Pub Forum 32-6

The Civil War was fought by men who, with few exceptions, adhered to a long-established code of honor.  They fought facing each another in open fields.  They were a generation familiar with duels and imbued with chivalry.  They didn’t approve of spies, guerrillas, or scouts.  Robert E. Lee, like many of his peers, was reluctant to use the information of men who went undercover in disguise and used deception to gain an advantage.  He didn’t trust a man who would lie, so he didn’t trust such a man’s information.  Allen Pinkerton’s detective agency was used extensively by the Army of the Potomac, but there was an air of impropriety and distaste about his service that is evident in period writings of the day.

            Bushwhackers and guerrillas were regarded with even greater contempt.  They were considered outlaws who deserved little more than a noose.  They were thought of as men without courage and without honor.  Partisans were barely tolerated by armies of both sides due to their proximity to the edge of acceptable military form.  Even army snipers were considered sinister.  One Federal artillerist wrote that sharpshooters would “sneak around trees or lurk behind stumps and murder a few men.”  Charles Dana, in his “Recollections of the War” wrote, “I hated all sharpshooters, both Confederate and Union, and I was always glad to see them killed.”

In the context of the code of the day the general public condoned executing men who rode with John Brown, William Quantrill, Charles Jennison, “Bloody” Bill Anderson, James Andrews, J. S. Mosby, or even the troopers who rode with Ulric Dahlgren on his ill-fated Richmond raid.  Likewise, the unorthodox and brutal version of war waged by William T. Sherman and, to a lesser extent, Phil Sheridan was frowned upon by many soldiers of the era as a violation of civilized man’s code of military conduct.  

            We’ve come a long way since then—depending on your point of view.  Now, words like clandestine, covert, undercover, guerrilla, and spy describe activities, soldiers, or government agents whose deeds and methods are accepted and endorsed by mainstream society as necessary, admirable, and even darkly romantic.  Today, the loss of civilian life is euphemistically termed “collateral” damage.  In the civilian sector aliases, nom de plumes, stage names, pen names, and pseudonyms have gone from suspicious to acceptable to commonplace during the brief tenure of the Internet.  

            Anonymity on the Internet may be understandable, given the dangers of identity theft, but it has gone too far when people conceal their identities on Civil War information, chat, and relic sites.  These sites are not identity-sensitive.  What I have witnessed recently is a growing practice of creating a false persona by choosing a moniker that implies certain talents, titles, achievements, or abilities that, in fact, exist only in the imaginations of those who desire to be perceived as more consequential than they are.  While some seek merely to be unknown, more and more seem to be hiding their real identity behind an entirely new persona.  Like super-star Madonna, they have re-invented themselves and “become” the person they wished they were.

            Often the user profiles available to members of such sites don’t reveal the members’ true identities.  They have become another buffer to assure anonymity or to reinforce the false persona.

            Just because I don’t care for it, doesn’t make it a crime.  However, as one who has spent decades creating an avenue for the dissemination of information, I recognize that there is a responsibility that accompanies it.  First of all, you must take pains to be sure that your information is accurate.  Next, you must be willing to stand by your information.  You must be prepared to take the consequences if your information proves to be incorrect or your allegations false.

It’s obvious that the “information highway” is being subverted by some who use anonymity as a crutch and as a convenient screen to conceal their identities for reasons other than security.  I am referring to those who replace knowledge with opinion and substitute emotion for information.  The proliferation of misinformation has given rise to sites entirely dedicated to verifying or debunking rumors.  What was once quaintly called urban folklore has metastasized to mega-proportions. 

But those aren’t the ones that I find personally annoying.  No, I am referring to Civil War chat / information / relic hunting sites that have become subtly controlled by cliques of opinionated bullies with screen names that imply knowledge and experience that is lacking and use intimidation to promote their opinions.  If their opinions were usually correct I wouldn’t be writing this piece, but the sorry truth is that far too much of the information expressed as absolute gospel emanates from questionable sources, employs faulty logic, and reaches incorrect conclusions.   

One might ask why anyone would believe “Jersey Diggin’ Dog,” “Weenie from Sweeny,” or “CW Moron,” but the fact is most people still believe what they read in print.  (If they exist, my apologies to Jersey / Weenie / Moron.  I made these up.  But, since you’re anonymous, who cares what you think anyway?) 

As children we learn that our schoolbooks contain facts and truths and we develop a trust in the printed word that seems never to leave us.  So, when a “CWresearcher” or a “relicprofessor” renders an opinion about something on a CW info site, typically we extend credibility to their words.  Unfortunately, anyone who regularly asserts himself on these sites generally garners a few staunch leg-humpers who, like Renfield in “Dracula,” agree with every word uttered by their confident and seemingly all-knowing “master.”  In a very short time a few self-styled “experts,” accompanied by a cadre of minions, proliferate the site.  Subsequent joiners often feel like outsiders when encountering one of these geniuses onsite.  If you question their statements or disagree with their post, you engender the wrath of Khan. 

As the Internet grows, and it will continue to do so, I think it is imperative that we in the Civil War field establish a code of conduct or at least adopt a few guidelines by which we communicate via the Internet.  Let’s at least echo the characters of those men whose deeds inspired our obsession with the Civil War.  If you are going to offer an opinion or state your case, identify yourself and stand by your words.  And when someone else is offering an anonymous opinion consider that they may not just be protecting their identity, they may simply be concealing their ignorance.