DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 6 Army bases named after Confederate leaders get dates for new names

Several U.S. Army bases will officially get their new names in the coming months as the military seeks to redesignate bases that currently honor Confederate leaders.

Driving the news: Fort Hood, the major Army base in central Texas, will be redesignated as Fort Cavazos on May 9, the base announced Friday.

The new name honors Gen. Richard Cavazos, the first Latino four-star general and first Latino brigadier general. The base is currently named for John Bell Hood, a Confederate general.
Fort Pickett in Virginia was renamed Fort Barfoot on Friday.

Why it matters: The Naming Commission, which was appointed by Congress, recommended nine different Army bases for redesignation back in May 2022.

The committee proposed that nine U.S. Army bases be redesignated and remove all "names, symbols, displays, monuments and paraphernalia" that honor the Confederacy.

What's next: Fort Rucker in Alabama will be renamed Fort Novosel on April 10 as a way to honor Michael Novosel, an Army chief warrant officer who earned the Medal of Honor for his service in the Vietnam War.

Fort Lee in Virginia will be renamed Fort Walker on April 27, per local news reports. The base is honoring Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, a former prisoner of war and surgeon.
Fort Benning in Georgia will be renamed Fort Moore on May 11 to honor Hal Moore, a U.S. commander during the Vietnam War and Julia Moore, an Army Community Service advocate.
And on June 2, Fort Bragg in North Carolina will become Fort Liberty.

Yes, but: Fort Gordon, in Georgia, Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, and Fort Polk in Louisiana do not have dates yet for their renaming, per the Military Times.

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/25/fo...VGXHl4yCrkhip4sLAs4bV_HqUN7qPb7Uv6cW90Bc

Better late than never news?

About time. Could you imagine in Germany. Fort Hitler?

Good move.

Removing things for some people to complain about is a good thing.

Yes. Like naming American Military bases after enemies of our nation. I know you love the idea and think we should continue to honor military generals of an enemy who tried to take over our nation and killed more of our soldiers than in any other war in our nation's history. Well done. Maybe we should have had a Fort Hitler too?

I'm probably in the minority on the center or left center. I don't believe we should be erasing the history of the United States. We should be out there embracing it and making sure we all know what happened and who did what and to whom and for what reason.

If you don't see something named after, say, Robert E. Lee, how can you ever teach what a rebellion is. Nobody would ask. It's like what DeSantis is doing in Florida by Banning certain books.

For me, I prefer everything be out on the table so we can discuss it openly. If you hide history, regardless if you agree with it or like it, you hide America and how we became what we are today.

Which by the way is why I keep fighting against those that want to sanitize Jan 6. If Trump and his minions had their way, they would have history books say it was a peaceful demonstration that got a bit out of hand by some folks.

I would just like to ask you, what does a plaque, statue or name of a Military base have to do with teaching the history of the Civil war? What does having monuments in town squares have to do with people learning about the history of the civil war?

According to that logic should we have monuments in American towns and military bases in honor of Hitler and his generals as well? what about other wars. Maybe Fort Saddam Huessein Army Base?

I would say no. People are taught history in schools. At least the history that is allowed to be taught. We have museums as well. Museums about the civil war, you can even take helicopter rides over certain battlegrounds to see how the troops advanced and retreated during the battle. I know because I did such in Gettysburg.

First, the facts are there was never an attempt to take over the north. The south simply wanted to leave the union. The fight was because the north didn't want that. At least get the facts straight.

Like I said, good move. I don't care what they call various bases, and if it gives some folks one less thing to complain about, I am all for it.

So that's why the first military attack of the Civil War was was when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter? So they just initiated the war but only wanted to leave the union?

Honoring such enemies isn't just something to complain about. It's disgusting.

They were asked to leave, and didn't.

But, I have said all I am going to say to you on this since you don't know what you are talking about.

As I said, good move.

Wow! "They were asked to leave" before they were attacked and killed by an opposing army? How kind of them! So if the United States wasn't willing to give them Fort Sumter an enemy army simply attacked them because they just wanted to leave the union? Speaking of someone who does not know what they're talking about. But then revisionist history has become a popular theme these days.

Truthfully, I wish we could separate the population now. Give people a choice in how they want to live and be governed. Move all the "woke" people to places like Chicago, LA, Detroit, NY, Seattle, Portland, SF, etc and remove the police that they hate so much and let them police themselves. Move all of people who respect authority, want to work instead of getting handouts, and actually honor our country to places where like-minded people live. They could live in places like S. Carolina, Tenn, Nebraska, Montana, the Dakotas,

It would be a choice. That way, people who are constantly complaining about things like police, conservative views, and how their rights are being violated can live together and pass any laws they want. Others who are sick of paying for people to complain will no longer have to do so.

It would be all about choice and not have this constant crap forced down our throats.

Well, black people should be flocking to San Fran. Soon. Establish residency. The SF Board of Supervisors is on board with giving each black person in the city $5,000,000.00. Plus, a guaranteed $97,000.00 in income annually, AND eliminate personal debt and tax burdens.

They are in favor of it. They have no idea how to pay for it though.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/san-francisco-decide-black-reparations-plan-5m-person-rcna74873

They will penalize those who actually work for a living. Just like always.

Planning and unintended consequence isn't a Dem strong suit.

I agree with Vers. I am all for splitting things up, but then there would be nobody to pay for the woke fools. That is why they don't want things to fall apart. They need somebody to pay for their free stuff.

Kids see those plaques, ask questions and get answers. That's learning also.. Not everything is taught in a classroom and if Republicans/conservatives/MAGA continues to tear schools apart and underfund them, soon, you won't be able to learn there either.

But really what it comes down to for me is changing their names covers up the history... OUR history. That can't be a good thing.

It's like changing the name of the Indians.. I thought it was dumb then and I still do. Billions have been spent to build that brand and I'm pretty sure those that wanted it changed didn't pony up one dime to off set the investment made.

That won't work either. The states that are mostly what are called Red States like W.Va and Kentucky and many others would not be able to stand on their own. They don't have the in state economy to do so. Both of those states for instance get more from the US then the put into the kitty.

It would be an economic mudslide for them...Texas would survive until the power went out again (then you'd see Ted Cruz running off to Cancun again.)

and again, define Woke? The actually defination is:

In activism and politics, woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) means "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".

But of course, those on the Right have decided to put a different meaning to it.. That's so you have something to fight against.

Reading something in a textbook to some kids might as well be fiction. (In some textbooks it is.) Connecting something to a physical place can make it real. Museums are fine, but incidental contact can in some ways be more impactful-- especially to those that avoid museums.

Yet many of you support Klaus Schwab and the world economic forum that have many ties and similarities to Hitler and the nazi's.

Of course it won't work. The lazy and shiftless need others to pay so they complain about how bad things are. It's just a dream. I'd love to put all those who hate the police in certain locations and have no police in those locations so they don't have to have the "talk." Put White Supremacists and other hate groups in isolated areas so they can all each other off. Put all those who don't want to work in areas and then take away their government assistance. Those who want to ban guns can go into large cities w/out guns and see how that will work out for them. Others, who understand that working at a job, obeying the laws, actively nurturing and supporting your children, etc in areas where.

You mean the lazy and shiftless in Kentucky and W. Va? Like them you mean?

I'm not in favor of the suggestion - but I wanted to highlight this part is not accurate. They propose some sort of qualification process, I do not know what it is.

Elsewhere in the thread it's funny to see so many political stereotypes alive and well and being espoused. Particularly the idea that one party or the other is better at planning or predicting unintended consequences. The only thing missing are claims of one side being communists and wanting to have open borders. You would think history should be a guide maybe - and if we look at budgets, surpluses, national debt, taxes the economy, employment rates, GDP growth - we'll see there are no clear "winners" and that one party doesn't always improve the situation for the country.

I mean anywhere. Look, I am not going to fight w/you and exchange insults. I spoke my feelings and I'll leave it to you and the others to do the attacking.

When you are losing the battle, it's smart to back off.. I don't blame you.

Interesting….how the trump brigade supports civil war and a confederate nation.

Have you seen Peen's explanation? What you are doing is risking who is teaching them and what they're teaching them.

Did you notice how arch posted about San Fran considering paying reparations to black people and Vers responded to arch with this?


Nothing racist about that, right?

No wonder they want their own country. When you see people get all worked up and emotional often times their true feelings come to the surface.

I didn’t see V’s. reply. Not surprised tho. It’s their way. Best to ignore those who spread hate. It’s what’s right and wrong in today’s society. We all have a platform in the digital world to spread hate, love, or any rhetoric/lie with no real consequences to face. Except for maybe a ban from a platform.

I'm not doing that, that's the way it is.

Yes it is. When you have your children being educated on people's thoughts, feelings and own personal beliefs rather than factual data, you aren't really educating children at all. You are only furthering misinformation on to the next generation.

The asked to leave comment was also based on the Confederate States unwillingness to accept the results of a free and fair election that they "lost".

There is no mechanism in the constitution for a State or group of States to leave the United States of America.

He seems to think, "We claimed part of the United States as our own so leave or we will kill you" is a sensible response.

There is no Constitutional mechanism. States could try the ConCon route to try and create one but that would surely fail.

The only real mechanism has been tried, and it failed.

Hasn't that been the case forever

That doesn't mean it would fail again.

It does not, but I truly do not want another civil war.

I gotta ask, are you really sure you want to have another civil war? Kinda feels as if you want that.

Nor do I.

I just answered frank, but i will answer you as well.

No way do I want that. I simply pointed out it might not fail a 2nd time.

The reality is I don't think there would be fighting at all. If Texas wanted to invoke their sovereignty, I don't think the government would send in the F-15's or get in to some sort of ground war.

Would you be up for that?

I want to weigh in for a moment. Earlier, I talked about dividing the country based on ideology. It was intended to read as fantasy, in an attempt to suggest how I view all the discord in this country. It had nothing to do w/starting a Civil War.

So is it that you don't believe in the constitution? Because that is prevented by the constitution, unless you think the other states would allow that. Or is it that you/we should choose to ignore the constitution when it is inconvenient?