Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: The Army Should Rid Itself Of Symbols Of Treason

  1. #16
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,394
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The author is whacked. Sherman's March is ridiculed with war crimes but it was a damned well entrenched lesson in military engineering and logistics. And whether the North liked it or not, the South were still Americans. They did called themselves the Confederate States of AMERICA. Rommel, Vo, et al were NOT AMERCANS. They did NOT advance the American Army one single bit wheras these men BUILT the US Army through self inflicted fire.
    I believe he was specifically rebutting the excuse given by the Army's public affairs director: “Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history.” He said nothing about advancing the US Army or anything of the kind. By that extremely general definition, Rommel, Vo and the others qualify.

    The Southerns were former Americans: Traitors to the United States of America who engaged in an armed rebellion against it.

    Calling themselves the Confederate States of America meant nothing vis a vis the country they betrayed. It was a geographic reference, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    ...but what I am saying is that their positive impacts on the US Army cannot and must not be denied.
    That's not the author's intent at all. He said repeatedly that the Army should not be commemorating these man in the fashion with which they currently are: The naming of bases after them, the retaining of their symbols.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    I believe he was specifically rebutting the excuse given by the Army's public affairs director: “Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history.” He said nothing about advancing the US Army or anything of the kind. By that extremely general definition, Rommel, Vo and the others qualify.
    I would argue that these Confederate Soldiers hold a greater place in US military history than Rommel, Vo, and all. WWII defined the US as a World Superpower but the ACW defined the United States as a singular entity than a collective of independent States.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    The Southerns were former Americans: Traitors to the United States of America who engaged in an armed rebellion against it.
    Their only crime is that they lost - hence my George Washington reference to Buck. Even today, despite the Political Correct crowd, the US is an Egnlish country just as the UK, Canada, and Australia. Even if the CSA would have won, they would have remained an American country, even if seperate from the Union.

    As Eric stated, "post-war," the USSC determined that the CSA did not succeed, extremely surprising since they fielded entire Armies with their own Colours.

    The victors write the histories ... and the victors, for whatever reasons, decided to write the names of CSA Officers on some of their bases.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    That's not the author's intent at all. He said repeatedly that the Army should not be commemorating these man in the fashion with which they currently are: The naming of bases after them, the retaining of their symbols.
    Actually, that is out of the military's control. These decisions are approved by the civilian leadership, not military. What I can see is that the US military would not want to forget those self inflicted hard earned lessons.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 06 Mar 20, at 03:11.

  3. #18
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,394
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I would argue that these Confederate Soldiers hold a greater place in US military history than Rommel, Vo, and all. WWII defined the US as a World Superpower but the ACW defined the United States as a singular entity than a collective of independent States.
    No argument here. But that doesn't mean they should be commemorated by naming US Army installations after them.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Their only crime is that they lost - hence my George Washington reference to Buck. Even today, despite the Political Correct crowd, the US is an Egnlish country just as the UK, Canada, and Australia. Even if the CSA would have won, they would have remained an American country, even if seperate from the Union.
    Sir, given what the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy was, I would suggest that losing was hardly their only crime.

    Please note: I don't attempt to, or agree with, painting the North as blameless, lily-white innocent and morally pure (not even close). But the Southern States seceded to preserve slavery and the attendant white supremacy, plain and simple. And they weren't ashamed to admit it at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    As Eric stated, "post-war," the USSC determined that the CSA did not succeed, extremely surprising since they fielded entire Armies with their own Colours.
    I think that was a polite legal and cultural fiction, a sop thrown out there in the "in the spirit of reconciliation". Supposedly the US Navy has never had a mutiny either.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The victors write the histories ... and the victors, for whatever reasons, decided to write the names of CSA Officers on some of their bases.
    In the case of the ACW, the losers were allowed to rewrite the history..."in the spirit of reconciliation". Want to reunite the country? Sure, just make sure you don't mention slavery, or Blacks, or Jim Crow.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Actually, that is out of the military's control. These decisions are approved by the civilian leadership, not military. What I can see is that the US military would not want to forget those self inflicted hard earned lessons.
    No Sir, that decision is made by the Chief of Staff of the Army, not the civilian leadership.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    No argument here. But that doesn't mean they should be commemorated by naming US Army installations after them.
    Reading through your link at the bottom, it was an easy vote buyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Sir, given what the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy was, I would suggest that losing was hardly their only crime.

    Please note: I don't attempt to, or agree with, painting the North as blameless, lily-white innocent and morally pure (not even close). But the Southern States seceded to preserve slavery and the attendant white supremacy, plain and simple. And they weren't ashamed to admit it at the time.

    I think that was a polite legal and cultural fiction, a sop thrown out there in the "in the spirit of reconciliation". Supposedly the US Navy has never had a mutiny either.
    What I meant was had the CSA won, we would not be debating naming these bases would have been appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    In the case of the ACW, the losers were allowed to rewrite the history..."in the spirit of reconciliation". Want to reunite the country? Sure, just make sure you don't mention slavery, or Blacks, or Jim Crow.
    Only if you want their votes.

    But historically speaking, this is nothing out of the ordinary. Defeated rebels, if they were strong enough and the CSA definetely were, were often allowed to retain their own armies. The Scotts and the Irish comes to mind and the British never disbanded the British Indian Army even after the Sepoy Rebellions.

    Hence, re-writing history from the loser's perspective is nothing out of the ordinary, even for Canada (re: English-French relations).

    While I appreciate your absolute revulsion towards the CSA as I do towards the Nazis, I am distant enough and not hindered by revulsion to see what has happened. I'm not defending it but I do acknowledge it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    No Sir, that decision is made by the Chief of Staff of the Army, not the civilian leadership.
    If I understood your link right, the CAS's office determined the criteria but the naming decision still rested with a civilian board up until 2006 and then by Assistant Secretary of the Army, another civilian.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 06 Mar 20, at 06:39.

  5. #20
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,023
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    IIRC, the US Supreme Court ruled (post-war) that none of the CSA states seceded legally. thus, from a legal perspective, none of those states actually formally left the Union.

    so Grant -could- have legally tried and executed Lee and the whole lot for being oathbreakers and traitors, but chose not to (and a good thing, too). Grant actually defended Lee post-war when some of the more radical GOP politicos were pressing for just that, but he defended Lee by saying that they could not be tried if they followed the terms of their military parole.

    which is not exactly saying Lee is -innocent-.
    Texas v US I believe
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  6. #21
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,023
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I am not arguing that these men should not have their honour stripped but what I am saying is that their positive impacts on the US Army cannot and must not be denied.
    Colonel, I am not following you where there was a positive impact on the Army. The US Army post ACW didn't apply any lessons learned from the War to our doctrine or force structure....other than the integration into our force 4 regiments and 3 batteries of Black troops which did not exist before the war.

    The posts were named in the Jim Crow era to help with recruitment and increase Nationalistic feelings among the populace in World War 2.

    This same misguided attitude lead the US Army to "brilliantly" only assign white Southern officers to predominantly Black units as it was believed that Southerners would have a better understanding of dealing with Blacks. Didn't work out well.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  7. #22
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,023
    One other thing I would like to see is US Army National Guard units whose lineage was as a prewar militia unit but fought for the Confederacy carry campaign streamers with the Gray over Blue and carry the Confederate names of the battle on the streamers.

    While at FT Stewart, GA, I worked with SC ARNG units which had the same battle streamers as my regiment, the 19th Infantry. We had Blue over Gray and the name Stones River. The 118th Infantry had Gray over Blue and Murfreesboro, the Confederate name for the battle. Saw this with Antietam/Sharpsburg and several others over the years.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-war/29236277/


    Time for that to end in my mind.

    And Colonel, as I recall, British Army regiments received no battle honors for the Revolutionary War as they lost.

    And as for you point in Washington...and what would have happened to him if he had been captured or we had lost? I think there would have been a lot of long ropes for the Founding Fathers...who were declared treasonous by the Crown.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  8. #23
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,394
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Reading through your link at the bottom, it was an easy vote buyer.
    Only if you want their votes.[/QUOTE]
    In effect yes, in addition to what Buck said: Drum up support amongst the Southern States

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    If I understood your link right, the CAS's office determined the criteria but the naming decision still rested with a civilian board up until 2006 and then by Assistant Secretary of the Army, another civilian.
    It once did, yes. But now it resides with the CSA (ironic acronym in this case)
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  9. #24
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,104
    I had to look around for why bases were named what they were named and found this article by an Army officer. Apparently it was part Army and part local population where the base was located when they were created. Seem correct...?

    Looking around I can see Benning was a very ardent believer in slave ownership no doubt to his dying days. Not a great example. Then I see Bragg who doesn't seem to have had much success and an Army commander in practically all his battles meaning he was on the short end of the stick. That makes him an interesting in choice in my mind and I assume was used because he was a native to the region where the base is located.

    https://taskandpurpose.com/history/u...d-bases-anyway
    Last edited by tbm3fan; 06 Mar 20, at 17:37.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Colonel, I am not following you where there was a positive impact on the Army. The US Army post ACW didn't apply any lessons learned from the War to our doctrine or force structure....other than the integration into our force 4 regiments and 3 batteries of Black troops which did not exist before the war.
    I will do you one better. Hampton Road rendered the Royal Navy obsolete overnight (along with every other navy on earth).

    Stuart's use of calvary as force reccee
    Sherman's logistics and engineering.
    Lee's use of defeat in detail
    Grant's applications of overwhelming force

    Lessons that we, not just the US, still apply today,

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Time for that to end in my mind.
    Pick your battles. With equipment and manpower problems galore, Changing Colours is not a problem worth headaches and heartaches to solve. Recall how much damage Gen Shinseki sufferred over the beret.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    And Colonel, as I recall, British Army regiments received no battle honors for the Revolutionary War as they lost.

    And as for you point in Washington...and what would have happened to him if he had been captured or we had lost? I think there would have been a lot of long ropes for the Founding Fathers...who were declared treasonous by the Crown.
    And that is precisely the point. You're only treasonous if you lost. Otherwise, you're the Founding Fathers/New King/Emperor/etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    It once did, yes. But now it resides with the CSA (ironic acronym in this case)
    From your link

    The current AR 1-33 became effective on 30 June 2006, and redefined and expanded the categories of individuals to be memorialized, and listed appropriate memorialization programs for each category. The naming of installations is now the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). The Director of the Installation Management Agency is responsible for the naming of streets, buildings, and facilities on all military installations except medical installations, where the Commander of the U.S. Army Medical Command has the approval authority, and on the United States Military Academy, where the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy has the approval authority.

  11. #26
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,394
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    IFrom your link
    You're right, I stand corrected
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Just one question: Is it not possible for any State, having joined the Union, to legally secede from it? What about those territories that are owned by the US - that place that got hit badly by the hurricaine for example?
    There is no method in the Constitution to secede, so to secede you would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment to create one, or convene a convention of the states and effectively dissolve the Union.

    However, Right to Revolution is granted by God and not by the Constitution. So if California decides they are their own separate nation, the US government abridges their God-Given rights, and the US government refuses all reasonable peaceful overtures, Californians are entitled by God to rebel. Oaths and man's legal documents cease to be relevant. Whether they are right is something for historians to decide.

    The South hadn't even tried at peaceful reconciliation, they just seceded, but it's likely that the Civil War was going to come even if they did try. And the South was never going to win, because even if it DID win, the issues are going to remain: fugitive slaves going North, Northerners sponsoring raids in the South, etc. These are all CBs, so a war is going to start again, and the North is going to invade, and if the North invades in 1880 or 1890 or 1900, it is going to be even more lopsided than the 1860 war. So the North wins and begins a really brutal Reconstruction and occupation that probably ends up going on several generations, as opposed to the 10 year kiddie-glove occupation they actually got.

    The "exhaust peaceful means" part is really damned important. You can't pull a John Brown and decide to overthrow the state of Virginia, even if it is engaged in unconscionable acts.
    Last edited by GVChamp; 06 Mar 20, at 23:26.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  13. #28
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,023
    Colonel,


    Stuart's use of cavalry as force reccee......Look at 2nd & 3rd Dragoons in Mexican War. Stuart was using standard US Army doctrine. Same doctrine was used by Wheeler, Stoneman, Wilder, Grierson, Sheridan and a host of other cavalry leaders both Union & Confederate. Gettysburg was started in part by Buford doing exactly this.


    Sherman's logistics and engineering....actually Sherman was not a very good logistician....but he picked a good logistician to be his chief of logistics. And both Armies used an inefficient staff model for logistics. If anything it was our adoption of the French staff system in the 1900 reforms which improved things. The US Army used a Jominian view of logistics.


    Lee's use of defeat in detail....a very Napoleonic tenet and part of our doctrine. Lee was not the only one to successfully use defeat in detail.

    Grant's applications of overwhelming force...again, a Napoleonic trait.

    Lessons that we, not just the US, still apply today,

    I will say the one area where the US Army excelled....and was adopted by European armies...was the importance and use of rail roads. The Prussians use of railroads in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 were a direct reflection of US railroad operations in the ACW. And that is USA not CSA. CSA was very inefficient and disjointed in the use.


    But if your overall argument that there were practical lessons drawn on doctrinal employment by forces in the American Civil War I 100% agree. But I still do not want to see posts named for traitors.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,615
    Ty to TH and GVChamp for replying. Is freedom of association not guaranteed in the US Constitution?

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    But if your overall argument that there were practical lessons drawn on doctrinal employment by forces in the American Civil War I 100% agree. But I still do not want to see posts named for traitors.
    I understand and appreciate your revulsion. My acknowledgement is done via that of a non-American and therefore I have no dog in this fight. I just see very little difference with those naming vs what happened to the Goths under the Romans, Greeks/Persians under Alexander, India under Great Britain.

    I appreciate your revulsion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mushy to be tried for treason
    By Minskaya in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 26 Jun 13,, 08:05
  2. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04 Jun 12,, 23:44
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03 Apr 08,, 12:10
  4. Ethiopian opposition leaders, journalists to face treason charges
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09 Nov 05,, 23:27

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •