Army secretary open to renaming military bases named for Confederate generals

Fox News ^ | June 08 2020 | Jennifer Griffin, Bradford Betz

[knighthawk]

U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy is open to renaming military bases named after Confederate generals, an issue getting increased attention in recent weeks amid nationwide protests against police brutality and racism following the death of George Floyd, Fox News has learned.

A senior Army official told Fox News on Monday that McCarthy did not plan to change the names unilaterally, but instead will seek bipartisan support to do so. U.S. Army installations named after Confederate generals include Fort Benning in Georgia and Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

“We must recognize history is important, but we must come together and have some sort of open discussion about race,” the official said, adding: “This week highlighted the need to start understanding those feelings and the Army secretary is open to considering changing the names of these bases named for Confederate generals.”

[Joe 6-pack]

I’m against the renaming of these bases, but if they must be renamed much ado needs to be made about Woodrow Wilson’s administration being responsible for naming many of them in the lead up to WWI, and how the renaming is an effort to undo over a century of racism pushed on the military by the Democrat party.

[Chickensoup]

That will be on the table. Bet on it

[Chickensoup]

I think that all public facilities roads and buildings need to be named in innocuous ways. Elm street. green mountain. Deep Sky AFB and the like. Tired of seeing edifices named after creeps like McCain and others.

[Bull Snipe]

Not the case for some. John B. Gordon and Edmund W. Rucker never served in the army prior to going into Confederate service. Leonidas Polk served for 6 months after graduating from West Point, resigned his commission and became a minster.

[Tallguy]

Congress just dropped a few trillion on Covid-relief. They have us on the run and are spending us into oblivion. In the current racial climate nobody in congress will look at this issue long enough to give the cost any serious consideration.

[Russ]

We have been having open discussions about race since 1963. Until the race hustlers an the Democrat plantation mentality are gone discussion is a waste of time.

[maddog55]

Dumb-ass pandering move by a weak and worthless individual.

Fire his ass.

[Svartalfiar]

This may be unpopular on this forum, but I wouldn’t lose a moment off sleep if this happened. Robert E. Lee made significant efforts to restore the union after the civil war but he also fought in a civil war on the losing side to preserve slaveholding as a right to be preserved by governments. Many of his generals were either worthless in battle (Bragg) or eager slaveholders (Benning). This ain’t the hill I’m dying on.

You shoild do some research before spouting off nonsense like that. Lee's resignation had nothing to do with attempting to preserve slaveholding, it was entirely under his honor to defend his native State from invasion.

[lodi90]

HSBC and Lockheed. He’s a Comey clone.

---

He was hired by Milley, apparently. Trump lets his appointees pick their subordinates.

[jz638]

Okay. I'll bite. Washington was a slave holder too so I guess you are all for renaming Washington DC too yes? How about renaming DC after Karl Marx?. That sounds like a very nice name no? As you may be aware, both Britain as well as the colonies were slaveholding entities in the 1780's. At the time of our independence, we were not a backwards colony, we embraced liberty even if it was not totally right at the time and the tolerance of slave states was not done put of an embrace of the practice, but in an effort to form a more perfect union in the future. By the 1860's, slavery was a central topic of debate in Washington. As much as some people want to pretend it was an ancillary reason for the civil war, it was the main reason the southern states seceeded. (The Union sort of was a latecomer to that debate, the freeing of slaves wasn't originally the main reason for preserving the union, but by Antietam it became a focus for winning the war.)

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Another question to ask those people. When was Lee’s trial for treason?

[Svartalfiar]

Another question to ask those people. When was Lee’s trial for treason?

Eh, that's a decently different argument. Lee wasn't tried due to various factors such as Grant's pledge of honor, and the fact that the north didn't recognize the Confederacy as a separate sovereign entity, so there was no actual war declared, therefore no treason as defined by the Constitution. Plus, even if it was, the majority of the fight was a North-aggressive war, purely defensive for the South. Hard to argue treason when you're the one levying the war, not the other guy. And, if the North accepted the seccession but still fought to bring the South back, that would be admitting the States were no longer part of the Union (temporarily), and therefore not subject to the Constitution during that time, which again means no treason charge would be valid.

If you read about Davds's trial, it was a boondoggle and after two years was eventually dismissed of the charges. And, it's all mostly moot anyway since Lincoln / Johnson pardoned many and eventually issued a blanket pardon for all Confederates.

[jz638]

You shoild do some research before spouting off nonsense like that. Lee's resignation had nothing to do with attempting to preserve slaveholding, it was entirely under his honor to defend his native State from invasion.

There was a time when I actually accepted this line of reasoning, but it's garbage and not a position that I changed recently. Slavery was the issue that divided the north and south before secession and the political battles about whether or not the territories being added to America would be slaveholding states or free states preceded the actual battles of the Civil War. I don't expect historical figures to have cosmopolitan viewpoints, but even by the 1850's abolition was a very well debated topic and people were making conscious decisions about whether or not to support the continued enslavement of blacks. Lee knew the southern states were seceeding to preserve slavery. He didn't see that as a deal breaker for his honor.

Lee wasn't an innocent bystander swept up by events, he made a conscious choice to side with rebellion, probably much more to preserve his land holdings in Virginia than his honor. His work on reconciliation after the war was admirable, and his tactics in battle aren't diminished by who he fought, but it doesn't change the decisions he made during.

[NormsRevenge]

an open discussion over racism? Get real, general.

Here? In America? With a biased press and media?

Who do you want moderating it .. Rev. Al?

[Stravinsky]

They call people like you useful idiots.

[yuleeyahoo]

Fortunately this is an argument the Navy, Marines and The Coast Guard can skip as their bases are named for their locations.

[rockrr]

Washington was a slave holder too so I guess you are all for renaming Washington DC too yes?

No. What a foolish idea.

[mass55th]

Thanks for the info.

[OIFVeteran]

Long overdue. Should have never been named after traitors who took up arms against America. On top of that most of them were crap generals, looking at you Braxton Bragg.

[OIFVeteran]

It seems Lee understood that secession was nothing more than revolution, which means he knew it was traitorous to take up arms against America.

...Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “per- petual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the estab- lishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Wash- ington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . “

Lee’s letter to his son January 21, 1861