Republicans On Senate Armed Services Committee Agree To Rename Bases Named For Confederates

It is astounding how often Republicans get on their knees and give the Democrats everything they want then wonder why they cannot energize their base.

There has been an effort tor rename military bases that are named after Confederate soldiers in the aftermath of the riots that swept the nation this month.

And there may be good reason to rename these bases, and the Confederacy was created as an effort to separate certain states from the United States.

An argument can be made, as it can be made that a black soldier could feel uncomfortable at a base named for a military leader who was on the side of keeping slavery.

But what should never be done is making a rash decision as emotions are high and people are not debating or thinking about anything.

But that is what the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is led by Republicans, did as it caved to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Roll Call reported.

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday voted to require the Pentagon to rename military bases and other assets named after Confederate generals, a move that puts the Republican-led panel on a collision course with the White House.

The committee adopted an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill that gives the Defense Department three years to remove the names of Confederate generals from U.S. military assets, according to a source familiar with the closed-door proceedings.

The language, adopted by voice vote as President Donald Trump preemptively threatened to veto any defense bill that did just that, affects massive bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia. But it also goes further and includes everything from ships to streets on Defense Department property.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren offered the provision, which she previewed on Twitter.

“I filed an amendment to the annual defense bill last week to rename all bases named for Confederate generals. It’s long past time to end the tribute to white supremacy on our military installations,” she said on Wednesday.

She sent her tweet in response to an opinion piece in The Atlantic penned by former Gen. David Petraeus who said the bases should be renamed.

My life in uniform essentially unfolded at a series of what might be termed “rebel forts.” I made many parachutes jumps with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and I also jumped with 82nd Airborne paratroopers at Fort Pickett, in Virginia (a National Guard post), and Fort Polk, in Louisiana. I made official visits to Virginia’s Forts Pickett and Lee, to Texas’s Fort Hood, and to Alabama’s Fort Rucker.* In Georgia, I visited Fort Gordon, and I attended Airborne School, Ranger School, and the Infantry Officer Basic Course—rites of passage for countless infantry soldiers—at Fort Benning. At the time, I was oblivious to the fact that what was then called the “Home of the Infantry” was named for Henry L. Benning, a Confederate general who was such an enthusiast for slavery that as early as 1849 he argued for the dissolution of the Union and the formation of a Southern slavocracy. Fort Benning’s physical location, on former Native American territory that became the site of a plantation, itself illustrates the turbulent layers beneath the American landscape.

It would be years before I reflected on the individuals for whom these posts were named. While on active duty, in fact, I never thought much about these men—about the nature of their service during the Civil War, their postwar activities (which in John Brown Gordon’s case likely included a leadership role in the first Ku Klux Klan), the reasons they were honored, or the timing of the various forts’ dedications. Nor did I think about the messages those names sent to the many African Americans serving on these installations—messages that should have been noted by all of us. Like many aspects of the military, the forts themselves have so shrouded in a tradition that everything about them seemed rock-solid, time tested, immortal. Their names had taken on new layers of meaning that allowed us to ignore the individuals for whom they were named.

But the question is where does it end? If you think renaming these bases would satisfy the mob you are likely incorrect.

It is reasonable to assume that the rage mob would want anything that was named for anyone who owned slaves, which is ever Founding Father, to be changed.