What About the Army Bases Named For Confederate Generals?

[TheOther95Percent]

I am a Civil War buff. I don't do re-enactments but I do attend educational seminars held in various places throughout the year. For the last seven years - to encourage serious and factual scholarship on this important time in our history - I've sat through lectures at the Museum of the Confederacy (MOC) in Richmond; something I swore I would never do since it was - until fairly recently - a major force behind the "Lost Cause" myth. I've been going now for about 8 years. The first 2 years I thought that I made a serious fucking mistake showing up because the audience was and usually two out of the five speakers were - to put it mildly - rabidly biased toward the Confederate side. Two years ago I was in the audience, when the MOC announced it was merging with the American Civil War Museum. There was an audible gasp from some in audience while people like me applauded. This symposium has gotten much better with speakers who provide a balanced and fact-based assessment of both sides.

Anyway, getting back to the army bases. I drive down from my home in the North to Richmond. I pass by Fort A.P. Hill. As a Liet. Gen., Hill commanded Third Corps for the Army of Northern Virginia and is believed to have instigated the first skirmishes which led to the Battle of Gettysburg. Hill would be killed in the waning days of the war in April 1865. At some point, the U.S. army named a military base for him. I would say there are more worthy candidates. A.P. Hill is not the only Confederate general to have his name bestowed on a military facility. This article names 10.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/misplaced-honor.html?_r=0

Fort Benning in Georgia is named for Henry Benning, a State Supreme Court associate justice who became one of Lee’s more effective subordinates. Before the war, this ardent secessionist inflamed fears of abolition, which he predicted would inevitably lead to black governors, juries, legislatures and more. “Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?” Benning wrote. “We will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth, and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination.”

Another installation in Georgia, Fort Gordon, is named for John B. Gordon, one of Lee’s most dependable commanders in the latter part of the war. Before Fort Sumter, Gordon, a lawyer, defended slavery as “the hand-maid of civil liberty.” After the war, he became a United States senator, fought Reconstruction, and is generally thought to have headed the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia. He “may not have condoned the violence employed by Klan members,” says his biographer, Ralph Lowell Eckert, “but he did not question or oppose it when he felt it was justified.”

Other Confederate namesakes include Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, Fort Rucker in Alabama and Camp Beauregard in Louisiana. All these installations date from the buildups during the world wars, and naming them in honor of a local military figure was a simple choice. But that was a time when the Army was segregated and our views about race more ignorant. Now African-Americans make up about a fifth of the military. The idea that today we ask any of these soldiers to serve at a place named for a defender of a racist slavocracy is deplorable; the thought that today we ask any American soldier to serve at a base named for someone who killed United States Army troops is beyond absurd. Would we have a Fort Rommel? A Camp Cornwallis?

[gratuitous]

1. "Our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds"

Well now, how would that happen, Mr. Benning? You being a member of the "master" race and everything. How could the white race be overpowered by those inferior black persons? Oh, and why would you think that if you were subjugated, that your overlords would be as heartless and cruel as you?

This is what is being defended by the aficionados of the old confederacy.

[TheOther95Percent]

4. Mr. Benning's Speech to the VA State Convention (Vote of Secession)

I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to you the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through you, to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.

...

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction was the main cause. It is true that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction the step would not have been taken. It, therefore, becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well-founded.

...

I beg to refer to a few of the proofs; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two or three sentences from a speech of Mr. Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows: "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it, and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

...

These are pregnant sentences. They contain both a sentiment and a principle of political conduct. The former is that his hatred of slavery equals that of an abolitionist, and, therefore, that it equals that of Sumner or John Brown. The latter is that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States. If you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party, and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every member of that party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I insist, then, that it is true that at least the Republican party of the North hates slavery.


http://college.cengage.com/history/ayers_primary_sources/address_henry_benning_georgia.htm

[neverforget]

2. Yes they need to be renamed.

To what will be a big fight

[JackInGreen]

71. Could we

Go all the way back and call them the names of their locations in the language of the first peoples? Or would that be considered appropriation? No snark there, I'd love it but my sensativity compass is sometimes skewed.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. That stuck in my father's craw n/t

[TheOther95Percent]

6. I Cannot Fathom A Reason For It To Continue

As the Time article mentions, these names were chosen when the military was still racially segregated. To name a base after someone who gave his last full measure in support of slavery is truly obnoxious.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. My dad entered the military in the late 1950's

He was in the first "class" of Green Berets. So he came in after the military was desegregated - when he couldn't vote without great risk to his life. We have many Korean and Vietnam war vets who were in that same predicament still alive. It's a small thing - but it might make things right. Just a little bit you know?

Let's honor their service the way we have the Confederacy leadership that were against America when America was for them.

Let's honor the men (yes mostly men) who were FOR America when America was against them.

[DashOneBravo]

90. + 1

A lot of us can't understand why the post were named that. I just always thought it was a West Point thing.

[femmocrat]

5. Very interesting.

Thanks for posting this.

[TheOther95Percent]

7. Thanks for the Rec.

[Kaleva]

8. First step would be to repeal the law making Confederate soldiers US veterans

&quot e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term 'veteran' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term `active, military or naval service' includes active service in such forces."

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol6/html_files/v6p0803b.html

[TheOther95Percent]

9. Or Pass A Law Making Confederate Service Ineligible for Naming Rights.

[TheOther95Percent]

16. I think you miss the point.

Reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations and I would say a frank and honest discussion of the history behind this war. No nonsense about States Rights, the "Lost Cause" and the War of Northern Aggression. The racial issues we have as a society today are precisely because there has been no reconciliation.

[Angleae]

33. That would only affect those who served exclusivly in the confederate military.

Those who served in the US military then resigned to serve the confederacy would not be affected, including all these generals with army bases named after them.

[former9thward]

75. Are you going to dig up the thousands of Confederate soldiers buried at Arlington?

Are you going to knock down the memorial to the Confederate war dead at Arlington National cemetery?



BTW Obama has sent a wreath to this memorial every Memorial Day since he came into office. It continues a tradition every President has done since Wilson -- with the except of George H.W.Bush who refused to do it.

[mwrguy]

76. Yes. Tear that thing down.

[B2G]

79. The Union soldiers beat you to it in Savannah. nt

[former9thward]

80. Ridiculous.

[mwrguy]

81. Move it to your front yard if you like it so much

It doesn't belong on the peoples' property.

[Kaleva]

86. The law I refer to was passed in 1958

The few hundred (not thousands) Confederates buried there were interned long before the law was passed.

"In the beginning of burials at Arlington, Civil War veterans from the union were buried amongst freed blacks and Confederate soldiers without much distinction between them." - See more at: http://www.freetoursbyfoot.com/confederates-buried-at-arlington-national-cemetery/#sthash.F57IAAng.dpuf

One should also be aware that those Confederates who later served in the US military after the Civil War would still be considered vets even if the law were to be repealed.

[former9thward]

87. I think Obama has the better approach.

[awoke_in_2003]

89. Damn, I agree with GHWB on something. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

88. They should have never been considered US veterans...

they were CSA veterans.

[oneshooter]

10. Would you support the bulldozing and destruction of confederate Graves? n/t

[TheOther95Percent]

17. Reductio ad absurdum

I would prefer if my country's military bases were not named after unrepentant racists. To get from that to a bulldozer is a pretty far stretch.

[Telcontar]

19. So how you feel about our capitol named for a slave owning Virginian?

[TheOther95Percent]

22. Do you mean the only Founder to free his slaves at his death?

[NobodyHere]

29. Owning slaves is ok as long as you free them at your death?

[Telcontar]

35. So he enjoyed their services throughout his life?

Freeing them after his death is better how?

[TheOther95Percent]

38. Several Biographies Are Worth A Read

George Washington's views on the institution of slavery evolved over his lifetime. In his last years, Washington believed slavery was a mistake and should be abolished.

I can recommend several biographies. His Excellency by Ellis is the most comprehensive. IMHO, the best treatment of Washington and slavery comes from Wienchek's An Imperfect God.

A quicker read on the evolution of his views on slavery can be found here:

Influenced by the rhetoric of the American Revolution and constant contact with anti-slavery men from the northern colonies and states, George Washington became increasingly critical of the institution of slavery. Tracing the details of his changing views and the reasons for it may not be possible, but there can be no denying the change. He became increasingly eager to see slavery put on the path toward ultimate extinction, although he cautioned, "Time, education, and patience were needed" in the struggle.



"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees."



After Lafayette purchased in 1786 a plantation in Cayenne to carry out his scheme of emancipating slaves, Washington praised the Frenchman: "Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country," he wrote, "but I dispair of seeing it. . . . To set the slaves afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and assuredly ought to be, effected."



"I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It would prevent much mischief."



"… No man desires more heartily than I do [the end of slavery]. Not only do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union." [And by the way, GW made clear that if slavery caused a break up of the union, he would cast his lot with the North!]



"The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator."



These quotes, and others that could be given, while heartfelt, must be understood in context or one might reasonably conclude that the first President was an abolitionist. It is important to note that virtually all of GW's anti-slavery quotes were expressed in private correspondence or conversation. During his lifetime, the General never took a public stance against slavery or called for its end. If his growing opposition to slavery was genuine and internalized, why did he not take a more public stand against it and use his unparalleled prestige in the cause of human freedom? This was a calculated decision by the President. It was a matter of priorities. A critic might write, "the only true policy is justice; and he who regards the consequences of an act rather than the justice of it gives no very exalted proof of the greatness of his character," but George Washington knew it was not that simple. In Roger Wilkins words,

He was "politically shackled by the grating chain [racism and slavery] that snaked through the new republic and diminished every life it touched."

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm

President Washington told Secretary of State Randolph that if the Union ever split, "he had made up his mind to remove and be of the Northern [side]."

[happyslug]

63. That is about right, when Washington reached Boston in 1775 he was shocked...

African Americans WITH GUNS???? Was one of the bigger shocks. He at first demanded that they be disarmed, but later backed down. As the war progressed he became less and less connected with the slave culture of Virginia. He did not return to Virginia till 1781 and Yorktown. He still had his slaves around him during the war AND later when he was President, but one of his slaves asked to remain in New York when Washington decided to quit after two terms and Washington gave that man his freedom.

At the same time Washington had always been involved with every money making Scheme of his time period. By the time Washington was President he had passed John Hancock to be the richest man in America. One of the reason Fort Necessity occurred was in the weeks before that battle he had his men building a road to what is now Washington PA, where most of the land he had purchased for later sale was located. Thus when the French Showed up, he was caught a little flat footed and was one of the reason for his later defeat. The Next year he advised Braddock to use the same route he had taken AND to improve the road on the way. Braddock did so but once over the mountains headed for Fort Duquesne (Present day Pittsburgh) instead of Washington PA. When Braddock was defeated he opposed the British pull back to Philadelphia (This objection I can agree with, troops in Philadelphia did not defend the border or present a threat to the French in fort Duguesne).

Washington opposed General Forbes's plan to march from Philly to Pittsburgh via present day US 30 instead of present day US 40. US 40 follows the National Road and Washington's path to Washington County PA and his lands in Washington County. US 30 stays while north of any route to Washington County from the East.

Of Washington men, let us say, at Fort Necessity the French demanded he turn over one of his guides, that they had previously told NOT to come back to Western Pennsylvania. Washington turned him over and then sold him a new set of cloths so he could be buried in decent clothing after the French Executed him. As to his men who were given land grants for fighting, he purchased them for a little as a nickel on the dollar of their value, for the troops needed money right then and there, and he had the cash. This was the base for much of his money, extensive land holdings in Western Pennsylvania stolen from his own men.

Washington's view of the men on the Frontier was not to enlighten, he called when "White Indians".

I bring this up for money was the most important thing in his life. If you go to his library it is full of every get rich quick idea of his time period, no books on how to govern or philosophy. In many ways Washington was like Ronald Reagan, what was it in for him?

On top of this the 1790s was a period of transition when it came to slavery in the US. Due to how African American Slaves had operated in the Revolution (they sided with the British once the British offered them freedom) it became clear slaves were an inherent internal Security problem (to use a 20th phase for an 18th century institution). Massachusetts lead the way out of that problem but outlawing slavery in 1783. The rest of the North quickly followed, with New Jersey ending slavery by 1808 (Through most northern state adopted a gradual policy of emancipation, thus New Jersey still had a handful of slaves in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was adopted).

http://slavenorth.com/index.html

The main reason for Northern Emancipation was slavery was viewed as producing a class of people who would always support an invading force on the grounds such invading force could do nothing worse then to continue them in slavery.

On the other hand, Slavery had always been more popular south of the Mason Dixon Line mostly due to the nature of the crops being raised. Tobacco in Maryland and Virginia, indigo (Blue dye) and tar from the Carolinas (Tar was needed to make boats water proof and the best source at that time period was pine trees). With the invention of the Cotton gin in 1792, upland cotton became profitable to grow and took off like wildfires south of Virginia and Kentucky (those states were generally to far north for Cotton production). This turn what had been a declining price of slaves in the early 1790s, to one with a huge demand for slaves and a resulting increase in the price of slaves.

Mt Vernon was to far north for Cotton and thus Washington never saw that profit center. Jefferson followed the Virginia rule after 1792, and made raising slaves to sell further south one of his major sources of income.

Washington died in 1799, just about the time Cotton started to really take off. Thus it appears he had NOT embraced the cotton culture. On the other hand he had lived in the North and see what freed African Americans could do, and that such Freedmen were NOT really a threat to Whites.

Washington also had another problem, while he owned most of his slaves, just less then half were technically his wife's. Under the Common law he had the power to sell those slaves BUT only for his life time, at his death they became his wife's even if Washington had sold them. Under the Common Law Martha Washington could not even sell or give away her rights while she was married to George. Thus such slaves were in a position they were under the control of George, but when he died they came under Martha's control.

Please note, while George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, Martha agree to give up her rights to those same slaves after his death. Given the law in Virginia at that time period, that was the best time for them to free their slaves.

Please note, after 1800, the ability to free one's slaves slowly declined in the South, as did the rights of Slaves. The period of 1800 to 1865 is unique in slave history, it is the only time where the rights of slaves did NOT increase, but in fact declined. Slaves not only lost the right to be freed by their owners, but to buy their own freedom (a right most states gave slaves in the 1700s, but withdrawn in the south in the early 1800s).

Thus when Washington freed his slaves, the price of slaves had bottomed out and started to increase. Cotton became more and more important in the south, which in turn was shipped to England to be made into cloth. Starting in 1808, New England became the source of the Wheat for the Duke of Wellington's Army in Spain, thus drawing New England to England at the same time the South was being drawn to England, while the American West wanted war with England over English trading with Native Americans (and the South saw those same Natives Americans in the way of their expanding Cotton Culture, thus they wanted the Native Americans out, so they could plant Cotton to ship to England, who in 1812 was still relying on American Native Americans as a source of Beavers and other furs for the European Markets, yes, trade partners and who goes to war with whom can be confusing.

Back to Washington. He died as the area between the Appalachians Mountains and the Mississippi River became the heart of the United States. The South wanted that area for Cotton production, the North wanted it for wheat production (and both crops were aimed for English markets) AND the English wanted it for the very profitable European fur market. Thus the war of 1812 (which had nothing to do with impressed Sailors by the British, that was the EXCUSE for the war not the reason, the reason was to defeat the last real serious Native American resistance to US westward expansion). Once Tecumseh was defeated, the war was effectively over, through technically it lasted another year.

Washington had help start the series of war that started in 1754 and lasted till 1814 that saw Native Americans defeated and driven out of control of the area between the Appalachians Mountains and the Mississippi River. Washington did this for the money. In many ways he help set up the US for the Civil War, by making sure both the North and South would go in two different directions, not only in slavery but in the crops each planted. Thus he saw slavery as something evil, but also something profitable, but its profit was dropping for people like him living in Virginia and thus he wanted it abolished.

Washington did nothing to end the demand for slavery, cheap labor for planting and harvesting crops. He lived long enough to see Cotton becoming the dominate export of the US and an export depended on slavery.

[treestar]

69. But he did not participate in secession over it

I would suppose he would have been appalled at the breaking up of the Union. Wasn't he considered the father of it?

He lived in an earlier time and was not forced to take a stand on the issue. But the Confederate generals actively fought against their country in order to form a new one.

[tymorial]

55. I believe it is more than a far stretch. I find it a preposterous notion.

In the beginning of the civil war, many men volunteered. As the war processed the gross majority were forced into service. This was the case on both sides. To assume that fighting for the confederacy is automatic proof of support for slavery and racism is ridiculous. This is revisionist history by people who sooth their internalized guilt by placing the north in pristine egalitarian brilliance. This flies in the face of historical fact. Many in the north supported slavery. Many believed black people to be inferior. Look at the soldiers and officers who refused to fight along side black men in uniform. I see no suggestions to lay waste to cemeteries where these men rest. Further, how many men on both sides were responsible for families and had the choice between prison for sedition/desertion or go to war and receive whatever meager wage they were provided for their families. Do we know the beliefs of all of these men? How many died within minutes of their first battle?

I wonder how many of these people who propose such ridiculous notions would stand up and allow their families to starve rather than compromise their principles by going to war. Its easy to arm chair quarterback when our cupboards and refrigerators are full of food and we fail to consider the reality of daily life 150 years go.

I totally support the changing of military bases named for unrepentant racists (excellent term). I totally support relocating the various confederate flags from public land to museums and history books. Some of these other suggestions though are the product of emotionalism which has clouded all objectivity logic and reason.

[niyad]

11. k and r

[Jamaal510]

12. K&R

[TheOther95Percent]

18. Laws can be changed or amended.

Happens all the time. Because a law recognizes military service for either side as rendering one a "full U.S. veteran" does not mean a military base has to be named for you.

[neverforget]

21. Why don't we have a Fort Benedict Arnold?

He was a decent general but betrayed the US. Lee, Benning, Hill, Bragg, Hood, Gordon etc all fought against the United States in our bloodiest war. They surrendered and lost the war. Why we honor traitors is beyond me.

In 1939, the US Army said it was okay to name these Army installations

Unsolicited suggestions for names were also submitted from sources outside the military establishment, and political pressure and public opinion often influenced the naming decision. As a result, it was common for camps and forts to be named after local features or veterans with a regional connection. In the southern states they were frequently named after celebrated Confederate soldiers.

Just because they are named that way now, doesn't mean they can't be renamed.

I guess Lincoln's call for malice toward none, charity for all doesn't apply if you are still nursing a morally self-righteous grudge after all these years. Gotta make those southerners pay!

That's funny because Lincoln and Grant went very easy on them. Upon surrender, the Confederate Army was disbanded and they went home. There were no trials for treason.

What's next? Removing Dukes of Hazzard reruns from CMT? The Orwell memory hole just gets bigger. This authoritarian bent at controlling history by policing its symbols is beyond absurd.

The US government has nothing to do with this and is protected free speech. You can watch all the Dukes of Hazzard or other shows you want.

[TheOther95Percent]

24. Excellent Points

Although I would not put General Braxton Bragg in the category of celebrated Confederate generals. Not bad as a strategist as long as he didn't require a Plan B when his initial battle script went off the rails. He had horrible interpersonal skills and fought with his staff as much or more than he did his opponents. When asked, most historians would rank him more on the meh scale than anything else.

[neverforget]

25. Definitely not a great or even good general really. Plan A never survives the first shot so he

was screwed from the beginning.

I was hoping old Smokey would be able to respond but MIRT got to him. I'm surprised I was able to respond to that post after he was zapped. Must've been because I had it open while I was searching for links.

[TheOther95Percent]

26. Aha!

That would explain my being able to respond to Old Smokey in an earlier post.

[happyslug]

62. What about the Boot Monument????

On the Monument is the following:

"Erected 1887 By

JOHN WATTS de PEYSTER, Brev: Maj: Gen: S.N.Y. 2nd V. Pres't Saratoga Mon't Ass't'n:

In memory of the "most brilliant soldier" of the Continental Army who was desperately wounded on this spot the sally port of BORGOYNES GREAT WESTERN REDOUBT 7th October, 1777 winning for his countrymen the decisive battle of the American Revolution and for himself the rank of Major General."

The General's name is missing from the Monument for historical reasons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument

When a messenger from America reached Benjamin Franklin is Paris, Franklin asked "Have the British taken Philadelphia?" The Messenger replied back "Yes, but i have great news, Burgoyne' has surrendered". It was great news, that victory opened up French Support and the French Alliance that was later to be decisive at Yorktown that is how important that battle was.

If Burgoyne' had broken through, he would have been in Albany within a week and West Point would have fallen soon afterwards, spiting the US in two. If Burgoyne' had retreated to Fort Ticonderoga he could have waited till the spring and start south again.

later in the war, Benedict Arnold asked a captured officer a question, "What will the Americans do with me if they catch me?" the officer replied, "They will cut off the leg which was wounded when you were fighting so gloriously for the cause of liberty, and bury it with the honors of war, and hang the rest of your body on a gibbet.

[MadrasT]

15. I have often wondered about this. n/t

[Recursion]

20. I always thought that was weird (nt)

[MrScorpio]

23. Excellent point and post indeed. nt

[Kalidurga]

27. Yes they should be renamed and an apology issued

The renaming is more important. The apology would likely come from someone who had nothing to do with naming the base. But, it's still nice to know when something is changed why it's changed and to acknowledge an error was made.

[struggle4progress]

28. Camp Beauregard

Camp Beauregard is a U.S. Army installation located northeast of Pineville, Louisiana ... It is operated by the Louisiana National Guard as one of their main training areas ... The camp was named for .. Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Beauregard

... Early on the morning of April 12, negotiations with Anderson had failed and aides of Beauregard, sent to deal personally with Anderson, ordered the first shots of the American Civil War to be fired from nearby Fort Johnson. The bombardment of Fort Sumter lasted for 34 hours. Subjected to thousands of rounds fired from batteries ringing the harbor, Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter on April 14 ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._G._T._Beauregard

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. we're gonna have to sandblast the fuck out of Stone Mountain... n/t

[Telcontar]

36. Wonder what folks opinion on the Taliban and ISIS destroying historical artifacts

[JustAnotherGen]

39. Our military bases are not antiquities n/t

[bullwinkle428]

42. Changing the name of a military base is equivalent to the Taliban's destruction

of the massive sandstone Buddhas of Bamiyan?

[Telcontar]

43. Of course it is

First the flag. Then rename some facilities. Then remove statues. Then demolish the historical buildings. Every step of the way it's justified as not honoring men who fought to enslave others, who could argue against such a position?

When to we rename Washington D.C.?

Let the legacy of Lincoln continue. Malice towards none.

[LanternWaste]

51. Denying the government the ability to endorse a religion does not destroy that religion.

You are free to purchase and fly a confederate flag from your porch should you so choose. The discussion however, is not about banning a thing, merely disallowing the government to celebrate (which is wholly different than recognizing) a thing.

Denying the government the ability to endorse a religion does not destroy that religion-- except to the irrational, the hysterical and the half-witted.

[erpowers]

45. Completely Wrong

Changing the names of a military base is in no way the same as the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan statues. People will never be able to go and see those statues again. Anyone will be able to go to any museum and learn about the Confederate generals. Kids will be able to learn about these men in history books and history class. Kids will be able to go to graveyards and see their graves. In addition, these men fought against the United States. Also, a number of them were racists and either encouraged violence against blacks, or refused to condemn the violence. My question would be why did anyone think it was a good idea to name bases after these men.

[Starry Messenger]

44. The statues they are destroying were of slavers and traitors?

News to me. Protip: ISIS are actually pro-slavery of young women, so you might want to pick some good guys to try to make your perverse comparisons.

[Telcontar]

52. Yeah, you might want to review the Sigalovada Sutta

Pro tip: have some basic knowledge of a subject before making a moral argument. Especially if making assumptions about how a culture practices involuntary servitude.

[Starry Messenger]

53. LOL.

Those poor poor Talibani.

[LanternWaste]

56. Which specific monuments in the US are scheduled to be destroyed?

Which specific monuments in the US are scheduled to be destroyed?

[Telcontar]

67. Let us see now

As I peruse the news feeds, I see movements to destroy or remove statues in New Orleans, the Virginia capital rotunda, and the Jefferson Memorial in DC.

Seema like a legit comparison.

[KamaAina]

48. Simple solution

Show them holding real Confederate flags.



In an ironic twist, the community of Stone Mountain down below is among the most diverse in Georgia.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. used to live and work there...

still go over quite a lot!

sP

[myrna minx]

32. Very good post. K&R

[DiverDave]

34. What about nathan bedford forrest state park?

http://tnstateparks.com/parks/about/nathan-bedford-forrest

I saw this sign on I-40 in tn and wanted to puke.

Seriously? How is this still going on?

[JustAnotherGen]

40. It should be renamed

God Damned Fool Park

[LibDemAlways]

74. Remember George "Macaca" Allen, former

Virginia Governor and Senator? The asshole named his only son Forrest. Imagine being named for a KKK icon. His daughters Tyler and Brooke are named for a prominent Confederate General and a Confederate Naval Commander. And this guy wanted to be President. He'd have tried to raise the Stars and Bars over the White House and have us all whistling Dixie. Obsession with the Confederacy is sick.

[boston bean]

37. All the roads named after confederate generals also...

[KamaAina]

49. NOLA activists have dealt with Jefferson Davis Parkway

by unofficially renaming it "Angela Davis Parkway".

[csziggy]

54. Or towns - my hometown was named for the first Confederate commander to die

In the Civil War:

Bartow (/ˈbɑrtoʊ/ BAR-toh) is the county seat of Polk County, Florida. Founded in 1851 as Fort Blount, the city was renamed in honor of Francis S. Bartow the first brigade commander to die in combat during the American Civil War. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census, the city had a population of 15,340 and an estimated population of 16,959 in 2009. It is part of the Lakeland−Winter Haven Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had an estimated population of 584,383 in 2009. As of 2012, the mayor of Bartow is Leo E. Longworth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartow,_Florida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_S._Bartow

It could be renamed Fort Blount, but that would honor the original settlers who fought in the Seminole Wars:

The Armed Occupation Act of 1842 facilitated settlement of the Florida peninsula in the 1840s, although the act did prohibit settlement near the Peace River as that was considered Seminole land.[7][13] Enforcement of that part of the act was not strictly enforced; however, and settlers eventually moved out of the Tampa Bay area and into the area.[7] As the settlement grew, the residents began to plant citrus trees and build one room school houses and churches.[7] In 1851, Fort Blount was established by Redding Blount just west of current downtown Bartow.[14] At some point in the 1850s, Fort Blount became Peace Creek or Peas Creek, a name dating back to the Rio de la Paz of early Spanish maps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartow,_Florida#History

Peace Creek or Peace River would be a much nicer name - though the river is nearly dry at times now it is still there. And the name would give a nod to the Spanish name for the original native settlement that was in the area when they first explored the middle of the peninsula.

[kentuck]

41. I was stationed at Ft. Lee, Virginia..

in 1969...

[Gormy Cuss]

46. It does seem peculiar to name military installations for enemy soldiers.

While I think that states and localities in the former Confederacy have every right to hold onto naming things for them (the right, but not the obligation,) it's beyond absurd that U.S. government facilities are named for people who were determined to disintegrate the union.

[malthaussen]

47. The government took my mother's family farm to build A.P. Hill.

Supposedly they paid a fair price.

-- Mal

[Maedhros]

57. Until we take Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill, we're just being hypocrites.[n/t]

[1939]

59. And Jefferson off the $2 bill

Whoops, we have to rename the Democratic Party anniversary Jefferson-Jackson parties.

[rpannier]

64. At what point was Andrew Jackson a traitor to the US?

Since the discussion is about naming US military bases after traitors, Jackson is irrelevant
And it does not make us hypocrites, because... again, we are talking about traitors

[DrAlCarroll]

77. Jackson Did a Little Something Called Genocide

and was a slave trader as well. The latter is something only one other president, Polk, did. The former is something no other president directly did. Jackson caused the deaths of over 10,000 of the Five Tribes with the Trail of Tears.

Being a traitor is not the only reason one should not honor famous Americans.

[mwrguy]

78. When he flouted the Supreme Court

[Maedhros]

83. I don't really care about "traitors" as much as I care about genocide.[n/t]

[1939]

58. Michigan

Though it is a museum now and no longer a military installation, Fort Wayne in Detroit (and Wayne County in which Detroit lies) are named after Mad Anthony Wayne who destroyed the "Forest Indians" of the midwest at Fallen Timbers and the largest military installation in Michigan (now inactive) was Camp/Fort Custer, another war criminal.

[JPZenger]

60. The deplorable ones should be renamed, but...

We shouldn't go on a mission of trying to scrub our history. The most relevant issue with the Confederate flag involves its use over the last 50 years to oppose Civil Rights, not the war that was fought 2 centuries ago.

The US military has a policy for many years of recognizing confederate military officers who thought they were serving their states. Yes, the more deplorable people should have their names stricken, and we can start with the Edmund Pettis bridge that was named after a KKK grand dragon.

However, are we going to go around and rename every county, town, street and naval vessel in the US that was named after a slave-owner?

[malthaussen]

61. I'd certainly be in favor of no longer naming carriers after politicians...

... and no longer naming terror weapons (SSBNs) after states.

-- Mal

[JackInGreen]

65. Never did understand

How men that commanded Americans to war on other Americans in the name of keeping and holding human chattel ever got that spot to begin with. I always figured it was a thumbed nose at the powers that be. I can understand in some instances where the individual was a boon to the nation as a whole thereafter, but by and large they should never have been named that.
Kinda like the Brazil Nut, it's more common name is disgusting but still in use, same applies, it shouldn't have been called a ni*&!er toe in the first place, why hold on to it?

[1939]

66. I must have been in high school

before I knew its real name was Brazil Nut (and I grew up in the north).

[Always Randy]

68. General Grant and General Lee knew that it was time to end the war

to continue would have made us into a guerrilla warfare country for decades. Allowing the Confederacy to have some pride was necessary to prevent further war. so naming the forts was part of that. If I were i soldier in the 82nd I might question the name of Ft Bragg----Braxton Bragg's military record is not quite a good fit with the mission of the 82nd.----------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braxton_Bragg

[TheOther95Percent]

70. Fort Homer Simpson

If we re-named military facilities for the TV characters we associate with the Confederate generals, I would proposed changing the name from Fort Bragg to Fort Homer Simpson.

[1939]

72. Braxton Bragg

Braxton Bragg was originally an artillery officer in the Mexican War where his battery materially assisted a Mississippi volunteer regiment commanded by Col Jeff Davis (which was why Davis let him screw up for so long in the Civil War). Fort Bragg was originally an artillery training post and only after WWII became the home of the "hanky hoppers".

[cstanleytech]

73. Sorry but imo this entire topic is absurd. nt

[DashOneBravo]

82. I don't have a problem with that

And I'm a white southern guy who spent some time at FT Benning.

[B Calm]

84. Close them down!

[d_legendary1]

85. Tom Tomorrow agrees with you