Help support TMP

"U.S. military reviewing its ties to Confederate symbols" Topic

28 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not use bad language on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Modern Media Message Board

Back to the ACW Media Message Board

Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Top-Rated Ruleset

On To Richmond

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

1:72nd IMEX Union Artillery Limber

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian completes his initial Union force in 1:72nd scale.

Featured Profile Article

Editor Julia's 2015 Christmas Project

Editor Julia would like your support for a special project.

1,276 hits since 9 Jun 2020
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Jun 2020 2:19 p.m. PST

…, names

"The U.S. military is rethinking its traditional connection to Confederate Army symbols, mindful of their divisiveness at a time the nation is wrestling with questions of race after the death of George Floyd in police custody.

Defence Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, both former Army officers, put out word through their spokespeople that they are "open to a bipartisan discussion" of renaming Army bases such as North Carolina's Fort Bragg that honour Confederate officers who led the fight against the Union and, directly or implicitly, defended the institution of slavery.

Separately, the Navy's top admiral announced Tuesday that he will follow the example of Gen. David Berger, the commandant of the Marine Corps, who last week directed Marine commanders to remove public displays of the Confederate battle flag carried during the Civil War. The flag, which some embrace as a symbol of heritage, "carries the power to inflame feelings of division" and can weaken the unit cohesion that combat requires, Berger has said…"
Main page


Fitzovich Supporting Member of TMP10 Jun 2020 3:34 p.m. PST

Long overdue

Legionarius10 Jun 2020 3:45 p.m. PST

Long overdue. As one who served in the Army for 28 years I have always wondered about the names of these Confederate generals used for our bases. Especially since they all swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. We should honor great soldiers who defended the Constitution.

RudyNelson10 Jun 2020 4:01 p.m. PST

A shame that the scum is pushing this.
Next they will want Indian fighters removed such as any Union leader like Sheridan or Grant, plus Jackson, Houston, Austin. And many others.
If this happens then slave owning Presidents and Congressmen.
The list goes on.

lkmjbc310 Jun 2020 4:19 p.m. PST

Virtue signaling over the bodies of the dead. Surely this will cleanse us of our sins.

Joe Collins

PK Guy Brent10 Jun 2020 4:55 p.m. PST

This isn't the same as removing "Indian" fighter's names. The Confederacy attempted to create a new nation and continue the reprehensible slavery system. They fought against the United States. I cannot understand why the US government ever used CSA general's names for military sites, nor why they would have allowed the Confederate flag to be flown. I'm not talking about striking them from historical record – but it is inappropriate to use them as they have been. If a change is made, it doesn't demean those who went through or served at those sites.

RudyNelson10 Jun 2020 5:12 p.m. PST

In England the protesters are calling for the removal of all Churchill statues saying he was a racist.
You have to stop the anarchist protesters somewhere and soon.

gprokopo10 Jun 2020 6:20 p.m. PST

Long overdue.

ecaminis Supporting Member of TMP10 Jun 2020 6:34 p.m. PST

Calling protesters anarchists is not appropiate. Our nation was started by protesters. Dumping tea into a harbor was not a non-violent act , it was rioting and destrucytion of private property. Shooting enforcers of the law( even if they shot first) is not a legal act(Lexington & Concord). Better check were you get your slogans and be readyto back them up.

lkmjbc310 Jun 2020 7:25 p.m. PST

Yes. If we just eliminate this culture and all reference to it, we will be free from our sins. We can bask in our goodness and moral superiority.

Joe Collins

RudyNelson10 Jun 2020 8:53 p.m. PST

The American protesters were anarchist back in the 1770s. They tar and feathered tax collectors burned down tax offices, destroyed other people's property all before the war began.

Thresher0111 Jun 2020 1:09 a.m. PST

The Confederacy attempted to create a new nation and continue the reprehensible slavery system. They fought against the United States.

Hmmm, I seem to recall less than a century before, that our "founding fathers" "attempted to create a new nation" and succeeded, and that they, and even the Union side during the war permitted slavery to be used for quite some time.

They fought against Britain.

"Calling protesters anarchists is not appropiate".

Actually, it is totally appropriate in many cases. Have you not seen the images of looting, burning buildings and vehicles, fire-bombings, tearing down monuments, seizing whole city blocks and forcing the police to leave their buildings in fear for their lives and those of the "protesters"?

Have you not read about the killings of our law enforcement officers, and the numerous attacks on them with guns, molotov cocktails, bricks, and other weapons?

The lunatics are even calling for the abolishment of the police force in many cities, and/or for defunding them, which will essentially result in the same thing.

The only ones benefiting from the unrest across our land are the felons who were released from prison early on dubious assertions, and other criminals who would love to see the police put out of work so they can go about their crime sprees unimpeded. The timing is interesting, since much of this started right after they were released from prison.

PK Guy Brent11 Jun 2020 4:57 a.m. PST

The Confederacy attempted to create a new nation and continue the reprehensible slavery system. They fought against the United States.

Hmmm, I seem to recall less than a century before, that our "founding fathers" "attempted to create a new nation" and succeeded, and that they, and even the Union side during the war permitted slavery to be used for quite some time.

Our "founding fathers" in the 18th century didn't base the creation of the US on the need for slavery to continue. I don't recall the English naming their military bases "Fort Washington" or "Fort Greene" after the US gained their independence and won the war. I really can't understand how anyone can support the use of Confederate general's names for US military bases, or the display (not in a museum, in games, or for any educational purpose) of the Confederate flag at public or government facilities. If a private person wants to fly the Confederate flag, go ahead. That's your right. Doesn't mean that other people have to like it.

arthur181511 Jun 2020 8:10 a.m. PST

But there is a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square, London! No one to my knowledge has ever protested that it honours a man who fought against Britain.

There is also a Washington Mayfair Hotel, and a Washington in Tyne and Wear, County Durham.

We have a statue of Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament, yet he was proclaimed a traitor after the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

PK Guy Brent11 Jun 2020 8:34 a.m. PST

Did Britain name any military sites after Washington? That's quite a bit different than a hotel.

I know of one Cromwell in the US. Nolan Cromwell used to play strong safety for the LA Rams, back in the day.

Thresher0111 Jun 2020 8:48 a.m. PST

I never said they did, PK, but we did secede against our own countrymen, the British.

Don't worry, once the PC-wave hits your shores in 3, 2, 1……., poor Oliver will be removed/defaced/destroyed too.

RAOldham181211 Jun 2020 11:08 a.m. PST

I thought we had forgiven our brothers. If your ok with whats happening now then when they come to the CSA soldier burial sites to remove them, you will be ok with that? How about removal of Confederate monuments on battlefields. These people doing this will see no limit. With them its destroy everything connected to the Confederate past.

Personal logo 15mm and 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP11 Jun 2020 12:06 p.m. PST

So finally Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart and their ilk will be seen as the evil racists they were, by association if not in fact?

Was I mis-educated in high school all along when the history textbook said that the Civil War was fought over "states rights" and not slavery?

HBO Max has pulled 'Gone With The Wind,' ranked #6 on American Film Institute's Greatest Movies of All Time list, for its racism by the way. Do we "frankly give a damn"?

How the times have changed.

Old Peculiar11 Jun 2020 12:08 p.m. PST

So long as you have small minded bigots that label people they disagree with as scum than change is necessary. I am sure you agree RudyNelson!

15th Hussar11 Jun 2020 1:32 p.m. PST

I've never understood how General George H Thomas never had major base name after him, while Bragg…BRAGG???…did/does.

END of discussion.

Personal logo Dan Cyr Supporting Member of TMP11 Jun 2020 8:21 p.m. PST

+ 1 Andrew Preziosi

Grimr46011 Jun 2020 9:31 p.m. PST

I honestly don't mind the names. It's history, it's not hurting anyone, just their feelings. But yeah, Andrew Preziosi hit it on the head, Fort Bragg is a large base, but Fort Pickett is a tiny patch of Forrest?

Legionarius12 Jun 2020 9:44 a.m. PST

The "lost cause" was. Wrong cause. Plain and simple. States rights were and still are a cover for racist practices and sowing disunity in these United States. We are discussing confederates here, not any others. Do not muddy the waters. The US military should not tolerate symbols of dissension. Like it or not the confederates wanted to preserve their "peculiar institution." And they were defeated. The ethical cause won the war.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2020 10:11 a.m. PST

Was I mis-educated in high school all along when the history textbook said that the Civil War was fought over "states rights" and not slavery?

Yes, history was written by the losers.
America has been held hostage by the south since it's creation.

The south has dominated the discourse after the civil war. The statues were raised as part of the lost cause propaganda, often in close association with KKK.

How about removal of Confederate monuments on battlefields

When the monuments were put up originally, it was extremely controversial, as union veterans quite rightly didn't want monuments of traitors who has shot down their brothers in arms on their battlefields.

15th Hussar12 Jun 2020 2:11 p.m. PST

Actually, I think feel that Battlefield Monuments "should" stay.

After all,somebody fought against someone on those fields and, individually, there were good and bad people on both sides, plus it would look awfully odd with just Union monuments all by themselves.

By the same token though…that should be the limit and extent of it.

Also, statues of revered figures…Lee, Davis, etc., if removed from public places should be done, at the very least, as respectfully as possible.

arthur181512 Jun 2020 2:28 p.m. PST

I fully accept that the secession movement was driven by a desire to preserve slavery, and that therefore slavery was a major cause of the Civil War.

However, Lincoln himself is on record as stating that his object in the war was to preserve the Union and that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to states that had seceded. I have read – please correct me if I am wrong – that some Union soldiers who had enlisted for three years rather than the duration of the war refused to re-enlist on the grounds that they had joined up to save the Union, not destroy slavery.

The seceding states, not unreasonably, held that as they had chosen to join the Union they equally had the right to leave it (rather as the UK has voted to leave the European Union, which is not something the EU had anticipated). Other states took the view that the Union was indissoluble.

The fact the Southern states wished to exercise their claimed right to secede in order to achieve a purpose that many regarded as immoral – the continuation of slavery – does not ipso facto invalidate the right to secede.

For example, I have a concessionary pass that means I can legally travel for free on trains and buses. Suppose I decide to use it to cheat on my wife (something most people would regard as immoral) by travelling across town to visit another woman. Does that immoral intent render my travel pass invalid?

So I find myself in a difficult position re the CSA: I much as I deplore slavery, I can see the logic of their argument on states' rights and find the Union position somewhat hypocritical, given the origins of the USA as a claim of a right to withdraw from British rule. Had the Confederate states seceded peacefully, the northern states that remained in the Union would still have been free to carry on as they chose, just as the EU can continue to exist without the UK.

But, winners write the history and the rule book. Might is right…

I suppose I should just be thankful that the European Union did not decide to follow the American precedent when the UK declared it would leave!

dBerczerk15 Jun 2020 9:22 a.m. PST

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

138SquadronRAF Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2020 10:28 a.m. PST

Leave Forts Polk, Bragg and Hood. Those three did so much for the Union cause.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.