Should US military bases named after Confederates be renamed?

To be fair, Gettysburg is only 15 miles north of the Mason Dixon Line, so "campaigning throughout Pennsylvania" may not be an entirely accurate description.

Gettysburg wasn't the first stop, and Maryland was not allowed to secede.

Written tongue in cheek, I'm hoping.

Yes

SrA James Cannon - No they were not trying to move. Moving means leaving and going to a different country. They tried to take US lands, even fired shots at US bases. With their creation of the Confederacy they instantly became traitors.

Wow, glad to see that liberal public rewrite of history going on.

MAJ (Join to see) - Wow, glad to see people are still racist enough to see what they did worthy of being celebrated and memorialized. Glad to see that a crime that is punishable by death is being rewarded with Installations being named after them.

What would Lincoln have done?

MSgt J D McKee - Slavery in and of it self was not the issue, the problem is the systematic enslavement of blacks, the institution of making ALL blacks slaves. You bring up Anthony Johnson, what you fail to mention is the systematic stripping of his lands and property because negroes could not pass property on to their ancestors. So everything he worked for was taken and sold. Systematically denying blacks the right to education, denying even free blacks basic rights. Slavery was an institution was worldwide but not on the level it was on in the Americas. Beating, raping, killing and separating families was never part of slavery until it came to the US and we continue to glorify these animals who were willing to fight and possibly lose their lives to keep people enslaved. Sad thing is it has never stopped, read the 13th amendment carefully.... It freed the slaves but read it closely, it allows taking another mans freedom in punishment of a crime. Conveniently petty crimes committed by blacks were punished by chain gang work. Did you know being homeless was a "crime" punishable by prison once Slavery ended?

Sure, and vagrancy laws are still on the books in many jurisdictions. I also take your point of removing the generational pass down of wealth. My point was that "everyone treated everyone else like shit" and that it was a long time ago. I do think we concentrate too much on PC crap and not enough on the actual harm that is still occurring.

You say slavery separates families,and I will substitute "punishment" for "beating" below to make my point. Slavery, because it turns people into property, also makes it incumbent on the "owner" to provide for the "property", at least for basic survival needs. The owner derives some material profit from this association.

I believe we still have a version of slavery. The prison system, because of various inequities but mainly the war on drugs where drugs of choice for black people are more heavily punished than drugs of choice for white people, imprisons far more by percentage of population of black than white. This separates families, and makes it incumbent on the state to support both the prisoner, and the family, placing the state in the position of "owner". It also makes it almost impossible to break out of the system once in it, who will hire an ex-con? Not the military, for sure. The prison system has become a business, with prisons in many states being run only by contractors, who make a huge profit. This is, to my mind, not even legal, the government has the right to imprison and punish, and when this is turned into a for-profit business, it's just wrong. You mentioned the removal of generational pass-down of wealth, there is no direct equivalent of that extant today, but, I would submit that the laws that allow confiscation of homes, cars, property, and money used in drug transactions would make a damn good substitute.

I believe a great percentage of the black population of the US is still in a version of slavery, and it benefits neither black people or white people.

My argument is this: Slavery punishes the slave, enriches the owner, separates families, requires the owner to provide for the slave at least minimum subsistence. It also degrades all concerned. How is this different to what is happening in the US today? We have simply substituted public for private ownership. This is not the doing of dead Confederate generals, and is no more the fault of the South than of any other part of the country, for that matter. And, I don't believe it is a vast conspiracy, it's just "animals" doing what "animals" do best, dominating whomever they can to their own profit.

This has gone a long way from the original discussion, but on the original point, for many reasons I still don't think it is ever right to rewrite history.

MSgt J D McKee - Unfortunately history is always rewritten, the only problem it is thought of to be the truth. For example Gen De Lafayette defeated Gen Cornwallis and Benedict Arnold, but history forgot to mention the role of James Amistad in his defeat.

History is generally inaccurate, that don't mean the parts that exist should be made subject to a "do-over". But, also, history is generally written by the winners of any war. The people in control of naming bases after the civil war were the winners. I have no idea really why they would name bases after their former foes, that would be like Rammstein AFB being called "Goering AFB". I just don't think we should ever, for any reason, rename stuff out of political correctness.

Uuuuh no

Cpl Clinton Britt 'em's just jokes, my brother!!!! Hope you are well!!!!!

SSG Buddy Kemper - yes, I am doing well. Hope that you are