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.”
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
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 primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 14:47:00
(The Center Square) – Called “crypto-friendly legislation” by the leader of the chamber, a proposal on digital assets on Wednesday afternoon passed the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Passage was 71-44 mostly along party lines.
The NC Digital Assets Investments Act, known also as House Bill 92, has investment requirements, caps and management, and clear definitions and standards aimed at making sure only qualified digital assets are included. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the state would potentially join more than a dozen others with “crypto-friendly legislation.”
With him in sponsorship are Reps. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, Mark Brody, R-Union, and Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake.
Nationally last year, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – known as FIT21 – passed through the U.S. House in May and in September was parked in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Dan Spuller, cochairman of the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative, said the state has proven a leader on digital asset policy. That includes the Money Transmitters Act of 2016, the North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021, and last year’s No Centrl Bank Digital Currency Pmts to State. The latter was strongly opposed by Gov. Roy Cooper, so much so that passage votes of 109-4 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate slipped back to override votes, respectively, of 73-41 and 27-17.
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 factual report on the passage of the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, highlighting the legislative process, party-line votes, and related legislative measures. It does not adopt a clear ideological stance or frame the legislation in a way that suggests bias. Instead, it provides neutral information on the bill, its sponsors, and relevant background on state legislative activity in digital asset policy. The tone and language remain objective, focusing on legislative facts rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
