Civil War Seminar Professor Warder May 26Th, 2021

The Politicization of Civil War Memory

Richard J. Kipphut

HIST-495-01: Civil War Seminar

Professor Warder

May 26th, 2021

Introduction

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.1

Civil War monuments and memorials are tangible symbols that represent the loss a divided nation suffered through the political turmoil that arose between the Union and the

Confederacy during the war. These symbols help to connect the past to the present that assist in conveying the meaning of a collective historic memory, though brief in nature as these tributes tend to be. Created during a time of immense anguish and sorrow, they helped to diminish the inconsolable bereavement that accompanies death and erected throughout cities and towns after the war. For future generations, the loss of the historic significance of these monuments tend to fad the further removed they become from the events that occasioned their construction. Lost, are the heroic deeds that produced these memorial artifacts. Yet memorial art, seen through the aesthetic lens, perpetuates the ethos of the culture by keeping the heroic memory alive through their physical imagery.

As a result, war monuments guided by memory, were instrumental in shifting the country’s political posture away from a pre-war iconoclasm belief that government, and by extension the military, were restrictive of civil liberties and not worthy of active consideration.

This shift created a greater patriotic acceptance that a liberal government was far more

1 “First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln,” March 4, 1861. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

3 beneficial to the political health and welfare of a representative democracy through effectual participation.

In many ways, Civil War monuments and memorials are political statements, and not merely emblems to the dead. Their raison d’être are largely shaped by their connection to other actors,2 not just the families of the fallen. As Antoine Prost states, “exemplary scholarship on war memorials has combined analysis of sponsors’ identities and fund-raising strategies, the location selected for a work, its design and inscriptions, and the long-term uses of the memorial space”3can direct political discourse among the participants. The design and inscription were also, by all accounts the area where heated contention was the most severe, for it held the greatest significance to its sponsors and the community. Would the future monument recognize the citizen-soldier, the military commander, or the solemn victory?4 Each city or town had to choose its own political path.

After the war, monuments became a cottage industry with trade journals listing a variety of choices. Some were of the lone soldier, while others incorporated allegory figures with soldiers and sailors standing guard along the periphery; and which monument or statue a city or town selected, reviled to some degree their political affiliation. There were a host of sculptors who were vying for recognition among the various clientele who were in the market for

2 Individuals, civic organizations, or stack holders who have an emotion connection to the events.

3 Antoine Prost, “Monuments to the Dead.” Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past 3, no. 2 (1997): 307–32.

4 Thomas J. Brown. Civil War Monuments and the Militarization of America. (The University of North Carolina Press, 2019), 7-9.

4 monuments, Augustus Saint-Gaudens, James Batterson, Martin Milmore, Daniel Chester

French, Randolph Rogers, and Casper Buberl to name a few. Of all the monuments that were available for sale, a large majority of New Hampshire cities and towns selected the lone citizen- soldier to best represent the ideals that each monument committee were attempting to convey to the population at large. Another interesting element in the committee’s selection is whether the citizen-soldier was a sentinel, with his rifle at the ready, or at parade rest, with the butt of the rifle at his feet. What does this say about the committee? Was it an aesthetic or a political choice?5

Though there were other factors at work that contributed to the political shift within the country after the war, the commemoration of Civil War monuments played an important role.

Society began to recognize that the sacrifice these soldiers gave to the public good was a value that was worthy of a social commitment to the ideals that these monuments represented.6 Yet, do theses memorials represent us, or are they somehow foreign to our social understanding of the events that unfolded during these conflicts? Are there other social forces at work that make us question how we view social upheaval in the abstract; or are we exempt from the shifting societal assumptions that thrust us forward with the passage of time?

We are inclined to believe that New Hampshire is in some way immune from the shifting attitudes of Civil War memorials that is currently consuming the Southern States because with victory comes political privilege. Still, we must not beguile ourselves with false praise, for there are always hidden influences at work that can dismantle even the most ardent

5 Thomas J. Brown. The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration: A Brief History with Documents. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004), 24.

6 Brown, 37.

5 harbor of convictions held deep within our collective consciousness, only to be untethered from its protected mooring of complacency on the journey to social awareness.

Societal norms and mores must operate within a limited and fixed structure for there to be any shared understanding of their role in guiding and directing social convention of a given society. In essence, norms and mores direct how citizens interact with one another, and to a larger degree, determine which social principals require allegiance to a social structure that must maintain control; since without these standards of decorum, appropriateness, and leadership mechanisms, our system of behavior would cease to exist in its present form. Polite society gets its cues, not just from social interaction, but also from collective memory. Thus, memory becomes the linchpin that connects our historic understand of which social conventions must take precedence when determining the proper response and sentiment within a judicial public display, be it the act of morning or the act of commemoration, they each follow a predetermined avenue of conduct; and memory is the driving force behind this communal behavior.

War Memorials as Political Memories

War memorials acquire their landscape definition from sentiment, utility, social purpose, and historical interpretations. Social purpose of identity and service can be used to express sacred and nonsacred sentiment for war memory, but honor and humanitarianism are used only to symbolize the sacred in memorials.7

7 James M. Mayo, “War Memorials as Political Memory.” Geographical Review 78, no. 1 (January 1988): 62 https://www.jstor.org/stable/214306.

War memorials reside within the sphere of a social, cultural, and political landscape.

Their very existence predicated upon the understanding of its citizen that the memorial is a larger reflection of their belief in the social legitimacy of the struggle or sacrifice that brought about its inception. One cannot, at least within a limited sense, commemorate a cause that is deemed illegitimate with any wanton fervor that is essential to the reverence of a war memorial within the hearts of its citizens. There must be a pact between parties of the honor offered to further the commemoration of the memorial in question. Remembrance is not just merely a thought process recalling information, but rather a vehicle for providing the needs of the present. Without which, commemoration would not be possible.

The social compact within the community prior to the erection of a given memorial requires that the sacred and the utility merge within a moral and spiritual sentimental framework, thereby giving it value. Though the scared and hallow are more immediately evident, the utilitarian aspect can be somewhat illusive. The utility of these memorials tends to reside in non-traditional structures such as schools or hospitals, where sacred and utility merge more readily, yet there are critics, most notably veteran groups, which say they diminish the dignity of the dead by anointing a pedestrian structure with such reverence. Though communities have a shared interest, the financial sponsorship of a non-traditional memorial dictates the allocation of funds, and to what project.8

Prior to planning, funding, designing, and erecting a war memorial, communities must answer a host of questions related to the structure they intend to create. What is the assigned meaning to the memorial? Will it be a singular or a collective memorial? What value, spiritual

8 Mayo, 14

7 or utilitarian? Within a “sense of place”, where will the memorial reside within the landscape?

What historical interpretations will it convey?9

The Lineage of Commemoration

Figure 1.10

With many northern soldiers interred within national cemeteries, monument production flourished after the war as cities and towns endeavored to pay respect to their native sons who perished in the conflict. The longing by wives and mothers to establish a tangible symbol of

9 John Brinkerhoff Jackson. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 54.

10 New Hampshire State Veterans Cemetery, Boscawen, NH

8 their husband and son’s sacrifice created a surge in war monuments throughout the north.

Though the number of new monument construction fluctuated between the 1860s to the

20th century, their construction nevertheless remained firm as communities sought to acknowledge their own contribution to the war effort.11

Also contributing to these memorials by local political leaders and civic groups were the

GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) and the WRC (Women’s Relief Corps). The membership in the GAR, though stagnant in the first decade after the war, experienced a resurgence between

1876 and 1884 as the membership swelled to 350,000.12 The WRC, now affiliated with the

GAR with respect to organizing Memorial Day festivities, helped to champion new construction of monuments as well. Unlike the GAR, which required a member to have served during the war, the WRC only required a dedication to the Union as an admission requirement. Both groups were instrumental in the planning and funding phases of monument construction, and most Civil War monuments displayed their initials in recognition.13

War monuments have an interesting lineage, from the European theatre during the

Napoleonic Wars, to the American Revolution. Monuments and memorials reflect remembrance to political conflicts that shaped our understanding of the human condition. Though the

Founding Fathers shunned memorials as a vestige of old-world authoritarianism, some monuments nonetheless mark the heroic deeds of battles fought for freedom from oppression, and other political struggles.14

11 Thomas J. Brown. Civil War Monuments and the Militarization of America. (The University of North Carolina Press, 2019), 55-63.

12 Brown, 65.

13 Brown, 107.

14 Brown, 2.

The desire to plan, fund, design, and erect monuments took many forms. The first were

New Hampshire monuments that represented the ordinary citizen-soldier who answered the call to serve from a patriotic yearning to defend the Union against the Confederate States. Some had been members of a local militia, while others simply volunteered to fulfill a civic duty.15 These local units, if not part of an existing militia, spontaneously arose to meet the needs of a national emergency. Their unit commanders had to draw from artisans, yeoman-farmers, grocery clerks, and day laborers. Though not Ivy League educated as some in the officer corps, they were nonetheless products of a liberal education and understood that nationalism played a role in their worldview. They appreciated the political consequences of their actions and recognized what was at risk. These singular monuments reflected the calm dignity these citizen-soldiers came to symbolize to the broader community that they represented.16

The second were monuments representing military leaders who were usually astride a gallant steed reminiscent of military commanders of a bygone era. They were fashioned to display an imposing figure, chivalrous, honorable, principled, courageous, and competent. The sheer size of these monuments created the illusion that the figure depicted was larger than life and deserving of all the adulation that was directed towards their leadership, so any character flaws, no matter how minor, were subsequently removed.17 General Fitz John Porter, whose

15 Lima Weekly Gazette (Ohio), 23 October 1861

16 Frank, Joseph Allan. “Profile of a Citizen Army: Shiloh’s Soldiers.” Armed Forces &

Society 18, no. 1 (Fall91): 97–110.

17 Brown, 42-54.

10 military and political arch did not follow the usual path to universal respect, has an imposing statue in Memorial Park in Portsmouth, NH. It ticks all the boxes one would require of an equestrian statue, yet, as we have recently learned from the removal of Confederate monuments, reverence is a fickle mistress, and can turn with the unpredictability of political capriciousness.

The third, which is so eloquently stated by John F. Kennedy is, “There’s an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan” allows the victor to erect monuments in a triumphant accord to the commemoration of political conquest. It is therefore somewhat difficult to recognize, let alone classify, a victory monument from a “standard” war monument, which is a distinction without a difference. In essence, all three are victory monuments celebrating good over evil, or whatever platitude fills the soul with jubilation to temper the pain of loss so dearly felt by the bereaved.18

Historical Consciousness

Historical memory … was not merely an entity altered by the passage of time; it was the prize in a struggle between rival versions of the past, a question of will, of power, of persuasion. The historical memory of any transforming or controversial event emerges from cultural and political competition, from the choice to confront the past and to debate and manipulate its meaning.19

How we emotionally connect with a monument or a memorial is through memory. Yet, how we interpret that memory is just as important. Memory comes in many guises, long-term

18 Brown, 42-54.

19 David W. Blight, “The Meaning or the Fight: Frederick Douglass and the Memory of the Fifty Fourth Massachusetts.” The Massachusetts Review 36, no. 1 (1995): 141–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25090590.

11 memory, short-term memory, sentimental memory, and historical memory. Each seek to form a temporal association between historical experiences and a cerebral relationship around past, present and future events. Though we tend to assume that historical memory is linear with a smooth transition, Pierre Nora argued that “memory installs remembrance within the sacred; history, always prosaic, releases it again. Memory is blind to all but the group it binds-which is to say … that there are as many memories as there are groups, that memory is by nature multiple and yet specific; collective, plural, and yet individual. History, on the other hand, belongs to everyone and to no one, whence its claim to universal authority.”20

Historical consciousness allows us to view history through a temporal lens, where experiences appear in a logical framework; while Barry Schwartz argues, “Recollection of the past is an active, constructive process, not a simple matter of retrieving information. To remember is to place a part of the past in the service of conceptions and needs of the present.”21

These frameworks, however, have competing agents, for they operate within a social, cultural, and political paradigm created by the conflict between rival groups. This struggle amongst competing ideologies and historic memories, influence how the community will come to view the official public memory of a monument or memorial, as each faction seeks to dominate the historical narrative.

Sponsorship of a monument can take many forms, and as it begins to take shape, there is invariably a power struggle between civic groups in the community vying for a particular historical interpretation. This tension between competing actors is what John Bodnar calls the

20 Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.” Special Issue: Memory and Counter Memory, Spring, no. 26 (1989): 7–24.

21 Schwartz, Barry. “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.” Social Forces 61, no. 2 (1982), 374. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578232.

“official group” versus the “vernacular group”.22 Official groups usually represent the town elders, civic organizations, community leaders, and the well-heeled elite. They provide the funds necessary to accomplish these civic goals, and therefore their opinions carry more authority than other groups with less political capital. Vernacular groups, conversely, tend to represent the community at large. Individuals without political influence, yet nonetheless left to interpret the monument’s sacred meaning. This tension is inevitable, as the struggle between memory and history that Nora mentions above.

Within the social atmosphere of civic involvement during the planning stages of a monument or memorial’s construction, there were architectural concerns that needed some system of resolution. In the late 19th century and well into the 20th century monuments and memorials generally followed three principals of design or function. The first was the symbolic.

Did the monument or memorial in question represent the historical memory, shared values, or moral sentiment of the community? Did the monument or memorial meet the needs of the official and vernacular groups in representing their emotional commitment to the project? Did the monument or memorial establish a temporal link between a past memory and a present historical consciousness? The second are aesthetics. One might assume that the symbolic and the aesthetic connect to one another; for can one exist without the other. Though beauty and good taste seems to be inherent within monuments and memorials, there are exceptions that surely have stealthily crept into the public arena that call into question this claim of universality of symbolism and aesthetics being perpetually linked to one another. The third is utility. Does it

22 John Bodnar. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), 296.

13 have a purpose other than its symbolic or aesthetic function? Was it a “living memorial” such as a civic center, museum, school, library, or a park?23

Although the utilitarian function of a monument or memorial was primarily a

20th century phenomenon, there were exceptions such as the Harvard Memorial Hall, built between 1870 and 1877, and dedicated in 1874.24 James Mayo also distinguishes between the

“sacred” and “profane”25 when establishing a monument or memorial’s intrinsic value. A

Sacred space derives its moral sentiment through a shared empathy that goes beyond the individual and resides within the public consciousness. Conversely, the profane is the absence of sacred, and is generally associated with the utility of a monument or memorial. Though

Mayo and Barber use utility in a slightly different way, Mayo’s utility can reside within the sacred provided that the utility was compatible with the sacred message of the monument or memorial, while Barber separated the two principles into distinct entities with no overlap.

There are always shades of linguistic subtitles that permeate most discussions of monuments and memorials, and how each were represented sheds light on the ceremonial obstacles that cities and towns had to navigate when making these decisions. Nothing lives in a vacuum, therefore monuments and memorials had to come into existence through a political environment rife with communal conflict. Competing agents, no matter their intensions, marred

23 Bernard Barber, “Place, Symbol, and Utilitarian Function in War Memorials.” Social Forces 28, no. 1 (October 1949): 64–68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2572100.

24 Brown (2019), 37.

25 James M. Mayo, “War Memorials as Political Memory.” Geographical Review 78, no. 1 (January 1988): 14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/214306.

14 the process by inserting partisan bickering into the proceedings. Consequently, power struggles were not limited to the sponsorship phases, for it pervaded the entire process, from sponsorship to construction.

Deathscapes and Civil War Remembrance

Necrogeography is the study of human burial customs, specifically cemeteries, gravestones, memorials, and commemorative practices. Collectively, these rituals identify within necrogeograhical literature as deathscapes. Although primarily used within the human geographical field of “death studies”, deathscapes do provide enough cultural significance in other fields of inquiry to warrant its usage elsewhere. The field centers on how cultural variations within different societies alter the perception and practices of death and their subsequent burial rites. Death was a deeply personal and familial experience, with a host of rites and procedures specified by the policies and practices of the day. The passing of a loved one within a religious and cultural environment reflected generations of burial rites. Certain religious nuances took place as the soul of the departed transitioned, and the family experienced a sense of relief and acceptance at their passing.26

During the 19th Century, there was also a movement stirring described as the “Good

Death”, or Ars moriendi ("The Art of Dying"), where how well an individual lived, and how well they died, was seen as fulfilling a spiritual reckoning that would end in Heaven. Death was not final, for it was just a transition, where a reunion with loved ones was a transcendent

26 Fred Kniffen, “Geographical Record: North America.” Geographical Review 57, no. 3 (1967): 426–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/212643.

15 journey of reunification. For the average person, their daily existence was in a Hobbesian state of nature where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”,27so death, in essence, became a release from the sorrow of earthly servitude. Burials were within family plots, where the deathscapes of local cemeteries displayed a serene continuation of a committal tradition.28

In This Republic of Suffering, Drew Gilpin Faust’s chapter “Accounting: Our

Obligations to the Dead” she graphically portrays the shear enormity of recovering and identifying the remains of Union soldiers after the end of the war. The difficulty of those who performed the mission was that the bodies resided primarily within the newly defeated

Confederate States. Resentment and anger, fueled by the soon to be “Lost Cause” ideology, added to the impediments that recovery presented. Although the retrieval was organized and funded by the Federal Government, the process of interviewing local citizens, who were newly discharged Confederate soldiers, or noncombatant civilians who were at the very least sympathetic to the subtleties of the lost cause, proved herculean in discovering the whereabouts of Union bodies.

To accept defeat with dignity was not a southern mantra worn on the sleeves of a vanquished Confederacy; for their wounds were still fresh, and time had not marched on to extinguish the fire of bitterness that still burned deep within their collective consciousness. No amount of reconciliation could sway the resentment that subjugation had placed within the bosom of each Southerner who had to endure the daily humiliation brought about by

27 Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. (Harmondsworth, England: Penquin, 1986)

28 Drew Gilpin Faust. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. (New York: Vintage Books, 2009), 6-8.

16 occupation; and which only strengthened their resolve to recapture their once proud culture through acts of aggression toward the Federal Government, its actors, and Union bodies.

Yankees were the enemy, and the architects of “Northern Aggression”, and remained hated until the passage of time had lessened the sting of defeat.29

A clarion call to action helped to accomplish a task that seemed on its face, to be beyond normal logistical body recovery and removal methods, which were nonexistent within the ranks of the quartermaster corps. The sheer volume alone rendered the job enormously problematic, coupled with accomplishing this task in a hostile, albeit defeated environment required the services of a champion, one who could ultimately rally resources to the cause. Clara Barton, who nursed soldiers during the war, was the perfect candidate to take on this task. Her initial involvement was to create the Office of Correspondence,30 which sent out fliers to quartermasters, troop leaders, and even foot soldiers requesting information about the dead. Her mission, in no small part, was to not only assist the government in accurately counting the dead, but to bring some closure to the many family members who did not have the resources themselves to scourer the countryside searching for their dead loved ones. Mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters knew nothing of their loved ones, which left a huge void in their ability to accept death. Though some unit soldiers did inform family on how their loved ones died, there was no uniform means of communication between parties, and any correspondence was ad hoc at best.31

29 Faust, 224-227.

30 Faust, 212-213.

31 Faust, 106-109.

Barton was not alone in her efforts, for she enlisted the resources of the Federal

Government with her connection to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who was aware of

Barton’s efforts in the Office of Correspondence and asked for her assistance in identifying the dead at Andersonville, with the assistance from Dorance Atwater, who was a prisoner of war at

Andersonville, and kept detailed records. They were both accompanied by Captain James

Moore, who was the military liaison, and who was not pleased with a woman participating on such a mission, and their trip to Andersonville proved troubling as they both disliked one another. Moore being a military man probably had no use for a woman other than as a homemaker, while Barton being a woman of means and determination, probably had no use for a man who seemed more of a hindrance than an asset. Regardless of how their individual personalities played out, they were able to accomplish an immense task of recording, recovering, and marking the graves of 13,363.00 casualties.32

Given the timeframe that elapsed from death to recovery, there was scant evidence of familial recognition of bodies, and families simple had to bury what remnants of their loved ones that remained, with scarcely any personal effects surviving for remembrance. Those of means, might have letters as keepsakes, and then had them published into a pamphlet to circulate among family, friends, and the community at large, while most foot soldiers did not.

Within the environment of family notification, came the realization that thousands of dead soldiers laid uncovered on battlefields across the south.33 The rotting deathscapes weighted heavily on Barton and the families of the dead. Luckily, for the union soldiers, there was

32 Faust, 215-217.

33 Faust, 222-230.

18 federal money, and resources to go about recovering and identifying the dead, though not so much for the Confederate dead, whose recovery, identification, and interment rest solely on the benevolence of civic groups. Barton, in her letter to Secretary Stanton, expressed what every mother, wife, daughter, and sister felt, that the Federal Government had an obligation to the dead, and that obligation returned in kind, which Barton hoped to champion, at least with respect to the Union dead.34

Once Congress passed Public Act 37 in 1867,35 the heavy lifting of gathering and burying the Union war dead began in earnest. The grotesque and brutal deathscapes of scattered battlefields lay dormant with the exposed and decaying bodies of the dead haunted the families of the fallen. Without a final resolution to how and where their loved ones perished, closure became impossible, and the longing for the solace that interment brings, only eluded them until the completion of a national cemetery marking their transition. Though the task seemed daunting at first, throughout the intervening years, a somber stillness surrounded the operations as the Federal Government toiled to fulfill its obligation to the dead, and to bring some long- awaited peace to the families. All toll, there were seventy-four national cemeteries built that housed the remains of over 300,000 Union soldiers, replacing the desolate deathscapes of the battlefields with a final resting place befitting their noble sacrifice.36

34 Faust, 229-230.

35 Faust, 233-235.

36 Faust, 236-237.

Soldier’s Memorial: Manchester New Hampshire

Figure 2.37

IN HONOR OF

THE MEN OF MANCHESTER

WHO GAVE THEIR SERVICES

IN THE WAR WHICH

PRESERVED THE UNION OF THE STATES

AND

SECURED EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION

THIS MONUMENT IS BUILT

A GRATEFUL CITY

37 Internet

On an early fall morning in Manchester New Hampshire, a gathering of political figures, local clergy, war veterans, town elders, and average citizens assembled to celebrate the dedication of the Soldiers’ Monument in Merrimack Common.38 It was a solemn day marked by a parade, speeches by local dignitaries, prayers by clergy, poems by artists, and all the fanfare that normally accompanies a citywide celebration. On the surface, it would appear that the planning, funding, designing and erection of such a civic display of gratitude for the veterans of the Civil War would be, by any other measure, achieved without much interference in the execution. Although they laid the cornerstone on May 30, 1878,39 and dedicated the monument on September 11, 1879,40 the journey became wrought with peril.

The delay and negotiation between influential parties were not uncommon during the succeeding decades after the war, as states, counties, and towns struggled with the moral obligation they felt was due towards their veterans. Thus, the societal shifts that were taking places throughout the country as the aftermath of the war slowly replaced the initial jubilance that accompanied the war’s end. Some were financial, while others grappled with selecting just the right sentiment that would express the gratitude of a grateful citizenry. The ebb and flow that surrounded memorials centered on the best way to pay homage to those who died during the war, and what type of memorials best represented the ideals that these soldiers symbolized.

Were mere statues enough, or did the fallen require memorials that transcended simple idolatry?

38 “Ceremonies at the Dedication of the Monument.” City of Manchester, (NH: Mirror Steam Printing Press, 1879)

39 “Decoration Day.” The Daily Mirror and American. May 22, 1878.

40 “Dedication Day: Important Meeting of the Reception Committee.” The Daily Mirror and American. September 2, 1879, Local edition.

As Mayo and Brown both describe, there was a skirmish developing among the social elite on how to honor the fallen and what vehicle of tribute best addressed their needs. In

Brown’s chapter “The Emergence of the Soldier Monument”,41 he traces the progression from wartime monuments where military units still in battlefield conditions would bury their dead in solemn remembrance with suitable gravestones marking their passage. Although some northern towns were in the planning stages of creating memorials for their fallen during the war, resources were scarce and without a full reckoning of the dead, these memorials remained unfulfilled until after the war.42

Once the war ended, states, counties, and towns marshalled what resources were available and redirected them, with the help of civic organizations, towards the creation of Civil

War graveyards and cenotaphs. There was also a discussion, in some quarters, whether survivors of the war should be so honored and recognized for their sacrifice in kind; or reserve those memorial honors to only the fallen. Most cities chose the latter, believing anything else, would have diminished their noble sacrifice.

Manchester, New Hampshire, following the lead of other towns and cities after the war, rallied a contingent of civic organizations to raise funds for the creation of a Civil War

Monument. The question of inclusion arose when “An Interested Citizen” in the local newspaper voiced his displeasure with the wording and location of the proposed monument. His objections were two-fold. First, he objected to the phrase, “Who Gave Their Services” because payment for their service became part of the conscription, and second, the phrase did not make a

41 Brown, 13-63.

42 Brown, 16-19.

22 distinction between those who died, and those who survived.43 This argument was not unique, for it was a central question in most postwar monument deliberation. Interested Citizen aside,

Manchester moved forward with its proposed monument and began the challenging task of rising funds, choosing an architect, sculptor, and general contractor. There were several fits and starts along the way as several locations were debated, budgets were realigned, egos were soothed, and a host of other difficulties were addressed as the monument neared its construction date. George Keller, a noted architect from Connecticut, secured the contract from among several other applicants. His design consisted of a 50-foot fluted column in the center of a fountain, with four statues stationed at all four compass directions. The central figure atop of the

Corinthian order was Victory, a bronze female figure holding a wreath in one hand and a sword in the other, sculpted by Caspar Buberl. Buberl also sculpted the Artilleryman and the

Cavalryman, while W.D. Richards sculpted the Infantryman, and the Sailor. Maurice Powers at the National Fine Art foundry in New York cast all five figures.44

The Manchester project would mark Keller and Buberl’s first collaboration together.

Keller and Buberl would work together four more times on various projects throughout their careers. Also curious, the design that Keller submitted to Manchester was the exact design that

Keller submitted to Buffalo, New York, and initially rejected. Once the committee realized that a monument commissioning by Augustus Saint-Gaudens was beyond their financial means, they reconsidered, and accepted Keller’s design which was titled the “Postage Stamp”.45

43 “An Interested Citizen.” The Daily Mirror and American, November 1, 1878.

44 “Ceremonies at the Dedication of the Monument.” City of Manchester, (NH: Mirror Steam Printing Press, 1879)

45 “American Art Chronicle.” The American Art Review Vol. 2, no. 12 (1881): 259-264. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20559909

Figure 3.

Figure 4.46

46 Figures 3-4. Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Soldier’s Memorial

Figure 5. Figure 6.

Figure 7.47

Cavalryman (North)

47 Figures 5-7. Cavalryman located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure. 8 Figure. 9

Figure. 1048

Artilleryman (South)

48 Figures 8-10. Artilleryman located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure. 11 Figure 12

Figure 1349

Sailor (East)

49 Figures 11-13. Sailor located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 14. Figure 15.

Figure 16.50

Infantryman (West)

50 Figures 14-16. Infantryman located in Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 17. Figure 18.

Figure 19. Figure 20

Cavalry, Artillery, Sailor, and Infantry51

51 Figures 17-20. “Ceremonies at the Dedication of the Monument.” Library of Congress Archives.

Frieze by J.S. Hartley

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

Figure 23.52

Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori: It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.

52 Figures 21-23. Frieze, located in Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 24.

Figure 2553

Drummer boy is center, with a soldier holding a flagstaff to his right. To the left are two soldiers

marching towards the boy.

53 Figures 24-25. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 26.

Figure 27.54

A soldier puts on his uniform while a blacksmith grasps his shoulder.

54 Figures 26-27. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 28.

Figure 29.55

A soldier holding his horse while he kisses a woman goodbye.

55 Figures 28-29. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 30.

Figure 31.56

A farmer leaves his field holding a rifle and patting his son on the head.

56 Figures 30-31. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 32.

Figure 33.57

A soldier saying goodbye to a woman who is holding her hand to her face.

57 Figures 32-33. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 34.

Figure 35.58

A soldier waving goodbye with a small boy holding up an object.

58 Figures 34-35. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 36-37.

Figure 38.59

At the base of the column is a shield with the arms of the city; while above are displayed flags

and weapons, the trophies of war.

59 Figures 36-38. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 39. Figure 40.

Figure 41.60

Victory, Corinthian Capital, and shield.

60 Figures 39-41. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Figure 42. Figure 43.

Figure 44.61

Eagle, Gargoyle, and Plaque

61 Figures 42-44. Located in the Veteran’s Memorial Park, Manchester, NH.

Ashland, New Hampshire: Civil War Monument

Figure 45. Figure 46.

Figure 47.62

62 Figures 45-47. Located in Ashland, NH.

Figure 48. Figure 49.

Figure 50 Figure 51.

Figure 52.63

63 Figures 50-52. Located in Ashland, NH.

One might assume that the planning, funding, designing, and erecting of a Civil War monument in commemoration to the fallen might be marked by a town-wide celebration of its civic obligation. In Ashland’s case, one would be wrong, for they decided to choose a different path. The following is an excerpt from David Ruell’s talk on Ashland's War Memorials dated

October 12, 2011 for the Ashland Historical Society.64

“The Manchester newspaper said in 1899 that a monument had been “the desire of the

Patriotic people” of Ashland for some years. But, it was first mentioned in the local news in early 1898. In January, the women's relief corps decided at the first meeting of year “to have the soldiers of this town properly recognized by a suitable monument”. A February Ashland

Item article said it was the intent of the Corps to help purchase a monument for the Soldiers lot in the cemetery, but that location was not mentioned again for two years.”

“An article was placed “by request” in the warrant for March 1898 town meeting “to see what sum the town will vote to raised and appropriate for a soldiers monument” …. At the meeting, Cheney made an appeal on behalf of the GAR and WRC for the town to raise $1500 to be used with $300 to be raised by the WRC and $200 to be given by GAR. The meeting voted the $1500 to raise by borrowing… Private fundraising was successful. The GAR gave the $200, its entire treasury. The WRC held several fund-raising events, a masquerade ball, an “old fashioned spelling skule” entertainment, a supper, and a four-act play. An appeal was sent to former residents.”

64 David Ruell, “Re: Ashland Civil War monument.” Message to Richard Kipphut. 20 March 2021. E-mail.

“The monument committee worked on the names to appear on the monument, issuing a list of 84 names in February 1899, asking for changes. Ultimately, they dropped four of those names and added three new ones, ending up with 83 names on the monument.”

“The committee consulted with various monument firms, who supplied them with proposals. They chose the design of John Swenson of West Concord… The description the magazine gave is essentially the monument we see today, two bases, the die with bronze tablets on four sides, listing the soldiers’ names on three sides and the committee's names on the rear, the die topped by bartizan corners surmounted with four polished balls, an 11 foot tall column with a composite order capital and topping it all a 7 foot high bronze statue of a solider at parade rest.”

“The monument was dedicated on May 30 1899, Memorial Day, with a parade from the

Baptist Church to the Town Hall, remarks by Col Cheney, president of the day, a prayer by the

Methodist minister, remarks by the Episcopal priest, unveiling of statue, songs by Martha Dana

Shepard, music by Ashland cornet band, the main address by Col Daniel Hall of Dover, presentation by Frank L Hughes from the committee and acceptance by Selectman Samuel

Baker. At the close, the audience sang America. Later in the day, regular Memorial Day exercises were held with a parade, speeches at the Town Hall and a march to the cemetery to decorate graves.”

“The story of most Civil War monuments in New Hampshire pretty much ends at this point with the dedication. But, we were only getting started, as the town launched into a controversy about the location of the monument which would make it, for a while at least, one of the best known monuments in the state and the region.”

“The monument committee wanted to make the Town Hall yard a public park, with trees and seats on the lawn around the monument… But many people did not like the site. On May

20, the Ashland Item reported that a petition was being circulated that the Soldiers Monument should be erected on part of the J.F. Keyes estate near the post office, that is to say on the triangle of land on Main Street now housing the town flagpole. 182 voters signed the petition, including nearly all the members of the GAR post. The argument for the site was that the downtown location would be more visible and the monument more likely to be seen by travelers. The arguments against the new site were that the property had to be bought and there was no money for land purchase; the soldiers head would be staring out of a network of wires, there was no chance for quiet around the place and no room for shade trees or seats.”

“Still the movement against the Town Hall site grew “until it assumed momentous proportions”, but the committee persisted in erecting the monument at the Town Hall. So on

May 24, another petition was presented to the selectmen asking for a special town meeting on

June 6 to consider moving the monument.”

“The special meeting voted 118 to 0 to move the soldiers’ monument “to some suitable and proper place on Main Street, and appointed a three-person committee, Dr. Alonzo Garey,

Moses Tucker and Mrs. Belle Carpenter to move the monument, with the costs to be paid out of money raised for current expenses. The meeting also voted to erase the names of the old monument committee if that could be done, if not to remove the plate with their names on it and throw it away and put on a new plate.”

“But the new committee was soon stopped short by an injunction. Col Cheney later explained that he knew that, under state law, a special town meeting could not appropriate money unless a majority of the voters of the town voted at it. So, he advised his supporters to

44 stay away from the town meeting… In November, the new monument committee appealed the injunction but were turned down. An attempt was made in the spring of 1900 to get the new and old committees to meet, but the new committee did not trust Col Cheney. By a strange twist of fate, the flagpole triangle came under Cheney's control because of the death of a relative of his wife. His opponents began to think of other sites, including its present location in Monument

Square.”

“The committee then turned to its second choice, then known as Custer square, later as

Monument Square. It was considered not as good a site as the triangle, but it was a conspicuous site, as most travelers then came to town by train and would pass by the monument as they entered the commercial downtown area. Work began on the new site on May 15. But, the controversy was not over yet. Petitions opposing the location were circulated, leading to a lively meeting on May 18, but the new committee stood firm on its choice. Col Cheney called the site “a mud hole in the main thoroughfare”. The GAR post unanimously adopted a resolution calling the new location “the most unfit and most objectionable of any that has been made “and the moving of the monument “a lasting disgrace upon the fair name and fame of our town.”

“But the monument was moved. By May 25, the Manchester paper could report that the monument had been disassembled in the Town Hall yard and the new foundation in the square was nearly completed. The monument was erected by May 28. In June, a stone curbing was placed around the monument and the entire square was paved with concrete. This was unusual at the time, as while the town had some concrete sidewalks, all the streets were still dirt. It was not until 1903 that the first public highways outside the square were paved, from the railroad station via Winter and Mill streets to Main Street then on Main Street past the monument to the

Baptist Church. The total cost of moving the monument in 1900, including the new curb, was

$411.50 with the rest of the appropriation, $38.50, being given to help cover the costs of paving the square.” In 1969, the town meeting voted to adopt a new town seal featuring the Civil War

Monument, which was designed by Jim Rollins as part of centennial celebration.”

“This shows the continuing importance of the monument to the Town. Jim did show the monument in an imaginary park setting on a lawn with trees around it, which is neither the

Town Hall yard nor Monument Square.”

Thus ends the saga of Ashland’s Civil War Monument!

Conclusion

Historical memory is the medium that enables monuments and memorials to deliver the sentimental connection between actors who themselves have not experienced the human cost that these symbols represent. In essence, memory becomes the link between past experiences that have propelled a troubled nation during political turmoil, and the present notion of patriotism, felt deep within the soul of a nation that has marshalling in a new resurgence of national pride. Both past and present memory must align within a historical consciousness, thereby allowing actors to make an emotional connection between past events that monumentally helped shape current historical understanding, and present-day recollection.

Each city or town had their own reasons for erecting a monument or memorial to the fallen. Their motives vary as the number of city and towns who participated in this ritual, yet the one element that connects them all, was their understanding of historical memory. For without this connection, there would be no commemoration, celebration, remembrance, or closure. Their sacrifices, though not in vain, would be without recognition.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“An Interested Citizen.” The Daily Mirror and American, November 1, 1878.

“Ceremonies at the Dedication of the Monument.” City of Manchester, NH: Mirror Steam Printing Press, 1879.

“Decoration Day.” The Daily Mirror and American. May 22, 1878.

“Dedication Day: Important Decision by the Manchester Masons.” The Daily Mirror and American. August 20, 1879, sec. Local.

“Dedication Day: Important Meeting of the Reception Committee.” The Daily Mirror and American. September 2, 1879, Local edition.

Lima Weekly Gazette (Ohio), 23 October 1861.

Lush, Mark. “Re: Wolfeboro Civil War monument.” Message to Richard Kipphut. 29 April 2021. E-mail.

“Monument Location.” The Daily Mirror and American. December 8, 1877, Noon Edition.

“On to Park Street.” The Daily Mirror and American. April 2, 1878.

Ruell, David. “Re: Ashland Civil War monument.” Message to Richard Kipphut. 20 March 2021. E-mail.

“The Soldiers’ Monument: Built by City in Merrimack Common in Honor of Dead Heroes.” Amoskeag Bulletin, n.d.

Secondary Sources

“American Art Chronicle.” The American Art Review Vol. 2, no. 12 (1881): 259-264. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20559909.

Barber, Bernard. “Place, Symbol, and Utilitarian Function in War Memorials.” Social Forces 28, no. 1 (October 1949): 64–68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2572100.

Blight, David W. “The Meaning or the Fight: Frederick Douglass and the Memory of the Fifty Fourth Massachusetts.” The Massachusetts Review 36, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 141–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25090590.

Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, 1992.

Brown, Thomas J. Civil War Monuments and the Militarization of America. The University of North Carolina Press, 2019.

Brown, Thomas J. The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration: A Brief History with Documents. 1st edition. (Bedford Series in History & Culture) First Edition. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.

Cresson, Margaret. “Memorials Symbolic of the Spirit of Man: Should War Monuments be Beautiful or Useful?” Landscape Architecture Magazine 35, no.4 (1945): 140-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44661639.

Faust, Drew Gilpin. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. New York: Vintage Books, 2009.

“First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln.” March 4, 1861. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp.

Follini, Tamara l. “Speaking Monuments: Henry James, Walt Whitman, and the Civil War Statues of Augustus Saint-Gaudens.” Journal of American Studies 48, no.1 (2014): 25-49 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24485559.

Frank, Joseph Allan. “Profile of a Citizen Army: Shiloh’s Soldiers.” Armed Forces & Society 18, no. 1 (Fall91): 97–110.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Harmondsworth, England: Penquin, 1986.

Jackson, John Brinkerhoff. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Kniffen, Fred. “Geographical Record: North America.” Geographical Review 57, no. 3 (July 1967): 426–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/212643.

Mayo, James M. “War Memorials as Political Memory.” Geographical Review 78, no. 1 (January 1988): 14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/214306.

McDaniel, Joyce L. “Caspar Buberl: The Pension Building Civil War Frieze and Other Washington, D. C. Sculpture.” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C. 50 (1980): 309–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40067824.

Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.” Special Issue: Memory and Counter Memory, Memory and Counter Memory, spring, no. 26 (1989): 7–24.

Prost, Antoine. “Monuments to the Dead.” Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past 3, no. 2 (1997): 307–32.

Schwartz, Barry. “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.” Social Forces 61, no. 2 (1982): 374–402. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578232.

Shackel, Paul A. “Public Memory and the Search for Power in American Historical Archaeology.” American Anthropologist 103, no. 3 (September 2001): 655–70 https://www.jstor.org/stable/683605.