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?
The Movie Group
A student-led group project from HIST 246
You raise some interesting questions, to which I will attempt to provide some answers and theories. I think perhaps part of the discrepancy between the two statues could be explained by the fact that they were made at very different points in American history. David Blight’s book Race and Reunion provides some good insights into why this may have been the case. At the turn of the century, when the Dowling statue was erected, there was a great deal of interest in preserving Civil War memory through showing individual heroes. As Civil War veterans were getting older and dwindling in numbers, there was an increasing degree of concern among Americans that these veterans be remembered as specific individuals and not just as nameless, faceless soldiers. The Dowling statue makes a great effort both to highlight Dowling as an individual, as well as to mention all of the men who fought with him by engraving their names on the pedestal. At a time when the last of Houston’s Civil War veterans were approaching death, a monument depicting Dowling and his men in this fashion might have been particularly appealing. As far a the other statue at Sabine Pass, it was made during the Great Depression, when the desire to romanticize the Old South once more became popular (think of movies like Gone with the Wind). Perhaps at this point in time, depicting a great Confederate hero in all of his manly strength would have been particularly appealing. Regardless, the great differences between the depiction of Dowling at Sabine Pass and in Houston are striking, and it would be very interesting to find out definitively what caused them.