Your second blog post assignment is based on the assigned reading for this week. You should read pp. 1-55 of Thomas Brown’s The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration and use specific evidence and examples from that reading when writing your comment. This book is a required text and is available in the Rice University bookstore and on 2-hour reserve at Fondren Library.
Your comment should do two things:
Task #1: Select one feature of the Dick Dowling statue in Hermann Park, which we visited yesterday, and compare it with the monuments whose designs and inscriptions are discussed by Brown on pp. 22-41. Then briefly answer: What conclusions would you draw about the Dowling statue based on its similarity to or difference from other monuments discussed by Brown? (If you would like to look refresh your memory of the statue, an anonymous local artist has posted some photographs of it on Flickr.)
Task #2: Based on your reading of Brown, come up with a potential question for research about the Dowling statue we saw. After reading Brown’s survey of post-Civil War commemorations of veterans, what would you most like to know about this statue in particular and its history? What do you think answering this question would tell us about the memory of the Civil War?
Post your responses to both tasks in the comment section below. You may wish to consult the blog post rubric (PDF) that Mercy discussed in class on Thursday to remind yourself about the important objectives for these posts. Your comment is due by 9 a.m. next Thursday, January 20.
The main difference between the Dowling statue and the other statues Brown discusses is that he does not look in the slightest bit like a soldier about to go fight a heroic battle. Although there is a cannon on the pedestal and he is carrying a sword, he is not standing at attention at all and he is holding a pair of binoculars. His pose is relaxed and he looks more like he’s taking a break—perhaps scouting out the enemy—more than actually doing anything to defend Sabine Pass. This is particularly interesting given that the trend at the time, according to Brown, was to depict soldiers that were more active instead of posed and passive. Dowling’s statue stands in direct opposition to those such as the Kitson statue, where the subject is actively walking about and carrying a gun over his shoulder.
The choice to make Dowling a more passive subject could be explained by a phenomenon Brown notes on page 35 that the sponsors of statues largely preferred images of soldiers at rest. It could also be explained by the need to compromise due to a variety of sources of funding for the statue. In the case of the Dowling statue, three different groups with various agendas are credited with supporting its construction on the pedestal. One of the initial groups to support the construction of the Dowling statue was an Irish heritage group which would have been much more interesting in showing a successful, important Irishman in Houston society than they would be with depicting a soldier. When examined closely, Dowling’s monument exemplifies an array of compromises that would have been necessary to placate two groups with such different interests. The pedestal has a cannon, which highlights Dowling’s efforts as a war hero which would have been important to the military groups sponsoring the statue, but it also has shamrocks, which would have pleased the Irish group eager to emphasize Dowling’s heritage.
It would be interesting to see what groups have been involved in the construction and maintenance of the statue, and what their particular agendas were. Especially given that the statue has been moved, and was at one point not even on display in Houston, it would be interesting to delve deeper into the agendas of the people involved in these decisions. Doing so could provide some useful information not only about the statue’s specific history, but also about attitudes in Houston towards the Civil War, as well as how the memory of the war continued to shape political decisions long after the final shots were fired.
Taking the question of the agendas and preferences of memorial sponsors even further, I found Kirk Savage’s comment on potential links between race and depictions of soldiers during war particularly interesting. I thought it could be applicable to Dowling given that the statue was constructed in the South. It would be interesting to see whether the active soldiers were more popular in the North where their parallels with slavery would be less complicated than for persons in the South, who were still grappling with issues of race and memories of slavery. Answering these questions could give us more information about how Americans were remembering the Civil War, and in which areas of the country the memory of slavery was still raw enough that a statue of a soldier that bore some vague resemblance to a slave could be seen as problematic.
The Dick Dowling statue, which sits high atop a stone base in the outskirts of Hermann Park, is an example of a widely diffuse type of Civil War monument known as “the single figure soldier (Brown 26).” According to Thomas J. Brown, author of the book The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration, single figure statues became one of the most popular types of civic monuments after the Civil War. In some cases, the statues were so popular that towns even replaced more abstract monuments with the image of a valiant soldier (Brown 31). Although the statue of Dowling fits into this popular category of statue, it has some differing characteristics from other well known models. Unlike most of the other Confederate soldiers etched in stone, Dowling was not erected holding a rifle. However, Dowling is most likely not carrying a rifle because he is more famous for his role as an artilleryman, not an infantryman. Because Dowling is honored for his brave role behind the cannon, not in front of it, many of the comparative characteristics of Civil War soldier monuments do not apply to Dowling. For instance, we cannot compare the position of his rifle in the statue to other single figure soldiers because Dowling does not have one.
However, it is worthwhile to compare the facial expression and body language of the Dowling statue to the other single figure monuments that have been erected since the Civil War. Brown explains that the more widely used pose of the soldier statue came to be more an expression of “vigilance” rather than solidarity (Brown 26). At first glimpse of the Dowling statue, it seems that he is sentinel—especially because he has a pair of binoculars in hand; however, on closer inspection, he appears to be more at ease than vigilant. Not only are his binoculars not drawn to his face, but he also appears to be seated on a vertical log. In the depicted image, Dowling appears to be even more at ease than the widely used “parade rest” or “marching rest” poses (Brown 25). Brown notes that from 1890-1920 (Dowling’s statue was erected in this time), there was a growing dissent against “at rest” statues. Critics posed that this type of statue did not represent the soldiers “self-sacrifice, bravery, and devotion” that a more active statue would (Brown 31). Although it is not clear why the creators of Dowling’s statue resisted this trend, the explanation might exist that the creators were trying to downplay the violent aspect of Dowling’s heroism and focus more on the fantastic nature of the story. Additionally, the creators might have resisted the “active statue” trend because Dowling, unlike so many of the soldiers that statues have been erected for, did not die in battle. For whatever reason, the creators of the Dowling statue thought it most fitting to picture Dowling in a very at rest position, which differed from the strong sentiments of many monument creators of the time.
In Brown’s section about the history of Memorial Day, he describes the frustrated sentiments of veterans who witnessed Memorial Day turn from a day of remembrance into a day of recreation and leisure (Brown 44). Oftentimes, it seems that the deep emotion that cut into both the South and the North following the Civil War has faded greatly from popular memory. As such, I would like to know if, and what sentiments and opinions drove Dowling’s statue to its currently inauspicious location between two busy roads on the outskirts of Hermann Park? It is possible that the statue conjures up feelings of defeat, or of the immorality of slavery, and might have been moved because of that. Knowing why the statue now sits in such a largely forgotten part of Hermann Park can tell us about how Houstonians regard Dowling’s legacy and remember the Civil War.
Brown writes that the statue of a single uniformed soldier at “rest” was the quintessential Civil War monument. Therefore, in one sense the Dowling monument is a very standard, unremarkable monument, resembling to a strong degree some of the examples given as typical in the book. But it possesses at least a couple of striking deviations from the norm.
According to Brown, “statues of specific individuals offered [little] competition to the generic soldier as a strategy for remembering collective effort and sacrifice” (page 31). Yet the monument commemorates not only Dowling, but the Davis Guards who fought with him, centering their effort around a single figure rather than representing their bravery with a generic soldier. Note that, as pointed out on the City of Houston website linked above, the Guards were a largely Irish group, as this is closely integrated with the monument’s other remarkable features.
Dowling himself differs from what a generic monument soldier looked like merely by being an Irish-American. Brown writes that “the physical characteristics… of rapidly proliferating soldier statues expressed ideas about the citizen-soldier,” and that depictions, imagined or actual, of ethnic minorities as the ideal American soldier were met with protest. An early Civil War monument, Randolph Rogers’ sculpture in Spring Grove Cemetery in Cincinnati, drew complaints from Harper’s New Monthly for looking like “a brave Celt” (page 26).
Dowling, however, was a Celt. And it seems strange that he could be recognized as a hero, complete with several monuments in the area where he became famous, while standard soldier statues were frowned upon if they appeared to represent a particular ethnic group. One reason for the latter, aside from issues of racism, nationalism and xenophobia, is perhaps that it would be controversial if the sculptor appeared to exhibit any special interests toward a certain group. Yet if you examine the Dowling monument, not only might his appearance suggest his ancestry, but his Irish heritage is played up in the shamrocks adorning the base. It was dedicated on Saint Patrick’s Day in 1905, and the historical marker as well as the City of Houston website description are quick to point out that Dowling was Irish. Clearly his Irish identity was meant not only to be recognized, but proudly displayed. The statue was dedicated and sponsored in part by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic association. A conclusion I have drawn about the Dowling statue is that it is a monument not just to a particular Civil War hero, but through him, implicitly, to the important role played by Irish-Americans in the Houston area, from Dowling himself to the rest of the Davis Guards.
What was the status of Irish-Americans in Houston at the time this statue was dedicated? Were Houstonians, and Americans in general, still worried about immigration destabilizing America? Therefore, my question is this: what significance did this statue have for the Irish community in Houston at the time? Was this monument a way of fighting back and proving their worth in a time in which they still faced discrimination, or was it an expression of pride in a time where ethnic minorities were gaining more acceptance? Clearly this Dick Dowling memorial honors much more than his role in the Civil War, or even as an entrepreneurial Houstonian. It honors his Irish heritage, and I want to know why this was so important at the time.
Just as people find it fascinating to imagine why blacks might want to fight for the Confederacy, as we have just discussed, it is also interesting to debate why ethnic minorities, especially recent immigrants, would want to fight for a country that their family had not long inhabited and which did not always treat them with respect. Why would Irishmen fight under a climate that often did not recognize them as ideal Americans?
As Brown states in the opening paragraph of the section titled Monument Designs, “Civil War monuments inevitably take a wide range of forms, but more striking than the variety is the dominance of one type of composition: the statue of a uniformed standing soldier holding the barrel of a rifle that rests upright on the ground in front of him” (24). Brown continues, citing the popularity of these depictions of soldiers at “place rest” or “parade rest” (24). Brown lists several illustrations of this sort, including the Seventh Infantry Regiment Memorial (28) and the Michigan Soldiers and Sailors Monument (30). Although monuments like the Michigan Soldiers and Sailors Monument presented grander compositions of multiple soldiers and objects, Brown still notes that the image of the single generic soldier at rest “had become central to the monument form most favored by communities aspiring to something grander than a single-figure statue” (26).
However, the Dick Dowling Monument offers a strong deviation from the norm as the statue is of an officer. Brown notes that, “statues of specific individuals offered even less competition to the generic soldier as a strategy for remembering collective effort and sacrifice” and that “generic images of officers were not common” (31). Thus, the portrayal of an officer is seemingly at odds with the standard image of the generic soldier at rest. In fact, Brown concludes that the ordinary private commanded the soldiers monument (31). Because of this exception, it is important to take a closer look at Dowling’s role in the Civil War and his connection to the city of Houston as perhaps the reason why Houston chose to erect a statue of an officer instead of the standard generic soldier. First and foremost, Dowling and his family settled in Houston after immigrating from Ireland and Dowling opened a successful bar called the ‘Bank of Bacchus.’ More importantly was Dowling’s role in the Battle of Sabine Pass in which a Union invasion fleet attempted to invade Texas. Hence, Dowling’s improbable victory saved the city of Houston from Union capture and occupation.
As Brown states numerous times, the image of a specific individual, especially an officer, was a rare occurrence for Civil War Commencement Monuments. Rather, the figure of the generic soldier at rest dominated Civil War Monuments as it represented the “vigilant citizen-soldier” (26). It is important to observe that the Civil War Monument Houston chose to adorn its streets with is of a specific individual, Lieutenant Dick Dowling. As mentioned earlier, Dowling’s close ties with the city of Houston and his victory over invading Union forces demonstrates his importance to the history of Houston. Thus, I conclude that the statue of Dowling commemorates a Houstonian who saved Houston from Union occupation against incredible odds. Furthermore, I conclude that this monument is not designed to simply honor those Texans who served during the Civil War, but rather a Houston hero who played a vital role in saving Texas from invasion. I believe this conclusion is substantiated in Houston’s decision to choose a Civil War Monument depicting a famous individual instead of the standard single soldier statue.
Similarly to Alex, I would like to know why the statue of Dowling is in its current unsuitable location? If Houston chose to commemorate Dowling with a monument because of his close connection to the city of Houston and his famous role in the Battle of Sabine Pass, then why is the statue located where it is in Hermann Park? I believe that by knowing the answers to these questions, we will gain an invaluable insight into how Houston regards its role in the Civil War and its current attitude to “heroes” of the Civil War.
Dick Dowling’s statue in Hermann Park, although a monument to a Confederate veteran, does not honor the “citizen-soldier,” and appears to be much more concerned with Dick Dowling himself than the Civil War and the Confederacy as a whole. Brown notes that the commemoration of the “citizen-soldier” served to “give meaning” to the massive death and destruction that the Civil War caused, as well as to “provide a model of postwar citizenship,” (15). Monuments to the war (generally) depicted a single private holding a rifle or bayonet, and by showing the single private standing watch and ready for battle, these monuments truly honored the “vigilant citizen-soldier” (26). Additionally, when monuments listed the names of soldiers they “usually identified only the dead,” (36). Listing only the dead allowed monuments to help honor the massive casualties of war, ideally giving valor and honor to the dead and helping to Americans to make sense of why they had died. These features came together to create the standard Civil War monument to the citizen-soldier.
In sharp contrast to these generic monuments, Dick Dowling’s monument is dedicated to a specific war hero, and to an officer no less. This was not a monument built to honor all Civil War veterans; it was built to specifically honor Dowling. Additionally, the inscription on the statue lists the names of all of the soldiers who fought with Dowling at Sabine Pass—there is no focus on honoring the dead, rather, the monument was built to honor the victory at Sabine Pass and the man who made that victory happen. The statue is of a single figure, and Dowling does appear to have the vigilance of the citizen-soldier that Brown mentions, but even so, he does not have a rifle in the statue. His vigilant appearance comes from the binoculars hanging around his neck rather than from holding a gun at the ready. His sword appears more ceremonial than useful, and he holds it in such a manner that it almost seems like he is leaning on it, rather than brandishing it for a fight. These differences from the standard Civil War monument indicate that this monument was not designed to achieve the goals that generic monuments sought to achieve, but instead, it was designed to glorify Dowling and his military victories.
Brown notes “the power to install and dedicate a monument implied authority to shape the public realm and define the conduct that deserved admiration,” (22). This indicates that the people with power in Houston cared more about respecting and honoring a specific Houstonian than with honoring all of the war’s fallen. The soldiers listed on the monument were listed because they took part in a hugely successful battle that could be attributed to Houstonians, not because they had died in the name of the Lost Cause. What seems particularly fascinating is that (according to numerous internet sources), the statue of Dick Dowling was the first public monument to be erected in Houston, and it was not erected until 1905. What was the impetus for creating this monument, given that Dowling had died decades before, and why did the people who held social and economic power in Houston choose to honor Dowling? Was this the first of many monuments dedicated to famous Houstonians, was if the first of many monuments dedicated to the Civil War, or was it an outlier? These questions are not simply interesting food for thought, I would argue that if we understand more about the context of the Dowling statue then we can better understand why it differs from other Civil War monuments of its time.
Perhaps the most striking difference between the Dowling statue and the monuments discussed and pictured by Brown is the lack of a rifle. While many of the statues Brown describes feature soldiers at rest much like Dowling is, they are at least “holding the barrel of a rifle that rests upright on the ground…” (pg. 24) And yet, the designers of Dowling’s monument here in Houston chose to omit a rifle entirely, choosing instead to juxtapose a pair of binoculars with a sword, suggesting that, even if there were any enemies in sight, Dowling must be a safe distance away, and couldn’t really do any damage with his sword in the first place. While it is true that Dowling could be standing behind artillery, his pose is still very relaxed and does not really lend itself to the nature of battle.
Meanwhile, Dowling’s memorial at Sabine Pass depicts a shirtless, masculine warrior, which further highlights his near-peaceful likeness here in Houston. As such, it seems obvious that the Houston statue’s designers explicitly sought to memorialize Dowling as a calm, honorable gentleman at battle, not a savage warrior who might inspire more awe but give the wrong impression of Confederate soldiers on the whole. It should also be noted that Dowling’s condition in the memorial draws more attention to his status as a Lieutenant. As Brown notes, “the ordinary private commanded the soldiers monument” (pg. 31) in most cases, making Dowling’s monument somewhat of a special case; the fact that he is using binoculars, relaxed against a stump and armed with a sword rather than a rifle should even convince an onlooker without the faintest knowledge of Dowling’s history that he was an officer, or someone important and somewhat privileged.
As far as why the monument’s sponsors would prefer to depict Dowling in a more placid way, Brown points out that the “soldier at rest” held appeal even as people began to demand more action in the monuments because they “embodied the ‘disciplined, loyal supporter of society’” and relieved “a disquieting social recognition that military discipline resembled slavery.” (pg. 35) In other words, it helped with Dowling’s image as a Confederate in the first place. It’s a fair compromise, considering the implications of putting up a Confederate monument, to settle for a more civilized representation of a Southern soldier, and is probably a better way to remember Dowling anyways.
With as much as Dowling’s statue seems to be an anomaly when compared to the other monuments discussed in Brown, I’d be interested to know more about those who sponsored it. We know from the inscriptions on the monument and the markers around it who had a part in putting it up, but as Brown states, “in the majority of cases, however, sponsors relied on private donations and fund raising events” for the money. (pg. 22) Was there such an event for Dowling’s statues? Were there other donors, besides those mentioned on the inscriptions? We see from the plaque beside the monument that it is considered Houston’s first public artwork; who were the people who had enough power to dedicate a city’s first piece of art to Dowling and the Davis Guards?
Great questions and observations! Keep up the great work!
Courtney raises an excellent question about why Dowling–an Irishman–would be venerated at a time when ethnic and religious minorities like the Irish Catholics were still seen as outsiders. The Rogers statue depicting the “brave Celt” was from the 1860s, so perhaps by 1905 the Houstonians who funded the statue were more open to celebration of Dowling–but the question remains a good one, especially if Dowling was celebrated by Texans even earlier. The issue of his Catholicism is also interesting, apart from his Irish background, given the strong associations between Catholicism and Latinos in Texas. It’s also worth noting, on p. 26 of the Brown book, that in Georgia a statue was considered “too German” and torn down in 1900. Yet the Dowling statue was actually sculpted by a German American in Llano (his name is carved on an unobtrusive corner of the statue). One wonders if that was an issue at all for the people who commissioned the statue, and if not, why not. All of these questions about the ethnic identity of Dowling also got me to thinking about the materials chosen for the statue–why white marble, for example, instead of the darker bronzes or similar materials used in some of the Northern statues depicted in the Brown book? Thanks for an insightful question, Courtney–I’m sure there’s a lot more along these lines to figure out!
Many of you also are raising the question, implicitly, of who was behind the statue. Jocelyn notes that there were at least two organizations involved–but who was in those organizations? What were their missions? Also, Juri and Alex talk about why “Houston” or “Houstonians” in general chose this particular statue: a good question given that no matter which groups planned and funded the statue, probably at some point–either in the early twentieth century or later–the city government of Houston had to make the decision to step in and take some responsibility over the statue. After all, as Courtney points out, there is now a City of Houston webpage of information about Dowling. So the statue hasn’t just been moved to different places in the city; it’s moved into cyberspace too!
Great thoughts from all of you–keep ’em coming!
I’ve had another thought in regards to the monument’s current location.
Namely, I began to think about how, if I had grown up in Houston and had, for some reason, passed the monument often enough as a child, all I could have assumed about the statue was that it was of a hero. Before knowing the history of Texas and the Civil War and without knowing anything about Dowling or the statue, all I would have seen was a soldier worth commemorating. As I matured and learned more I may have been able to figure out that he was a Confederate soldier, but still, without putting two and two together or reading the inscriptions on the monument, one has no reason to assume he was a Confederate. It might even be reasonable to assume that he was a soldier of the Mexican-American War, instead.
So in some ways, the monument’s new position benefits it; the city managed to hide a Confederate memorial in plain sight, and most Houstonians probably don’t even give it a second thought. Of course, this causes the monument to fail somewhat as a tribute to Dowling (and, to some extent still, as a Confederate monument), but it’s a nice little Confederate easter egg in this city… although it could probably stand to be in a slightly more visible spot.
Good point, Victor. By commemorating Dowling in this way, the statue’s creators partly ripped Dowling from any stable context for reading the statue, thereby making it open to various interpretations by passers-by, even interpretations contrary to the intent of the creators or to the actual facts about Dowling.
The Dowling statue, to me, is an interesting variation on the theme of Civil War remembrance in the South. In his book Brown does not make a large distinction between Northern and Southern commemorations, and the monument to Dowling fully supports his decision. If one covered up the single reference to the UCV, the monument could have easily been placed in Flint, Michigan or Albany, NY. There’s no reference to Confederate victory at Sabine Pass! That said, regardless of location, this monument is an anomaly in Civil War commemorative statues. Dowling’s statue follows in the traditional single-soldier statue formed in the 1880’s, but apart from that it defies most conventions. Brown argues that the main commemoration was to the citizen-soldier – the anonymous infantryman – who was to be exalted and his death remembered. This statue, though, was of a Lieutenant and local hero. This puts it in the minority. His pose is also far less heroic than the active stances that started twenty years before its casting nor as stoic as the ubiquitous “parade-rest” stance of the time. The statue offers an aura of vigilance surrounding Dowling, with his symbolic binoculars and officer’s sword at the ready. Unlike other monuments, this statue can’t be expanded to remember the rest of the army. Other than the soldiers names, it contains no description of their valor or heroism in defense of a virtue — something Brown finds central to commemoration. (see Oliver Holmes Memorial Day address in 1895). Thus, I argue that because it is of a local officer-hero, the statue of Dowling is only partially a Civil War commemoration. Instead it celebrates the vigilance and success of one man who led the repulsion of a Union invasion. The monument lists the names of the men who fought at Sabine Pass, but gives no indication of what happened there. It is as much a celebration of this man’s life as a celebration of the war.
My question regarding the Dowling statue is as follows: How does the Dowling statue fit in with the recognition of minorities who fought in the Civil War? I was inspired by Brown’s reference to Kirk Savage who argued that the post-Civil War statues had been racialized (I assume the ideal was Anglo-Saxon), but Dowling was Irish. His immigrant status is shown by the shamrocks around the pedestal, and the Hibernian Society paid for it. I would like to know if there was scandal surrounding the establishment of a monument to an Irish-American, because in the late 1800s and turn of the century the Irish were still not accepted, at least I know that is the case in Boston. They bore the stigma of outsiders much like Hispanics do today. It would be interesting to see if his prestige as a Civil War hero allowed the Hibernians to put the statue in Market Square. This would act of a gauge of how the positive memory of the Civil War remained in East Texas. It would also be interesting to know if contemporaries thought the Irish pride on the statue was a deleterious addition to the Civil War memory.
Based on the monuments discussed by Brown, the most striking thing to me about the Dick Dowling statue is the lack of context surrounding it. As a Confederate monument, it is presumably meant to honor Dowling for his service in the Confederate army and honor those who fought at the Battle of Sabine Pass, but the monument itself and its location seem to minimize these aspects. As others have pointed out, the Dowling statue is not the single generic soldier or citizen-soldier often depicted on war monuments (26). It does not seem to focus on the heroics and sacrifices made by Confederate soldiers in general, but rather it focuses just on Dowling. Although Dowling is the focus of the statue, however, even his involvement in the battle seems to have been downplayed. He stands without a rifle and is at a position of rest. He is clearly meant to be seen as heroic, but it does not seem to be his actions in battle that are specifically being commemorated. The statue seems to be more about remembering Dowling himself than remembering the war. This makes the monument quite different than most of the monuments discussed by Brown.
I would definitely be interested in learning more about how the monument came to be erected. We discussed that it was collaborative effort between several groups, including an Irish heritage group, so I would be interested in how these groups managed to come together and raise the money. Was their conflict on the specifics of how Dowling was memorialized? What were the goals and agendas of each group involved in the effort? Were some people upset that the monument was more about Dowling than about the battle?
The statue of Dick Dowling commemorates one of Houston’s great heroes and citizens. Dowling a revered businessman became legend when he successfully led a band of 50 CSA troops, the “Davis Guard,” to an overwhelming victory over a Union invasion fleet of 6000 men. Dowling’s actions saved the cities of Houston and Galveston from the fates of other southern cities such as Richmond or Charlotte.
The monument of Dowling, located at one of the major entrances to Herman Park, appears to defy the common form for civil war monuments as Thomas Brown describes in his book. The statue of Dowling is a “single figure soldier” statue as brown describes on page 26 of his book. But it differs in various ways. Brown notes that most statues of the period were of low ranking soldiers ready at arms, or in action. The statue of Dowling depicts and officer who appears to be at rest.
I personally have no problem with how Dowling is depicted. We must remember that the Battle of Sabine Pass was not just another battle in the Civil War but a heroic stand made by fifty men. The destruction of the Union invasion fleet saved Houston and Galveston; leaving Texas untouched by the ravages of war other southern states were experiencing at the time. Also Dowling and his men, though Irish immigrants, were “home town boys.” To merely depict a private standing at arms with a rifle as Brown described, would have been a vast understatement of their accomplishments. So why doesn’t the statue of Dowling depict him holding a rifle as was the style of the day? It is because Dowling was an officer. The way Dowling is depicted gives off the impression that he was calm and under control during the battle. The binoculars Dowling holds was his “rifle,” because as the commanding officer it was his job to direct cannon fire and his men in battle. The statue depicts Dowling holding a sword, though he did not have one, as a symbol of the rank he held.
It does not bother me that Dowling appears to be “at rest,” because as Brown noted in his book often the groups who commissioned statues preferred this style. Also I personally see no difference in the relaxed pose of Dowling, and the “at ease” position of the soldier on the cover of Brown’s book or the same “at ease” position of the soldier on page 28 of Brown’s book. I also do not think the fact that Dowling is leaning against a stump is relevant, because often sculptors were forced to add a “stump” to maintain the structural integrity of the statue.
Some have questioned the positioning of the statue, I believe that that the statue is in a position where it can be seen and appreciated. The roads that the statue is located on are very busy and serve as a gateway to the park, and to the medical center. If given more time I would have liked to look at the traffic saturation of the intersection where the statue of Dowling sits.
The groups who commissioned the statue of Dowling achieved what they set out to do. They appropriately memorialized the actions of Dowling and the Davis Guard, while keeping the statue true to their beliefs and loyalties- as Houstonians and as Irish. One thing I would like to look further in to is if there are other statues with similar form to Dowling’s, and if this form warrants recognition in Brown’s work. I would also like to see how people feel about the statue of Dick Dowling today, and how seeing the statue affects their perceptions of CSA monuments. I believe that answering these questions will allow us to further define what Civil War heroes mean to us today.
The posing Dick Dowling statue in Hermann Park bears many similarities to and some differences from the monuments discussed by Thomas J. Brown in his book, The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration. First, the Dowling statue portrays Dowling in a position somewhere between the popular civic monument pose of a soldier at rest and a more active pose used upon Civil War battlefields.
The soldier at rest statues portrayed by Brown show a soldier; often head down, leaning upon his gun. This soldier at rest style of monument was very popular in civic monuments for its careful portrayal of the citizen soldier, who embodied the “disciplined, loyal supporter of society” as Gaines Foster explains (Brown, 35). The Dowling statue like these monuments portrays Dowling leaning upon his gun in a more relaxed pose, however, unlike the soldier at rest, Dowling’s head is up and peering into the distance as if he were searching for the oncoming enemy. In this pose, Dowling holds binoculars in his hands as if he had just removed them from his eyes. This more active pose shows Dowling as more of an active soldier, an appropriate choice for a war hero. Yet, somehow by calling back to the soldier at rest model, the monument maintains the dignified and powerful nature of a citizen soldier. Dowling does not appear prepared for heroics or violent battle, yet he is not passive or passionless.
This more active version of monument, according to brown emerged during the huge rise in Civil War monuments during the 1890 to 1920 period. These active monuments as shown by the Massachusetts Monument at Vicksburg (Brown, 32) and the Jackson County Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Michigan (Brown, 34) portray more than the passive citizen soldier by portraying new poses such as, “marching, flag-bearing, fighting, and dying soldiers (Brown, 33). Yet, as brown points out, “Civic monuments served a wider range of purposes,” than simply commemorating battles and needed to appeal to the greater citizenry and illustrate a more stately soldier.
Considering Brown’s illustration of many of the monuments, Dowling’s statue fits well within the general genre of Civil War monument, right down to the impressive pedestal upon which it sits. However, an upon further reading of The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration it becomes clear that the monument inscription on the Dowling statue bear some interesting differences. While the Dowling monument bears the common inscriptions names of the sponsors, the name of the soldier portrayed, and the roster of Dowling’s troops; it bears no further marking. The monument lacks any further inscription of sentiments, words about the commemoration and its meaning, or poems. As the inscription was the primary place sponsoring organizations to leave their mark on the monument and set the tone of the monument, it is quite interesting that the inscription is so sparse. The questions I ask are: How were these sparse inscriptions chosen? And why was no further inscription included?
Answering these questions may shed important light onto the nature of the monument, the goals of the sponsoring organizations, and how these sponsoring organizations wished to influence the memory of the Civil War by creating the monument.
The fact that a monument for Dick Dowling exists in Hermann Park, let alone at all demonstrates the respect that the citizens of Houston held towards the hero of Sabine Pass. Brown writes on page 31 that generic images of officers were not very common. However on further examination of the statue, I feel that the monument is less a tribute to Dowling and more a recognition of the Davis Guards’s defense of Galveston and Houston from a Union invasion. Upon looking at the statue, Dowling is clearly an officer. While many have argued that Dowling should be holding a sword, I agree with Ross that the sword and the binoculars are more becoming of his position of leadership. It would feel a tad more realistic if he were looking through the binoculars but it is obvious that the man depicted in the monument is an officer.
While the statue is a tribute to the leadership of Dowling at Sabine Pass, I feel the monument as a whole pay homage to his men, the Davis Guards. My reasoning for this belief is the dedication on the pedestal. One side mentions that this monument was erected in the memory of Dick Dowling and the Davis Guards. The other three sides list the entire roster of soldiers who fought under Dowling at the Battle of Sabine Pass. Brown describes the inscriptions as listing the names of those who served, as well as sentiments about why those men fought. On pages 37 and 38, he compares the inscriptions found on Union and Confederate statues. Brown states that Confederate monuments typically had extensive inscriptions which extolled the patriotism and defense of the soldier’s home against invasion (38). From what I can see, there is no eloquent inscription on the monument. If this were solely a tribute to Dowling, why waste three sides of the monument with the names of his entire roster at Sabine Pass? Without the Historical Commission plaque, one really has no idea what occurred at Sabine Pass or why it is important.
The key for me that this monument is more than just a tribute to Dowling is that the monument was built with the support of Irish heritage groups. The Davis Guards were an Irish regiment in a place where being Irish and Catholic was not entirely tolerated. All of the men were more than just Irish to the people of Houston, the were Confederate heroes. The statue itself may be built in the memory of Dick Dowling, but the monument seems to be a commemoration of what he AND his men did at Sabine Pass.
While the statue is the Dick Dowling statue, it is fascinating to have such a complete roster of the men who served at Sabine Pass literally etched in stone. My question is who were these men? How many of them survived the war? If they lived, did they remain in Houston after the war or did they go elsewhere? For all I know, some of these men could have become prosperous leaders of Houston or other parts of Texas. What I want to know is, what became of the men in the Davis Guards who fought at Sabine Pass?
The statue of Richard Dowling in Hermann Park is uncommon and differs greatly from the standard statues that Thomas Brown describes in his book. He states that the erection of statues depicting individuals was not particularly popular and that there was not a significant increase in such depictions after one in Lebanon, Tennessee in 1912 (31). However, Dowling’s statue was unveiled some time before that in 1905. This seems to suggest that the statue was ahead of its time since the most popular form of commemoration was statues featuring the common soldier. If it was not popular to depict individual heroes in a statue, why was one of Dowling created and placed in front of City Hall? One possible answer to this question is the importance that the Battle of Sabine Pass had for the Houston community and the crucial role it played in the prevention of invasion of Texas. Because an Irish affiliated group sponsored it, and Dowling was such a significant part of the Houston commerce before the war, it makes sense that the statue should feature him and it explains his prominence in the monument.
While the statue features and individual hero, it does not just honor Dowling. In contrast to most inscriptions in other monuments, the one found in Hermann Park is inscribed with the names of the soldiers who participated in the Battle of Sabine Pass. Brown mentions instances in which the names of soldiers were included in inscriptions, but this was exhibited in large monuments like the Cuyahoga County Soldiers and Monuments in Cleveland, Ohio (36) and not in individual statues. Most of the other Confederate monuments stressed the purity of the soldier’s motives and local autonomy (36). This statue on the other hand seeks to honor all the men involved with the Battle and provides no famous quote or poem. The inscription that lies below the name “Dowling” clearly states that it is dedicated in his memory and in the memory of all those who served with him during that crucial battle.
The fact that the statue we visited features a prominent individual and at the same time honors all the men who participated in a battle shows the importance that the Houston community placed in the outcome of this conflict and how important their contribution was to the state. I suspect that no matter how active the Irish affiliated society was in lobbying for a statue of an Irish immigrant lieutenant, if Dowling had not been involved in such a decisive Battle he would not have a statue in the middle of an important local park. I think the differences evinced by this statue in comparison to the ones described in Brown’s book, are explained by the context of the Battle and the reassurance it brought to the people of Houston.
I am interested in a comparison between the statue we saw in Hermann park and the monument found in Sabine Pass honoring the Lieutenant and his troops. What explains the differences in pose and demeanor between the two statues? I am interested in finding out if there was any connection between the sponsors of the two commemorations and what the motivations for the creation of such monuments. Since the monument in the actual battleground was erected some time later, a comparison between the two could show the different criteria and different ideas that the people had over time on what was appropriate Civil War commemorations.
While the commemoration of the Civil War certainly was perpetuated by many groups and individuals, perhaps the most active of these were womens groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy (Davis 4). However, unlike many of the statues in Davis’s book, the groups that are credited for the creation of the statue of Dick Dowling are male and, in at least one case, focused on something other than the Civil War. This functionality places a vastly different focus on the statue, making it clear that rather than a leader going off into battle, the statue of Dick Dowling commemorates a man who happened to be a soldier, and the imprints of how the statue attempts to reconcile the interests and motives of these groups allow a brief glimpse into the hierarchy of these groups during the early twentieth century.
The importance placed on Dowling’s Irish heritage and origin is minimal in terms of percentage of space on the statue, yet when compared to other memorials it is quite significant. Motives of the Irish Ancient Order of Hibernians are seen in shamrocks on the upper region of the base, but otherwise more or less left the statue untouched by overt influence. The United Confederate Veterans, however, seem to have taken most of the focus of the statue. After all, the statue is not of a man at a bar, but rather of a Civil War lieutenant. Other contemporary statues focus instead on the soldier in action, but in the statue of Dowling, made over forty years following the Battle of Sabine Pass, is much more passive in its portrayal of war (Davis 33). Rather than showing Dowling as a commanding presence with a rifle or as a military leader, he is at rest, perhaps creating a compromise between the military and fraternal groups that came together to commemorate both a man and a battle. The words on the base of the statue are few when compared with other commemorative statues. There are no words from Civil War-era rhetoric or poetry. Instead, there is only the roster of the Confederate soldiers who fought at Sabine Pass, although the words on the base do not identify them as such, and the names of donators. Therefore, the structure and representations on the base of the statue naturally create questions in ones mind concerning how the representation and identity of a single man can be reconstructed to represent both himself and a group of people for posterity.
For the purpose of further research, I would be interested in discovering how groups like the United Confederate Veterans and the Ancient Order of Hibernians negotiated with one another in order to create their image of the ideal Confederate soldier and Irishman in the figure of the statue itself. These conceptions leave historical figures with forms and features that were never truly connected to them, but can give modern viewers of these statues an idea of how those who commissioned them wished to represent their ideal hero. If the whim of a member of the Harris family can place a tricorn hat on a statue of Sam Houston, what alterations were these groups capable of when reconstructing their collective memories of Dick Dowling?
Great point about gender, Clarissa. While the UDC did leave a marker next to the statue later in 1933, this statue was a project taken on primarily by men–making it somewhat of an anomaly.
Many of you have noted the oddity of the inscription–which simply lists 49 names (including Dowling’s) without giving any context for the significance of those names, and without even explicitly saying whether they lived or died. The historical marker placed at the site later talks more about the significance of the small numbers by claiming that this group turned back a fleet carrying 5,000 trips. (Interestingly, though, this marker says there were 47 men, raising the question of why there’s a discrepancy: just how many men were there, and does it matter?)
One thing worth thinking about is this: once you read the historical marker next to the statue and see what groups like the Confederate Congress thought about the Battle of Sabine Pass, does that add significance to the list of names on the statue? That is, was this simple list of names communicating some message about the cause of the Confederacy, even without spelling out in florid poetry or sentiments what that message was?
I am sad to say that as a born and raised Texan and more importantly a Houstonian, I had never stopped to smell the roses with this particular monument. So first let me thank Dr. McDaniel for the opportunity. My first impression of the statue of Dick Dowling was he was not holding a gun nor was he in an active military pose like so many other statues of the time including Kitson’s “Volunteer.” Rather, he seems relaxed as he holds his binoculars and peers out into the landscape. After reading Brown, he points out that many sponsors during the civil war era preferred a soldier at rest monument. Brown states, “…during the period from 1890 to 1920, the soldier at rest accounted for over 80 percent of known single-figure monuments.” Although, the soldier at rest dominated the landscape, people beginning in the 1880s started to express complaints about the soldier at rest monuments. They stated, “the typical monument did not illustrate ‘the patriotism, self-sacrifice, bravery and devotion which our soldiers have always displayed.'” So we started to see people questioning what these monuments actually stood for and who they stood for. This was definitely a social change in the way that people not only looked at the monuments but how they began to view and commemorate the civil war. It can be concluded that the group who designed that statue preferred the soldier at rest style as the best way to commemorate their local hero. The construction of the statue was completed in 1905 in the midst of an evolving viewpoint of the way civil war monuments shoud look. What would Dowling’s statue look like if it were built 10 years or even 20 years later?
The two groups that designed this statue were the Dick Dowling Camp of the United Confederate Veterans and an Irish society known as the Ancient Order of Hibernians. So not only did we have southerners and confederates wanting to commemorate Dowling but a new dynamic was brought in with the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Now we have thrown ethnicity and religion into the mix. How were the Irish Americans viewed at that time? Was there conflict between Dowling’s Camp of UCV and the Ancient Order of Hibernians deciding on how to correctly commemorate their fallen hero? I would like to know more about the process that went into planning, designing, and constructing Dowling’s statue. What were the goals for the statue of the two groups independently and collectively? Which group ultimately made that decision?
Answer to these questions would shed light on the social status of Irish Americans during that time and it would tell us who had the power to make the ultimate decision on the statue.
One trend I found very interesting in a good amount of the statues listed and discussed in the book was that a lot of the monuments were mainly of common, local soldiers or troops. It seems to be a trend to honor the soldier or troop in either a place of their origin or a place where they fought. This is especially found in the case of Dawling, who lived in Houston and was remembered there. I also found the case of the “Dutchy” statue interesting as well, because it shows the importance of this locality. The monument was declared “too German,” and was torn down. It seems there’s a certain pride and fascination in the idea that the war was very local, and happened on our own soil, and to have citizens of the town be a part of something big. It makes the citizens very important, and, one could argue, it honors the common people of the town instead of leaders and elites far off. I also found interesting how monuments were much favored over museums and memorial buildings, even if the veteran’s preferred a museum or “true” memorial hall, as they did back in the 19th century. It is curious that monuments and quick dedications were chosen over museums and memorial halls, and could say something about how the people viewed or wanted to view the history. In a way, monuments are more, “efficient,” in the sense that they require less money, less time, stand strong, and people get to look and honor them quickly as well, instead of investing time, effort, and money to visit a museum to honor the past.
As for the statue of Dawling specifically, I think it would be very interesting to learn more about the group that erected the statue in the first place. In what context did they erect it, and why? It could be useful to learn about the contributors, as well as the time it was erected and how it relates to either Dawling himself, or even other monuments in the city, state, or country. In short, it would be useful and interesting to know the origins of the monument and its erection. Considering the amount of monuments that were arising Post-war, and the style or reason for their erection, it could be beneficial to compare these origins to other statues as well, and how they all relate.
I also think it would be interesting to know why it was moved, and the meaning of its current location. It is currently situated in quite an inconvenient corner of the park; even more inconvenient back in its time. Why would the city decide to move it to that location, and what took its original place?