Feldman analysts is artistic portrayals of the American Revolution and civil war. She talks about the influence of paintings, sculptures, in memorials on how history is remembered. The Smithsonian Associates host to this event. Today we are going to look at the American Revolution and civil war, in particular, but a little beyond that. Controversies about the stories we tell. I am going to focus, because it is impossible to cover such an amount of material in one top. Im going to focus in particular on the nations capital, and the public buildings on the mall, which is after all, the centerpiece of american political culture, and our public culture, where people come from all around the world, and the country to participate in government, to learn about government, to understand our heritage. So i thought what is it we say to those people when they come to washington . What have been some of the controversies . What are some of the issues we should be aware of . And what is missing . So that is going to be my focus, with the Capital Building you are seeing here, rotunda, and of course the mall which stretches all the way back down to the Lincoln Memorial. The Capital Building with its great paintings by john tremble of the American Revolution, and at the opposite end of the mall, the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the civil war and Abraham Lincolns role. Also up the capital is another little known memorial. There was an oped in the Washington Post a couple days ago about this memorial, right there at the foot of the Capital Building. It and the Lincoln Memorial were dedicated in 1920, to the same year, yet they represent two different approaches to telling the story of america and the civil war. The statue there a ulysses grand is something that one sees similar statues of threat washington, all the circles and washington have been populated about the same time with Civil War Union generals. Lets look first at some of the issues that have been arising, not only in america, but elsewhere about how we tell our history. What kind of history artists have made for us . Monuments that speak to the world of identity . Often national identity. And of course one of the biggest controversies that have erupted in recent years has to do with confederate monuments. This is silent sam. The confederate statue raced up on a pedestal at the entrance to the university of North Carolina chapel hill. Erected in 1913. It has been there for many, many decades. And it has been controversial since the sixties and seventies but no big deal was made about it. However, in recent times, in recent years, because of Certain Police and confederate activities, the monument has taken a new aspect. It is a no longer simply a statue of confederate soldier. Its a symbol of a confederacy. The symbol of the south. A symbol of the socalled lost cause of the southern states. You see here in 2017, a protest against the statue calling for it to be taken down. The same here, not protest to keep it alive, to keep it up. The Confederate Heritage society protesting the opposition to the statue, and saying its a symbol of our pride. Its a symbol of our history. Its a symbol of our heritage. And ultimately in 2018, a group of students and others pulled the statue down. Now the pedestal stands empty. A different approach was taken in new orleans. Under Mitch Landrieu, the then mayor avenue are. Lens of it was taken by the city council, and they voted to remove for confederate statues, and to address the memory that they represent. It and so we see in 2017, this is the fourth and last of the confederate generals to be removed. General robert e. Lee removed from his pedestal and put into a warehouse until the decision can be made, what to do with the statues. So on the one, hand the controversy addressed by a violent activity. On the other, or a recognition by the city council itself that there was symbolic meaning associated with these statues. And in particular associated with the people who erected them and the early 1900s, who are espousing a lost cause. I recommend in the readings at the bottom, mitch is book, which i recently bought and red, its a powerful story of him growing up in new orleans, facing confederate history, and recognizing that these were not harmless statues. They were put up for a reason. And for some people, they still represented and ideology that is and antithesis to the way in which his city wanted to be remembering the past, but also look forward to the future. Also a recent story out of spain is Francisco Francos tombs. And the valley of the fallen, which was highly controversial. There he was dictator from 1939 until his death in 1975. He was put in this great honorific mausoleum. After the revival of democracy, and some Political Action by the spanish government, it was decided that his body would be removed and moved to the cemetery with his wife. Why . On one hand was the memory of franco being honored. On the other hand, it had become a symbol of the rising fascist rightwing. So its not just the fact of the monument. It is the way in which these monuments can be used, and worse and represent meaning that they never had originally, but have taken on in modern society. So in 2019, his body was removed, and moved to another location. Taking away the honorific quality that had been bestowed on him. So its not just a american thing. You find it in many countries, that people, all nations, City Councils are reconsidering the legacy, their heritage, their history, and asking themselves, what story do we want to tell it but ourselves . What matters to us now in the 21st century . And how do we want to memorialize in our public spaces, so that people can take this to be a statement about our past, but also our aspirations for the future . Lets look back in washington. Changing memorials. Changing purpose. Changing meaning. Monuments obviously dont stay static. Theyre put up by people who lived long ago with certain ideas, and they change overtime. And this is something that makes it worth discussing. We saw last time when we were looking at the way in which artists to picked world war i, we ended up with the National World war one memorial, which is now under construction along pennsylvania avenue in washington. It should be completed maybe this, year maybe next year. And we saw that it will take her shrink park, right next to freedom plaza, between pennsylvania and constitution avenue. And this part will be restored. Its in a deplorable state. It will be restored to a functioning public park. The statute of purging will be restored as well. There will be a new addition of a freeze, indicating the honoring of world war i. Here is the location, and this is actually a life can picture i took this morning. So you can see that indeed, the area has been cleared, that is across from the wilson building, d. C. City hall. The area has been cleared, and construction is underway. We saw that the centerpiece is this high relief sculptural freeze that tells the story of the journey of the soldier from the moment he leaves his family and home to go to war, fighting through the war, and then ultimately returning home. And we saw that the sculptor is using a very idealized mode in depicting this scene of combat. The figures are naturalistic lee depicted, unlike a lot of our recent monuments. Depicted in a realistic battle scene. And in fact, when the original proposal for this memorial, in order to honor world war one veterans said i want it to be a large sculpture. I wanted to be of the time, 100 years ago. He was speaking into theres a 19. We also saw at the end of our top yesterday that 100 years ago, they were speaking quite differently. In fact, both the allies, and the germans were creating art even when they were under commission by their official government body that their paintings were almost uniformly grim, horrifying, anti war, and here we are looking at william, the irish born french painter, an official painter for the british propaganda board painting in france. Blown up. After he encountered a shellshocked soldier wandering through the fields after the battle. And we also saw the american expatriate, john singer sergeant, also hired by the British Government to memorialize, to commemorate, and in particular he was asked to commemorate the cooperation during the war between the british and the americans, and he went to france, and came back and said he cant find any real scene of such cooperation. I would prefer to show this horrifying scene of these soldiers having been gassed, they cant see, theyre blindfolded, they are trying to walk to the battlefield strewn with bodies. And thats how he commemorated world war one. The one hand, we have one new memorial, which is it more idealize treatment of a heroic journey, and on the other hand, 100 years ago, artist who found world war i to be beyond words, beyond idealism, and really something that required a new kind of art that was essentially anti art in its message. So lets step into the capital, and have a look at how the American Revolution was depicted through artists eyes. And in particular, we are going to be looking at john troubles paintings. But first, a little chronology. 1776, the declaration of independence. 1777, the surrender of a general forgoing at saratoga. Another key battle in 1780, one the surrender of lord cornwallis at york town. In 1783, all of these scenes shown at the capitol, general George Washington resigning his commission. 1788, but the ratification of the United States constitution. The presidency of George Washington from 1789 through 1977. A important part of this whole story is 1790, the residency act by which Congress Keep George Washington the authority to choose the location for the new capital. For the nations capital. 1791, youre looking at here is the plan for the nations capital. A plan that imagined, essentially from Rolling Hills filled with a few homes and cows and sheep, a full fledged city and new capital for the new nation. In 1800, the federal government relocates to washington for the first time. And so washington is a key player in this post revolutionary history and the government having reestablished itself here, or having established itself here, moving from philadelphia makes washington the locus of a lot of commemoration. So how do we depict the American Revolution . First of all, heres a view of the Capital Building in 1814. It had been under Construction Since 1793. But then in the war of 1812, it had been burned by the british and you can see the two wings, the senate wing and the house wing, but the rotunda in the center had never been completed and now was severely damaged. John trumbull, the american painter, was commissioned by congress to make for paintings commemorating the American Revolution. Trumbull consulted with monroe at the time. They decided to choose to military scenes and two civilian scenes. Here are the four scenes, all of which ive already shown you, and lets look at a little greater detail. Declaration of independence. It was controversial in its date because people said the wrong figures are present and now not all the figures we should be present or present. But in fact, the scene is not the signing of the declaration of independence, it is the delivery of the first draft of the declaration of independence by Thomas Jefferson, john adams and others on june 28th, 1776. Why . Well, it was the process that was still ongoing. We see here that jefferson, the key draft or, is handing the document to john hancock. And now begins the debate and the discussion and the controversy and the fighting over what exactly to say to the british and whether to sign this document. Then we have to military scenes. But notice there is no battle. Theres no fighting. Theres no heroic military action. Instead, the focus is on the surrender of the british. This is the triumphal scene here. We have the surrender of burgoyne in 1777 and another surrender of lord cornwallis. And then finally, i civilian image of general George Washington resigning his commission. Why so important . Because rather than make himself a king, he relinquished military authority for civilian rule. So in particular, why a controversy about this . As ive just said, this scene is not the signing of the declaration of independence, which we often think it is, and what John Trumbull did and which caused consternation among those still living, is he left out figures that were not present at the signing of the declaration of independence, but he did add everyone into the audience who did sign. So some werent there, but he included them anyhow because he wanted to memorialize those who had the gumption, who had the strength to actually sign that document. But it was john adams who was particularly perturbed and he wrote about it. He said, who will paint the debate . Who will paint the arguments in the Council Chamber in boston in the month of february, 1761, between mr. Gidley and mr. Otis . Here, the revolution commenced. Then and there, the child was born. What did he want . He wanted realism. He wanted a sense that this was not a happy gathering, everyone in agreement. He wanted this to be a realistic scene of the struggle of the fight, the debates that took place. In fact, this is a theme that runs through memorials. Should they idealize or should they be realistic . We will see that again and again. Lets go back and see what Leon Battista Alberti said. Weve looked at him in several lectures so far. He was the italian renaissance painter, architect and writer who wrote his books on painting, on architecture, and they created kind of the basis for the justification for classical architecture and for classical painting from the a chalian renaissance forward. What he said about history painting remains the standard up until the 19th and 20th century. The great work of the painter and sculptor is the narrative, or historian, to hold the eye of the learned and unlearned spectator for a long while while a certain sense of pleasure and emotion. The reader will not only delight in the paintings variety and the artists invention, but will be grateful, i believe, when he finds our work pleasing and enjoyable, counsel for living wisely. You can see alberta is very clearly an idealist. He wants the painting not to be so much telling what really happened, but telling us what the moral is of the story. And so it requires distortion. It requires embellishment. It also requires a certain order that probably was not part of the story. The painter needs to first of all please the eye. In order for the people to look at the painting. It needs to move emotions. There needs to be something that draws you into the action taking place. Thirdly, it needs to council the soul. There is a moral to be learned from this. You can imagine john adams painting rolling members of the convention, brawling and pulling each others hair and stabbing each other. What a scene that might be, may be realistic but maybe not uplifting or council. In fact, John Trumbull painted a painting just prior to working in the capital, he painted the death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill. He was present himself at that battle. The battle with 1775. Uses and follows very closely albertis ideal in preparing this painting. You can see that there is the general lying on the ground in white, dying. He has arranged his composition using geometry to create a very strong visual attraction to the soldiers as they line up and to the central itty to the left of the general himself. Then he draws us into the story. And in the story, you can see that the general on the ground, his eyes are still open. He is dying, but there is a red coat to the right who is about to stab him with a bayonet. There is another red coat to the far right who is stopping him. Its because these soldiers had actually served together prior to the revolution. Here, John Trumbull is trying to show nobility, even among enemies at the moment of war. Even the red coat, general gates i think was his name, is trying to protect general warren from death. So he has taken a scene which, no doubt was chaotic, and turned it into something that is really , can you see the soldier on the right . On the farright . Hes reaching up to grab the gun, the rifle, to stop him from stabbing him. So he has created an image that follows albertis rules, as he does with the surrender of lord cornwallis. Look at the symmetry of this painting. We know exactly whats the focus is. In the middle is the american general, general lincoln, and hes on a horse. To his left are the red coats who are now surrendering. Cornwallis was not present and that is why general washington is not at the front. General washington would only be at the front if the top general, british general, was there. So general George Washington is shown in the background and we see the lines of french soldiers and american soldiers to the left and right. They are there to witness this great event. So when we look at once again at the declaration of independence and ask ourselves you, trumbull, following the principles of good history painting, has created a dignified scene, the central figures being jefferson, adams and others. Its a moment of honor, a moment of contemplation. He has made of that moment, when finally these ideas, the draft is handed over for debate, he has made this into a heroic image of american founders. What would be the alternative . Well, i thought i would bring in Martin Luther with the pope. We looked at hans holbein luther versus pope leo the 10th. Holbein showing luther in the upper left with his quill pen. Again, hes not fighting with a sword, but with his quill pen, attacking pope leo, who himself is about to swinging his sword. So a more realistic portrayal of the savage really, really, of the lutheran, of the luthers attacks on the pope, then what we are seeing here. And so the question of idealism and realism. What is the purpose of the commemorative painting . What is the purpose of telling this history . Is it to tell the truth as it was . Or is it to make of it some kind of model, some kind of moral lesson that allows us to contemplate higher values and higher purposes . Also in the capital, as a crucial element of the American Revolution being honored here, are images of George Washington. Here i think its very interesting to see, over time, how the way in which artists depict him changes. Here, the arrow is pointing in the rotunda to the statue of George Washington. This bronze statue was given to the capital by virginia in 1934. However, the original stands in the Virginia State capital in richmond. It was a statue done of George Washington. Of course, he came from virginia, by famous french sculptor of the 18th century. So the bronze in the Capital Building is a copy in bronze. Here you see George Washington is depicted in his military outfit standing against a post made of the 13 rods that indicate a symbol of power and also unity. When houdon began this work, he started with a bust. It was modeled in part by a death mask may directly from George Washington. But what did he dress him in . He dressed him in a roman toga. If you know about the founders, they were always quoting the ancients, the romans in particular. They were creating the modern version of a roman republic. They would refer back and read wet the ancients said. The idea here was to make an allegorical reference to George Washington as a great republican in the tradition of the ancient romans. George washington saw the bust and said no go. I will not be shown as a roman. I want you to show me in the modest element in which i am. And so houdon got rid of the outfit, put him in his everyday clothes. George washington insisted on realism. He wanted realism, not idealism. He didnt want to be likened to some esoteric figure. He wanted people to appreciate what he had done for them. So you see on the one hand, he is shown in his military garb. But notice that the sort is not in his hand. In his hand he is holding a gentlemans walking stick. And off to the right, his sort has been hung up off the side. So this is indicating again, the very important fact that even though he had led the americans during the revolution success, he was putting aside military authority for civilian. Chief justice, supreme court, Jean Marshall said of this, nothing in bronze or stone could be more perfect image of the statute of the living washington. Again, this is an image that is in many ways very similar to troubles image a few years later, in which George Washington is shown as one of the founders in his every day, realistic aspect. In the 18 thirties, Congress Asked a very famous american sculptor, ratio, to create a sculpture of George Washington for the capital, rotunda. And this is what he came up with. [laughs] now he, like most american artists, went to rome, went to paris, studied with a great european painters and sculptors in europe, and of course admired the traditions of the ancient greeks and ancient romans. And he chose as a model, the statue of the olympian, seuss, from ancient greece. Look at the reconstruction on the, right that drug. See how tall the people are . They are teeny tiny. This was a colossal statue, like most of the great statues of the gods and goddesses of ancient grease. They would have completely filled the interior height of a greek temple. Because the temples were homes of the gods. They were in place for people to go in. They were homes for the guards themselves. And so here, you see the olympian, zoos, hes undressed from the waist up, and wearing rich greek g. A. R. Below, holding a winged victory, and a staff. Clearly a super human image. And thats whats hes trying to convey. He is trying to convey using allegorical mode. Using the iconography of ancient god to show that george rushing tunnels more than a mortal man. He does go to the point of showing George Washington, but also what is he doing with his left hand . He is relinquishing his military authority, thats his sword. He is giving over. He is doing his correct civilian act. You have these two things combined. The allegorical godlike iconography combined with the civilian act of George Washington. How does this compare . One from about 1918, 19, 20 the photo by trouble, and a generation later when youre dealing with artists, and sculptors, and patrons who didnt know George Washington like the originals. Who did not fight with him, did not work with him in the creation of the government. Now we are seeing a image. But even that was too much for congress. The ridicule was so great that ultimately the statue was put out on the east front grounds of the Capital Building, where children and adults came to gawk, and ultimately to the smithsonian. This is a journalist writing in 1907. The story of washington, is a tragedy, he conceived him as a colossal, godlike figure, but met with impotence, ridicule, and taunts. One satirist would interpreting the meaning of the extended arm supposed that washington was saying my body is that mint vernon, and my clothes are in the patent office. So his great statue ended up in American History, where one can go see. It still the site bring up because the question of what do we do it statues we dont like or dont want, heres one example. He is not something to be admired, are ridiculed, and the American History museum. But look up to the ceiling. The great dome of the rotunda also has a painting. And it is so difficult to see that of course most people have probably never looked at it in any great detail. But it is a painting of the apotheosis of George Washington. In this case, the painter was italian. He was trained in rome. And he brought with him a deep appreciation of italian renaissance painting. I you are looking up into the painting, apotheosis, in 1860, five here a closer view, where you see the circular arrangement of figures, rising up into the yellow sky, the sun beyond, and thinkers lining the rim of the great dome, attending this great event. And who is the star of the show . George washington. Here he is. Now constantly know knew about the controversy about the sculpture. So he took it to heart, and he addressed dress George Washington in his military garb. He is holding his sword, but hes also just trying to book, which is history. But he didnt use the divine aspect, the divine or god like iconography which he was probably inclined to use, but he knew that would get him in trouble. So he depicts George Washington here, notice hes in this military garb but he has this pink roman cloak over his knees. Why was he thinking of . He was probably thinking of the assumption of the origin painting in parma cathedral. From 15 30. He was well acquainted with this. And he found it to be a super duper way of trying to indicate, andy, dome the rising up of a godlike figure into the heavens. Here lets look at the assumption of the virgin. Heres a detail. You can see in the central yellow aspect is jesus christ. Rising into the heavens, and just below him wearing pink and blue is the virgin mary, who, according to catholic theology, is being bodily taken up into heaven. So here you have a model for visualizing this great vision of a heavenly figure, rising up to eternal divinity. In the case of George Washington, he is flanked not by angels and saints and apostolic, but instead by liberty and victory. So we see in this case italian painter bringing italian renaissance catholic artistic traditions. And now turning the mid to secular images of a almost divine like George Washington, as he sends to heaven. And below him, you have freedom trampling tyranny. So, can the imagery, the iconography comes from catholic theology of assumption. But now its being translated into a civilian image of a superhuman. George washington. Hes been elevated in the eyes of the artists, the eyes of americans at this time. 1865. He is now considered beyond human. And there is another washington. This one on the mall. The idea for this goes back to the founding of the city. And its interesting how this one was conceived. And peters 1971 plan, he arranged the city, the layout of the city to embody in many respects the new United States constitution. George washington. President George Washington asked him, he was born in france, trained in european planning, architecture, and art asked him to design this new city. He looked up over the hills around laid out a full fledged city with at its heart the three main buildings. Three main monuments. The u. S. Capital on the highest spot. The pedestal waiting for a monument. He put the u. S. Capital in france, or in, rome would have been a church, a cathedral, a palace. Here its the house of the people or temple of the people. Has of the representatives. The senate building. Down grand avenue. Pennsylvania avenue. He planned the president s house. Then a light west from the capital, intersected a line south from the white house he put a monument to George Washington. The public space between them he intended to be a public space for the enjoyment of the american people. So his whole city was centered on the concept of representative government. The elected president of the elected representatives of the people between them who elected them, and a monument to the father of the country, George Washington. The original idea which actually was an idea that went back to congress was to have an equestrian statue. General George Washington. Now of course that general George Washingtons statue is now in washington circle. Over by George Washington university. It was never placed on the mall. Instead, after 40 years of inaction, a Citizens Group got together, created the Washington Monument society and held a competition. So now we are dealing with 18 thirties. They held a competition for the Washington Monument. By that time the notion of a question statue was out of the question. Too modest. This was a generation later. And then winning design was robert mills Washington Monument from 1836. A bit different from the one we have now. And the difference is instructive. We see that there is a tall obelisk. His is actually 1600 feet high. At the foot of it is a round temple. A greek temple form. Here is the detail. 30 columns carrying up as densely a pantheon. It was intended that there would be heroes statues of the heroes of the revolution he had paintings inside. His composition was essentially a monument to washington. But also to all the heroes of the revolution. Of course weve lost that component. But what is that at the top . What is sitting on top of the in tablet sure there . It is a man in a chariot. Its George Washington writing each harriet. And rising to heaven. The closest thing to that we have is in paris. A monument to napoleon, and his military victories, where he also had figures such as this, but in his case its hes writing in a triumphant chariot. You can see the personification of peace in the center. The partially nude female vigor crowned, riding the four horses, and then golden victory figures off to each side. This is what mills had in mind for George Washington. So much like , much like a little later, they were thinking of a iconography for George Washington that transposed him from vehement, every day, from the general, to a superhuman almost godlike figure. So when construction which had been halted on the Washington Monument for about 20 years in the 18 sixties and seventies, when construction was started up again the engineer, thomas casey, who really loved modern inventions, elevators, electric lights. He decided we are not going to put that temple at the bottom. He wanted the Washington Monument to stay a simple obelisk that would represent the maternity of america, moving forward into the 20th century. So he now saw it as a sleek monument of american ingenuity. And so it was his decision, essentially, not to create the monument that mills had envisioned. I think we are all happier for it so when we look at the iconography of 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 the artist came from. Whats the artist knew of George Washington or did not know of him, that we see everything from a very realistic general George Washington on or speck to the heroic figure who has put aside his sword and now is resigning his commission to now the almost god like figures that show up a generation and two generations later. The civil war. How do we show the civil war . How did artists create civil war imagery . First, a little chronology. 1861 to 1865, the civil war and president Abraham Lincoln. Appomattox courthouse in 1865 where lee surrenders to grant. Following that reconstruction 1863 to 1877. Reconstruction and also the 13th, the 14th and the 15th amendments, which give formerly enslaved people writes that they had been denied. The historian eric foner, and many historians now writing about this era, have concluded that what remains certain is that reconstruction failed and that for blacks, its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure. So it is a failure, and its that failure which is, in part, informing the controversies that we are now seeing on university campuses, in richmond, virginia, and elsewhere, over the use of these images and the story that they tell when they were built just after reconstruction, in that period of time when he lost cause was being promoted by the daughters of confederacy. So just to step outside the mall for just a minute. We do have a very interesting and quite beautiful relief sculpture. The red brick building, the old pension building in washington at fourth and f street, it was created following the civil war in the 1880s, as a building that would serve former soldiers to provide them with their needs, financial and otherwise. As you enter this building, it is now the National Building museum. As you enter this building, look up. There is a relief freeze in terracotta that goes around the entire gigantic building. It is modeled on the part than on freeze at the Athena Temple in athens from fifth century bc. But in this case, it is essentially a narrative frieze, not with athena and the greeks, but instead of soldiers marching to battle and going to war and coming home. Here we have essentially a narrative of civil war troops, some fighting, some activity, but mostly a kind of a narrative story. And then we have this, one of the earliest monuments after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The emancipation monument by thomas ball in lincoln park, from 1876. What is shown here . You have Abraham Lincoln standing, leaning on a pillar. Notice 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 Abraham Lincoln extends his hand over him. In fact, this monument was paid for by freed enslaved people. This made it rather controversial, both at the time and especially to our own day. It shows this man subservient to lincoln, and i think frederick dog louis said it right when he said, fredericton glass was at the dedication in 1876. It showed the knee grow on his knees, when a more manly attitude would have been indicative of freedom. Even from the moment it was unveiled, it was controversial because of the subservient way in which thomas ball has portrayed the man. Here, in just a recent Washington Post article, harry jones, the assisted director of the African American Civil War Museum in washington said, ive never met anyone who said they liked it or they were happy with it. I think it is one that people kind of wish away. You dont read much controversy about this, but theres plenty behind the scenes. Whenever i show it to people who have not seen it, they are rather horrified by the image. So what do we do with this statue . Do we leave it up . Do we move it . Do we reinterpreted . What . Its a good question. Now what was the mall looking like at the end of the civil war . This. The capital dome, the original dome, which was a lower dome, was not adequate once the Capitol Building had been extended with two new wings to the north and south, the dome looked too small and too low. So a grand new dome by Thomas Waters was designed and under construction during the civil war. The mall its so the mall itself was a mess. It had those white buildings in the center, military cemeteries associated and barracks associated with civil war. Tiger creek had turned into a feted sewer. The only building is the one you see in the back, the Smithsonian Castle with its medieval towers rising up. The mall was a mess. And in 1900, it was still filled with trees. This is a view from the top of the Washington Monument. You are looking to the capital. You can see the smithsonian off 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 sixth street right there. So how are we depicting the civil war on the mall in the era immediately after the civil war . Well, we werent because there were no opportunities to do so. It was not until 1900 the things started to change. We got both the Lincoln Memorial in 1922 and then the grand memorial. And for this, to understand this, we need to go back to the a 1971 plan then im showing you on the right. It laid out the city with the mall as its centerpiece, both physically but also symbolically the centerpiece. 1901, senator mcmillon convened a commission now known as the mcmillen commission, or the senate park 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 lenfant was fine, but it was filling up. There was also the need for a monument honoring Abraham Lincoln as the preserver of the union. Whereas lenfants original scheme highlighted the president s house, the capital and one monument, the Washington Monument. Now, the expansion under the mcmillon commission to the west and to the south on land that originally 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 dredged the potomac and dumped that soil. Because of that, the Mcmillan Commission said we now have a place to expand the mall and more than double its size. So what did they do . They expanded exactly on the axis that lenfant had established. They did not create a new design. In fact, they said they visited all the cities of europe and came back to lenfants plan, believing it to be the most appropriate design for washington d. C. They expanded to the south, but also to the west to a monument, memorial erected to the memory of that one man in our history, as a nation who is worthy to be named with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. That was the mcmillon commission in their report to congress in 1900 to. It was very clear that they were establishing, reestablishing the symbolism, the geometry and the constitutional basis that had originated in lenfants plan. Furthermore, in a lining, in aligning the Lincoln Memorial with the Washington Monument in the Capital Building, they were also extending the symbolism quite 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 Abraham Lincoln. We have at one end of the axis a beautiful building which is a monument to the United States government, that is the capital. 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 these 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, and each will have its value increased by being on the one access and having visual relation to one another. So this is the design and the symbolic basis for the location of the Lincoln Memorial. Its not just a memorial to lincoln a monument to lincoln, but one that reinforced the constitutional axis of the establishment and the preservation of the american government. Of course, they are speaking in quite heroic language. The architecture language that the Mcmillan Commission used was of course classical architecture. They wanted the mall to be filled with white classical buildings and the federal triangle down between constitution avenue and pennsylvania avenue is the invention, is the creation of the Mcmillan Commission. They wanted federal buildings to have the dignity of classical greek and roman architecture. And that includes the Lincoln Memorial, which was modeled on a greek temple, the parton on in rome, and the great statue by Daniel Chester french, which shows lincoln 16 foot high, super human scale, god like 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 in trying to forever. Both a god like figure in the temple form, his setting in his sculptured form, and also specifically in the inscription, which also says that this monument represents the preservation of the union. You dont see any overt symbolism related to the emancipation proclamation, anything having to do with the states, anything having to do with slavery. Instead on this axis, it was intended to symbolize the preservation of the United States government. Then at the other end we have the grant memorial by henry straighty. This memorial was actually proposed not by the mcmillon commission, but by veterans of the civil war. They wanted a monument to commemorate their efforts. So we see here the great heroic leader, ulysses as grand, he is represented. You can see its very hard to get good pictures because in the 1960s, the reflecting pool was put there, so you cannot stand in front of the statue. But that statue of Ulysses Grant in the center, 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. To the side, you have the infantry. You can see the cannon being dragged by the infantry on one side. On the opposite side, the cavalry men on horseback. A very dramatic telling of the action during the civil war. So when we compare, we are looking at the two ends of the mall. No one intended with the historic plan, and this is important to understand, they were not saying lets build a monument to lincoln and lets have a competition. They were saying lets build a monument to lincoln and we know what it wants to say. We know that it wants to be about the establishment and preservation of the government, while at the other and we have a more traditional military monument showing the bravery, the valor of the troops. So what have we done and how do we build up and add to this story . This 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. On the one hand, these monuments, the grant memorial is very little known, though i will say it is a great place for the taking of school pictures. You will see lots of School Groups assemble on the stairs at the bottom with the Capital Building in the background. It makes for a great setting. But it has not become a place of any other kind of commemoration or activity. The Lincoln Memorial, on the other hand, has taken on new meaning. On the one hand, some people have been very critical from the beginning of the Lincoln Memorial. They say Abraham Lincoln grew up in a log cabin. He had no money. He had no learning. Here we are representing him as a god like figure. Kirk savidge in his book, monument wars, talks about how do we build monuments and what should we say . Hes quite critical of this idolizing, almost deifying of Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, the Lincoln Memorial has become a very important location, not just because it is raised up on a podium with a great view of the mall, but also because of its association with lincoln and the emancipation proclamation. And so we first saw marion anderson, a black opera singer who saying on the steps of the memorial in 1939, and now we see Martin Luther king in 1963 speaking at the march on washington for jobs and freedom. He is assembled before the thousands of people assembled. And now that spot has been marked by an inscription in the step exactly where he stood. Now, if you have not seen it, its a little hard to find because its simply an inscription in the pavement, and sometimes if you are there at the lincoln, you will see tour guides squirting water on the step. What they are trying to do is put water into the inscription so that you can actually 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 1900 to, or thinking in 1922 when it was completed, but it also shows that this memorial has an afterlife and continues to have life, and its good to continue to memorialize that so that we can see the way in which we over the years and over the decades reinterpret the Lincoln Memorial, which is now considered a civil rights memorial. Of course, it was not at all in the first place. And of course, during the First Obama Administration inauguration, the day before in 2009, hundreds of thousands of people gathered because there was a dedication and a commemoration and a musical performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, exactly where Martin Luther king had stood. And so 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. And of course, weve added the Martin Luther king memorial as well. Another memorial less known is the African American civil war memorial dedicated in a in 1998, which is in the shot neighborhood. You can see what is happening is the monuments are proving not to be enough in the case of civil rights, based on the remembrance of civil war, we are seeing that our memory of the civil war is no longer simply the preservation of the union as enshrined on the mall and the adult the actual battle scenes. But instead, the Civil Rights Movement adopted the Lincoln Memorial. Once it took on this 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. So when we look at our commemorations, we are seeing both the original and we are seeing a growing desire, a growing need to supplement the original story as told in 1902 by adding appreciations and commemorations of those who were integral part, but who were not figured or pictured, were not part of the commemorative landscape. Weve also added to the american story, beyond the American Revolution and the civil war, as weve had to, as we update. Weve added the American Indian museum and the National Museum of african American History and culture. There have been calls to make the mall more representative of our history, of our message, about where meaning and of our national identity. Now, on capitol hill, its interesting to see how they are able to expand the story told. In statuary hall, each state is allowed to erect to statues, two figures from their state. What weve seen here is, by and large, the figures were all white men up until relatively recently. But in 1905, the first woman was placed in statuary hall, francis willard. Frances willard. In 19 hoops, it should not cite 1913. That is no commentary. [laughs] that should say 2013. Then Vice President joe biden dedicated the monument to frederik douglass. What has happened here in statuary hall . The nice thing is there are statues. You can take down one and then put up a new one. The story is not so permanent like the apotheosis and the dome, it you cant adjust the story. And so now we have in statuary hall, additional women figures, African American figures, native american figures and, in the capital rotunda itself, a statue of the suffragists, the three ladies in the bathtub, its a sculpture which tends to look like three ladies and a bath. This is Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Katie and others, who were some of the originators of the suffragists movement. Womens rights, not only about women, but about the amending of the constitution, which was necessary in order to get women the right to vote. And so we are seeing, and i log this, that the capital 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 white centric and malecentric story of American History can now be expanded and must be expanded to tell a much broader story. In building up the story on the mall, and on the capital, the question comes to mind is who decides and how . It comes to mind in part because of the proliferation of War Memorials, in particular on the west end of the mall. It started with Vietnam Veterans memorial. We then got the korean veterans memorial. We got the world war ii memorial, which i will point out to you, the major controversy surrounding it was its location on the constitutional axis of the mall, established by lenfant, and then reestablished mcmillan. The memorial not only disrupted symbolically the meaning of the mall, but also is enclosed. So the kinds of possessions and parades and marches that you used to pass that area can a longer do so. So we are dealing with some substantive issues that were raised about that location of the memorial, not the existence of the memorial, which there was no opposition to. In addition to these warmer morials, we now have one that is supposed to open next year. The National Desert storm and Desert Shield memorial. This will be located over by the Vietnam Veterans memorial, making the west end of the mall a place where the proliferation of War Memorials continues to take place just since the 19 eighties. Weve been adding them at alarming speed. So while the east and is getting more museums, the west and has been getting it a memorial. So who owns americas past and how do we decide what should go there . Im one of those who believed that the original vision of the lenfant 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 which has been defended by congress at various times, i government agencies, Historic Preservation entities, but it is essentially rooted in the 1791 idea and expanded by the mcmillon commission idea to include further history. Where did the room warmer morals come from . Well, this is where you look at the commemorative process. In 1986, just a couple of years after the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans memorial, congress realized there was going to be a run on War Memorials, veterans groups coming to congress. And so they passed the commemorative works act of 1986, which put in place a process whereby people could add commemorative works not just to the mall, but to washington d. C. The process works like this. A sponsor decides they want a memorial. They go to the National Capital memorials 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 capital 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 city. Generally, they agree that yes it is. Once they are given the ok, these sponsors go to congress and Congress Passes, or creates legislation, and then passes the legislation. And generally after that, they create a commission, a Memorial Commission and designates that commission to now follow through to find a site, to find at isnt, to collect the money and then to build the project. After Congress Passes the bill, though, the sponsor has to go back to the National Capital Memorials Commission and seek their advice about site selection. They can either choose a site outside the National Mall, in which case they have a lot of leeway, but if they want to be on the National Mall its self, they are very restricted. It has to be a preeminent importance to the nation to be right in the center, and it has to be of National Significance to be beyond. But then, once they consult again begins the process that often takes three, five, even ten years. They have to go to review before the commission of fine arts, the National Capital commission, the office of preservation, the d. C. Preservation office, the office of planning, and so on and so forth. Essentially this is what takes so long. They go before the entities, the explain their design, and site selection. Then they go from Government Entity to government at entity, federal in d. C. In order to get their approval. Finally, whens the final memorial is granted, the memorial we just saw, the National Desert storm, the only finally got their approval and fall of last year but they are starting construction. Once they have final approval, and a certain amount of private money collected, then they can move ahead with construction. And so this was 1986, and what happened . More memorials got built. The korean veteran memorial, 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. Completed work suffolk art. Now congress was encouraged to do this by the National Capital planning commission, and the u. S. Commission of fine arts because they did know how to say no to anybody. Essentially, sponsors come, they have a believe that they have a strong theme that needs to be in the capital, and thats what happens. So Congress Declared them all a completed work of civic art, and put a moratorium on numerals on the mall. The exempted that Martin Luther king memorial, and they exempted that National Desert storm memorial, and others will soon follow. The question that it leaves us with to a barge extent is can aim all be a completed work of civic art . The story it tells faux . Is it the story we want to leave behind for future generations . And if its not a completed work of civic art, what other alternatives could there be . As you walk up and down the mall, one i took a picture, i forgot, when i was stuck at a traffic light just a little while ago, i forgot to put it into my presentation. I was on constitution avenue at the Washington Monument. 60 acres of open space and potential for Something Interesting to be done to enhance that really dont walk from the east to the last side of them all across that 60 acre expanse. Or the view from the Lincoln Memorial. Two miles from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capital Building. And ive walked it many times with sixth grade classes. And its a long walk when theres nothing particularly compelling to grab your interest. So would i believe, this has been a proposal out there for ten, almost 20 years, now we need a new commission. We need a new mcmillon commission. And the idea here. This is an idea that i agree with is that we reestablish the logic, the reason and the idealism of the original plan. People might disagree. Kurt savage said he thought that the 19th century mall was really wonderful. Covered with trees. Meandering paths. A great environment for the people. But once the mall was cleaned up, and the trees were cleared out in the 1930s, thats when we started to use it. We can use it before then because there was no open space. And there was no open vista. You can see the Lincoln Memorial from the Capital Building. So the notion of a third century home would draw on the original geometry, the original symbolism, the original concept of the mall as an embodiment of the constitution and a place for the people. We had our finest thinkers of the day in 70 91. George washington, elephant, Thomas Jefferson working closely together. In 1902, we had frederik bernal, armistead junior, we had the top designers of their day, and today we could do the same. But we would have to come up with some kind of entity. Some kind of commission of designers, thinkers, scientists, politicians, who could think about this great space for the coming century, instead of being stuck with the 1902 plan. What happens with the plan you have runs out of memorial space . The mcmillen commission had the Lincoln Memorial in mind. But since then, we put monuments wherever they tend to fall, depending on the sponsors. This is whats left font said to George Washington in 1789. No nation had ever before the opportunity offered them of deliberately deciding on the spot where capital city should be fixed. The plan should be built on such a scale as to leave a room for the egg retirement and embellishment, which the increase and wealth of a nation would permit, and pursue at any period however remote. No doubt, he would think that the concept of the mall its a piece of art that would be completely at odds with the original idea. The mall at its place in American Society and democracy evolves as our society evolves. So this is a notion that my nonprofit, the national coalition, has been trying to develop, and encourage the government and congress in particular to think about. Our original mall, for century mall, lafont laid out the fundamentals of the mall setting. Excuse me. One second. Notice the yellow dotted line. That is the original banks of the river. The mcmillen commission, more than double the size of the mall, extended the westward and southward access. But whats referred to here is the second century mall. Animal could expand again. This is all federal land on both sides of the atomic and anacostia. It could provide a design challenge, a symbolism challenge, an education challenge, immemorial challenge. It could allow us to say the mall could never be complete. It will continue to evolve, grow, and tell a story. In the meantime, can we think of small Scale Structures such as this Benjamin Franklin seated on the bench, walking down a mall, and fighting interesting people. Man, women from our past. Not just military victors, but scientists and statesman. Teachers and so one. Could we for instance take statue terri hall and reenvision it on the hall to make that two my experience a real open air classroom that could be used to great appeal . Could we look at our monuments like the are Albert Einstein monument, smaller scale, not four acres, not 14 acres, smallscale with speeding around that can accommodate people and also tell them more about the american story. And what do we do with the monuments . That we increasingly have problems with. Or disapprove of. Do we take them down . Do you put them in a warehouse . Here is one proposal. Peter past the mental park. Maybe we can think of Something Like this. This is a cnn headline from 2018. Park where communist statues are laid to rest. They imagined when communism had fall line apart and move the monument there. This is the architect. This is about dictatorship. And at the same time business can be described, built. This park is about democracy. After all, only democracy is able to give the opportunity to think freely about dictatorship. So we see this great architectural and open air landscape, we are marks and angles previously elevated to the center of the capital, now relegated to this theme park, along with great heroic statues of the working class. Could you think of Something Like that . And finally, washington, the memorials, how we remember the memorial is like a combination in many ways of the course that we have been following. Looking at the way in which, during important, often traumatic periods of history, the french revolution, protestant reformation, world war i, artists express not just one opinion but multiple opinions. They engage with the times. They tell us with the moral is. They tell us sometimes with ideal form with high purpose was. But sometimes liberty of people. Showing the chaos of the french revolution, and yet the heroism of the people. Or grieving parent in the lower right from world war i, showing both with a block like expeditious form, the sadness, the horror, the trump of world war i. No glory here. Any questions . [applause] id like to make a comment. One thing you didnt talk about its very much dominated by the smithsonian museum, as well as the National Gallery of art. Those are the colors i thought about. Thats a big part of the mall. So your comment about smithsonian is doing with the space, and trying to keep all of their museums on the mall, or at least close to. It when you think about that in relation to land fonts plan . I think that the memorials are crucial part of the story. And thats why i think that the addition of the American Indian African American use eons or ways in which the story was enhanced. They didnt originally want their museums to be smithsonian, and this is often the case, that congress decides that a museum enterprise. There are several out there. There are several that are out, there and have commissions to study. The African American originally wasnt. But congress doesnt eat and mix them part of the smithsonian. Its not as if the smithsonian came up with the theme. In fact, the smithsonian has been seeing in recent years we dont want any more museums. We have plenty of museums to take care of. We dont need any more. Theyre expensive to maintain. So the museums are a crucial part of the story told. Whats happening is essentially the smithsonian is growing because congress is telling it its going to be the official storyteller in america, in particular on the National Mall. But, yes theyre very important. There is plenty of room. As a matter of fact i think the smithsonian would love to put statues and small sculptures outside of their museums. There used to be some statues out front. There was a giant dinosaur. He is to be outside of the American National history museum. And it was great. Fun kids would play on it. Until it became a legal liability apparently. The only fun we see right now is the carousel, which is a wonderful ride. Cheap and long. But that is under threat to, and may soon be lost. The question is why . The reason is nobody is in charge of the mall, and it and bring you the diagram. But it made it diagram, and both bc and federal agencies asked me if i can use. It what it shows is a aerial view of the mall and all the different entities. The park service has jurisdiction of the grass, trees, and three major monuments. Or major monuments, because once the monuments are completed, Congress Hands them over to the Parks Service to maintain them. But then you have the smithsonian and the smithsonian has its, buildings it has its gardens and it has the walkways in front. National gallery of art is a separate semi independent and the. It has to buildings and a garden. The United States department of agriculture right down the street here, that is a federal agency. So we have different entities in charge, and then the cross streets are governed by bc government. Constitution by the park service up to 15th street i think, you have all these fatalities. Essentially what they say to one another is not on my land. So when the smithsonian wants to have a folks a folk festival, they need a permit from the park service. For the past 30 years, they have been fighting each other. The park service doesnt want the smithsonian on the new grass, but the smithsonian wants to bring people to the new grass. And everyone understands this is the fundamental problem, which is why they like my diagram. It is not their fault, they say, we have jurisdiction only over this land. We cant get land to expand. But i think there could be great possibilities if we could create Something Like a Mcmillan Commission and put all of these people with others on the commission so we could talk about the totality as a unified place, as opposed to jurisdictions that plan for only their own policy. Yes . Did the eisenhower memorial go through the same process that you just described . Yes. Okay, i was wondering. I was involved from the very beginning of the eisenhower memorial. When they chose the site, the Government Entities are supposed to follow a public process called section 106. Somehow, that got a little diverted because by the time that site was selected, which is on independence avenue, the federal government and the District Of Columbia government along with General Services administration, each of whom owned part of the lot, all agreed that since that lot was not much use, lets give it away. Of course, its on maryland avenue which is the southern equivalent of pennsylvania avenue in the north. So the site was given away and then Frank Garrett was chosen. They did not have a usual competition. Usually there is a competition, but they decided lets get rid of the competition and use the gsa hiring process. What gsa does when they are going to build a courthouse, they look at a bunch of architects and choose this one. They chose gary, who had never built a memorial, and then he started coming up with ideas. Now, its under construction and its going to be completed by may of this year. It is a four acre, 80 foot high column, sculpture at the lower level and trees, and the columns also hold a metallic screen. What was interesting with this one, and this happened also with the world war ii memorial. The world war ii memorial was 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 this site is next to air and space, faa, the department of education, voice of america, all of 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. 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 at pointe duhoc the statue of the barefoot boy is now off to the side. This is a process of over ten years. What happened . We went from a monument that celebrated the president , and above all his presidency, to now a monument which is another world war ii memorial. Thats often what happens. Then you go, where is that original idea that seemed so full of promise by the location . But its the process that is 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 lenfant plan and the mcmillan plan to have intelligent design at work. Instead, its piecemeal. I will give you a plot of land and now you fill it up. We will give you a plot of land, but before you fill it up, we will make you go through 400 different reviews and we will chip away and chip away until but thats democracy i guess. Yes . The monument to Franklin Roosevelt . The monument of Franklin Roosevelt. Originally, it was going to be 14 acres. It was cut down to seven. So its half the size it was originally going to be, and i was not involved with this, but it was originally proposed in the 1950s. They had so many different competitions and the designs were always thrown out. And finally, lawrence help run designed this landscape solution, which is essentially four rooms, one for each of Franklin Roosevelts administration, to tell the story of the great depression, world war ii and the aftermath. Help run used a lot of sculptural elements to tell the stories. There is some compelling in sculptural elements and 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 statute of Franklin Roosevelt sitting with his great cape. You can even put 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 we are confused as to whats a memorial should be, what it should do, what its purpose is, and what it says about us as a nation. As far as im concerned, our memorial makers are struggling 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 someone else is on and they have a different perspective. So the process, as much as its tried to be organized, in my view does not succeed when it comes to making coherent cogent monuments and putting them somewhere in relationship to one another. I met do this, but i didnt. What about the Jefferson Memorial . Jefferson, the slave holder. A terrible aspect of that background. What 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 and that is 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. He does not have to be the only one standing. We could add add women founders as well. We could add all kinds of narrative to the stairs, to the title basin area, even inside the temple itself. Can we rethink memorials instead of saying Historic Preservation demands they say 1930 . Or, can we say, look, cant we do a little bit more . Now that we know that jefferson has this dark side to him, we dont have to depose him, but maybe we can get credit to other people and other aspects of American History. Was George Washington also a slave owner . Yes, George Washington was also a sleep owner. It comes up every time theres a big controversy about the founders. Someone says would about that Washington Monument . The Washington Monument, its saving grace grace is extraction. It does not have any image, it does not have any words, its simply this great obelisk. If it were not there, washington would not beat washington. That is the city. But yes, these issues come up all the time. Im surprised that people dont look in horror at the dome of the capital and say whats in the world is going on here . Except, no one can see it anyhow. But you can use these. Just in the rotunda, you can use the paintings, the sculpture to tell a story about how we tell our story. It can be a very interesting way to engage people in whatever memorials mean. And even think we can improve them. That is 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, we are stuck with it. So that is my feeling. I generally try to keep my feelings out of things. Ive given myself away. Anyone else . Yeah . With all the confederate symbols and what they mean today, was there any discussion or debate that Arlington National cemetery was built on [inaudible] . No, because the government absconded absconded with it. That was robert e. Lee ancestral home. During the war, Union Soldiers were being buried on the site. Ultimately, the government did pay the family for that land and it became a national cemetery. So i do not know whats the solution to that might be, but i think its good when people learn their history and when they realize Something Like that, that Arlington Cemetery was part of the lee family and so on. These discussions are good and often the loudest voices are the ones that get heard, but people like Mitch Landrieu were able 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 forces 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 an opportunity, really, to think, to discuss, to learn our history and to revise our history as needed. I hope you liked the class. Ive had a great time. [applause] yeah . I know you focus mainly on this area, but i wonder, i would love to hear your thoughts about the new statute in richmond . Yes. A statue called rumors of war. Its a black man on a horse with dreadlocks and jeans and its directly modeled on, i think its jeb stewarts statue in richmond, and he showed it first in times square in new york. And now, its planted in richmond across from the museum of fine arts, i think. Yeah. What hes done is hes taken the traditional hurrah confederate statue and now put the same kind of horse, but with this black man on it. To me, its kind of, you know, its an interesting thought, but i dont think it essentially buys into the harrowing man on horseback. Kendall wiley also died, and i dont remember what he called it, but you all remember napoleon crossing the ops, right . Jack louis david. A grand painting of napoleon crossing the alps. Not a hair out of place. Hes perfectly coif, heroic, when in fact he was on a mule. Wylie, who paints just black men he will find on the street yeah, and he did a black portrait on the horse. And i thought, okay, thats at the portrait gallery, isnt it . Yeah. And he did obamas portrait. But when i looked at the painting of napoleon now transformed to a black man, i dont quite get what you get, except that hes appropriating what he thought was in inadequate or inappropriate image, and now given it over to his back subject. So i dont get it. [inaudible] i know thats his intention. And in a lot of people think that. Im just not so sure. Are there is no on monument avenue. So i think these are all things that we are considering. I think when you buy into the same iconography that you are criticizing, you run the risk of not being clear or ambiguous. I think hes being playful as well. Sometimes playful is what you need to do in order to get people to pay attention. Thanks a lot thank you. And the possible ties between the 2016 Trump Campaign and russian officials. Watch live from the Senate Homeland Security Committee starting at 10 am eastern on cspan three. Online at cspan. Org. Or listen live on this free cspan radio app. Weeknights this month we feature American History tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan three. Thursday night to bestselling authors on how they use Historical Research in their work. Watch beginning at 8 pm eastern, and enjoy American History tv every weekend on cspan 3. Since the early 1980s, artist wendy allen has made use of a variety of our styles to paint over 400 portraits of Abraham Lincoln. Up next on American History tv. You think music, video, and photograph she shows examples and discusses reasons for painting Abraham Lincoln. Our speaker tonight is wendy allen. I think most people in the room already know who wendy allen is, but for those who dont she is a artist. Wendy allen first painted, did her First Painting of abr