I can see why Illinois would block a move, they are literally getting tens of visitors every weekend. Sorry for the sarcasm.

I like the idea to move it to the arch grounds, as it would fit in well with the exhibits already there. A nice display about the history of Kaskaskia prior to the flood would fit right in as well.

But if Illinois is really attached to it they could move it to Illinois side of the river in East St. Louis. Would make a decent addition to the attractions already there, Skyline viewing Platform, and Gateway Geyser.

Does Illinois even own it or is it the city of Kaskaskia, or some private non-profit?

Pretty much all of the Kaskaskia settlement from the 18th century was consumed by the meandering Mississippi. There's a great chapter on it in Common Fields where that movement is attributed to destabilized banks created by the practice of cording, or parking a steamboat on the river bank, cutting down all the trees in sight, and burning them on board to move further along the river.

That not-so-French structure doesn't seem particularly original. If the original context no longer remains, then moving it to the Illinois side of the arch grounds into a humidity controlled space and leaving a decent replica behind would do nothing to really impact the awkwardness of the site. There are a bunch of questions you'd need to address though.

If it is owned by the state of Illinois, then it will need to be held within a similar state of Illinois facility. It has the strongest reason for being displayed at Kaskaskia, so why move it? It could be moved to Wood River or Cahokia maybe, but there's no easy candidate in East St. Louis close to the arch. Just giving it to the national park service is kind of a weird move in the museum world.

What narrative is this serving by moving to the St. Louis area? There was a western theater in the revolutionary war, and the Battle of St. Louis could certainly be better highlighted. That battle has nothing to do with the Gateway to the West narrative of righteous domination of the west, but does a lot for French-American sympathies against the British. The bell may be useful to highlight the general statement that St. Louis is older than the United States?

I think the focus on George Rogers Clark, and Lewis and Clark, has got to be given less emphasis, and that line about opening the Illinois country to westward expansion has been given too much play.

To me, this particular item may be more useful for illustrating the "Middle Ground" concept, which Illinois should aim harder to discuss. Illinois and Wisconsin were great swarming refugee camps of native groups allied to the French trade network that stretched by boat from Quebec down to New Orleans. All of those folks were held together by the force of Iroquois / British / Colonial expansion (google beaver wars). Clark liberating the Western theater as a brave Kentuckian helping the useless French doesn't really convey why the British might have had trouble in the West.

In light of our local efforts with the Mounds Heritage Trail, a complete overhaul of how Kaskaskia and 18th century Illinois are interpreted would be a great thing. I think we've got enough distance between ourselves and the Clarks to give Pontiac and French traders a much greater voice.

^The Lewis & Clark Connection and the George Roger Clark Connection are both interesting. Equally so is the background of Kaskaskia itself. The original capital of Illinois territory, and a bustling trade city, doomed by river flooding rumored to have been caused by of a curse. It fits the museums narrative, but I can't tell you how to fit it into the overall exhibits.

To build a museum on the East side of the river is tougher. The bell wouldn't draw enough to justify the investment in a structure to house it. That said, even on the east side of the river the number of views would have to increase by orders of magnitude. And I think it makes for a more compelling visit to that side of the river.

To my mind its about building a "critical mass" of engaging exhibit pieces to improve the overall impression people have when they visit the arch. The better their impression of their visit the more likely they will communicate that to those they meet that the Jefferson National Memorial is a top tier tourist destination.

<speculation>
So I am guessing it does not significantly contribute to the local economy (quick google map search showed the closest ancillary business to be in the town of St. Mary MO and the closest Illinois business to be in Chester IL, 20miles away) Nor does it significantly educate the peoples on the historical significance of Kaskaskia as evidenced by the short list of visitors. I theorize that it mostly just consumes tax dollars for maintenance of the facilities. (assuming it is owned by the state of Illinois)

The only reason to leave it in Kaskaskia is because that is the most geographically relevant place to house it, but realistically its not a significant draw as evidenced by the fact that few of us have ever heard of it till now. Which is an interesting question in and of itself. What is more valuable, the preservation of history in its context as much as possible (bell installed geographically where it has the most relevance and prominence, in the historic town of Kaskaskia) or communicating that history to as many people as possible (bell installed as a prominent exhibit in a contextually relevant though geographically displaced top tier museum with millions of visitors each year) In my opinion the later wins in most cases. Obviously some things are strong enough attractions and or hard enough to move, that they should be left where they sit and attractions be built around them.

Gov. Rauner wants to eliminate the entire IHPA (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency), which owns the bell and the site.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-h ... story.html

The 2014 IHPA annual report is a depressing read:
http://www.illinois.gov/ihpa/About/Docu ... Report.pdf

It looks like the bell is the least of their worries.

There's something so fascinating about all these forgotten river towns... Kaskaskia, Prairie du Rocher, and even down to Cairo, IL. It's such a shame there's no bigger draw for any of them to gain more tourism.

gary kreie wrote:http://www.greatriverroad.com/stegen/ra ... skbell.htm

I just had an Angelfire/1998 flashback moment