Announcement: It's September! Here are some things we can discuss, and two things we won't.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW:REGISTER HERE!

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
690
Location
Pittsburgh
Why break off discussion of the S word or discussion of non white Americans serving the confederacy or discussion of reconstruction into different sub-forums? I’ve heard it said many times that if one doesn’t like the subject of a particular thread, they are free to ignore it or start their own. Can a forum really be a place for serious historical discourse while censoring discussion and debate of central issues because it makes some uncomfortable?

A forum dedicated to the civil war that forbids these types of discussions might as well be called “Lost Cause Talk” .com.
 

CivilWarTalk

Lieutenant General
Owner & Webmaster
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Messages
142,338
Location
Martinsburg, WV
No worries, we appreciate all feedback!

Truthfully we don’t want to shut down conversations, but sometimes it’s unavoidable. I’m hopeful we can make the new system work and improve the system so that stops happening.
 

CivilWarTalk

Lieutenant General
Owner & Webmaster
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Messages
142,338
Location
Martinsburg, WV
Why break off discussion of the S word or discussion of non white Americans serving the confederacy or discussion of reconstruction into different sub-forums? I’ve heard it said many times that if one doesn’t like the subject of a particular thread, they are free to ignore it or start their own. Can a forum really be a place for serious historical discourse while censoring discussion and debate of central issues because it makes some uncomfortable?

A forum dedicated to the civil war that forbids these types of discussions might as well be called “Lost Cause Talk” .com.
That’s pretty creative!

You don’t need to shove a steak in front of a vegitarian just because you are at a resturant and serve steaks, the vegitarian isn’t ordering steaks, doesn’t want steak on their table, so you don’t do that right?

Same here, some people don’t want slavery in their Gettysburg discussion, or their .69 Musket discussion, and that should be okay. But if you do want a side of Secession, or finish with Reconstruction, you can do that, and spend a great deal of time in Slavery if you so choose...
 

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
690
Location
Pittsburgh
That’s pretty creative!

You don’t need to shove a steak in front of a vegitarian just because you are at a resturant and serve steaks, the vegitarian isn’t ordering steaks, doesn’t want steak on their table, so you don’t do that right?

Same here, some people don’t want slavery in their Gettysburg discussion, or their .69 Musket discussion, and that should be okay. But if you do want a side of Secession, or finish with Reconstruction, you can do that, and spend a great deal of time in Slavery if you so choose...
100% agreed! No one likes thread derailment and mods do a great job of trying to tackle these instances which is a credit to them and you. However, to have a forum dedicated to the Civil War that doesn’t allow these topics strikes me as akin to a forum on football that forbids any discussion of wide receivers or quarterbacks or a forum on the American Revolution in which British Taxes or the Sons of Liberty are forbidden as topics. These could be viable forums but they wouldn’t be called “FootballTalk” or “AmericanRevolutionTalk” as they disallow discussion of ingredients that are integral to the overall subject and “segregate” them into a separate but equal forum by enforcing a gag rule. It’s an omelet without eggs.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
690
Location
Pittsburgh
I apologize if I may have offended anyone. I’m all for enforcing rules and dislike thread derailing. I really enjoy this site and my time here perusing all different types of threads on a wealth of topics. However, I really do like a lot of threads on the Cause, or secession, or slavery, or black confederates and appreciate those threads for the new things I learn from both those I’m inclined to agree with and those I’m inclined to disagree with... that said, this is a wonderful site with great owners, moderators and contributors.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,448
Location
mo
Looking at the sub forums here some seem could be shuttled off elsewhere as not really that central to the CW...…..However slavery is central in the events leading to the CW. and Its conduct and policy evolution during the CW.....would seem if anything is actually relevant to the ACW it would be up there among the top issue.....more so then say ghost stories or recipes.....

We have two threads suggesting academics look down at social media, and yet here we are suggesting slavery doesn't deserve to be mentioned on the same page of the ACW...... wonder why they dont view social media as serious...…

Dont mean to be combative, I like this site, would like to see it thrive, just seriously question this path however.......I could see slavery deserving of it own forum, however considering its relevance to the ACW, would think the forum should be here at the ACW site, because as you said they are sides of the same coin.....not two different unrelated coins....
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
13,527
Location
Mississippi
Same here, some people don’t want slavery in their Gettysburg discussion, or their .69 Musket discussion, and that should be okay.
Mike, from what little I understand so far . . . this is one of the best changes I've seen on the forum.

I'm sure you're prepared to handle all of the potential external issues that may arise from such new forums.

But may I suggest, please keep the word slavery intact.

This is a subject that deserves serious discussion in a historical context.

Using such phrases such as "S Word" may baffle some people that may not understand . . . and therefore, may not contribute.

Just a thought.

But again, great idea !
 

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
13,001
Location
Central Ohio
Let me be quite frank... I don't like talking about slavery or causes of secession. I get all fired up and hot under the collar and nobody ever changes their mind that I can tell. I would be just fine sticking to ironclads, blockade runners, and fun stuff like that. So, I am not at all demanding that I get to run on about slavery or causes... I just am cautious when we come to the point of saying "we will not discuss X." Some X's are sensible; like, I think the no-modern-politics rule is fine, has been generally welcomed by the community, and is on point (except in certain cases where the current news IS about how we remember the Civil War, but I think it's been generally handled pretty well in moderated discussions and such).

It just seems to me that when a war began with secession (I've never heard anyone challenge that, though the legalities or nonlegalities are another matter entirely), and that at least a substantial number of people (then and now) think that slavery played a significant role in the war, that it's rather tricky to avoid talking about those elephants in the room. I'm willing to wait and see how it plays out, but I am skeptical.
 

CivilWarTalk

Lieutenant General
Owner & Webmaster
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Messages
142,338
Location
Martinsburg, WV
Mike, from what little I understand so far . . . this is one of the best changes I've seen on the forum.

I'm sure you're prepared to handle all of the potential external issues that may arise from such new forums.

But may I suggest, please keep the word slavery intact.

This is a subject that deserves serious discussion in a historical context.

Using such phrases such as "S Word" may baffle some people that may not understand . . . and therefore, may not contribute.

Just a thought.

But again, great idea !
Oh, I didn’t start that, somebody else along the line did. Slavery is what it is, and I’m not afraid of the word or to have it on the site or in CivilWarTalk.
 

huskerblitz

Captain
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
6,945
Location
Nebraska
I'll give me two cents since, well, I'm opinionated and not overly concern about giving it....

I think it's silly but I do actually understand it.

But can you guys at least rethink the color schemes on those black-listed forums???
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
13,527
Location
Mississippi
Let me be quite frank... I don't like talking about slavery or causes of secession. I get all fired up and hot under the collar and nobody ever changes their mind that I can tell. I would be just fine sticking to ironclads, blockade runners, and fun stuff like that. So, I am not at all demanding that I get to run on about slavery or causes... I just am cautious when we come to the point of saying "we will not discuss X." Some X's are sensible; like, I think the no-modern-politics rule is fine, has been generally welcomed by the community, and is on point (except in certain cases where the current news IS about how we remember the Civil War, but I think it's been generally handled pretty well in moderated discussions and such).

It just seems to me that when a war began with secession (I've never heard anyone challenge that, though the legalities or nonlegalities are another matter entirely), and that at least a substantial number of people (then and now) think that slavery played a significant role in the war, that it's rather tricky to avoid talking about those elephants in the room. I'm willing to wait and see how it plays out, but I am skeptical.
I agree with you 100%.

But from what I've seen, this is the exact thing Mike & Ami are trying to avoid.

Slavery is central to the causes of secession, but when I'm asking questions about one of the unique "Pelican" buttons on my Louisiana ancestor's uniforms.
How many slaves their family owned is irrelevant.
That's a big problem we've ran into in the past,

Now it seems those who are interested in slavery will have their own forum . . . so you and I can talk about ironclads and pelican buttons.

Without distraction !

And I think that's great !
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
15,819
We will all have to wait to see how this all works out. I am a bit fearful that not being allowed to say any thing about slavery will cause me to hesitate to post on some threads. Still as a good soldier I will try to follow the new rules without questioning why the new rules are necessary or thy there were instituted.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
690
Location
Pittsburgh
I agree with you 100%.

But from what I've seen, this is the exact thing Mike & Ami are trying to avoid.

Slavery is central to the causes of secession, but when I'm asking questions about one of the unique "Pelican" buttons on my Louisiana ancestor's uniforms.
How many slaves their family owned is irrelevant.
That's a big problem we've ran into in the past,

Now it seems those who are interested in slavery will have their own forum . . . so you and I can talk about ironclads and pelican buttons.

Without distraction !

And I think that's great !
Certainly, but the people who turn an ironclad thread or a button thread into a slavery thread are already breaking the current rules. Mostly, the mods do their job and clean the thread. These rule breakers will derail threads if there is a segregated forum for slavery or not. The thread will still have to be moderated and cleaned. There are already different sub forums on CivilWarTalk for button threads or secession threads. The mods do a good job of keeping these in line. I question the optics of the bans and the move to segregate uncomfortable topics to different, though connected, sites.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
13,527
Location
Mississippi
Certainly, but the people who turn an ironclad thread or a button thread into a slavery thread are already breaking the current rules. Mostly, the mods do their job and clean the thread. These rule breakers will derail threads if there is a segregated forum for slavery or not. The thread will still have to be moderated and cleaned. There are already different sub forums on CivilWarTalk for button threads or secession threads. The mods do a good job of keeping these in line. I question the optics of the bans and the move to segregate uncomfortable topics to different, though connected, sites.
With all respect, I think you missed my point.

The Mods do a great job "cleaning up" threads.

I don't expect that to change.
No matter a current or new forum.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
690
Location
Pittsburgh
With all respect, I think you missed my point.

The Mods do a great job "cleaning up" threads.

I don't expect that to change.
No matter a current or new forum.
I think I got it. I just don’t share the confidence that all of a sudden there won’t be thread derailment because now there is a new site to discuss slavery. There are already sub threads here on CWT reserved for slavery discussion, secession discussion, etc, just as there are for re-enactments and recipes. I think we run the risk of making the site look bad without really changing how it currently operates. Someone will still make a snark slavery or Black confederate comment in a .69musket thread. Criminals will be criminals regardless of the new laws which only hurt law abiding citizens.

The split could be interpreted as the site saying “if you want to talk about African Americans, don’t go to CivilWarTalk, those discussions are reserved for SlaveryTalk.” I understand that this was not and is not the intent of the forum splitting or September rule but it is really bad optics.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
13,527
Location
Mississippi
The split could be interpreted as saying “if you want to talk about African Americans, don’t go to CivilWarTalk, those discussions are reserved for SlaveryTalk.” I understand that this was not and is not the intent of the forum splitting or September rule but it is really bad optics.
Well, we disagree.

:smoke:

But that's the beauty of forums like this.

We can have differing opinions without the nasty remarks found on other sites.
 
Top