US Military Bases named after Confederate Generals

[grasping the after wind]

Beacuse Lincoln wanted to bring the nation back together.



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?

Lincoln was trying to bring the nation together by not making the combatants from the Confederate side of the war be considered traitors and punished for following their conscience in being loyal to the State that they also took an oath to protect and defend. What then are the people that are so enamored with the idea of renaming forts trying to do? Pull the nation apart? It seems to me that the vast majority of people living in the US had no idea who those forts were named after prior to this year and the push to rename things and pull down statues. As far as I am concerned you can name those forts after cartoon characters or someone's cat. It is of no consequence. Renaming forts is a solution that lacks an actual problem.

 

[Archivist]

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

You need to learn your history. There were no decisions by the high court regarding succession prior to the war. The 1869 decision was retroactive. But the Confederate officers knew what they had said in their oaths. They promised to uphold the US Constitution, the they violated the oath. They were traitors.

 

[Archivist]

Lincoln was trying to bring the nation together by not making the combatants from the Confederate side of the war be considered traitors and punished for following their conscience in being loyal to the State that they also took an oath to protect and defend.

Then why did the plan issued by Lincoln in 1863 not include pardons for high ranking Confederate officers. Perhaps you should learn your history.

What then are the people that are so enamored with the idea of renaming forts trying to do? Pull the nation apart? It seems to me that the vast majority of people living in the US had no idea who those forts were named after prior to this year and the push to rename things and pull down statues. As far as I am concerned you can name those forts after cartoon characters or someone's cat. It is of no consequence. Renaming forts is a solution that lacks an actual problem.

Do you call West Point Fort Clinton? That was the original name. Do you call Carlisle Barracks Washingtonburg? That was the earlier name. Nothing should ever change according to you. Perhaps if you were a black soldier assigned to a fort named after an officer who fought for slavery you would feel differently.

 

[sparow]

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

There isn't proof, there is only my opinion and the news that comes my way. I have heard Christians speak in favor of Trump, mostly in regard to abortion; of those that I have heard speak against Trump, none have declared themselves Christian, nor has these had any useful criticism, only wokish hatred.

 

[Archivist]

Not talking about the Germans. They weren't traitors.

Try reading what I wrote. I didn’t say the Germans were traitors. I said that an American who fought for them was a traitor.

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.

Aggression? Who fired the first shot? Learn your history, it was the south. Yes, these men were traitors. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution and they broke their oath.

 

[Archivist]

There isn't proof, there is only my opinion and the news that comes my way. I have heard Christians speak in favor of Trump, mostly in regard to abortion; of those that I have heard speak against Trump, none have declared themselves Christian, nor has these had any useful criticism, only wokish hatred.

Well this Christian has no use for Trump. Yes, he has appointed pro-life judges but that doesn’t make him a Christian. He has done horrible things in terms of the environment, in terms of global warming. And for the record, when he took office I urged friends to give him a chance, but he wore out his welcome pretty quick.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This seems to be a trick question.

It's not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[iluvatar5150]

Lincoln was trying to bring the nation together by not making the combatants from the Confederate side of the war be considered traitors and punished for following their conscience in being loyal to the State that they also took an oath to protect and defend. What then are the people that are so enamored with the idea of renaming forts trying to do? Pull the nation apart? It seems to me that the vast majority of people living in the US had no idea who those forts were named after prior to this year and the push to rename things and pull down statues. As far as I am concerned you can name those forts after cartoon characters or someone's cat. It is of no consequence. Renaming forts is a solution that lacks an actual problem.

Your perspective effectively treats blacks as not part of "the nation." Implicit in your statement is the clause "of white people", i.e. "What [are they] trying to do? Pull the nation of white people apart?" When you include blacks in your concept of "the nation," it's clear that the nation has already been pulled apart and the honorifics bestowed on confederate soldiers help keep that wound open. You're worried about re-opening a wound, but can't see that a different wound is still open and has never been allowed to properly heal.

ETA: One of the things keeping that wound open is the continued prioritization of the feelings of white people over the feelings of black (or really, all non-white) people.

To go off on a bit of a tangent, what you're exhibiting here is a pretty good example of "white privilege" even though I doubt you're doing so deliberately. Your white experience is so ingrained in your head as the default, the correct, the normal perspective on things that you can't even see how you're dismissing the perspectives and concerns of a huge number of people -Americans- to the point of seeing them as somehow less than American or unworthy of being considered part of "this nation."

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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

It’s time to change the names... I get what the rationale was, but ultimately they fought against the US and killed US soldiers in service of a cause that was against American interests. Time to rename them and move on.

 

[section9+1]

I don't think the south was wrong in trying to separate from the north. I think they had the right to do so but were forced to return because they lost. Winning a war always makes the winner automatically right. Winners always write history books and text books. It's their reward. If the south had won, rightness would have looked very different.

 

[section9+1]

Try reading what I wrote. I didn’t say the Germans were traitors. I said that an American who fought for them was a traitor.



Aggression? Who fired the first shot? Learn your history, it was the south. Yes, these men were traitors. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution and they broke their oath.

Try reading what I wrote. I wasn't talking about Germans. To get back to the gist of the issue, I don't have a problem with keeping the names of these men on ships or forts. The US government didn't either since it is the one who used the names in the first place. And I am sure if there hadn't been any flack over it the names would have remained unchanged. So is the government in the business of naming its facilities after traitors? Why was it ok back when the names were given and not now? The government must have been ok with using traitors names and I am sure they would still be ok with it. Just people who live to make trouble turn out to be the offended ones.

 

[Archivist]

Try reading what I wrote. I wasn't talking about Germans.

"Not talking about the Germans. They weren't traitors." Your words not mine. This was a reply to a post in which I said that if an American soldier had fought for the Germans during WWII he would have been a traitor. At no point did I say that the Germans were traitors, I said that an American soldier would have been a traitor if he had fought for them. I posted the OP so I can raise other issues in my thread.

To get back to the gist of the issue, I don't have a problem with keeping the names of these men on ships or forts. The US government didn't either since it is the one who used the names in the first place. And I am sure if there hadn't been any flack over it the names would have remained unchanged. So is the government in the business of naming its facilities after traitors? Why was it ok back when the names were given and not now? The government must have been ok with using traitors names and I am sure they would still be ok with it. Just people who live to make trouble turn out to be the offended ones.

The names were used because there was little or no concern about black Americans at the time. Thankfully we now recognize how offensive these names can be.

 

[section9+1]

"Not talking about the Germans. They weren't traitors." Your words not mine. This was a reply to a post in which I said that if an American soldier had fought for the Germans during WWII he would have been a traitor. At no point did I say that the Germans were traitors, I said that an American soldier would have been a traitor if he had fought for them. I posted the OP so I can raise other issues in my thread.


The names were used because there was little or no concern about black Americans at the time. Thankfully we now recognize how offensive these names can be.

The "they" I was referring to was the southern officers since I wasn't talking about Germans.
I don't recognize the offense. They don't offend me and I just voiced how I feel about it.

 

[Archivist]

The "they" I was referring to was the southern officers since I wasn't talking about Germans.
I don't recognize the offense. They don't offend me and I just voiced how I feel about it.

I understand now, but you replied to a post that was discussing an American fighting for the Germans in WWII.

As officers in the US military these men took an oath to preserve the US Constitution, and they violated that oath. As noted earlier, according to Black's Law Dictionary at a traitor is "one who, being trusted, betrays." That is what these men did.

 

[section9+1]

Are there any southern officers who were not in the military before the war that have places or ships named after them? The US authorities must have been alright with the naming since they are the ones who did it. So it seems it's more a matter of who's feelings may be hurt rather than the actual wrongness of it. I think there's quite a few black people who wouldn't bother at all about it if it wasn't turned into such an issue.

 

[Archivist]

Are there any southern officers who were not officers before the war that have places or ships named after them? The US authorities must have been alright with the naming since they are the ones who did it. So it seems it's more a matter of who's feelings may be hurt rather than the actual wrongness of it. I think there's quite a few black people who wouldn't bother at all about it if it wasn't turned into such an issue.

I have to correct myself. One of these bases is named after General Polk who was not in the military prior to the war. He would not have taken the oath and would not qualify as a traitor. My apologies for lumping him in with the others. However, he still led rebel troops against US soldiers. BTW, he was a minister before the war.

But these bases were named during the two World Wars. Attitudes towards people of color was very different then. Military units were segregated. Fortunately times have changed.

At the beginning of the Civil War General Benning said that abolition would lead to “black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?” Do you really think that black soldiers want to serve at a base named after him?

 

[Christian Gedge]

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.

Fort King George rolls off the tongue quite nicely.

 

[Arcangl86]

Are there any southern officers who were not in the military before the war that have places or ships named after them? The US authorities must have been alright with the naming since they are the ones who did it. So it seems it's more a matter of who's feelings may be hurt rather than the actual wrongness of it. I think there's quite a few black people who wouldn't bother at all about it if it wasn't turned into such an issue.

Benning, Gordon, Polk, and Rucker were all only in the CSA military. None of them were actually members of the US Army. And as was pointed out, the bases were named in the early part of the 20th century, in the midst of the Jim Crow South. The fed named the bases after who they did to placate the White Southerners who could give them the land, and considered the bases more important then the feelings or dignity of Black soldiers.

 

[Archivist]

Benning, Gordon, Polk, and Rucker were all only in the CSA military. None of them were actually members of the US Army. And as was pointed out, the bases were named in the early part of the 20th century, in the midst of the Jim Crow South. The fed named the bases after who they did to placate the White Southerners who could give them the land, and considered the bases more important then the feelings or dignity of Black soldiers.

Which is a good reason to rename them. I had earlier mentioned General Forrest. At one time there was an Army camp named after him. Can you imagine being a black soldier sent to a camp named after the first Grand Wizard of the KKK?

 

[sparow]

Well this Christian has no use for Trump. Yes, he has appointed pro-life judges but that doesn’t make him a Christian. He has done horrible things in terms of the environment, in terms of global warming. And for the record, when he took office I urged friends to give him a chance, but he wore out his welcome pretty quick.

Climate Change is a hoax; all Biden will achieve is to put people out of work and the country further in debt; I don't support Trump except as the lessor of evils. The planet has been heating and the ice has been melting for 50 million years they say, and the net change over our life time we would not notice. The world has a lot of problems; overpopulation the main one, but in the future we will run out of the raw materials we depend on; oil and coal being the main ones, required for plastics, and as we revert back to the stone age things will become expensive and only the rich will survive.

This should not concern Christians who await a new earth and a new heavens; climate change is a distraction; for the Christian there are bigger issues that need attention, like finding that narrow path that leads to life and that few find.