Patricia N. Saffran, The George Washington Equestrian Statue in Union Square NYC is Under Siege 

James Fetzerblog

Patricia N. Saffran

Independence Day celebrants in New York City on July 4, 1856, were thrilled with the unveiling of the colossal George Washington equestrian statue in Union Square. The New York Herald reported that year on July 5th “When the covering fell, revealing the familiar lineaments of Washington, the universal burst of enthusiasm which arose from troops and citizens in salutation almost drowned the salvos of artillery.” “The statue itself is fourteen feet high. It was cast at Chicopee, Mass, and and weighs 4 tons. It occupied the artist Mr. Henry Kirke Brown for four years. Standing on a granite pedestal, which weighs 100 tons, the statue has an entire elevation of forty feet and is altogether the most prominent object in the square.” (Henry Kirke Brown’s Lincoln statue, dedicated September 16, 1870, faces his Washington statue in Union Square.)
Rev. George W. Bethane spoke at length from the stand, praising the statue, the sculptor, and Washington’s courage and his sacrifices for the nation. About the statue depicted in a Colonial uniform he said, “his sword ever yielded in strength, tempered by mercy, was firmly sheathed, not to be drawn again, for his country’s foes were vanquished and he knew no other.” Bethane concluded with, “Citizens of the UNION, hear me and bear witness, that in the name and by the authority of those who have erected this statue, I give it before God, and our country, to the People of the United States . . . And you people of New York, individually and collectively, and not by any degradation of the trust, but as a democracy, shall be its guardians. GOD SAVE THE REPUBLIC!”

 

As Rev. Bethane pointed out, New Yorkers were supposed to safeguard Brown’s magnificent George Washington statue for posterity. Instead, the current New York City Council, without any mandate from the general public, is possibly putting this statue, as well as the Federal Hall Washington by John Quincy Adams Ward, 1883, and those of Columbus, Peter Stuyvesant, and many others on the chopping block. It seems that the Cultural Affairs Committee (CAC) of the New York City Council is pushing legislation requiring the Public Design Commission to create a plan to remove art, “that depicts a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity.” The proposed bill goes further. If the Public Design Commission (PDC) votes (amongst themselves with advisors, public excluded) that an offending work of art of should still stand, then it will receive an “explanatory plaque” with the CAC’s narrow minded version of history.

 

The problem with the City Council committee’s proposed dictate is that it only represents an opinion formed through modern day sound bites of a small segment of the population, namely certain activists. The Council members of the CAC seem to not be aware of that over 51% general public in the US doesn’t want statues removed. The CAC is also unaware that removing statues of historic figures including Confederates, who may have owned slaves, results in huge spikes in violent crimes, such as happened in New Orleans, Baltimore, Richmond, Charlottesville, Memphis and elsewhere.

 

When questioned recently if the PDC was aware of the US public not wanting their Confederate and historic statues removed, the crime spikes when it does happen, and the lack of cultural relativism in the CAC’s proposals, Commissioner Liz Garcia and PDA Chair Sreoshy Banerjea refused to answer and merely sent this statement – “PDC is committed to supporting the city’s efforts to reckon with its complicated history and the country’s legacy of racism, prejudice, and inequality. PDC considers a multitude of diverse perspectives to determine which artwork should live on city-owned spaces. While much of our work focuses on reviewing artwork that reflects our diverse city, PDC also weighs in on the recontextualization and removal of artwork, a process that is initiated by city agencies.”

 

City Council member Joann Ariola from Queens reacted negatively to the proposed statue removal legislation, telling the NY Post September 18, “The Founding Fathers and the others who worked so hard to establish this great country should be celebrated, and not eliminated from memory.” City Council member Republican minority leader Joseph Borelli, from Staten Island, said, “How original. The Council is for a statue-banning committee every year of so, second only to our annual ‘cars are bad’ hearing.” Others have criticized the CAC’s proposals because the City has no funds for statue removals and plaques, as the budget is already deeply in the red.

 

The PDC may possibly recommend removing the statue of Peter Stuyvesant at Stuyvesant Square, who was Director General of New Netherland, and slave owner in the 17th century. They should instead, under the banner of equity and diversity, protect this statue. The sculptor was Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney. In 1936 she was given the commission from the Netherland-America Foundation. One item that was debated at the time was which leg of the “testy” Stuyvesant was the peg leg. It was determined that his right leg was the peg leg. Whitney was accurate in her portrayal, as all can see today.

 

She accepted no fee for the sculpture. At the time, it was difficult for Whitney to be acknowledged as a serious artist because she was a woman and one from a prominent family who married into another. If the Design Commissioners, who are all women, are at all interested in women’s issues, they should be sympathetic to Whitney’s achievements and leave the Stuyvesant sculpture off the list of artwork to be eliminated. Removing the Stuyvesant statue would also destroy the history of the square. The Stuyvesant statue was commissioned, according to the Netherlands-American Foundation, and reported in the New York Herald May 12, 1936, “By placing an effigy of ‘Peter the Testy’ in a prominent place, it is hoped to preserve the identity of this bit of Old New York from modern encroachment, and to continue its association with the Governor, part of whose farm it was. Peter Stuyvesant died there at the age of eighty.”

 

As to the fate of New York’s artwork more generally, who is to say that what some activists think today is more important than what people thought in 1856, when the Washington statue was dedicated? The public at the statue’s dedication were grateful and respectful for Washington helping establish the republic. “Today, we are seeing the exact opposite, that is, attitudes of confrontation, disrespect, and destruction, with the perpetrators deliberately insulting those who do not agree with them,” explained Brigadier General, Ret., Parker Hills, author of Art of Commemoration concerning monuments at Vicksburg National Military Park. Hills described, “The perpetrators then go out of their way to insult those who disagree by questioning their values and by destroying anything that represents those values. Frankly, it is a culture of hate, and it is being portrayed as just the opposite. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, indeed. The remarkable thing is that these people are insulting not only us, but the people of the past.  Once again, how can our forebears be so wrong, and these people be so right?”

 

In attempting to eliminate the statues of Washington, Stuyvesant, Jefferson and other notables, the CAC is too narrowly focused on a singular aspect of history, namely slavery, which was the norm at the period. The CAC is deliberately ignoring their many accomplishments. As to Jefferson, the City Council, which wouldn’t exist without the Founding Fathers, already moved City Hall’s plaster original of Pierre-Jean David d’Angers’ Jefferson, 1834, in 2021 to the New York Historical Society. In addition, the process the CAC is using to condemn statues mainly in committee is undemocratic. This is the same process that the City used to eliminate the American Museum of Natural History’s TR statue, without justification, bypassing the public.