The Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt

Starting in early 2017, statues have undergone extensive renewed attention as a result of the increase in controversial racial and systemic injustices all around the world. Monuments depicting figures of presidents, slave traders, and other controversial figures are now being questioned for their racist history. In London of June 2020, protesters dumped a 17th-century statue depicting Edward Colston, a slave trader, into the Bristol Harbor. This was a result of the rising increase of the public’s opinion against racial injustices fueled by the protest against the killing of George Floyd.¹ Similar movements all around the world are taking place in efforts to confront history and the way it’s remembered and celebrated today. Statues have been destroyed, removed, and recontextualized considering the narratives they uphold. In this essay, I will be focusing on the removal of the Equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt at the American Museum of Natural History.

Originally sculpted by James Earle Fraser in 1940, the Equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt was made as a memorial to honor him after his death in 1919. The monument depicts a bronze Theodore Roosevelt on top of a horseback, accompanied by an African American and Native American. The statue was originally intended to commemorate Roosevelt as a great New Yorker, “nature lover, explorer and author of natural history”, as well as being 26th president of the United States. According to the sculptor, James Earle Fraser, “The two figures at [Roosevelt’s] side are guides symbolizing the continents of Africa and America, and if you choose may stand for Roosevelt’s friendliness to all races.” .² However, recent debates have sparked a controversy over the statue located at the entrance of the American Museum of Natural History. Many critics believe the compositional arrangement of the statue depicts African Americans and Native Americans to be racially inferior and subjugated.³

Subsequently, in 2017 the mayor of New York City at the time, Bill de Blasio, commissioned the evaluation of controversial monuments and statues in the city, including the Equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt. The commission members were divided in their recommendation; Half pushed for more research on the statue while others pushed for it to be relocated and some recommended keeping the statue but adding more context. Ultimately, the city decided to keep the exhibit open with plans to add more historical context. However the exhibit continued to meet mixed reactions and following the death of George Floyd museum officials admitted that providing context wasn’t enough.⁴

Following the protest of George Floyd’s death, attention was drawn to monuments and statues commemorating controversial figures such as Robert E. Lee and many more. These monuments are being viewed as symbols of oppression and systemic injustices with many believing these statues should be taken down. Insinuating a debate over how to represent uncomfortable parts of history.⁵ The museum’s President Ellen V. Futter stated, “Over the last few weeks, our museum community has been profoundly moved by the ever-widening movement for racial justice that has emerged after the killing of George Floyd…We have watched as the attention of the world and the country has increasingly turned to statues as powerful and hurtful symbols of systemic racism.”.⁶ Following the protest, the museum decided to remove the Equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt based on its compositional arrangement. Roosevelt’s great grandson also released a statement on the matter; “The world does not need statues, relics of another age, that reflect neither the values of the person they intend to honor nor the values of equality and justice…The composition of the Equestrian Statue does not reflect Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy. It is time to move the statue and move forward.”.⁷

Those who supported the removal of the Equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt called out on the design of the monument. Mabel O. Wilson, a Columbia University professor stated, “I’m glad to see it go. The depiction of the Indigenous and the African trailing behind Roosevelt, who is strong and virile was clearly a narrative of white racial superiority and domination.”.⁸ Additionally many critics called out Roosvelt’s own racist beliefs and his practice in eugenics. Philip Deloria, a Harvard historian, explained that although Roosevelt was celebrated for his conservation of Native land it often led to devastating consequences for Native Americans and would not consider Roosevelt a “friend of the Indian.”.⁹ To add to that, Douglas Brinkley, a historian at Rice University stated, “When you read some of his writings, you cringe because it has such a feeling of white supremacy. It shows a portrait of somebody feeling that tribal people of Africa are not very high on his Darwinian scale.”.¹⁰ Many critics claimed it was hard to avoid analyzing the statute’s composition in light of Roosevelt’s views on racial hierarchy and circumstances surrounding the monument.

On the contrary, there were many who supported keeping the monument in place. Many supporters voiced their opinion arguing that taking down the monument risked erasing history and should remain where it is. Additional support followed with many more believing the monument should seek to educate the public and represent the time it was made in. Many supported the idea of further memorializing Theodore Roosevelt, acknowledging his complicated character and history.¹¹ On the day the monument was scheduled to be taken down, 150 protestors gathered around to voice their concerns. Among them being an older woman who went by the name Sharon, stating “I don’t see the statue as racist, and that word is overused and dramatized today. It certainly has nothing to do with that police situation in Minneapolis where a man was murdered.”.¹² Sharon, among many others, shared the common belief that the statue was being taken out of context and was being perceived through a modern day lens. Another supporter, David Thomas, stated, “I’ve been here for parts of five decades, and every one of those decades we’ve had protests against the TR statue. The political reality is that that statue is where it is because that’s where the state of New York wanted it.”.¹³ Sharon and David shared the supporters’ common belief that the statue should be seen from its historical context. For many supporters, removing the monument was a misinterpretation of history based on present day context.

Eventually, the scheduled removal of the monument was underway with the mayor at the time, releasing a statement: “The American Museum of Natural History has asked to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue because it explicitly depicts Black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior. The City supports the Museum’s request. It is the right decision and the right time to remove this problematic statue.”.¹⁴ A year after its removal the New York City Public Design Commission approved the relocation of the statue and later that year, the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Foundation and the city reached an agreement to move the statue on a long-term loan to the future presidential library, in Medora, North Dakota, which is set to open in 2026.¹⁵ Roosevelt’s great grandson also pitched in and stated, “Rather than burying a troubling work of art, we ought to learn from it. It is fitting that the statue is being relocated to a place where its composition can be recontextualized to facilitate difficult, complex, and inclusive discussions.”.¹⁶ After removing the statue, the museum set up two bronze plaques informing visitors of Theodore Roosvelts contributions to the American Museum of Natural History and the history of the statue and its removal. The plinth where the statue once stood was removed and replaced by an outline on the ground, allowing the stairway to the museum to be wider now.¹⁷

Overall, I’m glad the museum took the course of action that it did. Whether it was meant to or not–It is clear to me how the composition of the monument symbolizes racial hierarchy. I believe the removal was justified and I am a supporter of the relocation. I believe the future presidential library will allow the monument to be better appreciated. The bronze plaques put in place are also a nice touch, allowing for the public to be educated and understand the history behind the statue and its removal. Additionally, I agree with the perspective that we shouldn’t judge history with a modern day lens, to an extent. When looking at monuments or statues, we have to try to remember the history behind them and be cautious in how we present and contextualize them in present time.