loyal to the United States. They accused Shepherd and his supporters of having labeled them “copperheads,” a derogatory term for Southern-leaning Northerners. By taking a leading position on the Unconditional Union ticket and dramatizing the loyalty issue, Shepherd created an awkward situation for local, conservative, often Georgetown-based figures whose political sympathies were frequently with the South.
Shepherd’s debating style was always confident and occasionally aggressive. From the beginning he demonstrated a willingness to use his imposing physical presence to support a legislative position; one challenge during his term on the Elections Committee brought the response that he would allow no one to “asperse” him. Speaking in a loud tone and with a belligerent attitude, Shepherd told the other speaker to take his seat, and both men appeared ready to fight. Nothing ensued, however, and Shepherd closed by defending the members of his committee from the charge of unfairness.15 During one debate he contended that he did not care about “appearances, ridiculous or not. . . . The only question was whether it was right,” adding that he would do his duty and let others think what they might.16
During his three terms on the Common Council, Shepherd maintained a steady criticism of Congress’s refusal to provide local government with taxing authority while at the same time providing concessions and franchises to outside corporate investors in the capital. Responding to an article in a local paper critical of the District for neglect of Pennsylvania Avenue, he commented bitterly that “when a railroad franchise, or gas company, or anything of that sort was asked [of Congress], it was rushed straight through; but when the city asked for power to tax property for necessary improvements, to make this city a pride for its people, instead of a disgrace, we were snubbed or kicked out until the adjournment of Congress.”17 Among Shepherd’s targets was the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. He saw the railroad, which had a rail station near the Capitol and tracks across the mall that disfigured the vista of the Capitol, as a corporate bully that had political influence with Congress and would be an obstacle to his plans to rationalize the development of the city.
Balancing family life with his business and political affairs, Shepherd married Mary Grice Young in January 1862, and he and his bride moved into their first home, a comfortable brick row house at 358 Tenth Street W.18 Shepherd’s Washington residences would reflect his growing financial success, culminating in the mansion at 1705 K Street some ten years later. Although his mother remained in her nearby Ninth Street residence until after the end of the war, she helped the newlyweds settle into their new home. The couple’s first child, Mary Young Shepherd, was born in early December 1862 at their new home, where Shepherd’s mother no doubt was able to help out with the growing family.
Because Shepherd was a businessman whose major activities were equipping homes with heating, lighting, and plumbing systems, as well as developing real estate and constructing homes, he understood the importance of optimism and stability to encourage investment in local real estate. The constant attacks on Washington for its shortcomings were a threat to such local investment and encouraged attempts to “remove” the capital to some other part of the country. Local newspapers, informed observers such as the recorder of deeds, and the principal real estate brokers and developers of the time were vocal in attributing stuttering investment—public as well as private—in Washington to the threat of retrocession to Mary land and “removal” of the capital to the West. Retrocession had already occurred once, when Congress returned the Alexandria City and County portion of the original ten-mile square across the Potomac River to Virginia in 1846. Agitation and uncertainty had a negative influence on attitudes and property values, something Shepherd well understood.19 Consequently, as early as the Civil War, Shepherd had begun to take steps to identify and respond to the threat of capital removal, which he believed would crush the life out of Washington and his growing investments in land and buildings.
Article I, section 8, of the Constitution gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction over an area of up to ten miles square anticipated for cession by the states. Early debates over local governance of the nation’s capital wereunited on one key point: executive authority should be vested in an appointee of the president of the United States, not an individual elected by the residents. As an appointee, the mayor, it was thought, “could not fail to administer local affairs in harmony with the national administration.”20 Nonetheless, by 1802 this concept had shifted to a congressional decision to delegate administration of local affairs to the local government, thereby granting limited freedom to residents to manage what concerned them more than it did the general government. However, Congress reserved the right to recall any or all of these privileges if at any time they were neglected or abused.21 The 1820 charter of Washington City made the City Corporation responsible for urban improvement, including streets, but from the outset the national government showed little interest in beautifying its creation. For many years the only aesthetic embellishment was Thomas Jefferson’s planting of four rows of poplar trees on Pennsylvania Avenue, in imitation of the famous Unter den Linden in Berlin.22
Shepherd was not alone in grasping the magnitude of the challenge facing Washington if it was to overcome its status as a stepchild of the national government, but he developed a special ability to convert anger and frustration into concrete results through coalition building. Shepherd realized that Washington’s residents were simply unable to underwrite the physical development expected of the capital of a fast-growing nation without congressional support and funding. He would therefore have to convince Congress that its financial support for the improvement of the nation’s capital was in its own best interest.
Shepherd made use of his election speech as president of the Sixtieth Common Council in 1862 to identify themes to which he would return time and again: (1) supporting Unconditional Union (UU), the bedrock of his views; (2) downplaying what he called “unnecessary agitation” and division; (3) maintaining and developing Washington’s urban infrastructure; and, most important, (4) obtaining a commitment from Congress to participate fully in the city’s development. He exhorted his listeners, “Let us in all things uphold our government and by our acts and discussions secure the aid of our national legislature in the great work of improving and beautifying our beloved city.”23
Building Blocks for Consolidation
The first step in Shepherd’s long campaign to create a new Washington was revision of the city charter to give the City Council authority to generate tax revenues adequate to pay for urban improvements. An 1862 joint council resolution calling for Congress to revise the Washington City charter led with the statement that the current charter limited the powers of the corporation to such an extent that carrying out substantial improvements was impossible. Shepherd explained his resolution in debate, saying that the corporation needed the power to provide for improvements, including sewerage, river dredging, a new city asylum for the poor, and, above all, paving of the streets. In order to determine where matters stood legally, the City Council approved Shepherd’s proposal for a digest and codification of corporation laws, which had become “incorrect and faulty” as a result of numerous amendments.24 As part of his campaign to create greater awareness of Washington history, Shepherd also called for purchasing an original map of the District of Columbia and requested that General Montgomery Meigs donate photos of the Washington Aqueduct, which Meigs had designed and built in the 1850s to bring an adequate water supply to Washington from farther up the Potomac River.25
In 1863, his final year on the Common Council, Shepherd’s principal legislative initiative remained the reform of the Washington City charter. For reasons that are unclear, Shepherd was absent from most of the council meetings in the summer and early fall of that year. He may have become disenchanted with the influence of the Common Council; he could also have been focusing more on building what was becoming a very successful plumbing and gas-fitting business. He had reason to devote more time and energy to his business dealings.
During the first half of 1864 Shepherd undertook a “private war” with Joseph F. Brown, who ran the Washington Gas Light Company and represented Shepherd’s Ward
