Posted on 06/19/2017 2:15:05 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
It could be an Activist Court interfering with a decision of the elected city council of St. Louis.
But, from a quick glance, it would seem the park land belongs to the city and the city can decide what monuments are in their park.
Needs to come down/s
“Erasing American history one memorial at a time.
No history is being erased, as we do not have monuments to every historical event that has ever occurred, and we still know the history of those events despite there not being monuments to those events.
IMO, your statement has so much wrong, I can’t find a right!
Maybe we can get Arkansas totally in Republican hands and threaten to tear down the Clinton library.
The Xlinton Library is on wheels so it wouldn’t be hard to get rid of it.
Does the City of St. Louis own Forest Park?
If so, is there a reason why the city does not have the right to control improvements within the park?
Let’s get rid of Carpenters’ Hall, it’s taking up valuable land. And who needs that creaky old ship in Boston?
Who owns the land where Carpenters’ Hall is situated?
You probably had to search to find out what it is.
Again, who owns the land where Carpenters’ Hall is situated?
It’s irrelevant. Tear it down.
Tear it down. It commemorates white supremacy.
You want to erase history.
I’ve been through this before with you. You say history can be read in a book, I show you where it has been removed from schoolbooks, and you dismiss it.
I dismiss fools.
No, property rights are very relevant as the ow era of he property controls that property. Even if the monument were placed on the list of National Historic Landmarks, the owner can still remove the monument.
I am not a citizen of St. Louis and thus have no opinion on the existence of the monument in Forest Park.
However, I do believe in the right of a city to control the improvements and modifications of their property.
If the voters of St. Louis object to the removal of this monument, they can elect a new city council and that city council can decide to keep and maintain the monument.
More accurately, Missouri had two state governments during the war between the states.
when the war began, Governor Jackson’s administration was in power in Springfield in 1861.
Jackson and his followers retreated upon threat from Union troops, and moved or set up government in Neosho.
Gamble was elected provisional governor in Springfield by Union sympathizers and others who remained, setting up a military governorship.
Jackson’s faction passed a bill favoring secession, but the quorum was never verified, and one account disputes it, casting some doubt on the procedure.
Jackson died in office in the provisional government in 1862, and Reynolds succeeded him. The provisional government was driven out of Missouri altogether into Marshall, Texas for the remainder of the war between the states.
Gamble died in office in the Union government in 1864, and Hall succeeded him.
Hall died in office in the Union government in 1865, and Fletcher succeeded him.
Very possibly, the presence of the Union Army under John C. Fremont kept Missouri in the Union during the war.
“Hall died in office in the Union government in 1865, and Fletcher succeeded him.”
I bet that Fletcher fella had some very high life insurance premiums.
ML/NJ
When the monument was first installed, the DCV retained ownership and held the deed, which they still had until donating it to the museum last week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.