Orangeburg Survivors Call for ‘Historical Reckoning’
Many legislators cool to independent inquiry into civil-rights-era tragedy
COLUMBIA - Dan T. Carter had just begun his prize-winning career as a historian 40 years ago and was teaching at the University of Maryland when he said he called friends about the shooting deaths of three black students at the hands of white state troopers on the campus of South Carolina State University the night before.
News stories, he said, claimed the shootings, which also wounded 28, were the result of an “exchange of gunfire.”"I think what upset them most was that the media had immediately swallowed this notion, and one of them kept yelling to me on the phone, ‘We didn’t have any guns. Nobody here was shooting,’ ” Carter said.
Decades later, shooting survivors, families of those killed and many black state lawmakers want an independent panel to investigate what happened. They’re hoping the facts will change the first impression many had: that the shootings were the fault of a violent student protest spurred by outside agitators.
The idea of a fact-finding review has been endorsed by former Gov. Jim Hodges, Reggie Lloyd, a former U.S. attorney and chief of the State Law Enforcement Division, Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, and former S.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Ernest Finney Jr.
But state legislative leaders have been cool to the idea, arguing such an inquiry could cause more division than healing. U.S. Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, is looking into the shootings at the request of a family of one of the students who was shot, a spokeswoman said.
Nine state troopers faced federal civil rights charges for the shootings but were acquitted. The FBI and U.S. Justice Department examined the incident last year as part of a nationwide review of civil-rights era cold cases. But the FBI declined to re-open an investigation into the shootings because of the issue of double jeopardy with the troopers, a spokeswoman said then.
Carter, who spent a lifetime studying the history of the post-Civil War South, retired from the University of South Carolina last year after a career that included teaching at Emory University, the University of Wisconsin, London’s Westminster University, Cambridge University and the University of Genoa.
In addition to authoring a number of prize-winning articles and books of history looking at the South, Carter also has been a consultant for several television documentaries and docu-dramas, including “Scottsboro: An American Tragedy” and “George Wallace: Settin’ The Woods On Fire.”
Carter said it is not uncommon for people to resist looking back at a tragic historical event.
“It’s the same struggle we go through all the time when we try to deal with something a lot of people would rather just forget,” he said.
Carter said an argument in favor of reviewing what happened in Orangeburg is that there has not been a “historical reckoning” of the shootings like there has been with other civil rights-era incidents. He also said while Hodges issued a statement of regret and Gov. Mark Sanford has apologized, there has not been an official state reckoning with the shootings.
“I think there are a lot of people who say, ‘It’s one thing for the governor to say this is not a good thing,’” he said. “But there was not a full kind of reckoning with what happened, particularly after the troopers, in effect, were given a pass on the whole thing and acquitted.”
Unlike the shooting of students at Kent State, he said, the shootings at Orangeburg were not the subject of any political or academic analysis.
“The Orangeburg Massacre, because of the timing of it, was just sort of forgotten in 1968,” he said.
Rep. Todd Rutherford of Columbia said he understands the resistance to re-opening chapters in the state’s unpleasant history. He filed a bill to remove the Statehouse grounds memorial to former Gov. and U.S. Sen. “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, a leading white supremacist of his time. The bill has not received a vote.
“I don’t see a problem with looking back at things that happened in the past to learn from them,” he said. “I don’t know why there is such a large segment of the General Assembly that would have a problem with having a hearing on just what happened and getting to the root of it so we never go through that awful period again.”
Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Columbia pastor, has for years pushed the idea of a re-examination of the Orangeburg tragedy. He said he still supports the idea.
“I would feel bad if the federal government did what we were unwilling to do,” he said, referring to possible congressional hearings on the matter. “I think the state of South Carolina should take the lead on it. I think there is a way to do it without being divisive. I’m interested in closure. I think the time is right. If we don’t do it now, we’ll be talking about it five years from now.”
State Rep. Bakari Sellers, whose father was perhaps the most prominent survivor of those shot that night, said a panel looking at the tragedy would have a lot to look at and many who could tell them what they saw.
“There were 28 people wounded that night,” he said. “There were many witnesses on campus. They can look at the transcripts of my father’s arrest, the same records the board looked at when they pardoned him. There is a great amount of records out there to be unearthed, to be discovered and to be analyzed critically.”
Carter said the debate highlights the two ways society reacts to a call to review a painful chapter in its history. One, he said, is to forget it and focus on the future. The leader of the Legislative Black Caucus, in fact, said some black lawmakers have not warmed to the idea of a review of Orangeburg because the tragedy is still too painful to revisit.
The other way, Carter said, is to re-examine what happened with the aim of learning from the past. Some lawmakers have argued the tragedy could be a catalyst for a larger dialogue about race relations in South Carolina.
“There is no easy way out of it,” he said. “There are questions that not only have never been answered but may be unanswerable. My guess is that the real questions people often want to ask have to do with state actions, and those have to do with records that may not be available or may never have existed in memories, which may no longer be reliable even if the people have survived. And of course, a lot of the key people involved at that time are no longer with us.”
As difficult as it may be, Carter said, one strong argument in favor of a fact-finding project would be to correct the impressions many South Carolinians still have of the shootings.
“Years later, I talked to people who were not racist, at least not by the standards of the time, and yet 10 years later, they were saying, ‘Well it’s really up in the air because these guys (the police) were being shot at and they really didn’t know what was happening,’ ” Carter said. “It really reminded me how people are sort of pre-disposed to accept one version. And in that sense, rather than an official apology for what happened, an official finding of what happened might lay to rest these continuing questions about it.”
Copyright ©2008 The Greenville News








Social memory based in inaccuracies is a distortion of history and carries distortions forward. The more we are able to respond to concerns and set records straight the stronger we are as a people. The US has terrible problems with distortions of history. The beauty is that the past, like the present does not exist as islands of experience - however much they might seem to. Estrangements can be approached, reconcilliation can occur and a deepening of understandings carried forward.
Old goat — that was a very eloquent analysis. The truly distressing part about these historical distortions is that they are not only passively accepted; but often actively promoted. For instance, my middle-school aged child is studying the Middle East in social studies. Her student teacher taught the class that we “had to go into Iraq to remove a flawed government,” with the implication that the war was a good and noble cause, and that waging it was actually legal. No mention of the non-existent WMDs, or the Bush administration’s dishonest linking of Iraq with September 11 (which this teacher also implies with his statement that Iraq has always been actively involved in terrorism). I fear for the kids who will be tomorrow’s voters. They aren’t being taught to think for themselves,listen, question, debate, and recognize propaganda when they hear it.
This is not an unusual behavior on behalf of the U.S. government in its various forms. My example is Lewis and Clark with the Blackfoot attack on their expedition. Even as a kid, the official version sounded questionable: When attacked, one of the wounded fired off a mini-cannon and the Indians were so impressed by their firepower, they let them go. Oddly, the Blackfoot had the gun for years by then and knew it would take at least a minute to reload the thing. Why didn’t they finish them off.
Blackfoot oral history has it that Lews and Clark went into the hold of their boat and pulled out glass vials or jars with cloth in them. The Blackfoot had survived at least four smallpox plagues by that time, all but one deliberately set. They knew or at least had suspicion what was in those vials and let them go.
This is undoubtedly a cover-up into what is undoubtedly a criminal act. It is a pattern clear and consistent within the U.S. government in its various forms.
“Nine state troopers faced federal civil rights charges for the shootings but were acquitted”
the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Let’s stop using the establishment media term “go into” Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, etc. Let’s call a spade a spade-bomb, terrorize, destroy, torture, occupy, and so forth. An airstrike is a bombing raid meant to destroy, kill, maim, which are the end results. An “air strike,” is not a slap on the hand from above.
Good posts, Old Goat, Joni and Eugene. I don’t consider Old Goat’s post ‘analysis’, but simply describing reality, for ‘analysis’ involves questioning, applying critical thinking, things Old Goat did not need to do in order to provide his description of reality; and I agree with him.
——————————-
canuckchuck ,
Try posting something worthy of being read; instead of kiddy-like wasting peoples’ time.
And it’s not just a question of 9 whitie state troopies being acquitted. It’s that PLUS the fact that this is about them having incredibly and, clearly too, indiscriminately unloaded their guns like wild lunatics and against UNARMED people. And this having happened at a college makes it all worse, or seem worse anyway, than if it happened in a district known for gun violence and plenty of it. Even then we should have and do need very careful and thoroughly honest investigation, and prosecutions against crimes of law enforcement people, but it is all the more striking when an incident of this bloody and insane kind happens on a college campus where some students are peacefully protesting and are totally unarmed; besides their bodies’ left and right arms, anyway.
If you’re going to make the kind of point you posted, then, and to be just, try to not be negligent about the weighting aspect; educationally re-emphasise the full weight of the crime, or ‘massacre’, by making it clear how grave the crime was, and remains; since these “cops” were incredibly or terrifyingly acquitted.
Not really incredible is that, for it’s all too common in U.S. history; but it’s incredible in all other, or else in general terms, I believe.
—————————-
Bobo,
You’re off-base, and in two respects. And I’m only referring to wherein you posted:
“Let’s stop using the establishment media term “go into” Iraq, …”.
Joni was only quoting what the school teacher says, and given that it’s good that she communicates this, your comment is therefore off-base.
I agree with you on the rest of your post, but you’re also mistaken about ‘go into’ supposedly being invalid, at all. After all, the U.S. et al had to ‘go into’ Iraq to begin with in order to be there ever since, or for any amount of time thereafter; just that they have never left yet, so, and between the two, ‘ever since’ is the (sad and disturbing) reality.
Entering, so going, [into] a place doesn’t say how it’s entered, which could be either correctly, or destructively, violently, occupationally, …. Both are cases of going [into].
Also, I greatly appreciate articles like this one by Tim Smith of The Greenville News, SC, for I like acquiring more knowledge of old and recent U.S. history in all respects that are important.