Posted on Jun 22, 2015
Should US military bases named after Confederates be renamed?
190K
1.73K
755
66
66
0
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#
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#
Posted in these groups: 
Confederate Flag
Confederate Flag
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 282
3
3
0
No. Are you offended ... would you prefer they have the Muslim names of leaders killed or released from gitmo or what
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No. They're already named, have history (and most cases, pride) established behind their names, and it is what it is.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Then I expect you also support naming a base for Major General Benedict Arnold, hero of the American Revolution, who also turned traitor like Jackson and Bragg and Lee.
(0)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
CSM (Join to see) - Actually, check your facts, please. At the time, military officers took oaths to their states, not to the federal government. In this context, these officers were anything BUT traitors, unlike Arnold. Then, again, even Arnold had some valid arguments.
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Okay, fact checked. The original oath for all federal military officers from 1789 through 1862:
"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."
Source-http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
Even while at West Point, where some apologists for the traitors claim they swore allegiance to their respective states, it appears that the oath merely mentioned the state rather than binding the cadets to them. The 1857 version of the oath for West Point, for instance:
I, ______ of the State of _______ aged _____ years, ______ months, having been selected for an appointment as Cadet in the Military Academy of the United States, do hereby engage with the consent of my (Parent or Guardian) in the event of my receiving such appointment, that I will serve in the army of the United States for eight years, unless sooner discharged by competent authority. And I ____________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR [emphasis original], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them HONESTLY and FAITHFULLY [emphasis original], against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever; and that I will 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 of War."
Upon graduation, West Point cadets get sworn in as officers, in which case they would then take the federal officer's oath anyhow, even if they did feel bound to their states by the West Point oath.
"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."
Source-http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
Even while at West Point, where some apologists for the traitors claim they swore allegiance to their respective states, it appears that the oath merely mentioned the state rather than binding the cadets to them. The 1857 version of the oath for West Point, for instance:
I, ______ of the State of _______ aged _____ years, ______ months, having been selected for an appointment as Cadet in the Military Academy of the United States, do hereby engage with the consent of my (Parent or Guardian) in the event of my receiving such appointment, that I will serve in the army of the United States for eight years, unless sooner discharged by competent authority. And I ____________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR [emphasis original], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them HONESTLY and FAITHFULLY [emphasis original], against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever; and that I will 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 of War."
Upon graduation, West Point cadets get sworn in as officers, in which case they would then take the federal officer's oath anyhow, even if they did feel bound to their states by the West Point oath.
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
"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...
(0)
(0)
SrA James Cannon
The Confederates or most of them were pardoned, which legally erases their crime. Arnold was not pardoned. Some of the ex-Confederates such as Fighting Joe Wheeler actually fought again in the U.S. Army during the Spanish American War. Would you still consider him a traitor?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google