by escotregen » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:51 am
The question of why build the statue when it was built does have some intrigue to it. In the 1840s he was out of Government office and out of favour. However, I think, he was still highly regraded in popular Tory circles. Moreover, Glasgow was in the 19th century a
strongly 'conservative' domain. (The great period of Glasgow was arguably as a bourgeois city and the 'Red Clydeside' myth came alongside decline).
He did also have consistently long links with Scotland at least, if not especially Glasgow. For example he was president or patron or something of the 'The Highland Society in London' and the 'Society for propagating Christian knowledge in the Highlands and Islands' (Catholics presumably not counting as Christian then?).
The 1840s also saw the ermergence of a Tory (and even Liberal) element of Scottish society that in the post-union period was always desperate to seal 'Scottish' identity within the 'British' identity; as with Walter Scott. Adulation of iconic figures like Wellington would be instrumental in this - and usefully, Wellington was Irish born and therefore more appropriate as an iconic figure for the Scoto/British perspective.
Also, taking a guess - 40 year anniversary of Waterloo? - just maybe the subscription effort began in anticipation of having the statute ready for the anniversary year? After all the Scottish squares were critical to the victory at Waterloo, and the British Scottish regiments were with him for most of his campaigning (something Montgomery learned from him).
And by the way, I have written to the editor of the 'Economist' about their introduction to a new book on the Battle of Waterloo being described as "for some possibly England's finest fighting moment... err jist a minute Jimmy, what about the Scottish Squares stand against Ney's desperate calvary charge that saved Wellington's centre... and didn't the British State and the British army exist for over a hundred years before the battle? However, I digress.