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.