Time to rename our Confederate Forts

[Turtlesoup]

No , you were showing your ignorance.

I know that Auschwitz is in Poland. I was talking about Germany and the Nazis.

You thought it was in Germany ya lying slag.

Gee, if your argument is that Auschiwitz is in poland--why haven't the pols renamed it?

Because it would be confusing for people trying to learn about ww2 and prison camp
and/or be so costly and such a waste of time that they would be stupid to do so?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

It is like you just showed up on this planet and was giving a child's history book. Which you are failing to understand.

Except, you're an adult who has lived here his own life.

SO, you are just a ******* troll being a ******* asshole.

Typical infantile response, insulting, arrogant, double spaced paragraphs to bring attention to yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Gen Pickett had his forces massacred attacking Union lines at Gettysburg

Why not honor Gen Hancock who was a better General and defended the UNION

Fort Hancock was in Texas on the Rio Grande.

Was

Forts named after Union Generals tended to be inconsequential and discarded. There was also a Ft Hancock in NJ that was closed.

Why not do a reset and name our forts after those who actually fought FOR our country? Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, Pershing, Bradley

Many of the Confederate generals also fought for the union in other wars. The Tremendous Braxton Bragg, ex. given, fought for America against the Indians as well as in the Mexican American War. Why should that service be ignored?

We don‘t name forts after Lieutenants and Captains who switched sides and took up arms against our country

While the War of Northern Aggression was actually taking place, it was an open question as to whether states had a right to secede. That was the question that the war settled. The Confederates weren't "traitors" and they didn't "switch sides". They took a side, in this great controversy, and when the war was over , they reconciled themselves to the decision that was made on the battlefield.

The Confederacy was established to ensure that Slavery would be protected forever. 40 percent of its population was in bondage.

One of the worst Governments ever established.

Not worthy of honoring or respecting

Geebus... the civil war was not about slavery but taxation. The north relied on the south for tax money due to the cotton exports that were heavily tariffed. 4 and count them 4 of the union states had slaves going into the civil war. Ending slavery was about trying to change the image of the north for having the war and seen as a way to punish the south for rebelling. The north was vindictive and had come very very close to losing the war---------so they were all about hurting the south afterwords

Lost Cause BS

The war was always about slavery

 

[rightwinger]

Gee, if your argument is that Auschiwitz is in poland--why haven't the pols renamed it?

Poland does not honor the Commandants of those death camps
We honor a nation formed to maintain slavery

 

[rightwinger]

If you weren't such a big mouth and would bother to go research, you would find why these southern general were chosen as a reminder, rememberance messages for future generations, and a WARNING.

More Bullshit on your part.

Those forts were named in a continuing Lost Cause effort to rebrand and honor the Confederacy

 

[Correll]

It is like you just showed up on this planet and was giving a child's history book. Which you are failing to understand.

Except, you're an adult who has lived here his own life.

SO, you are just a ******* troll being a ******* asshole.

Typical infantile response, insulting, arrogant, double spaced paragraphs to bring attention to yourself.

He's trolling and I called him on it. You want to demonstrate that my response was incorrect?

Defend his point that any commemoration of confederate soldiers is a commemoration of slavery.

Best of luck on that one. Because it obviously is not.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gen Pickett had his forces massacred attacking Union lines at Gettysburg

Why not honor Gen Hancock who was a better General and defended the UNION

Fort Hancock was in Texas on the Rio Grande.

Was

Forts named after Union Generals tended to be inconsequential and discarded. There was also a Ft Hancock in NJ that was closed.

Why not do a reset and name our forts after those who actually fought FOR our country? Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, Pershing, Bradley

Many of the Confederate generals also fought for the union in other wars. The Tremendous Braxton Bragg, ex. given, fought for America against the Indians as well as in the Mexican American War. Why should that service be ignored?

We don‘t name forts after Lieutenants and Captains who switched sides and took up arms against our country

While the War of Northern Aggression was actually taking place, it was an open question as to whether states had a right to secede. That was the question that the war settled. The Confederates weren't "traitors" and they didn't "switch sides". They took a side, in this great controversy, and when the war was over , they reconciled themselves to the decision that was made on the battlefield.

The Confederacy was established to ensure that Slavery would be protected forever. 40 percent of its population was in bondage.

One of the worst Governments ever established.

Not worthy of honoring or respecting

Geebus... the civil war was not about slavery but taxation. The north relied on the south for tax money due to the cotton exports that were heavily tariffed. 4 and count them 4 of the union states had slaves going into the civil war. Ending slavery was about trying to change the image of the north for having the war and seen as a way to punish the south for rebelling. The north was vindictive and had come very very close to losing the war---------so they were all about hurting the south afterwords

Lost Cause BS

The war was always about slavery

I don't have the time nor the will to do a complete education for you but Slavery was just part of it. But it was more about Economics than anything else. And Slavery was just part of that Economic problem. There was also a refusal to do a change of any sort in the way of life in the Southern Ruling Class (no I didn't mistype) that still shows up today and not just in the South. Add in the refusal of the South to Industrial because that would have caused a huge change in the way of life. The War was needed to correct things. What happened after the war was the real crime on both sides.

 

[rightwinger]

It is like you just showed up on this planet and was giving a child's history book. Which you are failing to understand.

Except, you're an adult who has lived here his own life.

SO, you are just a ******* troll being a ******* asshole.

Typical infantile response, insulting, arrogant, double spaced paragraphs to bring attention to yourself.

He's trolling and I called him on it. You want to demonstrate that my response was incorrect?

Defend his point that any commemoration of confederate soldiers is a commemoration of slavery.

Best of luck on that one. Because it obviously is not.

You have a bizarre and bigoted view of history

You are not suited to correct anyone

 

[rightwinger]

Gen Pickett had his forces massacred attacking Union lines at Gettysburg

Why not honor Gen Hancock who was a better General and defended the UNION

Fort Hancock was in Texas on the Rio Grande.

Was

Forts named after Union Generals tended to be inconsequential and discarded. There was also a Ft Hancock in NJ that was closed.

Why not do a reset and name our forts after those who actually fought FOR our country? Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, Pershing, Bradley

Many of the Confederate generals also fought for the union in other wars. The Tremendous Braxton Bragg, ex. given, fought for America against the Indians as well as in the Mexican American War. Why should that service be ignored?

We don‘t name forts after Lieutenants and Captains who switched sides and took up arms against our country

While the War of Northern Aggression was actually taking place, it was an open question as to whether states had a right to secede. That was the question that the war settled. The Confederates weren't "traitors" and they didn't "switch sides". They took a side, in this great controversy, and when the war was over , they reconciled themselves to the decision that was made on the battlefield.

The Confederacy was established to ensure that Slavery would be protected forever. 40 percent of its population was in bondage.

One of the worst Governments ever established.

Not worthy of honoring or respecting

Geebus... the civil war was not about slavery but taxation. The north relied on the south for tax money due to the cotton exports that were heavily tariffed. 4 and count them 4 of the union states had slaves going into the civil war. Ending slavery was about trying to change the image of the north for having the war and seen as a way to punish the south for rebelling. The north was vindictive and had come very very close to losing the war---------so they were all about hurting the south afterwords

Lost Cause BS

The war was always about slavery

I don't have the time nor the will to do a complete education for you but Slavery was just part of it. But it was more about Economics than anything else. And Slavery was just part of that Economic problem. There was also a refusal to do a change of any sort in the way of life in the Southern Ruling Class (no I didn't mistype) that still shows up today and not just in the South. Add in the refusal of the South to Industrial because that would have caused a huge change in the way of life. The War was needed to correct things. What happened after the war was the real crime on both sides.

You dance around but no matter how you dance......It comes down to Slavery

States Rights? A States right to allow Slavery
Economics? Protection of the Cotton Empire that was built on Slavery
Southern Ruling Class? A ruling class dedicated to maintaining a permanent subservient class of people

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gen Pickett had his forces massacred attacking Union lines at Gettysburg

Why not honor Gen Hancock who was a better General and defended the UNION

Fort Hancock was in Texas on the Rio Grande.

Was

Forts named after Union Generals tended to be inconsequential and discarded. There was also a Ft Hancock in NJ that was closed.

Why not do a reset and name our forts after those who actually fought FOR our country? Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, Pershing, Bradley

Many of the Confederate generals also fought for the union in other wars. The Tremendous Braxton Bragg, ex. given, fought for America against the Indians as well as in the Mexican American War. Why should that service be ignored?

We don‘t name forts after Lieutenants and Captains who switched sides and took up arms against our country

While the War of Northern Aggression was actually taking place, it was an open question as to whether states had a right to secede. That was the question that the war settled. The Confederates weren't "traitors" and they didn't "switch sides". They took a side, in this great controversy, and when the war was over , they reconciled themselves to the decision that was made on the battlefield.

The Confederacy was established to ensure that Slavery would be protected forever. 40 percent of its population was in bondage.

One of the worst Governments ever established.

Not worthy of honoring or respecting

Geebus... the civil war was not about slavery but taxation. The north relied on the south for tax money due to the cotton exports that were heavily tariffed. 4 and count them 4 of the union states had slaves going into the civil war. Ending slavery was about trying to change the image of the north for having the war and seen as a way to punish the south for rebelling. The north was vindictive and had come very very close to losing the war---------so they were all about hurting the south afterwords

Lost Cause BS

The war was always about slavery

I don't have the time nor the will to do a complete education for you but Slavery was just part of it. But it was more about Economics than anything else. And Slavery was just part of that Economic problem. There was also a refusal to do a change of any sort in the way of life in the Southern Ruling Class (no I didn't mistype) that still shows up today and not just in the South. Add in the refusal of the South to Industrial because that would have caused a huge change in the way of life. The War was needed to correct things. What happened after the war was the real crime on both sides.

You dance around but no matter how you dance......It comes down to Slavery

States Rights? A States right to allow Slavery
Economics? Protection of the Cotton Empire that was built on Slavery
Southern Ruling Class? A ruling class dedicated to maintaining a permanent subservient class of people

You left out the ability to export Slaves to the newly opened Territories and States like Cattle. I imagine that may have started a new breeding farm in the south where all they did was breed slaves for export to the west. As you can see, it's even more sinister than even you painted.

But you leave off the trade imbalance. One of the Reasons that our Nation was created in the first place was because of the trade imbalance between England and the Colonies. If you do nothing but provide the raw materials to be shipped to the mother country for processing and have the processed materials shipped back, you are going to have an imbalance. That only works for so long. You might think that it was only a matter of a few years for the Colonies but it was actually about 100 years. The Mother Country kept the taxes at a rate where the daughter country could not afford to industrialize. Hence the Revolutionary war.

One side note here. One of the biggest reasons that England ended slavery was that when a country Industrializes, the first thing that has to go is Slavery. Slavery and Industrial Revolution cannot coexist.

The North and South had a similar relationship. Raw resources were sent from the south to the north for processing and then the processed goods were sold back to the South. An untenable situation. That went on for almost 100 years. See where this is going? But it wasn't because the North was taxing the South at a bone breaking rate but because the South refused to Industrialize because that would change their way of Life of the Ruling Classes. In order to correct this, the South really had no other option than to declare their Independence from the North and west. If it doesn't make sense to you, you had to be there.

 

[rightwinger]

Gen Pickett had his forces massacred attacking Union lines at Gettysburg

Why not honor Gen Hancock who was a better General and defended the UNION

Fort Hancock was in Texas on the Rio Grande.

Was

Forts named after Union Generals tended to be inconsequential and discarded. There was also a Ft Hancock in NJ that was closed.

Why not do a reset and name our forts after those who actually fought FOR our country? Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton, Pershing, Bradley

Many of the Confederate generals also fought for the union in other wars. The Tremendous Braxton Bragg, ex. given, fought for America against the Indians as well as in the Mexican American War. Why should that service be ignored?

We don‘t name forts after Lieutenants and Captains who switched sides and took up arms against our country

While the War of Northern Aggression was actually taking place, it was an open question as to whether states had a right to secede. That was the question that the war settled. The Confederates weren't "traitors" and they didn't "switch sides". They took a side, in this great controversy, and when the war was over , they reconciled themselves to the decision that was made on the battlefield.

The Confederacy was established to ensure that Slavery would be protected forever. 40 percent of its population was in bondage.

One of the worst Governments ever established.

Not worthy of honoring or respecting

Geebus... the civil war was not about slavery but taxation. The north relied on the south for tax money due to the cotton exports that were heavily tariffed. 4 and count them 4 of the union states had slaves going into the civil war. Ending slavery was about trying to change the image of the north for having the war and seen as a way to punish the south for rebelling. The north was vindictive and had come very very close to losing the war---------so they were all about hurting the south afterwords

Lost Cause BS

The war was always about slavery

I don't have the time nor the will to do a complete education for you but Slavery was just part of it. But it was more about Economics than anything else. And Slavery was just part of that Economic problem. There was also a refusal to do a change of any sort in the way of life in the Southern Ruling Class (no I didn't mistype) that still shows up today and not just in the South. Add in the refusal of the South to Industrial because that would have caused a huge change in the way of life. The War was needed to correct things. What happened after the war was the real crime on both sides.

You dance around but no matter how you dance......It comes down to Slavery

States Rights? A States right to allow Slavery
Economics? Protection of the Cotton Empire that was built on Slavery
Southern Ruling Class? A ruling class dedicated to maintaining a permanent subservient class of people

You left out the ability to export Slaves to the newly opened Territories and States like Cattle. I imagine that may have started a new breeding farm in the south where all they did was breed slaves for export to the west. As you can see, it's even more sinister than even you painted.

But you leave off the trade imbalance. One of the Reasons that our Nation was created in the first place was because of the trade imbalance between England and the Colonies. If you do nothing but provide the raw materials to be shipped to the mother country for processing and have the processed materials shipped back, you are going to have an imbalance. That only works for so long. You might think that it was only a matter of a few years for the Colonies but it was actually about 100 years. The Mother Country kept the taxes at a rate where the daughter country could not afford to industrialize. Hence the Revolutionary war.

One side note here. One of the biggest reasons that England ended slavery was that when a country Industrializes, the first thing that has to go is Slavery. Slavery and Industrial Revolution cannot coexist.

The North and South had a similar relationship. Raw resources were sent from the south to the north for processing and then the processed goods were sold back to the South. An untenable situation. That went on for almost 100 years. See where this is going? But it wasn't because the North was taxing the South at a bone breaking rate but because the South refused to Industrialize because that would change their way of Life of the Ruling Classes. In order to correct this, the South really had no other option than to declare their Independence from the North and west. If it doesn't make sense to you, you had to be there.

Agree
I think the expansion to the west created a political imbalance that the South would ultimately lose.
While they tried to force new states to accept slavery to keep the balance, many did not want it.
It would have resulted in an ultimate end of slavery but over a period of 20 years or more with no new slaves being bred and owners receiving compensation for lost property.
By forcing a war, the South had a total end of slavery without compensation in four years instead of twenty or more

 

[Correll]

It is like you just showed up on this planet and was giving a child's history book. Which you are failing to understand.

Except, you're an adult who has lived here his own life.

SO, you are just a ******* troll being a ******* asshole.

Typical infantile response, insulting, arrogant, double spaced paragraphs to bring attention to yourself.

He's trolling and I called him on it. You want to demonstrate that my response was incorrect?

Defend his point that any commemoration of confederate soldiers is a commemoration of slavery.

Best of luck on that one. Because it obviously is not.

You have a bizarre and bigoted view of history

You are not suited to correct anyone

YEt, I did correct you. So your denial is just more of your trolling.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Somehow Ft. Tinkerbell just doesn't work for me. Leave the names alone.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The thing about genuine trolls is that they not only insult childishly and whine about how nobody answers them, and claim knowledge that others supposedly don’t have, but they just don’t listen and think. They repeat the same “gotcha” stuff or sectional arguments, and think they are smart or “won” the argument by shear bullying repetition.

Here in this very thread I’ve myself made some 22 comments, more than half of them long and thoughtful. I have little more to say! I’ve written long and seriously about this subject in other threads too. But rarely do I see folks on the other side here at USMB listening and responding maturely, respectfully, thoughtfully.

This is sadly typical, and of course partly reflects our President’s intransigence and rabble rousing. Just like in the removal of Confederate flags from courthouses and state capitals throughout the South, the banning of Confederate flags and patches from military bases was largely supported by prominent Republicans. It represented progress.

Similarly, the base “renaming” proposals recently came from a genuinely bipartisan Republican-chaired Armed Services Committee. Many Generals — who are responsible for troop morale and discipline and have a deep appreciation of military history — are also supportive of this perfectly reasonable and long overdue step. But we who agree are — to madcap Trump supporters, Southern “patriots” and assorted right wingers here at USMB — little more than American-hating Democratic Party trolls and communists, with no appreciation of history.

 

[Correll]

The thing about genuine trolls is that they not only insult childishly and whine about how nobody answers them, and claim knowledge that others supposedly don’t have, but they just don’t listen and think. They repeat the same “gotcha” stuff or sectional arguments, and think they are smart or “won” the argument by shear bullying repetition.

Here in this very thread I’ve myself made some 22 comments, more than half of them long and thoughtful. I have little more to say! I’ve written long and seriously about this subject in other threads too. But rarely do I see folks on the other side here at USMB listening and responding maturely, respectfully, thoughtfully.

This is sadly typical, and of course partly reflects our President’s intransigence and rabble rousing. Just like in the removal of Confederate flags from courthouses and state capitals throughout the South, the banning of Confederate flags and patches from military bases was largely supported by prominent Republicans. It represented progress.

Similarly, the base “renaming” proposals recently came from a genuinely bipartisan Republican-chaired Armed Services Committee. Many Generals — who are responsible for troop morale and discipline and have a deep appreciation of military history — are also supportive of this perfectly reasonable and long overdue step. But we who agree are — to madcap Trump supporters, Southern “patriots” and assorted right wingers here at USMB — little more than American-hating Democratic Party trolls and communists, with no appreciation of history.

Rightwinger was claiming that we do not do stuff, that we have been doing for generations.

That was him trolling. I called him on it, and you sided with him, the troll.


This "step" is not "overdue", it is uncalled for.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Trump opposes efforts to remove Confederate commanders' names from military bases

President Donald Trump said Wednesday he opposes any effort by the US military to rename the nearly one dozen major bases and installations that bear the names of Confederate military commanders.

www.cnn.com

Hood---youngest on both sides of the war to be given command of an army which he recklessness destroyed but I've been to Fort Hood---kinda fits the entire area. Politically connected in Kentucky (UNION sympathesizers) ..specifically to a cousin who was in the house of representatives

Pickett---was a buddy of Lincoln and other union a-holes who helped him along even though he was underserving and hated by the south for executing troops trying to desert from him before the war ended but illinios yankees loved him and protected him from being killed off for his war crimes against his own troops.

Braxton Bragg---hated by his troops, hated by fellow officers, usually lost battles and is considered one of the worse or the worse commander in the civil war--Cousin of Gen Edward Bragg on the UNION side so the union also loved and protected him

A.P Hill wasn't born till after the civil war so I don't understand the attacks on him or why is this base is lumped in with the others

Of the other 3, have you idiot libs not seen a pattern yet?

What alternative history book are you using? General A. P. Hill was killed by Union forces on April 2, 1865.

A. P. Hill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your comments about Pickett are simply in error, as "Illinois Yankees" had nothing to with him as he was from Virginia. He was saved from exile in Canada by Grant.

I suggest more research on your part.