Burke County Leaders Offer Lukewarm Views on Removing the Confederate Monument
Requests for their opinions regarding removal of the Confederate monument result in a blend of compromises and evasions from elected officials.
BURKE COUNTY, North Carolina—As part of a multi-week series in The Paper addressing potential removal of the Confederate monument from downtown Morganton, the staff of our county paper requested responses from elected officials regarding their personal views on the matter.
The Oct. 7th edition featured viewpoints from the five members of the Morganton City Council, five County Commissioners, N.C. State Rep. Hugh Blackwell, N.C. State Sen. Warren Daniel, and Morganton council candidate Dolores Huffman.
Put simply, their responses are rather mixed.
Some include reasonable compromises and calls for change while others are more tepid or recreant, failing to live up to what one would expect from a county that is “all about advancing,” as a prominent slogan along I-40 suggests to travelers and visitors.
To be fair, even locally elected officials are still politicians. And that means they’re balancing not only their private opinions with those of their constituents, but they’re also more likely than not to pen views that will increase their chances for re-election.
This is, in part, why most politicians are conservative in nature. Stepping out from the crowd without having full assurance that others will support you is what progress demands, but it’s a risk many of our elected officials seem unwilling to take.
Let’s consider, and lovingly challenge, what they had to say.
Contrary to Senator Warren Daniel’s Claim, NC General Statute 100-2.1 Lacked True Bi-Partisan Support
Warren Daniel is one of the state senators who supported NC General Statute 100-2.1, the law that prevents the removal of Confederate monuments from public grounds (with the exception of a few unlikely-to-be-met criteria codified by legislators who must be happy the law is doing exactly what they hoped it would).
In his response to The Paper, Daniel voiced his continued support for “the current monuments protection law that passed the Senate in 2015,” stating it had “unanimous, bipartisan support.”
While the so-called “monument bill” may have passed the NC Senate with a 48-0 vote, it only moved through the NC House after a 70-39 vote. And that’s after four failed amendments and a third reading, with all “noes” coming from Democrats.
That’s a far cry from “unanimous” or “bipartisan support.”
Daniel further asserts the state statute “was passed to protect current historical monuments of all types regardless of the era or conflict they represent.” He also argues the law prevents their removal “based on political considerations,” as if maintaining their presence isn’t a politically motivated decision.
It clearly is.
He then reminds us that “history should be our teacher,” suggesting that maintaining monuments is a major way to educate people about history that has “at times been admirable and inspirational, but also on many occasions it has been ugly and sinful.”
Read the other opinions about the Confederate monument expressed by Burke residents in recent editions of The Paper and evaluate for yourself how much is known about its history.
How many have been familiar with the lynching of Broadus Miller, whose body was displayed at the foot of the monument in 1927? What about the concerted efforts of the Daughters of the Confederacy to perpetuate Lost Cause pseudo-history?
What history lesson exactly is the Confederate monument providing our community?
Lastly and admirably, Senator Daniel expresses a willingness to “hear from constituents in the 46th District about whether they believe changes should be made.”
I certainly hope Burke residents will take him up on that offer.
Rep. Hugh Blackwell Employs A Generic Non-Answer
Blackwell essentially states that he’s busy with other legislative stuff, but “will be following” the series “with great interest.”
Redirecting attention to other issues including “education, mental health and health care issues, the opioid epidemic, as well as parks, recreation and trails,” he encourages Burke residents “who wish to share their own views or comments with me to do so.”
He says he’ll do his best to “review each” one. His legislative email address is Hugh.Blackwell@ncleg.gov.
Burke County Board of Commissioners Continue to Hide Behind the Law
In a joint statement from Chairman Scott Mulwee for Vice-Chairman Jeff Brittain, Randy Burns, Johnnie Carswell, and Phil Smith, we received a response not much different from Rep. Blackwell.
In short: the law is a state statute and they’re not going to do anything about it.
Counties across North Carolina are legal subdivisions of the state. As their response explains, this “requires the Board to remain committed to the specific areas that we have statutory authority.”
Their hands are tied, so to speak. Or are they hiding behind the law?
No personal opinions are shared as to whether any of them believe it should be removed, or what impact they think it has on marginalized members of our community, for instance.
No comments are made about what it symbolizes either.
As they see it, their job is to “uphold the law and to focus on leveraging public policy and public resources in the areas that are in our purview.”
They assert the law is beyond their jurisdiction.
Instead, they are focused on “community advancement, public safety enhancements, support of education policy, job creation and economic development, as well as projects like broadband expansion, substance abuse prevention, and housing.”
Doesn’t the removal of a white supremacist monument help our community advance?
Doesn’t the removal of a racially antagonizing statue enhance public safety?
Doesn’t the removal of a cultural (and economic) stumbling block from the heart of downtown Morganton help with job creation and economic development?
While I genuinely appreciate their continued commitment to making a “positive impact on the lives of Burke County citizens,” I struggle to see how the removal of the Confederate monument doesn’t bleed into their stated objectives as elected officials.
Morganton Mayor Ronnie Thompson Keeps It Brief
Short on words, Ronnie Thompson argues that “removal of the statue would be a violation of a current North Carolina law,” and that as an elected official, he took an “oath of office to uphold all North Carolina laws.”
As some residents have proposed, he “would prefer to remove the soldier since it was an addition to the original memorial.” However, he believes the “memorial should stay because it includes the names of Burke County families.”
His response reads as a compromise between both factions of Morganton voters. He’ll support a little change, but not enough to ruffle the feathers of our more status-quo-minded neighbors.
Morganton City Councilwoman and Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Cato Takes a Moral Stand
Drawing attention to the fact she must “represent all the citizens of Morganton who have pro and con opinions on this matter,” Wendy Cato also affirms the importance of “abiding by the law,” which “does not allow for the removal of the monument and soldier at this time.”
Nonetheless, she bravely offers her own opinion on the matter. Another compromise, not unlike Mayor Thompson’s.
She would “like to see the original stone monument and finial remain,” believing it to represent the lives lost during the Civil War and the grief experienced by families. To her, it also provides “an outward recognition of their sacrifice.”
However, she takes a firmer moral stand than Morganton’s top executive.
“As I have educated myself regarding when the soldier was placed on top of the original monument,” she continues. “I realized that it was intended to intimidate, not educate, or provide recognition. Its removal would allow the original names placed on the stone their due honor.”
The legality of such a move remains unclear, however.
Perhaps Morganton City Attorney Louis Vinay would be willing to give us some clarity on the matter.
Morganton City Councilman Butch McSwain Offers an Innovative Compromise
Like other elected officials, Butch McSwain respects the rule of law and acknowledges being “bound to current state statutes.”
Seeking to “represent ALL our citizens,” he proposes what might be considered an innovative compromise.
“I would prefer a ‘re-do’ of the monument to more match the ‘twenty-first-century appearance’ of the Killed in Action Memorial and the Charters of Freedom Display nearby,” he says, citing how important it was to his family that his father was “included in the World War II Monument in Washington, D.C.”
In essence, this would be a way to reframe the names—de-lionize Confederate values—while creating “the opportunity to allow families to improve the quality of the display of their names.”
While a step forward, I’m not convinced the proposal stands on the most solid legal ground.
Maybe Burke County Attorney James Reid Simpson, II can weigh in on this matter, as well.
Morganton City Councilman Chris Jernigan Recommends Removing The Soldier
The monument’s meaning has varied “throughout its existence,” Jernigan notes. And that has ranged from “pride as relatives” to “negative feelings, fear, and anger.”
Believing it “a good thing” to honor “men and women who fought in any of the wars we have faced in this young nation,” he prefers removing the soldier from atop the stone, much like Wendy Cato recommends.
He wants to “honor those who died on both sides of that war,” but not “in a way that perpetuates fear, anger, and hatred.” Sharing kinship with McSwain’s proposal, he wants to shift the monument’s focus to lives lost during war.
One can certainly challenge the imperialistic tenor surrounding American militarism, but critiquing American chauvinism or the perceived patriotism of military service is, for better or worse, a more difficult battle to win in the Foothills.
(Leaving one to wonder: Isn’t removing a monument dedicated to traitors to the United States who killed thousands of Americans in defense of slavery a rather, well, American thing to do?)
Jernigan feels his proposal is justified because he doesn’t “believe that the monument as originally constructed evokes the same negative emotions that the ‘remade’ monument with the soldier’s statue on top does.”
“I am not saying that it doesn’t create any negative emotions,” he continues. “I am sure it does. But not nearly to the same degree that the soldier on top does.”
Furthermore, he holds “that therein lies a legal and fitting compromise,” arguing that in his reading of the state statute, “this type of alteration would certainly be allowed.”
He may be right. But we won’t know unless Morganton and Burke officials put the law to the test and move forward with an action plan.
‘The Courthouse Square Is an Inappropriate Place for the Confederate Statue’ Says Morganton City Councilman Chris Hawkins
Those calling for the removal of the Confederate monument may have their most vocal ally in City Councilman Chris Hawkins.
“In my opinion,” he says. “I do not think the Courthouse Square is an appropriate place for the Confederate statue.”
He acknowledges “this controversial issue does raise strong feelings among many citizens in Burke County,” however, he understands the “current law does not allow this monument to be moved or relocated.”
The six-year elected official is also quick to champion respectful disagreement and debate.
“I think it is imperative that no matter what one's opinion on this issue may be,” he says, “that everyone should respect the law, respectfully listen and seek to understand the perspective of others, and be open to compromise.”
“It is my hope and prayer that as we, as a community, better understand each other, and as we extend grace and compassion to each other, that discussions about this issue will help bring our community closer together and not further apart.”
‘Are We Going to Rename the Streets Associated with Slaveholders?’
Not yet an elected official, City Council candidate Dolores Huffman took the opportunity to let voters know her views.
“I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about the statue because I don't have any family members associated with it,” she says. “I think it is a piece of history, which we are fast losing.”
Do we, in fact, lose much history if a monument is removed or relocated to a museum where it can be further contextualized in an exhibit? The Confederate monument doesn’t exactly have any plaques educating viewers about the reasons the monument was erected or its impact on Burke County.
There’s a reason there aren’t monuments throughout Germany dedicated to SS officers or memorials honoring the Nazi leaders who operated extermination camps.
Rather than highlight the “negatives of the statue”—which is an incredibly euphemistic way to describe chattel slavery and systemic racism—she wonders: “Why don't we focus on the positives of today and erect something on the square that represents today's culture?”
She then ponders, “And if we remove the statue, are we going to rename the streets associated with slaveholders?”
I mean, that very thing has been happening around the United States with the renaming of schools, military bases, and highways. And in many cases, it’s a logical step toward using infrastructure as a way to highlight what we value and to communicate what we deem corrosive to our way of life.
But let’s focus on the task at hand. One stumbling block at a time.
Admittedly, coupled with some of the other lukewarm responses from Burke residents in The Paper, the momentum to remove the Confederate monument feels like it was slightly deflated.
This was a chance for community leaders to link arms with everything Burke Coalition for Reconciliation and many others have done over the past few years to catalyze hope for a Burke County that really is “all about advancing,” to demonstrate that we’re a community committed to inclusion and respect.
Some stood up while others ignored the call. It’s been documented and printed. People will remember that.
And it won’t be forgotten when historians detail what Burke County did to finally reconcile with its brutal past and build its future on less-sullied stone.
It’s just going to take longer than critics of the Confederate monument would like.
Well done! Thank you!