"Fort Hood in Texas officially changes name" Topic

The Department of Defense previously announced it would rename the Army base as part of an effort to remove Confederate-affiliated names and symbols

Fox News: link

Strange since the confederate names were taken as an overt step towards getting over and as a consession towards healing from the civil war.

Of course for 99% of the nation, no one has a clue who Bragg, or Hood or any of them were. But they know they are army base names. I thought the standard for a fort was supposed to be a general officer who performed well.

Strange since the confederate names were taken as an overt step towards getting over and as a consession towards healing from the civil war.

Fort Hood was established in 1942, long after the civil war.

INMO neither one performed "well". H

A terriable waste of time and money, that could be better spent on training and ammo.

Well, the Gov't has been doing this as they have planned. But we have discussed this many times before.

E.g. TMP link

A terriable waste of time and money, that could be better spent on training and ammo.

Don't get me started on how the Gov't wastes tax payer $. USD

Stupid is as stupid does.

Should have never been named for those who took up arms against the United States. This change is long overdue.

Agree with Fitz 100%.

Agree with Fitz.

Good. Now on to the next item that offends the few.

They couldn't have picked a better man to honor in the renaming of the fort. Be sure and read Gen. Cavazos biography:
link

I wonder who got the contract to make and erect all the new installation road signs? Did multiple firms bid on the contract, or was it a single-source award? And where will the signs be fabricated? In the U.S.A.?

+1 Fitz. Also Cavazos is a very good choice and closer connections to Texas than Hood.

As stated above, the amount of money they burned on this name change stuff was ludicrous, could have gone to improve base housing, training, etc. Tomorrow Ft Benning will become Ft Moore after Hal Moore. I'll always remember it as Benning, even though Moore is a much better human being……

Out of curiosity, how much money do you think was burned on this, and what makes you think that the production of ammunition was decreased because of this?

These names are meaningful to the descendants of the 9m Southerners who made up the population of the CSA, however, what proportion of the USA is now descended from them??

It's the same over here with name changes, damned younger generation just doesn't seem to care….

What a waste of time and money.

Regardless of sentiment-- should not our military property be named after AMERICAN heroes?

Russ Dunaway

I thought the point of the ACW, Russ, was whether or not they were, in fact, Americans? And it was settled that they were?

Courier, changing everything in the US--or even the US Army--named after a loser or incompetent would be a very different and much more extensive program. And despite the current outrage, I refuse to call anyone a traitor for resigning his commission rather than waging war on his friends, neighbors and relatives. Certainly the Southern cause was wrong, but not every war decided upon in DC has been wise or just. We do not normally encourage our soldiers to make those calls for themselves.

But the decision's been made, and flipping them back would be even worse. I'm just imagining the discussions at the VA 10-15 years from now as we point at maps trying to figure out whether or not we served at the same post.

Fort Hood was established in 1942, long after the civil war.

All of the posts named after CSA officers were established either in 1917-18 or 1940-45. This was done, not in accordance with anything the Army wanted but at the insistence of Southern Representatives and Senators sitting on the respective Military Affairs Committees. This was an intrusion on the Army's traditional prerogative on naming their facilities. Prior to the Civil War, these had typically been named after heroes of the American Revolution and subsequent conflicts, or Secretaries of War. During and after the Civil War, that was amended by including fallen Union officers, especially for the proliferation of frontier posts. However, in a remarkably "woke" sentiment, the Army avoided naming new posts in the South after Union officers. Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, for example, was named after the founder of that Colony.

The exception to this was Fort Humphreys, established in 1917 as the US Army Engineers Training School and named after the former Chief of Engineers. This was so anathema to Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia that, upon his election in 1930, he immediately began an effort to have the post renamed in honor of the plantation that had once stood on the grounds. He succeeded in 1935, and the name was changed to Fort Belvoir.

RP, it seems such a scholarly, knowledgeable,well read, and extremely intelligent man such as yourself would actually know the "whole point of the ACW."
There are plenty of heros we can name things after who died FOR the United States trying to preserve it and not destroy it.

Russ Dunaway

I have to agree with Russ here as well as the others that oppose Confederate names for bases. The job of the US Army is to defend the national sovereignty of the United States, and help protect its interests abroad. Naming bases after people that wanted to dismantle the United States, AND supporting those dedications with funds paid out of public coffers (including tax receipts almost undoubtedly from descendants of the people that were held as chattel by the Confederacy), seems simply wrong and counter to the mission of the Army. This isn't and should not be a "conservative vs liberal" issue, or a "woke" issue. But an ethical one.

Damon.

But the half of brave Hood's body molders here.
The rest was lost in honor's bold career.
Both limbs and fame he scattered all around,
Yet still, though mangled, was with honor crowned.
For ever ready with his blood to part,
War left him nothing whole – except his heart.

PRIVATE SAM WATKINS
1ST TENNESSEE INFANTRY CSA
ARMY OF TENNESSEE
1839 – 1901

Tomorrow Ft Benning will become Ft Moore after Hal Moore. I'll always remember it as Benning, even though Moore is a much better human being……

I will feel the same …

My concern is that we always remember our history accurately … the good, the bad & the ugly.

In reading this thread, it appears that only the winner of a war, can have heroes. The term or name of "hero" is clearly the point of view of the user. In the instance of the ACW, both cultures saw them.

As has been said before, in the many instances of these kinds of conversations here, the fathers of the American Revolution were traitors and rebels. Pretty much all, guilty of sedition. Yet, in this country, for the most part are considered heroes.

Times and cultures change. Hind sight is 20/20.

Fort Rucker is now Fort Novesel. Another's true hero who deserves the honor.

Plus I always thought it was weird to name a fort after a C&W singer. Lol.

I also believe history should be taught in its entirety and truthfully -- the good, bad, and ugly of it all.
However if I may suggest that there may be a difference between learning the history of an individual and honoring that individual?
Yes, the founders of this country were rebellious and if they had failed would have possibly/probably all been hanged-- I also do not believe that England would be naming their military bases or anything else after them in honor if their names?

To me there is a an honor in having a "United States" military base named after you and it should suggest that that person served these "United States" with honor and faithfulness.

Semper Fi
Russ Dunaway

This is just another case of the winners get to make the rules, the losers can appeal or accept what they must accept. I do not approve of a continual series of renamings to suit the views of a given generation and I would want these things to be more carefully thought out when they occur. I dislike many things with their current names and I despise how Andrew Jackson is still on the $20 USD bill. But no one listens to me and US presidents seem to get a free pass. This whole issue is never going to be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

The good thing is the definition of "hero" is dynamic. Now if they can figure out why a Carrier is named after Truman. . .

Perhaps, as with Benedict Arnold, the name ould have been amended to "Fort Hood's Leg," pierced in fierce fight with Commanche warriors in defence of- oh.. Wait

Perhaps the USS TRUMAN is named after the man who led the effort to prevent the Republic of Korea from being overrun by Communism, permitting it to grow into the vibrant democracy it has become today?

Striker

"The good thing is the definition of "hero" is dynamic. Now if they can figure out why a Carrier is named after Truman. . ."

🤔 The buck stopped there? 😉

Thank you, Russ. You're very kind, and your longer message was a fair point. My own feelings are mixed. In my ideal world, all US Army bases would be named after successful US Army generals--meaning perhaps Forts Patton, Grant, McArthur or Rose, rather than Dix or Drum, for instance. (And who was Huachuca, anyway?) Everyone of lower ranks gets barracks, schools or whatever, however many gender and ethnicity boxes they check.

But there's the inherent confusion of any renaming process. In five years, I'll be unable to explain to a young soldier where I was stationed. I'll know only the former names, and he'll know only the current ones.

And I'm willing to make some allowance for hard choices and local feeling. We keep Robert Rogers' rules on display. Even though he too fought against the United States, he's an honored part of the American military tradition. The secessionists were not traitors in the sense of Benedict Arnold, wearing an American uniform while whining for an important posting so he could get more money for selling us out. The British and Russians long made a practice of regarding Irish and Ukrainian secessionists as traitors, killing them when they could and suppressing their memory. It doesn't seem to have worked out particularly well for either of them, while we've been able to count on the military services of Confederate descendants--and even sometimes of ex-Confederates.

So there have always been bases with names I felt were poorly chosen, and there still will be when the process is complete. The gloating triumphalism of the renamers leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but if I could stop one present practice, this would rate well behind fixing the procurement process and making our generals behave more like officers and gentlemen.

More like Robert E. Lee, in fact.

This will all go away, and in any event paints no miniatures. But the younger of us might want to remember it when some of the new names turn out to be politically awkward a generation from now.

The primary issue for me has little to do with right/wrong -- good/bad etc.
I just do not grasp the naming of United States military bases,etc after people whose name are primarily well known because of service to another country?

Russ Dunaway

This is just another case of the winners get to make the rules

Historically that is always the standard.

Regardless … This is happening, I do see some good to come of it. E.g. Benning now being named after GEN Moore, and more should be named after soldiers, as noted – Patton, Grant, McArthur.

Rogers – the US Army Rangers trace their linage back to him. Or used to. Even if in the AWI he did not fight on the side of the Americans. He was very successful during the French & Indian War.

As has been said many times before, for many things – You can't please everybody …

dBerczerk, or perhaps the POTUS who was an Army guy and had his role in the "Revolt of the Admirals" (right/wrong) but was a bone tossed because of the Regan naming. Maybe stop naming ships after Presidents before the Harding gets commissioned.

'Now if they can figure out why a Carrier is named after Truman. . .'

He was an excellent president, he integrated the US Armed Forces, and he was an excellent artillery battery commander in War I. And he fired MacArthur in Korea when that general overstepped his authority.

excellent artillery battery commander

Then name a cannon after him.

Striker -- as you appear troubled by the U.S. Navy recent tradition of naming aircraft carriers (and nuclear-powered submarines) after former U.S. Presidents, what is your preferred alternative?

Would you prefer Hollywood celebrities? Comedians? How about one of The Seven Deadly Sins? What would you recommend?

Wouldn't have known General Cavazos from Adam without looking him up. Glad I did, amazing Service Record and list of Decorations.

Far better example of military excellence than someone who spent his time in command of the Army of Tennessee seemingly trying to get as many of them killed as possible!

FWIW … I think CVNs should keep some of their original names … E.g. Langley, Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise[IIRC still have a CVN named this], Intrepid, etc. There still there is a George Washington. Surprised as he was a slave owner. But he is a successful American GEN. and first POTUS. I generally don't think all the CVNs should be named after POTUS's.

he integrated the US Armed Forces,

That was a very important move. And did change the military and even society to a point. Plus, it opened up more Americans who could serve.

And he fired MacArthur in Korea when that general overstepped his authority.

Still some see this as a bit controversial. Mac was a pretty GEN. However, our oath said, we will "follow the orders of the POTUS….", etc. As long as the orders are legal of course. Which goes without saying …

enfant perdus
… Fort Humphreys … Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia that, upon his election in 1930, he immediately began an effort to have the post renamed …

Thanks for this reminder that it's not new to rename forts when there is enough political concensus.

robert piepenbrink: FYI, Fort Huachuca is named for the mountain range where it is located in Arizona. Established as Camp Huachuca during the Apache wars. Pretty simple.

As for the cost, it's decimal dust in the DoD budget scheme of things. The Army says it's going to cost $39 USD million.

DoD budget for 2023 will be approximately $816.7 USD billion.

An M1 Abrams costs approximately $9 USDM, depending on the source. The cost of four tanks.

Of course, we all think that money could be put to better use for things we each believe in.

Thank you, raylev3. I forgot to mark the sarcasm. Spent too much of my life running on those mountains. Actually, that's one I felt could have done with renaming. "Fort Tubman, Home of Army Intelligence" would have been worth the inconvenience, and the current name claims no family or regional loyalties. But clearly not to be.

Aircraft carriers. I wouldn't name ANYTHING military or naval after a politician, whether I liked the politician or not. I'd have sub-divided the "victories and traditional ship names" which formerly designated aircraft carriers and are now used for "Amphibious Assault Ships." The Amphibs get victories and the carriers the traditional ship names or the other way around.

As for the subs, attack subs still got fish names last time I heard. Name the missile-launchers after states: it's not as though we're going to build more battleships.

As for naming ships after comedians and Hollywood celebrities, if we keep naming them after politicians, that's exactly what we'll be doing.

As for the Seven Deadly Sins, there are people who could tell you a story on that one, but it would be a smaller ship type.

Good points raylev and robert.

It appears costly to rename posts, forts, ships, etc., but, yes, is small compared to the total budget. But I guess I'd rather have more M1s, etc. than changing names which is based on current PC, woke, etc. environment.

We all know why many of those, e.g. forts were named after CSA Officers. And yes we know the history of all this. However, I don't see it actually doing anything for recruiting, readiness, etc. After 10+ years on active duty, I never heard anyone of any race, etc. complain or even mention the name of the fort. Why it was named as it was.

I think this is like many things going on in the in the current "activist" progressive, etc. environment. In fact the CSA names make little difference to most. But again a very vocal minority is running the show. The tail is wagging the dog.

Plus 99.9% of Americans knows & agrees that slavery was/is wrong.

However, I do like some of the names being chosen. Some names after "more modern" US GEN, etc.

I have no idea how the US Army handles it, but on Marine Corps bases it is done in house on the base.

It's not just the US Army but USAF AFAIK. It has become a Pentagon led task to rename bases and ships. To erase all the CSA names. Coming from the very top of the US Gov't. The USMC is part of the USN and AFAIK they all fall under the Pentagon's plan …