Historic monument push goes too far
Published July 28, 2015
Editorial by Winston-Salem Journal, July 27, 2015.
The state legislature continues to push Gov. Pat McCrory around, and he doth protest too hollowly.
The latest evidence of that is the fact that the governor signed into law last week a bill that would, in effect, require an act of the legislature to remove state-owned monuments on local public property that commemorate “an event, person, or military service that is part of North Carolina’s history.”
Senate Bill 22, which would apply in most petitions for removal, is clearly aimed at protecting Confederate monuments. We’d be against any effort at widespread removal of those monuments. That would be erasing history. Leave them up and learn from them. If local governments want to put up new plaques at the monuments, explaining them as they see fit, that’s up to them.
But if local governments want to remove state-owned monuments on their property, that should be up to them as well. McCrory said in a press release last week that he had issues with the bill over removing local control, The Associated Press reported. But he signed it, saying the bill’s “goals” were worthy of his signature.
We’re glad his pen didn’t blow away in the wind to which he held his finger.
Last week was not a good one for the governor. There were also questions about McCrory chief counsel Bob Stephens’ handling of a conflict-of-interest issue.
And the week only got worse for the governor on issues over the Civil War, which allegedly ended 150 years ago, when he continued to waffle over the state sale of specialty license plates bearing the Confederate flag image. The plates must go. Unlike the historic monuments we’ve inherited, these plates are manufactured and sold in the here and now. But a state in the 21st century shouldn’t be in the public business of license plates with the image of a flag that, for many state residents, stood for the upholding of slavery.
McCrory repeated in a press release that he wants to stop issuing the plates, the AP reported. But he said he thinks the law requires him to wait for approval from the legislature. Legislative leaders say it’s the governor’s decision.
Maybe he should more closely consult with his chief counsel, even if that creates yet another controversy.
