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.
Nice post, Stephanie! I really like your points about the program from the 1997 ceremony. On the one hand, it’s deemphasizing his Confederate-ness, but then it still refers to the “War between the States”–great point!
One thing I wonder about is how much we can conclude what “Houston’s memory” or “Houstonians’ memory” of Dowling was from the statue. Which Houstonians? How many of them? One of the things you point out is that Ivins seems to have been “pushing for Dowling’s statue to be refurbished and rededicated,” so is the statue mainly a story about her memory? I think you’re on to something when you suggest that she could have been recasting Dowling in a way that she thought would appeal to the public, but on the other hand, you could conclude–from the same evidence–that she herself (and those working with her) mainly wanted to rectify what she saw as an overemphasis on his Confederate service. Your post goes right to the heart of a difficult, but excellent, question: how do we get from the Dowling statue and the specific things that created it at various moments to broader conclusions about Houstonians and Southerners? What evidence do we need to make those inferences?
This post rightly draws attention to the changes in the public’s perception of, and reaction to, the Dick Dowling monument.
With regards to the follow-up questions raised at the end of the post, it might be helpful to keep in mind that in 1905, when the statue was erected, the spirit of the Lost Cause movement was in full swing across the south. As Yale professor David Blight discusses in his seminal work on Civil War memory, Race and Reunion, even some of the reconciliationist efforts of the north allowed breathing room for the Lost Cause as a sort of concession to the south; many in the north wanted to heal the nation’s wounds quickly and wholly.
In an address given during a Southern Historical Society meeting in 1882, former CSA President Jefferson Davis called the Battle of Sabine Pass ‘The Confederacy’s Thermopylae’ and praised Dowling “higher than Leonidas” (Cotham 3). This speech, and other moments and movements sweeping across the post-Reconstruction south, served as a call to arms to remember the bravery and heroism of the Confederate soldiers. Perhaps at the time the groups responsible for the Dowling statue saw it as Houston’s chance to hold up one of its own as a constitutive part of that gallant whole. And perhaps now, the gallant whole to which specific groups of Houstonians want to belong is one of multicultural inclusion and civic engagement.