ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:53 pm 
Members of the Cabinet,
Gentlemen,

I've been reviewing the ACWGC Club Rules in association with my duties as the Chief of Staff of the Army of the Shenandoah and I found what I consider to be a possible contradiction within the Club Rules. I am submitting this inquiry to you as a body for your interpretation and for possible revision if you find my observation to have some merit.

Here is the supposed contradiction.

In Section 3.0, the section on the Organization of the Club... Rule 3.1.3 says... "An officer's rank will have no direct relationship to his or her position in the hierarchy." (Hierarchy refers to all positions within a military group from lowest (Brigade Commander) to highest (Chief of Armies).)

But...

Rule 3.3.4.2.1 says... "Candidates for Cabinet Secretary or Club President must hold the rank of Colonel or above. To be eligible for a CoA position, a member must hold the rank of Lieutenant General or above in their respective Army."

It seems to me that Rule 3.1.3 is saying that an Officer's rank will (should) have no direct relationship to his or her ability to hold any position from Brigade Commander to Chief of Armies. Yet a few sections later... Rule 3.3.4.2.1 directly ties an Officers ability to serve as Chief of Armies to holding the rank of Lt. General or higher. Is this not a contradiction?

In Section 1.0, the section on the Philosophy of the Club, Rule 1.4 says..."We are not a "ladder" type club where standing in the Club is based on games played or games won. Other very important factors are considered." I've always thought that among those very important factors referred to... most important were an Officer's ability, desire and willingness to sacrifice their time and talents and energy in serving their military group and the Club as a whole. These factors are of far greater importance than simply having achieved the rank of Lt General or higher.

In my mind, there is a direct contradiction between the two rules mentioned above. I feel that Rule 3.1.3... is clearly in line with our stated Club Philosophy, while Rule 3.3.4.2.1 is not. I am asking the ACWGC Cabinet to investigate the matter and determine whether Rule 3.3.4.2.1 should be struck from the Club Rules.

It seems strange to me a requirement of Lt General is required to serve as the Chief of Armies... particularly when the positions of Cabinet Secretary or Club President require the much lower rank of Colonel. Perhaps the requirement of any rank for any position should be struck from the rules altogether.

I leave the matter in your hands and look forward to hearing your interpretation and possibly seeing a revision to the Club Rules submitted for approval by the Club membership.

Sincerely,


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 2795
Location: Massachusetts, USA
I do not see any contradiction.

Rule 3.1.3 states: An officer’s rank will have no direct relationship to his or her position in the hierarchy. (Rank is determined by points, as explained in Section 4.0)

This means that a member can be a general and be a Brigade Commander; it also means that the member could be Lieutenant and be a Division Commander, with higher ranks under his command.

That is the meaning of the rule.

The other rules you mention simply states criteria for certain positions.

I see no conflict or contradiction, only an effort to ensure that the member elected to certain position possesses a longevity within the club and has been in some higher level command positions to attain the ranks stated.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015
Western Theater, Commander, USA
Image
Image
ACWGC Records Site Admin


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:36 pm 
I believe there is a contradiction but its almost on par with the Declaration of Independence saying all men are created equal but then the Constitution saying, yeah, but you need to be a natural US Citizen, lived in the US for 14 years, and be 35 years old in order to run for President. Do they contradict one another? Sure. But we can understand why. Or, as Ernie said, "only an effort to ensure that the member elected to certain position possesses a longevity within the club and has been in some higher level command positions to attain the ranks stated."

Whether or not one agrees with minimum rank requirements is a whole different issue of course.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 5:51 pm
Posts: 771
Location: USA
I agree with Ernie's statement and don't see an issue, it's apples and oranges.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:46 pm
Posts: 564
Location: Canada
Thank you Colonel Greg Olinsky for your inquiry.

The Cabinet will review it and get back to you.

The reason for the requirement for a CoA to have a rank of Lt General was to ensure a level of experience in the club. The position requires some knowledge of how the Clubs works in regards to commands. Rising to that rank provides an assurance of some command positions and interaction with Peers and CoA's. With the other prevision of limiting who can vote for a CoA adds another level to ensure that the person is viewed as competent amongst his peers.

We will look into it as previously stated.

_________________
Best Regards,

General Pierre D.

5th Bde, IV Cavalry Corps
Army of Northern Virginia
ACWGC President 1997 - 2006, 2012
ACWGC Forum Administrator


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:53 pm 
Gentlemen,

Most excellent! Thanks for accepting my inquiry! <salute>

I'm looking forward to the response of the Cabinet. It's very good to understand how all these pieces fit together.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1343
Location: USA
Gentlemen <salute>

The wording does seem to contradict itself, however promotion above the rank of brigadier general is tied to leadership positions held, for example having held division command for promotion to major general, corps command for promotion to lieutenant general, etc.

Having the Chief of Armies position limited to to the rank of lieutenant general or general ensures the position will be filled by someone with previous command experience as I read it.

My thoughts,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 2:39 am
Posts: 285
Location: USA
Olinsky wrote:
Gentlemen,

Most excellent! Thanks for accepting my inquiry! <salute>

I'm looking forward to the response of the Cabinet. It's very good to understand how all these pieces fit together.


I have an impotant question Greg. Why are you weating a Reb hat? Just sayin'..... :(

_________________
Lt Col Ed Blackburn
Longstreets Corps, Hoods Div, First Brigade
ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:54 pm 
Yeah, Gregor. Being out of uniform is a serious offense! We'd hang you as a spy for wearing that!

If your to dress in anything other than regulation blues I suggest a nice suit like the one I have. I got it at an estate sale for almost nothing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:14 pm 
Lt General Blackburn,
Ed,

Why Sir... you know those cavalry troopers we've been shooting out of the saddle in our Elite Gator game against the Gator Alley Division?

One of them had the prettiest uniform Confederate uniform I'd ever seen! And as chance would have it... it was just my size. I figured it would be great for the Army of the Shenandoah's annual Halloween Party! :wink:

In reality, I don't currently have a picture of myself in a proper uniform. Around these parts, the place I usually go to get a Civil War picture is to the State Fair where they have those booths set up with a bunch of period attire and you can have your picture snapped for $10 or so. There might also be a similar place at some local historical site or museum but I'm unaware of it if there is. Then my current employer does not allow facial hair other than a highly trimmed down mustache. :( I miss my goatee something horrible!

Do you think I should change back to my old avatar? Maybe I could get Frank Mullins to colorize my picture so it's the appropriate color! :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 2:39 am
Posts: 285
Location: USA
Just post a piccy of U.S. Grant Greg. I think that will be appropriate. :D

_________________
Lt Col Ed Blackburn
Longstreets Corps, Hoods Div, First Brigade
ANV


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:07 am
Posts: 1686
Location: Oz
Nah, Gen John Pope would be more fitting :mrgreen:

_________________
General Cam McOmish
Image
Georgia State Volunteers Brigade
Patrick R. Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corp
(1/1/1)
Confederate Army of the Tennessee

CSA

(also CoS for the CSA AoT)


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:03 pm 
General McOmish,
Cam,

Sir... I had absolutely no idea to what you were referring in your reference to General John Pope.

So... here's what I found on the first web page I looked at about General Pope.

"Meanwhile, on June 26, Union General John Pope was named commander of the newly formed Army of Virginia. He immediately issued a boastful address that would come back to haunt him. “I come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies,” Pope told his 50,000 troops. “I desire you to dismiss from your minds certain phrases … [like] ‘lines of retreat.’” Pope moved into Northern Virginia in an attempt to cut the railroad connecting Richmond with the Shenandoah Valley, but a relatively minor August 9 skirmish with Confederate General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s men stopped his advance."

General McOmish... What in the world are you implying, Sir? :wink:

Out of respect to all you kind hearted (and most contemptuous) Confederates... I shall adopt General Pope's picture as my avatar until the Hancocks Division obtains its first MP victory against a Rebel force... just to prove to you there is something more than just boastful addresses flowing from the lips of its Division Commander! :P


Last edited by Olinsky on Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1343
Location: USA
General McOmish <salute>

I was thinking Elmer Fudd. You have to love these Hancocks Division gents, one even posting "We specialize in whipping Rebs in MP games" when they've yet to win one. They certainly have fine officers, but their official site shows zero anything other than the two MP battles they're engaged in.

Gator Alley officers, on the other hand, have no such boasts included with their signature blocks. They weren't formed as an "elite division" comprised of hand-picked officers, however their record is worthy of some notice:

Gator Ambush: Draw
Gator Pike: Major Victory
Gator Woods: Major Victory
Gator Scrap: Major Victory
Gator Chat: Minor Victory
Gator Oats: Ongoing, currently a Minor Defeat
Gator Klebbe: Ongoing, currently a Minor Victory
Gator Clash: Ongoing, currently a Draw
Elite Gator: Ongoing, currently a Draw

Let Colonel Olinsky parade around in the Confederate gray taken from a fallen trooper. Those Confederate cavalrymen he's been "shooting out of the saddle" have for the most part been with artillery from a distance. He failed to mention the 588 troopers he recently lost after some of our infantry managed to advance undetected within striking range of a couple of his cavalry brigades near Chantilly. I dare say that he'll have a difficult time "whipping" Gator Alley at that pace :mrgreen:

highest regards,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Request for review of Club Rule 3.3.4.2.1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:48 pm 
Lt General Hebert,

I know you've Cajun roots and command a far better use of the French language than I... so could I ask you a question?

I am under the impression that "Gator" is Cajun terminology that means "imaginary" in the english language. Is that correct?

For example...

Gator Ambush = Imaginary Ambush
Gator Pike = Imaginary Weapon
Gator Scrap = Imaginary Fight
Gator Chat = Imaginary Discussion
Gator Clash = Imaginary Conflict
Elite Gator = Greatness Imagined
LSU Tiger = Imagined Victor over the Crimson Tide

Oh dang... I shouldn't have brought up such a sore subject. Between LSU's loss to Alabama and the Gator Alley's eventual loss to Hancocks Division... it's going to be a bad year for you! But don't worry... things are not all about wins and losses... just ask the Tennessee Volunteers and the Nebraska Cornhuskers! :wink:


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: