![]() ![]() Kuhn, set only the vaguest of rules: The names should honor officers who had a connection to the region and who were “not unpopular” in the area, and they should be short, to save “clerical labor.” Beyond that, the Army seemed not to have cared much. The military officials in charge of naming the posts, including Brig. ![]() Southern towns feverishly lobbied for them and for the economic benefits they would bring. The country needed camps to house and train troops. ![]() It seems that many of the posts were established around the time of World War I - about 50 years after Robert E. Besides, the military installations didn’t get named in the immediate aftermath of the war as an act of spontaneous reconciliation. A congressionally appointed commission is now overseeing the renaming process and must report back by October 2022.īut we were under no obligation to glorify their vanquished cause or memorialize their leaders. When President Trump vetoed the legislation (of course he did!), his veto was overridden. Plenty of people have rightly demanded that those names be removed - and last year, Congress voted to do so. Hill and Gordon, dotted across the American South. Beauregard, Benning, Lee, Pickett, Rucker, A.P. Bragg in North Carolina, named after Braxton Bragg, an irascible Confederate general. ![]() Yet that’s exactly what the United States did. So isn’t it kind of off-message, to say the least, to name military posts after the rebel officers who fought for the losing side? The last I checked, the Confederate army lost the Civil War. How did the United States come to have nearly a dozen military installations named not after its heroes but after its enemies - men who led a war against the country and killed tens of thousands of people in defense of the indefensible institution of slavery? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |