Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber took the stand Thursday in a bench trial that could decide the fate of the Plaza obelisk.
"We were facing the prospect of civil unrest, a potentially dangerous situation involving demonstrations and counterdemonstrations and the possibility violence would be part of those demonstrations," Webber said, testifying about an emergency proclamation he issued in June 2020 calling for the removal of three controversial monuments, including the obelisk.
Four months later, activists rallying on the Plaza for an Indigenous People Day protest pulled down the 33-foot obelisk, known as the Soldiers' Monument, with ropes and chains.
Union Protectiva de Santa Fe — a local cultural preservation group — sued Webber and the city in 2021, alleging the mayor's proclamation invited the destruction of the obelisk. The group sought an order to have monument restored to the spot at the city's center where it had stood for more than 150 years.
The civil case went to trial Thursday before state District Judge Matthew Wilson.
While the obelisk honored Civil War Union soldiers who died on New Mexico battlefields, it also raised ire over a plaque dedicating it to “heroes” who died in battle with “savage Indians.” The word “savage” was chiseled away in the 1970s; still, the monument had long remained a symbol of racial tensions in the region.
Webber testified his proclamation called for the removal of a controversial statue of Spanish conquistador Don Diego de Vargas from downtown Cathedral Park and directed city staff to begin the legal processes required to remove the Soldiers' Monument and a smaller obelisk dedicated to frontiersman Kit Carson in front of the federal courthouse.
The proclamation singled out the three monuments because they "involved or depicted events causing historical trauma," the mayor said.
Webber pointed to protests in Albuquerque and across the nation at the time over statues commemorating controversial figures in history — some that had erupted into violence — as indicators the monuments in Santa Fe could pose a risk to public safety.
Union Protectiva's lawsuit accuses the mayor and city of violating the New Mexico Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act, which prohibits "the use of state funds for projects or programs that would adversely affect sites on the State or National Registers," without first ensuring "there is no feasible and prudent alternative and that all possible planning has been done to minimize the harm to the register site."
The city has argued the circumstances of the Plaza obelisk's destruction do not trigger the provisions of the preservation law, and the city’s ongoing process to determine the future of the obelisk — and other public art and monuments — doesn't violate the law, in part because no money has been spent and no permanent actions have been taken.
A report generated by a city process known as CHART — Culture, History, Art, Reconciliation and Truth — cost $254,000 and offered some recommendations, but that's all it did, attorney Stanley Harris, who is representing the city, argued during a pretrial hearing.
The mayor testified Thursday he didn't consult anyone about the proclamation — or later decisions to enclose what remained of the obelisk in a box, with an explanatory plaque — because he was acting under urgent circumstances and didn't think the actions would trigger a historic preservation law.
Union Protectiva President Virgil Vigil also took the stand.
He testified he and other Union Protectiva members had great-great-grandfathers who fought in the Battle of Glorieta Pass — sometimes referred to as the Gettysburg of the West — and were among the very soldiers the obelisk was meant to honor.
Vigil wept while explaining why the destruction of the obelisk pained him.
As a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, Vigil said, he was responsible for evacuating wounded soldiers from the battlefield and trying to get them to medical care as quickly as possible to give them the best chance of surviving and returning home.
"So I take it very personal when I see someone putting down these soldiers who gave their all to this nation," Vigil said.
"These are honorable persons, honorable soldiers … and to dishonor those individuals, it hurts me," he added.
Both sides called historic preservation experts to testify.
David Rasch, a former historic preservation planner and supervisor for the city — and a onetime Traditional Spanish Market director and member of several historic preservation groups who is currently helping the city rewrite its historic districts code — testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.
He spoke about the cultural and historical significance of the Plaza and the obelisk, and its inclusion in a "cultural landscape report" that amends the initial documents justifying the inclusion of the Plaza on the National Register of Historic Places.
In his professional opinion, Rasch said, "The Soldiers' Monument being the oldest structure on the Plaza, a central focal point aesthetically and having cultural relevance not only to the Hispanics and the Anglos but also to the Native Americans — unfortunately, in a negative way — I do feel that its removal could affect the National Historic Landmark status."
The watering of plants that have since been placed around the monument's base could affect its structural integrity, he added.
The city called Kimberly Parker, an architectural historian based in Albuquerque, as its expert witness.
Parker testified about the paperwork required for a place to be listed a national historical site, including a nomination petition describing the significance of the property.
Parker said a 1960 version of the petition that resulted in the Plaza's placement on the national register notes the area was the commercial and social center of the city and the end of the Santa Fe Trail, but doesn't mention the obelisk.
In her opinion, Parker said, the monument was not part of the reason the Plaza was placed on the register.
"The statement of significance again, does not include the monument as part of the significance," she said.
The Soldiers' Monument is described in a 1970s version, she said — but only in the description section, not in the section listing the Plaza's significance.
Both sides rested their cases Thursday, prompting Wilson to adjourn for the day. He directed the parties to return Friday to present their closing arguments.
