The 9:01: Confederate group offers settlement
How much money would it take for the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the descendants of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest to “desecrate” his grave?
The answer: $30.6 million, according to a courtsealed settlement offer that was obtained from sources with knowledge of the offer.
The settlement would give the descendants of Forrest the statues and graves in exchange for ending a lawsuit against the city of Memphis and Memphis Greenspace Inc., which bought two city parks in December and removed statues of Forrest and Confederate President Jefferson Davis, among other Confederate memorabilia.
Memphis Greenspace President Van Turner, also a Shelby County commissioner, said last week that he doesn’t plan to accept the settlement, according to WMC Action News 5, which first reported the news.
The settlement offer is, of course, a huge embarrassment for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has claimed to be defending sacred history while using the lawsuit to raise funds for the fight. That’s probably why I received an email over the weekend from Sons of Confederate Veterans spokesman Lee Millar asking me not to publish the “private” letter, the first I’d heard of it.
City spokeswoman Ursula Madden was quick to point out the apparent discrepancy between the Sons’ rhetoric and its offer, as quoted in the WMC story:
“If this was really about history and heritage, Sons of Confederate Veterans could have had the statues months ago. They’ve made it about money to enrich themselves.” Millar reportedly fired back: “That’s ridiculous. It’s not about the money. It’s always been about preserving history, and we want the statues put back up. It’s got nothing to do with the money. It’s just we’re serious, and we’ll stay in court as long as it takes because we feel the statues should go up back up. It’s part of our history.”
That’s why I always begin every conflict by offering to give up. Really shows I’m serious.
Misleading Memphis referendums: The Memphis City Council has backed three controversial referendums on the Nov. 6 ballot — to extend term limits, block instant runoff elections in single-district council races and eliminate all single-district runoffs.
And now, it looks like they’re trying to stack the deck in favor of the referendums.
Take the first question, which reads like voters are being asked to place limits on council members and the mayor’s terms rather than extend them:
“Shall the Charter of the City of Memphis, Tennessee be amended to provide no person shall be eligible to hold or to be elected to the office of Mayor or Memphis City Council if any such person has served at any time more than three (3) consecutive four-year terms, except that service by persons elected or appointed to fill an unexpired four-year term shall not be counted as full four-year term?”
Similarly, the referendum reversing a 2008 vote to allow instant runoffs makes no mention of the current situation, which is that instant runoffs haven’t been tried yet:
Shall the Charter of the City of Memphis, Tennessee be amended to repeal Instant Runoff Voting and to restore the election procedure existing prior to the 2008 Amendment for all City offices, and expressly retaining the 1991 federal ruling for persons elected to the Memphis City Council single districts?
There’s nothing about what the “1991 federal ruling” is and why it’s relevant to instant runoffs, but it’s clearly a coded message to voters. The ruling abolished regular runoffs in the mayor’s race, clearing the way for Willie Herenton to win election as the city’s first black mayor. But instant runoffs are a far cry from the runoffs used to undermine black candidacies and could make electing minority candidates easier.
Putting the questions to voters isn’t a bad idea, necessarily — although voters have already spoken on both issues. But at least ask the questions fairly.
Black farmers support Kavanaugh: There’s a Memphis tie-in for the political circus- er, confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Memphis-based Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA), which has more than 20,000 members nationwide, is backing Kavanaugh, according to a recent release. The reason?
Judge Kavanaugh ruled in favor of a class-action, racial discrimination lawsuit in October of 2017 the Black farmers filed against the U. S. Department of Agriculture while sitting on the U. S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
Is that short-sighted? Maybe. But it’s an interesting endorsement at a time when Trump’s tariffs are under fire for their impact on Tennessee’s agricultural industry. Reach Ryan Poe at poe@commercialappeal.com and on Twitter at @ryanpoe.