Confederate emancipation, as portrayed by Levine, was not at all the same notion as Union emancipation.The Confederate’s version of emancipation was not nearly as comprehensive or far-reaching as the Union’s notion of emancipation. Despite the differences in their concepts of emancipation, though, the Confederate and Union’s reasons for emancipation were surprisingly similar.

Most Confederates did not even entertain the idea of emancipation for quite some time during the Civil War, and, even the emancipation Levine describes is not exactly emancipation in the sense that it was used by the Union. When they began advocating emancipation, the Confederates essentially were considering allowing some slaves to earn their freedom by fighting on the battlefield in uniform. The idea was that slaves would be just as motivated to fight on the Confederate side as they were on the Union side because these slaves would know that a Confederate victory would assure them freedom.

This notion of emancipation was very different from that portrayed in the First and Second Confiscation Acts, where Lincoln was freeing slaves only if they were the property of southerners who were actively fighting against the Union. It was even more opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation, that freed any slaves in Confederate territories no loner occupied by the Union (at least that’s what it claimed to do on paper). Both of the Union notions of emancipation were at their core distinct from the Confederate’s because, the way the Union saw it, slaves would not have to do anything to earn their freedom. Furthermore, emancipation on Union terms was much more far-reaching. While the Confederates argued freeing just a few slaves–the bare minimum required to give them a military advantage on the front lines–the Emancipation Proclamation freed all of the slaves in any area under Union control, not just a select few. By those terms, if anything, the Confederate concept of emancipation was most similar to the First and Second Confiscation Acts, which did not emancipate all of the slaves in an area, but rather emancipated on an individual basis (the actions of the slaves’ owners). The Confederate and Union’s visions of a the future of an emancipated slave were also different. Confederates were still very concerned with preserving the social hierarchy associated with slavery, and so they sought to simply assure “a minimum amount of black liberty” (109). While the life of a free black in the Union was not nearly as democratic as it could be, there were many more opportunities in the Union for free blacks and former slaves to build communities, be employed and, in a few rare cases, even make a fair amount of money. Furthermore, documents such as the Emancipation Proclamation did not just free the slaves, it also allowed them to enlist in the military forces, which was putting blacks more on equal footing with whites. Lastly,  the Confederates’ version of emancipation included compensation to slave-owners for the slaves they sent in to battle. While Lincoln did entertain the idea of compensating slave-owners for the slaves the Union emancipated, ultimately, neither the confiscation acts nor the Emancipation Proclamation contained such provisions.

However different the Confederate and Union concepts of emancipation were, though, the two sides did have somewhat similar reasons for entertaining the idea of emancipation: military strategy. Just as the Union realized how useful slaves were to the Southern war effort in terms of providing labor and other services to Confederates, the Confederates were realizing that they had this whole untapped resource of potential soldiers. As the war raged on, the number of Confederate troops dwindled while the number of Union forces swelled–partly because the Emancipation Proclamation allowed the enlistment of black soldiers–and, in order to preserve their chances of winning, some Confederates entertained the idea. Confederates also realized that slavery was a source of weakness to their army because slaves were running away and helping the Union effort by sharing Confederate military strategy. They hoped that emancipating slaves they enlisted would keep them loyal to the Confederate side (83).

I found it interesting that the first calls to use black troops came from within the cotton kingdom (58). At first glance, this seemed to me to be very strange: why would the areas that had the most slaves seek this version of Confederate emancipation? On another level, though, this makes sense. In areas where slavery was the most entrenched–the cotton kingdom of the South–there were so many slaves that if a few were allowed to fight on the Confederate side and then emancipated, they would still make up a very small portion of the total population of slaves. Slavery was so entrenched in these areas, that something like this would be much less likely to threaten it. In areas of the South where slavery was not quite as common, though, slave owners were already struggling to preserve the social hierarchy and hold on to their slaves. Allowing some slaves to fight in the war and then be emancipated could catastrophically upset the social hierarchy, which was, after all, the very thing that the war and the Confederate emancipation was trying to preserve.

Bruce Levine’s “Confederate Emancipation” relies heavily on the causal argument that the South’s lack of manpower forced Confederate generals and government officials to ponder the enlistment, and thus emancipation, of slaves. This cause and effect relationship is essentially the core of Levine’s argument. Levine begins the book by discussing General Patrick Cleburne’s proposal in December 1863 to “immediately commence training a large reserve of the most courageous of our slaves to become soldiers” (2). Furthermore, Cleburne added, “If we arm and train him and make him fight for the country…we should set him and his whole race who side with us free” (2). However, Levine notes that Cleburne’s proposal was not the first instance of Southerners advocating for the enlistment of slaves into Confederate ranks. Levine affirms that in 1861, following the Confederate victory at First Manassas, Richard Ewell informed Davis that “emancipating the slaves and arming them” was the only means to secure the defense of southern independence.  The Confederate government was not averse to the principle of utilizing slave labor; however, arguments for enlisting slaves were dismissed by the Davis administration until November 1864 (3). Levine argues that “battlefield reverses and erosion of popular morale of mid-1863 aggravated the Confederacy’s manpower problem” (24). Yet, Cleburne’s proposal of December 1863 fell on deaf ears, largely because Confederate fortunes improved early in the 1864 military campaign season. Levine notes “the sense of urgency that earlier had driven Hindman, Cleburne, and others to press the Confederacy to revise its policy against slave soldiers correspondingly eased” (29). However, “by the end of 1864, the situation had become desperate” as “southern armies had declined qualitatively as well as quantitatively” (30). Furthermore, Levine acknowledges that a year later, however, “the debate now burst out again, this time with far greater force and before a larger audience. Simultaneously, it reached much more deeply into the nation’s central governing circles” (31). Levine confirms “the swift deterioration of the Confederacy’s military situation after Atlanta’s fall in September 1864 helped jolt some politicians out of their complacency and break the legislative impasse” (110). Furthermore, “fewer and fewer Confederate partisans could ignore the seriousness of their country’s military predicament by the end of 1864” (111). In addition, attempts by Davis to persuade Britain and France to come to his aid and of rescuing southern independence through negotiations with the Union failed. Thus, “the final phase of the debate about arming and freeing slaves occurred against a backdrop of fading Confederate hopes and disappearing policy alternatives” (112). Public meetings in various sates, state governors, and newspapers began endorsing the measure of arming slaves. Levine notes, “undoubtedly encouraged by this tern, congressional supporters of arming slaves finally began to appear” (113). On February 10, 1865, Ethelbert Barksdale introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that would become the administration’s proposal (117). Signed into a law on March 13, this proposal did not empower the Confederate government to conscript or emancipate a single slave; rather, only “those slaves whose masters had already freed them would enter the prospective black companies” (118, 120).

Levine essentially argues that the South’s dire military and morale regressions in 1864 led many to consider the enlistment of blacks into Confederate armies. Thus, the Confederacy’s lack of manpower caused the Confederate government to pass a law enabling blacks to enter Confederate ranks. I find Levine’s causal argument persuasive to a certain extent. Levine does a very good job in conveying the linear relationship between the South’s lack of manpower and its decision to enlist slaves as the South’s commitment to this plan changed throughout time. However, the very nature of cause and effect arguments makes me cautious to perfectly accept his argument.

In his 1862 speech to Congress, Abraham Lincoln states that “we cannot escape history” (13). Indeed, the scruples of history and of historians have certainly gone over the words of Abraham Lincoln again and again. What the general American public remember of Lincoln is his height, his hat and his hatred of slavery, so when looking at these documents of his speeches and letters, it can be a bit startling to see his opinions on race in a modern context. His thoughts on race and one what to do once slavery is abolished can be hard to swallow if one places the perceptions of today on them. However, his thoughts, however shocking today, are a product of his time and were, in fact, quote progressive.

The concepts and problems attached to race did not appear until after the 16th century when they were quickly codified in the form of slave laws. Because the concept of race was created to define the institution of slavery and to make it palatable, the ideas of slavery and of race are inextricably linked together. When discussing slavery, Lincoln felt a need to justify his beliefs through his opinions on race difference, repeatedly stating that he did not wish to have a black woman for a wife (2, 4). There is a general tone of inevitable distinction between black and white, as though the two are more than a single species, and he staunchly believed that whites and blacks could not exist together as equals in the same country. His general support of the American Colonization Society and his desire to settle freedmen near Liberia is surprising given the previous failure of the Sierra Leone colony. While the moderate political statements he makes indicate that “social and political equality” would be impossible, he also feels that on some level blacks are equal to whites in some respects, certainly when it comes to unalienable rights (2, 4). To have freed enslaved people colonize a separate nation, in Lincoln’s mind at least, allowed a space where the former enslaved would be able to have their own rights on their own terms. There is no indication that Lincoln saw the freedmen he was talking to about colonization as American. Rather, they were a people from another nation who needed to be returned there, even if they had never lived anywhere other than America for generations.

Regardless of how it is read now, Lincoln’s beliefs on race and slavery were progressive for his time. Even indicating that an enslaved person might be equal in some respects was probably very startling for them. What modern readers may see ignorance or even racism in Lincoln’s words about what to do with the enslaved indicate his idealism for a better future for those that had been wronged by the nation he led.

Abraham Lincoln is so often touted as a bastion of equality and African-American rights that we often forget he was still a man of the 19th century. The Lincoln Documents on Slavery, even as they show that Lincoln was a forward-thinker and an integral player in emancipation, do an excellent job of reminding us that he was very much a product of his era. Lincoln does not mince words, as he states outright that “if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” (13) And yet he is also evidently racist, with “no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races” and favoring his race “having the superior position.” (1) These two sentiments, at first, seem incompatible; in fact, after reading the earlier documents I was almost surprised that the same Lincoln would later issue the Emancipation Proclamation. But Lincoln makes it very clear that, while he is convinced that white and black men cannot be equal, the institution of slavery is fundamentally wrong.

It seems that Lincoln primarily reconciles the differences between his opinions by suggesting that, while their different race makes them inferior, blacks are entitled to the same rights under the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln describes these rights early on as “the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns.” (1) In fact, Lincoln makes a point of choosing to leave blacks alone, rather than actively oppress or defend them, stating that rather than wanting “a negro woman for a slave” or “for a wife” he can “just let her alone.” (2) These ideas do seem to go hand-in-hand with his opinion of slavery – he calls it a “monstrous injustice” (5) – but Lincoln is also quick to point out that these are his personal opinions. He is a politician first, and acknowledges that there are many men among him who would disagree with his ideas. When he considers, hypothetically, freeing all the slaves and making them “politically and socially” equal to whites, he dismisses the concept not just because his “own feelings will not admit of” it, but also in consideration of “the great mass of white people” who would oppose it. (5) Lincoln also freely admits that the Southern people “are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we” (5), implying that the institution goes far beyond the borders of the South, even as it seems to be limited to that region. Despite hating slavery, Lincoln promises that “there is no cause for such fears” as the interference of a Republican administration with the South’s slaves, (6) and he defends the “constitutional rights” of Southerners “fully, and fairly.” (5)

Perhaps the clearest evidence of Lincoln’s inherent racism lies in his solution for the issue of race in America. Lincoln advocated colonization, at first suggesting freed slave should be sent to Liberia, “their own native land” (5) but then suggesting Central America in an official capacity when meeting with “a Committee of colored men at the White House.” (6) Lincoln claims that both races “suffer very greatly” from each other’s presence (7), and suggests that even free blacks could never truly be free in the United States given that “not a single man” of that race “is mad equal of a single” white man. (7) Lincoln does not even begin to pretend that it is possible for whites and blacks to be equal, and he so strongly believes that the two races are incompatible that his best solution is to separate them completely. And yet, Lincoln suggests this all in the hopes of achieving freedom for all blacks. His opinions are an odd combination, but Lincoln’s hatred of slavery and love of freedom were enough to allow him to seek a solution that, even with his tinge of racism, was radical for his time.

Lincoln’s ideas about slavery and race are inevitably intertwined. Lincoln acknowledges that the idea of perfect social equality between whites and blacks is nothing but a specious argument because of the significant differences between the two groups. For example, Lincoln notes, “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” (1). However, Lincoln argues, “there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”(1). Furthermore, Lincoln acknowledges that the black man is “as much entitled to these as the white man” (1). Lincoln admits that he believes the black man is not his equal in color, and perhaps even in moral or intellectual endowment; however, the black man is still entitled “to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hands earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man” (1). In response to allegations that Northerners wished to free slaves in order to marry black women, Lincoln contests that he has never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife, indicating that it is “quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes” (2). Lincoln summarizes his view on race, stating, “I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing” (2).

Lincoln regards slavery as a moral, social, and political wrong. Furthermore, Lincoln argues against  the institution of slavery because of “the monstrous injustice of slavery itself” (5). Lincoln continues, stating, “I hate slavery because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world–enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites–causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty–criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest” (5).

Lincoln’s outlook on race, although not one that promotes equality between the two races, heavily influences his attitude towards slavery. Although Lincoln believes that blacks and whites are not equal physically or intellectually; nevertheless, they deserve the rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. Thus, Lincoln criticizes slavery as it deprives blacks of these inalienable rights. Furthermore, Lincoln condemns slavery as it labels the United States as hypocrites to the rest of the world. This idea is directly related to Lincoln’s view on race as the Declaration of Independence created all men equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (4). Hence, if blacks are refused these rights, the United States appears as disregarding the principles of the Declaration. Another similarity between slavery and race is Lincoln’s belief that the war would not have occurred if slavery were nonexistent, and as a result, the two races should be separated. Lincoln himself strongly recommended that blacks emigrate as reducing “the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor”(9). Furthermore, Lincoln stresses that his goal is to save the Union, and “is not either to save or destroy slavery” (8). As Jocelyn points out, this didn’t make sense initially as Lincoln refers to slavery as an evil institution and is determined to prevent the spread of slavery. However after further thought, I believe that perhaps because of Lincoln’s belief in white superiority, he was not eager to free slaves, unless it benefitted the Union.

When we read Manning’s book at the beginning of the semester, I was surprised to see that just because a soldier or person was anti-slavery was not at all an indication that they believed in racial equality. This has been a prevalent enough theme in our subsequent readings that I was not exactly surprised to find that Lincoln, too, was an anti-slavery racist. At the same time, though, it is still very interesting to see how this person who is so celebrated for being anti-slavery and saving the Union and doing all of these great things for America was, at his core, very much a racist.

In every speech and article in the packet, Lincoln never once came close to suggesting that blacks and whites were in the slightest bit on equal footing. He repeatedly says that blacks are not his equals in moral or intellectual endowment. He believes there is “a physical difference between the two” that “will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.” (Doc #1) In 1858 particularly Lincoln is adamant that “I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” (Doc #2) Furthermore, Lincoln sees whites position as superior to blacks as the proper way of handling the social order, saying “while [blacks and whites] do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior.”(Doc #2) Naturally, according to Lincoln, the whites belong in the superior position, and, in 1858, he was not even in favor of granting free black persons citizenship.

As much as Lincoln believes that blacks are not equal to whites in many respects, though, he does believe that they deserve better than slavery. He says both in his speech at Ottawa in 1858 and in his thoughts on the Dred Scott decision in 1857 that  everyone “has the right to eat the bread…which his own hand earns.” He fleshes these ideas out further when speaking about the Dred Scott decision; while everyone is entitled to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” granting blacks these basic rights is far from the same as putting them on the same level of political and social equality as whites. (Although Lincoln does not mention it, this logic was not new and was currently already being applied to a group of people in the United States other than blacks. White women were absolutely considered to be entitled to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” but the idea that a white woman would have the right to vote, or hold a job, or do many of the things that a white man could do was seen as absurd at the time.)

While Lincoln is personally vehemently opposed to slavery and has never owned a slave himself, he is conflicted about what to do about the South’s peculiar institution. In his 1854 speech at Peoria, Lincoln does not blame the South for bringing slavery into the country, and he also recognizes that getting rid of slavery is exceedingly complicated. He repeats these sentiments at Alton in 1858, saying that while slavery is a moral, social and political wrong, at the same time, one must acknowledge the complications involved in abolishing it. Up until 1862, Lincoln does not really pursue any majorly abolitionist policies. He is against the further spread of slavery because he sees it as wrong, but, even in a letter he sends in 1860, he affirms that he has no intention of interfering with the South’s slaves. At that time, Lincoln views slavery as a matter over which the states disagree, but not something that needs to tear them apart. He says, “You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.” (Doc #6) Lincoln reaffirms in 1862 that “my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”(Doc #8)

With this object in mind, Lincoln tries many other solutions to the problem. My personal favorite was his idea to send freed slaves to colonies outside the United States. In 1854, he suggested they go to Liberia. He believes this so firmly that he even proposes colonization to a group of free black men in 1862, saying he has procured the funding to help them start a new colony in Central America. Lincoln’s argument to them is that “your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.”(Doc #7) To me, this seemed like a rather desperate last-ditch effort to save the Union without directly abolishing slavery. Instead, Lincoln could send the free blacks elsewhere, where they could have a better life, and white Americans could avoid confronting the race issues that were evidently tearing the country apart.

Even in 1864, in the wake of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln believes that he did everything possible to preserve the Union, and that getting rid of slavery was never his primary agenda. In his letter to Albert Hodges, he chronicles the various ways in which he attempted to save the Union without destroying slavery, and that he only turned to emancipation when it was clear that there would be no other way to successfully preserve the Union. Lincoln even cites incidents such as General Hunter’s attempted military emancipation as examples of how he tried so hard to both preserve the Union and preserve slavery.

The fact that Lincoln was both racist and anti-slavery, and yet fought so hard to preserve the institution of slavery where it existed, initially surprised me because I thought these points were completely irreconcilable. Upon further reflection, though, it started to make a little more sense. Although Lincoln believed slavery was wrong, he did not believe that blacks were entitled to the same rights as whites, and so perhaps he was not in the greatest rush to free them. Lincoln also recognized the extreme complications associated with abolishing slavery, and was adamant that abolition was not something that could be taken lightly. So perhaps Lincoln’s position is not so contradictory. As much as Lincoln wanted to end slavery, he was not willing to do so until he had come up with a specific plan. And, since he never really believed that blacks were on equal footing with whites in the first place, he did not have the same sense of urgency that some other abolitionists may have had.

My article from List A was from the August 23, 1968 edition of the Houston Post. Entitled “No Weapon: Dowling’s 5th Sword Missing,” it takes advantage of a recent theft of the statue’s sword to discuss the monument’s, and Dowling’s, history. It lists some of the people involved with the statue’s inception, including the Ancient Order of Hibernians and former City Councilman Tom Needham, and speaks of the statue’s history in front of City Hall, then in Sam Houston Park, and finally in Hermann Park. The author of the article, whose name was not listed, goes on to write of Dowling’s heritage: his immigration to the United States from Tuam, County Galway, Ireland to New Orleans, and then to Houston. The article’s brief description of the affair at Sabine Pass still highlights the overwhelming odds Dowling and the Davis Guards faced, and it even goes beyond the battle to point out that, not only was Dowling the proprietor of the Bank of Bacchus saloon, he was also “the first Houstonian to use gas lights and the first to drill for oil in Texas.”

I found two articles related to Dowling in my paper from List B, the September 16, 1863 edition of the Houston Tri-Weekly Telegraph. The first, an open letter on the front page from a Mr. Charles O. Otis, is a request for performers for a concert in honor of the Davis Guards. Otis refers to the Guards as “our gallant townsmen” and the “gallant company,” and certainly plays up their success even as he writes that “it is not necessary” for him to do so.

The second article from the Houston Tri-Weekly Telegraph was somewhat more informative, detailing the actual events at Sabine Pass for what seems like the first time, given the article itself claims that the information “need be no longer concealed.” The article actually details the strength of the Davis Guards as “six cannon and forty-two men,” and takes pride in the Davis Guards being Houstonians while praising their “greatest feat of the war.”

In the case of the article from the Houston Post, there definitely seemed to be a hint of snark in the author’s voice. The reference to leprechauns, and joking about the stolen swords in general, give the article a lighter tone. The article on the whole seems almost random, if not for the fact that the statue had been moved to Hermann Park “a few weeks ago,” and this was likely the first time the sword had been stolen from the monument’s new location. Not many of the events happening around the article seem to reflect on it; the paper and is filled with references to the Cold War and the arms race between the United States and the “reds.” Editions before and after discuss a recent election with a large turnout for liberals, which might mark a change in Houston’s leadership from those who might care most about a statue commemorating a Civil War hero, but probably didn’t affect the article too much. There is, however, a lack of the pride found in the older articles. It is also not as prominently featured in the newer paper, tucked away three sections into the paper in the local section, on the first page but surrounded by advertisements. The older papers seem to have been limited to two pages, yet they featured two articles on the Davis Guards.

One immediately obvious distinction between the 19th century articles and the 1958 one is that, in the more recent article, there is much more focus on Dowling himself, whereas the older ones do not even mention his name. In fact, the older articles play up the Irish heritage of all the Davis Guards much more as well, but it comes as much more of a surprise that the man who is commemorated by a monument in Houston was not even mentioned by the press so soon after the actual events at Sabine Pass. This just goes to show how, as time passes, we tend to glorify individual men, and attribute entire victories to their leadership, while forgetting the men under them who actually got the job done. Dowling’s statue may list the names of the Davis Guards, but the 20th century article barely even mentions them; there is even a discrepancy between their numbers, with the older articles counting forty-two men while the newer one references forty-seven. In all, it the articles evidence how much the perception of historical events can change over time.

The earliest of the two articles I read was a report on the unveiling of the Dick Dowling Monument that happened March 17, 1905, and the second dealt with the rededication and relocation ceremony on March 17, 1940. When I chose the two articles I was hoping for some sort of St. Patrick’s Day shenanigans, but the absolute focus on his Irish heritage would come at a later date. Both articles make reference to his heritage, noting the Order of the Hibernian’s role in building the monument in particular, but Dowling was regarded and accepted as a war hero so that this heritage did not take over either article.

The 1905 article is very lengthy and goes into all manner of details regarding the construction of the statue, the funding of the statue, and the history of the Battle of Sabine Pass. Veterans from the battle, or at least one, still lived, and there is a general sense of reverence for the bold Confederate soldiers. Interestingly, the article makes a strong assertion about the number of soldiers fighting at Sabine Pass:

There were in all forty-one of the Davis Guards, exclusive of the commander (a list printed elsewhere shows forty-two, but Peter O’Hara, who was a member of the Guards and whose name appears on the roster, was sick in the hospital and did not participate in the fight).

This assertion is later contradicted in the 1940 article:

Tribute was paid to the memory of Dick Dowling and his band of 47 Davis Guards who repulsed a far superior federal force at Fort Griffin in Sabine Pass on September 18, 1863

With the names of the soldiers printed on the side of the monument, how can there possibly be such a large discrepancy? Wikipedia claims there were forty-six soldiers excluding Dowling, and that is the number of soldiers listed on the base of Dowling’s statue (including the infirm Peter O’Hara). It is a minor point, but the 1905 article just seems so sure of itself that I find myself bemused by the apparent displacement of four to six men. The article makes other interesting mistakes such as calling Frank Tiech Frank Fiede, so perhaps the assertions of history in this article cannot be taken completely seriously.

Two influential men who were involved with the Confederacy, T. J. Goree and John H. Reagan, who, oddly enough, both died within a day of one another of pneumonia are mentioned in the governor’s speech at the unveiling. There is a general sense of nostalgia and reverence for the Confederacy, and whenever something regarding it was mentioned there was apparently “great applause” in the crowd. In a section describing the history of the monument itself, the Dick Dowling U.C.V. is described as being incapable of raising more than $300 or suceeding “in building a monument that would be either a credit to themselves or worthy of the magnificent deeds of heroism it was designed to commemorate.” In this narrative, the Irishmen come in with their abounding amounts of money and save the day, allowing for the funding for the monument. Despite the clear reverence for the memory of the Confederacy, the ability of the former soldiers is considered to be firmly in the past.

The old battle scarred veterans if left to their own resources would have secured a fund sufficient to have erected a very crude monument, but one that would have been neither an ornament to the city nor worthy of the brave deeds of that heroic band, the memory of whose deeds of heroism are worthy to be inscribed upon a monument that towers to heaven in proclaiming deeds of valor that have no parallel in history.

Much less filled with hyperbole, the article in the St. Patrick’s Day, 1940 Houston Chronicle describes a service held for Dowling following the movement of the memorial from in front of City Hall to Sam Houston Park. There is no mention of the Irish groups other than mentioning that Dowling “is held in reverence by the Irish,” and focus is very much on the U.C.V. and the U.D.C.’s memorial of Dowling. The article is placed in the middle of a page of general Texas state news, but it is the only article with an accompanying picture. The majority of the page is covered with an advertisement for Economy Shoe Corner, and much of the paper is filled with advertisements for various sorts of Easter clothes. World news focuses on figuring out what Italy’s role in the War is, and there does seem to be a general concern with events in Europe. While the concern about war may shift focus of Dowling away from his Irish heritage, it is not enough to eliminate Aunt Jenny’s St. Patrick’s Day cake recipe on the next page.

The two articles I read this week had very little in common except for their subject, which were both about Dowling, but the context of each article within the larger newspaper was interesting.

The Houston Chronicle article, “Memory etched in stone,” was interesting to me because it was advertised very prominently: it made an appearance as a box on the front page of the Chronicle, as well as on the front page of the Houston section within the newspaper. The focus of most of the articles within this issue of the Chronicle were also on St. Patrick’s’ day, and both the article and the rest of the paper made very little mention of Dowling’s role as a confederate hero. Instead, they focused on Dowling as a figure in the Irish community. Although there is a sentence indicating the myth of the Sabine Pass battle (essentially 41 men vs. 5,000 Union troops), this is far from the focus of the article. Instead, the article chronicles the way in which citizens have tired to ensure Dowling will never be forgotten because of his importance to and relevance within the Irish community. Dowling is remembered more as an influential figure for his work within the Houston community than as a Confederate hero.

In the larger context of that issue, there would have been ample opportunity to explore Dowling’s Confederate ties, should that have been the wish of the author or editors. There is a great deal of discussion on the front page and farther within the issue of Val Verde, who was newly elected to a district in Texas despite his well-known connections to the Ku Klux Klan. The election of this figure at this time was particularly significant because he was elected within a prominently Hispanic district, which was previously thought to be more sensitive to such issues of race. Therefore, if the Chronicle had wanted to play up Dowling’s confederate roles or anything relating Dowling to the Civil War and  the inevitable discussion of racism that comes form that, they very well could have. However, they decided not to, which shows how, by 1997, Dowling was remembered far more as an influential Irishman and far less as a Confederate Hero.

The other article in the Houston Post came at a very interesting era in American history: the heyday of the civil Rights movement. On the front page of this issue, we see LBJ affirming the necessity of Civil Rights, and, throughout the paper, we see discussion of the burgeoning Vietnam war. Of more local interest is the fact that on that same day, Hobby gifted $350,000 worth of property to Rice. We also see Alabama’s governor Wallace reaffirming his commitment to maintaining segregation.

Against the backdrop of all of these events is a series entitled “Report from the Confederacy” which chronicles what happened that day in history in response to the Civil War centennial celebration that is taking place at the time. This article details the events of the battle of Sabine Pass. Once again, it glorifies the role Dowling and his men played in the Sabine Pass battle and discusses the insurmountable odds they were up against: 42 men defeating 5,000 Yankee infantry with minimal Confederate casualties. This article is clearly meant  as a morale boost to the Confederacy at this time; it plays up the incredible odds against which these people were fighting and further celebrates their victories. At the same time as the Sabine Pass victories were happening, the Confederacy was suffering huge losses on the astern front in Tennessee and Charleston, and so they very much needed the narrative of Dowling’s story to boost morale among troops at the time.

I found it very interesting that all of this was taking place against the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights movement did begin and reach its most important peak precisely at the 100-year mark of the Civil War, but it is very interesting to see these two commemorations interaction with each other; on one hand, you have the very progressive battles for Civil Rights in the nation and on the other side, you see the commemoration of a war that was fought with the express purpose of defending slavery. The juxtaposition of these two ideas is striking, and a point that may be worth further exploring.

My article from List A is dated March 16, 1985, and is from the Houston Chronicle. The article consists of a picture of the Dowling statue, attended to by the Miggins family, and a caption that describes the Miggins family as the statue’s primary caretakers. The caption states that the Miggins, an Irish family, have taken it upon their shoulders to make the statue a St. Patrick’s Day holiday tradition. Dowling is described as a Confederate hero of Irish descent. The photographer is mentioned as Howard Castleberry. The article is categorized under Metropolitan, which seems appropriate, as the metropolitan section of the newspaper would cover local news and events as well as human-interest articles. Thus, the placement of the article in the paper does not change the way I see the article, as the subject of Dowling is appropriate for local news. However, the article seems out of place regarding the context surrounding the article. The articles on the same page consist of one detailing the annual trips that the police chief makes and the other article reports that a city councilman does not believe the city should propose state legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination against homosexuals in Texas. Hence, the appearance of a picture of the Miggins family cleaning the Dowling statue along with a descriptive caption seems odd considering the surrounding context.

My article from List B is dated October 10, 1937, and is from the Houston Chronicle. Written by Mrs. Pearl Hendricks, this article attempts to explain the business agreement made 71 years ago between John M. Fennerty, J. Riordan, and Richard W. Dowling to engage in the leasing of Texas lands for the purpose of developing resources. The article mentions this as the first oil lease in Texas history and stipulates that Dowling probably served as the main financial benefactor of the business arrangement. The surrounding articles also contain information about oil deals and other natural resources. Hendricks’s article lends credence to the idea that Houston remembers Dowling for his business knowledge and role as a business pioneer. The article does mention Dowling’s role at Sabine Pass, noting, “his laurels won at Sabine Pass still fresh upon his brow”. Furthermore, this article acknowledges Dowling’s prominent bar business, referring to it as “the bank”. The article raises several questions, including the idea that Houstonians remember Dowling based on the surrounding historical context. For example, is Dowling mentioned for his business skills and role in the first Texas oil lease because of the surrounding oil hype and Texas Oil Boom? If, for example, the historical context would be related to Ireland, would articles referencing Dowling emphasize his Irish nationality? Essentially, my question becomes: does the historical context for the article affect what aspect of Dowling’s life becomes important and worthy of mentioning?