♪ [This Week in South Carolina opening music] ♪ ♪ ♪ <Gavin Jackson> Welcome to This Week in South Carolina.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

As the state recognizes Confederate Memorial Day, next week.

The conversations continue around how to address Confederate memorials and monuments in our state.

Joining us this week to discuss this issue in a recent paper they've co-authored, "Heritage Versus Hate" is political science professor, Dr Scott Huffmon and Dr. Gibbs Knotts, but first, more from this week.

Lawmakers in Columbia took action on several major bills this week as the end of the legislative session looms.

In the House, lawmakers sent the governor a bill that would incentivize E and J. Gallo winery, to locate a 400 million dollar production and distribution facility to Chester County by amending state liquor laws to allow the wine giant to open three, tightly controlled tasting rooms in the state.

The House slightly changed and approved a Senate bill that would make the electric chair the default method of execution in the state.

With the new option of the firing squad, since the state can no longer require lethal injection drugs.

The bill is expected to reach the governor's desk before sine die.

Another controversial bill should soon reach the governor as well, now that the Senate has passed the gun bill known as open carry with training, which would allow those with a concealed weapons permit to openly carry their gun.

The Senate rejected a change to carry without a permit.

And the Senate Judiciary Committee voted out the Hate Crimes bill, which would increase penalties on those found of committing a hate crime against someone based on several immutable characteristics.

<speaker> "No religious speech is going to be criminalized under this unless you commit a homicide or assault, first."

The House approved bills on the Senate calendar along with many other bills with just three legislative days left in session until sine die at 5 PM, Thursday.

Bills that do not make it to the governor's desk or are not in conference committee by then will remain where they are until lawmakers return in January for the final year of the two year session.

And joining me now to discuss their recent research on Confederate monuments is Dr. Scott Huffmon of Winthrop University and Gibbs Knotts.

He's the Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the College of Charleston.

Welcome back to both of you.

<speakers> Great to be here, Gavin.

<Gavin> Scott let's start with you.

Tell us about this recent paper that you both co-authored with two other authors, "Heritage Versus Hate."

What did you guys find in this paper?

>> Well, the "Heritage Versus Hate" it has been sort of the popular description of anything having to do with the Confederacy.

So, whether it's the Confederate battle flag whether it's these statues, and it's a little bit of a sort of pop culture phrase.

We actually try and get more accurate measures, but what we found is in the grand debate over Confederate monuments that the thing that matters more than southern identity is racial enmity or kind of racial resentment is how we phrase it in the paper.

So, whether or not people identify in their core as a southerner makes no difference about what they want to do with these monuments.

However, the greater the level of racial resentment and we can talk about the measures if you want, but the greater the level of racial resentment, the more likely they are to want to leave these monuments alone completely as they are.

We gave them quite a few options, sort of leave them alone, put them in a museum, leave them where they are, but put a marker to give historical context or remove them completely.

And again it was racial resentment not southern identity that drove the belief of folks who wanted to completely leave them alone just as they are.

<Gavin> Gibbs pick up on that and tell me just like what Scott was saying.

We always hear this.

"Heritage not hate", now we're hearing the opposite is what your paper's kind of proving here.

And these arguments for keeping them around.

And it's particularly on racial resentment being a big topic here, as well.

>> Yeah, exactly.

I mean, we asked respondents.

Again, I think it's important to say these are folks from across the south.

We used Winthrop poll data and we looked at respondents from across the south, from all different states in the south.

And, yeah it's about if they answered in amore racially conservative way and our question was "White people are currently under attack in "this country, how much do yo u agree with that statement?"

F olks who agreed with that statement more were more likely to support leaving the Confederate monuments where they were.

It's not just that.

There are other factors that also impact opinions about Confederate monuments, but we've done so much previous research looking into the Confederate flag, but not a lot of people have looked at Confederate monuments and that was kind of a new take on our article was to look at the monument debate, not necessarily just the flag debate.

<Gavin> And that's something recent too, because we have seen the flag, the downing of the flag in 2015 here in South Carolina at the State House grounds.

It's not maybe as big as of debate.

Is that maybe why you focused the research on the monuments, now since they have been just everywhere essentially?

<Gibbs> I think it's more recent.

I mean I think Gavin, certainly these defining moments that we saw here in Charleston with Mother Emanuel A.M.E. massacre.

I mean that was really a defining moment, where the flag came down in South Carolina, the legislature supported taking the flag down.

And that was - we were really kind of at the center of that entire debate here in South Carolina.

I think Charlottesville in a lot of ways was a big moment for the monuments discussion.

And so, I think the flags started coming down first.

There was really not any flags on public ground that I can think of.

You could probably think of an example or two, but monuments are still very much a part of the conversation.

You can go really to any community in the south and in many communities across the country and see a Confederate monument.

So, it's something that local towns, communities, town councils, county councils are debating and talking about.

So, we thought let's get some public opinion data.

We've got this incredible poll up at Winthrop University.

Let's ask some questions and see where people come down.

<Gavin> And Scott, I want to talk about your polling data obviously running Winthrop poll and you used your poignant abilities to get some data on this topic.

Tell us about the methodology and we kind of had some idea when talking about racial resentment and southern identity.

Drill down from me about maybe who are these people you spoke to.

The background, the breakdown demographics of this polling data.

<Scott> Right, whenever you do a scientific poll you have to make sure that the population of respondents your sample reflects the population overall.

So, our sample is weighted to reflect the exact population of the entire south and this - All of us who teach southern politics we can get into a debate about what constitutes the south.

You really don't want to - <Gavin> I don't want to start that debate here.

[laughs] - with us.

So, I pick the 11 state south, the 11 states that seceded from the union, the so called 11 Confederate states.

So looking at the demographics of the eleven Confederate states our sample population nears those exactly.

What you have to do is make sure everybody has an equal probability of appearing in this poll.

Now, in this instance, all telephone polls are a little skewed against people who literally have no phone, the abject homeless poverty population with no access to a phone, but anybody who has a phone, be it cell phone or land line has an equal probability of appearing in this sample.

Now, in most states in South Carolina for example, we are about 57% cell only and about 75% either cell only or cell mostly.

So, your sample has to incorporate more cell phone sample than land line sample and the great thing about telephone polls is it's legal to call cell phones with telephone polls.

For example with robo calls or the automated polling IVR interactive voice response polls, they're not legally allowed to call cell phones.

So, one of the great things about the methodology of a phone call is sure it takes a little longer, but you know you're getting an accurate glimpse of the population.

The other thing is when I say popular, I mean general population.

This was not a likely voter poll.

This wasn't a registered voter poll.

Some of our folks are registered.

Most of the folks are registered.

Some are not.

So, this reflects the general population of the 11 state former Confederate south.

<Gavin> Gotcha.

And Scott, racial breakdown as well, can you break that down as well?

<Scott> Yeah, yeah well it matches the entire south which differs of course from state to state.

So, you have more African Americans coming from South Carolina than say, you do from Tennessee.

So, you have to make sure that your demographics don't reflect any single state.

So, even though we are calling out of South Carolina and there's always the possibility that when they're responding as Winthrop polling might be a little more willing to answer, which is why you're sampling has to account for that.

So, we make sure we match the racial parameters of the entire south not just heavily African American states like Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia, but even the less African American states like Tennessee, Virginia and Florida.

<Gavin> The margin of error in this poll, just to clarify how many people you called?

>> Well, the usable number for this poll was 600, so you're getting that plus/minus four percent on this.

The actual number of the response we got overall was greater but when we are doing statistical analysis like this, we have to make sure that all the people we analyze have every dependent and independent variables that we're looking at.

Otherwise when we say, "Hey being an ideological" "conservative is important."

That means we have to compare people who are ideologically conservative to other people who are ideologically conservative and then racial resentment.

Then we have to compare people who are high racial resentment to people who are say moderate and socially, ideologically conservative.

So, the number of folks that had every possible variable we needed to put us at a margin of error of plus/ minus about four percent but that's why the statistical analysis allows us to look at statistical significance and that's where we dig deeper.

<Gavin> And then, Gibbs to kind of follow up more on this idea, when we look at the values the ideologies and then also race, how did you see those numbers come out?

Were there any surprises for you when we - <Gibbs> Yeah, I can listen to Scott and talk about the science of polling all day long.

He's so good.

Kind of the take away, to me the biggest part, the initial top line takeaway is asking southern people living in the south what to do with these monuments 43% want to leave them completely alone.

So, you see the TV where they get knocked down and there's protest.

43% so plurality want to leave them alone.

Another 25%, that's 60, two thirds so another 25% when you add the leave them alone just want to leave them there and add a plaque, add some contextualization and so despite kind of what you see from the loudest voices, two thirds of folks in our poll have said either leave them or put some kind of context.

25% said they're ready for a museum.

Only 6% wanted to see them taken completely down.

I think Scott, correct me, I think we did this in 2017.

This is an ever changing environment and so we did it again in 2021, Public is something where public opinion has been a little bit fluid, over the last few years.

But I think that's an important take away then when it comes, who's more likely to want to see these monuments stay in their place, we mentioned racial resentment already.

Folks who are ideologically conservative, older folks, and of course White voters all were statistically more likely to want to leave the monuments in place.

Those are some of our top line findings.

<Gavin> Gotcha.

- <Scott> Let me pick up- <Gavin> Yeah sure.

<Scott> - on what Gibbs was saying.

That's absolutely right, that looking at a 2017 versus looking at a 2021 could make a big difference.

Some of our previous research analyzed the attitudes in South Carolina about the Confederate flag atop the State House dome before the Mother Emanuel murders and after the Mother Emanuel murders.

So, things can really change.

So, what we found is up at least through 2017.

These are the things that drove attitudes about the Confederate monuments.

We're actually looking at the same thing, hopefully in an upcoming Winthrop poll, just at South Carolina and that includes different measures of racial resentment.

Is it really just this fear of being under attack or is it sort of thinking that African Americans in America aren't working hard enough?

What types of things really pick up on the racial attitudes?

And going back to what Gibbs said about southern identity, I honestly didn't expect it to be as flat as it was.

I knew southern identity wouldn't be the big driver, because it often is the case.

African Americans are more likely to identify as southerners.

But people feeling like they are southern, now in the 21st century is not a driver of these attitudes.

I guarantee you strong, southern identity in the 1940s would have probably looked a little different.

<Gavin> Then also a surprising fact too, you when you're talking about race and the break down here is that you mentioned, even among African American respondents removing Confederate monuments, completely as an unpopular option, just 13% of African American respondents prefer that option.

So, a lot of people really not necessarily big on getting rid of them entirely.

So, the move would be to essentially put them in museums or get plaques essentially.

Is that the take away as well?

<Gibbs> That's a big take away.

One of the things we did ask, you know adding new monuments.

The University of South Carolina has done that.

That'll be another sort of potential good future poll question.

What's the level of support?

Having a broader understanding and a more diverse historical landscape and I think that, I suspect that would gain a lot of support among the general public and that's certainly the direction a lot of communities are going in now.

<Gavin> Scott, you and Gibbs are both great political science professors especially when it comes to southern politics.

Where do you see this research fitting into this canon of southern identity, southern politics and the research that's already out there?

I know there's a lot.

You had about two pages of references in your paper, how do you see this fitting in where do you see this going?

Is this going to be ammunition for an argument coming up about maybe get rid of Ben Tillman on State House grounds or any other potential removal of a statue across our state?

<Scott> Let me back up and say of the four co-authors three, not myself have written literal books and textbooks about southern politics.

So, I teach southern politics and research, I'm fortunate to be in the company of Gibbs, Chris and Seth on this research.

So, the sort of greater body of research is ever evolving because again if you look at support for the Confederate flag prior to the Mother Emanuel massacre, prior to the 21st century at all, things look a lot different.

Where this fits in, I believe is the evolution of attitudes towards these things as more and more folks understand historical context and Gibbs alluded to that.

The other thing is, as more and more folks are willing to at least contextualize these things, we're going to see a retrenchment of the most ardent supporters.

Remember when it was agreed that the Confederate flag would come down off the State House Dome and on to the State House grounds, the Heritage Act was passed that basically said fine, we'll take this off and put it on the State House grounds, but we're going to make you get a super majority in the legislature if you want to do anything else, like removing the name of Ben Tillman from our main hall at Winthrop University.

Ben Tillman was not a core founder of Winthrop despite some folks beliefs otherwise.

That building was not originally named Tillman.

It would be historical to move it back.

Of course, Ben Tillman is directly associated with more murders than the Son of Sam, serial killer.

So, a lot of folks want to change these names and we see the retrenchment among folks that desperately want to keep the names, the monuments, the flags and there's always backslash.

So when social attitudes move ahead be it a Supreme Court case, a state case or in this sense public attitude there's very often a legislative backlash or a backslash among the core, true believers in public opinion.

So, basically as we move forward it's not just going to be a simple, "Hey attitudes thinking the monuments aren't that important are going to continue."

Those attitudes will grow thinking the monument shouldn't be left as they are, but then there will be a strong, strong minority which will flip as Gibbs pointed out.

It was only a minority of people that said trash them completely, but they are very loud.

And so I think in the future as this fits into the greater southern literature as that fraction of folks, who said they must be left as they are is getting smaller and smaller.

They will get louder and louder and fight harder and we will see this popping up in public discourse more and more.

<Gavin> I want to talk about the past before we talk more about the future too and Gibbs, you mentioned that there's 1700 monuments across the south and they've been called everything from Jim crow era propaganda art to important teaching tools.

How do you see - what's the back story here on these monuments and how they came to be?

<Gibbs> It's such an important point and the historians are doing such really, really great work on this is and really digging in and seeing stuff like my colleague here at College of Charleston Adam Domby has a book out called, "The False Cause" and he looks at the speech that was given when they dedicated the Silent Sam monument that was up at UNC until very recently and it was done to say look we celebrate the confederacy and White people are still going to be in control.

And it was very White supremacist and when you go back and look back at the speeches and look at the reasons for these monuments.

And again most people think, Oh well, they probably put them up a couple years after the Civil War.

They put them up as the South segregation really became dominant in the South, Post-Reconstruction So, really surging in the early part of the 1900s It surged again in the 1950s and 1960s as people are protesting against some of the changes that are federal going on.

So, even the South Carolina flag atop the State House, we talked about that.

That was put up, it certainly was the hundred year anniversary of the Civil War, but it was also a way to say to the federal government, "You're not "going to tell us what to do with Brown versus "Board of education.

We're going to maintain the "current racial order."

And so there's a very complicated past.

I think historians in particular are doing a great job.

We're social scientists.

We're more looking at the public opinion.

We're looking at how elected officials vote, but historians are going back and digging through those primary sources and telling a very interesting story about when these monuments were put up.

<Gavin> Scott jump in on that.

Tell me about this whole slippery slope theory of people being concerned about getting rid of these monuments and erasing history, even though obviously the history is still in the history books.

These are just monuments and public displays.

Can you talk about people's concerns about that when they hear these debates that here's this discussion.

We've see the Calhoun statue come down last year down in Marion Square, but the road next to it is still called Calhoun.

There's still a Calhoun County, but people say "What could happen next?

Could "they rename a county?

Could they rename roads "in the state?"

>> Well, once that statue came down, everybody forgot that Calhoun had anything to do with the Civil War.

Yeah, I'd totally erase his history.

No, people don't learn from monuments.

People don't learn from statues.

That's sort of a bit of a false flag.

As a matter of fact, the reverse is kinda true, because if especially if you look at the monuments put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy, they pushed this false "Lost Cause" narrative and Dr. Domby down at the College of Charleston who gives mention has written about this extensively.

The lost cause narrative was, "Hey how did we as southerners, the righteous people lose this war?"

And it's wrapped in both of this theory and legend of the noble, aristocratic folks and biblical beliefs.

Again, if you look at the book of Judges, in several books in the Old Testament, what you see are the people of Israel God's chosen people being blessed by God, until they get arrogant.

And then they're smote, smited by God and to teach him a lesson then they come back but they're always God's chosen people.

So, ministers across the south, southern folks in general, sort of buying into this.

We actually because we're so much better became arrogant and so God allowed this to happen even though we are the righteous people.

That's an actual rewriting of history that is written specifically like that on some of these monuments.

But as to the slippery slope argument.

First and foremost, it's a fallacy because you must defend this one thing at a time.

And then you must defend the other thing at a time.

If you're sort of acknowledging, that, "Okay, Ben Tillman's "name probably shouldn't be on a building on "Winthrop, but I don't want to allow "it to take it down, because he's also on a "building at Clemson.

And he had more to do with Clemson."

No.

Single debate at a time.

Also, that's just used to sort of preserve things as they are, which is of course the literal definition of conservatism to preserve things the status quo as they are, without realizing that history books will continue to exist.

We still know all about the Roman Empire despite this statues and buildings crumbling and as more folks come in, who have very different attitudes than the people who put up those monuments on public property, things should reflect that.

It's now the taxpayers who are paying for that public property, maybe the monuments should reflect their beliefs and the beliefs of folks from history should be written in the history books.

<Gavin> Interesting argument there, from you Scott.

Gibbs, we have one minute left.

I want to ask you, should we still be making monuments?

Should we still be putting monuments up on public grounds.

If they could be considered controversial in the future?

<Gibbs> I think we should.

Our monuments should reflect kind of where we are as a society and what we want to celebrate.

I mean I like monuments.

I think there are a number of people, but I just think we need to expand what criteria are looked at when we figure out who to honor and who to celebrate.

And we certainly need to be more diverse in that.

I mean, it's been - it's not been something we have a very diverse state, 30% of folks living in South Carolina are African American, for example and we certainly don't know - their contributions are not reflected when you look across the state when it comes to monuments to the degree that they should be.

So, there's certainly some room for improvement there, but I personally think we need to figure out ways to celebrate our outstanding citizens.

<Gavin> And Scott, your take really quickly.

Should we keep doing these monuments, as well.

<Scott> Well, Gibbs is right.

Monuments show us what we celebrate as a people.

The monuments of the confederacy showed what we celebrated.

Maybe, it's time to relegate those to the history books or museums, because those are not the same attitudes we celebrate today and if we are going to leave up monuments, then again, Gibbs is absolutely right.

Those monuments need to reflect the reality, not just the one group who paid to put them up and who had the power to put them up at the time.

<Gavin> Well that's Dr Scott Huffmon of Winthrop University and Dean Gibbs Knotts of the College of Charleston and the latest paper and social science quarterly "Heritage Versus Hate", assessing opinions in the debate over Confederate monuments and memorials.

Thank you so much.

<Scott> Thank you.

<Gibbs> Thanks Gavin.

>> To stay up to date with the latest news throughout the week, check out the South Carolina Lede, a podcast I host twice a week.

You can find it on SouthCarolinapublicradio.org or wherever you find podcasts.

For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well, South Carolina.