Protests, more arrests follow judge’s order on Confederate statue in Pittsboro

Posted
Updated:
 

PITTSBORO — Another Saturday of protests in Pittsboro regarding the planned removal of the Confederate statue from the grounds of the Historic Chatham County Courthouse resulted in 12 arrests.

Though the crowds of protesters were smaller than in most past Saturdays, the tensions between opposing groups on the issue seem to be increasing since last Wednesday’s ruling by Superior Court Judge Susan Bray denying a request for the preliminary injunction filed by the Winnie Davis Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy — which was an effort to prevent the monument’s removal by Chatham County.

Meanwhile, Chatham County officials are moving forward with plans to remove the “Our Confederate Heroes” monument from the center of Pittsboro.

“We are currently working on a plan to safely and respectfully move the Confederate monument and securely preserve and store it until such time as the Winnie Davis Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) finds a more appropriate location to place it,” Kara Dudley, Chatham County’s public information officer, told the News + Record. “While we are working expeditiously to make this happen, we are not rushing the process. A project of this magnitude requires careful planning and preparation to ensure the safety of the public and property.”

During Saturday’s protests, Allan Hall of Pittsboro was charged with inciting a riot and simple affray. According to the magistrate’s order, police officers witnessed Hall crossing East Street toward a group of anti-Confederate protesters and “engaged in an altercation” with Calvin Megginson of Pittsboro, who was also arrested at that time for simple assault. It appears from incident reports that Robert Butler of Pittsboro was arrested at the same time for inciting a riot. The magistrate’s order notes that an officer observed Butler “grabbing and pushing people and then gesturing to others to come over to the disturbance.”

A second incident occurred near the Neal’s Gas and Convenience Store in Pittsboro. According to the magistrate’s orders, Maya Little of Carrboro was arrested and charged with inciting a riot using a bull horn. Christina Gibson of Keeling, Virginia, was arrested and charged with simple assault against Little by “pushing a bullhorn at her, causing it to hit her (Little) in the face.” A fight began during which officers observed Little and Russell Alphin of La Grange kicking and punching each other. Alphin and Little were each charged with simple affray. Little was also charged with felony malicious conduct by a prisoner for emitting bodily fluid — blood — at an officer.

During the same incident, Geraldine Hall of Denton was charged with simple affray against Thalia Considnie of Durham by “chest bumping and punching,” according to the magistrate’s order. Considnie was also charged with simple affray for the incident. Esther Mack of Chapel Hill was arrested and charged with simple affray by “pushing, shoving and grabbing hair” of Geraldine Hall. Lindsay Ayling of Chapel Hill was arrested and charged with simple assault for “pulling [Hall’s] hair.” And Megginson, who had been arrested earlier in the day — as well as in previous protests ­— was arrested a second time for assault on a female during the incident as well as resisting a public officer for “failing to obey verbal commands to not approach the officers” “where officers were arresting others.” Jonathan Canfield of Raleigh was also arrested and charged with simple assault.

In court

With the judge’s decision last Wednesday, there appears to be nothing to prevent the county from removing and storing the confederate statue while the monument’s ownership is determined in the courts. In addition, the judge also granted a motion by the West Chatham Branch of the NAACP and the local advocacy group Chatham for All to participate in the case.

The legal battle over the fate of the statue is rooted in a lengthy legislative process after the Chatham County Board of Commissioners ultimately voted 4-1 in August to request the UDC reclaim the statue, which the county argues the Daughters own. A subsequent vote by county commissioners in October, which fell along the same lines, ordering county staff to safely remove and store the statue triggered filings from three Chatham residents and the Winnie Davis Chapter requesting legal relief from the act with a temporary restraining order until today’s occurred.

While the temporary restraining order was put in place by Judge Casey Visor almost two weeks ago, Judge Bray determined last Wednesday that the lawyers for the UDC did not meet the legal burdens required for a preliminary injunction while the question of ownership of the statue is determined. Those requirements are three-fold — the likelihood that the Plaintiffs would be successful, irreparable harm and a balance of inequities.

Ownership

If the statue is deemed to be owned by the county, it would warrant protections under state law. But if it is owned by the UDC, that group would have no recourse to stop the county from removing it. This makes ownership a key element of the case.

The attorneys for the county, as well as those for the West Chatham Branch of the NAACP and Chatham for All, argued that a license — a document obtained from the N.C. Archives — indicates the statue is the property of the UDC. Nick Ellis, an attorney representing Chatham County, noted in court last Wednesday that the license between the county and the UDC uses the language “authorized and permitted to erect” as well as the phrase “care and keeping of the Daughters of the Confederacy.” Ellis also argued that there is no ordinance or resolution, a requirement by state statute, stating the county was taking possession of the statue.

Conversely, attorneys for the UDC argued during the hearing that the monument was a gift to Chatham County, stating that the inscription on the statue included the word “gift,” indicating the intention to give the monument to the county. However, county attorneys argued that the full inscription does not say that it is a gift from the UDC to the county, but rather a gift to the memory of the Confederate solders.

UDC attorney James Davis also argued that the county has asserted “dominion” over the statue, including footing the cost of repairs in the late 1980s. The county’s attorneys, however, noted that Davis failed to cite a single case that supported that assertion. As such, the county’s Ellis noted numerous cases and statutes that outlined the ways that a county government can obtain property.

Irreparable harm

Davis argued that the county had threatened “criminal trespass” if the UDC did not take the statute, which would cause an irreparable harm. However, Ellis countered that at no point — based on the minutes of the Board of Commissioners meetings and its own resolutions — did the county threaten criminal charges.

Ellis also argued that the “criminal” charge premise, which the UDC used in part to secure the temporary restraining order, was one of several “material facts that have been misrepresented” by the UDC’s attorneys.

Balance of inequities

Davis argued that the efforts by the commissioners were part of a “manufactured argument” of racism and part of a national movement by the “far left” to “whitewash history” and claim the “war between the states” was about slavery rather than states rights and economics. He also stated that the commissioners, who are elected by county-wide votes, do not represent a majority of county residents.

Conversely, attorney Phillip Harris, who represents the NAACP and Chatham for All, argued that the Civil War was fought over slavery, noting the cessation documents of each of the states, including North Carolina. At the same time, both Harris and Ellis noted that the intent of the UDC’s case was to “infringe private speech” onto the government, an assertion that both attorneys produced numerous case law to support.

After all legal counsel was provided an opportunity to make their respective cases, Bray sat silently reviewing binders provided by both parties in the case. The courtroom, with a full audience in anticipation of an answer, hung on her every word.

She first asked about a “scheduling matter,” that of the several “motions to dismiss” filed, which was subsequently scheduled for Dec. 2.

“As far as the motion preliminary injunction,” Bray began. “As has been stated by counsel, the issues for the court to consider — based on the arguments of counsel and the briefs that were presented and argued in court, including the exhibits and affidavits — the court finds that the plaintiffs have not met the burden.”

Reporter Casey Mann can be reached at CaseyMann@Chathamnr.com.