After the ICSC gave the city a report of its findings, which didn't include specific guidance on course of action for the slave auction block, Frye once again brought his proposal to remove the stone. City Council voted to approve its removal in November. With these racist markers in place, there can be no peace. But a few months after the vote, two local businesses filed a petition to keep the auction block in place, the Free Lance-Star reported.
A judge ruled in favor of the city, but one of the businesses, E. Cole Building, asked the Virginia Supreme Court to block the stone's removal while the judge's decision was being appealed, the newspaper reported. The legal obstacles were not cleared until April 1, according to the city, weeks into Virginia's state of emergency due to Covid The auction block was removed when the state entered "Phase Two" of its guidelines on easing public health restrictions.
Lee R. Lewis Jr. As Michael S. Rosenwald wrote for the Washington Post in June, the block and its painful history have been the subject of debate for decades.
This year, the stone came under renewed scrutiny as protests against racial injustice and police brutality swept the country. City officials voted to remove the stone last year. But lawsuits and the Covid pandemic delayed the actual event until this summer, notes Jett in a separate Free Lance-Star article.
I've lived here all my life and I learned things I never knew We're going to do a much better job and continue the dialogue After the decision, owners of two buildings next to the slave auction block, and Williams Street, sued to keep the city from moving it.
They feared that replacing the historic feature with a wayside panel would reduce tourist traffic and affect their businesses. The lawsuit argued that under the Dillon Rule, the City Council had authority to act only after the Architectural Review Board had issued a certificate of appropriateness. The owner of Williams Street had rented it to a restaurant that was not associated with the lawsuit, and the NAACP was careful to note that no boycott was proposed of that restaurant.
The owner of one of the buildings responded that the lawsuit reflected local politics and he was seeking to preserve history, while the NAACP stated that it: 8. A Circuit Court judge ruled in February, that the city council had the authority to move the slave auction block. The council's action, after failure of the Architectural Review Board to grant a certificate of approval, did not exceed the authority granted to the city and thus violate the Dillon Rule.
The city charter allowed local officials to manage and dispose of city property. Despite the ruling, objections to moving the slave block continued. An architectural historian and former member of the Virginia State Review Board, Department of Historic Resources wrote a commentary published in the local newspaper, describing the slave block as: When historical incidents occur, it is most important for people to be able to visit the exact sites to have a sense of what happened there.
The only way to really understand what happened here in Fredericksburg is to keep what remnants of the historical site still exist and interpret them. The location of the auction block itself is of ultimate importance in the city. You cannot put a site in a museum. The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience led Phase 1 sessions were held during April and May with individuals participating in small focus group settings.
Staff from the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience gathered the stories that the community is currently telling about African American History and the slave auction block and how community members felt about those stories. The Phase 1 public report PDF details major themes extracted from the interviews and focus groups.
Community Collaboration Brochure PDF - mailed to every household in in early July informing residents of the upcoming community discussions. Community collaboration continued in Phase 2 with a focus more specifically on the slave auction block through a series of public brainstorming sessions. These sessions focused on reviewing the findings from the Phase 1 report PDF and what the reinterpretation of the slave auction block may look like based on these findings.
Round 2 discussions occurred on September 24 and 25 with several sessions at Walker Grant Center. These sessions focused on a design and signage conversation and review of concepts. Phase 3 discussions occurred on October 23 and 24, November 13 and 14 and December 12 and 13 with all meetings occurring at the downtown Fredericksburg Library at Caroline Street. These discussions delved deeper into topics that were heard during the first two phases including ways in which people talk about all facets of our history.
Frye placed the proposal to remove the auction block back before City Council on June 11, This time, City Council voted 6 to 1 to approve the relocation from its current location at the corner of William and Charles Streets to the Fredericksburg Area Museum. Council members directed the City Manager to return with an action plan in July. The Fredericksburg Area Museum agreed to accept the slave auction block, including coordinating logistics and planning interpretation.
The Memorials Advisory Commission began working though materials delivered to them at their meeting on June 5, Their work is likely to take several years to accomplish. The ARB initially considered the application in a public hearing on August 12, At that time, the Board did not take action due to concerns over the procedure for an application predicated on a vote of action by the City Council. At the September 9, meeting of the Architectural Review Board, the City Attorney requested a work session with the ARB to continue discussion and seek consultation on the proposed action.
At the October 14, ARB meeting, a motion to deny the relocation was made, but failed with a vote of two in favor, one opposed, three abstentions and one disqualification under COIA. No other motion or vote took place, so the ARB took no action on the application.
Public comment was received at all four meetings of the ARB that included this topic. As no action was taken, the application was transmitted to the City Council for a decision on appeal.
0コメント