This report integrates three generations of discussions. First is a May 19, 2005 document submitted to INHP by the Ad Hoc Historians listing seven problems with the Consensus Document. Second, is INHP's July 12, 2005 response. Third, is Ed Lawler's July 15, 2005 rebuttal.
1. It exaggerates the doubt over the unidentified buildings shown on the 1785 Burnt House Plan between the kitchen and stables as having been the smokehouse and its proposed extension beyond what was expressed by members of the Roundtable on November 18, 2003, and beyond what the documentary evidence indicates.
2. It is internally inconsistent about where the stableworkers were to be housed, and proposes a solution that is contrary to the documentary evidence.
3. In December 2004, INHP committed to marking the unidentified buildings shown on the 1785 Burnt House Plan between the kitchen and stables, and to unambiguously labeling them "Smokehouse/Slave Quarters." In sentences such as the following, the Consensus Document minimizes the cultural importance of this space: "One reason for the intense interest in precisely locating this space is that for a period during Washington's occupancy it may have housed some of his slaves and servants."
4. The housing assignments in the Washington-Lear correspondence make it clear that black and white servants were to be housed separately. This deliberate intention to segregate by race is obscured in the Consensus Document by sentences such as: "At least some of the black men seem to have been housed separately from the white men."
5. The Consensus Document's proposal to use the term "servant/slave spaces" has been superceded by INHP's December 2004 commitment to using the term "Smokehouse/ Slave Quarters."
6. New evidence has come to light since the April 2004 completion of the Consensus Document. For example, the discovery of the presence of a ninth enslaved African in Washington's presidential household, Joe Richardson. His having been a stableworker raises the possibility that the Smokehouse/Slave Quarters was used to house enslaved Africans for almost all of Washington's six-and-a-quarter years in Philadelphia.
7. Architectural historian Bernard Herman strongly praised Edward Lawler Jr.'s work on the physical building and NPS archaeologist Jed Levin urged that Lawler's floor plan be recreated full-sized in the paving of the entrance plaza of the Liberty Bell Center "in as much detail as possible." The Consensus Document should reflect this endorsement of Lawler's work by INHP's experts at the November 18, 2003 meeting.
Lawler Conclusion: INHP's above comments only demonstrate how vital it remains that the Consensus Document be "cured" in order to be of maximum useful to the City and its designers.