No. 2 GOP senator: Time to look at changing Confederate-named bases

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/502937-no-2-gop-senator-time-to-look-at-changing-confederate-named-bases

QuoteSen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said on Tuesday that it is time to discuss renaming military bases named after Confederate figures and signaled that he is open to talking about changing the names.

"I think you reevaluate, given the timing and circumstances and where we are in the country, who we want to revere ... by naming military installations and other national monuments. And so I think you have to periodically take a look at that and, in this case, it's perhaps time to do it," he told reporters.

An interesting shift given the hardened positions of some on this point.

Didn't the military officials say something similar last week?
I agree with doing this.

No Government in the US should glorify traitors and secessionists. 

Moot point! Trump already stated he won't allow that to happen.

Quote from: joesixpack on June 16, 2020, 01:17:08 PM
Didn't the military officials say something similar last week?
I agree with doing this.

No Government in the US should glorify traitors and secessionists.

Yes, and most of these bases were named WELL after the Civil War. Just as so many of the statues that went up all over the south. Many of the statues and monuments under dispute went up decades later by people with an agenda.

Quote from: Castle_Bravo on June 16, 2020, 01:23:29 PM
Yes, and most of these bases were named WELL after the Civil War. Just as so many of the statues that went up all over the south. Many of the statues and monuments under dispute went up decades later by people with an agenda.

Yep, by Dimocrats. And now they want to erase their racist past? Nope! They're a part of history, they stay!

Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2020, 01:25:39 PM
Yep, by Dimocrats. And now they want to erase their racist past? Nope! They're a part of history, they stay!

So you agree that Confederate-named bases are at their root a result of racist motivations. They don't need to stay if, as you indicate, their origins are in racism. I would say we aren't bound to every single naming and monument and statue ever created simply because they are "history". If that was the case Germany would have Nazi monuments everywhere because "history". Obviously that would make little sense.

Quote from: Castle_Bravo on June 16, 2020, 01:23:29 PM
Yes, and most of these bases were named WELL after the Civil War. Just as so many of the statues that went up all over the south. Many of the statues and monuments under dispute went up decades later by people with an agenda.

When they were named:

Fort Rucker - 1942
Fort Polk - 1941
Fort Hood - 1942
Fort Gordon - 1941
Fort Benning - 1918
Camp Beauregard - 1917
Fort A.P. Hill - 1941
Fort Pickett - 1942
Fort Bragg - 1918
Fort Lee - 1917

Quote from: joesixpack on June 16, 2020, 01:52:03 PM
When they were named:

Fort Rucker - 1942
Fort Polk - 1941
Fort Hood - 1942
Fort Gordon - 1941
Fort Benning - 1918
Camp Beauregard - 1917
Fort A.P. Hill - 1941
Fort Pickett - 1942
Fort Bragg - 1918
Fort Lee - 1917

Yes, same deal for the vast number of Confederate monuments around the South, except those dates range well into the 1960s.

The US was racist as hell, to be honest. I'm glad everyone is waking up to it.

Quote from: joesixpack on June 16, 2020, 02:01:23 PM
The US was racist as hell, to be honest. I'm glad everyone is waking up to it.

Yes, I agree with you and Solar that the naming of these bases was rooted in racism. I just don't agree with Solar that it should remain untouched as some kind of testament to or proof of that racism.

Quote from: Castle_Bravo on June 16, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
So you agree that Confederate-named bases are at their root a result of racist motivations. They don't need to stay if, as you indicate, their origins are in racism. I would say we aren't bound to every single naming and monument and statue ever created simply because they are "history". If that was the case Germany would have Nazi monuments everywhere because "history". Obviously that would make little sense.

Nope, they were Americans who fought for their beliefs. Some were great and formidable generals who to this day deserve recognition.
We're all Americans and we all share the same history.

Did you actually think the Civil war was about slavery?

Letter to Horace Greeley
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2020, 02:06:43 PM
Nope, they were Americans who fought for their beliefs. Some were great and formidable generals who to this day deserve recognition.
We're all Americans and we all share the same history.

Did you actually think the Civil war was about slavery?

Letter to Horace Greeley
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Ok. I am perhaps unclear then about which of your posts is representative. Here you agreed that the naming of the bases was rooted in racism:

Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2020, 01:25:39 PM
Yep, by Dimocrats. And now they want to erase their racist past? Nope! They're a part of history, they stay!

Quote from: joesixpack on June 16, 2020, 01:17:08 PM
Didn't the military officials say something similar last week?
I agree with doing this.

No Government in the US should glorify traitors and secessionists.

Ya but you just dont like them cuz they were slave owners, the same reason the left hates the founding fathers.

Quote from: Castle_Bravo on June 16, 2020, 12:55:01 PM
No. 2 GOP senator: Time to look at changing Confederate-named bases

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/502937-no-2-gop-senator-time-to-look-at-changing-confederate-named-bases

An interesting shift given the hardened positions of some on this point.

Not really. There are plenty of RINOs in the GOP still and the left loves to raise them up to make it seem like the GOP is moving left when in fact Trumpism is the new normal for the GOP. The entire country is moving right.

Quote from: Castle_Bravo on June 16, 2020, 01:46:55 PM
So you agree that Confederate-named bases are at their root a result of racist motivations. They don't need to stay if, as you indicate, their origins are in racism. I would say we aren't bound to every single naming and monument and statue ever created simply because they are "history". If that was the case Germany would have Nazi monuments everywhere because "history". Obviously that would make little sense.

Wrong. They were put up to remind us of the dimocrats racist history. We need them up so everyone remembers the dems are still racist today and now switch ever happened between the parties.