Am I missing something?

Let's see. According to Tom Smith, in Asheville "On Thursday morning CIC Ron Wilson gave a good Commander's report.  It was probably one of the most thorough reports given by a CIC in recent history.  Wilson laid out in detail his deposition of Charles Hawks and expulsion of eight camps in NC.  All the information that he promised would be forth coming was put forth." 

And Terry Crayton reports that "CIC Wilson exposed the splinter group called "Save the SCV" for what it really it (sic) . . . CIC Wilson addressed the fact that some camps had been suspended due to their bad behavior."

Wouldn't it have been nice if Wilson had shared this information with those he charged and suspended?  And with those same members to whom Wilson has failed to discharge his duty under Art. 14, sec. 7 of the SCV Constitution, which charges the CIC to work with the suspended members or camps to remove the causes for the suspension.

It would not only have been right to have dealt with this issue at the Asheville Reunion business session on Saturday morning it would have been in line with the SCV Constitution. The issue of the suspended members and camps never came up on the floor in Asheville.  And according to SCV executive director Ben Sewell in a recent AP news report he does not know "whether the issue will be discussed later."

Ron Holland in his piece on his thoughts after the SCV Reunion writes, "I am a member of the SCV but have only attended about three camp meetings over the last five years."  And he wants the SCV to change!  He and those he speaks for are obviously attempting to force an outside agenda on the SCV and usurp its monies and reputation to pursue their own political agenda.

Ron Holland refers to those " . . .  who followed the SSCV people out of the organization."  Doesn't he know the SSCV people were "run off" from the SCV by suspension under broad charges with no proof or specifics to allow an appeal and then without a hearing per the SCV Constitution?  Or does he know that there will be more suspensions?

Holland and Kalas attempt to placate all parties with a new SCV that will encompass all factions.  Holland writes, "If you are a granny continue to do what interests you as everyone is not cut out to be a Southern heritage activist. Some are in the SCV and other Southern or Confederate organizations due to an interest only in reenacting, or history and there is nothing wrong with this. Being an activist is no more honorable or less important than someone who just wants to study the war, or safeguard battlefields and monuments. The SCV is big and broad enough for all views and interests and I urge all sides, to put this behind them and get on with the battle to defend Dixie. There are many ways to defend Dixie, our heritage and our history. Do what feels right for you."

Be sure to note Kalas' condescending remarks when he writes " . . . that the reformers need to try to get out of the antagonistic "us against them" mode vis-à-vis the Grannies. The Grannies see the sunset of their control of the SCV coming and some have lashed out at the reformers, but it would behoove the reformers to be Southern gentlemen and to strive to work with the Grannies, wherever and whenever possible, to advance the cause in areas where they agree. . . . To this end, perhaps it would be a good idea if we stopped referring to our more timid compatriots as "grannies" as this is sure to rile them and to keep them in a state of agitation - which only distracts us from the real threat. I'd prefer that they remain asleep - spending their time cutting grass at Confederate cemeteries and doing other boring, but necessary preservation work while we, (the reformers), concentrate our energies on defeating the SPLC, the NAACP and other hard-core enemies of the South. Better that we expend our limited ammunition fighting the anti-Southern bigots, rater than fellow Confederates who simply lack the intestinal fortitude to engage our enemies in hand-to-hand combat."

Both Holland and Kalas apparently want a kindler, gentler image as they now use "reformers" instead of "radicals" in referring to those who want take the SCV into the political arena in contradiction to the SCV Constitution and which will ultimately cost the organization's 501c3 designation and will in all likelihood tarnish the image and memory of the Confederate veteran.  Both of these men are the mouthpieces for those who would drag the SCV into the political cesspool.

Boyd Cathey charges that "Mr.  (Rodney) Williams has certainly violated both the spirit of SCV membership and the code of a gentleman. Such actions are base and immoral, and deserve the strongest censure."  Mr. Williams was only complying with the SCV Constitution which allows membership transfers and as the member of a camp was eligible to serve as delegate.  Does Mr. Cathey believe that the SCV Constitution is base and immoral?  Of course, Cathey also writes that ". . . there appears to be nothing strictly illegal about such actions . . . ", and yet he continues, "Let me assure you that this case will be examined by our next Executive Council meeting."

Mike Tuggle defames the good name of a SGT Aaron L. DeArmond, a Confederate veteran who is honored by having an SCV camp named in his honor, with his "Unarmed Man Camp" website.

The whole lot of the aforementioned individuals and their ilk seem to believe that SSCV supporters orchestrated the defeat of the Wilson/Lyons agenda in Asheville.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Confederate General Albert Pike often employed Burke's quotation in his writings that, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."  Good men are finally doing something.  Good men are finally standing up to challenge the forces of evil in the SCV.