American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

So our friendly debate comes to an end. It was fun while it lasted. Let this be a lesson to all that there can be disagreements that do not turn into the garbage that we saw in the MDT a few weeks back. All members who have posted in this forum did so with respect, intelligence, and the desire to trade some contrary thoughts and opinions. I shall put away my pen on this subject as well. I do look forward to many more such ideological discussions as I find them to always be enlightening and challenging. Thank you for the note, Jeff, call on me anytime to discuss anything and I will be glad to oblige.

Respectfully,
Col. Blake Strickler
Commandant of VMI



Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff

"As for where the line should be drawn for rank, I obviously think that the Lt Gen or General ranks is a good spot, and have given my reasons. I know you (Col Strickler, although this is really a public discussion, in the spirit of transparency that General Smith alludes to often ) aren't advocating the rank, but it's a good topic. I'm curious to hear from you or others why a different line should be used, and the logic behind it. It's easy to just pick a different line, but why would it make more sense than the current one? You can't just say "more voters is inherently better", unless of course you are advocating everyone from both sides gets a vote for any position, to maximize that statement. If you're not willing to go that far, then you're being a bit hypocritical with that "more voters is better" stance, right?!"

Firsr of all, trying to say that expanding the voting and and expanding the voting to crossing over sides are one and the same and that if one doesn't agree to that statement that they are being hypocritical is an extreme leap. It does not hold up when given even a cursory logical look (See Blake Strickler's reply). There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about wanting greater separation of the two sides while advocating an expansion of the voting base for your side. I have been working within the framework of the present club government, but the truth be known, I don't care how you Yanks elect your CoA. That is up to you and would not have any desire to tell you how you should. However, given the present circumstances that this is considered "one club", it appears that what one side does will be implemented together for both. I personally think that, in general, means the North wins the role play debate by default....if there are Yankees in our government then we are conquered....lol....

Having said that, why do I favor expending the vote? Very simple, I favor it so that a greater number of the members of this club will feel that they have some say and are represented. That alone will lead to a healthier club. Being told you don't "qualify" to vote is always inherently a negative feeling, and I don't think this club needs any more negative feelings.

I had an idea this morning for makng the club more fun....That being to figure out a formula for making all games between the sides actually count for something real....What that something is could be debated but I think it could be government representation....You yanks win enough games, you get to tell us how to live.....We win enough, we get self governmenr.....Seems radical, but it could very well stimulate the club and create interest......I'm not pretending to have the final formulas or rules to determine how it would work, but I think it could improve the club and help make it fun again.....



BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

Gen. Laub, Sir

I did not know the complete history on how the election process envolved and I want to thank you for that.

I did want to clear the air a little, when I prepared my goals for my re-election, and when I was asked about allowing more officers to vote on the CoA election - I would like to see the upper staff officers to be allowed to vote regardless of their ranks, since most of them would be working with the CoA and that is why I stated that they need some time in that slot before be allowed to but I then go on to say that I would like to extend it to allow ALL Major Generals to vote as well.

If I counted correctly there are only 32 or so Lt. Gen. and Generals on the CSA side of the club...but allowing the voting to include Major Generals this would increase the numbers to around 75.

I understand that we would never get 75 much least then the 32 officers to vote...but it would give the appearance that the general membership has more of a voice in who they elected.



Willie Tisdale

"The Gray Fox"
General
Chief of Armies - CSA

ACWGC Cabinet Member



"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."



Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.

Gentlemen.

I have only now been able to read this post in full and a thought struck Me immediately regarding two of the points raised.

1. In Ireland (I don't know about the United States), one must earn the Right to Vote by staying alive and passing the age of 18 years of age. You then qualify to Vote, (You must register to Vote but at 18 You auto-qualify). Withdrawing an ACWGC Member's vote in a CoA Election, based on the Fact that they are not as active as they used to be . . . . would that not equate to telling a Real Life Citizen, that they can't Vote after the age of 65 . . because they have retired from the Country's Workforce and therefore They are no longer productive, nor are they paying enough taxes? [}:)]

2. Expanding the Electorate in the CoA Elections, by "lowering the qulification lines", on the assumption that by increasing the Electorate, it will appear to be more representative of the members wishes . . . is that not similar to deciding that because only 1,000 votes out of 10,000 votes were cast for a Government position (in real Life) . . . the Voting age should be lowered from 18 . . . to . . 16? 14? 12? Ahhhh Hell . . . once Ye can write, Ye get the Vote!!!! [:o)]

Just a musing in passing thru' . . . [;)]

Pat.

Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Lieutenant General.
Highland Division.
II Corps.
Army of Georgia.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

General Carroll, sir, it seems you have joined the philosophical debate so I shall draw my pen again.

I did not say that highly-ranked, inactive members, not be allowed to vote. Nor did I even come close to that. That would be contrary to my entire argument from the start. I said, and I maintain, that greater representation is always a positive in all elections. I find it a shame that any officer, with the ability to vote, does not exercise that right – especially when there are others who would like to be in their place so they could vote. Now, before I get any responses saying “since greater representation is a great thing then are you saying horses, dogs, corpses, and Democrats should be allowed to vote then?â€