Austin Orders Renaming of Bases that Honor Confederate Rebels

Austin Orders Renaming of Bases that Honor Confederate Rebels

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Thursday signed off on an independent commission's recommendations to rename military bases that honor Confederate officers and scrub a long list of references commemorating the southern rebellion.

The Naming Commission, established by Congress last year, took inventory of all of the military's contemporary references to the Confederacy, which waged war against the United States to preserve the slave trade. It found nine Army bases and several buildings commemorating rebel officers, in addition to a monument honoring Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Well I'm sure this will finally put the stake into the heart of the Confederate menace.




Having been Stationed at Ft Gordon, it's going to be hard to get used to the idea of it being Fort Eisenhower, at least until Eisenhower is cancelled and they rename it again.

 

Good. **** those traitors. We shouldn't commemorate their hatred for our country on our military bases.

 

Yeah, let's burn down everything that happened before last Tuesday!

 

You didn't really think that one through, did you?

 

Think it through? Why would I need to do that when I have my feels?

History is evil - just cling tight to that guiding emotion and we'll get 'er done.

 

He sure burned you.

 

Yea! Let’s remove all traces of those slave loving traitors! Oh wait, that means we have to abolish the democrat party and all democrats…….never mind.

 

Who invaded whom?
Think about that yardmeat.

People like you are just being emotional and not thinking rationally.

 

Is anyone else getting weary of our simple minded Carpetbaggers who actually believe that the noble Northerners invaded the South for any reason other than what they could steal?


“Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People”
https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...s-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/4/

EXCERPT “While the previous quotes prove that, politically, Lincoln was not firmly insistent on freeing the slaves of the South, his following quote reveals that he personally did not want to: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” CONTINUED

 

By leaving the United States for the express purpose of protecting and expanding slavery, initiating the violence, and waging war against the US all under a flag that was specifically designed to represent white supremacy.

Naming our military bases after enemy military leaders is not rational.

 

So you also aren't thinking things through. First of all, there were two democrat parties at the time. 5 minutes of homework (which is more than any Confederate defender is capable of) would show you that the Southern Democrats were the ones who warred with the US while the Northern Democrats did not. And, yes, these were two separate parties. But, also, the Democrat party never waged an actual war against the US. The Confederates did. But I get your desperation to run and hide from the facts. It's a common theme with my "opponents" any time we discuss the Confederacy.

 

I haven't met many people who deny that Lincoln was racist. He was. Also, you need to learn some context for your quote. Lincoln absolutely did want to set slavery on a course for extinction (and said so . . . and the first state to secede specifically used that quote as their reason for seceding), but he didn't think that HE as the EXECUTIVE could unilaterally end slavery. Lincoln not only intended to free the slaves of the south, but did so. The war gave him what he needed to use executive power instead of playing the long game with stopping the spread of slavery to starve it out in the legislative branch, which was his original plan.

 

If you think that a single invading Yankee conscript or craven Carpetbagger headed South to rescue his Black brother and take him home to the enlightened and welcoming North, I've got a slightly used bridge you may be interested in.

How ironic that the selectively outraged and chronically offended Woke who are so desperate to destroy beautifully designed works of stone and metal are, themselves, entirely incapable of making even a mud pie.

Who gets stuck with "Fort George Floyd"?

 

And if you think that's remotely close to what I've said, you should try reading. You won't, but I thought I'd offer anyway. Try to read. Try being intellectually honest in your responses. Just try it on for a day and see how it feels. Maybe you'll find you like it!

And this is how the fringe right now hides from historical facts: just call it "woke" or scream incoherently into the sky about fake "CRT" and you get to ignore whatever historical fact you want. You get to pretend that the facts care about your feelings. They don't.

Floyd didn't wage ware against the US. The Confederates did. Based on your logic, you'd be fine with a Fort Hirohito.

 

I see, so since the "party switch" claim has totally fizzled and been soundly destroyed the excuse is that there were actually 2 democrat parties. Too bad the democrat party platforms from the 1850's don't support your "there were 2 democrat parties" claim, they read like the democrats just want the slavery issue to go away and let states do as they please.

Democrats were pro slavery, Republicans repealed slavery and freed the slaves. Democrats formed the KKK and enacted Jim Crow. Democrats had KKK members in the Senate and House right into the 21st century, but we all know democrats will overlook all kinds of bad things in the interests of power like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd being big time KKK, and Ted Kennedy being a rapist and killer, and Joe Biden* being a pedophile.

 

I didn't reference the "party switch" claim, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that there were two democrat parties. In fact, the democrats likely would have won if they hadn't split.

And here's how I know you haven't even tried doing any kind of homework. The election we are talking about was in 1860. And there were two different democrat parties with two separate platforms. These are basic historical facts.

I'll entertain one of your distractions and see if you can muster up the integrity to actually come back to the topic. Byrd left the KKK. I'm not sure why you guys won't forgive him for that. Now, can I bother you to actually address the topic or are you just that dead-set on running away?

 

You would have used the "party switch" excuse to try to deflect democrat party responsibility for slavery and civil rights abuses - but the party switch claim is totally discredited. So you use the "there were 2 democrat parties" excuse.

Unfortunately, the official democrat party platforms from that period do not support your claim. The democrats wanted the subect of slavery to just go away, they didn't want to address it, they were all states rights supporters.

Unfortunately for democrats at the time, the Republicans brought in Abe Lincoln and Christians like Harriet Beecher Stowe who just would not let the democrats get away with slavery.

 

It is a historical fact that there were 2 such parties at the time. Objectively. I'm sorry that objective facts upset you, but they remain facts.

This is objectively false. Please try actually reading the platforms from the time period. Whoever told you this was lying to you and just betting on you not having the integrity to do any homework. Don't prove them right.

Yet the only people we see on this forum defending the Confederacy are Republicans and other conservatives. Without exception. And you keep contradicting yourself. Out of one side of your mouth you (falsely) claim that democrats didn't really want to address slavery (again, objectively false), but out of the other side of your mouth you say "Republicans . . . just would not let the democrats get a way with slavery. Which is it?

 

It’s both, democrats did not want to address slavery, AND republicans would not let democrats quietly have their slaves.

And I read the actual democrat platforms. You fail again (as usual).

It must be tough realizing you defend the party of slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, socialism, laws based on skin color, and the anti-science party. You actually support all that barbarism? Join the 21st century!

 

The first part of your sentence is emphatically, objectively false.

Funny how you were incapable of reading the parts about slavery . . . which you said they didn't want to address.

I don't support slavery, Jim Crow, or the KKK, and every time I meet someone in the 21st century who DOES support those things, they are conservatives. Meanwhile the current GOP doesn't have the best track record on science either. As far as socialism goes, it's the only thing you even vaguely got right. No, I don't support socialism, but I don't find much of it on the right these days.

 

Did it happen before last Tuesday?

Blast it to hell!

 

Don't know the guy, but I'm sure his leaving makes it all okay

 

Im conservative and I don’t support slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, racism, laws based on race - being in a black family it would be pretty awkward of me to support that type of democrat party stuff. And being an actual scientist I don’t see how I can be anti-science.

But democrats are all those things even today. They think there are more than 2 genders and men can have babies, sounds pretty anti-science. They enforce laws based on race and want the govt to treat people differently based on their skin color, sounds pretty racist.

And democrats hate it when those uppity blacks leave the democrat plantation and vote conservative.

Although democrats have expanded their horizons, they have added pedophilia to their repertoire! Come on, man!

 

Why are there people still supporting the celebration of those who went to war with the USA?
Should we not celebrate those that made America great instead?

 

I'm assuming you don't mean George Washington. When will we be tearing down that monument?