EQUESTRIAN MONUMENTS. 1— XLIII.
THE WAR OF SECESSION.
I
T is only a few days ago that the New York Tribune suggested that it would be proper and graceful on the part of the Tjnited States government to return to Mexico the battle-flags captured from her during the Mexican war, and so help to remove the feeling of dislike for this country held by the Mexicans which now stands in the way of a closer commercial connection between the two republics. It is probable, however, that it will take more than the return of a few moth-eaten banners to make the Mexicans forget the loss of territory which Taylor, Worth and Scott inflicted on them, aided by a host of younger and more ardent spirits, the achievements of whose riper years during the continuance of our Civil War earned for them also the statuary’s emblematical presentment of the glory which history accords them.
Of the younger men who served during the Mexican war of whom equestrian statues have been erected or begun there were in the ranks of the Federal troops Generals Lyon, Thomas, McClellan, Meade, Reynolds, Sherman, Burnside and Grant, while of those who later served in the Confederate army only Generals Lee and Johnston have had equestrian statues created in their honor.
To General Lyon, whose death in the first year of the war is believed to have deprived us of the aid of a soldier who gave greatest promise of becoming the fit successor of General Scott, it was proposed to erect an equestrian monument in St. Louis, and Wilson Mac Donald made the model for it, but the work stopped at that point as it was not found possible to raise money enough to carry out the project.
General Thomas inspired much the same feeling in his followers that Lyon in his shorter career excited so strongly. Both were good soldiers and more than this were they pureminded, earnest men, upright in every fibre of their beings. Thomas secured perhaps the greater amount of veneration since he was not only a
Virginian by birth but was a member of the Fifth U. S. Cavalry, Lee’s own regiment — a portion of which, by the way, made the first real cavalry charge of the war— and his men realized that a man who through force of conviction could make the sacrifices implied by his siding against his native State and life-long friends was one to believe in, trust and die for, and there was nothing his men would not do for “ Papa ” Thomas.
To General Thomas was erected at Washington one of the first of the third series of equestrian statues which this country can boast. In 1874 the Society of the Army of the Cumberland engaged J. Q. A. Ward, at that time without question the leading sculptor in the country, to carry out their wishes, and after a shorter delay than usual the statue was unveiled on December 19, 1879, on that spot in Washington, now known as Thomas Circle, where in 1865 a salute of 800 guns was fired in rejoicing over the fall of Richmond.
This statue which cost the Society $50,000 and the Government, who provided the pedestal —- designed by the architects Smithmeyer & Pelz — $25,000 more, is by many thought to be the best group of its class in the city. In some ways it is, but it has not the artistic possibilities which are seen to lie in Brown’s statues of
1 Continued from No. 816, page 103.
General Scott and General Greene. Ward’s group seems absolutely finished, — as if the sculptor had carried it as far as he could and knew he could carry it no farther. It is a conscientious piece of work and as such to be respected, but one cannot help wishino- it were a little less pictorial and showed a little more of the character of the man it represents. The rather florid pedestal, which is quite in keeping with the pictorial character of the groups, is of Virginia granite and implanted upon it are bronze badges of the Army of the Cumberland : it is sixteen feet high, that is, of equal height with the bronze group it upholds.
The pose of Thomas’s horse, which stands upon all fours, is animated, successful and so individual in character that it is matter for regret that at so short a distance from it as Philadelphia there will soon be another bronze horse which closely parallels its air and action. This horse is the one which is to bear the new statue of General McClellan which is to stand upon the north side of the Cityhall not far from the equestrian statue of General Reynolds. The clay model for this statue is now nearly finished by the sculptor H. J. Ellicott, while the pedestal, designed by the architect P. J. Pelz, is already in place. The monument is to be erected by the General
George B. McClellan Memorial Association which, though organized in 1885, secured its charter only in 1890, so its undertaking has been accomplished with considerable d i s - patch. It is not intended to be an expensive statue, $18,000 being named as the probable cost, but this can hardly include the cost of metal and the charges for casting. Its great similarity to the Thomas statue will always be a kind of bar-sinister on the fair escutcheon of its reputation.
Considering the great personal popularity which McClellan enjoyed with his soldiers, it is curious that the Army of the Potomac has not given effect to the frequent suggestions that it should do for him what the Army of the Cumberland d i d for Thomas and set up an equestrian statue of dashing “ little Mac,” on some suitable site in Washington. Where the difficulty lies it is hard to discover; the man was sincerely loved and though not an impressively successful soldier he was an admirable drill-master and prepared useful tools for his successors to work with. Yet besides Ellicott s statue, the only other tangible outcome of all the suggestions is an equestrian statuette by the late Philadelphia sculptor Bailly, which was well liked by the General’s family but did not secure that hearty endorsement from the public that takes the visible form of goodly subscriptions.
With Ellicott’s statue, Fremiet’s revised “Joan of Arc” and Siemering’s “Washington” — when that shall be erected — Philadelphia will not be badly off in the matter of equestrian sculpture, but until the statue of General George Gordon Meade was set up in Fairmount Park, in 1887, the only sample of equestrian portraitsculpture the city could boast, was the statue of General John F. Reynolds, which stands on a pedestal designed by J. McArthur, Jr., on the north side of the City-hall, where its own mediocrity was, fortunately for itself, kept in good countenance by the still greater banaliie of the building. It is the first work at a large scale of John Rogers, a sculptor whose popular statuettes — for all that many critics treat them with scant respect — have been by no means unimportant factors in helping to bring about an appreciation of the results of artists’ efforts. Its demerits, the chief of which is the lack of scale between horse and rider, are obvious enough, but they will
Gen. George H. Thomas, Washington, D. C. J. Q. A. Ward, Sculptor.
THE WAR OF SECESSION.
I
T is only a few days ago that the New York Tribune suggested that it would be proper and graceful on the part of the Tjnited States government to return to Mexico the battle-flags captured from her during the Mexican war, and so help to remove the feeling of dislike for this country held by the Mexicans which now stands in the way of a closer commercial connection between the two republics. It is probable, however, that it will take more than the return of a few moth-eaten banners to make the Mexicans forget the loss of territory which Taylor, Worth and Scott inflicted on them, aided by a host of younger and more ardent spirits, the achievements of whose riper years during the continuance of our Civil War earned for them also the statuary’s emblematical presentment of the glory which history accords them.
Of the younger men who served during the Mexican war of whom equestrian statues have been erected or begun there were in the ranks of the Federal troops Generals Lyon, Thomas, McClellan, Meade, Reynolds, Sherman, Burnside and Grant, while of those who later served in the Confederate army only Generals Lee and Johnston have had equestrian statues created in their honor.
To General Lyon, whose death in the first year of the war is believed to have deprived us of the aid of a soldier who gave greatest promise of becoming the fit successor of General Scott, it was proposed to erect an equestrian monument in St. Louis, and Wilson Mac Donald made the model for it, but the work stopped at that point as it was not found possible to raise money enough to carry out the project.
General Thomas inspired much the same feeling in his followers that Lyon in his shorter career excited so strongly. Both were good soldiers and more than this were they pureminded, earnest men, upright in every fibre of their beings. Thomas secured perhaps the greater amount of veneration since he was not only a
Virginian by birth but was a member of the Fifth U. S. Cavalry, Lee’s own regiment — a portion of which, by the way, made the first real cavalry charge of the war— and his men realized that a man who through force of conviction could make the sacrifices implied by his siding against his native State and life-long friends was one to believe in, trust and die for, and there was nothing his men would not do for “ Papa ” Thomas.
To General Thomas was erected at Washington one of the first of the third series of equestrian statues which this country can boast. In 1874 the Society of the Army of the Cumberland engaged J. Q. A. Ward, at that time without question the leading sculptor in the country, to carry out their wishes, and after a shorter delay than usual the statue was unveiled on December 19, 1879, on that spot in Washington, now known as Thomas Circle, where in 1865 a salute of 800 guns was fired in rejoicing over the fall of Richmond.
This statue which cost the Society $50,000 and the Government, who provided the pedestal —- designed by the architects Smithmeyer & Pelz — $25,000 more, is by many thought to be the best group of its class in the city. In some ways it is, but it has not the artistic possibilities which are seen to lie in Brown’s statues of
1 Continued from No. 816, page 103.
General Scott and General Greene. Ward’s group seems absolutely finished, — as if the sculptor had carried it as far as he could and knew he could carry it no farther. It is a conscientious piece of work and as such to be respected, but one cannot help wishino- it were a little less pictorial and showed a little more of the character of the man it represents. The rather florid pedestal, which is quite in keeping with the pictorial character of the groups, is of Virginia granite and implanted upon it are bronze badges of the Army of the Cumberland : it is sixteen feet high, that is, of equal height with the bronze group it upholds.
The pose of Thomas’s horse, which stands upon all fours, is animated, successful and so individual in character that it is matter for regret that at so short a distance from it as Philadelphia there will soon be another bronze horse which closely parallels its air and action. This horse is the one which is to bear the new statue of General McClellan which is to stand upon the north side of the Cityhall not far from the equestrian statue of General Reynolds. The clay model for this statue is now nearly finished by the sculptor H. J. Ellicott, while the pedestal, designed by the architect P. J. Pelz, is already in place. The monument is to be erected by the General
George B. McClellan Memorial Association which, though organized in 1885, secured its charter only in 1890, so its undertaking has been accomplished with considerable d i s - patch. It is not intended to be an expensive statue, $18,000 being named as the probable cost, but this can hardly include the cost of metal and the charges for casting. Its great similarity to the Thomas statue will always be a kind of bar-sinister on the fair escutcheon of its reputation.
Considering the great personal popularity which McClellan enjoyed with his soldiers, it is curious that the Army of the Potomac has not given effect to the frequent suggestions that it should do for him what the Army of the Cumberland d i d for Thomas and set up an equestrian statue of dashing “ little Mac,” on some suitable site in Washington. Where the difficulty lies it is hard to discover; the man was sincerely loved and though not an impressively successful soldier he was an admirable drill-master and prepared useful tools for his successors to work with. Yet besides Ellicott s statue, the only other tangible outcome of all the suggestions is an equestrian statuette by the late Philadelphia sculptor Bailly, which was well liked by the General’s family but did not secure that hearty endorsement from the public that takes the visible form of goodly subscriptions.
With Ellicott’s statue, Fremiet’s revised “Joan of Arc” and Siemering’s “Washington” — when that shall be erected — Philadelphia will not be badly off in the matter of equestrian sculpture, but until the statue of General George Gordon Meade was set up in Fairmount Park, in 1887, the only sample of equestrian portraitsculpture the city could boast, was the statue of General John F. Reynolds, which stands on a pedestal designed by J. McArthur, Jr., on the north side of the City-hall, where its own mediocrity was, fortunately for itself, kept in good countenance by the still greater banaliie of the building. It is the first work at a large scale of John Rogers, a sculptor whose popular statuettes — for all that many critics treat them with scant respect — have been by no means unimportant factors in helping to bring about an appreciation of the results of artists’ efforts. Its demerits, the chief of which is the lack of scale between horse and rider, are obvious enough, but they will
Gen. George H. Thomas, Washington, D. C. J. Q. A. Ward, Sculptor.