The “Confederate Emancipation” was a sham.   While Bruce Levine does well to address this long confused and misinterpreted movement to free slaves to serve in the Confederate army in his book Confederate Emancipation, the fact of the matter is that Confederate emancipation never freed a slave.  As Levine states, “the newly enacted Confederate law did not free a single slave, nor did it attempt to do so,” (Levine, 118).  Even at its most liberal inception, the Confederate emancipation might have freed slaves on two basic conditions: 1) they serve in the Confederate army, where they would never be considered equal to whites and most likely would have lost their lives from being placed in the most precarious of situations; and 2) should these slaves survive the war to their own freedom they would have been granted no property, little to start with and would have been bound by necessity to return to their positions on plantations where they would work for low wages in the same or worse conditions they might have had as slaves.

In this context,  “Confederate emancipation” is not the proper word for this envisioned slave enlistment; instead this movement can be considered more of a draft or forced conscription. This draft of the slaves guaranteed them no improvement in condition, it allowed them little opportunity for advancement, and would simply place black able-bodied men on the line instead of the dwindling white forces.  According to Levine this decrease in Confederate troops had only escalated as,  “the battlefield reverses and erosion of popular morale of mid-1863 aggravated the Confederacy’s manpower problem,” (Levine, 24).   So, by 1864 the Confederacy was not so interested in the “loyalty” of these slave and their love of the confederacy as it was with the real number of bodies it might add to their quickly diminishing ranks.

While it is true that federal policies like the Confiscation Acts proposed the drafting of contraband to contribute their labor to the Union army, this labor was not to be in arms, but instead in the building of fortifications and other manual labor tasks that would not require risk of life or limb.  When the Emancipation Proclamation changed these policies to allow for the enlistment of blacks in the federal army, it did so on an entirely voluntary basis from free men.

While the Confederate emancipation had required such voluntary measures, it was not from free men acting upon their own interests but instead from the joint volunteering of their masters and the slaves themselves.  This voluntary action was done with the understanding at the time that as no emancipation policy was in practice, the slave would be returned to his master following the war.  These slaves would experience no elevation for their service nor experience any major improvement in their lifestyle.  Under these conditions, the slave would not be volunteering for a “cause” per se but instead trading one master for another.

Also, even when the possibility of emancipation was introduced into the Confederate enlistment Levine says, “Cleburne, Benjamin, Lee, and Davis hoped to have their cake and eat it, too.  They hoped to win black cooperation with an offer of freedom.  But the freedom they expected to grant would severely circumscribed,” (Levine, 154).  Under this proposed freedom blacks would be expected to serve, but when they returned they would receive no land, and be forced by law and necessity to return to their former masters to serve as “freed” laborers. While they might have the ability to rise above this position, the continued domination of white over black and rigid maintenance of the economic system would have prevented easy change in quality of life for these former slaves.  As Patrick Cleburne, a proponent of emancipation proclaimed, “writing a man ‘free’ does not make him so, as the history of the Irish laborer shows, ” (Levine, 103).  So, even when freedom was “offered” true emancipation was never on the table in the Confederacy, as Confederate leaders and the public were not quite ready for equality.  Instead, through careful structuring Confederates attempted to gain the arming of slaves without the moral and societal changes it would require, a factor that would contribute to the failure of black Confederate enlistment.

While the Confederacy, with some adjustment, might have made such a policy work and change the tides of war, by 1865, such hopes were simply too late—especially considering how difficult it would be to secure the “volunteer” slaves for the army.  These volunteers would not be experiencing difference in life, but instead a new more violent master and little chance for survival—explaining the lack of actual volunteers actually enlisted at the end of the war.

The “confederate emancipation” movement was no emancipator action, but instead the conscription of slaves to fight for a “cause” they had no interest in with absolutely no reward for their service, making the “emancipation” aspect of such a movement a complete sham.

The book Confederate Emancipation by Bruce Levine explores the South’s thoughts and proposals for the inclusion of black troops into the army.  While the confederacy did use black labor to help them with the war effort, they were extremely hesitant to arm the slaves. The generals and the government acknowledged that forcing the blacks to fight, still as slaves, was a bad idea because they were essentially arming a population that did not hold the planters in the highest of esteems (86). However, the South did not want to provide emancipation for their slaves because they were essential to the plantation system and the form of life they were fighting for. This dilemma left the Confederacy is a problem that was not addressed promptly. While the north passed the first and second Confiscation Acts, freeing those slaves held captive under rebel plantation owners, and allowing them to integrate themselves into Union lines, the confederacy had a difficult time formulating legislation that would allow for the integration of black troops into the army.  Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation also freed the slaves that were still under Confederate control and furthermore allowed these slaves to join the Union Army and actually take part in the fighting.

The notion of emancipation expressed in the book is not ever defined because of the fear that the Southerners felt in regard to the liberation of their slave population. The planters were not willing to lose all of their slaves when in part they were fighting to keep slavery as part of the Confederacy. If they liberated all the slaves, they were essentially throwing away all they had fought for up to that point (56). The Southerners proposed for plantation owners to volunteer their slaves for the cause (124). This did not guarantee freedom and it was up to the owner how he would compensate his slave for the service provided.  The possible framers of the legislation were clear on the fact that in order for the emancipation of the slaves to work in their favor they had to be the ones providing liberty. However, these thoughts came a little too late into their minds. Since the Confederacy was doing well in the battles against the Union despite having less of a pool from where to draw soldiers, the utilization of slaves did not cross their mind. However, when morale declined due to loses on the battlefield, this idea became more attractive (21). When it dawned upon the Confederacy that there was a possibility of defeat, the Union had already taken steps to win over the enslaved population.

Since the plan in the Confederacy was to liberate the man who had fought for the Southern cause, it only allowed for men to receive this treatment. On the other hand, the Emancipation Proclamation and the second Confiscation Act declared all people under Confederate rule free.  These pronouncements meant that whole families could leave a plantation and seek a profitable life elsewhere. Under the
Confederacy, the man would go off to war and gain his freedom. According to Levine, there were slaves who claimed they would not participate in this system because they were not willing to leave their wives and children behind (145). Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that the slaves would be willing to fight for the Confederacy even if they offered freedom to their whole family. Since the Union offered the same thing, and the Union was not fighting to keep them enslaved it is more feasible that more blacks would be willing to cross into Union lines. Why would they fight for the Confederacy when they could be free under the Union without conditions?

Ultimately, I do not think that even if the Confederacy had passed any legislation to arm black men they would have emancipated all the slaves in their holding. Consequently, I do not see their idea of emancipation the same as the one expressed in the Emancipation Proclamation and the Confiscation Acts. Their goal was not to free a population but to find more fighters to continue their way of life, one that included slavery.  Although the Union was not completely altruistic, their plan of action did specify freedom for all slaves (under the Confederacy).They even acknowledge that it would be better for them to liberate their slaves so that later they could mold the relationships between whites and blacks (103). They still sought to be in control and were not willing to allow freedom to their slaves. Although some slaves would have been freed under “Confederate Emancipation”, this phrase does not have the same meaning as what most of the population considers emancipation now.

Like Chandra Manning’s argument that soldier’s changed their opinions on slavery as the war continued, Abraham Lincoln also goes through transformations in his ideas about what he feels should be done about slavery.  As early as 1854, Lincoln began to way in on the issue of what should be done about slavery.  After the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska act (or the Missouri Compromise), Lincoln is frustrated as he sees that in the absence of this act, the congress has allowed the spread of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska.  Instead, Lincoln implies that Congress should have used its power to dictate the end to the spread of slavery west not only for itself but for the world as it should make stand against the “monstrous injustice of slavery.” (#5) This original hard stance on what should be done to stop the spread of slavery and  his hard opinion on the institution of slavery itself would not remain the same throughout his career.

As a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1858, Lincoln boldly states, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  Here he establishes his first position, of non-interference with the established institution of slavery which he no longer claims is “monstrous injustice,” and more importantly he declares that he believes (as a possible Senator) that he has no lawful right to do so.  The established institution of slavery is not an issue on the table for Lincoln, instead he sees a greater issue with the status of future status of territories and new states.  In these situations, Lincoln advocates the concept of popular sovereignty by which the citizens of the new states and territories, despite his desire not to allow the continued expansion of the institution.

The issue of slavery and what should be done about it weighs heavily on Lincoln who originally had very negative feelings against slavery and wished to stop its spread.  Still as Lincoln approached his entrance into the Presidential office, he makes a point to contact Alexander Stephens for his opinions on the issue and so that Lincoln might be able to quell his fears about what a republican would do against the institution off slavery in the south.  Yet between taking office and 1863, something changed in Lincoln’s mind as he issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in the Confederacy, the exact move of action against the South and the established institutions of slavery that Lincoln pledged to uphold in 1854.  What changed between the time Lincoln to called slavery a “monstrous injustice,” his belief that it was not within his power to go against the established, to his emancipation of all Confederate slaves.

The only explanations for this change could possibly be the war itself, the changing mood of soldier, and the changing perception of a nation on the issue that divided it into two warring parts.  With these changes in mind, Lincoln was able to make the necessary adjustments to follow the mood of his people while staying with in his personal disgust of slavery which stayed with him throughout.  This disgust is described in a 1864 letter of Lincoln in which he states, “I am naturally anti-slavery.  If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”  This disgust for slavery, while present, may not have resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation without the changing opinion of the nation between the years of 1954 and 1863.  These changes in opinions about slavery, what should be done about it, and the Civil War itself provided the context in which Lincoln’s disgust could transform from an opinion suppressed by the will of the nation and need for Union, to the reunification of a nation on Union terms and with major changes to the social structure of the South.

Abraham Lincoln believed that there is a difference in the race of a black man and the race of a white man. He believed that the two races should not be socially or politically equal. He went on to posit that he had never been in favor of making voters or jurors of black people, nor qualifying them to hold office, or to intermarry with white people. He stated, “There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” (Lincoln at Charleston, IL) He believed that there should be a designation between the two races, where the white race is superior to the inferior black race. Although he held these bold convictions, he believed that the black race should not be denied everything. He believed that the black race should be entitled to all the natural rights that the Declaration of Independence outlined: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He stated, “But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”(Lincoln at Ottawa, IL) Essentially, Lincoln believed that the black race was not equal in certain aspects (color and moral or intellectual endowment), but they deserved the natural rights.

Before his presidency, Lincoln did not have the intention of abolishing slavery although he thought it was wrong. He respected the dominion of the states and acknowledged the existence of slavery. Lincoln simply wanted to prevent the spread of slavery into the western states. In a letter to Alexander Stephens dated 1860, he assured him that the Republican administration would not interfere with the Southern people’s slaves. He acknowledged that his friend believed slavery was right and should be extended, but Lincoln held that it was wrong and it ought to be restricted.

President Lincoln clearly stated the relationship between race in slavery when he said, “Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.” (Transcript of meeting between Lincoln and group of black men) He did not believe that the black race was equal to the white race, in fact, he thought they were inferior. However, he believed that they still deserved the natural rights afforded to them by the Declaration of Independence, just like any man or woman, regardless of color. He disagreed with slavery, but simply did not want to allow it to spread to the western states. As the years went by and the country fell deeper into the Civil War, Lincoln was only concerned with the preservation of the Union. He did not see the preservation or abolition of slavery as important until he saw the necessity in the abolition of slavery. He understood that the only way to protect the Union and end the war was to abolish slavery. Lincoln’s ideas about race were related to his view of slavery because he acknowledged the inferiority of the black race, but believed they deserved rights. Within those rights, a man or woman should not be held as a slave. Every man and woman should be able to work for his own bread and have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the end of the day, Lincoln was a gifted president that did what he needed to do for the ultimate goal, preserving the Union.

Because Lincoln was president during the Civil War, and he issued he Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the people in the United States have a view of him as a great champion for equality and the prompt abolition of slavery. However, when reading the documents provided for this blog post, one realizes that Lincoln, like most men of his time, believed in the superiority of the white man and thought the slaves and free blacks inferior to him.  In 1858, in his address in Ottawa, Illinois, he clearly says that he is in “favor of the race to which [he] belong[s] having the superior position” despite the accusations of his running rival of urging for the equal rights of blacks and whites in the country.  In the same address, Lincoln says that he believes that there is a “physical difference between the two, which, in [his] judgment, will probably forbid t their living together upon the equal footing of perfect equality.” His position as a statesman and his desire to maintain a favorable image that the rest of the country would agree with probably motivated Lincoln to express his ideas of superiority when he addressed a crowd.

Nevertheless, when he says that blacks are not his equal in “color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment” he also acknowledges that these differences do not translate to blacks having to endure slavery.  In his response to the Dred Scott decision in 1857, he says that a black woman is equally entitled to the “right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking the leave of anyone else.” All people are equal in the fact that they are entitled to “‘certain inalienable rights, among them which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’” While politically and socially the two races are not the same, both groups of people have the right to lead their life however they please without having to answer to a master.

While Lincoln did not want to end slavery immediately and favored a colonization effort to remove the black population from the United States (Annual Speech to Congress), he did have negative views of slavery.  In his letter to Alexander Stephens, Lincoln admits that slavery “is wrong and ought to be restricted” because it denied the black population the possibility of caring for themselves and having to answer to one. Obviously, his views on race and his opinions on the rights people possessed, greatly influence what he thought about slavery. While he did not believe that blacks and whites could live together harmoniously, he did think that it was possible for blacks to be free and left alone without any personal interaction.  Whatever his views on the other race, Lincoln claimed he hated the institution “because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself” (Peoria, Illinois, 1854). Clearly, none should be subject to such a fate.

Lincoln’s personal views of race were influential in his dislike for the institution of slavery, but he also considered the preservation of the Union and the effects that the image of the United States as a slave-holding nation had on the rest of the word. In 1854, in Illinois, Lincoln said that slavery “enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites.” He did not agree with the fact that a country that represented freedom still held other human beings as slaves.  The consideration he held for the United States ultimately prompted him to declare emancipation during the course of the war. Lincoln, as president, was invested in the preservation of the Union and he would do anything in his power to prevent its disintegration. While Lincoln expressed his personal views on race and on slavery to the public, he did not make decisions based on personal opinion. The Emancipation Proclamation was prompted, not by his personal desire to see slaves free, but as a strategic move that would contribute to the victory and preservation of the United States.  He clearly says, in his letter to Horace Greeley, that if he could save the Union by not freeing any slaves he would do it.

Lincoln ultimately was a politician that did not allow his personal views to drive his political decisions. While his views on race influenced his ideas and his dislike for slavery, untimely the only thing that influenced his actions was his regard for the Union.

First and foremost, Abraham Lincoln was a politician. To most Americans, Lincoln was also a great leader and humanitarian—the president who saved the Union and who ended slavery. There is no denying that Lincoln both saved the Union and ended slavery, but to understand how and why he did those two things, it is crucially important to understand Lincoln and his actions in the context of American politics. Ultimately, Lincoln believed that slavery was a great evil in American life, but he put his personal feelings about slavery aside. He focused less on what he personally thought about slavery and more on what he thought should be done about slavery in order to preserve the Union.

Throughout his political career, Lincoln maintained that he believed that slavery was morally wrong. In 1858, he said that although he did not believe blacks and whites were equal, he did believe that slavery was wrong and “In the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he [an African-American] is my equal,” (1). He additionally argued against the expansion of slavery, and in 1860 wrote to Alexander Stephens that Lincoln and his political allies “think it [slavery] is wrong, and ought to be restricted,” (6). As late as 1864, Lincoln’s personal beliefs remained steady, and he wrote: “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel,” (10)

In spite of all of Lincoln’s personal beliefs about the evils of slavery, as a politician and president, he made it clear that what he thought about slavery did not necessarily affect what he thought the president could or should do about slavery in the US. Particularly, although he argued against the expansion of slavery, he felt firmly that slavery did not need to be abolished in the South. Furthermore, he felt that his job as president was to preserve the Union. In his 1860 letter to Southern Congressman Alexander Stephens, he asked: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would…interfere with their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears,” (6). As a politician and in his attempts to keep the South in the Union, Lincoln made it clear to Stephens that he had no intentions of interfering with slavery—he hoped that in doing so, he would be able to prevent secession.
Even as the South seceded, Lincoln had his eye on the prize, that is, on bringing the South back to the Union. In 1862 he wrote that his “paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” (8). By making such claims, Lincoln kept a moderate position that left open the possibility that if the South came back to the Union, Lincoln would not end slavery in the former Confederacy. Even as Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he maintained that it was not because he wanted to end slavery, but rather that out of military necessity and his ultimate goal of preserving the Union, it was necessary to end slavery. Indeed, he argued that he had “the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution,” or of emancipating the slaves. He emancipated the slaves not as a humanitarian, but as the president who was desperate to keep his country together.

Abraham Lincoln was a gifted politician, and he walked a fine line during his presidency as he attempted to keep the divisive issue of slavery from permanently destroying the Union. Personally, he found slavery to be morally wrong, and he sought to keep it from expanding into the territories. However, he did not allow his personal beliefs to allow him to miss the bigger picture: His ultimate goal was preservation of the Union, and he used whatever means necessary to achieve that goal.

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