"Fort Bragg as Fort Liberty?" Topic

The Army's Fort Bragg would become Fort Liberty under recommendations released Tuesday by a commission that studied whether military bases with Confederate ties should be renamed. The commission also suggests that eight other bases be renamed for military heroes…

Fort Benning, Ga., to become Fort Moore after Hal Moore, a retired lieutenant general, and Julia Moore. Hal received the Distinguished Service Cross for actions during the Vietnam War; and his wife Julia changed how the military notifies family members of casualties to deliver the news in a more compassionate way.
Fort Bragg, N.C., to become Fort Liberty after the founding principles of the nation, and the 82nd Airborne Division's song that goes "We're all-American [and] proud to be, for we are the soldiers of liberty."
Fort Gordon, Ga., to become Fort Eisenhower after President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served as supreme commander of the allied expeditionary force in Europe during World War II before becoming president.
Fort A.P. Hill, Va., to become Fort Walker after Dr. Mary Walker, who volunteered as a civilian to be a doctor for troops during the Civil War because she was not allowed to join the military as a woman.
Fort Hood, Texas, to become Fort Cavazos after Richard Cavazos, a Texan who received the Distinguished Service Cross during the Korean War.
Fort Lee, Va., to become Fort Gregg-Adams after two Army logisticians. Arthur Gregg enlisted to work on supply logistics in Germany during World War II, applied to officer candidate school when the military was desegregated, and retired as a lieutenant general. Lt. Col. Charity Adams joined the military after the attack on Pearl Harbor and led a postal battalion in Europe during the war.
Fort Pickett, Va., to become Fort Barfoot after 2nd Lt. Van T. Barfoot, who received the Medal of Honor for actions during World War II.
Fort Polk, La., to become Fort Johnson for Sgt. William Henry Johnson, who received the Medal of Honor for fighting Germans first with grenades, then with bullets, then with the butt of his rifle before resorting to a knife during World War I.
Fort Rucker, Ala., to become Fort Novosel for Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael Novosel Sr., who earned the Medal of Honor during Vietnam for flying an aircraft through enemy fire to save 29 men.

Defense One: link

Changing the current names of forts to the new names is a travesty.

It's about time. The current names are the travesty.

Rick

An amazing list. Thank you for posting.

I wish I owned stock in the sign-making company to be awarded the contract for all the new signs.

I sent in the name of MGen William C. Lee for Ft.Bragg.

He was a NC native, ROTC grad from NC State University
and took his Masters from Wake Forest College (as it was
then) in the town of Wake Forest NC.

MGen Lee commanded the first jump school (Benning) and
other early para formations. He was the first CO of the
101st and had the division in training for Europe
when he suffered a heart attack which led to his
retirement in late 1944.

He died in 1948.

I guess the 'Lee' name ruled him out but he was not a
relative of R.E. Lee.

As a Fort Benning Alum, I am definitely good with Ft Moore, a real American hero. probably still call it Benning as I have for the last 42 years. The rest are neither here nor there for me they all seem to be good names though, with one exception. Ft Liberty, that is the dumbest name they could possible come up with. Ft Gavin would have been much better.

Sorry but they wont be satisficed with this. Everyone one of the suggested names will fall short of the Wokeness test. Take it all the way and name them fort 1,2,3,4,5, etc.

I'm OK with re-naming. Many of those honored were incredible heroes and are deserving.

I just don't want to see the others forgotten. They were Americans, too, and brave men. We were able to honor them after the civil war, but now they are devils unworthy of ever existing. Sad and a loss for us all.

It appears the new names honor decent people. I can't read the list without thinking about how the board worked to ensure inclusiveness, looks like they have one of everybody mixed in there.

I hope the money to make these changes comes out of US Equal Opportunity Employment Commission Budget and not the Military Budget. That would only be fair and appropriate. I doubt those who were offended will pay. IMO

I don't care for the name Fort Liberty that much, but the rest are well deserving. We are past trying to placate an unrepentant south.

I went over the list of forts with Confederate names several years ago, looking up all the officers, and concluded I wouldn't want forts named after some of them even if (especially if) I was of Confederate background.

That said, I think some of these are sad losses, and could have lived with a bit of, perhaps, ambiguity, like naming Fort Bragg after Captain Bragg of the artillery. At the Battle of Buena Vista, his battery retreated by not running their guns forward again after they recoiled, providing close support to the US infantry.

Fort Liberty sounds like a place holder, just waiting for some new heroic person to turn up, so we can give it a proper people name.

Signs: Peterson Air Force Base changed its signs to Peterson Space Force Base, but I don't think the new signs are as nice as the old ones.

Grelber

How about Fort Audie Murphy or Fort We Won, I don't know what the new name should be but anything than those men who turned their backs on the country.

I think renaming forts to honor Medal of Honor winners is a good idea and makes sense.

I have no particular affinity for any of the current names, however, I am concerned that this drive to exercise "offensive" names, monuments, etc., is making us lose our history. I saw something recently that George Washington is coming under attack because he was a slave holder. Does that seem reasonable to anyone? I really think that it is time that we take a step back and take a breath before running down this particular path. Where is all of this going to end?

I wouldnt mind a "Fort Freedom" With the subtext that "Freedom isnt free."

Also, Fort Snowflake has a certain ring to it.

These are good names, mostly everyday people who did extraordinary things as innovators or soldiers. When new recruits arrive at one of these installations I hope someone is there to tell them what the name stands for. Because now the names stand for soldiers we want the next generation to look up to.

Completely agree with Florida Tory

"It's about time. The current names are the travesty."

Things change. That's how life is.

I bet these same sort of complaints were voiced when New Amsterdam was renamed. These days, who cares about that…?

Sorry about Bragg and Hood. Both were very good generals for the union.

Cerdic – A few of my New Amsterdam ancestors were upset.

I expect they were. Bloody outrage!

"It's about time. The current names are the travesty."

Yep, just like Yale University which gets about $400 USD million in federal grants annually.

I don't mind changing the names, but do we have to make new names that sound like they are out of a comic book? It's not G.I. Joe with action figures we're talking about.

Renaming is overdue.

As a retired officer, I believe this is a very positive step. We are a diverse society and a diverse Army. We need not honor a shameful past. We who have served honorably have upheld our Constitution, not fought against it. This is a lesson for our times.

I was hoping that Fort Hood would be renamed Fort Audie Murphy.

Whoever gets the contract to produce and erect the new signs for the renamed installations, and "recycle" the old signs, will become quite wealthy.

I expect the signs to go into government storage or be destroyed.

I will NOT be calling them by their new names.

This is just silly.

When will ALL the monuments in D.C. be renamed, destroyed, or covered up?

It IS a very slippery slope and those trying to destroy our history and country ARE working very, VERY hard at it, and seem to be winning.

They're also trying to limit free speech, and destroy our Constitution, since they hate America.

The emotionalism that this kind of thing brings out is unfortunate, and fear can lead to hyperbole, and inappropriate action. Meanwhile, slowing down and realizing the goodness that is also occurring can bring constructive and rational thoughts for further conversation, collaboration, and responsible preservation. Americans don't "hate" America, quite the opposite, and it is through respect and understanding that good things can be achieved.

I will NOT be calling them by their new names.

This is just silly.

Well if you keep calling them by their old names, people wont understand you.

Hopefully you dont need to bring the Forts in question up a lot.

When will ALL the monuments in D.C. be renamed, destroyed, or covered up?

Dont you know?

It IS a very slippery slope and those trying to destroy our history and country ARE working very, VERY hard at it, and seem to be winning.

Do you mean that any change is the start of a slippery slope, or just changes you disapprove of? What part of our country gets destroyed by changing place names or removing statues?

Who exactly is working hard to destroy our country? Are you surprised that they're winning? Shouldn't hard work be rewarded with success?

They're also trying to limit free speech, and destroy our Constitution, since they hate America.

Who is trying to limit free speech?

When you say destroy our Constitution, do you include the Confederacy? Did the Confederates love America?

"Who is trying to limit free speech?"

Funniest thing I've read this morning!

B

Will Liberty Mutual insurance be sponsoring the the new base name.

i am one of those who would question naming a US base after A CSA general no matter how good or bad they were as generals.

but Ft Liberty is kind of lame

Fort Liberty is kind of lame, I agree. Too generic.

Hate America? No way. "They" are everywhere because "They" is us. The slippery slope is intolerance. The Constitution is not the exclusive property of the right. It was designed to be amended and it has been, as the founders intended. It belongs to every one of us, whatever your politics.

"It was designed to be amended"

True, but requiring a convincing nationwide super-majority vote to do so.

Also, certain rights are carefully defined as natural God-given rights, which I would assert cannot be revoked, altered or otherwise tampered with through any amendment process.

B

Yes the vote is a safeguard. The 2nd Amendment is held as un touchable although the original intent may not entirely match todays circumstances. It is an amendment itself and technically subject to change, but IMO, as with the 1st, it is unlikely to be changed. Without the possibility of amendment the Constitution is not what the founders intended,IMO. It loses it ability to support the inalienable rights as the centuries go by and the world changes.

I look to the Declaration, the truths that are self evident, all men are created equal for the God given rights.

The natural rights can be limited where they infringe on the natural rights of others.

Additionally, the concept of natural rights is at odds with strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution which in turn further opens it both to Madisonian "implied powers" for the Federal government as well as modification by amendment.

In any case, the changing of names in order to honor American heroes has nothing to do with destroying the country. I am hoping the names of naval vessels will also be based on heroes from naval history.

It is precisely because we have freedom of speech that these changes are able to be discussed.

In any case, the changing of names in order to honor American heroes has nothing to do with destroying the country.

Well, especially when the names getting changed are Americans who arguably tried to destroy the country.

It is precisely because we have freedom of speech that these changes are able to be discussed.

Is this a speech issue? I would think it's a taxpayer issue

The 2nd Amendment is held as un touchable although the original intent may not entirely match todays circumstances.

It is far from untouchable.

The only case to touch on it's protection of individual gun owners is the Heller case and Justice Scalia, who abandoned a lifetime of originalist doctrine to stretch the finding, said the 2nd Amendment absolutely had limits which didnt even require an Amendment but could rely on congressional laws to curb.

Re 2nd: I said it is held to be untouchable. We could never even pass legislation on background checks here. And forget about a well regulated militia. Technically, amendments can be changed, in a functional version of government representing all citizens.

Many people are claiming their free speech about things like this is being threatened by private social media companies with rules. This my be what Thresher refers to, but I do not speak for him.

The idea that "They're also trying to limit free speech, and destroy our Constitution, since they hate America" even came up in a thread on changing of Fort names away from Confederate general names, such a comment is at least a distraction, perhaps even a bit ironic, as well as probably a bumbling off along one's own line of feelings and thought connection that don't seem to have much directly to do with the topic here at hand.

And those that bring up comments about "super majority", as if it is too much for amending a constitution, are on the same type of path, while missing the point of why this was done, or find it politically inconvenient for their view, or both.

Where can I get one of those former "Fort Bragg" signs? Talk about a "collectible."

Subject: george c scott — Postimages


postlmg.cc/VrTys6sr

The result of looking at the ground from 30,000 feet … lol.

Good one, 35th!!

Oh my, where to begin?
1. If you're not a Constitutional Scholar, what you say is: Hilariously irrelevant; Absurdly Inaccurate; A talking point from the whackadoodle fringe; A talking Point from the other whackadoodle fringe; Or, just plain woefully and willfully incomprehensibly wrong.

2. Where's Fort Hitler? Naval Station Tojo? AFB Goering? Fort Giap? Fort Mao? The United States of America does not name military facilities after folks who wanted to destroy the USA. UNLESS, they are Native Americans/Indigenous Peoples, ironic isn't it.

3. I took a sacred oath when I entered military service, and it did not have an expiration date. Sound familiar? A lot of folks use that to justify all sorts of actions that they think is necessary. Most all the Confederate officers and many EMs took an oath quite similar in language. When those Confederates took up arms against the USA, they violated that sacred oath. That means they betrayed their Oath. That action is called betrayal. The common term for those doing such is traitor. However, I bear them no ill will, even though they tried mighty hard to kill my kin who served in the Union forces. President Lincoln saw fit to forgive them their transgressions, and I have no good reason to disagree. However. I cannot find rational or reasonable purpose to name USA Federal facilities for them.

4. Honesty compels me to state the following: I do oppose all those who would screw around with "The Bill of Rights." I am necessarily a one issue voter. Actively work to preserve the entire BoR, or you don't get my vote. And, I don't care which party you claim as refuge. Also, not an NRA member or ACLU member & no political party affiliation.

It's about time.

Rick

+1 DJCoaltrain

B