Fort bragg
A news crew reports near an entrance sign to Fort Bragg, N.C. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)
Previous Post
Next Post

America is purging itself of references to and depictions of problematic symbols and individuals. Few will mourn the demise of the stars and bars during NASCAR races, but the drive to realign has now extended the names of some of the country’s most prominent military bases.

From CBS News:

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the annual military spending bill that would require the Defense Department to change the names of military bases and assets named for Confederate leaders.

A source familiar with the proceedings confirmed to CBS News that the GOP-led panel on Wednesday approved the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) offered by Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts via voice vote. According to a summary of the NDAA released by the committee Thursday, the measure requires the Defense Department to rename posts and assets — streets, aircraft, ships, and other equipment — either named for Confederate officers or that honor the confederacy within three years.

According to the Evergreen State New York Times, there are at least 10 bases with questionable monikers that will likely be at the top of the renaming commission’s list including such high profile facilities as Fort Bragg, Fort Hood and Fort Benning.

We’d like to do everything we can to make this process easier. Toward that end, here are a few suggestions for new names for some of the targeted bases.

Fort Colt

Legendary inventor Sam Colt’s revolver design vastly improved on existing guns and quickly became popular with the US military. He got a big boost when the government bought 1000 of his wheel guns for troops in the Mexican-American war. His designs were also also exemplars of egalitarianism. As has often been noted, God created men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal.

Fort Browning

John Moses Browning is arguably the greatest firearms designer in history, inventing guns and systems that are still in use to this day. As our own Joe Grine wrote, the guns most often associated with John M. Browning are the famed Winchester lever-action guns that “won the west,” the ubiquitous Colt 1911 automatic pistol, and U.S. military machine guns such as the celebrated .50 caliber M2 “Ma Deuce,” the .30 caliber M1919 medium machine gun, and the .30 caliber M1918 BAR automatic rifle.

Fort Stoner

Eugene Stoner worked for ArmaLite Rifle in the 1950’s and perfected the design of the AR-10 for the US military. As ammo.com notes, the Army soon charged Stoner with modifying the AR-10 into what became the AR-15. This would use the smaller .223 Remington cartridge, though it was somewhat enlarged for Army SPCS. In addition to becoming “America’s rifle,” the AR-15 eventually became the M16, which became the standard-issue service rifle for the United States Army in 1969. Not to mention the M4. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country, has come to be known as America’s rifle.

Fort Garand

John Garand is responsible for the design of the rifle that General George Patton called the “greatest battle implement ever devised.” Though his design was finished too late for use in World War I, the federal government, against all odds, had the good sense to keep him working on and improving it at the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts. He patented the .30 caliber M1 rifle in 1932 and the rest, as they say, is history.

That’s only four suggestions honoring great Americans who, we’re sure all will agree, have clearly contributed to the cause of freedom both at home and abroad. We could go on, but we assume the august commission members who are tasked with the job will have their own ideas for a few names, so we’ll leave the rest of the base renaming to them.

Any other suggestions?

 

Previous Post
Next Post

278 COMMENTS

    • How about renaming Fort Benning to Fort Sherman…i’m sure that would go down well with the locals…

      • My Grandmother was from Columbus. She used to say Sherman was the devil incarnate. Don’t think that’ll fly for Benning.

        • Sherman’s comment, when hearing the cheers for war in Louisiana, where he was head of a military academy was essentially this: They don’t know what they are cheering for; war is hell.”
          He ripped up everything supporting the Confederate war effort and helped end the war sooner than it might have.
          The South sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Sherman was the whirlwind.
          People who cheer the coming of war, any war, are clueless.

      • Cooper was a Marine.

        Be downright insulting to the memory of the good Colonel to put his name on an ARMY base. 😉

      • I think Ft. J. Fonda for the post that’s home to the infantry, airborne and Ranger schools. Why the fuck not?

        • Gadsden:
          I know you’re just kidding. However, I turn the TV off, when they start showing one of her movies. The fact that she got away with that thing in Vietnam just amazes me. They should have… Oh, never mind.

        • Not too far a stretch. I think that there is a littoral combat ship named after Harvey Milk.

        • please don’t use (c)”littoral” in such close proximity to hanoi jane’s name. we have her likeness enshrined in the legion post urinal. it is a difficult target to miss, and it smells nice.

        • Come on, guys, we can get behind this. Somebody knows when the next base will be closed. A week before the closure is announced, rename it after Fonda, then announce its closing. Wouldn’t that be a suitable insult for the nasty bitch?

    • Exactly. And the author should speak for himself about “Few will mourn the demise of the stars and bars during NASCAR races”. Its a part of our history, especially in the South. First it’s Confederates, now it also moved to Christopher Columbus. Next it will be Jefferson and Washington. If you can’t figure out who these people are after they defamed the Lincoln Memorial, and the monument to the 10th Massachusetts (the first black regiment in the Civil War _ see the move “Glory”). This is all part of a Leftist takeover from the inside. If people continue to not realize this, this country is lost.

      • peoples perceptions of individuals can alter over time…it happens…but altering history is something totally different….

      • Well, considering that Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves, it is bound to be “suggested” sooner or later. In fact:

        “Not only did slave laborers help build the White House all of the earliest presidents (except for John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams) were slave owners. George Washington kept some 300 bondsmen at his Mount Vernon plantation. Thomas Jefferson—despite once calling slavery an “assemblage of horrors”—owned at least 175 enslaved workers at one time. James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson each kept several dozen enslaved workers, and Martin Van Buren owned one during his early career.

        William Henry Harrison owned several inherited enslaved people before becoming president in 1841, while John Tyler and James K. Polk were both slaveholders during their stints in office. Zachary Taylor, who served from 1849-1850, was the last chief executive to keep enslaved people while living in the White House. He owned some 150 enslaved workers on plantations in Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana.”

        I guess, then, that the only way to purge ourselves of this original sin is to burn the place down and start all over again. With reparations to the families of the slaves.(California has authorized a commission to explore reparations to slave families. I guess it doesn’t matter that California was not a slave state, even if the early Spanish owned slaves (usually Indians) and the railroad barons treated their workers like slaves–Stanford was one of the worst offenders.

        • Reparations. That is an interesting subject. How will it be determined who is black and entitled to reparations? Will payment be determined by how black you are and how will that be determined? Who gets to determine that and what will their qualifications be? that Will there be some kind genetic test? What about people who identify as black but don’t test out? If six foot two inch, 200 lb Bruce Jenner can identify as a woman, what is to keep a white person from identifying as black to qualify for reparations payment? Will the descendants of Black People who owned slaves be eligible? Everybody is going to want to stand in this line. How will we determine who is really black and how much? Hell, we can’t even agree on who is male or female.

        • “I guess, then, that the only way to purge ourselves of this original sin is to burn the place down and start all over again.”

          That’s the end game, seriously.

          They claim America was illegitimately founded by slave owners, is in no way exceptional or better than any other country, and the constitution should be completely re-written, to Leftist standards.

          Why do you think they are so compelled to to bash this country every time they speak or write?

          They are building a narrative, a new history that they want, and they are playing the long game to get it…

      • They’ve also gone after the Mattias Baldwin statue.

        That demonstrates pretty well that this isn’t “targeted”, it’s just blind rage comi g from ignorant people.

      • “our history” if you’re white. I doubt the blacks in your area appreciate the significance or relish the memory.

        Perhaps you might not like Fort Vesey or Fort Turner.

        • Boo fuckin hoo. Who gives a rat’s ass what they care about. Getting sick of whining fucking idiots.

      • One of the first moves in a socialist society is to erase the past, so there is nothing to go bacl to!

      • These idiots are tearing down statues of abolitionists, civil rights activists and others who fought for causes you’d think they would support. The truth is they are just tearing down any statue put up to honor anyone in previous generations.

        It does not matter what you support or don’t support, they will come for you sooner or later. That was the lesson of Martin Niemöller and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

      • Great history.

        5 whole years of losing.

        Nothing says “I’m willing to kill a man for the right to own another man” like the Confederate Flag.

        And NASCAR still waves the official flag of the confederacy near the end of every race – the White Flag.

    • No kidding. Keep giving into the terrorists and then one day you’ll then around and realize you live in the ussr. How about we rename the democrat party the party of slavery. We can rename black lives matter and antifa commie terrorist organizations. We can rename anybody that doesn’t believe in the Constitution a traitor. And maybe we can rename anybody that wants special treatment for black people just a racist asshole, which is what they are. The world is pretty simple if you take the time to be honest.

    • Well at the rate of stunning capitulation to the leftist forces in this country, I’m sure the forts will be renamed to Ft Antifa, Ft BLM, and Fort Pelosi. Or perhaps Ft. Mao, Ft Lenin, and Ft Obama…

      Those won’t last long however, as Al Qaeda is resurgent and successfully infiltrating the left, the left will swiftly be conquered by Islam, and we’ll have Ft Osama, Ft Bagdahdi, and Ft Saladin.

      This is a cultural revolution people. And the left is winning.

      • Just 2 days ago, Al-Qaeda was trying to repaint itself as the savior of the oppressed peoples of the U.S. Probably don’t have to outline the bitter irony of one of the most repressive & bloodthirsty organizations in current existence making such obvious b.s. claims, but there it is.

    • No kidding! I suggest they stop trying to rename things, get rid of statues and state flags just because they hate white people.

  1. It’s about time to move on from the Civil War. How about Fort Patton, Fort Gavin (for Airborne), Fort York, Fort Pershing; etc. Let’s honor some leaders from the 20th Century, not the Nineteenth.

    • I like the way you think, but why stop at the 20th century? We should name the bases after 21st century heros…. Like Fort Benning can be renamed Fort Bergdahl, Fort Bragg can be Fort Lindh, and Fort Hood can be renamed Fort Nidal Hasan.

      Eric Swalwell 2020

    • No he won’t. I came into work this morning, put on my best face of disgust and said: “Were you guys watching? Trump just got down on his knees and asked for forgiveness for being white!”
      Didn’t fool anyone for a second.

    • No surer, no pandering here boss!

      “Trump, speaking at a rally in West Virginia on Saturday night, said both leaders took tough positions at their June summit.

      “I was really tough and so was he, and we went back and forth,” Trump told an adoring crowd of thousands at Wesbanco Arena in Wheeling. “And then we fell in love, OK? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”

      • Your liberal brothers are seceding right now in Seattle. Perhaps put down the keyboard and all the tough talk about hanging traitors… or perhaps maybe you’d like to join them?

        Put your money where your mouth is tough guy.

      • So you were pro-war with the North Korean regime. Got it.

        But I suppose he was missing the pallet of cash sent in the dead of night without congressional approval.

      • NK has been pretty quiet for a couple years now. I get it, it’s bad because Trump.

  2. Forts should be named after cartoon characters who are known to use military equipment during their hijinx and capers. Examples might be: Fort Wiley Coyote, Fort Fudd, and Fort Yosemite Sam.

    • minus their guns, of course…how do you hunt “wabbits” without a shotgun?…there’s a lesson there for Fudds everywhere…

      • Speaking of purging pop-culture; Maybe Stephen Spielberg can give Saving Private Ryan the E.T. “gun treatment”…. the 29th Infantry Division (“Blue and Gray” Division of the Virginia National Guard), that got slaughtered taking Omaha Beach, has to have the gray purged from their unit insignia. Maybe Pvt. Upham can wear a pink-triangle-pride-patch on his shoulder instead?

    • If you’re going to go the cartoon route “Camp/Fort Venom” has a decent ring to it.

      Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

  3. I suggest not renaming them. Anyone who supports it is the problem in this country. It’s a name. It’s a word. What is wrong with people?

    I’m tired of it. This is literally because of peoples fee fees. I’m embarrassed of this country at this point. Then I look at Europe and go “I’m so glad I don’t live there”

    • “It’s a name. It’s a word.”

      Exactly, it’s just a word, so there should be no problem renaming it, right?

      Unless you have some sort of emotional need to name our military bases after traitorous scoundrels who broke their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution…

      • Name one person in the Confederacy who was ever prosecuted for sedition, treason, or any act related to violating the constitution. …… *crickets*…..Session WAS written in to the constitution then later amended after the Civil War.

        • Correction* The SCOTUS ruled on secession :Texas v White in 1869. The legality was never addressed by the Legislative branch but constantly came in to question by the Executive branch since the Revolution until the Civil War.

        • No one was prosecuted because Lincoln, in his ultimate compassion and desire for reunification, pardoned the traitors.

          And we can debate whether the doctrine of succession by the states is written into the Constitution or ruled on by the SCOTUS, but that’s a minor issue compared to their most egregious sin of taking up arms against the government of the United States of America.

          The constitution is firmly unequivocal on the issue of treason against America, the penalty is death. Robert E Lee should’ve swung from the lamp posts, along with his merry band of pranksters.

        • Miner49er, when you want to discuss something, you should at very least know what it’s called. Like ‘secession’.

          So – some of the States decided to secede (not succeed) from the Union and to create a Confederation. Their reasons aside, there is nothing illegal or even wrong in that. When Unionist armed forces refused to leave a Confederate fort (after being asked nicely for quite a time) and tried instead to resupply and reinforce the crew, they got kicked out by artillery bombardment. There can be no talk about treason when one country attacks other country’s armed forces on its own territory. The rest is two countries fighting a war, until the Confederation lost and got annexed back into the Union.
          Now you can consider yourself educated and stop repeating your nonsense about treason.

        • “ When Unionist armed forces refused to leave a Confederate fort (after being asked nicely for quite a time) and tried instead to resupply and reinforce the crew, they got kicked out by artillery bombardment.”

          Fort Sumter was United States government property under the Constitution, it didn’t belong to any of the states.

          When Robert E Lee commanded Confederate troops to fire on American citizens serving their country in the United States Army and Navy, he committed treason against the constitution he had sworn an oath to defend.

          And the south commenced this war against the newly elected Republican president and the United States of America, in order to perpetuate the crime of slavery, contrary to the statement of the United States Constitution, ‘all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain on alienable rights… ‘

          I thought you guys were all about following the black letter law of the constitution.

        • Jeez Miner49er…. Death to secessionists? You hold a more radical nationalist position than Trump. Maybe we should send you to Seattle to mop up those GHAZ traitors.

        • Oh… and one more thing Miner49er, re: prosecution and pardons: Jeff Davis was never pardoned… they spent 10 years trying to prosecute him but could not bring any presentable case to court because he never broke the law. In the end he was simply released on his own recognizance neither free nor criminal. The surrendered soldiers of the Confederacy were paroled as prisoners of war and later patriated in to the USA. They weren’t pardoned because they were never convicted of any crimes….. Except for that Wirtz fellow at Andersonville. He got hung for crimes agaisnt humanity.

        • Miner:
          “contrary to the statement of the United States Constitution, ‘all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain on alienable rights… ‘ ”

          Except that those words don’t appear in the Constitution of the United States. They’re from the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT a part of the Constitution. Now you can argue about whether or not they ought to be.

        • “No one was prosecuted because Lincoln, in his ultimate compassion and desire for reunification, pardoned the traitors.”

          That is literally not true. President Lincoln was murdered before he could do so. Despite of bluster by the likes of President Johnson and the Radical Republicans, the U.S. government did not prosecute anyone, except for the commandant of Andersonville prison, because the courts would have ruled that there was, indeed, a right of U.S. states to secede.

          You are such a liar.

      • Excuse me…Where in the Constitution does it say that any State can not leave said union?

        • Since “Antibellum” is now racist, we can’t talk about anything pre-Civil War… which would include the American Revolution, the writing of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Darn.

        • What’s the answer? Looking at you Miner49er.

          It’s not a minor issue, it’s the only issue.
          Did the States have a right to leave the union? Show me in the Constitution!

        • The answer is no, as we proved in the Civil War, thank you very much.

          But that is a secondary issue to the armed insurrection pursued by the confederacy.

          In order to learn more about why the south went to war, you might want to peruse the ‘cornerstone speech‘, wherein the causes for war are laid out quite clearly.

        • Show me in the Constitution!!! You bloody well can’t.

          But since you said “no’ to the question then the answer is simple, no reason..even slavery..exists that would have allowed the Southern States to leave…

          But wait, why did the North invade? It wasn’t over slavery.

          “….I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races…”

          “….and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race….” THE WHITE RACE.

          Who said these words…and whose temple exists in Washington?

        • Miner49er: Insurrection is an attempt to overthrow the government. Secession is the exact opposite of insurrection….. They just wanted to leave…. You got any more incorrectly applied buzz words you wanna throw out there? You can always scream that we’re racist.

        • It actually states that you can leave the union . Many experts have not really read this and have not researched the history where this was discussed . So after legally leaving the union, they were then a separate nation. Being a separate nation there was no treason.

      • However, you’d also totally support renaming anything named Washington, Jefferson ect.. wouldn’t you? Be honest.

        • No, neither Jefferson nor Washington took up arms against America.

          I really can’t understand you folks position on this issue, the rebellion was against a properly elected Republican president. I’m glad you folks think it’s OK to take up arms against a Republican president, there are many liberals who feel that might be a good thing to do and it seems like many of the US Army and Marines feel the same way, given the recent statements by the military’s most honorded leadership.

          The issue is treason.

          And what makes it even more shameful is the fact that the treason was committed to perpetuate the enslavement of our fellow humans, directly against the constitution‘s statement that all men are created equal.

        • No, that’s not the issue. At all. Because I know you. I’ve seen enough of your posts here to know what you truly are.

          You don’t give a flying fuck about the constitution. Or Washington. Or the revolution. Or the bill of rights.

          Your simply using this particular issue the further inflame tensions, and whichever particular arguments suits your goal, you’ll use.

          The REAL problem in this country is insidious, treasonous, anti American leftists like you who will use ANY argument they can come up with to undermine America. And that’s a fact. You only think you are smarter then everyone here, when in fact, you are quite stupid.

        • Ron, thank you so much for your personal attack, now we know the caliber of your character a bit more clearly.

          I’m sorry you disagree with my opinion, but that’s just too bad. This is America, we are differing opinions are tolerated, even if they make other people uncomfortable or annoyed.

          Regardless of your name calling the fact that the confederacy was a traitorous and evil organization that workEd to destroy the United States of America and perpetuate the enslavement of their fellow humans will never change.

          I think you are frightened at the idea of true equality for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, color or gender. You see your position of unearned privilege evaporating and you ware desperately lashing out at anything or anyone you think may be responsible.

          To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

        • Remember Miner… when you are referring to the military leadership you are talking about the ones who survived the eight years of the Obama purge. Yeah… we know what was going on.

        • Na…. like the other dude said to you Miner49er. We’ve all been here long enough to smell the shite you’ve been peddling. There’s no memory hole here for you toss your “thruth” in to. It’s all typical leftist crap. You’ve never stood up for the military unless it benefitted your argument. You’ve never stood up for police unless it benefitted your argument. You’ve never stood up for the Bill of Right or the Constitution unless it benefitted your argument. You’ve consistently trashed America and Republicans and now you want us to believe you are some kind of anti-treason pro-military flag waiving nationalist American patriot?… I definitely smell shite.

      • Ah, it’s one of the little trolls back from the basement! “Miner49er” is a lefty from many comments! It must really bother him/her/it that some people still love America!

        • I love America, and I hate the confederacy.

          You can suck up to the traitors and wave their second place flag if you want, I’ll stick with the good old united states of America.

        • No, you don’t like America and you’ve alluded to that many times on TTAG. You’re simply acting like you do right now to inflame tensions even more.

      • There wasn’t any prohibitions for the CSA states from withdrawing from the Union as there is today. Most of the soldiers, sailors and marines in the war fought mostly for their states. Since they withdrew from the Union legally, they cannot be traitors. They were also pardoned, if they so chose to take hair of the dog.

        • When you except a pardon, you admit your guilt, that’s the way it works.

          Most of the CSA military officers were United States of America Army and Navy officers who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

          When they took up arms against the United States of America, they committed treason by using force of arms to violently overthrow the United States of America.

          150 years later, you can claim what the Confederates did was somehow legal, But the American citizens of the day, serving their country in the military, in the government or on the homefront, knew it was illegal and went to war to stop it.

        • Slavery is anathema. Period. But using the slavery excuse in an attempt to condemn the memory of Americans who fought and died fighting for the sovereign state/limited Federal government that was prescribed by our Constitution- is indefensible. No equitable conversation can eventuate if parties insist upon imposing out-of-context analysis in order to fit politically expedient narratives.

          The North waged an economic war against the South- and the South fought back. This is not what is taught in history books, mainly because the North won the war. It does not make it any less true, though. The people who fought and died for the Confederacy were Americans- and they were more akin to the Patriots of the American Revolution than anything else. Again, you’ve always been told that supporters of the Confederacy were nothing short of racist, soulless, treasonous vermin. And you believed it? You really did, didn’t you. Why? You know that it logically, factually, and historically cannot be true. Remember– Context matters.

          The question you should be asking yourself is this: are you honestly willing to desecrate the solemn remembrance of ordinary, inculpable American citizens who witnessed their own government actively destroying the only economy they knew? Picture that- their entire world as they knew it. It’s kind of like having your Constitutional Rights infringed- literally. How does it make you feel when that happens? You’d think TTAG would be ground zero for folks who understand just how repugnant that is. It’s as repugnant as slavery is, but you must be objective and insightful enough to realize that the Civil War was not the unequivocal North-good/South-bad deception that has been imposed on everyone since the war ended. Did you ever wonder why The South has never “gotten over” the War? Because it has NOTHING to do with slavery- that’s why. Starting to get it, now?

          We are our history. Americans honor the sacrifices made by our ancestors. All of our ancestors. And we cannot allow our acknowledgement of them be at the vagary of fickle, political artifice. You can affirm history, or you can erase it. I believe in an America that has the ability to be honest with itself for the good of everyone- I reject those simply seeking power for their own selfish objectives. And as an American, I will fight to ensure that they do not prevail.

        • Peter Gunn:
          I agree with almost everything you have to say. However, to say that the Civil War was not about slavery is disingenuous. The South seceded, because slavery was an integral feature of its agrarian economy. Most (but not all) historians agree that the South seceded from the Union based upon the (erroneous) perception that the newly elected Lincoln was all about the abolition of slavery. (Lincoln did despise slavery, but he initially was not about to push it; that came later in the middle of the war.) There is historical evidence in the form of written southern correspondence to back this up, but I can’t take the time to research/quote chapter and verse. The states-rights argument (the so-called “Lost Cause”) is an early revision of history and came later on.

        • Dave G.,

          I’m sure you understand that I’m talking about the economics of slavery- upon which the agrarian South’s economy was based. The number of Southerners defending the South who actually owned any slaves was minuscule. They did not take up arms to defend the South because they felt some kind of “moral obligation” to fight for the legal institution of slavery. Non-slave-owning Southerners were simply experiencing a full-on economic assault on everything they knew. They understood this aggression was not rooted in moral superiority, it was straight-up economics- the North wanted to remove the South’s “advantage”. The North was no bastion of morality- they waged an economic war to benefit themselves.

          Now, I am not arguing that slavery is in any way acceptable- it isn’t. But I am saying that the realities of Civil War America are not easily summed up in a tidy package labeled North-good/South-bad. The South’s agrarian/slave-based economy’s days were numbered regardless of Northern interference- yet the North instigated a war over it anyway. Again, taken in context, the South resisted Northern aggression in the same way the Colonists resisted British aggression. Yet, we praise the heroes of the Revolution and increasingly disparage their Civil War analogues. For conscionable Southerners, the war has never ended because it is NOT about slavery- it is about the erosion of freedom perpetrated by a continually expanding, voracious Federal government. Precisely what the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to safeguard against.

      • Miner as a paid instigator troll have also spent hours posting at a 10:1 ratio here against the bill of rights…

      • You apparently have no knowledge of the reconstruction period and how well vilifying a defeated enemy worked after WW1

  4. Psychos erase history cuz they aggro.
    Psychos children “why so aggro?”
    Psychos try to point to history.
    Psychos children “so you’re just making shit up now?”

    • “erase history”

      No one is trying to erase history, it’s all right there in the history books if you could actually read.

      Why should American’s public spaces be filled with second-place participation trophies for the traitorous scoundrels who broke their oath?

      • My God 49er do you have to be such a douchebag? You seem to enjoy being the resident douche Troll so I guess you were the same kind of trollish moron in school also.

        • This.
          We’ve already seen ebooks get re-written on the fly.
          History will be as fluid as gender is claimed to be.

        • history gets rewritten all the time…as new facts emerge…but injecting personal bias is generally unacceptable when incorporated into a political agenda….

        • “We’ve already seen ebooks get re-written on the fly.”

          That’s quite the queen, I’d love to see your evidence to make that assertion.

          Frank speak has a good point, as new facts are revealed to research, we update our history books. But only as a result of rigorous, peer reviewed research new changes get made.

          In most cases in the United States, it’s more a situation where our true history has been concealed and only later revealed.

          For instance, I was never taught that Thomas Jefferson kept an under age black slave girl and had multiple children by her.

          But what do you know, he sure did! They kept that one out of the history books for almost 150 years.

          And the germ warfare conducted by the US Army against Native Americans, intentionally giving them smallpox contaminated blankets in the dead of winter, how clever!

        • True.

          There was a history test put out a couple of years ago that ticked off portions of the veteran community by claiming that the US started WWII by nuking Japan.

          It was a public flap that was reasonably well documented. The textbook company claimed it was an error not caught by editing and rewrote the section, effectively ending the controversy.

          Was it intentional? An honest error? I dunno but it was pretty dumb.

          People wonder why I collect books. This is why. If cancel culture continues then pretty quick the new editions in the library won’t be ones you recognize. I mean, just ask The Brother’s Grimm or Little Red Riding Hood.

        • “There was a history test put out a couple of years ago that ticked off portions of the veteran community by claiming that the US started WWII by nuking Japan.”

          That’s amazing.

          Could you please provide some sort of reference or source for that claim, thanks.

        • “There was a history test put out a couple of years ago that ticked off portions of the veteran community by claiming that the US started WWII by nuking Japan.”

          I’m not sure on that one, but I am certain something similar happend at the Smithsonian Institution’s ‘Air and Space’ museum when a display for the ‘Enola Gay’ was being constructed. (The plane that dropped the first nuclear weapon in anger.)

          Boy, howdy, did that ever cause a stink and a conniption fit from the WW2 military veterans :

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay#Exhibition_controversy

      • Before the Civil War, a man’s primary allegiance was to his State, not some distant Federal government.

        • Correct.

          For example, King George signed surrender documents ….that included.(.thirteen states as “free, sovereign and independent”)

          ….The Revolutionary War had lasted six years—from the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775 to Cornwallis’s surrender in 1781—and peace negotiations had dragged on for another two years. Finally, on September 3, 1783, the final treaty was signed in Paris, and it was no mere truce between fighting nations weary of combat. The United States had won. Britain had lost. The stunned and reduced imperial power agreed to recognize the thirteen states as “free, sovereign and independent” (not just autonomous within the empire), relinquish all territorial claims to its former colonies, evacuate its military forces, and allow Americans fishing rights in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (a critical issue). Here we look at America’s victory from the dark days of 1780 through the arduous months of treaty negotiations to the official end of the war….

        • No, our allegiance should always be to the constitution.

          No ‘loyalty pledges’ to a ‘supreme leader’ or ‘the chosen one‘, that was Hitler’s strategy.

          When you enlist or enter a public office, you swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any one man even if his name is Trump.

          And the constitution decrees the penalty for treason is death, not commemoration with some white marble statue.

      • So Miner you’d agree then that the federal US military should enter Seattle and hang all the rebels who formed Chaz?

      • When you accept a pardon you were pleading guilty to the charge.

        Under the constitution which prescribes death as the penalty for treason, every one of them could’ve been hung.

        Instead, Lincoln in an attempt to reunite our country, pardonEd the traitorous scum.

        And I expect all those on this forum, who consider themselves original constitutionalists, will agree. The Constitution specifically names the death penalty for treason and I think we can all agree that Lee, and the other traitors should’ve been hung for their armed insurrection against the United States of America.

        • Well 49er did you feel the same way when Ford pardoned all those traitors who ran off to Canada during the Vietnam war so his cowardly son could come back home? Your still a douchetroll but try to be a consistent troll.

        • “who ran off to Canada during the Vietnam war”

          I understand sometimes subtle nuances is beyond you. Those who went to Canada were not traitors who took up arms against America, they were not even deserters.

          They, like cadet Donald ‘bone spurs‘ Trump, were draft dodgers who avoided service.

          While the constitution is silent on the subject of draft dodgers, it is unequivocal on the subject of treason, the penalty required is death.

        • You do realize that part of the reason for those pardons is because of how the Constitution spells out the process for conviction on a treason charge, right?

          Further, the Constitution doesn’t spell out a punishment. It states “The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained”.

          18 USC Ch 115 § 2381 spells out the punishment. Which is not less than 5 years imprisonment and fines not less than $10,000 at the minimum and death at the maximum. This law was originally passed in 1948.

          So, in cases of treason the penalty is not just “death”. There’s a range of sentencing options to be imposed by a sentencing court and the Constitution doesn’t provide for the sentencing options it very explicitly leaves a creation of sentencing options to Congress.

        • Come on, Strych9, any efforts to educate the 49er are like trying to teach a pig to sing. He has a lots of firm (and mostly stupid) positions based on very little (and mostly wrong) knowledge. How else could one become a disgusting leftist slime?

        • @someone (nice handle BTW)

          It’s not that I feel the particular need to correct miner specifically. I’m far more interested in the fact that no one else has simply terminated that line within the thread by posting the two simple facts that I did.

          If people want to argue the politics of reconciliation, have at it. Personally, I’m not that interested in it. The same way I’m not interested in arguing about why the Founders elected to allow the continuation of what was at the time the dying institution of slavery.

          I can see valid and semi valid arguments on both sides of each argument based on the history but I’m not going to argue the mindset of people who didn’t state theirs at the time. Arguing about a dead man’s unstated perspective is, IMHO, a waste of time.

          However, the distortion of such facts as I have illuminated is, in some contexts, unacceptable. No constructive conversation can be had when that conversation is based on untruths.

          My personal view on miner is similar to that I have on both Chief Censor and pwrserge. Credit where it’s due and all that but also corrections where necessary. IMHO, these folks are not simple trolls and, as I said of a certain anti V a x person here long ago, they have something to contribute if you look for it, unlike, some other accounts that simply are trolls and not worth anyone’s time to interact with. However, that contribution is degraded significantly if falsehoods are allowed to stand.

        • Yes nine, thank you for your reply!

          Here it is, codified in statute:

          18 U.S. Code § 2381. Treason
          U.S. Code
          Notes
          prev | next
          Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

          The operative phrase is:

          “is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000”

          Now, I have seen you folks debate the meaning of ‘shall’ many times, and it seems the consensus is that it is an obligation, has that changed?

          “guilty of treason and shall suffer death“

          That seems pretty clear, ‘shall suffer death‘.

          Robert E Lee owed allegiance to the United States of America because of his oath, he waged war against the United States of America so he was clearly guilty of treason.

        • S9, frankly, I’m surprised at your editing attempt.

          Here’s how you cited US statute regarding treason:

          “18 USC Ch 115 § 2381 spells out the punishment. Which is not less than 5 years imprisonment and fines not less than $10,000 at the minimum and death at the maximum. This law was originally passed in 1948.”

          Somehow you left out the part ‘guilty of treason and shall suffer death’, why would you leave that part out?

        • Miner:

          Because I can English at a level above toddler babble and I can arithmetic well enough to know that 1948 comes after 1865, by 83 whole years in fact.

    • it was probably a gesture of reconciliation…to help heal the wounds of a devastated south…but that was long ago…and the need for it has passed….

        • It’s simply part of the re-write of history. And it will not stop. Example: Just heard the UT students want to get rid of the “Eyes of Texas” fight song. You keep giving in, there will be nothing left. Our history is what makes us as a people. the Useful Idiots to don’t understand that or don’t care are enemies of the people.

        • “Our history is what makes us as a people.”

          Yes, our history does inform our culture, but that doesn’t mean we must commemorate and erect statues to the worst among us. A footnote in the history books about the confederacies treason and arms insurrection against the constitution is all that’s needed.

          You know, Robert E Lee himself said that we should not elect statues to him or any other confederate official, he felt it wasn’t proper.

    • So far, a question that no one has asked or answered is why the bases were given those names in the first place. The Civil War, and resentment left over from it, was much closer back then. I would have expected the Union victors to be less, rather than more, likely to name a base after a southern general.

      During the Napoleonic wars, both the British and French navies named some of their own warships after enemy warships that had distinguished themselves especially in battle.

      Be careful whom you call traitors. The Founding Fathers weren’t traitors only because they won the American Revolution. It would be a different story had they lost. As a Canadian, I’m familiar with the rebellions in Lower Canada (Quebec), Upper Canada (Ontario) and the two Metis rebellions out west. The leaders of those rebellions weren’t treated kindly.

    • What traitors? The bases were not named for, or to honor the Confederacy. They were simply named for soldiers that fought for a cause that they believed in. Most, if not all of them probably didn’t even own any slaves. The war is over and the men are dead so leave these historically named bases alone.

        • And we should probably not name a human rights institution after him, but I think military context might actually fit. Hell, look how much we still honor van Buren in space flight.

      • “They were simply named for soldiers that fought for a cause that they believed in.”

        So you are in favor of a statue to Timothy McVeigh who killed men, women and children for a cause he believed in?

        How about Mohamed Atta, he slayed thousands for a cause he believed in, are you ready for his statue to be erected in Time Square?

        And I’d say somewhere near the Arizona Memorial would be a great location for Emperor Hirohito’s statue to celebrate his struggle for a cause he believed in, right?

        No, America should not commemorate our enemies, those who chose to take up arms against our Constitution and kill Americans serving their country, that’s known as treason.

    • Why stop there? What was the name of the black lives matter guy that killed those cops in Texas a few years back? Yeah… “Fort racist d-bag that murdered cops” that has a nice ring to it.

  5. If you don’t like the name of military bases, move to a country that you like & support. It’s that simple, but the ones bitching never served!

  6. Think Fort Stoner might need to be reserved fo a base in a state that has legalized Marijuana. Just saying.

  7. I’m getting damn fed up with all this crap ! We keep on and on giving their ass’s every damn thing that they want ! Hell, Martin Luther King’s monument’s, statue’s, etc., offend me…..let’s take all of them down ! Friends, it’s time to “Lock & Load” and let’s end this damn crap ! !

    • yeah,..all this pandering to blacks is starting to get really old..how much longer can the tail wag the dog?…

    • “Martin Luther King’s monument’s, statue’s, etc., offend me…..let’s take all of them down !”

      That’s because you’re clearly a racist.

      Those Confederate statues are second-place participation trophies for men who committed treason and high crimes against the United States of America.

      Martin Luther King was a man of God who worked to unite the people and bring God-given rights to all men and women.

      Robert E Lee was a US Army soldier who violated his oath, took up arms against the United States of America, led other insurrectionists in attacks against the duly elected Republican president of America.

      The constitution, in black letter law, commands the death penalty for treason, Robert E Lee and the rest of the traitors should’ve been hung.

      • …which would probably have precipitated a guerrilla war that would have dragged on for years..the one thing Lincoln, Grant and even Lee wanted desperately to avoid…….

      • Again, TROLL, you don’t know what you are talking about. As stated earlier, Succession was original part of the Constitution. It was amended after the Civil War to negate it.

        • Thank you for the name calling, it gives us all a clear estimation of your intellectual capabilities.

          The issue is not seccession, the issue is treason, try to keep up.

          Taking up arms against the constitution and Republican president of the United States of America is treason, for which the Constitution requires a penalty of death, not some lame ass statue in the village Square.

          Unless you wish to ignore the constitution, in which case I’m glad to hear that because there are a lot of people who like to take up arms against Republican president Trump and I’m glad you are in agreement with their right to do so.

          • So explain to me how it was secession if the Constitution allowed for it. My intelligence, really? Then I guess I’m the biggest dumbass with a Masters out there. Interesting you mention taking an oath to the Constitution. It’s because of their oath to the Constitution that modern day patriots might have to fight the government because of all the unconstitutional things it is doing. The attack on the 2nd Amendment and the lockdowns on the pandemic are just two examples. I served this country for 12 years. How many did you serve?

      • MLK’s statues don’t offend me, but I have wondered how people would feel if his statues were vandalized, destroyed and removed because it appears that this “man of God” may have been a womanizer, a philanderer and even a witness to rape without intervening.

        • It actually appears he was a pretty smart, shrewd guy who knew how to manipulate the media at a time when television was entering the living rooms across America….and revealing stunning images of what was actually going on in the south….

        • You may choose to propagate whatever rumor about Martin Luther King you wish to, it does nothing but cheapen you in the eyes of others.

          Regardless of whatever Martin Luther King shortcomings were, Dr. King never took up arms against this country, Dr. King never violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

          Help me to understand why so many of you folks are having difficulty understanding treason?

      • Man of god? He was a serial philanderer who was present in a room when a woman was raped and instead of stopping it, he encouraged it.

        That’s as despicable as a slave owner in my book and I am well within my rights to demand the street be renamed. But maybe the street naming is apt…

        • Again the issue is not slavery or adultery, the issue is treason, armed insurrection against the Constitution of the United States of America.

        • So, miner. If any of your antifa buddies take up arms against the gop president currently in office you agree that they should be hanged as traitors?

      • @49er
        Funny how Luther now is a man of God, when quite recently it was just a sky-daddy for you.