This article from the NY Times proposes just that.
Misplaced Honor?
I don’t agree but maybe others here will have a different view. Perhaps Ft. Rucker in Alabama could become Ft. Powell.
Yes, enough with the honors for the racist traitors by their racist ancestors. Every statue of NBF should be torn down. His name shold be taken off everything other than historical battlefield markers.
Yep, fuck them. Get their names off anything and everything except historical notes and their own fucking gravemarkers.
I give up. Who was NBF?
Nathan Bedford Forrest presumably. Confederate general and one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, which makes tributes to him ambiguous in their meaning.
Ancestors? Are those the monuments set up by the United Mothers of the Confederacy? 
Nathan Forrest, founder of the KKK. Minor CSA general, terrible general, great cavalry raider*, illiterate asshole, war criminal, biggest racist in the CSA.
- likely the second best of that war.
Well, I could see renaming Fort Hood (TX) as “Fort Thomas”… Fort Bragg (NC) as “Fort Grant”, and…
…oh, absofreakinglutely… renaming Fort Gordon or Fort Benning, GA, as “Fort Sherman” :eek: 
No other name would do.
I’d pitch in for 10-story high illuminated letters marking the entrance. Just out of sheer perversity.
(How the heck did Ulysses S. and William T. end up naming now-closed outposts in the Canal Zone instead of major garrisons in CONUS?)
If “Fort Sherman” is already taken, let’s use the name “Fort Mr. Peabody.”
Well, I’m sure Bragg was as responsible for as many confederate deaths as Grant.
How did their ancestors know to honor them?
In most ways, I oppose celebrating the Confederacy. But after all this time, changing the name of a few military bases seems vaguely pointless.
It reminds me a little of “Liberty Steaks” replacing “Hamburgers” during WWI. It really isn’t the “point of the spear” when it comes to protecting our heritage of liberty.
In contrast, I agree with the highway department that refused to allow the KKK to “adopt a highway.” That is the kind of fight we have to take on today.
And after the war, he was also a strong advocate for equal rights for Blacks. Also, it’s quite likely the Klan was using his name and that he was not actually a part of it. The evidence seems to be that he let them do it because he felt the South needed someone to stand up to the northerners, but not expecting it to be attacking Blacks.
Forrest was a far more complex character than is usually thought.
Not a fort, nor a ship, or anything at all with U.S. in front of it.
They can start here to find some new names.
If we keep losing wars we might as well keep naming bases after losers. And don’t defend Nathan Bedford Forest. Just don’t do it. And what was up with John Bell Hood running from Sherman?
“a strong advocate for equal rights for Blacks”? :dubious: Doubtful. Now, yes, a short time before his death and 8 years after founding the KKK he did give a conciliatory speech, which was well received by a mostly Black Audience.
"*His last notable public appearance was on the Fourth of July in Memphis, when he appeared before the colored people at their celebration, was publicly presented with a bouquet by them as a mark of peace and reconciliation, and made a friendly speech in reply. In this he once more took occasion to defend himself and his war record, and to declare that he was a hearty friend of the colored race. *
Do note “he once more took occasion to defend himself and his war record”
The actual text of that speech was apparently not actually preserved. The modern version dates from the late 20th century, possibly written by sympathizers. In any case, there is no period source for the text, altho that a speech was given was noted in a couple of period papers.
Mind you, yes, actual text or not, it is clear NBF had a change of heart in his last years. But all we have is one speech. Does one speech make up for founding the KKK and The Ft Pillow massacre?
I grew up on a street named after a Confederate general. Now it’s named after a prominent civil rights leader–who has done a lot more for the people living on that street than the previous namesake. A hundred years from now, maybe the street will be named something different–to memoralize a person or a cause that’s more important to the residents than the civil rights movement.
I have no problem with this.
So how do we feel about Fort Jackson, in light of Jackson’s legacy with Native Americans?
What legacy is that? And, which Jackson?
Do note that the Trail of tears did not happen during Jacksons presidency.
Hostile. Andrew.
And it mostly did. The removal of the Indians from southeastern America wasn’t a weekend project. It began with the enactment of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The final stages of it was the forced removal in 1838 of the Cherokees, who were the most established of the southeastern tribes. Being as Jackson was President from 1829 to 1837, it’s easy to see most of this happened during his administration.