What suggestions do you have for renaming DoD installations honoring Confederate officers?

LTC Stephen F. Afraid I have to part company with you on this, Br'er Stephen, but in my extensive study of the Civil War, it is clear that slavery was the root cause of the war. Scratch away at every explanation for the war's causes and it always leads back to slavery as the root.

I posted a more detailed historical analysis under my own response, including the 1st War with the Barbary pirates which included efforts to free American sailors who had been enslaved (2) Maryland, and other northern states has slavery throughout the war - Baltimore, Maryland rioted because northern soldiers went by train through their state - Baltimore supported slavery. MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
I studied the US Civil War extensively before I was a USMA cadet where we formally studied the Civil War. The redistribution of slaves within the USA after Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1833 was a symptom of the times.
Most southerners - especially those who fought were not slave owners.
The only people opposed to slavery were the abolitionists. Most northerners did not care about slaves. In 1863 Blacks were lynched in New York City after democrats spread the news that the sons of New York were dying to free the slaves, etc.
By God's grace, the over


Image: 1863-07-14 The lynching of a negro in the New York Draft Riots
C. Tuesday, July 14, 1863: Draft Riots continued in NY City. African Americans were murdered in the streets and city law enforcement agencies were unable to cope. Men from the Army of the Potomac were ordered to the city to restore law and order. After a night of heavy rain, rioters returned to the streets early on Tuesday, July 14, looting and destroying businesses in the downtown area, including a large Brooks Brothers’ store, which as a contractor for the U.S. government, had been churning out thousands of pieces of military garb for more than two years. The mob also began constructing barricades around the city that proved difficult for police to overcome. The targeted attacks on blacks intensified and included the lynching of at least two African-American men: a young sailor who had been attacked after speaking to a young white boy and a man who had been captured and killed while attempting to escape to Brooklyn (reportedly disguised in his wife’s clothing). Among the dead that day was Col. Henry O’Brien, the commander of a local regiment who had come to the aid of beleaguered policemen and been attacked and killed by the angry mob. As the violence continued to spread, New York politicians squabbled amongst themselves about how to bring order to the city. The Democratic governor, who had openly opposed the draft law before it went into effect, seemed reluctant to move forcefully against the demonstrators. The city’s Republican mayor, well aware of the shortage of available police officers, formally asked the War Department to send federal troops, but stopped short of declaring martial law and turning over control of the situation to federal officials.

NY City calls out the National Guard to confront the increasing wantonness and murders in the draft riot of 1863: Wednesday, July 15, 1863: “New York City draft riots: Attack on the Arch: A group of black-occupied tenements on Thompson and Sullivan streets, between Grand and Broome, was set ablaze at 1:30 am.
Rewarding rioters? The City Council voted $2.5 million to pay the $300 commutation fee for any poor New Yorkers who were drafted.
West Side atrocities: At 6:30 a.m., James Costello was beaten and hanged on W. 32nd St. Neighboring black families were driven out of their homes. A crippled coachman, Abraham Franklin, was lynched at 27th St. and 7th Ave. His body was cut down, and he was dragged through the streets … .
Out-of-town news: Reports arrived of draft riots in Boston, Hartford, Newark, Jersey City, Hastings, Tarrytown, and Rye.
Red Hook fires: Two huge grain elevators at Erie Basin in Brooklyn were destroyed by arsonists.”

You seem to think you are an expert on causation of events over 150 years ago CPT Chris McGowan. That is understandable. Your insulting somebody who has studied the Civil War for over a half a century is not.
You seem to be using current morality and attempts to simplify history. The better sources for researching history are primary documents letters, newspaper articles [Harper's Weekly, Richmond Daily Dispatch], and official documents of the CSA and USA from the time.
A. There are many factors which together which resulted in the revolution of the American colonies and 70 years later the Civil War.
(1) Federalist anti-federalist supporters debated states right.
(2) the British Slavery Abolition Act, (1833) abolished slavery in most British colonies, freeing more than 800,000 enslaved Africans in the Caribbean and South Africa as well as a small number in Canada. It received Royal Assent on August 28, 1833, and took effect on August 1, 1834. This act cut off the supply of slaves to the USA and resulted in slave auctions to redistribute slaves
(3) political and economic power struggles - Democratic-party dominated states insisted slavery was a state issue. Their influence was so extensive it lasted until 1864.
(4) Military officers wrestled with the decision to support separating form the union of states. Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Federal forces and turned it down as he resigned. His personal letters as well as those of Thomas Stonewall Jackson are great background.


B. Slavery was supported by most northern states as well as southern states. This was the impetus for the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska act which allowed settlers to choose slavery or no-slavery within their states borders [al each subsequent state admitted to the union]. The democrat party supported slavery and was anti-choice on that issue.
Here is a section of the 1856 National Democratic Party platform. You will note that slavery was supported by the national democratic party in 1856 my friend MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
"Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.
1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850; "the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor," included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

4. That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold, the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799; that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import.

And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, North and South, to the Constitution and the Union—

1. Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue—and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the "slavery question" upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union—NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

2. That this was the basis of the compromises of 1850 confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in national Conventions—ratified by the people in the election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of Territories in 1854.

3. That by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to the organization of territories, and to the admission of new States, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect—the equal rights, of all the States will be preserved intact; the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate; and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future American State that may be constituted or annexed, with a republican form of government.

Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."

C. Federalism and anti-federalism factions debated vigorously throughout that period from 1760s to 1860's and beyond. The Federalist papers are well worth reading if you have not. the collection known as the anti-federalist papers is more loosely linked.
a. Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. l[aw.cornell.edu/wex/federalism] [Federal and state]
b. Anti-Federalists, in early U.S. history, a loose political coalition of popular politicians, such as Patrick Henry, who unsuccessfully opposed the strong central government envisioned in the U.S. Constitution of 1787 and whose agitations led to the addition of a Bill of Rights. [Britannica]
2. Slavery was an economic system [and still is in parts of the world] which also included indentured servants [early on]. Slavery flourished in Maryland and many other southern states through 1863.
a. 'the Kansas Nebraska act Officially titled "An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," this act repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had outlawed slavery above the 36º30' latitude in the Louisiana territories, and reopened the national struggle over slavery in the western territories. In January 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois introduced a bill that divided the land immediately west of Missouri into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska. He argued in favor of popular sovereignty, or the idea that the settlers of the new territories should decide if slavery would be legal there. Anti-slavery supporters were outraged because, under the terms of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery would have been outlawed in both territories since they were both north of the 36º30' N dividing line between "slave" and "free" states. [Background from milestone-documents/kansas-nebraska-act]
b. the Dred Scott case decision essentially was once a slave always a slave. No freemen or freewomen. Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott decision".
c. the Republican party was formed on March 20, 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin to expand federal authority in order to oppose slavery and polygamy.

FYI SSgt Robert MarxSSG Leo Bell Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. 'Bill' PriceCOL Lisandro Murphy LTC Greg Henning LTC Tom Jones

LTC Tom Jones - Great set of posts!

Exactly, CANCEL YOURSELF, NOT History!

We record history because we should do what is right to avoid making the same mistakes twice. Good or bad, it's history. Changing names will not change history.

In the long run it sure will. Changing the names is just the 1st step.....hide and watch.

Amen!!!

We all have our opinions. I believe time will tell. Whether you were for the South or the North history should remain unchanged. Who does it help when base names or changed or statues are torn down. America is a diverse county and the only thing will bring unity to our country is for people to learn to accept each as we are. God Bless America.

Maybe not the majority

Have any of you been to North Ft. Hood ?? I was there in 1989 and 1990 for Summer Camp and later in 1990 for Desert Shield and Desert Storm. There was an old train depot that was still standing there in 89, 90 and 91. I knew a guy that shipped out of that depot in 44 to go to Europe and was part of the invasion of France and eventually the walk (crawl) into Germany and the eventual freedom of Europe. My guess is it's gone by now but there was a huge wooden platform that was big enough to hole a battalion of troops. I can still see that platform etched into my brain.

There were several rail lines that ran into that train station and that huge platform. The tracks were gone but the remnants could be plainly seen from the air. I can only imagine just how many soldiers stood on the platform and took the ride that would take them into harms way and lands far away. I'm guessing it was used for Korea and Viet Nam as well. How many survived and how many never returned I will never know but I know they left from that big platform on North Ft. Hood and they were heroes one and all.

Changing the name is like the first step in erasing them from history. All in the name of political correctness. A correctness that could very well be redefined in a year, two years or maybe in a decade away. Ft. Hood needs to remain not just a name or a location but etched in history because of people like my dear departed friend who did his part to free Europe from the grips of a tyrant and his maniacal government. The name Ft. Hood Texas is a static reminder of all things good an honorable about America regardless of what the namesakes supposedly represented. So I really need to know, Who is the maniacal government now ?? Who wants to deprive those passed heroes of their Army heritage that some of us hold very dearly in our hearts. Who is the maniacal "government" that wants to destroy that now ??

SSgt Tracy Kawasaki - In 1936 the Majority of Germany wanted Hitler to lead them, did that make it right?

Amen sir ! Deo Vindice !

If I recall correctly, by act of Congress all Confederate veterans were to be treated the same as Union veterans

CW3 Matt Tait - No. Slavery was not the impetus for the Union's invasion. If it were, Lincoln would have issued the Emancipation Proclamation when he authorized the invasion, and in all the states, not just when he wanted to foment a slave rebellion in territories that were still fighting.
Preservation of Slavery may be why the politicians in the south seceded, no one is questioning that, HOWEVER, if Lincoln had abolition of the Slave as his main driving force, I would bet that 90% of the Union Army Volunteers that so eagerly joined to preserve the Union, along with a sizeable chunk of it's Officer Corps would have stayed home and fixed the toaster....Elsewise why did it take until the 1970s and 80s for Northern States (See attachments to the riots that the integration of the schools in Boston caused) to integrate their schools, a move that had been force fed to the South in the late 50s and 60s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qlylxu7wvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXfgXhz5Dkc

Nope, the North DID NOT on the whole fight to free anyone.

Ft. Lee could be even easier. Just rededicate it to Francis "Lightfoot" Lee; he was a contemporary of George Washington, and an ancestor of R. E. Lee. Easy-peasy. You don't even have to change the name on the signs.

Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis - That was also a suggestion for Fort Bragg. Edward S. Bragg was a Union General. My understanding is that the idea was not even considered by the renaming commission.