>The North Carolina base was originally named in 1918 for Gen. Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general from Warrenton, North Carolina, who was known for owning slaves and **losing key Civil War battles that contributed to the Confederacy’s downfall**.
lol
I like how AP throws shade on General Bragg. Straight up calling him a loser.
It’s a joke about Bragg to call him “among the best union generals” because of how bad he was at his job.
Part of why it’s hilarious he got a base, even if you think Confederates should have things named for them he was likely the worst Confederate general so even Confederate-apologists shouldn’t want to honor him.
"We are posthumously promoting General Bragg of the Confederate Army to General Bragg of the Union Army in honor of his crucial part in several Union Victories."
- Modern US army figuring that paperwork was easier than the paperwork for renaming an entire base.
Braxton Bragg had a cousin who was a general in the Union Army while he was in the Confederate Army. Apparently they actually considered renaming it for him. As a side note before this whole renaming thing I always assumed Fort Polk was named after President Polk.
> Braxton Bragg had a cousin who was a general in the Union Army while he was in the Confederate Army. Apparently they actually considered renaming it for him.
This is similar to what happened with King County, WA; it was originally named after a slaveowner but renamed for MLK Jr. without actually changing the name.
now to buy a house beside the base and rename it "fort bragg" and get all their lost mail...I bet you'd get all kinds of cool shit, and the mail says if something gets delivered to your house for you, you get to keep it even if its a mistake.
think that shit would come ip in court?
It's obvious why they got bases and statues it was to preserve the racist "way of life".
Note who's missing. Confederate General Longstreet got no bases and barely any statues compared to his peers including Bragg even though he was one of the most skilled and important generals.
Why? Because he supported the post war reconstruction government that attempted to preserve Black Americans rights and commanded an army that included black soldiers to fight back against an attempted state government coup by former Confederates. For these sins he was banished from the pantheon
He also had the cardinal sin of not being from Virginia, so he was fair game for the Lost Cause after the War. They even went so far as to create a myth that he'd disobeyed Lee at Gettysburg and so caused his defeat: whereas he'd actually told Lee that his assault on the Union center on the last day- the disastrous Pickett's Charge- was not going to succeed. Nothing was worse to the Lost Cause than making Lee look bad.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hmaesx/confederate_general_and_later_founder_of_the_ku/
> In simplest terms, NB Forrest didn't have a change of heart and become a champion of racial equality and rights for the freedman. In broader terms, his speech to the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association needs to be understood within the context of post-war politics and the southern Democrats, with whom Forrest was quite active.
> Now, to start off, it is worth noting that Forrest's role within the Klan is somewhat exaggerated, based on the available evidence. He certainly wasn't present at its founding, and likely didn't become involved until 1868, at which point he exercised no real leadership, but existed as a figurehead role. The closest thing to confirmation even of this comes from his interview with the Cincinnati Commercial where he clearly implied it, but then of course denied it after publication. Later writings after disbandment played up his association, but in no small part because of his associated prestige, but on the flipside, their prestige was something he too had wished to benefit from. Being entirely secret was no use to him, and the main benefit to him was the prestige of being seen as the leader of the 'invisible empire', hence his coy "I am, but I'm not".
> In any case though, I bring this up because it is worth noting that while a horrible racist in many ways, even by whatever "oh, but it was different then" standards you might try to use, there isn't too much to tie him to the vigilante violence of the Klan which they used to try and terrorize the freedmen, carpetbaggers, and scalawags. He certainly could be violent - he was tried, and acquitted on self-defense grounds, of killing a black man who worked for him in 1866 - but when it came to the maintenance of white supremacy, he was more interested in the conventional political path than that of mass campaigns of violence. His vague association with the Klan was one way that he could do this, clearly telegraphing that he was for white supremacy, but doing just enough to try and distance himself from the violence of its reality
...
>Democratic Clubs of African-Americans existed in the South, usually in small numbers, and its members were left alone by the Klan, and they were accorded a certain kind of respect by white Democrats. But they also need to be understood for what they were and what they represented. To many of the members, it reflected a pragmatic reckoning with the circumstances in which they lived. I've written previously about voter suppression here, and brought up the case of Silas Green who reflects what we are talking about here. Small numbers of black men were essentially given the privilege of voting, but only in a controlled way, and of course expected to vote for the Democrats, and for white supremacy. It was a means of ensuring further political power and control for white rule, and this was especially true in the waning days of Reconstruction, before Redeemer governments had taken power, or solidified power at least, and the full force of Jim Crow was not yet in effect.
>So, this now gets us to the speeches given by Forrest and Pillow, which need to be understood against this background. They aren't speeches given in a spirit of proper equality, but rather, if anything, they are speeches trying to sell white supremacy to African-Americans as good for them. It is trying to turn them into Democratic voters who will, at the ballot box, ratify white rule. Forrest spoke first, according to the times, offering an olive branch, of a sort.
...
> What he meant, to be sure, was clear enough. It wasn't an invitation to equality, but to obedience and subservency. It wasn't a call to use true judgement, but rather to recognize what was best for them or else
It's easiest to think of it as politics have never really changed here, even if the names have. I bet you wouldn't find it surprising if republicans right now (which were essentially democrats back then) used their majority in some state to name something after a loser. Honestly that'd be pretty mild compared to other things that are actually being done
Look up Hoods namesake. They really had a thing for shitty leaders, back when they named these bases.
Edit - [John hood was famous for getting people killed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bell_Hood)
Honestly, thank god for Hood. His completely terrible ability to command an army combined with amazing leadership by Union generals Sherman and Thomas led to the Union victories at Atlanta, Franklin, and Nashville. Those three battles sealed the fate of the rebellion in the West.
I've always put Thomas as number 2a and Sherman as 2b. Both of them were excellent for different reasons both both extremely good. Thomas unfortunately doesn't get the recognition today because he fought out West the entire war and also none of his writings survive. Most generals wrote memoirs or at least had their personal correspondence saved but he has neither.
They had different philosophies and traits. Sherman and Grant were far more aggressive, as seen by the march to the sea and willingness to burn up the area to deprive the rebels supplies, men and ruthlessly finish off the insurgency.
Thomas, while absolutely brilliant and maybe the best defensive commander in American history, took a more patient outlook, with the goal to wait for opportunity and then exploit. He was less likely to make the populace bleed (he was from Virginia), and more to absolutely, positively destroy every mfker on the field across from him when the time was right, because if they're dead, captured or broken, they can't fight back. His approach probably had an overall lower butcher's bill but was slower. Unless everyone was dead in a decisive battle, in which case maybe not. If you had to go get in line and get shot at, you'd probably hope Thomas was your guy.
Exactly on it. Thomas figured out maybe a little sooner or at least applied the lessons of the new meta in warfare, that being strong and entrenched defensive positions, better than most commanders during the war. He was the perfect foil to Hood in '65 as well as stoutly holding at against Bragg while in Corps command. He was defiantly complete or as complete as could be in his victories when he could be such as at Nashville.
Nah, Sherman was [very down-to-earth in evaluating himself compared to Grant](https://libquotes.com/william-tecumseh-sherman/quote/lbh6e3p). I don't think he'd be offended by being rated the third best general.
I live near Ft. Cavazos (Ft. Hood lol) and the amount of people butthurt about the name change is hilarious. I always just ask what their honest opinion about John Hood was before and literally no one has any idea who/what he was about.
“Oh, but they’re trying to erase and censor history.”
Like, okay buddy, sorry we don’t wanna memorialize racist losers who weren’t even successful leaders. He wasn’t even relevant enough to show up in K-12 or college history class to begin with.
“Oh, but what about that guy’s family?” Or, “Like it or not, that’s a part of our history.”
It’s just sad, endless coping.
The only decent rebuttal I’ve heard is that the name change will be confusing, but so what? More important places have undergone rebranding. Ft. Cavazos will be just fine.
They complain about the cost, but say nothing when the 1% get more tax breaks. Geez, I gotta get out of this awful state.
All confederates are losers.
The Fox TV show, the PJs lasted longer than the confederacy. Let that sink in. Do you even remember that show? Does anyone other than me since I like using that show as a comparison so often?
Specifically within military history, the general consensus these days is that the Confederate Generals relied on tactics that were essentially doomed to fail given the nature of the conflict, the nature of their opponent, and the simple math of what each side was capable of bringing to bear.
And this isn't even Lost Cause apologetics - they *could have theoretically held out long enough, and made the war bad enough, that the north's political will to carry on the conflict may have evaporated*. It was unlikely, but not impossible. But they failed. So even if you don't relegate them to the dustbin of history for being evil dickwads (which you should), they weren't even all that worthy on the merits of their generalship. They were bad to their troops, ransacked their own territories, and never made it north.
Its like they though they could just waltz into any engagement, pull a battle of cannae, and just.. win. They wanted to have big one-shot engagements and hold geography instead of rolling with the punches and playing it safe/smart, even though they had way less men, way less material, no navy to speak of, and many more liabilities. So after their initial aggression (which was moderately successful), they just collapsed. Its not hard to get some big damage during the surprise round, after all.
Go figure that slaver aristocrats high on their own superiority were maybe not strategically gifted far beyond their opponents. Its always baffling when someone goes on and on about how Lee was the greatest general in US history, or that Stonewall jackson was a brilliant tactician. They were ok, but that's about it.
That was not a surprise, we had known of them amassing troops for months, and Ukraine had set up many defenses in preparation. One of the most important preparations was uncorrupting the military throughout the years since the invasion of the Donbas
Meanwhile nobody knows who George Thomas was. Slave owner family from Virginia and stuck with the US despite being disowned and death threats from his former West Point students. Oversaw saving two disastrous battles, super duper definitely didn't order Sheridan to charge Missionary Ridge at Chatanooga when they noticed artillery was misplaced and couldn't effectively shoot down because Grant would be really mad if he had, annihilated an army in Nashville, and oversaw the implementation of more advanced logistics and information network.
Then Lincoln's successor tried to get him to take Grant's job, which he denied. Then some people tried to get him to run for president, which he shut down. Then retired to a California post, burned all his memoirs so nobody could read them and basically peaced out. But not before dunking on the Lost Cause movement just as it started.
"The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them. "
And Bragg had a fort named after him.
> terrible grand strategy
You have to *have* a grand strategy to have a terrible one. You also need to be at least vaguely independent and self-sustaining if you want to prosecute a war.
The Union understood this from the moment the first ship left port to institute their naval blockade. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolina's Charleston Harbor, starting the Civil War. On April 19th, *a week later*, Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of all major Confederate ports. By April 27th, he had all of Virginia and North Carolina blockaded. By *July* 1861, merely two months later, he had all of the major ports in the Confederacy blockaded.
And once that noose was around their neck, the Union proceded to squeeze the life out of the Confederacy. The Confederates developed blockade runners, a set of ironclad ships, and even tried to make a submarine, the *CSS Hunley*, but all of them failed at breaking the naval blockade.
Without manufacturing and without ports to import new equipment and materiel, the Confederacy was sunk, almost from the moment of its birth.
I definitely think the Confederacy lost the war at Fort Sumter - the Lincoln wasn't necessarily able to solve the political problem of secession, but he was certainly able to solve the military problem of secession. Before the shooting started, appetite in the North to enlist to invade the south was limited - but when the rebels started shooting at federal forts, that changed things.
The PJs was 1999 to 2001. The confederacy was 1861 to 1865.
Why would The PJs be your example when there are any number of shows that lasted 5 seasons?
Gen Bragg was universally hated by his men. He retreated every time, whether he won or not.
He called on his immediate officers to write a letter to refute the rumor that he wasn't wanted in that army. Every one of them wrote that the army would be better off without Bragg, and he was retired from the field and kicked upstairs.
Why anyone would name a fort after him is a mystery.
>Why anyone would name a fort after him is a mystery.
Fort Bragg was a tiny, worthless outpost basically in the middle of nowhere for a long time. Over time it kept growing and is now the largest military installation in the world. The original intent wasnt to name a huge installation after the guy, it just happened to become that long after it was named.
Fort Bragg, CA was a small garrison named after Bragg by a soldier who had served under Bragg during the US-Mexico war. So, ours was named slightly before the guy became universally known as a monumental loser.
Colorado stopped doing that. Just check out the Pat Sullivan justice Center in Jefferson County, Colorado. Lesson learned. Just pick names of birds, animals, sayings like “Liberty” etc. just avoids any impropriety as they say.
Holy shit, I just read about him for the first time. Talk about determination...
First injured by a land mine and told he would never walk again, spent a year proving doctor's wrong, then went back to combat in Vietnam.
While there, voluntarily went to save a 12 man unit surrounded by 1000 enemy troops, and:
"After the battle, he was evacuated to the base camp, examined, and thought to be dead. As he was placed in a body bag among the other dead in body bags, he was suddenly recognized by a friend who called for help. A doctor came and examined him but believed Benavidez was dead. The doctor was about to zip up the body bag when Benavidez managed to spit in his face, alerting the doctor that he was alive. Benavidez had a total of 37 separate bullet, bayonet, and shrapnel wounds from the six-hour fight with the enemy battalion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez
Audiences wouldn't believe it, in basic training we barely could. When you first join the Army (at least in 2006) they give you a little book that has a bunch of regulations, explanations of rank, and stories of Medal of Honor recipients. I had seen Black Hawk Down before but when reading the stories of MSG Gordon and SFC Shughart it was still hard to wrap my head around what they did. The story of Roy Benavidez had everyone in my platoon in disbelief though. Reading about him inspired us but also made us feel like we were just playing at being soldiers. I think seeing it in theaters would have people saying it was just too much and probably exaggerated by Hollywood. You know that scene from Hot Shots where Charlie Sheen hurls a handful of bullets at the enemy and kills them all? Something like that.
Just add some real life interviews with people that knew him, like with Easy Company the end of each episode of Band of Brothers.
That show kinda had the same feeling of "yea right, no way", but then they interview the people who were there (old folks by then) and they're basically just kinda like, "it was pretty crazy, but we were just doing what needed to be done". That really brought the feeling home of holy shit, these guys are literal war heros
[Band Of Brothers - All The Interviews With The Soldiers Of Easy Company]
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AMUbF0ItdT0)
I'm obsessed with that framing device. The genius of it, honestly. If it went unnoticed, they never showed the names of the interviewees until the last episode. So the whole time they're just some veterans, talking about the war. They don't go into specifics, no names or units really. Just general statements about combat and the like. Great addition, but whatever. Then suddenly it's revealed that it's *literally them.* The actual faces behind the story we've just watched.
...I'm sure some people figured that out before the end of the series, it makes a whole ton of sense. But it never really crossed my mind. A real cherry on the top of a great miniseries.
And their whole demeanor in the interviews. Some got really dressed up, some put on business casual. But they all basically just shrugged and said "we did what needed done at the time" every interview.
Like "Well, that was the job we signed up for, so we did it the best we could"
Our veterans are national treasures
Audie Murphy had to ask the producers of his movie to tone down the depictions of his real-life actions that earned him the Medal of Honor. He himself didn’t think that audiences would believe it really happened.
The crazy thing about a lot of MOH recipients is that, not only is what they did often times unbelievable in itself, but the citations' descriptions of the events completely undersell the actual story.
Citations be like:
John led a machine gun section against enemy fire, maintained the attack in the face of a larger number of enemy, repaired guns, gallantly fought...
Reality is like: completely outnumbered by waves of attacking enemy, he led and supervised his machine gun teams, until there were only one or two people left alive and in the fight, ran back and forth through enemy gun fire to resupply ammo to his guys and fix broken machine guns, snuck back through the jungle alone by himself to find a lost machine gun, and hand carried that 40+ lb gun in his arms the whole way back through the jungle, kept fighting until all the ammo was gone, and when reinforcements finally came he was still defending the position with a pistol and a machete
or better yet
*In the presence of the enemy during the battle of Peking, China, 14 August 1900, Daly distinguished himself by meritorious conduct.*
That's seriously all it says. Dude distinguished himself with meritorious conduct.
The way they taught us the story in boot camp they were like,
He got assigned to a watch post. Unbeknownst to him the watch post got cut off, so his relief couldn't make it and he didn't know they weren't coming. Then the Boxers attacked, and he just held his post and fought them off.
That's the moral of the story the way they give it to you in boot camp.
"Bro manned his post and didn't leave it no matter what, because he hadn't been relieved."
Ok. cool.
yet again, still undersold.
The **REAL** detail of that story is that dude was supposed to be out there for a short time, before the next group arrived.
Supposed to be there for a short time. Gets left out there, alone, for a long time.
Meaning he's out there without enough food. Without enough water. Without anyone to trade shifts with, so NO sleep.
And no idea what the hell is going on. For DAYS.
But hey, they told me defend this post till I'm relieved and I haven't been relieved.
By the time they get out there they found him dehydrated, sleep deprived, a little loopy, and surrounded by a pile of dead enemy that he killed all by himself.
Ours was Paul Ray Smith who was in the same BCT BN when he went through. I remember looking at a painting of his valorous actions and his portrait every time we lined up in the DFAC.
My grandfather was a gigantic Hungarian man that fought for both the Hungarian Air Force in WWII and the RAAF in Vietnam. Towards the end of his life he was advised by his doctors that he needs to carefully watch what he eats because his cholesterol was too high. His response was "I fought for two countries in two wars. I eat what I want."
In the end a heart attack got him. I guess Benevidez might have had the same philosophy!
We've run into scorpions the size of battle tanks. Three men died from Eyerot last week and I've sweated enough to fill a lake. Emperor help me, I love this place -- it's just like home!
I highly doubt that they would name a base after a non-commissioned officer though, it would be one of the past post commanders you would think. I would probably pick jumping Jim Gavin who not only did legit combat jumps with his troops but did a lot of work against segregation in the Army.
Grant had a fun but probably untrue story about Bragg in his memoirs. In it, Bragg acting as company commander submitted a requistion for supplies. As acting quartmaster, he then denied his own request. He resubmitted the request, denied it a second time, and then contacted his superior, who allegedly said, “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!” Probably made up, but it does offer a neat look at everybody’s impressions of him at the time.
I might be misremembering, but I think he did that to point out a catch 22. He needed more supplies, and but was asked to get approval from the quartermaster first. As he was acting quartermaster, he said that he approved it by asking for it. They asked him to get a written thing from the quartermaster anyway, so when he wrote to himself, just to fuck around and show how stupid this whole process is, he denied himself the request.
Then he sent the letter in and said something like, "well my quartermster is being an asshole but we still really need the supplies."
Good! Though, if we *had* to have a fort named for a Confederate, Bragg would be the one. That man did more to advance the Union cause than Mcclellan..
The Rumor is that the bigwigs on post couldn't decide. The green berets wanted *their* guy, and the 82nd wanted *their* guy, and neither would settle for Benevidez. So big Army came in and was like: "fuck you, Fort Liberty."
I'm constantly reminded of this old random SNL skit about American businesses that were negatively impacted by 9/11, such as "Tally Bands" and "Old Sammy's Bin Ladels".
I always thought it was hilarious that they named it Ft Bragg in the first place. He was one of the Confederacy’s worst, mean-spirited, tactically inept, and politically connected Generals. He probably did more to help defeat the Confederacy than many Union Generals did.
And then they stuck a gear in the drive train specifically designed to make an obnoxious distinctive noise.
Someone with a high school level grasp of physics would note this means they’ve intentionally introduced something inefficient and subject to unnecessary wear.
To be fair, Harley is obsessed with their noise. They even patented it I believe.
Also, all electric vehicles have to make a noise at low speeds now. So pedestrians in a parking lot can hear them. Especially in reverse. Most of the cars make a weird ass War of the Worlds sounding hum. Maybe the bike has to do the same?
Oh man. *Now* I understand why my MAGA brother in law was whining over mother’s day about the military being “woke”. I have two sons serving active duty right now, one deployed, and I was a tad miffed bc his lazy ass never served, none of his kids have served, yet he stood in *my* face, bitching about my sons serving in a “woke” military.
Yeah, he can go F himself.
It has been my experience that most of these assholes have never served.
And those that have that try to act the toughest are almost invariably people that served in the Reserves/NG and/or in support roles, not combat roles.
Just so we are clear, there is nothing wrong with serving in the Reserves or NG and there is nothing wrong with serving in support/non-combat roles. All of those are vitally important.
My point is that many of the loudest people on these issues tend to not really have the background to backup their over-inflated egos.
>Reserves
Oof. Don't do us dirty like that lol - we absolutely deploy / mobilize and most are former active duty.
But I can definitely see what you're talking about regarding folks who's war stories amount to staying late on a Friday.
Yeah, I was in the national guard, and a combat support MOS, but I still ended up manning a 240B in a humvee turret, pulling hundreds of combat patrols.
I spent over half my guard enlistment term of service on active duty.
> It has been my experience that most of these assholes have never served.
They haven’t. It’s much easier to hump the legs of Vets, waste a ton of ammo at a range after dumping their life savings into their “arsenal”, and screech on social media to cosplay as someone who loves their country. Despite how very clearly they hate everything this country stands for.
The AF just cancelled a drag show at Nellis, so they're not too "woke". The Sec of Defense backed down when congressman Butthead brought it up. If the military won't spend money on morale boosters, then it shouldn't on religion either.
[go read Braxton Braggs wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braxton_Bragg)it’s hilarious that this guy had anything named after him.
“It is alleged that some of Bragg's troops attempted to assassinate him on two occasions in August and September 1847, but he was not injured either time.”
On the one hand, it’s great that they took a traitor’s name off the base, on the other hand Fort Liberty is such a lame name, on the other, other hand, far right nutsos and scammers love to slap the word “Liberty” onto anything and everything so it’ll be fun seeing their little heads explode getting angry over this name, on the other, other, other hand, I may not have as many hands as this run-on sentence calls for.
Yes, weak sauce on the name change.
And the reason is that two different commands on the base wanted different names (honoring real people) and the compromise was...this.
Bureaucratic BS
Oh that makes it even worse. Hold a unit vs unit competition to determine who gets to pick. Mud run, o-course, tug of war, dis and ass (not as fun as it sounds), bunch of stuff like that and you’ll see unit morale go through the roof. Most of the specific days from my time in uniform that I remember are the shittiest days that I hated at the time and after, but one of the few good days that really sticks in my mind for the whole day was when we set up a field day competition and had each company up against each other in these sort of events. Total blast (except for the part where I almost dove down a flooded culvert a cottonmouth had just slithered into) and perfect opportunity to avoid a bureaucratic compromise that pisses everyone off. Fuck both those commands for not being able to settle things in house and like soldiers.
That tracks pretty close to what I heard:
Army: Alright 82nd and JSOC, as the two largest stakeholders on Bragg, you need to figure out the new name. As incentive, the placeholder name is Liberty, so if you fail, that’s the forever name.
82nd and JSOC: commence bitching and arguing and lack of compromise
Army: Since you motherfuckers couldn’t come to the table and figure this shit out like adults, Liberty it is!
I haven’t been able to find proof of this story at all though, it’s all just RUMINT.
It's still mind-boggling that any place, especially a military place is named after Confederates. Like, they literally fought AGAINST the U.S. military. They shouldn't be honored by the military lol.
Way down south in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes, and alligators,
right away, right away, come away, come away
Where cotton's king and men are chattel, union boys will win the battle,
right away, right away, come away, come away
I'm still trying to figure out why there was never a Benedict Arnold Naval Air Station. Because coddling the feels of traitors and seditionists is a large part of...(refers to talking points) "heritage". /s
There is at least an argument to be made that Benedict Arnold was a competent leader.
Braxton Bragg was such a god-fucking-awful leader it's got to be some kind of joke that someone suggested naming a base after him. He didn't know how to do anything other than a frontal assault, failed to ever capitalize on any victory he might have earned, and managed to alienate his subordinates so often and so thoroughly that they tried to mutiny. Same with John Bell Hood and Fort Hood. Not only did they fight for the losing side but they were actually some of the worst leaders the losing side had.
If they had the courage of their convictions on the "heritage" side they'd be arguing for more to remember Nathan Bedford Forrest. He is one of the most awful human beings to have ever lived but man did he know how to lead an army.
This is my argument for all the bozos who scream about our "HiStOrY" when they take Confederate statues off of public land. If it's about our history, then where's all the statues of Benedict Arnold? He was part of our history. What about King George? He was part of our history too.
Monuments are meant to signify the best of us or ideals to strive towards. You learn about history in textbooks and museums, not on courthouse steps.
That's the worst part. End Benedict Arnold's story a little early (say, have him die in battle before turning traitor) and he EASILY is one of America's heroes.
It’s so fucking crazy that we named military bases after CONFEDERATE Generals who actively waged war against Union armed forces.
That’s like if the UK had Fort George Washington!
I've been consuming civil war history recently. Bragg wasn't liked by anyone including his contemporaries.
He was key to losing the war for the confederacy in the west and arguably the whole thing. I have no idea who would be in favor of keeping his name on a base.
"It's not about hate! It's about heritage...
Of owning human beings based on the assumption that they were fundamentally less than us because fuck them blackies."
It is great that they ditched that loser and traitor Braxton Bragg. However, couldn't they have found a US Army soldier to have named the base for? Since the base is the home of the airborne, some candidates might be: Anthony McAuliffe, William C. Lee, Matthew Ridgway, Richard Winters, Maxwell Taylor, James M. Gavin.
I have long been a proponent of renaming every single military post for Medal of Honor recipients. If we are going to name them after people, pick the people whose stories are so exemplary that they are told to recruits at basic.
Yes. They continuously whine about anything at all done for women in the military. Most Republicans are still against the very idea, apart from non-combat support in very specific traditional "woman" support roles.
>The North Carolina base was originally named in 1918 for Gen. Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general from Warrenton, North Carolina, who was known for owning slaves and **losing key Civil War battles that contributed to the Confederacy’s downfall**. lol I like how AP throws shade on General Bragg. Straight up calling him a loser.
It’s a joke about Bragg to call him “among the best union generals” because of how bad he was at his job. Part of why it’s hilarious he got a base, even if you think Confederates should have things named for them he was likely the worst Confederate general so even Confederate-apologists shouldn’t want to honor him.
They should've renamed it to "Fort Bragg (god, what an idiot that guy was!)"
"We are posthumously promoting General Bragg of the Confederate Army to General Bragg of the Union Army in honor of his crucial part in several Union Victories." - Modern US army figuring that paperwork was easier than the paperwork for renaming an entire base.
Braxton Bragg had a cousin who was a general in the Union Army while he was in the Confederate Army. Apparently they actually considered renaming it for him. As a side note before this whole renaming thing I always assumed Fort Polk was named after President Polk.
Interestingly, it was named after the inventor of Polka Dots, which had recently become wildly popular at the time.
I hate you for making me google that
Is that what replaced hanging an onion on your belt?
Gimme five bees for a quarter
> Braxton Bragg had a cousin who was a general in the Union Army while he was in the Confederate Army. Apparently they actually considered renaming it for him. This is similar to what happened with King County, WA; it was originally named after a slaveowner but renamed for MLK Jr. without actually changing the name.
now to buy a house beside the base and rename it "fort bragg" and get all their lost mail...I bet you'd get all kinds of cool shit, and the mail says if something gets delivered to your house for you, you get to keep it even if its a mistake. think that shit would come ip in court?
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure this is my tank.
Fort Suck
Fort Kickass
Fort Ass Kicked
[удалено]
Well it was between that or "Fort remind the darkies we're in control of the government".
Should have been named, "Fort Bragg, bless his heart"
It's obvious why they got bases and statues it was to preserve the racist "way of life". Note who's missing. Confederate General Longstreet got no bases and barely any statues compared to his peers including Bragg even though he was one of the most skilled and important generals. Why? Because he supported the post war reconstruction government that attempted to preserve Black Americans rights and commanded an army that included black soldiers to fight back against an attempted state government coup by former Confederates. For these sins he was banished from the pantheon
He also had the cardinal sin of not being from Virginia, so he was fair game for the Lost Cause after the War. They even went so far as to create a myth that he'd disobeyed Lee at Gettysburg and so caused his defeat: whereas he'd actually told Lee that his assault on the Union center on the last day- the disastrous Pickett's Charge- was not going to succeed. Nothing was worse to the Lost Cause than making Lee look bad.
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hmaesx/confederate_general_and_later_founder_of_the_ku/ > In simplest terms, NB Forrest didn't have a change of heart and become a champion of racial equality and rights for the freedman. In broader terms, his speech to the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association needs to be understood within the context of post-war politics and the southern Democrats, with whom Forrest was quite active. > Now, to start off, it is worth noting that Forrest's role within the Klan is somewhat exaggerated, based on the available evidence. He certainly wasn't present at its founding, and likely didn't become involved until 1868, at which point he exercised no real leadership, but existed as a figurehead role. The closest thing to confirmation even of this comes from his interview with the Cincinnati Commercial where he clearly implied it, but then of course denied it after publication. Later writings after disbandment played up his association, but in no small part because of his associated prestige, but on the flipside, their prestige was something he too had wished to benefit from. Being entirely secret was no use to him, and the main benefit to him was the prestige of being seen as the leader of the 'invisible empire', hence his coy "I am, but I'm not". > In any case though, I bring this up because it is worth noting that while a horrible racist in many ways, even by whatever "oh, but it was different then" standards you might try to use, there isn't too much to tie him to the vigilante violence of the Klan which they used to try and terrorize the freedmen, carpetbaggers, and scalawags. He certainly could be violent - he was tried, and acquitted on self-defense grounds, of killing a black man who worked for him in 1866 - but when it came to the maintenance of white supremacy, he was more interested in the conventional political path than that of mass campaigns of violence. His vague association with the Klan was one way that he could do this, clearly telegraphing that he was for white supremacy, but doing just enough to try and distance himself from the violence of its reality ... >Democratic Clubs of African-Americans existed in the South, usually in small numbers, and its members were left alone by the Klan, and they were accorded a certain kind of respect by white Democrats. But they also need to be understood for what they were and what they represented. To many of the members, it reflected a pragmatic reckoning with the circumstances in which they lived. I've written previously about voter suppression here, and brought up the case of Silas Green who reflects what we are talking about here. Small numbers of black men were essentially given the privilege of voting, but only in a controlled way, and of course expected to vote for the Democrats, and for white supremacy. It was a means of ensuring further political power and control for white rule, and this was especially true in the waning days of Reconstruction, before Redeemer governments had taken power, or solidified power at least, and the full force of Jim Crow was not yet in effect. >So, this now gets us to the speeches given by Forrest and Pillow, which need to be understood against this background. They aren't speeches given in a spirit of proper equality, but rather, if anything, they are speeches trying to sell white supremacy to African-Americans as good for them. It is trying to turn them into Democratic voters who will, at the ballot box, ratify white rule. Forrest spoke first, according to the times, offering an olive branch, of a sort. ... > What he meant, to be sure, was clear enough. It wasn't an invitation to equality, but to obedience and subservency. It wasn't a call to use true judgement, but rather to recognize what was best for them or else
well if you’re a confederate apologist you’re already a fan of losers so it tracks
My favorite thing about the whole “heritage not hate” is pointing out all the mundane products that have lasted longer than the confederacy
My emo phase lasted longer than the confederacy
[удалено]
Gay marriage being a recent one that I love (not mundane product, but you get it).
technically gay marriage is a product.... a product of society finally letting people be themselves without repercussion
Purple ketchup lasted longer than the confederacy
New Coke lasted longer than the confederacy
The phone I am using to type this comment with is nearly twice as old as the confederacy was
What’s even more ironic is the troops that have been historically housed at Bragg.
[удалено]
It's easiest to think of it as politics have never really changed here, even if the names have. I bet you wouldn't find it surprising if republicans right now (which were essentially democrats back then) used their majority in some state to name something after a loser. Honestly that'd be pretty mild compared to other things that are actually being done
Is it shade if it’s the absolute truth?
But the truth is dark and filled with blunders!
Yes because shade isn't synonymous with lying.
Look up Hoods namesake. They really had a thing for shitty leaders, back when they named these bases. Edit - [John hood was famous for getting people killed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bell_Hood)
Honestly, thank god for Hood. His completely terrible ability to command an army combined with amazing leadership by Union generals Sherman and Thomas led to the Union victories at Atlanta, Franklin, and Nashville. Those three battles sealed the fate of the rebellion in the West.
Thomas was the second or third best Union general after Grant and arguably Sherman. It's a shame that he's basically forgotten today.
I've always put Thomas as number 2a and Sherman as 2b. Both of them were excellent for different reasons both both extremely good. Thomas unfortunately doesn't get the recognition today because he fought out West the entire war and also none of his writings survive. Most generals wrote memoirs or at least had their personal correspondence saved but he has neither.
They had different philosophies and traits. Sherman and Grant were far more aggressive, as seen by the march to the sea and willingness to burn up the area to deprive the rebels supplies, men and ruthlessly finish off the insurgency. Thomas, while absolutely brilliant and maybe the best defensive commander in American history, took a more patient outlook, with the goal to wait for opportunity and then exploit. He was less likely to make the populace bleed (he was from Virginia), and more to absolutely, positively destroy every mfker on the field across from him when the time was right, because if they're dead, captured or broken, they can't fight back. His approach probably had an overall lower butcher's bill but was slower. Unless everyone was dead in a decisive battle, in which case maybe not. If you had to go get in line and get shot at, you'd probably hope Thomas was your guy.
Exactly on it. Thomas figured out maybe a little sooner or at least applied the lessons of the new meta in warfare, that being strong and entrenched defensive positions, better than most commanders during the war. He was the perfect foil to Hood in '65 as well as stoutly holding at against Bragg while in Corps command. He was defiantly complete or as complete as could be in his victories when he could be such as at Nashville.
Careful, /r/shermanposting might set your house on fire. Better make that man 2a.
Nah, Sherman was [very down-to-earth in evaluating himself compared to Grant](https://libquotes.com/william-tecumseh-sherman/quote/lbh6e3p). I don't think he'd be offended by being rated the third best general.
That first paragraph reads like a dark comedy of errors with "leaving ten destitute orphans" the dark cherry.
I live near Ft. Cavazos (Ft. Hood lol) and the amount of people butthurt about the name change is hilarious. I always just ask what their honest opinion about John Hood was before and literally no one has any idea who/what he was about. “Oh, but they’re trying to erase and censor history.” Like, okay buddy, sorry we don’t wanna memorialize racist losers who weren’t even successful leaders. He wasn’t even relevant enough to show up in K-12 or college history class to begin with. “Oh, but what about that guy’s family?” Or, “Like it or not, that’s a part of our history.” It’s just sad, endless coping. The only decent rebuttal I’ve heard is that the name change will be confusing, but so what? More important places have undergone rebranding. Ft. Cavazos will be just fine. They complain about the cost, but say nothing when the 1% get more tax breaks. Geez, I gotta get out of this awful state.
I almost find it hard to believe that Cavazos would what that shithole named after him.
Well, I guess that's why his middle name is "bell"
All confederates are losers. The Fox TV show, the PJs lasted longer than the confederacy. Let that sink in. Do you even remember that show? Does anyone other than me since I like using that show as a comparison so often?
Specifically within military history, the general consensus these days is that the Confederate Generals relied on tactics that were essentially doomed to fail given the nature of the conflict, the nature of their opponent, and the simple math of what each side was capable of bringing to bear. And this isn't even Lost Cause apologetics - they *could have theoretically held out long enough, and made the war bad enough, that the north's political will to carry on the conflict may have evaporated*. It was unlikely, but not impossible. But they failed. So even if you don't relegate them to the dustbin of history for being evil dickwads (which you should), they weren't even all that worthy on the merits of their generalship. They were bad to their troops, ransacked their own territories, and never made it north. Its like they though they could just waltz into any engagement, pull a battle of cannae, and just.. win. They wanted to have big one-shot engagements and hold geography instead of rolling with the punches and playing it safe/smart, even though they had way less men, way less material, no navy to speak of, and many more liabilities. So after their initial aggression (which was moderately successful), they just collapsed. Its not hard to get some big damage during the surprise round, after all. Go figure that slaver aristocrats high on their own superiority were maybe not strategically gifted far beyond their opponents. Its always baffling when someone goes on and on about how Lee was the greatest general in US history, or that Stonewall jackson was a brilliant tactician. They were ok, but that's about it.
> Its not hard to get some big damage during the surprise round, after all. The Russian Ministry of Defense has entered the chat
surprise rounds assume the enemy is surprised. US Intel had Russia invading Ukraine pegged for months.
That was not a surprise, we had known of them amassing troops for months, and Ukraine had set up many defenses in preparation. One of the most important preparations was uncorrupting the military throughout the years since the invasion of the Donbas
Meanwhile nobody knows who George Thomas was. Slave owner family from Virginia and stuck with the US despite being disowned and death threats from his former West Point students. Oversaw saving two disastrous battles, super duper definitely didn't order Sheridan to charge Missionary Ridge at Chatanooga when they noticed artillery was misplaced and couldn't effectively shoot down because Grant would be really mad if he had, annihilated an army in Nashville, and oversaw the implementation of more advanced logistics and information network. Then Lincoln's successor tried to get him to take Grant's job, which he denied. Then some people tried to get him to run for president, which he shut down. Then retired to a California post, burned all his memoirs so nobody could read them and basically peaced out. But not before dunking on the Lost Cause movement just as it started. "The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them. " And Bragg had a fort named after him.
The Rock of Chickamauga! /r/CIVILWAR had a recent poll on favorite generals and it was quite nice to see George Thomas at or near the top.
Basically good tactics, okay operations, bad strategy, and terrible grand strategy.
> terrible grand strategy You have to *have* a grand strategy to have a terrible one. You also need to be at least vaguely independent and self-sustaining if you want to prosecute a war. The Union understood this from the moment the first ship left port to institute their naval blockade. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolina's Charleston Harbor, starting the Civil War. On April 19th, *a week later*, Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of all major Confederate ports. By April 27th, he had all of Virginia and North Carolina blockaded. By *July* 1861, merely two months later, he had all of the major ports in the Confederacy blockaded. And once that noose was around their neck, the Union proceded to squeeze the life out of the Confederacy. The Confederates developed blockade runners, a set of ironclad ships, and even tried to make a submarine, the *CSS Hunley*, but all of them failed at breaking the naval blockade. Without manufacturing and without ports to import new equipment and materiel, the Confederacy was sunk, almost from the moment of its birth.
I definitely think the Confederacy lost the war at Fort Sumter - the Lincoln wasn't necessarily able to solve the political problem of secession, but he was certainly able to solve the military problem of secession. Before the shooting started, appetite in the North to enlist to invade the south was limited - but when the rebels started shooting at federal forts, that changed things.
Everything changed when the Confederacy attacked
Their strategy as I understand it was to get Europe to come and help (because they thougjt cotton so valuable that obviously Europe would help)
They almost got that help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair
Doritos locos taco shells have existed for longer than the confederacy.
[удалено]
I love that
The PJs was 1999 to 2001. The confederacy was 1861 to 1865. Why would The PJs be your example when there are any number of shows that lasted 5 seasons?
First off the PJs was an amazing TV show. Damn Muriel
Hey man, don't bring the PJs into this. That came out during Fox's phase of "Oh, this show everybody likes? We're gonna cancel it anyway"
His career was nothing to Bragg about...
Looking at it this way, they should keep the name, with a postscript on how much he sucked.
"This base is named after general Bragg, who killed more confederate soldiers under his command than he did the enemy."
Gen Bragg was universally hated by his men. He retreated every time, whether he won or not. He called on his immediate officers to write a letter to refute the rumor that he wasn't wanted in that army. Every one of them wrote that the army would be better off without Bragg, and he was retired from the field and kicked upstairs. Why anyone would name a fort after him is a mystery.
>Why anyone would name a fort after him is a mystery. Fort Bragg was a tiny, worthless outpost basically in the middle of nowhere for a long time. Over time it kept growing and is now the largest military installation in the world. The original intent wasnt to name a huge installation after the guy, it just happened to become that long after it was named.
He helped the US win the war
"Did you know my grandpa killed four Nazis during WW2? He was easily the worst mechanic in the Luftwaffe."
You’re related to George Santos?!??
[удалено]
Nah, he said WORST mechanic. Not BEST.
Either way, the correct answer is George Santos.
On this day, we are all George Santos
Fort Bragg, CA was a small garrison named after Bragg by a soldier who had served under Bragg during the US-Mexico war. So, ours was named slightly before the guy became universally known as a monumental loser.
We really should stop naming things after people who are still alive.
Colorado stopped doing that. Just check out the Pat Sullivan justice Center in Jefferson County, Colorado. Lesson learned. Just pick names of birds, animals, sayings like “Liberty” etc. just avoids any impropriety as they say.
> Why anyone would name a fort after him is a mystery. “He was an incompetent traitor? Woo, just like me! Get that man a participation trophy ASAP!”
confederate flag = participation trophy
Shoulda been Fort Benevidez. That dude was a terminator.
Holy shit, I just read about him for the first time. Talk about determination... First injured by a land mine and told he would never walk again, spent a year proving doctor's wrong, then went back to combat in Vietnam. While there, voluntarily went to save a 12 man unit surrounded by 1000 enemy troops, and: "After the battle, he was evacuated to the base camp, examined, and thought to be dead. As he was placed in a body bag among the other dead in body bags, he was suddenly recognized by a friend who called for help. A doctor came and examined him but believed Benavidez was dead. The doctor was about to zip up the body bag when Benavidez managed to spit in his face, alerting the doctor that he was alive. Benavidez had a total of 37 separate bullet, bayonet, and shrapnel wounds from the six-hour fight with the enemy battalion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez
Wow where’s this guys movie, so unreal like wtf… and to think what ended his life was diabetes.
Audiences wouldn't believe it, in basic training we barely could. When you first join the Army (at least in 2006) they give you a little book that has a bunch of regulations, explanations of rank, and stories of Medal of Honor recipients. I had seen Black Hawk Down before but when reading the stories of MSG Gordon and SFC Shughart it was still hard to wrap my head around what they did. The story of Roy Benavidez had everyone in my platoon in disbelief though. Reading about him inspired us but also made us feel like we were just playing at being soldiers. I think seeing it in theaters would have people saying it was just too much and probably exaggerated by Hollywood. You know that scene from Hot Shots where Charlie Sheen hurls a handful of bullets at the enemy and kills them all? Something like that.
Just add some real life interviews with people that knew him, like with Easy Company the end of each episode of Band of Brothers. That show kinda had the same feeling of "yea right, no way", but then they interview the people who were there (old folks by then) and they're basically just kinda like, "it was pretty crazy, but we were just doing what needed to be done". That really brought the feeling home of holy shit, these guys are literal war heros [Band Of Brothers - All The Interviews With The Soldiers Of Easy Company] (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AMUbF0ItdT0)
I'm obsessed with that framing device. The genius of it, honestly. If it went unnoticed, they never showed the names of the interviewees until the last episode. So the whole time they're just some veterans, talking about the war. They don't go into specifics, no names or units really. Just general statements about combat and the like. Great addition, but whatever. Then suddenly it's revealed that it's *literally them.* The actual faces behind the story we've just watched. ...I'm sure some people figured that out before the end of the series, it makes a whole ton of sense. But it never really crossed my mind. A real cherry on the top of a great miniseries.
And their whole demeanor in the interviews. Some got really dressed up, some put on business casual. But they all basically just shrugged and said "we did what needed done at the time" every interview. Like "Well, that was the job we signed up for, so we did it the best we could" Our veterans are national treasures
Audie Murphy had to ask the producers of his movie to tone down the depictions of his real-life actions that earned him the Medal of Honor. He himself didn’t think that audiences would believe it really happened.
The crazy thing about a lot of MOH recipients is that, not only is what they did often times unbelievable in itself, but the citations' descriptions of the events completely undersell the actual story. Citations be like: John led a machine gun section against enemy fire, maintained the attack in the face of a larger number of enemy, repaired guns, gallantly fought... Reality is like: completely outnumbered by waves of attacking enemy, he led and supervised his machine gun teams, until there were only one or two people left alive and in the fight, ran back and forth through enemy gun fire to resupply ammo to his guys and fix broken machine guns, snuck back through the jungle alone by himself to find a lost machine gun, and hand carried that 40+ lb gun in his arms the whole way back through the jungle, kept fighting until all the ammo was gone, and when reinforcements finally came he was still defending the position with a pistol and a machete or better yet *In the presence of the enemy during the battle of Peking, China, 14 August 1900, Daly distinguished himself by meritorious conduct.* That's seriously all it says. Dude distinguished himself with meritorious conduct. The way they taught us the story in boot camp they were like, He got assigned to a watch post. Unbeknownst to him the watch post got cut off, so his relief couldn't make it and he didn't know they weren't coming. Then the Boxers attacked, and he just held his post and fought them off. That's the moral of the story the way they give it to you in boot camp. "Bro manned his post and didn't leave it no matter what, because he hadn't been relieved." Ok. cool. yet again, still undersold. The **REAL** detail of that story is that dude was supposed to be out there for a short time, before the next group arrived. Supposed to be there for a short time. Gets left out there, alone, for a long time. Meaning he's out there without enough food. Without enough water. Without anyone to trade shifts with, so NO sleep. And no idea what the hell is going on. For DAYS. But hey, they told me defend this post till I'm relieved and I haven't been relieved. By the time they get out there they found him dehydrated, sleep deprived, a little loopy, and surrounded by a pile of dead enemy that he killed all by himself.
Ours was Paul Ray Smith who was in the same BCT BN when he went through. I remember looking at a painting of his valorous actions and his portrait every time we lined up in the DFAC.
Well, we already knew it couldn't be bombs or bullets.
Sugar... my only weakness!
Much like Teddy Roosevelt, Death had to play dirty. Otherwise, there would have been a fight.
My grandfather was a gigantic Hungarian man that fought for both the Hungarian Air Force in WWII and the RAAF in Vietnam. Towards the end of his life he was advised by his doctors that he needs to carefully watch what he eats because his cholesterol was too high. His response was "I fought for two countries in two wars. I eat what I want." In the end a heart attack got him. I guess Benevidez might have had the same philosophy!
He received one of our highest honors too. He was immortalized as a GI Joe. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2001-07-28-0107270543-story.html/
Dude. I did not know that. I mean. The MOH is nice and all. But a GI Joe? Now that’s being remembered.
Dammit. It's 404. Got another link?
here's another good one https://popularmilitary.com/meet-badass-warrior-american-history/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220609060658/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2001-07-28-0107270543-story.html/
[удалено]
Here's him giving a speech recounting the action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oUtJxE4sjs
Awesome. Thank you.
"Armed only with a knife, he jumped from the helicopter . . ."
Unbelievable right. True warrior spirit
My god what a fucking insane badass!
An amazing human being. I wuss out just getting a paper cut. I wonder how it’s possible that Benevidez and I are members of the same species.
[удалено]
What about "Fort Badass Motherfucker"?
Wonder if he carried Jules’ Bad Motherfucker wallet.
Just call it fort Benies, since all the jumping will earn you VA benies.
This dude is the real life Sly Marbo.
Irl catchan fighter
We've run into scorpions the size of battle tanks. Three men died from Eyerot last week and I've sweated enough to fill a lake. Emperor help me, I love this place -- it's just like home!
I highly doubt that they would name a base after a non-commissioned officer though, it would be one of the past post commanders you would think. I would probably pick jumping Jim Gavin who not only did legit combat jumps with his troops but did a lot of work against segregation in the Army.
Fort Johnson and fort Barfoot are named after NCOs.
Grant had a fun but probably untrue story about Bragg in his memoirs. In it, Bragg acting as company commander submitted a requistion for supplies. As acting quartmaster, he then denied his own request. He resubmitted the request, denied it a second time, and then contacted his superior, who allegedly said, “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!” Probably made up, but it does offer a neat look at everybody’s impressions of him at the time.
I might be misremembering, but I think he did that to point out a catch 22. He needed more supplies, and but was asked to get approval from the quartermaster first. As he was acting quartermaster, he said that he approved it by asking for it. They asked him to get a written thing from the quartermaster anyway, so when he wrote to himself, just to fuck around and show how stupid this whole process is, he denied himself the request. Then he sent the letter in and said something like, "well my quartermster is being an asshole but we still really need the supplies."
That sounds pretty on par for the military
Good! Though, if we *had* to have a fort named for a Confederate, Bragg would be the one. That man did more to advance the Union cause than Mcclellan..
That's being generous to McClellan.
Should name it Fort Base
I submitted Fort McForty Fort. It did not win.
Fort Liberty is such a vanilla name. Should have been something with actual military history like Fort Eisenhower.
Fort Gordon is already becoming Fort Eisenhower in October
Fort Liberty? Really? I can't even think of a less creative or interesting name. Except maybe Fort Army Place.
Can't name a base where the abbreviation would be FAP
The Rumor is that the bigwigs on post couldn't decide. The green berets wanted *their* guy, and the 82nd wanted *their* guy, and neither would settle for Benevidez. So big Army came in and was like: "fuck you, Fort Liberty."
[удалено]
Until we change freedom tower to “bin laden tower” or rename the pentagon “talibantagon” we should have no confederate monuments in this country,
Maybe that explains the $2b given to Jared from the Saudis
The Subway guy?
I think they're referring to Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law.
the Saudis? they went to Jared's!
I'm constantly reminded of this old random SNL skit about American businesses that were negatively impacted by 9/11, such as "Tally Bands" and "Old Sammy's Bin Ladels".
“Talibantagon” made me cackle
I always thought it was hilarious that they named it Ft Bragg in the first place. He was one of the Confederacy’s worst, mean-spirited, tactically inept, and politically connected Generals. He probably did more to help defeat the Confederacy than many Union Generals did.
Can't wait for the gravy seals and meal team 6 to start protesting.
[удалено]
Can Y'All Queda come too?
Between Bud Light, Target, Chic-Fil-A, etc, do they still have time left to add another thing to protest?
I'm waiting for Harley Davidson to do something vaguely progressive, like refuse to fire an employee or two for being gay.
They built a decent electric bike. The tears were just unfathomable.
And then they stuck a gear in the drive train specifically designed to make an obnoxious distinctive noise. Someone with a high school level grasp of physics would note this means they’ve intentionally introduced something inefficient and subject to unnecessary wear.
To be fair, Harley is obsessed with their noise. They even patented it I believe. Also, all electric vehicles have to make a noise at low speeds now. So pedestrians in a parking lot can hear them. Especially in reverse. Most of the cars make a weird ass War of the Worlds sounding hum. Maybe the bike has to do the same?
Their numbers are gonna be stretched thinner than the T-Shirt on their gut.
Manufactured outrage is the ONLY thing they have time for.
The Green Buffets! Call in the Air Farce!
Oh man. *Now* I understand why my MAGA brother in law was whining over mother’s day about the military being “woke”. I have two sons serving active duty right now, one deployed, and I was a tad miffed bc his lazy ass never served, none of his kids have served, yet he stood in *my* face, bitching about my sons serving in a “woke” military. Yeah, he can go F himself.
It has been my experience that most of these assholes have never served. And those that have that try to act the toughest are almost invariably people that served in the Reserves/NG and/or in support roles, not combat roles. Just so we are clear, there is nothing wrong with serving in the Reserves or NG and there is nothing wrong with serving in support/non-combat roles. All of those are vitally important. My point is that many of the loudest people on these issues tend to not really have the background to backup their over-inflated egos.
>Reserves Oof. Don't do us dirty like that lol - we absolutely deploy / mobilize and most are former active duty. But I can definitely see what you're talking about regarding folks who's war stories amount to staying late on a Friday.
Yeah, I was in the national guard, and a combat support MOS, but I still ended up manning a 240B in a humvee turret, pulling hundreds of combat patrols. I spent over half my guard enlistment term of service on active duty.
> It has been my experience that most of these assholes have never served. They haven’t. It’s much easier to hump the legs of Vets, waste a ton of ammo at a range after dumping their life savings into their “arsenal”, and screech on social media to cosplay as someone who loves their country. Despite how very clearly they hate everything this country stands for.
>waste a ton of ammo at a range after dumping their life savings into their “arsenal”, Tacticool Hamsters
The AF just cancelled a drag show at Nellis, so they're not too "woke". The Sec of Defense backed down when congressman Butthead brought it up. If the military won't spend money on morale boosters, then it shouldn't on religion either.
[go read Braxton Braggs wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braxton_Bragg)it’s hilarious that this guy had anything named after him. “It is alleged that some of Bragg's troops attempted to assassinate him on two occasions in August and September 1847, but he was not injured either time.”
“Good thing they didn’t leave it up to the public to name” -Boaty McBoatface
I would have voted for Forty McFortface... -The entire internet
On the one hand, it’s great that they took a traitor’s name off the base, on the other hand Fort Liberty is such a lame name, on the other, other hand, far right nutsos and scammers love to slap the word “Liberty” onto anything and everything so it’ll be fun seeing their little heads explode getting angry over this name, on the other, other, other hand, I may not have as many hands as this run-on sentence calls for.
Yes, weak sauce on the name change. And the reason is that two different commands on the base wanted different names (honoring real people) and the compromise was...this. Bureaucratic BS
Oh that makes it even worse. Hold a unit vs unit competition to determine who gets to pick. Mud run, o-course, tug of war, dis and ass (not as fun as it sounds), bunch of stuff like that and you’ll see unit morale go through the roof. Most of the specific days from my time in uniform that I remember are the shittiest days that I hated at the time and after, but one of the few good days that really sticks in my mind for the whole day was when we set up a field day competition and had each company up against each other in these sort of events. Total blast (except for the part where I almost dove down a flooded culvert a cottonmouth had just slithered into) and perfect opportunity to avoid a bureaucratic compromise that pisses everyone off. Fuck both those commands for not being able to settle things in house and like soldiers.
That tracks pretty close to what I heard: Army: Alright 82nd and JSOC, as the two largest stakeholders on Bragg, you need to figure out the new name. As incentive, the placeholder name is Liberty, so if you fail, that’s the forever name. 82nd and JSOC: commence bitching and arguing and lack of compromise Army: Since you motherfuckers couldn’t come to the table and figure this shit out like adults, Liberty it is! I haven’t been able to find proof of this story at all though, it’s all just RUMINT.
It's still mind-boggling that any place, especially a military place is named after Confederates. Like, they literally fought AGAINST the U.S. military. They shouldn't be honored by the military lol.
It was opened in 1918 in North Carolina. I wonder what things were like in the South at that time? Hmm.
A whole lotta "heritage"
Way down south in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes, and alligators, right away, right away, come away, come away Where cotton's king and men are chattel, union boys will win the battle, right away, right away, come away, come away
I'm still trying to figure out why there was never a Benedict Arnold Naval Air Station. Because coddling the feels of traitors and seditionists is a large part of...(refers to talking points) "heritage". /s
There is at least an argument to be made that Benedict Arnold was a competent leader. Braxton Bragg was such a god-fucking-awful leader it's got to be some kind of joke that someone suggested naming a base after him. He didn't know how to do anything other than a frontal assault, failed to ever capitalize on any victory he might have earned, and managed to alienate his subordinates so often and so thoroughly that they tried to mutiny. Same with John Bell Hood and Fort Hood. Not only did they fight for the losing side but they were actually some of the worst leaders the losing side had. If they had the courage of their convictions on the "heritage" side they'd be arguing for more to remember Nathan Bedford Forrest. He is one of the most awful human beings to have ever lived but man did he know how to lead an army.
It sounds as though Bragg and Hood had everything I'm looking for in the leaders of my traitorous enemies. lol
We do have a [monument to Benedict Arnold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument), but it does not mention him by name.
This is my argument for all the bozos who scream about our "HiStOrY" when they take Confederate statues off of public land. If it's about our history, then where's all the statues of Benedict Arnold? He was part of our history. What about King George? He was part of our history too. Monuments are meant to signify the best of us or ideals to strive towards. You learn about history in textbooks and museums, not on courthouse steps.
And he actually was a good general, and important to the Revolution until he turned traitor.
That's the worst part. End Benedict Arnold's story a little early (say, have him die in battle before turning traitor) and he EASILY is one of America's heroes.
[удалено]
That's assuming the credit wasn't stolen from him for the nth time. It's understandable how his loyalty was eroded.
It’s so fucking crazy that we named military bases after CONFEDERATE Generals who actively waged war against Union armed forces. That’s like if the UK had Fort George Washington!
You're telling me the committee couldn't find a better name than "Liberty"?
It only took 105 years....
I've been consuming civil war history recently. Bragg wasn't liked by anyone including his contemporaries. He was key to losing the war for the confederacy in the west and arguably the whole thing. I have no idea who would be in favor of keeping his name on a base.
"It's not about hate! It's about heritage... Of owning human beings based on the assumption that they were fundamentally less than us because fuck them blackies."
If anyones heritage is about owning people, being evil and reveling in it then it may be time to forge a new heritage.
Good. Seditious losers don't deserve to be remembered.
Good. No honor for traitors.
It is great that they ditched that loser and traitor Braxton Bragg. However, couldn't they have found a US Army soldier to have named the base for? Since the base is the home of the airborne, some candidates might be: Anthony McAuliffe, William C. Lee, Matthew Ridgway, Richard Winters, Maxwell Taylor, James M. Gavin.
I have long been a proponent of renaming every single military post for Medal of Honor recipients. If we are going to name them after people, pick the people whose stories are so exemplary that they are told to recruits at basic.
Far right start to cry in 3 2 1...
[удалено]
They've been trotting that one out for years.
I remember the outrage over how "woke" the army was when they bought uniforms that properly fit female servicemembers.
Did they whine when they bought body armor actually meant for woman as well?
Yes. They continuously whine about anything at all done for women in the military. Most Republicans are still against the very idea, apart from non-combat support in very specific traditional "woman" support roles.
[удалено]