US Military Bases named after Confederate Generals

[sparow]

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

This seems to be a trick question. Ethics require a standard to comply or conform to; if the standard is the Law of God, then option one because the blood covenant is deadly for some. Option two describes the bulk of Christianity, Lawless and doing no harm. If the Law is the standard then option 1 is the more ethical; if the Law of God is not the standard and in the absence of a nominated standard, there can be no ethic. According to the Law of God and option1 kidnaped slavery is unethical; however in Lawless option 2 with no definable standard slavery does not break any Law.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Most Christians? Proof of that please. Trump did well among white Evangelical Christians, but that isn't "most Christians."

 

[grasping the after wind]

What is now USS Yorktown, CV 10, was supposed to have been named USS Bonhomme Richard. She was renamed USS Yorktown while she was building. Nobody hated the original name, they later gave that name to another carrier.

West Point was originally Fort Clinton. Using your reasoning we should go back to that.

Please explain why the US should have forts named after men who fought against the US?

The reason that these particular name changes are being proposed is because there are people that hate the men they were named after based upon their participation in a war on the side that was defending the reprehensible practice of slavery. There is nothing less than reasonable about recognizing that as a fact. As I did not name those forts, nor was I consulted on the matter, I can't tell you why they were named what they were named. Perhaps you know why they were named after those people and could tell me? Is there something about why those forts were named after those people that might make me change my mind about the reason they are proposed to be renamed?

 

[grasping the after wind]

These names will still be very much a part of history. No one is suggesting that we edit them out of history books. But explain to me why their names should be on US forts when they were traitors.

According to the US government, they were not traitors. They were not tried for treason. They were not convicted of treason, therefore they were not traitors. They were enemy combatants fighting for the CSA. The question one should be asking is "why should the names of CSA enemy combatants be on US forts?". They were fighting for what they considered to be their country. The US government recognized that about them even though the US government disagreed with their belief and did not try them for treason.

 

[Archivist]

The reason that these particular name changes are being proposed is because there are people that hate the men they were named after based upon their participation in a war on the side that was defending the reprehensible practice of slavery.

You keep using the term hate. I don't think that applies in many of these cases. I have not heard anyone say that they "hate" Robert E. Lee. They just want his name taken off a military base and statues of him removed. Lee would have agreed with them--he didn't want any of that. I do know of people who would say that they hate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, but that is because he was a slave trader and the 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK. Fortunately there are no bases named after him.

There is nothing less than reasonable about recognizing that as a fact. As I did not name those forts, nor was I consulted on the matter, I can't tell you why they were named what they were named. Perhaps you know why they were named after those people and could tell me? Is there something about why those forts were named after those people that might make me change my mind about the reason they are proposed to be renamed?

An easy Google search brings up all sorts of material such as this article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/10/trump-confederate-bases/. The bases were established during the First and Second World Wars and were named to gain southern support.

Two points that no one has responded to in this thread. First, these men were traitors. They fought against the United States. Why should they be honored with forts? Second, some of these men were absolutely incompetent generals. Why would we name forts after them? We don't have a Fort Gates named after the Revolutionary War general who lost the Battle of Camden or a Fort Fredendall named after the incompetent World War II general. Why is there a Fort Bragg named after an incompetent general who fought against the Union?

 

[Archivist]

According to the US government, they were not traitors. They were not tried for treason. They were not convicted of treason, therefore they were not traitors. They were enemy combatants fighting for the CSA. The question one should be asking is "why should the names of CSA enemy combatants be on US forts?". They were fighting for what they considered to be their country. The US government recognized that about them even though the US government disagreed with their belief and did not try them for treason.

They were not tried for treason, that does not mean that they were not traitors. Blacks Law Dictionary provides two definitions for the word traitor. The first is "one who, being trusted, betrays." The second is "one guilty of treason." They might not meet the second definition, but they do meet the first definition. They took an oath in which they pledged that they would support the Constitution of the United States and they violated that oath. They were traitors.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You keep using the term hate. I don't think that applies in many of these cases. I have not heard anyone say that they "hate" Robert E. Lee. They just want his name taken off a military base and statues of him removed. Lee would have agreed with the--he didn't want any of that. I do know of people who would say that they hate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, but that is because he was a slave trader and the 1st Grand Wizard of the KKK. Fortunately there are no bases named after him.



An easy Google search brings up all sorts of material such as this article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/10/trump-confederate-bases/. The bases were established during the First and Second World Wars and were named to gain southern support.

Two points that no one has responded to in this thread. First, these men were traitors. They fought against the United States. Why should they be honored with forts? Second, some of these men were absolutely incompetent generals. Why would we name forts after them? We don't have a Fort Gates named after the Revolutionary War general who lost the Battle of Camden or a Fort Fredendall named after the incompetent World War II general. Why is there a Fort Bragg named after an incompetent general who fought against the Union?

Was Geronimo a traitor? He also fought against the United States. Crazy Horse? A traitor? I don't think so. They fought the US as citizens of their tribe not as traitors to the US. Neither were those Confederate generals traitors fighting against their own country. Instead they were fighting on behalf of what they considered their country i.e. the CSA. As I mentioned earlier they were not tried for treason by the US government when the US government had every opportunity to do do so If the US government actually considered them traitors.

 

[grasping the after wind]

They were not tried for treason, that does not mean that they were not traitors. Blacks Law Dictionary provides two definitions for the word traitor. The first is "one who, being trusted, betrays." The second is "one guilty of treason." They might not meet the second definition, but they do meet the first definition. They took an oath in which they pledged that they would support the Constitution of the United States and they violated that oath. They were traitors.

They do not meet the first definition as they did not betray anyone. They openly sided with the CSA from the start. They did betray the US the rebelled against it in exactly the the same way Washington and others rebelled against England and not in the way Arnold switched sides. We can fault them for choosing the side that was defending slavery but not for being traitors. In their eyes to side with the US would have been treason as they would have been betraying their sovereign State which had the first priority in their hierarchy of geographic borders and governmental bodies. Something the modern American does not understand but anyone versed in the history of the US is quite aware of.

 

[Archivist]

Was Geronimo a traitor? He also fought against the United States. Crazy Horse? A traitor? I don't think so. They fought the US as citizens of their tribe not as traitors to the US. Neither were those Confederate generals traitors fighting against their own country. Instead they were fighting on behalf of what they considered their country i.e. the CSA. As I mentioned earlier they were not tried for treason by the US government when the US government had every opportunity to do do so If the US government actually considered them traitors.

Geronimo and Crazy Horse didn't take oaths to uphold the Constitution as did these Confederate generals. Doesn’t an oath matter?

As I already pointed out, one does not need to be found guilty of treason to be a traitor.

 

[Archivist]

They do not meet the first definition as they did not betray anyone. They openly sided with the CSA from the start. They did betray the US the rebelled against it in exactly the the same way Washington and others rebelled against England and not in the way Arnold switched sides. We can fault them for choosing the side that was defending slavery but not for being traitors. In their eyes to side with the US would have been treason as they would have been betraying their sovereign State which had the first priority in their hierarchy of geographic borders and governmental bodies. Something the modern American does not understand but anyone versed in the history of the US is quite aware of.

No, they took an oath to support the Constitution. They betrayed that oath.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Geronimo and Crazy Horse didn't take oaths to uphold the Constitution as did these Confederate generals.

As I already pointed out, one does not need to be found guilty of treason to be a traitor.

Did General Lee Violate His Oath In Siding With The Confederacy? (civilwarhome.com)

"No one disputes that General Lee in 1861 was an officer of the United States army, and as such had taken the usual oaths. It is alike undisputed that he was a native of Virginia, claimed citizenship and residence in this State. Virginia, the State of his nativity and citizenship, seceded from the union of the States, and in her. withdrawal claimed the allegiance and loyalty of her sons. The basal question, lying at the root of this discussion and determining it absolutely, is, had a State in 1861 the right to secede? If the answer be in the affirmative, then the allegiance of her citizens, ipso facto, ceased to be due, if it had ever belonged to the Union or Federal government."

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, they took an oath to support the Constitution. They betrayed that oath.

Then why did the US government not try them for treason at the time? Perhaps the government wanted you to have the honor of doing it retroactively?

 

[Archivist]

Did General Lee Violate His Oath In Siding With The Confederacy? (civilwarhome.com)

"No one disputes that General Lee in 1861 was an officer of the United States army, and as such had taken the usual oaths. It is alike undisputed that he was a native of Virginia, claimed citizenship and residence in this State. Virginia, the State of his nativity and citizenship, seceded from the union of the States, and in her. withdrawal claimed the allegiance and loyalty of her sons. The basal question, lying at the root of this discussion and determining it absolutely, is, had a State in 1861 the right to secede? If the answer be in the affirmative, then the allegiance of her citizens, ipso facto, ceased to be due, if it had ever belonged to the Union or Federal government."

Except in 1869 the US Supreme Court ruled that the United States was “an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states." Lee violated his oath and was a traitor.

 

[Archivist]

Then why did the US government not try them for treason at the time?

Beacuse Lincoln wanted to bring the nation back together.

Perhaps the government wanted you to have the honor of doing it retroactively?

Why would I want to try them? I've said that you don't have to be convicted of treason to be a traitor. Do you read what others write on here?

 

[section9+1]

I'm a northerner and I had ancestors who fought for the north. Yet I see no problem with honoring southerners. Leave them alone. I never even thought about this issue until everyone got excited over it. I don't think they were traitors. People get married in churches and make vows before God and everyone else and to their partner. Then they get divorced. They are traitors to God and each other. Yet people walk away from failed marriages all the time with a clean slate. And I am not against divorces. As far as I am concerned it was a war of northern aggression. War was forced on the south. Leave it alone. Causes more trouble than it solves. If those names offend some black people then removing them must offend some white people. Someone is offended regardless. Especially when non-issues are turned into problems by people with nothing better to do.

 

[Archivist]

I don't think they were traitors.

So if an American soldier during WWII had joined the German army and started killing Americans, he wouldn't have been a traitor?

 

[section9+1]

So if an American soldier during WWII had joined the German army and started killing Americans, he wouldn't have been a traitor?

Not talking about the Germans. They weren't traitors. The only reason they are called that is because the north won. Their so-called "crime" was resisting aggression. Not in leaving the union. Why was it wrong to leave the union? And why was it right to force them to remain? They had the right to pick their leadership. They were Americans. They weren't looking to attack the north. If America under a president became incompatible with what you wanted, would you have the right to go it on your own if you desired no conflict with what was in place? Since the Civil War the federal government made sure the states are locked into their places as subservient states under a strong federal authority. Before the war they were much more independent.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It's absurd that any American ANYTHING has been named after traitors and enemies of our nation who spilled the blood of thousands of Americans. These name changes can't happen soon enough.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I'm a northerner and I had ancestors who fought for the north. Yet I see no problem with honoring southerners. Leave them alone. I never even thought about this issue until everyone got excited over it. I don't think they were traitors. People get married in churches and make vows before God and everyone else and to their partner. Then they get divorced. They are traitors to God and each other. Yet people walk away from failed marriages all the time with a clean slate. And I am not against divorces. As far as I am concerned it was a war of northern aggression. War was forced on the south. Leave it alone. Causes more trouble than it solves. If those names offend some black people then removing them must offend some white people. Someone is offended regardless. Especially when non-issues are turned into problems by people with nothing better to do.

Well regardless of your opinion the confederates were all traitors to America; that is simply fact.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Except in 1869 the US Supreme Court ruled that the United States was “an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states." Lee violated his oath and was a traitor.

The war already was well over in 1869. Are you proposing to tell me that Lee was a soothsayer and knew what the SC was going to rule in the future? Additionally, the Supreme Court was certainly reaching way beyond the scope of a Supreme Court ruling when it proposes to say a country or state is indestructible. That is the kind of hubris the Romans were engaged in before their destruction. If everyone that violated their oath to defend and protect the Constitution was to be considered a traitor, then Lincoln would have to be thrown in there too for suspending the writ of habeas corpus . Roosevelt for setting up concentration camps based solely on race, and a long line of other Presidents and Congresspersons