It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if one of the Army bases was renamed for Daniel Sickles :) Ed Bearss, at one of our roundtable's annual banquets where he was the guest speaker, referred to Sickles as "the O.J. Simpson of Gettysburg."
I suppose every Iraq War veteran is complicit in genocide and believing the “WMDs” myth. Because of this, we should be careful with whom we recognize honorably in the future. Basically your logic.
Can you really not tell the difference between US soldiers sent to attack another country on the basis of lies from their Commander in Chief, and US soldiers who reneged on their oath to their country in order to attack it and build, defend and expand an empire based on slavery? It is visible from space.
It isn’t “visible from space” at all. Anyone who studies the ACW learns this from an early start on the subject. I’m a ten year combat veteran from said war/conflict. I fought for the USA. I love my country. However, if Texas and the US broke ties, I will fight for Texas. Even if I don’t agree with the choices my state made. Texas is my home. If Texas and my hometown did the same. I would side with my hometown. For the same reasons. Brothers against neighbors, neighbors against state, state against country, country against world, world against aliens, etc.
You may not understand that logic, but the men whose names we trying to erase or erroneously besmirch would.
"However, if Texas and the US broke ties, I will fight for Texas. Even if I don’t agree with the choices my state made."
With all due respect to your service to this country, this comment reminds me of the importance of remembering individuals like George Thomas and Winfield Scott.
Both of whom I respect and admire. I am also a fan of many Union members. I just don’t understand the need to slander the Confederate men when we know that, to them at least, the war wasn’t a black and white issue.
I don't believe they are being "slandered" by the military. The issue is whether decisions made decades after the Civil War to honor men who fought against the United States should be honored.
This is the first I am hearing that genocide was committed in Iraq. Beyond that, I am not clear as to the point you are trying to make. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I’m using genocide for effect; although, there are those who believe those claims.
My point is that just because men fought on a different side in the American Civil War doesn’t define their reasons for doing so. Our idea of loyalty and theirs (including Northerners) would not match up today at all. Most people in the South didn’t own any slaves. Most people in the North couldn’t have given two damns about the plights of those slaves. Sure, there were abolitionists, but there were also Fire Eaters. Both were a minority. These bases weren’t named after these men because of their head beliefs on slavery (which varied even amount those listed), they were named for there military achievements and to mend wounds between brothers of a mother nation.
Men volunteered and fought for many reasons. This is certainly true.
You said: "Most people in the South didn’t own any slaves." I am not sure what this has to do with anything. You didn't have to be a slaveowner to understand what the Confederacy was fighting to achieve or that slavery was important to protect. Enlisted men woke up every day surrounded by thousands of enslaved men, who performed a wide range of tasks that allowed Confederate armies to function.
Your characterization of Northern soldiers is overly simplistic. It is true that the abolitionists comprised a very small number, but there are plenty of examples of United States soldiers whose position on slavery evolved over the course of the war. I am writing about one such individual right now by the name of Robert Gould Shaw as well as the rest of the regiment in which he served before taking up command of the 54th Massachusetts.
The bases were named after Confederates for a number of reasons that reflect the state of the nation in the first half of the twentieth century.
God knows all and if we are in end times, then we must continue to love our neighbors and honor our glorious creator. After all, our faith is what’s under attack. My mom has been saying for decades “When they removed God from schools, everything in our country shifted.
I must admit that it was a very slight shift that like of a snowball rolling down a steep hill that increased in and size and strength to harm if you were the one trapped at the bottom waiting for impact......
In the past year and a half, Joe Biden and the uniparty have one purpose and that’s destroying us and they could care less about our safety.
Will the midterms save us from the monsters in power? I pray they can, but we’ve been fooled by their words only to realize they lied or were bought off. We are in trouble and we all sense it. God please bless our patriots and all those sent to do your battle.
That’s a great question. I think us is the people who can’t for whatever reason see what’s happening or us are ones who see what’s happening and do not believe they can do anything about it. It is what it is. Then there’s us who’s clearly seeing what’s happening to our country, our values and morals and wrap themselves up in the full armor of God. Complex answer to an unexpected question. So, what do you think about my answer? Maybe I should have said me or I but I didn’t want people to discount my message if they thought I was standing on a soapbox. It’s is my impress of what I see all around me because when it comes right down to it, we is all of us on a global scale. We are in this together.even If some parts of we don’t see it. Yet. I’d love to hear what you think I mean by we.
"The Commission’s work raised a very straighforward question: Should our military assets honor individuals who fought to defend our Constitution or those who fought against it?
Even though I have not been following this topic very closely, except for your excellent reports, I agree that the locations needed to be renamed and the statue honoring Confederate soldiers in Arlington Cemetery needed to be removed. There are very few places in this world that honor those who fought against the legitimate government of the country they were trying to secede from or overthrow.
And on a much happier note (at least to this Cleveland resident) - Go Guardians!
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. If there is a substantial portion of military personnel who are made seriously uncomfortable by having bases and other things named after Confederates, then I definitely agree that those things should be renamed. No one should be made to feel unwelcome because of an issue like this--particularly in an institution as important as the military. However, I'm not completely convinced that is the case. Perhaps it is, but I don't remember hearing a lot of objections to the Confederate names prior to 2020. Of course, it's possible that many people actually DID feel this way prior to that and just didn't make their feelings known as much, and that others that formerly didn't think about the issue now have and do indeed feel uncomfortable about it now. If so, these people's feelings certainly "count."
I can understand the argument that it makes little sense for the military to name things after those that fought against it. However, in reflecting on this phenomenon, I remember actually thinking of it as an act of magnanimousness and "forgiveness" on the military's part. Critics will note that there's nothing named after former foreign adversaries--no "Camp Cornwallis" for example. But I think the difference is that the Confederates were reincorporated into the U.S. fold. When books mention the total number of Americans who died in the Civil War, they give a figure for the number of Union and Confederate military personnel combined. They don't just count the Union (although they do mention how many of that total were Union and how many were Confederate).
Of course, the reasons for doing something matter. Naming bases and other things for Confederates as part of a well-mearning "reconciliationist" impulse is far different than doing so because of racism. And the reasons why the names are there in the first place are very relevant, IMO, in assessing whether or not they should stay today. Additionally, if one justifies naming bases and such after Confederates because they were fellow Americans, shouldn't the military also honor the Loyalists from the Revolutionary War in the same fashion? After all, although many fled to Canada, Britain and other countries after the war, most stayed and became loyal American citizens. And unlike the Confederates, their cause did not involve anything fundamentally immoral like slavery and racism.
Also, I don't think honoring someone who fought against you is, on its face, absurd. On the "Find a Grave" website, you can leave flowers (or other symbols) and messages for people who have died. On the memorial walls of some German and Japanese military figures from WWII--highly regarded generals/admirals, aces etc. you'll often see friendly messages from people from the U.S., Britain or (possibly) other countries, praising them as worthy opponents and such. Of course, there's a big difference between a private person leaving flowers and/or friendly messages for someone and the military naming a base or a ship after that person. And unlike the Confederates, the U.S.'s foreign enemies cannot be accused of committing treason against it.
Thanks so much for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment.
I often heard defenders of Confederate monuments try to make the case that the controversy was new and the product of recent activists. Of course, even a cursory glance at the relevant history demonstrates that these monuments have always been controversial. The difference is that only in recent years have those voices been given a platform.
The same can be said about all of the issues the Naming Commission has addressed. Whatever significance we place on reunion/reconciliation we need to acknowledge that it was never complete. The decisions to honor former Confederates was a product of a number of factors.
There are a number of ways in which former enemies can honor one another. Think of the veterans of the Japanese and American veterans of Pearl Harbor who were finally able to meet and share stories with one another. That said, no one would suggest naming a ship or military base after a Japanese veteran. I also think we need to acknowledge the extent to which the honoring of Confederates helped to erase the history of African Americans in the Civil War, which in turn served to justify a system of segregation throughout the nation.
Wondering how long it will take, and in what way, the obscenity at Arlington National Cemetery will be removed. I can just imagine [unreconstructed rebels]* chaining themselves to it to prevent its removal.
*Bracketed to reflect the hatefulness of this term from the Civil War Centennial era in Virginia.
No, I think it should be melted down and made into sculptures to honor the USCT who served so honorably to restore our country, and who did not receive the freedom they fought for, considering the way Reconstruction ended.
This is good news. Yes it makes little sense for a country and its armed forces to honor those who fought against it. I only criticize renaming Fort Bragg as "Fort Liberty". It sounds bizarre when compared to the other great figures also receiving the same honor. I would have preferred Fort Gavin after James "Jumping Jim" Gavin, the 82nd Airborne Division's legendary commander in the Second World War. He was also a supporter of racial integration when he asked for Black paratroopers be added to his white unit. Just my two cents.
Fun fact: the German Army has a base named for Erwin Rommel. No this is not a WW2-era relic, it was named in 1961.
I know a couple of people who served in the 82nd. They objected to Bragg being a really bad general when the unit contained so many excellent generals, officers, and soldiers.
My question is will there be a second round to rename bases identified with the wars against Native Americans - i.e. Fort Riley, Fort Carson, etc.
And I know, too, where I stand. The renaming is a tremendous step forward. Now, let's take another one with those names associated with the extermination of Native Americans.
When I was in basic training in the Army many years ago, I was issued the Initial Entry Training handbook. In among the chapters on rifle marksmanship and land navigation was a brief overview of Army history. This history included dead in every US war. I distinctly remember that they made a point of specifying US dead, and not including Confederate in the total for the Civil War.
This seemed incongruous when I went to my MOS school, which was named after a rebel. I’d taken basic at Ft. Knox, which was named after Washington’s chief of artillery and the first Secretary of War. It made perfect sense that he had a base named after him. My MOS training was done at Ft. Lee, named for Robert E. Lee. It didn’t make sense to me that they’d name this and so many other posts after those who fought against their country and who disavowed their oaths as officers of the US Army.
I’m happy these bases are getting renamed. The Army has many more worthy heroes for these posts and I laud their selections. I just wish George Thomas got one of the Virginia forts. Now, I’d like to see the Kentucky National Guard would adjust its lineage from John Hunt Morgan to a lineage from Union regiments.
"There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." - Ulysses S Grant
It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if one of the Army bases was renamed for Daniel Sickles :) Ed Bearss, at one of our roundtable's annual banquets where he was the guest speaker, referred to Sickles as "the O.J. Simpson of Gettysburg."
I suppose every Iraq War veteran is complicit in genocide and believing the “WMDs” myth. Because of this, we should be careful with whom we recognize honorably in the future. Basically your logic.
Can you really not tell the difference between US soldiers sent to attack another country on the basis of lies from their Commander in Chief, and US soldiers who reneged on their oath to their country in order to attack it and build, defend and expand an empire based on slavery? It is visible from space.
It isn’t “visible from space” at all. Anyone who studies the ACW learns this from an early start on the subject. I’m a ten year combat veteran from said war/conflict. I fought for the USA. I love my country. However, if Texas and the US broke ties, I will fight for Texas. Even if I don’t agree with the choices my state made. Texas is my home. If Texas and my hometown did the same. I would side with my hometown. For the same reasons. Brothers against neighbors, neighbors against state, state against country, country against world, world against aliens, etc.
You may not understand that logic, but the men whose names we trying to erase or erroneously besmirch would.
It is.
Signed, a(nother) person who studies the American Civil War
Thanks for the follow-up, Lance. You said:
"However, if Texas and the US broke ties, I will fight for Texas. Even if I don’t agree with the choices my state made."
With all due respect to your service to this country, this comment reminds me of the importance of remembering individuals like George Thomas and Winfield Scott.
Both of whom I respect and admire. I am also a fan of many Union members. I just don’t understand the need to slander the Confederate men when we know that, to them at least, the war wasn’t a black and white issue.
I don't believe they are being "slandered" by the military. The issue is whether decisions made decades after the Civil War to honor men who fought against the United States should be honored.
This is the first I am hearing that genocide was committed in Iraq. Beyond that, I am not clear as to the point you are trying to make. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I’m using genocide for effect; although, there are those who believe those claims.
My point is that just because men fought on a different side in the American Civil War doesn’t define their reasons for doing so. Our idea of loyalty and theirs (including Northerners) would not match up today at all. Most people in the South didn’t own any slaves. Most people in the North couldn’t have given two damns about the plights of those slaves. Sure, there were abolitionists, but there were also Fire Eaters. Both were a minority. These bases weren’t named after these men because of their head beliefs on slavery (which varied even amount those listed), they were named for there military achievements and to mend wounds between brothers of a mother nation.
Men volunteered and fought for many reasons. This is certainly true.
You said: "Most people in the South didn’t own any slaves." I am not sure what this has to do with anything. You didn't have to be a slaveowner to understand what the Confederacy was fighting to achieve or that slavery was important to protect. Enlisted men woke up every day surrounded by thousands of enslaved men, who performed a wide range of tasks that allowed Confederate armies to function.
Your characterization of Northern soldiers is overly simplistic. It is true that the abolitionists comprised a very small number, but there are plenty of examples of United States soldiers whose position on slavery evolved over the course of the war. I am writing about one such individual right now by the name of Robert Gould Shaw as well as the rest of the regiment in which he served before taking up command of the 54th Massachusetts.
The bases were named after Confederates for a number of reasons that reflect the state of the nation in the first half of the twentieth century.
This is great news. Sorry to say I will have to research the person whose name will replace Hood's.
I still wish one of the forts had been renamed for George Thomas, who I admire very much.
God knows all and if we are in end times, then we must continue to love our neighbors and honor our glorious creator. After all, our faith is what’s under attack. My mom has been saying for decades “When they removed God from schools, everything in our country shifted.
I must admit that it was a very slight shift that like of a snowball rolling down a steep hill that increased in and size and strength to harm if you were the one trapped at the bottom waiting for impact......
In the past year and a half, Joe Biden and the uniparty have one purpose and that’s destroying us and they could care less about our safety.
Will the midterms save us from the monsters in power? I pray they can, but we’ve been fooled by their words only to realize they lied or were bought off. We are in trouble and we all sense it. God please bless our patriots and all those sent to do your battle.
Hi Deborah,
Thanks for reading and for taking the time to leave this comment. Who is the "us" that you are referring to here? Thanks.
That’s a great question. I think us is the people who can’t for whatever reason see what’s happening or us are ones who see what’s happening and do not believe they can do anything about it. It is what it is. Then there’s us who’s clearly seeing what’s happening to our country, our values and morals and wrap themselves up in the full armor of God. Complex answer to an unexpected question. So, what do you think about my answer? Maybe I should have said me or I but I didn’t want people to discount my message if they thought I was standing on a soapbox. It’s is my impress of what I see all around me because when it comes right down to it, we is all of us on a global scale. We are in this together.even If some parts of we don’t see it. Yet. I’d love to hear what you think I mean by we.
"The Commission’s work raised a very straighforward question: Should our military assets honor individuals who fought to defend our Constitution or those who fought against it?
I know where I stand."
Perfectly stated.
Even though I have not been following this topic very closely, except for your excellent reports, I agree that the locations needed to be renamed and the statue honoring Confederate soldiers in Arlington Cemetery needed to be removed. There are very few places in this world that honor those who fought against the legitimate government of the country they were trying to secede from or overthrow.
And on a much happier note (at least to this Cleveland resident) - Go Guardians!
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. If there is a substantial portion of military personnel who are made seriously uncomfortable by having bases and other things named after Confederates, then I definitely agree that those things should be renamed. No one should be made to feel unwelcome because of an issue like this--particularly in an institution as important as the military. However, I'm not completely convinced that is the case. Perhaps it is, but I don't remember hearing a lot of objections to the Confederate names prior to 2020. Of course, it's possible that many people actually DID feel this way prior to that and just didn't make their feelings known as much, and that others that formerly didn't think about the issue now have and do indeed feel uncomfortable about it now. If so, these people's feelings certainly "count."
I can understand the argument that it makes little sense for the military to name things after those that fought against it. However, in reflecting on this phenomenon, I remember actually thinking of it as an act of magnanimousness and "forgiveness" on the military's part. Critics will note that there's nothing named after former foreign adversaries--no "Camp Cornwallis" for example. But I think the difference is that the Confederates were reincorporated into the U.S. fold. When books mention the total number of Americans who died in the Civil War, they give a figure for the number of Union and Confederate military personnel combined. They don't just count the Union (although they do mention how many of that total were Union and how many were Confederate).
Of course, the reasons for doing something matter. Naming bases and other things for Confederates as part of a well-mearning "reconciliationist" impulse is far different than doing so because of racism. And the reasons why the names are there in the first place are very relevant, IMO, in assessing whether or not they should stay today. Additionally, if one justifies naming bases and such after Confederates because they were fellow Americans, shouldn't the military also honor the Loyalists from the Revolutionary War in the same fashion? After all, although many fled to Canada, Britain and other countries after the war, most stayed and became loyal American citizens. And unlike the Confederates, their cause did not involve anything fundamentally immoral like slavery and racism.
Also, I don't think honoring someone who fought against you is, on its face, absurd. On the "Find a Grave" website, you can leave flowers (or other symbols) and messages for people who have died. On the memorial walls of some German and Japanese military figures from WWII--highly regarded generals/admirals, aces etc. you'll often see friendly messages from people from the U.S., Britain or (possibly) other countries, praising them as worthy opponents and such. Of course, there's a big difference between a private person leaving flowers and/or friendly messages for someone and the military naming a base or a ship after that person. And unlike the Confederates, the U.S.'s foreign enemies cannot be accused of committing treason against it.
Just some thoughts.
Hi Lee,
Thanks so much for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment.
I often heard defenders of Confederate monuments try to make the case that the controversy was new and the product of recent activists. Of course, even a cursory glance at the relevant history demonstrates that these monuments have always been controversial. The difference is that only in recent years have those voices been given a platform.
The same can be said about all of the issues the Naming Commission has addressed. Whatever significance we place on reunion/reconciliation we need to acknowledge that it was never complete. The decisions to honor former Confederates was a product of a number of factors.
There are a number of ways in which former enemies can honor one another. Think of the veterans of the Japanese and American veterans of Pearl Harbor who were finally able to meet and share stories with one another. That said, no one would suggest naming a ship or military base after a Japanese veteran. I also think we need to acknowledge the extent to which the honoring of Confederates helped to erase the history of African Americans in the Civil War, which in turn served to justify a system of segregation throughout the nation.
Wondering how long it will take, and in what way, the obscenity at Arlington National Cemetery will be removed. I can just imagine [unreconstructed rebels]* chaining themselves to it to prevent its removal.
*Bracketed to reflect the hatefulness of this term from the Civil War Centennial era in Virginia.
Maybe a cemetery full of Confederates would like to have it?
No, I think it should be melted down and made into sculptures to honor the USCT who served so honorably to restore our country, and who did not receive the freedom they fought for, considering the way Reconstruction ended.
They more than deserve the recognition, certainly.
This is good news. Yes it makes little sense for a country and its armed forces to honor those who fought against it. I only criticize renaming Fort Bragg as "Fort Liberty". It sounds bizarre when compared to the other great figures also receiving the same honor. I would have preferred Fort Gavin after James "Jumping Jim" Gavin, the 82nd Airborne Division's legendary commander in the Second World War. He was also a supporter of racial integration when he asked for Black paratroopers be added to his white unit. Just my two cents.
Fun fact: the German Army has a base named for Erwin Rommel. No this is not a WW2-era relic, it was named in 1961.
I agree re: the renaming of Fort Bragg and I didn't know about the base in Germany. Thanks.
I know a couple of people who served in the 82nd. They objected to Bragg being a really bad general when the unit contained so many excellent generals, officers, and soldiers.
My question is will there be a second round to rename bases identified with the wars against Native Americans - i.e. Fort Riley, Fort Carson, etc.
And I know, too, where I stand. The renaming is a tremendous step forward. Now, let's take another one with those names associated with the extermination of Native Americans.
When I was in basic training in the Army many years ago, I was issued the Initial Entry Training handbook. In among the chapters on rifle marksmanship and land navigation was a brief overview of Army history. This history included dead in every US war. I distinctly remember that they made a point of specifying US dead, and not including Confederate in the total for the Civil War.
This seemed incongruous when I went to my MOS school, which was named after a rebel. I’d taken basic at Ft. Knox, which was named after Washington’s chief of artillery and the first Secretary of War. It made perfect sense that he had a base named after him. My MOS training was done at Ft. Lee, named for Robert E. Lee. It didn’t make sense to me that they’d name this and so many other posts after those who fought against their country and who disavowed their oaths as officers of the US Army.
I’m happy these bases are getting renamed. The Army has many more worthy heroes for these posts and I laud their selections. I just wish George Thomas got one of the Virginia forts. Now, I’d like to see the Kentucky National Guard would adjust its lineage from John Hunt Morgan to a lineage from Union regiments.
Thanks for sharing, Jerry.
Thanks. I know where I stand, too.
"There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." - Ulysses S Grant