- Details
-
Tuesday, 30 June 2026
-
Written by John Hood
As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, here is a question worth pondering: was the event it sought to explain and justify, the American War of Independence, fated to succeed?
Some historians say yes. They argue that while the rebellious colonies of North America contained a small population and limited military resources, they also comprised a sprawling territory that was simply impossible for any feasibly sized force of British regulars, auxiliaries, and Loyalist militia to subdue and hold.
Other historians disagree. While outright conquest might have been practically impossible, they correctly note that many colonists were Tory in their sympathies and an even-large swath were disinclined to fight on either side. A few decisive defeats, followed by the capture of key Patriot political and military leaders, might have induced some of the colonies to submit, they argue, leaving the remaining rump of revolutionary states too isolated and deprived of resources to continue their resistance.
I’m in the latter camp, at least regarding the first couple of years of the war. After the British realized they couldn’t hold rebellious Boston, their leaders formed the correct strategic insight: attack the enemy at its weakest point, not its strongest. They decided to redeploy their forces southward to remove the Carolinas and Georgia from the conflict. Virginia would have been their next target — and if it fell, the American Revolution would falter and, eventually, collapse.
It was Britain’s best play. It was not fated to fail. It was, over the course of six months, systematically defeated by the concerted efforts of a comparatively ragtag force of Patriots, most hailing from North and South Carolina.
During the first stage of the campaign, Patriots blocked a column of North Carolina Loyalists marching down the Cape Fear River to join up with an approaching invasion force of British redcoats. At the February 27, 1776, battle of Moores Creek Bridge, nearly all the Tories were killed, captured, or dispersed.
Weeks later, when British generals Henry Clinton and Charles Cornwallis finally converged on Wilmington, they discovered no reinforcements were coming. After some indecisive skirmishing, they decided to reembark on their ships and sail south to the port of Charlestown (now Charleston). Taking this largest city in the region would, they surmised, lead to the capture of the Carolinas.
Perhaps, at this early stage in the war, it would have. But Charleston had stout champions. Among them were soon-to-be-famous men such as Francis Marion, Thomas Sumter, and William Moultrie, a local militia colonel who deemed Sullivan’s Island at the mouth of the harbor as its most defensible point. It was Moultrie who supervised the construction of a fort made of palmetto logs.
In addition to these South Carolinians, Charleston’s defenders included hundreds of North Carolina militiamen from such counties as Bladen, Halifax, Mecklenburg, and Rowan. Some were stationed in the city itself, others on James Island or in other strongpoints ringing the harbor.
On June 28, 1776, the British attacked. Their warships pounded the fort on Sullivan’s Island. Their soldiers landed on its northern end. Neither gambit worked. After withering fire from entrenched Patriots, the redcoats withdrew. As for the fort, British cannonballs thudded ineffectually into its walls of spongy palmetto.
Charleston did fall — but not until 1780. By then, the American cause had weathered many storms and gained the crucial support of the French and Spanish. Leaving a garrison to hold Charleston, Cornwallis headed inland and won a series of battles so costly in casualties and irrelevant in strategic value that he was compelled to flee to Yorktown in hopes of resupply or evacuation. We know how that turned out.
It was 250 years ago this week, then, that Carolinians put an end to Britain’s first Southern Strategy, and with it the Crown’s best chance to win the war. The Continental Congress in Philadelphia was about to finalize the Declaration of Independence. Its relevance rested on a hard-fought battle nearly 700 miles away.
Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).
- Details
-
Tuesday, 30 June 2026
-
Written by Bill Bowman
Decided.
The editorial below was authored several days before the North Carolina State Board of Elections’ June 24 decision to dismiss the complaint filed against Cumberland County Board of Elections Chair Linda Devore by county employee Joshua Dovi. The Board found no probable cause to advance the complaint. We predicted this because the outcome illustrates a broader and troubling trend: the use of false and unfounded accusations as a means of weaponizing administrative processes to damage reputations and undermine public servants. Such actions erode trust, distract from legitimate governance, and harm the very communities these people, organizations, and institutions are meant to serve.
For decades, Linda Devore has demonstrated consistent, principled service to the residents of Cumberland County. Her record speaks for itself. The same cannot be said of her accuser. Once again, the principle of “doing the right thing for the right reason” proves reliable.
I encourage you to read the editorial below, followed by Devore’s statement after the dismissal. Up & Coming Weekly newspaper remains committed to reporting on issues that matter to Fayetteville and Cumberland County, guided by the voices and experiences of the people who live here. Thank you.
—Bill Bowman
Here in Fayetteville and Cumberland County, we have an unfortunate tendency to “eat our own.” By this I mean we have an overabundance of small minded individuals who seem determined to find fault with any person, policy, or procedure they remotely dislike — and then proceed to defame or destroy them.
That’s how I view the situation involving Cumberland County Board of Elections employee Joshua Dovi, who has filed a formal complaint against Board of Elections Chair Linda Devore, accusing her of interfering with board operations, coercing staff and prying into his private family and health matters.
I do not know Mr. Dovi. However, I do know Linda Devore — personally, professionally, and through her long involvement in local business, the Republican Party, and her work as Board of Elections Chair. On the surface, in my opinion, this situation looks like a combination of sour grapes and afternoon soap opera drama. But I’ll let you decide.
Below are Dovi’s accusations against Devore, along with her responses, as reported by Paul Woolverton of CityView on June 22, 2026.
1. Allegation: “Professional Bribe” / Improper Job Offer
Dovi’s Claim:
Dovi alleges that Devore encouraged him to apply for a yet to be created management position and that the offer was intended to dissuade him from reporting her conduct. He calls it an “improper inducement” and a “professional bribe,” arguing the position was created by Devore and offered privately to him, raising concerns about her integrity.
Devore’s Response:
Devore denies the accusation. She states the position was developed by the full board in October — long before any conflict with Dovi — and is still under review by county commissioners as part of the personnel budget. She emphasizes the position was not created for Dovi and would be publicly advertised if funded.
2. Allegation: Distrust of Voting Machines
Dovi’s Claim:
Dovi asserts that Devore had an “unfounded mistrust” of the county’s vote counting machines and repeatedly questioned their reliability and security. He says she ignored his assurances that the machines met all specifications and that her behavior amounted to interference with staff functions.
Devore’s Response:
Devore flatly denies ever questioning the accuracy or reliability of the equipment. She says she frequently speaks about how reliable the tabulators are and considers them “unsurpassed.” She acknowledges discussing potential upgrades to newer DS300 models, but concluded the performance difference was minimal.
3. Allegation: Interfering With Daily Operations
Dovi’s Claim:
Dovi claims Devore became deeply involved in daily office operations beyond her authority, including calling meetings with staff independently and overstepping her role as a board member.
Devore’s Response:
Devore disputes this characterization and states she did not insert herself into daily operations in the way Dovi describes.
4. Allegation: Setting Office Policies Unilaterally
Dovi’s Claim:
Dovi alleges that Devore attempted to set operational policies on her own rather than through formal board votes.
Devore’s Response:
Devore denies acting outside the proper process, stating that the Elections Board sets policies collectively, not individually.
5. Allegation: Pressure Regarding Remote Work Policy
Dovi’s Claim:
Dovi says Devore repeatedly questioned him about why he supported a remote work policy and persisted even after he told her the matter was private. He claims she pressured him during a public board meeting to disclose a sensitive personal and family health matter, effectively compelling him to reveal protected health information — potentially violating privacy rights and HIPAA.
Devore’s Response:
Devore says the remote work issue arose because other employees complained about inconsistent telework practices. She notes that Dovi himself submitted a remote work proposal on April 29, which the board discussed on May 1. She says she has no knowledge of ever pressuring him to disclose personal health information. The board is still considering the policy.
6. Allegation: Pattern of Pressure, Coercion, and Interference
Dovi’s Claim:
Dovi asserts a broader pattern of coercive behavior by Devore, claiming she pressured staff, interfered with operations, and created an environment of intimidation.
Devore’s Response:
Devore denies all allegations of coercion or interference, calling the accusations false and frivolous. She also notes that two previous complaints filed against her were dismissed by the State Board of Elections.
Final Thoughts
This complaint — like the two before it — arrives in a politically charged environment with high stakes: a director on leave, staff vacancies, and a major election cycle underway. Dovi’s allegations are serious, but many hinge on interpretation, motive, or private conversations that cannot be independently verified. Meanwhile, Devore is a known entity in local business and political circles, with a long standing reputation reflected in her categorical and confident responses.
Are Dovi’s claims Fact or Fiction? At this stage, it’s impossible to say. Most remain allegations, not established facts.
By the time you read this, the State Board of Elections may have already determined what is substantiated, what is exaggerated, and what is simply workplace drama elevated into a formal complaint. If so, this article may offer helpful context and insight. This is what community newspapers do. Thank you for reading Up & Coming Weekly.
Statement on dismissal of charges from Linda Devore
June 24, 2026
Earlier today, the North Carolina Board of Elections dismissed a complaint filed against me by an employee of our Board. The State Board found no probable cause to proceed with the complaint.
Our board functions as a body. Allegations that I made a statement at any time indicating authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board are untrue. In fact, at a staff meeting attended by our Assistant County Manager, Deputy Director, Mr. Dovi, and other staff, we discussed that only the Board has authority to make policy decisions.
I proceeded to call a meeting of our Board for later in the week to take up the issue of an office-wide hybrid remote work policy Mr. Dovi felt strongly about, that had not yet been considered or adopted by our Board. Mr. Dovi was invited and encouraged to offer input and joined our meeting remotely. He was in no way compelled.
North Carolina's election systems, including our paper ballots and tabulator system, are the best in the country. It is the responsibility of our Board to pair these tools with a team of elections professionals who embrace a superior level of integrity to ensure free, fair, and accurate results for our voters and candidates.
When State Auditor Dave Boliek appointed me to serve as Chair of the Cumberland County Board of Elections, a county where he lived and served in the DA’s office for many years, he charged me with raising standards and improving delivery of elections services in Cumberland County, while making it easy to vote and hard to cheat.
Integrity is not optional, nor is it a switch that can be turned on and off. It must guide every decision we make, and action we take.
Nothing is more important than protecting the sacred rights of voters, and the process by which we elect political leadership in this nation, this state, and in Cumberland County, by embracing high and exacting standards, with strong accountability
Our Board has been working for months, laying the groundwork for improving staffing, training, and communications, to provide greater accuracy and transparency in our elections process. We are grateful to the Board of Commissioners for funding our budget request for FY 2026-2027, including an increase in personnel positions that will help us reach these goals.
Our Board continues to move forward with making the Cumberland County Board of Elections the most accountable, professional, and productive office in the state.
Cumberland County deserves no less.
—Linda Devore, Chair Cumberland County Board of Elections
(Photo: Linda Devore-Courtesy photo)
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
