Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2007 Lasting Resonance: The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial's Influence on Two Northern Florida Veterans Memorials Jessamyn Daniel Boyd
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
LASTING RESONANCE: THE NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL’S INFLUENCE ON TWO NORTHERN FLORIDA VETERANS MEMORIALS
By
Jessamyn Daniel Boyd
A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2007 The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Jessamyn Daniel Boyd’s defended on March 26, 2007.
______Jen Koslow Professor Direction Thesis
______Michael Creswell Committee Member
______James P. Jones Committee Member
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Over the course of writing this thesis, I have become indebted to a few people, who provided their help, guidance, and support to make this possible. I have been fortunate to have a wonderful committee that willfully guided me through this writing process. Professor Koslow offered her time to help me sound off ideas, and her assistance to help me when I thought I would not be able to find certain records. Dr. Creswell also aided me in researching this project. His knowledge on the time period and generous editorial assistance was much appreciated. These two professors provided valuable insight and much appreciated support. Dr. James P. Jones, throughout my career at Florida State University, has been a guiding force, providing a wealth of knowledge and infinite support. I appreciate your time and assistance throughout this process. The archivists at The State Library and Archives of Florida and the staff at Legislative Services, Clerk of Courts, in Jacksonville, as well as the Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, were generous and kind in their assistance. Their timely responses and dedication to their work made my efforts that more pleasurable and encouraging. Lastly, my parents have given me the greatest support. My mother was always there to answer late night phone calls, listen to me read sections over the phone, and provide her criticisms and reactions. My father was supportive and loving, even when I may have been frustrated and exhausted. Their grace, love, and interest in everything I do are the foundations of this work, and all other works that I will ever do. Such support has been much appreciated.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………... v Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………. vi INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………… 1 THE NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL ………………………. 9 FLORIDA’S VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL: TALLAHASSEE ……...... 25 JACKSONVILLE’S VETERANS MEMORIAL WALL: A CITY’S NOBLE TRIBUTE…………..…………………………………………...………….. 43 CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………………………... 63 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………….. 67 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ………………………………………………………. 70
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Maya Lin,Vietnam Veterans Memorial,1982, Black granite, each wall: 246 feet long, 10 1/2 feet high, Washington, D.C., © the National Park Service. …………… 8 2. 2 images. The images are from the drawings for Maya Lin’s entry into the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund Design Competition. From: Lin, Maya Ying. Boundaries. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. ………….. 19 3. Drawing by James Kolb, submitted to the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs. Scanned image from original, 2006. ……………. 31 4. Vietnam Memorial Dedication, Tallahassee, FL, 1985. Photonegative: b&w ; 3 x 5 in. Date/place captured: Photographed on November 11, 1985. Florida Photographic Collection, State Library and Archives of Florida. ………… 35 5. Designs submitted by Traylor/Wolfe Architectural Firm. Scanned from copy placed with Jacksonville City Ordinance 95-395-60, 2007. …………...... 53-4 6. Current Map of Jacksonville City Council Districts. Note: similar to those of 1994- 1995. …………....56 7. Present Day Image of the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall. © Ruthie Deen, 2007. ……………60
v ABSTRACT When the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund adopted Maya Lin’s design proposal in 1981, the veterans’ non-profit organization and the young architect had no idea that the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial would ultimately change the perspective on traditional war memorials. From Lin’s design, a new tradition would arise placing the focal point of these memorials on the individual’s sacrifice and the names of the dead for proper commemoration. Today, when we reflect upon the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, many of us embrace its unique and lasting response to personal tragedy during the Vietnam War. As states and local communities began to reflect upon war and propose monuments and memorials following the national memorial’s dedication in 1982, their decisions were ultimately affected by this new approach to traditional remembrance. This work focuses on two cities in northern Florida, Tallahassee and Jacksonville. These two communities responded to Lin’s new approach while maintaining their own unique points of view. The memorial to be placed in Tallahassee would represent the state’s commemoration of its Vietnam War veterans, while the Jacksonville memorial would honor all the city’s veterans of 20th century military conflicts. This work examines the political and cultural effects of the national memorial on the two cities. The impact of Lin’s new focal point had parlayed itself from national, to state, to local levels. Thus, the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall were able to advance the idea of the traditional war memorial through the underlying influence of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
vi INTRODUCTION
When Maya Ying Lin designed a Vietnam War memorial for her funerary architecture course at Yale University in the spring of 1981, she had no idea that it would change the traditional perspective on national war memorials. As she wrote in an essay following the completion of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial that was later published in her book Boundaries, “I wanted to create a memorial that everyone would be able to respond to, regardless of whether one thought our country should or should not have participated in the war.”1 When the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund adopted Lin’s design proposal in 1981, Lin’s memorial set a new tradition for war memorials: the individual names of the dead would serve as the focal point for the commemoration. Lin argued that “these names, seemingly infinite in number, convey the sense of overwhelming numbers, while unifying those individuals into a whole.”2 Thus, through her artistic representation she attempted to respect individuality while at the same time evoke a sense of collective response. While Lin purposely crafted an ambiguous structure, its interpretation as seen through the expressions found in northern Florida memorials is less certain. Although it may not have been her original intention, her design for the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial enhances and embraces the importance of personal sacrifice for the nation. Today, when we reflect upon the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, many of us embrace the memorial as a unique and lasting response to personal tragedy during the Vietnam War. In 1982, its dedication had an impact throughout the nation, from inspiring candlelight vigils to motorcycle rides to veterans’ parades. America appeared to finally properly honor its Vietnam War veterans. Even if the public may not have understood or trusted the military decisions of its federal government during the war, by the time of the dedication of the national monument a consensus to honor and remember Vietnam veterans had emerged. This focus on the individual appears to have unified a nation following a time of controversy. However, Lin’s attempt to unify without playing to political whims had
1Maya Lin, Boundaries (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 4:09. 2 Lin, 4:05.
1 controversies of its own. Lin’s focus on individual names pushed the controversy of the memorial beyond that of spokesman for the war and the war dead toward the dead veterans themselves. The American public may not have been ready to confront the nation’s war dead so personally. True, there were tombs to the unknown soldiers of World Wars I and II, but these memorials remained impersonal, having the individual represent the whole by remaining nameless.
Historiography: 20th Century American Public Memory and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Historians must reexamine the concept and the meaning of a war memorial when the public perspective towards the event is challenging and oftentimes mixed. Shortly after the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated and established in public memory, historians began to delve into the symbolism and meaning in the memorial and its reflection on the Vietnam War and the American public. These works on Vietnam War commemoration have typically focused on the architectural style and symbolic representation of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. In her essay “A ‘black gash shame’ or ‘The wings of an abstract bird’?,” Joanna Price discussed “how the negotiation over meaning which has marked the production, signification and reception of the memorial [was] also part of a dialogue over the construction of, and relation between, public memory, History, histories, cultural memory and personal memories.”3 Price artfully related the national memorial to the production of public memory as well as attitudes towards “national, social and personal identities which resulted from the war and other challenges posed to consensus during the decades of and after the war.”4 Ultimately, Price demonstrated that the lasting heritage of the national memorial was its contribution to the collective memory. Price suggests that this contribution was its ability to bring closure. Where Price saw significance in memory, John Bodnar found significance in commemoration. Bodnar, professor of history at Indiana University, examines the development of public memory with key emphasis on the process of commemoration in
3 Joanna Price, “A ‘black gash shame’ or ‘The wings of an abstract bird’?” in Explorations in Cultural History, eds. T. G. Ashplant and Gerry Smith (London: Pluto Press, 2001), 141. 4 Price, 162.
2 his work Remaking America. Though he primarily focuses on lesser known monuments and sites in the Midwest and South for the body of his work, Bodnar discusses the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial, offering an interesting perspective on “official” memory and public memory: “Despite concessions to the demands of patriots and nationalists, the Vietnam memorial clearly represented the triumph of one set interests over another.”5 Bodnar argues that although it was possible to find themes of patriotism within the memorial, the overwhelming expression of grief of the dead and respect for the soldier surpassed the theme of patriotism, marking it for controversy. Yet, should one focus on patriotism or the individual mourning of the loss of life? Peter Homas poses this question as the main theme of the compilation of essays, titled Symbolic Loss: The Ambiguity of Mourning and Memory at the Century’s End: “How do the processes of mourning, ordinarily thought of as a response to the death of a loved other, also have validity for our understandings of culture, history, groups, and symbols?”6 In his essay, Levi Smith examines the National Vietnam Veterans memorial. Smith reflects on the individualization that the memorial presents through its listing of the dead on polished black granite, causing it to overshadow patriotic or national symbols to become a prominent and powerful new symbol “intensifying the beholder’s encounter with the remembered past.”7 Others have written on the development of public space and relationships in the community.8 Margaret Rose LeWare examines “when communities come together [through a shared memory] and how they come together [at a public space] …[develop] and foster the conditions which make community possible.”9 LeWare demonstrated that communities reflect shared memory, and by providing public space and artworks a community can grow and evolve. She strengthened this idea through her study on the
5 John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commeoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 9. 6 Peter Homas, ed. Symbolic Loss: The Ambiguity of Mourning and Memory at the Century’s End (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2000), (x). 7 Levi Smith, “Window or Mirror: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Ambiguity of Remembrance” in Symbolic Loss: The Ambiguity of Mourning and Memory at the Century’s End, ed. Peter Homas (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2000), 107. 8 Margaret Rose LeWare. “Public Space and Postmodernism: a rhetorical study of two contemporary works of public art” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1993) 9 LeWare, 4.
3 national Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s effect on Washington, D.C. Patricia L. McGirr takes a slightly different approach. McGirr explores the gender context of the national memorial and its influence and effects on the conflict surrounding its design.10 She approaches the monuments and memorials found on the Mall in Washington, D.C., from a masculine versus feminine perspective. She notes that previous war memorials and monuments contained masculine aspects, where the Vietnam Veterans Memorial contained more feminine elements.11 These elements included the Vietnam Veterans Memorial placement recessed into the ground and its V-shape. This recessed landscape, McGirr argues, explores a value and respect for the mother earth, a feminine deity. Ultimately, the aesthetic of the garden or landscape is contributed to the feminine perspective. In her essay, McGirr provides a new avenue of which to explore in terms of the historiography of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Each of these works approaches the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in a unique way, developing a cultural perspective on public memory. Yet, many place their concentration on the national memorial to previous monuments and memorials, rather than examining how the national memorial influenced subsequent Vietnam War memorials. Some scholars have examined this influence. In his article “Remembering Vietnam,” Michael Clark observes the influence of the national memorial on the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial and one that, at the time, was planned for Sacramento, California.12 Yet, why was the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial influential?
The New Traditional War Memorial: The understanding of the symbolism and abstraction of a national memorial to Vietnam War veterans became relevant topic to the American public following the said
10 Patricia L. McGirr, “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Landscape and Gender in the Twentieth Century” in Shared Spaces and Divided Places, eds. Deborah L. Rotman and Ellen-Rose Savulis (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2003), 62. 11 McGirr, 68-71. Interestingly, McGirr pointed out that these masculine elements were tied to “goals and achievements of the nation.” 12 Michael Clark, “Remembering Vietnam,” Cultural Critique Spring, no. 3 (1986): 69-77. Clark examines the forms of expression the two memorials chose. Each takes elements from the national memorial, and applies its own unique approach for its local audience.
4 memorial’s dedication. The proper or patriotic way to memorialize war had become more complex and personal. The Vietnam-war-era was a contentious time for the American public. Anti-war protests occurred on college campuses. People openly expressed opinions against the war. The conflict caused many people to distrust aspects of the media and question facets of mass culture. Yet, even through the protests and the anti-war sentiment, most Americans supported the government’s choice to go to war. How, then, does one commemorate a divisive and difficult subject? The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., appears to balance American grief and individual sacrifice with national remembrance. The Vietnam War represented a time of conflict and political change. Its memorial should be no different. Like the national memorial’s change from traditional to a more progressive approach to remembrance, each state had to find its own version of remembrance. Many states began planning and constructing their own Vietnam War memorials in response to the national memorial. Did this new approach to the war memorial affect any of the designs? In particular, how did Florida respond to the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, following its dedication in 1982? For each state, county, or city, geography, environment and political history all play key roles in a memorial’s conception and implementation. Would the location and size of the community affect the public’s response to a war memorial? Southern states, like Florida, had already experienced a collective defeat in the Civil War about a hundred years prior to the start of the Vietnam War. In all of these states, one can find evidence of Confederate remembrance all around. Some cities have Confederate monuments. Others express Civil War commemoration through living history or cultural activities. Some still fly Confederate flags. How would a southern state like Florida collectively memorialize the Vietnam War? In particular, how did northern Florida cities, such as Jacksonville and Tallahassee, relate the national memorial’s vision to its citizens? Were Florida lawmakers influenced by the controversy surrounding the design and construction of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.? How were Florida’s choices for its own Vietnam Veterans memorial shaped by its national predecessor? All these questions
5 ultimately will be answered through an examination of the political and cultural effects of the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial on two Florida cities. Within the panhandle region alone, there exist numerous memorials to the Vietnam War and its veterans. From Pensacola to Jacksonville, one can see the community responses to war and veterans. This may be because of the military presence, both in veterans and bases, found in the northern Florida region. In the last Census, Florida’s veteran population was 1,875,597, of which 525,167 were Vietnam War veterans.13 I will pay particular interest to two memorials in this region: the state Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Tallahassee; and the city of Jacksonville’s Veterans Memorial Wall. These two cities were chosen mainly for their proximity to each other, but also because both have unique histories. Tallahassee is the state capitol, an area that is supposed to represent the political ideals of the state. In 1985, Tallahassee was the first of these two cities to create a memorial similar to Lin’s in design and execution. Jacksonville followed a decade later, in 1995. Jacksonville represents the community level response to Lin’s new take on the traditional war memorial. Unlike Tallahassee, Jacksonville’s memorial was meant to reflect a city and its citizens. Also, the Jacksonville community acted later than other Florida cities did when proposing memorials. Jacksonville’s Veterans Memorial Wall was dedicated in 1995, ten years after the state memorial in Tallahassee was dedicated and 3 years after the “Wall South” was dedicated in Pensacola. The longer time between Lin’s memorial and the Jacksonville memorial’s dedication also leaves one wondering why a community with a military presence did not already have a city-sponsored memorial to the city’s war dead and military veterans. A case study on these two particular Florida cities will hopefully express the influence of the Lin’s National Vietnam Veterans Memorial at the community level. If Lin’s vision and message was so powerful to both war veterans and the American public on the national level, then a similar message on a more local level would and could develop a community response while honoring its citizen veterans. How did the city of
13 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2000 Federal Census, Veterans Brief, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2000) from the US Census Bureau website < http://www.census.gov/index.html>.
6 Jacksonville take Lin’s memorial design and make it their own? I believe that the process by which Tallahassee and Jacksonville utilized elements of Lin’s memorial while maintaining a traditional perspective to the war memorial are two examples of local translations of a national imperative. Therefore, it is prudent to discuss the development and impact of memorials in these two Florida cities to ascertain if there was any influence to be taken from Lin’s lasting impact on war memorials. Unlike the national memorial for which there are numerous detailed accounts of the controversy over the design and impression, no sustained public discussion has arisen over the state of Florida’s response to the national memorial. There is no scholarly discourse on the architectural symbolism or the timeline of the events, though explanatory information packets and guides do exist. This work will not be a detailed account of the controversy surrounding the design of Lin’s national memorial. There are many works that delve into the symbolism of Lin’s design and the political controversy surrounding her choices. If one would like an accurate account of the events leading to the creation of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Jan Scruggs and Joel Swerdlow’s To Heal A Nation provides a detailed account from the perspective of the creators of the memorial, for it was Jan Scruggs who founded the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and was influential in its quest for a national memorial. There has been little study on the development and inspiration of Vietnam War commemoration at the state and local level in Florida. In this work, the relationships between the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial, in Tallahassee, will be demonstrated. A thorough and thoughtful account of Florida’s approach to evolution of public remembrance and memorialization will provide an insight into the scope and influence of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the smaller community level. This cultural history approach will broaden the understanding of national cultural influences on the local community. The public records, design plans, and community reactions as reported in newspaper articles and editorials will all offer the basis for the two case studies. As one approaches the state and city processes of memorialization of specific community events, one must not forget the national and historical context that ultimately shapes the message and vision of this community public remembrance.
7 Figure 1 Maya Lin Vietnam Veterans Memorial 1982 Black granite, each wall: 246 feet long, 10 1/2 feet high, Washington D.C. © the National Park Service
8 THE NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL Who among us, Was not touched, Or even wounded, in some way by the Vietnam War? The walls shine like mirrors. So we begin to see hurts inside us, too, When we see our own reflections In the walls.14
At the end of World War II, the average American took little notice of revolutionary statesman Ho Chi Minh’s declaration of Vietnamese independence. The British had enforced martial law following Ho Chi Minh’s declaration and returned power to the French, who had established a colony in southern Vietnam in 1857. France began a protracted struggle with Vietnam and its quest for independence. In 1946, the Viet Minh, a Vietnamese liberation movement under the direction of Ho Chi Minh, attacked the French and the Indochina War began. During this time, the French and the Viet Minh approached the United States for assistance and aid. Ho Chi Minh had previously approached the United States for aid in his efforts to secure Vietnamese independence. Obviously, the French, a major U.S. ally, expected support. The United States was conflicted about which side to support and aid in the Indochina War. The Viet Minh were similar to American colonists during the Revolutionary period -- a struggling people searching for a national identity in their quest for freedom. France, however, had been an ally of the United States in the previous two world wars, and, more importantly, had aided the Americans in their quest for freedom in the American Revolution. This previous relationship tipped the scales in Frances direction, as the United States chose to support the French.15 This tense and complex relationship surrounding the initial conflict of the Vietnam War prefigured the tumultuous approach the American public would take at the end of the war as its commemoration became a political issue. By the end of the nineteenth century, most American cities contained memorials and monuments to the military service and sacrifice of its citizens, as well as the impact that this service had on the population. If one traverses any downtown area or the nation’s capital, Washington,
14 Jack Wheeler, a prayer given on Veterans Day 1983, in To Heal A Nation: the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Scruggs, Jan C. and Joel L. Swerdlow (New York: Harper and Row, 1985) 160. 15 Patrick J. Hearden, The Tragedy of Vietnam, 2nd edition, (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), 1-45.
9 D.C., he or she cannot help but notice the ever present memorials and monuments to American military sacrifice and war efforts. These memorials acted as both a coping mechanism for the community as well as a national form of respect. By the twentieth century, some aspects of this memorialization had become set traditions – traditions that were ultimately challenged by the dissentions and controversies brought up during discussion of creating a national monument to the Vietnam War. Maya Lin’s memorial ultimately altered American war memorialization. The American public viewed war memorials in a heroic and patriotic way. When Barry Schwartz and Robin Wagner-Pacifici studied the cultural and collective memory of public memorials in an article appearing in The American Journal of Sociology, they explained the original perception of the war memorial. The public’s “traditional expectations are satisfied by a variety of forms, including memorial buildings, realistic statues of fighting men, obelisks, arches, granite monoliths, and other structures that prominently name the war being commemorated and combine particular physical elements, including vertical preeminence, grandness of size and lightness of color, with national symbolism.”16 A tour of the Mall in Washington, D.C., becomes a stroll surrounded by monuments and memorials of war and American heroes. The traditional national memorial found in Washington, D.C., was made of marble and constructed in the Neo-classical architectural style.17 Many of these memorials prominently tower over the visitor in their respective places, displaying the authority and power that they were meant to symbolize. Two examples closest to the site of the now dedicated Vietnam Veterans Memorial were the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, dedicated in 1884 and 1922 respectively.18 The Lincoln Memorial was composed of a foundation of granite and outwardly finished with white marble slabs constructed in the style of an ancient Greek temple. Inside, a statue of Abraham Lincoln watches over the visitors with quiet elegance. Thomas J. Brown remarked that “[Lincoln]
16 Barry Schwartz and Robin Wagner-Pacifici, “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a Difficult Past,” The American Journal of Sociology 97 (2) Sep. 1991, 382. The two authors examine cultural meaning and collective memory as it is expressed in public memorials. The article places particular focus on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, examining how the monument dealt with a delayed national need to recognize those who fought, died, or were involved in the Vietnam War. 17 Schwartz and Wagner-Pacifici, 380. 18 If facing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial is to the left and the Washington Monument is to the right.
10 offered an image of the democratic process enacted by the gatherings and of a national unity that transcended disagreement.”19 With its design the Lincoln Memorial took on a historical message for the ever evolving American community. The Lincoln Memorial is a monument to a president and to a war where the enemy was as American as the ally. The Civil War divided families and regions. Lincoln’s personal image evoked the power of a president to lead a nation through its most profound differences toward a redefined national unity. Like its neighbor, the Washington Monument also established a community message. The Washington Monument was made of white marble and granite. The striking height of this memorial to the nation’s first president again evoked a sense of wonder and awe from the viewer. This became a theme associated with the United States and shaping its commemorative memory. In The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration, Brown writes of the historical reasoning surrounding the memory of political and war heroes in America. “In the aftermath of the American Revolution the [nation] had established a commemorative ritual on July 4 and identified a central hero in George Washington, but only long after independence did historical consciousness become a defining element of American culture.”20 The memorials were meant to enhance a sense of patriotism in the viewer and validation of the government it represented. This Neo-classical perspective drew the visitor’s gaze upward to the heavens, evoking the powerful democratic ideals proposed during the birth of the American nation and commemorating the authority of the founding fathers and legendary figures. These two memorials retained their importance in the public’s consciousness. Because of this importance, they ultimately became the expectation of war memorials enhancing patriotism and validating the government they represented. While neither of these two memorials focused on war, the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument presented the history of America and have ultimately become shrines to the nation’s heritage and its authority. However, war remained hidden in each
19 Thomas J. Brown, The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2004) 165. 20 Brown, 1.
11 memorial; the Lincoln Memorial, for instance, displays images of slavery and reunification as well as a passage from the Gettysburg Address. The Lincoln Memorial seems shrouded, evoking the events and decisions surrounding the Civil War. Lincoln’s downcast expression depicts this sorrow, while his enormity of size and towering chair (or throne) displays his power and authority. The Washington Monument has a more symbolic war undertone associated with it. Starting as school children, Americans are told tales of George Washington’s legendary and heroic feats while leading the American army during the American Revolution. The towering pillar represents Washington’s role in the birth of the United States of America. Therefore, while the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial represents the man as well as the war, the wars associated with the men memorialized create a patriotic and prideful American sentiment. The other memorials and monuments found on the Mall pay service to the aesthetic traditions of the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, as they were made of marble, usually white, and celebrated the heroism and strength of the nation during times of war and struggle. The most obvious of this mimicry can be seen in the Thomas Jefferson Memorial (Jefferson Memorial). Dedicated in 1943, The Jefferson Memorial utilized white marble and classical architecture.21 Others soon followed on The Mall, with monuments to unknown soldiers of World Wars I and II. James M. Mayo noted, “strengths and weakness[es] of a society are demonstrated in war, and these qualities are often mirrored in the memorials to its wars.”22 Prior to the Vietnam War, war was seen as a national commitment supported by the American public in community effort and sacrifice. An example of this national commitment can be seen in the effort to commemorate Civil War soldiers, battles, and political figures.23 James M. Mayo, a professor of Architecture and Urban Planning, argued that the war memorial was a physical representation of a social concept associated with war. The memorial should, and oftentimes did, reflect the national concept of the war created by the American public
21 National Parks Service, “National Vietnam Veterans Memorial,”
12 to which it commemorated. “The sentiments and the utilitarian purposes on war memorials give them meaning.”24
Traditionally, this sentiment has been a combination of pride, patriotism, and reverence. A nation must give meaning to those who died serving their country in order to cope. The sacrifices of war were ultimately celebrated as heroism in these traditional memorials as defeat was altered to appear altruistic. This memorialization served to celebrate the military victory of America over its enemy, while effectively commemorating the lives lost in the tragedy that is warfare. Memorials were meant to provide a public expression that emphasizes the values and aims of the nation. But what about memorializing a war with competing values that divided a generation and a nation due to its military aims and social consequences? How can traditional forms be used to express the contentious aims of a war without a victory? And how is the community involved in the commemoration process? Even when trying to romanticize the Vietnam War, ultimately, its tragedies and mistakes become visible. The Vietnam War divided a nation, causing many to question the motives of the government and to doubt the motives of the war effort. Many Americans associated the war with defeat and tragedy. When troops returned home, some soldiers stated that they spat upon or were received with curses as a reception. This perception has become the way in which the American public viewed the Vietnam War. An overwhelming theme associated with the Vietnam War became one of defeat and of tragedy. Unlike other wars, the Vietnam War was not often celebrated in the traditional sense with gallant homecoming parades and veterans’ marches lined with welcoming friends and neighbors, though some did occur. The war and those involved had a stigma that could not be discussed, nor explained, without evoking debate and argument. To memorialize in the midst of such controversy would be contentious as well as problematic. Many fiction works and personal memoirs based in the Vietnam War era came out following the war. For example, Tim O’Brien became a popular writer because of his unique and at times gruesome portrayal of how the Vietnam War affected the soldiers.
24 Mayo, 62.
13 Other writers, such as Bobby Ann Macon chose to tackle how the Vietnam War affected the relationships within a family. In her work, In Country, the main character Sam Hughes searched to understand the actions of her father during the war. Also, In Country provides a view of the relationship between a war veteran (exposed to Agent Orange) and his family once home and how he dealt with re-entering society. Yet, with works of fiction, there was a sense of escape. This, too, can be said of personal memoirs. The people involved in the works were not known to the reader. However, with a memorial or monument, the war becomes personal because it is meant to speak for the American public, unlike a book or novel that speaks to an individual.25 To publicly memorialize a war, one must consider the reactions it provokes. Unlike previous military involvements, the Vietnam War was considered by many to be the first national defeat in recent American public memory.26 Polarizing domestic issues such as civil rights and women’s liberation were changing family life during the 1960s and 70s. Lingering foreign conflicts loomed with the perceived threat of Communism. Political tensions were high, and there was little awareness of the policy taken by America to aid Vietnam through warfare. Many have struggled with the rational for the United States’ involvement in the war. Some would have even gone so far as to argue that possibly the United States’ greatest mistake was the decision to ally with the French rather than the Vietnamese.27 In 1959, the first American troops were killed in Vietnam during a Communist attack on Bien Hoa.28 It was not the particular attack on Bien Hoa that rallied American opposition on the Vietnam War. Change began after an accumulation of instances stemming from an underlying fear of a Communist takeover began to alter public perceptions. My Lai and the actions of Lieutenant Calley punctured the myth of the noble American warrior. The
25 There are many personal memoirs of soldiers and ranked officers during the Vietnam conflict. Fiction read for research and for setting of this paper include: Tim O’Brien, The Things They Carried (Boston: Houghton Mifflin/ Seymour Lawrence, 1990). Bobby Ann Mason, In Country (New York: HaperCollins, 1985). 26 Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History (New York: Viking Press, 1983). While Karnow does not make this assumption outright, he does provide the reader with a sense of military failure associated with Vietnam. Karnow explores the military strategy and the political decisions in a way to point out the possible mistakes that the American government made during this time. Please note that these were observations of the author and may not be the original intention of Karnow. 27 Ibid. 28 Stewart O’Nan, ed., The Vietnam Reader (New York: Anchor House, 1998), 7.
14 Tet Offensive and the evening news reports of coffins of soldiers returning to American soil sobered enthusiasm for combat that had arisen after the Gulf of Tonkin. The deadly house-to-house combat used in the Vietnamese city of Hue created a painful vision of the future stalemate. Therefore, opposition became acceptable and part of the development of the generational gap in the public. Opposition to the Vietnam War, exemplified through protests, was not uncommon. While there was opposition to previous wars, such as the Civil War and World Wars I and II, the Vietnam War opposition was brought to an different level through its constant media coverage. Just as the photographs taken during the Civil War altered the peoples’ perception, the media became a tool for those disgruntled by the Vietnam War and what they believed it represented. There was constant war coverage and constant analysis, though the level of “objectivity” may be questioned. Although some Americans were initially opposed to our involvement in WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese caused many Americans to rally behind the cause. World War II was strongly supported by the public, and armed service was considered a civic duty (or at least that has become the way in which it is remembered). When previous generations recognized the sacrifice and service of those who had served in this and other preceding wars, their physical memorials emphasized heroism and valor, a reflection of their contextual generational public reaction to the war. But what if the contextual public reaction to the war remains heated and divisive, even after the conflict is technically over? The American public had become disillusioned towards the Vietnam War and its “cause.” Many spoke out against sending more troops and others demanded that American soldiers return home. Many popular songs were inspired by opposition to the war. For example, Edwin Starr’s song entitled “War” reflected the opposition to Vietnam and public perception at the time of its release in 1970, following the height of American troop involvement in Vietnam. The chorus begged the question: “War! Hunh-Yeah[,] what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!”29 Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young wrote a song responding to the tragedy at Kent State where four students were accidentally shot and killed during a protest against the Vietnam War. In the late 1960s and early 70s, these and other songs expressed the overall
29 Norman J. Whitfield and Barrett Strong, War, Edwin Starr, Jobete Music Co., Inc.
15 discomfort surrounding the Vietnam War, but how did this reaction ultimately affect the public memory of the war and of the men and women who fought in it? Many Americans resented open opposition to the war and preferred a more conventional response, despite what popular album charts might have said. In the article “Remembering Vietnam,” Michael Clark states: “Since the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in 1975, the media industry in the United States [worked] doggedly to represent [the] war and its veterans in a form compatible with the traditional norms of popular culture[.]”30 Despite political efforts to unite behind honor and peace, a discordant public reaction persisted after the end of the Vietnam War. The discussion of public memory towards war no longer properly cloaked grief with heroism and patriotism, but rather messily veered into emotional complexities. The American public sought healing, yet the federal government was hesitant to act. It was not traditional nor expected to create a federal memorial soon after a war or military conflict. As the Vietnam War ended, the public was divided by violence and by the protests and political trends that the war had initiated. Differing public perceptions over the war and its veterans resulted in political tensions that delayed the creation of a national memorial. But how long would the government wait before planning to commemorate the war and honor those who served in the military during that time? Some decided not to wait for federal action; they decided to act on their own.
The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial: from Desire to Dedication In 1979 a group of Vietnam veterans decided it was time to discuss a national memorial to the war and to its veterans that would be situated in the nation’s capital. In April,1979, a group of Vietnam veterans led by Jan Scruggs established the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, a charitable organization hoping to create a national symbol of the Vietnam War to honor and remember the Americans who fought and lost their lives in the conflict. Though the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund began as a non- governmental project, it soon rose to national prominence due to support from the U.S.
30 Clark, 46. Clark criticizes the media and other public venues’ portrayal of “life after the Vietnam War.” He examines how films, public memorials, and news specials created after the Vietnam War have tried to place a selective recollection that emphasizes traditional Western views of war and the remembrance of it.
16 Congress, as well as winning key placement for the memorial within the National Mall between the Lincoln and Washington Memorials.31 By October of 1980, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund had raised more than $8,000,000 from private sources and announced its nation-wide design contest. According to the guidelines, “[the] Memorial Fund set four major criteria for the design: (1) that it be reflective and contemplative in character, (2) that it harmonize with its surroundings, especially the neighboring national memorials, (3) that it contain the names of all who died or remain missing, and (4) that it make no political statement about the war.”32 These guidelines would not only set the tone for the contest and the eventual memorial, but they became the criteria for future Vietnam memorials nationwide. The contest was open to any U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. By the deadline of March 31, 1981, over 1400 design entries were submitted for review to a select jury. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund comprised the jury of eight internationally renowned male artists and designers. The jury chose a handful of applicants for further discussion, but only one submission would be chosen. In June of 1981, a twenty-one year old architectural student at Yale University named Maya Lin won the contest by a unanimous decision. 33 Her design took a new approach to the traditional war memorial commonly found on the Mall’s landscape. Lin offered a unique concept of remembrance compared to the white monoliths dedicated to such American heroes as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson. Large, highly polished, black granite panels engraved with the names of the men and women who died emerge, almost seamlessly, from the ground and reflect the landscape surrounding it. This reflection of the landscape and the individual onto the memorial allowed for the loss and grief felt from the present onto the past to take form, creating an atmosphere where the past lives on in the present and the future.
31 Scruggs and Swerdlow, 17-18. 32 National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund website,
17 From Controversy to Acceptance Aware of the impact of the Vietnam War on the American public, and herself a first generation Chinese-American, Maya Lin chose a strikingly different approach to what others would consider a national memorial. Her design was a stark contrast to the traditional war memorial. Emphasizing individual sacrifice for the overall cause, Lin offered a new approach for the monument and memorial. An understanding for Lin’s vision for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial illustrates an evolution from older, more traditional, American concepts of a national memorial The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial transformed the traditional war memorial from patriotic symbols and nationalistic pride to a new theme of reflection and individual sacrifice for a larger cause, a cause that was left ambiguous. The controversy surrounding the design of the national memorial ultimately reflected the American public’s uncertainty about the war and its veterans. However, the public could understand the value of honoring the soldier. The allowance for public discourse was Lin’s lasting contribution. Lin shaped how the American public would memorialize the Vietnam War by individualizing it for each viewer. The emphasis was left for the visitor to decide. In 1982, Maya Lin became the focus for debate due to her design for the memorial and opposition to it. In the 1994 documentary film A Strong Clear Vision, Lin explained the original, yet underdeveloped, intentions of her design. The design she had submitted was also meant as a final project for an architecture course at Yale University, where Lin attended.34 With this simplistic, yet powerful design, Lin would alter the landscape of war veteran commemoration. Her design was simple: two black granite walls set to form the two sides of an oblique triangle with the names of Americans killed in Vietnam between 1959 and 1973 carved on it, a stark contrast to the that it surrounding it on the Mall (see figure 2).
34 A Strong Clear Vision, Directed by Freida Lee Mock, 1 hr. 23 min., New Viedo Group, 1995, DVD.
18
Figure 2, 2 images. The images above are from the drawings for Maya Lin’s entry into the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund Design Competition. Lin, Maya Ying. Boundaries. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
19 As one newspaper reporter remarked when announcing the story, “[the] memorial is to be dark in a city of white.”35 Unlike many of the other monuments and memorials located on the Mall in Washington, D.C, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial would not be made of white marble. Additionally, it would not tower above ground like the Washington and Lincoln Memorials in its direct vicinity, but rather flow with the landscape almost hidden within one of the hills, as if a grave. The chronological format chosen by Lin was an altogether new approach to monument design.36 The format consists of listing the names of missing and killed from the first death on record, in 1959, to the last death recorded in 1973. Because of this new format, Lin was able to develop a new vision for the monument and memorial.37 The patriotism that had become trite in older memorials was overshadowed by a new theme of individual sacrifice. It originally contained no reference to the Vietnam War, to the United States, or to any form of patriotism.38 Lin meant for the memorial to reflect the lack of national consensus about the war. “It must be modest, humble and nonheroic.”39 She wanted the visitor to walk down to view the wall, talking time to reflect upon the Vietnam War and the conflict associated with it. Though the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was in the vicinity of “heroic” monuments and memorials, its minimalist design with no towering height or blatant political statement was meant to draw the visitor in. While the public could not agree on the war and its policies and decisions, they could understand the loss of American life and the grief that affects an enitre nation. The Vietnam War could not be commemorated with steadfast certainty: that in itself was a reflection of the impact of the war on remembrance and memorialization.
35 A Strong Clear Vision, Mock, DVD. 36 Daniel Abramson, “Maya Lin and the 1960s: Monuments, Time Lines, and Minimalism,” Critical Inquiry 22, no. 4 (Summer 1996), 687-696. 37 National Parks Service, “National Vietnam Veterans Memorial,”
20 Yet, like all things associated with the Vietnam War, the memorial sparked controversy. Offense was taken to the use of black granite. Black symbolized shame to some.40 Others felt that additions should be made, altering the original concept of the memorial to reflect traditional ideals. Though the memorial was fully funded by a private non-profit organization, Congress still had some authority over the process because the memorial would be placed on the Mall, an area where all construction requires congressional approval. Maya Lin staunchly disagreed with any change to the memorial. She felt the additions would overshadow the message of grief for individual sacrifice or misconstrue the larger cause that the wall was meant to convey. The design and implementation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was characterized by controversy and, ultimately, compromise. After multiple press conferences and alteration proposals, the decision came down to a review before the Commission of Fine Arts. Americans had become used to the traditional war memorial, with its classical architecture and white marble. With no reference to America or the war, some argued that the public would have been confused. “The combination of flag, statue, and name-filled wall reflected profound disagreement as to how the Vietnam War should be remembered and conveyed this disagreement by an apparent binary opposition.”41 The statue and flag added a sense of national pride and heroism similar to the surrounding memorials and give a traditional atmosphere that many Americans expected. The Commission decided to implement two proposed modifications, associated with traditional memorials, in the final design: a flagpole, flying the American flag, and a bronze statue of three infantrymen walking through the jungle. These additions, though they bothered the designer, were accepted. The Commission and Lin agreed that they should be placed at the entrance to the memorial to guide the visitor.42 The opening for the memorial was set for Veteran’s Day, November 11, 1982. The opening was accompanied by a parade and celebration for the veterans to take place
40 Mock, DVD. There is footage of a press conference after the unveiling of the design. A veteran is disgusted with Lin’s design that he chooses to call out each minute detail that he found offensive, including her ethnicity. 41 Schwartz and Wagner-Pacifici, 396. 42 Mock, DVD. Lin speaks openly about her distaste with the additions to the memorial and her reasoning. She admits that the addition of a flagpole and a bronze statue do not reflect the theme the memorial originally intended to evoke.
21 in the nation’s capital. However, this homecoming of sorts was not staged by the government hoping reconcile with the Vietnam veterans. “[Long] after it became apparent that no one else was going to give them [a] homecoming, the veterans [were] doing it for themselves.”43 Many saw the opening and the events planned around it to be a form of healing. Jan Scruggs, the Vietnam veteran who was influential in the proposal and eventual plan for the memorial, could not help commenting on the struggle over the years to finally recognize the men and women who lost their lives in the name of their country during the Vietnam War. He appropriately called the process a nightmare.44 The memorial, like the war it commemorated, roused divisions once again among the American public, and although compromise had been reached, bitterness remained.
A New Approach, A New Memorial The controversy surrounding Maya Lin’s design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial became a way for the public to actually speak about the Vietnam War itself. The American public has yet to reach a national consensus about the war or even about its veterans. As evidenced by in the most recent presidential campaigns of 2004, the controversy of Senator John Kerry’s questioning of the war as a young veteran became an albatross in his presidential bid. Traditionally, war memorials embody the sacrifice of war and express its meaning. After the Vietnam War, there was still no consensus. Maya Lin embraced this confusion. As Jan Scruggs noted, “The Memorial says exactly what we wanted to say about Vietnam – absolutely nothing.”45 This sentiment expressed by Scruggs is profound. He did not want to impose a meaning or intent upon the memorial. Instead, Scruggs and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund preferred to have the memorial be just as difficult to fully understand as the war itself. With no given intent or meaning, the individual can make meaning from the memorial personal to him or herself. The focus is switched from patriotism and individual heroism to private individual sacrifice and suffering. Though
43 Lynn Rosellini, “Salute Opening for Vietnam Veterans,” The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1982, sec. A16. 44 Ibid. 45 Schwartz and Wagner-Pacifici, 394. The authors quote Jan Scrugg’s intention for the war memorial. All along he meant for the memorial to be reverential to the soldier, not a political statement for or against the war.
22 that sacrifice and suffering was for a collective cause, each grief is a private matter. Lin saw a way to combine individual grief with collective remembrance. Maya Lin did not try to memorialize a controversial war in the traditional way. She believed that starkness and simplicity should passively invite the visitor to reflect upon the war in a way that only he or she can understand.46 She changed the focal point from politics and government to individual people. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial allows individuals to grieve personal loss while becoming a part of the national consciousness. When one looks into the wall, the highly polished black granite reflects the viewer. Each name chiseled into the wall becomes chiseled into the consciousness of the visitor. The Wall becomes a palette for each individual to paint a lasting impression of the Vietnam War and the sacrifice that the nation and its citizens made.47 This was Maya Lin’s intention, if there was to be one, for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. As one veteran remarked, the wall would be a constant reminder of the high price of freedom.48 Over the years, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial remained fresh and appropriate, taking into account the historical context and its affect on the individual. “Much of the social conflict surrounding the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C., focused on how to commemorate the persons who served and died without validating the political purposes of war.”49 The societal expectations for war memorials changed with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. No longer was the American public concerned with an outward expression of power and authority. The emphasis seemed to revert inward to a
46 Maya Lin, 4:00-5:00. In this work, Lin intimately details the Vietnam Memorial’s construction and controversy. Also, she eloquently described the relationship she tries to create between her work and the audience. 47 Mock, DVD. The overwhelming visuals of visitors at the memorial at its opening along with the powerful message that Lin wished to conveyed allowed for this conclusion to be drawn. 48 In my efforts to research this topic, I had the privilege to interview three Vietnam War veterans from different fields of military service. One was an Army paratrooper division infantryman. One was a Marine heavy equipment specialist, and the other was a civilian investigator for the Office of Criminal Investigation in the Navy. While all had varying opinions of the Vietnam War and the memorial, they each felt the wall served as a means of national remembrance. The Army infantryman, though preferring the Korean War Memorial, felt that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial remind the nation of the price of freedom and gave the families of those lost a chance to grieve and mourn. 49Mayo, 74. Mayo cites To Heal a Nation: the Vietnam Veterans Memorial by Jan Scruggs and Joel L. Swerdlow as the inspiration for this thoughtful conclusion.
23 reflection of loss and obligation to honor the overall sacrifice of the individuals fighting in war. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the surrounding controversy, in hindsight, became more and more appropriate to its historical context. Rather than relying on established norms in the constructions of war memorials, Maya Lin chose to evolve this art by seeking a new approach despite the risk involved. “Although war memorials may be preserved, the society around them changes and so does its interpretation of history.”50 Long gone were the times of romantic war and civic pride, replaced with drafts, protests, and military failure. Lin chose to commemorate this change in public perception. If the public cannot collectively agree on the virtues of the Vietnam War, then the memorial should not create virtuous meaning for them. Lin left the meaning of the war open to individual interpretation. No one can deny the impact of the listing of the dead, but each viewer can still decide for himself or herself what meaning that has for remembering the Vietnam War. Like the national evolution of war memorials, each state had to find its own version of remembrance to the veterans of the Vietnam War. Many states began planning and constructing their own Vietnam War memorials in response to the national memorial. The states had seen the controversy surrounding the design, but they also saw how the public responded to the design and were able to properly honor the dead and the living veterans of the war. Did this new ideal for the war memorial affect any of the designs proposed for a state memorial? One state memorial that clearly illustrated the influence of the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial is Florida’s. In 1983, just shortly after the national memorial’s dedication, Florida legislators began discussing a state memorial to Florida citizens who died while serving in the Vietnam War. The Florida memorial took the strengths of the national memorial and improved upon what might have been considered its weaknesses.
50 Mayo, 73.
24 FLORIDA’S VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL: TALLAHASSEE
“It is this commission’s belief that the recommended memorial is, in every respect, a suitable and practicable statement to honor the countless sacrifices made by our State’s residents during that conflict. We hope you will agree.”51
In 1983, Senator Dunn, with approval from the Economic, Community and Consumer Affairs Committee, introduced a bill into the Florida legislature proposing a state memorial to Vietnam War veterans. A year earlier, the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial had been dedicated in Washington, D.C. Though separated by time and distance, unique similarities exist between these two memorials, raising questions to be considered about the nature of their relationship to one another. The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial influenced the design and function of the state’s memorial. Florida lawmakers, like most Americans, were aware the controversy surrounding the design and construction of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. Thus, Florida’s choices for its own Vietnam Veterans memorial were influenced and shaped by its national predecessor in several ways. Although an effort at the national level was well underway to memorialize Vietnam Veterans, Florida had yet to undertake such an endeavor. Proposed shortly after the dedication of the national memorial, the origins of Florida’s memorial efforts had strong local ties towards its state Vietnam veterans and war dead, as well as overall national sentiment and remembrance. In the early 1980s, Floridians also wanted to publicly remember and respond to the Vietnam War, like its national predecessor. The state government hoped to mimic the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s success, and not its controversy. Therefore, the state capital of Florida, Tallahassee, became the chosen location for Florida to display its own public remembrance. The overall style and theme associated with the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial influenced the Tallahassee Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It was a representation of the Vietnam War for a mass audience. Though Florida closely followed its national predecessor in design selection and architectural style, the intention and
51 William H. Lockward, Chairman, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, to Governor Graham, February 6, 1984, box 1, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, Tallahassee, FL.
25 interpretation of the state memorial was directed towards its audience, rather than inspiring a subliminal meaning of the national memorial. Thus, the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, created by the Florida legislature to plan and construct the proposed memorial, opted for compromise. Florida’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial retained aspects of the traditional war memorial while incorporating a more direct statement than that made by the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Did the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial choose to honor the individual soldier over patriotism? By analyzing the legislative process and actions of the Commission on Veteran’s Affairs, I intended to demonstrate the intent of the state memorial to form a similar message to the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial, but in a more direct way through its balance between individual sacrifice and America patriotism during wartime.
Legislative Steps: A Simple Gesture for Florida? Soon after the dedication of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., the Florida legislature began formal procedures to create its own state memorial to the Vietnam War and the Florida citizens who participated in it. As early as the 1982-1983 fiscal year, the Legislature turned the Advisory Council on Veteran’s Affairs – a part of the Division of Veterans Affairs – into the Florida Commission on Veterans Affairs, and the Commission was placed under the direction of the Governor’s Office.52 Before this decision, the Advisory Council was, as its name suggests, just an advisory group. With the legislative reworking of the Council into the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, the Commission was able assume a more active role in state decisions concerning military veterans. This legislative step occurred around the same time that the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial wrapped construction and was preparing for dedication. Interestingly, one of the primary requirements of the newly modified commission was to report the concerns of veterans and their dependents to the Governor, the state Legislature, and the Department of Administration. Would a state memorial be considered a concern?
52 Florida State Senate, Carton 1416, Series 18, Folder CS/SB 435 1983, State Library and Archives of Florida. Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact statement. (Tallahassee, FL, 11 April 1983). The transformation of the Florida Commission on Veterans Affairs can be found in the Summary of the present situation section. The analysis is in regards to Senate Bill 435, creating the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
26 On April 19, 1983, the Florida Senate Committee on Economic, Community and Consumer Affairs proposed a bill recommending to the state legislature that Florida create a state memorial to the veterans of the Vietnam War. Earlier during the state session, the bill passed through the committee with full support. The bill called for a state memorial to Vietnam veterans to be placed in the capitol city of Tallahassee, and for the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs to monitor the design and location. It also called for the creation of a trust fund for an endowed academic chair to study issues of national security and peace. Based on committee hearing tapes, the bill passed through the Senate Committee on Economic, Community, and Consumer Affairs without any spoken opposition.53 The bill then moved to the Senate from the committee after the amendatory process. Additions to the bill included a provision to list the names of missing-in-action servicemen on the memorial, authorize the Board of Regents to designate where the academic chair was to be named, and appropriate $50,000 for the next three fiscal years to fund the academic chair.54 After swift approval through the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 26, Senate Bill 435, calling for a state memorial to Vietnam veterans, was submitted on May 30, 1983 to the floor. The recognized representative in favor of the Memorial Act, Senator Baron spoke on behalf of the bill.55 He eloquently conveyed the positive aspects of a state memorial. Unfortunately, the audio record of the debate tragically cuts off early in the speech. Florida’s state legislature made a significant action in the passage of Senate Bill 435. It would be the first memorial in the nation to have state appropriated funds
53 Florida Legislature, State Library and Archives of Florida, Audio Tape Files, Committee on Economic, Community and Consumer Affairs, April 19, 1983, Audio Tape, 3 of 4. After the bill is introduced, there was some discussion on certain items within the bill. The proposal also included a section concerning disabilities and disability eligibility. This item was heavily discussed, as the issue seemed more directly affecting to the committee. It is mentioned that 300,000 men and women who were residents of Florida were veterans of the Vietnam War. There is some inaccuracy in terms of the date of the proposed bill creating the state’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The first mention of the bill occurs on the committee tapes mentioned above; however, the staff analysis of the economic impact of SB 435 lists the date as April 11, 1983. As of yet, I am not sure whether the staff analysis’ date listed is from the writing of it, or the first mention of it. 54 Florida State Senate, Carton 1416, Series 18, Folder CS/SB 435 1983, State Library and Archives of Florida. Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact statement. (Tallahassee, FL, 11 April 1983), revised April 20, 1983. 55 Florida State Senate, Floor Debate, State Library and Archives of Florida, Audio tapes, 4 of 4, 30 May 1984. The senator mainly rereads the bill. Yet, of note, is the mention of the endowed academic chair to act as a living memorial to the servicemen and women who are now veterans of the Vietnam War era.
27 rather than privately raised funds from Vietnam veterans and other groups.56 The memorial would honor those who died in Vietnam while also paying respect to the over 300,000 Floridians who were veterans of the war. The memorial would choose to honor both the living and the dead involved in the Vietnam War. Based on the historical evidence, it appears that after no debate Senate Bill 435 passed by a vote of 32-0 in the Florida Senate on April 19, 1983.57 After a unanimous passage in the state Senate, a similar bill was approved in the state House of Representatives. All that was left was Governor Bob Graham’s approval. On June 24, 1983, the short but effective legislative process Governor Graham signed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Act into law and it took effect on July 1st. Despite this easy passage, one could speculate as to whether or not the newly conceived memorial was a symbolic gesture or a simple answer to the creation of the national memorial. Although many Floridians supported the new measure, as happens with legislative action, there was at least one public dissenting voice. WGBS, a broadcasting network based out of Miami, released a scathing review of the newly passed legislation. The WGBS editorial team thought that the legislators should have focused more on the surviving veterans of the Vietnam War rather than the memory of the men and women lost during the war: “The WGBS Editorial Board question[ed] the expenditure and the need for such a memorial.”58 The caustic editorial called for proper health care and services for veterans, rather than some symbolic memorial. WGBS demanded emotional support for veterans. Preferring to reestablish the ties with those who survived the Vietnam War era, the editorial insisted “the best way to honor [the deceased’s] memory is to care for their comrades who came home … that all war memorials in the future will be for the living.”59 While this line of reasoning did not necessarily reflect the feelings of the majority of the citizens of Florida, it did suggest that
56 “Groundbreaking is held for Vietnam memorial” Tallahassee Democrat (AP), 30 April 1985. 57 Florida State Senate, Floor Debate, State Library and Archives of Florida, Audio Tape, 3 of 4, 30 May 1984. Tape 2 cuts off abruptly, and is the only record of the happenings in the Senate for that day. Therefore, it is assumed (after consultation with Florida archival staff) that from a unanimous vote of passage that no substantial debate occurred. 58WGBS, “Editorial”, editorial broadcast, 20 April 1984, 6:05 pm, and 23 April 1984, 7:43 am and 12:40 pm. 59 WGBS, “Editorial.”
28 this symbolic gesture could have been made in another way, or through another avenue. Still, this was the only editorial evidence of contention towards the state memorial.60 The decisions surrounding the memorial’s future now lay in the hands of the Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, and the City Planning Commission.
Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs: The Memorial Project After the passage of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Act, the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs started the arduous process of creating and implementing a memorial proposal to submit to the Governor and Legislature of Florida by 1984, the next fiscal year. Section 3 of the Memorial Act simply stated that the Commission “may solicit design proposals from members of the public.”61 Fortuitously, at the time that the Commission needed to plan and implement a statewide search for an appropriate memorial concept and design, members of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund organization were traveling through Tallahassee.62 Based on competition forms and reports from the Commission, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund’s competition format influenced the Florida Commission. Using the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund design competition procedures as a guide, the Commission drafted requirements and procedures for the design proposals. Yet, the Commission’s requirements differed in some important ways. First, the Commission limited submissions to Florida residents and design firms. Second, the Commission required proposals to include the listing of the 1,929 names of the Floridians who died or were still missing as a result of what they had termed the “Vietnam Conflict.” Although the Commission adopted a selection procedure similar to the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, they also specified some differences, such as
60 This was the only evidence found as of late. The Department on Veterans’ Affairs archives only contained this one dissenting review. Other newspapers researched did not criticize the memorial, nor extensively discuss it when it was first proposed. Many editorials focused on the budget and water acts also proposed that year. See the Tallahassee Democrat and the Florida Times-Union. 61 Florida State Senate, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Act, SB 435, 1st sess., General Acts Resolutions and Memorials adopted by the Eighth legislature of Florida under the Constitution vol. 1, (1), 1164, as revised in 1968, (Tallahassee, FL: Joint Legislative Management Committee, 1983). 62 The exact reason for the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund members to be traveling through Tallahassee was not stated in the Department of Veteran’s Affairs records, where the reference occurred in the 1983-1984 Annual Report.
29 deadlines. Third, the entrants were encouraged to submit with their designs a statement of the symbolic intentions of the memorial.63 The inclusion of the statement of intention was not a new component for public art competitions. However, it was unique when compared to the national memorial’s design competition. When proposing the design requirements, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund forbade a political (or apolitical) statement about the war to be made within the memorial. Per Jan Scruggs and the rest of the Memorial Fund, it was not their intention to depict anything about the Vietnam War other than respect for the men and women who died fighting in it. The Florida Commission wanted to take this idea of honor and respect towards the dead one step further by having a concrete objective for the design, to prevent arguments over the nature of the memorial. Although the national memorial flourished through its ambiguity, a state memorial shrouded in such vagueness may not have done so well. If anything could have been learned from the national memorial, it was that ambiguity breeds controversy. The Florida Commission most likely included the provision for a distinct intention to quell any controversy that could have erupted in the state community. A more compact audience, such as a state or local community, required distinct interrelations between audience and intention, especially when the audience would ultimately be funding the memorial through state tax dollars. Eighty-nine proposals were presented to the Commission, and displayed to the public for viewing as the jury deliberated for a week. The Commission considered the jury’s selection and the comments from the public during the open viewing period. After narrowing the proposals to six finalists, the final decision was made on December 16, 1983. James Kolb, an architect-intern at the Ritchie Organization in Sarasota, won the design competition. The Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial would stand sixty-five feet tall and consist of two concrete slabs with highly polished black granite outer panels (see Figure B).
63 Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1983-84 Annual Report (Tallahassee, FL: Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1984).
30
Figure 3. Drawing by James Kolb, submitted to the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs. Scanned image from original, 2006.
31 A large American flag would hang between the two slabs. When asked to describe the memorial’s design and intent, Kolb wrote, “In a manner, the Memorial is not a stone monument but the reactions and emotions it evokes from those who visit it.”64 Throughout his written statement, Kolb used key phrases such as “honor” and “country.”65 Kolb retains aspects of the traditional war memorial by upholding patriotism and civic pride as virtues in his work, but he progressed towards the new approach employed by Lin by focusing on the sacrifice and loss of the individual. Yet the symbolism was not limited to just the design. It was also found in the location chosen for the memorial. The Tallahassee City Planning Commission and the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs reviewed appropriate sites for the memorial while the design competition developed. Three sites were proposed, all of which were within walking distance of the Capitol Complex: (1) the area next to historic Union Bank, located at the corner of Monroe Street and Apalachee Parkway; (2) a site on the Capitol Complex on the lawn in front of the Old Capitol; and (3) an area just across the street from the Supreme Court building. Each of these possible sites were prominent areas, although one could argue that the site near the Supreme Court Building does not receive as much pedestrian and automotive traffic as the other two areas, thus lessen the appeal. Each area was debated and responses from both parties were considered. The Commission on Veterans’ Affairs presented the merits of each site to the City Planning Commission. The discussion for the placement of the memorial focused on the site at the intersection of Apalachee Parkway and Monroe Street. The Commission sought for the intersection for its high pedestrian traffic and visibility. Also, the memorial would be located just across from the location of the state government, as well as the historic Old Capitol and the Civil War memorial obelisk. The Commission pushed for this historic and visible location as the site for its memorial.66 Once the design was chosen, each proposed site received more scrutiny. The location proposals were not warmly received. News reports stated that the First Lady of
64 Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, “The Memorial Design: Designer’s Statement,” (Tallahassee, FL: Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1984). 65 Ibid. 66 Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1983-84 Annual Repor, “Recommend Memorial Site Location,” (Tallahassee, FL: Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1984).
32 Florida, Mrs. Adele Graham, disliked the proposed site next to the Union Bank.67 Graham had participated in the restoration of the Union Bank Building and thought that it was a desirable link to the Old Capitol building. It was not evident that Graham adamantly opposed the memorial or even its placement near the Old Capitol; rather, she just did not want the memorial to block the visual and pedestrian link between the two buildings. However, the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs approached Graham’s concern as a small hurdle within larger plans. The dissent was viewed as open for discussion, noting that “comments about the westward line-of-site of the Capitol Complex as viewed from Apalachee Parkway were expressed by persons concerned with this important consideration.”68 Although the dissention voiced by Mrs. Graham was not fully explained in the Commission’s Annual Report, the Commission, the Planning Committee and the architect, James Kolb, worked together to ease this concern. The height of the original concept was lowered from sixty-five feet to forty feet. James Kolb personally inspected the proposed area. Then, a compromise was reached. The memorial site was moved sixty yards south of the intersection of the proposed site. All parties were satisfied. The City Planning Commission approved the new site and design. 69 The new site would draw upon the interrelationships between past and present, government and people. The Capitol Complex would be a prominent background to the memorial, but neither would be overshadowed by the other. The Commission on Veterans’ Affairs stated in their annual report presented to the Governor and Legislature that the symbolism of the site displayed “the degree and manner of sacrifice experienced to maintain [the Vietnamese] government, and the mutual responsibility of a people and their government for actions that have occurred in the past and will occur in the future to maintain their way of life as effected by the decisions made by themselves and their government.”70
67 Susan DeFord, “Vietnam Memorial wins commission’s approval,” The Tallahassee Democrat, August 8, 1984, sec. B1-2. 68 Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, “Recommend Memorial Site Location.” 69 Ibid. 70 Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, “Symbolic Interrelationship of the Design and Site Location, ” (Tallahassee, FL: Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1984).
33 Ultimately, the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs played a large role in the conception and realization of the state’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Through meetings, design competition, and ever-present compromises, they persevered. On April 30, 1985, the tenth anniversary of the communist victory over the Republic of Vietnam, Governor Bob Graham broke ground at the ceremony for the construction of the memorial.71 Vietnam veterans, legislative leaders, and the public were present for the ceremony. As Governor Graham stated to the crowd, the memorial “will serve as a powerful reminder to Floridians of the ultimate meaning of the decisions we make.”72 The Commission on Veterans’ Affairs implemented an effective means of conception and action to create the Florida’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Just two years after Senate Bill 435 took effect, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial had been conceived, designed, and constructed. Seven months after the groundbreaking ceremony, the state was gearing for a formal dedication ceremony, set for November 11, 1985.73 The image (Figure 4) on the following page depicts the dedication ceremony. Leading up to the dedication, events were planned, including some that would occur exactly eighty-three days leading up to the dedication. The events were meant to pay tribute to all the counties in the state, the state’s veteran citizens, and the public. The state sent the flag that was to hang between the two pillars of the memorial to travel through all sixty-seven counties along with an accompanying guest book.74 This traveling flag and guest book were meant to involve the entire state in the dedication of the new memorial. On the day of dedication, formal ceremonies took place in Tallahassee.
71 “Groundbreaking is held for Vietnam memorial” Tallahassee Democrat (AP), April 30, 1985. 72 Ibid 73 “Dedication of Vietnam Memorial Set For Nov. 11,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, October 9, 1984, sec. A- 1. 74 The guest book that accompanied the flag as it traveled through the state can be found at the Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs. It is kept with the information about the state Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
34
Figure 4. Vietnam Memorial Dedication, Tallahassee, FL, 1985. Photonegative: b&w ; 3 x 5 in. Date/place captured: Photographed on November 11, 1985. Florida Photographic Collection, State Library and Archives of Florida.
35 Architectural Style: A Reflection in Stone The architectural detail of the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial followed closely after the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial in proposal and construction. After reviewing the design and style themes in both memorials, one can see the similarities between the two. These similarities are the result of the close time frame between the creation of the two memorials and the contributing influences that the national memorial provided for the state memorial in both design and construction. The first similarity noticed between the national memorial and the state memorial is the use of highly polished black granite panels. The national Vietnam Veterans Memorial used the black granite panels in the formation of a sweeping, angled wall. The Florida memorial employed granite panels in the form of two pillars, standing as tall as towering buildings. One could argue that the use of polished black granite, alone, developed an architectural link between the two memorials. However, the Florida memorial did not incorporate the black granite panels as the national memorial did. The state memorial’s design had the black granite forming two towering pillars. The choice of the towering aesthetic could be attributed to the traditional war memorial design, incorporating patriotic and grand themes. While the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial did not follow the same aesthetic of its national predecessor, it did uphold the new approaches that the national memorial embraced in its conceptual design. Interestingly, the use of black panels became even more similar when the Florida Commission on Veterans Affairs employed Binswanger Glasscraft Products (Binswanger), located in Memphis, Tennessee. The Commission originally contacted Binswanger for information regarding the process of paneling and engraving; Binswanger had supplied the engraved panels for the national memorial. It is quite possible that the Florida Commission was influenced by the national memorial’s visual aesthetic of engraved black granite paneling. In a letter addressed to the Commission regarding the plans for the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Binswanger commented: “the experienced team that worked on the Memorial is still in tact here and has continued to grow and expand in its abilities to engrave.” Ultimately, the Commission established a
36 relationship with Binswanger to the use of Binswagner’s products and craftsmanship in the construction of their own memorial. Though there is no direct reference to mimicry, Binswanger does mention their work with the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and the national memorial. They even make reference to the memorial and the expressed interest of the Commission. The relationship between Binswanger and the Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs appears to have its motivations rooted in the Commission’s partiality towards the aesthetic and appearance of the national memorial. The polished granite panels, therefore, became more than an aesthetic similarity; it was also an architectural similarity. Another architectural similarity can be found on the black granite panels themselves. As with the paneling, Binswanger Glasscraft Products also engraved the names and inscriptions for the memorial. When describing their accomplishments with the national memorial, Binswanger was sure to mention that “[there] were no errors in [the] engraving efforts on the Washington Memorial.”75 The assurance of quality eased fears of misrepresentation or fault, and ultimately ensured them the contract. The engraved inscriptions chosen for the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial also have a familiarity to them. As with the use of polished black granite panels, the engraving would also liken itself to its national predecessor. The second section of the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Act calls for the beginning and ending dates of the Vietnam conflict, the listing of the names of the men and women from the state of Florida who died or were still missing-in-action, as well as “other inscriptions and features as may be recommended by the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs.”76 The state legislature defined the Vietnam War era as a time “in which this nation was engaged from August 5, 1964 through May 7, 1975[.]”77 This definition contrasted with the national memorial which listed its names on the basis of the
75 J. Bryan Carter, Manager, Specialties Division, Binswanger Glasscraft Products, to B. J. Taylor, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 30 January 1984, box 1, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. 76 Florida Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1983-84 Annual Report, “The Florida Vietnam Era Veterans’ Memorial Project Report,” (Tallahassee, FL: Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1984). 77 Florida State Legislature, Laws of Florida, Chapter 83-227, sec. 2, 1983. The period was established in pretext to the law, and reinforced in Section 2.
37 first death related to the Vietnam War conflict, which it defined as beginning in 1954.78 The National memorial, in its conception, was to contain the dates of the first and last recorded death related to the Vietnam War. This requirement applied the reference to the period, calling for remembrance towards the sacrifices of the men and women involved in the war conflict. By mandating that the dates be included and thus defining the war period, the Florida lawmakers constructed its own historical narrative of the Vietnam War era. The other inscriptions also mentioned in section 2 of the Memorial Act (to be chosen by the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs) would become the unique aspect of the Florida memorial that would separate it from its national forerunner. The chosen inscriptions for the Florida memorial were meant to be informative and evocative.79 The first inscription was meant to explain the memorial’s content and intent in a succinct and powerful way. The second inscription was meant to inspire the viewer’s emotion and pay tribute to the dead. As a requirement in the design competition rules, the names of the dead and missing-in-action servicemen and women from the state of Florida were to be inscribed on the memorial. The prerequisite most likely comes from the national memorial’s influence. Other war memorials in area did not list the names of all who died during a war conflict, but rather had inscriptions honoring those who had died in particular battles or wars.80 For example, on the capitol grounds stood two prominent war memorials: a Civil War obelisk to the fallen soldiers of Leon County and a Confederate Monument. The Old Capitol, itself, represented Florida during historic events during American history through the museum exhibits and interpretations. The Florida memorial would be more limited, or defined, in scope by focusing on the residents of Florida who died while serving during the Vietnam-conflict-era.81 A set
78 Originally, the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial had the earliest death occurring in 1959; however, after additional names were added, the date fell back to 1954. This information was obtained from: National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund
38 of guidelines and conditions for the submission of names was approved within the Commission and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature.82 However, while the state memorial condensed the listing of names to Florida residents only, concerns remained. In the 1983-84 Annual Report, the Commission noted: “some of the problems [the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs Memorial group name] project will be encountered when such a listing is compiled will be the same as or similar to those experienced by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund personnel when they compiled a listing of all the dead and missing for inscribing on the National Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial.”83 The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund members who traveled through Tallahassee must have warned the Commission on the difficulties to be encountered when assembling a list of veterans for the memorial. Because of this encounter, the Commission foresighted the problems that may, and did, occur when creating the list of the Florida residents to be inscribed on the state memorial. The insight enabled the Commission to employ research methods and official criteria, such as documentation and detailed requirements, to ensure that all efforts for accuracy would be utilized for the inscribed list. At the time, the measures were suggestions and attempts at further discussion between the other governmental branches involved. They were valiant and intelligent insights to manage a definite concern, a concern for accuracy and proper remembrance. Still, the Commission could only offer recommendations for the inscribed list, and needed approval from the legislature. The other inscriptions placed on the memorial did not face such concerns or discussions. These inscriptions were meant to inform one of the memorial’s meaning and intent and to inspire an emotional response. They were chosen from the submission of Joshua D. Lowenfish, A.I.A, who had also submitted a design proposal for the competition. Although the Commission chose Kolb’s design, they must have believed the
The report explained that the Commission chose to list from the “conflict era” to encompass the official time frame as decided upon by the U.S. Congress: August 4, 1964 to May 7, 1975. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid, 17. This also shows an open communication with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, because of the understanding of the concerns and difficulties expressed in the quotation.
39 inscriptions proposed by Lowenfish were more evocative and inspiring nature than Kolb’s. The first inscription on the memorial informed the visitors to the memorial and of its historical setting. The interesting aspect to this inscription is the word choice. The inscription reads: Florida’s Vietnam Memorial In Honor Of The 376,000 Floridians Who Served During The Vietnam Conflict (1964-1975) Among Whom 1888 Succumbed And 41 Are Missing In Action. Their Names Are Engraved On This Memorial As A Token Of Everlasting Gratitude To These Patriots For Their Supreme Sacrifice.84
The memorial was given a defined purpose through its informative inscription. The visitor was given a reason and intention for its placement. The patriotic resonance found in traditional American memorials remained a fixture in the state memorial. The use of words such as patriot and supreme sacrifice enhance the traditional sentiments. More important, the inscription also presented a particular point of view toward the men and women who had served in the Vietnam Conflict. Those who fought and died, or were still missing-in-action, became known as patriots fighting in a patriotic war and paying the supreme sacrifice when succumbing to their death. These word choices evoke an understanding of the sacrifice of the individual for the greater good of the nation, while at the same time enhancing the emphasis on the individual citizen. The second inscription chosen for the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial was meant to invoke an emotional response. The Commission and the architect understood that the memorial was “designed to stimulate reaction.”85 The reaction came through in a verse of scripture discussing the lessons learned from war. “ ‘And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spurs into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4).”86 The inscription was a prophetic message: a once glorious place must be purged to restore its honor, resulting in a divine abode with all disputes settled, thus ending war. The reaction to this hope of a new age of peace allowed for one to look for blessing after
84 Inscription found on the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Tallahassee, Florida. 85 Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1983-83 Annual Report, “Memorial Project Report,” 10. 86 Inscription found on the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Tallahassee, Florida.
40 a “purging judgment.” The emotional inscription evoked the sense of a peaceful community following the horrors of war (or the rejection of war). Unlike the national memorial, the Florida memorial provided the emotional intention and invocation to its viewers, as well as a religious undertone. Instead of allowing the emotion to be created individually, a standard emotive stimulant was provided in the spiritual verse. Where the first inscription provided facts, the second inscription placed the war and the Floridian community involved into a moral message. The inspirational and informative inscriptions set the tone for the atmosphere surrounding the memorial. This emotionally reflective setting stimulated the memories and tributes that the memorial wished to evoke. The placement of the memorial was meant to inspire reflection of the visitor. As noted earlier, the memorial was placed across the street from the state Capitol Complex to draw on the interrelationship between government, war, and the public. The inscriptions enhanced these interrelationships while averting the inclusion of any direct political language.
Lasting Resonance Were Florida lawmakers influenced by the controversy surrounding the design and construction of the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.? Yes. Florida lawmakers knew well of the controversy surrounding the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as did many U.S. citizens. The fact that Florida legislators took on the task of creating a state memorial to Vietnam veterans shows an understanding of the national memorial struggle. The Commission was obviously aware of the controversy, as evidenced by the communication between the Commission and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. After examining project reports and the Commission on Veterans’ Affairs 1983-84 Annual Report, the evidence suggests an understanding of the debate and challenges faced by the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. The Commission evidently appreciated the statement made by the national memorial, but wanted to display Florida’s own interpretation of the Vietnam War and the veterans. The Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial appropriated elements of its national predecessor’s architectural style. The design mimicked the national in its use of polished granite and reflective location. In contrast, however, the granite was placed horizontally
41 rather than vertically, similar to the traditional memorial’s design. When describing his design in the Commission’s 1983-1984 Annual Report, Kolb stated, “The primary idea of the design as an object is a vertical statement of honor.”87 The clear continuation of the established war memorial’s display of height illustrated Florida’s unwillingness to fully divert from traditions. However, Florida did alter its traditional approach by listing of the dead and missing-in-action. With this emphasis on the individual sacrifice to the overall cause, the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial followed a new trend in monument making influenced by the national memorial. Florida’s state memorial’s design and construction lacked the types of controversy that surrounded its national predecessor. Controversy surrounding this new approach to design had already run its course. Florida lawmakers circumvented the issue through their choices and actions during the process of planning and constructing the state memorial. The Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial became the state’s way of coping with a national issue. This memorialization evoked a strong sense of Florida community, as evidenced by editorial coverage and visitation. Cities all over Florida responded in their own way as well, drawing from the national memorial’s influence and now the state memorial’s success. With the state’s ability to focus on Florida citizens, it seemed only a natural progression for cities to concentrate on their own citizens’ valiant efforts and sacrifices.
87 Florida Commission on Veterans’ Affairs, 1983-83 Annual Report, “Memorial Project Report”, 10.
42 JACKSONVILLE’S VETERANS MEMORIAL WALL: A CITY’S NOBLE TRIBUTE
Unlike other Florida cities, Jacksonville [had] no memorial that displays in a prominent manner the names of the Service Men and Women who have died in service to their country.88
In the weeks leading up to the November 1985 dedication of the state Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Tallahassee, the flag that would hang between the two black granite pillars traveled all sixty-seven of Florida’s counties. The flag’s journey was meant to attract attention to the new memorial and to include the entire state in the memorial’s dedication, even if the citizens were unable to visit Tallahassee for the all-day celebration. Interestingly, the travel of the flag held important significance, just as the memorial where it would hang. Lynn Demarest, a journalist for the Miami Herald, noted a unique symbolism between length of the trip and the Floridians still missing-in-action: “The trip will take 83 days – not coincidentally the number of Florida veterans missing in action.”89 When the flag that would drape between the two pillars of the state Vietnam Veterans Memorial traveled through the city, the Jacksonville community participated in honoring its veterans. This effort to involve the state in the plans and dedication of the state memorial surely increased several cities’ own awareness of their veterans and encouraged a need or want to remember their efforts. As the flag traveled from Key West to Tallahassee, many cities held candle-light vigils or memorial services in honor of Vietnam veterans.90 This new awareness and sense of honor prompts several questions. How did cities respond to the state memorial, which itself was the Florida response to the national memorial? Did each city begin to reflect upon its own level of respect towards its veterans? The process of placing a memorial within cities’ limits does not appear daunting to the public. Yet it had difficult aspects. The funds to plan, create, and construct such a
88 Brad Faughn, submitter, Department of Community Services, Division of Veteran’s Services, “Project Justification,” (Jacksonville: Capital Improvement Program, Project Information Sheet, 1994-1995). 89 Lynn Demarest, “Flag stops on way to memorial.” Miami Herald. August 8, 1985. 90 Many newspapers around the state advertise memorial services and vigils in cities including Okeechobee, Fort Lauderdale, and Pensacola. Okeechobee News, Aug.-Nov., 1985. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Aug.- Nov., 1985. Pensacola News Journal, August-November, 1985. Florida Times-Union, Aug.-Nov., 1985
43 memorial or monument could have been too great a burden or considered too costly of an addition to the city budget. The funding and city budget approval could be why many cities instead held services and vigils to honor their veterans, and continued to do so in the years that followed, instead of erecting memorials and monuments to their city’s veterans. At the time of the state’s memorial dedication, there were no city memorials or monuments to Vietnam War veterans in northern Florida. However, Jacksonville seemed like a likely place. The city had a rich military history. Also, it was the largest city in Florida, let alone in northern Florida. However, despite the displays of public remembrance from 1985 to 1991, it was not until 1994 that the city of Jacksonville decided to undertake a memorial project. One source of inspiration came in the late 1980s and early 1990s when a traveling exhibit of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial passed through Jacksonville. The first half- size memorial wall visited in 1988.91 On April 27, 1991, the Florida Times-Union told of a second traveling Vietnam War memorial to arrive in Jacksonville. “The model, known as the Vietnam Wall Experience, stopped in Jacksonville as part of a two-year, 100- location national tour that began in December [of 1990] in Phoenix.”92 The memorial was a half-size replica, and the second of its kind to visit the city. As the Florida Times-Union staff writer suggested in his article, many Jacksonville citizens were affected directly or indirectly by the Vietnam War. Whether the public found the names of their friends and family, or simply reflected on the names of those who had died, the traveling memorial wall had a large impact on the city of Jacksonville. In 1994, the city was on the brink of a large five-year capital improvement plan.93 This plan would involve restoration and rejuvenation of many areas around the city. With this new attention to renovation and area improvement, a Jacksonville citizen named Ray Moore began to focus on the need for a memorial to the city’s veterans. There were many reasons surrounding this decision. One of these reasons may have been Jacksonville’s
91 Jim Schoettler. “Viet memorial model stirs memories,” Florida Times-Union, April 27, 1991, sec B-1. 92 Schoettler, sec B-1. 93 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-825-562, “The Capital Improvement Program,” (Jacksonville, 1994).
44 status as a large city in northern Florida, a large city lacking a prominent memorial to its war veterans. The city of Jacksonville may have felt left out in the public memorialization of Floridians. Tallahassee had the state memorial to Vietnam Veterans, as well as a memorial to World War II veterans and Civil War obelisks. Other areas around the panhandle had also placed monuments, memorials, or commemorative plaques to honor the sacrifices of their military citizens. For example, in 1988, Pensacola Vietnam War veterans had implemented plans to fund and construct a replica of the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial at the city’s Bay Front Park.94 Pensacola is also a northern Florida city richly entrenched in military history. The memorial was dedicated in 1992. Could this memorial, as well as the state memorial in Tallahassee, have contributed to Jacksonville’s idea for creating a memorial to the city’s war veterans? The other cities of northern Florida, cities smaller than Jacksonville, had already publicly remembered their veterans. When would Jacksonville? When contemplating this notion of remembrance, along with the city’s capital improvement plan, it seemed natural for the city to pursue a monument or memorial. There would be cultural benefits, as well as community benefits. Perhaps, there existed another reason for the proposal of a memorial. Jacksonville was known for its distinct military presence in northern Florida. This presence had not necessarily been interpreted.95 Just under twenty years after the United States withdrew military efforts from Vietnam, Ray Moore presented an idea to the Jacksonville City Council to create a memorial wall to the city’s military veterans. The process mimicked aspects of both the state and national Vietnam Veterans Memorials, but altered others. As if responding to
94 Art Giberson, compiled and ed., principal photographers, Art Giberson & Tony Giberson; other photographic assistance provided by Don Pacheco ... [et al.] Wall South (Pensacola, Fla.: Vietnam Veterans of Northwest Florida, Wall South Foundadtion, 1995). 95 I should note that Jacksonville did have museums and historic parks which interpreted the military history of Jacksonville. However, these interpretations did not include the individuals who had participated in the war, rather they educated the public on the past. The interpretation focused on national participation in wars. There was no inclusionary or reverence interpretation (such as a memorial) to military veterans in the city of Jacksonville, at the time.
45 the metaphoric call of the state memorial and to multiple national war memorials, Jacksonville created a “proud remembrance and humble tribute.”96
The Spawning of an Idea: Ray Moore’s Vision The idea for a memorial to Jacksonville’s military veterans was first introduced by Ray Moore, a former teacher and Jacksonville native. Moore began his career as an educator in Jacksonville in 1967 at Andrew Jackson High School. As the Florida Times- Union staffer Charlie Patton noted, it was a time “when body counts and body bags and film clips of war in a far-off place were beginning to penetrate the American consciousness.”97 As Moore taught, many of his former students, friends, and colleagues were being sent of to Vietnam. Learning of the death of five members of the football team he once coached, Moore wondered “if the sacrifice that boy had made would be remembered.”98 Moving ahead two decades, Moore had left teaching to pursue other opportunities. He was involved in the opening of Ed White High School, a new public high school on Jacksonville’s west side. In 1981, Moore became a State Farm Agent insurance agent. As his record demonstrates, he was equally as successful a businessman and a seller of insurance policies, as he was as an educator. While working, Moore also served on multiple civic-oriented committees and participated as a member of many clubs. Some included the Rotary Club, the Duval County School Board Blue Ribbon Committee, and the Better Business Bureau. It was easy to see that Moore was clearly an active participant in the Jacksonville community. It seems only likely that he would see the need for a city memorial to its military veterans. As the journalist Patton put it, “[while] the rest of the world forgot, Moore remembered.”99 Moore recalled a hand-lettered sign in Jackson High School, a local high school in the area, which listed the graduates who had died in World War II. At first Moore thought of creating a similar plaque listing the alumni who had died in the Vietnam War as a gesture from the Rotary Club, of which he was a member. Yet, the idea evolved. Instead
96 Part of inscription at the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall. 97 Charlie Patton, “Gesture to honor war dead becomes crusade,” Florida Times-Union, July 5, 1994, sec C- 1, continued to C-3. 98 Patton, C-1. 99 Patton, C-3.
46 of listing the alumni veterans from Jackson High School, Moore wanted to create a memorial to all of the war dead from Jacksonville and Duval County.100 Patton remarked: “Like the Wall, The Vietnam Memorial in Washington, the memorial Moore envisioned would list the names of the young men from Jacksonville who had died in the wars of the 20th century.”101 With this goal, he began to compile a list of names of the war dead, an arduous task.102 Though the Armed Forces kept records of the men and women who participated in the Vietnam War, Moore had difficulty deciding the criteria that would go in to choosing which names would be placed on the Jacksonville memorial. Moore decided what determined a Jacksonville veteran was, whether or not he or she lived in the city before or after the war in which he or she served. The state memorial in Tallahassee had used government records as the basis for its list of names. Fortunately for Ray Moore, his efforts were noticed by the Jacksonville City Council. In July of 1994, City Councilmember Max Leggett drafted an ordinance to create a veterans memorial wall, as well as a new trust fund to receive donations for the construction, and sent a request to the Office of the City Council to inform all members.103 Quickly, other council members requested to co-sponsor the ordinance to be introduced in August that same year. On August 9, 1994, Council member Leggett, along with members Carlucci, Brown, Cresimbeni, Davis, Draper, Fields, Griffin, Hogan, Jones, Kravitz, Lee, Miller, Myrick, Overton, Reagan, Smith, Tullis, and Wood, introduced Ordinance 94-904-515, otherwise known as the ordinance which established the Veterans Memorial Wall in Jacksonville. After the year’s worth of effort, Moore’s vision was finally becoming realized.
Legislative Action Many points were brought up by the nineteen authors of the ordinance when introducing the Veterans Memorial Wall ordinance to the Council. In the section
100 Patton, C-1 and C-3. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. 103 Memo from Jeff Clements, Policy Analyst, to Beverly Domen, Jacksonville City Council Secretary, July 22, 1994, Microfilm: July 1994. (Jacksonville Clerk of Courts, Legislative Services, 1994). Part of material with Ordinance 94-904-515.
47 preceding the actual city code, the bill’s sponsors gave their reasons for wanting and, in a sense, needing a memorial for their military brethren. The points of interest to this case study are twofold: Jacksonville’s strong military history, and the city’s lack of a memorial “in a prominent manner” to the heroic men and women who died while in service.104 The ordinance began by asserting that the city had longed enjoyed significance for military history: “WHEREAS, Jacksonville and Duval County have long held an important place in the military history of North America and the United States…”105 Indeed, Jacksonville had played a unique role in many of America’s military conflicts. For example, because of its accessibility by land and water, Jacksonville served as a supply point for the Confederates until it was blockaded by Union forces during the Civil War.106 Because it served as an access point to river systems and the Atlantic Ocean, the city was a valuable naval base for the state of Florida, as well as the region. Later in the 1940s, The U.S. Navy utilized Jacksonville by establishing three major naval bases, including the Naval Air Station. Having a military base in the city of Jacksonville brought many men and women to the area for the purposes of training and further education. With these specialized trainings at the Naval Base and an established military history, it seemed only natural for Jacksonville citizens to honor and respect the efforts of those military heroes who had lost their lives. The clause quoted earlier suggests Jacksonville should express its military credentials. The phrase “important place” and the use of geographical references to not only the United States but to all of North America further identified Jacksonville’s military heritage and its history in terms of not just the state or the country, but all of North America. The state capitol, Tallahassee, had already made us of its standing as the state’s political stronghold to erect a state Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It appears that through this clause the City Council members asserted the historical justification for a memorial to its war veterans. The City Council of Jacksonville, like Ray Moore, probably felt that a city that had such an established
104 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-904-515. 105 Ibid 106 George Buker, Jacksonville, riverport-seaport (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1991).
48 military heritage should attempt to recognize that legacy, and attempt to change the public’s perception of the city. Following the establishment of its military heritage, the ordinance continued by arguing: “WHEREAS, unlike other cities, Jacksonville has no memorial that displays in a prominent manner the names of the brave men and women of our city who have given their lives on the cause of our natural defense…”107 Unlike other cities in Florida, Jacksonville did not have a prominent city memorial to its veterans. For example, cities like Tallahassee and Pensacola had memorials to military veterans, of which Vietnam War memorials were the most prominent.108 In 1990, the U.S. Census listed Jacksonville’s population at 623,000 persons.109 This figure was staggering when compared to other cities in the northern Florida area, as well as the state itself. The city basically encompassed all of Duval County. The closest city of considerable size in proximity would have been the state capital, Tallahassee. In 1994, at the time when Ray Moore discussed his plan to construct a memorial to fallen war veterans, Tallahassee boasted 292,713 citizens.110 Jacksonville was by far larger in comparison. Even more notable, Jacksonville was considered the most populous city in the state, per the U.S. Census. In 1983, when state legislators in Tallahassee began talks of a state memorial to Vietnam veterans to be placed in the capital, Tallahassee was noticeably smaller in size than Jacksonville, erected and dedicated a state memorial. At the time of the dedication of the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Tallahassee maintained a population of 233,106.111 One is left wondering why a city clearly larger than the state capital did not have a memorial or monument in its downtown area to its veterans, or to America’s wars.
107 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-904-515. 108 In Tallahassee, there was the state memorial to Vietnam veterans was dedicated on November 11, 1985. Pensacola Vietnam veterans began the process to create a memorial to war dead in 1987 and finally dedicated what would eventually be termed “The Wall South” in 1992. 109 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1990 Federal Census for Duval County, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990) from the US Census Bureau website < http://www.census.gov/index.html> . 110 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1990 Federal Census for Leon County, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990) from the US Census Bureau website < http://www.census.gov/index.html>. Additional information for year growth and projections to 1994 were taken from the website. 111 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1983 Federal Census Records for Leon County, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990), from the US Census Bureau website
49 Maybe the people of Jacksonville felt a sense of responsibility to its military veterans. This would not be an uncommon notion to assert. State lawmakers faced an obligation to Floridian servicemen and women when creating the state Vietnam Veterans Memorial, just as Jan Scruggs and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund believed it necessary to take it upon themselves to honor their fallen comrades. A city rich in military history, like Jacksonville was, may have deemed it necessary to construct a memorial to fallen military personnel. Thus, with elements of military history and civic responsibility stirring emotions, the Jacksonville City Council passed Ordinance 94-904- 515, creating the Jacksonville Memorial Wall Trust Fund and establishing a means to honor and memorialize the men and women of the city who died while serving in the military.
The Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund Advisory Committee With the passage of Ordinance 94-904, the city council created the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund Advisory Committee, along with an accompanying trust fund, to “advise the City on the design and location of such a memorial wall.”112 The committee would consist of seven members, with one member acting as the chairperson. There were stipulations as to who could serve on the committee. Of note, at least one member “shall be a representative of a recognized military veterans’ organization and at least one of whom shall be a representative of the active duty military community in Jacksonville.”113 These committee member stipulations were interesting because the city council wanted to ensure military participation in the memorial design and content. By having this measure, the city council insured the creation of an informed and thoughtful memorial to its veterans. Such an inclusionary measure would strengthen the memorial context through its collaboration of city with military. The City Council authorized the Advisory Committee to suggest the design and location of the memorial. The committee was to also consider how to “best honor the
112 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-904-515. 113 Ibid.
50 memory” of the veterans through the design and location.114 With these responsibilities, the committee could choose how to best organize and present the conclusions to the City Council as a report to be presented at a later date. The Advisory Committee prepared to determine such aspects of the memorial as design and location. Would the committee follow the example set by the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Florida Vietnam Veterans memorial? The committee did have the same responsibilities as the two memorials previously mentioned. Or, would Jacksonville attempt to go another direction with its memorial? Jacksonville had already distinguished itself by not honoring the dead of a specific war or wars, but rather all military conflicts of the Twentieth Century, from World War I to The Persian Gulf War. To distance itself from the predisposed actions of the memorial committees preceding it would only underscore the distinction of the Veterans Memorial Wall.
Design and Location The Advisory Committee decided to forgo the route of the design competition chosen by other groups, such as Tallahassee and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, when attempting to pick a design for the Veterans Memorial Wall.115 From the original name of the establishing ordinance, it appears that the City Council already had a perceived notion of what the memorial should look like. From the language of the ordinance, one can assume that the city council already had a vision for the appearance of the memorial from its introduction. The council did not write that there would be a design competition to deduce the form and function of the memorial; rather it clearly stated the design’s starting point as being a wall. The national Vietnam Veterans memorial did not have a distinct design in mind when it was purposed; perhaps it was its vagueness in contextual meaning that made the memorial so appealing to multiple designers. The Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund had an evident conceptual design in mind before the Advisory Committee even met. Therefore, a
114 This is inferred from the duties outlined in Ordinance 94-904-515 creating the Council to the Advisory Committee. It is deduced that design, location, and context of the memorial all fall under the Committee’s role. 115Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-904-515. Jacksonville City Council documents indicate that the Advisory Committee went through the proper steps to devise a design and location; however, there is no suggestion that a design competition ever took place.
51 design competition seemed futile when there was already a defined type of memorial that the council was looking for. On March 22, 1995, less than a year after the memorial was proposed, the Advisory Committee submitted its recommendations to the city council. Ray Moore, one of the Advisory Committee members, wrote Councilman Tullis of the recommendation: Site: The site recommended for the Veterans Memorial Wall is what is now the grassed area immediately south of the main entrance to the Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Concept: The conceptual design recommended for the Veterans Memorial Wall, which was developed by Traylor/Wolfe Architects … As a point of information the Architect, Engineer, and General Contractor are all donating their services to the project.116
The location for the Veterans Memorial Wall seemed obvious after the naming of the stadium sports complex located downtown. As part of the five-year capital improvement plan, the downtown coliseum was being renovated. Officials planned to bring a professional football team, along with other professional sports teams to Jacksonville. With renovations and improvements also come new names, the coliseum was renamed the Veterans Memorial Coliseum.117 The conceptual design was submitted to the Council on March 21, 1995, through drawings from the Traylor/Wolfe Architectural Firm. The drawings (figure 5) depicted the memorial wall as a lengthy wall comprised of black granite panels. The panels would contain a list of names of Jacksonville citizens who had died in military conflict from the Spanish-American war to the present.118 Three flag poles and a smaller pillar containing an inscription for the wall would be placed in front of the wall. The ground would be landscaped with brick pathways and small trees.119 Two elements of the design are worth noting: the donation of services provided, and the conceptual use of black granite panels for the listing of those who had died. The
116 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 95-395-60, exhibit A: Ray Moore to Councilman Jim Tullis, regarding the Veterans Memorial Wall Advisory Committee, March 22, 1995. 117 The Coliseum was eventually remodeled in September of 2000, as part of the Better Jacksonville Plan. Though the Veterans Memorial Arena and the Veterans Memorial Wall were connected (part of the wall was connected to the walls of the coliseum), the planned explosions kept two walls of the coliseum up to protect the memorial. Today, the coliseum is known for the sport event it holds every year, the Gator Bowl. Information of the planned improvement and demolition from:
52 donation was noted earlier in the quote above from Advisory Committee member Ray Moore to Councilmember Tullis. The architect, engineer and general contractor were all donating their services. This donation of work is unique. In contrast, the state memorial in Tallahassee, there were monies allocated from the state’s fiscal budget. The national memorial relied on private donations to fund the costs of design and construction for its memorial.
Figure 5. Designs submitted by Traylor/Wolfe Architectural Firm. Scanned from copy placed with Jacksonville City Ordinance 95-395-60, 2007.
53
Figure 5, continued.
Taking cues from both Florida’s state memorial and the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Jacksonville’s Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund accepted private donations and public monies to fund the memorial. Yet, even though there were these two sources of funding for the memorial, those who participated in its conception and construction willingly offered their service for no charge.120 The design concept included black granite panels to display the list of names, a concept all too common to the previous memorials mentioned above. The use of black granite appeared to have become a standard after the reception and great attendance seen at the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Florida’s state memorial to Vietnam veterans also employed black granite paneling as its main design focal point. The memorial placed in Pensacola by the Northwest Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund replicated the
120 One could assume that those who donated their services may have been colleagues of the council or the advisory committee, or perhaps they received a form of compensation through their company’s recognition with the memorial wall project.
54 exact design of the national, with black granite black at one half the original size.121 Black granite was no longer shocking; it was now standard. All of these influences and mimics of the original design concept appeared to have resurfaced once again in a Florida memorial. This time Jacksonville incorporated the idea to honor all its veterans, not just those that served in Vietnam. With the design and location picked for the Veterans Memorial Wall approved and passed, the last step before beginning actual construction was the appropriation of funds. As previously mentioned, the city council had approved the Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund to accept funds from a variety of sources, “whether from personal or corporate donations or from grants or appropriations of governmental funds.”122 The architectural design, engineering, and general contracting services were all being donated; however, these were not all of the services needed to produce and construct the memorial. What could not be funded through donations again fell into the hands of the City Council.
Funds and Appropriations The City Council met on July 25, 1995, to discuss the appropriations to be made in Jacksonville’s fiscal budget and capital improvement program to fund the construction of the memorial wall. The council passed Ordinance 95-777-406, which itemized just how much of the city council’s operating budget would be appropriated to fund the memorial. Not all districts appropriated funds to the memorial wall. Yet, those who did were names that were familiar throughout this process. The districts which appropriated funds from their operating budgets were: District 01 (Cresimbeni), 02 (Tullis), 03 (Brown), 04 (Kravitz), 07 (Fields), 11 (Leggett), 12 (Hogan), 13 (Hipps), and 14 (Overton). With the exception of Councilman Hipps, each member appropriated ten thousand dollars, or more, from their district’s operating budget to fund the memorial’s construction. Both City Council members Leggett and Tullis donated 50,000 dollars of their respective districts’ operating budgets. District 12,
121 Pensacola “Wall South” Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 122 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-904-515.
55 represented by Councilmember Hogen, appropriated 35,000 dollars. (See the district map, Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Current Map of Jacksonville City Council Districts. Note: similar to those of 1994-1995. Also, 40,000 dollars was appropriated from the Executive Operating Revenue which is normally used to fund the Mayor’s office and his departments.
56 With the exception of Hipps, who was new to the City Council, all of the council members were the part of the original introduction of the bill to create the memorial.123 Thus, from the funds of each of the above mentioned nine districts and the mayor’s office, the City Council appropriated 230,000 dollars. The Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund was able to raise 110,000 dollars in non- governmental contributions, 90,000 dollars of which went to reimburse Council members Tullis, Hogan, and Leggett. One should note that Leggett requested the drafting of the ordinance to establish the memorial wall. Tullis was serving as the chair when the bill was introduced. Hogan was one of the many who originally co-sponsored the bill. However, these were not the main reasons that the councilmen were receiving reimbursement for their district budget’s contribution. All three council members committed to large and advanced funds from the operating budgets of their districts pursuant to the enactment of the final appropriations budget that would consider reimbursement of some, if not all, the funds pledged.124 Because three council members pledged advanced funds to the construction of the Veteran’s Memorial Wall, they were entitled to have a portion of that money reimbursed for the benefit of each of their districts. Council members Tullis and Leggett would be refunded 40,000 of the original 50,000 dollars appropriated.125 Hogan would receive 30,000 of the 35,000 dollars originally given to the construction of the memorial.126 One must remember that the Council members also had to pay attention to the needs and wants of their respective districts. The three districts who pledged advanced funds deserved to be able to provide for their districts if the funds were available in some other source to do so.
123 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 94-904-515. The ordinance lists all the council members noted above as introducing the bill to establish a memorial wall. Council member Hipps was not included on that list, nor on the records of procedures and voting of the City Council for the two ordinances mentioned preceding this ordinance, 95-777-406. Hipps may have been an acting replacement or newly elected member. This is assumed because of an article that appeared in the Florida Times-Union on March 27, 1995, announcing a City Council candidates’ forum at the Northside Civic Association. Thus, a replacement council member was named after this meeting. 124 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 95-777-406, (Jacksonville, 1995). An ordinance to fund construction of the Veterans Memorial Wall, amended 25 July 1995. 125 Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 95-777-406, “Proposed Budget Entries for Veterans Memorial Wall,” (Jacksonville, 1995). 126 Ibid.
57 Jacksonville’s use of both donated non-governmental funds and government appropriations should be noted. Even with donated services of architectural design and engineering, the memorial was a costly endeavor. With the ability to raise funds from the local citizens and private organizations, The Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund was able to involve the area community. Also, with the ability to use government appropriated funds, the project could develop in a timely manner without a fear of inability to raise enough funding or ability to lobby for more appropriations. By combining the two, the Veterans Memorial Wall Trust Fund was able to secure the means necessary to develop and construct its memorial. Following the completion of the budget for the Veterans Memorial Wall Project, the City Council provided Priority One status to the project through the passage of Ordinance 95-781. Before this step was taken, the Planning and Development Department revised the City’s 1994-1999 Capital Improvement Program to include the Veterans Memorial Wall Project.127 After a vote of 6-0, the City Council approved for priority one status. The Veterans Memorial Wall reached the ended of its legislation. Priority One status established top priority to the completion of the Veterans’ Memorial Wall Project, with dedication in clear sight.
The Veterans Memorial Wall: Dedication and Impact The Veterans Memorial Wall was finally completed in November of 1995 (see Figure F). Citizens from all round the Jacksonville area gathered to participate in the events surrounding the opening and dedication of the new memorial. On November 9th, 1,533 names were read in a solemn service for the war dead, “[some] of the names had not been called out at ceremonies in 70 years.”128 The names were divided into the section, to denote the war in which the individuals had fought in. The following day, November 10, 1995, the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall was dedicated, with ceremonies including a parade, Naval rifle salute and flyovers.
127 John H. Croft, Acting Chief of the Comprehensive Planning Division, to Sam Mousa, Director of the Public Works Department, July 10, 1995, Jacksonville City Council, Ordinance 95-781, Exhibit A (Jacksonville, 1995). 128 John Fritz, “Jacksonville memorial honors war dead,” Florida Times-Union, November 10, 1995. sec. A-1, continued on A-7.
58 The days were filled with high emotions for loved ones lost and community members remembered. The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville’s local newspaper, covered the memorial’s opening and dedication. The stories that ran on both the 9th and 10th were filled with the public’s reaction, often focusing in on those who were veterans or those who had lost a family member or friend. Ray Moore, the original proponent, remarked on the memorial saying: “This means family members that have lost loved ones now know their son’s or husband’s names are not going to be forgotten.”129 In editorial that was anonymously penned, the writer remarked upon the day and the honoring of war veterans. The author noted, regrettably, that the honor of a war progressed from the war fought to the individuals who had died during the struggle. “The emphasis shifted to honoring the war dead.”130 The author’s intention did not appear to be demeaning to the sacrifices made by war dead, but rather to enhance the notion that war in inevitable. To him, “[that] is the message of the Duval County Memorial Wall, which lists local people killed in World War I and all wars since.”131 Interestingly, it was with the dedication that one learns of another influence behind Moore’s vision for the memorial. It was noted earlier that Moore admitted to having been influenced by the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. Moore was also influenced by American war cemeteries while visiting in Europe. “He said he thought it ironic that the names of local men were memorialized there but not back home.”132 Moore recognized that his friends and neighbors were nationally accepted for their service and sacrifice during wartime. His efforts to enhance the understanding of war memory back in his home of Jacksonville was his way of reminding the city to memorialize the individual, even if political controversy surrounds a war or military conflict.
129 Fritz, A-1 and A-7. 130 “Veterans Day: A Time of Gratitude,” Florida Times-Union, 11 November 1995, sec. A-16. 131 “Veterans Day: A Time of Gratitude,” sec. A-16. 132 Ibid.
59 Figure 7. Present Day Image of the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall. © Ruthie Deen, 2007.
60 The meaning of the Veterans Memorial Wall was strengthened when considering the close impact of its planning and realization. The memorial wall was to honor those citizens of Jacksonville and Duval County who died while serving in the American military conflicts. Unlike the national Vietnam Veterans memorial or the Florida Vietnam Veterans memorial, this memorial was created by a city, a smaller community unit, for the citizens that had lived in it. A national memorial, while emotionally moving and respectful, sometimes cannot affect one as much as a memorial or monument ingrained in a city’s identity and history, especially for the person from that city. To illustrate this concept The Florida Times- Union shared the story of Tobi Lane. Lane’s son, David, had been killed while serving in Vietnam. While his name was inscribed on the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Tobi Lane felt that the Jacksonville Memorial meant more: “This means so much, because home people are doing this.”133 This reaction was the reaction and understanding that Moore wished to bring out in the city of Jacksonville when he first proposed the idea for a memorial to war veterans.
A noble tribute to a city The Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall obviously reflected influences from both the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The Jacksonville memorial wall chose not to limit its focus to the fallen service men and women from just one war. However, it was evident that the means chosen to remember those from one war can influence others when creating their own memorializations for their own community. A national memorial, as well as a state memorial, has a broad audience. Yet, Jacksonville’s audience was localized and familiar. Local people participated in the planning. Local companies aided in construction. Local government provided for the means necessary to create such a memorial. As seen from the response of Tobi Lane, it meant a little more to have the remembrance at a local level. Although the Jacksonville memorial was not in direct response to the Vietnam War, the memory of tragedy and loss had prevailed some twenty years later. The listing
133 “Veterans Day: A Time of Gratitude,” sec. A-16.
61 of names of war dead on reflective, highly polished paneling seemed an effective and respectful way to remember and memorialize. Jacksonville memorial planners saw this in the receptions of the public to the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Noticing that the city lacked what other had, Jacksonville decided it was time to honor the war dead citizens of its community. An arduous task, it was thoughtfully executed with precision and accuracy. From idea to City Ordinance to Capital Improvement Project, the Veterans Memorial Wall added a unique sense of history to a town already teeming with it. As the idea of the memorial progress from the national to the state to the local community level, its resonance remained. This resonance, however, evolved from a political statement to an idea of respect and honor. The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, though not a blatant political statement, did change the public’s understanding of proper remembrance for war dead. The Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall displays this evolution to respectful individualized remembrance of a war conflict through its poignant composition and heritage.
62 CONCLUSIONS
Yet what never abated was that which the monument satisfied: the desire to commemorate, to mark a place, to represent the past to the present and future, to emphasize one narrative of the past at the expense of others, or simply to make the past the past.134
In 2005, Maya Ying Lin was ranked 35th out of 100 people who made a difference in America by the Smithsonian Institution. This ranking articulates Maya Lin’s significant gift to the American architectural community, as well as the American public. In the article written by Michael Parfit, Lin discusses the “surface simplicity” and “underlying intellectual complexity” surrounding her most well known memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. She was able to take a tumultuous time in American history and separate the political implications to remember and honor the men and women to whom the memorial was meant for. When reflecting on her career and lasting impression on the American public, Parfit said it all in three words: “No preaching. Insight.”135 Maybe that is what a memorial or monument is supposed to do. No statement. Just reflect. In the examples explored in this work, the men and women involved in the planning and construction of the state memorial in Tallahassee and the city memorial wall in Jacksonville applied Lin’s message of insight and reflection. Tallahassee closely followed Lin’s idea, because Florida, too, was planning a memorial to Vietnam veterans. Jacksonville’s memorial was influenced by Lin’s national memorial, but chose to employ the insightful reflection to all of the city’s war dead, not just those from the Vietnam War. Though Tallahassee and Jacksonville’s memorials were influenced by the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, they still maintain a unique sense of audience and location. The differences between a national, state, and city memorial can be seen in each memorial’s implementation and eventual dedication. The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial was meant to speak to a national community. The audience is large and diverse. A state memorial would have the same strengths and weaknesses as a national memorial based solely on its large audience. However, the Florida Vietnam Veterans
134 Robert S. Nelson and Margaret Olin, eds., Monuments and Memory: Made and Unmade (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), 2. 135 Michael Parfit, “Maya Lin,” Smithsonian Magazine, November 2005, 101.
63 Memorial was able to develop the strengths for its own benefit, while altering the weaknesses the memorial’s planning commission felt would not work for Florida. A city memorial is meant to reflect the thoughts and emotions of a community. The citizens are the center of a city, and they ultimately chose to honor and remember in their own distinct way. While each is different, these three memorials (on a national, state, and local level) show how a community responds to war, death, and tragedy. Each memorial has its own meaning and message, but they all share a goal to honor veterans and remember a particular time that had an important effect on the community where it is placed. The lasting impression of the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial is its emphasis on individualization. The viewer has his or her own unique experience when visiting, making the memorial have an impact on the personal level. The names cannot be forgotten when one looks into the black paneling and sees his reflected image chiseled with the names of the dead. The names are imprinted on each visitor. Whether or not he or she knows about the war or the political controversies surrounding it, one can understand the value of a human life sacrificed in wartime. The state of Florida and the city of Jacksonville grasped this concept of individualized memory. One may not understand a war, but he or she does understand the loss of a loved one. As seen in the planning and construction of their memorials to Vietnam veterans and all war veterans, the two governments took elements from Maya Lin’s national memorial to properly remember and honor the citizens of their state or city. The lasting resonance of Lin’s vision of the war memorial parlayed itself from the national level, to the state, and even the city community level. Yet, the architectural similarities are not the only significant features to the state memorial and Jacksonville’s memorial wall. Florida’s state memorial to Vietnam Veterans was the first state memorial to the Vietnam War to use government funds. Unlike the state memorial, the national memorial was funded through private donations from both individuals and corporations. The act of the state legislature to fund the Florida Vietnam Veterans Memorial was a statement by the government of Florida in recognition to its veterans and to those who lived in the state and died while serving their country during the Vietnam War.
64 Jacksonville’s city memorial followed a similar path to its state predecessor. Comparable to the state memorial to Vietnam veterans, Jacksonville’s memorial wall was fund in part through city commission budgets. As seen in the local ordinances and city five-year-improvement plan, the City Commission of Jacksonville took the initiative to fund in part its city memorial, and not limit itself to private donations. Thus, the Tallahassee and Jacksonville memorials were able to put their own distinctive marks on the national memorial’s underlying influence. Like, the national memorial, these two memorials progressed the traditional war memorial and traditional remembrance of war veterans. The transformation of the traditional war memorial can only progress with time. As America enters new military conflicts, we find this individualization expressed in many new areas. The individual became preeminent to the cause. This idea has now become commonplace in the Americans everyday life. For instance, the yellow ribbons placed on cars and trucks symbolize the support of American troops in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Support is removed from the global military conflict and instead invested in the individuals defending our country and aiding others in the quest for democracy. These small yellow ribbons show Americans’ evolving perceptions of war. Americans altered their wartime military support from passive patriotism to visible individual public displays of support. The twenty-first century has ushered in not only a new concept of war, but also a new discussion of the relevance of war, now visible in public expressions. Maya Lin’s symbolic intention increased and changed the public discussion about war. Lin challenged public memory to explore unknown territory, both though her Vietnam Veterans Memorials and the memorials she designed afterwards, especially the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Alabama. Each of her monuments and memorials prompt the visitor to stop and reflect upon individual sacrifice for the overall benefit. One can only speculate how the nation will discuss, remember, and memorialize the conflicts the armed forces are facing today. In the post 9/11 society of today, many wonder how and when the nation will begin a new public discourse and remembrance. One cannot forget the image that appeared on the front page of the New York Times depicting a night image of two flood lights beams where the World Trade Center Towers once stood. The image became a
65 form of remembrance and honor. But will there be a memorial? Like the controversy surrounding the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, placement, design and funding has created conflict for a September 11th Memorial in New York City. Just as the state legislature of Florida and the City Commission of Jacksonville chose to honor the war dead in their community, today America faces the need to remember and memorialize the men and women of today’s terrorist conflict. Whether it will be a memorial to the Iraq War or to the men and women who died in the World Trade Center attacks, the memorialization that Maya Lin so eloquently portrayed will resonate in another form or fashion to another generation participating in other wars and conflicts. As she said in her interview to the Smithsonian, “You know I hate to preach [, but] we can give insight.”136 With all the political controversies that surround military conflict today, we can no longer offer a patriotic justification or a nationalist perspective. Rather, we can offer insight into the personal struggle for the universal whole. We all understand sacrifice. We all see value in a name. As we search for meaning during war, maybe we should be reflecting on the experience.
136 Parfit, 101-102.
66 REFERENCES
A Strong Clear Vision, Directed by Freida Lee Mock, 1 hr. 23 min., New Viedo Group, 1995. DVD. Abramson, Daniel. “Maya Lin and the 1960s: Monuments, Time Lines, and Minimalism.” Critical Inquiry, 22, No. 4 (Summer 1996): 679-709. “Better Jacksonville Plan.”
67 Homas, Peter, ed. Symbolic Loss: The Ambiguity of Mourning and Memory at the Century’s End. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2000. Jacksonville City Council. Ordinance 94-825-562. Jacksonville, 1994. Jacksonville City Council. Ordinance 94-904-515. Jacksonville, 1995. Jacksonville City Council. Ordinance 95-395-60. Jacksonville, 1995. Jacksonville City Council. Ordinance 95-777-406. Jacksonville, 1995. Jacksonville City Council. Ordinance 95-781, Exhibit A. Jacksonville, 1995. Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Wall, Jacksonville, Florida. Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. New York: Viking Press, 1983. LeWare, Margaret Rose. “Public Space and Postmodernism: a rhetorical study of two contemporary works of public art.” Ph.D. diss. Northwestern University, 1993. Lin, Maya. Boundaries. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Mason, Bobby Ann. In Country. New York: HarperCollins, 1985. Mayo, James M. “War Memorials as Political Memory.” Geographical Review 78, No. 1 (January, 1988): 62-75. McGirr, Patricia L. “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Landscape and Gender in the Twentieth Century” in Deborah L. Rotman and Ellen-Rose Savulis, eds., Shared Spaces and Divided Places. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2003, 62-85. National Park Service, copyrighted image of Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 1982, Black granite, each wall: 246 feet long, 10 1/2 feet high, Washington D.C. “National Vietnam Veterans Memorial, National Parks Service.”
68 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1990 Federal Census for Duval County, Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990, from < http://www.census.gov/index.html> . U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1990 Federal Census for Leon County, Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990, from < http://www.census.gov/index.html>. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1983 Census Records for Leon County, Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1990, from
69 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jessamyn Daniel Boyd was born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama. In the fall of 2001, she entered the Florida State University as an undergraduate, majoring in History. During her undergraduate years, Jessamyn Boyd was involved in numerous volunteer activities, including the national co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega, completing over 150 documented service hours. In 2005, she completed her Bachelor of Arts in History, earning Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa. In the fall of that year, she began her graduate studies at Florida State in Historical Administration and Public History. She plans to pursue a career in the museum field.
70