The attorney for the plaintiffs seeking to save from demolition the Vance Monument — the centerpiece of downtown Asheville since 1898 — planned to file a new lawsuit as early as possible May 6 in Buncombe County Superior Court to prevent the City of Asheville from later that day beginning removal of the obelisk’s granite base and disposing of the blocks already removed that are in the city’s custody.

Conceivably, the city could begin taking action to remove the base and deal with items already in storage.

Specifically, H. Edward Phillips III, the plaintiffs’ attorney, noted in a brief May 3 telephone interview with the Daily Planet that the monument’s base is its only portion that still remains on Pack Square and that, besides keeping the city from destroying it, the plaintiffs also want assurances that the stones and other pieces from its tower will continue to be protected.

Ultimately, he said, the new lawsuit’s quest is to have the monument rebuilt and preserved for future generations at its current location or some similarly prominent location in the city — and which, the plaintiffs note, may have been damaged before the previous litigation over its fate was even completed.

Previously, the plaintiffs, the Society for the Historical Preservation of the 26th North Carolina Troops, sought to stop the City of Asheville from demolishing the landmark in a case that went from the Buncombe Superior Court to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and, finally, to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The plaintiffs met with defeat in each court, with the superior and appeals courts stating that they lacked “standing,” while the high court ruled that the plaintiffs do have “standing.”

However, the state’s highest court stated, “... we reverse the Court of Appeals determination that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim should be dismissed for lack of standing, thereby underscoring the position taken by the plaintiffs that they have standing.”

During the litigation to save the monument, the city began demolition of obelisk, removing all of the stones in the tower, leaving the base intact — until the court finally ordered the city to “cease and desist” on the razing until the litigation over the monument’s fate was completed. 

The city complied and — as City Attorney Brad Branham had assured the Daily Planet repeatedly in interviews — is storing the monument’s stones and others pieces from its tower in undisclosed warehouse locations in the city — and that the city plans to dispose of them when the litigation ended.

Since the state Supreme Court’s unanimous decision — in favor of the City of Asheville having the authority to tear down the landmark — was entered on March 22, 2024, the city has repeatedly stated that it will demolish the monument’s base as soon as is legally allowable, following the high court’s ruling. 

And according to Phillips, the earliest the city could legally begin demolition of the Vance Monument’s base “is potentially on May 6,” so that is why he is filing the new lawsuit as early as possible on the morning of May 6.

The monument was built to honor Vance, a Reems Creek-area native (near Weaverville) who served two-and-a-half terms as governor of North Carolina, as well as a U.S. senator. During the Civil War, Vance was elected as commander of the 26th North Carolina Regiment, a Confederate unit. 

Vance also was — arguably — the most-known Southerner of his era to be a defender of the Jews, urging tolerance of and respect for them, in his speeches and writings. To that end, he also wrote “The Scattered Nation,” a book that “has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it,” according to Amazon.com.

During — and for years after — his death, Vance was revered by the local and national Jewish community, but during the current controversy — including racial and racist overtones — over the monument, today’s Jewish community has been mum about its fate.

To that end, Asheville officials and activists have contended that Vance does not deserve to be honored — and, indeed, should be condemned — because he was a slaveholder (he reportedly had six slaves in 1860) — and that he voiced and wrote highly negative criticisms of African-Americans.  

 So why is this case returning to the court system, after it was defeated, especially, by a unanimous vote of the state Supreme Court? the Daily Planet asked.

In response, Phillips said that while the lower courts dismissed the case, saying the plaintiffs “lacked legal standing,” he noted that the state high court’s reversal on this issue is a basis for legal standing and, therefore, he sees a logical new route to a winnable case. 

Phillips also said that, in its ruling, the high court noted that he seemed to have “abandoned the breach of contract issue before the court,” which, it said, is the strongest argument in the case.

He added that it should be restated that the 26th not only raised more than $138,000 to restore the monument in 2015, but that it also oversaw the entire restoration process, which, Phillips has contended, was a “contract” — and not merely a “donation agreement,” as the city contends. 

In previous interviews, Phillips has told the Daily Planet that the 26th — and other donors — gave the money earmarked to renovate the monument, under the assumption that the revamped monument would remain standing for generations to come. 

Instead, the city accepted the restoration of the monument and, then suddenly, turned around and decided — in 2020 — to demolish it, violating the contract, as Phillips argued in the previous lawsuit.