A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-220 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN CONFEDERATE VETERANS MONUMENT; BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-230 SO AS TO ESTABLISH AN AFRICAN AMERICAN CONFEDERATE VETERANS MONUMENT COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION, TO ESTABLISH A DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE MONUMENT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION.
H3324 would create an African American Confederate Veterans Monument on the grounds of the South Carolina State House and establish a special commission to design the monument, determine its location, and oversee fundraising and implementation. The bill directs the commission to make reasonable efforts to include the names of Charles Dougherty Hayne and all African American Confederate veterans on the monument, and requires the commission to consult with the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum to confirm the names to be included.
The bill also sets up a process for approval and completion: the commission must submit a proposed design and location to the State House Committee by July 1, 2025, and the monument may be erected after approval by concurrent resolution of the General Assembly. The commission is temporary, with authority to raise private funds, accept gifts and grants, and create a tax-exempt nonprofit to handle funds, while the Department of Administration assists with financial records. The commission would dissolve on January 1, 2029, or earlier if the monument is completed, with any unfinished responsibilities transferred to the State House Committee.
In terms of state law, the bill adds new sections to Title 10 of the South Carolina Code and creates a new monument on State House grounds notwithstanding existing restrictions in Section 2-1-240. It also establishes a new commission structure, reporting requirement, and funding mechanism tied to private donations rather than direct state appropriations. The bill would therefore affect state memorialization policy, State House grounds use, and the administrative handling of monument-related funds and records.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive and commemorative, emphasizing recognition, remembrance, and education about African American Confederate soldiers. However, no committee transcripts or recorded votes are available, so there is no direct evidence of broader legislative debate or public reaction in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s findings, the sponsors frame the measure as correcting an omission in historical representation and honoring a group they say has been excluded from academic standards and public memory.
The main point of contention likely concerns the historical and symbolic framing of the monument itself, especially the decision to memorialize African American Confederate veterans on State House grounds. The bill’s preamble asserts that current standards omit these contributions, but that premise and the broader appropriateness of Confederate commemoration are likely to be disputed by critics. Supporters appear to be the bill’s sponsors and those favoring historical recognition of African American Confederate service, while potential opponents would likely include those objecting to Confederate symbolism, the monument’s placement at the State House, or the bill’s historical interpretation.
The bill would add Sections 10-1-220 and 10-1-230 to the South Carolina Code, authorizing an African American Confederate Veterans Monument on State House grounds and creating a temporary commission to plan and fund it. It would also create a new private-funding and nonprofit mechanism for the monument, require public financial records with protection for anonymous donors, and transfer authority to the State House Committee if the project is not completed by the commission’s sunset date.
The bill’s text reflects a clearly favorable and commemorative sentiment toward the proposed monument, presenting it as a corrective to historical omission and a means of education and remembrance. No committee discussion or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative opposition or support beyond the bill’s own framing. The available context therefore suggests a proposal introduced in a supportive tone, but without evidence of how it was received in committee or on the floor.
The most notable contention is likely the monument’s subject matter: memorializing African American Confederate veterans on State House grounds may be viewed by supporters as overdue recognition and by critics as an inappropriate celebration of Confederate history. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s historical premise that these soldiers have been excluded from standards and public memory, which some may challenge. The bill also raises practical concerns about the use of State House grounds, the role of the Confederate Relic Room in confirming names, and the reliance on private fundraising and a nonprofit entity to manage the project.