I see your point. Likely they thought they would not have the votes to remove it fully and saw this as a compromise or a method to lower the visibility. That is a valid POV
My thought is that if it was as important to Pinkney then, as it has now become, then the vote may have been different and an abstention may have been more appropriate in 2000.
“I see your point. Likely they thought they would not have the votes to remove it fully and saw this as a compromise or a method to lower the visibility. That is a valid POV”
They obviously did not have the votes.
Even the original blogger admitted that it was a ‘compromise bill”. although that didn’t stop them from claiming [that] “Senator Pinckney SUPPORTED placing the Confederate flag at the very state-house location” while failing to mention what the compromise was.
I guess maybe I'm not clear about the point after all. Is anyone contending that the Senator consented to vote for the compromise through coercion or deceit and that consent through coercion or deceit is not consent at all?
More likely, the Senator voted for the compromise knowing the terms and conditions of the bill and believing he was receiving the benefit of the bargain for his constituency. After all, he was a STATE legislator. Only federal legislators vote for legislation they have never read.