"Navy Renaming USS Chancellorsville" Topic

The Union did not go to war to end slavery. It went to war to impose a constitutional order upon a people who chose freely to leave it.

The United States did not go to war until after secession and the beginning of hostilities, begun by the South at Fort Sumter.

The reason for going to war was to restore the Union.

Ending slavery became a war aim about a year into the war.

The South seceeding was a violation of the US Constitution as there was no allowance for that action in the document.

Your phraseology falls exactly within what I call the Just Cause narrative that casts the war in the moral frame of slavery and the fight against it.

And where can anyone find information on the 'Just Cause' of the Civil War?

I would submit that Lincoln and the United States were more than justified in the war aim to restore the Union. The southern states had no right to secede and make war on the United States.

Leaders who didn't want to be in the USA to keep slavery alive that didn't just try to leave it, tried to break it up, walked out on their ancestors commitments without even any additional negotiation nor willingness to find an appropriate solution with in the framework of the constitution, all to protect their use of blacks to further their own sense of well being culturally, emotionally, financially, perhaps more.

Even if I agreed with your premise it still doesn't explain why hundreds of thousands of young men, most who were not slave owners, went off to war and risked their lives in battle. These young men had very little to gain and much to lose in fighting for slavery. I think a better explanation has to be found to account for their willingness to die for their country. And obviously these young Southern men saw the CSA as their country.

As even someone like OVI has previously pointed out on other threads where you've posted as well, they didn't have one reason. Although as mentioned in my previous post here, it wasn't their reasons that caused the war.

I would ask how one section of a country has the right, by use of force, to compel another part of the country to stay in a constitutional compact that the latter no longer finds desirable.

You've presented this type of question before, and an answer has been previously provided, except you're still asking it. Suspect if I provide the same answer again, that such is still not going to be of help with the Confederate and nationalistic perspective being espoused which is contrary to my view, and thus will continue to clash with yours.

The Declaration of Independence lays out the basic principle that people have the right to self determination and that the exercise of that right is essentially morally incontestable.

Except it isn't the Declaration that lays out the form of government. Nor is it in that document where the states made their agreement. This has been pointed out before as well, yet here we go again.

Whether you think the South had good or bad reasons to leave is beside the point.

Beside what point? This? …

It is not your decision to make.

I didn't make the decision, I wasn't even alive in the 1860s, if that's the decision that is being mentioned. So … what decision is even being meant?

And if I took the principle articulated above and applied it to personal relationships it would mean that one spouse could legitimately use force or coercion to keep the other spouse from leaving the marriage. I hope you would agree that morally that this is indefensible today

The idea that marriage law and constitutional law are being considered to be the same is a premise that I find to be preposterous. It's not even close. The southern states didn't get married to the northern states, it was a constitutional agreement.

And so far, I'm not seeing any reasons here that make sense as to why the name of the ship is worth staying the same.

The United States did not go to war until after secession and the beginning of hostilities, begun by the South at Fort Sumter.

The reason for going to war was to restore the Union.

Ending slavery became a war aim about a year into the war.

The South seceeding was a violation of the US Constitution as there was no allowance for that action in the document.

From my decades long study of history all those statements are true.

And so far, I'm not seeing any reasons here that make sense as to why the name of the ship is worth staying the same.

For better or worse today the rewriting of history is part of the "woke", DEI, CRT/1619 movement. Pushed by a very vocal minority.

The Pentagon even has two agenda/narrative driven African-Americans that support/push/dictate these types of subjects to be part of the US Military's training. Based on my experiences as a Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co Cdr. In my long-passed youth. This type of training is a waste of time and has nothing to do with combat readiness/prep for combat.

IMO these topics are divisive, skewed, etc. And only creates divisions among the troops. Does not contribute to making a cohesive, effective, fighting force.

Which only emboldens our enemies, as we see currently …

Woke dogma, DEI, CRT, etc. has no place in the military. A military which used to be at the top of the food chain is being gutted, weakened, attrited, etc. for political, skewed social, divisive, etc. reasons. As so often happens those at the top who make decisions like this will have no sons or daughters that may have to go in harms way.

For better or worse today the rewriting of history is part of the "woke", DEI, CRT/1619 movement. Pushed by a very vocal minority.

Where does the 'Lost Cause' mythology work itself into the criteria that you have named?

Further, there is such a thing as revisionist history. Some of it is good as it brings information that has not been done or seen before.

On the other hand, there is too much that is incorrect and just plain nonsense.

The trick is to be able to tell the good from the bad. And sometimes that takes a lot of work.

I will say this again:

It was a battle, fought valiantly by both union and confederate soldiers. Men on both sides fought bravely and were wounded and died on that field. Both sides carried it stitched proudly and "with honor" on their battle flags.

Union Regiments built monuments to honor those fallen and those who fought on that field:

27th Indiana
154th New York
114th Pennsylvania

No matter the reason for the naming of that ship originally, the name today honors the memories and sacrifices of those brave men.

If those men who fought there were proud enough to have stitched that name on their battle flags, that field consecrated with their blood; who are we today to deny them the honor of that name on a ship in their remembrance?

Subject: Some union flags with Chancellorsville on them

link


link


link


link

Subject: Monument to the 27th Indiana Infantry Regiment at Chancellorsville


link

I would venture to claim 95% of those on the street you would talk with, would have any idea of the significance of the name Chancellorsville or of it's meaning to history. Part of the 5% who might know it was a civil war battle, would have no idea who won or lost.

The ships name now today, is only an honor to those who fought and died there. Those in favor of the change seem to want to take that honor away from them for an obscure, meaningless agenda point, that in the great scheme of things will make absolutely no difference in this country or better it in any way.

Even if your hate of the Confederacy is so overpowering, you still intentionally, or unintentionally, spit on the memory of those Union soldiers who fought and died on that field of battle, in my opinion.

Not true at all. No one is spitting on their memories.

What you're doing is resisting this because it's tied into the whole conspiratorial approach being used to tie this name change into other topics, even if that isn't rational. It's supporting one's belief with a concept of providing ones' self a reason to keep believing, rather than having the fragility of the belief system come crashing down, and not know what to do about it.

And that comment of "spitting" comes with speculating on how many folks might not know the significance/meaning of the fight, and the claim that those who are aware wouldn't know who won or lost, is more emotional jibber jabber, and along the same lines of the belief system. Instead of recognizing the reality of what happened.

And the view disqualifies itself as soon as the reason given was …

No matter the reason for the naming of that ship originally, the name today honors the memories and sacrifices of those brave men.

The mere idea that such comes up means that the logical extension of that could be … what do we now, name a ship after every battle where Americans died? Not sure how realistic that would be.

I remember the Kelleyanne Conway interview with Chuck Todd on MTP many years ago when she coined the phrase "alternate facts." It was unfortunate phraseology because what she was really arguing for was an alternative way of interpreting the facts.

The term 'alternative facts' and 'an alternate way of interpreting facts' are the same thing. In short, it is misinterpreting any facts in order to support an argument and not to use the actual facts to support an argument.

Definition of 'alternate facts':

'Alternative facts have been called many things: falsehoods, untruths, delusions. A fact is something that actually exists—what we would call "reality" or "truth." An alternative is one of the choices in a set of given options; typically the options are opposites of each other.'

See:

link

Alternate facts are just that: the opposite of factual material.

GP there is absolutely nothing rational about your last response, just emotional.

Chancellorsville was a battle, nothing more. Union soldiers fought and died on that field. To believe that the ships name insults in any way, is stretching credulity to the limits, all to achieve an agenda that reminiscent of Don Quixote‘s tilting at windmills (attack imaginary enemies or evils.)

There are, I am sure a few who agree with you, but yes, this is spitting on the memory of the Union veterans who fought and died at Chancellorsville.

I am sure this is all self justified for the greater cause. Whatever that nebulous cause really is, Right?

…this is spitting on the memory of the Union veterans who fought and died at Chancellorsville.

There is no reason to glorify a US loss in the naming of a ship by an army that was in rebellion against the United States.

Brechtel we named ships after Brandywine, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Alamo to name a few and all US losses. Ok Alamo is stretching a US loss. Technically a Texan loss.

Almost all those in rebellion, rejoined the United States, some served in the military campaigns that followed.

What does this really accomplish? Please Be specific? Will everyone be happy now?

Today you are just honoring those who fought there. I would have no issue with ships named after every battle in the war. Let's have a USS Little Big Horn. How about a Battle of the Wabash?

…we named ships after Brandywine, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Alamo to name a few and all US losses.

Yorktown was a US loss? That's news to me. It was Cornwallis' army that surrendered, not Washington's.

link

link

My mistake, I meant Lexington. While the combo Lexington with Concord was a overall victory for the Americans, Lexington itself was a loss

"The British won the Battle of Lexington as they were able to drive the provincials
from the field,"

Add Wake Island to my list

But the point stands, we have named ships after losses.

GP there is absolutely nothing rational about your last response, just emotional.

Just because you're blinded by your own belief system, doesn't make your claims true.

Chancellorsville was a battle, nothing more. Union soldiers fought and died on that field. To believe that the ships name insults in any way, is stretching credulity to the limits, all to achieve an agenda that reminiscent of Don Quixote‘s tilting at windmills (attack imaginary enemies or evils.)

Who said it insults? Beyond that, seems like a lack of comprehension of Cervantes' novel I see.

There are, I am sure a few who agree with you, but yes, this is spitting on the memory of the Union veterans who fought and died at Chancellorsville.

No, it is not.

I am sure this is all self justified for the greater cause. Whatever that nebulous cause really is, Right?

If you know, feel free to explain? I don't know, you tell us.

"If you know, feel free to explain? I don't know, you tell us."
"Who said it insults?"

Great, if no cause to change, then let's not change the name and we both agree.

But if you believe the name should change, than please answer and be specific.

What are your arguments to justify the change of names. What does this really accomplish? Will those wanting the change be happy after the change? Who are we appeasing with the name change and why do they deserve the expense and appeasement.

I've given my arguments against the change and yes I truly believe with all my heart that this insults the memory of every Union soldier who fought there.

Where does the 'Lost Cause' mythology work itself into the criteria that you have named?

I never did … And I said "for better or worse". The Lost Cause myth is the other side of the spectrum from CRT/1619, etc. Now do some white supremacists, KKK, etc. types go along with The Lost Cause myth ? Undoubtedly …

Further, there is such a thing as revisionist history. Some of it is good as it brings information that has not been done or seen before.

On the other hand, there is too much that is incorrect and just plain nonsense.

Yes, I see wokeness, DEI, CRT/1619 in many cases being nonsense, skewed, biased, etc. I see the Lost Cause myth is pretty much the same. And yes, it is not taught in the US Military AFAIK because it is really not an accurate piece of history, etc. And a waste of time, as much as CRT/1619, DEI, etc. are. Whereas learning warfighter skills, combat ops, etc. should be paramount. Now studying the Lost Cause myth, CRT/1619, etc. in an academic, etc., setting may be a good exercise.

The problem with revisionist history, many times it is agenda/narrative driven, and probably not accurate. Of course, new facts come to light about history frequently. That is not revisionist history. Those are new facts brought to light.

And anyone who didn't know slaves came here as early as 1619. Just does not understand the history of that time, etc.

OVI doesn't give answers, nor an explanation. Oh well. Instead more questions.

It doesn't matter what my argument is (if I even have one), it matters what those who made the change had as justification. Their view is what explains what is accomplished. The change is occurring, so suspect those who want it will be satisfied, that seems obvious. I'm not aware of who we are "appeasing", feel free to let us know. Regardless, as long as OVI "believes with all my heart", the blindness continues. *shrug*

Yes a minority of the "very vocal" shall make a decision for change for the rest of us, as seems to be the norm in these decisions currently.

Not aware of who the folks were on the committee that made the decision. As the old saying goes, the only thing that is constant is change. Try not to let it bother ya too much and have a good weekend!

The problem with revisionist history, many times it is agenda/narrative driven, and probably not accurate. Of course, new facts come to light about history frequently. That is not revisionist history. Those are new facts brought to light.

Really?

Perhaps this will help:

'Historical revisionism is the means by which the historical record, the history of a society, as understood in its collective memory, continually accounts for new facts and interpretations of the events that are commonly understood as history'

link

link

Perhaps now you can 'revise' your idea on historical revisionism?

Really?

Perhaps this will help:

'Historical revisionism is the means by which the historical record, the history of a society, as understood in its collective memory, continually accounts for new facts and interpretations of the events that are commonly understood as history'

Sorry, no. Cherry-picking cases that peculiarly favor your argument doesn't help at all.

Revision of the historical record is an ethically neutral act. The problem resides in the underlying motives for doing so. Revision of history, in and of itself, does not constitute an act of a self-anointing verity.

Tou have Herodotus on one side, Dr Goebbels on another side, and Nicole Hannah Jones on a third hand. Lots of room for mischief.

B

I cherry-picked nothing. I posted the definition(s) of what revision is and previously I posted on both the good and bad of revisionism.

And the bad side of revisionism is hardly an 'ethically neutral act.' It is a distortion of history.

Hi Brechtel !

I wrote -

"Revision of the historical record is an ethically neutral act."

Your response -

"And the bad side of revisionism is hardly an 'ethically neutral act."

Your above response is … sad to say … a pretty bald distortion of what I wrote. Perhaps you simply failed to read my post with sufficiently close attention; I'd like to think that was the case at any rate.

Have a nice day.

B

Please pay more attention to posts that you propose to respond to.

Perhaps now you can 'revise' your idea on historical revisionism?

In many cases on many battlefields, etc. historians, archeologists, etc. find artifacts, information in journals, maps, etc. as I said, that brings new facts to light. Isn't that similar to what you posted ? Just not as detailed, academic or intellectual ? I.e.,

'Historical revisionism is the means by which the historical record, the history of a society, as understood in its collective memory, continually accounts for new facts and interpretations of the events that are commonly understood as history'

I currently have little faith in what some professors, teachers, etc., in some high schools and generally universities classes are again biased, skew, agenda and narrative driven, etc. Based on some of the posts you make it only reinforces my thoughts. "I Calls'm as I sees'm"…⚾

As I have said before. Most Americans know little about their own history, world history, etc. They don't even know the most basic facts.

Blutarski +1

As Blutarski posted:

Revision of the historical record is an ethically neutral act. The problem resides in the underlying motives for doing so. Revision of history, in and of itself, does not constitute an act of a self-anointing verity.

Indeed … very much so …

I have to ask, Brecth … what is the purpose of this exercise ? The topic was about a USN warship's name being changed because that name is for a CSA victory, during the ACW. And the CSA supported slavery … I think we get it …

We revert to the slavery as the cause of the war discussion any time without warning, regardless of the topic.

Legion you make a great point, CRT or the Lost Cause are legitimate academic topics for college, where their context and complexities can be better understood. I don't think they make the basis for a common sense everyday life, after, watching all the handwringing. We are driving ourselves crazy with acronyms, blamer culture, conspiracies and whataboutism. Media people are making big money off of feeding us what we want.

It's not just that the old Confederate names are so offensive at this point. It's that there are too many forgotten heroes who deserve to be honored.

Tort +1

We revert to the slavery as the cause of the war discussion any time without warning, regardless of the topic.

Today as I have said before, with CRT/1619/BLM, etc. everything comes down to racism. Some media, etc. thrive on that. But if everything is racism … then nothing is racism …

We are driving ourselves crazy with acronyms, blamer culture, conspiracies and whataboutism. Media people are making big money off of feeding us what we want.

Yes an a very vocal minority are pushing that agenda/narrative. And of course, there is always the "bottom line" = $$$$$ …

It's not just that the old Confederate names are so offensive at this point. It's that there are too many forgotten heroes who deserve to be honored.

So very true !

We see today, many/most in the USA do not know their own history. Or much else it seems. So, they will believe or even disregard and things the hear in the media. Have no idea what is true, false, agenda/narrative driven, etc.

Today as I have said before, with CRT/1619/BLM…

Have you read the 1619 project? Do you understand what CRT actually is and who uses it?

…a very vocal minority are pushing that agenda/narrative.

If that is so, then the reaction that has come from 'pushing that agenda' is way out of proportion, especially in Florida.

Have you read the 1619 project? Do you understand what CRT actually is and who uses it?

I have heard and read enough to know what both are about, etc. They are divisive in many ways if nothing else. And I question some of the historical accuracy.

If that is so, then the reaction that has come from 'pushing that agenda' is way out of proportion, especially in Florida.

If you agree with this you wouldn't have a problem with it.

You didn't answer my question that I posted above – I have to ask, Brecth … what is the purpose of this exercise ? The topic was about a USN warship's name being changed because that name is for a CSA victory, during the ACW. And the CSA supported slavery … I think we get it …

And why are you so obsessed telling most here how wrong they are, in your opinion. Who really cares what many of us think? Are you going to change are minds to you way of thinking? I'd suggest stop wasting our time. You can waste your time however you want. But it is probably not going to change what we think, feel believe, etc.

"The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon."
― George Orwell, 1984

Minds do not change these days. We are fearful of change. We do not see middle ground. Secession talk sounds like a solution to some people. We do not see leadership in either party that can unite us. Our media just tells us more of what we already believe as if it was news.

We are in a Cold War Civil War in some ways. Our history is difficult and imperfect. But, if we don't find common ground there, the future is scarier.

After growing up in the 50s and gaming the ACW beginning with the Centennial,
I had not a care in the world about such matters. The whole narrative was colorful romp. In college, a group of guys got permission to take over a huge classroom, amassed 15,000 Airfix figures, and got credits for re-fighting
Gettysburg. It took an entire month. Featherstone rules. A blast.

But then it somehow began to get depressing. It was hard to escape a more vivid understanding of the realties of slavery, the brutality of war. I grew up and learned more about suffering. I quit gaming, could not separate the reality from the fun of the games.

Eventually, I began to read Napoleonic history. It felt less personal, full of interesting characters. Began to buy figs, rules, threw myself into it. At some point I decided to re-read Catton's trilogy, just for the pleasure of his writing. And I read the revisionist bios of Grant from Chernow and White. From there I found David Blight and McPherson. It was a much more nuanced narrative that evolved from the end of the Lost Cause era.

I took the plunge and bought a couple of thousand 5mm figs and began to game again. The story of the Army of the Potomac and its long journey to becoming a great army became an inspiration. I stayed neutral on the Confederates. As always, bought a lot of rules. Read everything by Sears.

The story is still tragic but not depressing now. It is a cautionary tale. I have great respect for the elan of the average Confederate soldier. Whatever they believed they were fighting for. In the end they had to be defeated, however.

But the war did not completely end there. It's a Cold War now, lines are being drawn. I have not gamed the Civil War in a couple of years as I paint my Franco-Prussian armies. Another era to escape into, along with WW2 naval – where things were a whole lot more clear cut.

It is always a stretch to call these threads miniatures or gaming related. But I think the fun of gaming and the reality of conflict dance around each other in my mind as I get older, and talking through it somehow is beneficial.

Tort +1 👍👍 Agree with much of what you said !

**I had many Marx sets too ! 😎

Tort … there seems to be a decent thread topic in all of that. I get where you're coming from. There's this mix of play vs. reality in this hobby. It is a balancing of fantasy acting out from a basis of history. The history isn't pretty, full of flawed, inhumane, and unhealthy decisions, confrontations best resolved more peacefully, and yet humans blunder into or choose situations that end in tragedy for many.

Does the USN have a ship named "The good ship lollypop" ? 🍭

Did any candy makers own slaves ? 🍬

That name should not upset anyone … Well maybe a diabetic ? 🍬🍭

I have great respect for the elan of the average Confederate soldier. Whatever they believed they were fighting for. In the end they had to be defeated, however.

I gain perspective from learning more about my ancestors who were affected by the war.

Henry Armintrout, my great-grandfather, served in an Ohio unit called up to defend Washington DC late in the war. I don't believe he saw battle. He did, like many other soldiers, become ill, and was sick for the rest of his long life.

His brother served on a Union riverboat.

However, our branch of the family emigrated from Virginia to Ohio. So presumably many Armintrouts fought on the Confederate side as well.

John Haney was my great-great-great-grandfather. He was born in Pennsylvania, but settled in Missouri. His entry in the 1860 US census is very interesting. He had a six-month-old son, and the census taker originally wrote: "not named" for the first name. Then, in a different handwriting, someone wrote his name: "States Rights" (Haney). The son's name was eventually changed to Sterling Price Haney (yes, named after a Confederate general).

As far as I can tell, the Haneys did not fight in the war. At some point before 1864, they emigrated to Oregon.

My great-grandfather, Henry Koelsch, emigrated as a child with his family from Prussia and settled in Wisconsin. He was old enough to serve during the ACW, but seems not to have – he moved to Minnesota in 1863, where he was considered a pioneer farmer.

My great-grandfather, Charles Lapham, enlisted in the 27th Wisconsin in 1862 (age 15!). His unit was at the siege of Vicksburg, and participated in the Camden Expedition (Arkansas). After the war, he returned to Wisconsin, married, and remarried after death of his first wife. But at the age of 32, he was an invalid on a military pension. He died at age 35 in a disabled veterans home. (My grandmother was born 6 months later.)

My great-great-grandfather, James Daniel, was in his 30s during the war, farming, ranching and gold-mining in Oregon and Idaho. Ex-US Navy, Mexican-American War veteran (US Army).

My great-great-great-gramdfather, Jacob Messinger, left Iowa in 1862 and followed the Oregon Trail.

James Price, my great-great-grandfather, was farming in Oregon and prospecting in Idaho. In 1865, he was the city marshal for Albany, Oregon.

My Mexican ancestors were in Mexico during the ACW.

Interesting history and linage Bill. You may have had kin on both sides of the ACW.

My people didn't get here until 1905. So, I have no ancestors in the ACW.

Thank goodness for Ancestry.com. At least to give you some ideas. Bill,it sounds like someone in your family did some great research.

An interesting article on the development of 'woke'…

link

The article is not unexpectedly biased, etc. We get it … woke, DEI, CRT, 1619, transgenderism, is the answer for some … But not all in the USA.

Take a break… Put the torches and pitchforks down. We see the flags you are waving. Yes, we see where you stand … And you see where many here on the other side of the story stands.

We got it … You just don't want to stop pushing your narrative & agenda. Those are not how many here and elsewhere see it.

Would you and those that believe as you do be satisfied if all USN vessels and US Military Bases were named after former slaves ? But only 12-13% of the US is made up of Blacks/African-Americans ? And none of them were slaves. So, wouldn't that be discriminatory to the rest of the USA's population ? A current population where no one ever owned slaves, and no one ever were slaves. Look at the calendar … the ACW ended in 1865.

Try decaf …

Moving on …

Another interesting article on the development of 'woke'…

link

I would argue that some opinion news media played and continues to play a major role in turning woke into a negative political label. I have said here that the word once stood for something positive and desirable. Its use goes back much farther than the date in the Fox article.

Its history has been cancelled during the last few years.

Just as we have gotten carried away toppling statues and changing ship and other names, censoring speech on both sides. Some things needed changing, but we have gone too far. Cancelling our own founders in some cases. Attacking our own Capitol.

What ever woke means now, we certainly are not woke in the original sense of the term.

I pretty much agree with the FOX article on Woke. So yes, some would say I'm biased …

No, you are entitled to your convictions, Legion.

And for me "woke" goes back to a 1938 Lead Belly blues tune!

No, you are entitled to your convictions, Legion.

We all are … But like in Animal Farm … "All animals are equal … some are just more equal than others." … G. Orwell

To some you are entitled to your opinion … just as long as it is the same as theirs.

Fox has a gaining reputation for lying, based on the lawsuit by Dominion.

I would take anything they say or write with a very large salt pill…

The trial will be an event, part of the history of these times. They are a business and protected their profits. They will have their day in court, fair and balanced. And they will retain their loyal viewers, IMO.

We all get to pick our various media outlets, buyer beware. With all of them.

Rather than tempt fate any further on this topic, here is a link to a front page NYT article from today. It is quite detailed, and puts a human face on the many players in the Dominion case which you would not see on Fox, the defendant. A good history of Murdoch and the whole thing without judging him. It's a 20 minute read, but I think worth it from a history point of view.

link

Fox has a gaining reputation for lying, based on the lawsuit by Dominion.

I would take anything they say or write with a very large salt pill…

And you think CNN is a better source?

…here is a link to a front page NYT article from today. It is quite detailed, and puts a human face on the many players in the Dominion case which you would not see on Fox, the defendant…

It drips with bias. "crawling the walls" – what does that even mean? "Sidney Powell, the right-wing attorney and conspiracy theorist" – judgy. "Giuliani, sweating profusely, black hair dye dripping down the side of his face…" and this is relevant how? just looks like character assassination

The presentation of the article makes me question everything else about it.

I think Murdoch himself said something similar at one point about his pandemic isolation, and was quite open about his feelings on the matter.

Sidney Powell assertions were fanciful and unsupported and she narrowly escaped disbarment when the case in Texas was thrown out on a technicality – evidence exhibits were mis-numbered.

Gulianni's appearance speaks to Murdochs judgement about the developing situation. This was about perceptions and keeping the viewership. Any witness would have factually described Guiliani in this way, in my experience.

I disagree that it drips with bias.

+1 for Tort.

Powell and Giuliani have been shown to be less than honest multiple times.