Confederate statues are unlikely to be disturbed in SC in 2021

COLOMBIA, SC (AP) – South Carolina’s Republican legislative leaders are unlikely to give permission this year to local governments or colleges that want to topple Confederate statues or rename buildings in honor of segregationists.

A state law passed in 2000, when lawmakers removed the Confederate flag from the top of the Statehouse dome, requires a two-thirds vote by the General Assembly to change the names of buildings or streets that honor historic figures or remove statues of local government land.

State House and Senate leaders said they have no plans to revisit the law this year or even any specific requests, such as Clemson University wanting to remove the name of US Senator “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, who led violent racist mobs to prevent that blacks vote for the name of their administrative building or Orangeburg that wants to remove a Confederate statue from outside their court.

The leaders said they want to see what happens to a lawsuit before the state Supreme Court over the legality of the Heritage Act before taking any action. The suit was filed by the widow of state senator Clementa Pinckney, a pastor who was murdered along with eight of her members in a racist massacre at her church in Charleston.

The Heritage Act mentions a wide range of events, from the Revolutionary War to the Persian Gulf War. But in his more than 20 years in South Carolina, he protected almost exclusively confederates and segregationists.

After George Floyd’s death by the police in May in Minnesota, statues of racists and Confederates across the south and the country were removed by both governments and angry protesters. No Confederate statue has been removed in South Carolina.

At least nine bills amending or eliminating the Heritage Act were introduced before the 2021 General Assembly session began on Tuesday.

Not everyone would return to the act. Some deal with the lack of criminal penalties or other penalties in the 2000 law. A bill would fine local governments by $ 25 million for removing monuments or renaming buildings without permission. Others add criminal penalties to local leaders or withhold state money for violating the law.

Rep. Kambrell Garvin said he was aware of his bills to eliminate the Heritage Act or claim that local governments can control their street names and the statues are unlikely to get anywhere in this session.

But in filing them, Garvin said he reminds people that these racist memorials pay tribute to people who have treated a quarter of South Carolina’s population as subhuman or worse and maintain pressure on lawmakers. After all, it took 15 years after the Heritage Act to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse lawn, said the Democrat of Columbia.

“Whether it happens in this session or in five years, or 10 years, or 15 years from now – we’re pushing the needle in the right direction,” said Garvin.

After the 2015 vote to remove the Confederation flag, Mayor Jay Lucas said his chamber would not consider changing any monuments or other items in honor of the Confederation or another historic era while he was the leader.

The Hartsville Republican said through a spokeswoman earlier this month that he has not changed his mind about protecting monuments. Lucas decided to do criminal justice reform projects like changing conviction laws and debating whether South Carolina needs a hate crime law a priority.

Senate President Harvey Peeler also closed the door to changes to the Heritage Act last June, posting on Twitter that he felt that problems like fighting COVID-19, improving broadband internet access in rural areas and reforming the criminal justice system was more important and more beneficial.

“Changing the name of a pile of bricks and mortar is at the bottom of my task list,” said Peeler on Twitter.

Only one statue fell during the summer in South Carolina. Charleston removed a statue of United States Vice President and South Carolina John C. Calhoun from a 30-meter pedestal in the city center. The mayor said the statue was on private land and did not respect specific historical events mentioned in the law. The state did not challenge the city.

A Democratic leader said he should remind locals that they don’t have to wait for the legislature because of the current lack of penalties and, in his opinion, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the Heritage Act is illegal because it prevents local governments from self -government.

“They don’t need our permission,” said House minority leader Todd Rutherford of Columbia. “They just need courage.”

___

Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP.

Copyright © 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, transmitted, written or redistributed.