The Vietnam Wall Controversy - Round 3

"FullText" links provide a connection to electronic or print copies provided by the Lehigh Libraries and other services, such as electronic abstracts and interlibrary loan requesting.

2/1982. A chill wind of criticism.: "Politics Threatens to Engulf Vietnam Memorial Design," AIA Journal, February 1981, 3. "Last month the competition winning design for the Vietnam war memorial, warmly received when first announced, was hit by a chill wind of criticism that threatened to make it a political issue and that apparently had made itself felt in the office of Interior Secretary James Watt." [FullText]
2/4/1982. Interior Secretary Watt agrees to the compromise worked out at the Warner meeting.
2/11/1982. Letter from Scruggs to Watt asking for formal approval to go ahead with construction.: "We wish to note that pursuant to the agreement reached at the meeting conducted on January 27, 1981, by Senator John Warner. . . . We are enthusiastic about these refinements and are committed to their realization in time for the memorial's dedication. . . .We thank you very much for your personal commitment to achieving the realization of a fitting tribute to our nation's vaterans of the Vietnam war." [PDF]
2/19/1982. Yes, but.: "Vietnam Vets' Memorial May Begin in Two Weeks," by Paul Hodge, Washington Post, 02/19/82, A18. "The statue and flag pole, however, will have to be approved by NCPC, the Fine Arts Commission and the Joint Committee on Landmarks, approval which may be difficult to get." [FullText]
2/22/1982. War with the bureaucracy.: "Tribute to Sacrifice," by Hugh Sidey, Time, 02/22/82, 19. "Lovely irony. Like life. An infantry corporal with nine pieces of shrapnel in his back carried on the fight for three years, pressing, retreating, always recovering and trudging wearily ahead, overcoming protesting generals (Air Force Ace Robinson Risner) and multimillionaires (Ross Perot) and politicians (Congressman Phil Crane) and pundits (Columnist Pat Buchanan) and bureaucrats (Secretary of the Interior James Watt). Stupidity, narrow-mindedness and indifference were even greater enemies, just as Jan Scruggs found they were in Viet Nam." [FullText]
2/25/1982. Watt writes to J. Carter Brown asking for the required approval of the Commission of Fine Arts.: "The precise location of the flagpole and details regarding the sculpture have not yet been decided. These design requirements have been added in response to intense interest on the part of Members of Congress and other interested parties. The altered design submitted to me represents a compromise which may be expected to facilitate construction and dedication of a memorial to those Americans who served their country in Vietnam." [PDF]
2/27/1982. Will it, or won't it?: "Memorial Delayed; Vietnam Memorial To Be Reviewed," by Benjamin Forgey, Washington Post, 2/27/82, C1. "Supporters of the memorial had hoped to have it completed in time to be dedicated on Veterans Day, Nov. 11, but that now seems unlikely. Whether members of the reviewing agencies . . . will regard these changes as 'design improvements' is questionable." [FullText]
3/1982. Memorable work of art and political football.: "Vietnam's Aftermath: Sniping at the Memorial" by Grady Clay, Landscape Architecture 72. 2 (March 1982): 54-56. Clay was chairman of the selection jury: "In retrospect, this is what we concluded about Ms. Lin's winning design. It reflected the genius loci, the spirit of the place, and went beyond it to echo the national trauma arising from the Vietnam war and its aftermath. It thus became a memorable work of art in itself." [FullText]; "Vietnam War Memorial Flap: Is It a 'Black Wall of Shame'?" by Michael J. Weiss, Washingtonian, March 1982. "'It's become a political football,' concedes Scruggs, 'We've been victims of a smear campaign. And the press has played up this liberal/conservative thing. Every monument in Washington -- the Lincoln, Jefferson, even the Iwo Jima Memorial -- created controversy at the time it was built. But nothing like this. I just realize it's less a matter of aesthetics than it is unhealed wounds.'" [FullText]
3/1982. Reaching consensus.: "Finally We Come Together," by disabled Vietnam vet Milton R. Copulos of the Heritage Foundation. "Then something remarkable happened. Veterans split over the issue realized that the project was in jeopardy, and chose to set aside their preconceptions and come together in a effort to develop a consensus. . . . Some might argue that these changes are mere symbols, and hardly worth the pain and anguish they caused. But soldiers fight for symbols -- symbols that embody principles in which they believe. To fail to include them, therefore, would be an unconscionable omission. Actually, it was the realization of this fact that helped pave the way to a consensus and made the pain suffered reaching it worthwhile. . . . The accord on the memorial's design was but one more indication of the capacity of the Vietnam vet to put what's best for the nation at the forefront of his thinking." [PDF]
3/2/1982. Letter describing "A Most Forgetable Memorial.": From a "competitor" in the design competition: "This abyss is a monumental failure. This monument is an abysmal failure." [PDF]
3/3/1982. Humiliating the vets.: "A Viet Vets Demand: Ask Us about Shrine!" by Hoag Levins, Philadelphia Daily News, 03/03/82: 18. "It is wrong that our common experience will be characterized in stone by a small, unselected group, without the participation or consensus of the nation's Vietnam veterans. It is wrong that the design is being debated and altered in secret congressional sessions employing a strange process of architecture by argument and accusation. The very act of ignoring the majority of Vietnam veterans while forging ahead with an avant-garde memorial design favored by capital socialites and art czars inflicts further humiliation on men and women who have been humiliated enough." [FullText]
3/4/1982. Robert Doubek's statement on behalf of the VVMF at the National Capital Planning Commission.: "To meet the construction schedule, we must break ground within the next two weeks. Yet, this commission must accept the concepts of the flag and statue in order for us to move ahead. I respectfully urge you to do so." [PDF]
3/4/1982. National Capital Planning Commission approves the memorial design.: "It appears that this space can contain a sculpture of an American serviceman without any significant diminution of the visual quality or the experience of the basic plan, and the addition of a flagstaff and an American flag . . . should also be possible without any significant compromise of the basic plan. The acceptability of the two proposed additional features depends, however, on sensitive placement of both and sensitive design of the proposed sculpture." [PDF]
3/5/1982. Getting there.: "Vietnam Vet Memorial Action," by Benjamin Forgey, Washington Post, 03/05/82: B9. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial moved closer to groundbreaking yesterday when the National Capital Planning Commission approved 'the development of a concept' for two changes in its design. . . . In its action the NCPC urged the new features 'be located and designed so as not to compromise or diminish the basic design of the memorial as previously approved.'" [FullText]
3/6/1982. Monumental absurdity.: "Monumental 'Absurdity,'" by Benjamin Forgey, Washington Post, 03/06/82: C5. "To transform those noble walls into a backdrop for a lonely statue is an absurdity that ought not be countenanced. To do so would be the true shame." [FullText]
3/9/1982. A handy chronology.: A VVMF document: "Chronology of Events: Involvement of Secretary of Interior in Approval of Design." [PDF]
3/9/1982. The Commission of Fine Arts approves the memorial design, but there is testimony about the placement of the statue.: minutes: [PDF]; transcript: [PDF]
3/9/1982. Robert Doubek's statement before the Commission of Fine Arts.: "We are also painfully aware that these additions to the design may themselves spark controversy, for it is rare that the design of any major national memorial can develop immeidate consensus as to its potential power, appropriateness and aesthetic excellence. We wish to avoid such added controversy. We therefore want to assure you that we will do all that is in out power to insure that the design, placement and proportions of these additions are developed in a manner that will respect the beauty and simplicity of the approved design." [PDF]
3/9/1982. Letter from CFA Commissioner Brown to Interior Secretary Watt.: "The Commisssion reaffirms its approval for the design as approved to date. As you point out in your letter, the basic design of the memorial is unchanged. For this reason, no further approval by the Commission of Fine Arts is required as a precondition to action by the Department of Interior." [PDF]
3/10/1982. Closer to getting there.: "Commission Acts on Vets Memorial Design," by Benjamin Forgey, Washington Post, 03/10/82: B6. "The Commission's action [the Commission of Fine Arts] is thus substantially different from that of the National Capital Planning Commisssion, which last week gave approval in 'concept' to a very different placement of the statue, namely 'within the area before the apex of the memorial.'" [FullText]
3/11/1982. Watts' letter to Scruggs approving the design and plans.: "We hereby approve the design and plans for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial with the express understanding that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund will add better and proper language bringing honor to all 2.7 million Americans who served in Vietnam as well as design refinements, by separate submittal, for a flag staff at the site and a statue of a serviceman." [PDF]
3/12/1982. Closer.: "Watt Okays a Memorial Plan," by Jean White, Washington Post, 03/12/82, C1. "Interior Secretary James G. Watt yesterday gave approval that clears the way for groundbreaking and construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Constitution Gardens. . . . Still to be resolved is the controversial question of where the statue and flagpole will be placed in the memorial design." [FullText]
3/13/1982. Closer.: "Watt Clears the Way for a War Memorial to Vietnam Veterans," New York Times, 03/13/82, 1:11. [FullText]
3/15/1982. The permit for construction of the memorial to begin is granted.
3/22/1982. Closer.: "Watt Approves a Vietnam Memorial," Newsweek, 03/22/82, 38. "As for the changes, said Jan C. Scuggs, the ex-Vietnam infantryman who founded the memorial fund and is its president, they will not turn 'a beautiful piece of art into a crummy piece of art.'" [FullText]
3/24/1982. Senate press release: "Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Compromise Reached Warner Says.": "After a second meeting with a cross section of veterans organizations, Vietnam veterans and other interested individuals, an agreement was reached which will enable an impressive memorial to the men and women who served in Vietnam to be built on a two acre site in the nation's capital." [PDF]
3/25/1982.: "Compromise on Vietnam Memorial," Washington Post, 03/25/82: B2. [FullText]
3/25/1982. A selection of letters from the public to the Commission of Fine Arts from January to March for and against the compromise memorial design.: [PDF]
3/26/1982. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Groundbreaking Ceremony takes place.
3/26/1982. Groundbreaking Ceremony program.: "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial will stand forever as a symbol of the unity that preserves us as a nation, and of our care for the sons and daughters who answered their country's call to duty in Vietnam." [PDF]
3/27/1982. There.: "Ground Broken in Capital for Memorial on Vietnam," by Bernard Weinraub, New York Times, 03/27/82, 1: 1. "'Let this memorial begin the healing process and forever stand as a symbol' of national unity, said Jan Scruggs. . . . 'The families of the men who died in my unit have asked me the whys and hows of their deaths. I'm not sure of the whys,' Mr. Robb said slowly. 'But this monument does say we care and we remember. And that's terribly important.'" [FullText]; "Reconciliation: Ground Broken for Shrine to Vietnam War Veterans," by Phil McCombs, Washington Post, 03/27/82, 14. "Neither Carhart nor Web participated in the ceremony. Carhart, although still not happy with the design or compromise, said in an interview he has given up fighting it. 'I'm not going to be the only one to continue the complaint,' he said. 'I don't want to be seen as an idle complainer. I can accept a compromise if it is acceptable to everyone else." [FullText]