David Miller was a WWII hero who Fall River honored with a memorial on a small piece of city land in 1946. Cpl. Miller survived the infamous 1942 Bataan Death March in the Phillipines where the Japanese committed atrocities upon the US soldiers they captured including rapes, beheadings and disembowelments. Miller amazingly survived the barbarity of the death march, only to perish as a prisoner of war in July 1943.
The small plot of green space was named Cpl. David Miller Green “in honor of all the boys of the southern side of the city who served in the Armed Forces during World War II.” It was rededicated by the city in 1975 and again 1991 when the city installed a small monument with a bronze plaque honoring Miller.
And just this year, some six decades after the City Council and mayor voted to honor a true American hero with his own green, the square, along with a significantly larger monument, was rededicated yet again. For a local restauranteur.
Now known as Paul K. McGovern Square, the green honors the late owner of McGovern’s Restaurant on Shove Street.
While McGovern’s legacy may well be deserving of honor, there is simply no comparison between Miller’s sacrifice and McGovern’s contribution.
Yet, both mayoral spokeswoman Ines Leite and City Councilor Pat Casey insist the renaming of the square “is not intended to be a slight to veterans at all.”
But, it’s impossible to see it any other way.
A Fall River blog has covered this story with a series of posts…
Miller Green v. McGovern Square
Corporal Miller, Herald News, July 19, 1943
Please help us expose this egregious action.
Please contact your local VFW, American Legion, and your Congressional representatives and ask all to protest the disrespect shown to Cpl. Miller and all of our veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice.
And please send an email to the Mayor and City Councilor Pat Casey telling them what you really think. mayor@fallriverma.org and city_council@fallriverma.org. Also the telephone number for the Fall River Mayor’s Office is (508) 324-2600.
the WWII monument is still there
So both monuments share the same site. The new monument is in the background of this picture, which features the WWII monument.
I don’t see why both monuments can’t share the same square, but I agree that some effort at getting some buy-in by veterans and their families would have been a decent thing to attempt.
Yes, the plaque to Cpl. David Miller is still there, but there are a few issues.
<
p>1) According to the original Order in 1946, the Green was constructed “in honor of all the boys of the southern section of the city who served in armed forces during World War II and to be named David Miller Square.”
<
p>The news stories that have come to light indicate this spot was chosen because Cpl. Miller lived with his aunts who lived very close to the site of this memorial.
<
p>The site was dedicated to Cpl. Miller and other WWII soldiers and an additional monument should not be added to this memorial.
<
p>2) Some have taken issue with the difference of the size of the monuments. As you can see from the picture, the memorial of the Bataan Death March survivor is modest, while the monument to the restaurant owner in the background dwarfs the plaque to the WWII soldiers.
<
p>3) The fact that the McGovern family paid for the installment of their memorial is largely irrelevant. The property is a city square and the local department of public works has the responsibility to maintain the property.
<
p>Can’t WWII soldiers, and this survivor of the Bataan Death March who later died in a Japanese prison camp be memorialized on a small piece of property of their own?
it was a mistake for the city not to work with the veteran crowd (assuming they never tried). Was someone high up in the city a close friend of the restaurant guy or something? Otherwise, I can’t imagine how a public official could be so politically stupid. And I was thinking the same thing about the relative sizes of the stones.
<
p>Whether or not the spot should ever be shared with another memorial or re-dedicated isn’t a subject I am willing to take sides on. This is because I’m not from the area and can;t really know either of the stories fully.
1)Why would the city work with the veteran crowd as you suggest? Every veteran that I have read or heard discuss the new monument is opposed to it. If the city would have involved the veterans, the new monument never would have happened at that site.
<
p>2)”Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that Correia – along with many, many other Fall River politicians – has a significant association with the McGovern family. From 2001 to 2007, for instance, Correia’s campaign spent more than $58,000 at McGovern’s Restaurant for 25 meetings or fundraisers. And, Correia held last year’s mayoral election victory party at McGovern’s, as well as his transition team announcement and an August 2008 fundraiser hosting 1,300, to mention a few.’
<
p>3)In the first comment, Laurel’s point was “I don’t see why both monuments can’t share the same square” which then became “Whether or not the spot should ever be shared with another memorial or re-dedicated isn’t a subject I am willing to take sides on.”
<
p>It’s a current Fall River issue, but you don’t have to be from Fall River to understand the principles involved with this issue – the principles are universal. For example, the MA State House has the Fallen FireFighters Memorial. Would it be okay to share that space with an even larger memorial to something/someone entirely irrelevant?
<
p>
Yes, perhaps. Space is limited. It is perfectly conceivable to me that some public spaces may need to be reworked as generations come and go. Not saying whether or not that should necessarily be the case here, but theoretically, sure.
Laurel,
<
p>For someone who said that they were not willing to take sides on whether the spot should be shared, your next comment begins with the response that perhaps it would be okay to share the space!
<
p>Again, you previously pointed out that you are not from the area, yet you offered the hypothetical about public spaces needed to be shared out of necessity due to a lack of public spaces. A lack of public spaces in Fall River is not the issue, and I don’t see the point in even mentioning the hypothetical for this case.
<
p>Finally, the remains of Corporal Miller were never found. This little plot of land was as close as his family had as a memorial and it serves as a reminder to us all as well.
<
p>I can say theoretically of course, that some public spaces are so treasured in this country that sharing them will simply not happen. To make my point, Washington D.C., features the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial and Lincoln Memorials. Now, no matter how many great Presidents we may have in out future, I think those three don’t have to worry too much about being replaced. Similarly, there is the Arlington National Cemetery. While Arlington features other memorials such as the John F. Kennedy eternal flame, USS Maine Memorial, and the Tomb of the Unknowns, there is a common theme and the cemetery is large enough to incorporate the various memorials without taking away the significance of all those buried there.
<
p>The Miller Green/McGovern Square is a small piece of property and there’s no logical reason why it can’t remain with 1 memorial honoring the soldiers of WWII.
My question is rhetorical.
<
p>Fall River should honor history by memorializing sites once. Honoring the commitment and dedication of WW II or any other person who served their nation should not be something that gets pushed aside.
<
p>It is pretty obvious from this picture that Cpl. Miller’s plaque is overshadowed. That says nothing about how disrespectful it is to give someone the back side of another or another’s memorial.
<
p>The Fall River mayor, city council, and veteran’s agent should have handled this situation differently. Brushing a veteran’s sacrifice aside is not alright.
<
p>The contributions to the community and the nation are totally different. Two monuments is one too many here!
<
p>Disclaimer: I am the son of a WWII Pacific Theater combat veteran and fail to see a nexus between the monuments. The politicians should have found a seperate location for the two.
<
p>
The issue of preserving the memorial as Corporal Miller Green, has led to a great deal of research into the life of Corporal Miller and the dedication and re-dedication of the Green to Corporal Miller.
<
p>Most notably, the recent development can be found here Who was David Miller? with news articles that demonstrate that the memorial to Corporal Miller is actually the boulder that is in the picture above.
<
p>According to the news articles, the boulder was donated by the church in which the Miller family were prominent members. As the news article states, the stone marker had the family name carved into it.
<
p>Now, the inscription of “Miller” is either at the bottom of the boulder as it may have been moved during the recent landscaping for the new dedication as Paul McGovern Square, or the inscription may have eroded after nearly 60 years of the boulder’s existence as the memorial to Cpl. Miller.
<
p>The plaque that is prominently shown in the picture was a plaque that was added in 1991 during a re-dedication of the David Miller Green. However, the research indicates that the boulder is the memorial.
<
p>This issue has really been kept alive through diligent research and by a series of blog posts. The local newspaper has printed a story and an editorial that is linked above. The newspaper has also printed several letters to the editor that have been in favor of the cause that this memorial remain solely, as originally intended, as a memorial to Cpl. David Miller and all of the boys of the southern section of the city who served in WWII.
<
p>We appreciate any assistance that anyone is willing to provide to assist in the cause to restore this memorial.