Panel unveils nine Army base name recommendations

SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA - 5 months and still no answer from you. Typical. Nada, nothing just ignore it.

1SG Russell S. - what is my answer? It's really simple, the Army (and Secretary of the Army) has the authority to name/rename military bases as they see fit. They set the policy for renaming, as it should be.
So with that said, this revisionist view that military bases are based "historically" is inaccurate. If you read the US Army factsheet about naming conventions you'd realize that those names had more to do with convenience, and geography. Nothing to do with "heritage", or "history".
Your completely extemporaneous quotation is not only not comparable with the renaming of a few Army bases, but showing how reductionist some views have become. Book quotes have no connection to unrelated modern circumstances.

1SG Russell S. - I don't know what you mean by typical. I have been offline for several months and I don't make checking RallyPoint the vane of my existence. Read my answer above. Have a good day.

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM - I lived through the Carter administration. He was a good person, but a terrible president. He led us into double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment. Because of him Americans were held hostage by Iran for more than a year. All of this is why he was only elected to serve one term and why Reagan won so easily.

CW3 (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) LTC John Griscom Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth SSG Steven Mangus CPT (Join to see) CWO4 Terrence Clark SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM LTC Trent Klug

In the future, if I get corrected for saying that I was at Fort McClellan for basic training, Fort Bragg North Carolina for civil affairs training and deployed to Afghanistan from Fort Hood, I'm going to tell them to sftu!

CW3 (Join to see) Why would I care what’s in the hearts & minds of traitors who created a bs country founded on their supposed right to continue slavery? It’s wholly irrelevant. They did what they did, & I don’t support naming anything after them.

You're missing the whole point of what I said. You saying you don't support naming anything after them is mute, as they are already named after them (for reasons I have stated which you still have not addressed to include the fact that Confederates by law are also American veterans) and that have since developed a history/legacy all their own far removed from the Civil War. It is a significant, unneeded cost to rename these bases now only to appease the feelings of those who will never be satisfied. There is no real point to this, it's a waste of money, time, & effort, and it erases the actual honored history of these bases which has nothing to do with the Civil War.

CW3 (Join to see) - All the bases named after confederates were in the states that seceded from the union. These bases were established in the southern states for logistical and training purposes. The government had to use imminent domain to obtain the land, which angered many property owners. To appease the southern people, the bases were named after confederates. Racism had nothing to do with it. Changing the names, taking down statutes and monuments to confederates isn't going to resolve racism. Do these things is nothing more than an attempt of appeasement. These things should have been left alone to serve as an example of what division in the country can result in - a civil war. We should learn from history, not attempt to change it.

Reparations will do nothing to resolve racism either. Nobody today has ever been a slave. Why should they get a check from the government which will do noting more than to cause division, increase the nation's debt to pay for it, and increase inflation. Paying reparations will do more harm than good.

I am sorry sir, but General Charles Lee was court martialed and dismissed from Continental Service for insubordination and conduct unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman in 1779. This conduct was directed at both his commanding generals and the Continental Congress.
The only fort named after him was Ft. Lee, NJ (during his lifetime).
Honestly sir, an installation of such recent founding as Ft. Lee, would have never been named after a disgraced general from the War of The Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lee_(general)

CPT (Join to see) - However, if you read the entire history (attached below) of General Lee he was insubordinate at the end to Washington and would have been found not guilty of two counts but if they did it would have not looked favorably on Washington, so they went with all counts. He fought valiantly in the Rev War and was a POW at one time. "Court martial-Even before the day was out, Lee was cast in the role of villain, and his vilification became an integral part of after-battle reports written by Washington's officers.[55] Lee continued in his post as second-in-command immediately after the battle, and it is likely that the issue would have simply subsided if he had let it go. On June 30, after protesting his innocence to all who would listen, Lee wrote an insolent letter to Washington in which he blamed "dirty earwigs" for turning Washington against him, claimed his decision to retreat had saved the day and pronounced Washington to be "guilty of an act of cruel injustice" towards him. Instead of the apology Lee was tactlessly seeking, Washington replied that the tone of Lee's letter was "highly improper" and that he would initiate an official inquiry into Lee's conduct. Lee's response demanding a court martial was again insolent, and Washington ordered his arrest and set about obliging him.

The court convened on July 4, 1778, and three charges were laid before Lee: disobeying orders in not attacking on the morning of the battle, contrary to "repeated instructions"; conducting an "unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat"; and disrespect towards the commander-in-chief. The trial concluded on August 12, 1778, and the accusations and counter-accusations continued to fly until the verdict was confirmed by Congress on December 5, 1778.[59] Lee's defense was articulate but fatally flawed by his efforts to turn it into a personal contest between himself and Washington. He denigrated the commander-in-chief's role in the battle, calling Washington's official account "from beginning to end a most abominable damn'd lie", and disingenuously cast his own decision to retreat as a "masterful manoeuvre" designed to lure the British onto the main body.[60] Washington remained aloof from the controversy, but his allies portrayed Lee as a traitor who had allowed the British to escape and linked him to the previous winter's alleged conspiracy against Washington.[61]

Although the first two charges proved to be dubious,[c] Lee was undeniably guilty of disrespect, and Washington was too powerful to cross.[65] As the historian John Shy noted, "Under the circumstances, an acquittal on the first two charges would have been a vote of no-confidence in Washington."[66] Lee was found guilty on all three counts, though the court deleted "shameful" from the second and noted the retreat was "disorderly" only "in some few instances." Lee was suspended from the army for a year, a sentence so lenient that some interpreted it as a vindication of all but the charge of disrespect.[67] Lee continued to argue his case and rage against Washington to anyone who would listen, prompting both Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, one of Washington's aides, and Steuben to challenge him to a duel.[68] Only the duel with Laurens actually transpired, during which Lee was wounded. In 1780, Lee sent such a poorly received letter to Congress that it terminated his service with the army."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lee_(general)

Sir,
I wasn't making a statement about whether he had been properly treated or not. My entire interest in the matter was to inform about the perceived character of his service and how it ended.
V/R
WCF+

CPT (Join to see) - Fair enough