The Union is Preserved
In April 1865 the Civil War ended, and President Lincoln was assassinated. In the wake of these two major events, the United States struggled to establish a new equilibrium. Two critical issues faced the nation: reintegration of the devastated former Confederacy into the national polity and the future of millions of unskilled or semiskilled and vulnerable freedmen. The Union victory had affirmed the unity of the nation and brought a renewed sense of national power and a dramatic shift in the relationship between the states and the national government.36 Like the nation as a whole, the District of Columbia was reeling, its primitive streets having been churned into mud and dust by soldiers’ horses, its trees cut down for firewood, and former Confederate sympathizers straggling back to reestablish their lives in a hostile social environment. Blacks now made up one-third of the District’s population, and their political and civil rights would be a vexing political issue for leaders such as Shepherd. After its first sixty-one years of halting progress, the nation’s capital had experienced four war years of disruptive change. The stage was set for the next act in the post-bellum human drama, with Radical Republicans in Congress arguing that denial of rights to blacks was an insult to the enlightened sentiment of the age.37
The chief business of the capital was government, and local government, such as it was, ultimately rested in the hands of Congress, where District residents had no representation, and local elites could not bring the crucial spheres of economic and political power under their control. The Confederate defeat was a disaster for the city’s old southern elite, who were dispersed, defeated, disgraced, or impoverished, and sometimes all four. Into the vacuum created by the demise of the old southern aristocracy rushed a host of newcomers eager to fill the vacancies they left behind.38 In the decades before the war, the unfinished capital had been the physical embodiment of American distaste for centralized government, but the Civil War brought new vigor and a vastly expanded scale to the federal bureaucracy in Washington. Only a strong, centralized government could provide the leadership that the war effort ultimately demanded. The same war that strengthened the federal government, however, had left Washington a physical mess. The immediate postwar capital was the ugly antithesis of the almost mythic image of the “Great Republic,” “the Nation,” and “the Union” that was filling the print and oratory of the day. The new crop of federal officials who wanted the scope of government enlarged also insisted on a capital that would project its grandeur to the rest of the nation.39
The gap between reality and expectations was vast. Pennsylvania Avenue, the one paved street between the White House and the Capitol, was home to “cheap saloons, gambling houses, and pawnshops. Ford’s Theatre, notorious for President Lincoln’s assassination, had been requisitioned by the government. The National Theater and Wall’s Opera House provided what meager legitimate entertainment options as were available; high- and low-class gambling establishments still flourished. Unpainted wooden buildings that had served as barracks and stables for army mules still stood mute, months after the end of the fighting.”40
Taking Care of His Business Interests
Shepherd remained out of elective politics for several years and devoted his energies to two principal goals: becoming a successful, wealthy businessman and advancing the cause of Washington’s transformation. The long-expected transition at the J. W. Thompson plumbing firm took place in mid-May 1865, when newspaper announcements confirmed the company’s dissolution and the elevation of Shepherd, the former junior partner, to owner of Alexander Shepherd & Brothers.41 The firm then consisted of five shops for gas fitting, plumbing, brass finishing, carpentry, and blacksmithing.42 Much of the merchandise boasted a Philadelphia pedigree, and advertisements in Washington papers for current lighting models frequently cited their having been brought from Philadelphia. This became a Shepherd trademark to be repeated in his later development work, when he made use of the text of the Philadelphia Board of Trade document in his next major civic venture, the Washington Board of Trade. Aside from any intrinsic superiority, Philadelphia was also the home of Mary Shepherd’s maternal ancestors, and it would have been natural for Shepherd to strengthen family ties while conducting personal or public business.
A key element in Shepherd’s plans for Washington was the Board of Trade, which he helped launch at a meeting at City Hall on October 17, 1865, bringing together some fifty leading businessmen and twenty-one firms. He understood the nexus between commerce and politics and saw a business development organization as a useful tool to address political issues indirectly. Shepherd was one of the first speakers at the meeting, and he eloquently described the advantages of a merchants’ exchange and urged cooperation among members of the business community, including those in Georgetown, in order to make it happen. Not surprisingly, Shepherd was spokesman for the planning committee, whose draft preamble noted that a lack of unity had been a detriment to the interests of the community and that commercial advantages were best obtained by united action.
The Board of Trade’s initial skirmishes included criticism of a proposed license for a Washington and Alexandria Railroad line through the city as “a gross outrage upon the industrial interests of this city; of incalculable harm to the interests of its citizens; and calculated to destroy the business prospects of this Metropolis.”43 At a meeting with the Washington Board of Aldermen in November, Shepherd argued against the license because, he asserted, it would further monopolize control of local rail lines by outside interests and degrade vital parts of the city with tracks, water towers, and parked rail cars. Employing a technique he would use effectively throughout his career, Shepherd arranged for an elegant repast at the end of the meeting in an effort to create goodwill.44 Always a gregarious figure, Shepherd had become adept at using the leverage afforded by his wealth, more than his physical size and aggressive personality, to influence others to his way of thinking.
Shepherd’s strategic objective with the Board of Trade became clear in November 1865. He returned to a favorite topic by proposing to create a new, single charter for the whole of the District of Columbia built around consolidation of the capital’s three fragmented and separately governed jurisdictions (Georgetown, Washington City, and Washington County). He argued that Congress should be persuaded to create an “efficient and harmonious” government for the District through consolidation and that the Board of Trade, which represented such a large proportion of the District’s commerce, was the proper vehicle for advancing the project.45 A number of board members objected to using a business promotion organization for political purposes, but Shepherd framed the issue differently: the resolution was only a business necessity that “should not be mixed up in any degree with politics, negro suffrage, or anything else. . . . We have nothing to do with politics in this District, and they should never be dragged into matters of District interests.”46
At the December 6 meeting to discuss consolidation, Shepherd provided insights into his thinking about how the consolidated entity might be governed: “Whether the Government should be territorial or be vested in appointed commissioners, or a ruler to be elected by the people, are questions which might cause a diversity of opinion, but the advantages [are] fully recognized by businessmen and taxpayers.” He went on to argue that “there are no politics here, and we had no political rights,” assuring his audience that the initiative would not be viewed by the people as political and asserting that nine-tenths of the residents would favor consolidation.47 Despite general agreement that Georgetown would also support the move, one participant noted that the people, not the Board of Trade, should initiate such an important change in local government. Shepherd retorted that he expected the cry of politics to be raised, “as is always so when something of benefit to the District of Columbia is proposed.” He reiterated his view that consolidation was a pure business issue, “and if the municipalities were placed under one good man, and Congress pay the Government’s