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
2
2
0
Absolutely not. If we let "them" get away with this, there is no telling to where it will lead.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
This PC idiocy is as bad in the US as it is here in Spain. All the idiot leftists don't want to admit that they lost the Spanish Civil War so they are now trying to rename all the streets that were named after the winning generals (and other officers and NCOs) of the civil war.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGM (Join to see) - Defense of your home should not be considered treason. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I can't agree with the fact that he wasn't and this is where I think we fell short; to me any and all officers from the Union that resigned their commissions to take up the profession of arms for the South were traitors. But this IS our history; right, wrong or indifferent. We cannot change it, but like we are doing we CAN/SHOULD discuss it, and not as a "victor" or "looser", but as fellow Americans. In fact this should be taken seriously but in a lighthearted manner; everyone learns something in the end.
I can't agree with the fact that he wasn't and this is where I think we fell short; to me any and all officers from the Union that resigned their commissions to take up the profession of arms for the South were traitors. But this IS our history; right, wrong or indifferent. We cannot change it, but like we are doing we CAN/SHOULD discuss it, and not as a "victor" or "looser", but as fellow Americans. In fact this should be taken seriously but in a lighthearted manner; everyone learns something in the end.
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGM (Join to see) - This is just MY opinion on him, he should feel the wrath of the UCMJ with extreme prejudice. In a peaceful manner if one wanted to denounce his/her citizenship for what they think is better, then what you said is the correct manner for dealing with them. But if they are in the military, sorry. Better wait until your enlistment is up or resign that commission.
This is just my opinion again, but the battle flag represents oppression, regression, and some of the darkest days of US history. It represents beatings, misinformation spread through religion (that is repeated today except they are called terrorists in some cases), destruction of families, black, white, and brown, atrocities, and a time where one man could and did give a price for another. Where racism was an acceptable practice, and even though freedom was given, laws were made to keep those given freedom at the levels they were before. Where wholesale killing, lynching, and beating of minorities was a day to day operation. All of that is fact. Now those words by those politicians are still used today by those who want a divided nation; a segregated nation or one where the minority "knows it's place", and "who's in charge". You could argue that it's been perverted by the KKK and other separatist groups, but has it? Is that flag just what I described and what they say it is? That is a matter of opinion and for the individual to decide.
I honestly cannot tell you where the outrage is. I see it; maybe because I've seen it personally in Korea, and read/watched documentaries on the rest? Maybe after watching it, I'm more sensitive to it?
Again you're correct that the way we see things now might've been different then. Have to concede that point. Another reason to agree with it is that the training my father went through when he was in the Army is "supposed" to be the same as the training I got when I came in. Fundamentally it is, but overall it's not. Same yet different Army.
SGM, I respect your view on the battle flag. You said it means something to you. To me it means something different. Like we've said before, folks who have these dissenting views need to talk about them. The only way forward is to learn from the past; but not live in it. I still say it's "all or none". In regards to the LGBT, I have no issue with them flying their flags....but not on ANY state or federal buildings. I'm happy they finally found justice though. Now on to the next pressing issue. But in the end NO FLAG should waive higher than "ol Glory" herself. And that I'm not flexible on.
This is just my opinion again, but the battle flag represents oppression, regression, and some of the darkest days of US history. It represents beatings, misinformation spread through religion (that is repeated today except they are called terrorists in some cases), destruction of families, black, white, and brown, atrocities, and a time where one man could and did give a price for another. Where racism was an acceptable practice, and even though freedom was given, laws were made to keep those given freedom at the levels they were before. Where wholesale killing, lynching, and beating of minorities was a day to day operation. All of that is fact. Now those words by those politicians are still used today by those who want a divided nation; a segregated nation or one where the minority "knows it's place", and "who's in charge". You could argue that it's been perverted by the KKK and other separatist groups, but has it? Is that flag just what I described and what they say it is? That is a matter of opinion and for the individual to decide.
I honestly cannot tell you where the outrage is. I see it; maybe because I've seen it personally in Korea, and read/watched documentaries on the rest? Maybe after watching it, I'm more sensitive to it?
Again you're correct that the way we see things now might've been different then. Have to concede that point. Another reason to agree with it is that the training my father went through when he was in the Army is "supposed" to be the same as the training I got when I came in. Fundamentally it is, but overall it's not. Same yet different Army.
SGM, I respect your view on the battle flag. You said it means something to you. To me it means something different. Like we've said before, folks who have these dissenting views need to talk about them. The only way forward is to learn from the past; but not live in it. I still say it's "all or none". In regards to the LGBT, I have no issue with them flying their flags....but not on ANY state or federal buildings. I'm happy they finally found justice though. Now on to the next pressing issue. But in the end NO FLAG should waive higher than "ol Glory" herself. And that I'm not flexible on.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan, I've never been to Korea, so I can't say what the outrage over slavery is there. But I can say there's a distinct lack of outrage here, and that what always makes me feel like outrage over the battle flag is artificial, made up, and a way of pretending someone else's concerns are unimportant. As long as there are people who think their cause should be respected and some else's cause doesn't deserve the same respect, this problem is going to continue.
I will never wave the flag in your face, because I don't deliberately provoke anyone and I respect people - at least until they prove they are not worthy of respect. But symbols have power, and what is a good symbol to one is an evil symbol to another. I can no more prevent they KKK from perverting a symbol I respect than I could have prevented the Nazis from perverting a Chinese symbol for good luck (the Swastika.)
But I am pleased that you and I can agree on so much. Even Bergdahl - it wouldn't bother me if he was cut up for fish bait an inch at a time. He's scum - not as much (to me) because he was a traitor, but because he didn't consider the lives that would be lost on account of him. That's my complaint about Bergdahl - good men lost their lives because he was an idiot. What I most don't want to see is Bergdahl draw 5 years of back pay, plus a medical discharge and permanent disability payments. To the person who thinks that is fair, I just might wave the Battle Flag!
I will never wave the flag in your face, because I don't deliberately provoke anyone and I respect people - at least until they prove they are not worthy of respect. But symbols have power, and what is a good symbol to one is an evil symbol to another. I can no more prevent they KKK from perverting a symbol I respect than I could have prevented the Nazis from perverting a Chinese symbol for good luck (the Swastika.)
But I am pleased that you and I can agree on so much. Even Bergdahl - it wouldn't bother me if he was cut up for fish bait an inch at a time. He's scum - not as much (to me) because he was a traitor, but because he didn't consider the lives that would be lost on account of him. That's my complaint about Bergdahl - good men lost their lives because he was an idiot. What I most don't want to see is Bergdahl draw 5 years of back pay, plus a medical discharge and permanent disability payments. To the person who thinks that is fair, I just might wave the Battle Flag!
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SGM (Join to see) - If anyone thinks that's fair, I hope you bless them MANY times over with it!!! I'm sure you won't have a shortage of volunteers to help you do it either....race immaterial.
You didn't miss a DAMN thing not going to Korea lol.
I think we can agree on many points because we are willing and open to discussion. We are both willing to respect the others viewpoint as a valid point even if we don't completely agree, and want the overall same thing; a stronger union of our country. If anyone doesn't want that, maybe they need to take a trip to a foreign country and stay there. It's been a pleasure SGM!
You didn't miss a DAMN thing not going to Korea lol.
I think we can agree on many points because we are willing and open to discussion. We are both willing to respect the others viewpoint as a valid point even if we don't completely agree, and want the overall same thing; a stronger union of our country. If anyone doesn't want that, maybe they need to take a trip to a foreign country and stay there. It's been a pleasure SGM!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Bases should NOT be renamed. These men shaped our country. What needs to happen is that the ignorant need to be educated.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SGT Christopher Hamman
General Douglas MacArthur has a junior high school named after him in my hometown of Jonesboro, Arkansas. It's not a fort, to be sure, but small-scale wars are fought there between teachers and students on a daily basis.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google