Traditional Southern Values and Life Behind the Cotton Curtain featuring Southern News, Border Security, States Rights, Environmentalism, Gun Rights, Preparedness, Humor, Free Speech, Southern Heritage, History and Activism.
(Let’s get this straight. The organization that paid for and installed a monument has no vested interest in its removal in violation of state law? What a CROCK! – DD)
Support Free Southern Media: Like, Share, Re-Tweet, Re-Post, Subscribe. There’s a lot more to see at our main page,Dixie Drudge! #FreeDixie
(Carolina Journal) A unanimous N.C. Court of Appeals panel has affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging removal of a Confederate monument at the Chatham County Courthouse in Pittsboro.
Appellate judges agreed Tuesday with trial Judge Susan Bray’s decision in 2019 that plaintiffs associated with the United Daughters of the Confederacy lacked legal standing to file their suit.
The 27-foot-tall monument stood outside the courthouse from 1907 to 2019. It honored Confederate soldiers. Chatham County Commissioners voted in August 2019 to ask UDC to remove the statue at the county’s expense.
Three individuals and the Winnie Davis Chapter 259 of UDC filed suit in October 2019.
“Plaintiffs … alleged that the Monument was an ‘object of remembrance’ that could ‘only be relocated, whether temporarily or permanently,’ in accordance with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1, and that the County Commissioners’ vote to remove the Monument was a ‘proscriptive action’ in violation of the statute,” wrote Appeals Court Judge Valerie Zachary. “The same day, Plaintiffs filed a separate motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the County Commissioners ‘from attempting to remove, alter, disassemble, or destroy the … Monument[.]’”
Bray dismissed the suit in December 2019. Meanwhile, Chatham County had removed the monument in November.
Appellate judges rejected multiple arguments UDC plaintiffs put forward about their legal standing in the case. They had no standing as taxpayers. They “failed to plead any facts that tend to establish that they had any possessory, proprietary, or contractual interest in the Monument,” Zachary wrote.
Nor can the plaintiffs claim legal standing because of a state law dealing with Confederate monument removal, Zachary explained. She cited a December 2022 precedent from the state’s highest court.
