Should Military Bases named after Confederate Soldiers be re-named?

[Glitch]

I have to admit surprise after finding out that Fort Polk was named after the Right Reverend Leonidas Polk, an Episcopal Bishop and Confederate General. I had thought it was named after Democrat President Polk.

These are federal military bases and not subject to the whims or laws of any State. Either Congress or the President may change the name of a military base, and nobody else.

Yes, all ten military bases named after Confederate soldiers should most certainly be renamed. Military bases named after traitors is not acceptable.

Here is a suggestion: Name military bases after those who earned the congressional Medal of Honor.

 

[antiquity]

Would you support making a military base called Fort Bin Laden?

Enough with the stupid questions. Would support a base named after Robert Byrd a democrat who severed for over 50 years in the Senate and was recruiter and Exalted Cyclops of his local KKK chapter.

 

[BrotherFease]

Enough with the stupid questions. Would support a base named after Robert Byrd a democrat who severed for over 50 years in the Senate and was recruiter and Exalted Cyclops of his local KKK chapter.

Not a stupid question. You just argued it's about history and warning us not to repeat it. The Confederates killed more U.S citizens/soldiers than any other war in history. The concept that we should be "honoring" somebody who killed U.S soldiers is ridiculous.

I only want bases to be named after people who made the country great, not tear it down.

 

[antiquity]

Not a stupid question. You just argued it's about history and warning us not to repeat it. The Confederates killed more U.S citizens/soldiers than any other war in history. The concept that we should be "honoring" somebody who killed U.S soldiers is ridiculous.

I only want bases to be named after people who made the country great, not tear it down.

Like Barack Hussein Obama? Or Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman or JFK/LBJ all democratic leaders who got the US into wars in the 20th Century.

 

[Gaius46]

Maybe that's a good question to ask your beloved former president Obama.
Surely you remembered how Bowe Bergdahl was honored for his traitorous act of deserting his post in Afghanistan.
He was a traitor to his country but the Obama Administration praised him as a hero.

see Deal for Bowe Bergdahl looks worse and worse

What does one have to with the other? I don’t care what Obama or may not have said or done. The 2 situations aren’t analogous.

 

[BrotherFease]

Like Barack Hussein Obama? Or Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman or JFK/LBJ all democratic leaders who got the US into wars in the 20th Century.

You're still dodging the concept you endorsed.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Here is my short response to your lengthy argument:
I will confess this: If it stops some of those uneducated hypocrites and domestic terrorists from burning, looting, and rioting in the streets of our cities, then I will support changing names and pulling down statues.

We do not need any more terrorism in our streets. People threatening to burn down cities and loot stores is enough to convince me we need to change names of bases or reallocate police funds in order to put salve on the wounds of people who still believe slavery has not ended.

The problem with this is that it WON'T stop such anti-social activity. If history is any example, it would only serve to encourage such behavior.

Only the next time it will be something even more foundational, which if/when conceded simply serves to provide even greater encouragement until "righteous rage" is the go-to response for the next demand.

Invariably, those making the demands simply make more demands until you are finally forced to take a stand, and fight.

Thus as with practically all examples of past "historical appeasement," it never works out.

So rewarding bad behavior does not solve anything. If people have a justifiable cause, whatever it may be, then reasoned discourse followed by political action is the best method of conflict resolution.

Those who seek such change should be able to convince people to see reason. But using tactics of moral panic followed by violence? That only serves to create more entrenched resistance.

Better to stand now, at the inception of this kind of activity, than to appease, appease, appease until you have no grounds or means to fight with.

 

[OlNate]

Here is my short response to your lengthy argument:
I will confess this: If it stops some of those uneducated hypocrites and domestic terrorists from burning, looting, and rioting in the streets of our cities, then I will support changing names and pulling down statues.

We do not need any more terrorism in our streets. People threatening to burn down cities and loot stores is enough to convince me we need to change names of bases or reallocate police funds in order to put salve on the wounds of people who still believe slavery has not ended.

I mean, your analysis is loaded with misunderstanding, but I suppose that if that's the sound of someone changing their mind, I can bear the noise. But if you're ever interested, there is a much better way to frame things. Yeah, it does require the turning in of rose colored glasses, but I promise, the plain view might be less comfortable, but it leads to the kind of clarity required to fixing things, which will be better for us all. To me it sounds like your surrendering...but, if you're serious, what you're actually doing is evolving. Darwin tells us this is a good thing. In fact, if you'd change "put salve on the wounds of people who still believe slavery has not ended" to "fix statistical disparities which prevent America from calling itself a free and civilized nation, and end the practice of honoring racist traitors", well, I'd have to make you turn in your Conservative badge for a Progressive one.

And, all apologies, I'm usually pretty lengthy, especially with the good Captain, as despite the fact that we obviously disagree on a few things, he may be one of my favorite conservatives to chat with here. You seem interesting as well...I hope you respond, as anyone on either side willing to confess something that may be seen to weaken their partisan position for the betterment of their country is actually very rare these days. What you say next will either make or break my day.

 

[OlNate]

The problem with this is that it WON'T stop such anti-social activity. If history is any example, it would only serve to encourage such behavior.

Only next time it will be something even more foundational, which if/when conceded simply serves to provide even greater encouragement until "righteous rage" is the go-to response for the next demand.

Rewarding bad behavior does not solve anything. If people have a justifiable cause, whatever it may be, then reasoned discourse followed by political action is the best method of conflict resolution.

Those who seek such change should be able to convince me to see reason. But using tactics of moral panic followed by violence? That only serves to create more entrenched resistance.

I'm interested in examples of where fixing things for people lead to more instances of anti-social activity, in relation to the issue that was fixed.

 

[MSgt]

There are currently ten military bases named after Confederate soldiers. Should these be re-named? They were only named after confederates in order to make southerns feel better about military integration. The President insists that these people are heroes and made America great.

All Army.

I don't know about re-naming, but it's a shame that this happened. I wonder how many military bases in Germany were named after Nazi leaders for their heroism when Germany was great.

 

[jotathought]

LOL

In the annals of history, the only difference from the point of view of their opponents AND future generations is, who won and who lost.

It is not making a "moral equivalence. I have no interest in lauding Southern rebel leaders.

I am more concerned with the "slippery-slope" created by such examples which might affect pillars of our social psyche in the future.

My first response to you shows my actual concerns:



It starts this simply; small steps, touted as reasonable and justifiable.

But then more steps and more steps and suddenly the important foundations are being threatened.

This clearly articulates my thoughts as well. Today, it's targeting statues and military base names that individuals find offensive .. where does it stop with the slippery slope it creates. I've read articles where this scope may begin including monuments and statues of our first and third president. What's next? Who determines what's offensive?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Look at it this way. Those generals were American, and they were accomplished military strategists and tacticians.

Bragg was none of things and neither was Hood.

 

[Tangmo]

They should not, it's history...stop erasing it.

Excellent choice.

I trained for one of my military qualifications at Ft Bragg. I didn't give two thoughts about who it was named after, but I do prefer to use a name my peers will recall when we share old "war stories."

Meanwhile, erasing history does nothing to change the reality of it...the sole purpose is to remove it from future minds. As if it never happened. Then create "new history" of whatever stripe the erasing parties want.

IMO it is important to leave these remimders around. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Those who live and die by the Lost Cause continue to be doomed period.

Or until they give up the ghost that haunts their life.

Many posts across the armed forces have had name changes of a sort in recent times. I refer of course to the "Joint Base" concept, policy, doctrine of the Pentagon and Congress to integrate by name complementary military facilities of the different services. For instance I was stationed at Ft. Myer next to the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery. Consistent with the "Joint Base" policy it's now called Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.

That is, Myer the Army post and Henderson Hall the USMC facility were associated based on the commonalities of Army and Marines, Infantry primarily, although Henderson Hall has Headquarters Battalion of USMC to include the offices of the commandant and staff. Henderson is right next to the Pentagon -- behind it from the Potomac view -- and at the Navy Annex buildings from WW II. Navy Annex is still called Navy Annex however and thus continues to stand independently of the recent joint association and connection.

I'm sure you and your buds from your active duty military service can remember and indeed identify where you were stationed despite any name change that may be coming down the pike. I just don't see how that could become a burden or prohibitive even if it might generate some emotional trauma.

I myself still refer only to Ft. Myer thus forgoing the "Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall" aspect of it for convenience and focus -- and so does literally everyone in our unique veterans organization, The Old Guard Association (TOGA) that meets annually at Ft. Myer of course hosted and celebrated by the post and our former unit, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, The Old Guard of the Army. Indeed, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall is a rose by any name and as Ft. Myer it is first and foremost in the hearts of the Old Guardsmen of all our generations and ranks.

 

[humbolt]

Bragg was none of things and neither was Hood.

Then it doesn't appear the complainers are complaining about them.

 

[Gaius46]

This clearly articulates my thoughts as well. Today, it's targeting statues and military base names that individuals find offensive .. where does it stop with the slippery slope it creates. I've read articles where this scope may begin including monuments and statues of our first and third president. What's next? Who determines what's offensive?

I don’t buy the slippery slope argument here simply because the Confederates were objectively traitors. Washington and Jefferson were not.

 

[Gaius46]

Look at it this way. Those generals were American, and they were accomplished military strategists and tacticians. They supported a terribly flawed cause. The names of those bases mean nothing to most.

And take heart. Lincoln established Arlington National Cemetary and located it on Lee's land. That is the proper response, with some sense of justice and dignity. Tearing down old statues, rioting, and complaining about things long past is no better than what goes on in the Middle East. We should be more forward looking.

I could potentially support the “terribly flawed cause” bit but I think treason goes well beyond a terribly flawed cause.

I’m not good with rioting. The statutes should never have been erected and the bases named in the first place. They statutes should come down and the bases renamed.

 

[jotathought]

I don’t buy the slippery slope argument here simply because the Confederates were objectively traitors. Washington and Jefferson were not.

Just to be clear, being a traitor is the rationale to drive the renaming of military bases and vandalizing of statutes? What about Columbus, Juan de Oñate, George Washington, One Riot, One Ranger, Ponce de Leon, Edward Carmack .. etc. etc. etc.?

 

[jaypatriot]

This is strictly about the traitors of the Confederacy and the eradication of the racist driven "lost cause" fallacy. How you can lump our founding fathers into to those scum is beyond me.

What makes you think the ignoramuses who have no knowledge of our rich history are going to stop with changing names of Army bases?
I wrote what I wrote because it is an argument about race relations otherwise why did someone start this thread?
There was no mention about traitors or the 'lost cause' fallacy. It was about appeasing the South because of political considerations. Now, after more than one hundred years of naming those basss, we are now appeasing African-Americans because of political reasons. Neither party wants to lose the black vote so both parties are prepared to kiss the collected a$$es of every black voter just to show how WOKE both parties are. Why else would they do it less than five months before a general election? You think the government of every state has suddenly become an army of Social Justice Warriors anxious to do the bidding of every one who hates our history of slavery in this country?

 

[Gaius46]

Just to be clear, being a traitor is the rationale to drive the renaming of military bases and vandalizing of statutes? What about Columbus, Juan de Oñate, George Washington, One Riot, One Ranger, Ponce de Leon, Edward Carmack .. etc. etc. etc.?

Who among them is a traitor to the United States and do they have statutes erected in their honor and government facilities named after them?

 

[jaypatriot]

I have to admit surprise after finding out that Fort Polk was named after the Right Reverend Leonidas Polk, an Episcopal Bishop and Confederate General. I had thought it was named after Democrat President Polk.

These are federal military bases and not subject to the whims or laws of any State. Either Congress or the President may change the name of a military base, and nobody else.

Yes, all ten military bases named after Confederate soldiers should most certainly be renamed. Military bases named after traitors is not acceptable.

Here is a suggestion: Name military bases after those who earned the congressional Medal of Honor.

I will buy into your recommendation if we can finally get through this stupid argument which never attracted attention ever since those bases existed. Everyone is so WOKE after George Floyd's death. What an amazing coincidence!!

 

[Port & Starboard]

I don't care.

Go Navy!

 

[Robertinfremont]

I will buy into your recommendation if we can finally get through this stupid argument which never attracted attention ever since those bases existed. Everyone is so WOKE after George Floyd's death. What an amazing coincidence!!

And Floyd was a convicted criminal.

 

[jaypatriot]

The problem with this is that it WON'T stop such anti-social activity. If history is any example, it would only serve to encourage such behavior.

Only the next time it will be something even more foundational, which if/when conceded simply serves to provide even greater encouragement until "righteous rage" is the go-to response for the next demand.

Invariably, those making the demands simply make more demands until you are finally forced to take a stand, and fight.

Thus as with practically all examples of past "historical appeasement," it never works out.

So rewarding bad behavior does not solve anything. If people have a justifiable cause, whatever it may be, then reasoned discourse followed by political action is the best method of conflict resolution.

Those who seek such change should be able to convince people to see reason. But using tactics of moral panic followed by violence? That only serves to create more entrenched resistance.

Better to stand now, at the inception of this kind of activity, than to appease, appease, appease until you have no grounds or means to fight with.

In reading your response i was trying to put it into the context of appeasing those criminal occupiers in Seattle.
They have no justification to do what they did and they are making unreasonable demands.
How much longer should the government appease them?
BTW - I realize this is off topic so I expect some America-loving patriot to tell me the thread is all about traitors to the U.S.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Who among them is a traitor to the United States and do they have statutes erected in their honor and government facilities named after them?

I studied this a lot so remind us when they were convicted as traitors?

 

[jotathought]

Who among them is a traitor to the United States and do they have statutes erected in their honor and government facilities named after them?

All of the names above had statutes either moved, vandalized or torn down by rioters.