Conclusion

The various committees, the dedication ceremony, and The Providence Journal evidently wanted the Statue of General Ambrose E. Burnside to perpetuate a very specific memory of Burnside, his military service, and his legacy. They set out to construct a monument that mythologized and idolized Burnside, both literally and figuratively placing him on a pedestal to fashion an image of the general that would never falter. This flawless image of Burnside included a relentless patriotism, a dutiful military service, and a noble, selfless model of white manhood. The celebrations surrounding the dedication as reported by The Providence Journal and the monument dedication teemed with patriotic symbolism and references to military service; similarly, the various speeches delivered during the dedication hammered down narratives of nationalism, selflessness, and self-sacrifice so crucial to the understanding of the creation of the Burnside monument.

However, it is critical to acknowledge that the architects behind these intended functions of the Burnside monument only represented a very narrow sampling of the people that interacted, and still interact to this day, with the monument. This begs the questions: were the Burnside monument’s intended functions realized? Did the monument perform the same kind of memory work for the general Providence public as it did for the leaders of the monument’s conception, construction, and dedication? And, perhaps most importantly, how have the memories of Burnside perpetuated by the monument—a heroic, mythological general possessing a passionate patriotism, a self-sacrificing military service, and a model of white manhood—evolved throughout the 135 years of its existence? After all, the monument today is overwhelmingly encountered not by high-ranking military leaders or prominent politicians, but instead by the wider Providence public. Despite the aspirations of The Providence Journal, it has become a part of many Providence citizens’ normal, day-to-day routine.