Tolzer Posted October 11, 2022 Share #1 Posted October 11, 2022 The decision will also impact symbols, displays, and monuments on military bases as well. Never would I have thought that this would become a reality. With the WOKE issues, and now this? Should not be a surprise why recruiting levels are so low across the military services. Fort Bragg, N.C., to Fort Liberty - $6,374,230 Fort Polk, LA., to Fort Johnson - $1,390,240 Fort Benning, GA., to Fort Moore - $4,928,571 Fort Gordon, GA., to Fort Eisenhower - $580,000 Fort A.P. Hill, VA., to Fort Walker - $1,982,227 Fort Hood, Texas, to Fort Cavazos - $1,539,885 Fort Pickett, VA., to Fort Barfoot - $322,900 Fort Rucker, Ala., to Fort Novosel - $1,526,645 Fort Lee, Va., to Fort Gregg-Adams - $2,396,600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 11, 2022 Share #2 Posted October 11, 2022 Thanks for the information! As someone who works for the Army, I am very attuned at how huge this will be. The amount of $ estimated doesn't take into account the years of habit formed by the people who work at/with/near the installations, so it will be a huge deal once this takes place. That said, this is also a very political topic. It's fine to discuss the actual logistics of renaming bases (what has happened in the past? I believe there's been prescident) but let's not go down the road of partisan political or "disagreeable" cultural discussion or the thread will be zapped in short order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratasfan Posted October 12, 2022 Share #3 Posted October 12, 2022 Wow. Is this something that is actually happening or just being put forward? This hasn't hit our news watching yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolzer Posted October 12, 2022 Author Share #4 Posted October 12, 2022 From my understanding the process is supposed to be completed 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratasfan Posted October 12, 2022 Share #5 Posted October 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, Tolzer said: From my understanding the process is supposed to be completed 2024. Oh, so it is a done thing, then? I already call Fort Lee Camp Lee still . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchu Warrior Posted October 12, 2022 Share #6 Posted October 12, 2022 On 10/11/2022 at 12:16 PM, Tolzer said: The decision will also impact symbols, displays, and monuments on military bases as well. Never would I have thought that this would become a reality. With the WOKE issues, and now this? Should not be a surprise why recruiting levels are so low across the military services. Fort Bragg, N.C., to Fort Liberty - $6,374,230 Fort Polk, LA., to Fort Johnson - $1,390,240 Fort Benning, GA., to Fort Moore - $4,928,571 Fort Gordon, GA., to Fort Eisenhower - $580,000 Fort A.P. Hill, VA., to Fort Walker - $1,982,227 Fort Hood, Texas, to Fort Cavazos - $1,539,885 Fort Pickett, VA., to Fort Barfoot - $322,900 Fort Rucker, Ala., to Fort Novosel - $1,526,645 Fort Lee, Va., to Fort Gregg-Adams - $2,396,600 If anyone asks me were I went to basic I of course will always say Fort Benning. With that said I also understand why so many believe that those CSA names were remnants of the Jim Crow era, or from the revival period after "The Birth of a Nation," and therefore a mistake that needed to be corrected. I also doubt that many young recruits are overly concerned about the name of any US Army installation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wharfmaster Posted October 16, 2022 Share #7 Posted October 16, 2022 Go Woke, go broke. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKIPH Posted October 17, 2022 Share #8 Posted October 17, 2022 Ft Bragg will always be "Bragg", with everyone I speak too. Since first stationed here in October 1970, and only away from the post a total of 3 years during my 20 in service, with an additional 31 yrs after retirement living and working around the area. Personally, I have never heard one single person of any race, color , or creed gripe about the post being named after a Confederate General. Folks were proud to serve here, especially with the units they served with. As I stated. it will always be Ft Bragg to myself, and all the troops I served with. "Cost!", LOL, every phone book, piece of official government paper, street signs, post signs, PX, bowling alleys along with street names of other Confederate Generals, will need changing. What an expensive mess! My very personal opinion, having been associated here for over 52 years! SKIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikie Posted October 18, 2022 Share #9 Posted October 18, 2022 Using Fort Bragg as an example, is that it's official name? If it is, just find another less controversial soldier named Bragg and "rename" it after him. Problem solved, maybe. If they include the first names officially, that gets it a bit more complicated. Same with the other installations. In the case of Braxton Bragg, his military accomplishments weren't very stellar. Must have run out of names on the list if they named it after him in the first place. Mikie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra 6 Actual Posted October 18, 2022 Share #10 Posted October 18, 2022 What seems to have been lost is the historical reason that these bases were named for Confederate Generals in the first place. The intent was to make the South feel that it, and its leaders, were part of the United States. There was no pretension that brothers DIDN’t fight brothers, but that this “Late Unpleasantness” was behind us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake36bravo Posted October 18, 2022 Share #11 Posted October 18, 2022 This thread is going to go South quick, fast, and in a hurry. (I just had to) The last I checked there are no Confederates left to assuage or placate so that they 'feel' they are part of the Republic they left on their own free will in the first place. Certainly, after 150 years the 'last unpleasantness' is far, far in the rear view mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchu Warrior Posted October 20, 2022 Share #12 Posted October 20, 2022 Robert E. Lee's own thoughts on the subject were very clear; Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869. Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, R. E. Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wharfmaster Posted October 22, 2022 Share #13 Posted October 22, 2022 Those who forget (hide) history are doomed to repeat it. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchu Warrior Posted October 22, 2022 Share #14 Posted October 22, 2022 1 hour ago, Wharfmaster said: Those who forget (hide) history are doomed to repeat it. W There are hundreds of museums and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of books that are dedicated to the history of the US Civil War. There are also nine National Military Parks, eleven National Battlefield Parks, and One National Battlefield Site all pertaining to the US Civil War. I also just googled US Civil War and the count was 840,000,000 so if anyone is attempting to hide that part of our history they are not doing a very good job of it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIKyle Posted October 22, 2022 Share #15 Posted October 22, 2022 It should be known that all Army bases in the South were not named after Confederates during the expansion of Army camps around World War I. In some cases, Union officers (McClellan) were selected over Confederates (Stuart). In other cases, US Army officers were the principle selectee for southern base names. This article is a good primer with downloads of original documents available. https://history.army.mil/faq/naming-of-us-army-posts.htm The renaming of bases has nothing to do with erasing history - On the contrary, I am willing to wager that when the new signs go up the Civil War will still have happened. Rather, we are choosing who we commemorate. Does anyone disagree that the names put forth do not deserve to be commemorated? I am personally amazed at how many people are against renaming bases from guys who in large part weren't great commanders in an army that took up arms against the United States for people who made positive contributions to the US Army. I am especially astounded at servicemembers who swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic to throw their support to keeping the memory of men who subverted their oath to the Constitution to take up arms against the United States associated with our bases. While for some it might not seem like "a big deal" I would encourage some empathetic thought exercises to consider being an African American soldier posted at a fort named for someone who fought to keep them in bondage... and if you think the war was not about slavery, please review the articles of Confederation put forth by the seceding states. Spoiler: there's a theme. I disagree with the assertion that "the Civil War is over." An examination of news articles describing racially-motivated killings, "proud" displays of the Confederate flag (the one used by the KKK and revitalized during Jim Crow as opposed to flags actually used by Confederate armies), and the backing the public memorialization of those that subverted the Constitution, supported a succession from the United States, and took up arms against the United States suggest that the war's effects still linger if not weigh heavily on the public conscience. I will, like many, undoubtedly slip and call Ft. Benning by the name I called it whilst stationed there along with others. That will be out of habit rather than from a place of ignorance, however. Last, as this is a history forum, the origins of the term 'woke' go back 100 years and was viewed as a positive term to always search for enlightenment. Under that definition, sign me up. Kyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdk0911 Posted October 22, 2022 Share #16 Posted October 22, 2022 What scares me is when does it stop - how about Washington and Jefferson and etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McCauley Posted October 23, 2022 Share #17 Posted October 23, 2022 Give everything numbers. Someone may be offended otherwise. Now that I think of it, you may be offended by that if you can't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluehawk Posted October 23, 2022 Share #18 Posted October 23, 2022 "... some empathetic thought exercises to consider being an African American soldier posted at a fort named for someone who fought to keep them in bondage." > That, was the only part of the exercise with which I could and do wholeheartedly agree, among those soldiers for whom it would actually BE an issue in the 21st century. That number may be a lot smaller than empathy would expect. Excising Lee is unconscionable. https://leefamilyarchive.org/about-us/the-lees https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1298798.The_Lees_of_Virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIKyle Posted October 24, 2022 Share #19 Posted October 24, 2022 6 hours ago, Bluehawk said: "... some empathetic thought exercises to consider being an African American soldier posted at a fort named for someone who fought to keep them in bondage." > That, was the only part of the exercise with which I could and do wholeheartedly agree, among those soldiers for whom it would actually BE an issue in the 21st century. That number may be a lot smaller than empathy would expect. Excising Lee is unconscionable. Your two statements seem contradictory. You agree that soldiers, in this case African American soldiers, should not have to be based at a fort named for someone who fought to keep them in bondage, but then seem to want an exception for Lee. Why? Yes, as your first link pointed out, there's some heavy hitters in the bloodline. But only one fought against the United States... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McCauley Posted October 24, 2022 Share #20 Posted October 24, 2022 I've got to disagree with the statement, "The renaming of bases has nothing to do with erasing history". The renaming has an effect on the history that has occurred since the names were introduced. Fort Bragg is "The Home of the 82nd Airborne". Fort Benning is not only "The Home of the Army Infantry" but also "Home to the Army Airborne School" Fort Rucker is "The Home of Army Aviation" Etc, etc, etc........... I would argue that most soldiers don't even know who the names stand for. The posts themselves have become the names. As a young lieutenant I worked in Headquarters United States Army Aviation School, Fort Rucker, Alabama. I had no idea who Edmund Rucker was until I saw his portrait in the front hall. The explanation in 1988 was, he helped with Alabama's economic recovery after the Civil War and his descendants had donated (or sold at a discount) the land Camp Rucker was built on. It also had him listed as a Quartermaster Colonel in the Confederate Army. I'm sure the painting and narrative are hidden away somewhere now. In the future, old timers and the younger generation of soldiers will have no concept of what the other is speaking of. It's sad. I actually am old enough to remember Mike Novosel when he had a dedicated parking spot at the Officer's Club. Mike has passed and so has the O-Club. I'm going to stop here as some of the above-mentioned points might be better discussed over beers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchu Warrior Posted October 24, 2022 Share #21 Posted October 24, 2022 On 10/22/2022 at 5:59 PM, mdk0911 said: What scares me is when does it stop - how about Washington and Jefferson and etc. I believe the difference is simply the fact that Washington and Jefferson did not pick up arms against our nation in defense of the peculiar institution. I also believe that they both understood, and thier thoughts as well as thier personal actions prove so, that slavery was something that our nation needed to do away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linedoggie Posted October 24, 2022 Share #22 Posted October 24, 2022 2 hours ago, Manchu Warrior said: I believe the difference is simply the fact that Washington and Jefferson did not pick up arms against our nation in defense of the peculiar institution. I also believe that they both understood, and thier thoughts as well as thier personal actions prove so, that slavery was something that our nation needed to do away with. Yeah they were just Slave owners of fellow AMERICANS so there is that. If we are going to rename bases due to being annoyed at Confederates then why arent we annoyed at Slave owners? where does it stop? By the way Slavery existed under the Confederate flag for 4 years, slavery existed under the Union flag for 83 years Buffalo Soldiers killed Native Americans, should we stop honoring the 9th and 10th cavalry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluehawk Posted October 25, 2022 Share #23 Posted October 25, 2022 " You agree that soldiers, in this case African American soldiers, should not have to be based at a fort named for someone who fought to keep them in bondage..." > I didn't and wouldn't agree with that. I agreed to be empathetic about it. All kinds of soldiers have been stationed together at each of those bases for decades, without the Fort's name interfering with their performance of duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchu Warrior Posted October 25, 2022 Share #24 Posted October 25, 2022 3 hours ago, Linedoggie said: Yeah they were just Slave owners of fellow AMERICANS so there is that. If we are going to rename bases due to being annoyed at Confederates then why arent we annoyed at Slave owners? where does it stop? By the way Slavery existed under the Confederate flag for 4 years, slavery existed under the Union flag for 83 years Buffalo Soldiers killed Native Americans, should we stop honoring the 9th and 10th cavalry? Well, to begin with I would never attempt to trivialize the brutal institution of slavery in any way. With that said, and I am not making excuses for George and Tom, but I can most certainly draw a distinction between those 18th Century slave owners that realized that the institution was evil and needed to end and those 19th Century slave owners that actually succeeded from the Union and fought a war that killed over 600,000 Americans in an attempt to perverse that same evil institution. As far as the Buffalo soldiers are concerned why stop with them? Why not be critical of all US Troops that committed genocide on our Native American population in the name of Manifest Destiny gone wild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rooster Posted October 25, 2022 Share #25 Posted October 25, 2022 I would wonder how changing the name of the base effects readiness for war fighting? In other words, this seems like a big distraction over nothing and is taking so much away from everything thats actually important like war fighting ability morale and readiness. etc etc . Its not got a thing to do with war fighting. Its all political. And that doesnt belong in the military. The chi coms like the nazi's like the soviets, all had political officers in their units. Dont know the current amount of time spent on political indoctrination in the pla but its a large part of their training. Which in my mind leaves them short on war training. We dont need this stuff in our military. My two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts