Take Confederate names off US Army bases?

Politics & Elections
41

Sign me in. Though Ft. Gordon is closer to more places where William T. showed some much neded tough love.

42

Fort Jefferson Davis sounds good, since an officer of that name was one of Shermies most aggressive and vicious division commanders in the 1864/65 campaign.

43

I think Mar-a-Lago would make a great training site for SEALS. Condemn it, pay rock-bottom prices for the land*, raze everything and call it the Barack Obama Training Facility.

    • Said monies to be immediately confiscated by the USFG pending a complete audit of Trump’s taxes, back as many years as is legal. Then stiff him for the rest and let him sue.

But otherwise, every single place named for a traitor should be renamed at the very least.

44

SEAL museum in Ft. Pierce is about an hour north of Mar A Lago. I’ve been there it’s a small but nice museum.

45

Wait, what happened to Louisiana?

46

Every Confederate officer who served in the US military before the Civil War violated his oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” Naming military bases after them, regardless of what they accomplished before or after the war, is a slap in the face to all military personnel who serve there. I don’t see why the renaming of Forts Bragg, Lee, AP Hill, Beauregard, etc. is even a point of contention.

47

I do think it was more complicated than trying to cement Jim Crow (that was true of some memorializing of CSA mainly earlier) or reacting against integration (true of memorializing in the 1950’s-60’s, some of state flags with the CSA battle flag didn’t have it till then for example).

Same with the convention of several armored vehicles of WWII nicknamed for Confederate generals, Lee (M3 medium tank), Stuart (M3/5 light tank) and Jackson (M36 tank destroyer). Although the British were also involved in the first two, they came up with those names (along with more common Grant for a different version of M3 medium) and the US operating units actually seldom used those general names anyway, not Sherman either (much more commonly called ‘M4 medium tank’ or just M4). The most you could say about that is oblivious to racial implications.

Also the USN ballistic missile subs mentioned, which entered service in the early 1960’s, were named for Lee and Jackson, who were among the best generals the US ever produced, albeit in a rebellion. Likewise Stuart though not as major a figure had an impressive military record. The embarrassing thing about most of the 10 Army bases is they’re name after guys with much more mixed military records for the CSA.

As a diehard Yankee, though not very woke, I’ve always thought the US military could do without most of its references to CSA figures. I think the truly outstanding military leaders could be exceptions to that, in a military history context. Although not an absolute necessity either. Also the convenient thing about ships is that they wear out or become obsolete in only a few decades, where you can just adopt different naming conventions next time. Those SSBN’s didn’t last long enough for their names to become hotly controversial (though I can recall some uncomfortable reference to those names even back when they were new).

48

IIRC, the big flap with subs was with the Corpus Christi, which they had to rename The City of Corpus Christi for obvious reasons.