Can the Spartanburg City Council relocate or demolish the downtown Bicentennial clock tower without legislative approval?

Plain-English summary

Senator Shane Martin asked the South Carolina Attorney General whether the Spartanburg City Council could relocate or demolish a downtown clock tower that was raised in 1976 as a Bicentennial-era project to commemorate the Revolutionary War. Roughly 20,000 schoolchildren raised about $10,000 toward its construction, and Mayor Bob Stoddard presided over the dedication in a Revolutionary War uniform.

The Attorney General concluded: if the clock tower qualifies as a Heritage Act monument or memorial on public property, the City Council cannot remove, relocate, or alter it on its own. Only the South Carolina General Assembly can lift those protections by amending or repealing the Heritage Act. Whether any specific structure is covered is "a fact-specific inquiry" the AG declined to decide on the limited record presented.

What this means for you

If you sit on the Spartanburg City Council (or any SC municipal council)

Before voting to remove, relocate, or alter any monument, memorial, street name, bridge, park, or public structure that arguably commemorates a historic figure or event, get a written legal review of whether the Heritage Act applies. The AG treats this as fact-specific, so reasonable lawyers may disagree, but acting without legislative authorization on a covered monument is not a unilateral municipal call. The penalty for guessing wrong is a lawsuit, an injunction, and the political cost of having moved a monument the General Assembly never authorized you to move.

If you are a Spartanburg resident or a Bicentennial Committee descendant

The clock tower has at least a colorable Heritage Act argument: it sits on public property, it was dedicated to commemorate the Revolutionary War, and the dedication ceremony explicitly invoked that purpose. If you want to keep it where it is, attend Council meetings, ask whether they have obtained a legal opinion on Heritage Act coverage, and remind them that only the General Assembly can authorize removal of a covered memorial.

If you are a state legislator

A municipality cannot get around the Heritage Act by quietly voting to remove a covered monument. Constituents alarmed about a removal in their district have a right to ask their state senator or representative to introduce (or refuse to introduce) the act of the General Assembly that the Heritage Act requires before removal can occur.

If you are a municipal attorney

The Heritage Act protects two categories: (1) "monuments and memorials" on public property, which cannot be "relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered," and (2) streets, bridges, structures, parks, preserves, reserves, or other public areas "dedicated in memory of or named for any historic figure or historic event," which cannot be renamed or rededicated. The "fact-specific inquiry" cuts both ways. A municipality with a clear written purpose statement at dedication is in a stronger position to argue Heritage Act coverage; a structure with murky provenance is in weaker territory.

Common questions

Q: What is the Heritage Act?
A: It is S.C. Code Ann. § 10-1-165, a statute that locks down certain monuments, memorials, and named public spaces tied to historical figures or events. Anything covered cannot be removed, relocated, disturbed, altered, renamed, or rededicated without the General Assembly enacting legislation that allows it.

Q: Does the Heritage Act only protect Confederate monuments?
A: No. The statute is content-neutral and reaches monuments to "any historic figure or historic event." Revolutionary War monuments, civil rights memorials, and similar markers are also covered if the rest of the test is met.

Q: Who decides whether a particular monument is "covered"?
A: Ultimately a court would, in litigation. The AG opinion explicitly calls the inquiry "fact-specific" and does not pre-decide whether the Spartanburg clock tower clears the bar. A council that wants certainty either gets a court declaration or asks the General Assembly to authorize removal regardless.

Q: Can a city council just vote to move a monument and dare anyone to sue?
A: Practically yes, but legally risky. A taxpayer or preservation group can sue to enjoin the move; the General Assembly's prior Heritage Act litigation in S.C. NAACP v. McMaster and follow-on cases shows courts will entertain those suits. The political cost of moving a covered monument without legislative cover can also be significant.

Q: What does "on public property" mean?
A: Property held by a public body. The Heritage Act does not reach monuments on purely private land. If the Spartanburg clock tower is on a city-owned plaza, sidewalk, or right-of-way, it is on public property for Heritage Act purposes.

Background and statutory framework

The Heritage Act was enacted as part of South Carolina's 2000 Confederate flag compromise and codifies a uniform statewide rule: the legislature, not local councils, decides whether covered historical markers stay or go. The text in § 10-1-165(A) sweeps broadly: monuments, memorials, streets, bridges, structures, parks, preserves, reserves, and other public areas, when dedicated in memory of or named for any historic figure or historic event.

Earlier AG opinions, including one from June 25, 2020 referenced in this opinion (Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2020 WL 3619620), have repeatedly told public bodies the same thing: if your monument is in, you cannot touch it; if it is out, the Heritage Act does not constrain you. The fact-specific inquiry is what makes the question hard, and why municipalities walking into a removal vote without a written legal opinion are taking on real exposure.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- S.C. Code Ann. § 10-1-165 (Heritage Act protection of monuments and memorials on public property)

Earlier AG opinions:
- Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2020 WL 3619620 (June 25, 2020) (Heritage Act coverage requires fact-specific inquiry; covered monuments cannot be removed without legislative consent)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-whether-the-proposed-relocation-or-demolition-of-a-clock-tower-by-the-spartanburg-city-council-would-violate-the-heritage-act/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/cx5byda4/martins-os-11055-final-opinion-7-31-2025.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 31, 2025

The Honorable Shane Martin, Member
South Carolina Senate
PO Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Martin:

You seek the opinion of this office as to whether the proposed relocation or demolition of a clock tower in the city of Spartanburg would violate the Heritage Act. By way of background, you explain:

The clock tower in Spartanburg was a project of the local Bicentennial Committee in 1976. Mayor Bob Stoddard chaired the committee and sought to engage the children in the community in the project. In all, approximately 20,000 children raised approximately $10,000 towards the tower's construction. The clock tower's dedication ceremony included Mayor Stoddard presiding in a Revolutionary War uniform and recognition that the tower's purpose was to celebrate and remember the sacrifices our State and nation made in furtherance of our forging our independence.

You note the clock tower was erected "to remind us of the importance of the Revolutionary War to our State's and nation's history" and expressed your concern that if City Council votes to relocate or demolish the tower, "we will lose an important monument to the Revolutionary War just as we are preparing to celebrate our 250th Anniversary of that war."

Law/Analysis

The Heritage Act protects certain monuments and memorials located on public property from being "relocated, removed, disturbed, or altered." S.C. Code Ann. § 10-1-165(A) (Rev. 2011). The Heritage Act also protects streets, bridges, structures, parks, preserves, reserves, or other public areas "dedicated in memory of or named for any historic figure or historic event" from being renamed or rededicated. Id. "If a particular monument or memorial is encompassed within the Heritage Act's protections, a fact-specific inquiry, there can be no removal or alteration thereof without the Legislature's consent through an act of the General Assembly. ..." Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2020 WL 3619620 at *1 (June 25, 2020). Assuming the clock tower erected by the Bicentennial Committee in Spartanburg is protected by the Heritage Act, only the General Assembly may lift those protections.

Conclusion

Whether a particular monument or memorial is protected by the Heritage Act is a question of fact. Assuming the clock tower with its storied history as outlined in your letter is protected, only the General Assembly may amend or repeal the Heritage Act to lift those protections.

Sincerely,

Sabrina C. Todd
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General