After months of discussion, a controversial Civil War marker on Moreau Drive in Jefferson City was removed last week.
During meetings about its removal, the possibility of replacing it with, or simply adding, other Civil War historical markers was often mentioned by supporters and opponents.
So now that the marker is removed, what might the future of visible Civil War history be in Jefferson City?
Former state Rep. Jay Barnes, a vocal supporter of removal of the Moreau Drive marker, proposed implementation of a variety of historical elements in a letter to the Jefferson City Council before the decision was made.
Proposed markers Barnes mentioned would be an exhibit on Civil War entrenchments at McClung Park, highlighting the contributions of German immigrants in the Munichburg district and a marker recognizing the landing of the Union steamboat Iatan.
Barnes also proposed a downtown museum to highlight Jefferson City's full history relating to the Civil War, as well as a marker to commemorate Missouri's status as a refuge for escaping slaves to be placed potentially near or on Adrian's Island or the Bicentennial Bridge.
Mayor Carrie Tergin said the marker discussion has drawn attention to Jefferson City's history.
"There has definitely been a lot of interest in adding more information about history," Tergin said. "I think that is something this has brought to light."
But implementing that may not be the city's project.
It hasn't been the city's role to put up historical markers in the past, Tergin said.
For example, although it was on city property, the marker that was removed from Moreau Drive was originally gifted to the city by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Instead, the opportunity to add historic markers or other elements may fall to organizations like Historic City of Jefferson or the Cole County Historical Society.
HCJ Executive Director Anne Green said in September a group of interested parties had started a conversation about creating a range of historic markers.
HCJ's markers would not focus specifically on the Civil War but on all of the city's history.
"We hope to focus on telling the story of our community," Green said. "We're in the early stages of looking at that as an option. We're looking at what funding options would be available."
One of those options is a funding initiative from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Just this month, the foundation launched the Monuments Project, a five-year, $250 million commitment by the foundation to support efforts of historical recognition.
Green said HCJ has been in contact with the Mellon Foundation about the grant, which can be used to fund new monuments or other historic storytelling spaces, or to contextualize existing monuments.
"I think a lot of the controversy surrounding the (UDC) marker was people were concerned that it didn't really tell the story of our community very well," Green said. "We're looking at ways we can do a better job of doing that. We want to put up something that people can really learn from and gain knowledge from for years to come."
Where the city might be involved, should markers or other projects be created, would be in the use of city-owned property, Tergin said. If a marker was proposed to be erected in an area the city owns, permission would need to be given before that could happen.
Ward 4 Councilman Ron Fitzwater, who was one of two council members to oppose removal of the UDC marker, along with Ward 5 Councilman Mark Schreiber, said if private groups wanted to create historical markers in the future, it might be better for them to be off city property.
Based on the complicated situation the UDC marker created after being in place for decades, Fitzwater said he would be hesitant to put any more private group markers on city property.
"I know things change over the years, and I'd hate to put another city council in the same situation," Fitzwater said. "I'm not saying I wouldn't look at it, but I would try to encourage private groups to put them on private property."
So far, Fitzwater said, he hasn't heard anyone with the city saying it should be the city's responsibility to be involved in creating new historical markers.
Of course, a big consideration, if the city were to be involved, would be budget. Fitzwater and Schreiber mentioned the city doesn't necessarily have the resources to devote to a project like that.
"That's always a concern, particularly right now when there's so many things we need to do in the city," Schreiber said.
The city has important things to fund, like stormwater and other infrastructure needs, Schreiber said.
Schreiber said he supports historical efforts in Jefferson City and isn't opposed to the creation of new markers or other elements, but he noted whoever is involved needs to agree about what should be recognized.
"I think we all have to get together so we're on the same sheet of music before we do anything like that," Schreiber said. "Whose responsibility it is, I don't know."
Mary Schantz, chair of the city's Historic Preservation Commission, said if tasked, the commission would be involved in the process, although the commission typically focuses on preserving existing historical buildings and markers instead of putting them up.
The HPC originally did not support removal of the UDC marker but ultimately recommended its removal to the City Council.
"My impression from all the different meetings, I think there was a desire to see markers about the Civil War and the city's Union position during the war," Schantz said. "The Iatan landed in Jefferson City, slaves swam the river to get over here - certainly there are lots of things the city can be proud of."