edward ward carmack

Carmack statue might have to return unless law is changed

The House returns into session on June 1, 2020. (Erik Schelzig, Tennessee Journal)

The state may have no choice but to return the toppled statue of segregationist newspaper editor Edward Ward Carmack under a state law enacted to make it harder to replace historical markers and statues.

According to the Heritage Protection Act:

A public entity having responsibility for maintaining a memorial, or a nonprofit entity acting with permission of the public entity, shall have the authority to take proper and appropriate measures, and exercise proper and appropriate means, for the care, preservation, protection, repair, and restoration of the memorial.

State attorneys interpret that last part about the repair and restoration of the monument to mean that governments are required to fix any damage. That means the statue knocked over in last weekend’s protests could have to be brought back to its former place of prominence outside the southern entrance of the state Capitol. That’s unless lawmakers decide to seek a waiver or pass a law affecting that particular monument.

Should toppled Carmack statue be repaired at Tennessee Capitol?

State troopers guard the toppled statue of Edward Ward Carmack outside the state Capitol on May 31, 2020. (Erik Schelzig, Tennessee Journal)

Protesters over the weekend tore down the statue of Edward Ward Carmack, a newspaper editor and U.S. Senator who was gunned down in the streets of Nashville in 1908. Carmack was a notorious segregationist, though it’s unclear whether the demonstrators specifically targeted the monument (a historical marker commemorating Nashville’s lunch counter sit-ins in 1960 was also destroyed).

The toppling of the Carmack statue nevertheless raises questions about whether it should be repaired. There’s been a movement underfoot at the General Assembly to replace the monument with one to frontiersman David Crockett, though those efforts have yet to make any significant progress.

The situation puts Republicans in a quandary. While most would no longer defend Carmack’s positions and statements, they also won’t want to accede the destruction wrought by demonstrators. On the other hand, taking affirmative action to restore the statue of an avowed racist would also prove problematic at best.

A recent edition of The Tennessee Journal delved into Carmack’s attacks on Ida B. Wells, who was posthumously awarded a Pulitzer Prize last month for her coverage of lynchings in Memphis and the South.

New Pulitzer Prize winner Ida B. Wells was viciously targeted by Carmack

Ida B. Wells, who gained international renown for her fearless reporting about lynching in Memphis and the South in the 1890s, has been awarded a posthumous Pulitzer Prize. Wells was the editor and a part-owner of the Memphis Free Speech and Headlight, where she wrote detailed reports and fiery editorials about extrajudicial violence against African-Americans.

One of Wells’ chief critics was Edward Ward Carmack, the editor of the Memphis Commercial who went on to serve in the U.S. Senate and was later gunned down in Nashville by the son of a political rival. Carmack, a statue of whom stands outside the southern entrance of the state Capitol, ran vicious editorials about the Free Speech while it was operating and about Wells after she fled the city amid threats of personal harm.

Wells was born a slave in Mississippi during the Civil War and was a teacher in Memphis before she had a run-in with the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad in 1884, when she was removed from a train for refusing to leave a first-class car (for which she held a ticket) that was reserved for white passengers.

State law required “accommodations equal in all respects and comfort” for first-class ticket holders, and a circuit judge found the other car was of lesser grade because it allowed “smoking and drunkenness.” Wells was awarded $500 (more than $13,500 today). The Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the decision three years later, finding the two rail cars were equipped alike and that Wells’ had acted in bad faith by seeking to “harass” the railroad by creating conditions for which she could file a lawsuit. Wells gained acclaim in the black press for her firsthand accounts of the legal challenge, and began making writing about race issues her full-time job.

In the pages of the Free Speech, Wells took aim at a frequent pretext for lynchings. “Nobody in this section of the country believes the old thread-bare lie that Negro men rape white women,” she wrote in 1892. If white men weren’t careful, Wells wrote, the public would reach conclusions that would be “very damaging to the moral reputation of their women.”

Continue reading