Restoring the Name of Fort Bragg is Nothing to Brag About

Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence are wrong to advocate naming a US Army base after an incompetent Confederate general who betrayed the United States to fight for slavery.

Confederate General Braxton Bragg (1817-76).

 

The Department of Defense recently changed the name of the Fort Bragg army base in North Carolina to Fort Liberty. In doing so, they shifted from a name honoring an incompetent Confederate general who betrayed the US to fight for slavery, to a name honoring America's most fundamental value. Seems like a no-brainer!

Nonetheless, GOP presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence have condemned the move and vowed to change the name back if they win the presidency. DeSantis called the name change "political correctness run amok." They could hardly be more wrong.

Who was Braxton Bragg? He was a slaveowner and a Confederate general, best known for commanding the largest Confederate army in the west in 1862-63. During his time as commander of the Army of Tennessee, he became known for incompetence, quarreling with key subordinates, and losing major battles. As one historian put it, Bragg "had done as much as any Confederate general to lose the war."

Bragg was deeply racist even by the very low standards of Confederate generals. For example, he opposed raising black troops late in the war, because he did not think blacks could be reliable soldiers. Many other Confederate generals differed, most notably Robert E. Lee (though Lee's support for this last-ditch measure should not be confused with opposition to slavery, an institution he was determined to preserve).

I suppose it could be argued that Bragg deserves recognition because his incompetent leadership made a major (unintentional) contribution to Union victory in the Civil War. That aside, a militarily incompetent traitor who fought for slavery is the last person whom a major US Army base should be named after.

The debate over the renaming of Fort Bragg is tied up with broader controversy over removing Confederate monuments and renaming sites named after Confederate leaders. I previously wrote about that issue here, here, and here. In those posts, I rebutted a variety of arguments against renaming and monument removal, such as claims that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery (the Confederates themselves said that was what they were fighting for!), concerns that removal and renaming amount to "erasure" of history, and slippery slope considerations.

I won't go over that ground again in detail here. But I will reiterate that I have no desire to "erase" Braxton Bragg and other Confederate leaders from history. Much the contrary. I just don't think we should honor them. Similarly, I don't think we should abjure honoring anyone who ever expressed racist sentiments, or even anyone who ever owned slaves. Some historical figures who committed such wrongs also did great good in other ways (most notably, many of the Founding Fathers). But we should not honor people whose role in waging a war for slavery was their only major claim to fame.

If he had not become a prominent Confederate general (even if an incompetent one), hardly anyone today would remember the name of Braxton Bragg. It's long past time we stopped honoring people like that. If recognizing that is "political correctness run amok," then we should let it run amok some more.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why do they want to name it after a Confederate general (competent or not)? This is a serious question.

[SRG]

Because they're appealing to the neo-Confederate voters who form much of their base.

[Darth Buckeye]

The base was given the name of a Confederate general during the Wilson administration. A Democrat who was appealing to Southerners to get them to fight in a war in Europe.

[Dilan Esper]

Wilson was a bad President and a flaming racist.

In 2023 we should do better than Woodrow Wilson.

One more general point- I actually have no problem with a few monuments to confederates on actual battlefields. I would prefer more of them be about grunt soldiers, who often had little say on policy matters, rather than generals, every one of which committed High Treason against the United States and deserved prosecution and stiff punishment after the war. But even a few plaques and what-not regarding generals, when placed in the context of a battlefield, may serve a historical purpose (e.g., something depicting Pickett on the field of Gettysburg where Pickett's Charge occurred).

But naming a major Fort after someone? That's just awful.

If you want one challenge to the anti-racist side on this issue, it is this-- a lot of the heroes who valiantly defeated the racist white Southern traitors in the Civil War went on to lead wars of conquest that resulted in genocidal massacres of American Indians afterwards. Should we think about renaming stuff named after, e.g., Phil Sheridan?

[Estragon]

I completely agree with this sentiment. However it’s perhaps a slightly inapt comparison: the facility named after Phil closed in 1993.

[Dilan Esper]

True, but there's pretty major stuff like Sheridan Square in Greenwich Village.

[charliehall]

Wilson's non-race domestic policies during his first term were pretty good. We finally got a Central Bank. We finally ended Corporate Welfare in the form of Protective Tariffs. And his brilliant son-in-law William McAdoo saved the US from a Great Depression through his actions in the fall of 1914. (Not all Presidential sons-in-law are idiots, and McAdoo was just as racist as his father-in-law if not more so.) Neither Taft nor Roosevelt would have ended the Tariffs or known how to address the financial crisis.

The best outcome might have been for Hughes to have won in 1916, limiting the racist foreign policy incompetent to one term. It is hard to imagine screwing up 1919-1920 as badly as Wilson did, and Hughes proved a competent Secretary of State for Harding.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair to Wilson, while he was a lousy human being and a bad president, his stroke bears a significant share of the blame for 1919-1920.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more than just that -- read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

Better, think of the Berlin Airlift -- that was in 1948, three years after the war had ended, and we were feeding Nazis. More than feeding them, we were flying in everything including coal.

Stalin never thought we would do it -- these were Nazis after all, and why did we spend all the money rebuilding Europe? If you want a lasting peace, you have to buy it, and THAT is why naming a fort for the South's most incompetent General is a good idea.

"With malice toward none..."

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “…in 1948, three years after the war had ended, and we were feeding Nazis.”

But the Germans didn’t have the option of naming facilities (say) “Fort Goebbels” and all Nazi monuments standing after the war were torn down. And let’s say the Germans discovered a nostalgia for those good old Hitler days fifty years later and went on a monument building spree to celebrate the era. How would that have looked? What would that have said about the German people?

Because that was the case here. The vast majority of your beloved Confederate monuments were built between the 1890s and 1950s, exactly matching the entrenchment of Jim Crow segregation. I’m originally from Richmond and our statues celebrating traitor generals went up in 1890, 1907, 1919 and 1929. Rather late to be seen as a balm easing the rebel states back into the union, don’t ya think?

[charliehall]

Name it for James Longstreet or William Mahone, both of whom actually did positive things for reconciliation.

[Tionico]

The Berlin Airlift was not until later.. maybelate 1950's after the commies hald East Germany in a tight fist I had an AUnt stationeded in West Berlin during the airlift for maybe a five year stint. I remember reading her letters sent from W Berlin and I was far too young to do that in 1948. I also recall watching black and white newreels in the TeeVee set at home showing the DC 3's landing in West and unloading. We did not even HAVE a TeeVee intul at least 1957. I remember vividly our fear the commies would start whooting dosn those slow, heavy, low flying DC 3's and starving Berlin into submission. I can actually still see those flights in my meory right now. No way it was 1948.

[Dr. Ed 2]

(24 June 1948 - 12 May 1949)

[Vryedni]

As ever, we should consider the substance of an argument and the credibility of the person making it separately. Concerning the former, I'm generally all for conciliation. But you expose how farcically inapposite it is when the racist monuments Dr. Ed wants preserved in their place of honor were erected decades after the conflict he claims to want conciliated.

As for Dr. Ed's credibility as an advocate of conciliation, don't make me laugh. He's one of this forum's foremost wishcasters of violence against his political opponents.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “With malice toward none…”

Noble sentiment. But most of the Confederate monuments were built between the 1890s and 1950s. During that period there were over four thousand racial lynchings. Jim Crow was rigidly codified into law. Voter disenfranchisement was institutionalized on a massive systematic scale.

So how does that fit with Ed’s theme of reconciliation, forgetting old conflicts, searching for mutual understanding, and seeing beyond past hatreds?

Was the spirit of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address a one-way street?

[myself]

Better, think of the Berlin Airlift

Better yet, lets not.

- Berlin Airlift was about stopping the USSR from conquering West Berlin, nothing to do with buying peace or making NAZIs happy.

- The Marshall Plan is a better comparison, but it was less to do with buying peace and more to do with building up the regions so the population would be less susceptible to Russian propaganda.

- And there was a good analog to the Marshall Plan, Reconstruction

- The Marshall Plan honoured NAZIs as much as Reconstruction honoured slavery. In fact, both were largely concerned with undoing their evil.

- Confederate monuments went up decades after the US Civil War, and they weren't built by the Federal Government to make the south feel better (the name Fort Bragg a big exception). They were built by the former Confederate states to remind blacks of their place.

- I do however find it interesting that Dr Ed thinks of Nazi Germany when looking for comparables to the Confederacy, I personally wouldn't go that far but I understand the sentiment!

[David Nieporent]

A Democrat who was appealing to Southerners to get them to fight in a war in Europe.

Nice try. The thing didn't even open until the war was essentially over. And we had a draft; we didn't need to "get them to fight" at all.

[hoppy025]

No. Because regardless of what you leftists say, the attack on Confederate heroes and symbols is a thinly veiled attack on white people and our historic Anglo-Saxon tradition. It's that simple.

[Nige]

Ok you’re a parody, I apologise to anyone who said so and with whom I disagreed. A SELF-parody, mind.

[Krychek_2]

Hoppy, you are aware that DNA testing has established that every living human had a common ancestor 3400 years ago, meaning you and blacks are related? See "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived" by Adam Rutherford.

You shouldn't talk about your relatives the way you do.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't need "DNA Testing" to know that,
it was Adam & Eve (NOT Adam & Steve, sorry if that's not "Kindler/Gentler" the Truth's not always "Woke")

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Do you lie awake at night thinking of stupid things to say?

[Frank Drackman]

Not very kind or gentle, I'm gonna tell EV on you!

[grb]

It's my impression Frank seeks that sweet spot where the most imbecilic content intersects with the least possible thought. It's theoretically possible he could be more a clown, but only with effort. I'm guessing that would spoil't for him.

Strangely enough, he reminds me of the one truly contemptable film critic in business today, Armond White. Like Frank, he also has contempt for everybody & everything (including himself). Like Frank, he excretes twaddle and takes a perverse pleasure in doing so.

Of course there are differences. White's word salad sludge has the gullible thinking he's some keen intellectual. Frank's word salad sludge has everyone thinking he's an eight year old with access to Mommy's computer. So they're not an absolute match.

[MollyGodiva]

If would be very bad If you hear attacks on traitorous, slavery supporting racists and you think it is really about you. That says nothing good about who you are.

[SRG]

Naming it "Fort Bragg" was a not-so-thinly veiled attack on black people. Typical zero-sum/tribal thinking from you - because it's good for other people, you're losing out.

And why don't you explain why removing the name of an incompetent traitor is an attack on anyone other than people who support incompetent traitors?

[hoppy025]

Black people, as they were and are constituted, deserved to be attacked. When they collectively clean up their act, I'll worry about their feelings and "rights."

[charliehall]

I am a White person and a descendant of Confederate veterans and I think that attacking Confederate incompetents is a good thing. What is interesting is that todays neo-Confederates like you think that Bragg and Hood are heroes, proving that you learned a really distorted view of history. The Confederacy did have some decent generals like Johnston, Mahone, Longstreet, and (at times) Jackson, Stuart, and Lee. But it is interesting that they are taking their stand on the Bragg hill, who helped the Union more than he did the Confederacy.

[Vryedni]

No, he learned a more or less accurate history. He just processes it through an unapologetically racist lens. To someone like hoppy who shamelessly hates black people, his take makes sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

They see the fact that it's been "Fort Bragg" for over a century, and "Camp Bragg" before that, as sufficient reason to leave it named that. And, yeah, I think that was enough reason to oppose the name change.

People in the South want the names of Southern military figures on military bases in the South. This is perfectly understandable, and it's a shame they didn't have any famous generals who were on the winning side of that war. But part of buying peace with the South was an agreement to honor their war heroes, too. Even if Democrats want to welsh on the deal now. Your obsession with erasing parts of history you don't like is getting kind of 1984ish.

Putting it back again? That's tougher to justify.

I just don't want any whining when we start taking FDR's name off stuff, OK? And no backsies, either.

[Darth Buckeye]

Let's name all the bases after Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats not kinder or gentler

[Darth Buckeye]

I apologize for my snarky comment. I tried to delete it right after I posted it but that feature no longer seems to function.

Let's focus on making the future better and not grinding on about the past.

[hoppy025]

Better to name them after Sean Bell, George Floyd, or the myriad of other black thugs that have been made folk heroes by the left. They're more representative of the black "community."

[hoppy025]

Not sure I agree. If the renaming was wrong, restoring it to what it was is by definition not wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

It can be "not wrong" AND "not worth spending political capital on"; Rename the forts after WWII figures who came from the South, instead.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But part of buying peace with the South was an agreement to honor their war heroes, too.

Who agreed to that, and when did they do it? And did it expressly include continuing to honor them 50 years after the war ended, or was that just kind of implied?

[Aunt Teefah]

Brett proposing changing the name of the US base in Okinawa in 1998 to Fort Shiro Ishii to "buy peace with Japan."

[JJJSSS]

Funny how they don't want any bases named after James Longstreet, then

[Mark Regan]

If you're looking for Southern generals who were relatively reasonable with respect to race relations after the war, you should start with Longstreet ... but, of course, the postwar white Southern hostility to Longstreet gives the game away. The nation had some choices about whom to honor and it made the wrong choices. Needing to mobilize patriotic white Southerners for the Spanish American wars and the Great War is an excuse, but not a fully adequate one.

[Estragon]

George Thomas was from Virginia. David Farragut was from Tennessee. But, yes, I’m sure this is just about “southern military figures” and not just honoring treasonous cunts because it’ll own the libs. If it has to be a traitor- Why not Pat Cleburne? He was cancelled!

[Estragon]

Heck, why not go the other way! Fort Pemberton! He was a northerner. At least he was a decent artillery officer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Montgomery Meigs.

[Estragon]

Never forget the quartermasters! Excellent choice

[LawTalkingGuy]

Expanding a bit beyond generals, you could get a ton of Southern military figures if you include the former slaves who escaped north served.

William Harvey Carney
Robert Smalls
Harriet Tubman

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I'd be cool with renaming it Fort Tubman. I kind of like the idea of putting her on one of the bills, too.

She was a kickass lady.

[Dilan Esper]

OK, I will give you that.

[Estragon]

Yeah whatever happened to her being on the $20 anyways?

[Brett Bellmore]

Kept getting put off, possibly because the best picture of her wasn't politically correct.

[SRG]

Trump, basically.

[charliehall]

Name the largest military base in South Carolina after Robert Smalls! He was also smarter than any of the Confederates!!!

[Estragon]

“Welsh on the deal”

Now that’s one I’ve never heard before

The word you are looking for I believe is “Welch”. Undoubtedly welsh commentators here are extremely offended! Make amends, Brett!

[Dilan Esper]

Brett's right, and this is another example of how language pedants almost always assert "rules" of English that are in fact not rules.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/to+welsh+on+a+deal

[Estragon]

Happy to be corrected and learn something new. I stand by my pervious comment, I have never seen this spelling. Seems akin to “gyp” … perhaps best avoided?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe the derivation is somewhat similar, yes.

[SRG]

Note that Robert Graves’ regiment (as mentioned in Goodbye to all that) was the Royal Welch (sic) Fusiliers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Welch_Fusiliers

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody is “erasing history.”

Having a military base named for oneself is an honor. Bragg does not deserve that honor.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Blacks live in the South and were first slaves and then denied rights…and they don’t want it named for losers like Bragg. Just be happy it’s not named Camp Dylan Mulvaney and move on with your life.

[Dilan Esper]

People in the South want the names of Southern military figures on military bases in the South.

Black people are People in the South too, Brett, and it's not an accident that none of those military figures being honored were brave Black heroes from the South who fought on the right side of the Civil War.

[Freethinksman]

"People in the South want the names of Southern military figures on military bases in the South."

We are talking about a United States military base. I am sure you could find some people who think that whatever replaced the Murrah building in Oklahoma City should be named the McVeigh Building. Would that be a good idea though?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett goes in for blind tradition. And ignorance of history.

The second is a pure Brett tradition. But the former…well he seems against it on other contexts. Not for legal precedent, mind you. Only for defending Confederates.

Jesus Brett you used to have slightly more self awareness than to jump in and defend this nonsense with that weak tea.

[charliehall]

"People in the South want the names of Southern military figures on military bases in the South."

Fine. Rename it for John Gibbon, who grew up in North Carolina and became one of the most important artillery commanders in the Union Army.

There were actually MANY Southerners who served in the Union Army who don't have bases named after them. Virginia alone gave us Winfield Scott, one of the half dozen greatest generals the US ever has had (and unusually for a Virginian never seems to have been a slaveowner), George Thomas (whose family disowned him for staying loyal), Philip St. George Cooke (whose son-in-law was the notorious J. E. B. Stuart), and William Terrell (who died fighting for the Union at the Battle of Perryville), and Samuel Philips Lee (Robert E. Lee's cousin, who led the blockade of the South). David Farragut (Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!) was a Tennessee native. Robert Anderson, who surrendered Fort Sumter, was from Kentucky. None of these loyalists have currently active military bases named for them.

[David Nieporent]

People in the South want the names of Southern military figures on military bases in the South. This is perfectly understandable, and it’s a shame they didn’t have any famous generals who were on the winning side of that war. But part of buying peace with the South was an agreement to honor their war heroes, too. Even if Democrats want to welsh on the deal now. Your obsession with erasing parts of history you don’t like is getting kind of 1984ish.

There was no such deal, and this is all 100% bullshit.

[myself]

They see the fact that it’s been “Fort Bragg” for over a century, and “Camp Bragg” before that, as sufficient reason to leave it named that. And, yeah, I think that was enough reason to oppose the name change.

Companies pay millions for the naming rights on Stadiums.

It's never too late to kill an endorsement deal for a Confederate General.

People in the South want the names of Southern military figures on military bases in the South. This is perfectly understandable, and it’s a shame they didn’t have any famous generals who were on the winning side of that war

The US has fought enough war that they surely could find some Southern military figures who fought for better causes.

I just don’t want any whining when we start taking FDR’s name off stuff, OK? And no backsies, either.

So your claim is that slavery is to the right what social security is to the left?

[gVOR08]

The base was named in 1918. That was the height of LostCause historical revision. Everyone was racist. It's the era when most of the Confederate statues and monuments were put up, to remind the black population who was in charge.

[David Nieporent]

That's only partially true; many of these so called historical monuments weren't even erected until the 1960s, as a symbol of the South's massive resistance to desegregation.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Camp Bragg was founded in 1918 and was known as Ft Bragg since 1922. It was renamed Ft Liberty in 2023, this year.

So there's 101 years of history, books, memoirs, family letters, personal memories of the base as Ft Bragg. But not that many people who even knew the history of Gen Bragg, or cared.

Can the Ministry of Truth hunt diwn every mention of Ft Bragg in the past 101 years and edit them from Fr Bragg to Ft Liberty? No. This is a name change for light and transient causes.

Besides there is already a Ft Liberte' in Haiti. I think they had first dibs on the nae in this continent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Read LINCOLN"S SECOND INAGURAL ADDRESS..

[not guilty]

This is a case of Republican demagogues pandering to those voters who regard treason in support of chattel slavery as a good thing. I suspect that virtually all who hold that view vote in Republican primaries (although that was not always the case).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This "academic," "legal" blog devotes a remarkable volume of its attention (and intolerance) these days to Juneteenth, flattery of the Confederacy, Muslims, drag queens, lesbians, the transgender community, and similar issues.

I sense this is precisely the blog Prof. Volokh wishes to operate, with the chosen target audience, the desired comments, the preferred levels of multifaceted right-wing bigotry and, of course, the eagerly cultivated frequency of vile racial slurs.

The Conspirators are entitled to operate this blog as they wish. Hypocrites and obsolete bigots have rights, too. They should, however, have the decency to refrain from misappropriating the franchises of legitimate institutions and associating the reputations of their employers with this despicable blog. But they do not. Disaffected, grievance-consumed, fringe-dwelling losers tend not to possess such character.

[charliehall]

Reason is supposed to be Libertarian. There is absolutely nothing less Libertarian than chattel slavery!

[Estragon]

I posted about this last week. Bragg was a horrendous general. If it has to be a rebel, why not the original victim of cancellation- Pat Cleburne? At least he kicked ass.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Longstreet was absolutely cancelled for being on the right side of Reconstruction.

[Estragon]

Oh I know, but Cleburne was cancelled earlier- during the war- for having the temerity to suggest arming black southerners to aid in defense of the “nation”.

He was Irish so can be forgiven for thinking that in order to save the confederacy such measures might be considered. But no! They would, and did, rather lose than consider treating blacks like human beings with a semblance of equality. You should read some of the letters the guy got telling him to keep quiet. That was after he kicked ass repeatedly, including and especially at Chickamauga. Never promoted above brigadier.

[Darth Buckeye]

The name of the base has historical significance for the tens of thousands of people who have served there. That history is separate and distinct from the traitor after whom it was originally named. The base's history is now lost.

I live in a city with a large base to the south. Its name was changed 40 or 50 years ago for less political reasons. Originally, the base was named Lockbourne AFB after the small village that it bordered. But later, the name of the base was changed to Rickenbacker AFB after WW1 pilot Eddie Rickenbacker. This name change has always been a source of confusion. I wish they had found a way to keep the Lockbourne AFB name.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The base’s history is now lost.

How?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Everyone forgets the name ever existed, as sure as if Thanos snapped his finger and wished it so.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean given that former Fort Bragg has inspired so many conversations about how much Braxton Bragg sucked, it might be a mercy to him that everyone forgets about him and how much he sucked.

[Sarcastr0]

I worked for the DoD for a time. No confusion at all there. I am skeptical of your statement being true, actually.

Are you lying to defend a confederate general?

[Syd Henderson]

Bragg won exactly one major battle, Chickamauga, which has been termed a "fatal battle" because his army was so badly mauled that it basically lost every battle afterward, most notably Chattanooga, where the Union troops attacked uphill and the Confederates ran away. I believe the descendant of this army was destroyed at Nashville by George Thomas aka "The Rock of Chickamauga" and a genuinely great general.

Another candidate for worst Confederate general is Leonidas Polk, who invaded Kentucky which called for Union aid, which opened up invasion routes into Tennessee. Before Polk, Kentucky was neutral.

[Estragon]

Hey, at least his subordinates loved Bishop Polk. Everyone hated Bragg’s guts. You are correct about Nashville, Confederates were under John Bell Hood and got pretty much completely erased in late 1864.

[Estragon]

And, speaking of which, we no longer have Fort Hood, either! I wonder why Bragg carries more resonance with the huckleberries than Hood anyways. They were both horrendous overall commanders but Hood could lead a brigade at least.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Given his professional, personal, and moral faults Bragg’s most impressive accomplishment is somehow getting a fort named after himself.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Kinder/Gentler Frank having to breath deeply, chant "Ohmmmmmmmm" and think happy thoughts,
and my views might be "Colored" (get it? still kind/gentle) because I grad-jew-ma-cated from Jefferson Davis Highschool (you think that's bad? 9th grade was at "Nathan Bedford Forrest Highschool")
President Lincoln, who did an amazing job and is being recognized more and more I notice, knew that to get the South to go along, they had to be humored a bit (or would you rather have had a US Version of Northern Ireland) hence, why we have the Tennessee "Volunteers" (Don't ask what they were Volunteering for) and the Ole Miss "Rebels" (ever been to Mississippi? I'd rebel too)
Trying to stay kinder/gentler, so go ahead, rename all the bases, and Government facilities named after Race-ist Slave owners, starting with Washington State, Washington D.C. (maybe name it after Jimmy "JJ" Walker?? Die-No-Might!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Dave_A]

Tennessee's 'Volunteer State' nickname originates from the Mexican-American War, not the Civil War.

[Frank Drackman]

Speaking of National Unity on this June-teenth, anyone following the College World Series??? The boys are really playing their hearts out, and deserve a big hand! Love that all of the major Ath-uh-Letic Conferences are Represented, 3 SEC Teams, 2 ACC, 1 PAC-12, 1 Big-12, and Oral Roberts from the Summit Conference!!
Like I said, all of the major conferences represented!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Darth Buckeye]

Thank you Frank for being humane and giving us something meaningful to talk about. We need to stop antagonizing each other.

[Frank Drackman]

Like I said, all of the "Major" Conferences represented!

[gVOR08]

Also, as states seceded (each writing a declaration that it was all about slavery and race) Kentucky played with some idea of being a neutral. Lincoln treated them with kid gloves, ensuring no Union military presence or action that might trigger a counter-reaction. Bragg moved his army into KY to "aid" them, which flipped KY straight into loyalty to the Union.

Bragg's only significant victory was Chickamauga, where a Union SNAFU opened a gap in their line just as Longstreet's corps, on loan from Lee, charged out of the woods at that point. Pure luck.

Subsequently, not wanting to have an obvious replacement for himself on hand, Bragg detached Longstreet to make a pointless, failed attack on fortified Knoxville.

Bragg was supposed to be an artillery expert, part of the rationale for naming what was originally an artillery training base after him. His guns on Missionary Ridge couldn't depress far enough to fire on the Union troops charging up the slope.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Name it after Henry "Light-horse Harry" Lee and watch heads esplode.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another day at the Volokh Conspiracy, another day of old-timey bigotry (racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, immigrant-hating -- it's all a vivid part of this white, male blog), white male grievance, and Federalist Society-style plausible deniability.

How much longer should Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Chicago, and a few other legitimate law schools be expected to accept having their reputations and franchises misappropriated by and associated with bigotry and this group of bigots?

The silver lining to this bigotry is that it is destined to drag the other right-wing political preferences -- gun nuttery, anti-abortion absolutism, limitless special privilege for (certain) religious claimants, etc. -- into irrelevance in modern America as the culture war continues to enable better Americans to shape our national progress against the wishes and efforts of the Republican Party, the Federalist Society, the Volokh Conspiracy, the Heritage Foundation, the MAGA-QAnon cult.

The hypocrites, cowards, and bigots found at the Volokh Conspiracy have rights, too, and are welcome to aggregate at this white, male, right-wing blog to comfort each other in the time they have left as the modern American culture war's sifting continues along its predictable, glorious trajectory.

[GKHoffman]

Somebody forgot to take his Happy Pill again today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A blog with the Volokh Conspiracy's following that chooses to spotlight Juneteenth and the renaming of Confederacy-stained institutions is only happy when wallowing in old-timey, un-American bigotry.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

That's not very kind or gentle

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Neither is using vile racial slurs, but Prof. Volokh and the Volokh Conspiracy do it habitually.

Neither is old-timey, right-wing bigotry, but this blog is saturated with it.

A blog with any measurable level of kindness would not focus relentlessly on gays, transgender parenting, Muslims, transgender rest rooms, drag queens, the Confederacy, transgender sorority drama, lesbians, and similar issues; would not cultivate and flatter an audience of right-wing bigots; and would not associate the names of innocent, legitimate institutions with its despicable content.

Other than that, tough, great comment!

[Frank Drackman]

That's even less kind and gentle

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Carry on, bigoted clingers.

Without the respect of the American mainstream, particularly mainstream modern legal academia.

[GKHoffman]

You can make a case that Braxton Bragg was so thoroughly incompetent that he contributed more to the Union cause than most of the Union's generals. Still he was a traitor to his country, if not to his state (the question of which was owed primary fealty was much less clear then than it is now.) The Union's (arguably) best general, George Thomas, was a southerner. Rename the facility after him.

[Number 2]

“But we should not honor people whose role in waging a war for slavery was their only major claim to fame.”

Unless one enjoys the irony of seeing such a Confederate general having his name affixed to a Union military facility, staffed in significant part by people he considered to be mere property.

[charliehall]

George Thomas wasn't just as southerner, he was a survivor of the Nat Turner rebellion!

[MatthewSlyfield]

During his time as commander of the Army of Tennessee, he became known for incompetence, quarreling with key subordinates, and losing major battles. As one historian put it, Bragg "had done as much as any Confederate general to lose the war."

Hmm, was this genuine incompetence, or deliberate sabotage of confederate war efforts along the lines of Oskar Schindler from WWII?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/oskar-schindler

If it's the later, that might actually be a legitimate reason for the Union to honor him.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I think we should name it Fort Hunter Biden. Maybe the Chinese will get confused and donate a shit ton of money to it.

[MollyGodiva]

Supporting incompetent racists is quite popular with Republicans.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow mandated racist segregation, mandated racist affirmative action, and mandated racist CRT.

Guess it's better to be racist about everything than just on a case-by-case basis.

[SRG]

Are you aware that political parties change over long periods?

As I've noted before:

Republicans: "all those Confederate statues were erected by Democrats!"
Democrats: 'and now we want to take them down"
Republicans: "No."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Throw in a few vile racial slurs, and that's a common discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course parties can change over time. That being the case, what is the Democratic party's excuse for remaining the party of institutional racism?

[Sarcastr0]

The part of Lincoln now defends the confederate flag, statues and base names; hates Juneteenth; has almost no support from blacks.

Yeah anyone who plays that card is pulling something.

[mydisplayname]

It's long past time that we should stop allowing incompetents with agendas to teach our children. Questions regarding conflict of laws plague the United States to this day and only incompetents can willfully ignore such issues when discussing the War of United States Aggression against the Confederate States of America: to do so would be akin to saying that since Ukraine was once part of the U.S.S.R. it is now a part of Russia and that all Ukrainians are now traitors!

Yet, in this crafty post, Somin adopts the position held by Putin: once again, Somin says "Yes, In YOUR backyard" while professing to advocate a noble libertarian position.

Each state in the United States is a separate sovereign: each person residing within a state of the United States is _foremost_ a citizen of his state of residence while also possessing citizenship within the United States. Similarly, a citizen of Sovereign France also possesses citizenship with in the European Union. More concretely, each citizen of the Sovereign United Kingdom was once also a citizen of the European Union yet, upon command of his Sovereign State, lost his E.U. citizenship: we do not call such a citizen of the United Kingdom a "betrayer" of the European Union, as he is merely a proper subject of his true sovereign.

Yanking this tiny rug from beneath Somin's argument leaves bare flooring -- nothing more than a hollow rant against a position disfavored by a supposed libertarian.

It's long past time that we should stop allowing incompetents with agendas to teach our children. Luckily, Texas is leading the way with now-enacted SB18 and SB17 (2023). Perhaps as other states rally to the cause we shall overcome the influence of communism so readily espoused by many currently infesting higher education.

Regarding the naming of the base itself... it is merely a DCism: Buggs Island Lake is called John H. Kerr Reservoir only by the federal fringe. Attempts by the Lords of Federal Bureaucracy to change the names of mountains, valleys, lakes, streams, et c. are futile -- and rather silly -- efforts at controlling the hearts and minds of those they consider to be subject to their whims.

[David Nieporent]

This is so over-the-top badly written and thought out that I'm not sure it's not a parody.

to do so would be akin to saying that since Ukraine was once part of the U.S.S.R. it is now a part of Russia and that all Ukrainians are now traitors!

1) The USSR is not Russia.
2) The USSR/Russia recognized Ukrainian independence in 1991.

Each state in the United States is a separate sovereign:

False. That has not been true since arguably March 1781, and definitely since March 1789.

[Vryedni]

But you gotta admit he nailed Somin. I mean, it there's one person on this site who loves him some communism, it's Ilya.

[DaveM]

*yawn*

[Darth Buckeye]

Ft. Beau Biden.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, he was born in a "Slave State", died in one too.

[nobody 2]

I wonder how long it will be before Washington, D.C. gets renamed so as not to honor a treasonous slave owner.

[charliehall]

In his will, George Washington provided for freedom for all the people he had owned. It was impossible to free an enslaved person at all for most of his life (until the mid 1780s) and very difficult afterwards -- except at death of the owner.

[Krayt]

I can cut some slack for the founding fathers — their problem wasn’t their concept of freedom, but who they extended it to.

Your rights are inherent to you, and precede government. They are not a gift from a king, or the powerful, or the rich, or government, or even democracy itself.

Government is created by the people, and given certain powers, and no others. The basic rules of government are by supermajority because if you can’t get most people to agree government should have a power, it probably shouldn’t.

Simple majorities, transient majorities, blowing the hot air of political passion, this is the stock in trade of demagogues and tyrants, the one real super power that actually exists.

[raspberrydinners]

Boy, republicans really looking to tackle the big issues of the day huh? Trying to restore the name of a CONFEDERATE general on a military base for the USA?

JFC. How anyone votes for these people is beyond me.

[Frank Drackman]

Kindler, Gentler Frank here. Did you know Abraham Lincoln's favorite song was "Dixie"?? and that he was born in a Slave State??
It's like the Late/Great Rodney King said,
C-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-a'n't w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-e just g-g-g-g-g-g-get along???

Frank

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

One solution to the problem of renaming Fort Bragg would be: set up an institute for solid-state physics there (perhaps also build a synchrotron radiation source), and then rename the whole thing after the father-and-son team of solid-state physicists who won the 1915 Nobel Prize for developing the x-ray-diffraction method of determining molecular structure.

[SRG]

When Sir Lawrence Bragg moved to London to be Resident Professor of the Royal Institution, he missed having a garden and so took a part-time job as a gardener, under the (legit) name "Billy Bragg" for some wealthy woman, an arrangement which worked well for a while until one day a guest said to her, "what on earth is Sir Lawrence Bragg doing in your back garden?"

When he reorganised the Cavendish lab in Cambridge, he said, "we taught the world how to do physics, now we're going to teach them how to do chemistry".

[Frank Drackman]

Kindler, Gentler Frank here,
Love how everyone's so confident they would never own Slaves, of course 150 years from now, they'll look at our terminating millions of unwanted young lives the same way.
Not abortion, the Youth-N-Asia of un-adoptable dogs/cats (OK, and I'll throw in the Hamsters*/Potbellied Pigs/Snakes/Fish)

Frank

* please, no unkind/ungentle Hamster insults

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Our history of slavery has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, because the slaves were not located inside their masters’ bodies, and were not being directly sustained by exploiting the chemical and physiological activity of their masters’ internal organs.

Oh, and your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries.

[M L]

In both cases the central issue is denying the humanity of certain groups of humans.

[Frank Drackman]

that's a B-I-N-G-O!!
is that how you say it "That's a BINGO"???

[John Rohan]

If we are going to change the name, why not name it after another person? "Liberty" is terribly generic and doesn't scream out tradition and pride.

[M L]

I thought Liberty was an insurance company. They probably bought the naming rights?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Protect Liberty's trademark by prohibiting Fort Liberty from selling insurance.

[M L]

Terribly generic, lacking tradition and pride in heritage, & literally corporatized:

A brief history of America's decline

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Rename it after his cousin, Edward S. Bragg, a Union officer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Bragg

He became a politician and diplomat, making him the idea candidate for a political, diplomatic solution.

[John Rohan]

That would be brilliant, then they wouldn't even have to waste money changing all the signs, letterheads, etc.

[markm23]

I agree. Rename it after the Union General Bragg. Or put up a monument to the Confederate General Bragg at the main gate, for his contributions to the defeat of the Confederacy.

For the city in California, rename it after Janet Bragg, the first African-American woman to hold a commercial pilot license.

[Purple Martin]

The Base Renaming Commission made an early decision to name one base not after a person, but a value. The particular value—the concept of Liberty—and selection of the specific base came much later. Everyone with a past, present or future connection to the old Ft. Bragg, may take justifiable pride in their unique designation: Fort Liberty.

I submitted a recommendation to rename Texas’s Fort Hood, to Fort Benavidez, after native Texan, Army Master Sergeant Raul Perez "Roy" Benavidez, awarded the Medal of Honor for service in the Vietnam war. I'm a little disappointed, but I congratulate Gen. Richard Cavazos, a worthy selection for the honor.

[M L]

I think they are just targeting the political correctness of it.

But I agree, change the name, and also take down that big ugly Lincoln statue as well.

[Sarcastr0]

Yea we all know your position on Lincoln and the Civil War:

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think it comes down to whether an ex-Confederate is being honored *as* a Confederate. If so, cancel them all you want.

But some folks were with the Confederacy but aren't honored for that, being instead honored as scientists, civic founders, poets, etc. There were still ill-advised attempts to cancel them.

Waiting for the next shoe to drop - Mark Twain - who briefly served in a small Confederate militia unit in Missouri.

https://www.historynet.com/mark-twains-two-week-stint-as-a-confederate-soldier/

[charliehall]

Braxton Bragg was honored because he was a General.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All this talk of treason, when the issue is slavery.

Let me adapt some remarks I made on another thread:

Whether secession is justified depends on the justice of the cause – opposing the misrule of a king and his violation of chartered rights (did I mention that the king promoted the African slave trade even when colonists tried to limit it?), versus creating a republic based on the alleged awesomeness of slavery and white supremacy.

The first is good secession, the second is bad secession.

In the first year of the war, the North focused on the illegality of secession, the need to repress traitors - and tried to duck the issue of slavery which had cause the war in the first place. That was why the secession was so bad - because they seceded over slavery. The North finally wised up and broadened war aims to extirpate slavery.

But take slavery out of the question, and there's nothing wrong with one country splitting off from another for good enough cause - Norway from Sweden, Belgium from the Netherlands, Ireland (most of it) from the UK, and that's just Europe, you can find examples aplenty on other continents.

[Honest Economics]

For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/

[Ed Grinberg]

https://anncoulter.com/2021/09/15/gray-lives-matter/

She's right, you know, Prof. Somin.

[charliehall]

The ONLY good thing about Robert E. Lee is that he urged the South to accept defeat.

He was also a vastly overrated general -- he was the idiot who twice invaded fervently pro-union areas in Maryland and Virginia, and who ordered Pickett's Charge.

[Vryedni]

Coulter:

Lee’s reputation was so great that President Lincoln asked him to take command of the Union forces against the South. But Lee was a Virginian and felt compelled to take Virginia’s side, so he resigned from the U.S. Army.

(For my illiterate readers and anyone who gets his news from MSNBC: That makes Lee the opposite of a “traitor.” A traitor is someone who pretends to be on your side, while secretly working with the enemy, not someone who loudly announces, I quit. My friends and I are leaving.)

This is the disease Trump passes to his cult.* They think committing a crime openly and brazenly makes one innocent. “Of course I did it. I had every right to do it. It was a perfect treason.”

(*Yeah, I know Ann isn’t a Trumpist anymore, but it’s too late. Her Trumpitis has metastasized beyond care. Or maybe it’s that people already afflicted are the ones most drawn to Trump. Either is plausible.)

[dougwesterman]

The thing I find so disappointing about De Santis and Pence is that they would make an issue out of something of so little importance. Try to be statesmen solving real problems rather than petty politicians. I think they should rename it Fort "Howlin Mad Smith". It has a nice ring to it.

[DRM]

Sure, there's nothing that Amerigo Vespucci did to actually justify having our country named after him, and there are plenty of aspects of his character that were less than stellar.

But that is entirely irrelevant; Amerigo Vespucci's relation to the name "America" is merely a footnote. The name of the country, at this point, is simply the name of the country. Changing the name of the country because the connected historical figure doesn't deserve the "honor" is juvenile vandalism, and advocating the reversal of any such name change is merely an adult's stand against juvenile vandals.

[Tionico]

No the Southern Genera;s were NOT "fightig to preserve slavery" They were fighting because their new nation was being militarily invaded.After decades of severe financial abuse by the North and their unprovoked military onvasion (after the false flag operation known as the Battle of For Sumpter and related charades) they had no option but to fight for their homeland.

Slavery was on its way out, the economics were rapidly changing and it was not sustainable for very long.
I suppose many here bellieve the move of the Union after the war was over, of overnight "freeing" tens of thousands of slaves, forcing them off the only lands they had ever known, no resoures, no income, no homes, no nuthin but what was on their backs and shoudlers,and no where to take even that, was a "good and proper" thing? Of COURSE the ex slaves were a nuisance. Today's homeless are far better cared for and supported than those overnight homess orphans. What else COULD happen with a few million homeless hungry mouths with no resources were forced out of their homes? That overnight loss of farm labourers alsodestroyed what was left of the economic engines of the South. Crops rotting in fields because there were no workers to put in the sickle and reap. The way the Union hordes "managed" things was an abomination. How about a rational approach? Perhaps let farmers hire their former slaves for wages, house them into the bargain, get the crops off and to market, food for people to eat.... but no they had to "punish" everyone for seceding, and for having slaves. Yes there would have bee abuses... but what do you "honestly" call millions wth no home, no possessions, no money, no food, and empty tummes?

And I suppose the same folks who will label the above some sort of pro-slavery drivel hold the actions of General William Tecumseh Sherman ad his Union Army perpetrating his "march to the sea",wherei he cut a twenty mile wide swath of absolute desolation and destrucion all the way from Atlanta town straight line to Savannah? I've travelled that route in the last twenty years, it is STILL a radically changed stretch of land.
Then, as if they were all saints at the time, Sherman was joined by his trusty likeminded sidekick Sheridan, and they both got sent "out west" to "deal" with the "indian problem". They both exhibited little deviation from their performance at the close of the War of Northern Aggression. Thousands of the indians were "liquidated", relocated, etc because they were "in the way" of "progress" out west. Thise earler occupnts pf this continent were often treated worse than they treated the former slaves of the South. Yet there are monuments "honouring" both of those beastly tyrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, this whole thing is wrong; racist apologetics for slavery. Sad you believe it.

[David Nieporent]

No the Southern Genera;s were NOT “fightig to preserve slavery” They were fighting because their new nation was being militarily invaded.After decades of severe financial abuse by the North and their unprovoked military onvasion (after the false flag operation known as the Battle of For Sumpter and related charades) they had no option but to fight for their homeland.

So you're a nut job who got his historical education from a Klan rally rather than a history book.

[Purple Martin]

Tionico, at the time you learned “Slavery was on its way out, the economics were rapidly changing and it was not sustainable for very long, were you also taught this?

“Its corner stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

—Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, in a March 21, 1861 speech, speaking of The Confederate States Of America

Defending White Man’s Right to enslave, buy and sell Black human beings was the single ‘but-for‘ cause of the Civil War. That is, But For slavery, all the other issues you mention (some real, some grossly exaggerated) would have eventually reached resolution through the normal political process.

Many people would have been left unsatisfied—likely more from the South than from the North—but it would not have reached the point of southern insurrection, rebellion, and civil war.

As to your slavery was going away by itself, (a minority opinion among Lost Causers), there’s some intriguing academic speculation that had the American Revolution been nipped in the bud (and again, it was a close thing right at the beginning), the colonies ,not gaining the status of states, would have gone the way of Canada to eventually become a British Commonwealth, and then one of more independent country(s).

Part of that speculation is that slavery would likely have followed the path it took in Britain, disappearing more quickly than happened with an independent USA and its Constitutional “3/5ths” cave that delayed resolution of our Original Sin for 75 years. Might make an interesting alternate history novel.

[markm23]

"Slavery was on its way out"

The majority of southerners of that time would disagree with you. The ones that voted for laws that banned publishing or giving speeches opposing slavery in most southern states. The ones that administered a crippling beating to a northern Congressman _in_ Congress for talking against slavery. The ones that flooded into Kansas to vote to make it a slave state - and murdered several men in the streets for opposing slavery. And most of all, the ones that walked out of the 1860 Democratic National Convention and formed a separate Southern Democratic Party - not because the nominee, Stephen Douglas, opposed slavery, but because he wanted new territories to vote on whether to be slave or free, rather than letting the Southerners force half of new states to be slave states whether they wanted to or not. If they hadn't split the Democrats, Lincoln would be a footnote in the history books as a failed Presidential candidate from a radical minor party, and the south would not have felt the need to secede.

Before the middle of the Civil War, Lincoln never campaigned on ending slavery, only on restricting it from spreading to new territory (none of which was suited to Southern-style cotton or tobacco plantations anyhow), but that was unacceptable to the south - and their rejection of Douglas shows that they would not even allow the residents of new states to vote on whether to allow slavery. For most southerners, the ONE issue overriding all other considerations was ensuring a continuing supply of NEW slave states. They surely weren't about to let slavery fade away in the existing slave states.

And that also meant that in the long term the North could not just let the South depart in peace. Within a few years, the South would have been invading somewhere to seize more territory for slavery. Maybe Mexico (which abolished slavery when they declared independence from Spain), maybe territory between Kansas and California, maybe Kansas and California themselves. And they'd have been much more prepared for a war with the North then than they were when a few southern idiots touched it off at Fort Sumter.

[Dave_A]

The rebels started the war before Lincoln could even be sworn into office (Inauguration day wasn’t in January back then, because weather would make it too hard for many to attend in a world where they were riding horses or in horse-drawn vehicles)…

They were not responding to an ‘invasion’, they were raising arms against the United States because the 1860 election did not go their way.

The objection, was that… Lincoln might abolish slavery if they accepted him as president.

Ironically, their rebellion & refusal to accept Lincoln as president IS WHAT CAUSED SLAVERY TO BE ABOLISHED.

Claims of alternate origins ignore the inauguration-day issue – it wasn’t about policies or tariffs or anything Lincoln did.

The war started with a lame-duck southern-Democrat President still in office pending inauguration day, with multiple southerners still holding key federal government positions & cabinet posts…

It was never about anything the North did. It was about the possibility of a known anti-slavery (in personal viewpoint) northerner as President.

[retiredfire]

Don't remember who posted this, while back ,but it need to be heard.

"This civil war nonsense is totally divisive and infuriating, one of the most important events in American history and THE most lied about for political ends. The evidence is absolutely one hundred percent crystal clear, the north started the war because of economics not bloody slavery. Lincoln didn't give a damn about blacks and this is easy and quick to confirm, just read what he says, read what his own Republican party line was at the time and look at the policies they enacted. Hell, even their line on 'no slavery in the new west' was actually anti-black, they didn't want any blacks there at all, Lincoln himself said it was to be reserved for the white man only. So for the last cotton picking time (I wish):

"Three fourths of the north's commerce (cotton, rice, tobacco, all from the south) was immediately lost when the southern states began seceding. Their industrial capacity began to dramatically collapse. Stories in many northern newspapers speak of the utter panic. Cotton made up 60 percent of US exports alone in 1860, shipped from northern ports.

"The shipping immediately also disappeared and went south due to high protectionist northern tarriffs. The Morrill Tariff (introduced six weeks before the bombardment of Fort Sumner !.. take that in.. ) jacked the import tax up to 50 percent higher than in the south, ironically ensuring the north would never recover on its own. The south wanted FREE trade with the world and were only putting for example, a 10 percent tax on railroad iron. They could ship goods from all over the world up the Mississippi and make the north completely redundant ! The south was buzzing about developing its own industry, the north were absolutely terrified knowing the writing was on the wall. Read the original newspapers.

"Not only was it about to lose three quarters of its economy, it was losing three quarters of its tax revenue, taken from the south and spent in the north. If I remember correctly there was virtually no southern political representation in the north either.

"Not one mention of slavery was made in the newspapers at the time as a primary cause for civil war (until Lincoln at the 11th hour decided to hang his hat on it as a smoke screen) and I haven't even begun to touch upon how blacks were treated in the north or on contemporary debates held at the time on how to bring slavery to an end in America peaceably. Many people believed it would die out within a generation and that the government could in theory quite easily give compensation to slave owners, a policy which happened peaceably all over the world. But the northerners needed their war to avoid disaster, again, all recorded in the newspapers at the time and through Lincoln's own writings and his own party.

"The deaths of between 600- 800,000 people with a possible million wounded was the result of economic greed and the north's refusal to allow the southern states to secede, which was their absolute, legal constitutional right. Lincoln started it.

"If you never read a single word about the conflict, the actions of the north after the war should tell you everything you need to know.

"Sheer and utter moral grandstanding by people who don't know their own history is the only reason this crap is still being pedalled. It's a disgrace. Look at what happens to people who give an honest recounting of history.

"In my opinion, American whites among all people on earth should be praised not excoriated. No other nation in history has so publicly turned the spotlight on its own past sins for slavery, taken responsibility for them and tried so hard to make amends and move forward. But you just can't stop talking about it. Anti-white moral grandstanding at its gutter worst. Of course, just for saying all this, I'll be called a racist white supremacist too. But then its always been easier to throw slurs rather than doing actual balanced historical research."

[Purple Martin]

I’m glad events of the last few years have finally resulted in action to restore some honor to the South by removing from the facilities of my military, the names of those who—violating their oaths for the single overriding purpose of protecting White Men’s Rights to enslave Black human beings—committed Constitutionally-defined treason against their country (Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1).

And I’m familiar with the Lost Cause apologia you promote in defense of these traitors, including the pseudo-academic network generating counterfactual evidence and excuses for the value of evil, that you quote without having any idea of its origin.

These military installations were named by 20th Century white supremacists, after long-dead 19th Century white supremacists and traitors, in a cynical service of maintaining local government white supremacy.

The local popularity of the individuals in question was almost all due to their later success as either symbols or active agents of Lost Cause myth, and their unapologetic brutality while either reversing the gains of Reconstruction, or during the following century spent in enabling and enforcing the de facto apartheid of Jim Crow across the South (including all three waves of KKK terrorism).

Their monuments, whether statues or military bases, are based on their namesakes’ success in, for a time, delaying American progress toward a more perfect union. That time is over. The statues will come down, the bases renamed. Their stories will still be told, but only as lessons-learned in human fallibility.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here was what my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a-few-suggestions-for-renaming-americas-military-bases-currently-named-for-confederates/#comment-4538946

All of the bases should be renamed after Pokemon, Super Mario and Spongebob characters. At least that way the whole thing would be treated with the seriousness that it merits.

[CocoN8]

It's less about the history and more about the branding.

Most Americans today have no idea who Fort Bragg was named after, what he did, or why the fort was named for him. The images evoked by the name "Fort Bragg" have nothing to do with the man Bragg at all and everything to do with happens there.

The name "Fort Bragg" has brand equity that evokes images of the dedication and skill of the special forces who have trained there. A soldier who says he trained at Fort Bragg can claim a cachet that having trained at Fort Moore cannot. The name "Fort Liberty" doesn't have those decades of brand equity to give it the same aura of respect.

So my tongue in cheek suggestion: rename Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg, but make it known that it's not being named after Braxton Bragg, but rather is being named after the Fort where thousands of Rangers and Special Forces personnel used to train for their dangerous and important missions.