PAGE 11
NORTH COAST TIMES EAGLE, DECEMBER 2006
OREGON AT WAR
control of the Oregon country. A measles epidemic among the
Cayuse Indians, the fear of losing their land and culture, and
deep-seated cultural differences with Marcus and Narcissa
Whitman motivated a few Cayuses to kill the Whitmans and
twelve other whites at the mission at Waiilatpu in late November
1847. In addition, two others died of exposure, and the attackers
took 47 captives, including 37 children. Oregonians and Indians
had fought before, but the murder of the Whitmans was a signal
event in its consequences and in the way Oregonians responded
to it. Religious and political leaders denounced the attack as an
evil act and were especially outraged at the allegation that the
Indians had sexually violated the female captives. The response
in Oregon was immediate. The provisional government, under
Governor George Abernathy, quickly mobilized a small volunteer
military force and embarked on the so-called Cayuse War (1848-
1850).
As news of the attack on the mission reached the
East Coast, public anger compelled Congress to pass legislation
creating Oregon Territory and to send federal troops in 1849
to protect the settlers. Abandoned by other Indian tribes, the
Cayuses found themselves in what historian Earl Pomeroy
described as a “desultory" little war. Weakened by disease and
battle and without allies, the Cayuses were largely dependent on
the goodwill of Oregonians, who were confident in their cultural
and racial superiority and outraged at the “massacre" and the
alleged indignities visited on the captive women. The Cayuses
eventually surrendered the five men who had allegedly murdered
the Whitmans. The Indians faced trial in Oregon City, their fate
virtually certain. A jury quickly convicted them, and the Judge
condemned the five men to hang on June 3, 1849. This symbolic
justice — which featured capture, trial, and hasty execution —
established a precedent that Oregonians followed faithfully in
later battles with Indians.
The pressure of new settlement and divide-and-conquer
approach by the federal government signaled the virtual end of
Native independence in the Pacific Northwest by the mid-1850s.
Wars and the threat of wars forced most Native American tribes
to sign treaties and move to reservations.New sources of conflict
speeded the process. Earlier in the 1850s, the discovery of gold
in southwestern Oregon had led volunteer militias to conduct a
brutal campaign that historian William G. Robbins has character
ized as “akin to race war.” The rationale and the result demoral
ized local Indians, forced the survivors onto reservations, and
destroyed much of Native American culture in that corner of
Oregon.
BY ECKARD V. TOY, JR.
“To embark on war (is) to launch oneself on
an irresistible current sweeping into darkness."
-GARRETT MA TTINGL Y
“We bring to this new and dark landscape
predictable habits o f mind that seek out histohcal
analogies — be they appropriate o r not."
-EDWARD T LINENTHAL
War spares few innocents, and truth and civil liberties
are among its first casualties. The terrible events of September
11, 2001, resurrected those truths and added a memorable new
date to American history. The appalling images of sudden death
and the terrifying sounds of monumental destruction seared the
senses as hijacked jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center
towers and the Pentagon. Death embraced diversity and made
no distinctions of nationality, religion, age, and gender. Almost
simultaneously with the attacks, television and the Internet
spread graphic images worldwide. With the toll of casualties
mounting rapidly into the thousands and representing more than
sixty countries, viewers throughout the world reacted with shock
and disbelief.
Terrorism typically targets visible symbols and exploits
fear; and if some viewers celebrated, others found it difficult to
stifle feelings of anger and horror. Distance was no protection
from emotion and loss, and many Oregonians had friends or
relatives living, working, or visiting near the disaster sites. The
attacks, in the words of University of Oregon president Dave
Frohnmayer, “awakened (a) sense of personal vulnerability —
that the distant terror we read about in the daily paper can now
become a terror we experience in our daily lives.”
Not surprisingly, the first news reports of the attacks
were confusing, and analysts and public officials added to the
dysfunctional chorus of competing voices. The public's attention
soon focused on terrorism, however, and presidential rhetoric
proclaiming a war between good and evil resonated with echoes
of earlier times and other wars. Declaring a cause as just and
the opponent’s actions as evil establishes a simple dichotomy
and a rationale for war. Successfully characterizing enemies
as evil can unify a nation or a cause, particularly when they are
portrayed in Satanic images or comic caricatures. Osama bin
Laden, for example, has been easy to label in this way, but he
is simply the newest on a long list of enemies. Similar charac
terizations of the enemies of earlier generations are common:
a murderous Captain Jack in the Modoc War; the cunning Emilio
Aguinaldo during the Philippine Insurrection; Kaiser Wilhelm in
World War 1; the inhuman Hitler, the comical Mussolini, and the
simian-like Hideki Tojo in World War 2; Fidel Castro of Cuba,
Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Muammar Gadhafi of Libya; or
more recently, Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Similar denigrating characterizations have been attached
to countries, peoples, or specific groups. Twentieth-century
propaganda efforts and common slang expressions merged
in descriptions of the brutal German “Hun” of World War 1;
the sadistic Nazi and the subhuman “Japs” of World War 2;
the generic “gook” of many Asian and Pacific Island wars; the
“Red Chinese hordes” of the Korean War; and the "wily” Viet
Cong of the war in Vietnam. Similar expressions surfaced during
the Gulf War and in Bosnia and Kosovo In Afghanistan, we have
been introduced to the socially backward Taliban. Descriptions
that depict the enemy as culturally inferior or uncivilized are
the wartime equivalent of the denigrating labels that nativist
and racist groups have attached to new immigrants throughout
American history. Muslim and Arab Americans in Oregon exper
ienced few overt acts of violence after the September 11 attacks,
but private and public expressions of support did not soften the
prejudice of jokes and slang.
Just when increased security measures and a flurry
of patriotic celebrations seemed to cushion the initial shock of
terrorism, a new threat with a long history suddenly emerged.
Dozens of cases of anthrax and several deaths caused by the
disease introduced known and only imagined dangers. Media
attention to bioterrorism confused and frightened as it informed
Abroad, a bombing campaign in Afghanistan cheered supporters
and angered opponents of military actions. Reports of mounting
civilian casualties and a flood of hungry refugees fleeing Afghan
istan added urgency to the disagreements. In Oregon and else
where, peace groups rallied on college campuses and in many
communities, questioning current actions and the legacy of
American foreign policy. This debate about war took on new
significance with the realization that the battlefront and the
homefront had drawn closer together.
Historians seek to analyze and explain. Today, Ameri-
ans are facing another undeclared war with unknown limits and
uncertain consequences, and we must add historical perspective
to understand what is happening. The path to that understanding
is not always clear, but the effort to find it will provide substance
for our discussions today and may help guide our actions in the
future.
Oregon has been a Euro/American outpost on the
Pacific Ocean for more than two and a half centuries. During
Oregon's early maritime history, violent conflict between Native
Americans and Euro/American mariners was not uncommon.
As contact between these groups increased, racial and cultural
differences and competing economic interests led to sporadic •
clashes. It was a violence without any formal style or declaration
of war; and Native casualties often numbered in the dozens.
More skirmishes erupted in the first decades of the 19th century
as fur traders established posts at Astoria and inland along the
Columbia River.
Disease added a significant and fatal element to the
conflict between cultures and contributed indirectly to American
The quest for Oregon statehood took place in a time of
national turmoil over slavery, which resulted in the secession of
southern states from the Union. Oregonians exhibited consider
able interest in the 1860 presidential election, partly because
of the slavery issue but also because former Oregon senator
Joseph Lane was the vice presidential running mate of John C.
Breckinridge on the pro-slavery Democratic ticket. The Civil War
began in 1861 .barely two years after Oregon achieved state
hood. “In Oregon," according to historian David A. Johnson,
“the war had profound political effects. After it began, politics
in the state narrowed to a single question: loyalty or disloyalty."
Oregon remained loyal to the Union; but many Oregon
ians sympathized with the South, if not always with slavery.
Beyond that, the federal government initially had difficulty recruit
ing volunteers from Oregon for the Union forces. There were
some military moves. The Union Army established coastal
defense batteries near the mouth of the Columbia River, and
several military officers who had served during the Indian wars
in Oregon would make their reputations as leaders in the Union
and the Confederate armies. Noting Oregon’s distance from the
battlefronts, Democratic governor John Whiteaker recommended
a “policy of defense only.” In this context, defense of the Union
generally meant military campaigns against the Indians.
In the decades after the Civil War, new waves of settlers
assured the displacement of Indians in Oregon. More farmers
moved to the south and east of the Willamette Valley, and
railroads and steamboats extended their economic influence
to outlying areas. As communities developed, the last in a series
of conflicts between whites and Indians confirmed the end of
tribal independence. The Modoc War in 1873, which ended with
CONTINUED ON PAGE 12
HOPE L. HARRIS
UNIONTOWN
f if>h u ( hips
im p o rte d Ï Ï w ov\ la p
# 1 o n 2 n t i 5 t> e e t
218 WEST MARINE DRIVE
ASTORIA, OREGON 97103
(503) 3 25-8708
A s t o r e * 32 5 0 0 3 3