Empire of Mud: The Secret History of Washington, DC

by Jeff D. Dickey

Washington, DC, gleams with stately columns and neoclassical temples, a pulsing hub of political power and prowess. But for decades it was one of the worst excuses for a capital city the world had ever seen. Before America became a world power in the twentieth century, Washington City was an eyesore at best and a disgrace at worst. Unfilled swamps, filthy canals, and rutted horse trails littered its landscape. Political bosses hired hooligans and thugs to conduct the nation's affairs. Legendary madams entertained clients from all stations of society and politicians of every party. The police served and protected with the aid of bribes and protection money. Beneath pestilential air, the city s muddy roads led to a stumpy, half-finished obelisk to Washington here, a domeless Capitol Building there. Lining the streets stood boarding houses, tanneries, and slums. Deadly horse races gouged dusty streets, and opposing factions of volunteer firefighters battled one another like violent gangs rather than life-saving heroes. The city s turbulent history set a precedent for the dishonesty, corruption, and mismanagement that have led generations to look suspiciously on the various sin--both real and imagined--of Washington politicians. Empire of Mud unearths and untangles the roots of our capital s story and explores how the city was tainted from the outset, nearly stifled from becoming the proud citadel of the republic that George Washington and Pierre L'Enfant envisioned more than two centuries ago."

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Dc Comics, Audiobook, Politics, Cities

320 pages, Paperback

First published September 2, 2014

Reviews

[Steve]

DNF at 8%, no rating.

So disappointed with this one. This had been on my Amazon wishlist for almost a year, and when I saw the price drop to $1.99, I jumped on it, excited to start.

Unfortunately, it sounded a lot more interesting in the blurb. In actuality, it was simply just a series of extremely dry and extremely boring disjointed anecdotes. This could have been so much more. :(

[Donna · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received a copy of this book from the Goodreads Giveaway program.

While the author clearly put time into research, this is more a collection of chronologically arranged anecdotes than a coherent history. The focus seems to be more on throwing out sets of sensational details than in giving them any larger context.

Dickey's previous works are all guidebooks, which shows just from flipping through the ARC's format. Each chapter is broken down into headings that are usually followed by three or four paragraphs, as if he doesn't trust his readers to go too long without needing a break. And of course each subsection needs a fluffy transitional sentence to segue from the previous topic. The perplexing decision to throw in so many interruptions kept me from building up any momentum with the book.

It has a deathly dry tone despite occasional awkward attempts to punch up the style. An early example that I marked reads, "Another business thrived there, too: whoring." Um, okay? To be fair, that particular subchapter was nearly three pages long, so maybe the "whoring" reference was to make sure we weren't buckling under the strain of continuous prose.

I couldn't push myself through more than half of this choppy mess despite my interest in the subject. I might have skipped around more to try and get more information on the neighborhoods I'm most familiar with, but the ARC copy does not include the index.

[Nicholas Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2695615.html

I love going to Washington, and indeed spent three days there two weeks ago, in the course of which I bought this book at Busboys and Poets meeting a friend for dinner, and then read it on my flight westwards. It's a nice little micro-history of Washington City during its lifetime as an independent governmental entity from 1802 to 1871, with appropriate consideration of what happened before, after, and in the neighbourhood - considering also how the city's peculiar relationship with the nation, ruling and ruled by the United States but not part of any of them, constrained its development.

One of my favourite songs in Hamilton deals with the choice of site for the new nation's capital:

[BURR] Congress is fighting over where to put the capital—
[Company screams in chaos]
[BURR] It isn’t pretty
Then Jefferson approaches with a dinner and invite
And Madison responds with Virginian insight:
[MADISON] Maybe we can solve one problem with another and win a victory for the Southerners, in other words—
[JEFFERSON] Oh-ho!
[MADISON] A quid pro quo
[JEFFERSON] I suppose
[MADISON] Wouldn’t you like to work a little closer to home?
[JEFFERSON] Actually, I would
[MADISON] Well, I propose the Potomac
[JEFFERSON] And you’ll provide him his votes?
[MADISON] Well, we’ll see how it goes

Dickey goes into this in some detail, and there is more back-story than is in the musical. From Alexander Hamilton's side, he was concerned at the vulnerability of a government located in Philadelphia, or any pre-existing city, to mob pressure. George Washington, who was empowered by Congress to choose the site for the new government, chose partly due to military defensibility (from naval attack - he did not anticipate that the British would land elsewhere and march in from the northeast) but also with an eye to his own personal interests - his own home, Mount Vernon, was a couple of dozen miles away, and he also had investments in local infrastructure, particularly a failed attempt to build a canal linking the capital to the North East. But by 1802, when the city government was established, Washington was dead, Hamilton's career was over, and there was nobody to champion the interests of Washington City; until the Civil War successive administrations and Congresses were suspicious of a powerful central government and therefore unwilling to invest much in its seat. So the Capitol, the White House and a few other buildings existed as islands of decent architecture in a grubby network of streets which still honoured L'Enfant's original design, but the city as a whole was dilapidated and geographically isolated until the railways came. (One little detail - I was fascinated to learn that before the Pentagon there was the Octagon, a six-sided building which still stands near the White House, where slaves worked in the cellars for the Tayloe family and where President Monroe ran the country for a few months in 1814 while the White House was being repaired.)

Dickey goes into the physical and human geography of Washington City - not just the elites, but the slaves, the prostitutes, the small traders, the elites. There are many fascinating snippets: The Supreme Court judges all rented rooms in the same house up to the 1840s. The area between the White House and the Capitol, now the glistening Federal Triangle, was previously known as Murder Bay and was a haven of liminal activity. Mary Ann Hall ran a successful brothel for decades on the site of what is now the National Museum of the American Indian, and rests under an impressive monument in the Congressional cemetery, no doubt close to many of her clients. The Washington Monument remained an embarrassing half-built stump for twenty-five years, due to wrangling over costs and control.

The story shifts gear dramatically with the Civil War, which made Washington City a key defensive asset and also a target for attack. Montgomery Meigs, the army engineer who had already brought in fresh water and renovated the Capitol, tends to be remembered for his role in establishing Arlington Cemetery during the war, but actually put a lot more effort into making the city fit for purpose as a military base. By the time the war was over, the District of Columbia's population had soared and its political image had changed completely; Meigs' efforts led directly to the abolition of the independence of Georgetown and Washington City and the institution of congressional rule over the Dictrit of Columbia in 1871. That's pretty much where his story ends, and he gets a little too caught up in the detail of what was going on with Boss Shepherd, who carried out further city development to personal profit and huge cost in the early 1870s.

The book is lavishly illustrated with maps, photographs, and occasional portraits, and is also reasonably digestible at 245 pages of the main text. I think even readers who don't share my fascination with its subject would enjoy it.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nonfiction about the growth of DC. Not exactly a secret history and not exactly riveting.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

For me, this book was sooooo disappointing! It had all the makings of such a great historical read that I had nothing but extremely high expectations as to how much I would like it. Having failed to meet these, I admit that I might be more upset than is reasonable and my review of this could unfairly reflect this attitude but you can be the judge of that. I received this book in a Goodreads giveaway in exchange for an honest review.

Overall, the tale of our nation’s capital slow and painfully chaotic rise from a backwater swampland is one of the strangest and fascinating tales one could discover about American history. Although, it’s hardly a “secret history,” as the title of this book suggests, it’s just been purposefully overlooked over the years in favor of more flattering and patriotic angles. Nevertheless, this rediscovery of Washington D.C.’s history should have been completely riveting. Not to mention, the cast of colorful characters involved in this tale that ranges from the mighty George Washington to every shape and form of degenerate one can think of. You gotta ask yourself, how in the world can you ruin such a history? Simply, is the answer.

All in all, this is really nothing more than a loosely compiled assemblage of facts. I’ve read far more gripping textbooks than this one and actually would prefer to re-read any of those than to even look at the cover of this one again. That may sound harsh but I’ve rarely been tortured as much by reading something as I have with this one. Overall, textbooks tend to have this effect upon people, so I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only one that struggles with this book. Were I not honor bound to review this book, I would have easily left this largely unread without the slightest hesitation.

This actually surprises even myself, for I normally have little trouble with so-called “dry” literature. Furthermore, the writing here is not bad at all and the information itself is well researched and explained. However, the main problem that I have with this is that each chapter itself is compartmentalized into a million subchapters. On average, none of these sections are any longer than four or five really long paragraphs. It’s like the author somehow must have thought that most readers have attention spans of a gnat. Only, I think the trouble lies elsewhere (more on this later).

This particular arrangement of the book could easily have worked well for a magazine length article with no objection from me or anyone else but for a full length novel this creates a severe choppiness to the story that leaves the reader, or at least this one in particular, completely frustrated. Essentially, this book lacks a strong narrative voice connecting all of this information together. Moreover, from one subdivision to the next, one often has to work very hard to find the relevance between them. It’s there, but rather than provide some elementary connections to guide you, the author must have thought that by creating these separate titles for each subject this would take care of it. It doesn’t. It’s just lazy writing and nothing more.

Reading this book for long stretches actually made my eyes glaze over and I eventually gave up trying to make any connections between one section to the next. It was almost like having some form of anterograde amnesia like in that movie “Memento,” where I was unable to make new memories from minute to minute. Naturally, this is not the best way to learn anything, let alone enjoy a book.

The author, J.D. Dickey is an amateur historian whose previous books were all guidebooks of big cities. In a way, this actually qualified him to know a few things about Washington D.C., especially as he had written one on this subject before but this in no way means he knows how to write books, especially history books. This also fully explains the format and arrangement here. He appears to be stuck in the guidebook mode of offering brief tidbits of information that are strung together only by the fact that it concerns a particular subject.

This also happens to be an uncorrected ARC of the scheduled hardbound edition. So, I would normally be more forgiving of its faults but in this case any last minute adjusting of a few commas and misspellings would do nothing to change my overall opinion. Sadly, nothing less than a complete overhaul could save this book in my opinion. It’s a shame and it pains me to say so with respect to all of those involved in making this book.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bloodsuckers and whores. A scattered collection of anecdotes from the first century of "The Swamp."

J.D. Dickey is an amateur historian who has written a series of guidebooks for various American cities. Most guidebooks take you to a particular neighborhood and tell you a series of quick and interesting anecdotes about the area you're in. Dickey's 2014 effort, "Empire of Mud" has a similar feel. It's less history than a collection of "hey, this is kind of cool" stories. They're great cocktail party/touristy type stories but not so much a real history (secret or otherwise) of Washington City/District of Columbia.

We recap how DC was selected as the site, the wretched state of its roads and early development, and what various foreigners thought of the American capital (they were not impressed). The most interesting sections were on the domestic slave traders/catchers in the City and the conditions for those slaves held just blocks from the Capitol (including those that kidnapped Solomon Northrup of "Twelve Years a Slave") and the history of prostitution/brothels in the District.

This isn't really a "secret" history of D.C. despite the fact that the section on prostitution was one of the longest in the book. It feels consistent with the "longform guidebook" feel of the work and highlighting the "salacious" (though still decidedly PG) elements of the District. Overall, "Empire of Mud" is a perfectly serviceable and enjoyable little work that spends a lot of time on people selling themselves (or being sold) to the highest bidder.

Whores servicing whores, as it were.

[John A. Kristianson · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a District Native

I found this book to be very illuminating. The very last chapter on the Federal Triangle is interesting. I remember as a boy that the Federal Triangle is where you transferred buses to traverse the city. And to find it’s real identity is amazing. Anyway, great book for natives and visitors alike.

[Emily Hewitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book about some rather obscure and less known events and people from DC’s history up until the early 20th century. Leadership, prostitution, policing, dueling, and voting rights are just some of the issues covered. While I thought this book was very detailed and well-researched, I was confused by the layout of the chapters. I wish there had been a way to make the chapters flow better, instead of putting brief headings on every other page. It felt like small chapters within a chapter, which I guess was the point, but there were just so many of them! I really appreciated the photos throughout the book though and as a DC history nerd I even learned some new info. Even though I have to admit that I still like the book Chocolate City more, this was definitely still worth the read.

[Jim Townsend · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting book about a DC history not taught in school.

[Charles Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dickey's history of Washington City is well researched but is more a forgotten history than a secret one. For a half-century after its founding our nation's capital was a national disgrace, lampooned by foreigners and citizens alike. The intensity of dislike for "Washington" was as intense in the early days of our republic as it today, and--even then--shorthand for the type of political deadlock that exemplifies government today. The city was laid out as a grand capital by Pierre L'Enfant, but Congress never appropriated the money to make it a grand city until well after the Civil War. Emblematic of this gridlock was Washington's "Stump"--the Washington Monument was begun but remained a stump for decades. Livestock grazed around it until the Civil War.
Empire of Mud refers to the poor condition of thoroughfares in Washington City, including those that went by the U. S. Capitol and the White House. Not only was there mud to contend with but grazing farm animals and their feces, thieves and prostitutes with no effective police force, swampy areas near the Potomac that were breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and a city canal project that failed but remained like an open sewer less than a mile from the executive mansion. Constitution Avenue was created during the Reconstruction years to cover over what had been the city canal.
Dickey's book has chapters on various aspects of life in Washington City. One chapter detailed the challenges for those who needed housing, and the rise of boarding houses as one of the few ways to make a living in the Capital. It was difficult to get around the city, and delegations from states typically lodged together and took their meals together in the same boarding house. Even members of the Supreme Court lodged and took meals together. Such insularity had the same effect, in my opinion, on diversity of outlook and opinion in Congress as we find today as the result of gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Dickey's chapter on slavery and the slave trade in Washington City and in nearby Alexandria, Virginia, is probably the best that I've read on the subject. That black people could be treated as chattel in our nation's capital and lead in chains to slave markets is abhorrent. The city was both a magnet for freed blacks to begin new lives but also a place where blacks could be kidnapped and held captive within sight of the capitol's dome, before being sent to slavery further south in Louisiana or Mississippi.
Dickey has a whole chapter on prostitution, one of the few employment opportunities available to women of the day in Washington City. The priciest houses entertained their clientele in splendid surroundings, but steps away from any dwelling--no matter how fine--were alleys filled with garbage, feces, and vermin. The stench of the early capital must have been unrelenting and revolting. The chapter on policing the district makes it clear how underfunded were essential services in the federal city: Congress simply never appropriated money for hospitals, streets, and other services until the Civil War.
The value of this book for readers like me who know and love the District is that we can connect the dots to issues and conflicts that resonate today: the need for representation in Congress and the whole history of disenfranchisement in DC, lack of hegemony for quadrants outside of Northwest DC; the impact of prejudice against African Americans on the trajectory of the development of the city.

[David Crow · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. As a Washingtonian involved in politics it seemed I knew all about Washington, DC. Turns out I didn't. J.D. Dickey writes about the local history of Washington, DC which is of course national history. Fast moving, full of facts, a thoroughly delightful read. I will look for more of Dickey's books.

[Sarah B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book and maybe that’s why it didn’t interest me as much as I would have liked. But- I did find the discussion about the origin of DC’s “taxation without representation” extremely insightful.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

Empire of Mud: The Secret History of Washington, D.C. is a passable look at the nation's capital during the course of the nineteenth century.

Author Jeff D. Dickey does not necessarily set out to fill in the back story on how it was selected for the capital city. Readers looking to gain information on the backroom dealing between Hamilton and Jefferson and their allies will need to look elsewhere.

While mentioning events like the burning of the White House and Capitol by the British during the War of 1812, Dickey-as the title indicates-sought to go a little deeper into stories that might not be as widely known among the wider American public.

He instead tried to create a book that looked, warts and all, at some of the municipality-specific development of the city. It was in this that the book ends up a disappointment, as much of what he delves into is not so much secret as just a component of a relatively small municipality seeking to becoming an esteemed national capital in a world of Parises and Londons.

Empire of Mud: The Secret History of Washington, D.C. makes crystal the low esteem the town was held in upon its becoming the federal seat of government in 1800. Although it was technically created by the Residence Act of 1790, it took a decade before John Adams became the first president to reside in its city limits after it was created from land ceded by both Virginia and Maryland.

There is a lot of analysis early on of architect Pierre L'Enfant's planning for the federal city. Three-quarters of a century later, Union Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs did yeoman's work bringing the city's designs up to date during the most perilous time of the country's existence.

It was interesting to hear about Washington initially spending time as a standalone city in the District of Columbia, as both Alexandria and Georgetown acted as separate establishments within the district as well (the latter is now absorbed as a neighborhood in the district and the former, home to the national cemetery, is now part of the state of Virginia).

The municipal status of the city and district itself, as alluded to above, made for some of the most interesting reading in the book. It still does not elect Senators or a member of Congress, and the author delves into the tension resulting from Congress technically having control over the municipality during the nineteenth century.

The district even enjoyed territorial status from 1871 until 1874; the book indicates that its status was toyed around with during these years due to increasing discomfort over the civil rights advancements being made by the city's African-American residents.

The city has had a long-running issue with violence; Murder Bay was even the nineteenth century nickname of the area spanning between Congress and the White House. It was
anecdotes like these provided by Dickey ensure that the book at least remains in the average category of nonfiction reads.

That it was a swampy, rutted dirt road-filled city in its early days (and a town many officials would leave for months at a time during the summer to escape the humidity and all-around nastiness) was bad enough; the presence of whorehouses and slums only added further to the unlikely nature of its one day becoming a widely visited tourist destination.

Empire of Mud is a so-so book.

Dickey fell far short if he had hopes for a top notch, attention-holding look at the dark secrets of a nation's capital. This book instead just sort of plods along.

Readers with a knowledge of the city are likely to gain little new insight beyond what can be found in any book on Washington. Playing the angle that it has some sort of conspiratorial or untold aspect of D.C. to unveil simply ended up making the book a disappointment.

But it is does not qualify as awful either.

There is just enough storyline-as slow as it sometimes is presented-to ensure Empire of Mud makes its own contribution to narratives (albeit only through the 1870s in this case) of Washington, D.C.'s growth and development.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Empire of Mud: where J.D. Dickey puts paid to the idea that Washington might ever be "fixed."

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The trouble started when Congress furloughed the soldiers of the Pennsylvania Line who then mutinied and marched on Philadelphia, where the powers-that-be responded poorly (raise your hand if anything in this sentence surprised). Most alarming to Alexander Hamilton, these handful of militiamen made the state seem stronger than the country, a situation the Federalist could not abide. Hamilton masterfully manipulated events such that by the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787, Congress planned a federal district, separate and apart from any state.

And then the real fun began because while Philadelphia circa 1787 was a real city, the lands set aside for the federal district were farmlands and swampy, muddy bogs. Corn grew in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. No one would pay to pave (or even grade) the streets. Entire sections of the city were swamped at high tide.

Naturally, the arrival of politicians only worsened the situation. Because the infrastructure was so lacking, they clung together, with the city's boarding houses becoming the domain of various factions. All Ohio congressman might live in one house, while next door lodged only republicans from New York. Clannishness and partisanship is not new. In the early days of the district, they were particularly inclined to fight over slavery, literally brawling - repeatedly - on the floor of the House and Senate. The Civil War ended the physical altercations, but not the segregation and black codes that made life so difficult for so many.

Empire of Mud is the history of Washington you never knew, from the physical creation of the city to an accounting of the various types of brothels that operated in its boundaries, Dickey's history is far from the marble and monuments that spring to mind when thinking of the city today. This is the dark side of Washington, and it is a history buff's history, finely detailed and nuanced, asking questions as well as answering them. Beginning with, what if the Pennsylvania Line hadn't mutinied?

[Alex Orr · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's hard to say exactly why this was such an underwhelming slog of a book for me, but to say otherwise would be a lie. I suppose my biggest issues involved the level of detail and the organization. The book is vaguely chronological, but tends to focus more on subjects, such as the everyday lives of the upper class, or a chapter on prostitution in Washington City. As such, a whole chapter can cover decades, at which point the next chapter might go back and cover much of the same time period from another perspective. As such, it's hard to get a feel for the city's development, and certain things become repetitive. I think I would have found a history that traces the progress of the city over the 1800's in a strictly chronological way a lot more compelling, but I also see, in some cases, why the author chose the style he did since it allows him to focus in on the lives of individual characters. The other issue I had with the book is perhaps a more narrow criticism. As someone who lived in DC for nearly four years, and has lived within the Beltway for 17 years, I would have liked a little more reference to the modern geography of the city, and specifically to how the city expanded beyond Georgetown and the area around the Capitol. I frequently finished a topic in this book only to go to Ghosts of DC (a great blog on the history of the old "forgotten DC") and find far more interesting and detailed histories and stories, not to mention photos and maps. Inasmuch as there aren't a lot of contemporary histories of DC in the 1800's, this is probably your best bet if you really want to do a short but focused exploration of the topic. That said, I found it to be a fairly dull read.

[Jay · Rating 5 out of 5]

I lived across the Potomac River from Washington DC for 50 years. I made countless trips into the District for work and pleasure, and knew some parts of the city very well. As a teenager I would spend whole days in the various museums that line the Mall, especially Air & Space and Natural and American History. I thought I knew a lot about the history of the city--how it was built on a swamp, how Constitution Avenue used to be a canal--but until I read this book I had no idea how much I didn't know, and how sordid and unflattering most of the city's history was. Kinda fitting for the government shenanigans and outrages that have gone on there for the best part of two centuries.

This book is very thoroughly researched and very well written, broken up into easily digestible sections that range effortlessly from land speculation to brothels to black suffrage to open sewers and duels to the death. Anyone who lives in the DC area and cares about how the nation's capital came to be what it is, will want this book on their shelf. Since the narrative sort of tails off at the beginning of the 20th Century, you will want to pair it with David Brinkley's excellent Washington Goes to War (1988).

[Tary · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is an interesting account of the building of our Federal city, at first called Washington City. The period covered is roughly the span of 100 years or the 19th century. I always knew about it being built on a swamp, but always thought that it was constructed on the designs of Pierre Lafayette. That was one of my first misconceptions. Interesting photos also show the lack of funds that plagued it from the very start: the Washington monument remained nothing but an ugly stump for over 40 years, and the US Capitol looked lumpy without a dome for some time also. Its citizens first had the vote, though blacks were often disenfranchised. The Hamiltonian ideal--to keep the franchise out of the hands of uneducated laborers--finally won out, and to this day DC residents can't vote. Because I know the city, I was able to follow along with its development easily, but I think any history lover would enjoy this book.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The "secret" element of J.D. Dickey's Empire of Mud, The Secret History of Washington DC, is meant to be read as "scandalous." This book is full of criminal and unsavory anecdotes used to illustrate a struggling city stuck between the federal government that runs it and the nation it helps govern.
Overall a good history and certainly interesting; I was disappointed that Dickey's glimpse ends in the 1920s. With the development and challenges of modern cities during the 20th century, this seemed like the wrong time to abandon a narrative of a city trying to find itself. Any reader familiar with DC will not recognize the city described in this book since most of the modern city has replaced nearly everything the author discusses.
That said, this book is an interesting and worthwhile investigation of the early years of the capital city.

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you like fun facts and want a series of loosely connected stories about everyday life in DC in the 18th and 19th centuries, this is the book for you.

Poorly planned and executed public works projects that run out of funding before they even start! Riding across the river into Virginia to have duels! Cows grazing around the unfinished stump of the Washington monument! An entire chapter on prostitution in our nation's great capital! Literal canals full of human feces!

Needless to say, I loved this book. Knocked it down a star because organization could have been better, but this was a digestible little romp through the muckier sides of the capital's history. Especially fun to read if you live here and know local geography well.

[Christina Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Instead of a typical book on the history of Washington DC - burning of the White House, Lincoln's assassination, the March on Washington, etc. - this book focuses more on the city planning, municipal regulation, settlement, and cultural clashes that have defined the District over the course of its existence. I get the criticisms, but for me in particular (civil engineer, urban planning fangirl, District resident) this was a fun way to get the details that finally make this city start to make sense. I loved it.

I've known Washington DC is not exactly the "city on a hill" it meant itself to be, but boy has she been a messy bitch. It was so entertaining to read how the United States seat of government was allowed to function as a *literal* shit show for such a long period of time, and I guess this is a cautionary tale for what happens when you treat an incredibly important piece of land like an unwanted child in a custody battle. Recommend to anyone with familiarity with DC and an interest in how cities develop their identities.

[Lee Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the audiobook, so I had some difficulty following, since the book is basically about geography. The time I have spent in and around DC was useful for orientation. For that reason, I recommend the physical book, assuming it includes maps and similar visuals, rather than the audiobook. I did enjoy this book. The Capitol Riot happened as I was in the midst of it, purely happenstance, and I found it remarkably relevant for further contextualizing recent events. It's worthwhile besides that, especially for anyone with an interest in race, gender, and class, but anyone interested inthe historical foundation of the Capitol Riot, it is worthwhile.

[Big Swede · Rating 5 out of 5]

After a week sightseeing around our nations capital, I started this book to better understand this unique city.
The tales of political chicanery and the playing out of North-South and black-white strain through that political process created a city that had a hard time getting started. The first hundred years got the District of Columbia almost “off the ground”.
When I review this history, it makes me appreciate that our current political and cultural environment is not as unique or unsustainable as the media would suggest; it’s an ongoing drama highlighting the necessary messiness of democracy.
Both enlightening, fun and informative!!

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Extremely insightful book on what DC was like from founding to the late 1800s. Only issues I had were that occasionally the author spent to much time on side tangents, and maybe was sometimes unsure whether to keep the book more scholarly or veer a bit into a "Gangs of New York" type. Also, as a DC resident sometimes I wished he was more precise about where discussed landmarks were. Often found myself googling to find out. Overall, a book far better and more serious than it's rather cheap sounding title. Also some great photographs.

[Justin Bitner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent book, kind of cherry-picked different people and events in the history of Washington DC for a relatively short period of time. I was hoping for a bit more background on the construction of a lot of the monuments and points of interest in DC, but there wasn't really much on that.

One thing I did like (and this is extremely childish of me, I know, which I wish more books did: Pictures within the context of the chapters. Instead of the little middle-layer of photos, pictures of topics covered were right by where they are referenced in the text.

[Jennifer M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been to Washington DC and when I see what we have today, it's hard to imagine the muddy little town it started off as . The book drew a nice history from empty land to a national Capitol. Some parts could have been expanded on more with no complaints from me and other parts could have been pared down so the book is uneven in that regard. A decent history though for anyone wanting to know more.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was disappointing. The information is fine, but extremely disjointed and it's easy to lose the narrative thread. It's more a collection of anecdotes. There are times I felt like the author was trying to be funny or snarky, but really wasn't. Further, the research is almost exclusively secondary sources. It's rather weak on the scholarship front. I'd recommend looking through the end notes and reading those books instead.

[Michael Relihan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed my time with this book, but I can’t help but feel shortchanged. While Dickey fit a lot of fascinating details into this, he also raised more questions (in my mind) than he answered. Also, while he was clearly aware to some extent of the Lost Cause narratives which plague 19th cent. American history, he fell victim to them himself, nonetheless.

Certainly worth checking out — in that it made me want to delve deeper into the District’s history.

[Gwen - Chew & Digest Books - · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you thought that the swap was new, think again. Not only was it literally a swamp. it was a was with people trying to take advantage. The book is not wrong by any means, it's a chronicle proving that it was always that way and it always will be.

However, it is informative. One can learn some of the earlier reasons for why and how. As a D.C. lover, I wallowed in it.

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating collection of information about DC. It gave me a whole new perspective on this city and endless talking points with people from or visiting the area. It might not be the most academic or organized, but it's a great starting point from which to do more research! Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the city's history.

[Rodrigo Burgarelli · Rating 3 out of 5]

A tese principal é muito interessante, e serviu para que eu aprendesse bastante sobre a história da cidade e também do país (impressionante como o capitalismo/rule of law já era uma força dominante e estabelecida nessa área dos EUA mesmo antes do século XIX). Mas poderia ser bem mais enxuto e focado.