"List of 87 Potential Names for Confederate-Named Posts" Topic

…The Naming Commission has deliberated extensively over the thousands of possible new names suggested for the nine Army installations originally named in commemoration of the Confederate States of America. While a final selection for each post is still pending, the scope of consideration is now focused on these names:…

link

No Daniel Inouye?
No Jimmy Stewart?

Whatever they choose, they better put the new names on slide out placards in case deeper dives turn up problems.

Yeah it took a really deep dive to discover that Bragg and Hood used to be Confederate Generals and incompetent ones at that.

Hmmmm WW3 potentially on the horizon. Let us hope this is NOT taking any precedence. Unfortunately it probably does. 😢

Recognize 9 of them, but I bet most won't be selected because they are Europeans. Harriet Tubman is an interesting option.

Camp Rodger Young, home of the Mobile Infantry

Most, but not all, are agenda driven. Which if I remember right, was why the original names were chosen. Things never seem to change.

Why faff about with personal names when they could just name them after places?

#1 to #87 no name all names are offensive to someone.

Just give them numbers. Problem solved.

And Hood was not incompetent as a brigade or divisions commander. He was a disaster as an army commander. But then he was missing a leg and an arm, so he was not all there.

I think I got 15. (Maybe 14. Trying to remember where I know Vessey from.) Tubman should get Fort Huachuca, the intel school. Of course that's not on the list to be purged. I could see a Fort Robert Howard in Texas, but they presumably mean someone else.

But since the whole thing has nothing to do with tradition, local esteem or pretty much anything military, and everything to do with "representation" why not just go straight to the representation?
Fort Hispanic Female Lesbian
Fort Black Male Straight
Fort White Male Homosexual
and right down the line?
Any real person gets a picture in base headquarters, and then when he/she falls from political favor, all they have to do is switch out that picture for someone else matching the criteria. (A smart base commander will have two or three pictures in reserve: political favor doesn't last long these days.)

While I wholeheartedly agree with renaming bases, the public input is like a TMP poll writ large.

To me the easiest choice is renaming Fort Gordon in honor of Gordon and Shughart. Also, rename Fort Bragg for either one of the original Airborne commanders or a Special Forces MoH recipient like Roy Benevidez

There are far more serious issues this country needs to address. Renaming military bases shouldn't be at the top of anyone's list.

I don't want to be disrespectful, but did anybody try saying these out loud? Fort Poolaw?
With all due respect to a Medal of Honor winner, Fort Versace has been overcome by events, and would make people think of the Italian design company.
Fort Courage sounds like something out of a Hollywood Western.
Fort Alvin York is something I could normally get behind, but in light of the Sergeant York Division Air Defense system and its misfortunes, this seems somewhat ill-omened.
Fort Central Texas? Really? Why?

Grelber

Fort Courage was "F Troop".

Yes please stop this PC crap and concentrate on new weapons, better training and stockpiling supplies. Things we NEED to be doing. This crap is a waste of money, time and resources.

I submitted for Bragg 'Fort William Lee'. He was the
original unit commander of the first parachute unit,
a WWI vet, a native of NC and was in-line to drop into
Normandy in command of his division when he suffered a heart
attack.

Also commanded the original jump school and organized
the first larger scale parachute unit (regiment, then
division)

NOT related to R.E. Lee – or Harriet Tubman.

At least the bases should be named for people who
served in uniform.

This is a ridiculous idea. If your going to go all PC then why not use just letters of the alphabet such as Fort A and Fort B etc. That way you don't have to worry about offending anyone.

Lol the idea that discussing this is "taking focus" away from dealing with Russia. They can do both, the military is a big organization.

I am pretty sure that no one on the renaming committee is actively involved in defense planning right now. It's not like the Joint Chiefs are holding meetings about it.

"I am pretty sure that no one on the renaming committee is actively involved in defense planning right now. It's not like the Joint Chiefs are holding meetings about it."

Don't be too sure.

The forts were given the names of Confederate generals to help heal the wounds of the ACW and honor those who fought for their home states in a cause they believed in. Most also fought for the United States either before or after the ACW.

I guess we don't need to bring north and south together anymore.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Maybe name them after US presidents.

The forts were given the names of Confederate generals to help heal the wounds of the ACW and honor those who fought for their home states in a cause they believed in. Most also fought for the United States either before or after the ACW.

I don't think that's true. They were given those names for political reasons, to please the politicians in those locations.

If they are wasting tax power money to form these committees, pay the people involved in them, and if and when a resolution to change the name passes and we incur the costs in changing the names, then this is a waste. A waste of money that could be better used to make us more militarily prepared. The percentage of the public that give two hoots about this, amount to a hill of beans and are equally as gassy.

You would know this how, Bill? And in a democracy, is it even a useful distinction?

For that matter, the same people trying to make Confederates unpersons seem quite content to name warships after politicians, and politician's faces on every coin.

35th, I don't think anyone's really concerned about getting the American military preparedness as such. They just want to be sure that this time, we don't have any officers who would hesitate to make war on friends, neighbors and relatives in return for another star and a book deal. My guess is they're about there.

I have heard the bases were named what they were for various reasons. One reason sited was to appease the people in the South, since ones in the North were named after Union generals. Another says, it would be because the National Guard units going there were from the South. There are other reasons stated as well.

No matter the reasons, this PC stuff has to stop. I am just reading that PETA is demanding the NFL change the name of the "horse collar" tackle. 😡 This stuff never ends! Someone is always offended by something or someone.

@Robert. You may be correct about the military. I hope you are wrong, but the possibility may be there.

Not to worry, OVI. I'm sure this will be the very last culturally disruptive demand made by PETA for a good while. Tomorrow's angry demand will come from a purposely organized and financed "public interest" group that you've never heard of before.

That, after all, is what 5013C's are for!

B

And are we going to have to remember different pronouns?

B

Well that's pretty good going.

Eighty-Seven names and Seventy-Six of them I have never heard of!

Nine of the Eleven I know were actually alive during my lifetime!

A bit different to Hood, Bragg and Co.

First, who says renaming bases is at the "top of the list" and that the time spent doing this would otherwise be spent doing anything more productive? The military spends time and money on golf courses, drinking clubs, intramural sports, music, sponsoring video games, etc. Arguing that renaming bases is not the most important thing to do is beside the point. Have the courage to come out and say, "I disagree with renaming these bases," rather than hide behind this sort of argument.

Second, why not rename bases? Why should names be frozen in stone because someone a hundred years ago liked one name over another? We still have history books, museums, etc., to remember these people by. Replacing a name on a place does not erase their memory for good or for ill, and makes room for people who have made contributions that deserve recognition. A healthy respect for tradition is valuable, but *worshipping* the past at the expense of any history created thereafter is myopic and unhealthy.

Third, defending confederate leaders and mocking ethnic, sexual, or gender minorities—as several of you have done—makes you look like amateur members of Stormfront or other white supremacist organizations. Just stop it. Not everyone does this, and a reluctance to rename a base is not in and of itself racist or such, but joining a defense of confederates with attacking minorities qualifies you for membership in the Klan. Check their website—it will demonstrate how well your values apparently line up with theirs.

Besides, polls show a majority of active troops support renaming bases and so forth, and also that a chunk of those opposing same have highly dubious democratic values.
link

Third, defending confederate leaders and mocking ethnic, sexual, or gender minorities—as several of you have done—makes you look like amateur members of Stormfront or other white supremacist organizations..

That's generous. I was thinking there were a fair number with journeyman status at least.

I see that the great General George S. Patton didn't make the list. Clearly military prowess is not a major factor for the Naming Commission (and Patton's documented sayings wouldn't fit with their PC considerations).
To the best of my knowledge it is pleasing to see that Patton monuments and place names has thus far escaped the ongoing purge of 'undesirables'.

Did someone make a racist, sexist or homophobic statement or joke. If so I missed it.

I personally am tired of PC. Sports, buildings, bases, words in everyday language. It has become ridiculous. The amount of people "offended" are insignificant and once you appease them for one thing, they just find something else to be "offended" by. My college changed their mascot from a Viking warrior to a a Wolf. "Raiders", why? Because a few people were offended by Vikings, too gender specific and violent. This was in the 90's.

If any money and time go towards this, it's a waste.

I have an idea: let's sell the right to name the bases to the highest bidder. Then we can have Fort Chevrolet and the government gets more money to play with. Many people think General Motors won WW2 anyway.

Actually like stadiums. Might not be a bad idea, good money maker.

But wait..🤔What if "My Pillow", "Goya"…. Or GOD FORBID… FOX wins a bid. The gnashing of teeth, pulling out of their hair and howling to the sky, on the left, would have no end.

😔 then another drive to change the name due to being offended. An endless cycle.

Does the Army have a centralized facility for driver training and road safety? Patton would be a good choice for that.

I see that the great General George S. Patton didn't make the list.

No doubt to avoid further debate with regard to his Grandfather's service with the 22nd Virginia.

So the sins of the father shall be vested on the son? How biblical.

I have an idea: let's sell the right to name the bases to the highest bidder.

No way! That's how you end up with Fort Vagisil and Fort Roto-Rooter and (through crowdfunding) Fort Forty-McFortface.

Let's go with things that kill:

Fort Bayonet
Fort Claymore
Fort Dagger
Fort Sabre
Fort Halberd
Fort Broadsword
Fort Mace
Fort Morningstar
Fort Longbow
Fort Hatchet
Fort Scythe
And for the Space Force: Fort Lightsaber

A couple questions:
1) Is courage in honor of someone or of the trait?
2) Is central Texas just the location?

-In my opinion, in general the Army does not do a good job teaching their own history. I'll bet anyone a beer that more than 50% of soldiers stationed on Fort Bragg could not tell you who it is named for, except for 'the current intentionally created controversies.'

No use debating if this should occur. It is going to happen for political reasons. Based on that, I'd recommmend the the Army should seize this as an opportunity to improve how the Army teaches history. I'd recommend that someone (Chief of Staff of the Base) look up the Medals of Honor earned by soldiers in any of the units (or their predecessars) assigned to that base. That name would have to be vetted.

For bases without 'operational units' Soldiers from one of the MOS's trained on that base would be selected. The current Fort Lee has Army logistics MOSs trained there, so a Soldier with a logistics background who has won a medal of honor or otherwise distinguished himself should be selected. General Marshall would make a lot of sense for the current Fort Lee.

Just curious. So you pick a MOH winner, name the field after them. Then they find out Great Great Grandad was a Confederate soldier, or worse, a Confederate soldier and a slave owner. Does that negate it? Maybe Grandad was a anti Homosexual. Does that negate it? What if latter, someone digs up emails where in High School he or she went to a party in black face or he or she said the "N" word! What do we do then? Another change? What if you name it after a African American MOH winner. Later we find out he was a member of BLM and took part in the burnings and vandalizing in Portland. Many people are offended. Does it change, or does their offense not matter? Maybe being offended only runs left. My point is, where does this end? It never does.

In my opinion, the naming is in honor of the heroism that earned the MOH, in service to the nation. The rest does not matter.

That was not meant to be personal. It is a general question. Unless it is generic, it never stops. Any more even generic may not be good enough for those looking to be offended by something.

@Apache I understand and you understand, but there are those out there that will use any excuse to be offended. It has become a disease in this country.

+1 Apache

This has come up before and I always wanted the names to represent regular guys who stepped up. Same with navy vessels.

Mitchell Red Cloud, MOH, KIA, Korea, for example. I don't care how it sounds. I do not think anyone would be offended. Some of these changes should have happened years ago, IMO.

I agree. The rest does not matter…

I recall that King George V, IIRC, said that if a man had won the Victoria Cross (the UK's MOH equivalent) he should be entitled to wear it even if he was being hanged for a later capital crime.

The idea that a MOH winner should be barred for consideration because of something their ancestors did is ridiculous. If you trace any family back far enough you are almost certain to find some ancestor who was a bigot (by today's standards), a slave owner, a criminal or a traitor.

Well if we are going to propose names: Henry V. Boynton MOH winner.

Now to play Devils Advocate.

If we do this, we must do it like everything else in government is done today. Race, Gender and Sexual orientation MUST be predominant. So we must base the new base names of MOH winners by their percentages of their groups that have served in the US armed forces throughout history. So if the U.S. armed forces from its inception has been made up of 80% White, 10% Black, 6% Oriental and 4% American Indian, then of course 8 bases after white MOH winners, 1 base after black MOH winners and they can throw a coin for the last one. How we work the gender and orientation in, well … not my issue. But I am sure the "Professional Offenders" will figure it all out. After all we are doing it for the Supreme Court and high level offices now.

Is the above ridiculous? Of course!
That is the point. Just like all this being offended by names of places, buildings, things is too. At some point we have to stand up to this.

Vindication!!

Subject: Chicago to Rename Daniel Boone Elementary School Because He Owned Slaves and His Treatment of Indians -- Forget to Mention Indians Kidnapped Boone for Several Months


link

Race, Gender and Sexual orientation Syndrome ….. at some point the people of America will wake up to the con.

B

Which is?

Wait, What, NOOO

But the Indians had slaves also.