Yesterday, I took my father, a self proclaimed history buff, down to see the statue of Dick Dowling. As only a second year Houstonian, he had neither heard of Dowling, nor the Battle of Sabine Pass. However, like many of us, he immediately commented on the inauspicious location of the Confederate statue. When I asked him why he thought the statue had been tucked so deep in the outskirts of Hermann Park, he quickly remarked about the “political incorrectness” of a Confederate statue, adding further that no one wants to celebrate a statue for the “losers.” This attitude made me curious to find out what exact sentiments drove the Dowling statue to the “back door of Hermann Park” (Monument Association Scrap Book pg 8), and perhaps to the back of our collective conscience.
One major reason why Dowling’s statue now resides in obscurity is that, unlike Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Stephen Austin, Dowling’s character lacks broad based popularity. Perhaps as far back as the early 20th century, the heroic story of Dowling began to fade from collective memory. A journalist wrote in 1958, the year Dowling’s statue would arrive at his final resting place, that “there probably are only a few Houstonians who have more than a hazy idea about Dick Dowling’s contribution to Texas history” (Monument Association Scrapbook pg 6). Additionally, Mary Laswell wrote in for the Chronicle in 1960 that “Dick Dowling is a relatively unsung hero, especially among the tight-lipped, pursed mouth element in Texas” (Monument Association Scrapbook Pg 9). In this fiery statement, Laswell is charging that the general public does not properly appreciate Dowling’s heroism. However, aside from a few news articles and editorials, there was little uproar from the general public about the statues new modest location. That same passive sentiment about Dowling has been passed on to recent times. In 1997, Bob Tutt of the Houston Chronicle stated that “Dowling once was one of Houston’s most celebrated figures but now is largely forgotten (SC1268-f1-19).” It is obvious that a booming city like Houston would not waste prime real estate on a figure with little public appeal.
Although it is apparent that Dowling’s dwindling popularity since the early postbellum era played a large role in the unfortunate positioning of the statue, the more perplexing question is why his legacy became diminished in the first place. It is intriguing how Texas, a state that holds its historic figures closer than most, has managed to let the legacy of Dowling fall into relative obscurity. Tutt postulates that a large part of this falling action had to do with the increasingly negative perception of Confederate figures in general. Because of his Confederate colors, Tutt claims that many have “branded Dowling a racist and tied him to the Ku Klux Klan,” despite the fact that he neither owned slaves, nor held Klan membership (SC1268-f1-19). Because of what the Confederate army stood for, it is not surprising that many Black Houstonians wish to change the name of Dowling Street to something they feel does not represent slavery. At the time the statue was moved to Hermann Park, America was undergoing a tremendous social change and a gradual re-envisioning of history. Since the Civil Rights movement the Civil War has become much more centered on the issue of slavery than of liberty and states’ rights. Although the growing focus on slavery might explain some of the reason why the statue was moved in 1958, it is hard to imagine that this gradual reinterpretation of history would have had such a tangible effect so early in the Civil Rights Movement, and so deep in the South. While Confederate statues might conjure up strong convictions about slavery and equality today, their effect was presumably more subtle in the 1950’s Deep South.
It is difficult to find a complete explanation for why Dowling’s legacy and statue have faded into relative obscurity. Andrew Forest Muir makes clear that if it were not for the Battle of Sabine Pass, assisted greatly by Dowling’s role, “most of Texas would have returned to the bosom of the United States” (Muir 192). In describing his role at Sabine Pass, Laswell points out as well, “Texans can be grateful to him” (Monument Association Scrap Book pg. 9). Although there are some minor setbacks in the Davis Guard’s heroic story (such as the complete incompetence of the Union army during the battle and the desertion of many Confederate troops after the battle) as well as Dowling’s legacy (he pled guilty to two counts of selling liquor on Sundays), the story of Dowling and the Davis Guard is truly a story a great courage and sacrifice, on par with the heroic stories of the Alamo. All In all, I conclude that the growing negative perceptions of the Confederacies intents, in fighting the Civil War, caused the legacy of Dowling to diminish in collective memory.
Obviously, more research needs to be done on this topic. To further our quest to figure out why the statue was moved to Hermann Park, and to discover why Dowling’s legacy has faded, many questions need to be answered about Dowling’s story and the years following the erection of the statue. For instance, it would be interesting to know if Dowling is taught as a part of Texas history in the public school system. Similarly, it would be important to know if Dowling’s status as a non-native son had any influence on his lack of prominence in Texas history. Lastly, Laswell talks about the “tight-lipped, pursed mouth element in Texas” (Monument Association Scrapbook Pg 9) as enemies of the Dowling legacy. It would be interesting to know who these people are that she is referring to, and what influence they have had on the reproduction of Dowling’s legacy and the movement of his statue.