To the editor:
I appreciate your editorial on the citizens participating more in the political process. Let me correct some of your editorial.
One the motions was made to vote and fortunately the motions failed due to the in-effective council and mayor. If you would look at the agenda for that night, there was no input allowed by the administration to consider the audience before the vote was taken.
The administration could have passed the vote to eliminate the century-old Memorial to the Confederate Dead, which would have made it history and a landmark meant to honor those who had fallen. If that had happened, the efforts of those who paid for the monument, and the intent of the monument, would have been destroyed.
Let’s start with this premise: The accident (no matter what the official sorry says) was caused by an employee of the City of Demopolis. The car he was driving was either repaired or replaced by insurance money and no meeting was ever held by the council of mayor to decide if the car needed to be replaced. The issue is that someone decided because it was a memorial to the Confederate fallen that it should not be replaced and repaired. There are others who would like to change the intent of the original purpose of the Memorial.
I want to ask who has a right to vote on this and why do they think they should try to erase history?
The small-minded people should realize they are dishonoring the meaning and purpose of people who paid for and erected the Memorial. The question still looms as to what right the city council and the mayor have to even vote on this issue. This is a non-issue because, like the police car, it comes under property replacement. The city — NOT paying for the Memorial and NOT having anything to do with the raising of the funds and giving permission for it to be placed in such a prominent place — should NOT have a handful of citizens to remove history and violate the wishes of our ancestors.
I am glad for the interest, as you are. I am appalled at the indecision of the outgoing administration to allow the problem to fester and grow to proportions that should never have been allowed, which has become an opportunity to try and divide our city over an issue that is clearly an insurance replacement by law.
Sincerely
Douglas C. Null