Should US military bases named after Confederates be renamed?

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:40:57 -0400

What do these US military bases have in common?

Fort Bragg
Fort Rucker
Fort Hood
Fort Lee
Fort Benning
Fort Gordon
Fort A.P. Hill
Fort Polk
Fort Pickett
Camp Beauregard (Operated by the Louisiana National Guard)

They are all named for Confederate generals. There’s been talk for years about whether this is appropriate, and now in wake of Charleston and the South Carolina Confederate flag, it’s coming up again.

Do you think these posts should be renamed to honor people who fought in the U.S. Army exclusively? Vote, and share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Take the Poll:
http://www.stripes.com/military-life/military-history/poll-should-us-military-bases-named-after-confederates-be-renamed-1.353890#

POLL | Should US military bases named after Confederates be renamed?

There’s been talk for years about whether having U.S. military facilities named after Confederate generals is appropriate, and now in wake of Charleston and the South Carolina Confederate flag, it’s coming up again.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 22 at 2015 8:44 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:44:25 -0400

I think removing the Confederate Battle Flag from government facilities is appropriate...I do not agree with removing names of Confederate Generals from bases/installations.

Slowly wiping away the southern history will only create more disdain and contempt within the United States.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 8:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:46:17 -0400

I believe that they should stay the same. They were genius military leaders regardless if they were confederate generals.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 8:48 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:48:56 -0400

Leave the names! It is a part of our nation's history.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 8:51 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:51:32 -0400

They lost an armed insurrection, and we glorify them. Half a million Americans dead, for what? So they could lose, capitulate anyway? They had more loyalty to their states than their nation. Let their individual states honor them as they please; their names do not belong on federal property.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 8:56 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:56:11 -0400

No! Enough of the pussification of our country.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 8:58 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:58:12 -0400

This is stupid. Who educated and trained these leaders and generals? Where did their military careers begin?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 9:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:00:37 -0400

As a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans I believe not only that the honor and memory of confederate veterans be cherished but also that the integrity of their livelihoods be remembered. Today's society gets all too wrapped up with who's who in the zoo as quite honestly I say why does it matter. The civil war happened, the south existed, and tragedies occurred across our country during that time and still do to this day. By pretending it wasn't there we are not going to make it go away, but by slowly wiping it's symbols and history away the entirety will be forgotten even the good to come of it. President regean said "Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for protected and honored for them to do the same." although the reasons why confederates fought are not applicable today the fact that they fought is. The union fought died and won for the rights that are given to all Americans today regardless of race because ultimately no one person is more intitled to something due to the color of skin. But southerners fought and died for the cause that they found worth dying for, the same as most you and I the protection of their homeland and the sanctity of their livelihood. I do not agree with changing/relabeling/wiping away the past. Because in all actuallity it is nothing more than an action of appeasement. Who cares if it's named after a confederate general, I could make the same argument for the Washington redskins, or the town of Lynchburg, Tn, or even the term haji. I bet the descendants of his family take pride in it and I bet you would too.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 22 at 2015 9:02 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:02:53 -0400

Once they realize that they are named after them it will be next on their to do list. If I recall, back in the day, they named them after Confederate Generals to sooth over hurt feelings and a shaky reunified nation. To me, that is just absolutely smart thinking for the day and good politics. To build up Fort 'We kicked your butt' is going to create a lot of hurt feelings, whining, contempt,.......what we have going on today. Sherman tanks will now be known as 'Lincolns." As a nation that has done the most dispicable, heinous acts against the Native Americans, I would rename Fort Carson, but alas, there aren't enough Native American voices to be heard anymore. If we are going to turn the focus of this great nation on sins from our past, we better start there or I don't want to hear another blessed thing about it.

Response by SGT Edward Thomas made Jun 22 at 2015 9:02 PM

SGT Edward Thomas — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:02:55 -0400

I think it is a bit too late now as these names are historic and well known.

Response by CW4 Pam Collins made Jun 22 at 2015 9:13 PM

CW4 Pam Collins — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:13:05 -0400

Wow, good question. I think displaying the Confederate flag anywhere but a museum is inappropriate because it stands for racism in many people's eyes; however, if you are going to remove the name of Confederate officers from military installations, you should remove the union officers names, too. Otherwise, we are saying only the winners get the keep their names on anything. It's part of our history. If we follow this logic, there are a number of places and monuments that would be stripped or removed completely. Soon we will be erasing part of the history that made this country what it is and we will forget. And you know what they say about those that forget history. They are bound to repeat it.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 22 at 2015 9:14 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:14:11 -0400

They should stay as is, yes they might of been confederates but they were amazing military people, a whos who of generals of their time.

Though I do think its funny ft. McClellan is in Alabama.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Jun 22 at 2015 9:14 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:14:57 -0400

No. Are you offended ... would you prefer they have the Muslim names of leaders killed or released from gitmo or what

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 9:15 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:15:42 -0400

I don't see any need to change the name of any installation from Confederate General namesake. It's not that serious, to me. I may be alone in this issue.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 9:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:21:03 -0400

They were Americans, plain and simple. Most were outstanding generals who fought amazingly well given their lack of resources over the North. Whenever we erase the past to make it more in line with our current values, we allow fascism to creep in. Should we remove Jefferson from money because he owned slaves? History isn't pretty, and the people who make history, even our heroes, are rarely perfect. They exemplify that even flawed people can contribute extraordinary acts.

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made Jun 22 at 2015 9:25 PM

SSG Daniel Deiler — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:25:57 -0400

No. I don't believe the flag should be removed either. Just because certain groups have prostituted the flag and now believe it stands for something other than what it's originators believed and founded it under is the problem of those that believe it stands for racism.

Response by SCPO Lee Pradia made Jun 22 at 2015 9:26 PM

SCPO Lee Pradia — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:26:19 -0400

Keep the names, let's get rid of the flag.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 9:28 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:28:35 -0400

So, the confederate flag was removed in Charleston. I don't feel that changing the names of military installations will change the attitude of those out there that hate me for the color of my skin. I mean to say the least...it's hard being an African-American in this man's Army when I'm treated like a second rate citizen. It shouldn't matter the color of my skin, instead it should be about the character and the fact we all bleed the same red blood. If it's not going to change the hearts and minds of all of 'us' as people then leave it as is.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 22 at 2015 9:30 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:30:02 -0400

Yes, they should be. Rename them after MOH recipients from junior to senior. Too little is remembered of these junior ranked heroes after a couple of years.

Response by TSgt Trevor Vander made Jun 22 at 2015 9:42 PM

TSgt Trevor Vander — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:42:19 -0400

That's easy, no they should not.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Jun 22 at 2015 10:07 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:07:48 -0400

No, I didn't know they were named after confederates to begin with except Fort Lee with is obvious.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jun 22 at 2015 10:08 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:08:31 -0400

Not no, but hell no. Most, if not all, of them were graduates of U.S. military academies and U.S. service members prior to the civil war. At the time, the U.S. was The United States Are America, not The United States of America; in other words, membership in the United States was supposed to be voluntary, not mandatory. In their minds, and rightfully so, The United States was not their country; the state in which they lived was their country, much like the European Union, and they were honorably fighting to defend their country's rights.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 22 at 2015 10:38 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:38:38 -0400

HELL NO!

there is too much history there, too many books written and too many Soldiers that served there.

Just Fort Bragg for instance, how many American Warriors of how many generations served on Bragg, in how many families.

I have my father's paperwork...FORT BRAGG.....My Paperwork....FORT BRAGG....My Son wants to take that last great step to becoming a man...AIRBORNE....FORT BRAGG.

Soldiers that have served on and from Bragg have so transcended Braxton Bragg that no one really knows who is is....Bragg is the Home of the AIRBORNE, not the base in North Carolina that was named after a fairly obscure Southern General.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 22 at 2015 10:58 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:58:29 -0400

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1865

If President Lincoln could forgive them in order to bind up the nation's wounds, is it really too great a task for us to do so a century and a half later?

Let it go. Keep the names of valiant soldiers of the late unpleasantness between the states.

Response by MSgt Jim Wolverton made Jun 22 at 2015 11:03 PM

MSgt Jim Wolverton — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:03:55 -0400

Of course not! Is this really even a question to concern our government with? Ridiculous.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 11:11 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:11:40 -0400

I've always been torn about that. Especially having had family on both sides of the war. Strictly looking at the military conflict the commanders of that era, particularly in the south, were military legends and on that should be commemorated.
But then I remember what they fought for and I choke. I don't want to start an argument about the causes of the civil war since that would be off topic, but slavery was one of those reasons. If it was just about the economic disparity between the north and south or if the north exercised some unlawful power over the south it would be one thing, but it wasn't and they didn't.
All that being said, I think the aftermath of the civil war taught us to respect our martial honorable enemies. Rommel, Geronimo, Von Ludendorf, von Ricktoven, Yamamoto are names that appear in our history books with respect and sometimes reverence. Maybe the civil war taught us to separate the soldier and the war from the politics that caused the war.
Maybe a better question is, was that right lesson to learn?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 11:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:17:52 -0400

It's interesting for the first time in many years of U.S. History its identity is being challenged and the Government is internalizing on issues that many have left alone in the "Gray area". The reaction of many citizens and Soldiers are seemingly indifferent because of the lack of identity in culture and awareness of history. Many elders of the family trees have passed so the current generations don't get to hear the impact of the confederate views and what they stood for or any matter at that. I say that the names of these Generals should remain because America's history should remain in tact; the good, the bad and the ugly.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 22 at 2015 11:20 PM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:20:41 -0400

No, but it is an interesting question and discussion. SGM Matthew Quick

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 22 at 2015 11:26 PM

1LT William Clardy — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:26:02 -0400

To those who think that these generals betrayed their oaths, I would point out that up until 1862, Army officers swore the following oath:
-----------------------------
I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.
-----------------------------

A key nuance is that the United States of America is a plural term ("them") instead of a singular union. Back in those days, the emphasis was on United *States* -- many states united rather than a single nation-state, nor any allegiance required to the Constitution of the United States.

It would be wrong to understate the importance of this direction of allegiance towards the state. Just prior to the Civil War, John Brown was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia after U.S. Marines under the command of then-Brevet Colonel Robert E. Lee defeated his raid on Harper's Ferry.

It is also worth noting that the question of whether or not States have a right to withdraw from the United States has never been settled in a court of law, so the question of where an Army officer's loyalty should have gone when his State was no longer one of the United States is technically quite debatable.

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Jun 22 at 2015 11:29 PM

SPC Ryan D. — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:29:43 -0400

Confederacy aside, can we talk about the awesome beards these guys had?!

Response by SGT Guillermo Vega made Jun 22 at 2015 11:45 PM

SGT Guillermo Vega — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:45:38 -0400

Hell No! or soon they will be named after Nikita khrushchev, Ft Putin or Ft Mao Tse Tung, dam communists. Leave America alone. Why don't you move to china and name their bases with the name or your predilection. What you want to call the Forts? Martin Luther King?

Response by Cpl Mischa Brady made Jun 22 at 2015 11:47 PM

Cpl Mischa Brady — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:47:25 -0400

No people need to read more history. Something is always going to offend somebody.

Response by SGT Guillermo Vega made Jun 22 at 2015 11:49 PM

SGT Guillermo Vega — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:49:49 -0400

Why not, you rather call the Lennin. Hitler, o Mao Tse Tung? Martin Luther King?

Response by SSG Daniel Brewster made Jun 22 at 2015 11:58 PM

SSG Daniel Brewster — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 23:58:56 -0400

Of course not. Those that want to rewrite history are doomed to repeat it. This or that group can decide that they don't like a particular part of our country's history and, over time, completely revise history and erase all of those pesky uncomfortable references. Well, sure, that works well when we all agree about something - but what happens when the next generation gets in place and decides to erase something opposing & different? (I'm really really trying hard not to reference any particular moron politician - but sort of failing...).

Net/net, we'll always have changing views. That's not necessarily bad - rewriting history is bad. And I'd really have some heartache if they renamed Fort Benning. Maybe they could call it Fort Wonderful? lol

Response by CSM William Payne made Jun 23 at 2015 12:02 AM

CSM William Payne — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:02:37 -0400

"In 2013, 44% of all military recruits came from the South region of the U.S. despite it having only 36% of the country’s 18-24 year-old civilian population.
Some of the lowest rates of state-by-state enlistment are in New England and the Northeast, Maine notwithstanding. The Northeast of the U.S. was the most underrepresented region of the country for recruitment in 2013: Despite having 18% of the 18-24 year-old civilian population only 14% of new enlistments came from this area."

Outside the beltway.

It has always been a known fact that the military is made up of more conservative members than liberals. Numbers don't lie; the South East, South and Southwest provides more than their fair share of military recruits.

When the Liberal states of the North, Northeast and West step up and provide their fair share of military recruits, then maybe we can start to have a discussion of changing the names of these posts.

It's a good thing that President Lincoln, Generals Grant and Sherman didn't feel the same way about southern Soldiers that many that have not studied the Civil War History feel today or reconciliation may not have nearly so successful.

As someone that was involved in training new recruits for the Army over most of my 40 year military career I can tell you that aside from the issue of slavery, the values and traits that Confederate Soldiers displayed during the Civil War are almost identical to the same values that the Army is looking for today; Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. The cause may have been unjust, but the dedication to duty cannot be denied.

Also, keep in mind that none of these posts existed during or shortly after The Civil War but for the most part came about between World War I and World War II.

And if you want to go down that road of comparing Soldiers of the Confederate Army and their cause to Soldiers of Nazi Gemany and Imperialistic Japan, then in my opinion you don't know squat about military history.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 23 at 2015 12:09 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:09:06 -0400

No, leave the names they are a part of our history as both an Army and a nation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 12:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:10:21 -0400

Yes. They fought for an economic system of cruelty to fellow human beings and were willing to kill for it, in some cases kill blood relatives. They fought for it and were willing to die for it. There is no honor there.

Response by PO1 Graylin Hobbs made Jun 23 at 2015 1:00 AM

PO1 Graylin Hobbs — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:00:11 -0400

No changes needed! These Officers stood for ideal not a popularity contest!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 1:18 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:18:45 -0400

I am confused. There "has been talk of renaming" these posts "for years"?
Where and by whom, exactly. I have been in the Army for 24 years, and I have never heard this uttered by anyone.
Frankly, since we have stopped teaching our history in public schools, I think you would be hard-pressed to find one person under 30 who could tell you who Braxton Bragg and A.P Hill were. Hard to be offended if you don't have a clue.

Leave sleeping dogs lie. These men fought valiantly for what they believed in. Wrongheaded as it may have been.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 23 at 2015 1:40 AM

SSG John Jensen — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:40:28 -0400

i am a member of Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War from a German Immigrant who was a Missouri Cavalryman
They should all be re-named
Somehow the south was allowed to win the post-war.
The jim crow of the WWII VA - states controlled the money and the distributions, it was either Mississippi or Louisiana, a grand total of ONE black veteran of WWII got a VA home loan.
I am outraged by that

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 2:09 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:09:28 -0400

Reading the comments here for me elicits a mixture of head-scratching and head shaking. First off, to those taking the greatest offense at these long-established Army installations named for famed Confederate Leaders, two of you - Capt Richard I P. and LCDR Private RallyPoint Member are not Army Officers, so your objections, gentlemen, are a moot point in this discussion. It would not be our place to weigh in on the names of ships or Naval and Marine Corps installations, it is not your place to weigh in on the names of our installations. As for CPT Justin Rose, nothing like this topic to bring out that stellar elitist New England attitude of yours!

If you've devoted any time to a study of any of these Confederate Leaders, resigning from the Union Army at the time of secession was the most heart-rending and personally difficult moral dilemma most of them had ever faced in their lives. GEN Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Confederate States Army, was among the last to resign his commission. Prior to doing so, he had met in Washington with Secretary of War Stanton and President Lincoln who had offered him command of the Union Army. He prayed and anguished over his decision, still, he could not go against his native Virginia.

Another Virginian, GEN Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, lived a relatively quiet life, teaching physics and artillery at VMI at the time of secession. A devout Christian, Jackson was outspoken in his community in his opposition to secession, as he feared what it would mean not just for the South, but for the nation as a whole. Still, when war came, he was a tenacious and unforgiving combat commander who's brilliance as a tactician are still studied to this day.

GEN John Bell Hood, a native Kentuckian, had already distinguished himself courageously on the plains of Texas, being wounded multiple times in the process in engagements with the ruthless Comanches that harassed and attacked settlers in that state. When the Civil War broke out, he climbed the ranks of the Confederate Army quickly, demonstrating a knack for independent command of ever-increasing levels of responsibility.

These are brief snapshots of just three Confederate Leaders for whom a current installation is named. I share this not to glorify them, but to provide a brief glimpse at what made them great, and therefore worthy of having an installation named for them. It is grossly unfair and patently absurd to pass judgement on these men and their actions of 150 years ago through the prism of the social constructs of today. To do so only invites the temptation to revise and rewrite our history and it's meaning to us today, which is not only foolish, but potentially lethal. 150 years ago, everyone in this nation, both North and South, held a far greater allegiance to their respective home states than they did to the federal government. This is why it was so very easy for career Union Soldiers from the South to resign from the Army and return home to Virginia or Texas, or whichever state they called home. This is also why it is patently too harsh to dismiss them as traitors and men without honor.

With the vast majority of it's installations located in the South, the Army, in the interest of forging positive relationships with it's neighboring civilian communities many years ago, recognized the PR value at the time of naming these installations for these legendary leaders. At the time, there was much opposition across the South to the presence of the large standing and professional Army that had become necessary for a 20th Century World Power. These names helped soften those sentiments, build that vital local support. To change these names now to merely satisfy to PC thought police of this era does none of us anything less than to eradicate another piece of our national story. Let these names remain!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 2:12 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:12:41 -0400

Also some of those bases were named because they are from that state or region of the US.

Response by SPC William Weedman made Jun 23 at 2015 2:25 AM

SPC William Weedman — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:25:27 -0400

I honestly doubt many soldiers today even know that these posts were named after Former US Army officers who chose to accept a commission from their home state's military. I wrote it that way purposefully, these men were all US Army officers before the the Confederate States of America were formed. Without researching each one, I would not be surprised if they eventually returned to the US Army although I know many simply left the military behind them once the war concluded.

The other side of this would be the outcry from our special operations community if the name of Fort Bragg or Fort Benning were proposed to be changed, after all "it's always been Bragg or Benning" If these posts still used the full name of these officers or if they glorified the posts' namesake then it would be a serious problem.

One last thing, if a renaming was suggested I'm sure Congress would gladly name them after politicians after the political bickering was over...I don't think Fort Roosevelt, Fort Truman, Fort Johnson or Fort Nixon is any better than the names today, you really think Congress would name them after military heroes?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 5:50 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 05:50:48 -0400

Seems like this has elicited some emotional responses. I have no ties to any of the individuals that have had installations named after them, which also means I really don't care if the name is changed. That being said, what I do care about is, in the current environment of personnel having badges and awards revoked for misconduct identified during the period (or after in terms of badges) they earned the award, how can we not revoke a special privelage like having a United States of America military installation named in HONOR of an individual's contributions to this NATION from individuals that took up arms against that same NATION?

Taking emotions out of the argument, we are the model of hypocrisy as long as those names are allowed to stand on those installations. This absolutely does not mean that anyone is rewriting history, it only means that we will no longer give that privelage to those that did not support the NATION.

I would prefer that we eliminate the hypocrisy rather than support the gentlemen that found themselves on the wrong side of history.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 6:47 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:47:33 -0400

On a slightly more realistic point....you could get away with it at A.P. Hill because it's such a small base the people rarely speak of unless your from bowling green, Va but if you honesty tell me you are going to rename Ft. Bragg to Ft. (Insert MOH recipient/Army general/blah blah blah here) you are severely mistaken. Every one and their mothers brother would put up such opposition including the city of fayetteville that your would be almost stupid to try to waist your time in such an inferior cause. Not only do you erase the history of the confederacy you erase the history of the troops that have been stationed here before. I completely agree with not supporting the most remembered cause of the confederate states but this is soley about history and the preservation of it. Why don't we all just focus more on fighting for life, liberty, and the persuit of all those who threaten us that getting wrapped up in political hipocracy that's why soldiers have te ability to vote for the ones we feel hold our interests at heart.

Response by SGT Micheal Adams made Jun 23 at 2015 7:13 AM

SGT Micheal Adams — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:13:51 -0400

Again, second article I've seen without Stonewall JACKSON listed as a confederate General.

Response by Cpl Craig Smith made Jun 23 at 2015 7:58 AM

Cpl Craig Smith — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:58:31 -0400

Absolutely not! These men served there country and stood out enough to have a base named after them. What's next? The pussification PC BS needs to stop!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 8:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:03:42 -0400

I would vote no, i am in awe of how some in the south let such a small period of time define who the south is, or who i am as a yankee.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 8:16 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:16:40 -0400

Absolutely not! This is about a redonculous as you can get. Many forget that these men, while following their convictions had fought as served the UNITED STATES Army long before the Civil War. Now you may argue that it's a stretch but those that resigned their commisions from the US Army and taken commissions in the their respective Confederate States Military did so out of their sense of Honor, Duty, Patriotism and Personal Courage. As a history buff I could go on and on but I recommend reading the biographies of Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee and J.E.B. Stuart. It provides some perspective. Hope you all have a great week.

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Jun 23 at 2015 8:21 AM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:21:02 -0400

If I am not mistaken. All those generals served in the US Army during the Mexican American war which took place about 20yrs before the Civil War. I would also like to say that some would rejoin the US Army after the Civil War and distinguished themselves out west. I know General Lee retired to civilian life after the war. That is my take on why those posts were named after them. Of course, they could have been named after another famous Army person who served after the Civil War. Which has been lost to history.

Response by SFC Jeff Stevenson made Jun 23 at 2015 8:39 AM

SFC Jeff Stevenson — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:39:57 -0400

I also vote NO, and here is my reasoning, First and foremost, they were all decorated military, US Military leaders. Guess history forgot that both sides were US Military and hence the military bases being named. This is in part due to the deeds and accomplishments while serving. I really have no opinion on what side they served, it was still US Military service and they should be honored. I also have to agree with Cpl Craig Smith on the PC BS. Indian names to show awesomeness of an aircraft, now in question, Battle flags from the Civil War, Yes a very dark chapter, but history none the less. Until people continue to learn from our mistakes from the past, we will forever continue on our path to self destruction. History needs to be taught and learned and past down so that these issues never again darken our great nation.

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Jun 23 at 2015 8:40 AM

MAJ David Vermillion — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:40:37 -0400

You can't erase history, leave the way they are now.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 23 at 2015 8:48 AM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:48:30 -0400

Absolutely NOT!!! The simpletons would have you believe that the Civil War was about slavery, because the victors write the history. Even Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a propagandized attempt to change reality. "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth onto this continent a new nation..." is fiction, suggesting that in 1776, a single entity was born. In fact, 13 new entities were born, which formed an alliance to slug it out with Britain for their independence ("are now and of right ought to be INDEPENDENT stateS", plural. Among these were 5 states which depended on slavery for their major industries (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland), 4 of which wanted to leave the alliance under Lincoln, and the 5th of which probably would have, had Lincoln not surrounded the state house in Annapolis with federal troops on the day the vote was taken.

Military Officers like these, who were commissioned prior to 1861, took oaths to their respective states, NOT to some union. They could only honor their oaths by loyalty to their states and their states' commands. They served and led honorably, which is more than I can say for those who conducted unrestricted warfare against southern civilians. As such, it is completely appropriate that military bases in their own states be named to honor them.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jun 23 at 2015 9:05 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:05:39 -0400

Totally disagree! Could you imagine calling any of our bases anything but Bragg, Benning, Hood, Lee, etc?

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 23 at 2015 9:11 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:11:09 -0400

Why Does it matter when and why the Fort was named. It was a war. They done something to have it named after them. I think this PC crap is going a little far. There are names from both sides. Just leave it be!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 9:13 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:13:00 -0400

Funny story when we were doing Operation Earnest Will in 1987 we had to come up with 7 daily changing call signs for the players. We would get the message out early in the morning, as an E-5 it was my job to finish the tape and send the message out. The ops and intel (two O-5s) guy roomed together and I would stop by around 2am and pick the hard copy off a desk in their state room. I get there one morning to find them arguing about Civil War general's names the theme of that days call signs. One of the guys was a VMI grad and was animate about the names you mention above but the other guy, a ring knocker, wanted four Union generals on the list. Problem was he could only come up with five. By 0400 the message went out with 4 Confederate and 3 Union Generals names.

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Jun 23 at 2015 9:14 AM

SFC Jeff L. — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:14:43 -0400

*YES! And while we're at it let's rename any and all states derived from native Indian languages since that represents the siezure of native lands by force. Also all place names of hispanic origin for the same reason. French names are okay since we bought the Louisiana Purchase fair and square. All military weapons systems with Indian names like Apache, Kiowa, etc should also be renamed immediately, as well as any place named after any general since that is a symbol of American aggression and oppression. In fact, in order to avoid upsetting anyone all proper names should be reassigned a number and barcode.

*Sarcasm font
edited for spelling. Hope I didn't miss any.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 23 at 2015 9:35 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:35:59 -0400

While I think I might have a problem with Fort Forrest, I think it would be a travesty to ignore our own military history. The long standing standard of naming posts, bases, centers...anything in and everything in the military...for accomplished military members should not strip these names.

As a side note, I am so very honored that the Army in their infinite wisdom would name Sand Hill for me...even naming it such before I enlisted. I really do not know how I can ever thank them enough. What an honor.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 23 at 2015 9:38 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:38:43 -0400

I never could figure out how we named them after confederate generals in the first place. Why would we change them now?

Response by SFC Douglas Duckett made Jun 23 at 2015 9:42 AM

SFC Douglas Duckett — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:42:40 -0400

Let me ask this? Should we re-write our Constitution because many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners? Do we just ‘start over’? DO WE CHANGE EVERTHING? Here is a list of Founding Fathers who owned slaves:

Charles Carroll, John Adams, Samuel Chase, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Oliver Ellsworth, Button Gwinnett Georgia Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, John Jay, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge, George Washington,

When will this stupidity end? This may have been who we WERE, but it is not who we are NOW!!! Our history is to be remembered so that we do not go down the same paths as before.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jun 23 at 2015 10:03 AM

LTC Stephen C. — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:03:15 -0400

Unequivocally, no, SGM Matthew Quick!

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 23 at 2015 10:05 AM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:05:43 -0400

No, to much time has passes and the Bases have taken an Identity of their own.

Response by SFC Rollie Hubbard made Jun 23 at 2015 11:07 AM

SFC Rollie Hubbard — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:07:26 -0400

Why would you even ask that stupid question? No don't rename these bases.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 23 at 2015 11:08 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:08:55 -0400

No. If you look at the big picture, bases were named after historically significant military figures from that region or did something significant in that region. Bases that were in the north were named after Union generals (Ft Meade, etc). Bases that were in the south were named after Confederate generals (Ft Bragg, Ft Hood, Ft Gordon, etc). Bases in the west were named after significant western figures (i.e. Ft Lewis for Merriweather Lewis of the Lewis and Clark expedition, Ft Carson after Kit Carson, Fort Sam Houston for Sam Houston, etc). It's just that nowadays (for various reasons) most bases are now in the south and west, so it only appears that we are honoring Confederate generals.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 11:35 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:35:21 -0400

No, after the Civil War, Service Members on both sides were recognized as US Veteran's.
So there is no problem with the names of bases.
Though neither the Confederate Flag, or the Confederate Battle Flag should be flown in any official capacity.

Response by SPC Miguel Rosario Cruz made Jun 23 at 2015 12:06 PM

SPC Miguel Rosario Cruz — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:06:18 -0400

I will say no because they were great Gen the only thing wrong was that they lost the war lol

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 12:22 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:22:47 -0400

Absolutely not!

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 23 at 2015 12:48 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:48:39 -0400

I finally remembered the SECOND military base named after a US President. The first was Ft. Jackson. The SECOND is Ft Benjamin Harrison, which (coincidentially) is the second of two Army bases with first and last name, the other being Ft. Leonard Wood. I tell you, I am going to amaze at the next cocktail party I'm invited to -- if ever.

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Jun 23 at 2015 1:04 PM

SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:04:43 -0400

No.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 1:32 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:32:23 -0400

You know... The intent of Lincoln for the post civil war America was to forgive, heal and rebuild...

Here we are 151 years later and people still want to dwell on this crap. It's past time to get over it!

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 23 at 2015 1:49 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:49:25 -0400

If its going to cost millions for the re-branding - no. If we are going down that road how about renaming all the counties, rivers, lakes, roads, buildings, children and or pets with a confederate general's last name or even better all the stuff with linkage to native Americans. Enough will all of the PC non-sense.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 23 at 2015 1:51 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:51:25 -0400

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jun 23 at 2015 1:57 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:57:23 -0400

NO... Our country needs to stop this BS PC crap.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 2:04 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:04:54 -0400

OK--and what is the only southern base to be named after a Union general? Fort McClellan, Ala....

Response by SPC Kortney Kistler made Jun 23 at 2015 2:19 PM

SPC Kortney Kistler — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:19:25 -0400

The vast majority of those who fought and died for the Southern Confederacy had little in worldly goods or comforts. Neither victory nor defeat would have greatly altered their lot. Yet, for four long years they waged one of the bloodiest wars in history. They fought for a principle: the right to live life in a chosen manner. This dedication to a cause drove them to achieve a moment of greatness which endures to this day.

Beverly Dubose Jr.

Although I would have found myself as their adversary, the cause was theirs. The cause was that which had been argued since the inception of this great nation of ours. Are we the several States that form a Union or are we a Union of the Several states.

These were men of principle willing to sacrifice all; men who were willing to strike down the lives of their friends whom were now their enemy, or be stricken down themselves for this great experiment that is America.

Though their cause was unjust and maintained an interest in the continuance of slavery and the practices that go with it, it was their duty as Americans to stand up to a government that sought to end the way in which they chose to live.

I hold admiration to their dedication to the cause. Because of this quote.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

Their cause was lost, but they acted as true patriots.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 2:23 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:23:32 -0400

No, many of these men we're great military leaders and many are shining examples of what we expect from our military leaders today. You can pull the whole "they fought for another country" argument but the fact is they fought for the love and loyalty of their nation...the same that we expect our leaders to do so for the United States today. Furthmore these buildings are historical and while the civilians intend to scrub history from our shores the military doesn't need to give into political correctness. Why should we care who get offended by the little nonsensical things? Do you job. That's why you are here. Let the civilian squabble and topple the nation on their own. I say no to all renamings because it would be a historical attrocity.

Response by 1SG John Stepaniak made Jun 23 at 2015 2:30 PM

1SG John Stepaniak — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:30:43 -0400

It would be a crime to rename military bases because they are named after Confederate Generals. It is like streets named one thing and then being changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Street, Avenue, etc. I guess the 116 IBCT will have to change their patch since it is a General Jackson sitting on his horse since the 116th is actually "Stonewall's Brigade". These are SOUTHERN bases and they should stay the way they are. I am tired that every time this racist crap happens, it is the Southern heritage that has to change. So, let's outlaw African Americans from wearing black gloves since the Black Panthers wear them and OJ Simpson wore them and it can be a racist theme.

Get a life, leave history alone.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 2:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:31:55 -0400

Politcal correctness run a muck.

Response by SFC Benjamin Parsons made Jun 23 at 2015 2:37 PM

SFC Benjamin Parsons — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:37:13 -0400

Nope. I cannot believe that with our current overall cost issues and other real problems in both the gubmint and military anyone, anywhere has time, money, and interest in chasing social fluff issues like this suggestion around.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jun 23 at 2015 2:38 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:38:28 -0400

A few thoughts/comments/questions to "should US military bases named after Confederate be renamed?
- Should George Washington not be honored as the "father of our nation" because he was a slave owner?
- Should our founding fathers be condemned because they made the political decision to categorize blacks as 3/5ths of a person within our Constitution?
- Should our school children read more current literary authors because they are multi cultural at the expense of classical authors because they are predominantly white males?
- Any nation or culture must know three things in order to survive and thrive. I think these three things are: where they came from, where they are at, and where they are going. I think the answers to the original question and my questions are obvious. We should not cover up who we are or where we came from as a culture or a nation. The risk if we do is that we will not know who we are and where we are going.

Response by CPT Bill Murphy made Jun 23 at 2015 2:40 PM

CPT Bill Murphy — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:40:21 -0400

There's no blanket answer to this. Ft. Lee, named for Robert E. Lee—I think that's probably a different case than Bragg or Benning. Gen. Bragg was not a very good general to begin with. And Gen. Benning wasn't just a Southerner who wanted to remain true to his state. He was an ardent pro-slavery secessionist.

Response by 1SG John Stepaniak made Jun 23 at 2015 2:40 PM

1SG John Stepaniak — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:40:47 -0400

I am also a Friend of and a Member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. It is all about history and we research our past to find our relatives that fought and died in the war. They stress that it is NOT a hate group, KKK, or anything that would infer racism.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 2:52 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:52:29 -0400

NO!!!

Response by SFC Henry Bartosik made Jun 23 at 2015 2:59 PM

SFC Henry Bartosik — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:59:05 -0400

Whats in a name. The military survives from history and tradition and being politically correct should have no bearing on this. What will be next tearing down west point because those confederate officers were trained there and were given bad instruction to have joined the confederacy. Get real. Its purely a civil , social media blitz that every crying liberal to include POTUS has a hand in. Leave the posts named as is.

Response by SFC Rollie Hubbard made Jun 23 at 2015 3:01 PM

SFC Rollie Hubbard — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:01:23 -0400

In the complex and not entirely complete process of reconciliation after the Civil War, honoring the dead with markers, tributes and ceremonies has played a crucial role. Some of these gestures, like Memorial Day, have been very successful. The practice of decorating the graves arose in many towns, north and south, some even before the war had ended. This humble idea quickly spread throughout the country, and the recognition of common loss helped reconcile North and South.
But other gestures had a more a political edge. Equivalence of experience was stretched to impute an equivalence of legitimacy. The idea that “now, we are all Americans” served to whitewash the actions of the rebels. The most egregious example of this was the naming of United States Army bases after Confederate generals.
Today there are at least 10 of them. Yes — the United States Army maintains bases named after generals who led soldiers who fought and killed United States Army soldiers; indeed, who may have killed such soldiers themselves.

Read more: http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2013/05/28/why-are-there-u-s-military-bases-named-for-confederate-generals/#ixzz3duh68qQD

Why are there U.S. military bases named for Confederate generals? | Applesauce

Memorial Day week seems as good a time as any to reflect on something that probably comes as a surprise to most patriotic Americans — the fact that some U.S. military facilities are named for men who fought against the U.S. Army.

Response by CW2 Carl Swanson made Jun 23 at 2015 3:17 PM

CW2 Carl Swanson — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:17:18 -0400

I don't know if this is a real issue out there or just the SGM asking what people think, but I'm really getting tired of the "offended" having more rights than the rest of us. These bases were named to help unite our country and to show respect for the military abilities of these officers. I, as an individual cannot have an opinion anymore because "someone" will be offended. I'm sick of it, I wore the uniform to protect our rights, but I am expected to not have any rights because of the select few who piss off everyone else in the country. An asshole is still an asshole regardless of race or gender or sexual preference. I've probably offended a few with my comments, but that is how I really feel about our government! Love my country, hate the douche bags running it!!!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 23 at 2015 3:19 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:19:33 -0400

Has our political correctness sunk this low?? Whether or not they were on the Confederate side they deserved to honored for their actions in battle and that is what naming bases after them is all about. If someone wants to take this non-issue otherwise that, IMHO is a personal issue.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jun 23 at 2015 3:26 PM

SN Greg Wright — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:26:40 -0400

These men were, and are Americans. Like the rest of us, they served a government that made bad choices...but THEY SERVED THEIR GOVERNMENT...like they were supposed to do. Is that service, therefore, less than those of today, in a time when many people question the veracity of today's wars? Leave the names. Losing the flag is one thing, but there is such a thing as 'too far'.

By the way, I'm about as far from having a dog in this fight as can be, since my family and I have been residents of Oregon (or the territory) since before the Civil War. So don't come back at me as some band-wagoneering southerner. It's just, these were military men, following orders from misguided politicians.

Response by PV2 Harry Swensen made Jun 23 at 2015 3:28 PM

PV2 Harry Swensen — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:28:36 -0400

NO.

Response by CPO Scott Sizemore made Jun 23 at 2015 3:33 PM

CPO Scott Sizemore — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:33:42 -0400

No. I can understand some of the uproar, but we've become way too sensitive to some issues. Down with the confederate flag over government buildings but leave the base names alone.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 3:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:43:14 -0400

You know, I had never given the issue serious thought until a few years ago, one of my buddy junior officers (who for the purpose of this discussion I will state was Afro-American) was asked about this topic and how he felt, I thought I would share his reply with the group as it caused an absolute paradigm shift on my part-- (I'm paraphrasing as I did not get it on video):

"You know, I am a multi-generational Soldier with family roots of service that go back over 100 years. And yet, I serve on an installation named after a Confederate General, in a state that is still flying the Confederate flag, and I am constantly told by others I should be OK with that. I keep my professionalism, but let me ask you, if you were me.... how the HELL WOULD YOU FEEL? I mean really, am I really being asked to show solemn reverence and dignity for those who would have seen my forefathers remain in bondage? Am I supposed to say 'Better luck next time' to every guy who romanticizes the glory of the South because the Army of the early 20th century was apparently just fine with naming every other post it opened after a Confederate General? Really, I'm supposed to just be cool with it and go sit in the corner and color?"
I will just assume that he's not alone in feeling that way. National polling this week shows a broad consensus across the country, regardless of political leaning, that it is time to retire these symbols out of respect for the people who are still alive and standing in formation next to you. --Now, if you want to go around screaming that the rest of us "just don't understand history", or that "the war wasn't about slavery", or claim it to be a symbol of 'states rights' in the face of federalist overreach, etc..., go ahead, nobody's really listening anymore and the times are changing. You don't have to like it, but times ARE changing. And it will begin with states taking the Confederate flag down, and I truly hope the Army ditches the names of most of these installations. Again, you won't like having to deal with it if/when this ever happens, but if you need a few pointers on coping, I'll send you mind friend's contact info and he can help you out with that as he's become an expert over, well, pretty much his entire life. -Thanks for reading, I await your venomous wrath.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jun 23 at 2015 3:43 PM

SN Greg Wright — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:43:20 -0400

So what's next? Are they gonna dig up the Confederate soldiers buried in Arlington and re-inter them somewhere?

Where's it stop?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 3:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:46:36 -0400

If every administration played around as much as this one, nothing would ever get done. PC horsecrap would be the nation's business while serving would be less and less inviting.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 3:47 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:47:34 -0400

This is getting ridiculous....

Response by SSG James Yellis made Jun 23 at 2015 3:54 PM

SSG James Yellis — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:54:55 -0400

No way, stop trying to be politically correct. thy still served in the US Military before the Civil War.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 23 at 2015 4:04 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:04:54 -0400

Preface: I was born in the North, I have great grandfathers that fought in the Union Army. I have no issue with any race, and I don't believe owning another human is right by any stretch of the imagination.

Now with that caviet in mine I'd like to humbly point out that the Civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.

1861, April - Succession
1861 Febuary - Confederacy formed
1861 April - Suspension of habeas corpus (the right of any person under arrest to appear in person before the court, to ensure that they have not been falsely accused) blocks the succession of Maryland, which would have put Washington D.C. in Confederate territory.
1882 - Emancipation proclamation.
1865 - Surrender

The war wasn't about slavery until two years after it started.

So to all the people who link the confederacy to racial prejudice, you're barking up the wrong tree... you're falling into a trap set by hate filled idiots, namely the KKK, who's only constant seems to be hate (they started out primarily hating Catholics).

Renaming bases because they were named after confederate generals is like hating Clydesdale's because there's some inbred redneck with no teeth and a big mouth loves drinking Budweiser.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 23 at 2015 4:11 PM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:11:27 -0400

No. Regardless of how the apologists and activists feel, the Civil War and the Confederacy are still part of our history good or bad.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 4:19 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:19:38 -0400

No question the answer is NO!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 4:32 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:32:48 -0400

No, no, no. That is just STUPID. Not only are many of these men apart of Civil War history; they are military legends in AMERICAN history. All of them have earned their mark to be remembered in the books have and have their names remembered.

Gen Bragg- West Pointer. Battled against the Seminoles; won 3 brevets in the Mexican War. Resigned in 1856 from the US Army. During the Civil war he took part in battles such as Shiloh and won the major battle of Chickamauga.

Gen Beauregard- was a Louisiana Creole that graduated 2nd from West Point and former Superintendent (he was removed from this position and his resigned his commission to join the South). Fought in the Mexican War. Started the Civil War at Fort Sumter. Created the Confederate Army of the Potomac that won the 1st Battle of Bull Run- Shiloh, among many others. After the War he became a politician and author. He also HATED Jefferson Davis- but believed in the South. Pretty Sure he is worth remembering!!!!

Gen A.P. Hill- Fought in Seminole and Mexican Wars. Served under Gen Stonewall Jackson, and became a reason why the 2nd Corps, Army of Northern Virginia was so successful. His role at Antietam was crucial. And was able to take over leadership once Jackson was wounded (then died) at Chancellorsville. At Gettysburg he made some stupid decisions- his 3rd Corps suffered the most losses overall. But Gen Lee trusted him, even after that battle. He was shot and killed by Union troops before the end of the War.

Gen Lee- Anyone who says they don't at least respect Gen Lee's military mind is lying. He was a military genius. His biggest fault was that once Jackson died at Chancellorsville, he no longer had anyone that understood his order giving style. Jackson could understand him and then redirect the orders so the other Generals could understand him.

Response by SPC Don Stringer made Jun 23 at 2015 4:47 PM

SPC Don Stringer — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:47:11 -0400

HELL NO.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 4:52 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:52:32 -0400

Then what remove the names of anyone who owned slaves from our history also?

Here's a short list of some of the more famous slave owners we all should recognize:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S Grant

Lots of big names on this list....some even on our (gasp) currency

People need to understand we cannot undo our past.....we need to learn from it and move forward.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 5:01 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:01:03 -0400

No, they should absolutely not. The only time a base needs renamed is if it was shut down and reinstated again. I'm stationed at such a base, NAS Fort Worth JRB, formally known as FMC Carswell. Now, there may be other reasons an installation is renamed that are legitimate, but because people are too sensitive to handle the names, that's a bit too much. You're never going to make everyone happy, but the military has gone from being a rock to being more of an umbrella. Trying to suit everyone all at once, but still people get rained on.

Response by CW3 Scott Castlen made Jun 23 at 2015 5:31 PM

CW3 Scott Castlen — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:31:40 -0400

Too Fricken Late!!!

Response by PO2 David Hagwood made Jun 23 at 2015 5:53 PM

PO2 David Hagwood — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:53:10 -0400

I'm ashamed we have to deal with ideas like this coming up. Our military has been losing tradition, history, and overall quality in the name of political correctness and "fairness". Even or higher chain of command has become more politically oriented rather than military oriented. I hope we can get some serious leadership who will step back and assess the negative impact these changes have had on us. I may have been in for 10 years; but things have gone down drastically in the past 6 years.

Response by SFC Bill Graham made Jun 23 at 2015 5:53 PM

SFC Bill Graham — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:53:20 -0400

Why? We're they not "American".. on just not American enough for the BS issue of the day. Gimme a break!

Response by SSgt Mark Robinson made Jun 23 at 2015 6:05 PM

SSgt Mark Robinson — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:05:07 -0400

Hellz to the nizow! Now I know what Michelle Obama was talking about on the campaign trail in 2007 when she said, "We Americans have to change our history."

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jun 23 at 2015 6:07 PM

LTC Ed Ross — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:07:31 -0400

When the Civil War ended President Lincoln told Confederate Soldiers to just go home. He didn't treat them like war criminals nor did he attempt to humiliate them. Memorials to Confederate heroes exist throughout the South and up to Gettsyburg, PA. Universities are named after Civil War generals. The overwhelming majorities is Southerners aren't nostalgic for the pre-Civil War slavery South. While I agree that it's inappropriate for state, city, or local governments to fly the flag, let's not turn the Confederate Flag into the CN word or equate it with Nazism. It's part of American history. How many young men from the South went off to War, not to defend slavery, but to defend their homes and families. Finally, we should not allow the left to turn the Confederate Flag into just another tool to attack Republicans.

Response by HN Vonda Auxer made Jun 23 at 2015 6:12 PM

HN Vonda Auxer — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:12:46 -0400

No. History is history. There is nothing you, I or anyone can do to change it. Our American history is not something to be afraid or ashamed of. We should tell our young and educate them with the history of America, so we don't make the same mistakes again. And, as a great example of what happens when we as Americans work toward something greater than self. An individual does make America.

Response by SPC John Decker made Jun 23 at 2015 6:45 PM

SPC John Decker — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:45:03 -0400

The Confederacy, though short-lived, is a part of our history. There's a reason those bases were named for those people. Before we even consider changing the names, someone should research the reasons behind those names being used in the first place.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 7:01 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:01:32 -0400

Although the history debates have been interesting, since the primary headbanging has been between the officers...let's break it down in their "style" (a.k.a. BLUF = Bottom Line Up Front:
As I teach my recruits, words matter. Most of the histrionics, hurt feelings & chest thumping could have been avoided if we had all latched onto one thing. Capt Porter wants all military bases named after MOH awardees, period. Never mind if they SHOULD be renamed as the original post asked, IF that were to magically happen in our politically correct world gone mad...that's his preference. Got it, just as good an idea as any (and probably better than most).

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jun 23 at 2015 8:26 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:26:26 -0400

Not only no but HELL NO!!!!!!!!!
Every time an incident happens people get their panties in a bunch. So every time something politically bad happens your going to rename a ship, or installation?
Why not just change the history books while your at it, do like they used to do in Japan, hide the truth about what happened.
Its horrible when scumbags, cowards and terrorists use a flag or symbol of their hate.
Given time anything can be politically offensive to anyone and its completely ignorant to even bring up renaming those bases mentioned above. Its ignorant and disrespectful.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 8:34 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:34:34 -0400

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition." -Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861

It's not a matter of YES, it's a matter of when. While I respect their military prowess as Generals, there are plenty of American heroes who fought for our country who are deserving of greater honor. Audie Murphy has a gym named after him on the same base, that trains all our infantryman and armor leaders, which is named after a traitor - Benning.

The whole Confederacy has been romanticized by the South. There are still people who think the major issue for the Confederacy was states rights, or that Lee was a gentlemen who liked Northerners and fought on behalf of Virginia, or that Slaves were proud to fight in all black companies in the South. Pick up any of the popular literature today, "The Year of Glory" or the "Year of Desperate Struggle" or "Rebel Yell", "Grant: The Man Who Saved the Union" , "Fierce Patriot" etc; and you'll see modern historical analysis has all but dispelled most of this romance. They revolted, they lost. I respect them as I respect Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian and Napolean (I.E: None of us have attended training at Camp Guderian). They aren't people I name buildings after, build monuments to, or ask my citizens to aspire to be like.

Confederate relics are in a long-time going from public and government property. Let people fly confederate flags from their belt buckles and their back yards, and let them honor their Generals in history books.

Response by SGT Kristin Myers made Jun 23 at 2015 8:49 PM

SGT Kristin Myers — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:49:11 -0400

I don't think so. It is still part of our history and needs to be remembered.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 8:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:49:18 -0400

Why only change because they are Confederate names? The Civil war was a Northern and Sothern War that is history and we should learn that we are all one and United States of America, not two different countries.

Response by SSgt John Stice made Jun 23 at 2015 11:38 PM

SSgt John Stice — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:38:25 -0400

Hell no. It's called history!

Response by SSG James Bigbie made Jun 24 at 2015 12:16 AM

SSG James Bigbie — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:16:54 -0400

All of these men were US officers before they were CS officers. They were all 'pardoned" if that matters. This is something beyond stupid.

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 24 at 2015 12:17 AM

SPC David S. — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:17:50 -0400

Keep them the same. The names of those bases are not offensive to people cause they are just names. The flag on the other hand, is a symbol of hate and treason so it should not be flown on government grounds.

Response by SGT Brian Nile made Jun 24 at 2015 12:20 AM

SGT Brian Nile — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:20:05 -0400

Very compelling and debatable subject!

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jun 24 at 2015 1:58 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:58:10 -0400

In George Orwell's book, 1984, the government re-wrote history and recent events in order to control the masses. Apparently, some of the liberal party think the totalitarian government in 1984 has a good idea. History is the true story of what happened, and should not be erased or modified to fit the political correctness of the day.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 6:17 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 06:17:18 -0400

Absolutely not. These men were Americans just like you and I who fought for their beliefs. People have called them "Traitors" but wasn't this great nation founded on the actions of traitors for similar reasons? Both the south and the colonies wanted a sovereign state and therefore they fought for it. I personally call them Heroes because their actions and leadership were beyond exemplary. These men were excellent tacticians on the field of battle and their tactics are still studied to this day.

Response by MSgt C Madd made Jun 24 at 2015 6:30 AM

MSgt C Madd — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 06:30:13 -0400

Never, American history good or bad is still American history. Attempting to erase a portion of our history will not make it go away. Several of the generals graduated from West Point that served on the side of the Confederate States. Political correctness is going too far here. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax before rash decisions are made.

Response by SSG Keith Bodiford (Ret) made Jun 24 at 2015 8:08 AM

SSG Keith Bodiford (Ret) — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:08:11 -0400

One thing people often forget. General Lee was a decorated Army Officer and West Point graduate and Superintendent of West Point. He was also a Virginian. When his state succeeded he followed Because he was a Virginian first.

Response by SPC Glenn Lovell made Jun 24 at 2015 12:48 PM

SPC Glenn Lovell — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:48:49 -0400

Renaming the installations isn't productive and costs money to do so; there are a lot of hidden costs involved, such as printing of stationary, command plates/plaques/signage, books to update, filing, etc. If we minimize this, we risk losing part of our history and heritage. These are men who stood up for a cause (good or bad, depending on your view) based on their faith in their home State. Most people don't know or remember that Lee was offered command of the federal Army at the beginning, but turned it down because he thought his first duty was to Virginia, then to the federal government. We should be honoring that - we no longer hear the President say "these United States", but rather "the United States" which is an effect of the Civil War. A small difference of two letters with a big impact on the way we look at our country now. Average citizens don't see the States as the bigger entities that citizens 150 years ago did. By renaming the posts and becoming "politically correct", I think we lose that identity and heritage. I certainly don't agree with the Confederacy's point of view, but I don't think we should lose sight of our past and be doomed to repeat the states' rights aspect of it, especially when we are seeing that now in the fight over legalization of marijuana.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 12:50 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:50:06 -0400

Nope, they are fine the way they are.

Response by CPO Jerry Smith made Jun 24 at 2015 12:57 PM

CPO Jerry Smith — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:57:30 -0400

Leave it to hell alone. This is history people are trying to erase.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Jun 24 at 2015 1:03 PM

SSG Carlos Madden — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:03:36 -0400

Pentagon says 'no'

No plans to rename US bases named after Confederate officers

A Pentagon spokesman said naming is up to individual services.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 24 at 2015 1:18 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:18:43 -0400

Not only no, but H.F.N. Too much politically correctness. Too much making mountains out of molehills. Things have gotten way out of hand.

Response by BG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 1:19 PM

BG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:19:41 -0400

I am really surprised that no one has pointed out that all posts are named after a war hero from that state. If you are going to have a post in North Carolina, of course it would be named after a Confederate general. Posts in the North are named after Union generals from that state. Even California has posts named after generals from there. The U.S. just established most Army posts in the South due to it having the most available land during mobilizations in WW I and II.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 1:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:34:42 -0400

In my opinion the names should be changed. What were Confederate Generals? They were traitors to our nation. They fough against our standing government and thank god they lost. Why do we honor them with naming things after them? They supported a Government that wanted to seceed from our Nation to form their own so that their rich friends in the south could continue using free labor. They lost their honor was to liveafter commiting an acto of treason. Why not just build a base in here and name it Ft. Gorbichof that would be less disrespectful to "Old Glory"

Response by CPL Nicholas Petrish made Jun 24 at 2015 1:34 PM

CPL Nicholas Petrish — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:34:54 -0400

What do you guys think of a Tojo Square or Yamamoto Navy Base? They were brave and honorable too.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 1:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:49:30 -0400

I do not think they should be renamed. This takes away from the history of these bases and of America.

Response by MAJ Bill Maynard made Jun 24 at 2015 1:55 PM

MAJ Bill Maynard — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:55:03 -0400

These post names provide a glimmer of hope to those who hope "The South Will Rise Again". BTW, if you do rise again, I may switch teams ;)

Response by CDR Chuck Gbur made Jun 24 at 2015 2:00 PM

CDR Chuck Gbur — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:00:20 -0400

Absolutely... I just returned from Greece. All of the ancient ruins were destroyed by people trying to rewrite history. First the Roman empire when they became Christians, then the Turks. ISIS is doing it, so we should too. We have become a nation of cowards...we need to change team logos, ban the cross. Hide everything that could possibly offend anyone while we ignore the root cause of our problems.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 3:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:36:13 -0400

Oh Mylanta. This is going to a whole new different extreme. I think it should be isolated to S. Carolina and what they want to do. I agree what happened is horrible and that flag has some meaning behind it (like democrats carrying it, fighting to keep slave rights) so I get wanting to take it down from the courthouse, etc. Not names on basses. That is when it really starts becoming beyond ridiculous. UUhhhh.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 3:39 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:39:08 -0400

Absolutely. Certainly enough other leaders bases could be named for. I'd also hope we never have another warship named for a confederate battle victory like USS CHANCELLORSVILLE (CG-62).

Response by LTC Edward Keyrouze made Jun 24 at 2015 3:50 PM

LTC Edward Keyrouze — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:50:44 -0400

To use a term everyone will understand 'OMG' will everyone stop with the persecution of this countries history. Military bases were named after outstanding leaders. The Generals of the South were still Americans fighting for American values at that time. The country was divided in values & what direction the government was going to proceed in. Everyone needs to stop. If the battle flag of Virginia during the Civil war is better displayed in a museum then so be it but to blame that same battle flag for morons with no value for human life that decide to wave that flag, wear it on a t-shirt, license plate & worship it like a God, that is their mindless fault. We should be proud of our past & learn from it not relive mistakes & make rash judgements because it happens to be in the news today. Tomorrow they won't even be talking about it because some other topic that is more news worthy will take the headlines.

Response by LTC Edward Keyrouze made Jun 24 at 2015 3:56 PM

LTC Edward Keyrouze — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:56:14 -0400

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 3:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:57:25 -0400

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it (The Life of Reason, 1905, Santayana) If we want to move the country forward, we cannot forget the past. Whether we agree with it or not, it happened. Are we not going to discuss the holocaust just because they are disturbing? Keep the names. Lest ye we forget.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 4:11 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:11:39 -0400

I think we should offer naming rights to businesses to raise money for our military. Who wouldn't want to be stationed at Ft. Budweiser? We get a cool name, AND we get to keep our benefits!

Response by SSG Jesus Roman made Jun 24 at 2015 4:20 PM

SSG Jesus Roman — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:20:45 -0400

No. They are part of our history, both Army and country. We are not glamorizing racism by naming the bases after these Generals, we are honoring the memories of great leaders that belonged to an Army of the United States. The Civil War was a war against ourselves, against comerades who had the same training and military historical lineage.

Response by CPL Richard Flagg made Jun 24 at 2015 4:25 PM

CPL Richard Flagg — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:25:24 -0400

No they should not be renamed just as some knee jerk reaction to the actions of a crazed gunman last week. What happened last week in South Carolina was a tragedy; but renaming military bases from Confederate Generals to more PC ones will not solve the problem.

Response by Sgt Devin McKenzie made Jun 24 at 2015 4:43 PM

Sgt Devin McKenzie — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:43:34 -0400

A warrior is a warrior!

Response by SSG Vincent Corzo made Jun 24 at 2015 4:47 PM

SSG Vincent Corzo — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:47:32 -0400

Ok, so should the United States of America rename Washington D.C. and erase President Washington because he was a slave owner? Everyone who is an American Citizen should be proud of our history in its entirety. Our country has made many mistakes, but for a nation that is barely 239 years old, we have achieved so much and corrected our wrongs. This is not to say there are still wrongs today, but in time they will be corrected. The United States is still the best country to call home. Think about it, look at all the freedoms, entitlements, predigests and not to mention, due process. Come on now, these generals are a part of all of our histories, these are the individuals who moved history forward. Lets stop the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and lets turn to matters that are more important such as economical growth, creation of jobs within the U.S. and more importantly, ensuring our children's children do not have to deal with Islamic Terrorists.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Jun 24 at 2015 4:51 PM

SSG Kenneth Lanning — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:51:46 -0400

OMG it's not PC-better change it...it's our nation's history-deal with it people. If everyone keeps going down this road we may as well detonate Mount Rushmore, since it's on Native American lands and on what was once a sacred mountain. Good or bad, leave it alone-if for anything, we should look at the positive reminder that things like this brings on what not to do or what not to be like.

Response by LTC Paul Dulchinos made Jun 24 at 2015 4:58 PM

LTC Paul Dulchinos — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:58:14 -0400

Maybe a better question should be why are all these bases in the south shouldnt our DoD dollars be distributed more equitably

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 6:13 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:13:03 -0400

No. Most were West Point Grads.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 6:13 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:13:59 -0400

Sergeant Major...in light of recent discussions about an historical battle flag, I feel like you have just asked one of the most intelligent military-related question that I've seen for quite a while on RallyPoint. Thank you. BTW, not only no, but Hell no!!!

Response by SFC Brian Vance made Jun 24 at 2015 6:17 PM

SFC Brian Vance — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:17:35 -0400

I guess the answer to that question would be "are they considered American Soldiers"?

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jun 24 at 2015 6:18 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:18:51 -0400

Of Course it should be Renamed! No BRAINER!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 6:35 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:35:49 -0400

Honestly I don't think the naming was racially meant. These men were great tacticians. I don't think changing the names will hurt or help anything. One woman's unpopular opinion.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 7:55 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:55:53 -0400

An excellent question! One I would have to think long and hard about. It is certainly a complex issue. To me the confederate flag is an easy one -- take it down! But this one is more difficult. While these leaders were on the confederate side, they were also associated with attributes of bravery and leadership. Tough one...

Response by SGT Michael DeLaGarza made Jun 24 at 2015 9:32 PM

SGT Michael DeLaGarza — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:32:36 -0400

HA HA.... That is carrying it a bit tooooooooooooo far....... Confederate Flag is one thing... A name of Historic Institutions is ridiculous.... The Democratic Party was the Founder of the KKK...... That is what needs to be dismantled. They are racist to this day......

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jun 24 at 2015 9:46 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:46:24 -0400

Not just no but HELL NO. Why are so many intent on changing history? I doubt if a simple majority of the US populace even know why the bases are named like they are. If it was good enough yesterday why isn't it good enough today? Let's keep in mind the timing around the naming of each Fort and ask if any of the General's has come up with revolting facts about THEM?
I believe that when Obama gets out of the WH we can start making positive changes and undo the damage he has done to our Constitution, our country and especially the military.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 10:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:10:16 -0400

Short Answer: No.
Longer answer: US Forts are named for Generals that came from that State. Whether Confederate or Union, Generals are Generals. Renaming Forts simply because they were named for Confederate Generals would be akin to renaming Germany because they were Nazi.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 10:18 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:18:51 -0400

Absolutely not! We are taught to take responsibility for our own actions and those of our Soldiers, both good and bad. So why can we not embrace our history, both good AND bad? This is almost saying we can't have the King James version of the bible because the English were our oppressors at one point in our history. I think it's absurd. Besides, I am not changing my birth place from Ft Hood to whatever they decided to rename Ft Hood. NO GO!!!

Response by SSgt Scott Schwerman made Jun 24 at 2015 10:38 PM

SSgt Scott Schwerman — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:38:59 -0400

Heck no! They were a vital part of this nation's history as were the Union members and everyone after them. No matter what side they were on, they played a vital part in making this country what it is today.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 11:06 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:06:16 -0400

If we remove the names and/or replace them we would be removing a part of our history. Yes there are many things we might not be proud of when it comes to the civil war and the problems of that era but it was a vital part of making the United States of America. If we were to remove their names, wouldn't we be dishonoring those countless men and women that died?? Wouldn't we be just as bad as Germany was when they tried to remove the holocaust from their history books?? History must be visited and revisited in order to facilitate a world where the bad choices we made are not repeated. We must have knowledge of our history to keep it as just that...history. i am completely against renaming our bases because if we start there to just appease the silly notion that by changing them, we will be fixing the hateful actions or thoughts of racism. It will only start a relentless process of killing off our history to appease simple-minded people for only a brief moment and committing the same actions that terrorists are currently doing...trying to destroy our history and who we are (like someone else pointed out earlier).

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 11:16 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:16:36 -0400

In the interests of further discussion, here is what the self-annointed experts on the U.S. Army at Time Magazine have to say on this question...

http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/

Ten Army Bases Named for Confederate Officers

All are located in former Confederate states, from Virginia to Texas.

Response by Pvt Diane Pownall made Jun 24 at 2015 11:31 PM

Pvt Diane Pownall — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:31:18 -0400

Whether they take the Confederate Flag away, or take the name of the Confederate Generals away from the bases, there will always be people that hate and kill others. No matter what we do to try and stop people from hating each other, there will always be those that will still hate anyway. I say keep the historic names and flag. Should we hide history? What are we saying to all the people of the South. Civil War wasnt just about slavery it was also about industry. Families lost lives on both sides.Should we wipe all this from the history books? Our Country survived it and both North and South became whole again and we now share cultures and food and friendships. We are wounding our fellow Countrymen.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 12:04 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:04:36 -0400

NO. These were Americans who did what they thought was right. They were not traitors. Wanting to divorce themselves from a union they did not want to be a part of is not treason. Every state should have this right.

Response by MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. made Jun 25 at 2015 12:38 AM

MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:38:40 -0400

Yeah, let's name them after all the great Union generals...[crickets]...

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jun 25 at 2015 12:47 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:47:15 -0400

Those men were heroes for their actions as leaders of Armies. They did what all soldiers did which was fight for the country they believed in. They didn't make slavery legal, they were simply soldiers of their country. That doesn't make them bad men, it makes them patriots, the kind of people we want to protect and defend our nation. Their actions haven't been tainted by this. They are not a symbol of the Old South - that would be the job of the flag.

Response by MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. made Jun 25 at 2015 1:51 AM

MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:51:35 -0400

This is a reasonable question and worthy of discussion, especially given all that is happening in our nation today. What bothers me though is that what occurred in South Carolina HAD NOTHING TO DO with a flag, a military base, a sports team name or any one of a number of other "PC" issues being debated around the country. Everything that is being discussed in the AFTERMATH of the event has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the event. This is the mistake we make as a people, trying to understand and somehow "correct" or "fix" the evil that we have seen. No friends, the flag didn't make this kid murder those people; the military base names didn't make this kid murder those people; a memorial statue in a park didn't make this kid murder those people; nor did any other inanimate object, name, or symbol. What made this kid murder 9 people in a South Carolina church was a twisted, evil heart. How come we're not discussing his birth to a broken home? His lack of education? His lack of motivation concerning school? His use of drugs and alcohol? His father providing him with a handgun in complete violation of the law? This kid was so twisted up that he affiliated himself with aparteid-era South Africa and (the former) Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). I mean, who does that? You think renaming Ft Bragg to Ft Clinton or Ft Obama or removing the Confederate Battle flag from the capitol grounds in Montgomery, AL was going to have ANY impact on this kid? I'm not suggesting those are not issues worthy of debate, I just think we're missing a real opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about a real tragedy, not some made up social crisis that until a couple of days ago was barely a flicker on the news meter.

That 9 souls were taken from this earth is a tragedy. That their legacy has been reduced to us debating whether we should change the name of Ft Benning or not is possibly an even greater tragedy.

Friends, I'm not wagging my finger at anybody or saying "shame on you" if you're participating in this discussion (after all, I'm participating too). I just wonder, when all the flags are down, when all the names are changed, when EVERYONE in the country is happy and NO ONE is offended about ANYTHING, will families be more stable? Will kids stop drinking and taking drugs? Will people stop breaking the law? Will evil cease to exist? I just wonder...

Response by MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. made Jun 25 at 2015 2:09 AM

MSG Donald R. Lee, M.B.A. — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 02:09:25 -0400

By the way, if we are going to start changing names on things, we need to start in West Virginia and change EVERYTHING that has ANYTHING to do with Senator Robert Byrd, former Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe he was a "good guy" later in life, but "historically" (and isn't this the point with the base renaming issue, the history?) he was not a good guy. And while we're at it, we need to eliminate the Democrat Party. Until about 1994 when the Republicans swept the Congress for the first time in forever, the South was full on Democrat. You remember all the pictures from the sixties: Mississippi Burning, fire hoses and dogs, Wallace in the courthouse door, the first black students in Little Rock, AR... Quotes from famous Southern Democrats like "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever!" That was all the Democrat Party. "But they're not like that now," you say. Maybe, but HISTORICALLY they were. And frankly I am a little surprised that any African-American can associate themselves with an organization with such a troubled history. You can say what you want about the Republican Party today, but they've never even been ACCUSED of such things, much less actually done them.

So hey! Let's have a big re-naming party! We'll start with a big convention in West Virginia at the Sen. Robert Byrd Convention Center with the first event being the complete dissolution of the Democrat Party, followed quickly by the renaming of the Convention Center. Actually sounds like fun!

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Jun 25 at 2015 6:49 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 06:49:41 -0400

I have no problem removing the flag from state houses and such as it does irk many people, but what is next, all monuments to southern dead? We have already had a statue of a missionary removed at a university, the 10 Commandments removed from state and federal buildings, and now they want to change who is featured on our currancy. We cannot hide things in our past that some may not agree with and attempts to write school history books have shown, but we can continue to learn from them. Once again our nation is following into the rut of giving into the squeaky wheel while the majority remains silent. I for one would hate to see our past erased in the name political correctness and someone's feelings got hurt. Take down or move the flags but then let us have some thoughtful discussion and everyone's thoughts be heard, not just the few. renaming military installations in the name of political correctness would just be plain wrong.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 8:01 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:01:25 -0400

No, we should not change the names of our bases just because of them being in the confederate army. That is our history as Americans. Not to mention they were still Americans. Why should we change something like this that has no bearing on anything or anyone. People just need to get thicker skin and not worry about it.

Response by PO2 Rick Sutton made Jun 25 at 2015 8:58 AM

PO2 Rick Sutton — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:58:38 -0400

Absolutely not? These were Brave men fighting for their home states when the Federal Government was a fledgling. The primary reason in the beginning of the war was the same as the revolution, taxation without representation, and President Lincoln turned it into a Holy War based on slavery. Only approximately 17 % of Sothern's were slave owners, and many Northerner's were also slave owners. These Men were exceptionally Brave men doing their duty.

Response by MSgt David Haupt made Jun 25 at 2015 9:56 AM

MSgt David Haupt — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:56:25 -0400

No. It is part of the Military History. What is next Cities or Street Signs. This is getting out of control!

Response by SSG William Zopff III made Jun 25 at 2015 11:02 AM

SSG William Zopff III — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:02:26 -0400

Some of these former Confederate Generals were West Point Graduates, and defended their states, their honor, and their country. The divided politics of the time, we can relate to that in our current political climate. We need men of honor to stand for their values and beliefs to survive today's challenges, both internal and external. Their names were selected for naming bases in their home states, any changes should be made by those respective states and their state citizens, not public opinion from other states. If you disagree with a states decision, then don't visit!

Response by MSgt Raymond Grogan made Jun 25 at 2015 12:36 PM

MSgt Raymond Grogan — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:36:11 -0400

Not all were Generals.
Fort Rucker, Alabama, honors Tennessee native Colonel Edmund Rucker (1835-1924) who was often called “general” but never attained the rank (he was known as “general” after becoming a leading Birmingham, Ala., industrialist after the Civil War). Known today as the Home of Army Aviation, Fort Rucker was originally the Ozark Triangular Division Camp before being renamed Camp Rucker in 1942. It became Fort Rucker in 1955

Response by MSgt Stephen Council made Jun 25 at 2015 1:46 PM

MSgt Stephen Council — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:46:00 -0400

No. History is history. We should not cave in to the offensensitivity that seems pervasive in today's society.

Response by LTC Paul Dulchinos made Jun 25 at 2015 2:15 PM

LTC Paul Dulchinos — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:15:56 -0400

To be honest, I have always wondered about why we named so many military installations in the South after Southern Generals from the Confederate Army of the Civil War - As a Northerner, I was taken a back at being stationed at bases named after Heros of the insurrection. It would be like being stationed in Germany and being stationed on the Herman Goering Air Base or in Japan being stationed to the Yamamoto Naval Station. Granted we needed to reconcile with our Southern Brothers after a very dark period of country's civil conflict, but, I am just not sure whether the importance of maintaining this deference to the former Confederate States of America in order to heal the wounds of the Civil War, merits continuation of this practice. I am sure we have had many more very worthy military Heros from the South since reconstruction that we could recognize instead (and please not some damn politician). I am all for maintaining tradition and honoring our past but, perhaps it is time to start honoring the Heros of our shared past and perspectives and not those that fought to divide us.

Response by CPT David Landrum made Jun 25 at 2015 2:24 PM

CPT David Landrum — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:24:07 -0400

The Generals mostly came through West Point and got pulled into a war that politicians started. I don't blame the individuals, but would like to see the battle flag done away with.

Response by SGT Carissa Lara, RCS made Jun 25 at 2015 3:53 PM

SGT Carissa Lara, RCS — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:53:52 -0400

I don't agree with renaming bases named after Confederates. Those men are still amongst the few Americans that stood up and fought for what they thought was right. You don't have to agree with them but many served with distinction and others were merely hometown heroes. These men are still a big part of American history no matter what side they fought for.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 4:37 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:37:04 -0400

Leave it alone. If this happens they will need to stop naming Naval Ships after people that are still living. Next, we will need to remove anything that takes away from our National Identity as well. If you are German or African American you should stop identifying yourself as such. This whole Bull shit about renaming bases is absurd. These bases were named after American Soldiers. Look it up.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 4:49 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:49:09 -0400

Who is even raising the debate about misplaced named bases after confederate officers, and how is that related to the church shooting in South Carolina? The negative inference is misplaced and the connection is extremely attenuated. Aside from the ridiculous suggestion the subjects are related, the logic for changing the names is flawed. Every warrior fights for their conviction. That is the honor each warrior carries. The cause may be ugly, wrong, or just plain bad, but respect the conviction each warrior possesses. Hate the cause but not the warrior spirit. Because ultimately the loser’s cause is always wrong, but the warriors conviction is never wrong.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 25 at 2015 5:41 PM

SGT David T. — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:41:28 -0400

Nope. What more fitting end to the war than to station federal troops at bases named for the defeated confederates.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Jun 25 at 2015 7:40 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:40:26 -0400

Why, no, I don't think we should rewrite history. To quote a famous "leader" of our day, "At this point, what does it matter?" Except we're talking about something that happened 150 years ago, not abandoning our people in Benghazi. Is anyone alive now that was alive then? I see the Confederate flag is banned from Walmart, and they're even taking it off the General Lee, and I don't think that is completely off-topic, so here's my opinion on that: I wouldn't have the Confederate flag on my car, nor fly one, but pretty soon if someone does exercise their First Amendment rights to do that, it will become the same legal excuse for violence as the "N" word is. Unless a black person is using it, then it's ok.
We better learn to get along or we are all screwed. You don't do that by marginalizing anyones culture, you just piss them off and drive it underground. Either you believe in the US constitution, or you don't.

I bet a lot of black people are just as bored with this as I am.

Response by MAJ Raúl Rovira made Jun 25 at 2015 8:22 PM

MAJ Raúl Rovira — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:22:17 -0400

The past is part of who we are today.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 9:11 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:11:30 -0400

Why don't we just rewrite the history books to say that the civil war started over slavery... which it didn't. Then say that the U.s. military support slavery... which it doesn't. This is our history... These are Americans...

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 26 at 2015 12:43 AM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:43:22 -0400

why would we do something as silly as that....just because a special interest group that doesn't represent ka ka poo tell us too

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 11:28 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:28:54 -0400

Absolutely not! I say remove that crap from the BX/PX but don't mess with post names. Posts were named after these Soldiers because of their leadership and tactics, not because they hated black people or supported slavery. I do support, however, one of these posts (perhaps that of the least popular person) being named after GEN Patton.

On another note, somebody please start a new thread on the fact that there aren't any posts in the U.S. (I think) named after women. I hereby nominate the first female to graduate from the watered down Ranger School or Jessica Lynch.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 26 at 2015 1:34 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:34:59 -0400

I'm just here for the comments on this one.

Response by PO2 Terri Myre made Jun 26 at 2015 9:46 PM

PO2 Terri Myre — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:46:07 -0400

Bases should NOT be renamed. These men shaped our country. What needs to happen is that the ignorant need to be educated.

Response by PO2 Gene Morgan made Jun 26 at 2015 11:02 PM

PO2 Gene Morgan — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:02:25 -0400

No i dont think anything needs to happen at this time

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Jun 27 at 2015 2:51 AM

COL Jeff Williams — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:51:43 -0400

No you keep the names. I believe Washington had slaves as well, do we now start with Adams as the first president and take Washington off the dollar bill. The revisionist history is ridiculous. Yes slavery was and is a terrible thing, maybe even more so today as it is still in existence and we do nothing more than say we have a zero tolerance for it, even though we are far more civilized than 150 years ago. However, if you start to remove evidence of the past, then soon you will forget the past, then you are condemned to repeat it

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Jun 27 at 2015 5:47 AM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:47:34 -0400

What re-write history. Yeah, try again

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Jun 27 at 2015 6:45 AM

SGT Francis Wright — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:45:24 -0400

Before I vote; I need to get this off my chest. First it is a bunch of nonsense, second it has to go to committee in congress to change the name of any military installation. With that said; what are they going to name these installations? Are they going to use 20th century war heroes? Like Pershing, Patton, Puller, Abrams, etc, etc.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jun 27 at 2015 9:33 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:33:06 -0400

History is not pretty, it's not fair, and someones feelings in it are going to be hurt. As far as the flag goes, it has no place on a government building other than a museum. I do not see any shackles, whips, or tattered clothes on display on top of any flag poles. Nor would I want to see any. They too belong in a museum. We cannot erase the past, but that doesn't mean we should "glorify" it either. Using the "Heritage NOT Hate" slogan is a load of crap, if you're not willing to show all sides. No flag should be displayed on Federal or State grounds besides the Colors. In the respective states cases, the state flag is appropriate as long as it's lower than the US flag. Now is the time for this country to have a true "sit down" and talk about what means what to whom. No more hiding behind rank, privilege, position, social status etc. Let's get it out in the open without the news making our decisions for us. We know there are NO mainstream media outlets that aren't slanted one way or the other. We should talk to our neighbors, friends, fellow vets, whoever and ask how do you feel? Getting the conversation started ourselves and finding out the answers ourselves is a lot better than having it force fed through a tv screen. The President campaigned on Hope and Change. It's up to us to rewrite the history books and put that "hope" and "change" in there. Not for us or our kids, but our grand kids and theirs who'll interpret what we do now and hopefully make something good out of it.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 11:19 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:19:26 -0400

I've read responses below, and the strongest ones seem to be related to treason and slavery. But the war wasn't only about slavery and treason is questionable at best.

For example, Robert E. Lee was offered command of the UNION armies, but declined:

"We are now in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole south is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army, and, save in defense of my native state--with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed--I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."

Remember, the Civil War was only 70 years after the ratification of the Constitution, which included the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Slavery was and is an evil thing, but it remains today and people don't seem to be as worked up about modern slavery as they do about slavery from 150 years ago. But if the war ended slavery, it also ended the 10th Amendment to the Constitution since the Federal government has continued to assume powers to itself not granted it under that Constitution. Were the Confederate States wrong to oppose this violation of the Constitution? Perhaps, like the Founding Fathers, the Confederate States were wise enough to foresee a Federal Government which requires people to buy government-approved health care at a staggering cost, and further supported by the bald-faced lie that if you liked what you had, you could keep it.

Texas specifically was given the right to secede when it joined the Union, which means the Union violated the treaty of annexation when if forced Texas to return to the Union. Two sides commit treason, but only one is blamed for it.

750,000 people died during the Civil War - more that ALL other wars in the entire history of the United States. That argues that the war had an importance far beyond slavery, since very few people in the South owned slaves. (Very few people now own purebred racing horses, not because it's illegal, but because it takes MONEY to do so. And NO, I am not comparing slaves to race horses – I am stating that it took money to be a slave owner and contrary to fiction, the South was poor – surely poorer than the North, in spite of there being some plantations.)

Another quote from GEN Lee, "The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides."

What kind of forebearance could have been practiced? The North could have invested in the South providing aid in the form of cotton gins, reaping machines, and other technologies that would have ended slavery as surely as the automobile put and end to the occupations of saddle makers, farriers, harness makers, and blacksmiths. And if the cost of spending money to aid the South seems excessive, how is that cost compared to 750,000 dead?

This carries over to the question of flying the Confederate Battle Flag. There are racists, who support it as a symbol of slavery – and there are people who support race baiting the other way as well. Again, I don't think truth, equality, or fairness are the exclusive property of one side or the other in the racial tension in the United States. But there are those, and I think they are the majority, who see the Battle Flag as a symbol of opposition to Federal Government encroachment on the Constitution and on the rights it guarantees us. The Second Amendment is under constant attack by people who insist that it is outdated and that they have the right to modify it regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. We may have lost the biggest battle against an overreaching Federal Government, but the war is NOT over. (And NO, I do not support secession. But if the only two acceptable answers are secession or liberal rewrite of the Constitution to suit themselves, then secession is the better choice.)

Those who seek to meddle with the guarantees of the Constitution are also traitors – they do not seek consensus, but seek to rule as surely as the slave-owner ruled his slaves. I think the term “treason” needs to be carefully considered before it is casually tossed around.

Response by SSG Sean Garcia made Jun 27 at 2015 6:33 PM

SSG Sean Garcia — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 18:33:53 -0400

I think America has become too sensitive. I remember not caring and always standing with pride because at the end of the day, you are an American. Nowadays, everyone gets offended for stupid crap. I say, keep with the traditions and keep the names, though, the kinder softer American people will probably vote to have them removed. Just like the confederate flag some saw racism, others like me saw southern pride. This is something that was taken away from southern pride and it's a shame. I don't walk around with a confederate flag, but I felt a sense of honor being from the south.

Response by LTC Richard Wasserman made Jun 27 at 2015 9:42 PM

LTC Richard Wasserman — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:42:07 -0400

No.

Response by MCPO Brian Legg made Jun 27 at 2015 10:40 PM

MCPO Brian Legg — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:40:15 -0400

Just stop all this nonsense already!!!
My head hurts from all the idiocy I see flying around. Keep it up America and you will undo everything we have built in one generation.

So sad.

Response by SSG James Georgeff made Jun 28 at 2015 12:08 AM

SSG James Georgeff — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 00:08:28 -0400

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Jun 28 at 2015 1:40 PM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:40:13 -0400

Absolutely not. If we let "them" get away with this, there is no telling to where it will lead.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2015 11:12 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:12:45 -0400

We have to embrace who we are as a Nation. The Civil War is our history. We reflect on the past to garner a more prosperous future. I don't feel that America as a country has done this yet. We continue to focus on ways to divide ourselves and not unite our country.This turmoil through time has forged us into the United States of America....United....but how united are we really? I am by no means agreeing with slavery, racism, bigotry, sexism, or any of the ugly things that are in our past, that we as a country, have participated in. Trying to eradicate all confederate flags or anything to do with the confederacy while allowing our National Colors to be desecrated, and our freedoms trampled upon is somewhat backwards. We should work harder at becoming unified, honoring our veterans, establishing true patriotism, and defeating the evils lurking amongst us waiting for the opportune moment to do harm to our families and our way of life.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 12:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:17:40 -0400

It is a part of our history, like it or not. Many Confederate generals were big in the US before the Civil War. Are we getting too PC and change everything?

Response by PFC James Sander made Jul 2 at 2015 6:28 PM

PFC James Sander — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:28:05 -0400

THEY SHOULD LEAVE THE NAMES ALONE. THEY SHOULD ALSO READ THERE HISTORY BOOKS SO THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REBEL BATTLEFLAG AND THE REAL CONFEDERATE FLAG AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Response by SGM Jeff Bullard made Jul 4 at 2015 10:29 PM

SGM Jeff Bullard — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 22:29:44 -0400

Usually the base in that state is named after a General that was from that state. NO matter if it's a Confederate or Union General it's all part of our history as Americans. Most Soldiers didn't own slaves, they fought for their state and the patriotism of being an American. No matter the name of the Base, Post or Camp it reflects our history as Americans and NO we should not change the names of the bases.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 1:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:10:18 -0400

Yes they should

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 7:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:19:57 -0400

No, because at the end of the war they were all Americans.

Response by SSG Nick Tramontano made Jul 12 at 2015 12:38 AM

SSG Nick Tramontano — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 00:38:44 -0400

No, All this confederate stuff is really getting rediuculous. As som,eone pointed out, the names were all American. It's part of our history. People associate the Confederacy with slavery and other things but forget it started before the CSA existed. Even George Washington had slaves but there's no BS about taking him off the money.

Response by Capt Christian D. Orr made Aug 7 at 2015 7:25 AM

Capt Christian D. Orr — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:25:15 -0400

Not only "No," but "Hell, No!" Enough kowtowing to the jackbooted totalitarian Thought Police thugs already!!

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 8 at 2015 2:54 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 02:54:29 -0400

We should rename them only after Senator Robert Byrd's name is taken off all the buildings in West Virginia. He was a klansman after all

Response by Sgt Matt Koeneman made Aug 8 at 2015 4:27 AM

Sgt Matt Koeneman — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:27:09 -0400

No, by a Congressional Act they are all recognized as Veterans. There was no distinction made between them and the Union soldiers when it comes to memorials or benefits.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2015 9:21 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 21:21:16 -0400

Did they perform well militarily? That should be the criteria that gets military assets named for one. As service members we can not exercise much latitude in choosing the policies of our civilian bosses. Retaining the names of effective military figures, even those who fought for opposing sides, helps keep that notion.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 9:32 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:32:34 -0400

No, it's part of our history why should we try and stamp it out? Let's stop letting the media and it's sheep try and change our great military history!

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Aug 13 at 2015 1:03 PM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:03:09 -0400

Much of this is akin to the contraversy about the CSA battle Flag. Those opposed to the flag claim it is a symbol of pro slavery, claiming that those who fought for the CSA were pro slavery. The truth is that the average Southerner didn't own any slaves and cheap slave labor did not do anything for him in the labor market - it kept him from getting a job if anything- This is is more of the PC idiocy run amok. The problem with these people is not that they are stupid - they aren't; it's that they are ignorant!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2015 6:20 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:20:46 -0400

If I'm not mistaken several of them also fought in the US Army. The question is still valid, but something to consider.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2015 3:32 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:32:07 -0400

No, I am sick of the political correctness storm that has taken over America.

Response by SGT Lou Meza made Aug 15 at 2015 5:30 PM

SGT Lou Meza — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:30:14 -0400

All these Confederate generals having posts named after them were not a problem before now ! Most of us if not all of us military either active or veterans have at one time or another boasted about where we trained as new recruits or where we were stationed at ! It was never a problem ! Now because of a confederate flag should it become a problem ? In my opinion just leave well enough alone . Sure the Confederate flag shouldn't be flying from a state building . Just like any other country that we fought against and won , we don't fly their flag on any state building that I know of . But as far those military posts with Confederate generals names on them I say let them stay just as they are .

Response by SSG Jerry Eidson made Aug 17 at 2015 10:37 PM

SSG Jerry Eidson — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:37:04 -0400

Hell NO!!

Response by SFC Wade W. made Sep 22 at 2015 12:58 AM

SFC Wade W. — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:58:23 -0400

No. Whether we like it or not these men are an integral part of our military history. They have made us who we are today and going forward. How would the world feel if we just buried the history of the holocaust or other such events?

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Sep 24 at 2015 3:51 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:51:25 -0400

No.

Response by SGT Felicia King made Oct 1 at 2015 11:06 PM

SGT Felicia King — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 23:06:19 -0400

Why do people ask these questions? Why would you want to change history. What happened already happened. You can't change it. But you can learn from it. Take what happened and learn from it, but never change it. Because you either make the future better or worse.

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Oct 4 at 2015 3:37 PM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 15:37:40 -0400

American history is history whether we like it or not. It is there to learn from (hopefully). We still study their tactics for applicability against modern enemies; why would re-name them now?

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Oct 4 at 2015 3:57 PM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 15:57:25 -0400

Hhhahahahahaahahhaahahaah!!!!!!!!!! Of COURSE they should be renamed!!! We should get ahead of the curve, too, and rename them after Muslim shrines??? Just sayin'.

Response by SGT Neil Chandler made Oct 4 at 2015 4:04 PM

SGT Neil Chandler — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 16:04:14 -0400

LEAVE THE NAMES ALONE........Sorry, I had to say that. Those great names of great men are not hurting a soul, so they should just leave them be. Like SFC Jason Boyd said, they are American regardless of who they fought for or with.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 3:35 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:35:08 -0400

Should US military bases named after Confederates be renamed? (SGM Matthew Quick)

SGM, I was not alive during the Civil War, obviously, but I know as most do that your first loyalty was to your home, second was to your country. We have the benefit of many years of research and history records to know the true political reason for the Civil War. However, I give any Soldier, including Generals the benefit of the doubt when it comes to doing what a Soldier does. His second loyalty was to his brothers in arms and his unit. I believe that this war was propagandized by newspapers, posters, leaflets, and word of mouth. We must remember that there was no such thing as a telephone, internet, radio, or television. These men were Soldiers first, remember, and even General Robert E. Lee as the most accomplished general at the time was asked by the POTUS, President Lincoln to lead his Army against the Southern States succession and he turned down the President of the United States (can you imagine such a thing?) because his first loyalty was to his home and state. Most of us cannot identify with this today, because we don’t stay rooted in one place for very long, but those that still have large extended families and regularly attend family reunions of several hundred, may have some idea. Agriculture crops were the currency and your land was your livelihood. Most Southerners believed however wrongly that it was the war of northern aggression. As for Mr. John Burwell’s comments in the Stars and Stripes, I do not know how I would feel about this if I were a black man, his words, but I have Cherokee in my blood (great-great grandmother was full blooded Cherokee Native American) and my family fought for both sides, as the story goes; brother against brother or cousin against cousin. However, I also know that slaves and freed fought for both sides. I cannot see how equating the name of an American General, most of whom graduated from West Point and served honorably in the US Army (many against the native Americans under the US Flag out west), but resigned to serve their home and family in the War between the states to Adolf Hitler or Suddam, Hussein is fair to them at all. They did not make policy, they only took their orders and executed them to their utmost ability. Should we erase all reference to most of our founding fathers? I say change the names if you want, but I’m a Soldier and I’ll still be serving the Army, not someone’s name. I'll leave the politics to the politicians.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 1:36 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:36:59 -0400

Be nice if more recent military leaders could get a base named after them...but since renaming bases is not going to happen and DoD isn't building any new bases like they do Navy ships and Coast Guard cutters looks like they'll be no Fort Patton anytime soon. Am sure no one would argue GEN Patton doesn't warrant a based named for him...just no base available for naming/renaming.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 10 at 2015 7:57 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:57:48 -0400

Not only No but hell no....Funny Story about Southern Officers in the Marines At a Marine Corps Ball after General Al Gray retired he was seated with all other Generals from the South i.e Gen Barrow Gen Wilson, & Gen. Chapman..so he was asked by a young 2nd Lt how did he like being outnumbered by Generals who were all decorated southern gentlemen. General Gray said "just fine Lt, I am from South New Jersey"

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Oct 15 at 2015 4:38 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:38:56 -0400

Of course not, they are U.S. Military Veterans just like us. I can't remember the year, but a law was passed making all Confederate Soldiers U.S. Military Veterans. Therefore we would need to change all Forts, Post, Bases and anything else named after a Veteran to be fair. Why haven't those who have removed monuments to Confederate Veterans been arrested and prosecuted for breaking the law.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 7:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:14:17 -0400

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 7:26 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:26:24 -0400

They should be renamed, they were traitors. They didnt fight for the United States, they fought against it. How would anyone like to name a base Fort Mussolini or Fort Al-Zawhari

Response by SSG David Winters made Nov 5 at 2015 9:08 PM

SSG David Winters — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:08:54 -0500

No, it's part if our History, Good or Bad, it is still our History.

Response by CPT Glenn Anderson made Nov 23 at 2015 2:55 PM

CPT Glenn Anderson — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:55:13 -0500

Why, because some people who are so f'n PC want to revise or ignore certain parts of our nation's history?

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Dec 8 at 2015 2:47 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Tue, 08 Dec 2015 14:47:10 -0500

Absolutely NOT. Why is it that only in this country do we take historical events that occurred so long ago and use them to distract us from the calamity that is at our doorstep?

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 18 at 2015 9:41 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:41:41 -0500

No it is a part of our rich history

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 11:29 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 11:29:34 -0500

Response by SFC Thomas Howes made Jan 8 at 2016 4:54 PM

SFC Thomas Howes — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:54:01 -0500

Generals of the confederate states
http://thomaslegion.net/confederategeneralsfromwestpoint.html

Confederate Generals From West Point

List of Confederate Generals who graduated from West Point Confederate Officers of the United States Military Academy Class Order Year Graduated list of Confederate Generals that attended West Point

Response by SSgt Joseph Aschenbach made Feb 10 at 2016 6:16 PM

SSgt Joseph Aschenbach — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:16:27 -0500

Response by SGM Jeff Bullard made Feb 13 at 2016 11:52 PM

SGM Jeff Bullard — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:52:36 -0500

NO, this is ridiculous that we have become so politically correct and sensitive to anything that offends people that we want to wipe it off the history books. Everything in our past has made us the country that we are today. NO matter if you agree with the Civil War or not it was a battle that solidified us as a nation. The Confederate Generals were and are just as much American war heroes as the Union Generals. Isn't it time to quit being so hyper-sensitive to everything? No one thought twice when during the Super Bowl Beyoncé performed in support of the Black Panthers, one of the most violent groups in the 60's but no one is banning her. Is there a double standard when it comes to things that offend? I think so. Let's all just be Americans and be proud of our heritage.

Response by SPC James Dollins made Feb 14 at 2016 9:53 AM

SPC James Dollins — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:53:35 -0500

No they are a part of the Army history!

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Feb 15 at 2016 6:34 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:34:23 -0500

NO.

Response by SGM Donald Garner made Feb 15 at 2016 5:30 PM

SGM Donald Garner — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:30:20 -0500

No way.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 12:39 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 12:39:44 -0400

Any and all bases named after Confederates should be renamed. I for one would love to see Fort Lee changed to Fort Grant.

Despite them being Americans at birth, the Confederacy was ultimately an enemy nation of the United States. Until I see a Fort Rommel established, the presence of any base named after our enemies is an absolute travesty. Especially considering just how horrid the principles of the Confederacy were.

Irrespective of the individual officers' reasons for supporting the Confederacy, the end result remains that they betrayed their oaths to the United States. Why should be honor traitors when there are countless loyal servicemen we could honor instead?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2016 3:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 May 2016 15:12:53 -0400

They should be renamed. They were traitors to the nation and should not be memorialized by naming military installations after them. If that's the case we should rename the Alamo to Ft. Santa Ana.

Response by CW3 Guy Snodgrass made Jun 9 at 2016 12:39 PM

CW3 Guy Snodgrass — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:39:11 -0400

Response by SGT Kristin Myers made Jun 9 at 2016 6:23 PM

SGT Kristin Myers — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:23:05 -0400

I believe they should not. It is a part of our history, no matter if it was a bad part of United States history, it still happened. Would they rename the states who seceded from the United States? I think not.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 10 at 2016 4:48 AM

SSG John Jensen — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 04:48:01 -0400

YES. Great- great grandfather Ernst Keller 7th Cav. Mo. St. Militia 1822-1915
after the failed European Revolutions of 1840, a lot of Germans immigrated to Texas( mine went to Missouri) where they discovered to their horror, that in the land of the free, that slavery was still practiced, and that the much celebrated freedom of religion didn't apply if you were catholic, so a lot of them moved to Mexico where slavery was outlawed and Catholic was ok, and that's where the Mexicans got the polkas and accordians. Many Germans who stayed tried to join the Union Army and were slaughtered on their way north.

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 2 at 2016 2:06 AM

SPC Kirk Gilles — Sat, 02 Jul 2016 02:06:41 -0400

Eventually they will be. It's a slower roll. The schools are doing it. Parks and roadways are doing it.

Response by SFC Jeff Stevenson made Jul 8 at 2016 5:59 AM

SFC Jeff Stevenson — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 05:59:49 -0400

Based on your question, These men were still part of the Military, and acknowledged as veterans. As veterans, and highly decorated, without judgment on what side they served, I see no issue with military based being named in honor. It seems that now days, people (civilians) are more interested in digging up dirt to disprove something instead of honoring those for what they did or stood for. Maybe at that time, they felt in their heart that it was better for the growing states. I was not there and will not cast doubt for which I don't know enough. But our current path to dishonor and hide or destroy history due to our belief that it is bad now, just destroys how we developed as a country. Knowing the history is how we better ourselves, and destruction of history just ends that process. My opinion is that they are decorated veterans and should be honored.

Response by SFC Ronald Burris made Sep 1 at 2016 12:49 AM

SFC Ronald Burris — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:49:41 -0400

No, this is still part of our history. Do we go back and give our territories back that we won when this Country was being formed? No. So why try and do something just because it might be wrong today, it still part of history.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Sep 15 at 2016 12:38 PM

LTC Ed Ross — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:38:50 -0400

I think everything British should be eradicated from American culture, after all, they suppressed the colonists, owned slaves and committed crimes of brutality.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Sep 23 at 2016 9:46 AM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:46:09 -0400

I love it when modern people judge historical figures by modern standards.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Sep 23 at 2016 9:59 AM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:59:26 -0400

Let's remember that it's the victors who write the history books.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Sep 23 at 2016 10:04 AM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:04:08 -0400

I don't know of any stories of Lee and his troops burning farms and raping women as they campaigned throughout Pennsylvania. The same cannot be said for Sherman or Sheridan, as they marched through Georgia and the Carolinas...yet, they were the "good" guys.

Response by SFC Bayardo Reyes made Oct 18 at 2016 9:47 AM

SFC Bayardo Reyes — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:47:38 -0400

I agree with you SGM Matthew Quick . "I think removing the Confederate Battle Flag from government facilities is appropriate...I do not agree with removing names of Confederate Generals from bases/installations".
Its part of our Heritage, and like it or not, it is part of our history. In my opinion, they where great officers and Soldiers, just different ideology.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Nov 29 at 2016 4:43 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:43:40 -0500

It is part of history, weather good or bad it is part. leave it alone. If some PC person has a problem with what a place has been named since before their time, let them adjust their attitude. You can make it a better place by giving it your all, or leaving it.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Dec 15 at 2016 2:45 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:45:58 -0500

Prior to the Civil War, people thought of their state as a sovereign country, much like the member countries of the European Union do today. Imagine you are a citizen of England when your government decides it is fed up with polices enacted by the EU that have been, for years, benefiting certain EU member countries while hurting your country's economy. As far as you and the rest of the English people are concerned, you joined the EU voluntarily and feel that you are free to leave at your whim. So your government tells the EU it is seceding and gives the EU a deadline to vacate all property they are occupying in England. But the EU refuses to remove their forces from England, forcing England to to evict them by force, which starts a war. Would you not fight to defend your country from a foreign invader no matter what the the foreign invader's reasons for invading? This is the same scenario that played out in 1861 in the United States.
When the Civil War started, many Confederates who have things named after them, despite whether they agreed or disagreed with slavery, felt honor and duty bound to to defend their sovereign country (state) against a foreign invader (Union forces) and they did so. Many of them had years of prior exemplary service in the U.S. military. Robert E. Lee is a great example. If Lee was so bad, why was he Lincoln's first choice to command the Union Army? These people are part of our history and the installations named after them are part of our history. I like the names on those installations. We need to get away from this PC bullshit or renaming something just because one segment of our society is uncomfortable with it.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Dec 16 at 2016 10:41 AM

MSG Jay Jackson — Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:41:18 -0500

Lets name our bases after MOH recipients. We have more than enough to accomplish the task. Yea we have some nostalgia about places like Bragg, Riley but we should not live in the past. We could also name bases after outstanding citizens.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2016 12:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:19:30 -0500

Not only yes but HELL YES.
I dont feel like getting into a big debate but they were traitors/terrorists by today's standards and should be treated as such.

Response by SFC Jeff Stevenson made Dec 22 at 2016 12:43 PM

SFC Jeff Stevenson — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:43:58 -0500

If we decide to "Re-name" for reasons due to history, then where will the next line be drawn? They are a part of history and also named after famous Military veterans. And considering the PC push, what happens when they decide the Holocaust is next. Erasing history means no one learns from its lessons. This should be fought tooth and nail. Erasing history and demeaning US Veterans in the name of what?

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Dec 23 at 2016 5:46 PM

MAJ David Vermillion — Fri, 23 Dec 2016 17:46:44 -0500

No. They served with same conviction. Why change them?

Response by GySgt Melissa Gravila made Dec 23 at 2016 7:52 PM

GySgt Melissa Gravila — Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:52:22 -0500

I think the old saying holds true "Those who forget about history are doomed to repeat it." We should never bow down or coddle a small group to just appease them, we end up alienating a larger group and fracturing the foundation. I am done with these "factions" for lack of a better term crying and whining about the manner their freedoms are provided for them. No, I can't think of a single person who has had a perfect past, but I wouldn't trade mine, or my heritage for anything. Semper Fi

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2017 10:55 AM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 10:55:06 -0500

No, I don't believe any of the bases should be renamed. They are important figures in our history. Yes they may have been part of the confederate but they were specifically chosen for their prowess as generals in a hard fought war.

I also disagree with the removing the confederate flag in the south because it is a historic part of that country. History is there to remind us what happened, and to help us not repeat it. Removing pieces of history will inevitably lead to history repeating itself. Look at what is going on over in Germany right now. There are political parties fighting to become a police state again because they refuse to acknowledge the past.

Response by CDR David Spoerl made Jan 5 at 2017 11:29 AM

CDR David Spoerl — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:29:54 -0500

Absolutely not! These proud leaders did what their civilian leaders asked them to do. This question is too PC.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2017 4:28 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:28:33 -0500

Yes, no doubt about it. its our history and changing the names would be like trying to throw it away. Our country's history defines us as a nation. The moment we forget our history is the the moment we are truly lost.

Response by 1SG Darren James made Jan 12 at 2017 5:39 AM

1SG Darren James — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 05:39:42 -0500

No. They're already named, have history (and most cases, pride) established behind their names, and it is what it is.

Response by SrA James Cannon made Jan 19 at 2017 1:20 PM

SrA James Cannon — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:20:32 -0500

In my opinion, no, they should not be renamed. Whether we agree or disagree with what these guys fought for, they were before the Civil War considered to be U.S. veterans. Some of you call them traitors, which I say is a misguided characterization. Most if not all of them were pardoned after the war, which legally erases their crime (perceived or real). The U.S. Congress declared Confederate Veterans to be American veterans on equal footing with Union veterans, in 1958. I see nothing wrong with us naming our bases after men who are still considered to be our veterans.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 23 at 2017 9:45 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:45:07 -0500

No, they were military heroes whose accomplishments warranted a facility being named in their honor. That naming happened a lot closer to the Civil War than 2017. It didn't bother anyone when it happened, so why should todays PC obsessed environment have any role in changing the names?

Response by Pmc Mcb made Jan 23 at 2017 10:09 AM

Pmc Mcb — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:09:40 -0500

NO. They should Not be renamed. That would be like saying every Rd, Library, etc. with MLK on it should be changed because someone might not like That part of History.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jan 23 at 2017 12:20 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:20:02 -0500

Leave it be.

Response by GySgt Melissa Gravila made Jan 23 at 2017 1:21 PM

GySgt Melissa Gravila — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:21:55 -0500

IMO- we need to stop this downward spiral we are on as a country, stop going down this "rabbit hole" and be proud of our country's history- all of it the good, bad, and ugly. It is all of that history that has shaped and molded us- to try to erase part of our history is to do a disservice to future generations, dooming them to repeat it. In order to learn from our mistakes, and celebrate our victories, we have to remember and memorialize them all.

Just my $.02
Semper Fi

Response by SSG William Jones made Jan 23 at 2017 1:26 PM

SSG William Jones — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:26:40 -0500

Absolutely NOT!!! Each and every one of these men were brave AMERICAN soldiers. If we're supposed to be "color blind" concerning black & white, then let's not discriminate between blue and gray!

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jan 23 at 2017 1:59 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:59:42 -0500

No. I know Liberals like to rewrite History. This wasn't a problem before and now they are?

Response by PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM made Jan 23 at 2017 2:07 PM

PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:07:48 -0500

Query me this? Is it lawful to name a military establishment after an American veteran? Well everyone will readily say yes to that question. Well then consider this.
U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958, states that every Confederate veteran was to be considered a Veteran of the United States of America. It started out by addressing the Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval forces of the United States. This also applied to surviving spouses. This also followed to be applied to Judicial judgements where Confederate Monuments and Graves were also to be considered the same as National Monuments and raves of all American veterans and be protected accordingly.

So now with that bit of information, the question is actually quite moot. It makes no difference whether a General, Admiral, Soldier or Sailor has done something significant or honorable to have a base, station or ship named after them. The USS Robert E. Lee, USS Stonewall Jackson, USS Dixon, and USS Hunley were Good Ships!! but the past Secretary of the Navy was too PC to use those names again...

Response by MSgt Carl Stokes made Jan 23 at 2017 6:27 PM

MSgt Carl Stokes — Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:27:13 -0500

ALL AMERICANS PERIOD.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 10:17 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:17:30 -0500

All these bases are in the south and, notice bases are named from generals for their location. If you notice the names of Ft Drum, Camp Eathan Allen (VT NG), Ft Sill, Ft Lewis and Ft Hamilton are named after other US generals. It just so happens the majority of the major Army bases are in the south. This just happens to how the military names bases. People didn't think of the future PC culture back then on naming bases.

Response by CSM Curt Tipton made Jan 26 at 2017 12:08 PM

CSM Curt Tipton — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:08:30 -0500

By law, Confederate veterans ARE American Veterans.

Federal Laws Pertaining to Confederate Veterans
Confederate Veterans are American Veterans.... By Law
The United States Government Honors Confederate Veterans and the Confederacy.
For those who believe that the Confederate States of America and the men and women who pledged allegiance to that constitutionally established government and spilled their blood and treasure in its defense are somehow illegitimate and not worthy of honor and protection by the American government, below are those laws and proclamations honoring them and their service and which proclaim that they were equal in honor and worthiness to those who served the Federal cause. Such official proclamations by the Government of the United States removes all claims against the Confederacy and those who served it and protects, defends and honors their symbols, monuments and heroes. In other words, the current assault upon all things Confederate is contrary to the laws of the United States of America and must be resisted vigorously.
Congressional Act of 9 March 1906 ~ We Honor Our Fallen Ancestors
(P.L. 38, 59th Congress, Chap. 631-34 Stat. 56)
This act authorized the furnishing of headstones for the graves of Confederates who died, primarily in Union prison camps and were buried in Federal cemeteries. Remarks: This act formally reaffirmed Confederate soldiers as military combatants with legal standing. It granted recognition to deceased Confederate soldiers commensurate with the status of deceased Union soldiers.
U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929
(45 Stat 1307 - Currently on the books as 38 U.S. Code, Sec. 2306)
This law, passed by the U.S. Congress, authorized the "Secretary of War to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and to direct him to preserve in the records of the War Department the names and places of burial of all soldiers for whom such headstones shall have been erected."
Remarks: This act broadened the scope of recognition further for all Confederate soldiers to receive burial benefits equivalent to Union soldiers. It authorized the use of U.S. government (public) funds to mark Confederate graves and record their locations.
U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958
Confederate Iron Cross (US Statutes at Large Volume 72, Part 1, Page 133-134)
The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval forces of the United States.
Remarks: While this was only a gesture since the last Confederate veteran died in 1958, it is meaningful in that only fifty-seven years ago, the Congress of the United States saw fit to consider Confederate soldiers as equivalent to U.S. soldiers for service benefits. This final act of reconciliation was made almost one hundred years after the beginning of the war and was meant as symbolism more than substantive reward.
Additional Note of Critical History: Under current U.S. Federal Code, Confederate Veterans are equivalent to Union Veterans.
This reconciliation period[*] led up to the Congressional Act of 9 March 1906, U.S. Public Law 810 Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929, and the final crown of reconciliation with U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958. [*known as The Grand Bargain~ Editor]
By the President of the United States of America ~
A Proclamation
The years 1961 to 1965 will mark the one-hundredth anniversary of the American Civil War.
That war was America's most tragic experience. But like most truly great tragedies, it carries with it an enduring lesson and a profound inspiration. It was a demonstration of heroism and sacrifice by men and women of both sides who valued principle above life itself and whose devotion to duty is a part of our Nation's noblest tradition.
Both sections of our now magnificently reunited country sent into their armies men who became soldiers as good as any who ever fought under any flag. Military history records nothing finer than the courage and spirit displayed at such battles as Chickamauga, Antietam, Kennesaw Mountain, and Gettysburg. That America could produce men so valiant and so enduring is a matter for deep and abiding pride.
The same spirit on the part of the people at home supported and strengthened those soldiers through four years of great trial. That a Nation which contained hardly more than thirty million people, North and South together, could sustain six hundred thousand deaths without faltering is a lasting testimonial to something unconquerable in the American spirit. And that a transcending sense of unity and larger common purpose could, in the end, cause the men and women who had suffered so greatly to close ranks once the contest ended and to go on together to build a greater, freer, and happier America must be a source of inspiration as long as our country may last.
By a joint resolution approved on September 7, 1957 (71 Stat. 626), the Congress established the Civil War Centennial Commission to prepare plans and programs for the nationwide observances of the one-hundredth anniversary of the Civil War, and requested the President to issue proclamations inviting the people of the United States to participate in those observances.
Now, Therefore, I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby invite all of the people of our country to take a direct and active part in the Centennial of the Civil War.
I request all units and agencies of government--Federal, State, and local--and their officials to encourage, foster, and participate in Centennial observances. And I especially urge our Nation's schools and colleges, its libraries and museums, its churches and religious bodies, its civic, service, and patriotic organizations, its learned and professional societies, its arts, sciences, and industries, and its informational media, to plan and carry out their own appropriate Centennial observances during the years 1961 to 1965; all to the end of enriching our knowledge and appreciation of this momentous chapter in our Nation's history and of making this memorable period truly a Centennial for all Americans.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
DONE at the City of Washington this sixth day of December in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-fifth.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
By the President:
CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, Secretary of State

Sign in|Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|Print

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2017 9:05 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 21:05:33 -0500

They where some of the the greatest military officers of the US Army ever produced.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2017 6:56 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 06:56:23 -0500

They are part of your history. I do not see a compelling reason to change the names.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2017 12:17 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:17:14 -0500

What would Lincoln do?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2017 8:07 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:07:44 -0500

SGM Matthew Quick There are a lot of assumptions in some of the responses below. What if we check history and see what we find?

Let's start with the Declaration of Independence. It was the bill of charges against Great Britain and provided the legal justification for secession. Force of arms may have made it stick, but without the Declaration, we would just be traitors who won their war.

From the conclusion, "... That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Note the Colonies are declared to be free and independent states. Further note that Great Britain is also called a state. So state and nation were interchangeable at that time. Further note that each state had full powers to, "levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Like Daniel Webster, James Wilson, and Joseph Story before him, Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence was a founding document of the United States, and that this had important implications for interpreting the Constitution, which had been ratified more than a decade after the Declaration.
"Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865): Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas 1897". Bartleby. p. 415.

Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

The current oath of enlistment states, "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)."

What can we conclude from this?

1) That from 1775 until the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865, the states were independent countries bound together in a confederation, not a single nation.
2) The later two oaths are to support and defend the Constitution, not the federal government. Among other thing, the Constitution includes the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment (1791) was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment states that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles or in subsequent constitutional amendments. Any power not listed is, says the Tenth Amendment, left to the states or the people. While there is no specific list of what these "reserved powers" may be, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations, commerce that occurs within a state's own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.
3) The first oath given above specified that it was attached to the office appointed. If someone chose to resign from the office, that oath no longer held.

Robert E Lee was offered command of the combined Union armies, but turned it down because he could not raise his sword against Virginia (his nation.)

The anti-federalist were worried about the overreaching power of a federal government. The Bill of Rights was necessary to get 4 states (including New York) to ratify the Constitution.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution. That includes the Tenth Amendment, which has been violated numerous times, especially since 1865. That doesn't mean I have to take up arms to rectify that, but I can continue to lobby for states rights and limited federal government, and honor those who fought for the same. Oddly enough, the recent election switched things in these areas. Liberals and especially Californians are suddenly interested in states rights and limited federal government, and for the first time in history, think Russia is bad.

I know there are people who insist that the Civil War was ONLY about slavery. Haters on both sides forced the confrontation, in part because they hated so much that they didn't care how much blood was spilled. I do think that if people knew that over 600,000 people would lose their lives in the war, we would have found a better solution. Slavery is grossly uneconomical in an industrialized society. Just a small investment in cotton gins and mechanical reapers would have demonstrated this, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Anyone who thinks the North had all right and justice on their side needs to remember the 3/5th compromise. At that time taxation and representation were both based on population. The North wanted slaves to count as men for taxation and as livestock for voting, and the South vice versa. The compromise counted Blacks as 3/5ths of a person for both.

Further, when I was growing up, the racial problems in Boston exceeded those in Alabama by an order of magnitude.

No scummy, self-satisfied, disrespectful, hateful, son of a bitch can label me a traitor. You disgrace your oath, your military bearing, and the uniform by such statements. But I guess haters just got to hate.

Response by SCPO Ysmael Ramos made Jun 26 at 2017 2:36 PM

SCPO Ysmael Ramos — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:36:52 -0400

Of course. It was American History. Why should anyone be held accountable for those years of the war between the states. We all here presently were not there. Let it be.

Response by SN Earl Robinson made Sep 8 at 2017 6:40 PM

SN Earl Robinson — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:40:03 -0400

Yes and while we are at it why don't we have Israel put name military bases after Hitler and Georing. As a matter if fact lets ask the United Kingdom to rename a base after Lord Haw Haw. Hmmm, and since we are going there why not rename Pearl Harbor naval base after Admiral Yamamoto! Oh lets not forget to rename the Gerald Ford Aircraft Carrier the Hirohito! Does that cover it??????

Response by SN Earl Robinson made Sep 8 at 2017 6:57 PM

SN Earl Robinson — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:57:52 -0400

It is really amazing what some on this site will throw against the wall to see if it sticks as a justification for racism. I see all these different people trying to say these Confederate Officers were of Americans that honored our constitution. But not matter how much lipstick you put on it you're still kissing a pig. This is not about the liberal media or some far fetched leftist conspiracy. This is about racism plain and simple. There should only be one place for monuments to these men. It isn't military base names, or federal/municipal buildings. The only place any monuments to these men should be is in confederate cemeteries where they can stand over the graves of the men they led to their deaths.

Think about it for a minute. The only these fitting monuments to these men should be to the men they murdered. Anything short of that is a bad joke. Personally I think every last one of the monuments should be melted down and taken to the Laurentian Abyssal and dropped to the deepest place on earth so even them metal they were made from is never seen again by man. BUT, we are in America where we can say what we want without reprisal.

But back to the original question.......F#^K NO! rename all the bases for Union Generals that defended our Union not traitors who would tear it asunder.

Also I would do not want to erase southern history but I don't think treason by some should be glorified or held as a badge of honor anymore than we should honor Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin. The funny thing is the confederacy lost the majority of the battles and almost always had more casualties in the battles so tell me again what was so great about them?????? Thats like me telling someone "hey those guys are shooting at me go get them" when I started the fight! And then my distant cousin in 2056 decides to put a statue of me up to show the world how stupid the guy who went and got shot for me starting a fight was. I'm just saying.

Its not heritage, it just hate. So own it!

Response by SP5 Peter Keane made Sep 8 at 2017 7:17 PM

SP5 Peter Keane — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 19:17:45 -0400

Reading through 2years worth, I believe RP should have started with a trigger warning for this one.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2020 6:54 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:54:07 -0500

2-2020 Updates: Good for the Army. Why should any Americans sacrifice any of our history for the flaming virtue-signaling hypocritic Left? >:{
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/28/army-doesnt-plan-renaming-10-installations-named-confederate-leaders.html

The Army Doesn't Plan On Renaming 10 Installations Named for Confederate Leaders

The Army says it does not plan to rename its bases and facilities that were long ago named after Confederate leaders.

Response by PO1 Richard Mecom made Jun 11 at 2020 5:09 PM

PO1 Richard Mecom — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:09:49 -0400

No...but I would consider Fort Cupcake....and they can get on base with their TIME OUT CARD

Response by SFC James Cameron made Jun 12 at 2020 12:01 AM

SFC James Cameron — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:01:36 -0400

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia seems to be the only fragment that draws attention and I get it, but it’s wasn’t the standard of the Confederacy. It’s just the most easily recognizable.

A vast majority of the Generals mentioned had long and successful careers in the Army before secession. Lee was instrumental to the victory at the Battle of Chapultepec which is still part of the heraldry of the Marine Corps. His reputation was so great that he was asked by Lincoln to command the Federal Army. Those aren’t small achievements.
Another astonishing thing is that the same people piping and squawking about installation names couldn’t tell you anything about the War Between the States beyond Lee, slavery, Lincoln, Gettysburg and maybe Appomattox. So words like Shiloh, Chickamaugua, and Chancellorsville mean nothing to them but have significance to Unit Heraldry today. They also won’t acknowledge that Lincoln was very explicit concerning the difference between actions to preserve the Union versus the abolition of the institution of slavery. The war up until 1863 was about the preservation of the Union.
If we continue to deny history, we can look forward to having those that deny it happened. It only took some Germans a generation to begin to claim their atrocities never happened.

Response by PO1 Richard Mecom made Jun 12 at 2020 8:19 AM

PO1 Richard Mecom — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:19:04 -0400

No leave alone......move forward

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2020 8:19 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Dec 2020 08:19:13 -0500

Yes. Who else names places of honor after defeated military enemies?