Who owned artifacts donated to South Carolina’s Confederate Relic Room?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, a senator asked who owned the Confederate Relic Room's collection. The Attorney General's office said a blanket answer was impossible because ownership depended on what each donor intended. It reported that the collection's earlier gifts and loans were made to the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, with the state primarily supplying space and staff funding.

Later donation records were less clear. The State Treasurer's list ran through 1987 and did not always say whether a gift was made to the state or to the UDC. For an individual item with unclear ownership, the opinion said the donation record should be examined and a court might need to determine intent if the record did not resolve it. The letter was informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the state own every item housed in the Relic Room?
A: The opinion said no general rule covered the collection. It described earlier gifts as intended for the UDC and said later gifts required item-by-item review.

Did the UDC own every item?
A: The AG did not say that. Some later donation records did not clearly identify a recipient.

How would ownership of a disputed artifact be determined? A: The opinion said to examine the appropriate donation record for the donor's intent. If intent was not stated or inferable, a court might have to decide.

Did the state's provision of space settle ownership?
A: No. The letter distinguished the state's support for housing and staffing the collection from donor intent about title to individual objects.

Background and statutory framework

The office reviewed historical UDC records and a State Treasurer list of donations through 1987. It treated donor intent as the decisive factual inquiry and identified no statute or case citation for a universal ownership rule.

Citations and references

The letter cited no statute section or court case.

Official title

Concerning the ownership of the items in the collection of the Confederate Relic Room.

Requester

The Honorable Glenn F. McConnell, Senator, District No. 41

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-7-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99july7mcconnell.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 7, 1999

CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

I

The Honorable Glenn F. McConnell
Senator, District No. 41
27 Bainbridge Dr.ive
Charleston, SC 29407
Re:

Confederate Relic Room

Dear Senator McConnell:
You have requested an opinion on the issue of who owns the items in the collection of the Confederate Relic Room. I apologize for not getting this to you sooner. I met with Dot Broome and several other ladies from the United Daughters of the Confederacy. They showed me a copy of the list kept by the State Treasurer of Relic Room artifacts donated through 1987. For many years beginning before 1900 and continuing well after then, all items in the Relic Room collection were items which individuals had donated or loaned to the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This is reflected, for instance, in the 1908 Minutes of the South Carolina Division of the UDC, which state that the Relic Room collection is "the property of the [South Carolina] Division." The State's role was originally, and primarily still is, the donation of space in a State building for the housing of the collection, as well as providing funds for the salaries of the persons who supervise the collection. While all of the artifacts donated in earlier years were intended to be the property of the UDC, the facts are not always as clear in later years. For the later donations, the records held by the State Treasurer do not always contain a clear indication that each given item was donated to any particular entity, whether the State or the UDC. The records held by the Treasurer only run through 1987 . 1

1

Presumably either the UDC or the Relic Room maintains a list of later donations and accessions to the collection.

REMBERTC. DENNI$ BUILDING

•

PoSTOFFJCE Box 11549

• • • • • _ _ _ ..,....

I

.-...- ........... h

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Glenn F. McConnell
Page 2
July 7, 1999

[

I

The ownership of individual items is in each instance a question of the intent of the donor. As already noted, there is apparently no real question that for most of the years of the collection's existence, the donors understood that they were making donations to the UDC rather than to the State. If a question should arise about the ownership of a particular item donated in later years, however, it obviously would be necessary to examine the appropriate donation record to determine whether there is any indication of the donor's intent. If no intention is specifically stated or readily inferable, it would probably be necessary for a court to make a determination about the donor's intent. Unfortunately, it does not appear that any general presumption or rule can be stated which would cover all donations where the intent is unspecified. The question is simply one which would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. Please let me know if I may provide additional information or assistance. Sincerely yours,

Kenneth P. Woodington
Senior Assistant Attorney General

KPW/rho