"These Are the First Military Bases Whose Confederate Names" Topic

Funny how a naming convention designed to promote healing is now being used by some to promote division…

"All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke.

"Maybe we could name them after Disney & Warner Bro Characters ? E.g. Ft. Micky Mouse, Ft. Daffy Duck, etc. But knowing what is going on today, that would offend someone, e.g. PETA ?" Didn't Mickey and Daffy contribute to the war effort during WW2?

Ha!Ha!….

Armand

I believe you are correct Murvihill !!! But PETA may still be upset !

John Stuart Mill wrote: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Edmund Burke did not write the words that are so often attributed to him.

LT

In the other hand…

Planning begins for statue honoring 14 African American Civil War heroes on Monument Avenue

link

Armand

Brass…I did transmit the correction to the source of this misleading beauty.

Tango

Planning begins for statue honoring 14 African American Civil War heroes on Monument Avenue

That would be great – wonder if Antifa/BLM will deface it like they did the 54th Massachusetts monument?

Very good point ! I don't think many of them knew anything about those individuals' statues they did deface. They were just a mob looking to do damage using racism as an excuse.

That what made clear to me when the idiots tore down Grant's statue and even defaced at least one of Lincoln's. They defaced a WWII Purple Heart Memorial too. I guess they figured only non-minorities got WIA'd in WWII …

Funny how a naming convention designed to promote healing is now being used by some to promote division…

Except that that's false. It was just designed to keep state politicians happy while the federal government built military bases.

Maybe they could be named after Medal of Honor guys instead of generals.

We'll have new Rebel generals to name forts after soon enough. It's just a matter of time.

Renaming of bases is absolutely ridiculous.

The military base called Ft. Bragg has a greater and nobler history than for the person for who it is named. Unless you study military history or you happen to be a Civil War enthusiast, the name Braxton Bragg means nothing to most people. But Ft. Bragg was a place in which thousands of Americans trained and went off to war many never seeing home again. Ft. Bragg is also the home of the Army's elite Special Forces. To millions of Americans, the name Ft. Bragg has special meaning. Maybe they had a family member who served there. From WWI to our most current conflicts, these base ‘names'; whoever they were originally named after, come to represent something far greater and more important than just the name. Let's stop the nonsense of trying to appease a vocal few who wish to destroy America. These radicals will always be offended about something and never satisfied.

well up until the end, you sounded reasonable for once USAFpilot

there is hope for you yet

I'm not touching this one with a 10 foot pole.

"Maybe they could be named after Medal of Honor guys instead of generals" What a great idea! Petition the state legislature to recommend a winner of the CMH from their state to name the base after.

well up until the end, you sounded reasonable for once USAFpilot

I generally agree with him … I used jump out of the type aircraft he used to fly … 🤩😎🪂✈ So … yes I agree with his post.

"Maybe they could be named after Medal of Honor guys instead of generals" What a great idea! Petition the state legislature to recommend a winner of the CMH from their state to name the base after.

x 2 !!!! I like it !!! 🎖

'Waiting for an independent Scotland so we can rename Fort's Augustus, George & William."

Only there is no fort at Fort William or Fort Augustus. however the Gaelic name tag movement have already coined modern names for Fort George and Fort William, 'dun deorsa' being, curiously enough, the gaelic for 'Fort George', so good luck with that (An alternative name for both is an gearasdan – 'the garrison') and Ft William station, at any rate, has been subtitled Tom na faire). Fort Augustus used to be known as Kiliwhimin, which is certainly preferable.

However given the conservatism of rural folk I am sure they will carry on calling what they always have, and I imagine folk in southern districts like Texas will do the same.

Can people who lived there vote for this…?

Armand

They sort of did. The bill HR6395 was passed by Congress and then the Senate last year. However, President Trump vetoed that bill (he was on record as opposing the renaming of military bases and vetoed the bill for several reasons including that one). HR6395 was then returned, subsequently passed both houses and was signed into law on 1 January 2021.

In isolation I do not think the renaming of bases would have been such a contentious issue. However, this has been done in conjunction with: the vandalising and/or removal of Confederate statues and memorials (including gravesites) in addition to Union ones and others that have had no relation to the ACW; laws being passed to outlaw Confederate symbols; renaming of public streets, buildings and other things; and lately calls to remove all Confederate statues and memorials from battlefields. These things together seem to show a major and concerted effort to remove from public view a significant part of American history.

Former enemies can 'get along' and forgive past differences and until recently Americans from both sides of that conflict were able to do just that. An example familiar to me as an Australian is that the place where we (and other Commonwealth countries) invaded Turkey during WWI was renamed ANZAC Cove by the Turkish Government in the 1980s and every year ceremonies are held to commemorate the fallen during that conflict. Australia also has places where are former Turkish enemies are remembered, the best known probably being the Kemel Ataturk Memorial in our capital Canberra en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk_Memorial,_Canberra

Thanks!

Armand

Former enemies can 'get along' and forgive past differences and until recently Americans from both sides of that conflict were able to do just that.

I had thought the same … but until recently with some trying to rewrite history with, e.g. CRT, 1619 projects, etc. with support from the highest places. This has set US relations among ourselves back decades.

And has many have said, this rewrite of our history is not only inaccurate/biased based on a "corrupted" narrative and agenda.

Just write history based on the best knowledge we know at the time. No bias, agenda, etc.

Again :

"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history."
― George Orwell

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
― George Orwell, 1984

It's 1984 in 2021 … and it is destroying our nation from within.

Funny how a naming convention designed to promote healing is now being used by some to promote division…
Except that that's false. It was just designed to keep state politicians happy while the federal government built military bases.

That's part of it, but a lot of policy was enacted to try and move past the trauma of the Civil War -- to, as humanly possible, let the past be the past and try to reunite. It's hard to imagine the brutality and scope of that war -- so let's put it this way. Nearly 1 in 4 adult American men were killed or injured in the Civil War. There is no family, no town, that did not suffer loss.

IN today's terms that would be almost 19 MILLION casualties.

So yes. Fort names, statues, homilies, inclusion in national monuments, etc were part of that reconciliation process after so much shared pain.

Former enemies can 'get along' and forgive past differences and until recently Americans from both sides of that conflict were able to do just that.
I had thought the same … but until recently with some trying to rewrite history with, e.g. CRT, 1619 projects, etc. with support from the highest places. This has set US relations among ourselves back decades.

Divide and conquer…

Yep right out of the Marxist/Communist playbook … Marxism use economic class vs. economic class. CRT/1619 uses Race vs. Race i.e. Oppressors vs. Oppressed It tells you which is which … Short answer : White people vs. Black, Brown, Red and Yellow people … All White people are racists. At least according to CRT/1619. And of course, BLM is lead by self proclaimed trained Marxists.

just looked, according to wikipedia, 10 major U.S. military bases named in honor of Confederate military leaders are getting renamed . these were named in the years 1917-1942.

The doesn't seem like the time frame for the names being designed to "promoting healing"

Good point … I was not totally aware of that … Even having served at some of those posts.

Some may say the situation between North & South still needed "healing", at those times … ? Many "Yankees" even at that time saw some in the South still were "fighting the Noble Cause"(?), etc.,(?). Which I've never bought into … but I am a Yankee.

As well as my people didn't come to the US until the very early 1900s. So we had no real "dog in that fight" … so to speak …

Regardless … no matter what side one falls on in this topic. I firmly believe it is going to happen …

Again, I say name them after the real heroes. It their turn now. How about Fort Alvin York, just off the top of my head?

No matter how much radical media stokes culture warfare, we are mostly good and decent people who love this country and are not going to war against each other over fake news. I have never heard of half the stuff we worry about here.

Let's think about the guys on the front lines from all over who have done the job and kept us in one piece. Especially this weekend.

The doesn't seem like the time frame for the names being designed to "promoting healing"

Things looked different before the 1960s. From the end of the ACW until the election of Woodrow Wilson the south was a political and economic backwater, that was dominated by one of two groups of whites. The ACW was the one event which both defined the region and destroyed its political influence and economic power. Naming a few bases after Confederate commanders during WW1 and WW2 seemed like an easy way to appeal for southern support for the war efforts. During the war with Spain the U.S. had brought a couple of former Confederate generals back into the army for the same reason. Remember also that until Truman the U.S. Army was segregated, so mobilizing southern support for the war effort meant mobilizing white southern support.

The head scratcher is Belvoir. It wasn't named for a Confederate or even for an individual. It was a geographic name derived from the plantation that was located there. The post wasn't originally named Belvoir, but rather Camp Humphreys after a Union general. Renaming it Belvoir was more likely connected with an upsurge of interest in George Washington a friend, neighbor and frequent guest of the Fairfax's who owned Belvoir plantation.

How about Fort Alvin York, just off the top of my head?

The PT Field in front of the US Army Infantry School at Ft. Benning, GA is named after SGT York. Well at least is was … Last time I was at Benning was early '90. Regardless I have no problem renaming … say Ft. Benning or any other fort after SGT York.

Bill N +1

Thanks Legion 4, I know you get this. We want to remember these people and all those they represent who serve or have served.

👍 👍 Many places on many Army posts are named after those who served and in some cases "gave the last full measure". E.g. There are also locations at Benning named after Gen Stillwell, LTC Darby, etc. BTW, I've even seen monuments in the ROK dedicated to US military units that served there during that war.

Many, unless they served in the Military, [not all of course!] don't understand words like duty, honor, country, integrity, courage, bravery, etc.

Of course I'm a bit biased I'll admit …

I would be curious to see the ratio of forts/bases named after failed Confederate generals to those named after successful Union Generals.

Ending Reconstruction as a result of the Tilden Hayes fiasco was too early. I would even go so far as to blame ending Reconstruction for much of the racial mess we are in now. We let the South up too easy. Sherman is my ACW hero. Let's rename Fort Benning Georgia to Fort Sherman as a belated thumb in the eye.

We shouldn't irritate the other half of the country trying to appease the vocal half. Let's pick people from the recent past with no political debris.

Those base names have been around for decades, maybe longer, and few cared. Heck, most people couldn't tell you who they were even named after.

This is simply the "outrage" of the moment from the real racists who do everything they can to further divide our nation into separate camps.

General Sherman?… this guy?…

link

link

link

link

link

Not mention his ideas about the American Indians…

Armand

As I understand it, Camp Humphreys was changed to Ft. Belvoir because a politician who represented that area didn't like having the installation named after a Yankee. Belvoir was the home of the Fairfax family so that name was chosen. Sally Fairfax was supposedly an early love of George Washington. I guess in this 'woke' world we are living in, it isn't a good idea to name something after a plantation. Of course if you follow that twisted logic, Fairfax County should have it's name changed too. When I was TDY to Belvoir in '95 I attended many classes in Humphrey's Hall.

Tango,

According to John the OFM, he was fighting traitors so I guess all deserved to be put in camps including women and children….by standards of ACW Sherman was a monster and today would be regarded as a war criminal (on the proviso he fights for some small country America hates, otherwise he'd get to go to the White House and chum it up with whatever President is in power).

To justify Sherman's march to the sea or his treatment of Indians is to justify the Nazis in Eastern Europe.

---

I would argue there was no treason in the American Civil War.

The Confederate interpretation of the Constitution was far more closer to the Founding Father's vision but the north was obviously wanting to move beyond that and expand the role of Washington (which has now been happening for a century and a half and the US Federal Government has its finger in every pie imaginable).

I am not justifying slavery – it's abhorrent and even more so that the US today regards countries that practice forms of slavery as allies (eg UAE, KSA) whilst supporting American companies exploiting slave like conditions in places like China in order to manufacture cheaper consumer goods.

There was a Ft. Sherman in Panama the CZ. That was were the US jungle operations training center was … Been there 3 times in the early '80s. Don't know it's status now though …

Sherman was a soldier who did his job very well. The US Civil War ended over 150 years ago. It's part of our history. Base names should not be changed, if for no other reason than the financial cost of doing it.

"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal…. Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
General Curtis Lemay, in speaking of fire bombing Tokyo

"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal…. Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."

The problem is morality is used as a political tool. Bombing of Guernica to this day portrayed as some sort of atrocity, whereas firebombing of Tokyo or carpet bombing of Laos (most bombed country on the planet) is not.

The German invasion of Poland is remembered whereas the Polish invasion of the eastern half is not.

Etc etc.

---

My point wasn't war crimes but rather John the OFM's going on about how Confederates are traitors (and past post January 6 rioters) but he somehow regards Sherman as the greatest ACW general despite his brutal methods that later on we condemned the Nazis for (deliberate destruction of civilian property, deliberate attacks on civilian targets, scorched earth and forceful removal of civilians).

You can't claim a moral position whilst condoning immoral acts.

I get your point. His post saying rename the post to Sherman to put "a thumb in the eye" to the South is in mean spirit. I don't think your average Confederate soldier was a traitor, and I'm a yankee. And Sherman is no angel, but I wouldn't compare him to any nazis who gleefully tortured people.

Back to the main point of this thread; let's not rename bases.

This is simply the "outrage" of the moment from the real racists who do everything they can to further divide our nation into separate camps.

Yes, Marxism pits economic classes in a struggle with each other. Where in the US today some, "Neo-Marxists"(IMO) changed that to a race vs. race struggle.

And many try to put today's standards, morals, POVs, etc., on action/events that happened in the past. E.g. we all know today, well at least in the "West", know slavery was/is wrong. However, if you study history or even read the Bible, Slavery is common thru out. And it still is happening today in Africa and the Mid East.

Renaming posts … in today's environment … it will probably happen.

I get your point. His post saying rename the post to Sherman to put "a thumb in the eye" to the South is in mean spirit. I don't think your average Confederate soldier was a traitor, and I'm a yankee. And Sherman is no angel, but I wouldn't compare him to any nazis who gleefully tortured people.

Back to the main point of this thread; let's not rename bases

Unfortunately, that's a bit late now as HR6395 is now law. Section 370(a) states:
"Removal.--Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall implement the plan submitted by the commission described in paragraph (b) and remove all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America (commonly referred to as the ``Confederacy'') or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from all assets of the Department of Defense."
The rest of that section goes on to describe how it will be done but essentially it will all be gone, renamed etc by 31 December 2023 (probably earlier as that is the final day by which it must be done).

BUT, there's more to come. If HR7608 is passed into law then, in accordance with Section 442 of that bill then all Confederate commemorative works (statues, monuments, sculptures, memorials, and even plaques) will be removed by the National Parks Service for everything under their management and done so within 180 days. Basically, anything Confederate on the vast majority of battlefields will be removed.

Quaama,

That's exactly the kind of things communists did to rewrite their national histories to suit the ideological narrative.

That's exactly the kind of things communists did to rewrite their national histories to suit the ideological narrative.

It's a horrible situation and I see nothing to indicate it will end until it's all gone.

The statues started with Confederate ones and then moved onto Union figures and others (including those unrelated to the Civil War). When all traces of anything Confederate are removed something will be found that is 'objectionable' about others and they will go too. Once out of the public view, people will forget and only the more dedicated historical sleuth will be able to uncover the facts. For example, I recently read The Union War by Gary W Gallagher – oddly enough that book was described in several reviews as "revisionist" history because it demonstrates that the North was fighting for Union rather than some other reason (e.g. free the slaves). So now, and in the future, when facts are bought forth they are considered 'revisionist' and thereby endevouring to change existing 'facts'.

HR 7608 cites NPS Management Policies 2006 which states in part, "9.6.4 Preexisting Commemorative Works
Many commemorative works have existed in the parks long enough to qualify as historic features. A key aspect of their historical interest is that they reflect the knowledge, attitudes, and tastes of the persons who designed and placed them. These works and
their inscriptions will not be altered, relocated, obscured, or removed, even when they are deemed inaccurate or incompatible with prevailing present-day values [emphasis added]. Any exceptions from this policy require specific approval by the Director.

So, perhaps this can stop this insidious attack on history – but I don't think the woke left will stop until they are voted out of office.

Hopefully this sort of thing/🐮💩, etc. e.g. CRT, 1619 Project, Woke types, etc., etc. will go away. But probably not until 2022 …

Unfortunately "hope" will not make this insidious insanity go way. It's up to each one of us to fight against the stupidity in whatever way we can.