Final Army Base Naming Commission Report

[GoAU 1,603]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:05 AM, icanthearyou said:

Please.  I have watched that nonsense all of my life.  We should all be disappointed by our ancestors.  They were not good people.  Our grandparents who supported segregation were not good people.

When hate is the basis of your culture, you culture is stinks.  I am always happy when you are disappointed in me.  You aren't a bad person.  You are a far too typical person.  Be honest, without regard to tradition.

Does everything have to be binary with regards to our forefathers and history in general?   There were many great achievements and accomplishments in our country, and also some very real shortcomings.   Within that very broad statement, there are truly some very bad, evil people, there are some very great people that were ahead of their times, and most were in one of many shades of grey.  In many (but not all) respects America led the way as a beacon for diversity and is till one of the most diverse nations on Earth.  Certainly at some time in the future, our generation will be looked at with hindsight on all sorts of issues - time will tell.   Some things are very easy to predict, others not so much.  The best thing we can do with history is not to demonize it, deny it, or hide it - but to study it and learn from it.  
 

America was referred to as the “Great Experiment” for a reason.  I don’t think our founders got everything right, but overal they did a pretty good job - better than anyone else at that time.  Over the years we’ve done a lot of improving.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Does everything have to be binary with regards to our forefathers and history in general?

Of course not.  However, owning other human beings, going to war for that right, manipulating others into that war on your behalf cannot be rationalized.  It should absolutely not be romanticized or, glorified.

You do not have to "demonize" the south.  The cause of the south was pure inhumanity, exploitation.  Is there any debate?

Let's not pretend that demonizing pure evil is in any way a wrong interpretation of this history.  Let's not rationalize by saying our ancestry was wrong but,,, they had other redeeming qualities.  In the moment, in the cause, there is no good, only treason, only inhumanity.

If you cannot see the cause of the South for what it was, then that is denying, hiding from history.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

 The best thing we can do with history is not to demonize it, deny it, or hide it - but to study it and learn from it.  

Unfortunately it's obvious some people are hysterical about historical things.

[GoAU 1,603]

13 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Of course not.  However, owning other human beings, going to war for that right, manipulating others into that war on your behalf cannot be rationalized.  It should absolutely not be romanticized or, glorified.

You do not have to "demonize" the south.  The cause of the south was pure inhumanity, exploitation.  Is there any debate?

Let's not pretend that demonizing pure evil is in any way a wrong interpretation of this history.  Let's not rationalize by saying our ancestry was wrong but,,, they had other redeeming qualities.  In the moment, in the cause, there is no good, only treason, only inhumanity.

If you cannot see the cause of the South for what it was, then that is denying, hiding from history.

I may have taken your prior comment out of context - I thought you were referring to our history and forefathers in total, but maybe you are just referring to the context of the civil war?  If so, I see your point more clearly.  However I don’t feel that the entire war was based purely on slavery.  It was a VERY significant portion, I agree, but I think it also had to do with states asserting control of others.  BTW, I see this also manifesting itself in numerous other areas today - politics, social programs,  abortion, gun rights, etc.  

I am in no way defending the absolute evil of slavery.  

[Son of A Tiger 561]

13 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I may have taken your prior comment out of context - I thought you were referring to our history and forefathers in total, but maybe you are just referring to the context of the civil war?  If so, I see your point more clearly.  However I don’t feel that the entire war was based purely on slavery.  It was a VERY significant portion, I agree, but I think it also had to do with states asserting control of others.  BTW, I see this also manifesting itself in numerous other areas today - politics, social programs,  abortion, gun rights, etc.  

I am in no way defending the absolute evil of slavery.  

You are correct in pointing out that the initial start of the Civil War was about state's rights. Slavery did soon become the overarching issue. And some, as obvious here, will only condemn the South for owning slaves. They forget that Presidents Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. And Gen. Grant, et. al., even had slaves but sent them West when the war started.

I also find it interesting to note that many of the slaves coming to America were sold by black traders in Africa. Also few even know that there were more white slaves sent to South America (Brazil) by Europe than there were black slaves to America.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I may have taken your prior comment out of context - I thought you were referring to our history and forefathers in total, but maybe you are just referring to the context of the civil war?  If so, I see your point more clearly.  However I don’t feel that the entire war was based purely on slavery.  It was a VERY significant portion, I agree, but I think it also had to do with states asserting control of others.  BTW, I see this also manifesting itself in numerous other areas today - politics, social programs,  abortion, gun rights, etc.  

I am in no way defending the absolute evil of slavery.  

Happy to find some agreement.

Ultimately, I believe it is the same old political conflict replaying itself throughout history,,, economic interests colliding with principles, beliefs, ideals.  Very interesting reading the thoughts of Jefferson and Madison.  Both seem to conclude that their actions are inherently wrong yet,,, both seem to make the admission that they enjoy their wealth too much to yield to their principles (on a personal level).   How often do economic interests take priority over our principles and ideals?  IMHO, this is much of what real politics is all about.  IMHO, this is often the crossroads at which most of our most grievous errors occur.  IMHO, this is how we are tested as a society, nation, people.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Happy to find some agreement.

Ultimately, I believe it is the same old political conflict replaying itself throughout history,,, economic interests colliding with principles, beliefs, ideals.  Very interesting reading the thoughts of Jefferson and Madison.  Both seem to conclude that their actions are inherently wrong yet,,, both seem to make the admission that they enjoy their wealth too much to yield to their principles (on a personal level).   How often do economic interests take priority over our principles and ideals?  IMHO, this is much of what real politics is all about.  IMHO, this is often the crossroads at which most of our most grievous errors occur.  IMHO, this is how we are tested as a society, nation, people.

I agree but ask..... why do you so vehemently condemn the "cause of the South" in an earlier post when it fits your narrative here.

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

How often do economic interests take priority over our principles and ideals? 

This…..Every time someone states *my body, my choice* 

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Let's not rationalize by saying our ancestry was wrong but,,, they had other redeeming qualities.  In the moment, in the cause, there is no good, only treason, only inhumanity.

You are going to find few families that see their ancestry as treasonous and inhumane. Having seen my great great grandfathers will he was a slave owner. Slaves were passed to his heirs in the will, along with a gray horse, two rifles, and his property. The property consisted of a home and several hundred acres. The land has been divided but remains in the family today.

  I can only assume my great grandfather acquired all during the period of abolition. Never really a discussion about it through years of extended family gatherings. I do remember the civil rights period and can without doubt say my parents were not on the segregationists side.
 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,185]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

You are correct in pointing out that the initial start of the Civil War was about state's rights. Slavery did soon become the overarching issue.

 

Slavery was the overarching issue from Day 1 of the Confederacy and the civil war. Go read the State succession papers and the words of the confederates themselves. The Confederacy made no secret that the preservation of slavery was the top, most important issue for them at the time and the reason for their attempted separation from the U.S.

 

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

 

And some, as obvious here, will only condemn the South for owning slaves. They forget that Presidents Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. And Gen. Grant, et. al., even had slaves but sent them West when the war started.

 

Nobody forgets that?

Also nobody condemns the South just for owning slaves. People blame the south for breaking away from the US and fighting a war to preserve slavery from being ended.

Everybody and every group in the US owned slaves at one point in our history....only the Southern Confederates fought a war to keep it from ending. 

 

 

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

Also few even know that there were more white slaves sent to South America (Brazil) by Europe than there were black slaves to America.

 

do you have a source for this claim? While there were some white European slaves that were sent to Brazil, the vast majority of Brazilian slaves were from indigenous South American tribes and Blacks from Africa. 

 

 

 

[AUDub 11,184]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

You are correct in pointing out that the initial start of the Civil War was about state's rights. Slavery did soon become the overarching issue.

Slavery was always the overarching issue. The south didn't secede over tariffs, the other issue that had been simmering for decades. They seceded when a Republican abolitionist won the election. 

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

And some, as obvious here, will only condemn the South for owning slaves. They forget that Presidents Washington and Jefferson owned slaves.

True, and it greatly complicates their respective legacies.

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

And Gen. Grant, et. al., even had slaves but sent them West when the war started.

It's a little muddier than that.

Grant himself only ever owned one slave, but he married into a slaveholding family, the Dents, so his wife and her side of the family was intimately tied to the institution. Colonel Dent, his father in law, refused to allow Grant legal ownership of the slaves because Grant's father was a well known opponent of slavery and Grant himself was perceived to not be a "slavery man."

Regarding the aforementioned zlave, he only ever held the title to William Jones - likely a gift from his father in law - whom he voluntarily emancipated in short order. 

When it comes to his his motives during the war, as it was with Lincoln, abolition was secondary to preservation of the union. 

End of the day there's some good and some bad here. On the one hand it's telling that he freed the only slave he ever owned when he could have sold him for a hefty profit when he and his family needed the money. On the other, it's not a good look that his wife had  slave attachés (Black Jules being the most well known) accompanying her when he could have put a stop to it, even after the emancipation proclamation. This caused quite a stink, even prompting a letter to Lincoln regarding hypocrisy. Black Jules eventually had to voluntarily emancipate (i.e. run away).

Julia Dent certainly muddied the waters on his legacy.

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

I also find it interesting to note that many of the slaves coming to America were sold by black traders in Africa.

That's interesting considering we banned the international slave trade in 1808. Jefferson, by the way, and his motive may not have been entirely pure. Google "Jefferson and 4%," where is seems he realized slaves were an investment opportunity. Breeding slaves was big business. Again, complicated legacy.

By the time the Civil War rolled around nearly all of the slaves here were born here, and a lot (a LOT) of the south's capital was tied up in human beings.

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

Also few even know that there were more white slaves sent to South America (Brazil) by Europe than there were black slaves to America.

Nonsense. To the degree white Europeans were brought here, it was under indentured servitude. Still an exploitative system of labor, but a far cry from chattel slavery African Americans faced. 

Brazil, along with many other areas of the Caribbean,  are human horror stories when it comes to slavery. The average imported slave only lived about 7 years, so they imported millions to keep the sugar cane industry going. 

And the vast majority of those slaves were imported from Africa. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,184]

The concept of whiteness applied to chattel slaves is an interesting one.

At the time of the Civil War, it was illegal to own white people. That did not apply to mulatto people, folks of mixed racial heritage. As a result, people that appeared white could have been enslaved due to having a black mother and a white father. Slave owners were famously rapey, after all.

Even worse, in their application as chattel, mulatto people were often valued at a premium for use as sex slaves.

Abolitionists even made a rallying cry of this. One angle of attack was that slave owners were so enamored with the wealth the slave trade brought that they would even debase their own children.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Not even the context of time can justify certain inhumanities.  As my mother used to say, "just because everyone else is doing it,,, doesn't make it right".

Our ancestors represent the best and the worst of us today.  When we deny their misdeeds in order to preserve their reverence, we only delude ourselves, we diminish their positive contributions to humankind, we perpetuate the injustices of the past.

We are responsible for the sins of our forefathers since, we are still living with the effects today.  Until we admit to them, atone for them, we will be haunted by them.

There is no binary choice here.  You can love the ideals, principles, aspirations of our forefathers and,,, still condemn their inability to live up to those ideals, principles, aspirations.

Power is the enemy of liberty, justice, equality.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 1/8/2023 at 11:31 AM, Son of A Tiger said:

You are correct in pointing out that the initial start of the Civil War was about state's rights.

A grotesque lie on which many other lies are built.  "States Rights" means little more than,,, the power elite in this state will decide what happens here, not the federal government.

The lie that rallied poor to fight for the economic interests of the wealthy.  The lie that institutionalized racism.  The lie that entrenches power.  The lie that holds us ALL back to this day. 

[homersapien 11,460]

On 1/8/2023 at 12:04 PM, icanthearyou said:

Of course not.  However, owning other human beings, going to war for that right, manipulating others into that war on your behalf cannot be rationalized.  It should absolutely not be romanticized or, glorified.

You do not have to "demonize" the south.  The cause of the south was pure inhumanity, exploitation.  Is there any debate?

Let's not pretend that demonizing pure evil is in any way a wrong interpretation of this history.  Let's not rationalize by saying our ancestry was wrong but,,, they had other redeeming qualities.  In the moment, in the cause, there is no good, only treason, only inhumanity.

If you cannot see the cause of the South for what it was, then that is denying, hiding from history.

"The" south is a little too all-encompassing.  Slavery was promoted by a relatively small percentage of very wealthy southerners, as was the war.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"The" south is a little too all-encompassing.  Slavery was promoted by a relatively small percentage of very wealthy southerners, as was the war.

I understand your point but, I disagree.

Allowing yourself to be manipulated is not an excuse.  That is part of the problem.  People still don't want to admit that their ancestors were duped by a purely self-serving over class.  People still want to believe int the "lost cause", "states rights".  People still want to protect the "image" of the antebellum plantation "south".  Plantations were not a nice place where refined people sipped mint juleps. 

[homersapien 11,460]

On 1/8/2023 at 12:23 PM, GoAU said:

I may have taken your prior comment out of context - I thought you were referring to our history and forefathers in total, but maybe you are just referring to the context of the civil war?  If so, I see your point more clearly.  However I don’t feel that the entire war was based purely on slavery.  It was a VERY significant portion, I agree, but I think it also had to do with states asserting control of others.  BTW, I see this also manifesting itself in numerous other areas today - politics, social programs,  abortion, gun rights, etc.  

I am in no way defending the absolute evil of slavery.  

Southern secession was pretty much based on slavery, period.  It was the "core" issue. Just read the speeches and papers of secessionists themselves. 

And there was no history of the north "asserting control" over the south, in fact it was just the opposite.  The south controlled the north right up until Lincoln was elected.  The south did not secede until they perceived a coming loss of that control.

I highly recommend the following book:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=apostles+of+disunion

Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War (A Nation Divided: Studies in the Civil War Era)

In late 1860 and early 1861, state-appointed commissioners traveled the length and breadth of the slave South carrying a fervent message in pursuit of a clear goal: to persuade the political leadership and the citizenry of the uncommitted slave states to join in the effort to destroy the Union and forge a new Southern nation.

Directly refuting the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was neither the reason for secession nor the catalyst for the resulting onset of hostilities in 1861, Charles B. Dew finds in the commissioners' brutally candid rhetoric a stark white supremacist ideology that proves the contrary. The commissioners included in their speeches a constitutional justification for secession, to be sure, and they pointed to a number of political "outrages" committed by the North in the decades prior to Lincoln's election. But the core of their argument―the reason the right of secession had to be invoked and invoked immediately―did not turn on matters of constitutional interpretation or political principle. Over and over again, the commissioners returned to the same point: that Lincoln's election signaled an unequivocal commitment on the part of the North to destroy slavery and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.

Dew's discovery and study of the highly illuminating public letters and speeches of these apostles of disunion―often relatively obscure men sent out to convert the unconverted to the secessionist cause--have led him to suggest that the arguments the commissioners presented provide us with the best evidence we have of the motives behind the secession of the lower South in 1860–61.

Addressing topics still hotly debated among historians and the public at large more than a century after the Civil War, Dew challenges many current perceptions of the causes of the conflict. He offers a compelling and clearly substantiated argument that slavery and race were absolutely critical factors in the outbreak of war―indeed, that they were at the heart of our great national crisis.

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,184]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"The" south is a little too all-encompassing.  Slavery was promoted by a relatively small percentage of very wealthy southerners, as was the war.

As with most wars, "rich man's war,  poor man's fight."

[AUDub 11,184]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

...and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.

The Confederacy was about fear.

Fear of what would happen when all of those slaves were freed.

[AU9377 5,051]

On 1/5/2023 at 5:24 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Because the Confederacy fought against and killed members of the US military. The Same US military that controls these bases....

Why would the US military want it's bases named after Confederates? 

I do think that this falls into the category of not having a problem with something until someone decides to tell people that they should have a problem with whatever that something is.  There were a lot of things named for Confederate Generals etc in the effort to bring the country back together.  Lincoln was a huge proponent of doing this in order to show good faith and re-build a sense of trust.

On one hand, it doesn't matter to me what these bases are named and I don't have a problem re-naming them. On the other, I get frustrated with some groups looking for problems where there are none.  I also get very exhausted with judging the character of men that lived 100 years ago by the standards we hold today.  I believe that is both unreasonable and hypocritical.  None of us would believe the way we do today about many issues had we lived in a different time.

Edited January 11, 2023 by AU9377

[AU9377 5,051]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

The Confederacy was about fear.

Fear of what would happen when all of those slaves were freed.

On the part of the wealthy land owners yes, but for the average soldier, the war they were fighting wasn't simply about freeing slaves.  Being a confederate soldier doesn't make those men evil.  They simply lived in a state that was fighting and they had a duty to do their part.

[DKW 86 7,450]

On 1/6/2023 at 9:30 AM, icanthearyou said:

Southerners just can't help themselves.  We still want to glorify the legacy of treason and inhumanity.   We are truly ignorant of our "history".

There was NOTHING good about the confederacy.  Unless of course, you like treason, fascism, murder, rape, owning other human beings.

Showing the South deference was a monumental mistake.

HHHHMMM...And what party gave all that, Jim Crowe, Lynchings, the KKK, etc to the nation? I wonder who that was...lol

[DKW 86 7,450]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

As with most wars, "rich man's war,  poor man's fight."

All wars are that way. The longer we go as a nation, I am sure that that trend will get stronger with every war.

[AUDub 11,184]

43 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

On the part of the wealthy land owners yes, but for the average soldier, the war they were fighting wasn't simply about freeing slaves.  Being a confederate soldier doesn't make those men evil.  They simply lived in a state that was fighting and they had a duty to do their part.

The Confederacy couldn't meet their manpower goals and many of those soldiers were conscripted. They had to institute a draft well before the north did. Desertion was also common. 

The war wasn't particularly popular on either end of the spectrum. 

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Not even the context of time can justify certain inhumanities.  As my mother used to say, "just because everyone else is doing it,,, doesn't make it right".

Our ancestors represent the best and the worst of us today.  When we deny their misdeeds in order to preserve their reverence, we only delude ourselves, we diminish their positive contributions to humankind, we perpetuate the injustices of the past.

We are responsible for the sins of our forefathers since, we are still living with the effects today.  Until we admit to them, atone for them, we will be haunted by them.

There is no binary choice here.  You can love the ideals, principles, aspirations of our forefathers and,,, still condemn their inability to live up to those ideals, principles, aspirations.

Power is the enemy of liberty, justice, equality.

Admit is understandable. What do you mean by atone?

Edited January 11, 2023 by SaltyTiger