Transcripts For CSPAN3 Interpreting The American Revolution Civil War 20240711

Where he also had figures such as this but in his case, its peace rielding in ayuchlful chariot. You can see the peace in the center. The partially nude female figure crowned riding the four horses and golden victory figures off to each side. Well, this is what mills had in mind for George Washington. They were thinking of it for George Washington that transposed him from the human, from the everyday, from a general to now a super human almost godlike figure. And so when construction, which had been halted on the Washington Monument for about 20 years in the 1860s and 70s, when construction was started up again, the engineer, thomas casey, who really loved modern inventions, elevators, electric lights, decided no were not going to put that temple at the bottom. He wanted the Washington Monument to stay that would represent america. Moving forward into the 20th century. And so he now saw it as a sleek monument of american ingenuity. So it was his decision, essentially, not to create the monument that mills had envisioned. And i think were all happier for it. And so when we look at George Washington, right here on the mall, right here in washington, on the mall, you see there is no simple iconography and essentially it depends on when and where. Where the artist came from. What the artist knew of George Washington or didnt know of him that we see everything from a very realistic general George Washington on horse back to the heroic figure who has put aside his sword and now is resigning his commission to now the almost godlike figures that show up a generation and two generations later. The civil war. Had an artist create civil war art. The civil war to president Abraham Lincoln and the courthouse in 1865, where lee surrenders to grant. Its a failure and that failure in part to in forming the controversies that were now seeing on University Campuses and in richmond, virginia and elsewhere over the use of these images and the story they tell when they were built just after reconstruction in that period of time when the loss cause was being promoted by the daughters of the confederacy. We have an interesting and quite beautiful relief sculpture. The old pension building in washington at 4th and f street, it was created following the civil war in the 1880s to serve as a building that would serve former soldiers to provide them with needs, financial and otherwise. As you enter this building, its now the National Building museum. As you enter the building, look up theres a relief freeze in terracotta that goes around the building moddelled modelled fro. In this case, it is essentially a narrative freeze. Here we have a narrative of civil war troops, some fighting, some activity, but mostly a kind of a narrative story. Then this. One of the earliest monuments after lincoln was assassinated, the emancipation monument by thomas ball in lincoln park. And what is shown here . You have lincoln standing, leaning on a pillar. Notice the portrait or the profile of George Washington. Hes holding in his right hand on top of the pillar the emancipation proclamation. At his feet a formerly enslaved man mostly nude is leaning down and looking up in gratitude as lincoln extends his hands over him. In fact, this monument was paid for by freed enslaved people. This made it controversial both at the time and especially to our own day. It shows this man subservient to lincoln and i think Frederick Douglass said it right when he said Frederick Douglass was at the dedication in 1876. It showed the negro on a knees when a more manly attitude would have been indicative from freedom. Even from the moment it was unveiled, it was controversial because of the subservient way in which thomas ball portrayed the the, umm, the, umm, the man. And here just in a recent Washington Post article, umm, harry jones, the assistant director of africanamerican Civil War Museum in washington said ive never met anyone who said they liked it or were happy with it. I think its one that people kind of wish away. You dont read much controversy about but theres plenty behind the scenes. You hear about it and whenever i show it to people who have not seen it, theyre rather horrified by the image. What do we do with the statute . Leave it up . Do we move it . Reinterpret it . What . Its a good question. Now, what was the mall looking like at the end of the civil war . This. The capitol dome, the original dome, which was a lower dome, umm, ah, umm, was not adequate. Once the Capitol Building had extended with two new wings to the north and the south, the dome looked too small. Too low. A grand new dome by Thomas Walters was designed and it was under construction during the civil war. As you see. The mall itself was a mess. It had the white buildings in the center and military cemeteries associated and barracks associated with civil war. Fiber creek had turned into a sewer. The only building is the one you see in the back, the Smithsonian Castle with the mid evil towers rising up. The mall was a mess. In 1900, it was still filled with trees. This is a view from the top of the Washington Monument. Youre looking to the capitol. You can see the smithsonian on the right. You can see the train shed on the left because the National Gallery of arts site was then occupied by the railroad station. The Railroad Tracks crossed the mall at 6th street there. So how are we depicting the civil war on the mall in the era immediately after the civil war. We werent because there werent opportunities to do so. It wasnt until 1900 that things started to change. And we got both the Lincoln Memorial in 1922 and then the grant memorial. For this, to understand this, we need to go back to the plant again. The 1791 lafont plan laid out the city and with the mall as its center piece both physically and symbolically the center piece. 190102, senator mcmillen convened a commission, known as the mcmillen commission, so the senate convened a commission to restore order to the National Mall and to provide new places for public buildings and new memorials. The idea of lafont was fine for a few decades but it was. Filling up. There was a need for a federal buildings including the federal triangle and the need for a monument honoring Abraham Lincoln as the preserver of the the union. Where his original scheme highlighted the president s house, the capitol, and one monument, the Washington Monument, now the expansion under the mcmillen commission to the west and south on land that had been part of the Potomac River. All of that land west and south of the Washington Monument was underwater until the 1880s when the army corps. Drenched the potomac and drenched the soil. And the mcmillen Commission Said aha, we have a place to expand the mall and more than double its size. And so what did they do . They expanded exactly on the axis that lafont had established. They didnt create a new design. In fact, they said they visited the cities of europe and came back to the plan believing it to be the most appropriate design for washington, d. C. It was clear they were establishing, reestablishing the symbolism, the agree agrgeomy and the constitutional basis that originated in the plan. Further more, in aligning the Lincoln Memorial with the Washington Monument and the Capitol Building, they were also extending the symbolism explicitly. This is what henry bacon, the designer of the memorial said. The site in potomac park was the best one for a monument to lincoln. We have one end of the axis a beautiful building which is a monument to the United States government. Thats the capitol. At the other end of the axis, we have the possibility of a memorial to a man who saved the government, lincoln. Between the two is a monument to its founder, washington. All three of the structures stretching in one grand sweep from capitol hill to the Potomac River will lend one to the others the associations and memories connected with each. Each will have its value increased by being on the one axis and having visual react relation to one another. So this is the design and the symbolic basis for the location of the Lincoln Memorial. Not just a monument to lincoln but a monument that reinforced the constitutional axis of the establishment and the preservation of the american government. And, of course, theyre speaking in quite heroic language. The language architecture language that the commission used was, of course, classic call art techture. They wanted the mall to be filled with white classic call buildings and the federal triangle down between constitution avenue and pennsylvania avenue is the invention, is the creation of the mcmillen commission. They wanted federal buildings to have the dignity of classical greek and roman architecture. It includes the Lincoln Memorial, which was modelled on the greek temple, tand the grea statute by Daniel Chester french which shows lincoln 16 foot high, super human scale, godlike in his temple setting with an inscription behind his head which says in this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever. And then at the other end, we have the grand memorial. This memorial was proposed not by the mcmillen commission but by veterans of the civil war. You see its hard to get good pictures because in the 1960s the reflecting pool was put there. You cant stand in front of the statute but that statute of, umm, Ulysses Grant in the center and here you see him raised up on a podium here, a more traditional military monument to the military leader of the union armies up on his horse and to the side you have the infantry. You can see the cannon being dragged by the infantry on one side and an on the opposite side, the cavalry men on horseback. Very dramatic telling of the, umm, of the action during the civil war. They were saying lets build a monument to lincoln and we know what it wants to say. We know it wants to be about the establish the and the preservation at the government and the other end we have a more traditional military monument showing the, umm, the bravery, the valor of the troops. So what have we done and how do we build up and add to the story . And this is is a question that has to do with essentially the story we tell on the mall and we keep telling and we keep adding to and updating. Had the grant memorial is very little known. Its a great place for the taking of school pictures. Its not become a place of any kind of congressmen ration or activity. The Lincoln Memorial, on the other hand, has taken on new meaning. Some people are saying lincoln grew up in a log cabin. He had no money. He had no learning. And here we are representing him as a godlike figure. Kirk savage in his book monument wars talks about how do we build monuments and what should we say . Hes critical of the almost defying of lincoln. So we saw first marian anderson, a black opera singer who sang on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1939 and Martin Luther king in 1963 speaking at the march on washington for jobs and freedom. Now that spot has been marked by an enscription in the step where he stood. If you havent seen it, its hard to find. Its an enscription in the pavement. Youll see tour guides squirting water on the step. Theyre trying to put water into the. Inscription so you can see i have a dream. I think it should be more prominent but the park service was very concerned for Historic Preservation purposes that we were damaging Historic Property. In my view, weve added to the Historic Property because it now no longer represents thinking in 1902 or thinking in 1922 when it was completed, but it also shows this memorial has an afterlife and continues to have life and its good to continue to memorialize that so we can see the way in which we, over the years, over the decades reinterpret the lincoln me yourial which is considered a civil rights memorial. It wasnt at all in the first place. And during the first obama administration, inauguration, the day before in 2009, hundreds of thousands of people gathered because there was a dedication and commemoration and musical performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Exactly where Martin Luther king had stood. So many this monument, more than most in washington, has been able to take on additional layers of meaning that give it a living presence. Not simply something for the past. Another less than known is the africanamerican civil memorial dedicated in 1988 which is in the shaw neighborhood. You can see what is happening is the monuments are proving not to be enough in the case of civil rights its no longer simply the preservation of the union enshrined on the mall and the battle scenes but instead Civil Rights Movement adopted the Lincoln Memorial. Once it took on the new level, we also had the call for additional monuments as civil rights becomes a more important theme and now shows up throughout the city. When we look at the commemorations, were seeing the original and a growing desire, a growing need to supplement the original story, as told in 1902. Its not pictured or part of the commemorative landscape. Capitol hill is interesting to see how theyre able to expand the story told. Each state is allowed to erect two statutes. Two figures from their state. Weve seen by and large the figures were white men until relatively recently. In 1905, the first woman was placed there. Francis willard. In 19 kwhoop whoops, it shouldnt say 1913. It should say [ laughter ] that should say 2013 then Vice President joe biden dedicated the monument to Frederick Douglass. So what happened here in the hall . The nice thing, theyre statutes. You can take down one and put up a new one. The story is not so permanent. Now we have additional women figures, africanamerican figures, native american figures, and in the Capitol Rotunda the statute of the suffrages. The three ladies in the bathtub. Its susan b. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady and others who were some of the originators of the suffragist movement. Womens rights not only about women but the amending of the constitution, which was necessary in order to get women the right to vote. I laud this that the capitol where our representatives serve daily and where the tourists go is a place where we have been able to update the story being told as we realize that the, ah, ah, the white centric male centric story must be expanded to tell a broader story. In building up the story on the mall, and on the capitol hill, the question comes to mind is who decide and how. Particularly on the west end of the mall, it started with the veterans memorial. We got the korean veterans memorial, the world war ii memorial, which i will point out the major controversy was the location on the constitutional axis of the mall that was reestablished by the mcmillen commission and now we put a world war ii memorial in that location that not only disrupted symbolically the meaning of the mall but also is enclosed. So the kinds of processions and parades and marches that used to pass through that area can no longer do so. Were dealing with substantiative issues that were raised about that location of the memorial. Not the existence of the memorial. Which was there no opposition to. In addition to these, we have one that is supposed to open next year. National desert storm and Desert Shield memorial. It will be located over the vm Vietnam Veterans memorial making the west end of the mall a place where the proliferation of War Memorials continues to take place since the 1980s weve been adding them at an alarming speed. Who owns americas past and how do we decide what should go there. Im thinking the original vision of the original plan was a genius idea. To embody into the landscape the fundamental principles of the United States constitution. And the declaration of independence. It is that idea that has been defended by congress at various times, by Government Agencies but essentially is rooted in the 1791 idea and expanded by the idea to include further history. Where do the War Memorials come from . In 1986, a couple of years after the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans memorial, congress realized there was going to be a run on War Memorials. So they passed the commemorative works act of 1986, which actually put in place a process where by people could add commemorative works, not just to the mall but to washington, d. C. A sponsor decide they want a memorial and they go to the National Capitol Memorial Advisory commission, which is headed by the park service and has sitting on it the members of the General Services administration, the architect of the capitol, and the American Battle Monuments Commission, among others. Federal agencies that manage different aspects of the federal government. That entity decides whether the memorial theme is important enough to be in the capital city as opposed to some other. Generally they agree it is. Once they are given the okay, the sponsors go to congress and Congress Passes or creates legislation. Then passes the legislation. Generally after that creates a commission, a Memorial Commission and designates that commission to now follow through to find a site, to find a design, to collect the money, and then to build the project. They center to go back and seek their advice. They did either choose a site outside the National Mall, in which case, they have a lot of lee way but if they want to be on the National Mall itself, they are very restricted. They have to it has to be a preimminent importance to the nation to be in the center and of National Significance to be beyond. Once they consult again, it begins the process that often takes three, five, even ten years they have to review before the commission of fine arts, the National Planning commission, the Advisory Council on preservation, the d. C. Preservation office, the office of planning and so forth and so on. Essentially this is what takes so long. They go before the entity, they explain their design, their site selection, then they go from Government Entity to Government Entity, federal, and d. C. And they finally got their approval in fall of last year. But they are starting construction. Once they have final approval and certain amount of money collected, then think can move ahead with construction. This is 1986 and more memorials got built. The world war ii memorial, and the world war ii memorial controversy caused congress in 2003 to state that the mall is a completed work of civic art. Congress was encouraged to do this by the National Planning commission because they didnt know how to say no to anybody. The question it leaves us with, to a large extent is, can the mall be a completed work of civic art. Is the story it tells full . What alternatives could you be . As i walk upanddown the mall, i stuck at a traffic light awhile ago, i meant to put it into my presentation. On constitution avenue at the Washington Monument grounds. 60 agers of open space. And potential for Something Interesting to be done to enhance the idea here is we reestablish the logic, reason, and idealism of the original plan. People might disagree. So the notion of a third century mall would draw on the original agr agree only tree as an embodiment and constitution for the place for the people with we had the finest thinkers of the day in 1791. This was said to George Washington. Has been trying to develop and encourage government in congress in particular to think of them that the original mall, the First Century mall, it was laid out the fundamentals of the malls setting. Notice the yellow dotted line. Thats the original banks of the river. The mall could expand again. This is all federal land on both sides of the potomac and the an kostya. It could provide a design challenge, a symbolism challenge, an educational challenge, a memorial challenge, it could allow us to say the mall can never be complete. It can continue to evolve and to grow and to tell a story. To make the two mile expanse. A real open air classroom that could be used to great appeal. So we see the open air landscape where marks an angles previously elevated to the in the center of the capitol now a relegated to this, umm, theme park along with great heroic statutes of the working class. Could we think of Something Like that . Any questions . Its dominated by the museums. This is a National Gallery of art they have commissions to study. It doesnt mean they want to be part of the smithsonian. And the africanamerican originally wasnt. But congress designated and makes the part of the smithsonian. The only fun we see now is the umm, the, umm, the carousel, which is a wonderful ride. Cheap and long. But that is under threat, too, and may soon be lost. So the question is, why . The reason is nobody is in charge of the mall and i didnt bring you the diagram. I made a diagram and both d. C. And federal agencies asked me if they could use it. What it shows is an aerial view of the mall and the different entities. But you then have the smithsonian and the smithsonian has its buildings, it has the gardens, and the walk ways in front. National gallery of art was separate entity. It has two buildings. Youve got all the entities and what they say to one another is not on my land. So when the smithsonian wants a festival, they have to get a permit from the park service. For the past 30 years theyve been fighting each other. The park service doesnt want smithsonian on the new grass but they want to bring people to the new grass. Did the eisenhower memorial go through the same process you described . Yes. Somehow that got a little diverted because by the time that site was selected, which is on independence avenue across the from the air and space museum, the federal government and the District Of Columbia government along with General Services administration each of whom owned part of the lot. They didnt have a usual competition. Usual think theres a competition but they decided lets get rid of the competition and use gsas hiring process. I had started coming up with ideas. Its under construction and its going to be completed by may. Its four acres. 80 foot high columns. Sculpture of the lower level in trees and what was interesting with it and happened with the world war ii war ii memorial w supposed to be a monument to honor all americans working together during the war, children, women in the home front and so on. Well, it ended up being built by the American Battle Monuments Commission as an American Battle monument. Eisenhower was chosen, they said, because the site was next to air and space, department of education, voice of america. All these buildings surrounding it go back to the eisenhower administration. So its a way of showing how he was a very influential president in bringing about the expansion of government in important ways. Well, the original design that gary came up with was the barefoot boy from kansas. The sculpture was a barefoot boy and this has to do with the final speech eisenhower gave when he came back from the war that he was just a barefoot boy from kansas . And the screens would have scenes of kansas tree landscape, and pictures. Well, that idea got thrown out. The screens got reduced down to one and now the screen is the beaches at normandy with the cliffs a the statue of the barefoot boy is now over the side and this is over the process of about ten years, what happened. We went from a monument that celebrated the president and the general but above all his presidency to now a monument, which is another world war ii memorial. Thats often what happens. You go, okay, wheres that original idea that seemed so full of promise by the location . But its the process thats very complicated. Now why did he get a four acre site . With columns that are taller than the Lincoln Memorial . Again, we dont have a way like we did with the mcmillan plan to have intelligent design at work. Instead its piecemeal. Ill give you a plot of land. Now you fill it up. Well give you a plot of land. But, before you fill it up were going to make you go through 400 different reviews and well chip away and chip away until but thats democracy, i guess. Yes. The monument to Franklin Roosevelt . The monument to Franklin Roosevelt originally buzz going to be 14 acres. It was cut down to seven. So its half the size it was originally going to be. And this, i wasnt involved with this, but it was originally proposed in the 1950s. And it was going to and then they had so many different competitions and the designs were always thrown out. And finally Lawrence Halprin designed this ralandscape solutn which is essentially four rooms, one for each of Franklin Roosevelts administration to tell the story, the great depression, world war ii, and aftermath. And he used and halprin used a lot of sculptural elements to tell stories, compelling and interesting sculptural elements. Kids like it. Why we need seven acres for that is another question. It is beautiful at night, as is the world war ii memorial, beautiful at night. You have water, you have lights, you have these compelling elements. But it is essentially a museum. Why dont we put Franklin Roosevelt in the museum and then leave our open space to maybe a statue . I mean, its a very compelling statue of Franklin Roosevelt sitting in his with his great cape. And you could even put now the one of him in his wheelchair on the way up the path, which is where i think it belongs, not in the monument, its too small for that gigantic wall. But this we are confused as to what a memorial should be, what it should do, what its purpose is, and what it says about us as a nation. So as far as im concerned our memorial makers are struggling to find a way to do that. And we dont have anyone kind of giving them advice as a totality. You can go to the commission of fine arts, and there can be some fine commentary. But if you go back two years later with your revised design theres a good chance the same commissioners are no longer on the commission and then someone else is on and they have a different perspective so the process, as much as its tried to be organized, in my view, doesnt succeed when it comes to making coherent, cogent monuments and putting them somewhere in relationship to one another. I meant to do this, but i didnt. What about the Jefferson Memorial . Okay, jefferson, a slave holder, terrible, terrible aspect of that background. But do we take him down . Or do we say the Jefferson Memorial is, in fact, a monument to the declaration of independence. You read the walls. Thats what it is. Its on the constitutional axis with the Washington Monument and the white house. Lets make it a monument to the declaration of independence. Lets bring the other founders in. You know, he doesnt have to be the only one standing inside. We could add women founders as well. We could add all kinds of narrative to the stairs, to the tidal basin area, even inside the temple itself. Can we rethink memorials instead of saying Historic Preservation demands they stay 1930. Or can we say, look, were using them for the Cherry Blossom festival. Cant we do a little bit more . And now that we know that jefferson has this dark side to him we dont have to depose him but maybe we can give credit to other people and to other aspects of american history. Wasnt it George Washington also a slave owner . Yes, George Washington was also a slave owner. Are we going to take everybody down . Well, it comes up every time theres a big controversy about the founders, someone says what about that Washington Monument . The Washington Monument is its saving grace is its an abstraction. It doesnt have any image. It doesnt have any words. Its simply this great obelisk, if it werent there washington wouldnt be washington, that is the city. This comes up all the time. Im surprised people dont look up in horror at the dome in the capitol and say what in the world is going on here, except nobody can see it anyhow. You can use the paintings, the sculpture to tell a story about how we tello our story and it cn be a having interesting way to engage people in what our memorials mean and even think we can improve them. Thats what i like about statuary hall. We can take down somebody and we can put up somebody else. Statues allow you to have this impermanence, whereas a seven acre monument, a four acre monument, were stuck with it. So thats my feeling. I generally try to keep my feelings out of things but ive given myself away. Anyone else . Yeah. With the relook at all the confederate symbols and what they really mean today was there any discussion or debate about the fact that Arlington National cemetery was built on property . No, because the government absconded with it. And once it was yeah, that was robert e. Lee ancestral home and then during the war Union Soldiers were being buried on the site and then ultimately the government did pay the family for that land and it became it became a national cemetery. So i dont know what the solution to that might be. But i think its good when people learn their history and when they realize Something Like, that Arlington Cemetery was part of the lee family and so on. These discussions are good and often, you know, the loudest voices are the ones that get heard. But people like Mitchell Andrew were able to to create a very thoughtful dialogue in his little book, which i highly recommend, theres no one answer. Theres no simple answer. You can leave the monuments up and maybe put a plaque, so long as theyre not used for symbolic purposes by, you know, by, you know, forces of for destruction. But thats partly the problem is how these monuments are used. Theyre not abstract things when youve got rallies and Confederate Heritage events going on around them. Now theyre being given new meaning, just like the Martin Luther king plaque gives the lincoln new meaning. So its a reason and its an opportunity, really, to think, to discuss, to learn our history and to revise our history, as needed. I hope youve liked the class. Ive had a great time. Yup. I know you focus mainly on this area, but i wonder, love to hear your thoughts on the new statue in richmond, rumors of war. Oh, yes, yeah, wiley took made a statue called rumors of war. Its a black man on a horse with dredlocks and jeans, its modeled off a jeb stuart statue in richmond and he showed it first in central park not central in times square in new york and now its planted in richmond across from the museum of fine arts, i think, yeah. And what hes done is hes taken the traditional heroic confederate statue and now put the same kind of horse but with this black man on it. To me its kind of a you know, its an interesting thought but i dont think it essentially buys into the heroic man on horseback. He does wiley also did a and i dont remember what he called it. But you all remember napoleon crossing the alps, right, jack luis david grand painting of napoleon crossing the alps, not a hair out of place, perfectly quaffed, heroic, when, in fact, he was on a mule. Wiley who paints just black men hell find on the street and he put and he did a black portrait on the horse. And i thought, okay, and thats at the portrait gallery, isnt it . Yeah. And he did obamas portrait. But when i looked at the painting of the napoleon, now transformed to a black man, i dont quite get what you get except that hes appropriating what he thought was an inadequate or inappropriate image, and now given it over to his black subject. So im not i dont get it. So you dont think it added any balance to the monument that i know thats his intention, and i know a lot of people think that. Im just not so sure. I mean, arthur ash is now on monument avenue. So its i think these are all things worth considering. I think, though, when you buy into the same iconography that youre criticizing you run the risk of being not clear or ambiguous. But i think, you know, hes being playful as well. And sometimes playful is what you need to do in order to get people to pay attention. Thanks a lot, thank you. Were live here on cspan3 for a hearing on the fbis investigation known as crossfire hurricane, that looked into possible ties between the 2016 Trump Campaign and russian officials. Still waiting for senator. Were waiting for the start on a Senate Homeland security committee, crossfire hurricane, possible ties between the 2016 Trump Campaign and russian officials. Live coverage here on cspan3. Good morning, this hearing is called to order. The title of this hearing is congressional oversight in the face of executive branch and media suppression, and in particular case study of the crossfire hurricane, corrupt investigation. Ill add that. The hearing is actually quite a bit broader than that. But well certainly focus on that