Renaming Army Installations

[Deleted]

don't know about you, but its time to do a little revisionist history while recognizing lessons can be learned from this bruhaha and the activities of people involved at the time, thus I am glad to see this because:



These people who currently "grace" various US Army Forts and Installation, and perhaps some Navy ships, historic fighting vehicles, etc.


*violated their oath, some say that once you resign, you can no longer violate your oath. I disagree with it.



*commanded troops and fought against the United States Army and were traitors. The United States Army (and the Armed Forces) should not name installations, weapons systems, and other federal property or things after traitors who led troops that killed US Soldiers. This would be like Israel naming a Fort after Hitler, Himmler, and any and all other Nazi's.



*(all of them, not just their officers), clearly violated and/or rejected the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, specifically the strictures calling out the inalienable human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By defending slavery as a states right and the sanctity of property, they clearly were at odds with these concepts. I also call out the Founding Fathers as hypocrites. I recognize slavery and a mass of other institutions and practices of the time were perfectly legal although abhorrent.



*violated and/or rejected the precepts of the Constitutions preamble, (the preamble itself is not a legal document, but it does speak to our spirit), and of course, I recognize the Constitution provided for the institution of slavery (as well as the subjugation of native peoples) in violation of the founding precepts of the nations as articulated in the Declaration and the Preamble, and further exposes the Fathers as hypocrites as well as unchristian (a bold charge from an atheist).



In other news,



*I grudgingly accept since procedures specifying how a state or states might leave the United States are not enumerated in the Constitution, states can be construed to have the right to leave at will.



*However, since the Congress must approve the entrance of a territory as a state into the United States; a strong case may be made requiring Congress to approve a state's desire to leave the United States.



*The Civil War started 161 years ago, was fought and decided ON THE BATTLEFIELD, 157 years ago and ended with the surrender of the losing general Robert E Lee to the winning general Ulysses S. Grant with very generous terms.
*My family, to the best of my knowledge, all arrived in the US after the Civil War, so I do not have a personal paddle in the water


By the way, in my opinion, Lee was not a very good General ;  actually, that is a bit lenient.  He was practically incompetent. He may have been a shrewd tactician, but as a strategist, he should have emulated General Washington who understood he didn't need to win the American Revolution, but just avoid losing (we won by losing our way to victory).

Many of the people selected to have their names associated with US Army and other Armed Forces, were bad generals and worse people.

[quincannon]

Naming of U S Army Installations:

There was a good reason to select the names chosen for U S Army installations in 1917. The reason in 1917 was that the Army was still not sure of the loyalty of those States in which those installations were established, and as Congress must approve the naming of installations, that would extend to the Congress not being sure either by defacto action. The idea was that the names would mitigate the latent hatred of the southern States for getting the crap kicked out of them. It may have been thought to be a good reason then, and I supose a case could be made for it, a case I do not buy, but it was still the wrong thing to do. It was in effect the same as the modern German Army naming their installation at Bad Tolz - Hitler Kaserne.

This is 2022, and those remaining installations that carry names of Confederate officers should be changed, like today. There is no place in the Army for honoring treason, or those who commit treason.  The case of Benedict Arnold is a prime example. He was by all accounts a very good general officer, and it is widely recognized that his actions alone were responsible for winning the Battle of Saratoga. He committed treason though, and I do not believe even that misbegotton neo-confederate trash who cry that idiotic southern heritage claptrap, would suggest we name something after Arnold. So if we won't name anything after Arnold, or other treasonous swine like Aaron Burr, why in heavens name should we further tolerate name retention of U S Army installations named for other treasonous swine.

Now the argument can be made that these men were just products of their time. OK, yes they were. Robert E. Lee was a man of courage and conviction, as were many of the others. The problem is that their convictions were wrong. They took an oath to the United States and its Constitution, an oath taken where God Himself was an attending witness. They violated that oath, by committing treason, which is the taking up of arms against that which they swore to protect and defend against all comers. When you take an oath before God, you are morally bound by that oath each day you live thereafter. There are no exceptions. Any violation is treason.

Thinking them, as treasonous as I do, one might ask why can I in the same breath study, and, in a professional venue, admire some, perhaps all of their work. I have stated several times on this very board that I believe Stuart to be the prototypical American cavalryman. Without Stuart, there would have been no Patton, Harmon. Rose or Wood. He set the standard. He still committed treason though. I admire Longstreet as well, and have absolutely no use for Jackson. Longstreet was slow and deliberate, a superb tactician, while Jackson was consistently a day late and a dollar short.

When you are a professional soldier, and not an amateur, an interviewer, note taker, or campfire Dutch oven cook, you understand tactics and just not pretend you do.

There is no forgiveness for treason. It is the one sin of mankind that there is no escaping from by redemption. Those that commit treason, those that support treason, and those that honor treason in a later day (thus being labeled treasonous themselves) are doomed to the pit, for they betray their country, and the hopes and dreams of more than 300 million of their countrymen.

**********************

Democracy though, is the art of the possible. That is where I disagree with Mike a bit. Were the founders hypocrits or practical politicians. They did have a choice in the Continental Congress, and another at the Constitutional Convention. There were those, again in the south, who insited that the issue of slavery not being an issue in declaring independence, nor in the establishment of government. Now it is easy to call the southern delegation nothing more than racist trailer trash who were in it for their own profit, and the northern delegations as being weak kneed hypocrits, but slavery was not the issue at hand. Independence and governmental structure were the issues. Had there been an immovable objection to not addressing the issue of slavery, we would first not have become independent, nor would we have had a Constitution. Democracy is rarely one big bite of the apple, rather nibbling around the edges, until you finally reach the core. 

*********************

The Founders, by and large were not Christians. They were in the main Diests. This country was founded on the principles embodied by the Age of Enlightenment, which were in turn the culmination of ideas going back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, and over the centuries codified in English Common Law. Them being Christians, and founding the country on Christian principles is a lie promulgated by, and currently being made popular, by Right Wing Evangelical Christian Nationalists swine, who are neither Christians themselves or Nationalists, in the sense that they love the nation. Were they Christians they would follow the teaching of Christ - to the letter. Were they patriots they would follow the Constitution - to the letter.   They follow neither. They are in fact the treasonous swine, that the unclean spirits have entered into 

[quincannon]

Mike I just saw the final rename list for the first time. Benning will be renamed for both LTG Hal Moore and his wife Julie. Moore's merit goes without saying, and his wife got included for all the behind the scenes Army work she did in supporting Army families. Moore still deserves an MOH I think for his conduct and leadership on LZ XRAY along wilh Crandell and Freeman. The later two have already had the Medal awarded

What surpiresd me was Fort A P Hill will be renamed in honor of Doctor Mary Walker. She was awarded the MOH, then had it withdrawn as part of the effort to upgrade award standards. Still would not support an MOH fer her, but renaming a post in her honor is quite appropriate I think

Bragg will be remnamed Fort Liberty, and Gordon after Eisenhower. That's the only one I called correctly, but it was really a no brainer in that Eisenhower spent a lot of time there as president.

In all there are over a thousand posts, facilities, buildings, roads, camps, and maybe a latrine named after Confederates. They can leave the latrine named after one of those tratorous rascals, as far as I am concerned. Fitting in that it is a place to take a crap.

[Deleted]

Thanks for updating the issue.

[quincannon]

Another interesting, and fully appropriate name change is Fort Pickett being renamed after Colonel Van Barfoot MOH.

In retirement Barfoot made Amelia County, Virginia his home. Earlier in his career, after he had been awarded the MOH, he was asked by some numbskull U S Senator from the miasmic swamp of intellect that is Mississippi (Barfoot's home state), what he thought of "colored" soldiers. Barfoot answered that they fought just as well as White soldiers and a lot of White soldiers raised in the South thought so too. The Senator was trying to make some points from a person awarded the MOH, during the time when Truman had ordered the integration of the Services. Needless to say the idiot Senator had a good amout of egg splattered all over his puss.

Was Rick Cavasos around in your day? I remember him well. Well Fort Cavasos will replace Fort Hood.

[Deleted]

I think so. a Fort Powell may have been a nice touch.

[herosrest]

Surly humour was outlawed decades ago?

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2022 1:23:44 GMT herosrest said:

Surly humour was outlawed decades ago?

General Colin Powell, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert storm.  Commanded V Corps, then worked for President Reagan, and so on.  A fine gentleman, scholar, soldier, and CJCS.  Should have been President.

[herosrest]

Domination doesn't work - eventually.

[quincannon]

Powell would have been a good choice. His name will apear somewhere. I think the list was finalized before General Powell passed away though. Usually things like that pre-date the announcement by five or six months. The real rub though is that consensus was probably achieved more than a year ago I suspect, and once agreements are reached, people ar reluctant to change those agreements.

Consider the new names of Fort Pickett and Fort Hood. Barfoot lived in Virginia for many years after retirement and was somewhat of a local fixture, while Cavasos was from Texas, born and bred on a ranch. These factors have political clout within a state, and if you are going to make changes in Southern States, especially when those changes deal with confederates, you better have someone that the locals can appreacite and admire.

[Deleted]

True.