"Renaming Military Bases?" Topic

"Yes, long overdue. Those names were insults to every American who fought to preserve the union."

"Might be a slippery slope but as someone whose great grandpa soldiered under Grant in the Army of the Tennessee I never was comfortable with the names of Fort Hood or Fort Bragg."

Funny thing about that war. Do some reading from people that were there. As a general rule, and there are many exceptions, the people doing the actual fighting didn't hate each other. They were often quite friendly to each other. Most of the hatred directed towards the troops at the time came from people at home. Now it comes from people being offended on behalf of people they never met.

As for all the 'southerners were traitors comments' Do some reading. People's first loyalty at that time was to their state. When Lee was offered command of the Union army he said that he couldn't raise his sword against his native country, meaning Virginia.

When the war was over not one was tried as a traitor. Longstreet was ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, a US Marshal, and pallbearer at Grant's funeral.

Additionally, Joseph Wheeler served as a US General in the Spanish-American War. You don't generally put traitors in charge of your troops.

"Why would renaming those forts bother anyone? If it makes someone happy, rename it."

The question is, Who do try to make happy? If it's me I'd rename Fort Benning 'Fort Butthole'. See now I'm happy and that's apparently all that counts.

"1 -Slavery based on race is a uniquely American phenomenon.
2- African Americans are interested in redressing the wrongs of American slavery. That's all that counts."

1 – no need to say anything on this, plenty of prior comments disprove this nonsense.

2 – Sooooo, you speak for all Americans of African decent? How condescending.

It's pretty easy to see how this, and the removal of many other statues, plaques, and other things are tied to attempting to discredit and destroy America, especially by those that don't believe in "American Exceptionalism".

Just read the articles, statements, policy positions, etc., etc., of many leftists – many of whom are communists, and/or devout socialists.

They want to remove all of our founding fathers from society and erase references to them from history, and to destroy their monuments (see the defacing of said monuments going on now in D.C. and other places) to them. Then, once they've done that, they'll have a firmer hand at tearing down/destroying our Constitution as well – many are advocating for the elimination of 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights, which help serve to protect the 1st and other Amendments, and to keep us free of totalitarian governments who want to disarm and enslave us.

Our founding fathers knew this, since they had to flee England in order to exercise and regain many of our "inalienable rights".

As we've seen, now they've moved on from attacking our military (though they frequently go back to that), to attacking our police, lawyers, judges, and legal system as well.

The leftists are pushing for open borders, freeing everyone from prison, downgrading felonies to misdemeanors or completely ignoring them, etc., etc..

They claim to be tough on gun crime, but then release the criminals, drug dealers, and gang members caught with them, and advocate for them to be free from the requirement for bail, or to have their charges downgraded too. One needs to look no further than Chicago to see how "effective" those policies have been.

All of the above has helped bring about the anarchy, arson, looting, murder of law enforcement officers and innocent civilians, and rioting we are seeing daily on TV.

We are either a nation of laws, or we aren't.

The policemen involved in the killing of the guy that kicked off all this protesting have been arrested and charged.

Where are the arrests and charges for ALL those rioting, looting, burning buildings and cars, assaulting and murdering police officers, and committing numerous other crimes?

We are either a nation of laws, or we are not.

Sadly, currently, we are not.

It's no big deal to me to rename certain bases, but it will NEVER appease those pushing for this. Once they get their "win" they'll just push for even more, and continue to push and push endlessly. They'll never be satisfied.

If it's me I'd rename Fort Benning 'Fort Butthole'.

That WOULD be some name. It's like something from Spaceballs.

Pan, I missed the election. When exactly were you elected to speak for all black Americans, and how long does your term last?
I served on Bragg, Benning and Hood, alongside black NCO's and frequently under black officers. I attended services with black chaplains wearing kinte cloth stoles. We--all of us--complained about housing, pay, TDY, field time and a host of other issues. Sometimes, especially on matters of sex and family, the average black perspective differed from the average white one. But I NEVER heard grumbling about who they named the base after. Not once. If you're trying to make people who never wore a uniform feel better, I do not see the point.

Again, really not interested in renaming until I see the proposed new names. Talk to me about Forts Patton, Abrams, Ridgeway, MacArthur and Gavin, and I'm interested. Fort Bill Clinton and Fort Buttigieg not so much.

This seems relevant.

On Dec. 25, 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned all Confederate soldiers "unconditionally, and without reservation" thereby making them American citizens in good standing again.

President Andrew Johnson was a noted White Supremacist…even for those times. Im just saying…

Looks like the Army was pandering to southern recruits back then to make them feel at home. Thus nothing wrong with an update. Fighting change for change sake may be a cause but fighting change when you know very well why there needs to be a change is pretending you have a cause.

MiniPigs: What change are you speaking of? Abolishing the police? Making sure every black person is never offended by anything? We are never going to get perfect in any human endeavor. We should strive for it, of course. And no injustice should go unpunished, but to say there is systemic racial discrimination raging across the land is such a crock of .

Send everything down the memory hole, no history is needed. See how that works out when ' those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".

As I pointed out in my earlier post about statues of Charles I and Cromwell, in the UK we seem to have put our own Civil War behind us and do not bear grudges about for which side our ancestors fought.

Some of the posters on this topic seem to wish to perpetuate hostility between the Northern and Southern states by branding all Confederates 'traitors' and by comments such as "those names are insults to every American who fought to preserve the Union." Hardly a recipe for a 'United' States in future.

I've never heard anyone here suggest that the statue of Cromwell insults the memory of those who fought for King Charles I – just as we don't refer to Americans who took up arms against King George III as 'traitors'.

Call your US Army forts what you like, it's your country.

I'd just humbly suggest it just might not be a good idea to wilfully antagonise part of your population over such relatively trivial things as it risks a backlash that may disadvantage the more important cause you seek to promote.

On the slippery slope issue of this leading to the removal of monuments to Washington and Jefferson, etc. someone said that monuments to people who served and benefited the nation in other ways should be safe. But many of the military bases are named after people who's ONLY claim to fame is their exploits on the Southern side during the Civil War. Without the CW no one would have ever heard of many of those men.

"Without the CW no one would have ever heard of many of those men." would be equally true of Oliver Cromwell!

The Egyptian Pyramids need a good hard think if we are going to consider all monuments that had a link to slavery, oppression and racism. Once we've dealt with the Pyramids we can turn to Rome and the countless statues and buildings ("What have the Romans ever done for us?").

@ScottWashburn

By several people's observations on here, no one seems to really know who any of these statues represent anyway (Except that they are the racist du jour) and thus, perhaps, monuments are a waste of time.

@pzivh43

I am speaking of the change that is in the air. The change that neither you nor I nor any of us has a power to effect or halt. It wont be the change you fear and it wont be the change the protestors or agitators want…but there will be change. All I was saying is that if your position is "No change for any reason", you're setting yourself up for failure.

I dont think some of these yahoos know what theyre doing either but the more their suspicions get resisted, the more they think they're on to something.

Additionally, the reverse side of some of the slippery slope arguments posted here is if you could prevent substantial (and potentially destructive) change with the renaming of a few forts, would you do it? Or are you a case of "Millions for war, not one penny for tribute"?

@Royal Marine

I believe, the Egyptians paid the workers who built the pyramids.

Yes, it is now known that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by paid workers.

OTOH, such workers were 'conscripted' from their farms and villages, rather than being volunteers, and spent the rest of their lives on the pyramid building sites.

I was in the US Army as an NCO recently enough to still feel close to current infantry culture, and my experience taught me that very few serving really know anything about Hood, or Bragg, or Drum, Benning, or Schofield. The base itself, the units stationed there, and the experience involved are what become Bragg, Drum, Benning, Carson, Hood, or Schofield. 'Bragg' isn't a Confederate general to kids in the 82nd, it's a lifestyle. I couldn't tell you the first thing about Lt. General Hugh Drum, because the word 'Drum,' is merely synonymous with 10th Mountain, and the identity projected from being a part of the 10th.

I find it sad that the people who actually fought the Civil War were able to find an honorable peace and learn to live with each other and even honor each other's heroes but generations later their great, great, great grandchildren are at each other's throats.

MiniPigs, you omit the possibility of momentum--that every concession convinces yahoos that the demand was just and increases their fury at any objection to their next one. As you say, the future will not be what they claim to want. At some point, that becomes obvious and then the search for scapegoats begins.

More accurately, it's already here. The Warren Court, the Second Civil Rights Act various "non-discrimination" laws and a raft of government programs and agencies having failed to bring about the utopia, the search is on for people thinking bad thoughts or failing to think right ones. I don't know what comes after that and I'm not sure I want to know.

More importantly, concessions are bargaining. Both sides get something out of them. Take a good look at those athletes busily denying allegiance to the United States and ask what it would take to get them to stand. They're not asking for a bill to be passed, but an ideal future to arrive, which it won't. I can't think of any deal I could rely on BLM to accept and hold to. In my mind, that diminishes their bargaining power.

We should, I hope, give everyone what is just--but I don't think that's what looters and arsonists want.

On a somewhat related note, while we're censoring, removing, renaming, expunging, banning, etc., the movie "Gone with the Wind" is apparently now, gone with the wind, as HBO drops the award-winning, movie from its lineup.

The TV show cops has now been cancelled too.

Law enforcement officers are getting attacked and murdered daily, and right now, at least one police department HQ is under fire from a sniper. Where are the protests and recognition of the importance of their lives and sacrifices in the media?

The anarchists seem to be on the march, and winning, currently.

Seattle has 6 new little "autonomous zone" fiefs set up. I suspect the taxes there will be horrendous.

Not an idea I favor

However, to address everyone's sensitivities let's rename ALL military bases after 20th century heroes and such.

Well stop the presses, it seems our leader is putting the kibosh on renaming the forts. Thus, tradition will be maintained. See how easy that was?

The TV show cops has now been cancelled too.

OH noes the show "Cops" is cancelled. The mob needs to stop trampling on the classics.

If you want another, low brow way to waste your life, try "90 day fiancee". I guarantee you'll fear for the future of the republic.

Yes, indeed, President Trump has stated he will not consider renaming these military bases. It appears this issue will now be held in abeyance until 20 January 2025.

Suggested fort and base names.
LT. GEN. NADJA WEST -- cover two issue with her
Brigadier General Hazel Johnson Brown ditto
Benjamin Oliver Davis Jr.
General Colin Powell
General Benjamin Davis Sr.
General Roscoe Robinson Jr.
General Vincent Brooks
etc

@robert piepenbrink

MiniPigs, you omit the possibility of momentum--that every concession convinces yahoos that the demand was just and increases their fury at any objection to their next one. As you say, the future will not be what they claim to want. At some point, that becomes obvious and then the search for scapegoats begins.

MiniPigs leaves out a lot of things. But MiniPigs remains unapologetic because this is a vast, complex topic and MiniPigs has other pigs to fry.

The yahoos couldn't get anything done without mainstream muscle; and the mainstream muscle only exists because so many are both out of work and school. It's really the only reason BLM blew up. BLM was a horrible slogan and movement-I cant think of a worse thing to do to prove to frightened whites who think blacks are loud and obnoxious than to start a group that showcases loud, obnoxious people and convince them once and for all. But, due to luck, the group blew up and now it's a presence.

But bigots, whether they are full blown Nationalists or just like a side of racism with their burger, should rest at ease that very little will get done and the fad will pass. It may not be so much that religion but rather hope that is the opium of the masses. And right now, we see a lot of white angst.

But, I think a cynically smart person (Like Mitch of Moscow fame) would give a few concessions that would make the muscle righteously waste away and leave the handful of extremists who would endlessly demand but never get to rename Mobile Alabama "Cracka-Town" or whatever the fear is.

More accurately, it's already here. The Warren Court, the Second Civil Rights Act various "non-discrimination" laws and a raft of government programs and agencies having failed to bring about the utopia, the search is on for people thinking bad thoughts or failing to think right ones. I don't know what comes after that and I'm not sure I want to know.

Well, it did help a little bit. I think things got worse for the black community overall but for some it had the benefit of lifting them into an educated, middle class. But, it is true that in some ways, segregation is worse, black poverty is worse and black mental and physical health is worse. But Im not sure it was the laws, but rather a variety of diverse and vicious neglects. It would seem that it is easier to create a sub-class than to help it back to equality.

More importantly, concessions are bargaining. Both sides get something out of them. Take a good look at those athletes busily denying allegiance to the United States and ask what it would take to get them to stand. They're not asking for a bill to be passed, but an ideal future to arrive, which it won't. I can't think of any deal I could rely on BLM to accept and hold to. In my mind, that diminishes their bargaining power.

There is confusion about what to ask for but I think it demonstrates how deep the issue is. A large portion of black America seems to believe they are severely and constantly discriminated against. Mass hysteria aside, I dont see why so many of them would uniformly believe this unless it had considerable truth to it. In any case, when they have an opportunity to change things, it seems a little like the contest where everything you can get in your shopping cart in five minutes, you can keep. I mean they can dream right?

We should, I hope, give everyone what is just--but I don't think that's what looters and arsonists want.

If these people felt they had what was just, there'd be no protests for looters and arsonists to use as cover. Aside from a meager handful of anarchists, happy people dont protest.

They aren't looking for a big or quick victory in the renaming/removing/revisionist campaign; They'll just keep chewing off little bites across a broad front. The goal is to win with constant (and if need be, repeated) attempts, tiring out any opposition. Rename schools, streets, etc., remove statues, references in books (or simply the books themselves), art, etc. Even cemeteries won't be safe from the 'need' to sanitize them of anything deemed 'offensive'…

Yep, war memorials to the dead are being defaced and destroyed tonight, and other statues have been vandalized, destroyed, and defaced as well.

Wonder how long until they destroy the Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson monuments, the Vietnam and WWII veterans memorials, and many other things.

Christopher Columbus is literally "on the chopping block" in some locales, and is being removed for his protection in others.

Seattle has a 7 block "no-go" zone, where police and others are being prevented from entering, apparently by armed Antifa militias, and the police had to withdraw from their own precinct in the center of the "autonomous zone" for their own safety, AND that of the protesters.

The lunatics are now running amuck in their asylums.

"On the slippery slope issue of this leading to the removal of monuments to Washington and Jefferson, etc. someone said that monuments to people who served and benefited the nation in other ways should be safe."

Nope
link

link

link

And Columbus had nothing to do with African slavery.

"if you could prevent substantial (and potentially destructive) change with the renaming of a few forts, would you do it?"

I would not, because then our republic turns into rule by mob. It would be a mafia like system, "You know, I'd hate for something to happen to your nice downtown. You should probably take down that statue of Columbus/Jefferson/insert name here."

Jesse Jackson became well known for this kind of shake down in the 90s. He would send someone to talk to a corporation and the message was simple; donate to Rainbow/Push or we'll call you racist and organize a very public boycott of your product. From memory that's how his son ended up with a Coors distributorship.

I am very much a 'millions for defense, not one cent for tribute' kind of guy.

"OH noes the show "Cops" is cancelled. The mob needs to stop trampling on the classics."

For me its what the cancellation represents. The stated reason for cancelling the show was that it showed too many minorities getting arrested and not enough whites. The cancellation of the show is an attempt to deny reality.

"Aside from a meager handful of anarchists, happy people dont protest."

True, but we aren't talking protests, we're talking riots and looting. And while happy people don't riot, thieves do.

I think you'll find a great deal of damage was done by the 'Great Society'. After 50+ years the poverty rate is the same as the day it was started and the black family has been destroyed.

And Columbus had nothing to do with African slavery.

Didn't he enslave Native Americans, though?

link

Looks like we have some better options.

LOL. I'll leave alone now. This is now a censored thread.

Actually, the server replaced your last post with a dupe of one of mine.

Columbus did not himself promote African slavery, but the Spanish treatment following his landing of indigenous Caribbean peoples so reduced the population that it became necessary to import African slaves to replace them. So there is certainly a causal link between the two.

No Columbus was happy with native American child sex slavery. Made some good money on that.
Definitely a guy you'd like to have a statue off.

No Columbus was happy with native American child sex slavery. Made some good money on that.
Definitely a guy you'd like to have a statue off [sic].

Ah, the olde malign the character and misrepresent the historical facts of someone who cannot defend themselves trick!

Joos van Winghe and Theodor de Bry would be proud!

Just so others will know the truth, this is based upon a passage that is taken from Columbus' own letter in which he laments how greedy people have come to the areas he discovered and were abusing the environment and the people there.

The select few individuals have sadly found purchase amongst a sympathetic few who use these false claims to malign Columbus for political reasons.

It can be read here:

link

The reality is exactly the opposite of the lie claimed above.

I would suggest that the USA is renamed as the A comes from Amerigo Vespucci (an Italian gentleman) and as italy was a one time ennemy this is not suitable.
And by the way, as I see pictures of the unrest over there I think the "U"is also debatable

OK, take a stand on Statues,for or against, where there's viable cause but what the hell has Cristoforo Colombo got to do with anything?

He no more discovered America than I did, let alone guess what was to become of it!

There's a statue of Leif Erikson in Boston, go take a swing at that!

At least he's supposed to have set foot on the North American mainland, that's more that Cristo ever did!

Make a point on symbols of oppression by all means but try and make it relevant eh!

Just wondering, will the TV series and film Dukes of Hazzard be targeted because of the Gen Lee? I'll miss Barbara Bach's legs if the TV series goes.

I think a lot of this discussion is missing the point. We are now suggesting that all pre-civil war slave-holders, Columbus, Leif Erickson and the Dukes of Hazard are next on the ban list and their statues [or series] will be torn down.

The US doesn't have statues in our state and National Capitals or military bases named after Cornwallis, Santa Ana, Pakenham, von Hindenburg, von Rundstedt, Ho Chi Ming. Hussain, or any other men, brave or not, good generals or not, who fought against the USA with the intent of defeating the Union and ending our form of government. Not to mention representing a form of government to a lesser or greater degree abhorrent to our values.

Those statues and those bases weren't named after the ACW, but two generations later, at the turn of the century in the wave of Jim Crow laws and black intimidation that carried on into the 20th century.

Columbus, Leif Erickson, or the Dukes of Hazzard didn't waged war on the United States of America to uphold the institution of slavery and rip up the Constitution.

You are welcome to admire R.E. Lee, his command abilities and integrity, but you still have a man who turned his back on his oath as a commissioned officer and fought against the United States of America. By definition, he was a traitor. There are a lot of reasons for his decision, steeped in the attitudes and beliefs of the times, but those aren't reasons to erect statues of him in government buildings or name military bases after him.

I mean, where are the statues of Benedict Arnold? Any bases named after him? He was a talented general. Or Alger Hiss, a very successful traitor.

I would think the issue is a no brainer, regardless of the 100 year traditions of a Fort Bragg [mediocre general] or Benning…

It's time.

As I understand it, the Confederate states wished to leave the Union, similarly to the UK deciding to leave the European Union.
How was that 'ending our form of government'? Would it prevent the states that chose to remain in the Union from continuing with it? Did the creation of the Republic of Ireland prevent the rest of the UK from continuing to be a democracy or a constitutional monarchy?

The select few individuals have sadly found purchase amongst a sympathetic few who use these false claims to malign Columbus for political reasons.

I guess we can add Bartolome de las Casas' descriptions of Columbus and his methods in his "Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias" as similar propaganda?

Named for a bunch of losers.

As I understand it, the Confederate states wished to leave the Union, similarly to the UK deciding to leave the European Union.

I'm not sure I see the similarity. The former involved the dissolution of a country, and the latter is the voluntary leaving of a country from an economic union made up of many other countries. How is that anywhere near the same thing?

That is the very point I was making: how does some states choosing to leave 'dissolve a country'? It does not prevent those states wishing to remain in the Union from doing so, or alter how they are governed. There would still have been a USA, albeit smaller.

When the Irish Republic (Eire) came into existence, it did not 'dissolve' the UK, merely altered its geographical boundaries.

How was that 'ending our form of government'? Would it prevent the states that chose to remain in the Union from continuing with it?

arthur1815:

There was no Constitutional provision for a state to leave the Union anymore than there was a provision for Sussex to leave England. IF it had been accepted that states could leave the Union anytime they felt the need, That would have been unconstitutional and would have literally broken it. Certainly, the Southern states felt that as they had all agreed originally to join, they could leave when they wanted to. That wasn't how the Constitution was written. The formation of a strong federal government superior to the states was one of the great debates among the members of the Constitutional convention and the lack of a federal government sovereign over the states was the fatal weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution ended the idea that the states were a 'confederation' rather than an inseparable Union.

I'm not sure I see the similarity. The former involved the dissolution of a country, and the latter is the voluntary leaving of a country from an economic union made up of many other countries. How is that anywhere near the same thing?

The states leaving the Union was the disssolution of the country… Either the North accepted the idea that states could leave voluntarily, in which case any and all states could when they chose… seriously weakening the Union, representing a dissolution of the Constitution as it was written. It represented a return to a weak federal government like that of the Articles of Confederation. You can imagine any effort to add new states to the Union [or Confederacy] would have been a mess. Any smart territory wishing to enter the Union would have required a legal agreement that they could then leave when they wanted to. Again, busting the Constitution.

The European Union has written into its articles of Union that nations can leave if desired. There is no such provision in the Constitution.

When the Irish Republic (Eire) came into existence, it did not 'dissolve' the UK, merely altered its geographical boundaries.

There weren't English laws addressing that possibility one way or another. The United Kingdom wasn't governed by a unitary Constitution signed by all colonies and conquests involved acting as soverneign states. Different history, different circumstances, different laws.

IF the Federal government had aknowledged that states could leave the Union whenever they wanted, it would have weakened relationships between states and the Federal government, made any federal laws 'temporary' and less than soveriegn, particularly commerce and regulatory laws as any state could pick up their toys and go home anytime they wanted. Even the threat of such would have weakened the ability of the Federal government to enforce the laws.