We Should Name Military Bases After Lynched Black Veterans Who Fought for Freedoms They Were Denied

Let's replace the names of Confederate figures with those of patriots who upheld America's ideals.


During an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace 10 days ago, President Donald Trump mocked the idea of dumping the names of Confederate officials from military bases. America won two "beautiful World Wars that were vicious and horrible" from bases such as Fort Bragg and Fort Lee, he said. "[N]ow they want to throw these names away," he scoffed. "What are we going to name it? We're going to name it after the Rev. Al Sharpton?"

Sharpton would probably agree that there are far better candidates than him: black veterans of the two wars Trump mentioned (and several others) who were deprived of honors they were due and instead brutally attacked or lynched after they returned home.

Trump claims that purging Confederate names would be tantamount to wiping out American history. But the history of many of these black soldiers, who valiantly defended their country even as their country failed to defend them, has been wiped out. Fixing that is not only the right thing to do but might also help put out current racial fires, which are at least partly fueled by the gnawing feeling that racial progress has stopped—if not reversed—under this president.

Ten federal bases are named after Confederate officers, including some who resigned from the U.S. military to fight against the Union army in some of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. By renaming these installations after black soldiers who did their duty, Uncle Sam would prod Southern states to de-Confederatize by example, not through lectures and arm-twisting, and thus also avoiding concerns about federalism and states' rights.

Blacks had served in previous wars before President Abraham Lincoln belatedly—and reluctantly—allowed them to sign up in the Union army and fight for emancipation. Whites, even many slavery opponents, were terrified at the prospect of armed black men, according to the Equal Justice Initiative's horrifying 2016 report, Lynching in America: Targeting Black Veterans. They were also worried that allowing blacks to serve would mean that the country would have to "treat [the black man] as a victor" who was "entitled" to "all decent and becoming respect," as an Ohio congressman put it at the time. Eventually, around 180,000 blacks signed up and 40,000 died in the American Civil War. After the war, Southern newspapers systematically stoked white fears about armed black soldiers stirring up trouble. One result was the 1866 Memphis massacre, in which dozens of blacks were raped, injured, and killed—their homes, churches, and schools destroyed.

Ten years later—in the North—the presence of one of the first black cadets at the U.S. Military Academy West Point, Johnson C. Whittaker, a former slave from South Carolina, so incensed his white peers that they brutally beat him, mutilated him, and left him bound and unconscious on the dorm floor. Instead of charging the culprits, West Point authorities accused Whittaker of orchestrating his own attack and successfully court-martialed him and expelled him. But at least he survived. In the next few decades, several black soldiers, especially those stationed in predominantly white towns, were lynched on trumped-up accusations without an investigation or trial as Jim Crow's reign of terror gripped the South.

Black soldiers who insisted on donning their uniform off-duty were particularly triggering to whites. Private James Neely, a veteran of the Spanish-American war, was shot and killed in 1898 because he dressed in uniform and ordered a soda inside a pharmacy like white folks, rather than outside as black people were supposed to do. His fellow veteran, Fred Alexander, was mutilated, castrated, and burned at the stake when he returned home to Leavenworth, Kansas, after rumors spread that he had murdered a white woman two months earlier—never mind that the local police's working theory was that she was a victim of a robbery gone wrong.

Such attitudes did not change for another century.

Thanks to appeals by the brilliant civil rights activist and co-founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People W.E.B. Du Bois (a man whose name, along with that of the great black abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, should also be emblazoned on federal buildings), around 380,000 blacks signed up to serve in World War I. Du Bois urged them to temporarily suspend their grudges against their country and "close…ranks shoulder to shoulder with our fellow white citizens." But the military, too, was segregated, so these volunteers could not actually fight "shoulder to shoulder" with their "fellow white citizens." In fact, only 42,000 blacks were allowed in combat and only in separate divisions from whites.

One of these soldiers, Henry Johnson, along with another black private, successfully rebuffed a nocturnal attack by 24 German soldiers on their French base. Even though his gun jammed and he was shot multiple times, Johnson continued to fight with his bare hands and rifle butt, killing four Germans and wounding at least a dozen. The French awarded Johnson the Croix de Guerre, their highest honor for valor, and newspapers in America were filled with stories of his heroism.

But upon his return, Johnson, who hailed from North Carolina (the home of Fort Bragg), inspired more fear than gratitude. Sen. James K. Vardaman (D–Miss.) had been warning that letting black men defend the flag would "inflate his untutored soul with military airs" and that would be a "short step to the conclusion that his political rights must be respected." Black soldiers' patriotism, in other words, was a threat, not a virtue to Vardaman because it would give them the street cred to spearhead calls for equal treatment. Unsurprisingly, when Johnson spoke out against the mistreatment of blacks, he was discharged and stripped of his disability payments. He died penniless at the age of 32. He was finally awarded the Purple Heart in 1996 and the Medal of Honor in 2015.

His plight was nothing compared to what other black veterans of the Great War faced. Concerns that they were getting too defiant were among the reasons that 25 anti-black riots erupted in cities across the country, in what became known as the Red Summer of 1919. Countless black soldiers were assaulted and beaten and at least 13 were lynched, according to the Equal Justice Initiative.

Six of these lynchings occurred because black soldiers allegedly disrespected, eyed, or otherwise behaved improperly with a white woman. Whites had become convinced that black soldiers stationed abroad had developed a sexual appetite for white women after having interacted freely with them in Europe. One particularly tragic victim of such attitudes, it seems, was Clinton Briggs in Lincoln, Arkansas. His "crime" was that he didn't move far enough to let a white woman pass on the sidewalk. She angrily confronted him, attracting a mob that drove Briggs into the wilderness, chained him to a tree, and riddled him with 50 bullets.

Bud Johnson, another veteran, was waiting to board a steamboat in Florida to return to Alabama after attending his father's funeral when he was arrested because he fit the description of someone who had assaulted a white woman. As the police transported him to the station, a mob surrounded the vehicle (a common tactic at that time), captured Johnson, tortured him, crushed his skull, and gave the pieces to onlookers as souvenirs before dumping his body in the river, according to Equal Justice Initiative's report. His relatives had to battle alligators to recover some of his remains.

The hope of Du Bois and others that black service in World War I would help black advancement backfired badly as it ignited even more anti-black violence. Still, 1.2 million blacks signed up for World War II. Despite America's wartime rhetoric of democracy and human rights, the Army itself practiced segregation, as did the rest of federal government. Black military servicemen stationed in the South could not enter restaurants where their German prisoners of war were allowed. There were signs in latrines separating out sections for black soldiers and those for German POWs and white soldiers. Even in death, black veterans were segregated with communities like Taylor County, Georgia, erecting separate plaques for them in their war memorials.

Not only were black WWII veterans denied the same G.I. benefits as white veterans, but they continued to face violence, sometimes in the very buses and trains that carried them home. As with WWI veterans, their veteran status and record of service was often a burden rather than a benefit, especially if they publicly challenged the Jim Crow order.

Lynching in America documents over 10 attempted and successful lynchings of WWII veterans, including Marine Timothy Hood. He was shot and wounded by his bus driver after he removed a Jim Crow sign from a trolley in Bessmer, Alabama. Then the police chief arrived and finished him off.

Particularly poignant is the story of Hosea Williams. He was badly injured during his service in France and returned home with a Purple Heart and a cane. When he attempted to drink from a white fountain in Georgia, a white mob brutally attacked attacked him and left him for dead. He survived and, along with his fellow veteran, Medgar Evers, went on to become a prominent civil rights leader, helping to organize the Selma march. (Evers was later assassinated by a white segregationist.)

Black veterans like Williams and Evers and Johnson have more than earned the right to have military bases named after them. One needn't buy into the 1619 Project's claim that America fought the Revolutionary War to maintain slavery to think such men should be honored. One only has to believe that the opposite of Confederate values should define America. That's what America will signal by replacing the names of Confederates, who fought against this country's freedoms, with those of black veterans, who fought for them.

President Trump is right that America shouldn't wipe out its history. He is just wrong about which side needs to be remembered—and honored.

NEXT: Kamala Harris for Vice President? A Disappeared Article Fuels Speculation.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We Should Name Military Bases After Lynched Black Veterans Who Fought for Freedoms They Were Denied

    *Just* those guys? Not the many People of Colour that have given their lives in service to the nation but just so happen to not be Black lynching victims?

    Seems kinda narrow and dismissive of intersectionality there, Dalmia.

    1. And completely ignores the contributions of black trans people.

      1. Black Women of Colour are being silenced!

        1. I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it . GFr This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home………..Cash Mony System

      2. Minnesota University a few years ago renamed its stadium after someone completely unrelated to the sports franchise. I knew he was black before I even looked up his name. He’s the first black person to graduate from the college. Are there any blacks fedup with this white sucking up?

    2. Dahlia goes on and on and on so I almost never have the patience to read the whole article. But yeah, what about black veterans who died in Vietnam? Or the Civil War? Talk about a group of people denied the rights they were fighting to protect…

      I am over the idea that renaming things is the path to equality. It’s mostly cosmetic. We have real problems – this kind of stuff is mostly cosmetic. Also, I imagine it would be uncomfortable to be in a member of the armed forces in a building that constantly reminds you of the horrible domestic death the namesake received. There has to be another way to honor them.

      1. Sorry for the redundancy – no ability to edit.

        I just don’t think shame is a good way to inspire our military.

        1. Also, I clearly dislike Shikhma enough that I didn’t even bother to get her name right.

    3. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the sametime as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five howeverI see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……For Details.

  2. We Should Name Military Bases After Privileged Brahmans Who Fight for Freedoms of Everyone But the Dalits.

    1. Every article by this SJW writer is the same tedious self-pitying whine.

      1. ^this; can someone tell me why this person is writing for a “libertarian” site? All she does is push progressive agendas.

        1. because it seems some of the people running the paper are NOT Libertarians, not anymore anyways…..
          When they defended the BLM movement throughout all this looting and rioting and continuously use terms like ‘mostly peaceful protesters’ or point out the possibility of ‘alt right nefarious actors’ committing the violence I knew this paper is propaganda mostly.

          It’s the soft movement to a ‘more correct mind’ using Newspeak and sweeping generalizations
          Reason has been compromised.

  3. W.E.B. Du Bois (a man whose name, along with that of the great black abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, should also be emblazoned on federal buildings),

    We have enough buildings named after Cominterns as it is. I greatly respect what DueBoyz (and B.T. Washington) added to the fight against systemic white-on-black racism but it is an insult to name-check them in the same breath as Frederick Douglass.

    1. W.E.B. DuBois sold black people down the river by insisting that their advancement hinge on the election of black politicians, only to support black politicians who then sold out black people just like every other type of politician does. DuBois was a fool and a hypocrite.

      Booker T. Washington was the leader the civil rights movement should have followed. His message of economic self-improvement, personal responsibility, and self-sufficiency instead of relying on the pity and handouts of white people would have advanced black Americans far faster in society.

      But of course Reason goes with the race-hustling pimp for the political class…because that’s what cosmotarians do.

  4. Eliminate section 230. That will kill all comment sections, including this one, and thus deny her article clicks from people wanting to tell her she is an idiot.

    1. But I LIKE telling her she is an idiot. She needs to know that.

    2. But have you taken a CCW class?

  5. Don’t worry. In the next 50 years, our military bases will be named after transgender activists who held up America’s ideals.

    1. Nah, that’s who they’ll name the camps after.

    2. We named a warship after a gun banner, so don’t put it past them.

      (USS Giffords, in case you’re wondering)

      1. Is that the ship that’s basically blind, keeps running into other ships, and needs another ship to lead it around? I understand how I might be confusing the Giffords with some other warship though, given Seventh Fleet’s performance of late

        1. Don’t know which fleet it’s in. All I know is that this class of ships is weakly armed, and while intended for a high op-tempo, they…haven’t.

          The 1st four are already being decommissioned (LCS-4 is only 4 years old), but they’re still building them.

          1. I had forgotten it was a Little Crappy Ship. What a debacle of a procurement program. They couldn’t get the same management team that was responsible for the Virginias?

    3. Better a white traitor than a minority patriot!

  6. Shikha Dalmia, Reason’s resident left-wing retard and bigot.

    I recall her slanderous writings about rural America right after Trump’s victory. She is a vile, bigoted Leftist and an embarrassment to this publication.

    1. Open wider, clinger.

      Your betters are not nearly done shoving progress down your bigoted, half-educated, whining, right-wing throat.

      And you will comply. You will not be done complying with the preferences of your betters until the day of your replacement. Same with the rest of the depleted human residue that remains in our can’t-keep-up backwaters after generations on the wrong end of bright flight.

      You get to whimper about it all you want, though.

      1. You will not be done complying with the preferences of your betters until the day of your replacement.

        If I have to train my replacement then I’m probably going to be sick that day. What are they going to do about it? Fire me again?

        1. You might not get your severance package. So in the end you will probably comply.

          1. So you’re saying the immigrants are, in fact, taking jobs from Americans?

      2. Goody, get to hear from another retard and bigot. Thanks for vomiting up the usual stuff. lol

      3. Define “educated”.

        Define “progress”.

        1. He’s just a bitter troll who can’t get over being ass raped by the extras from Deliverance. Thus the recurring “open wider” allegory.

          1. He can’t get them to call him back.

      4. And you will comply.

        You’re projecting again, Rev. Now bend over and I’ll drive you home.

    2. Are you suggesting we should not rename bases named after Confederate soldiers?

      1. If they are going to rename them, fine. Just honor people that actually served with distinction for our country. Military bases shouldn’t have to wear a “scarlet letter” for a name, which what left-wing bigot and retard Dalmia wants by naming bases after victims of crimes. She is a vile person.

        1. Being the victim of a crime isn’t sufficient to warrant a base to be named after someone. Dalmia did mention someone who won the MOH; I would argue that alone would merit strong consideration. Regardless how Dalmia approached this or how you feel about her, renaming the bases is overdue.

        2. If they are going to rename them, fine.

          Nope. Not fine. Drop or discontinue official use of all honrary designations and go with technical/descriptive names and, of course, acroynyms (as mentioned elsewhere here) or keep the existing names until the base is decommissioned entirely. Name any new bases after anyone but traitors and/or disgraces.

          The “It’s time to rotate names.” is bullshit cultural Marxism. They don’t care about the name, or the tradition, or honoring minority soldiers as much as they care about fucking with traditions and establishing more ways to make other people obey.

          1. Bingo

            You cannot give an inch to Marxists

    3. Never change, dude.

  7. Renaming these bases and posts is not a bad idea. Most were not built until the World Wars and they were named after southerners to unite the country (the white part at least). The fear of a second civil war remained very real up through the first world war. The Spanish American War and the First World War actually did help decrease some of the animosity between Northern and Southern States, however, that is far less of a concern these days (even if we do enter into a full civil war, the battle lines will be much different today (and probably even less defined than in the 1860s). It doesn’t have to be lynched veterans, it could be CMH winners (there are several that are black, Amerindians or Hispanic, fewer who were Asian but still some, especially from the all Japanese Brigades in WWII, and thus we could honor the service of all Americans. I also suggest Crispus Attackus’s name be considered. For those who don’t know who he was, he was a black sailor who was killed by British troops during the Boston Massacre.

    1. Or James armasted de Lafayette, on of the first double agents in the revolution, not grated freedom because he technically wasn’t in the continental army

      But in all seriousness the comment below is correct, start closing bases

      1. We are closely approaching a point where we no longer have the ability to equip, train and house our troops adequately if we close to many more bases. This problem will only be compounded if we withdraw more troops from Europe and Asia.

        1. Lots of cheap land in New Mexico

          1. I prefer to keep all our bases in the good ol USA, thank you very much.

    2. Any capitulation to Marxists is a bad idea

      1. Trump is a Marxist.

        1. You’re right. And in line with that, he ordered Ben Carson to shitcan Obama’s 2015 executive order extending the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing part of the 1968 Fair Housing Act: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmatively_Furthering_Fair_Housing

      2. I have always had a bit of a problem honoring soldiers who committed treason, even when I was younger and in the military.

        1. That’s fine, but I’ll say the same thing I said to someone about the statues: we can take them down/rename them at some point, but right now it’s the demand of, and will be a victory for, people/groups who hate this country and want to destroy it.
          No. More. Capitulation.

          1. Agreed. My response to people who say “Antifa/BLM has a point” is “And we can discuss it after they unconditionally cease all political violence, and not before.” Until that point, fuck them and any and all of their demands.

    3. “Renaming these bases and posts is not a bad idea.”

      I wouldn’t be surprised if most here agreed with you. The problem is that ceding ground on this issue is a step back in the larger culture war that is engulfing the nation.

      “Any capitulation to Marxists is a bad idea”

      The names of the bases is irrelevant. The issue is winning battles in the culture war.

      1. For both sides. I doubt many protesting the names even knew what they were named after before someone told them to be offended. It isn’t like the protestors have destroyed statues of abolitionist immigrants who died fighting slavery or the Union general who won the war and then as President who fought hard to protect freed slaves and insure their civil rights.

        1. “I doubt many protesting the names even knew what they were named after before someone told them to be offended”

          You mean you want our protestors to be even more ‘woke?’ Careful what you wish for.

    4. Just name them base #1, base #2, base #3, etc. They don’t need to be named after anyone.

  8. I remember when Libertarian writers wrote about closing military bases, not renaming them.

    1. Forget it, Jake. It’s Shikhatown.

      1. /thread

  9. How about soldiers who heroically fought for the United States?

    1. *gasp* They’re the worst of all!!

    2. I fail to see the difference between them and Adam Lanza

      1. Bitch, that is out of bounds. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers sacrificed for the country, and many died as a result. To put a name like Adam Lanza in such a comment is pretty awful.

        I suspect this is someone using your handle because lab83 is normally pretty reasonable.

        1. I suspect this is someone using your handle because lab83 is normally pretty reasonable.

          This is a pretty good jab at Reason.

          1. Thank you for the callback. Outstanding trolling by Richman. Asshole.

            Blast from the past, reading some of those posters.

        2. Looking closer, you have multiple comments on the original Richman article. You either need to work harder on your socking or maybe see a doctor about those memory issues.

        3. It’s a good joke.
          Calm down, karen

  10. So now reason koch libertarians like the military – as long as they get to pick the names?

    1. National defense is a legitimate function of government.

      1. Preventing destitution is also a legitimate function of a (non-shithole) government.

        1. No, it really isn’t. Government can’t prevent destitution. That is the falsehood of Socialism and Marxism (both of which tend to lead to even more destitution according to history).

          1. Government can manifestly prevent destitution and does so in every civilized country on earth.

            You don’t get to say “the only legitimate functions of government are the legitimate ones” and expect it to end there. The whole game of politics is debating what government should be doing. If all you want for it to do is shoot people, that’s your prerogative, but don’t expect everyone to agree with you that the only proper society is one that spares no expense to protect the luxuries of the rich while doing nothing about the basic needs of the poor. That is a moral abomination, not to mention practically insane, to some people’s minds.

            1. If it is such a vital function of government why does every government model ever tried completely fucking fail at it? And how do you end destitution? Only by taking the goods of others to satisfy the poor. So, you are stating the government has a right to decide how successful I can be, and then take my goods and give it to someone less successful, even though that has never worked anywhere in the world ever? Name one fucking country that it’s worked in. Just one. And remember in most European countries they’ve been having year long riots in their poorer neighborhoods.

              1. Yes government has a right to tell you how rich you can be and take money from you in taxes. That’s how governments work. You are free to give up your citizenship and find somewhere else to live if you don’t like it.

                Every decent country on earth distributes some wealth downward. It keeps every human being living in civilized society from having dysentery and fucking starvation. And we should spend more and get rid of more poverty because then we have an even better, more robust and competitive marketplace with fewer barriers to entry, if that’s something you value.

                1. No government has no legitimate reason to tell you how rich you can be. How much have we already spent on the war on poverty? Here is a hint we spend more on anti-poverty programs than on the DoD. I also noticed you still haven’t named a single country that has ended poverty. Taking money away and giving it to someone else does not make the economy any stronger. It means that those who are well off just have less to spend and invest (investment is the main driving force behind the economy, you can’t start a business, expand or conduct a business without investment). Your understanding of how the economy works is sorely lacking. Capitalism has been the greatest means of defeating poverty. Government has failed every time it has tried. Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union etc all spent huge amounts on social welfare programs, and poverty increased in every one of those nations. The Chinese on the other hand decided to allow some capitalism and their economy expanded dramatically. Sweden is cutting back, as is Denmark, on the social welfare spending and their economies are now growing. They plan on cutting even more. France has continued to increase it’s Social welfare spending and their economy has been stagnant for decades. The facts don’t even come close to supporting your hypothesis. We have real world testing and guess what? It completely disproves your hypothesis.

                  1. It’s not so much that they tell you how rich you can be; it’s that they set the very conditions, protections, and currency that permit you to have any wealth at all. In exchange for these boons, of course, you pay taxes, and those taxes pay for programs that keep the poors from becoming so desperate they your house and taking your shit. If you think you’d rather take your chances on a more rustic situation, call your congressman, or move to Somalia.

                    Of course maintaining an economy of perpetual growth is one aim of these programs, increasing economic demand across society by having more widespread wealth, but the actual primary function of such public endeavors is to keep children from shitting themselves to death.

                  2. So Scandanavia–indisputably the most progressive part of planet Earth, with plenty of welfare systems to go around, they are part of some hypothesis that “government” always fails at producing a decent society? So where are all the successful minarchist societies you can point to as some actual evidence of what you’re claiming?

                    I think the key is not to put capitalism and government in competition with each other, leaving only radical extremes as options, destined to failure. The key is to have a healthy mix of public and private sectors so that one fuels the other and maximizes human well-being. Of course markets are subservient to governments, what with them being governments.

              2. What Tony fails to realize is that the only way a nation has ever prevented “destitution” of its citizens is by becoming an empire, conquering foreign lands and redistributing their wealth/resources to its people.
                Of course, once the empire stops conquering foreign lands (expanding) it has to turn to cannibalism, forcing destitution upon its people

                1. Fun fact: a small South American tribe practiced ritual cannibalism in their funeral rites. The Papist imperialists came along and forced them to bury their dead, which to the tribespeople was as abhorrent a way to treat the dead as we find cannibalism.

                  Yada yada yada Spain has tomatoes and chocolate in its cuisine and all the tribes got smallpox and died.

            2. It may be a desirable function for you, but it ain’t in that agreement we made back in 1789, so it ain’t legitimate. All the efforts we have put forward in the last 100 years are illegitimate from Socialist Security to Medicare to Obamacare.

              1. Then the agreement made in 1789 was a shit agreement nobody should value. Luckily they made a system flexible enough to contain at least some parts of a modern functioning government.

                1. Except everyone who believes in personal liberty and stuff that has actually worked rather than doubling down on programs that have failed, miserably, time after time after time after time after time after time….

                  1. A vague claim you keep forgetting to present convincing evidence for. Almost so simplistic a claim as to be meaningless.

        2. No it’s not.

        3. This is the difference between “left” libertarianism and “right” libertarianism.

          “Right” libertarianism believes that the only thing the state ought to do is to stop violations of liberty by others, and that’s it.

          “Left” libertarianism believes that the state should do that, but also has a duty to promote the effective exercise of liberty among its citizens. That it matters very little in the end whether a poor person is murdered, or a poor person starves to death due to lack of money – in the end, he’s dead either way.

          So what distinguishes “left” libertarianism from progressivism is that left libertarians reject the idea of an all-encompassing welfare state in order to accomplish these goals. But it should be *something*, and as voluntary as possible.

          1. Anyone who supports government taking someone’s property and giving it to someone else, or the government deciding how rich is to rich is not even close to a fucking Libertarian. Drop the left Libertarian moniker and just admit if you believe that taking my property and redistributing it to end poverty (which has never worked even once where it’s been tried) you are just a leftist.

            1. Anyone who supports government taking someone’s property and giving it to someone else, or the government deciding how rich is to rich is not even close to a fucking Libertarian.

              Every libertarian supports at least some taxation. If not, then that is anarchy, not libertarianism.

              So the real remaining question is what the taxes should be spent on. IMO they ought to be spent on basic infrastructure, a functioning judicial system, a functioning national defense system (and real national defense, not ‘nation building’ nonsense). And then what?

              Capitalism is great. It saves a lot of poor people from absolute misery and lifts their standard of living. Capitalism absolutely has done more than any other economic system to raise everyone’s standard of living. That is undeniably true. But that is a statement about aggregates, not a statement about individuals. There are individuals who are left behind no matter what economic system is in place. What is to be done about these individuals? Private charity? Okay that is great. I am all in favor of private charity. Then what?

              Statistics about aggregate results do not replace the lived experiences of individuals. That is why I’m an individualist and I cannot be a “right”-libertarian who only sees one path forward and does not give a damn about anyone outside of a standard deviation of the mean of the aggregate.

              And if you think “voluntary approaches to reduce poverty” is equivalent to leftism then that means you don’t have the slightest clue what leftism is.

              1. You never said completely voluntary and no taxes should not be used to provide a living for anyone not working in the government, period. If you want to pay them, make them fucking work for it, get training or something bother than sitting at home waiting on a check.

                1. Governing by stereotype: the Republican way. “Because numbers are for nerds!”

              2. You said ” But it should be *something*, and as voluntary as possible.” This implies that at some point it becomes involuntary. So guys with guns will ultimately be used to take my property to give yo someone else. This is called theft and is a clear violation of the NAP. Now your trying to say you said completely voluntary, which is just you moving the fucking goal posts once again after getting called out for your true colors.

              3. God, I am sorry I ever criticized Tulpa for trolling your mendacious ass. You deserve everything you get from Tulpa, you living, goal post shifting, leftist apologizing, hypocritical asshat (call others names and then cry when someone calls you out on your bullshit, e.g. calling everyone a bootlicker for criticizing Billy’s false narrative about Portland, no we aren’t supporting Trump’s actions just pointing out that Billy is lying about the protests and lying about what the federal agents were actually doing, like you lied about what they are doing). You never answer a strait question. You launch straw man arguments. You rely on hyperbole and appeals to authority (e.g. the other day when you kept citing the fucking article we were commenting on, when I asked you to name one thing the left is better at when it comes to personal liberties). You rely on sophistry and sophomoric arguments. Even when I agree with you, i find your arguments intellectually dishonest.

          2. And the most voluntary thing is no welfare, promote capitalism, end draconian taxes and wealth redistribution. This also has the best track record for actually decreasing poverty. Fuck off with the “should be something”. If it is government enforced it isn’t voluntary at all.

  11. Fort Benning – Fort Buttercup
    Vandenberg AFB – Pretty Butterfly AFB
    Camp Lejune – Camp Princess

    and so on.

    1. I guess all the black Service members who died in multiple wars mean nothing to you.

      1. Don’t be dumb.

        1. Leaving them named after Confederate troops is dumb. This isn’t culture war BS. This is about correcting an obvious slur.

          1. And naming them after black soldiers who were lynched takes care of all that?

            1. I didn’t argue to rename them after lynched black soldiers. They SHOULD be renamed. If they wish to select a MOH winner who happens to be black, I am fine with the choice.

              1. Ok, Karen.

              2. Then name one after Mary Edwards Walker first.

                1. I’m not deeply familiar with her exploits but I have no objection to her being considered. The ACTUAL problem is keeping a US military base named after a jackass who actively supported the KKK. That is incompatible with the standards set by the US military.

                  1. Nope.
                    The actual problem is a bunch of fucking marxists hate this country and want to destroy it, and they have useful idiots and sympathizers making arguments like yours to help them do it.
                    Shut the fuck up about renaming things and tearing statues down right now.
                    If it’s really important to you, bring it up at a later date.
                    But right now?
                    You might as well be passing out nazi propaganda in the middle of the blitz

          2. This isn’t culture war BS. This is about correcting an obvious slur.

            I see. So you want something more like Camp Killmonger or Camp Harambe?

            1. Camp (Barry) White?
              Camp (Shaun) King?

              Maybe you decide exactly how subtle the racism should be and then get back to us with a list of names of appropriate levels of subtlety.

              1. Since you don’t want to debate in good faith, this discussion is pointless. No wonder most of the good commentators left these message boards.

                1. Since you don’t want to debate in good faith, this discussion is pointless.

                  If I said the name ‘Atlas Slugged’ was a slur and you should change it, would I be debating in good faith or no?

                  You can’t even name a good commentor or when they left let alone why. You’re just parroting what you’ve heard like a chat bot.

                  1. Are you referring to the mass exodus to glibertarians shortly after Trump was elected? That’s what I was referring to.

            2. If the base was named “Camp mad.casual’s mother is a dirty whore” just to spite you, it would distasteful for several reasons. It would be a bad idea to name it as such. So instead, why not name it after someone who served honorably and did NOT contribute to an openly racist organization?

              1. Just come out and say it: you want Camp Stalin, or Camp Lenin, or Camp Mao.

                Nobody gives a fuck about your pathetic feelz

                1. Let us know when those voices in your head stop.

              2. So instead, why not name it after someone who served honorably and did NOT contribute to an openly racist organization?

                So names that contributed to covertly racist organizations would be OK? What about just systematically racist or unconciously biased organizations? What about racially agnostic organizations that just want to kill a bunch of Arabs?

                I’m eager to hear your answer I hope it’s that these arguments are in bad faith too.

                1. Name the base after the closest river. Name it after a WWII battle victory. Name it after a species of local deer. The bigger point is naming it after Confederate generals does not align with current military ethos and is anachronistic. I don’t care if culture war idiots want to think of it as a victory or not; I’m not on their side. It’s the right thing to do.

      2. all the black Service members who died in multiple wars

        Did someone die in more than one war?? If so, we should definitely put up a statue of that guy.

        1. What if they die twice in the same war? The Battle of Oswiec Fortress

          1. Not Americans, so disqualified.

            1. Give it time.

        2. I’m presuming Dalmia is of Indian ancestry so maybe reincarnation is a thing?

        3. Well John Snow did but he is not black.

          You win the internet comment of the day.

        4. Did someone die in more than one war?? If so, we should definitely put up a statue of that guy.

          Technically just the name would work (e.g. Camp Pettimore).

  12. Even before I read this column, I knew Shikha Dalmia always had the best interests of Black Americans in mind. After all, she relentlessly promotes open borders. And as any competent Koch-funded economist will tell you, unlimited immigration has a tremendous positive impact on the financial status of Black American households trying to work their way into the middle class.


  13. Wow, imagine thinking that the black person most worthy of honors and tribute in American military history is someone whose only major accomplishment is being a victim of a heinous crime, as if black people were incapable of the sorts of things people usually get honored for: bravery, competence, service… etc. Nope. Clearly, the only thing blacks have to offer America is their worthless servile little lives as punching bags for their betters.

    Wait, was this about combating racism or reinforcing it?

  14. I feel like ultimately everything is going to be boring bureacratic speak – Fort Bragg will be ABNC01 for Army Base North Carolina 01, or something similarly uninspiring.

    1. I hope they go the other way with it and just get ridiculous, or accept sponsorships.

      Fort Eaglethrust, brought to you by Mountain Dew.

      1. Part of the issue is a bit of the false narrative that race-baiters are pushing, that we somehow named a majority of our bases after Confederates or whites deliberately or maliciously.

        Presumably, Camp Ethan Allan Training Site would be grandfathered in.

      2. Pohakuloa Training Area

        The name of the current facility comes from puʻu pōhaku loa, which means “long rocky cinder cone” in the Hawaiian Language,

        ROFLMAO! Dock Johnson’s Stone Dick Training Area

  15. Is this kinda like saying rename the bases after white folks murdered by black folks?

    1. They’ll save those for the prisons, Lasher.

    2. No, that would be racist.

  16. It shouldn’t be this easy to bait Republicans into defending the Confederacy. Of course Trump uses all his brainpower on his hairdo each morning, but others don’t have that excuse.

  17. “One only has to believe that the opposite of Confederate values should define America.”

    Such as Lincoln’s quasi-mystical nationalism and centralization?

  18. We Should Name Military Bases After Lynched Black Veterans Who Fought for Freedoms They Were Denied

    Shikha Dalmia calls for the lynching of black veterans so that we can name military bases after them.

    1. *Golf clap*

    2. That’s not going to go over well at Fort Shikha.

      1. The only military base without a fenceline.

  19. Has it ever occurred to some of these writers that some or all of those soldier(s), “who valiantly defended their country”, may have just enjoyed getting paid to kill people?

    1. Well those soldier get a pardon from President Trump.

    2. Former Army MP and all-around badass, Jack Reacher, said it best:

      ‘There are four types of people who join the military. For some, it’s family trade. Others are patriots, eager to serve. Next you have those who just need a job. Than there’s the kind who want the legal means of killing other people.’

      Talk about speaking truth to power! Oh…and remember when the black dude at the bus stop gave Jack his hat so he could camouflage himself from the crooked black cop? If that isn’t a resounding affirmation of racial harmony against the evil patriarchal forces of the state, I don’t know what is. Thus, ‘Fort Reacher.’

      To make it even more multicultural, honor Indiana Jones’ Thuggee-whooping sidekick in the Temple of Doom, ‘Short Round.’ That gets us ‘Fort Reacher-Round’.

      I like where this nation is headed!

      1. FortRear Operating Base Reacher-Round

    3. Some of any group of soldiers may have. Why do you say “of those”?

  20. Make Fort Hood stand for Timothy, instead of General John?

    1. How about Fort ‘Hood??

  21. Good article. I suspect we will not do this but it good to understand the history here. Men would fought for this country were not admired, but were instead viewed with suspicion and victimized. In my youth the Vietnam veteran was often an outcast. For the black veterans of earlier wars the fate seems even worse. We have corrected, and in some cases over corrected for the way we treated the Vietnam veteran. I am not sure we can ever correct for what happen to these and other black soldiers. I also think that we should do more for immigrants that serve in our armed forces. These people should get to become citizens and should be a from spot in the line.

    1. Given our propensity for meddling abroad and our love of cheap, foreign labor I’m surprised we don’t have our own Foreign Legion. Allow them to apply for citizenship from the front of the line after a few years of service.

      Congress gets to do all that “Democracy spreading” without all those pesky American corpses showing up, and foreigners get a clear cut path to citizenship. It’s a win win!

      1. Congress gets to do all that “Democracy spreading” without all those pesky American corpses showing up, and foreigners get a clear cut path to citizenship. It’s a win win!

        If only we’d have offered the Mujahedeen citizenship, then OBL would’ve been on our side!

      2. 8 USC 1427(f)(1) allows advanced naturalization for individuals that has made an “extraordinary contribution to the national security of the United States or to the conduct of United States intelligence activities”. INA 329 says an alien that joins the military can naturalize after 1 year instead of the normal 5.

  22. We should not re-name bases wholesale just because someone was in the Confederacy. Not even every slaveholder was an evil person. There are probably some bases named after Confederates who were not just members of the Confederate army, but personally evil people. Make a case for these individually and they should be considered.

    A Frederick Douglass base would be excellent.

    1. I’m sorry, but Confederate *officers* and Confederate *politicians* should never be considered. They were not mere conscripts who had no choice but to serve. They freely chose to be traitors and should be treated as such. I don’t care if Confederate General Hood was a saint in his personal life, he *chose* to commit treason.

      1. There’s nothing in the constitution that prohibits secession.
        They are only retrospectively “traitors”.
        Look at Lee: you consider him a traitor, but he considered himself bound by loyalty to not betray his state. Doing what your ignorant, bigoted ass thinks would’ve been the right thing to do 160 years after the fact would’ve made him a traitor in his own eyes.
        But “libertarian” “individualist” jeffy categorically rejects the notion of a man coming to independent conclusions and following his own conscience.

  23. Name them for COMBAT heros. There are plenty of MOH and DSC awardees to choose from. Get an American mongrel mix out of the bunch, not just Blacks.

    What is the 21st Century significance of Great Lakes, Minot, or Dugway?

    Re- name every sizeable base after a MOH or DSC awardee (that’s a group over 1000). Eliminate all the place names, Civil War, WWI, and WWII names.
    Commit to a service-wide renaming every 100 years.
    Be relevant.

    1. Yeah. History should be erased after 100 years.

      1. We’d have to put someone in charge of either destroying or rewriting the old records. Otherwise, somebody might learn that we haven’t always been at war with Eastasia.

      2. Please explain how keeping a base named after someone active in the development and promotion of the KKK squares with US Army core values?


        1. Now do Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Ted Kennedy

        2. My statement stands as-s. Don’t infer what I haven’t implied.

        3. Better than just renaming the bases every 100 yrs., commit to a service-wide adoption of completely different values every 30 yrs.

          If we can change names that have been around for 100 yrs. certainly we can change values that have been around for less than 30. It’s not like the Army really respects or honors the people it kills or defeats. Otherwise, they’d do things like name buildings or attack helicopters after them.

          I mean, really, if after more than a century of not having any values at all and then adopting and cycling through a few different conceptions of respect over the next hundred years, then maybe it would be best just to get rid of the whole notion of respect altogether. The army really isn’t being very honorable by acting like it respects the people it kills anyway. Best just to honor the people that do the killing for doing the killing and do away with the pageantry of values. No better way to reinforce real Army values than by just focusing on the killing.

    2. Commit to a service-wide renaming every 100 years.


      I honestly can’t think of a good reason that doesn’t amount to using the military (and associated spending) to overtly make people feel good. Given how people already disapprove of names we’ve got as well as the way they get torn up about kneeling for the National Anthem and paying to have servicemen perform the opening of sporting events I can’t fathom anything resembling a good reason to do this.

      Might as well advocate to have a conventional military-style parade down Pennsylvania Ave. while you’re at it.

      1. Also a good point

    3. That’s actually not a terrible idea.
      We can do it as soon as the marxists are put down

  24. Name them for COMBAT heros. There are plenty of MOH and DSC awardees to choose from. They have already been vetterd. Get an American mongrel mix out of the bunch, not just Blacks.

    What is the 21st Century significance of Great Lakes, Minot, or Dugway?

    Re- name every sizeable base after a MOH or DSC awardee (that’s a group over 1000). Eliminate all the place names, Civil War, WWI, and WWII names.
    Commit to a service-wide renaming every 100 years.
    Be relevant.

  25. Might I propose the radical idea of doing nothing?

    1. Hey, there’s no place for Libertarian thought here at Reason.

  26. You can fuck right off with your identity politics you little shitstain.

  27. We Should Name Military Bases After Lynched Black Veterans Who Fought for Freedoms They Were Denied

    What we should do is name military bases and government installations in a neutral, non-political way. Military bases can be numbered, or they can be named after physical features “Northern Base”, “Red Brick Base”, “Minnesota Base #17”. Public spaces are not a place for politicians to impose their preferences on the people.

    What we shouldn’t do is give in to the hateful, divisive, racist political ideology of people like Shikha.

    1. What we should do is name military bases and government installations in a neutral, non-political way. Military bases can be numbered, or they can be named after physical features “Northern Base”, “Red Brick Base”, “Minnesota Base #17”. Public spaces are not a place for politicians to impose their preferences on the people.

      When you look at it, this is technically already being done and the actual issue is that it’s not being done fast enough and/or hard enough for nitwits like Shikha. You can’t put up a new Air Force Base in Niger, pack it full of drones, and call it Camp David Duke. Not only because it offends native Nigerians, but your autistic post-millenial drone piloting hardware service techs, who’ve never left the US and can’t find Niger on a map, aren’t going to remember what country “Camp Duke” is in.

  28. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy…..Click For Detail.

  29. I guess Dalmia is just getting plain lazy at hiding her woke leftist self. While there’s nothing wrong in lauding the black veterans who were horribly treated for their service, how about getting the government OUT of the naming business altogether? It’s an expensive, grandiose waste of tax dollars. Same goes for naming of bridges, airports, roads, buildings…

  30. Approximately 25% of lynchings were white. I demand 25% of military bases be named after white lynching victims!

    1. Dalmia Supporters Join Dalmia’s Calls To Lynch More Veterans In Order To Name Military Bases After Them!

  31. I take simple comfort in knowing that no one is ever going to be erecting even a pile of crap to the witless author of this piece.

    1. How about “The Shikha Dalmia Sewer Discharge Pipe”?

  32. I realize to the wokes at Reason that Americans (christian) from Europe are worthless and deserve nothing but contempt but let’s follow this author’s contention. The largest lynching in America was to …wait for it..Italian Americans. In fact the result of such was the US Govt using Columbus as a way to show Italian immigrants were Americans (that and a big payment to the Italian govt). So all those Columbus statues and Columbus day was a tribute to Americans who were lynched. Now those statues which were put up to make amends for a lynching are being taken down by wokes because they are racist. You have to love the hypocrisy of the wokes..

    1. The most lynched at one gathering, 11 people. A grisly episode of anti-Italian bigotry in America.

      Now guess what we had in store for the blacks.

      1. And by “we” you mean “people like you”, Tony?

        1. Tony means Democrats

      2. Now guess what we had in store for the blacks.

        Cattle Cars? Mass graves? Internment camps? Forced Sterilization?

        OK, Tony, I give up. Please tell us what exactly you had in store for the blacks.

  33. The problem with renaming bases is that it’s a distraction.

    In 2024 the campaign slogans will be, “Inner city high school graduates are still illiterate, city-council-run police departments are still kneeling on necks, and Black families are still falling apart, but, by Gaia we renamed some military bases! Vote Democrat again.”

  34. I suggest we name the locations where sewers discharge into rivers and the ocean after progressives in politics and the media.

  35. Lets just number everything from now on. Although I’m sure some people will get upset at some of the numbers. Who’d want to go to public school 13, or 666?

  36. Please Reason stop posting Dalmia stuff.
    The others are great . But she seldom has original material.

  37. Bases tend to be named for people who fought bravely, not just died tragically. Edwards AFB and Barksdale AFB are named for brave test pilots who died performing their duties. Dying tragically in and of itself, unfortunately, does not really qualify. Lots of people of all ilks die tragically. I think of that poor woman killed by an illegal alien on a pier in CA a few years back. Nothing named after her.

  38. Yes, let’s rename military bases after VERY light-skinned black communists. Good idea. Fun, too.

  39. Re: President Trump Quote:
    “I like people who weren’t captured. ”

    Brief: Dangerous if taken too literally

    A couple or so relevant quotes.

    These reasons briefly summarize Why that proposed rename is not going to fly. (The President isn’t stupid for his quote, btw).

  40. More WOKE bullshit from Reason Magazine…aka Pravda West!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.