Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020-08-26 minutesCity of Jefferson Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Special Meeting – Wednesday, August 26, 2020 Council Chambers – John G. Christy Municipal Building 320 E. McCarty Street Commission Members Present Attendance Record Mary Schantz, Chairperson 7 of 8 Gregory Bemboom 7 of 8 Alan Wheat 7 of 8 Michael Berendzen 5 of 8 Tiffany Patterson 4 of 5 Brad Schaefer 7 of 8 Steven Hoffman 7 of 8 Donna Deetz, Vice Chairperson 7 of 8 Gail Jones, Via Telephone 6 of 8 Council Liaison Present Laura Ward Staff Present Rachel Senzee, Neighborhood Services Supervisor Anne Stratman, Neighborhood Services Specialist Karlie Reinkemeyer, Neighborhood Services Specialist Ryan Moehlman, City Attorney Guests Present Frank E. Wallemann Herbert Turner Danny Creason Jacqulin Johnson Jenny Smith Terry Lyskowski Roger Baker Doris Schmutzler Gary Schmutzler Fr. Richard Frank Edith Vogel Scott Randolph Susan Randolph Jan Schumacher Dick Dalton Pete Oetting William Musgront Jay Barnes Patsy Johnson Nimrod Chapel Jr Glover Brown Rebecca Ambrose, via telephone Call to Order Ms. Schantz called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Deetz moved and Mr. Wheat seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business A. Sterling Price Marker Ms. Schantz stated that the Historic Preservation Commission is not the deciding body for this issue. She stated that the City Council will be the final decision body for this issue. Ms. Schantz explained the HPC is an advisory committee and in that role it can make a recommendation to the Council. She stated that the public will have an opportunity to testify again to the City Council. Ms. Schantz explained that the Historic Preservation Commission heard this issue twice, once at the July 14 meeting and again at the August 11 meeting. Mr. Paul Kiekhaefer testified via telephone at the July 14 meeting. She stated that at the July meeting the HPC did not know who owned the marker. At the August 11 meeting the testimony was centered around keeping the marker and contextualizing the spot. Ms. Schantz explained that shortly after the August meeting, information was received from Mr. Jay Barnes about research he did on this issue. Ms. Schantz thought it was relevant and was not something the HPC had heard before and began the process of organizing a special meeting. She stated that the HPC will hear from Mr. Barnes and one representative from those that feel the marker shall remain and one representative from those that feel the marker should be removed. Mr. Jay Barnes, 715 Swifts Highway, submitted a one page sheet with screen shots of text from literature from the United Daughters of the Confederacy. He submitted a 32 page document titled “Jefferson City in the Civil War”. Mr. Barnes stated it is important to recognize that people who would like the marker removed do not want to erase history at all. “We want to celebrate the true history of our community. Our community and the Civil War has a history that everyone should be proud of. In 1861 , a steamer landed at the foot of Jackson Street and dropped off troops. In 1862, Mr. Bernard Bruns was elected Mayor of our city. In 1863, Jefferson City was a beacon of freedom for slaves in Boone County and Callaway County. The only marker in the city commemorating the Civil War is the marker on Moreau Drive. An article in the News Tribune by Jenny Smith told the story that the Union troops and the citizens of our town banded together to fortify our city and defend it, thereby tricking General Sterling Price into believing there were far more troops than there actually was. The people of our community fought a war to prevent slavery. Sterling Price made his decision to turn away at the site of the Wallendorf Cabin. He never came close to where that marker is. Honoring our history means more than removing this marker, it means erecting other markers and other monuments in our community about our real history.” Roger Baker stated he wanted to talk about history. He metal detects as a pastime. “If I understand history correctly Confederate forces carried infield rifles. Just down the street from where the marker stands now and about 5 houses going southeast on Moreau Drive I dug infield rifle rounds out of one of the yards. Confederate forces did reach Moreau Drive within about 5 houses where the monument stands. I also dug infield rounds in McClung Park. I cannot guarantee that they were not northern rounds but they were infield rounds. I believe that if not Price himself but some of his army did get into the city. I’m bothered; I don’t know where this is coming from to remove everything historical from our countr y. We can’t change history; if we do we are going to relive it. I don’t necessarily mean the monument is a good thing. The monument recognizes the high water mark of General Sterling Price’s attempt to come into the city. That is a big plus for the Union troops. I don’t care whether the monument stays or goes. If we remove every vestige of history for whatever it is, we are bound to face it again.” Patsy Johnson, 908 Lafayette Street, is a Commissioner in Jefferson City, a member of the NAACP, a member of the National Organization of Women Jefferson City Chapter and a member of the Racial Equity Group. She stated that she spends a lot of time working for human rights locally and in other national organizations. As a child she had walk past the monument on her way to school. Upon reading it she found out it was a Confederate monument by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. She was hurt because the monument was in a public place and that told her it was important. This was an uncomfortable area to be in because of the treatment we received. “There are more positive things that we can embrace in this community to share because it gives different messages to different people.” Rebecca Ambrose, 1001 Fairmount Boulevard, stated that she has read the monument many times and does not see that it glorifies Sterling Price. “Without that monument there would be no known history of the Civil War in Jefferson City. With that marker we at least know that the Confederate forces were in our neighborhood.” She found a Civil War bullet and mule shoe in her front yard. “They at least came through there but nothing says that the General stood at that spot. We need to use history to show what a great country this really is.” Ms. Ambrose stated that she would welcome ideas to change the wording. She would like to see something done that would keep this history alive. Terry Lyskowski, 1722 Hayselton Drive, stated that it is important to say that people are not against historical monuments. “What is important is accurate history. The monument on Moreau Drive is a fixture in her memory as a child. As an adult it is not an innocent patriotic monument. It needs to be removed. This is an opportunity for the community to come together and say that they are not against public monuments, but that they are against inaccurate history.” Frank Walleman, 4627 Shepherd Hills Road Apt 410, stated that he searched Civil War monuments and found that this marker is 1 of 2 markers in Jefferson City. The other m arker sits on the Capitol grounds right across from the Post Office. “I am concerned with what the monument says. I do not see how that language can be interpreted as memorializing General Price unless it is memorializing his failures. He intended to attack Jefferson City, he failed and he retreated. I think we are memorializing that spot. As a historical marker I think it is important to stay. This marker was put there to locate a site of something that happened that was extremely important to Jefferson City. Jefferson City avoided a major Civil War battle, loss of life and loss of property. That particular spot was as close as they Confederate soldiers got to the City of Jefferson.” Mr. Walleman submitted a Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, Civil War Assessment Form that another marker is located in Jefferson City in the general vicinity of the State Capitol. Nimrod Chapel, 701 Primrose Court, stated that his family did not elect to live in the Moreau Drive neighborhood because of the marker. “That is a marker dedicated to the Confederacy by the Daughters of the Confederacy.” To Mr. Chapel the Civil War was not a fight about property, but a fight about human dignity. “There is nothing historic about the marker. The marker needs to be removed complete ly and not moved to another place.” Glover Brown, 1700 Valley Hi Road, stated that he was at the July 14 meeting and would like to go on record and straighten out a comment made. “I want to go on record as saying that I am for any monument that is recognized by the National Park Service, historical society or city where it sits. When you start removing monuments you start removing history. Instead of removing monuments, correct the history. When the younger generation looks at what is going on there is not hing there. If we could sit down and have a dialogue we can correct any injustices. As far as Sterling Price he represents something that happened around Jefferson City.” Bob Priddy, 1744 Englewood Drive, stated, “We at least need to change the plaque on that stone. It is true that a number of Civil War artifacts have been found at that site. That rock does not represent the high water mark of the Confederacy when they attacked Jefferson City. That rock has been moved from its original location about four-tenths of a mile further down the road. That is where it was originally located. Historians say that is where the Confederates started to turn west. Union forces were four -tenths of a mile towards the city. Halfway between the original and present locations of the rock was a home where traditions tell us Union forces on the roof monitored Price’s movements. I think moving that rock to a new location with a new plaque that tells the true history would probably be the be st way to repudiate the whole idea of the United Daughters of the Confederacy had when they put that memorial there. We need to have historic monuments in this town that tell the truth of the Civil War.” Jenny Smith, 1211 Elmerine, stated that she supports removing the monument and replacing it with one which more accurately honors the event on October 7, 1864. “So many people did not know about this encounter on the southeast end of Jefferson City. The whole city was involved in defending Jefferson City, the citizens and the army that was here. There were guards that were sentried on top of Nick Monaco’s house on Moreau Drive. They were also at the Dulle House watching the rebel movements to the southeast of the city. There has been mention that maybe the monument is in the wrong spot because it has been moved. My position is that it is in a good spot to honor the Union effort that took place. There were serval thousand Union soldiers camped on Fairmount Boulevard which at that time was the Cole County Fairgrounds. They also camped at McClung Park, Nick Monaco’s house, Elmerine and Lee Streets. That monument is at the center of a lot of Union activity. The rebels had crossed the Moreau River at the bottom of Greenberry Road. I am interested to hear of Mr. Ba ker’s finding of artifacts to support the fact that the Confederates were up here. This also supports the fact things did happen. There were skirmishes by the Osage River where the rebels crossed the river. There were estimates of 10,000 to 12,000 rebels approaching our city and crossing the river in waves. Some reports said they were 3 miles long in their march. The Union had a vigorous defense at the river to defend the city against their approach and slow the rebels down. I support preserving history. Th is monument is offensive and it should be removed.” Dick Dalton, 1311 Isom Drive, stated that he recently learned about what was written on the marker from Ms. Johnson. He has gone by the marker many times and did not realize what it was about. He realized that the United Daughters of the Confederacy was what the rest of the country had been talking about for several years. “Culture is shifting and it is time to re-examine our culture.” The more he read about the United Daughters of the Confederacy, “this was not a gift that we would be proud of. This war happened all over the place. There is not a way for us to memorialize every place. History happened; we are not forgetting the Civil War. I am for the removal of the monument. W e want to start over that and find some way other way to represent history.” Pete Oetting, Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, stated that he has spoken to the Commission before about the Sons of Union Veterans’ stance on the removal of monuments. “We are just past the 100 year anniversary of the Battle of Verdun in France. In the Battle of Verdun over 650,000 to 700,000 died. There were 17 French villages destroyed. Still today in Verdun, France there is a monument to the German high water mark of the Imperial Army. Here in Jef ferson there were over 750 Union soldiers that are buried in the National Cemetery that died in this location, 75 to 80 of them came from the Centralia area. There are also Confederate soldiers that died too. If we remove this monument how long is it befor e we start to remove and desecrate graves and tombstones. They cannot speak, that is why I am here to speak for them. People in the Republic of France left a German monument alone even as brutal as the imperial Army was. I think we can leave the Confederate monument there too. I would like to reiterate that the Sons of Union Veterans would also like to occupy that space.” Fr. Richard Frank, 803 Air View Drive, stated that he spoke at the last meeting and expressed a concern of the trend today of trying to revise, alter or erase history. “What is being done to monuments in our country is a part of that. Even though the United Daughters of the Confederacy gave us this monument, I do not like to refer to it as a Confederate monument because it doesn’t glorify the Confederacy by the simple wording and it doesn’t justify slavery, it just states a historical fact. In fact if anything it illustrates the defeat of the Confederacy since they did not attack due to the Union efforts. I do have a personal interest because my great grandfather served in the effort in the Missouri Calvary 5 th Regiment. He served in the effort to keep the Confederates from coming into the city. We recommended at the last meeting to keep the monument but add interpretation.” Jan Schumacher, 2026 Trenton Court, stated that she has been involved in historic preservation in various communities and projects for the last 20-25 years. Ms. Schumacher read a portion of the statement from the National Trust for Historic Preservation Statement on Confederate Monuments. “The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously issued statements about the history and treatment of Confederate monuments, emphasizing that, although some were erected —like other monuments to war dead —for reasons of memori alization, most Confederate monuments were intended to serve as a celebration of Lost Cause mythology and to advance the ideas of white supremacy. Many of them still stand as symbols of those ideologies and sometimes serve as rallying points for bigotry an d hate today. To many African Americans, they continue to serve as constant and painful reminders that racism is embedded in American society. We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for a ll”. Ms. Schumacher stated that she would like to see the marker removed and have other information about the Civ il War in other locations so that they are more prominently seen and also an accurate reflection of the events that happened. Paul Kiekhaefer, 1602 -A Street Northeast, Washington, D.C. testified via telephone. He stated that he wanted to address some of t he concerns that he heard throughout the process and tonight where a number of people have mentioned they don’t want to revise history. He wanted to clarify this monument in itself is revising history. “The monument itself is revisionist history, the effor t to remove the monument is an effort to tell history in a way that is coherent and clear and respectful to those who were oppressed in the past. Let’s be creative, we are a city that cares about history. We are a city that has a wonderful monument in the State Capitol. We can come up with something that tells the history of the Civil War in a way that is respectful. We do not need the United Daughters of the Confederacy to tell that history.” Mr. Berendzen stepped out at 6:55 p.m. Mr. Berendzen came back in at 6:57 p.m. Edith Vogel, 800 St Mary’s Boulevard, stated that she is the owner of Camp Lillie of the Union Army during the Civil War. She is the private landowner of that piece of property which consists of about three acres remaining from G.H. Dulle’s farm that was confiscated by the Union Army for General John S. Fremont as Camp Fremont. She stated that she listened interestedly to everyone’s testimony and would like to step forward and address the Commission that she is willing to help th e situation. If the Commission recommends to the City Council removal of the stone and plaque from Moreau Drive, Ms. Vogel would be willing to put it up at Camp Lillie minus the bottom part that says presented by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. B rian Kaylor, 3725 Scarborough Way, stated that as cities across the nation remove monuments honoring Confederate traitors and enslavers our city should too. Monuments and memorials are not about history but honor. “You would not be able to learn about the Civil War by splitting our Confederate rock. We teach the past in classes and in books. Monuments on the other hand, are about who we wish to honor today and what values we wish to honor in the future. Removing this marker will not be rewriting or erasing history; it will be removing an honor to a traitor and enslaver.” Public t estimony concluded at 7:01 p.m. Ms. Schantz stated that the Commission has a couple of choices, they can change the recommendation made at last month’s meeting which was to let th e marker remain and be contextualized or they can leave it the same . Mr. Schaefer inquired of the motion made at last month’s meeting. Ms. Schantz stated that the motion was to not remove the marker and additional information specifically about the event can be added as money and time allows. She stated that this motion passed unanimously. Ms. Patterson moved and Mr. Hoffman seconded to reconsider the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision from the August 11, 2020 meeting. The motion passed 8-1 with the following role call vote: Aye: Berendzen, Deetz, Hoffman, Jones, Patterson, Schaefer, Schantz, Wheat Nay: Bemboom Mr. Berendzen stated that at the last meeting the goal of the motion that was made and voted on was to contextualize the monument to bring it more into perspective with what actually happened. “We have the choice of either removing or keeping the monument. I am also wondering if there is not a middle ground that helps to not only contextualize but also get the correct history that happened in that area. One of the things that I have considered is rather than removing or keeping the monument but replacing. Replace the existing marker with a marker that more accurately depicts the history that occurred in that area.” Ms. Patterson stated that she agrees with contextualizing the marker. “There is a point in the museum and historic preservation field where the money has to meet the road. If there is no money to do this than 15 years from now we are going to have this same discussion because there has been no money to remove it. So I am a historian and I work in museums and we are all about saving and preserving an d contextualizing history but there is also who is going to do this. We can make a recommendation to the City Council that it be contextualized but where is the City Council going to come up with the funds. I would personally move to remove the marker because at this time in our history we cannot easily contextualize it because we do not have the funds to do that.” Ms. Patterson moved and Mr. Hoffman seconded to recommend to the City Council that the Sterling Price Marker be removed. Discussion: Ms. Jones stated that she is in agreement that the marker should be removed , “because if our history is also supposed to be educational they are stating that it is not the correct information that is depicted on the rock so it needs to be removed. If you want to do something else in place of it I am all for that.” Mr. Schaefer stated that , “we should still add verbage to add some context to it or replace it. They will find money to remove it, if they can look towards something to replace it.” Mr. Bemboom stated that , “it is not what the plaque says; it is who gave the plaque. It is part of the history of Jefferson Cit y, but I totally disagree with the United Daughters of the Confederacy but it is still part of our history. So if we could leave it with a new plaque of some kind. I’m a little opposite of taking it away but I don’t know how to recommend it. I don’t agree with what’s there.” Ms. Schantz questioned the idea of asking the City Council to consider doing something in that location that would tell the proud history of Jefferson City’s role or what happened in Jefferson City during the Civil War. “We are trying to accommodate everyone’s thoughts on this.” Ms. Patterson stated that she is all for the Commission recommending improved interpretation of the Civil War history in Jefferson City either there or at another location. The current location is not the easiest access point for the majority of the City. Ms. Schantz reiterated that the motion before the HPC is to remove the marker and it has been seconded. In absence of a friendly amendment accepted by the maker we have to vote on this motion as is. “Does someone have additional language that they would like to give to this ?” Mr. Berendzen asked if Ms. Patterson would accept a friendly amendment. Ms. Patterson stated that what people want to say in a friendly amendment is that we recommend removal of the marker and add context that looks to the future to better interpret the Civil War in Jefferson City through additional markers or monuments. Ms. Schantz reiterated that the Historic Preservation Commission is recommending to the City Council that the mon ument be removed and that they sh ould consider better interpretation of the history of the Civil War in Jefferson City through markers and other appropriate means. Mr. Bemboom stated that he is thinking about leaving the rock and redoing the plaque. The rock is itself part of history and people talk about not knowing what is on the rock. Maybe there is a way to leave the rock and put on a new plaque or something more encompassi ng history. Ms. Patterson commented that the rock is as much of a gift from the United Daughters of the Confederacy as the plaque is. Mr. Bemboom stated that , “sadly the United Daughters of the Confederacy is part of history and I do not agree with one p art of it.” Ms. Schantz stated that maybe , “we should just go ahead and try to make a decision on the motion before us. The motion before us is to recommend removal of the monument. There has not been a friendly amendment yet. Is the friendly amendment th at there be a better interpretation of the history of the Civil War in Jefferson City through markers and other appropriate means. Ms. Deetz stated that she sees where Mr. Bemboom is coming from. Again it goes back to freedom of speech. Mr. Bemboom state d that he does not agree with so much of that, “except it is a part of history and I would like it to be a more inclusive history. It is still part of history whether I like it or not.” Ms. Schantz reiterated that the Jefferson City Historic Preservation Commission recommends the removal of the monument and the City Council consider providing a better interpretation of the history of the Civil War in Jefferson City through other markers or monuments or appropriate means. Ms. Patterson stated that is a fr iendly amendment is fine and she accepts that amendment. Mr. Berendzen offered as a friendly amendment that he reco mmends to the City Council that in addition to removing the existing marker , it also replace s the marker with one that more accurately depic ts the historic events in the Moreau Drive and Fairmount Boulevard area. Ms. Patterson stated that she accepts that amendment. Mr. Bemboom stated that , “as a Commission I feel like it represents the feeling of everybody we heard here. We are interested in history, we are interested in a marker, and we don’t love that marker. I don’t think we as a Commission can recommend anything more inclusive to the peop le here.” Ms. Schantz asked o f Ms. Patterson whether she will accept the friendly amendment as originally stated by Mr. Berendzen. Ms. Patterson accepted that friendly amendment. Mr. Hoffman seconded the original motion and accepts the friendly amendment. Ms. Schantz stated, “the motion before us that we will recommend to the City Council that the monument be removed and in addition that we replace the marker with one that more accurately depicts the historic events in the Moreau Drive and Fairmount Boule vard area.” The motion passed 9 -0 with the following roll call vote: Aye: Bemboom, Berendzen, Deetz, Hoffman, Jones, Patterson, Schaefer, Schantz, Wheat Adjournment Ms. Patterson moved and Mr. Berendzen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:27 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.