November 2 – A controversial monument in Santa Fe is once again the center of attention, four years after it was torn down during a protest that ended in several arrests.
Santa Fe City Council members voted Wednesday on a resolution to consider moving the Santa Fe Soldiers’ Monument, also known as the obelisk, to the Santa Fe National Cemetery.
The city council and mayor voted 5-4 to begin the rebuilding process and possibly move the monument to the National Cemetery.
Before the monument is moved, the proposed feasibility study would test whether the federal Department of Veterans Affairs would accept the monument at the cemetery. The study also formally requests that city managers hire experts to assess the costs and services needed to rebuild and relocate the monument.
“After we receive these reports, the governing body will determine the next steps regarding the Soldiers Monument,” said Councilwoman Carol Romero-Wirth, who proposed the resolution along with former Councilwoman Renee Villarreal. The resolution was proposed in February 2023 and has undergone four amendments since then.
“This was an idea presented to me by voters in the spring of 2023, and at the time I felt like the community was too polarized to pursue the idea,” Romero-Wirth said in an interview. “What changed for me was last year, around this time, in Española, the provincial commission there tried to put the statue of (Juan de) Oñate at a provincial government building, and that resulted in gun violence. Because of that event, and also I think the community is really fed up with the status quo, that it is time for a conversation.”
Three of the four panels on the monument are a memorial to the unnamed Union Army soldiers who died on New Mexican soil during the Civil War. The fourth commemorates soldiers who died in battle during the American Indian Wars.
The proposal would also remove the fourth plaque on the monument that refers to indigenous people as “savages.” The fourth plaque states that it commemorates those who died “in the several battles with savage Indians.” The word was scratched from the obelisk prior to the 2020 protest.
“The resolution also says that while we do not believe this is necessary, we are willing to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and go through the process outlined,” Romero-Writh added.
Prior to the obelisk’s removal by protesters, Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber filed an emergency proclamation in June 2020 calling for the removal of three controversial monuments in the city: the Soldiers’ Monument on the Plaza, the statue of Spanish conquistador Diego de Vargas in Cathedral Park and the obelisk dedicated to American frontiersman Kit Carson in the federal courthouse.
In the proclamation, Webber stated, “As a result of the emergency, events have caused or are causing the danger of injury or damage to persons and property in the city.”
In 2020, Indigenous Peoples Day protesters tore down the 512-year-old Soldiers’ Monument after occupying the Plaza for three days, claiming the statue represented violence against indigenous people and was a symbol of oppression. Since then, the rest of the obelisk has been in a box in the center of the square.
The Hispanic fraternal organization Union Protectiva de Santa Fe filed a lawsuit against Webber in district court in June 2021, claiming that the emergency proclamation violated the New Mexico Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act of 1989, a law that protects historic sites in New Mexico protects.
The lawsuit argues that the Santa Fe Plaza is listed as a historic site on the National Register of Historic Places, making it eligible for protection under the law.
“Mayor Webber and the City of Santa Fe may therefore not spend public funds in a manner that would harm the historic character of the Plaza,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit also states that Webber was warned by a concerned citizen the day before the obelisk was torn down and did not heed the warning.
The defense states in court documents that the registration list does not explicitly mention the monument and is not listed as a historical monument.
The “Soldier Monument is not mentioned or referenced in the Significance section of the property nomination,” according to the findings of Webber’s attorney Stan Harris.
Either way, Romero-Writh believes the resolution brings everyone together in the middle.
“I think where we landed was a compromise,” Romero-Wirth said. “If it ultimately goes to the National Cemetery, I think that’s a compromise because it preserves the monument, allows it to be rebuilt and puts it in context for one of its two original purposes, which is to honor of those who fought. in the Civil War.
“Putting it in context, the resolution specifically calls for it to be placed at the graves of the Union soldiers in whose honor the monument was originally funded by the territorial legislature. Maybe that’s one way; a path forward.”
