Abraham Lincoln is quite clear in his statements about slavery that he believes it is morally wrong.  In the documents, he says so several times, including in the letter to Albert Hodges in 1864 where he writes “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.  I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.”  As his speeches during the Lincoln-Douglas debates show, his opposition comes from believing that the Declaration of Independence applies to all men, not just white men.  Lincoln makes it clear that he does not think black men are equal to white men in all ways.  In fact, he expresses quite racist views about blacks during several of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  However, despite his views on race, he clearly maintains that the Declaration of Independence applies to all men.  Speaking about the Dred Scott Decision in 1857 he says: “I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men…  They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

However, although Lincoln is quite clear about thinking slavery is morally wrong, his view about what should done with slavery is not quite so clear cut.  Ideally, he would no doubt want slavery abolished entirely, but his statements about slavery show a reluctance to do so.  In many ways, his views remind me of today’s politicians who are personally against abortion, but politically pro-choice.  He personally thinks slavery it is wrong, but he doubts that it is his place to interfere with the rights of Southerners to hold slaves.  In an 1860 letter he makes clear to Alexander Stephens that he would not interfere with slavery in the South and only thinks that its expansion ought to be restricted.

Once the Civil War began, Lincoln’s views on slavery seem to take a back-seat to his desire to reunite the Union.  Although he undoubtedly still believes slavery is wrong, his overriding concern is how to bring the Union back together.  In a letter to Horace Greeley, he writes “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by feeing some and leaving others alone I would also do it.”  At this point, Lincoln is pretty much willing to do anything with slavery as long as it results in reunification of the North and the South.

Ultimately, Lincoln ended up freeing the slaves, but he did not do so simply because of his personal belief that slavery was wrong.  His statements about slavery make it clear that his greatest concern was to reunite the country.  Emancipating the slaves just happened to be part of achieving that goal for Lincoln.

The Lincoln that many people remember is not the man who led the Union in to and through the Civil War. Lincoln, is often been made out to a man of much grater moral standing than men of his day. But when Lincoln’s legacy is examined closer it becomes very apparent that he was a man, flawed like all men. Growing up in the South two different portrayals of Lincoln were taught to me. The first was the common portrayal of Lincoln, that of “Honest Abe,” the great emancipator of slaves and defender the Union. The second portrayal of Lincoln that I was taught was that of a flawed man, as we all are. This portrayal credits Lincoln for his accomplishments, but also recognizes that he made mistakes, and was a man of his day. I agree with Courtney’s statement in her blog post, “Thoughts about Thoughts,” where she said “Confederate memorial groups who criticize the modern idealization and glorification of Lincoln might actually be on to something.” I am not saying that the Confederate memorial groups have it all right, but I do believe that there is merit in approaching Lincoln as a man of his day. Only by examining the man Lincoln can we determine his true feelings about race and the institution of slavery.

Lincoln was a man of his day; his views closely mirrored those of other Republicans and Northerners. I believe to approach issue of slavery in this way we must first decipher Lincoln’s view of blacks. Lincoln’s feelings about race are most clear in his earliest writings and speeches. Lincoln, like many northerners of the day, did not feel that whites and blacks should be considered as equals. In Ottawa, Illinois in August 1859 Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races.” To Lincoln blacks were blacks and whites were whites and it should stay that way. In this same speech Lincoln conceded to Douglas that blacks were inferior in many ways including: “color, … [or] in moral or intellectual endowment.” Where Lincoln disagreed with Douglas, and many Southerners, was that blacks were people with “[the] right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns.”

It is essential to remember that Lincoln did not view blacks as equal nor did he believe they should be eligible to participate fully in society. Stating in a speech in Charleston, Illinois: “I am not… in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” Lincoln goes on to say: “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

What do these statements tell us about Lincoln’s views on race in the years leading up to his presidency? I argue that they clearly show that Lincoln was not that different from southerners like Douglas. By today’s standards, Lincoln was a racist; at the time his views on race were the norm. Lincoln clearly did not have a moral problem with blacks being in an inferior position to whites. In fact he was a proponent of this. Where Lincoln differed from his opponents was in his belief that blacks were men, and as men they should be allowed to work, earn, and be free. Lincoln’s view of the position of blacks in society resembles the caste system in India, where there was a dominant ruling class, and a lower class barred from receiving privileges of the ruling class.

So how does Lincoln’s views on race affect his views about slavery? In all of the provided works never did Lincoln support the morality of slavery. Though he never calls for the immediate emancipation of slaves in the provided documents, until the issuance of the emancipation proclamation in 1863. Even in his Speech to Congress in December 1862, Lincoln calls for the gradual emancipation of slaves and compensation of slave owners and slave states. Though Lincoln does believe that “All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of the war [shall remain free].” These documents do not portray Lincoln as the man we remember today, who fought vigorously for the emancipation of slaves. Even in 1860 when he was elected, Lincoln writes to his friend Alexander Stephens discussing how slavery “ought to be restricted.”

Lincoln mentions multiple times how it would be unconstitutional to abolish slavery, he only acquiesces as a means to preserve the Union and end the war. In a letter written in 1864, to Albert Hodges, Lincoln defends his actions regarding the emancipation of slaves as unconstitutional, but justifies it as a military necessity. Lincoln sites when he censured Gen. Fremont and Hunter’s separate attempts to emancipate slaves as lacking the “indispensable necessity” to warrant these unconstitutional acts. Lincoln makes certain to justify his later act to emancipate the nations slaves stating: “I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.”

I would argue that Lincoln did not emancipate the nations slaves because of a higher moral call, but as a military strategy to end the civil war and preserve the constitution. Lincoln acted to defend the nation, not to defend the slaves’ rights. Lincoln’s views on race allowed him to justify the existence of slavery as a morally wrong, yet constitutional institution. Lincoln’s duty to the preservation of the constitution allowed, him to justify the existence of slavery. Through Lincoln’s views of race and actions he took we can infer that he would have been fine with either the continued existence and containment of slavery, or the gradual emancipation of slaves over time. I wonder if the Union had not been in peril, would Lincoln have immediately emancipated the slaves? Also I wonder that if Lincoln was willing to take an action that he viewed as unconstitutional, to save the Union, what other unconstitutional acts did he take during the war? Lastly I would like to know the effects Lincoln’s views of the two separate race groups had in the years following his death and the reconstruction of the nation?

In the modern conscience, race and slavery are almost guaranteed to occupy the same ignominy in the remembrance of the Southern slave economy. American students in the South, myself included, were taught that Abraham Lincoln was the superhuman hero that was adamantly against slavery and advocated equality – an idol to be worshipped. The documents in this week’s reading packet, however, provide a much more nuanced description of his views on slavery.  They show that while Lincoln eventually regarded emancipation as necessary, before the war he had no plans to alter Southern slaveholding traditions and expressed some flagrantly racist views.

Although he expressed the view that slavery is intrinsically wrong, he was opposed to racial equality.  Because I am not one to smear “The Great Emancipator’s” name, I believe his views of racial equality stem from the prevailing popular opinion which had begun to marginalize abolitionists by the 1850s. To be sure, Lincoln provided ample evidence for his opposition to the institution of slavery. He writes in Peoria Illinois in 1854 that “I can not but hate [slavery]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world”.  Throughout the excerpts, Lincoln returns to the Declaration of Independence and bases his case against slavery on the clause that all men are created equal “in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (my italics)  He writes in a debate in Ottawa, Ill. (Aug. 1858) “there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence”.  In this way, he is not portrayed as an abolitionist but as a governmental purist.  Although he states that slaves are allowed the right of liberty, he shies away from abolition until late 1862. Before the war, he reiterates the Republican plank in Alton, IL by saying that the only way to combat slavery is to prevent its spread not to attack the institution where it is already established. (Doc 3) He even reiterates this on the eve of secession to Alexander Stephens (Georgia Senator) by saying that he has no plans on abolishing slavery.

For today’s standards, Mr. Lincoln appears staunchly conservative in his debates with Stephen Douglas with regards to race equality. While he acknowledges the slaves’ right to freedom in the territories, he does not call for basic civil rights even in free states such as Illinois. His response to the Dred Scott decision in 1857 includes this strict reading of the Declaration of Independence: “but [the Founding Fathers] did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity.” He also claims in his debates that there are fundamental physiological differences between the races that will prevent them from “living together on terms of social and political equality”. (Charleston, IL, 1858)  This logic then leads him to a very conservative (and shocking) claim in a Charleston, Ill. debate (1858), where he writes that “I tell [Stephen Douglas] very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship.”

I discounted these senatorial debate sentiments at first as pandering to a predominantly white pioneer crowd. However, Lincoln’s actions during the war as President support a disregard for ex-slaves equality with whites. Just before the drafting of the emancipation proclamation, he had written that “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” (letter to Horace Greely, Aug 22 1862). Lincoln was a pragmatist during the war, and emancipation would only happen if it aided the war effort. In particular he defends the Emancipation Proclamation as a necessity for the survival of the Union, not a result of personal abolitionist tendencies. He writes to a Kentuckian friend, Albert Hodges, (April 4 1864), saying that “I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery”. Rather it was in the interest of the Union armies to gain 130,000 troops and laborers by the act.

To Lincoln, freedom and race equality were two very different non-linked outcomes. Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery because it made America’s founding documents hypocritical. For a nation based upon equality of all men to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, slavery was an affront to the conscience. Despite this appeal to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, during the war he justifies emancipation as a necessity of war. Furthermore, Lincoln was decidedly not in favor of black-white equality. The interplay between freedom and equality is perfectly summed up in Lincoln’s response to the Dred Scott decision. He writes that “[Judge Douglas concludes that] because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone.” While he would not see them enslaved, they could exist as a separate and free class of second-hand citizens.  This leads me to ask: Was Lincoln the first to advocate Jim Crow laws?

To the modern American schoolchild learning the history of her country, fuzzy ideas of the Civil War might be transmitted, pitting a villainous, or at least severely misguided, South, where every white man was a spoiled plantation owner or an evil overseer, against a North full of heroes who realized black people were just like them. The leader of these heroes was Abraham Lincoln, a true forward-thinker who would be among the most tolerant Americans even today, and who cut the bondage of every American slave, warmly inviting them into American society as equals. Yet analysis into Lincoln’s less iconic speeches and writings reveal that he was subject to many of the same prejudices as the vast majority of Americans at the time, and that the emancipation strategy he most favored was sending them elsewhere once freed. In light of this, those Confederate memorial groups who criticize the modern idealization and glorification of Lincoln might actually be on to something.

Reading some of Lincoln’s statements on race would certainly burst the bubble of someone who had imagined the great American hero of liberty and equality as the very paragon of tolerance. But after all, we must realize that Lincoln was a product of his times. He was not an anachronism, no space alien beamed down to show Americans the error of their ways. Could such a person ever be elected to the presidency, after all? He was human, and subject to the same sicknesses of society, a judgment of others based on the color of their skin, as nearly everyone else at the time. Yet Lincoln did have certain ideas which, while finding support in the Republican party, were passionately controversial and the antithesis of those of many of his countrymen.

Not before the war, and perhaps never throughout it, did Lincoln believe that black people were quite the same as white people. He believed they had inherent differences, the most manifest and inalienable being physical. “There is a physical difference between the two [races],” Lincoln claimed in 1858, “which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.” In 1862, when talking to a delegation of freedmen to persuade them to colonize in Central America, one of his arguments was that the “similarity of climate with [their] native land” was “suited to [their] physical condition.”

Some Southerners may have used such arguments to portray blacks as being ideal for their work as slaves. Yet Lincoln believed that their physical difference was due to the climate in which their race had long lived, and suggested that it was unjust for them to be in North America at all. He certainly did not believe that this physical difference occasioned them to be slaves. “In some respects [a black woman] certainly is not my equal,” he said in 1857, “but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.”

Lincoln’s discourse suggests he found black people different from whites in other ways, as well. In 1858, he claimed that a black man “is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment.” Note, however, that he does not commit to a black man not being his equal in the latter qualities, only suggests that this might be the case. I find this very interesting, as in this statement he only admits to the difference in color, which is obvious, and what meaning has color, after all? At any rate, this statement seems a way of hedging, that is, pleasing everyone by suggesting the superiority of the white race in these faculties but not committing to an opinion. His actual opinions at the time are difficult to discern.

At any rate, at the 1862 meeting with a black delegation mentioned above, Lincoln admits that black men can be as intelligent as their white counterparts. “It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men,” he states, “and not those who have been systematically oppressed.” He acknowledges that for those in bondage, their “intellects are clouded by Slavery.”

Thus it seems Lincoln was very stable in his claim of a physical difference between whites and blacks, but not so certain about whether they differed in moral and intellectual capacity. He recognized that slavery had dehumanizing effects on those subject to it, leading to an appearance that black people had less mental faculty and were morally inferior. Yet he saw that indeed this was only an appearance, as his comments to the freedmen suggest. This may, of course, be Lincoln’s strategy of trying to please everyone, that they may work together as harmoniously as possible, simply giving lip service to the black community. However, I do not think so. Lincoln was an intelligent and sensible man, and when interacting with free black men, I do not think he would have allowed prior assumptions to prevent him from realizing their intelligence. What’s more, I doubt he would have invited this delegation into the White House if he did not respect them.

Lincoln’s ultimate opinions on slavery and race are difficult to pinpoint with certainty. But I would say these things with confidence: He thought that black and white people were at least physically different, that it was unnatural to bring Africans over as slaves in the first place, and that both whites and blacks would be better off if the blacks were colonized back into Africa or a similar climate. He thought that the institution of slavery was wrong, as it dehumanized those in bondage; besides, he wished, as he wrote in 1862, “that all men every where could be free.” However, before the war and well into it, he did not think it was sensible, nor did he believe he had the right, to impose his morals on the nation and effect immediate emancipation. Saving the Union was always his main aim, and as the war progressed, immediate emancipation became a strategy used in desperation, even bypassing the Constitution, so that the nation which gave meaning to that Constitution might live.

I also want to note that it is important to remember how much opinions can change over time, especially when faced with a traumatic experience like war. From my own experience in daily life, I have noticed that opinions naturally change over the course of time, even from day to day, depending on moods and social factors including the persuasion of others. They can seem to change depending on who we are talking to; the degree to which these are instances of trying to placate our audience, or evidence of our less solid opinions being swayed by others, differs in each case. With this in mind, trying to arrive at Lincoln’s innate and ultimate opinions on slavery should be attempted with care. At any rate, Lincoln’s opinions were not some constant, innate secret that we can someday uncover and unlock like buried treasure. The best we can do is define what he articulated in his discourse, that is, his speeches and writings both public and private, which were probably his best way of holding his own thoughts together against the onslaught of opinions and complaints that battered him in his role as president. And we must bear in mind that these opinions were bound to change over time, so blanket statements such as “Lincoln thought blacks were intellectually inferior,” won’t do if we find contradicting evidence elsewhere in time.

First of I would like to say that microfilm is not my friend. Finding and chronicling the article from “list A” was a chore I wish not to repeat. I had a much easier time looking up the second article as it was in book form. For what its worth I think we should keep all articles in book form. But I digress.

The first article that I dealt with was “Hero of Sabine Pass buried, forgotten here in hometown” by Bob Tutt published in the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday September 2, 1997. The article addressed how we view Dick Dowling today. The article had a tone of trying to remember Dick Dowling, but I feel that this was overshadowed by current events in 2007. Just three days before Princess Diana was killed in a car crash, the entire world was memorializing and trying to remember the Princess. The Chronicle was filled with articles about the Princess; it was near impossible to find a page that didn’t have an article about Diana. I feel that the title of the Dowling article was ironic, “Hero of Sabine Pass buried, forgotten here in hometown.” The article was meant to address why Houston’s hero had fallen from the public sphere, on this day Dowling’s legacy was overshadowed because of the news of Princess Diana’s death.

It is a sad fact that we do not memorialize and give our heroes the credit that they deserve. The article addresses the often-ignored aspect of Dowling’s Irish heritage. Dowling was forced to leave Ireland with his sister to escape the plights of the Irish Potato Famine. He soon Settled in Houston and adopted it as his home. Dowling was largely invested in the city Texas gave him the opportunity to make something of himself. The article notes his many business ventures in Houston and his impact on the city as a business leader. I believe that the article helps to answer the question: “Why did Dowling, a non-slave owning Irish immigrant, enlist to serve in the Confederate army?” The answer is because he was fighting to protect his home. In her book Manning argued that all Southerners fought to preserve slavery in one form or the other, but we get the impression from this article that this was not so with Dowling. Dowling was a well to do businessman, an immigrant, and as an Irishman someone who had see the evils of the oppression of a people. The article mentions how Dowling treated blacks fairly, even empowering them with leases on property where no rent was collected. This article leads me to believe that the “Hero of Sabine Pass” was fighting because he felt a moral obligation to defend the people and place that had given him so much. It is truly a shame that Dowling’s memory is beginning to fade and be stymied by false accusations of racism. As Houstonian we should make an effort to honor Dowling once again as one of our city’s greatest heroes, and as a man who went to war for honorable reasons.

The second article that I researched was an article from “Confederate Veteran” magazine this article, “Presentation of Dick Dowling Sword,” was very different from the Houston Chronicle article. In 1901, when this article was written, Dick Dowling’s memory was at its strongest. The article goes as far as to describe Dowling as “the sainted hero of Sabine Pass.” The article detailed the ceremony at which Dick Dowling’s sword was presented to the Dick Dowling Camp of Veterans. This called me to question the statements made when researching the Dowling monument that Dowling did not have a sword. It makes me believe that the Statue of Dowling depicts him with his sword because this “relic” of the Civil War hero had been recently given to the Dick Dowling Camp in the years just prior to the monument’s erection. The article goes on to list the men who fought with Dowling at Sabine Pass, and gives a summary of the battle. On a related note the article states: “the names of every one of whom should be raised in golden letters upon the monument to be erected to the memory of [Dowling].” This makes me wonder: “What was the reason that the names are not ‘raised in gold’ on the monument as it stands today?” The officers of the Dick Dowling Camp are all noted in the article and intensive biographies are provided for the two surviving members of the Davis Guards. The article gives us perspective about what men made up the Dick Dowling Camp, and what they valued in 1901. It should be noted that Dowling was not depicted as a Houstonian, businessman or Irishman. But that the Irish heritage of the two surviving members of the Davis Guards is noted, also we should take not of the histories of these two men, both had similar backgrounds to Dowling. Neither of these men had any reason to fight to preserve the institution of slavery. It is important that we remember Dowling and these men for that, and not allow the issue of slavery to tarnish their memories in any way. The portrayal of Dowling is as a heroic savior, a “saint,” a “honorable, charitable, and just man. It appears that the perception of Dowling at this time was that of greater than man. The depiction of Dick Dowling as a fearless and venerated leader in the statue, that now sits in Hermann Park resonates thorough this article.

Both articles contribute to the memory of Dick Dowling. I think that it is important to remember Dowling as the man of both articles. It is important that we not forget who Dick Dowling was or what he did for out city. We must work to strengthen and preserve Dowling’s memory so that he is not lost to time.

This week I went deep into the bowels of Fondren library to the Kelley Government & Microform section to go in search of articles pertaining to Dick Dowling’s memorial or the Battle of Sabine Pass. I will confess though, that either Dr. McDaniel or Mercy Harper, had to do the real grunt work to find where these articles lived in the probable millions of pages stored in microfilm.  I found two articles of note.

The first we have seen before in the Houston Public Library Digital Archive. It is from September 14 1939 and documents briefly the relocation of the Dowling statue from its original site at Market Square (Preston & Travis streets today) to Sam Houston Park. The author of the article, while adhering to modern journalist tendencies to keep objective, shows a bit of disappointment at the move when he contrasts that “a fleet of yankee gunboats couldn’t dislodge” Lt. Dowling whereas it took only a few workers to take him off his pedestal. Furthermore, it notes that Dowling’s statue was being moved to make room for the construction of bus sheds because old City Hall was being converted into a bus station after the move of the city government to a new building. Of interest to our study of the memory of the Civil War, the article states that the monument was erected in 1905 by the “Dock (sic) Dowling Camp of United Confederate veterans” with the “aid of other organizations”. I attribute the spelling error to poor copy-editing, not a deliberate slight, however it is clear that in 1939 the UCV takes credit for the memorial. Also of interest is the relative obscurity of the article. It was found on the last page of the local section, almost added as a post-script next to an article on garbage service satisfaction. The newspaper as a whole was primarily focused on the escalation of WWII in Europe.

The second article, in my opinion is a lot more interesting for the study of Dick Dowling and the memory of Sabine Pass. It comes from a June 12, 1893 edition of The Galveston Daily News. Although it starts with a few pronouns without antecedents that confuse where the author gets his information (eventually it is revealed to be a veteran of the battle), it embarks on a history of the events at Sabine Pass with particular attention paid to the actions of Dowling and Dr. G.H. Bailey, a volunteer that joined Dowling during the fight. There are a few very important details relevant to the public history of the Battle of Sabine Pass. First, the article mentions that the Davis Guards (and the volunteers) were given silver medals by the people of Houston in the battle’s aftermath. Interestingly this commemoration was spearheaded by a Catholic priest– father Luerat, which leads me to believe that the Irish aspect of commemoration existed the length of post-Civil War history. Secondly, the article also addresses the controversy of how many men fought in the battle of Sabine Pass. It states 44 (42 Davis Guards and 2 Volunteers) were present.  Thirdly, the author raises the point of the plight of veterans. While this was written before Dowling’s statue was erected, he despises the fact that money is spent creating monuments in favor of providing social services to veterans who must rely on the “bread of charity”.  The author also concludes with an interesting observation: that “old confederates cheer loudly when the bands strike ‘Hail Columbia’…and the compliment is returned when ‘Dixie’ floats upon the air.

The article, while helping to satisfy the eternal questions of historians: “what actually happened” and “who was involved”, has raised a few questions particularly with regards to commemoration. Who was Father Luerat, and was he actually associated with an Irish church or was Catholicism irrelevant? This might mean that Irish commemoration of Sabine Pass started much earlier than we thought. Also, is the social commentary of the article – that monument funds should be shunted to help veterans – purely the views of the author? Or did public opinion begin to shift away from monuments in the 1890s, and thus Dick Dowling’s monument needed Irish support to overcome this block in public opinion?

The first article I analyzed was from the May 17, 1958 issue of the Houston Chronicle and titled “Dowling Statue Deserves Display.”  The article appeared on the front page and it advocated the memorializing of Dowling.  According to the article, the statue had been in storage for about a year at the time the article was written, but that it was going to be placed in Hermann Park soon.  The article goes on to explain Dowling’s role in the Battle of Sabine Pass, why he is an important figure for Houstonians to remember, and advocating the value of a public display for him.

To be honest, the placement of the Dowling article on the front page strikes me as a little bit odd.  It is sort of news because it announces that a display for Dowling will eventually be erected in Hermann Park, but the rest of the article is almost an editorial about why Dowling deserves to be honored.  It’s located under a heading called “Our City” though, so I imagine that the article might be part of a series featuring local news.  Nonetheless, the article seems like it would be more suited for the opinion page than the front page since it advances such a distinct viewpoint.

Some of the other articles I took note in the same issue of the Chronicle were about the Algerian Crisis and Charles de Gaulle’s return to politics in France.  As a political science major, I found that particularly fascinating because I remember learning about how the May 1958 crisis eventually led to the establishment of the Fifth Republic in France.  Slightly more pertinent to the Dowling statue, I found an article about how a student committee had passed a resolution supporting the desegregation of every aspect of campus-life at the University of Texas.  Certainly, the conflict over desegregation in that period might have influenced people’s opinions about honoring a Confederate hero.  Unfortunately, there was no byline on my article, so I couldn’t try to find out if the author had some sort of agenda in pushing for Houstonians to honor Dowling.

The second article I analyzed was from the August 22, 1937 issue of the Houston Post.  It was a story recounting two historical events that occurred during the Civil War and highlighting the heroics of the Confederate soldiers and officers involved.  The first part of the article talked about the sinking of the U.S.S. Hatteras by the CSS Alabama near Galveston in January of 1863.  The author of the article was apparently a child living in Galveston at the time and the account was rather one-sided.  It basically talked about how the Confederates beat the odds to sink the larger Hatteras and commended them for their heroics and valor.  The second part of the article discussed the Battle of Sabine Pass when the Confederates again beat the odds to score a victory against the Union.  Dick Dowling is mentioned in the article, but a lot of attention is paid to the other Confederate officers involved.  It gives a very detailed account of events on the Confederate side leading up to the conflict.

This article was clearly written from a pro-Confederate point of view and paints the Confederates as heroes fighting against difficult odds during the Civil War.  I’m not sure if the general population of Houston was pro-Confederate at the time the article was published, but the author clearly is.  However, since the author remembers the Civil War, he must’ve been quite old at the time the article was published and his views might not have been shared by most people.  The fact that these accounts were published in a mainstream publication though supports the idea that holding pro-Confederate views in 1937 wasn’t totally frowned upon in Houston.  I thought it was interesting that the article made no mention of why the South was fighting the Civil War.  There was no mention of slavery or states’ rights.  Instead the events recounted in the article were treated as an underdog story of victory.

I examined the Houston Tri-Weekly Telegraph from September 12th, 1863, and found an article entitled “Glorious Affair at Sabine Pass,” which appears to be the initial account in the Telegraph of the battle and its outcome. It is a relatively brief chronological account of the battle, consisting of one paragraph, and written largely objectively, although at the end it expresses a strain of pride:

“The Davis Guards, under the command of Lt. Dowling and Lt. Smith, of the Engineer corps, who [commenced] to assist, have won lasting honors for themselves and their country. Not a man hurt or a gun [dismantled] – all ready for another fight. The prisoners say there is ten thousand (10,000) [men] on board their vessels, and [will] come again, but we are now better prepared and await their pleasure.”

This account was submitted by someone calling themselves “Uncle Ben” and dated the 8th of September, 1863. An addendum dated the next day reports that prisoners from the battle have arrived in Beaumont. It is interesting to note that the article mentions nowhere the Irish background of Dowling and the Davis Guards, an aspect of the heroes that would be played up in later years, as illustrated beautifully by the other articles I analyzed.

Jumping ahead over 40 years, I also examined the Houston Chronicle from March 17, 1905, the day the Dick Dowling monument was unveiled where it originally stood, in Market Square at the corner of Travis Street and Preston Avenue. As this was St. Patrick’s Day, the paper was full of reports on Irish festivities around Houston, and as Dowling and the Davis Guards are local Irish heroes, remembrance of their achievements was woven into many of the celebrations of the day. Interestingly, the paper seems very praiseworthy of the Irish, dedicating much space to report on their festivities.

Within the paper, I found two articles explicitly honoring Dowling and his fellow Davis Guards. On the front page of the paper is an article entitled “Three Out of Forty-Seven: Trio of Sabine Pass Heroes Received With Cheers.” The article chronicles how three of the four members of the Davis Guards still alive at this time came to Houston for the unveiling of the Dowling monument. Although many Confederate veterans were in town for the day, the Davis Guards received special attention, being transported in carriages as part of a parade; according to the article, as they passed along the parade route, “they were applauded again and again and the cheers brought to them smiles of satisfaction and pleasure. ” Indeed, the article paints a picture of a joyous and momentous celebration. The unveiling ceremonies were honored by the presence of not only Mayor A. L. Jackson of Houston, but Governor S. W. T. Lanham, who both gave speeches. The author is particularly praiseworthy of Lanham’s oration. The article makes brief mention of how, amidst the joy, time was taken to remember and honor the “late lamented” John A. Reagan, whose relevance to Dowling, Houston, or the Irish was probably obvious to contemporary readers but is no longer clear from this article, and ends with a brief portrait of the hardships faced by Dowling in his early life, which we know little about.

The second noteworthy article, entitled “Monument is Now Unveiled: Houston Pays Tribute to Memory of a Hero,” begins on page 9 and continues on page 11. This article starts out with sentimental praise for Irish Confederates and Confederates in general, lamenting the march of time which was then thinning out the survivors of the Civil War. Although “Three Out of Forty-Seven” displayed some pride and praise, this article is definitely much more emotional, and portrays the unveiling ceremony as an even more exciting and crowded affair than the former article had conveyed, poetically describing the scene and noting that “a jam of humanity” swarmed around the statue for the celebration. The article describes the monument in detail, even down to the complete inscription, including the full roster of the Davis Guards. A poem, written by Wharton resident Mrs. Ellen R. Croom, has been included, which praises the heroes of Sabine Pass and calls the survivors back to Houston to honor Dick Dowling, a request that all but one of them had indeed fulfilled. Interestingly, the introductory notes to the poem repeatedly report that Dowling fought alongside forty-one men, while elsewhere in the article the number is given as forty-seven, as well as in the very title of the previously discussed article. I theorize this is because Mrs. Croom’s poem, which mentions forty-one men, is at odds with the newspaper’s information that there were forty-seven, but rather than mentioning the discrepancy they just allowed it to exist, counting on the readers not to notice or care. Finally, a historical account of the Battle of Sabine Pass is given. This account, by the recently deceased Dudley D. Bryan, was not written fresh for this issue of the paper, but was taken from a souvenir pamphlet which had been composed for the St. Patrick’s Day four years prior and used to help raise money for the monument fund.

I did find that the primary, contemporary account of the battle, published merely days after the events, did not glorify the victory as much as I may have thought. Certainly it expresses pride in the accomplishments of the Davis Guards, but for an event that Jefferson Davis and others would so laud as being another Thermopylae, the initial report is quite restrained, and occupies a relatively small chunk of the rightmost side of the page, with little fanfare. This may be journalistic professionalism to maintain a somewhat objective viewpoint, or a hesitation to get too excited, as the prisoners had threatened that ten thousand men remained aboard the escaped vessels and would make another attempt to breach the pass. It seems that as time passed and word spread, people became more impressed with the feat of the Davis Guards and sought to honor them.

Evidence of how praise of their achievements has inflated over time can be found in Bryan’s account of the battle, as found in “Monument is Now Unveiled.” Written almost 40 years later, it is more detailed, with many of the details serving to add to the overall effect of impressing the reader with the immense odds the Davis Guards were able to conquer. For instance, while “Glorious Affair at Sabine Pass” references only a “fort,” Bryan’s account is sure to point out that said fort “consisted of a simple earthwork, barely large enough to mount six guns.” “It was hard to convince the prisoners that the entire number of their captors was less than fifty,” Bryan claims. In addition, he provides following anecdote, in which the Davis Guards cry out as one articulate voice:

“General Magruder sent orders to spike the guns, blow up the fort and retreat to Taylor’s bayou, and there attempt to hold the enemy in check. When these orders were conveyed to Lieutenant Dowling he addressed his men, asking if they wanted to spike the guns and retreat.

With a loud cry of indignation they said: ‘No! We prefer to fight while there is a detachment to man the guns.'”

While ostensibly objective, Bryan’s account contains some material that seems a bit anecdotal, and the details given are calculated to provide an effect of the bravery of the Davis Guards and the impressiveness of their victory, which Bryan calls “one of the most remarkable achievements of the civil war.”

When we wrote our original observations and questions about the Dick Dowling monument, I considered the discrimination with which Irishmen were viewed in the Civil War era and asked,

“Just as people find it fascinating to imagine why blacks might want to fight for the Confederacy, as we have just discussed, it is also interesting to debate why ethnic minorities, especially recent immigrants, would want to fight for a country that their family had not long inhabited and which did not always treat them with respect. Why would Irishmen fight under a climate that often did not recognize them as ideal Americans?”

Browsing through the Houston Public Library’s archives have given me some food for thought on an answer to this question, for the Irish at least.

During his adult life, Dowling was a citizen so popular that the Houston Daily Telegraph reported on his sickness and recovery and cautioned, “Houston cannot afford to lose such men as you” (Muir 207). Yet over time his memory has faded to such an extent that people have to be constantly informed and reminded of his identity and history, as many documents in the archive attest. His great-great-grandniece, Ann Caraway Ivins, found that even at a Houston middle school named in his honor, only one faculty member knew anything about him (SC1268-f1-19).

The people who have kept Dowling’s memory alive over the years seem to be Confederate and other historical societies and Irish heritage societies. However, the former have fallen significantly from public repute after the Civil Rights movement. Yet in today’s United States culture of political correctness and multicultural celebration, it makes sense that cultural societies have thrived, and their influence over memory of Dowling as an influential Irish Houstonian rather than just a Civil War hero has been allowed to prevail.

Thus we see two different sides of the Dowling memory which, if not exactly competing with each other, have allowed people to focus on what they find most admirable about the hero as well as what is most socially acceptable to the general public at the time. But the fact that Dowling was Irish is not just incidental to his involvement in the Civil War. He signed up with a group made up heavily of his fellow Irish and led by an Irishman, his uncle-in-law (Muir 181). Ivins believes that “it wasn’t ideology that decided which side they [the Irish] fought for. It was where they lived” (SC1268-f1-19). Nevertheless, ideology cannot be ignored, as these men were alive and full of thoughts and opinions, and doubtless would not have fought with their much-lauded bravery if not for what they deemed a good cause. Here I am reminded of Manning’s plea that we no longer can view soldiers as hapless victims of politics and circumstance, but movers and shakers of history in themselves.

I find clues as to why an Irishman would want to fight for the Confederacy, at least, in the history of what was going on in Ireland at the time. Dr. John Anthony Claffey, in his speech at the monument’s rededication ceremony in 1997, paints a picture of the political climate of the Emerald Isle at the time Dowling emigrated. He notes that Ireland was being subjugated by England in various ways, including taxation to support a church they had no loyalties to, unjust control by absentee landlords, and removal of the Irish parliament (SC1268-f1-22). An Irishman who had immigrated to the South would certainly understand the sectional conflict and sympathize with secessionists, having just come from a climate where their home country was being externally controlled and sought to break away.

But I still have less clear ideas on why an Irishman might want to fight for the Union, as heavy immigration patterns in the North led to heavy discrimination there. Remember the strength of the nativist Know-Nothing party in the North, as mentioned in the Kornblith article:

“‘By 1855,’ Holt observed, ‘[Know Nothings] controlled all the New England states except Vermont and Maine, and … were the major anti-Democratic party in the Middle Atlantic states and California.'”

Could it be, as Ivins suggests, that Irish would sympathize with the “underdogs in the world,” that is, the slaves (SC1268-f1-19)? Is there a counterpart Irish Union hero who could provide a starting point for looking into these questions?

Looking through the Houston Public Library Digital Archives, it becomes apparent that the historical figure of Dick Dowling has meant different things to different people at different periods of time.  Dick Dowling was a Confederate soldier, an Irishman, and a Civic Leader in Houston.  However, which aspects of his life and memory are emphasized depends on who is doing the memorializing and what the purpose of the memorializing is.  I focused on the recent portrayal of Dowling in the media because, although he is still clearly regarded as a Houston “hero”, very few people still consider the Southern rebellion to have been heroic.  In order to maintain Dowling’s hero status in Houston, it seems that his identity as an Irishman and civic leader has become the emphasis when memorializing him.  Attention that is given to his military service in the past few decades seems to have a more neutral tone rather than being a celebration of his service or military heroics because that is no longer socially acceptable.

This can be seen in a 1989 Houston Chronicle article about Dowling’s mark on the city that focuses primarily on Dowling’s military service (RGA33-b2f27-35).  The article is about Dowling’s prominance, but the article is not inherently positive.  It is simply a reflection about Dowling’s influence in Houston.  It makes no claim that Dowling was fighting for any sort of great cause and it does not explicitly proclaim him as a hero.  Rather, the article’s reason for memorializing Dowling seems to be to inform the public about who he was and why he influenced Houston.  There is no attempt by the article to celebrate Dowling’s actions at Sabine Pass.  It is simply pointed out that they were quite notable at the time and influenced Houston.

During the rededication of the Dowling statue in 1997, the focus was on Dowling’s Irish history and civic contributions to Houston.  His heroics at the Battle of Sabine Pass are mentioned in a press release about the rededication, but the ceremony is described as a “celebration of Irish heritage” and occurred on St. Patrick’s Day.  It was also hosted by the Dick Dowling Irish Heritage Society and the keynote speaker was a historian from Tuam County, Ireland (RGA33-b2f27-21).  The lack of emphasis given to Dowling’s Confederate ties is probably because the event was clearly meant to celebrate Dowling’s life.  By 1997, any celebration of the Confederate cause would have been controversial.  This is evidenced by an article from a few months later, when an African-American historian protested the streets named after Dowling because he fought for the Confederacy (RGA33-b2f27-44).  This article focuses on Dowling’s military service and it certainly does not portray Dowling as heroic.  The only appropriate way to celebrate Dowling and his influence on Houston was to focus on the non-controversial aspects of his life.  If his Confederate service has been a major focus, the rededication event could not have been completely celebratory and positive.

Dick Dowling has been considered a Houstonian hero for generations.  However, as time has passed, public opinion about what is heroic and what isn’t has shifted.  Rather than revoking Dowling’s hero status as fervor for the Confederate cause has faded, the Digital Archives show that different aspects of Dowling’s life have been emphasized instead.  His military service in recent years has been presented neutrally while his status as a prominent Irishman and civic leader in Houston has been brought to the forefront.  This allows people to continue celebrating Dowling as a hero without having to also celebrate the Confederate cause.