Tourists make 'historically significant' discovery while exploring South Carolina beach
Tourists exploring a South Carolina island recently stumbled across "historically significant" remains, according to local officials.
The Colleton County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) announced the discovery in a May 24 press release. The remains were found the day before near the Jeremy Cay gated community, about half a mile from shore.
Edisto Island, south of Charleston, is one of several Sea Islands in the Palmetto State. It's been inhabited by Europeans since the 17th century.
Tourists were wandering through the area on May 23 when they uncovered "what they initially believed to be fossils," according to officials.
"Upon closer examination, they realized the remains appeared to be human and promptly contacted the Colleton County Sheriff's Office and the Edisto Beach Police Department," authorities said.
When officers arrived, they secured the area and handled the incident like a crime scene – but the circumstances of the remains weren't exactly suspicious.
Rather, authorities said that the beachgoers found a "historically significant" site that likely served as a burial ground.
"The location of the discovery [was] once home to the 19th-century settlement known as Edingsville Beach," police said.
"Early indications suggest the remains may originate from a long-forgotten burial site."
The Colleton County Coroner's Office arrived to recover the remains, which were then taken to the Medical University of South Carolina, where they are still being identified and studied.
"At this time, the identity of the individual and the circumstances surrounding their death remain unknown," the CCSO noted.
"This is an active investigation, and the CCSO is working closely with the Coroner's Office and other partner agencies to determine more about the remains and their origin."
Edisto Island's tourism site says that Edingsville Beach was a popular seaside destination for wealthy Charleston residents before the Civil War began.
After many of the residences were abandoned by planters who went bankrupt during the war, African American sharecroppers and farmers came into ownership of the buildings.
The recently discovered remains are some of the last traces of the once-thriving community.
By the late 19th century, many of the buildings were swept into the ocean due to hurricanes – and the recently discovered remains are some of the last traces of the once-thriving community.
Fox News Digital reached out to CCSO for additional information, but no new details were available.
As one of the original Thirteen Colonies, South Carolina is home to many historic sites. Earlier this year, a group of veterans gathered in Kershaw County to excavate a Revolutionary War battlefield.
Two years earlier, the remains of multiple Revolutionary War soldiers were found at the same Kershaw County site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Town hall to honor legacy of Cynthia Graham Hurd and Emanuel 9
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – June 17 will mark 10 years since the tragic shooting at a historic African American church in downtown Charleston. A gunman, motivated by white supremacist views, attended a Bible study at Emanuel AME Church on the evening of June 17, 2015, before shooting and killing nine people. Five people survived the massacre. As we lead up to that day, the Lowcountry is honoring those who were impacted by the attack, the survivors who lived to tell the story, and the nine victims who left lasting legacies in the community. The Cynthia Graham Hurd Foundation for Reading, Literacy, and Civic Engagement will hold a town hall next week to honor the memory of Cynthia Graham Hurd and the Emanuel 9. Organizers say the event will also reflect on the progress made over the past 10 years, and the path forward for the community and nation. It will feature live music and a panel discussion led by CNN political commentator Bakari Sellers. Malcom Graham, the brother of Cynthia Graham Hurd, spoke with News 2 about the importance of not forgetting what happened that night. 'The purpose of the program really is to celebrate Cynthia's life, her legacy, her impact in the Charleston community. And secondly, to do the work that's necessary to create conversations around a very complicated issue. What happened in Charleston 10 years ago centered around race, discrimination, and hatred,' he said. The town hall will be held at Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston on June 12 at 6 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
British Airways says its short-haul business class is booming. Here's why that could be a boost for US budget airlines.
British Airways' CEO said Club Europe sales have "defied our best expectations." The premium cabin has the same seats as economy, but with the middle one blocked off. Spirit Airlines is introducing a similar product as fliers are more interested in upgrades globally. European-style business class isn't the most luxurious, but its popularity has reached new heights at British Airways. British Airways CEO Sean Doyle said sales in its Club Europe class have "defied our best expectations," The Times of London reported on Tuesday. While legacy US airlines offer comfier seats and more legroom on all their aircraft, most European carriers have a much simpler premium product on their narrow-body planes. In the typical 3-3 layout, business class simply has a divider placed on the middle seat. A curtain separating it from the economy cabin can be moved down the aisle depending on capacity. "After the global financial crisis in 2008, people were saying it wouldn't work," Doyle reportedly said at the International Air Transport Association conference. "And yet it's more popular than ever, especially for leisure passengers." He pointed to perks like lounge access, priority boarding, and better food-and-drink options. "There is really important value in short-haul premium for customers, and we are seeing that come through in the numbers," Doyle added, per The Times. The fact that the hard product — the seat itself — is so similar to traveling in economy means some Europeans don't see the value compared to flying with a budget airline like easyJet or Ryanair. However, premium options have been in more demand around the world since the pandemic. That's strained budget airlines, especially in the US. They've been rolling out upgraded offerings in an attempt to attract more customers as their preferences have changed. For example, Doyle's comments could be particularly welcomed by Spirit Airlines. Last July, it announced a "Go Comfy" option that would include a blocked middle seat in the same style as British Airways' Club Europe. However, unlike the London-based carrier, "Go Comfy" seats will also have four inches of extra legroom. Southwest Airlines has also announced premium options, scrapping its signature unassigned-seating policy to encourage passengers to pay for extra legroom. At the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference last week, CEO Bob Jordan said customers want different cabins, a variety of offerings, and "access to premium." Doyle's comments suggest that the American budget airlines are on the right path. Even if their offerings aren't as opulent as Delta Air Lines or United Airlines, passengers simply care more about the experience of flying in a premium class. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Pardon Power Isn't as Absolute as He Thinks
In 2017, President Donald Trump insisted that his power to pardon was 'complete'—a claim consistent with his generally absolutist views of the office's powers, and one also inherited from his predecessors. 'The President, in his action on pardon cases, is not subject to the control or supervision of anyone,' said President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general. President Dwight Eisenhower's pardon attorney claimed that in exercising the power, 'the President is amenable only to the dictates of his own conscience.' President Bill Clinton's pardon attorney advised that any cooperation with congressional investigators on pardon matters was entirely voluntary. The pardon power is expansive, and also now a near-weekly tool to reward Trump's political allies. But just last week, a federal court punctured the popular idea that the power is somehow immune to a normal constitutional check. Among the recipients of Trump's January 6 pardons was John Sullivan, who turned a profit from selling video footage from the riot—money the government later seized. Sullivan claimed, with the backing of the Justice Department, that the government must now reimburse him. Pardons are supposed to relieve a recipient from punishment, and so Sullivan argued that repayment should be a part of that promise. But the court ruled against him, concluding that 'funds may not be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation, plain and simple.' That is, any repayment would run through Congress, which decides how money is dispensed. The case is nominally about whether a pardonee gets to reclaim seized property. But it is more fundamentally about the separation of powers. The president is vested with the power to pardon, while Congress is vested with the power to spend money. Sullivan received his pardon, but 'money is money, the Treasury is the Treasury, and the Constitution says what it says: Once money is in the Treasury, it can only be withdrawn pursuant to a Congressional appropriation,' wrote the Reagan-appointed judge. This was not the first time this particular issue landed in court; the last time, interestingly enough, was after another insurrection. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned hundreds of thousands of former Confederates, including Herman Knote, whose property the federal government confiscated and sold during the Civil War. After receiving his pardon, Knote sued to claim the proceeds from the government's sale of his property, claiming, like Sullivan, that the pardon entitled him to the money. The Supreme Court disagreed. In Knote v. United States, the court held that while clemency lifts the punishment for a crime, the pardon power cannot simultaneously undermine other parts of the Constitution—in this case, again, Congress's power of the purse. 'Whilst a full pardon releases the offender from all disabilities imposed by the offense pardoned,' the funds from the property sale had already been deposited into the Treasury. And unfortunately for Mr. Knote, once there, they 'can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law.' When the pardon power bumped up against another part of the Constitution, the former was not entitled to run roughshod over the latter. 'However large, therefore, may be the power of pardon possessed by the President,' the court added, 'and however extended may be its application, there is this limit to it, as there is to all his powers.' Presidents have nonetheless continued to claim that the pardon power is a kinglike exception to the rule; federal courts have also continued, in case after case, to remind them that they are wrong. In 1915, for instance, the Supreme Court found that President Wilson could not cleverly pardon a newspaper editor as a means of compelling his testimony to a grand jury by abrogating his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. The court held 'that the power of the President under the Constitution to grant pardons and the right of a witness must be kept in accommodation.' In 1974, the court held that a president's clemency powers include the authority to impose conditions on a commutation, provided those conditions do not violate other constitutional provisions. The exercise of the pardon power, said the court, cannot 'offend the Constitution.' In other cases this year, the Justice Department has argued that Trump's January 6 pardons somehow cover criminal offenses unrelated to January 6. Courts, in response, have mostly balked. Last month, prosecutors moved to dismiss the gun possession conviction of an alleged drug dealer by claiming that the pardon covered the offense because it was discovered during a January 6–related investigation. A district court denied the motion (a 'bad faith' and 'unreasonable' one, it added). The defendant's lawyer also argued that 'courts don't have the authority to interpret a pardon,' while prosecutors said courts should defer to the executive branch's own interpretation—challenging not just the potential check itself, but the authority to exercise a check in the first place. Again last month, a federal appellate court reasserted its constitutional authority to review the scope of a pardon, and struck down the Department's attempt to inappropriately apply it to separate crimes. Courts are playing their part. But as with the current administration's general assault on the rule of law, and despite insisting on their role in performing a constitutional check, courts alone are not going to rein in escalating abuses. Ever since President Richard Nixon dangled pardons to his Watergate henchmen, presidents have used the pardon power to self-deal—granting clemency to friends and family members and donors, and to obstruct investigations and reward loyalty. But nothing has come close to President Trump's abuse of the power. As a Washington Post investigation of all clemency acts during his first term concluded: 'Never before had a president used his constitutional clemency powers to free or forgive so many people who could be useful to his future political efforts.' His second term appears no different. By one recent estimate, Trump has wiped out more than 700 years of prison time for his allies and supporters since retaking office. To make matters worse, while pardons can be used to commit certain crimes, like to bribe or obstruct justice, the Supreme Court issued an opinion last year that effectively immunizes a president's 'official acts' from criminal liability, including pardons. In recent months, a lucrative cottage industry of 'pardon shopping' has formed, with pardon seekers paying big to lobby the president's inner circle, according to The Wall Street Journal. The court's ruling now helps to insulate a president from criminal accountability—say, if it were discovered that a pardon functioned as a bribe. Yet the ruling does not insulate a president from congressional oversight. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have voiced alarm in recent months at expanding abuses—Democrats criticizing President Joe Biden's pardons of family members and Republicans denouncing Trump's January 6 pardons. They include Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, a longtime pardon reform champion, but also Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who suggested that Congress 'revisit' the scope of the power. Bipartisan majorities of Americans also support clearer limits. There are two branches responsible for checking executive power, not one. A basic role for lawmakers could start with an investigation of pardon practices by recent administrations of both parties. This may seem far-fetched for our currently languishing legislature, but consider congressional hearings that examine the Hunter Biden pardon alongside Roger Stone's. The exercise has bipartisan precedent: from Ford to Clinton, Republicans and Democrats have jointly investigated pardon abuses. A step further, Congress could work toward a sense of resolution—a kind of joint statement of principles—to clarify the constitutional meaning of clemency. Resolutions are not law, but they can be important reassertions of political norms. Congress could also create new tools, such as passing legislation to specifically sharpen its pardon oversight tools, or even initiate discussion of a constitutional amendment. All of this is dependent upon a basic recognition that the pardon power is less invincible than many presidents would have us believe. Repeating the fanciful claim of an unchallengeable power does not make it so. What courts are offering is not just a constitutional check, but also a reminder that constitutional checks on the pardon power are well within the realm of the possible.
