Despite outcry, NC town’s Confederate monument is staying put. For the moment.
by Lucas Thomae, Carolina Public Press March 3, 2025
After a secret agreement to relocate a controversial Confederate monument fell through, the Edenton Town Council and Chowan County are back to the drawing board.
This time, though, it’s in the public eye.
Even so, the five residents who sued over their right to have a say in the monument’s fate aren’t satisfied with the town’s attempt at transparency, their attorney told Carolina Public Press.
According to a lawsuit filed in January by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, the Edenton Town Council broke open meetings law when it quietly negotiated a deal with Chowan County and several neo-Confederate groups to transfer ownership of the monument to the county and relocate it to the courthouse.
As a part of that deal, three neo-Confederate groups agreed to settle a separate lawsuit they filed against the town that has prevented the monument’s relocation since 2022. They have since backed out, and that lawsuit is still pending with a hearing scheduled for April.
Although estimates can vary, it’s believed that North Carolina has at least 40 Confederate monuments in front of courthouses and roughly 170 such symbols statewide.
Usually, efforts in towns and cities to get them removed or relocated don’t come without a fight. And invariably, those disagreements often wind up in court.
A few years ago in Edenton, a town-created commission comprised of residents recommended that the monument be relocated from the historic waterfront. The town took that recommendation seriously but has been met by obstacles at each attempt to find a compromise.
Now, it appears that deadlock will continue.
A deal is undone
In early February, the town notified Chowan County that it and the neo-Confederate groups who sued to keep the monument in place could not reach a resolution to the lawsuit.
With the collapse of the initial deal, town and county officials sought a new path forward — this time with public input.
A week ago, the Edenton Town Council held a special joint meeting with the Chowan County Board of Commissioners with the intention of dissolving the memorandum of understanding from November and coming to a new agreement.
Edenton Mayor W. Hackney High Jr. acknowledged the lawsuit filed by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice during the meeting’s opening remarks and welcomed input from residents through a public comments session.
Twenty made speeches in front of local leaders, most of whom were against the monument and didn’t want it either downtown or on courthouse grounds. A few speakers voiced their support for keeping the monument in a prominent place.
One of the speakers was John Shannon, a local pastor who is one of the five plaintiffs in the Southern Coalition for Social Justice lawsuit. He was also a member of the town commission that recommended the monument be relocated.
“As of right now, every attempt to move the monument has been delayed, redirected or ignored,” Shannon said. “I hope that one day soon the recommendation from the (town commission) will be considered as a move in the right direction to better the relationships of all the citizens in Edenton.”
Despite having the opportunity to share their misgivings about the town council’s plan, a spokeswoman with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice told CPP she’s worried Edenton officials won’t take residents seriously.
“We are concerned that this meeting is a hollow attempt to check a box when it comes to hearing public input,” Sarah Ovaska said, “and not a sincere attempt to consider the wishes of the community.”
‘The right road’
After an hour of public comments, the town unanimously adopted a new memorandum of understanding.
The agreement closely mirrors the previous memorandum adopted in November — except it cuts out the neo-Confederate groups as a signatory, meaning their endorsement is not required for this new deal — and slightly changes the language describing where on the courthouse grounds the monument is to be relocated.
In this version of the deal, the transfer of the monument to Chowan County and its relocation to the courthouse will only take effect once the lawsuit involving the neo-Confederate groups is dismissed by a judge.
And there’s precedent for that. In March 2024, the state Supreme Court ruled that a neo-Confederate group did not have the standing to sue over Asheville’s decision to remove a Confederate monument.
Edenton expects the judge to rule similarly here.
But although the Edenton Town Council adopted the new memorandum of understanding with little discussion, Chowan County officials were more apprehensive.
The Board of Commissioners decided to table the issue and vote on it sometime after considering the public comments and consulting with legal counsel.
Usually, efforts to get Confederate monuments removed or relocated don’t come without a fight. Southern Coalition for Social Justice / Provided
“I would like to think that this Board of Commissioners really needs to think hard and have a good discussion with our counsel,” Vice Chairman Larry McLaughlin said. “My reservations are if we take this monument, then we are stuck with any court cases coming up and the cost associated with that, and all the other rigamarole that we’ve been through. So my reservation is to be cautious to make sure that we’re going down the right road.”
Representatives from neither the town nor the county responded to CPP’s request for comment.
Additionally, the United Daughters of the Confederacy — one of the groups that sued to keep the monument in place during 2023 — also did not respond to a request for comment.
Confederate monument lawsuit continues
The lawsuit filed in January by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice takes issue not only with how the town’s business was conducted, but also the proposal that the monument be moved to a courthouse.
Along with the claim that the town violated open meetings law, the suit also asserts that having a Confederate statue on courthouse grounds would violate the plaintiffs’ rights under the state constitution.
That is something the town did not address in last week’s special meeting, opting instead to continue to move forward with relocating the monument.
Holding a public meeting just to vote on a similar deal shows that the town is not serious about taking residents’ comments into account, according to plaintiffs’ attorney Jake Sussman.
“The fate of Edenton’s Confederate monument has already been decided,” he said, referring to the town’s commitment nearly two years ago to relocate the statue. “As our lawsuit makes clear, however, following through cannot involve moving it to the county courthouse. That would be a huge step back for the community and North Carolina.”
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
