Pentagon erasing the Confederacy - with my tax $$$

[popper]

Just anti-American woke military actions.

 

[AustinBR]

Pissing on history is just fine. Who needs it?

History is important. Monuments and names of things...not so much.

Where did you move from?

Louisiana - my ancestors fought in the Confederacy. I've been a strong conservative all of my life and wholeheartedly disagree with all of the "wokeism" that's happening across the country.

I've just yet to see a cogent argument on why anyone should care about names of things being updated and modernized. As long as history is still taught, I just don't care what things are named.

You would imagine incorrectly. Look into the actual history. Look into the reunions the veterans had in the decades after the war, where men from both sides were welcomed and enjoyed fellowship with each other. The US government declared all Confederate veterans to be US veterans, and it was the US government that named the bases that are being renamed now. It was an effort at healing, which is the exact opposite motivation of the current renaming move.

Also, it's a fucking waste of money. These bases have had these names for nearly a century, and now suddenly documents, buildings, electronic records, and God knows what else will need to be renamed. Not to mention the confusion this will sow for anyone looking into a person's military service or reading military history...all to satisfy the whim of people who are seeking to sweep history under the rug.

So where does it end? Do we retroactively rename anything and everything that was named for a Confederate officer? Should the M3 Jackson tank destroyer from WWII and Korea be renamed because it was named for Stonewall Jackson? Do we rename the M3 Lee tank from WWII? Do we extend it to people who have the same last name as Confederate figures? Should Samuel L Jackson be forced to change his name? Or maybe we should retroactively rename Miles Davis because he shared a last name with Jefferson Davis?

Tell me, where do we draw the line? Maybe we should've drawn it before this useless expenditure of money aimed at making a small number of loud, ignorant people happy...

When did the US Gov declare Confederate Veterans to be US Veterans? I did a quick Google search and I can't find anything that paints this as a true statement.

Agree on the waste of money. That's probably the strongest argument I've heard aside from long-term memorials.

Personally, I don't think we should rename anything. But I also don't care if we do.

>
Sir,

You have zero understanding of the FACTS or the sentiments.

Please go back to Detroit, Schenectady, or wherever you came from.

leVieux
.

Louisiana - and I was irked when the monument in Lee Circle was removed. Hell, I was even married in Jackson square...

On the contrary, I have an understanding of the sentiments, I'm just mostly playing devils advocate because I still fail to understand why folks in 2023 care about the name of things. Like if my street address changed tomorrow, it's be a "so what" type event. Throughout history, monuments have been erected and torn down to be replaced (or not) with more modern monuments.

Teaching history is important. Reading about history is important. But monuments and relics of the past? I don't know...

"The South" did not kill Lincoln. That act was performed by an individual, with some assistance. But that was not a Confederate government plot.

You really lack an understanding of the War Between the States and of American history up to that point in time. The current idea (which you have) of a monolithic United States did not exist at that time. States rights were taken seriously and held dear (sadly this has been almost completely lost). American was a union of individual states, not a monolithic bloc.

The generals had served in the U.S. military prior to the War Between the States. Soldiers had loyalty to their states and almost all served their state. This was respected by those on both sides. Many remained friends, even though on opposite sides.

They were brave men who served valiantly. They fought and sacrificed for their beliefs.

From what I've read, that's debatable. I just re-read "Killing Lincoln" by O'Reilly right before Christmas and he went to great length to go into the details of the funding and support that Booth had.

Because, IMO, it has nothing to do with the war at all.

Turn the question around: Why does anyone care if the bases are NOT renamed?

Are the names offensive to you? Your being offended is offensive to me.

Life isn't the liberal safe-space bubble they want it to be; even though that plays to the wussy crowd. Renaming things, so someone's feelings aren't hurt, is just another ploy to keep sheep pacified and penned.

So...change the names, or dont change the names.
Someday the hunters will come.

I'm not offended by really anything. But some people are. Some maybe even justifiably. Should we cater to what offends people is the question. I'd argue "maybe." It's a grey area and hard to draw a line over.

<>

Yes, Gil, and all TRUE.

BUT, My interest was in exploring the actual CAUSES of the conflict, and transmitting my findings to my own descendants and others.

When I reached about 45, I gradually realized that the story we had all “learned” in schools couldn’t possibly be true.

So, I consulted several professional Historians, who gave me guidelines as to where to look and what to look for, & sent me out to learn.

I was shocked to find that all the materials are preserved for all to see, if we are so inclined. And, as I suspected, the actual story which emerged was totally at odds with our “history” books and the devotion to Lincoln.

Unlike historians, I have no interest in battles, troop movements, or personalities. We all know how it ended, but few understand the calculated cruelty of post-War “Reconstruction”, nor how the Yankee occupation destroyed our Black upper classes.

Texas, still being “frontier” in that era, had all sorts of non-Slave Black folks.

Louisiana had complete Black designed structured social order, with numerous extremely wealthy “Black” Citizens. The occupation totally destroyed their wealth, confiscated by carpetbaggers. Many escaped to France and the Mexican coast around Vera Cruz and Tampico, where their heirs still live. The occupiers were not here to help anyone, especially our Southern Blacks.

I could go on-and-on. . . . . . .

leVieux
.

I'm actually interested. Mind dropping me a PM with things to read? Or post it in my Book Recommendations thread?

My family owned plantations in Louisiana before and after the war. My grandfather went to great lengths to track down our family tree and to preserve a written account of the history that our family was involved in. Much of it not far from where you're from. I've spent a lot of time trying to learn about US and Lousiana history and definitely would be inclined to read whatever you were provided by the historians you spoke with.

>

Few will recognize this but I salute it !

See below, Lee Circle w/ General Lee’s empty pedestal:

Yeah, it's sad to see it empty still. We were there just a few weeks ago over the holidays : /

 

[Bozz10mm]

Devil's advocate here...but...why does anyone care if bases are renamed?

Because I've spent time at Ft. Benning, Ft. Hood, Ft. Bragg and Ft. Lee. Now, what am I going to tell my grandkids? That I was at Ft. Liberty and Ft. Moore and Ft. Cavazos and Ft. Gregg-Adams?

It's a matter of military pride.

 

[Bozz10mm]

History is important. Monuments and names of things...not so much.

I'm still miffed that they changed Cape Kennedy back to Cape Canaveral. Also about the whole Pluto not being a planet thing. Heh.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

Here we go again another fvkin know-it-all from left field.

 

[jrbfishn]

History is important. Monuments and names of things...not so much.

Louisiana - my ancestors fought in the Confederacy. I've been a strong conservative all of my life and wholeheartedly disagree with all of the "wokeism" that's happening across the country.

I've just yet to see a cogent argument on why anyone should care about names of things being updated and modernized. As long as history is still taught, I just don't care what things are named.

When did the US Gov declare Confederate Veterans to be US Veterans? I did a quick Google search and I can't find anything that paints this as a true statement.

Agree on the waste of money. That's probably the strongest argument I've heard aside from long-term memorials.

Personally, I don't think we should rename anything. But I also don't care if we do.


Louisiana - and I was irked when the monument in Lee Circle was removed. Hell, I was even married in Jackson square...

On the contrary, I have an understanding of the sentiments, I'm just mostly playing devils advocate because I still fail to understand why folks in 2023 care about the name of things. Like if my street address changed tomorrow, it's be a "so what" type event. Throughout history, monuments have been erected and torn down to be replaced (or not) with more modern monuments.

Teaching history is important. Reading about history is important. But monuments and relics of the past? I don't know...


From what I've read, that's debatable. I just re-read "Killing Lincoln" by O'Reilly right before Christmas and he went to great length to go into the details of the funding and support that Booth had.


I'm not offended by really anything. But some people are. Some maybe even justifiably. Should we cater to what offends people is the question. I'd argue "maybe." It's a grey area and hard to draw a line over.



I'm actually interested. Mind dropping me a PM with things to read? Or post it in my Book Recommendations thread?

My family owned plantations in Louisiana before and after the war. My grandfather went to great lengths to track down our family tree and to preserve a written account of the history that our family was involved in. Much of it not far from where you're from. I've spent a lot of time trying to learn about US and Lousiana history and definitely would be inclined to read whatever you were provided by the historians you spoke with.


Yeah, it's sad to see it empty still. We were there just a few weeks ago over the holidays : /

Because they are not just trying to become "current" with the times. They are not just trying to "forget and move past" a part of U.S. history they don't like.
What they ARE trying to do is to rewrite history to fit an agenda with little to no basis in fact.
And that is wrong. Not just for the past history or current times. But for the future as well.
It's been said that a people that can't remember and learn from their past have no future. I will go a little farther. A people that base their future on lies about the past insure they have no future.
If you care about not just your future, but ANYONE that will outlive you, you should care. A LOT!


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[AustinBR]

Because they are not just trying to become "current" with the times. They are not just trying to "forget and move past" a part of U.S. history they don't like.
What they ARE trying to do is to rewrite history to fit an agenda with little to no basis in fact.
And that is wrong. Not just for the past history or current times. But for the future as well.
It's been said that a people that can't remember and learn from their past have no future. I will go a little farther. A people that base their future on lies about the past insure they have no future.
If you care about not just your future, but ANYONE that will outlive you, you should care. A LOT!


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

If that is truly the case, then it is a horrible idea.

But if rather something about it actually offends people, it's worth considering.

I don't really get offended by things so I have a hard time being empathetic to the feelings and thoughts of others. But, it's something I'm trying to work on.

Erasing the past is bad. Not studying the past is bad. Re-writing history is bad. But modernizing the name of things isn't necessarily bad.

 

[Tblack89]

If that is truly the case, then it is a horrible idea.

But if rather something about it actually offends people, it's worth considering.

I don't really get offended by things so I have a hard time being empathetic to the feelings and thoughts of others. But, it's something I'm trying to work on.

Erasing the past is bad. Not studying the past is bad. Re-writing history is bad. But modernizing the name of things isn't necessarily bad.

 

[Charley]

Not just military. Here in SA, I went to school at Robert E Lee High School. Never mind that Lee spent a fair amount of time in SA, and in Texas, never mind he was against secession, and offered command of the Union Army, but wouldn't/couldn't fight against his native Virginia and resigned from the US Army. He was obviously pure evil, and the school name was changed to LEE, or "Legacy of Educational Excellence". NEISD and the city "leaders" involved deserve a kick in the ass.

 

[2ManyGuns]

The naming of things is IMPORTANT when it relates to the REMEMBRANCE of what has come before. How can you know something, when you cannot describe it as it was, or as it now is? The people and places are important to history, and the identity of The People. The current mindset of many young persons, is I don't care, you can see how their values have devolved into something less than human and amoral, they have been taught to be ashamed of their culture and history. Were wrongs perpetrated, yes, on both sides, but there was greatness born, as well as borne by those who fought for the ideals. Those ideals have been lost, and once again slavery is crushing the populace, it is time to rise up and be free, **** those who are weak-minded little twits who take offense over what is the PAST.

 

[General Zod]

When did the US Gov declare Confederate Veterans to be US Veterans? I did a quick Google search and I can't find anything that paints this as a true statement.

Multiple acts of Congress between 1900 and 1929 plus one in 1958. Funny thing, I found result after result of revisionism claiming those acts didn't confer veteran's status...and yet, they did direct the government to provide headstones and pensions, provide burials at Arlington National Cemetery, and keep veterans' records of those Confederate veterans. Just like US veterans. How odd that the government would provide military pensions and military burial benefits to people who aren't considered American veterans...because in fact they were considered just that. Former Confederates were even able to rejoin the US Army after the war, and many did.

BTW, you've really shown that the "Austin" part of your user name is accurate. And reminded me why I'm glad I moved out of Austin 23 years ago.

 

[leVieux]

History is important. Monuments and names of things...not so much.

Louisiana - my ancestors fought in the Confederacy. I've been a strong conservative all of my life and wholeheartedly disagree with all of the "wokeism" that's happening across the country.

I've just yet to see a cogent argument on why anyone should care about names of things being updated and modernized. As long as history is still taught, I just don't care what things are named.

When did the US Gov declare Confederate Veterans to be US Veterans? I did a quick Google search and I can't find anything that paints this as a true statement.

Agree on the waste of money. That's probably the strongest argument I've heard aside from long-term memorials.

Personally, I don't think we should rename anything. But I also don't care if we do.


Louisiana - and I was irked when the monument in Lee Circle was removed. Hell, I was even married in Jackson square...

On the contrary, I have an understanding of the sentiments, I'm just mostly playing devils advocate because I still fail to understand why folks in 2023 care about the name of things. Like if my street address changed tomorrow, it's be a "so what" type event. Throughout history, monuments have been erected and torn down to be replaced (or not) with more modern monuments.

Teaching history is important. Reading about history is important. But monuments and relics of the past? I don't know...


From what I've read, that's debatable. I just re-read "Killing Lincoln" by O'Reilly right before Christmas and he went to great length to go into the details of the funding and support that Booth had.


I'm not offended by really anything. But some people are. Some maybe even justifiably. Should we cater to what offends people is the question. I'd argue "maybe." It's a grey area and hard to draw a line over.



I'm actually interested. Mind dropping me a PM with things to read? Or post it in my Book Recommendations thread?

My family owned plantations in Louisiana before and after the war. My grandfather went to great lengths to track down our family tree and to preserve a written account of the history that our family was involved in. Much of it not far from where you're from. I've spent a lot of time trying to learn about US and Lousiana history and definitely would be inclined to read whatever you were provided by the historians you spoke with.


Yeah, it's sad to see it empty still. We were there just a few weeks ago over the holidays : /

>
As this is very far from my area of academic expertise, and b/c I did it to satisfy myself, I kept no notes, records, or references. One great start is to read LIncoln’s wartime speeches. Just read them all, in their entirety, and in correct order.

leVieux

 

[General Zod]

>
As this is very far from my area of academic expertise, and b/c I did it to satisfy myself, I kept no notes, records, or references. One great start is to read LIncoln’s wartime speakers. Just read them all, in their entirety, and in correct order.

leVieux

He can't do that. He'd rather be told what to think by others who proclaim themselves experts.

 

[jrbfishn]

If that is truly the case, then it is a horrible idea.

But if rather something about it actually offends people, it's worth considering.

I don't really get offended by things so I have a hard time being empathetic to the feelings and thoughts of others. But, it's something I'm trying to work on.

Erasing the past is bad. Not studying the past is bad. Re-writing history is bad. But modernizing the name of things isn't necessarily bad.

Doesn't matter if it offends. Some of it should offend so we don't repeat it. But it doesn't matter how good or how bad history is, somebody IS going to be "offended". Just for attention if nothing else. So others try to make them feel better and pay attention to them. Makes them feel cared about and special. Otherwise they are just normal people.

No, history should be remembered in it's unvarnished truth. Either glorious or disgusting. In all it's triumphs or failures.
That is the only way we learn what NOT to do.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[BigRed]

Louisiana - my ancestors fought in the Confederacy.

What are their names?

 

[leVieux]

He can't do that. He'd rather be told what to think by others who proclaim themselves experts.

>

Sadly, many are like that.

To quote Hillary, on democrat voters: “Stupid; easily manipulated”.

One of my highly educated Granddaughters once told me: “My mind is already made-up on that, and I don’t need to hear (any more) about it. . . . “. She had no concept that she could be wrong or mistaken.

To be clear, let me also quote my late Dad, on what we now know as “brainwashing”: “Intelligence offers no protection”.

leVieux
.

 

[oldag]

For our Austin liberal - who named the bases for Confederates? {Hint: It wasn't the Confederacy.}

As someone pointed out a page or two ago. Think about the implications.

You have been provided with more than enough historical fact and had logic presented to you . I suspect you will just not admit you were off-base (pun intended).

 

[MTA]

Imagine forsaking your ancestors bc some city homos from the coasts brainwashed you to hate your own kin.

 

[AustinBR]

Multiple acts of Congress between 1900 and 1929 plus one in 1958. Funny thing, I found result after result of revisionism claiming those acts didn't confer veteran's status...and yet, they did direct the government to provide headstones and pensions, provide burials at Arlington National Cemetery, and keep veterans' records of those Confederate veterans. Just like US veterans. How odd that the government would provide military pensions and military burial benefits to people who aren't considered American veterans...because in fact they were considered just that. Former Confederates were even able to rejoin the US Army after the war, and many did.

BTW, you've really shown that the "Austin" part of your user name is accurate. And reminded me why I'm glad I moved out of Austin 23 years ago.

Interesting - I wasn't aware of the latter with regard to Confederate soldiers rejoining the US army post-war.

My name is Austin lol, I'm from Louisiana and have never lived in Austin, TX.

>
As this is very far from my area of academic expertise, and b/c I did it to satisfy myself, I kept no notes, records, or references. One great start is to read LIncoln’s wartime speeches. Just read them all, in their entirety, and in correct order.

leVieux

Alrighty.

 

[AustinBR]

For our Austin liberal - who named the bases for Confederates? {Hint: It wasn't the Confederacy.}

As someone pointed out a page or two ago. Think about the implications.

You have been provided with more than enough historical fact and had logic presented to you . I suspect you will just not admit you were off-base (pun intended).

Fun fact - I am by no means a liberal and am not from Austin, TX.

I actually don't think the names of the bases should be changed and I don't like all of the Confederate statues/monuments/names/history being removed throughout the country. But, I'm also not passionate about keeping them, either. I see the argument on both sides.

Honestly, kids these days are taught a terrible, dumbed down version of history and most of them probably barely pass their history classes anyway.

Anyway, as for your question: All of these bases that are being changed (it sounds like it's official now?) were named in the 1900s, obviously post-war.

Fort Bragg, for example, was named by the United States Army in 1921 after locals in North Carolina wanted to name the base after the only general who fought in the war. It was named at a time where the US Army was rather preoccupied with World War I and they weren't overly focused on challenging the naming of bases (that was suggested by locals of NC).

I don't know what the bases are being re-named to, but what's so bad about changing it to honor US armed forces members who fought in more recent wars?