I know I know... But this particular myth has always bugged me. I love those equestrian military statutes and everytime I'm looking at one or point one out, I have to hear the story of the "significance" of the hoof arrangements.

P.S. There is another example that disproves this theory right in the Windy City.

Vandy, you may well be right, however, the committee in Chicago that placed the hooves, under city statute, stated that his exploits had earned him the accolade. Not my call. Take it up with City Hall back in about 1900 or thereabouts.

And yes, I know about Sheridan as well.

As to who created the Purple Heart and it's history, here's the relevant history from purple heart.org:

"On August 7, 1782, at his Newburgh, New York headquarters, Washington devised two badges of distinction to be worn by enlisted men and noncommissioned officers. The first was a chevron to be worn on the left sleeve of the coat. It signified loyal military service. Three years of service with "bravery, fidelity and good conduct" were the criteria for earning this badge; two chevrons meant six years of service.

"The second, named the Badge of Military Merit, was the "figure of a heart in purple cloth or silk edged with narrow lace or binding." This badge was for "any singularly meritorious action" and permitted the wearer to pass guards and sentinels without challenge. The honoree's name and regiment were inscribed in a Book of Merit.

"After the Revolutionary War, no more Americans soldiers received the Badge of Military Merit. It was not until October 10, 1927, that Army Chief of Staff, General Charles P. Summerall, directed a draft bill to be sent to Congress "to revive the Badge of Military Merit."

"The Army withdrew the bill on January 3, 1928, but the Office of the Adjutant General filed all correspondence for possible future use.

"Although a number of private efforts were made to have the medal reinstituted, it wasn't until January 7, 1931 that Summerall's successor General Douglas MacArthur, confidentially reopened the case. His object was to have a new medal issued on the bicentennial of George Washington's birth.

"Miss Elizabeth Will, in the Office of the Quartermaster General, created the design from guidelines provided her. The only difference in her design is that a sprig appeared where the profile of Washington is on the present Purple Heart.

"John R. Sinnick of the Philadelphia Mint made the plaster model in May 1931. The War Department announced the new award on February 22, 1932."

Just an FYI from a guy whose Dad had one. No flames intended or implied.

Lee Darrow, C.H.

I don't even know how to respond to this anymore.

Lee, you have stated that the arrangement of the hooves is mandated by statute in the city of Chicago. I name a statue in Chicago that doesn't conform and you tell me a special exception was made in that case. You also state that you are aware the statue of Sheridan dosen't conform to the notion of the hooves having special significance. Yet you still seem to believe in this "code".

Those aren't the only ones either, I know of at least one more statue that dosen't conform to the supposed statutes. Theres probably more, Chicago dosen't have a huge amount of these things.

I would love to see this statute because it appears about half of the military equestrine statues in Chicago are flaunting the law.

I've said it before, I'll say it again right now. The notion that the hoof arrangement on a military equestrine statues bears any significance, or gives a clue to the fate of the rider is bogus. You can claim that some "old,now defunct" statutes dictate that in Chicago certain guidelines are to be followed. You can claim that your wife "knows" this. Show it to me, because until I see that, there is no way I'm buying it. Why on earth would I? There is no pattern in Chicago or across the nation.

Lee, that you buy in to this thing is understandable, heres an excerpt from the book "Hands On Chicago" (1987), by Mark Frazel and Kenan Heise:
"At Sheridan Road and Belmont Avenue, the statue of [General Philip H.] Sheridan beckons troops to battle. The horse General Sheridan rides is named Winchester. . . . Winchester's raised leg symbolizes his rider was wounded in battle (the legs of [General Ulysses S.] Grant's horse [as seen in another Chicago statue] are on the ground, meaning he was not wounded)."

Every now and then someone or something comes along and gives new legs to this story. I'm sorry, Im not buying it. If you choose to believe it, that's your perogative. You do it in the face of physical evidence to the contrary all over your city.

Vandy

P.S Now, who's got the answer to #18?

Vandy, several of those statues were done either prior to ar after the statute was made or removed from the books. Frankly, I'm not sure the statute was ever removed from the books - honored more in the breach as they say. One of those things that started out as a good idea and the *&%# sculptors refused to follow the rules. Artists are such independent people - aren't we?

I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over this as it's really not worth it and your posts are excellent. Let's just agree to disagree and drive on as friends, or at least as not-ticked-off-at-each-other-people as they say in Ankh-Morpork (or however you spell it).

After all, it's only trivia.

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Agreed, you're a gentleman and a scholar sir. It's intresting that you would mention the artists because I believe that's where it would all break down in the end if such a thing were in place. Just try to tell a fine artist such as a painter or sculptor how to present their subject! A true artist would never follow some "code" LOL.

Bob Dylan said "you are right from your side, I am right from mine" in this case I think I can live with a situation like that. LOL.

I see the statue, hoof placement debate as something akin to the napolean keeping his hand in his coat debate. There is no significance...it was/is merely an artistic/ visually pleasing way to present the subject matter.

So, back to 18...I say he hit him with a freight train...becuase it is just nonsensical enough to work.

Nick Fox

Thanks, Vandy! I am enjoying our exchange greatly and appreciate the level of erudition and professionalism that you constantly display in here. No sucking up on that, either. Finding a good intellectual debate is quite a refreshing breath of clear air. Too many folks on other boards tend to haul out their flamethrowers at the sleightest hint of someone disagreeing with them.

With regards to the artists question, maybe, maybe not. It depends on the artist and the situation, in my experience. My dad was a commercial and fine artist and I grew up with and am friends with a number of noted artists, particularly in the realms of science fiction and fantasy art. I know Frank Kelly freas (who pased away earlier this month) often took direction from the publishers regarding his cover works (he won 11 Hugo Awards and was one helluva nice guy) and Phil Foglio, Frank Frazetta and even Don Martin (Mad Magazine) have said that they listen to what the client tells them when doing commission work, but the fine points are often left up to them.

But you are quite right - fine artists (these guys are all commercial artists and also cartoonists) can be an independent bunch, for certain! Thanks for the kind words. You also are a gentleman and a scholar (and you do NOT fit into the next line that follows that quote, I am sure!). 10 trivia points if you know what it is, he said, with tongue firmly in cheek!

Lee Darrow, C.H.