When I was in elementary and middle school, I learned that Abraham Lincoln was a defender of racial equality, fighting the “evil South” and their backwards institution of slavery.  However, primary documents from Lincoln affirmed that he was not the white knight of Emancipation, but a flawed man who held many of the racist views of his era.  One must remember that Lincoln was a politician first, and preserving the Union was his first goal.  If the Union could have been saved without Emancipation, Lincoln would never have freed the slaves.

In his speeches during the Senate Election of 1858, Lincoln stated that he WAS NOT in support of freeing slaves in places where slavery already existed.  He said, “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” (Document 1).  In fact, he believed that whites were inherently superior to blacks.  The races were so entirely different that he could not see them peacefully existing together.  The power to emancipate slaves lied with the state government, not with Congress or the Presidency.  And as a member of the state legislature, Lincoln stated, “I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes” (Document 2).  It is hard to think that the man remembered by young children for freeing slaves held such vehemently racist views just five years before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

What Lincoln supported was the Republican platform that slavery should not expand into new territories acquired by the United States.  The fact that the United States was a country founded on the principles of civil liberties, yet allowed the spread of a system that denied humans their basic rights to exist was hypocritical.  The United States could not be the leading democratic power, yet allow the institution of slavery to enter new states.  However, the South misunderstood Lincoln’s antagonism towards the spread of slavery as a move to end the system entirely.  Lincoln tried to assuage that fear, “You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us” (Document 5).  Lincoln could not convince the South that he was only against the expansion of slavery, and the South seceded from the Union.

Even during the early years of the Civil War, slavery was not a key cause of the war and the thought of emancipation was not even entertained.  Once Lincoln considered the idea of freeing the slaves, he believed they could not peacefully remain in the United States.  He initially proposed that they return to Liberia, their “homeland,” where they would be free with others of their race.  When that proved to be too expensive, he suggested they form a colony in Central America.  If Lincoln could have reunited the Union without resorting to emaciating the slaves, he would have done so.  But as it became clear that the North and the South would not resolve their issues, he entertained the idea of freeing the slaves.  While he did not believe that the Federal government necessarily had the power to demand emancipation, the main role of the government was to preserve the Union.  And when that required the freeing of slaves, the Federal government issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

While Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863, he did not do it because he was the great humanitarian who opposed slavery.  It was merely the only option to reunite the waring states.  Lincoln wrote in 1862, “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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union” (Document 8).  Lincoln was simply a politician, trying to save his country from any more bloodshed.  To claim he was a great humanitarian is a lie, to state he was a great politician is a truthful statement.

The stance that Abraham Lincoln takes on the issue of slavery is one that when viewed in its own right, makes ethical and logical sense. He intends to gradual free the slaves, stating, “It saves
them from the vagrant destitution which must largely attend immediate emancipation in
localities where their numbers are very great; and it gives the inspiring assurance that
their posterity shall be free forever.” He also talks of compensation in one of his articles in his address, believing it to be fair and just. However, when one looks at his views on race, a very different picture is portrayed. He says that, “There is a
physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid
their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a
necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the
contrary…” His plans even include possibly sending the black population back to Africa. A great example is when he holds a conference with a black group, telling them he planned to colonize Central America with them, using at least twenty five “tolerantly intelligent men.” Clearly, he did not have a view of equality. These two different views are incredibly different it seems, though Lincoln seems to have more pity than respect for the slave population. He even says himself that although the African population is inferior in his eyes, “I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing.”
This is an interesting position to take, especially when a large portion of the American population thought of Lincoln as someone who was against racism. In reality, he was against slavery specifically; not the equality of the races themselves. This must have been a popular or respected view of slavery from many people at that time. It was not yet close enough to the Civil Rights Movement to have a decent majority of the population advocating for total equality, but there must have been some against slavery like Lincoln was. Lincoln specifically addresses at least three times that he has been viewed as someone who loves black people and would marry them, but he wholeheartedly refuses this view. He still views them as inferior, he reassures. It brings to question the exact motives of abolitionists in general. Exactly how many were there, and even more interestingly, how many were advocates for total equality; not just in the removal of slavery, but also in the equality of race? If the president had this view, then there must have been a substantial amount of followers to this point of view. One must wonder when racial equality started to really take off as a majority, not just anti-slavery. However, despite Lincoln’s obvious racism, he did mark himself in history as taking one of the first and most important steps to equality: by abolishing slavery.

Throughout his entire political career, Abraham Lincoln has held many progressive as well as many cautiously conservative views regarding the issues of race and slavery. Lincoln’s political stance on slavery, prior to first shots at Fort Sumter, was that slavery should be permitted to exist, but should not be allowed to expand from its current areas of existence. He stated in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 he has “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” Although he claimed to have no inclination to eliminate the institution of slavery, Lincoln clearly was opposed to the institution, publicly declaring it a “monstrous injustice.” Accordingly, Lincoln had many different reasons for being opposed to slavery, as outlined in his various speeches and letters. One of the main arguments Lincoln makes is that all people, regardless of race or status, are entitled to the “natural rights” outlined by the Declaration of Independence, namely: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Logically, his moral-political belief about equal access to natural rights stands in stark contrast with the institution of slavery. Additionally, Lincoln criticizes slavery because “it deprives our republican example of its influence on the world.” As was discussed by Chandra Manning, like many other Unionists, Lincoln saw slavery as a glaring point of hypocrisy that blemished America’s shining example of democracy. Lastly, Lincoln opposed slavery because, as an institution, it causes men to place “self interest” over the ideal of “civil liberty.”

Although Lincoln sees slavery as an impediment to his political and social ideal, he does not see continual black subjugation as an issue standing against his beliefs in natural rights. Although he wishes to see everyone with the right to life, liberty, and happiness, he is not for promoting civil rights for African Americans. As he states in the Lincoln-Douglas debate, Lincoln is “not in favor of negro citizenship” and he stands by the law that “forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” The bulk of his opinion regarding race can be summed up by his speech at Charleston, Illinois where he stated that “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.” It is clear that Lincoln does not believe that the black and white races are, can, or ever should be, equal. It is this sentiment that distinguishes Lincoln from radical abolitionists.

It is apparent then that Lincoln’s view of slavery was influenced by his inferior view of the black race. He initially did not promote the outright end of slavery because he believed that free blacks and whites could not exist on equal footing due to innate “physical” differences between the two. While pondering the question of what to do with the large enslaved population, Lincoln asks “ what next? free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals?,” replying, “my own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.” The fear of creating a black social class that could potentially gain equality with the white race was a fear that most whites, including Lincoln himself, were greatly disturbed by. Additionally, the issue of slavery, an issue inextricably tied with race, was tearing the county apart and causing untold hardship. In meeting with a group of black men, Lincoln outright admitted to the group that “our[s] [race] suffers greatly from your presence.” He even goes further to tell them that to reject the creation of a black state and to choose to live among whites would be “extremely selfish.” It was this segregationist sentiment that drove Lincoln, and many of his supporters, to look for a viable way to deal with slavery by creating a free black country outside of United States. In contrast, Lincoln holds that “emancipation, even without deportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and, very surely, would not reduce them.” Whether he actually believes this, or made this statement for pure political effect, Lincoln does not believe that the infusion of millions of African American workers into the job market would have any negative economic impacts for whites. This positive economic view regarding race relations influenced Lincoln’s push to end slavery. In essence, having the institution of slavery presented the political-moral issue of denying human beings natural rights, rights which Lincoln believed that people of all races should have. It was this belief, coinciding with the belief that slavery further perpetuating the conflict between the north and the south, that drove Lincoln’s ideology regarding slavery. In contrast, Lincoln’s doubts about the capabilities of the black race  also brought up painful questions about coexistence and equality. Lincoln’s prejudice of African Americans and concerns about coexistence also worked to delay emancipation until Lincoln felt it was absolutely necessary for victory.

The first article I looked at was from the Houston Chronicle from February 14, 1960, hidden in the Sunday Texas magazine.  The article entitled “Hero of Sabine Pass” was a brief biographical sketch of Dowling.  The article rambled for a bit, mentioning the Battle of Galveston and how the author’s great granduncle served as the commander of the Bayou City after it was recaptured by the Confederates.  The most interesting thing for me about this article was the voice it was written in.  It was clearly written by someone who was a descendant of Confederate soldiers (which the author stated) and treats the Union disdainfully.  The North was only referred to as the Yankees and the most intriguing fact about them was that Major General William B. Franklin gained the reputation of being “the first American General. . . who managed to lose a fleet in contest with land batteries alone.”

My second article was also from the Houston Chronicle, in the Society section of the August 25, 1929 edition.  When I first saw this article on the microfilm, I must admit that I felt considerably overwhelmed by its length.  However, “Dick Dowling, War Time Hero, Sleeps in Unmarked Grave” provided a great insight into the Battle of Sabine, as well as the author’s displeasure that Dowling’s grave was unmarked.  The first few sections on the article claimed it was a travesty that Dowling and other Houston pioneers laid to rest in St. Vincent Cemetery had no grave markers.  She, along with Houston historian Ingham H. Roberts wanted the Dowling monument moved to the cemetery after the transition to the new City Hall.  The article proceeds to accolade Dowling and his men’s performance at Sabine Pass, citing eyewitness accounts from both the Federals and Confederates.  The most interesting thing was the speech given by Dowling when it was clear that they would be attacked.  Dowling stated that since he was filling in for their ill captain, he did not want to feel responsible for their deaths or capture.  One of his men replied, “Oh hell Leftenant, I’d rather fight than walk back in the hot sun to Sabine City.”  After this point, Dowling ordered his men to man the guns against the Clifton, the Sachem and the Arizona.

What really interested me in this case was the difference in perspective on Dowling that existed from 1929 to 1960.  In 1929, veterans from the Confederate army were still alive and the author was eager to keep the memory of Dowling alive as the number of living soldiers dwindled.  For her, it was only fair that the “boy hero” who saved Texas from Yankee invasion be properly memorialized.  The 1960 article seems haphazardly thrown together, providing basic information about Dowling and the Battle of Sabine Pass.  There’s no clear purpose for the article beyond reminding Houstonians of Dowling’s existence and the role he played in preserving Texas.  However, it was hidden in the very back of the Sunday Texas magazine.  Both articles are not entirely clear on their facts, the 1929 one specifically because the author did not have much access to records on Dowling’s early life.  After reading both these articles, especially “Dick Dowling, War Time Hero” makes me wonder how many Houston pioneers have also been “lost” to Houstonians?  I personally had not heard of Dowling before this class (but I am not originally for Houston, or any Confederate state for that matter) and initially wondered how we could spend so much time on him.  These articles made it clear that Houstonians have not necessarily done the best job of preserving their heroes, and it makes me how many others have be forgotten about to all except a few Houston historians?

In the first newspaper I looked through I found it extremely difficult to locate anything on Dick Dowling. But after the fifth time reading through, I saw a familiar name in the corner of a map, labeling the locations of some new houses. The name was Dowling Street, right in the center of a circle of brand new houses. The Medallion Houses were part of a week-long display of brand new housing around the area of Houston. Unfortunately, I could not find anything different said about Dowling, the monument, or even Sabine Pass in this article. However, I did find some pictures and stories that reminded me a lot about the battle itself. The nation was in the middle of sticky relations with China, and found itself defending some small Pacific Islands off the coast of China, and similar coastline areas. One of them was a certain strait. This reminded me somewhat of the battle of Sabine Pass due to its relation of defending a pass of water by land. Communism was on the rise, references to the “Reds,” were incredibly common throughout the paper, and the city of Houston had just been recovering from a problem with the schools, seeing as there was an article about thousands of kids finally coming back to school that Monday. Five new schools were being built, a Mexican labor strike had been going on, and references to certain people either being accused of or being proven innocent of communism, suggesting the end of McCarthyism was just about ready to come. All in all, there was not much mention of the Civil War, Dowling, or Sabine Pass at all that I could find. This might suggest that the city of Houston was just preoccupied with other things around this time. Homages were being paid to local judges and people, however, that made me think Houston had a history of treating its people well, and recognizing dedicated people.
List B gave me a much larger article specifically about Dowling, his Irishmen, and the battle of Sabine Pass. It was mainly a commemoration to the heroes of Sabine Pass, recognizing Dick Dowling as its main figurehead. It described the battle itself, and how they stood against “10,000 men,” and took “150 prisoners,” without one of Dowling’s men being seriously injured. The article also described a recent ceremony that had taken place with the presentation of a prestigious medal to Dick Dowling’s daughter, Miss Annie Dowling. The article also mentioned other people in the regiment, including Captain White, who was part of the Houston city police force. They likened the battle to Thermopylae, the Alamo, and to the battle led by Horatius Cassius in Rome. Later, Jefferson Davis came as a guest, and the ex-governor gave a speech about Dowling and the heroes of Sabine Pass. It was interesting to read about such a ceremony, especially with Dick Dowling’s actual daughter. It makes one wonder why it took so long to give the medal and recognize the accomplishment. However, the notion clearly showed the pride that Houston and Texas had for Dick Dowling, and for the Confederacy itself. The honor and glory of that battle and defending and sacrificing oneself for the nation was spoken of very highly. There were some references to a lot of new bills and government-related topics throughout the newspaper, which suggested that the tension between the North and the South was smoothing over. Grain and livestock were talked about a great deal, and not too much mention about anything foreign. The nation was repairing itself, and the South was thanking its veterans for their sacrifices.
All in all, reading through these newspapers was a very edifying experience. It gave a lot of information about not only Dick Dowling, but about how he was perceived throughout the course of time, and how memorials and commemorations are born and maintained throughout time as well. I still wonder why the commemoration was so late, and I wonder if it was his daughter that helped to erect the statue in his honor. One thing I found interesting in the article from 1889 was that the number of soldiers in that battle changed even in the article. One moment its 10,000 and some gun boats, another moment its 15,000. It is interesting to see this exaggeration of the battle and the lack of details, such as the fact that they really only battled 2-3 gunboats. However, it is a battle to be proud of indeed, and one that is still remembered today.

*** After many hours of searching, I could not find mention of Dowling in the Houston Post, September 8, 1958. I decided then to use instead the Houston Chronicle issue from that day, an issue we had discussed in class but agreed needed some more context. The article is called Birds-Eye View “An interview with the hero who saved us from invasion,” by Sigman Byrd***

The first article I scanned was a Birds-Eye View editorial piece by Sigman Byrd entitled: “An interview with the hero who saved us from invasion.” In this article, Byrd holds a somewhat humorous and biting pseudo interview with the posthumous spirit of Dick Dowling. In the interview, Dowling complains about the poor placement of his statue, the continual theft of his “shillelagh” and the annoying pigeons that perch near his statue. Beyond the silliness of the article, Byrd exhibits a very biting and cynical view of modern Southern society, including the way that most Southerners celebrate history. First of all, the title of the article does not state that Dowling was “the hero who saved the Confederacy” or “the hero that saved the South from the Union army,” but the headline describes Dowling as the “hero who saved us.” Byrd believes that Dowling has the same right, if not more of a right, to be a Texas hero than Sam Houston. He even criticizes Houston as being disloyal to the South and betraying Christian values. Overall, it is clear that Byrd recognizes the declining prominence of Confederate heroes; therefore, he tries to sell Dowling as more of a Texas hero, by calling him our hero. Additionally, Byrd is very critical of the shifts in Southern society that have led the legacy of Dowling into obscurity. In the interview, he tells Dowling that “times are changing, the South is being robbed of her rights again, like the Confederacy was.” Describing the conditions of the South as those that sparked the Civil War is a very bold attack on progressivism. Byrd definitely shows that he is one of the many conservative Southern voices that were active during the radical social changes of the 1950’s and 60’s. In this article, Byrd uses historical remembrance as base line to preach the importance of maintaining conservative and religious values in the South.

Similar to Byrd’s Dowling article, Byrd also wrote an editorial two days later about another unsung, Texas, Irish-Catholic hero named John Green Hanning. Although the details of the article aren’t very important to Dowling’s legacy, Byrd’s tendency to write about strong religiously oriented Texan figures is integral to understanding the context of the Dowling article. In this second editorial, Byrd also calls upon Texans to learn more about local figures with deep ceded religious values like Hanning. In all, it is clear that Byrd tends to use historical characters–with clear Christian values–to further his conservative agenda.

The second article I found, the one from list B, is a short article from The Confederate Veteran. This article, entitled “Heroes of Sabine Pass,” outlines one attempt of a UCV historian to create a “revised roster” of the heroes from the Battle of Sabine Pass. As has been discussed in many of the documents from the Houston Public Library Digital Archive, the acknowledgment of the exact heroes of the Battle of Sabine Pass has been a point of contention for many different memorial groups. Without providing any methods or modes of evidence for how this historian came up with this “revised roster,” it is difficult to know where this source of information came from. Although it claims to use the accounts of two survivors of the Battle (Drummond and O’Hara), the question of who is a hero and who is not, is an extremely subjective topic. As such, this simple article serves to raise more questions than it answers about who the real heroes of Sabine Pass were.

In my blog post on Dick Dowling, I wondered what happened to the men who served under Dowling at Sabine Pass after the war.  While this post will not focus on this question, I would like to acknowledge that this question was partially answered by the Dowling archives at the Houston Public Library.  For example, the Historical Souvenir book of the Dowling Camp lists members of the Davis Guards, especially those who died in 1925 when the book was published.  The writings of the Dick Dowling Monument association also attempted to find out the backgrounds of Dowling’s men, contacting former solider and eliminating the names of soldiers who deserted the Davis Guards after the Battle of Sabine Pass.

While it would be really fascinating to uncover the backgrounds of all of the members of the Davis Guards who served at Sabine Pass, what I found interested while I browsed the archives on the Houston Public Library’s website was the emphasis on Dowling’s Irish background.  When the Confederacy fell out of favor in the United States, Dowling fell into complete obscurity in the city that he saved from Union occupation.  However, the focus on his Irish heritage is important; the Davis Guards were mainly Irish immigrants from Houston and Galveston.  The statue commemorating Dowling and the Davis Guards was funded both by Irish heritage groups as well as Confederate veterans.  And the monument’s dedication occurred on St. Patrick’s Day in 1905.

When the Confederacy fell out of favor in the United States, it was Irish heritage groups that took over the mantainance and preservation of the Dowling monument in Houston.  Articles preserved in Neta V. Taylor’s scrapbook demonstrated the United Confederate Veterans’s dedication to the preservation of the statue and Dowling’s memory, many of the articles focus on Dowling’s heritage rather than his heroism at Sabine Pass.  In The Houston Post’s August 23, 1958 article “Dowling’s 5th Sword Missing,” the author writes, “Perhaps somewhere in a fern-banked dell in Ireland there may be a cache of rusted swords” (Page 4).  Almost all of the articles on the disappearing swords of Dick Dowling somehow mention Ireland.

By the late 1960s, it is clear that Irish heritage groups are the ones who are caring for Dowling’s monument.  In 1989, “The Dick Dowling Irish Heritage Society” was created to help preserve the statue.  President Larry Miggins stated in his introductory letter, “My family and I have cleaned the statue for the past twenty years and I can vouch for its deteriorating condition” (RGA33-b2f23-22).  For Miggins and others, it was clear that an Irish heritage society would need to adopt the monument to prevent it from deteriorating further, allowing Dick Dowling to fall into further obscurity.  Together with the Houston Municipal Art Commission, the Dick Dowling Irish Heritage Society had the statue refurbished and dedicated at Hermann Park on March 17, 1997.

It is understandable why Dick Dowling chose to serve in the Confederate military.  The Confederate cause was similar to the plight of the Irish, with the British attempting to suppress Irish culture and language during the 19th century.  It is noted in the speech given at the dedication ceremony that only 36% of native Irishmen knew the Irish language by 1851 (SC1268-f1-24).  Similarly, the American South was fighting against the Union who wished to restrict the expansion of slavery, their way of life.  For that reason, Irish men like Dowling and the Davis Guards were willing to fight vociferously for the Confederacy, despite owning no slaves.  This raises a question, why didn’t more Irishmen fight for the Confederacy, where they were respected as heroes?  While an obvious answer is that there was more industrial opportunity in the North, Dowling managed to find success in the Southern cities.  The Irish were treated with disdain in the North, viewed as intruders on the American way of life and hated for taking lower wage jobs from “true Americans.”  The Southern identity, especially during the Civil War was more on par with the Irish identity in relation to Great Britain.  So my question is, why did so few Irish men fight for a cause that they could truly identify with?

Initially, it seemed to me that the bulk of this information would be about the meetings concerning the placement, funding, and finances that went behind the building of the memorial for Dick Dowling. It still remains true that there was a great wealth of information on things of that nature. One example includes some financial records of the statue, from the source code SC1268-f2-06 on the Houston Library Digital database. In this we see the records of some financial discussion. Its these kind of primary sources that will really help us discover why the statue was founded and under what circumstances, as well as who was involved and what kind of actions were taking to erect the statue. This will answer a lot of the questions we had about the statue from the first observation of it in the park.

However, another interesting thing I found within the archives of the Dowling statue records were gatherings and acknowledgments that were recorded after the statue itself was erected, such as some documents in the 1960’s and 1980’s. For example, one record we have of the statue after its erection is found in the souvenir book from 1984. We can see in page four of this book that a few acknowledgements are made to people that kept the history of the statue alive. I find it very interesting to see not only who kept the history of the statue, but also why. One must ask what the motivation was for this. Its possibly that the people were related to the original founders of the statue in some way. The souvenir book also quotes Jefferson Davis’ admiration of the statue as well. It’s very interesting to see how people have preserved and spread the knowledge of that history throughout the century.

Another interesting document I spotted was the invitation to a celebration of Jefferson Davis’ birthday. It was actually the “Mint Julep Party of the Dick Dowling Camp,” that held the party in observance to Jefferson Davis’ birthday. It is held in the home of Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Moers. One must wonder why the camp would recognize Jefferson Davis’ birthday, as well as why the Moers held it at their house. It’s even interesting to question why the birthday is being held even in 1980. I find it very interesting that the birthday is celebrated for almost 100 years by the Dick Dowling camp, and it makes me wonder who was invited as well.

The presence of these more recent documents citing the older events makes it very interesting to wonder how and why these memories have lasted so long. Who is keeping them alive? How is it being celebrated today?  These kind of questions can really help relate the past to the future and connect the two together. It would be interesting to look for indications of the party and camp today, as well as when the last celebration was.

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 20^th 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.

In “Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise,” Gary Kornblith speculates how American history would have proceeded had Henry Clay and Whigs won the presidential election of 1844 instead of James Polk and the Democrats.  Kornblith points out that one of the main issues of that election was the annexation of Texas, he argues that this was not the reason for Clay’s defeat in 1844.  Rather, it was a high immigrant voter turnout in New York that gave Polk the edge over Clay.  Had something diminished that voter turnout, Kornblith believes American history could have turned out very differently.

The first main difference in the Clay presidency is a lack of westward expansion.  While Clay had once been a war hawk, he feared that the “Annexation and war with Mexico are identical. Now, for one, I certainly am not willing to involve this country in a foreign war for the object of acquiring Texas.”  He was not entirely against the annexation of Texas but refused to do so at the cost of American lives or the stability of the Union.  If the United States allowed Texas to develop into an independent republic, Texas would be a strong ally.  Based off of his position on Texas, a Clay presidency would likely have ignored California as there would be no war with Mexico.  Even with the discovery of gold in California in 1848, Clay would have been apprehensive as adding states to the Union would increase sectional tensions.  Since Kornblith argues that a Clay presidency would have avoided a war with Mexico, his term would have focuses on the revitalization of the economy and the creation of a new federal bank.

Kornblith proceeds to claim that Clay’s policies would have created a two party system, where Congress was divided along party lines would have curbed sectionalism.  Had the Democrats and Whigs been so staunchly divided in Congress, voters would have developed allegiances along party lines, rather than along the issue of slavery.  The debates would be over economic policy and tariffs, instead of expansion of slavery into newly acquired territory.

The end result of Clay’s presidency would have been that the reasons for the emergence of the Republican Party never truly would have occurred.  If there was no territory for slavery to expand into, there was no need for a party with the platform to halt slavery’s expansion.  In fact, many would have supported a gradual abolition of slavery.  However, there would be not plan for its complete eradication and many southerners would be unable to entirely do away with that establishment.  Without sectionalism and an extreme event to end the system of slavery, slavery would have occurred well beyond the 1860s.  In the end, Kornblith’s argument is that it would have been hard for a Civil War like event to have occurred with the westward expansion that resulted from the Mexican American War.

While I find Kornblith’s progression of events through the counterfactual method, I find it hard to believe that simply changing one major event would prevent sectionalism from fomenting.  Everything that Kornblith has laid out seems far too neat and too far divergent from American history.  There are many “what-if” questions that could be asked about James Polk’s presidency and the ruling power of the Democrats.  However, there is no position on how a small change in Polk’s policy could have affected the course of American history.  Kornblith does effectively prove that the North and South were not so fundamentally different that a Civil War over slavery would have unquestionably occurred.  However, the mere speculation of events and creation of an alternate history for the United States seems less academic and effective than one based in facts.