Rename Bases

[Stobey]

Now House Republican "Leader", Kevin McCarthy said at a press conference today that it “could be appropriate” to rename some military bases that were named after Confederate generals.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-confederates/


Worse yet, "Lady" Lindsey Graham Praises Gen. Milley’s Apology for Trump’s Church Walk. This POS won his Primary, so he can go back to being the back-stabbing scumbag that he's always been.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-church-walk/

Since the so-called "Republicans" in Congress have not come down hard on this communist insurrection (they haven't said a peep); and now want to "reach across the aisle" and conspire with the Demonrats to be able to dictate "reforms" to be inflicted on state and local LEOs, it almost looks like President Trump is the Lone Ranger at this point. I seriously fear for the future of our country.

[cat in the hat]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Block ‘em in place and play the star spangled banner (with reveille at the appropriate hour) on a continual 24/7 loop...LOUD !

...mix in an occasional Flight of the Valkyries just to fuck with ‘em !

Good ideas.

Maybe a few hours of kids reciting the pledge of allegiance thrown in for good measure as well.

And if they want out they have to enlist and serve to regain their citizenship. (Like Bonnie Larue's son)

[PSM]

Wasn't naming the bases in the South for Southern Generals supposed to be a balm to help heal the wound between the North and the South?

[glebo]

Originally Posted by PSM

Wasn't naming the bases in the South for Southern Generals supposed to be a balm to help heal the wound between the North and the South?

I do believe you are correct, but that doesn't work these days. Different brand of snowflakes and hurt feelings

Of course I bet even the most progressive person those days would be considered a hard nosed conservative these days...

[1stindoor]

Here's an interesting question...suppose someone kills one of the citizens in FOB CHAZ...who they gonna call?

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by PSM

Wasn't naming the bases in the South for Southern Generals supposed to be a balm to help heal the wound between the North and the South?

There is not enough balm in the entire world to heal all the butt hurt victims with a grievance.

[cbtengr]

"Clash over Renaming Army Bases Could Delay Troops' Pay Raise, Senator Warns"

How dare that bad orangeman hold up the troops pay raise in order to keep these bases named after these racist traitors. No help from the R's they have an election to win.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/...C=eb_200612.nl

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

No help from the R's they have an election to win.

For most of 'em, it's the Uniparty, with some genuine hangable quislings thrown in for good measure.

[Uman]

Leave it to the Working Class Ranks to hit the nail with a HEAT round.

Gun Up,


https://www.duffelblog.com/2020/06/b...-after-losers/

Funny but also the sad truth.

[JGC2]

Originally Posted by EricV

I have mixed feelings about this. Irony abounds. For starters, Fort Hood, named after John Bell Hood is kind of a chuckle. Hood was a good example of someone rising to his level of Incompetence.

As far as I know, there is no base named after Longstreet who probably deserves it more then any of the others since he really did reconcile with the outcome after the war. Course the Confeds never forgave him for that. Yes, Irony abounds...

"His reputation in the South further suffered when he led African-American militia against the anti-Reconstruction White League at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. Authors of the Lost Cause movement focused on Longstreet's actions at Gettysburg as a primary reason for the Confederacy's loss of the war. Since the late 20th century, his reputation has undergone a slow reassessment. Many Civil War historians now consider him among the war's most gifted tactical commanders."

BTW, we should remember that the Union Vets at the time didn't exactly cotton to some of the reconciliation ideas...

“It Should Never Float Over American Soil”

Nick Sacco

During my master’s thesis research on the Grand Army of the Republic in Indiana I relied heavily on a Union Civil War veterans’ newspaper called The American Tribune. The paper was printed out of Indianapolis from roughly 1888 to 1906 and was edited by active members of the Indiana GAR during the postwar years. The paper is extremely hard to find on microfilm today and I was really lucky to have the Indiana State Library–one of the only places in the country where you can find it–within walking distance of my house to aid my research. Just for the fun of it I’ve been going back through some of my files and came across some interesting commentaries from the paper’s editorial page on the Confederate flag. Here are a few samples:

On May 29, 1890, a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee was unveiled in Richmond, Virginia, along what is now called “Monument Avenue.” When reports suggested that Confederate flags were waved during the ceremonies, the John A. Logan Post No. 199 of the Indiana GAR issued an angry resolution condemning these actions as “disloyal and treasonable.” The Tribune gleefully republished the Logan Post’s resolution in full on June 27:

WHEREAS: The rebel flag was unfurled and displayed on housetops and in line of march, and used for the purposes of decorating in remembrance of the same principles that it represented during the years of 1861 to 1865, and

WHEREAS, The principles taught the rising generation by such acts are as wrong as that principle taught by anarchists and communists in carrying the red flag, which this government forbids. Therefore be it

RESOLVED, That we heartily endorse the sentiment of Gen [Daniel] Sickles on last Memorial Day unmoved by any rancor or spirit of hatred, God forbid, but we say as Union soldiers and the love that we bear for the stars and stripes that there is but one flag for the Americans, the flag of Bunker Hill, of Saratoga, of Yorktown, of Lundy’s Lane, of New Orleans, the flag of Washington, Scott, Perry, Jackson, Lincoln, Hancock, Grant, Hooker, and the flag carried victorious by Billy Sherman to the sea. The only flag that represents the right, and in charity we will not forget the difference between right and wrong.

RESOLVED, That in this country there is but one flag which represents the fundamental principles of a free government known and acknowledged by all nations of the earth, and while we respect the pride that animates the hearts of ex-confederate soldiers in historic valor displayed on many battlefields of the war and the sentiment which endears them to each other, and keeps alive in their memories the many scenes of hardships which they shared together, we sincerely condemn any attempt to resurrect from the buried past the emblem which represents a bad and lost cause.

RESOLVED, That the stars and stripes represent loyalty and the stars and bars represent treason, the same to-day as they did from ’61 to ’65, and we deem it the duty of the authorities at Washington, irrespective of political parties, to forbid the display of the stars and bars on any occasion, and this we do in memory of those who so heroically gave their lives that the Nation might live.

From an editorial entitled “Our Flag is There” on January 7, 1892:

When Gen. Lee surrendered to Gen. Grant at Appomattox, the latter would not accept Gen. Lee’s sword, and he included within that surrender a provision that all the Rebel officers should retain their side-arms. That courtesy of Gen. Grant expressed exactly the feeling of the great generous heart of the North toward the defeated and conquered South. Southern poets have written ballads and Southern women have sung of the sword of Robert Lee. This is all as it should be. But when Gen. Lee surrendered to Gen. Grant there was no provision made that the flag of slavery and secession should ever be retained, either as a souvenir or standard. It represented something that cost this country a million of men and many millions of money, and at Appomattox its bloody folds should have been furled forever. War relic or no war relic, it should never float over American soil.

A month later the paper lamented how many Northerners (and Democrats in particular) embraced what the paper called a “forgive and forget” sentiment that accepted the continued flying of the Confederate flag (“Still Pandering to Rebels,” February 4, 1892):

The Northern Dough-faces and the “forgive and forget” sentimentalists are largely responsible for the manner in which the “relics of the lost cause” are nursing emblems of their treason and are still laboring to make the same respectable. In poor old Missouri they have societies called “Daughters of the Confederacy” whose invitations to their balls and receptions have a Confederate flag printed in colors on one corner; and the principal of the leading military school in that State [Alexander Frederick Fleet, Sr. of the Missouri Military Academy]…advertises the advantages of his school with the picture of a late major-general of the Rebel army in the uniform of a rebel, and this officer was a graduate of West Point, resigned from U.S. Army in 1861 and fought for the Confederacy.

This sort of thing is becoming too common and the President should call a halt and order the officer now on duty there to his regiment, and require the arms to be turned over to the ordnance officer at Jefferson Barracks. It is high time there was a law forbidding the Government of the United States from furnishing teachers’ ordnance, or in any way aiding any institution of learning which seeks to perpetuate the principles of or honor the so-called Confederate Government.

All these comments make you wonder what these guys would think about our debate over the Confederate flag 120 years later.

https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/ca...-the-republic/

Great stuff. Don't forget the South felt slighted when Longstreet waited until after many Confederates were dead to publish his memoirs, including Lee whom he was critical of, hence his statue at Gettysburg got no base underneath it. My great uncle fought under him in the Seven Days Campaign so my family always held him in high regard.

[Pete]

At the end of the blog

"Yossarian will finally be able to return home from deployment when he writes enough articles, but the Duffel Blog editors keep increasing his quota whenever he comes close to fulfilling it."

LOL

[JGC2]

Originally Posted by PSM

Wasn't naming the bases in the South for Southern Generals supposed to be a balm to help heal the wound between the North and the South?

The actual story is much more interesting. In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was trailing a NY Democrat by 20 electoral votes, but the Democrat was one shy of a majority so Ulysses Grant ordered an election commission that Hayes would benefit from. They were not ready for a Democrat POTUS yet. In order to convince the Southern Democrats to acquiesce to the commission, Hayes cut a deal in January 1877.

He promised to end Reconstruction and withdraw federal troops from the South, as well as allowing the South to re-embrace Confederate iconography such as the battle flag. In addition to the commission, the South promised to send her sons to fight in US wars abroad. That is why all the Confederate flag incorporation into the State flags happened after 1877 and also why the South has insisted upon Confederate names for military bases in the South, even if it meant choosing some less than stellar performers.

The South has kept her end of this bargain, but the empire is reneging. In 2018, the South made up 45% of enlistees, and the next highest group was the West at under 25%. The Northeast was under 15%. Three distinct geographic areas in the South all have a higher per capita enlistment rate than any non-Southern region.

I was asked today why the United States should honor insurrectionists, but in response I asked why the South should send her sons to fight wars for a country that hates her heroes.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by JGC2

The actual story is much more interesting. In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was trailing a NY Democrat by 20 electoral votes, but the Democrat was one shy of a majority so Ulysses Grant ordered an election commission that Hayes would benefit from. They were not ready for a Democrat POTUS yet. In order to convince the Southern Democrats to acquiesce to the commission, Hayes cut a deal in January 1877.

He promised to end Reconstruction and withdraw federal troops from the South, as well as allowing the South to re-embrace Confederate iconography such as the battle flag. In addition to the commission, the South promised to send her sons to fight in US wars abroad. That is why all the Confederate flag incorporation into the State flags happened after 1877 and also why the South has insisted upon Confederate names for military bases in the South, even if it meant choosing some less than stellar performers.

The South has kept her end of this bargain, but the empire is reneging. In 2018, the South made up 45% of enlistees, and the next highest group was the West at under 25%. The Northeast was under 15%. Three distinct geographic areas in the South all have a higher per capita enlistment rate than any non-Southern region.

Thanks, I didn't know the depth of the deal.

I was asked today why the United States should honor insurrectionists, but in response I asked why the South should send her sons to fight wars for a country that hates her heroes.

Great response! And a good question.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by JGC2

The South has kept her end of this bargain, but the empire is reneging.

Hunh, imagine that. Thanks for the explanation.

[Pete]

Let's see - just at Ft Bragg and surrounding area.

Bragg Blvd, Ft Bragg Road, North Bragg Blvd in Spring Lake (BB and BBSP do not connect these days), Fort Bragg Federal Credit Union.

Think of all the footnotes that will have to be added to history "Trained at Ft Bragg - (now Fort Clinton)"

DZ's, roads, housing areas, etc should be safe. Most named after 82nd guys, raids, campaigns and battles.