From the first list, I ended up looking up the article “Texas Will Dedicate Marker To Honor Sabine Pass Victory” from the Houston Chronicle on May 8, 1966.  The article announced the dedication of the Texas State Historical marker, which was to be placed 100 feet from the Dowling Monument.  Other than announcing the dedication, this article described the ceremony and individuals expected to attend as well as provided an exact replication of the text on the marker.

The short article and text while a decently sized blip on the page they were placed, were hidden fairly far into the paper, not popping up until the second page of the third section, which appeared to be a lifestyle/local section.  Notable subjects appearing before this page included: “Connaly wins; Martin Leading, Eckhart, Casey, Briscoe Win” referring to the Democratic primary; an article discussing pollution in Galveston Bay; a possible draft alternative; how GI’s were getting involved in Saigon’s Black Market; several articles dealing with sexual revolution; multiple discussions of LBJ reforms; and my personal favorite, an article about how a 6th grade boy had been suspended for refusing the paddle in school (Found in the Houston Chronicle, 8 May 1966,  on section 1 page 1, section 1 page 2, section 1 page 4, section 2 page 2, section 2 pages 6 and 8, and section 1 page 8).

All of these articles shed light on the changing times of a nation at war in Vietnam and facing considerable cultural change at home. But perhaps none of these describe better the immediate issues at play in Houston than a front-page article from the day before titled, “Klansman Held in Wife Shooting” (Houston Chonicle, sect. 1 page 1).  This article which details the story of a former KKK member who was being held on the account of his wife’s murder after she had been found dead in their home.  The article goes on to explain that the man involved, had been arrested for the slaying of an African American educator before, but had been acquitted.  It also explains that this individual had lost his job recently and his wife was operating as the primary breadwinner.  So in this case, this murder had all the evidence of racism, violence, and an institution that didn’t care until a white woman’s life had been harmed present still in Texas.  The same page also held an article detailing a march held by African Americans in Selma to attempt to keep a segregationist man from running for sheriff.  I found it interesting that both of these were contained on the same page, along with updates from Vietnam,  however the updates from Vietnam took a side bar, which these racial issues dominated the newspaper, front and center in 1966.

It was in this context that a dedication for a new historical marker to a Confederate hero was taking place, making me question the timing and consider that it is possible, that in this moment of racial tension, commemorating a former Confederate might be insulting.  However, the article mentions little of Dowling’s causes for fighting the war, instead choosing to focus on his Irish-ness and leaving the historical record up to the reprint of the marker text.  By letting the marker speak for itself, the reader is allowed to interpret what they will from it.  Notably, this was the first time I had truly studied the marker text and I was shocked to see it mentioned the dedication of t Tuam Avenue and Dowling Street to Dick Dowling. I found this notable as we  know  from

Dr. McDaniel’s post, Emancipation Park, these two streets form a border of the important park Emancipation Park which was purchased by the African American community to celebrate Juneteenth at a time when they were being increasingly excluded from public space according to W. Fitzhugh Brundage in his book The Southern Past (Brundage, 70).  Does this mean that this placement of the intersecting streets was intentional?

My second article, “The Story of Sabine Pass” from the Confederate Veteran on pages 565 and 566, was a short response from a W. E. Sawyer regarding a piece by M.V. Ingram.  The Ingram piece made the claim that Fort Donelson was the only time Federal ships were defeated by Confederate land forces, and Sawyer (a Texas member of the U.C.V.) could not idly stand by and allow the Battle of Sabine Pass to go unmentioned.  While the correction was very clear and attempts to portray the heroism of Dowling and his men’s actions, it is riddled with errors.  From the discussion of the fort (he says Fort Grigsby when it was actually Fort Griffin) to the lack of full details of the battle, to the miscount of Federal ships; the article contained considerable bad research and while touted as being a “truthful” and “historical” correction was not fully either.  However, this correction was by a veteran, and he did state a different author as his reference, so the inaccuracies were most like on that first level of historical work.  The context of this second article, was fairly dry as most of the articles surrounding it were merely details of other Confederate Battles and biographies of Confederates, not a coverage of current events.  Therefore, I could glean little from reading through the journal.

These articles start to answer questions regarding the Texas state historical marker, its time period and importance, as well as raise new questions about the dedication of streets and their relation to pre-existing spaces.  However,  I would count the second article as a loss, as it did not include considerable accurate findings on the Battle, nor did it provide context for its remembrance.

First Article: “Texas Will Dedicate Marker To Honor Sabine Pass Victory.” Houston Chronicle. Houston, TX, (May 8, 1966, sec. 3): 2.

Second Article: “THE STORY OF SABINE PASS.” Confederate Veteran XVI., no. 11 (November 1908): 565-566.

The first article I chose was published in the Houston Chronicle on September 5, 1989. The article was written by Bob Tutt and it appeared on page 15A of the day’s paper. It begins by describing Dick Dowling’s early life and his early entrepreneurial endeavors. After describing his physical and business characteristics, the author goes on to describe his involvement in the Confederate Army. The reader is reminded of the Union’s previous victories and that the Federal troops planned another blow on the Confederacy by attacking Sabine Pass.  However, Dick Dowling and his men prevented this Union victory by defending the area with little more than some old cannons. The author then goes on to say that while the battle did not alter the result of the War, Davis declared it a victory “without parallel in the ancient or modern times.”

The article then goes back to his beginnings as an Irish immigrant and his entrepreneurial nature, as chronicled by this great-great-niece. The author concludes by talking about Dowling’s death. He also acknowledges that he is till remembered in Houston through the statue at Hermann Park and the street and middle school that bear his name. The closing lines reveal that his great-great-niece and a leader of the Ancient Order of the Hibernians formed the Dick Dowling Irish Heritage society to restore the statue.

While the article was in the main section of the newspaper, it was not placed in a position where it could attract attention. It was one of many short articles and the only significant feature was the large photograph featuring the statue at Hermann Park.  The recounting of Dowling’s story was published three days before the 126^th anniversary of the Battle of Sabine Pass and in the same month as Dowling’s death. I assume that the article recounting and praising his life was a way the community honored their hero and exposed more people to hi story. The article also serves as a notification of the plans for the upcoming restoration of the statue. This article shows that the Houston has not forgotten its first hero and that however small a demonstration, the anniversary of his victory at Sabine Pass does not go unnoticed. While the author does not exalt the Confederacy, the writing does acknowledge the importance of the victory considering the formidable foe.

When looking through the rest of the paper, I did not find anything else that referred to Dowling or the victory at Sabine Pass. Despite the significant date, the only mention of this important piece of history was the small article. The most resonant news story was about the first President Bush predicting the fall of the Berlin Wall during his presidency. (Not really related to the Civil War.)

My second article came from the Confederate Veteran, a news magazine published up for Confederate supporters. The article “’Dick’ Dowling at Sabine Pass” was published in October 1896 and can be found on pages 336-338 of the bound materials.  This article begins by introducing the new Commander of the Dick Dowling Camp, but soon moves to provide a brief recount of the events of the Battle of Sabine Pass and the impact the victory had on the Davis Guards and the Confederacy. The article continues to describe the ceremony at which Dowling’s daughter received a medal in honor of her father’s actions to keep Texas safe from the Union.  Later, the names of all the men who served as the Davis Guards are listed, as well as the Camp’s officers. The death of a member of the Davis Guards, Captain Jack White, is announced in the same article. The end of the article recounts a “Prisoner’s Ludicrous Account” of a conversation with dick Dowling.

The issue of the Confederate Veteran where this article was published has many other articles in the same kind of format. There are numerous articles where they recognize members of the Confederate Army and where they list out the names of those that participated in a Battle. Also, there are many obituaries of heroes that have died and that according to the magazine deserve praise. Something that struck me as interesting was the listing of many reunions of different regiments and groups across the Southern states. These actions suggest that the Confederate identity and the relationships within the former army remained strong thirty year after the Battle. The veterans continued to socialize with other veterans and it was important that they preserve their cause and remember those that has served alongside them in battle.

The article addresses the question of how at different times the memory or Dick Dowling and his victory at Sabine Pass has changed. After such a small amount of time, the members of the Davis Guard continue to be a part of Texas’ population and therefore a significant news worthy topic.  In addition, the fact that there is an association called the Dick Dowling Camp, suggest great admiration for the person and his role as a hero in the Civil War. In comparison, the Houston Chronicle article has only one small section devoted to Dowling and the Davis Guards are not even mentioned. In the late nineteenth century the memory of the war was so recent that everyone continued to praise the actions of the small army.

My two articles reflect major changes in the way that Dick Dowling has been honored and remembered in Houston. I chose March 22, 1997 from list A, largely because I believed that I would easily find an article about Dowling given that his statue was rededicated in March of 1997. As I went through page after page of the Houston Chronicle however, I realized that the Dowling monument was far less newsworthy in 1997 than it was when it was first dedicated in 1905. I found my document in a local section at the very end of the paper that was presumably only sent to the region of Houston that it was geared towards—South and Southwest Houston. The article, if you can call it that, consisted of two pictures of the monument rededication ceremony and a short paragraph explaining the pictures. I did learn from the blurb that the monument was rededicated on March 16, and further inspection of the Chronicle’s archives showed that there was an article about the Dowling rededication in the first section of the paper on March 17, but even that article was not published until page 15 of the paper. My short blurb did not mention the Civil War or anything that made Dowling famous; instead, it mentioned that the monument was important because it was Houston’s first public monument.

In sharp contrast, on November 3, 1935, the Chronicle devoted both front-page space and a large chunk of space on page 6 to the dedication of a monument to Dowling at St. Vincent’s Cemetery, his final resting place. This was not a newspaper edition that was devoted only to frivolity. Other headlines of the day chronicled an ongoing war in Italy and parts of the New Deal that were being challenged in the Supreme Court. This highlights the importance of the Dowling monument dedication—it was given a huge amount of space in the paper, and not because it was a slow day for news. However, further exploration of that particular edition of the Chronicle revealed nearly seven full pages of a “Society” section, which shows that Houston’s elite, many of whom were instrumental in efforts to honor Dowling and other Civil War veterans, were given a lot of respect and coverage in the pages of the Chronicle.

What then, can we take away from the differences between my two articles? For many reasons, Dick Dowling was far more newsworthy in 1935 than he was in 1997, but this is unsurprising. When the marker was placed at St. Vincent’s Cemetery in 1935, there were still living Civil War veterans, and their children were certainly still alive and actively trying to preserve the memory of their parents’ sacrifices. Additionally, the South in 1935 remained dedicated to the “Lost Cause” in a way that it was not in 1997, and thus it is not surprising that the Dowling marker made major news in 1935. Overall, the 1935 article seemed natural, except that it placed a huge emphasis on Dowling’s Catholicism, leading to the question that many of us have asked up until this point—what was the place of Catholics, particularly Catholic immigrants, in Houston during Dowling’s life and in the first part of the 20th century? Initially I thought that Catholic immigrants would have faced the discrimination that they faced in the North during the late 19th century and early 20th, but this does not seem to be the case in Houston, and we should continue to explore this question.

My first article, “Twice Uprooted Dick Dowling Statue May Be Moved Again,” was from the April 27, 1958, issue of the Houston Chronicle. It was about the brief history of the Dowling statue and it also talked about the decision-making process that went into the present location of the statue. The site that had been selected by City Parks and Recreation was apparently a site desired by the Hermann estate for a future statue of Hermann. Thus, Director of City Parks and Recreation, Gus Haycock, selected an alternate location. The article talked about the original location of the statue in front of the Old City Hall and its move to Sam Houston Park. At the time of the article, the statue was in a storage facility at Hermann Park. A former City Councilman, Tom Needham, of Irish descent, was disappointed about the new location chosen for the Irish hero. Needham expressed his discontent when he said, ” I don’t want him (the statue) shoved in some obscure corner of the park.” At the end of the article it credits Dowling for his feat at Sabine Pass and stated that he died in 1867. It also credits the Ancient Order of Hibernians as the organization who presented the Dowling statue, but based on our previous research we know otherwise. The statue was actually a combined effort of the Dick Dowling Monument Association, which was comprised by the Dick Dowling Camp of the U.C.V., the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and the Emmet Council, a catholic organization. This brings up the point I referred to in my last blog post about these groups struggle to have recognition for the statue and the way they wanted Dowling to be remembered.

My second article was from The Confederate Veteran in the November 1902 issue. It is very brief and it is an announcement of the creation of the Dick Dowling monument. It will be erected at the corner of Main Street and McKinney Avenue in Houston, Texas. Col. Philip H. Fall “easily” raised the sum of $250 for the monument and additional funds will be collected in the near future. Sculptor Frank Teiche, of San Antonio, designed the monument that would be unveiled on Jefferson Davis’ next birthday June 2, 1903. We know that the statue was not unveiled until 1905. I wonder if this was an error in recording the correct date or it was actually meant to be unveiled in 1903 and was delayed until 1905? This article was so brief that it does not answer any of our previous questions but it does raise this new one about the date of the unveiling of the statue.

Concerning article A there was no major news being reported that day but I did see a story about the honoring of one of the two remaining survivors of the Civil War. The man was reported to be turning 113 and the President was going to be in attendance. This makes me believe that the Civil War was still in the recent memory. The location of the article was in the middle of the issue of the Chronicle and was printed above the daily crossword. This makes me question how important the actual move of the statue was to many people at that time. It could be that the Civil War was still in the memory, but not as important or apparent in many people’s minds. I believe that the decline in the memory of Dowling has continued to decrease over time. I am a clear example of that, I am a born and raised Houstonian and had never heard once about Dick Dowling.

On a side note, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this assignment because (A) I had never used the microfilm machine and thought that was really neat. Great resource that is available to us and (B) It was neat looking through The Confederate Veteran

During our field trip to visit the Dick Dowling statue I realized that I knew nothing about this war hero, but now after reading through the digital archives I have a much better understanding and appreciation for Dick Dowling.

The statue of Dick Dowling was the first public monument in Houston and it was created in 1905. The monument set outside the old City Hall for 35 years, but when City Hall burned it was moved to Sam Houston Park in 1940(RGA33-b2f23-05). I had never heard about City Hall burning, so that was interesting to learn. It makes you think, if City Hall had never burned would the statue still remain there today? Dowling’s statue remained at Sam Houston Park until 1957 and was then placed in storage. The Houston Chronicle explained, “When the renovation of the Noble House got under way last year, to preserve the home a historical relic, the statue of Dick Dowling was punt into storage”(Association Scrapbook). Supporters of Dowling finally made a push to take it out of storage and wanted it to be seen again by all Houstonians. So the City of Houston made plans to “put it in Hermann Park across from Hermann Hospital, but the Herman Estate said it wanted the spot for a statue of benefactor George Hermann”(Association Scrapbook). Finally, in 1958, Dick Dowling’s statue was decided to be positioned on the triangle track of land at the edge of Hermann Park where he remains to this day. One of the main questions we had as a class was why is the statue located where it is? The digital archives explained the who made those decisions but it did not shed any light on the exact reason or motivation behind the Hermann Park location. An article from the Houston Post reported, “One might suppose the statue has been relegated to oblivion in this obscure wooded spot. Actually it will be seen there by many more people-passing motorists-than saw it at the Noble House”(Association Scrapbook). This writer argued that Hermann Park is a more viewable area for the statue than Sam Houston Park. It makes you wonder about how Dowling was thought of during that time. To me it seems like his memory wasn’t on the forefront of everyones mind and very few people even knew his story. The Houston Chronicle wrote, “There probably are only a few Houstonians who have more than a hazy idea about Dick Dowling’s contribution to Texas”(Association Scrapbook). The monument of Dick Dowling was the first public monument of its kind that once set outside of City Hall and now has been placed at Memorial Park. This suggests to me a change in the memory of public memory that was once strong soon after the end of the Civil War but has since been forgotten.

Another one of the main questions we had was who were the groups involved in the creation of the Dowling statue? There seemed to be some dispute in the 1950s about who funded and created the statue. Many of the articles in the Houston Post reported that the Ancient Order of Hibernians were behind the efforts of erecting the Dowling statue. Mrs. Neta V. Taylor was adamant about giving credit where credit was due. On her personal stationary she wrote, “This shows that the United Confederate Veterans of Dick Dowling camp started this project, and there were many Irish veterans in the camp, who were instrumental in securing help from their club to help finish the monument”(Association Scrapbook). This suggests that there was some possible conflict between the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the U. C. V. Out of all this came the creation of the Dick Dowling Monument Association which was comprised by members of the Dick Dowling Camp, U. C. V. , the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and the Emmet Council, a Catholic organization”(SC1268-01-02). The Program for the Dick Dowling Monument Rededication declared these were the groups in charge of the funding and construction and claimed, “Each group represented an important facet of Dick Dowling’s life”(SC1268-01-02). I think that the struggle shown here is motivated by the pride of each of the groups, but ultimately Dowling will be remembered equally as a Confederate, an Irishman, and a Catholic.

The selected archives seemed to focus on the personal history of Dick Dowling, the brief account of The Battle of Sabine Pass, and the history of the Dowling statue. Sifting through the archives gave me some answers, but it also left a lot of our questions unanswered and created new ones. With so much real estate in Houston, why Memorial Park? Was the city just trying to appease these heritage groups and move on with day to day business? Did his ethnicity, religion, or Confederate ties negatively influence any decisions about the statue? Was Memorial Park convenient? Would the statue of remained at City Hall if it had not burned? Why does such an important war hero seem to be overlooked? This has been a helpful exercise in learning more about Dick Dowling and the statue, but more research is required to shed light on our new and old questions.

In my original blog posting about the Dowling statue, I raised the following questions:

“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?”

Looking back at the inscriptions on the statue itself each of the four sides of Dick Dowling’s pedestal bear text.  The first side holds the inscription,

“This monument is erected to the memory of Dick Dowling and the Davis Guards by Dick Dowling Camp No.197 U.C.V.; and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Divisions Nos.1.2 and 3; and the Emmett Council.”

While I was most interested in this inscription, and the careful nature in which it was planned out (the short mention of Dick Dowling, the order in which the organizations were listed, a further explanation of what each organization did for the project),  I actually found the most interesting research into the other three sides of the monument, the listing of role.  This roster, which simply aims to list all soldiers present and who fought at the Battle of Sabine Pass, served to be an interesting and telling research project.  The compilation of the roster, undertaken by Mr. D. D. Bryan the Secretary of the Dowling Monument Association during November and December of 1902, was actually a trickier task than Bryan had originally intended.  Looking at the “Dick Dowling Monument Association Records” and for timeliness at the “Transcript of Dick Dowling Monument Association Records” hosted and compiled for us by the Houston Public Library Digital Archives, I was able to track several key pieces of correspondence that I believe get at the importance and difficulty of Bryan’s task.

Starting with the earliest document regarding the roster in these documents, the correspondence of November 11, 1902 from Mrs. Geo. W. Davis to Bryan, an issue of deserters arises in the narrative (SC12680-03-099). To this point much of what we have learned about Dowling and his merry band of men, the Davis Guards, has esteemed these men from Houston who accomplished this monumental task of stopping the invading Union Navy with but 48 men and a lot of cannon fire.  Yet, when the idea that some of these men may have deserted camp prior to battle slightly mars the narrative told by Edward T. Cotham, Jr in his book Sabine Pass: The Confederacy’s Thermopylae. In the book, Cotham retells the story of Dick Dowling and the Davis Guards in a nearly Battle of the Alamo-esque way all unite to fight to “hold the fort at all hazards,” (Cotham, 121) referring to the new Fort Griffin of Sabine Pass. Yet that the Davis Guards may have had deserters takes away from this image of valiant men choosing to stay at all costs.

Yet the deserters are not mentioned specifically for the need to maintain the image of the brave men at Sabine Pass, but instead the shame of the entire unit over the desertion of a few and the reason why it was silenced, as the letter states, “Everyone felt chagrin and shame that any of the Davis Guards should desert and so silence had been observed regarding the affair.” (SC12680-03-099).  The letter goes on to state that the names could not be found at the time but that Mrs. Davis would keep looking (SC12680-03-099 to SC12680-03-105).  Still, Bryan was now aware that this list of deserters did exist, and needed to be found.

Bryan appears to have followed up his research with Mrs. Davis by contacting former Davis Guards, R.C. O’Hara and John A. Drummond.  Both men have their opinions, yet it appears that O’Hara was the more willing to both provide a list of deserters but also supplement the list of men’s names to be inscribed on the monument.  However, when asked about the deserters, O’Hara is careful to qualify, “All of the names I gave you as deserters were deliberate deserters—they were not captured—this fact is well known to all the remaining few, it should not be denied, for it is painfully true.” (SC1268-03-093)  This classification that men who deserted did so of their own free will seems to be O’Hara’s most biting crticism, that these men would so abandon their duties, have not the courage or honor expected of a Southern gentleman of the time, was more than just a reflection on the individual men’s  character, but also a painful fact for the rest of the Guards.

Whereas O’Hara believes that desertion of camp by these men “should not be denied,” John A.  Drummond offers an alternative handling of the issue of deserters, “I do not agree with those who wish to bring out the names of dead deserters to the disgrace of their descendance who are living.” (SC1268-03-097)  This respect for the families is particularly touching, yet is not echoed by O’Hara in a different letter in which he speaks of the monument as being one to honor, “My ‘brave and noble’ Comrade and Commander, and the brave and true men (except those who deserted) who were under his command.”  (SC128-03-107)  It is here that it becomes apparent that not only does O’Hara not forgive these men’s for their actions, he seems particularly hurt by their desertion when, “they went out into the night, out the fleets lying off Sabin Pass and Galveston.” (SC128-03-107)  These men were not brave and did not live up to their manhood, therefore they should not be treated lightly.

While no full rosters were given the these transcripts that I chose to examine, they are referred to as passing hands in each of the letters regarding problems in the roster (from the spelling of Clare/Care/Clair to the deserters who should be removed) that was to be placed on the monument.  While I originally thought these names would be the least cause for concern and discussion, I was utterly wrong.  I would like to find out the final decision on these men, and whether they were included in the final listing on the statue or not.  Also, the issue of desertion raises many questions in my mind as the affront this might have been on the Southern honor, virtue, and manhood that these men were supposedly living by, as evidenced by the scorn in O’Hara’s correspondence.  From this, I ask: How did the rest of the Davis Guards respond to these incidents of desertion? How did their reaction relate to Southern sensibilities, or is it something entirely different as many of these men were Irish immigrants and therefore transplants to the South? Finally, how did the desertion issue play out on the creation of Dick Dowling statue and its inscriptions? What decisions were made?

In my previous blog entry about Dick Dowling, I expressed interest in finding out the connections and the differences between the statue found in Hermann Park and the one in Sabine Pass in honor the Irish immigrant and also on the differences in motivations that each group had on erecting the monument according to their time period. Since the digital archive assembled by the Houston Public Library, revolves around the monument found in Hermann Park, naturally, I did not find much information about the second statue or why it was decided it should depict Dowling in such a different manner from the one found in Houston. The archive does provide detailed descriptions of the Dowling statue at Hermann Park.
The script from the records form the Dick Dowling Association suggests the close attention the group of people paid to the way the statue would be constructed, what materials would be used, and the aesthetics of the piece.  The statue’s pedestal was something very important to the people building the statue because it paid tribute to all the men who served with Dowling in the Davis Guards. In their records, the secretary kept a record of the updates and ideas he sculptor, Frank Teich, provided about various aspects of the sculpture, including the placement of the names on the pedestal and the manner in which they would eventually be displayed (27). In addition, they planned the statue to be six feet nine inches and have a portrait likeness of Dowling (29). The Association requested that the statue be uniformed with the Confederate Artillery Officer attire and with his left hand resting on the hilt of his sword (45). The close attention to detail is evinced in their desire to change the headgear that was originally planned because it was too large and it did not seem natural (55). The Association was trying to be as accurate as possible in regards to what the lieutenant’s attire would have looked like. While such entries in the record do not suggest a reason why such a pose was selected, they do paint a clear idea of the sort of monument they were trying to erect. This was a monument that was to honor all those who participated in the Battle and it was clearly designed to portray a sense of Confederate pride thorough the depiction of the army’s uniform.
Based on the information provided by the digital archive I cannot determine the difference in motivation between the people who constructed the statue in 1905 and the ones who decided to erect one in Sabine Pass in 1936 (Scrapbook 9).   However, the archive does have a large quantity of information on the restoration that took place in the late nineties. The information provides a response to the question of why the people of Houston decided to take it upon themselves to restore the statue and have a ceremony to rededicate it. According to the newspaper article “Etched in Stone” in the Houston Chronicle from 1997, the statue was that of a hero who fought bravely in the Battle of Sabine Pass, and who was a model citizen in the City of Houston. The article argues that a man is truly dead when he is forgotten and that a man like Dowling will never be forgotten. The article shifts focus away from his involvement with the Confederacy (although it is mentioned) and focuses more on individual accomplishments. The author exalts Dowling as a member of the firehouse and claims he was “well known for charitable work” (RGA33-b2f27-01). It seems like the people associated with the restoration of the monument were more interested in the exaltation of the person than the cause.
The information that the archive provided about the restoration of the statue triggers the question of individual motivations for the accomplishment of the goal. While it is entirely possible for the groups involved to want to exalt a local hero, they must have all had underlying reasons for supporting such a cause. Would some of the groups not associated to the Civil War or Confederacy and the Irish immigrant population have participated in the restoration if the statue was of a different person? Was the fact that Dowling is the subject significant in their involvement? Conversely, where there any people opposed to the rededication of the statue, if so, what were their reasons?

In The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration, Thomas J. Brown grappled with the question of how the public remembers its collective history. We used this book and Brown’s discussion of Civil War monuments to examine the Dick Dowling statue in Hermann Park, and ultimately in my blog post I questioned what the motives for building the statue were, given the numerous differences between the Dowling statue and other Civil War monuments. Although the Houston Public Library archives do not provide a full understanding of what motivated the statue to be built, I do think that the Dick Dowling statue provides a fascinating case study for examining how public memory changes over time. In the case of Houston’s collective memory, the statue of Dowling took on many meanings throughout the twentieth century. By examining who cared about the statue and what aspects of the statue these people highlighted, we can better understand the aspects of Texas and Houston history that Houstonians have chosen to selectively remember and forget.

In March of 1905 when the Dowling statue was first dedicated, the Houston Daily Post reported that, “the joint unveiling of the Dick Dowling monument and the celebration of St. Patrick’s day has been completed today and the veterans of the Lost Cause will form a mighty procession with the sons of Erin,” (RGA33-b2f26-35). By mentioning the veterans of the “Lost Cause,” otherwise known as Southern Secession/the Confederacy, the article makes it clear that Dowling was remembered as a Confederate hero and that the Lost Cause was something to respect and celebrate. The article went further, and noted that the statue was a “monument to the patriotism of the citizens of this city” highlighting the fact that in 1905 citizens of Houston were considered to be patriotic because of their support for the Confederacy during the war (RGA33-b2f26-35). It is important to note that the monument was dedicated on St. Patrick’s Day to showcase Dowling’s Irish heritage, but the monument at this point represented Houstonians’ equally powerful respect for both Irish Houstonians and Confederate Veterans.

By the late 1950s, it appears that credit for building the monument was going to Irish heritage groups in Houston, particularly the Hibernian Club. This enraged Daughter of the Confederacy Neta V. Taylor, and she created a scrapbook of the “Dick Dowling Monument Association” because “It has been erroneously stated that the fund was raised by private subscription and that the Hibernian Club built the monument.” Taylor’s scrapbook, she stated, “shows that the United Confederate Veterans of the Dick Dowling Camp started this project,” (SC1268-02). Unfortunately, Taylor does not state who was claiming that the Hibernian’s spearheaded the campaign, but it seems possible that perhaps in the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Houstonians wanted to highlight Dowling’s role as a prominent Irishman in Houston rather than as a Civil War veteran, and so they focused on the role that the Hibernian’s, an Irish Catholic organization, played in building the statue.

By September of 1989, however, Houston’s memory seems to have swung the other way, and the Houston Chronicle wrote an article about Dowling to commemorate the battle of Sabine Pass (RGA33-b2f25-93). This article focused almost exclusively on the battle itself, and included complimentary quotes that Jefferson Davis made about Dowling and the battle when he heard of the Confederate victory at Sabine Pass. Although the “Lost Cause” was not mentioned, this article highlights Dowling’s role as a war hero, rather than his role as a Houstonian businessman and innovator.

The 1989 commemoration of the Confederate victory at Sabine Pass may have shown that Houstonians were proud of their Confederate heritage, but 1997 a Houston Chronicle article (interestingly, by the same reporter who wrote the 1989 article) highlighted Dowling’s Irish heritage far more than his Confederate one. Indeed, in the article Dowling’s great-great-grandniece Ann Caraway Ivins lamented, “Dick Dowling has become a target just because he wore gray” and she worked to show that he was an Irishman first, who became a Confederate simply because of geography (SC1268-f1-19). Given that Ivins was a leader in pushing for Dowling’s statue to be refurbished and rededicated, two things become clear. First, Houstonians in the late 90s were far less accepting of their Confederate heritage then they had been in the past and second, Ivins worked to actively change the memory of Dowling to be one about his life and legacy as a Houstonian and an Irishman rather than as a Confederate war hero. The program of the monument’s rededication ceremony emphasizes this shift, and it is incredibly interesting to note that the ceremony’s keynote speaker was from Dowling’s hometown in Ireland rather than anyone with ties to Confederate heritage organizations. Of course, to complicate things more, the program does refer to the Civil War as “the War between the States” which implies that although Dowling’s Irish heritage was the main event, the Civil War and the cause of the Confederacy were not to be completely forgotten (SC1268-01-06). This demonstrates a conflict that many Southern states have struggled with; ultimately, the memories of the slave South and the Jim Crow South are incredibly painful and highly embarrassing to many Southerners, yet Southerners are a fiercely proud group, and to ignore their heritage seems sacrilegious. Dowling’s memory highlights that struggle.

Overall, the Dowling documents from HPL shed light on more of the issues surrounding not just the building of the Dowling monument, but the many controversies surrounding the statue throughout the twentieth century. This answers many of our old questions, but raises new ones as well. For me, what seems incredibly important to understand is what public opinion of the Dowling statue was when it was built: What did Houstonians want the statue to mean and how did they make those meanings known? Contrasting those opinions with the other opinions that I have discussed will give us a fuller picture of what parts of Houston’s history Houstonians have both forgotten and remembered.

Gary J. Kornblith seeks to go beyond the interpretations of the fundamentalists and the revisionists by using a counterfactual method and creating a thought experiment. He argues that had Henry Clay won the presidential election of 1844, there never would of been a Mexican-American War and more importantly no Civil War. He hypothesizes about the Presidency of Henry Clay and how his personal politics would have led to decisions that would have changed many things in our history. He posits that by rethinking our history by changing one event, we can imagine a much different United States of America.

Kornblith argues that if Henry Clay had been elected President he would have focused on the economy and a central bank and ignored the annexation of Texas. Keeping Texas an independent republic would have prevented the Mexican-American War and would have kept the debate of slavery out of public discourse for the most part. Ultimately, his counterfactual method of imagining a Clay presidency would have prevented a domino effect that led to the Civil War.

I understand his goal of using a unique way of rethinking history in order to comprehend the true causal factors of the Civil War, but I am not convinced by his analysis. His main arguments seem too simplistic to explain the causes of the Civil War. Based on our readings from Manning and our discussion in class, one thing I have learned is that the Civil War is very complex. Kornblith seems to ignore all the complexities by making a change in history and positing a lot of assumptions. One cannot assume that if Clay were elected President that his values and policies would not be swayed by political pressure and an ever-changing status quo. One cannot assume that Clays election would prevent the Mexican American War and Texas would remain an independent republic. Granted this a “thought experiment” so there are a lot of assumptions, but it just seems way too farfetched.

One of the major issues I have with Kornblith is his assumptions about the decisions Henry Clay would have made on different policies. With the changing ideals about the two party system, the emergence of the Republican party, and the debate of slavery, there is no way to presume that Henry Clay would remain steadfast in his policies. Kornblith somewhat undercuts himself by referencing Leron Bennett, Jr. and the “evolving views of Abraham Lincoln.” Bennett posits, “He believed in the constitutionality of slavery where it already existed, and he was prepared to tolerate its persistence there for the indefinite future.” He goes on to say, “Had it not had been for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, Lincoln would have remained a loyal Whig who viewed southern Whigs as his political allies rather than as representatives of a slave power that endangered basic republican values”(p 99).
If Lincoln changed his views, then why would Henry Clay be immune to such a change?

Overall, I applaud Kornblith for using a dynamic method to interpret history, but realizing how complex the Civil War was, makes be believe that his analysis was too farfetched.

In his article, “Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise” Gary J. Kornblith advances his argument that without the Mexican-American War in 1846, there would have been no Civil War.  This argument “counterfactually” traces the state of Texas and the nation back to her very beginning of the Mexican-American war and proposes a different alternative, that instead of electing Polk instead the nation chose Henry Clay. Kornblith then follows out this new counterfactual history to show how President Clay’s opinions and previous actions would have been enacted as the issues that troubled the nation before the Civil War are brought before him.  Ultimately, the author proves that changing a small aspect of history may have had very different effects in the long run.

Still, I was unconvinced by Kornblith’s argument,  not only because it is not based in fact, but also because there were several key factors that Kornblith forgot to account for.  First, Kornblith blatantly ignores the possibility that his big change, Henry Clay, might change his mind about the issues and act in a manner out of character for him in order to garner support.  This ignorance of Kornblith should not be overlooked, for he is attempting to rebuild decades of valuable research around an “experiment” he ran in his head.  My second problem with the Kornblith piece was its complete neglect of the issue of slavery, as a major factor considered by the both the fundamentalists and revisionists.  I was terribly bothered by his glossing over of the topic in this article.  While the author tries to account for this by saying that as President, Clay would have avoided expansionist policies and focused less on the issues that divided the country, but instead on those issues that drew it together.

Both of these explanations for the possible lack of the war were dissatisfying to me as they were not only counterfactual, but they presented an argument that was simplistic in a time when issues very complicated as shown by our in class lecture and the very letters soldiers wrote home in (to borrow from Manning).  When all other theories revolve around a very complicated and detailed understanding of the civil war and its causes, perhaps more credence should be paid to its supporters.