Just before our founding editor Will Folks left the capital, Columbia, South Carolina for summer vacation, he spoke to a researcher he trusts about the so-called “Heritage Act” – the state law that currently governs (among other things) the disposition of bookmarks, memorials and designations related to war between states and civil rights movement.
According to this researcher, an incredible ninety (90) percent of primary republican voters in the state of Palmetto are opposite to rename buildings or remove monuments. Period.
For those unfamiliar with its history, the Heritage Act was passed in 2000 as part of a bipartisan and biracial agreement that removed the Confederate flag from the dome of the SC State Chamber (and from within the Chamber and Senate chambers) . It states that “any monument, landmark, memorial, school or street erected or named in honor of the Confederation or the civil rights movement located in any municipality, county or state property should not be removed, altered or renamed without the enactment of a joint resolution. by a two-thirds vote of the members of each House of the General Assembly. ”
The law was used in 2015 to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the SC State Chamber – which we defend – but Republican leaders at the SC General Assembly indicated at the time that they were not inclined to support more historic sanitation.
We support you in this decision …
This year, the Heritage Law debate is back in full force after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Memorial Day – with some black leaders at the SC General Assembly urging state and local agencies to exercise disobedience civil law for the purpose of removing statues that they consider offensive.
Ground zero for this debate? Marion Square in Charleston, South Carolina – where the liberal mayor John Tecklenburg advocates the removal of an imposing monument in honor of the legacy of the late United States Vice President John C. Calhoun.
In addition, there is a broader debate over the constitutionality of the Heritage Act itself, with many believing the imposition of an absolute majority (or two-thirds majority) requirement for lawmakers to amend it is an example of a previous legislature imposing unduly your will on the current body.
We believe they are correct at this pointt… although we also believe that if this specific section of the law were struck down (assuming a justifiable controversy arose from it), SC’s supreme court would probably leave the rest of the act intact.
Which brings us to the governor Henry McMaster …
Assuming the Heritage Act is modified to require that only a simple majority of legislators support the changes – what does the governor do with the flurry of renaming / removal requests that are likely to arrive at your desk?
Remember, if lawmakers in both chambers of the SC General Assembly voted to overturn a statute or rename a building – such a move would be subject to the governor’s approval. If he objected (that is, he used his veto pen), suddenly the supermajority demand would be back on the table – no longer due to the contested wording of the Heritage Act, but due to the constitutional separation of powers in South Carolina.
In the case of a governmental veto, then again a two-thirds majority of both chambers to change the law.
In other words, if McMaster (or whoever is running his administration) came out strong against renaming buildings or removing monuments and other landmarks in South Carolina – he would exercise immense power in this debate.
What is his position? This is a good question …
McMaster’s personal story decidedly less than arousing – along with the apparent unilateral opposition of his Republican base – could compel him to veto any amendments to the Inheritance Act. Then again, the governor has been working hard to sustain his electoral position among the most moderate voters in Lowcountry – including attracting Democratic congressmen. Joe Cunningham on the issue of offshore drilling.
Perhaps this will compel you to support such a purge?
*****
RELATED || Virginia governor scandal invites Henry McMaster’s analysis
*****
Anyway, McMaster clearly has a tightrope walk ahead of him … an balancing act complicated by the fact that he spent decades as the definitive politician of the “Old South”.
As we reported earlier, McMaster’s association with several “whites only” organizations is widely known. In inheriting the South Carolina governor’s office from Nikki Haley in January 2017, for example, he vehemently refused to withdraw from the Forest Lake club (which at the time had no black members).
Prior to that, McMaster refused to withdraw from the club after being challenged by the former state deputy (and current CNN commentator) Bakari sellers during the 2014 governor election.
Later, several Republican lawmakers joined Sellers to ask McMaster to leave the club – to which he and his wife have belonged since the 1970s.
In addition, in 2008 McMaster’s daughter – actress Mary Rogers McMaster – debuted at Columbia Ball, a “whites only” dance club based in the state capital of Columbia, SC. Also in 2008, McMaster’s daughter was invited to Cotillion, another “white-only” dance club based in the capital of South Carolina. The latter club was formed in 1890, but did not begin debutante until 1947, when two daughters of prominent families in the state of Palmetto were excluded from another “whites only” society called The Assembly.
In addition to these associations, until 2017 McMaster used South Carolina veteran political strategist Richard Quinn – whose neo-Confederate tendencies are a matter of public record – as his main advisor for years.
Quinn’s empire was overthrown that year as part of an investigation into public corruption at SC State House. The veteran adviser is facing perjury and obstruction of the justice charges in connection with this investigation – although he allegedly returned to action as an adviser to the troubled senator in SC Luke Rankin in a high-profile Republican primary race in Horry County this month.
McMaster’s influential chief of staff Trey Walker – who many believe will be the only one to make the decisions for his administration regarding the Heritage Act – he is also a former employee of Quinn.
Stay tuned … this news medium will obviously keep an eye on the McMaster administration, as it may soon be compelled by circumstances to start articulating a position on various challenges to the Heritage Act.
-FITSNews
*****
WANT TO TURN OFF THE SOUND?
Is there anything you would like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open mic policy! Send your own letter to the editor (or guest column) by email HERE. Do you have a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Have a technical question or failure to report? CLICK HERE. Do you want to help support what we are doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.