US Military Bases named after Confederate Generals

[Archivist]

Because we're too the point where apparently the House believes all other problems are fixed and the President disagrees. This is an unnecessary and trivial issue. The cost of renaming these places alone is enough to oppose these efforts.

How is it trivial if Trump is using it as a reason to refuse to sign the bill? If it is so trivial he should just sign it.

 

[Redwingfan9]

How is it trivial if Trump is using it as a reason to refuse to sign the bill? If it is so trivial he should just sign it.

Changing names to suit modern preferences, no matter the preferences, is on its face trivial. We're $28 trillion in debt, the cost of changing names alone is reason to veto the changes.

 

[Archivist]

I thought Trump was the Christian's man, what did Trump do (reasons, Lutheran specific) to upset a Lutheran?

Since when are Christians required to support Trump? I've never been a Trump fan. He was the first GOP Presidential candidate for whom I did not vote.

Can you tell me when were these confederate named forts named, were they named by confederates and are they in confederate states?

They were named at different time depending on when they were established. That is an easy internet search. They were not named by Confederates. They are not in Confederate states because there are no such such states (the Confederates lost the war).

""We were allies with the UK in two world wars. What US bases are named after Howe or Clinton? Wouldn’t that have been good reconciliation to name bases after them?"" This is called "Denying the Antecedent", implying that because one thing is right, something else totally unrelated is also right.

Except they aren't "totally unrelated."

 

[Archivist]

Changing names to suit modern preferences, no matter the preferences, is on its face trivial. We're $28 trillion in debt, the cost of changing names alone is reason to veto the changes.

Try answering my question. If it is so trivial, why doesn't Trump sign the bill.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Try answering my question. If it is so trivial, why doesn't Trump sign the bill.

Because it isn't worth giving into trivial demands. This is a nonsense issue.

 

[friend of]

Shouldn't be changing the names of historic buildings and weapons

 

[Archivist]

Because it isn't worth giving into trivial demands. This is a nonsense issue.

In other words, you don't have an answer as to why Trump can't sign something so trivial.

 

[Archivist]

Shouldn't be changing the names of historic buildings and weapons

So West Point should go back to Fort Clinton?

 

[Redwingfan9]

In other words, you don't have an answer as to why Trump can't sign something so trivial.

To the contrary, you have provided no reason for him to sign something so trivial.

 

[Archivist]

To the contrary, you have provided no reason for him to sign something so trivial.

A little common sense here—what you a calling trivial is attached to the military spending bill. Unless a person is really stupid that alone--funding our armed forces--is reason to sign it.

 

[sparow]

mmm k



I don't know, maybe you should ask some of the black people who see those names as a continual, federally-backed stick in the eye, reminding them that they're still not quite as equal as the rest of us.

You seem more concerned with coddling the racist, seditionist sentiment that lies not-quite-so-dormant among the population than you do with respecting and assuaging some of the pain wrought by that racist, seditionist sentiment.



k. And that has what to do with anything?


No, I'm just that good.



By sedition, I'm referring to the rebellion against the federal government by the southern slave states.



That's nice. The south took up arms against the federal government. That's sedition.



No, it isn't. But either way, we're talking about the civil war, which was quite clearly racist in its motivations. So unless you want to argue that the confederacy wasn't built on racism, you probably want to leave that argument behind.



Again, so what?

I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?

 

[sparow]

mmm k



I don't know, maybe you should ask some of the black people who see those names as a continual, federally-backed stick in the eye, reminding them that they're still not quite as equal as the rest of us.

You seem more concerned with coddling the racist, seditionist sentiment that lies not-quite-so-dormant among the population than you do with respecting and assuaging some of the pain wrought by that racist, seditionist sentiment.



k. And that has what to do with anything?


No, I'm just that good.



By sedition, I'm referring to the rebellion against the federal government by the southern slave states.



That's nice. The south took up arms against the federal government. That's sedition.



No, it isn't. But either way, we're talking about the civil war, which was quite clearly racist in its motivations. So unless you want to argue that the confederacy wasn't built on racism, you probably want to leave that argument behind.



Again, so what?

I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?

 

[sparow]

mmm k



I don't know, maybe you should ask some of the black people who see those names as a continual, federally-backed stick in the eye, reminding them that they're still not quite as equal as the rest of us.

You seem more concerned with coddling the racist, seditionist sentiment that lies not-quite-so-dormant among the population than you do with respecting and assuaging some of the pain wrought by that racist, seditionist sentiment.



k. And that has what to do with anything?


No, I'm just that good.



By sedition, I'm referring to the rebellion against the federal government by the southern slave states.



That's nice. The south took up arms against the federal government. That's sedition.



No, it isn't. But either way, we're talking about the civil war, which was quite clearly racist in its motivations. So unless you want to argue that the confederacy wasn't built on racism, you probably want to leave that argument behind.



Again, so what?

I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?

I am not interested in exchanging insults with you. There was considerable segregation between black and white soldiers during the second world war



Quote. I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?[/QUOTE]



I believe it would be easier to find who was upset by the matter and they would be few in number.


10 Major Causes of the American Civil War | Learnodo Newtonic (learnodo-newtonic.com)

• A major concern in the construction of the new public buildings in the undeveloped Federal City was the acquisition of building materials, such as stone, lumber, bricks, hardware, and nails. Enslaved African-American quarrymen, sawyers, brick-makers, and carpenters fashioned raw materials into the products used to erect the White House. Enslaved people were trained on the spot at the government’s quarry at Aquia in Stafford County, Virginia, forty miles south of Washington. There, they quarried and cut the rough stone that was later dressed and laid by Scottish stonemasons to erect the walls of the President’s House.
  
  
• Over 200 known enslaved individuals labored to build the White House and the Capitol Building, and over 100 other known enslaved people worked in presidential households.
  

I am surprised the PC do not want to rename the White House the Black House.

 

[sparow]

Since when are Christians required to support Trump? I've never been a Trump fan. He was the first GOP Presidential candidate for whom I did not vote.



They were named at different time depending on when they were established. That is an easy internet search. They were not named by Confederates. They are not in Confederate states because there are no such such states (the Confederates lost the war).



Except they aren't "totally unrelated."

Christians are not required to support Politicians and do so at their own peril; but statistics that I have heard say that most Christians do support Trump.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's do a tiny little ethics quiz. You are provided with two choices:

Option 1) Causes harm to some people.
Option 2) Causes harm to absolutely no one.

Which of the two options is the most ethical?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sparow]

Let's do a tiny little ethics quiz. You are provided with two choices:

Option 1) Causes harm to some people.
Option 2) Causes harm to absolutely no one.

Which of the two options is the most ethical?

-CryptoLutheran

I think without context or specific application a solution is not possible; is God ethical; did God turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think without context or specific application a solution is not possible; is God ethical; did God turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?

Can you provide a theoretical context in which the question can't be answered simply? Keep in mind, the two options are:

1) Causes harm to some people.
2) Causes harm to absolutely no one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Renaming institutions or places in general is a hollow gesture. Often also costly and divisive, as this certainly would be as well - especially to Southerners that ascribe identity to it. That does not mean that the names in place should be left sacrosant. Naming something after someone is an act of honouring them or their ideals. The honours bestowed on former Confederate generals are mostly regarding regional Southern identity or myths of the Lost Cause, or more parochial local concerns. I haven't investigated enough, so I am sure some Jim Crow-style affairs are also to blame, but I don't think such intents are still active today.

So rather take a look at who is being honoured. In my admittedly outsider perspective, I see someone like RE Lee - who was reticent to join the Confederacy, only doing so from loyalty to his state; who urged reconciliation afterwards and applied for restoration of his civic standing; who personally opposed slavery; and who is clearly one of the best generals ever produced by the United States Army - and I can see why he would be suitable to be honoured in reconciliation and from the merits of good generalship. In like manner, Oliver Cromwell has a statue next to parliament, or how King Arthur was honoured by later English writers although he would have been their enemy. As Chesterton said, when removing a fence we should take note why it had been put up in the first place. Why do these deserve to be honoured?

If the honoured fails this test, as we no longer wish to honour what he represents, then they can be removed - but people should be smart about this. Rushing to change signage and so, is just silly window dressing. Look at Russia; where Leningrad reverted to St. Petersburg, but still surrounded by Leningrad oblast; or where red stars and double headed eagles both grace the Kremlin. Legacies aren't always all bad, and everyone has feet of clay, so you should emphasise what you are honouring. In South Africa they changed a lot of names, but a gradual approach is both cheaper and better - as on occasion signage needs to be updated, then just put the new name, but there is no reason to tear down all previous ones. For a long time we had dual road signs, with both the old name and the new, with just a small neat crossing out of the previous one.

From that list, I think Lee for his military acumen and Beauregard for his advocacy of black suffrage post-war as a reconciliatory figure, should be retained. It feels petty to me to remove them. I don't see why such concerns need to be dovetailed into defence spending bills, and such blanket renamings are usually just tit-for-tat politicking and appearing to address an issue while really doing nothing about it at all. If they seriously want to consider the matter, I think it should be done on an individual and gradual basis.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

If they seriously want to consider the matter, I think it should be done on an individual and gradual basis.

Sounds like the smart way of doing it.

 

[mindlight]

Trump vetoed the defense policy bill, something that rarely happens. One reason given for the veto was that it would have changed the names of bases named after Confederate military leaders. There are ten major bases named after Confederate generals: Camp Beauregard, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Hood, Fort Lee, Fort Pickett, Fort Polk and Fort Rucker.

Ironically several of these bases are named after men who were incompetent commanders.

The Army has not been the only service that has done this; several US Navy warships were also named after Confederate leaders. All of them have been decommissioned and are now out of service.

So, should US military bases be named after men who fought against the United States? Is Trump wrong to oppose renaming them?

BTW, the House has voted to override Trump's veto. The bill is now before the Senate.

Trump Lashes Out at GOP as Defense Bill Sets Up Rebuke in Senate

Why are Army bases named after Confederates? - The Washington Post

People confuse confederate naming with slavery and BLM have done a lot to marginalize confederate icons from the past for that reason. But the fundamental issue of the Civil War concerned the Union and that conflict has echoes in the tensions of today also. So I guess the deeper questions here are to do with the Unions relation to the States and how that should be respected:

Is the United States primarily a Union, in which case why have state governments at all, and why respect the historical dispositions of one state, or another, to alternate positions, to that of the dominant centralized one?

Is the United States a Union of States, with respect therefore for the unity and diversity implicit in that?

If the former, then there should be no confederate naming in the military. If the later, then the fundamental tension between Union and state governments should be reflected in the naming conventions used for ships and bases also.