SCV Camp 458 Schedule of Events and Meetings. Oct. 2015 to Jan. 2016

October 22nd:
SCV Camp 458 Mid-Month Meeting @ 6:30pm.
Special Presentation: History of Col. Isaac W. Smith
The Bomber Restaurant (Banquet Room)
13515 SE McLoughlin Blvd
Milwaukie, OR. 97222

November 7th:
SCV Camp 458 Meeting @ 11am.
Special Presentation: Emergency Survival Preparedness Pt. 1 “72 Hour Survival Kit”.
Location: Vancouver Meeting Hall (email for for directions)

November 14th:
SCV Leadership Conference and Division Convention. @ 12 noon thru 6pm
Special Presentations By:
Walter “Donnie” Kennedy author of “The South Was Right”
SCV Army of Trans Mississippi Commander Lauret
SCV Pacific NW Division Commander Erik Ernst
SCV Pacific NW Division Adjutant/Chaplain Father John Sigmon
SCV Pacific NW Division Genealogist Norm Ernst
Canyon Creek Restaurant & Lounge
1411 Shilo Dr.
Nampa, ID 83687


November 19th:
SCV Camp 458 Mid-Month Meeting @ 6:30pm.
Special Presentation: TBA
The Bomber Restaurant (Banquet Room)
13515 SE McLoughlin Blvd
Milwaukie, OR. 97222

November 21st-22nd:
SCV Recruiting Event (Gun Show)
Portland EXPO Center
2060 N. Marine Dr
Portland, OR  97217

December 5th:
SCV Camp 458 Meeting @ 11am.
Special Presentation: Emergency Survival Preparedness. Pt. 2 by Dave Gillaspie
Location: Vancouver Meeting Hall (email for for directions)

December 6th:
SCV Camp 458 Christmas Dinner @ 5pm.
Christmas Carols, Stories and fellowship.
Denicola’s Italian Restaurant
3520 SE Powell Blvd
Portland, OR. 97202

January 2nd, 2016:
SCV Camp 458 Meeting @ 11am.
Special Presentation: TBA
Location: Vancouver Meeting Hall (email for for directions)

January 16th, 2016:
SCV Southern Hospitality Night @ 5pm
What to look forward to: Potluck dinner, sharing of stories, Confederate pictures and heirlooms, music and dancing.
Location: TBA (very soon)
Cost: TBA

January 21st, 2016:
SCV Camp 458 Mid-Month Meeting @ 6:30pm.
Special Presentation: TBA
The Bomber Restaurant (Banquet Room)
13515 SE McLoughlin Blvd
Milwaukie, OR. 97222

Ohio ACLU opposes flag ban

Kettering City Schools Board of Education
(WDTN Photo)

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WDTN) – The ACLU of Ohio said Wednesday morning they are against the decision by Kettering City School District to ban display of the Confederate flag.

In a release, Christie Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said, “As an organization that has fought for civil rights for almost 100 years, the ACLU recognizes that for many the Confederate Flag represents a painful history. At the same time, suppression of constitutionally protected expression goes against our founding principles as a nation. As the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear, students’ rights don’t end at the schoolhouse gate—they also don’t end in the school parking lot.”

“The First Amendment protects the right to express any viewpoint, no matter how unpopular, and therein lies its strength. It is not up to the government—be it the local school district or Congress—to decide for us which speech is acceptable,” said Link.

The ACLU also pointed out a number of court decisions protect students’ right to express themselves at school, even when their ideas are unpopular or controversial.

SCV Leadership Conference and Division Convention, to be held in Boise Idaho! 11/14/15

Fellow Compatriots and Friends,

SCV Camp 2244 of Boise, Idaho and the Pacific NW Division, will be hosting a SCV Leadership Conference, followed by a small Division Convention/Meeting. November 14th is the date, so make sure to keep you calendars open for this! These two events will be on the same day, and will take place in Boise, Idaho.

Leadership Conferences are put on by SCV headquarters. More than likely, we’ll have Commander in Chief Kelly Barrow and Lt. Commander in Chief Thomas Strain, put on the class. This will be a great time for everyone to meet the leadership of our great organization. We will have a few special guest speakers as well.

There will be much more information about this event posted over the coming week. If you have any questions, please contact Division Commander Ernst.

Thank You,

Commander Ernst

Jefferson Davis Statue removed from University of Texas

The following article was posted by the Associated Press.


University of Texas removes Jefferson Davis statue

A statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis is moved from its location in front of the school's main tower the University of Texas campus, Sunday, Aug. 30, 2015, in Austin, Texas. The Davis statue, which has been targeted by vandals and had come under increasing criticism, will be moved and placed in the school's Dolph Briscoe Center for American History as part of an educational display. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A statue of Jefferson Davis was removed from its pedestal Sunday on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin, days after a court rejected an appeal from a Confederate heritage group.

Crews were seen removing the statue of the Confederate president from its place near the university’s iconic clock tower.

Davis’ statue will eventually be displayed in the Briscoe Center history museum on campus, which university officials said is a more appropriate place for it. The Briscoe Center has one of the nation’s largest archives on slavery.

The statue has been a target of vandalism as well as criticism that it is a symbol of racism and discrimination. Confederate symbols nationwide are being re-considered following the recent mass shooting of members of a black church in Charleston, South Carolina.

“This is an iconic moment,” said Gregory Vincent, the university’s vice president for diversity and community engagement, according to the Austin American-Statesman. “It really shows the power of student leadership.”

A judge last week ruled against the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sued to stop the university from moving it.

Statues of other Confederate figures — Confederate Gens. Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston, and Confederate Postmaster General John H. Reagan — will remain in their places on campus.

University officials halted earlier plans to move the Davis statue after the Sons of Confederate Veterans asked a judge to stop them. The Confederate group compared the proposal to relocate the statue to the Islamic State group destroying artifacts in the Middle East.

But State District Judge Karin Crump ruled last week that Texas officials have the authority under state law to decide where the statue should stand.

The Battle Flag and the attack on Western culture

Posted on August 7, 2015 by The Abbeville Review


Back in mid-June, after the Charleston, Tennessee, shootings, the frenzied hue and cry went up and any number of accusations and charges were made against historic Confederate symbols, in particular, the Confederate Battle Flag (which is not as some supposedly informed writers called it, “the Stars and Bars;” the Stars and Bars is a different flag with a totally different design). The best way to examine these charges in a short column is point by point, briefly and succinctly.

First, the demand was made that the Battle Flag needs to come down, that images of that flag need to be banned and suppressed, because, whatever its past may have been, it has now become in the current context a “symbol of hate” and “carried by racists,” that it “symbolizes racism.” The problem with this argument is both historical and etiological.

Historically, the Battle Flag, with its familiar Cross of St. Andrew, was a square ensign that was carried by Southern troops during the War Between the States. It was not the national flag of the Confederacy that flew over slavery, but, rather, was carried by soldiers, 90-plus percent of whom did not own slaves (roughly comparable to percentages in certain regiments of the Union army with some slave-holding soldiers from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri in its ranks; indeed, Gen. Ulysses Grant’s wife, Julia Dent Grant, owned slaves).

By contrast, the American flag, the “Stars and Stripes,” not only flew over slavery for 78 years, it flew over the brutal importation, the selling and the purchase of slaves, and the breaking up of slave families. Additionally, the Stars and Stripes flew over the infamous “Trail of Tears,” at the Sand Creek massacre of innocent Native Americans, later at the Wounded Knee massacre, over the harsh internment of thousands of Nisei Japanese American citizens in concentration camps during World War II, and during the action at My Lai during the Vietnam War.

Although there are some zealots who now suggest doing away with the American flag because of these connections, I would suggest that most of the pundits on the neoconservative Fox News and among the Republican governors presently clamoring for banning the Battle Flag would not join them in that demand. Yet if we examine closely the history of both banners from the radically changing contexts that are used to attack the one, should we not focus on the history of other, as well? And if only a particular snapshot context is used to judge such symbols, is any symbol of America’s variegated history safe from the hands of those who may dislike or despise this or that symbol?

Second, a comparison has been made between the Battle Flag and the Nazi flag (red background, with a white circle and a black swastika centered). Again, this comparison demonstrates a lack of historical acumen on the part of those making it: The Nazi flag was created precisely to represent the Nazi Party and its ideology. The Battle Flag was designed to represent the historic Celtic and Christian origin of many Southerners and served as a soldiers’ flag.

Third, the charge has been made that we should ban Confederate symbols because they represent “treason against the federal government.” That is, those Southerners who took up arms in 1861 to defend their states, their homes and their families were engaged in “rebellion” and were “traitors” under federal law.

Again, such arguments fail on all counts. Some writers have suggested that Robert E. Lee, in particular, was a “traitor” because he violated his solemn military oath to uphold and defend the Constitution by taking arms against the Union. But what those writers fail to note is that Lee had formally resigned from the U.S. Army and his commission before undertaking his new assignment to defend his home state of Virginia, which by then had seceded and re-vindicated its original independence.

And that brings us to Point 4: the right of secession and whether the actions of the Southern states, December 1860-May 1861, could be justified under the U.S. Constitution.

One of the best summaries of the prevalent Constitutional theory at that time has been made by black scholar, professor and prolific author Walter Williams. I quote from one his recent columns:

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? [my emphasis added]

Let me add that an examination of the ratification processes for Georgia, South Carolina and my own North Carolina in the late 1780s reveal very similar discussions: It was the independent states themselves that had created a federal government (and not the reverse, as Abe Lincoln erroneously suggested); and it was the various states that granted the federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves. As any number of the Founders indicated, there simply would not have been any United States if the states, both north and south, had believed that they could not leave it for just cause.

Interestingly, in my many years of research I can find only a couple of American presidents who openly and frankly denied the right of secession or believed in the Constitutional right to suppress it (of course, there is John Quincy Adams). In his address to Congress in January of 1861, lame duck President James Buchanan, while deploring secession in the strongest terms, stated frankly that he had no right to prevent it: “I certainly had no right to make aggressive war upon any State, and I am perfectly satisfied that the Constitution has wisely withheld that power even from Congress.” Former President John Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, and former President Franklin Pierce, in his famous Concord, New Hampshire, address, July 4, 1863, joined Buchanan in decrying the efforts to suppress the secession of the Southern states:

Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?

More, during the antebellum period, William Rawle’s pro-secession text on Constitutional law, “A View of the Constitution of the United States” (1825), was used at West Point as the standard text on the U.S. Constitution. And on several occasions, the Supreme Court itself affirmed this view. In The Bank of Augusta v. Earl (1839), the court wrote in an 8-1 decision:

The States … are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and object of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.

A review of the Northern press at the time of the Secession conventions finds, perhaps surprisingly to those who wish to read back into the past their own statist ideas, a similar view: Few newspapers took the position that the federal government had the constitutional right to invade and suppress states that had decided to secede. Indeed, were it not the New England states in 1814-1815 who made the first serious effort at secession during the War of 1812, to the point that they gathered in Hartford, Connecticut, to discuss actively pursuing it? And during the pre-war period, various states asserted in one form or another similar rights.

One last point regarding the accusation of “treason”: After the conclusion of the war, the Southern states were put under military authority, their civil governments were dissolved and each state had to be re-admitted to the Union. Now, unless my logic is wrong, you cannot be “re-admitted” to something unless you have been out of it. And if you were out of it, legally and constitutionally, as the Southern states maintained (and many Northern writers acknowledged), then you cannot be in any way guilty of “treason.”

The major point that opponents of Confederate symbols assert currently is that the panoply of those monuments, flags, plaques and other reminders actually represent a defense of slavery. And since we as a society have supposedly advanced progressively in our understanding, it is both inappropriate and hurtful to continue to display them.

Again, there are various levels of response. Historically, despite the best efforts of the ideologically driven Marxist historical school (e.g., Eric Foner) to make slavery the only issue underlying the War Between the States, there is considerable evidence — while not ignoring the significance of slavery — to indicate more profound economic and political reasons why that war occurred (cf. writers Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, David Gordon, Jeffrey Hummel, William Marvel, Thomas Fleming, et al.). Indeed, it goes without saying that when hostilities began, anti-slavery was not a major reason at all in the North for prosecuting the war; indeed, it never was a major reason. Lincoln made this explicit to editor Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune a short time prior to the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to states in the South where the federal government had no authority, but not to the states such as Maryland and Kentucky, where slavery existed, but were safely under Union control).

Here is what he wrote to Greeley on August 22, 1862:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate political ploy by Lincoln to churn up sagging support for a war that appeared stalemated at the time. Indeed, Old Abe had previously called for sending blacks back to Africa and the enforcement of laws that made Jim Crow look benign. He knew fully well that “freeing the slaves” had no support in the North and was not the reason for the conflict.

DiLorenzo, returning afresh to original sources, focuses on the deeper, all-encompassing economic motives:

Whatever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession are irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports [monies that supplied a major portion of Federal revenues], he kept his promise of “invasion and bloodshed” and waged war on the Southern states.

Indeed, late in the conflict the Confederate government authorized the formation of black units to fight for the Confederacy, with manumission to accompany such service. According to Ervin l. Jordan Jr. (“Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia,” University of Virginia, 1995), thousands of black men fought for the Confederacy, perhaps as many as 30,000. Would a society ideologically intent on preserving in toto the peculiar institution as the reason for war, even in such dire straits, have enacted such a measure?

It is, of course, easy to read back into a complex context then what appears so right and natural to us now; but it does a disservice to history, as the late professor Eugene Genovese, perhaps the finest historian of the Old South, fully understood. Understanding the intellectual struggle in which many Southerners engaged over the issue of slavery, he cautioned readers about rash judgments based on politically correct presentist ideas of justice and right, and in several books and numerous essays defended those leaders of the Old South who were faced with difficult decisions and a nearly intractable context. And more, he understood as too many writers fail to do today, that selecting this or that symbol of our collective history, singling it out for our smug disapprobation and condemnation, may make us feel good temporarily, but does nothing to address the deeper problems afflicting our benighted society.

Concerning Dylann Roof, the disturbed lone gunman responsible for the Charleston shootings, our proper response should be: If a rabid fox comes out of the woods and bites someone, you don’t burn the woods down, you stop the fox.

But in the United States today, we live in a country characterized by what historian Thomas Fleming has written afflicted this nation in 1860: “a disease in the public mind,” that is, a collective madness, lacking in both reflection and prudential understanding of our history. Too many authors advance willy-nilly down the slippery slope — thus, if we ban the Battle Flag, why not destroy all those monuments to Lee and Jackson. And why stop there? Washington and Jefferson were slaveholders, were they not? Obliterate and erase those names from our lexicon, tear down their monuments! Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon? Change those names, for they remind us of Confederate generals! Nathan Bedford Forest is buried in Memphis, Tennessee? Let’s dig up him up! Amazon sells “Gone with Wind?” Well, to paraphrase a writer at the supposedly “conservative,” Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, ban it, too!

It is a slippery slope, but an incline that in fact represents a not-so-hidden agenda, a cultural Marxism, that seeks to take advantage of the genuine horror at what happened in Charleston to advance its own designs which are nothing less than the remaking completely of what remains of the American nation. And, since it is the South that has been most resistant to such impositions and radicalization, it is the South, the historic South, that enters the crosshairs as the most tempting target. And it is the Battle Flag — true, it has been misused on occasion — which is not just the symbol of Southern pride, but becomes the target of a broad, vicious and zealous attack on Western Christian tradition itself. Those attacks, then, are only the opening salvo in this renewed cleansing effort; and those who collaborate with them, good intentions or not, collaborate with the destruction of our historic civilization. For that, they deserve our scorn and our most vigorous and steadfast opposition.

–Boyd Cathey

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years, he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish and English on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival and genealogical organizations.

The Confederate Battle Flag and General Joe Lane.

Joseph Lane

By Kathleen Galloway
As fate would have it, I was a month or so into researching the good General Lane for a project of my own, when this insidious, provocative and downright ridiculous article appeared in the Opinion section of the Sunday Oregonian, July 26, 2015, entitled “South Carolina had a Confederate flag; Oregon has Joseph Lane,” by Linell Nevius. Imagine my astonishment! As a card-carrying Confederate descendent, I must respond.
This article is a perfect example of the tactics of the reactionary and anti-democratic forces still prevailing within this Union. It is a combination of half-truths, omissions, insinuations, bald-faced lies, spin and incredible presentism, concocted at about a seventh grade level. I hardly know where to begin.
For the purposes of this article and for the sake of brevity, I am citing one reference. Any quotes which appear are from this book, unless otherwise stated. The title of the book is Joe Lane of Oregon: Machine Politics and the Sectional Crisis, 1849 – 1861, by James E. Hendrickson, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1967.
Nevius thinks “it’s time Oregon’s citizens gave some thought to our state history and had a conversation about our own state heritage.” Indeed, it is. Let’s examine Nevius’s very quick review of Oregon’s political history and the political history of Joseph Lane, and add the State of Indiana to our examination.
In 1849, when Gen. Joseph Lane was commissioned by President Polk to become the Governor of Oregon Territory, he was residing in Indiana, with his family, on his farm, where he had lived all of his adult life, slave-less. Lane was born in North Carolina in 1801. When he was three years old, his family (slave-less) emigrated to Kentucky and settled on the banks of the Ohio River at the border with Indiana. ”When he was 14 he left home to clerk in a dry goods store on the Indiana side of the river. By the time he was 21, he was engaged in the flatboating business and had acquired a farm, a wife, and a seat in the state legislature [of Indiana] – even before he was entitled to vote.” (p.2)
Nevius tells us that the General “was popular and known to be brave in combat.” Indeed, he was. While serving with the Second Indiana Volunteers, Joseph Lane distinguished himself during the Mexican War (1846 to ‘48) and was ultimately promoted to the rank of brevet Major General. “More importantly, his experience in the war brought him to national attention and provided him with an invaluable political asset, a favorable military record.” He was wildly popular among the slave-less citizens of Indiana. He was referred to variously as the “Marion of the Mexican war,” the “Cincinnatus of Indiana,” and the “Andrew Jackson of Indiana.” (p.53)
As noted previously, Gen. Lane was commissioned Governor of the Oregon Territory in 1849. After an arduous journey from Indiana, covering over 6000 miles and spanning seven months, he first set foot in Oregon Territory at Astoria in April, 1849, still slave-less. After a brief stop at “the little village of Portland, where the residents, hardly more than 20 souls, received them with warm hospitality and a simple but substantial meal” (p.7) he and the surviving members of his now small party, canoed on to the territorial capitol, Oregon City, where he took the oath of office on March 3, 1849 and settled in to organize the territorial government . (At this time, there were no freeways, no cars, no buses – not even Greyhound, not many roads, no airplanes, not even a transcontinental railway, the struggle over the construction of which was one of those pesky “non-causes” of the War Between The States (WBTS) AKA: The Civil War.)
In January of 1850, a new governor was appointed for The Oregon Territory, one John P. Gaines, an Indiana Whig. “This news created quite a furor among Oregonians, especially those of the Democratic persuasion, who were quick to denounce Whig appropriation of the spoils system. A resolution passed by a mass meeting in Oregon City expressed the prevailing sentiment: We believe that Gov. Lane has faithfully, vigilantly, and honorably discharged all the duties incumbent upon him as Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs in and for this Territory. We know that he has endeared himself to this people by his uniform kind, generous and manly bearing as a neighbor, friend, and citizen and we deeply regret his removal.” (p.19) In June, 1850, General Lane resigned as Governor to pursue various private and business activities. (He actually was “a rugged frontier hero” as described by Nevius. The California Gold Rush was in full swing at this time, and Oregon temporarily lost a huge portion of her population to the California gold fields, including ex-Territorial Governor Lane.)
In 1851, General Lane was elected Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Oregon. He was present in Washington City, D.C. in December, 1851 for the first session of the Thirty-second Congress as the new delegate for the Oregon Territory. He set about having Oregon admitted to the Union, a feat he accomplished (slave-less) in 1859. While serving as the Representative for Oregon, in Washington D.C., he wrote home to Oregonians apprising them of his progress on the Statehood front, and laying out his political positions on the issues of the day: “…he had introduced a joint resolution to approve the proceedings of the legislature at Salem, which he was confident would pass; that he favored organization of the Democratic Party; and that he opposed a national bank, monopolies in general, a high protective tariff, and ‘a grand and magnificent scheme of Internal Improvements by the General Government’; and that he supported the present independent treasury system, liquidating the national debt, economy in government, strict construction of the Constitution, and the careful preservation of the rights of the States as the great bulwark of our liberty.” (p.50) (There are those pesky “non-causes” again.)
Nevius forgot to mention that General Lane was also nominated a Democratic Presidential candidate in 1852 by the “Hoosiers” of Indiana, who still considered him one of their own, slave-less or not. (It wasn’t until 1853 that General Lane finally settled his affairs in Indiana and moved the rest of his large and slave-less family to Oregon.) The State Democratic Convention of Indiana, meeting in February of 1852, endorsed Joseph Lane as the Democratic candidate for President. When the Democratic National Convention met in Baltimore in June 1852 and the dust finally settled, the Convention nominated Franklin Pierce, another general from the Mexican war, “the Young Hickory of the Granite Hills” of New Hampshire (slave-less, and also labeled Pro-slavery.) (p.52)
Oregon became a State in February, 1859, mostly due to the efforts of Representative Lane, since Statehood was what he was elected to accomplish. Joseph Lane and Delazon Smith had already been elected Senators; both were staunch Democrats, slave-less and of course, labeled Pro-slavery by the reactionary opposition, the Republicans. (The Whig Party had disintegrated and most of their number had joined the recently formed Republican Party. (Long story. Really long.)
On the eve of the War of Northern Aggression (AKA: the Civil War.) Sen. Lane was indeed nominated for Vice-President on the Breckinridge ticket. By this time the forces of reaction had done their dirty work through the “reckless and incessant” (Davis) agitation of the manufactured Slavery issue, and fractured the Democratic Party into three factions. (There would have been four, but the “Free Soil” left-wing extremists of the Democratic Party had bolted and joined the right-wing extremist “Abolitionists” with the Whigs in the Republican Party.) In a last ditch attempt to keep the reactionary Republicans, the true minority party, from taking the election and plunging the Union into an un-necessary, vicious and bloody war, the Democratic factions were maneuvering to have Senator Lane appointed President by the US House of Representatives. He was a candidate acceptable to all. For more information on this matter, see “Union for the Sake of the Union”: The Selection of Joseph Lane as Acting President of the United States, 1861, by S. I. Sheppard, Oregon Historical Quarterly, vol. 115, no.4, Oregon Historical Society, 2014.
Now that we have reviewed most of the “quick review,” we are suddenly confronted with the first of the bald-faced lies: “Gen. Lane was also a slaveholder, although slavery in the Oregon territory was made illegal in 1844, long before statehood and was clearly illegal in the state he represented as territorial governor and later as Senator.” Initially, Nevius cites the Oregon Encyclopedia, “a project of the Oregon Historical Society,” as a source of this misinformation, attempting, by insinuation, to cloak this preposterous lie in the authority and respectability of the Oregon Historical Society. I’m sure the Oregon Encyclopedia does not say that Gen. Lane was a slaveholder, holding slaves brazenly and illegally in Oregon Territory. If it does, the compilers should be brought to task about this matter, forthwith.
In the next paragraph, Nevius again throws caution to the wind and confronts us with another bald-faced lie: “Although the 13th Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States in 1865, Joseph Lane remained on his farm in Roseburg and continued to keep at least one slave until 1878 in unrestricted, open defiance of both state and federal law.” Nevius cites Wikipedia as the source. A really great source! Everybody knows that if it’s in Wikipedia, it must be true; since any ole’ body who wants to can contribute any ole’ thing they want, to Wikipedia. The particular source for this particular lie is presented as “a Wikipedia statement and citation from the book ‘Great and Minor moments in Oregon History’ by Dick Pintarich of Portland Community College.” I am assuming that Wikipedia and Nevius are accurately citing Pintarich. If not, my sincerest apology to Pintarich. (I, too, am “of” PCC (long retired) “of” PSU , “of” UMass, etc.) Once again Nevius cites the Oregon Historical Society and other authoritative sources, insinuating that they are the sources of these outrageous lies.
Perhaps this mythical slave that the general kept in open defiance is one Peter Waldo. After the death of his beloved wife, Polly, “Joseph Lane remained on his farm for another eight years, living as a hermit, his only companion a Negro lad, Peter Waldo, who had been committed to his care by the Court of Josephine County in 1864.” Now I know that you Yankee transcendental types don’t think that dates are important, but I must point out that the WBTS (AKA: The Civil War) was raging in 1864. I doubt that the Confederacy had the time, the means or the inclination, to influence the Court of Josephine County. Or that the good citizens of Oregon were so stupid, corrupt and spineless that they would allow this to occur.
Nevius laments that “We can’t fix everything wrong with history…” How does one “fix” history? What’s wrong with it, anyway? I thought history was what it was; or is what it was. Of course, one can lie, obfuscate, insinuate, spin and try to whip up hysteria behind childish presentism, but that fixes nothing. Besides, I thought you Yankees won that war. Aren’t you happy about that? Or does it need “fixing?”
Nevius believes “the Confederate battle flag was removed from state-sponsored prominence in the South because that flag is no longer considered an inclusive symbol of Southern heritage…) By whom? By the Yankees and their minions? They never did think it was an inclusive symbol of anything but racial hatred. In an endless and continuing effort to “Divide and Rule” the propaganda apparatus of the Military Industrial Complex has been heaping horrific racist abuse on that glorious flag and the people of the Occupied Confederacy (Willis) for at least a hundred and fifty years. During the current Terror Campaign against all things Confederate, Confederate flags and symbols have been burned and trashed, Confederate graves and monuments desecrated, Confederate citizens and supporters terrorized and abused in their own homes, regardless of where they happen to live. At least one African-American Confederate citizen from Mississippi, Anthony Hervey, was killed, in July, by crazed “young black men.”
Many misguided and mentally fragile individuals either support or despise the Rebel Flag because they believe it is a symbol of intolerance, racism and white supremacy. They believe this because of the “reckless and incessant” and totally nefarious propaganda emanating, for the past 150 years, from the Yankee media, anchored in the Yankee public school system. (“Federal Funds”) If you win the war you write the textbooks; and you also control everything else produced by the largest, most sophisticated and all-encompassing media in the world. Who, then, is responsible for the murders at the South Carolina church and the related death of Anthony Hervey? I would say the above-mentioned Hate-mongers and purveyors of lies, who “unblushingly” fly the Yankee Flag.
Nevius seems to think there are no more Confederate flags in South Carolina, because the current scalawag government of South Carolina removed the Battle Flag from the grounds of the State Capitol. Personally, I would bet there are still plenty of Confederate flags stashed all over South Carolina. That’s why it’s called the Rebel Flag.
Nevius wonders “do we really want to commemorate over 4700 square miles in the state of Oregon to recognize Joseph Lane?” My brain is getting tired, so I’ll come all the way down to a seventh grade level to answer this, just in case I have failed so far to make my point:
OMG! There’s a whole county lurking near Portland, honoring that notorious SLAVEHOLDER, George Washington! OMG! There are schools and streets and that huge shopping mall honoring that SLAVEHOLDER! OMG! OMG! There’s an entire State, looming over Oregon (XXXXX square miles) named for that notorious SLAVEHOLDER, George Washington! That’s practically our own back-porch! OMG! He’s on the dollar bill! OMG! OMG! OMG! Who’s going to tell Denzel that he has to change his name before he’s labeled Pro-slavery and profiled all over again! Not me! OMG! OMG! OMG! There’s a whole street in Portland named for another notorious SLAVEHOLDER, Thomas Jefferson, and a whole school too! OMG! OMG! We have to fix history! How can we fix history?! OMG! I know! We can burn the books! I heard there were 65,000 books about the Civil War (AKA: the WBTS.) That’s a lot of books. OMG! If we burn the books, we can say anything we want about anything and nobody can catch us! OMG! Maybe if we burn them right, we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil! OMG! OMG! What about all the movies, and TV programs, and the songs on tapes and CDs! Can we burn them too? Would that be safe, all that toxic smoke? OMG! I know! We could just throw them into the oceans somewhere, so they can hook up with that island of plastic in the Pacific or hang-out forever in the Sargasso Sea until they turn into purple slime-ooze. OMG! OMG! Who’s going to tell Matlock?! No more re-runs. Too many Rebel Flags in the courtrooms! OMG! He’s deceased. Never mind, no problem…
On a more serious note, semi-reliable sources have it that in 1860, the population of the entire United States was about 31 million; 22 million in the northern States, with I don’t know how many European immigrants, and 9 million in the southern States, with about 3.5 million slaves. When the war was temporarily over in 1865, there were over 1 million casualties. One fifth of the young men on both sides were killed or wounded. We are expected to believe that this was the only war in human history that had no economic causes; that it was fought for the grandest of moral principles – to free the “abused” slaves of the Southern States; that all the devastation and horror was necessary and “irrepressible”; that the corrupt, decadent, evil and really stupid citizens of the Confederacy were fighting “for slavery” just because they were corrupt, decadent, evil and really stupid. We are furthermore expected to believe that the ancestors of our current African-American citizens were too stupid, corrupted and spineless to resist any such abuse, because they were really stupid, corrupted and spineless. ( Roots.) We are also expected to believe that if the military pursuit of this high moral principle accidentally destroyed the entire economic structure and social fabric of the Confederate States, well, that was just a happy accident. Collateral damage and all that.
I could go on and on, exposing the omissions, insinuations, bald-faced lies, spin and presentism in the article in question. I could nit-pick every word and nuance, driving myself and everybody else stark-raving mad. So, just one more, and then I’ll stop.
Yes, we have many other “fascinating people… to remember and to teach our children about.” Not only does Oregon have Joseph Lane, we also have Gov. John Whiteaker (Gov. in 1861) and Col. Isaac Williams Smith, who gave us the Bull Run Water-shed and the best drinking water on the planet (Willis,) for example. There are many more, all labeled “Pro-slavery” because they were Democrats.
Since most of the early “pioneer” settlers were staunch Democrats, from North and South, Democrats dominated State political life right up to the eve of the war, and regained political power right after the end. (Another really long story.) Oregonians and the citizens of Washington Territory provided sanctuary (from Reconstruction) for the fleeing survivors of the War of Northern Aggression (AKA: the Civil War) for many years. (Spencer.) There are thousands of Confederate descendents wandering all over Oregon and Washington. Most are unaware of their condition. (OMG! We need ethnic cleansing right now, before it’s too late!) In conclusion, I do have to thank Nevius, Pintarich, et al. for giving me this opportunity to set at least a small part of the record straight. It’s good for Out-reach.

(Kathleen Galloway lives underground in NW Portland.)


Rally at the Park another great success!

On August 2nd, the Pacific NW Division and SCV Camp 458 held a meeting and picnic at Jefferson Davis Park. Immediately afterwards, we had a big Flag Rally right in front of Interstate 5. We were greeted with probably close to a thousand people that honked and waived in support of us, with only a very small amount in opposition.

The Camp in Portland has seen quite a spike in membership over the last 2 months. Also, there will be a brand new Camp in Eugene Oregon very soon as well. Several of the participants in the Rally are new members of Camp 458. This is a great way to get new members involved right out of the gate.

We are winning this war against our heritage. The SCV is taking legal action against any group, organization or person, that tries to destroy our heritage. Stand with us and take your stand! Please visit and sign up today!

Flag Rally 2 Flag Rally! SCV meeting on August 2nd 2015 002 SCV meeting on August 2nd 2015 012