BY MILES LAYTON

EDENTON — The Sons of Confederate Veterans, Edenton Bell Battery, gathered Monday evening at Nixon’s Catering to hear a crucial legal update from their attorney Steven Rader, just weeks ahead of a pivotal court hearing that could decide the fate of Edenton’s Confederate Memorial Monument.

With the future of the monument hanging in the balance, Rader offered a detailed account of the group’s legal strategy, explained how an ongoing appeals case in Pitt County could affect Edenton’s, and raised red flags about the recently approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of Edenton and Chowan County that proposes relocating the monument to Veterans Park.

Rader: “This Case Is Far From Over”

“This case is far from over,” Rader told the group. “And the outcome could be shaped significantly by what happens not only here in Chowan County but in a parallel case in Pitt County that’s already in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and will be heard August 14.”

The Pitt County case also concerns the removal of a Confederate monument and was ruled against by Superior Court Judge Weyland Sermons —the same judge who will preside over the Edenton case on August 25. That ruling is now being reviewed on appeal, and Rader believes a favorable outcome there could directly benefit Edenton’s case.

“There are three judges on the appeals panel,” he said. “One we know has ruled favorably on similar issues before, one likely opposes us politically, and one is unknown. But if we win on the issue of standing—and that’s the legal battleground—it will bolster our case here.”

What’s at Stake: Standing and the Monument’s Future

Standing, in legal terms, refers to the right to bring a lawsuit. In many Confederate monument cases across North Carolina, courts have dismissed suits from groups like the SCV by ruling they lack standing. But Rader argued the tide is turning.

“The Supreme Court in the Vance Monument case in Asheville offered a solid interpretation on standing,” he said. “Our side lost that case not because we didn’t have standing, but due to poorly argued technical issues by the attorneys involved.”

Rader expressed frustration over court procedures in the Edenton case, noting that Judge Tillett retired shortly before the case was expected to be heard, only to have SCV’s motions set by another judge at a court session later than scv wanted —without proper notice to SCV attorneys.

“That put us at a disadvantage,” he said. “We were hoping for an earlier court date and to argue key motions before August. But we’re moving forward.”

Those motions include an attempt to consolidate their lawsuit with another filed by a Durham activist group and to add new plaintiffs, including local descendants of Confederate veterans. “If they have standing, we certainly do,” Rader said.

Skepticism Over MOU Approval

While Rader acknowledged the importance of working with local officials, he voiced serious concerns about the MOU approved by Edenton’s Town Council and Chowan County Commissioners. That agreement would transfer control of the monument from the town to the county and relocate it to nearby Veterans Park.

The Edenton Bell Battery narrowly voted 7–6 in favor of endorsing the MOU Monday night, but Rader urged caution, saying the group was not fully informed before the vote.

“I wish I had been able to speak before the vote,” he said. “This agreement was nearly finalized before the SCV was even notified,” referring to the original drafting of the MOU.

While acknowledging the county’s more supportive political climate, Rader warned that a simple change in leadership could undo the MOU’s protections. “Populations change. Look at Mecklenburg or Brunswick counties. What’s safe now may not be in ten years.”

Rader also questioned whether Veterans Park is a suitable site for the heavy granite and bronze monument.

“There used to be a creek through there. We don’t know if the ground can support it. We don’t have discovery tools to find out unless the county is added as a defendant.”

Bell Battery Members Clash Over Path Forward

The vote to endorse the MOU came after a passionate debate between longtime Bell Battery members Joe Hollowell and Millard Bond.

Hollowell introduced the motion supporting the MOU, stating, “These people have been trying to find a way to make sure we abide by a law that was created by our legislatures. The town and county came together. Let’s work with our leaders and save this monument for the future.”

Bond forcefully disagreed, citing a 1961 promise by the Women’s Club that the monument would remain permanently at its current location.

“They want to move the memorial that my mama helped pay for,” Bond said. “I want it to stay right where the hell it is, and that’s as nice as I can be.”

Hollowell acknowledged that no one wanted the monument moved but pointed out that the local government had already voted to relocate it—and only a restraining order has prevented that action so far.

“The whole idea is to save the monument,” Hollowell said. “The MOU at least ensures it stays intact, and in county control.”

Q&A: Members Press Rader on SCV Motives

During the meeting’s question-and-answer segment, some members questioned whether the SCV had a legitimate stake in the case and whether its involvement benefited the local community.

“Why should the SCV have standing when every citizen of Chowan County is represented by elected officials?” Hollowell asked.

Rader responded, “The Monument Protection Act was written to protect these monuments from local government action. Standing gives groups like the SCV the ability to step in when politics shift.”

He also pushed back against accusations that the SCV might be motivated by financial incentives, as in the controversial Silent Sam case at UNC-Chapel Hill, where a state SCV chapter briefly received $2.5 million before the deal was struck down.

“I’m not representing the state SCV to get rich” Rader said. “None of us on the SCV legal team are asking for court awarded attorney fees. I’m working on a minimal retainer and will not seek court awarded attorney’s fees. This is about preservation, not profit.”

Still, some members advocated transferring the monument to the county now, arguing that local conservative values offered the best protection.

“We’ve got a history-minded community,” one man said. “Why risk losing the whole monument on a legal technicality?”

Rader acknowledged the sentiment but urged long-term thinking. “We’re not just trying to protect it for the next five years,” he said. “We’re trying to protect it for the next fifty and more.”

Standing, Stability, and the Next Legal Front

To that end, Rader advocated including in any final agreement a formal stipulation of legal standing—a clause that would guarantee SCV or similar groups the right to challenge future monument relocations in court.

“That’s how you protect it for future generations,” he said.

Without that, he warned, future lawsuits would face the same obstacles the SCV is navigating now: lack of access to internal documents, site assessments, and decision-making records.

“Without discovery rights, we’re flying blind,” he said. “Once the county is added to the lawsuit, we’ll be able to subpoena records, request soil tests, and ensure the site is structurally sound.”

Rader emphasized that the group is not wholly opposed to compromise—but that it must be built on legal durability, transparency, and community trust.

“This isn’t about nostalgia,” he said. “It’s about protecting our ability to defend our history, through proper legal channels, and without being dismissed on technicalities.”

Looking Ahead: August 25 Court Hearing Could Decide It All

The hearing in Chowan County Superior Court on August 25 will be a critical moment in the legal fight. If the court rules against the SCV on the issue of standing, the group may be barred from further participation in the case. If the court affirms their standing, it opens the door to full legal arguments, evidence gathering, and potentially a court-enforced agreement that preserves the monument’s place in local heritage.

“We’re not closing the door on the MOU,” Rader concluded. “But we are saying it needs to be negotiated more thoroughly. We owe it to future generations to get this right.”

Until then, the Edenton Bell Battery remains divided, but united in their desire to preserve the Confederate Memorial Monument—whether by standing firm in court, or by securing a relocation under terms they believe will withstand the test of time.

Editor’s Note: The Confederate Memorial Monument in Edenton has been the subject of public debate since 2020. In 2022, the Edenton Town Council voted to relocate the monument, but the move was blocked by a court order after the SCV filed suit. A final ruling on the monument’s fate could follow the August 25 hearing.