American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Did you hear what General Meyer did? First he had the nerve to tell everyone on the Union side of the club that he favored General Mark Nelms for the presidency of the club! Can you believe that? He crossed the line! A big commander like him, running around and telling his own people that they should vote for the guy that he thinks should win! He actually stood up and made an endorsement! And he did it by E-mailing everyone!

Then he compounded his error by actually, can you believe this, by writing directly to everyone on the other side of the club and doing the same thing! I hardly know where to begin! I’ll tell you, it appears as if he’s trying to muscle everyone into doing what he wants!

This is the most outlandish, dishonorable and low-stooping thing I’ve ever seen in all my years as a member of the ACWGC! Imagine that! An Union Chief of the Armies, an elected commander of the club and a Cabinet member himself, breaking the rules and traditions to pull some cheap stunt like that! Absolutely disgusting! It smacks of big time vote tampering and sleazy, underhanded politics, I tell you! I never thought I’d see General Meyer do something so detestable! Never thought I’d see the club so horribly dragged through the dirt like this! Did you know that there have been complaints about him doing this kind of thing before? Oh, yeah! He’s really put his thumb down on those guys in the UA, threatening and bullying them over all manner of things! Now, though, the poor, old, misguided fool has really sullied himself and his office.

Gentlemen of the ACWGC,
　
For all of five years since I’ve been a club member I’ve watched this club go through what was essentially a curious blend of silent watchfulness on the part of its elected leaders and a pathetically low voter turnout on the part of its membership for its Presidential Elections. I‘ve often wondered to myself how was this possible.

First we have this wonderfully crafted, seven-man Cabinet that is charged with the administrative functioning of the club that just sat there in isolated silence and guardianship as the Presidential election predictably followed a well-rehearsed script of candidate statements and generalized, sometimes meaningless and silly questions. Then the same old 20% of the club, that forum savvy and talkative element, would report in with their votes, and, for good or bad, we’d walk on through the next two years.

The Presidential Election is unlike any other office election this club has! It is the only such election in which all of the club members can participate! All the rest of those office elections are reserved for only one side of the club. The CoA’s and Cabinet Secretaries must come from their side of the club. But the President, the guy charged with chairing and directing the Cabinet, and upon whom the club depends for guidance, is elected by the entire club membership! Everyone in the club has a chance to vote for the President. No one is discluded.

In an ACWGC Presidential Election there are two sides that suddenly become one in an effort to determine who should be their next leader. But apparently, only about 20% of the club, traditionally, have bothered to cast a vote. As I now look over the CSA roster within the DoR is see 188 names. According to my last full report submitted to the President there are 156 total officers on the USA rolls. That’s 344 total club members!

As a Cabinet member I, like the other six members, am able to see the ongoing vote tally as a measure of internal security and overview of the vote process. To prevent any hint of voter influence the Cabinet members are restricted from telling you what the actual vote count shows. But I’m not restricted from telling you how many club members have actually voted! As I take another look at this time, I see a total of 103 votes cast! So that means that there are still around 241 votes that haven’t been cast! ("Oh, my God, there he goes again!")

I’m a Cabinet member and the elected head of the USA side of the club. I’m also a club member and a voter, myself! In that latter capacity I’ve every right to make any endorsement that I’d like to make about either candidate to as many of you that I can reach. Since the majority of you are only casual visitors to the forums, I elected to write to all of you directly with the same open message of endorsement, clearly stating my thoughts and reasons. Each and every one of you, in turn, has the same capability of making your own personal endorsements in any manner you see fit!

"But, but, Joe…I’m not a Cabinet member like you! I don’t have the same weight of influence that you do as the UA CoA!"

Good point! No matter how hard I try to objectively and transparently construct my personal endorsement statements, I really can't deny who or what I am, can I? But maybe it would be something of a cop out for me not to give you my thoughts on the election!

There sits the Cabinet, the seven guys who probably know more about the club’s health, direction and stability than anyone else, and they’re staying quiet about who they think would make the better President. Isn’t that something of a denial about who they’re supposed to be? As leaders ought they not give forth on their own personal observations about who they feel should be elected? Ought they not be able to signal that to everyone within the club?

When it comes to that, ought not the TC’s, AC’s, CoS’s, CC’s and DC’s give voice to who they think ought to be elected? Are they not supposed to be leaders, too? By virtue of their positions wouldn’t you like to hear what they suggest and think? Isn’t that all part of what could be termed an effort to inform the electorate? At the very least, wouldn’t that be considered a call by the club’s leaders to get out and vote! And would, if they didn’t do that, possibly be a failing on their part not to make you aware of their thoughts?

If you want to talk about conspiracies, maybe there’s been a conspiracy underfoot to keep you away from the polls!

Right now I’m interested in those outstanding 241 votes that are still out there! So guess what? I’m going to do it again, as I just have! My e-mail is once again winging its way across the Internet on behalf of General Mark Nelms as I make posting in this forum. That’s right, I’m going to go directly across the Mason Dixon Line again in each direction and urge you to cast your vote for the guy I think will make the better President, General Mark Nelms. You’re completely free to disagree or counter-endorse for General Desruisseaux in the same open fashion. If you, as a valid club member and CSA commander want to E-mail the entire Union Army, please do so! Those of you within the Union Army who've felt impelled to breathlessly rush to the President and claim coercion can save yourself the effort.

We are almost halfway through this election and the polls are still open! You 241 ACWGC officers who have not yet voted, take advantage of your right to vote and make your voice heard in this election. It’s the only time in every two years that we have the chance to vote for an elected officer, the head of the ACWGC, the Club President, all at the same time!

<SALUTE>

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

On behalf of all you pilgrims who are tired of this I'd like to endorse John Wayne for President.

Gentlemen of the ACWGC: {salute}

I have been on sick leave and came into this very late, and after thinking about this post and the current controversy for about an hour I felt I should respond.

I do not wish to offend or develop a disagreement with any member of our beloved club, but just as Gen. Smith has done I want to go on record as supporting Gen. Meyer's right to do as he has done.

It occurs to me that Gen. Meyer has taken a stand to fight for his beliefs. That is exactly what our forefathers did in the Epic Conflict we commemorate every time we log into a game.

My ancestors chose to fight for the Confederacy. The reasons were their personal beliefs. Regardless of your position on the cause or reason the War was fought, I sincerely hope you recognize most men on both sides fought for their beliefs.

Gen. Meyer choose to both publicly state and defend his beliefs, I respect him very much for that. Gen. Blake publicly choose to take the traditional approach to this issue. I respect him very much for that. Gen. Hebert choose to both publicly state and defend his beliefs, I respect him very much for that.

Each of these fine Officers, and many more, have publically stood up for what they believe in.

I may be approaching this from a simplistic point of view but this is what the issue boils down to, to me. Can we please respectfully allow Officers to stand up for their personal beliefs? And as Gen. Blake suggests, just let it end.

Most Respectfully Submitted,

Col. Martin {salute}

_________________
Lt. General David Martin
First Brigade, First Division, First Corps, Army of the Potomac

After re-reading the ACWGC Rules, I would like to get past the hyperbole and ask, "Just what rule has General Meyer broken?" The only part of the rules that appear to apply to this situation is the admonition against rude and antagonistic behavior. Perhaps the author of this diatribe would like to review that one under Section 1, Paragraph 1.3.

_________________
Dan Peterjohn
General, United States Volunteers
Army of the Tennessee
Commanding

Gentlemen.

I refer y’all back to a time when Gals were prettier and Beer was colder . . . . a time when I served a two-year term as a Confederate Cabinet Secretary on the ACWGC Cabinet.

During the lifetime of that on-going administration, each member conducted themselves and all Cabinet business according to a ‘Code of Conduct’. This Code encompassed various nuances regarding how Cabinet Members comported themselves, conducted Cabinet business, communicated with the membership and avoided confrontational or controversial situations.

The most coherent and concise expression of that Code adhered to the simplest expression; ‘Cabinet Neutrality is maintained in all matters, at all times.’

I must clearly state at this point that this Code was never, at any given time, written down, enshrined in the Club Rules or promulgated to the Membership.

It was a ‘Gentleman’s’ agreement, understood by implication and endorsed by tradition.

This ‘understanding’ worked very effectively and to the benefit of the Membership, Cabinet and Club ethos – so why ‘fix’ it? Or indeed why ‘weaken’ it by enshrining it in Club Rules, whereby an oversight could permit a breach of this effective Code through an omission engendering an unforeseen loophole in the construction or recording of the Code?

If a Cabinet member strayed close to the line regarding intervention, support or criticism favouring one side of the MD line, or a particular opinion or discriminating against the other side, a quiet private ‘nudge’ from one of his Cabinet colleagues was usually sufficient to encourage the errant Cabinet Member in maintaining Cabinet Neutrality and abstaining from involvement in the topic concerned.

The 1st amendment rights of Cabinet members were protected under Club Rules within the strictures of Club norms of courtesy and respect.

However, under this voluntary code, Cabinet members, regardless of how vehement their personal opinion may have been regarding ACWGC Administration Officer appointments, held a neutral position and expressed no opinion for or against one candidate, all candidates, one side of the Club or the other.

A ‘hangover’ from this Code has been displayed by President Strickler and indeed all past Presidential incumbents; when leaving their post for well-deserved retirement, No outgoing President endorses or recommends a successor to the Presidency.

Unfortunately, the recent world-wide political fallacy that unless a particular action is written down and recorded as ILLEGAL, that action is therefore LEGAL, has crept into our mentality. Because an action is not termed as ILLEGAL, it does not follow that the action is, MORAL, RIGHT, LEGITIMATE, etc . . . take your particular choice.

Whether intended or not, a recommendation from an Officer holding ‘Higher Office’ in the ACWGC can be, or could be and has been in the past, construed as an abuse of Trust and Position, in that their ‘Official’ issuance of a recommendation can be interpreted or misrepresented as coercion, undue influence, an instruction or an Order.

If on the occasion of an individual or a group of Officers wish to endorse a Candidate to the entire Membership, the endorsement should be posted on the Club Forum.

If a Club-wide e-mail is viewed as necessary, then it should be passed to the CoA’s only, with a request for forwarding through the Chain of Command of each army. Personally, I can think of no better endorsement and reinforcement of the ACWGC Command Structure than the neutral transmission of such a commendation of a particular Candidacy.

The very fact that the endorsement reaches each individual Officer ‘second-hand’ removes any imprecation or implication of ‘coercion’, ‘compulsion’ or interference in the voter’s franchise.

The question of whether an endorsement sent by mass e-mail is a valid attempt to ‘reach out’ to members eschewing the facility of the Forum is moot.

The much more important Candidates’ Statements are posted on the Forum AND NOT sent by mass e-mail.

To my mind – it beggars belief that an endorsement is afforded and accorded a mass mailing campaign, whilst the Candidate Statements are NOT?

This engenders the concept – to my way of thinking – of a cynical ‘win at all costs’ mentality, where the victory of one candidate assumes more importance than an equitable dissemination of the opinions and proposals of each and every candidate for the Presidency.

This does not serve the Club ethos well and bodes ill for perceived neutrality of any candidate winning the Presidential post on such terms.

Finally, I despair at the introduction of factionalism into the electoral process.

‘Vote for X, ‘cos He’s a Yankee/Rebel’ is an infraction of the Club ethos of mutual respect.
The President is a Civilian!

For the purpose of a Presidential election – the candidates are civilians.

Incumbent within the role of the Office is a commitment to preside without prejudice or preference. Whether the candidate served in the USA or CSA or the Russian Regiment of the Irish Army serving in Brazil’s war against Montenegro . . . has nothing to do with fitness for Office.

Whether the candidate has 1 million battles under his belt or a mere 10 is irrelevant.

Whether the Grey or Blue can lay claim to the candidates’ former pre-civilian allegiance is also irrelevant.

His administrative capabilities and his personal interaction with fellow Club members, of both hues are the only qualities.

The best Administrator is the best Candidate for the Presidency – the most personable ACWGC member is a preferred benefit of a titular head of the ACWGC.

Political, Factional, intensely divisive Jingoistic Sabre rattling, is disrespectful to the Presidency and especially insulting to the Members of this glorious Club.

_________________

As a member of the Great Unwashed who have never served on the Cabinet, I, like others, am not privy to Gentlemens' agreements, Codes or understandings. Perhaps this is a matter best discussed by the Cabinet without dragging the mere mortals into it.

As Dragline said when challenged about whether he could peel Cool Hand Luke's eggs, "When it comes to the Law, there ain't nothing understood."

_________________
Dan Peterjohn
General, United States Volunteers
Army of the Tennessee
Commanding

Dan.

I would have thought that an explanation of how and why (a) Cabinet Member(s) once conducted Cabinet business and abstained from actual or preceivable 'interference' in the Clubs' electoral' processes was/is particularly pertinent to current discussions on the forum?

Surely under the 1st amendment positions espoused by some members in the debate would justify my expression of a particular viewpoint?

My 'insight' into the (then) ethos of the Cabinet was posted to inform those that have followed my entry into the Club - I'm out of the Cabinet scene for many years now . . . but my experiences then seem to be particularly pertinent today.

Or is it that I've said sumpin' that certain people just don't want to hear???

Pat.

_________________