineer was
contracted to create construction drawings and the dedication events were planned for
June 26, 1999.56
Sketch of the proposed emblem design by Don Robey. 1998. (GWMNM Archives)
40
$41,695 was spent on the construction of the emblem, considerably less than the original
The Dedicatory Tree Program
estimate of $50,000 to $70,000. The cost savings was primarily attributed to the use of
tinted concrete rather than Conway pink granite. The emblem measures sixty feet across
and seventy feet from the top to the base of the points of the compass.57
Systematic tree planting continued in the year 2000, when the issue of how to replace
dead or damaged trees was raised during an executive committee meeting. It was
suggested that a program be created to allow groups or individuals related to the
This major and drastic alteration to the Memorial property may seem like an out of place
and brash advertisement for the importance of Freemasonry over the importance of
George Washington as a Mason. However, it is interesting to place the construction
Memorial to donate money for the dedications of tree plantings. The required levels of
donations, types of markers and tree selections were discussed, and in June, 2001 the
program was implemented.59
within the context of trends in post modern architecture. In the influential essay Learning
from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form, the writers promote a
semiotic and symbolic importance of signage in contemporary architecture, stating:
The program continues to be successful and to date 600 trees have been planted.
Members and associated organizations, both nationally and internationally, have helped
in this endeavor. Due to the growing list of donors, a public, on-line database has been
The commercial persuasion of roadside eclecticism provokes bold impact in the vast and
created showing the coordinates, species and donor of each tree.60
complex setting of a new landscape of big spaces, high speeds, and complex programs...
But complex programs and settings require complex combinations of media beyond the
The grounds of the hill have always been open to the public, ever since the city planned
purer architectural triad of structure, form, and light at the service of space. They suggest an
this area of Shuters Hill as part of a municipal park for the George Washington Park
architecture of bold communication rather than one of subtle expression.58
subdivision in the early 20th century. One of the problems caused by the seasonal
activities of the community has been the damages of the grounds due to sledding.
It is within this context of using vernacular methods of symbolism in the age of
Despite public perceptions that the intention of the Dedicatory Tree Program was a
communication that one might begin to understand the wider connotations of this brash
method to manage the damages from sledding, the Association has expressed that this
addition to the landscape. Although many would agree that the Masonic emblem is an
has never been their intention. Furthermore, to prevent the potential injuries from the
obstruction to the processional flow of the original design, to the Association, it was
raised plaques installed for each tree, the Dedicatory Tree Program has attempted to
completely justifiable within the context of contemporary architectural trends.
lower the stones into the ground.61 Of course, sledding would be even more inconvenient
had the original landscape design been implemented, with the masonry walls along the
terraces and dense plantings along the slopes of the hills.
41
Despite initial plans to restore the memorial grounds to the original splendor envisioned
by the landscape architects commissioned during the construction of the memorial,62 the
lack of any updated master plan suggests that tree planting continues in an unplanned
and random fashion. It is ironic that the implementation of installing granite plaques and
benches, in light of Parkers recommendation to the committee in 1935. Since Parker
was determined to include dense plantings of shrubs including roses and azaleas, some
of the early trees that were donated lacked markers that would have otherwise been
hidden under these plantings. New methods of dedicating the trees would need to be
adopted if the Association intends to complete any of these plantings.
42
Dedicatory tree plantings near Callahan Drive. 2014. (James Carroll)
(Olmsted Archives)
43
Photos of the cornerstone laying ceremony of 1923. (Library of Congress)
1923
Given the gravity of the event, the GWMNMA intended it to have a national scope.
Cornerstone dedications are an important ritual in Freemasonry. At time of construction,
they were a common practice not only in Masonic buildings but civic ones as well. They
are one of the only Masonic rituals that are practiced in public, and the significance of
dedicating the memorial to George Washington made the event even more important.
Early on, Louis Watres planned the date for the corner stone dedication for early autumn,
1
1922. However, excavation on site did not begin until June of that year and construction
on the foundation work began as late as October, causing the ceremony to be postponed
for a year. The event was eventually pushed to November 1st, 1923.
44
They invited President Warren G. Harding and hired a publicity director to produce and
broadcast information on the ceremony.2 The newly added staff allowed the executive
committee to focus on programming the event. They decided to use the silver trowel
that George Washington used in laying the cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol building on
September 18th, 1793.3 Replicas of the trowel were created for President Harding and
Chief Justice William Howard Taft, both of whom were expected to preside over the
ceremony, as well as each participating Grand Lodge.4
Complications soon arose when the executive committee rejected the cornerstone
22, where he presided as Master; and Potomac Lodge No. 5 which had played a role in
designed by Corbett. The design emphasized the dedication year over the Masonic
the U.S. Capitol cornerstone ceremony, which Washington had officiated. The parade
square and compass emblem, which did not contain the letter G signifying God,
also included municipal and civilian officials including the governor of Virginia and the
geometry and/or the Grand Architect of the Universe. Osgood was eventually put in
mayor of Alexandria.9
charge of redesigning the cornerstone. His design included the G within the emblem,
and made the date of secondary importance. He also eliminated the border around the
The GWMNMA deposited certain significant articles into a leaden box within
cornerstone in order to integrate it more seamlessly into the building. There was anxiety
the cornerstone itself to be encapsulated for eternity. These articles included:
over whether or not the new design could be carved onto a new stone in time for the
Watres personal Holy Bible; a silk United States flag; a copy of the Declaration of
dedication. The contractor was unable to reuse the first cornerstone by rotating it, and
Independence; a copy of the pamphlet A Memorial to George Washington, the Mason,
a new one had to be shipped in from New Hampshire and carved on site in time for the
by Charles Callahan; a reproduction of the Williams Portrait of George Washington;
dedication.5
a bronze plaque from the Cranford Company showing the names of the architects
and engineers involved; and a photo of President Coolidge. Donations from every
Another concern was the unexpected death of President Harding in August, 1923. His
participating lodge were also stored within the cornerstone.10
successor, Calvin Coolidge immediately began declining invitations to participate in

public ceremonies. However, on August 29th, 1923, Keiper met with the president.6
Although he was not a Mason7, Coolidge tentatively agreed to participate on the
condition that he would not make an address, suggesting that his nickname, Silent Cal,
was an apt one.
Despite the setbacks, the GWMNMA was prepared for the ceremony on November
1st. A parade began at ten-thirty in the morning and proceeded up King Street to the
construction site on Shuters Hill. An estimated ten to twenty thousand people were in
attendance including representatives or Grand Masters from Cuba, Quebec, Ontario,
Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Panama, Venezuela and every state from the United States.
Auxiliary Masonic groups included the Knights Templar, The Imperial Potentate of the
Ancient Arabic Order, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine of North America, and the Ancient and
Accepted Scottish Rite.8 Three lodges were given special importance during the event:
Fredericksburg No. 4, where Washington became a Freemason; Alexandria Lodge No.
Calvin Coolidge (center) and William Howard Taft (right) at the 1923 ceremony. (Library of Congress)
45
The cornerstone ceremony began when Coolidge and his wife were ushered to the site,
1932
along with Chief Justice Taft. An artillery salute was sounded from naval ships on the
Potomac River and military planes flew over the site, commencing the event. Charles
H. Callahan was the first to lay cement on the place where the stone would sit, using
George Washingtons silver trowel. Coolidge and Taft were then invited to repeat the
action. Other Grand Masters were then invited to spread cement using their replica
trowels. The stone was then laid into place and speeches were made commemorating
the event, memorializing George Washington, and praising the Masonic ideals of
Nine years later on, on May 12, 1932, the GWMNM was formally dedicated. However,
the date did not truly reflect the completion of the building. Neither did it reflect any
completion on the landscape which lacked plantings except for the turf on the terraces
and lawns, ivy on the upper terrace wall, and a few donated trees along the drive. The
date of the dedication was influenced by a national program established in 1925 to
celebrate the bicentennial of the birth of George Washington. When Calvin Coolidge
addressed Congress on February 22nd, 1927, he detailed,
education and equality.11
Concerning plans for the proposed celebration and to express the hope that the States
and their political subdivisions under the direction of their governors and local authorities
would soon arrange for appointing commissions and committees to formulate programs for
cooperation with the Federal Government. When the plans begin to be matured they should
embrace the active support of educational and religious institutions, of the many civic, social,
and fraternal organizations, agricultural and trade associations, and of other numerous
activities which characterize our national life.12
Rather than mimicking events like the Worlds Fair or expositions discussing George
Washingtons importance, the United States George Washington Bicentennial
Commission, headed by Coolidge, planned events both nationally and internationally
that added new meaning to George Washington, beyond the role of general and first
president.13
Given this context, the GWMNMA was undoubtedly constrained by dates of the program.
In 1929, Louis Watres stressed to the committee that the building would need to be
completed before the bicentennial celebrations. Within a year, the committee began
The cornerstone in place. (GWMNM Archives)
46
working with the Bicentennial Commission to be included on the ten-month program.

After requesting a week for the dedication and related Masonic events, they were
assigned the second week on May 1932.14
The day of the event, Thursday, May 12th, 1932, was met with heavy downpours. The
parade, consisting of 20,000 Freemasons, began at nine-thirty in the morning and
continued along a route lined with nearly empty bleachers as most spectators viewed
the event from the train station platform. Despite the rain, an estimated 75,000 people
were in attendance, and arrangements were made to accommodate five thousand cars.15
Although the ceremony was initially planned to be held outside, the dedication ceremony
was forced inside by the rain. President Hoover, a Mason, was in attendance with his
wife, and like the cornerstone dedication, their arrival was marked by an artillery salute
from naval ships on the Potomac. 16
The Masonic dedication officially began with the unveiling of a model of the building. The
building was first dedicated to Freemasonry by pouring a golden pitcher of corn over
the model. Next, a silver pitcher filled with wine was poured over the model, dedicating
the building to virtue. Another silver pitcher finally consecrated the building with oil,
symbolizing universal benevolence. In addition to these three intentions, the Grand
Master of Virginia added a fourth dedication to Americas greatest son and Masonrys
brightest star- George Washington.17
The ceremony did not officially mark the conclusion of any work as the building was
an empty shell, and the landscape barren. Construction continued over the following
months on pointing the exterior walls, and the interior rooms were not completed until the
1970s. It would take another seven years until appropriations were made for systematic
plantings on the grounds; work that was never fully finished by Carl Rust Parker.
The rainy parade during the 1932 dedication ceremony. (Library of Congress)
47
CONTINUED WORK
At the time of the Ceremony, the only interior rooms that neared completion were the
auditorium, restrooms and lobbies outside the assembly room, but even these lacked
windows, paint, fixtures and furnishings. Although the GWMNMAs primary concern
during the first decade of construction was completing the buildings exterior, Corbett and
contractors were making plans for the interior.18
However, the Great Depression significantly affected the implementation of these plans.
The delay in work was exacerbated when in June 1932, the Cranford Paving Company
dissolved and the Association was forced to take on their debt related to the construction
of the memorial. Donations from individual members of the Masonic Brotherhood
reduced over time, a subsequent result of the Great Depression and wider cultural
shifts. The GWMNMA focused their efforts on completing the Memorial Hall, pointing the
exterior of the building, and funding general maintenance that only increased with the
age of the building.19
48
(NARA)
The Designers
(Library of Congress)
49
Frank J. Helmle (1869-1939)

The firm Helmle & Corbett received the contract to design the GWMNM in 1921. Frank
J. Helmle, the firms senior partner, was born in Marietta, Ohio in 1869. After moving to
New York to pursue an education in architecture at Cooper Union and the School of Fine
Arts of the Brooklyn Museum, he began working with the firm McKim, Meade & White.
He worked for them for a year before opening his own office and soon after entered a
partnership with Ulrich Huberty, designing several bank buildings in Brooklyn as well
as the Boathouse and Tennis House in Prospect Park. His work extended from revival
buildings to more modern, fireproof buildings with restrained decorations, such as the
Bien Building, a loft building designed in 1910 on Thirty-Eighth Street in Manhattan.1
Harvey Wiley Corbett (1873-1954)
Helmle entered into a partnership with Harvey Wiley Corbett in 1912, and together they
Harvey Wiley Corbett was born in San Francisco in 1873, and graduated with a degree
took on larger projects within the United States and abroad, including the Bush Tower
in engineering from the University of California-Berkeley in 1895. The following years, he
on 42nd Street in New York and the Bush House in London. Although the GWMNM was
entered the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris where he was immersed in a design process
designed by Corbett, the buildings fireproof reinforced concrete structure speaks to his
rooted in the study of past architectural styles; he received his diploma in 1900. After
influence. The streamlined form, emphasizing line and height, is a reflection of Helmles
traveling in France, Italy and England, he returned to the United States, and worked with
design principle- simplicity should be the watchword.2
Cass Gilbert through 1903.3
That same year, he partnered with F. Livingston Pell, during which time he became more
exposed as a designer. Together they designed the Maryland Institute College of Art
in Baltimore (1905-1908) and the design of the Springfield (Massachusetts) Municipal
Building (1908-1913) both of which were winning entries in architectural competitions.
The Municipal Building, which had impressed members of the GWMNMA,4 showed the
influence of Corbetts Beaux-Arts training in the mix of Classical and Italian Renaissance
styles.5
50
The Corbett & Pell firm also entered a competition sponsored by the Brooklyn Masonic
Corbetts prominence in the design of skyscrapers continued after the death of Helmle in
Guild, for a site at the corner of Clermont and Lafayette Avenues in Brooklyn. Fourteen
1928. With Everett D. Waid, Corbett designed the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
New York area firms competed to design a Masonic Temple to be used by local Masonic
North Building in 1928, immediately adjacent to the companys famous Met Life Tower.
lodges and York Rite bodies including the Knights Templar. Pell & Corbett, in association
Built in 1909, the Met Life Tower was the tallest building in the world, until 1913. The
with Lord & Hewlett, won the commission and designed a 100-square building. The
companys plan to reclaim the title of the worlds tallest building was to build a new
creative blend of neoclassical elements and polychrome terracotta caught the attention
100-story North Building, but the Great Depression caused the building to terminate at
of architectural critics on a national scale. One critic wrote in the magazine Architecture,
thirty stories; it was never completed.9
in 1909, The building is, I suppose, Greek. I say this grudgingly, for it is so thoroughly
modern in its handling that it seems to me really American of the highest type rather
Corbett served as a chairman on the Advisory Commission of Architects responsible
than a derivative from some ancient architecture.6 The design put Corbetts name on a
for formulating the theme of the New York Worlds Fair in 1939. He also contributed
national level as he was perceived to be defining a modern American architectural style.
to the design of Manhattans Criminal Courts Buildings from 1938 to 1941, as well as
The success of the design of the Brooklyn Masonic Temple can be further measured by
the Amsterdam Houses from 1947 to 1948. Both are examples of his interest in large
the number of similar Masonic buildings that were constructed across the country in the
scale civic projects. His accomplishments and lifes work were recognized by numerous
following years.7
awards up until his death on April 21, 1954.10
After he partnered with Helmle in 1912, Corbett became a strong proponent of the 1916
Osgood and Osgood
zoning law in New York that required set-backs for buildings in order to allow more light
at street level. He saw the new design constraints as a creative challenge for architects.
To Corbett, the legislation provided a stimulus for an otherwise stagnating American
architectural style. Together with the artist Hugh Ferris, who illustrated his theories
on skyscraper design, he helped to extinguish the confusion and controversy over
skyscraper designs through advocating set-back skyscrapers as a model for application.8
Sidney J. Osgood and his son S. Eugene Osgood formed a partnership in Grand
Rapids, Michigan in 1904. Sidney was born the son of a builder in Aurora, Maine and
after receiving an education in Boston, he moved to Michigan where he founded an
architecture firm. His son studied architecture at Cornell and became a Freemason.
This connection led the firm to design and construct many Masonic buildings across
the country, work for which they eventually became well known. By 1923, they had
It was Corbetts reputation as a skyscraper designer that caught the attention of the
GWMNMA who hired Helmle & Corbett to produce a preliminary design of the Memorial
in 1921. The Association hired the firm on February 24th, 1922, assigning Corbett as
principal architect, a role he retained until his death in 1954.
constructed fifteen Masonic temples. As there was no dominant style that constrained
Masonic temple construction, commissions for this work allowed for a high degree of
creativity. Eugene S. Osgood was critical of the inconsistency in Masonic buildings,
which he described in a letter to David Lynn, architect of the U.S. Capitol, as showing a
51
woeful lack of co-ordination and scientific analysis. Sidney aspired to unify the design of
subsequently passed the business along to his son, Frederick Rick Law Olmsted Jr.
Masonic buildings with an approach that combined a working knowledge of Freemasonry
Born on July 24th, 1870 as Henry Perkins Olmsted, he was renamed by his father at
with architecture. This goal, however, was never fully attained.11
the age of four, so that he could keep the benefits of his fathers name and firm. After the
family moved from New York to Brookline, Massachusetts in 1882, Olmsted Jr. came of
Their reputation coupled with S. Osgoods membership in the fraternity led to their
age in a home that also served as his fathers office, which had considerably expanded
employment as the consulting architects in 1921 for the GWMNM. All decisions made
to include projects that focused on large scale urban systems. Olmsted Jr also continued
by the Association were reviewed by S. Osgood. The firm was also commissioned
his fathers ideas on landscape architecture playing an educative and civilizing role
for several other Masonic projects while working on the GWMNM. In 1930, they were
directed to the fundamental needs of urbanites.13
employed to design a $2 million Masonic Temple in Providence, Rhode Island that was
never completed. They also served as consulting architects for $3 million temple in
While attending Harvard in the class of 1894, he spent his summers either traveling
Cincinnatti, Ohio, and designed a $1 million Masonic Home in Alma, Michigan. Their
across Europe with his father, touring public and private landscapes, or watching his
extensive work on Masonic projects is reflected in the laudation of J. Claude Keiper
father design the grounds of The Chicago Worlds Fair. Olmsted Sr. had played an
who declared that Osgood and Osgood had probably the most extended experience in
important role on the committee for the influential Fair, along with Daniel H. Burnham and
connection with Masonic Buildings of any architect in the United States.12
Augustus Saint-Gaudens, who would later become the colleagues of Olmsted Jr. After
graduating, he spent time working on the 39th parallel survey, learning how to read the
land just as his brother had done in 1861 and 1871. He then gained hands-on education
in construction and planting at the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina, designed
by his father. 14
Olmsted Jr. was officially added onto the payroll of the Olmsted, Olmsted and Eliot firm
in December 1895. When Charles Eliot died in 1897, the same year Olmsted Sr. retired,
the business was reorganized. In 1898 it was renamed the Olmsted Brothers with Rick
and his brother John Charles serving as the partners. The brothers took over the work for
Bostons Metropolitan Park Commission, a regional plan started by Eliot which focused
The Olmsted Brothers

In 1897, Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. retired from a renowned career in which he
established the profession of landscape architecture in the United States, and
52
on connecting unique landscapes via a parkway system. Olmsted Jr. also began work on
a similar park system in Baltimore.15
In 1901, the Senate Park Commission in Washington, D.C., referred to as the McMillan
The Olmsted Brothers firm was asked to submit a design for the GWMNM in 1921.
Commission after Senator James McMillan who started the initiative, was formed to
When the GWMNMA approached Helmle and Corbett to submit a design, the Olmsted
reinterpret, recast and supplement the original vision of Charles lEnfants 18th century
Brothers firm thought it was best to work closely with the architects in the early stages of
conception of the city. When Olmsted Jr. was appointed to the commission, he was thirty
the project in order to create a comprehensive design. In February, 1921, the Association
years old, almost twenty years younger than his colleagues. By the late 19th century,
accepted the design for the building and landscape and three months later, the firm
the mall in D.C. had become cluttered with development and lEnfants plan of a symbolic
signed a contract with them for continued work on the memorial.20
and grand space had become unrecognizable. It was Olmsted Jr.s goal to restore the
mall back to the effect of grandeur, power and dignified magnificence. The McMillan
Report envisioned the mall as part of a larger system of landscapes that extended to the
citys outlying areas, a planning idea that was characteristic of the Olmsted firm.16
Nine years later, Olmsted Jr. was appointed as one of the first members on The
Commission of Fine Arts, which was tasked with implementing the vision of the McMillan
Report. Olmsted Jr. was involved in every landscape detail from the Lincoln Memorial
and the westward expansion of the mall, to the George Washington Memorial Parkway.17
In 1926, Olmsted Jr. was also appointed to the National Capital Park and Planning
Commission, which took on the expanded roles of urban planning and park acquisition,
Carl Rust Parker (1882-1966)
without compromising the McMillan vision. He remained on the NCPPC board until
1932.18
In order to meet the terms of the contract of the Association which required a landscape
architect who was also a Mason, the Olmsted Brothers appointed an associate architect
While working in Washington, the Olmsted Brothers firm balanced a multi-faceted design
practice that extended across the nation. At the time of John Charles Olmsteds death in
1920, the business had already received approximately 3,500 commissions of varying
on their team who was a member of the Casco Lodge, No. 36 in Yarmouth, Maine.21
It is further understood that Carl Rust Parker, a member of the Masonic Fraternity, hitherto
associated with us, shall continue to be associated during the term of this agreement,
scales. After becoming the senior partner of the worlds largest design firm, Olmsted
and shall act with full authority as our direct representative in connection with all matters
Jr. hired a growing number of associate architects to manage the firms numerous
pertaining to this work, and that his name shall appear on all plans and documents prepared
commissions. A larger workforce allowed Olmsted to focus on issues of conservation,
by us.22
city planning and the preservation of the American landscape.19
53
Carl Rust Parker was born in Andover, Massachusetts in 1882. In lieu of attending
In 1914, the Good Will Home for Boys and Girls in Hinckley, Maine hired Parker to
college after graduating from the Phillips Andover Academy in 1901, he immediately
design an expanded campus along the Kennebec River including cottages for 500
began working with Olmsted Brothers in Brookline, Massachusetts. While there, he
children, faculty homes, agricultural areas, a riverfront campground, recreational areas,
served as a draftsman, planting designer, and construction supervisor. In 1910, he
and an orchard. These different features were interconnected by a curvilinear road
resigned from the firm to begin his own practice in Portland, Maine.
system, lined with sugar maples and stone entrance gates. A network of woodland paths
were interspersed with stone monuments and fire circles dedicated to leaders in the
During his years working independently, he was employed on several residential and
outdoors movement, such as Ernest Thompson Seton and Theodore Roosevelt.25
civic projects, sometimes in collaboration with the architect, John Calvin Stevens. In
1911, he was hired by the Boca Grande Land Company to help develop plans for a
Parker closed his practice during World War One and began work with the U.S.
new town being developed on Gasparilla Island in Florida. Parker was influential in the
Government in Washington, D.C. He returned to Maine in 1919 to resume work with the
layout of the town, as well as the design of a grand hotel similar to those built by Henry
Olmsted Brothers where he continued with projects such as the Blaine Memorial Park
Flagler in St. Augustine, Palm Beach, and Miami. In creating the plans for the grounds
(1920) and Capitol Park (1920-29), both in Augusta, Maine; High Pasture garden estate
of the recent expansion of the hotel, he arranged each space with a uniquely coherent
(1926) in York, Maine; and the University of Maine at Orono (1932). He also led projects
character. This reflected the Olmsted philosophy on design, which can be seen on
in Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, including the National Cash
Gilchrist Avenue, a four-block long boulevard extending through a desirable section of
Register Company in Dayton, Ohio and Kohler Village in Wisconsin.26 He finally became
the town. Lined with coconut palms along a 60 foot wide median with lawn, the result
a partner in the firm in 1950 and retired in 1961. A fellow of the American Society of
was in many ways a linear park. Although never built, Parker also designed another hotel
Landscape Architects since 1915,27 Parker suffered from a stroke on Thanksgiving Day,
with gardens and recreational features on a section of Gilchrist avenue. His designs that
1966, and went into a coma from which he did not recover.28
were built remain today, preserved by planning work on the island that was continued by
the Olmsted Brothers firm from 1924-1925.23
Parker was commissioned in 1912 to design another subdivision, this time in Portland
Maine. Boulevard Park was a neighborhood that had been positively affected by the
creation of a new electric trolley line from downtown Portland. Parkers plan included an
esplanade lined with street trees and two lots designed as parks with paths and trees.
Today it is a subdivision of around 40 homes, and maintains one of the remaining parks
overlooking Back Cove, as well as an historic core with mature street trees and original
granite curbs.24
54
Freemasonry
(http://www.midnightfreemasons.org/2014/09/best-advice-i-have-if-you-want-to-be.html)
55
Defining Freemasonry
The lodge is the center of the Masonic world, reflecting each communitys social and
The rituals, symbols and constitutions used by Freemasonry have prompted many
lodges are the central entity that controls the interpretation of the symbolic language and
Masons to attempt to define the craft.1 Although not easily defined, Freemasonry can
the quality of the rituals that take place in its subordinate lodges. These symbols and
be described as a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by
rituals are believed to be inherited from medieval operative stonemasons, who ensured
symbols.2 As an institution of distinctly different communities of men that come together
the proper training of their workmen. Similarly, Speculative Masons protect the quality of
voluntarily. Freemasonry carries different meaning to each Mason and lodge throughout
learning and practices of their members through each grand lodge.5
personal needs, and is where members are initiated and rituals take place.4 Grand
American history.3
Lodge meetings provide religious, educational, professional and social services to the
members involved. There is also a social element to membership. Lodges can act as
amateur theater companies when rituals are performed, social clubs when dinners are
held, or simulate family functions when brothers bond together.6
Roots
Although the origins of Freemasonry remain obscure, individual lodges are known to
have existed in Scotland and England in the 17th century. In 1717, however, a grand
lodge was formed by four London lodges in order to centrally supervise the work of
individual lodges. While this date is often referred to as the seminal year for organized
Freemasonry, the roots remain vague to scholar and speculator alike. Some historians
believe that the ritualistic and symbolic traditions date back to antiquity and are divinely
inspired, while others suggest that early founders simply infused the practice with
architectural and biblical meaning.7
(http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/images_download/apron_eye.gif)
56
What is clear is that Freemasonry has evolved from early Masonic guilds dating back to
Throughout the 17th century, the organizations early religious and mythological
the Medieval Age when craft guilds organized their workers hierarchically from laborer
characteristics began to synthesize with Renaissance thought. Members of all parts of
to architect. These guilds supervised the apprentices path to becoming a master,
society became interested in the intellectual status of these guilds. 13At the same time,
maintained the quality of the craft and offered support to members in need.8 Most
cathedral and castle construction began to decline, creating more of an incentive to
Medieval trade guilds added a layer of mythological meaning to their initiation rites,
seek out protection from the aristocracy in new ways.14 By dividing the organization into
emphasizing the importance of their trade secrets and techniques to new members.9
operative lodges, comprised of stonemasons interested in the trade guild and craft,
Unlike other crafts, the Masonic guilds were closely tied to religious powers through
and non-operative lodges, comprised of non-stonemasons who were more concerned
their construction of cathedrals, churches and chapels, as well secular powers in the
with the esoteric symbolism and rituals of the craft, the organization was able to appeal
creation of castles that emphasized and protected their importance. In order to legitimize
to aristocratic members.15 These non-operative or speculative lodges drew more
their affiliations with their royal and religious clients, organized guilds in the 1300s
highly esteemed members such as Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton and Elias Ashmole.16
created lists of rules or charges that described their mythical history and authority and
This new wave of educated members continued to synthesize the disparate elements of
required that members be loyal to the king and faithful to the church.10 These early myths
Freemasonry in order to create a unified system of scientific principles. Committed to the
were significant in defining the craft with its emphasis on morality, geometry and the
scientific method and rational thought, this new wave of Freemasons believed they could
connection to the Temple of Solomon and ancient Egypt. Illiterate members who could
pursue personal improvement, bring order to society and gain a better understanding of
not read these charges used secret words and hand signs to identify each other. This
the universe.17
strictly codified layer to the Masonic guilds prevented ineligible men from gaining access,
and allowed them to secure work more easily when traveling.11
During the Enlightenment, Freemasons mined history for intellectual predecessors such
as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Sir Francis Bacon and Galileo Galilei. Like these ancient
In the 1400s, the functions of early Masonic guilds were steeped in religiosity.
thinkers, Enlightenment philosophers continued to search for meaning from antiquity.
Freemasonrys connection with Judeo-Christianity stems from the political and religious
By analyzing Greek and Roman architecture, they sought to find deeper insight into the
instability in England following the Protestant Reformation. In reaction to the chaos
secrets of lost civilizations.18
and war caused by religious disputes, early Freemasons aspired to establish a unifying
concept of theology that embraced the core ideas of Christian belief such as the afterlife,
mans dependence on a supreme being, and the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures. This
universal acceptance, idealized by early Freemasons, allowed Jews and Christians of
any denomination to become members of the same brotherhood.12
57
The Temple of Solomon
The legend of the construction of the temple, according to the narrative taught
While early Masonic charters emphasized the importance and historicity of King
The first is Hiram, King of Tyre, a ruler who entered into a contract with King Solomon
throughout the first three Masonic degrees, involves two characters both named Hiram.
Solomons Temple, the Enlightenment brought renewed interest.19 Built in pre-Christian
to provide fir and cedar trees as materials for the structure, as clearly discussed in
Jerusalem by King Solomon, son of David, the Temple is thought to have housed the
the Bible. The second, whom the Freemasons refer to as Hiram of Abiff, is a masonic
Ark of the Covenant. The tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments, brought down
interpretation of a character loosely identified as a worker in brass in the bible. Hiram
by Moses from Mount Sinai, are a symbol to many of mans covenant with God. The
Freemasons believed that ancient Masons were responsible for the construction of the
Abiff is given more importance in Masonic tradition as the skilled architect who oversaw
the construction of the temple.21
temple, thus claiming an important role in anchoring the relationship between God and
the followers of Abrahamic religions.20
These three individuals, referred to within Masonic circles as the historic Grand Masters,
are each associated with a virtuous attribute as well as a style of classical column.
King Solomon represented wisdom, symbolized by the Ionic column. Hiram Abiff was
associated with beauty and symbolized by the Corinthian column, while Hiram, King of
Tyre, represented strength and was portrayed by the Doric column.22
Members during the Enlightenment analyzed the temples architecture through geometric
and mathematical lenses in order to understand the nature of God and man. Since its
early formation in Scotland, Freemasonry has used the architectural symbolism of the
temple to unify initiation rituals.23 The first degree initiate symbolically starts his journey
on the checkered pavement of the temple, and is taught lessons on morals, virtues
and tenets of the brotherhood. After reaching the second degree, he continues up to the
temples middle chamber, where he is taught the liberal arts and sciences. When the
initiate finally reaches the third degree, he assumes the role of Hiram Abiff, the master
architect. During this last stage, the initiate reaches the unfinished sanctum sanctorum24
and symbolically constructs the temple by employing tenets of the brotherhood within his
community.25
The Ancient City of Jerusalem with Solomons Temple. 1871. (Library of Congress)
58
The hierarchy of degrees are inherited from what is believed to be the divisions of
labor from King Solomon, according to his royal edicts in building the temple. Solomon
separated the workers into seven thousand entered apprentices, eighty thousand
fellow crafts, and thirty-three thousand overseers or masters of work. When a member
ascended each degree, he echoed the progress that a stone mason would have made
on the biblical construction site.26
Early American Freemasonry

Freemasonry arrived in the American colonies even before the 1717 formation of the first
grand lodge in London. The expansion of trade and immigration routes to the colonies
greatly influenced the foundations of American colonial Masonic lodges. Many lodges
were undoubtedly founded without the authorization of any British grand lodge which
attempted to maintain and regulate governance over the colonial lodges by assigning
provincial grand masters. 27 As Freemasonry was not centrally organized, lodges
reflected the ethnography, class and interests of each community in which it was created.
Early founding fathers including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were
members, as was expected of any respectable gentleman in the American colonies at
the time. Although membership in the South was generally restricted to the upper class,
middle class members were more welcomed in New England. Individuals such as Paul
Revere used his membership as a tool for self-improvement and social advancement.
For these members, Freemasonry was a method to practice political skills, public
speaking and rhetoric through organizing lodges and recitations of Masonic rituals. While
the fraternity was a way for middle class members to mingle with those of Washington
and Franklins status, these working class groups did not extend the invitation to those
they did not see as their equal.28
George Washington as a Freemason (Library of Congress)
59
The exception, was a branch of Freemasonry founded by Prince Hall, a freed slave who
As Freemasonry was not associated directly with the Crown, the brotherhood remained
became a Mason in Boston during the British occupation of 1775. Along with his Masonic
relatively unaffected by the transition.29 However, many important members played key
brothers, he chartered his own lodge, which was recognized by the Grand Lodge in
roles in the struggle for independence. While George Washington lead the Continental
England as the African Lodge No. 459. Many prominent early black Americans became
Army to victory, Benjamin Franklin was sent to France to gain support for the rebellion.
members of this lodge, and after Prince Halls death in 1807, African American Masons
His renewed interest and participation with Freemasonry was important in networking
chose to call their fraternity Prince Hall Freemasonry, in honor of its founder.
with other important Masons, such as the Marquis de Lafayette.30
During the Revolutionary War many aspects of American society shifted dramatically.
Many Freemasons were also members of other secret organizations involved in the
fight for independence, such as the Sons of Liberty. After the signing of the Declaration
of Independence, these extralegal secret organizations became public, while the
Freemasons remained a private group. This fostered the public opinion that Freemasons
were a malevolent and conspiratorial group that hid behind a facade of patriotism and
the reputation of George Washington. This public distrust and fear of the Masons was
exacerbated by the Morgan Affair of 1826.
William Morgan, most likely a Freemason, announced that he would expose all Masonic
rituals and recognition signs in an illustrated publication. Masonic exposures were not
new and occurred as early as the 1720s, when Benjamin Franklin stated their grand
secret is that they have no secret at all.31 However, Morgan threatened to include secret
recognition words of the York Rite degrees that had been previously unpublished. After
attempts to burn down the printing house, and the acquittal of Morgan from imprisonment
on harassment charges, he was kidnapped by a group of men and never seen again.
His mysterious disappearance caused widespread theories about his fate. Furthermore,
the posthumous publication of his book by his partner, and news of his grieving widow,
heightened scrutiny of Freemasonry. A movement of anti-Masonic attitudes consisted
(http://bestrunningshoe.info/)
60
of members of the new republic that labeled them as undemocratic, as well as religious
Freemasonry was faced with adjusting to this sense of secular recreation. Within the
groups accusing them of blasphemy. Freemasonry membership rates plummeted and
organization, there was a movement to deemphasize the religiosity and moral aspects
it was not until the 1840s when the brotherhood was able to rebuild itself as one less
in order to appeal to younger generations who were disinterested in old-fashioned
rooted in aristocracy and more grounded in an emerging middle class.
ideologies.36 This new wave of Masons felt that Masonic tenets should be more
concretely applied to solving societal problems, an approach linked to progressive
Freemasonry 1880-1930
ideologies that still represented middle class ideals. While some of these goals were
American Freemasonrys recovery from the anti-Masonic movement can be accredited
and became preoccupied with nativist definitions of the American identity.37
commendable, they embraced increasing fears related to immigration and cultural shifts
to an unprecedented membership boom in secret fraternal societies. Between 1890

and 1900, over 460 such organizations were created, and by 1901, an estimated five
million Americans belonged to at least one of 600 orders.32 Due to the protean nature of
Rise of Masonic Organizations, 1900-1930
fraternal organizations and their ability to accommodate the needs of different groups,
their popularity was supported by the radical changes that were taking place in America
after the Civil War and during the Gilded Age.33
While the members of Freemasonry grew from 550,000 in 1879 to nearly 3 million in
Membership
2,000,000
1925, similar growth rates occurred in the many fractured groups.34 The Ancient Order
1,600,000
of United Workmen, attracted lower class and immigrant members, while lower-middle
1,400,000
class members gravitated to the Knights of Pythias, and the Oddfellows catered more
1,200,000
to middle-class members. In response to a rising interest in secularism amongst the
1,000,000
growing consumer culture of the early 20th century, new organizations formed such
as the Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine. Other auxiliary groups
York Rite
Shrine
1,800,000
were formed to focus on entertainment and social activity such as the Imperial Order
600,000
of Muscovites, the Knights of Oriental Splendor, the Oriental Order of Humility and
400,000
Protection, and the Ancient Mystic Order of Cabirians.35
Eastern Star
1,800,000
Scottish Rite
200,000
0
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
(Tabbert, 2006)
61
Because Freemasonry was still very much a decentralized organization, there was
little guidance as to how this sense of Americanism should be promoted. Other than
promoting American ideals in democracy, equality and justice, Freemasons in the early
part of the 20th century were also expected to be respectable citizens that were active in
the community. The general themes of Freemasonry revolved around civic participation
and a white middle class perception of the history of the United States. By drawing upon
these idea of community service and an understanding of early American history, the
members of the fraternity in this period were able to adapt an old institution to a modern
society in flux.38
Decline and Rise of Major Fraternal Orders 1920-1950

Membership
The Great Depression
2,000,000
Odd Fellows
1,800,000
1,600,000
BPO Elks
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
Loyal Order of Moose
1,800,000
Knights of Columbus
600,000
400,000
200,000
Knights of Pythias
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
(Tabbert, 2006)
62
1950
(NARA)
63
The Evolution of the Skyscraper in

America
In the late 19th century, America witnessed unprecedented shifts in social and cultural
values on its way to becoming one of the most industrialized nations in the world. At the
same time, architects were beginning to search for a new American architectural style
after a century of dependence on period revivals. Commercial buildings were first to
reflect early experiments, utilizing the new technology of steel-frame construction which
64
(http://metropolisoftomorrow.tumblr.com/post/609777496/city-of-the-future-by-harvey-wiley-corbett-1913)
allowed them to reach unforeseen heights.
The Beaux-Arts and The Worlds

Columbian Exposition
Preceding this shift in styles, American architecture was dominated by the Beaux-Arts.
Most architects were either trained directly at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris or
worked at a firm whose principal architects had studied there. Design inspiration was
derived from knowledge of architectural precedents. Buildings were to be approached
comprehensively and on multiple scales, from overall circulation to the decorative
fixtures. This prevailing attitude towards architecture was manifested in the 1893 Worlds
Columbian Exposition in Chicago, which adopted a Beaux-Arts style in order to promote
an American identity that was legitimately rooted in classicism. Modern thinkers such as
Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan, who were working to define an American style,
were pushed aside as the attitude towards architecture degraded into a mere mercantile
classicism.1 The deeply entrenched idea that a nations greatness could be measured
by its architectural style further allowed architects to borrow from idealized periods of
history. The practice of paying homage to past civilizations solidified into the practice of
basing all buildings on historic precedence.2
Historical Eclecticism
The Worlds Columbian Exposition presented America as a society that was not only
cultured and educated, but also technologically advanced. Applying historical styles
to buildings that could now reach unprecedented heights had become a problem to
many architects. The large block-shaped constructions were unlike any previous style
of architecture, and although some Chicago architects embraced this structural form as
aesthetically pleasing in itself, many American preferred to apply familiar styles to this
new building typology. This practice was usually applied by breaking the building up into
the base, or the lower section visible from the street level; the shaft, or the relatively
simplistic masonry or terracotta covered floors above the base; and the capital, or the
treatment of the decorative cap at the top of the building. By dividing early tall buildings
into these three elements, architects could easily appropriate architectural details.3
Debates over the most fitting style for these tall buildings continued as many thought
that historical styles were intended for horizontal formats. By the 1910s, the Gothic style
became the most logical appropriation because of the vertical accentuation. This is seen
most notably in Cass Gilberts 1913 Woolworth building, nicknamed The Cathedral of
Commerce. However, the functional disconnect between tall American buildings and
Gothic cathedrals continued to create debates over the appropriateness of applying
historic aesthetics to a modern form of building. This disconnect was further revealed in
the design competition for a new building for the Chicago Tribune. The winning design,
by John Mead Howells and Raymond Hood, appeared to synthesize the Gothic style
with a more modern approach by deemphasizing the corners of the building, which
had been the traditional areas for Gothic buttressing. Several other competition entries
were influential in skyscraper design, such as Eliel Saarinens second place entry. The
competition also helped redefine the use of the word modern from simply referring to
something as contemporary to something innovative in style and aesthetics.4
The Worlds Columbian Exposition. (Library of Congress)
65
New York City Zoning Law of 1916
As similar zoning laws swept across the country on a federal level, architectural
At the same time, skyscraper design was being very much influenced by the New
proponents like Harvey Wiley Corbett celebrated the creative challenge that this law
York zoning regulations of 1916. The idea of zoning had come out the City Beautiful
philosophy of creating functionally safe and aesthetically pleasing environments for
urban dwellers. The 1916 law divided the city into business, residential and commercial
districts, each with their own maximum building height. The legislators also conceived
the idea of the zoning envelope in response to the unbridled development of lower
posed. Corbett laid out a systematic approach to tall buildings using the zoning formula
that treated them as sculptures in the round. To Corbett, the set-back design would force
architects to focus on the buildings massing rather than detailed surfaces that typically
faced the street. This was a direct challenge to prevailing ideas on architectural styles,
and the writings of Corbett had a lasting impression on architects of the 1920s6
Manhattan where buildings rose straight up and used nearly 100% of their lots. Under
the new law, buildings were required to step back in order to allow a measure of light and
air down to the street level.5
Hugh Ferriss images illustrating the concept of the zoning envelope. (http://www.plataformaurbana.cl/)
66
Art Deco
At the same time as New Yorks influential zoning law took effect, an entirely new mode
of design was beginning to dominate architecture. In 1925, Paris held the Exposition
Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes which soon revolutionized all
aspects of design across the world. In America it was dubbed Art Deco and the style
drew on many sources including geometric forms, cultural motifs from around the world,
and abstracted flora and fauna. Buildings could now assume fantastical forms that had
never been manifested before, applying new types of integrated ornamentation and
utilizing modern materials such as aluminum and Bakelite.7
The synthesis of new styles resulted in iconic new buildings not only in New York, such
as the Chrysler Building in 1930 and the Empire State Building in 1931, but also in most
major American cities. The preceding attempts at adopting historical styles to new tall
buildings became the modus operandi for an entirely modern high-rise aesthetic that
became intrinsic to American culture. The practice soon extended from buildings for
corporations to wide ranging institutions including civic and government organizations,
schools and even religious groups.8
Exposition des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes. (http://lechronoscaphe.com)
67
The GWMNM
The GWMNM is unique example of the shifts in attitudes towards architectural design
and the national obsession with tall buildings during the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the
placement of a set-back skyscraper in Alexandria, Virginia may seem odd, but given
the historical background of American mania for tall buildings, it was an entirely logical
decision. The highly visible building is a distinctive addition to the wider landscape of the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area as the elevation of the top of the memorial exceeds
that of the U.S. Capitol Building, but not that of the Washington Monument. Eightytwo years after the construction of the streamlined building, it remains an eye-catching
memorial to the countrys most important Freemason.
(GWMNM Archives)
68
Conclusion and Opportunities
(Olmsted Archives)
69
Shuters Hill remains a unique part of the history of Alexandria. The early plans of Carl
Conclusion
Nothing currently on site prevents the implementation of Carl Rust Parkers landscape
design. Some of his plans could be implemented as is, but others would need
reinterpreting. These include areas that were omitted from his planting plans due to
construction issues or lack of funds, areas that were postponed for later appropriations of
funds, and areas that have been altered by later changes to the landscape.
Rust Parker, and those of Kenneth Soergels in the 1970s, intended to bring attention to
the value of this site and the importance of this historic memorial. Despite the fact that
neither plan was completed, the Dedicatory Tree Program has the potential to follow a
systematic plan to enhance the landscape. If the grandeur of the landscape is brought to
the level of the building, the Memorial can provide an even greater important resource to
the Masonic and local communities.
Today there is renewed interest in the landscape. The dedicatory tree program has
successfully enhanced the grounds; the large number of tree planted not only provide
habitat but create a pleasant setting for visitors. On a broad level, they have helped fulfill
some of Parkers overall composition of vegetation framing the building. However, some
challenges, such as plant selection and the method in which the trees are dedicated,
would need to be resolved in order to satisfy Parkers design, as well as the goals of the
Dedicatory Tree Program.
A long term approach can be adapted to integrate Parkers plans over time. This would
require replacing trees and shrubs as they die with those suggested on his planting plans
in the locations he designated. Modern cultivars that are more hardy to the climate can
be substituted for those on Parkers plant list that have become problematic.
New planting efforts could focus on key locations throughout the GWMNM grounds
according to Parkers plans. Local garden groups could assist in maintaining these
areas, engaging the community in a renewed interest in the history of the landscape. In
this way, the landscape could be aesthetically improved while concurrently improving
the local ecosystem, as well as adding to the quality of life within Alexandria. Just as
the building is used in programming, the landscape could be utilized socially with the
community. Current plans for a community garden on the western end of the property
N
show how the Association is beginning to consider the potential of the social aspect of
the landscape.
100
70
200
300
Comparing Parkers proposed massing of vegetation to the landscape today. (Google Earth, Olmsted Archives)
Focus Areas
While Carl Rust Parkers original and yet to be implemented plans have been brought to
light, questions remain as to how they could be put in place today. A meticulous designer, Parker spent a significant amount of time thinking over the selection and placements
of many types of plants through the grounds, as seen in his earlier study sketches from
1939. Perhaps he spent this time deliberating over the plans to such detail because he
believed that the Association would ultimately allocate the funding for his vision.
Unfortunately, this was not the case as only a small fraction of his plans were
implemented. He never fully addressed certain parts of the grounds. In other areas,
Entrance
however, detailed plantings, shown on plan number 112, were never installed. While he
did complete the plantings along the terraces and steps (shown in orange on a tracing
of plan 112), the unfinished parts of these plans would be an ideal place to begin work in
achieving Parkers goals of beautifying the front of the property. These areas include the
plaza, the length of property between Callahan Drive and the main drive to the memorial
building, and the entrance area.
Callahan Drive
The Plaza
71
(Olmsted Archives)
These trees would have been supplemented by a complex planting of dense understory
Callahan Drive
shrubs. Parker knew that he would not have been able to complete this section when he
Perhaps most interesting would be the completion of Parkers plans for the area along
drew plan 112 because although he indicated the types of plants for each bed, he did not
Callahan Drive. His intention to screen off the hustle and bustle of the train yard is
specify the quantity. However, he did articulate the shapes and sizes of these beds.
clear from his plantings of evergreen species of trees. The Mary Washington Chapters
Although some of the existing trees today can be integrated into his plan, just as some
donation of the American holly, as well as the cedar of Lebanon donated at that time,
of the early donated trees were integrated in the 1930s, some would be less appropriate,
would not have been entirely out of place in his plant list that already included Ilex
such as the crepe myrtles. Other issues with the granite dedication stones would
opaca as well as other evergreens like Pinus excelsea and Ilex aquifolium. These would
come about, just as with the early dedication trees, as these plaques would become
have functioned as year-round screening between Callahan Drive and the main drive
imperceptible to those who would like to see them.
approach to the building.
72
Pinus excelsa
Quercus rubra
Planting Beds
Aronia melanocarpa
Aronia arbutifolia
Azalea calendulacea
Azalea viscosa
Azalea arborescens
Azalea veseyi
Azalea kaemperi
Azalea nudiflora
Cotoneaster acutifolia
Cotoneaster salicifolia
Cotoneaster recemiflora soongarica
Cotoneaster divaricata
Cotoneaster francheti
Enkianthus campanulatus
Forsythia intermedia spectabile
Ilex verticillata
Ilex glabra
Lonicera standishi
Leucothoe catesbaei
Rosa setigera
Rosa rubiginosa
Rosa rubrifolia
Rosa lucida
Rosa multiflora
Rosa multiflora cathayensis
Rosa rugosa Conrad F. Meyer
Lonicera standishi
Leucothoe catesbaei
Myrica cerifera
Pyracantha coccinea
Viburnum molle
Tsuga canadensis
Fagus grandifolia
Ilex opaca
Quercus alba
Quercus coccinea
Quercus bicolor
Ilex aquifolium
43-
64-
43-
64-
(Google Earth)
Nandina domestica
Cotoneaster, Taxus
70-
70-
Nandina domestica
Nandina domestica
70-
70-
Malus ioensis plena

Abelia grandiora
Malus eleyi
Cotoneaster francheti
Malus ioensis plena
Parker envisioned a
lush traffic island that
would greet pedestrians at the plaza area
on King Street. The
area today holds the
potential of fulfilling
this connection to
the rest of the city.
Although the shape
has been altered over
time (Above), his
planting plan (left) can
be updated.
Pyracantha coccinea
Malus arnoldiana
Taxus cuspidata
74
(Google Earth)
(Olmsted Archives)
The Plaza
This unique section of the property continues to offer potential for landscaping efforts.
However the original symmetrical shape of the green space has altered due to changes
From its inception, this traffic island was meant to connect the processional flow of the
in the paving of the roads over time. Either the planting plans would have to be adjusted
memorial with the main axis of King Street that aligns the memorial with the City of
to this asymmetry, or the roads would need to be repaved to restore the traffic island to
Alexandria. A sidewalk, bordered by plantings of crabapples and shrubs, was intended
its original shape.
to facilitate this connection. Although articulated in plan number 112, the planting was
never completed, most likely because the sidewalk and steps were never installed.
Furthermore, a hedge was planted perpendicular to the main axis, further blocking the
flow of pedestrians from King Street and the railroad station toward the memorial.
This area could be enhanced by the use of Potomac blue stone Parker so often
specified. The steps along the connecting path would then mimic the steps along the
lower terrace wall adjacent.
75
The Building Entrance

The plantings to either side of the main steps to the buildings were initially postponed
due to construction delays, but Parker did manage to oversee the plantings of yew and
pyracantha. Inkberry and Japanese hollies were some of the species of shrubs that were
left out of the 1943 planting. More significantly, two southern magnolias were intended
to border the steps, and although six foot by three foot holes were dug, the trees were
never planted.
The areas to the sides and back of the upper wall around the building have been
altered by later parking lot additions, as well as the addition of a wheelchair accessible
ramp along the north side of the building, making Parkers plans obsolete. Although
not mentioned in plan 112, it is known that Parker envisioned the upper terrace wall to
support plantings of clipped linden trees. Despite concerns raised after the planting and
removal of the cherry trees installed under Kenneth Soergels design in 1972, restoring
the section with linden trees would not be entirely impossible.
The terrace wall along the drive was never veneered in Conway pink granite, like the rest
of the steps, and has remained in concrete. This has caused problems in maintenance,
so much that the Association is considering reconstructing these walls. Furthermore,
they wish to add some additional features from the original design, such as the urns that
topped the plinths, as depicted in the 1925 published designs.
(Olmsted Archives)
76
Leucothoe catesbaei
Osmanthus aquifolium
Lonicera pileata
Although the area to

the south and west of
the building have been
altered, the areas bordering the main steps
to the building still
hold the opportunity of
implementing Parkers
elegant plantings.
Laurocerasus ofcinalis shipka

Ilex crenata convexa
Ilex crenata latifolia
Ilex aquifolium
Taxus cuspidata
Pyracantha coccinea
Magnifolia grandiora
Nandina domestica
(Library of Congress)
77
Endnotes
9 GWMNM. Minutes of the Seventh Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, 1917), 14
Early History
10 GWMNM. Minutes of the Twenty-Second Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, 1932), 25.
Alexandria Archaeology Museum. Alexandria Archaeology Excavates Shuters Hill 1995-1998.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4
Alexandria Archaeology Museum. Shuters Hill: A Wealth of History.
6 Ibid.
11 GWMNM. Minutes of the Fifth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, 1915), 4-7
12
Alexandria Library. Proposed Monument to Washington as a Citizen. 1902
13
Washington Monument Association, Alexandria Gazette. February 25th, 1908
14
Abstract of Title to George Washington Park, 15 Mar. 1921. Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA
Archives.
15
David J Howell to the Olmsted Brothers. November 18th, 1921. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress, 2
7 Ibid.
8
Ibid.
16
Dedication Ceremony, Washington Post. Sunday, November 17th.1929
Alexandria Archaeology Museum. Shuters Hill: A Wealth of History
17
10
Brown, William Adrian. History of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial.
(Alexandria, VA: George Washington Masonic National Memorial, 1980), 2
11
Michael T. Miller, 1987. Pen portraits of Alexandria, Virginia, 1739-1900. (Bowie, Md: Heritage
Books), 208-209.
12
13
William Adrian Brown, History of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial.
(Alexandria, VA: George Washington Masonic National Memorial, 1980), 4.
14
1 GWMNM. Minutes of the Eighth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
2 GWMNM. Minutes of the Tenth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
3 GWMNM. Minutes of the Eleventh Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
The Association
78
The Building
Charles H. Callahan. A Memorial to Washington the Mason to be Erected at Alexandria Virginia

(Washington, D.C.: printed by W. F. Roberts, 1920), 9.
Ibid., 32.
Kate M. Kocyba, George Washington Masonic National Memorial. (Historic American Buildings
Survey, 2010), 12.
Survey, 2010).
5 GWMNM. Minutes of the Executive Committee of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA
Archives, May 3rd, 1921), 7.
6

Survey, 2010).
Ibid., 16.
GWMNM Archives. Minutes of the Seventh Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria,
VA: GWMNMA Archives, 1917), 12.
Ibid.
Ibid., 18.
(Alexandria, VA: George Washington Masonic National Memorial, 1980).
P.A. Bruce, Charles Hilliard Callahan, Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. Accessed 22,
August 7th, 2014, http://aw22.org/pgm/callahan.html
11 GWMNM. Minutes of the Twelfth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:

12
10 GWMNM. Minutes of the Eleventh Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, Dec 1st, 1923), 63.
Survey, 2010), 17.
13 GWMNM. Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
14
Survey, 2010), 19.
15
John Russell Pope to Corbett, Feb. 4, 1924, GWMNMA Archives.
16
Survey, 2010).
17 GWMNM. The George Washington Masonic National Memorial, (New York, NY: Kalkhoff Co. for
the George Washington Masonic National Memorial Association, 1925).
18
Survey, 2010), 20.
Carl Rust Parker November 11, 1921. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
David J. Howell and Son to Olmsted Brothers. November 21st, 1921. Olmsted Associates,
Library of Congress.
Carl R. Parker Letter to Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. November 7th, 1921. Olmsted Associates,
Library of Congress.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12
Carl R. Parker to Col. Watres. August 18, 1922. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
13
Carl R. Parker to Col. Watres. February 14, 1923. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
14
Carl R. Parker to Maude L. Chambers. December 13th, 1934. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
20
(Alexandria, VA: George Washington Masonic National Memorial, 1980), 10.
15
George Washington Memorial Parkway, 1993. Historic American Engineering Record, VA-69.
40.
21
Survey, 2010), 21.
16
Ibid., 49.
22
Daniel E. Moran, Report on the Soil Test (Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA Archives, Oct 5th, 1922),
6-7.
18
Ibid., 70.
23
Survey, 2010), 21.
19
Ibid., 58.
20
Carl R. Parker to Melvin M. Johnson. July 2, 1924. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
24
Ibid., 21-22.
21
Survey, 2010), 24.
25
Ibid., 22.
22
Carl R. Parker to Eugene S. Osgood, July 24th, 1928. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
23
Carl R. Parker to Eugene S. Osgood, February 8th, 1928. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
24
Carl R. Parker to Melvin M. Johnson, February 12th, 1931. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
25
Carl R. Parker to Col. Watres. February, 14 1923. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
26
Carl R. Parker to Keiper. November, 20 1934. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
27
Carl R. Parker to Keiper. April 22, 1935. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
26 Ibid.
27
Ibid., 16.
28
Rem Koolhaas . Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. (New York:
Monacelli Press, 1994), 92.
The Landscape
17 Ibid.
Kocyba, Kate M. George Washington Masonic National Memorial. (Historic American Buildings
Survey, 2010), 23.
28
Carl R. Parker , Carl Rust to Claude J. Keiper. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
29
Elmer Arn to Carl R. Parker, October 12th, 1939. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
Carl R. Parker to Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. November 2nd, 1921. Olmsted Associates, Library
of Congress.
30
Claude J. Keiper to Carl R. Parker, March 8, 1923. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
E.C. Whiting to Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. October 9th, 1921. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
31
Claude J. Keiper to Carl R. Parker, October 22, 1943. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
32
Elmer Arn to Carl Rust Parker. August 16, 1944. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
Carl R. Parker to Frederick Law Olmsted Jr, October 9th, 1921. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
33
Fred Schondau to Carl R. Parker. September 25, 1945. Olmsted Associates, Library of
Congress.
Survey, 2010), 23.
34
Harvey W. Corbett to Carl R. Parker. October 2, 1945. Olmsted Associates, Library of

Congress.
79
Archives, December 12th, 2000).
35
Elmer Arn to Carl R. Parker, October 10, 1941. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
36
Fred Schondau to Carl R. Parker. June 17, 1946. Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
37
Carl R. Parker to Fred Schondau. April 26th, 1950.Olmsted Associates, Library of Congress.
60
38
GWMNM. Minutes of the Executive Committee of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA
Archives, August 25, 1967).
Dedicatory Tree Program, The George Washington Masonic National Memorial,

http://gwmemorial.org/trees/
61
George Seghers, personal communication to author, August 22, 2014.
39 GWMNM. Minutes of the Fifty-Eighth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, 1968).
62 GWMNM. 2001 Annual Report of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial,
(Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA Archives, 2001).
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 GWMNM. Minutes of the Sixtieth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, 1970).
Archives, February 22nd and 23rd, 1970).
Archives, February 20 and 21, 1971).
2 GWMNM. Minutes of the Eleventh Executive Committee of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, June 22, 1923), 48.
Archives, August 4th, 1972).
46 Ibid.
Archives, February 20, 1983).
48
GWMNM. Minutes of the Executive Committee of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA
49 GWMNM. Cedar Tree Dedication, (Alexandria, VA: GWMNM Archives, April 15th, 1972).
Washington Post. November 1, 1923.
4 GWMNM. Minutes of the Twelfth Executive Committee of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, July 26, 1923), 51.
5
Survey, 2010), 26.
6 Ibid.
7 GWMNM. Minutes of the Twelfth Executive Committee of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, July 26, 1923).
GWMNM. Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA:
GWMNMA Archives, Dec 1st, 1923).
Thurman. Isabel Giampietro-Knoll, poststar, Accessed April 1, 2010. http://poststar.com/

lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/isabel-giampietro-knoll/article_851453de-3dfc-11df-b6f9001cc4c002e0.html
Survey, 2010), 26.
51
GWMNMA Archives, Dec 1st, 1923), 7-8.
11
Survey, 2010), 27.
12 Ibid.
54 GWMNM. Annual Report of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA Archives, 1998).
13
Ibid., 34.
Archives, November 23, 1996).
14
Survey, 2010), 27.
Archives, August 28, 1998).
15
Washington Star. May 9, 1932.
57 GWMNM. Annual Report of the GWMNMA, (Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA Archives, 1998).
GWMNMA Archives, May, 1932), 20.
Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas: the
forgotten symbolism of architectural form, (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1977), 8-9.
GWMNMA Archives, May, 1932), 56-68.
58
80
18
Survey, 2010), 28.
19
Ibid., 29.
The Designers
1
Survey, 2010), 3.
2 Ibid.
3
Ibid., 4.
Carl R. Parker to Melvin M. Johnson. November 2, 1921. Olmsted Associates, Library of

Congress.
Survey, 2010), 4.
Ibid., 5.
23
Edward J. Seibert, Lost History Uncovered: Olmsteds Forgotten Village The Cultural
Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.org/news/features/lost-historyuncovered-olmsteds-forgotten-village
24
Boulevard Park, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.org/
landscapes/boulevard-park
25
Good Will- Hinckley, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.
org/landscapes/good-will-hinckley
26
Carl Rust Parker, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.
org/pioneer/carl-rust-parker
27 Ibid.
28
Artemas P. Richardson to Stuart M. Mertz, November 29th, 1966. Job 373, Olmsted Archives.
Freemasonry
1
Mark A. Tabbert, American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities. (Lexington,

Mass: National Heritage Museum, 2005), 10-11.
7 Ibid.
C. H. Claudy, Introduction to Freemasonry. (Washington, D.C: Temple, 1931).

Lynn Dumenil, Freemasonry and American culture, 1880-1930, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), xii.

Mass: National Heritage Museum, 2005), 8.
Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 10-11.
14 Ibid.
Ibid., 18.
15 Ibid.
David Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotlands Century, 1590-1710, (Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
10

Ibid., 6.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11
Ibid., 7.
12 Ibid.
13
Arleyn A. Levee, An Enduring Legacy: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nations Capital, in
Civic Art: A Centennial History of the U.s. Commission of Fine Arts, ed. Thomas E. Luebke
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 2013), 49.
16
Ibid., 41.
17
It may have been around this time that the GWMNM would have been considered as a valuable
landscape that could relate within the context of the Commission of Fine Arts.
18
Arleyn A. Levee, An Enduring Legacy: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nations Capital, in
Civic Art: A Centennial History of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, ed. Thomas E. Luebke
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 2013), 43.
11

England: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 6.
12
Ibid., 18.
Survey, 2010), 8.
13
Ibid., 10.
14

England: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 10.
19
20 Ibid.
21
Carl Rust Parker Landscape Architect, 84, Boston Globe, December 1, 1966.
15
22
Contract between the Olmsted Brothers and the GWMNM Association, 27 May 1922,
GWMNMA Archives.
16 Ibid.
81
17

18
Ibid.
19
Ibid., 22.
20
William D. Moore, Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes, (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2006), 2.
21
22
23
82

1
Deborah Frances Pokinski, The development of the American modern style, (Ann Arbor, Mich:
UMI Research Press, 1984).
2 Ibid.
3

Survey, 2010), 34.
Deborah Frances Pokinski, The development of the American modern style, (Ann Arbor, Mich:
UMI Research Press, 1984), 51-52.

Carol Willis, Zoning and Zeitgeist: The Skyscraper City in the 1920s, Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, 1986), 48.
Ibid., 53.
Survey, 2010), 35.
Ibid., 36.
24
25
Ibid., 24.
26
Ibid., 4.
27

28
Ibid., 35-37.
29
Survey, 2010), 30.
30

31
Ibid., 11.
32
Lynn Dumenil, Freemasonry and American culture, 1880-1930, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), xii.
33

34
Lynn Dumenil, Freemasonry and American culture, 1880-1930, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), xi.
35

36
Lynn Dumenil, Freemasonry and American culture, 1880-1930, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), xiv.
37
Survey, 2010), 30.
38
Ibid.
Bibliography
Alexandria Archaeology Museum. Alexandria Archaeology Excavates Shuters Hill: 1995-1998.
Alexandria, VA: Alexandria Archaeology Museum, 1998
Alexandria Archaeology Museum. Shuters Hill: A Wealth of History. Alexandria, VA: Alexandria
Archaeology Museum.
Boulevard Park, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.org/
landscapes/boulevard-park
Brown, William Adrian. History of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial. Alexandria:
George Washington Masonic National Memorial, 1980.
Callahan, Charles Hilliard. A memorial to Washington the mason, to be erected at Alexandria, Virginia.
Washington, D.C.: printed by W. F. Roberts, 1920.
Dedicatory Tree Program, The George Washington Masonic National Memorial, accessed August
2, 2014, http://gwmemorial.org/trees/
Carl Rust Parker, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.org/
pioneer/carl-rust-parker
Claudy, C. H., Introduction to Freemasonry. Washington, D.C.: Temple, 1931.
Dumenil, Lynn, Freemasonry and American culture, 1880-1930, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1984.
Olmsted Associates Collection. Job File #6991. Manuscripts Division. Library of Congress, D.C.
Pokinski, Deborah Frances, The Development of the American Modern Style, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI
Research Press, 1984.
Seibert, Edward J., Lost History Uncovered: Olmsteds Forgotten Village The Cultural Landscape
Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.org/news/features/lost-history-uncoveredolmsteds-forgotten-village
Stevenson, David, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotlands Century, 1590-1710, Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Tabbert, Mark A. , American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities. Lexington,
Mass: National Heritage Museum, 2005.
Thurman. Isabel Giampietro-Knoll, poststar, April 1, 2010. http://poststar.com/lifestyles/
announcements/obituaries/isabel-giampietro-knoll/article_851453de-3dfc-11df-b6f9001cc4c002e0.html
Washington Monument Association, Alexandria Gazette. (Alexandria, VA) February 25th, 1908
Washington Post, (Washington, D.C.) Sunday, November 17th.1929
Washington Star, (Washington, D.C.) May 9, 1932.
Willis, Carol, Zoning and Zeitgeist: The Skyscraper City in the 1920s, Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, 1986.
George Washington Memorial Parkway, 1993. Historic American Engineering Record, VA-69.
Good Will- Hinckley, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed August 4, 2014, http://tclf.org/
landscapes/good-will-hinckley
GWMNM Archives. Annual Meeting Minutes of the GWMNMA, Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA Archives,
for the years: 1915,1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1932, 1968, 1970, 1998.
GWMNM Archives. Executive Meeting Minutes of the GWMNMA, Alexandria, VA: GWMNMA
Archives, for the years: 1923, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1982, 1983, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000,
2001.
GWMNMA Archives. Abstract of Title to George Washington Park, (Alexandria, VA),15 Mar. 1921.
Kocyba, Kate M., George Washington Masonic National Memorial. Washington, D.C.: Historic
American Buildings Survey, 2010.
Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. (New York: Monacelli
Press, 1994), 92.
Levee, Arleyn A.. An Enduring Legacy: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in the Nations Capital, in Civic Art:
A Centennial History of the U.s. Commission of Fine Arts, ed. Thomas E. Luebke (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 2013).
Miller, T. Michael. Pen portraits of Alexandria, Virginia, 1739-1900. Bowie, Md: Heritage Books, 1987.
Moore, William D., Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes,
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2006.
83

George Washington Masonic National Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Washington Masonic National Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

Garden Club of Virginia / William D. Rieley 2014 Fellowship

Copyright (c) 2014 by The Garden Club of Virginia.

The George Washington

Fort Ellsworth Site

Upper Terrace Wall

Potomac Bluestone Walls

Early History of Shuters Hill

The Dedication Ceremonies

The American Skyscraper

Conclusion and Opportunities

ForEward and acknowledgments

Early History of Shuters Hill

Fort Ellsworth Plan. (GWMNM Archives)

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

Locations of Fort Ellsworth and the Mills/Lee/Dulaney Mansion. (Google Earth)

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

Mills/Lee/Dulany Mansion. (Alexandria Archaeology Museum)

Mills/Lee/Dulany Mansion 1781-1900

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

Birds Eye View of Alexandria by Charles Magnus. 1863. (Library of Congress)

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

A MEMORIAL TO GEORGE WASHINGTON

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

California recommended that Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22 make a national

Washington Lodge officially proposed to create the George Washington Masonic

less than $500,000 was adopted.9

only reached $87,000 by 1917.5

to inspect the site, however, it was decided to postpone the purchase.11

Association when it was dedicated as a subdivision known as George Washington

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

as described in this advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette in 1908:

of Alexandria, and as a fitting memorial to Alexandrias greatest citizen, George Washington.

Shuters Hill circa 1900. (Alexandria Library)

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

The GWMNMA Lot acquisitions

part of 58 reserved for Col. Arthur Herbert

(GWMNM Archives, Olmsted Archives)

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

(GWMNM Archives, Olmsted Archives)

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Garden Club of Virginia

2014 William D. Rieley Fellowship