Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is about Fort Hood, named for a Confederate general. Some people are considering renaming it after Roy Benavidez. He was in the U.S. Army Special Forces and he was given the Medal of Honor for valor, due to his role at a battle during the Vietnam War, namely at Loc Ninh. He is from Texas.
for me thats the end of the discussion. Benny is more than appropriate to have a base named after. Have you read his citation for the MOH??? plus I don't think anything has been named after a vietnam veteran........
for me thats the end of the discussion. Benny is more than appropriate to have a base named after. Have you read his citation for the MOH??? plus I don't think anything has been named after a vietnam veteran........
I haven't read Roy Benavidez's Medal of Honor citation, yet. I didn't think about anything being named for Vietnam War veterans. Just the same, I will go read it.
If nothing else, naming U.S. military bases after Confederate generals does not make any sense, especially now.
Yes, and his name deserves to be on a decent post, not on a pithole like Ft Hood.
Ft Hood deserves Hood's name.
Regardless of what Fort Hood is like. no military base should be named for John Bell Hood. Maybe Benavidez's name can be lent to a better base. Just the same, Fort Hood still should not be named Fort Hood.
I'm all in re: renaming Fort Hood, & other US military bases, et cetera. I'm also all in for the removal of all Confederate statuary, etc., particularly those on public grounds.
There are many reasons why I support, you & I have discussed the various reasons here on these forums, & I very much appreciate the opportunities.
Even if not for all of the reasons previously discussed here & elsewhere, there is another which we've also previously discussed. That is, the efforts to unify the United States of America after the American Civil War through the appeasement of the Confederacy by naming bases, erecting monuments, etc. was a failure. Another 'lost cause' so to speak. It did not work.
Naming or renaming bases, erecting new statues to the Confederacy (yes, they are still doing so) or moving the existing ones littering our free & public spaces will also fail if the reality-based, accurate, based on primary sources, etc. history is not taught.
The 'Lost Cause' mythologies & propaganda is still being taught in some of our primary & high schools throughout the United States. It's not only farcical, it's harmful.
You've mentioned something very important. Coddling the former Confederate states is not doing anyone any favors. Military bases are not suppose to be named for Confederate soldiers. All it did was perpetuate the divide. All it did was let the Lost Cause myth multiply.
The Confederacy was not a great nation. It was a breakaway state at war. A great nation would indeed admit to its mistakes. Those who cling to the Confederate cause, those who cling to the Lost Cause, will not admit to being wrong.
You've mentioned something very important. Coddling the former Confederate states is not doing anyone any favors. Military bases are not suppose to be named for Confederate soldiers. All it did was perpetuate the divide. All it did was let the Lost Cause myth multiply.
The Confederacy was not a great nation. It was a breakaway state at war. A great nation would indeed admit to its mistakes. Those who cling to the Confederate cause, those who cling to the Lost Cause, will not admit to being wrong.
You're right. Coddling the Confederacy & their apologists was yet another 'lost cause' because it only succeeded in perpetuating the divide which still exists in the present day. It validated their revision of history based on propaganda & mythology; a 'house of cards' historiography, so to speak.
Renaming streets, schools, military bases, & moving Confederate statuary is a good start, teaching reality based history is better in the long term.
The Confederacy was blessed with brilliant leadership. They did far more, with far less. There was no better tactician than Lee, Grant and Sherman included.
So true. (I have desert detroiter on ignore but his views are pretty much 100% wrong. He might want to read some history books not written by the NY Times)
Lee would have kicked the Yankee's asses with similar numbers of troops or equipment. He was asked by Lincoln to lead the Northern Armies but declined once the North attacked his home state of Virginia. If the drunkard Grant (who owned slaves up until his presidency) had not had superior everything the South would have easily won.
Regarding the other point, we should honor the intent of the original naming. History is history. The terms 'Civil War' were not used in the south much when I was young. It was referred to as either:
1) The War Of Northern Aggression, or
2) The Second War For Independence
Think about that for a while. (Not you DD, you're not capable) Half the country at the time, felt that the war was about keeping alive the War for Independence. If you call the Southern leaders Traitors, then you must call the Revolutionary leaders traitors as well. Same mindset.....
Everyone just grow up and leave the statues alone....We have bigger problems to deal with....
So true. (I have desert detroiter on ignore but his views are pretty much 100% wrong. He might want to read some history books not written by the NY Times)
Lee would have kicked the Yankee's asses with similar numbers of troops or equipment. He was asked by Lincoln to lead the Northern Armies but declined once the North attacked his home state of Virginia. If the drunkard Grant (who owned slaves up until his presidency) had not had superior everything the South would have easily won.
Regarding the other point, we should honor the intent of the original naming. History is history. The terms 'Civil War' were not used in the south much when I was young. It was referred to as either:
1) The War Of Northern Aggression, or
2) The Second War For Independence
Think about that for a while. (Not you DD, you're not capable) Half the country at the time, felt that the war was about keeping alive the War for Independence. If you call the Southern leaders Traitors, then you must call the Revolutionary leaders traitors as well. Same mindset.....
Everyone just grow up and leave the statues alone....We have bigger problems to deal with....
Well, regardless of what kind of military commander Lee was, the bottom line is what matters to me. He fought for the Confederacy, and that is a no-no for me. It doesn't matter to me how good of a general he may have been. He fought for the Confederacy. The Confederacy was fighting for the Confederate cause. The Confederate cause was about keeping slavery. For that reason, Robert E. Lee doesn't deserve to have any statues in his honor. No military bases should have been named for him in the first place.
And consider this. He graduated from West Point and was a general in the U.S. military. He swore to protect the USA and the Constitution. He turned his back on that oath to fight for the enemy combatant, the Confederacy. Based on that, he should not have statues in his honor. He should have been tried for treason and subjected to the punishment that is given to traitors. I can call Confederate generals traitors to the USA. The Revolutionary Patriots are not traitors to the USA.
The Civil War was that, a civil war. Civil War is the appropriate name for it. Calling it the War of Northern Aggression is dishonest, as the Confederates fired the first shots.
Consider this. I don't find any Black people in the South referring to the Civil War as "the war of northern aggression". Ask yourself why that is.
Well, regardless of what kind of military commander Lee was, the bottom line is what matters to me. He fought for the Confederacy, and that is a no-no for me. It doesn't matter to me how good of a general he may have been. He fought for the Confederacy. The Confederacy was fighting for the Confederate cause. The Confederate cause was about keeping slavery. For that reason, Robert E. Lee doesn't deserve to have any statues in his honor. No military bases should have been named for him in the first place.
And consider this. He graduated from West Point and was a general in the U.S. military. He swore to protect the USA and the Constitution. He turned his back on that oath to fight for the enemy combatant, the Confederacy. Based on that, he should not have statues in his honor. He should have been tried for treason and subjected to the punishment that is given to traitors. I can call Confederate generals traitors to the USA. The Revolutionary Patriots are not traitors to the USA.
The Civil War was that, a civil war. Civil War is the appropriate name for it. Calling it the War of Northern Aggression is dishonest, as the Confederates fired the first shots.
Consider this. I don't find any Black people in the South referring to the Civil War as "the war of northern aggression". Ask yourself why that is.
I
I can't rep you again yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
