"Tin Soldier:" Fond du Lac's Courthouse Square Union Soldiers Monument
by Ann Martin

Union Soldiers Monument, Fond du Lac

Communities often are defined by what they choose to memorialize and to emphasize publicly about themselves. Visitors to Fond du Lac, Wisconsin are likely to be directed to many points of historical interest and civic pride within the community. Plaques designate historical events and legend, and they denote significant architecture. Monuments salute industry and transportation developments. Museums encapsulate memorable portions of the County’s past.

Among these symbols are three major monumental statues honoring soldiers and recall-ing military conflicts. Two of these monuments depict Union soldiers from the American Civil War, while the other is a Spanish American War soldier. These monuments, by themselves, are certainly nothing outstanding or even unusual, for similar statues are to be found gracing town greens and courthouse squares in many communities around the country. But Fond du Lac’s statuary does have an unusual distinction, for in this community the establishment of these memorials early in the twentieth century affected lives, produced acrimony, and stirred civic passions of an unintended sort.

While each community shapes its own memorials and monuments, they are typically broadly reflective of larger community values. Nationalism and civic pride are the usual reasons that stir the people of a community to erect a monument and to cherish it as a symbol of mem-bership in a group or of shared historical experience. In Fond du Lac’s case, the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the monument located in Veteran’s Park on Main Street near Third Street produced a quite different response from the community. To look at the statue, one would never think that something so ordinary and benign, so typically small-town American, could have caused a community furor and a county-wide scandal. But Fond du Lac’s monument scandal took months to resolve, and the memories of it lasted for years.

The monument’s origins are rooted in broadly held American attitudes that reflected a community’s coming of age. Nationalism was a widely embraced American sentiment of the late 1800s and early 1900s, when Fond du Lac citizens voted to erect a Civil War Monument. Building grand and imposing civic monuments had become a nationwide fad, especially in those states in which many men had been killed in the War and whose veterans had attained positions of importance and influence in their communities. The country had just recovered from an eco-nomic panic, and many communities were prospering in an unprecedented fashion. Those who had fought in the Civil War were now in positions as community leaders and could lobby their fellow citizens in support of monuments to commemorate what had been, for most, the defining experience of their lives. Industrialization was making strides, especially in the East, and this made it easier for the manufacture of such imposing monuments. With the American railroad network growing, it was also easier to transport these large statues to many cities and towns that did not possess a major foundry. As a typical response to growing nationalism and prosperity, Fond du Lac citizens, too, decided to erect a Civil War monument.

Of course, the United States, Wisconsin, and Fond du Lac were not the initiators in this movement to commemorate military sacrifice and glory. Its origins in Western Civilization may still be seen in the archaeological remains of monumental statues of Egypt, votive offerings of Greece, and triumphal arches of Rome. In the modern era, the rise of nationalism had provided a renewed impulse for such constructions. One can trace the linkage between American nationalist sentiment and monument building to the origins of the nationalist movement in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe. Countries such as Germany, France, and England had sparked its beginnings. Early forms of nationalism took on an aura of reverence that approximated religious faith. Rulers and governments of these countries used nationalism as a means to motivate their citizens and in many cases to create for them a new sense of shared identity. Nationalist rituals and visible symbols helped people to form bonds of unity and to show loyalty toward their country. For governments, the goal was a committed populace and soldiery. Powerful symbols and ceremonies, including monuments celebrating military exploits, played a major role in edu-cating people to accept their new identities as citizens in a nation. The impressive character of these symbols and ceremonies also gave a sense of justification to those who had participated in the events commemorated and imparted a sense of legitimacy upon the existing order. With the right incentives, people would do anything to support a cause that could be construed as pro-tecting their home, their family, and their homeland. ¹

Perhaps the central formative event in the creation of a sense of American national consciousness was the Civil War. During the nineteenth century, it was certainly the most energizing effort producing a shared commitment to a particular goal for millions of Americans, the preservation of the Union. And the loss of life in proportion to the total population of the country has been unequaled, before or since. So it is no wonder that, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, expressions of American nationalism should take the form of erecting monuments to symbolize this important historical experience as part of the exercise of nation-building.

Such monuments usually included rituals, and these practices typically were initiated through dedication ceremonies. Civic leaders delivered speeches, veterans proudly reminisced, and military personnel and enthusiastic youths paraded. This sort of dedication was clearly what the city fathers of Fond du Lac had planned to do with their new Union Soldiers Monument in 1902. Communities like Fond du Lac traditionally employed patriotic organizations and charis-matic individuals in order to foster the nationalist and patriotic spirit in the people in ways that would energize and legitimize their own communities.

Fond du Lac was certainly in good company at this time. Probably one of the most common expressions of American nationalism in the late 1890s and early 1900s was the erection of monuments celebrating Civil War battles and the veterans of the War. This was a practice shared by large and small communities alike. Many of the Southern States, towns, and cities, where the majority of the battles had been fought, were among the first to commission such Civil War monuments. The creation of these memorials had itself been affected by the process of industrialization. Monuments almost identical to the one that stands in Veterans Park in Fond du Lac were manufactured and distributed in mass quantity. Entrepreneurs in the foundry business became wealthy making and installing these statues. ²

A monument, by definition, is something built or placed to commemorate a person, a group, an event, or a movement. In the case of Fond du Lac’s Union Soldiers Monument, the statue was intended to commemorate a blend of several of these purposes. The idealized soldier celebrated various organizations within or linked to the Civil War-era military or to veterans organizations, recalled the sacrifice of those who had participated, and made specific reference to certain victorious battles of the Civil War in which large numbers of men from Fond du Lac had participated.

The decision to erect a Civil War monument in Fond du Lac was sparked by a death. Mark Harrison, a successful and well-loved local artist, left a legacy to the city that would strikingly change the appearance of its central square. Harrison had been born in Yorkshire, England, in 1819, and was trained as an artist in Canada, where he successfully pursued a career as a painter. At the urging of his brother, Harrison moved to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, where he invested in a steamboat company in 1849. This company soon failed, and Harrison lost about $10,000, a large sum of money at that time.

Following this initial financial setback, he made his way to Fond du Lac, where he established residence and set up a studio near the downtown area. There he worked on his oil paintings and welcomed famous visitors who came to see him. To Fond du Lac residents, he was a world-class artist in their midst and was greatly celebrated. Mark Harrison evidently enjoyed spending leisure time at the Courthouse Square (a park area near the Court House), where he sat and watched the people pass. On his death in 1894, he bequeathed $1,500 to Fond du Lac for the installation of a clock tower on the Fond du Lac Courthouse and $500 for the erection of a Civil War monument. ³

The clock tower project was completed first. As a symbol of the city’s growing affluence and a hallmark of its entry into the modern world governed by time, the clock in its tower stood for many years as the community’s most public timekeeper. The clock tower was dismantled in the early 1960s when the decision was made to demolish and replace the outmoded and rapidly deteriorating Courthouse. For years it had been a much loved community hallmark, and older residents still remember it with great nostalgia and tell stories of walking home while hearing the clock chiming the hour or half hour.

The Civil War monument followed a few years later, delayed perhaps because the Harrison bequest amounted to “seed money” rather than a sum that was likely to cover the entire cost of the monument project. On June 7, 1901, a committee of County Executive Board mem-bers was formed to raise additional funds and to decide on a design for the Civil War monument. The committee consisted of M. M. Finnegan, a Fond du Lac grocer, Peter McGalloway, a farmer who lived near Dotyville, and John Miles, a Ripon florist. As the Union Soldiers Monument Committee members began their work, they called on several companies for price estimates and confirmed that a monument would cost about $6,000, far more than the amount of the Harrison bequest. ⁴

The next step was to raise the remainder of the funds to pay for the monument. As it seemed improbable that so much money could be raised from donations, the committee decided to call for a county-wide referendum on the use of tax money to pay up to $5,000 of the bill. The difference, the committee proposed, would be made up from donations by interested organi-zations such as the Grand Army of The Republic (G.A.R.), The Womens’ Relief Corps (W.R.C.), the Union Veterans’ League (U.V.L.), and by gifts from other interested persons. ⁵

The G.A.R. was a society composed of men who had fought for the North in the Civil War. The society was founded April 6, 1866, less than a year after the end of the war, and Fond du Lac’s chapter was formed shortly after the national society came into existence. This society’s main purpose was to promote fellowship among the men, to honor those killed in the war, and to provide care and help to their dependents. Their social and political objectives were to do relief work among veterans and to lobby for pension legislation that would benefit war veterans. The society continued to exist in Fond du Lac until 1956, when the organization terminated due to the death of its last member. One of the more notable and lasting efforts of the group was to lobby for the establishment of Memorial Day as a national holiday.

The W.R.C. was also a national society. One of the oldest women’s patriotic organizations, the W.R.C. was founded in July 1883 as an auxiliary of the G.A.R. Membership was defined solely on the basis of “loyal womanhood,” regardless of kinship to those who fought in the war. Two of the main objectives of the W.R.C. were to aid and to memorialize the G.A.R. and to perpetuate the memory of its dead. Members would assist veterans of all wars of the United States, as well as promote universal liberty, equal rights, and love of country.

The U.V.L. was formed to help the veterans of the Civil War. Such organizations helped to keep the memories of those who fought and died in the Civil War alive for their survivors. One way the organization did this was to sponsor monuments honoring the dead. They usually did this by donating money to a fund or by rallying public support, and this is just what all of these organizations did in Fond du Lac.

The referendum for the use of tax money to purchase the monument was put to the people of Fond du Lac County on April 1, 1902. County-wide, the proposition passed easily, by a mar-gin of 456 votes. The final count was 3,100 (54%) for and 2,644 (46%) against. While the City of Fond du Lac itself passed the referendum by an overwhelming number of votes, some of the outlying areas rejected the idea of taxpayer support for the erection of the statue by more sub-stantial margins. For example, Lamartine, a small village near Fond du Lac, voted 38 (16%) for and 204 (84%) against the project. In the township of Marshfield, the vote was 12 (5%) for and 219 (95%) against. ⁶ Evidently such farming communities did not want to spend the money or did not see need to use their taxes to support a monument that was to be located within the city of Fond du Lac. In any event, their voices were in the minority.

Fiscal approval accomplished, the next step was to decide on the specific design and to award a contract to a company to build the monument. The monument committee solicited bids from three different companies, although County records only contain the name of the company that received the commission to construct the monument. No information remains describing the criteria used to select that successful bidder. The only surviving description of the other two companies that submitted bids for the project is that one, like the successful bidder, was a company from the East Coast, while the other firm was a company located near Kenosha, Wisconsin. The Bronze Monumental Company of Bridgeport, Connecticut was the successful bidder for the contract. ⁷

The Bronze Monumental Company no longer exists. It was one of many such foundries of this type, located in a city already known for its metal manufacturing. Of the many Civil War monuments made and erected from the late 1860s to the early 1900s, most were fabricated by a relatively small number of firms. This further reinforced the basic similarity of the monuments with respect to figurative sculpture, type and iconography.

Having chosen the manufacturer and the design, the last step for the Monument Com-mittee was to pick an appropriate place to locate the monument. Apparently this was not a difficult decision; it was decided to place the statue in the Courthouse Square. ⁸ This was a logical place because Mark Harrison’s bequest had specified that location, the park was a popular gathering place, and it was the political center of both the city and the county. Locating the statue on the Square ensured that the public would see how its money had been spent. Most other cities that erected similar monuments at this time also placed their statues in such a central location.

This was a time of civic improvement in general for Fond du Lac. In addition to com-pleting the clock tower, planning and fund raising were underway for a public library and a hotel. The Main Street paving project was beginning. Other building projects in town included an opera house in which plays and other entertainments would be performed. Prosperous business-men and leading citizens were constructing many of the city’s handsome Queen Anne homes. By 1903, the library was completed, and Main Street was paved with bricks. The people of the City and County of Fond du Lac, a prosperous and thriving place, were displaying the trappings of their new wealth and surrounding themselves with the amenities of late Victorian society through the completion of these public and private projects.

The newly completed bronze monument, together with its stone base, arrived in the city of Fond du Lac on September 25, 1902. Its arrival, however, lacked a certain grandeur. In fact, the monument arrived by train encased in a large number of crates. The exact number of these containers was in some dispute, and the best estimate is perhaps seventeen. The Daily Reporter on that day reported that it would take at least a week to put the monument together, prepare the site by laying a sidewalk, and erect a fence to keep vandals from harming the monument. In retrospect, this seems very rapid, and perhaps it was too quick. The entire monument eventually developed a tilt through subsidence of the soil beneath its base. Perhaps a more careful pre-paration of the ground would have prevented this problem.

The Reporter also said that an official unveiling would most likely take place about November 1, 1902. Surprisingly, there is no record that this unveiling or dedication ever took place. Why did the city and county governments not have an official dedication or presentation ceremony? While there was no explanation recorded at the time, it seems likely that, once the County Executive Board and members of the G.A.R. previewed the monument, they did not like what they saw. There is no question that they were disappointed. Being so disappointed, they may have decided to postpone any celebration or not to have a formal unveiling at all.

Disappointment almost inevitably leads to a search to assign blame, and in this case the criticism of the new monument soon produced allegations of malfeasance. In light of these charges, the County Executive Board decided to conduct a public investigation of the monument committee. This investigation began in November 1902, as the Union Soldiers Monument Com-mittee made their final report. H. P. Thompson, adjutant of the G.A.R. chapter, raised allega-tions on behalf of its commander, William De Steese, that the monument was not made of the high quality materials that originally had been specified. There were also some implications that committee members pocketed money, because the original estimate of the cost of the monument had been for $6,000, while the final payment made to the Bronze Monumental Company was only $5,423.54. ⁹ What does seem clear, in light of the financial transaction, is that the veterans organizations who had promoted the project had provided little if any of the money actually used for purchase of the monument. The sum that was made available included Mark Harrison’s be-quest of $500, and the referendum to authorize use of County funds had stipulated that $5,000 of public money might be employed. Those two amounts, added together, more than accounted for the total sum remitted in payment for the statue. The enthusiasm of the veterans for such a monument evidently had not extended to include use of their own money for the project. While hypothetical funds that may or may not have been donated by the G.A.R. itself were perhaps not in question in their complaint, there was a strong concern that the people of Fond du Lac County had not received what they had expected and had been led to believe they were purchasing. And of course there was a discrepancy between the publicly described cost of the monument, $6,000, and the sum of $5,423.54 that was actually paid.

During the November meeting of the County Executive Board, a committee was ap-pointed by Board Chairman Maurice McKenna to investigate the matter. This committee con-sisted of five board members and the City Attorney. The board members were P. W. Gallagher, J. W. Hall, C. W. Keys, Edward Murray, and Joseph Perrizo. The City Attorney was a lawyer named Joseph M. Gooding, Esq. Gooding had been born in Indiana in 1867, the son of a Union Army veteran. Educated in Ohio, he subsequently read law in St. Paul, Minnesota. In 1893, he came to Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, where he opened a law practice. From 1901 to 1903 he took on the duties of City Attorney, and it was in this capacity that he became involved in the investi-gation of the Union Soldiers Monument Committee. ¹⁰

The members of the Investigation Committee were instructed to report back to the Exec-utive Board with their findings at the January 1903 County Executive Board meeting. Their report determined that the monument in fact had been made from materials other than those originally discussed. During the interim period between initial discussions and fulfillment of the Fond du Lac order, it appeared that the Bridgeport Monumental Company had been experiment-ing with new metals for casting its monuments. The firm asserted that these newer materials would resist the effects of weather and time better than the metal alloy that had been discussed with the committee. The Investigation Committee concluded that the Bridgeport Company should have informed the Monument Committee of this change, thus giving the Committee the opportunity to approve the substitution of the new materials. ¹¹

Between November and January, the Investigation Committee interviewed various parties involved with the monument’s acquisition, including the firms that initially had been contacted by the Union Soldiers Monument Committee. As a result of these interviews, a claim was made by one of the unsuccessful bidders that the selection process had been flawed. In his interview with the Investigation Committee, the owner of the Wisconsin firm who submitted an estimate alleged that his bid had not been taken seriously. ¹²

On January 8, 1903 the Investigation Committee made its report to the Executive Board of Fond du Lac County. The report, which was printed in the Fond du Lac Daily Reporter on January 11, 1903, stated that the Soldiers Monument Committee had not intentionally done any-thing wrong. It was acknowledged that, in gathering estimates and designs, the members of the monument committee had not possessed the expertise to do the job requested of them. In the view of the Investigation Committee, this did not represent an effort to defraud the County. As for the discrepancy between the price of the monument and the sum paid for it, the Bronze Monumental Company explained that they had reduced the final price of the monument to the amount of money that had been raised for the project. Therefore, the Investigation Committee absolved the members of the Union Soldiers Monument Committee of any wrongdoing. With the submission of their report finding that there had been no malfeasance, both committees were disbanded.

The men who had served on the now-disbanded Union Soldiers Monument Committee, Peter McGalloway, M. M. Finnegan, and John Miles, all completed their one-year terms on the County Executive Board. Peter McGalloway, who had chaired the committee, had served his first term on the County Executive Board in 1894, and he served on that body again from 1899 to 1903. After the completion of the statue and the controversy surrounding it, there is no record of him serving on the Executive Board again. It is impossible to say whether the termination of his service to the County resulted from the scandal that surrounded him or if it came as a conse-quence of McGalloway’s own reaction to the way in which his committee had been treated. M. M. Finnegan served on the Executive Board in 1896-1897, 1900-1902, and one final term in 1905. The third man on the committee, John Miles, served on the Board from 1899 to 1904. These individuals then faded from public view and entered Fond du Lac history as footnotes to a scandal long forgotten by most of the community. The same can be said of the men who made up the Investigation Committee. They finished their County Executive Board terms and then they returned to their respective occupations full time. ¹³ Still, resolution of the malfeasance accusations did not satisfy completely the feelings of resentment and dissatisfaction harbored by members of the G.A.R. They informally christened the monument the “Tin Soldier,” and the derisive name stuck for many years.
In addition to rejecting the “Tin Soldier,” the G.A.R. commissioned another Union Soldier Veterans Monument and erected it in Rienzi Cemetery in 1907. Again, the G.A.R. W.R.C., U.V.L., along with Spanish American Veterans, were asked to help raise funds for this new monument. Sculpted entirely from stone, the new statue was viewed as more “modern” and less ornate in its decoration than had been the previously erected monument, which now stood, unloved, on the Courthouse Square. Ironically, probably due to the gray color of the stone from which it is carved, many people in Fond du Lac now refer to the Rienzi statue as the “Confed-erate Soldier” monument, and there are even those who mistakenly believe that it marks the loca-tion of graves of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy.

The G.A.R. complaint notwithstanding, the original Union Solders Monument remains an impressive sight and hardly deserves its nickname, “Tin Soldier.” It is an imposing memorial, typical of the civic creations of its age, and it repays careful examination.

The color of the monument is blue-gray. The statue, on its elaborate pedestal, stands approximately thirty feet high and is about ten feet square at the base. The base was carved to represent rough-hewn stone. Each of the four sides of the base features a major battle of the Civil War: Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863), Atlanta (July 22, 1864), Vicksburg (surrendered July 4, 1863), and Shiloh (April 6-7, 1862). Men from Fond du Lac County fought in each of those battles, and many of them lost hteir lives. There is no record that these specific battles were requested by the Monument Committee, for no correspondence between the Committee and the Bridgeport Monumental Company survives. Yet it would not be surprising if this selection had been made to emphasize the contribution to the Union victory made by soldiers from Fond du Lac.

Of course, men from Fond du Lac fought in many other Civil War engagements, but these battles also were all among the most important Union victories of the conflict. At the Battle of Gettysburg, six Wisconsin infantry regiments had participated, and this battle was usually seen as the turning point of the War in the East. The Wisconsin contingent in the Siege of Vicksburg had been 12 infantry regiments, one cavalry unit, and three artillery batteries. Vicksburg’s fall, after a prolonged campaign to invest the city and a short but difficult siege, had cut the Confederacy in half and opened the Mississippi to Union shipping throughout its length. The Battle of Atlanta, the culmination of a series of actions around the city, engaged 14 infantry regiments, one cavalry unit, and two artillery batteries from Wisconsin. Success there had ensured Lincoln’s reelection and the North’s willingness to prosecute the war to victory. At Shiloh, three Wisconsin infantry regiments had fought in a battle that was a rare early victory for the Union, memorable also for its very heavy casualties. The Battle of Shiloh, incidentally, was a late addition to the monument, specifically requested to cover up the names of the members of the Monument Committee that originally had been carved into the stone base. It may be that this was done because the Committee itself had a change of heart and decided that they should not be immortalized on the monument, but perhaps they were moved to take this action due to some criticism, (records of which have not survived), at what others might have seen as hubris for including their own names on the pedestal in the first place.

As one’s eyes move upward from the enumeration of battles, the upper part of the monu-ment pedestal resembles a church spire, standing tall and proud. On the bottom of the spire is the dedication, which states “1861-5 Dedicated to the memory of The Brave Men of Fond du Lac County Wis. Who Saved the Union, Fought Victoriously on land and sea, in the great struggle of the Civil War. 1861-1865.” The text provides a good example of the patriotic rhetoric that was part of all such dedications in the early twentieth century.

On the north side of the pedestal, at the same level as the dedication, is the U.V.L. emblem, a shield with stars lining the outer edge. In the center are the letters U.V.L. with 1861 and 1865 in the pediment. On the west side is a replica of the G.A.R. medallion. At the top of the medallion is an eagle, with its wings extended. In the claws of the eagle are crossed cannons. Holding up these cannons are nine cannon balls, stacked in a diamond shape. An American Flag makes up the ribbon from which the medallion is suspended. A star comprises the bottom part of the medallion. In the center of the star, a sailor and a soldier clasp hands in fraternal greeting with a family group. Circling that icon are the words “Grand Army of the Republic 1861-1865.” In each of the five points of the star are different symbols representing branches of the military.

Continuing around to the south side of the monument, the symbol is that of the W.R.C., again a replica of a medal. On the top of the ribbon bar is an image that resembles a wrought iron railing. A bar connects the medallion to the ribbon. In the center are initials, but the exact letters are indecipherable. At the end of the ribbon is the cross-shaped medallion. On the edge of each cross are the words “Women's Relief Corps, 1883.” The center of the cross, circled by stars, depicts, once again, a scene of military fraternity.

Greek-inspired pilasters and a pointed temple gable frame each side of the monument, representing elements from the common neoclassic style of the day. These neoclassical deco-rations seemed a fitting image to incorporate in a monument of this style, and they are echoed in public buildings and cemetery architecture in both Europe and the United States at the time, but it was a style that was also rapidly going out of fashion.

Within the Greek pediment-style roof peaks are the dates 1861-5. Also at this level are two funerary urns on the north and south faces. Each of these urns is draped in a stone represen-tation of cloth bunting with a wreath of flowers.

Halfway up the “spire” portion of the pedestal are military emblems. The emblem for the navy adorns the west side, an anchor tied to a capstan. Behind this emblem are crossed oars. Encircling each of these icons is a wreath of oak and laurel leaves. The cavalry emblem on the south face is composed of crossed swords with the points toward the ground, surrounded by a wreath. The east side is decorated with the symbol for infantry, crossed rifles, with a wreath surrounding them. The final symbol, on the north side, represents the artillery, crossed ramrods propped up by ten cannon balls and surrounded by a wreath.

Continuing up the shaft, the decorations take on a more dramatically florid appearance, with sculpted draped flags meeting at a wreath. Bordering the shaft to make the plinth is a row of rose buds. Above this decorative border are fancy carvings of a shell motif and roped lotus leaves. Then follow the roof peaks and yet another row of rose buds. At the top is an impress-sive-looking Union soldier, larger than life-size. He currently faces westward. When the monu-ment was first erected he faced the east, away from the Courthouse that stood on the squre. The Union soldier wears a typical military uniform of the period, with a forage cap on top of his head. His facial expression is sorrowful and stern, with a furrowed brow. His eyes look straight ahead toward the horizon. He also has a full mustache. In the style of the Civil War era, the mustache extends to the jaw line. There is a dimple in the center of his squared chin. In front of him he holds out his rifle with the butt resting at his feet and his hands grasping the barrel near the muzzle. At his left hip is a bayonet in its scabbard. His coat is knee-length, standard Union issue. His feet are slightly parted with the left leg in front of the right.

In summary, the statue is a grand example of late nineteenth-century decorative art, a style that was then ceasing to be fashionable, and probably the elaborate decoration of the grandiose pedestal and its sheer monumentality no longer appealed to many who viewed it at the time. Certainly the much simpler design of the statue erected five years later in Rienzi Cemetery suggests that design issues were at least partly behind the criticism that G.A.R. members had made of Fond du Lac’s first Civil War monumental statue.

When Fond du Lac County tore down the Old Courthouse in the 1960s, it was noticed that the monument had begun to tilt and was in need of some repair, but it was not until the early 1980s that serious consideration of renovating the monument was made. One reason the Exec-utive Board did not do anything with the monument in the 1960s was because they decided that repair of the monument could be put off, for it was in no immediate danger of falling. The cost of making what were presumed to be the needed repairs appears to have been the primary con-sideration behind the decision to delay work on the monument.

Early in 1980, the Union Soldiers Monument came again to public attention. The statue had deteriorated further, with the soldier atop his pedestal exhibiting an increasingly pronounced tilt, and the County Executive Board decided that it was time to restore this prominent public landmark. In 1981, the Board started to make plans to repair the memorial. Unlike the original project, which had been completed within a period of a few months, the planning and execution of the repair project on the statue took place over a period of half a decade. Perhaps taking a cue from the mishap of the original Monument Committee, the Board took construction bids from several different construction companies in the area. The company with the winning bid was the Searl Construction Company. ¹⁴

Searl Company workmen began repairs on the monument in 1986. It took months to complete the job, during which time engineers strengthened the internal support structure of the pedestal column by adding another frame to that which was already present. While this rein-forcement was being done, the soldier was removed from the pedestal and placed in the lobby of the Courthouse for display. ¹⁵

As workers repaired the structure, they found something had gone amiss in the core of the pedestal. A bolt that had been part of the system by which the statue was affixed to its plinth had broken. It is not known when the bolt became broken. It may have been on initial construction, or it may have failed at some later time, but it was fairly evident that this broken bolt was a major reason for the statue’s tilt out of alignment. A reason for the tilt of the entire monument was the uneven settling of the monument pedestal, over time, into the soft ground on which it stood, gradually giving a “Leaning Tower” appearance to the whole construction. In order to restore the statue to its original plumb, Searl Construction had to jack up part of the monument and reinforce the ground under the pedestal. This work largely removed the pedestal’s tilt, although not completely. Therefore, when the soldier was replaced, he was tilted slightly back on his heels in order to achieve vertical orientation. ¹⁶

In the years since the 1986 repair of the monument, the repairs seem to be surviving well, and there is no visual evidence of continuing soil subsidence. As mentioned earlier, the soldier on the monument initially faced eastward, but his orientation on the plinth was reversed during the repairs so that he no longer faced directly into the row of large trees that had grown up along Main Street since the beginning of the century. And the “about face” was also possible, of course, because the old Courthouse was gone, there was no longer any need for the soldier to face outward from it, and a much better view of the whole construction was available from the park that extended to the west.

There is yet another chapter to this story of Fond du Lac's statuary war memorials. A third soldier monument was erected in the city in the spring of 1936. The “Traveler” or “Hiker,” as it was called locally, was erected to pay tribute to the men of the Spanish-American War of 1898. Like the Union Soldier Monument, this statue was one of many virtually identical, mass-produced monuments erected in different places around the country. Unlike the fate of Fond du Lac’s two Civil War monuments, however, an elaborate dedication ceremony was staged in this case. The dedication took place on Memorial Day, 1936. Many Fond du Lac residents watched a parade and listened to speeches. The speakers stressed the notion that this monument was erected to honor those who had fought, not to glorify war itself, a popular sentiment during the depression and in the wake of World War I. ¹⁷

But the “Traveler” did share something in common with the other two war monuments. As with the others, this monument was erected about four decades (in this case 38 years) after the events it commemorated. So it seems the people of Fond du Lac had begun to develop a custom of reflecting for a time on events before paying tribute to their war heroes, though this custom did not persist in the case of the city’s much more modest plaques commemorating parti-cipation of its citizens in the two World Wars. Perhaps it was simply that the generation that had fought in a war needed to come to political and economic prominence in the community before its military exploits were celebrated in statuary.

The differences among the Spanish-American War Monument and its Civil War brethren were greater than the similarities. The Civil War statues had been erected in periods of national prosperity, whereas the “Traveler” was constructed during the period of the Great Depression. Like the Rienzi monument but unlike the statue on the Courthouse Square, it was entirely pri-vately financed, and both of the later monuments were much less expensive than the more elaborate original Union Soldiers Monument. Situated at the northern end of Main Street, the “Traveler” immediately became a site for civic celebrations, beginning with the dedication cere-mony itself, which seemed to many a pleasant holiday rather than a solemn memorial occasion. Many of the people who attended the dedication probably felt it was an inexpensive and relaxing family event. Most families brought picnic lunches to enjoy. Of course the Spanish American War had had much less impact on Fond du Lac and its citizens than had the Civil War. But it was the “Traveler” that became the location of choice for civic celebration. Two years later, citi-zens of the city held another memorial service at the monument, which became a common site for public speeches. Fond du Lac’s “Hiker” was much admired locally as a piece of public art, and it was situated near Fond du Lac’s favorite Lakeside Park. Perhaps most importantly, it was fitted with a speaker’s rostrum below the pedestal that made this monument more suitable for public declamations and oratory during civic festivals. And, one might add, it was not tainted by a history of civic dissent, disappointment, and scandal.

Monuments come in many different forms and communicate a variety of messages. This is evident in the assortment of public memorials that exist in even so small a community as Fond du Lac. In this city, each of the three major military monuments looks quite different from the others, reflecting the style and iconography of its period. Each also has a special story, unique to the community. To study them is to read a chapter in the book of the community's past, with plot, place in time, and cast of characters. Sometimes, if one looks deeply enough, one may even find a scandal like the one concerning the Union Soldiers Monument.

Perhaps some day there may be another chapter to add to the story of the Union Soldiers Monument. One might even imagine that the day may come when someone influential in the community undertakes a new public history lesson, and then perhaps the community will decide that it is at last time to offer a proper dedication ceremony for this monument and time to lay to rest the last taint of scandal surrounding the monument. Perhaps some day Fond du Lac will at last give a proper welcome to its first war memorial, its much-maligned “Tin Soldier.”

1 - George L. Mosse, The Nationalization of the Masses: Political Symbolism and Mass Movements in Germany From The Napoleonic Wars Through the Third Reich (New York: Howard Fertig, Inc., 1975), 16-17. return

2 - Mildred C. Baruch and Ellen J. Bechman, Civil War Union Monuments (Washington, D.C.: Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War, 1978), 176. return

3 - Mark Harrison, Last Will and Testament, October 2, 1894, Fond du Lac County Courthouse. return

4 - Executive Board Minutes, June 1901, Fond du Lac County Courthouse. return

5 - Executive Board Minutes, November 1901, Fond du Lac County Courthouse. return

6 - “Honor The Soldier,” The Fond du Lac Daily Reporter, September 25, 1902. return

7 - “For The Soldiers,” The Fond du Lac Daily Reporter, June 16, 1902. return

8 - Ibid. return

9 - “To Honor the Dead,” The Fond du Lac Daily Reporter, September 25, 1902. return

10 - Maurice McKenna, Fond du Lac County Wisconsin, Past and Present, v. II (Chicago: The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1912). return

11 - Executive Board Minutes, November 1902, Fond du Lac County Courthouse. return

12 - Executive Board Minutes, January 1903, Fond du Lac County Courthouse. return

13 - Maurice McKenna, v. II. return

14 - Harley Buchholz, “Funds Sought to Refurbish War Memorial,” The Fond du Lac Reporter, January 6, 1983. return

15 - Steve Sandberg, “Statue taken for Repairs,” The Fond du Lac Reporter, March 6, 1987. return

16 - Construction Notes, Searl Construction Company, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. return

17 - “The Hiker Bronze Tribute To Men of 1898, Dedicated At Public Rites Held At Park,” Commonwealth Reporter, June 1, 1936. return

Copyright 2002 by Clarence B. Davis. All Rights Reserved. Printed by Action Printing, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Electronic publication by Fond du Lac Public Library has been approved by Clarence B. Davis.

Return to the Local History Manuscripts main page