Jump to content

Renaming Army bases that honor Confederates would cost $21M


 Share

Recommended Posts

I will end with this.

I was born in the 1960's. Not the 1860's

and I like everyone now living had not a thing to do with any of it.

Erasing history does not change history and if you erase it,

then future generations will be in danger of

making the same mistakes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" ... Is this something that is actually happening or just being put forward? This hasn't hit our news watching yet."

 

9 Jun 20 Sen. Warren (D-MA) by amendment to NDAA. It was done by convening The Naming Commission, enacted narrowly 1 Jan 21, passed by both houses, vetoed and overridden.

 

The 8-person Commission was chartered with five primary activities:

- Assessing the cost of renaming or removing names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.

- Developing procedures and criteria to assess whether an existing name, symbol, monument, display, or paraphernalia commemorates the Confederate States of America or person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.

- Recommending procedures for renaming assets of the Department of Defense to prevent commemoration of the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.

- Developing a plan to remove names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from assets of the Department of Defense, within the timeline established by this Act.

- Including in the plan procedures and criteria for collecting and incorporating local sensitivities associated with naming or renaming of assets of the Department of Defense.

 

- Deliberated from 2 Mar 21 - 1 Oct 22.

 

- Considered ca. 90 possible names to change 9 forts to.

 

- Made recommendation on 24 May 22.

 

- There remains an extensive list of US military assets (forts, ships, streets, buildings, units, bases, monuments, insignia, paraphernalia, laboratories, memorials, symbols, libraries, parks et al) to be decided, now being left to discretion of the Commission, SECDEF and JCOS. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vintageproductions

Let's get back on track with the main subject.

 

You can feel the tension started, please don't make this political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchu Warrior
16 hours ago, The Rooster said:

I will end with this.

I was born in the 1960's. Not the 1860's

and I like everyone now living had not a thing to do with any of it.

Erasing history does not change history and if you erase it,

then future generations will be in danger of

making the same mistakes.

 

 

 

I was also born in the 1960's and I also never succeeded from the Union to fight a war against the nation of my birth in defense of slavery. However, all those CSA General Officers sure did and that is why it was a mistake that needed to be corrected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are generous and say this project will cost $20 million or even $25 million, that is POM dust in a $770 billion DOD budget.  I am fairly confident that the Army can do more than one thing at a time and will have the aforementioned garrison HQs take care of the renaming pieces while deploying units train and do all the things.  Similarly, I cannot believe that a base being renamed will mean that old and new soldiers will not be able to foster connections of service life. 

 

The issue of slavery is not within the language of the NDAA that called for renaming bases, specifically because of the reason alluded to by others.  This was a common practice and part of US law until 1865 and frankly did not/ does not make sense.  Now, we can acknowledge that no one was perfect, but their achievements and contributions should be overshadowed for living in the time they did. 

 

That being said, the CSA names are a different can of worms because as Manchu stated each one, to a man, voluntarily resigned their commissions to take up arms against the United States.  Recall that being something akin to treason.  Yes, the Civil War ended in 1865, but reading the news suggests it is not over.  Memorializing people with positive contributions is not going to change that, but it's as good a place as any to start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluehawk said:

Statue of George Washington, Trafalgar Square, London, in front of the National Gallery - donated in 1921  george-washington-statue.jpg.2db5b01f83ec17f5abf6b4063021a0ab.jpg

 

 

 

 

I don't see what this has to do with topic at hand which is renaming US military bases to honor actual Union Army patriots and not CSA traitors. The only people this seems to bother are the ones with curious associations or beliefs. Those who admire Nathan Bedford Forest or the ideals that drove men like him have no business wearing any American uniform. For the record, the United States Army was the first branch of service to desegregate.

 

George Washington secured victory at Yorktown in the Revolutionary War and gained independence for his new nation in 1781. He was a patriot who loved his country. No one in the CSA fought to ensure the Nation remained whole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington, a former British officer, put on the enemy uniform under a different oath and fought for the establishment of a new independent confederation of States, against what they perceived as tyranny and abuse. They were successful.

 

In the British capitol today stands a statue to that General and President, a native son of northeast England.

 

Traitor? 

 

" No one in the CSA fought to ensure the Nation remained whole. "

 

They certainly did, and had.

 

My 5th great grandfather, Bvt BrigGen Wm W Russell (1735-93), 5th VA Rgmt - probably slaveholder, almost certainly knew and fought alongside R. E. Lee's father, both Virginia-born like Washington, against the British army.

 

541839_134656540052688_872755040_n.jpg.e09726265f68f304731251f1a69dfc8b.jpg552613_134680996716909_1394274186_n.jpg.82104cde687ba90ba90f79ee6d8679b4.jpg

3345th .docx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, snake36bravo said:

George Washington secured victory at Yorktown in the Revolutionary War and gained independence for his new nation in 1781. He was a patriot who loved his country. No one in the CSA fought to ensure the Nation remained whole. 

 

Playing devil's advocate here.  George Washington was also a traitor to his counties legitimate government and led a rebel army to overthrow it.  To be clear, I'm sure glad he took that path and succeeded.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, we can't possibly know all the motivations that led to painful decisions made by soldiers on both sides during the strictly American conflict that was to become known as the Civil War.  

 

The renaming is done, I disagree with it. The bases will continue to have their original names in my mind.  Not because they were named for confederates but because they were the training places of many American heroes and home to many storied units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are roughly 450-500 military bases in the U.S.   If we look at world-wide, there are about 750 military bases. Nine are possibly being renamed. 

 

I tried to do a search to find out how many bases have been renamed throughout our history but have not found the number yet. 

 

...Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2022 at 7:18 PM, GIKyle said:

That being said, the CSA names are a different can of worms because as Manchu stated each one, to a man, voluntarily resigned their commissions to take up arms against the United States.  Recall that being something akin to treason.  Yes, the Civil War ended in 1865, but reading the news suggests it is not over.  Memorializing people with positive contributions is not going to change that, but it's as good a place as any to start. 

    

      The fact that the states weren't united was perhaps the biggest cause of the war... In making a statement about positive contributions one has to be careful. Most of those Confederate Generals were heroes of the Mexican War, gaining a lot for this nation. One might see that as positive. The Lee family sued and won Arlington and then allowed the cemetery to remain, again, one might see that as a positive contribution to this nation. Since none were ever convicted in a court of law, I cannot see them as traitors any more than I would look at Washington as one. They were men of their times and stood firm in their beliefs. New ships will be built, new facilities and even bases will pop up, they will need names and many of the new choices are appropriate. I say leave the current ones as they are. I was stationed at Ft Polk, Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, and Ft. Jackson to name a few. I will always refer to them as such because that is what they were and are.      Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2022 at 5:17 PM, Manchu Warrior said:

I was also born in the 1960's and I also never succeeded from the Union to fight a war against the nation of my birth in defense of slavery. However, all those CSA General Officers sure did and that is why it was a mistake that needed to be corrected. 

      

           First of all, it is seceded from the word secession, not succeeded, Secondly, the vast majority of citizens, both north and south did not view themselves as citizens of a "nation" but rather of a state. The place you are coming from would be totally alien to an antebellum era person. With that said, to fully understand that war, you must be able to step into the mindset of someone who lived in those times. To apply modern norms and mores simply does not work and that is why we have the current mess with revisionism etc... It is not a forgiveness for slavery, rather a way to understand how things happened and why.  In closing, isn't it interesting that talk of this war almost always centers on the issue of slavery and how the South fought to defend it? I mean, most Native Americans were removed by the US government, in many cases forcibly and many were murdered outright, so the Cherokee and Choctaw along with many others fought with the South against the Union yet it gets little to no discussion as it doesn't fit a certain narrative of a benevolent North or "US". After the 13th Amendment those tribes and others kept slaves, took slaves and traded in slaves yet they are not held to the standard of a Confederate. Crazy Horses monument has not been destroyed, but here in Michigan there is a call to remove Custers,,, I could go on but to what end. There is a level of hypocrisy here that is enormous and serves no real purpose. As mentioned previously, it doesn't improve warfighting by renaming, it certainly won't free a slave, its all just revision with no real goal and no end.        Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has greatly diverged from the original topic of discussion.  

 

It appears no new information is being added about the renaming of US military facilities.  It is time to move onto other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...