(07-06-2020 01:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:09 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 11:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Got it. It's not a big deal to you. But there are black soldiers who are serving our country who don't like the idea of serving at bases named in honor of leaders of the Confederacy. It seems like it matters to them.

I guess we should change the name of the USS Roosevelt in order not to offend the Japanese Americans that serve in the Navy as well.

This rabbit hole should get really fun.

Kind of 'lets pick an aggrieved group' bingo game.

Which kind of describes the normal progressive political mode in its entiretly, when one thinks about it a little.

I believe the current rabbit hole is ending at not naming United States military bases after people who actively fought against the United States military. It seems really counter intuitive to name a military base after a former enemy that did not end up joining your cause.

I mean... it makes sense, right?

To the citizens of Alabama, etc. they are not necessarily the former enemy.

And, when you note the rationale in naming bases at the time, the rationale was one of trying to heal the divide. Not act as an occupier and oppressor. Which, unfortunately was the case for the most part in a very harsh Reconstruction era.

I see that the people who fought for the South are the enemy to you. That was the attitude for the most part of Reconstruction, and tells you for the most part of why there are still not so minor cleaves and divides even 140 years after the fact.

The south, as a whole, truly did suffer a world of economic pain at the North's expense in the antebellum years, which is seemingly brushed under the table in any discussion about the reasons for the secessions.

And they suffered an inordinate amount worse under military occupation for a generation longer. I think the naming of bases for Confederate generals in the early 1900s did a very large amount of healing the divide that had to happen.

Perhaps you think the United States treated the occupied south with peanut bars and butter cups and unicorn perfume for that generation. Hate to tell they didnt. Far from it. But again, that isnt seemingly noted much. Johnson had the temerity to stand for a solid, but not harsh approach to actually attempting to salve over the wounds and rejoin -- that is he planned to move forward as Lincoln had planned. The North decided to impeach him for that.

But, perhaps you should consider the South's punishment in the terms of Reconstruction, and the North's more than predilection to impose such an amazingly harsh existence on the occupied states prior to preaching about 'the enemy'.

Under Lincoln's view, the South was to be brought back into the fold and treated with a modicum of dignity and respect as fellow countrymen. That in no way, shape, or form occurred.

I wonder if there is a list somewhere of statues of Union soldiers/generals that have been placed in the south. Is there a statue of Sherman in Atlanta?

Also, what about those bases named after reconstruction? How long did the US need to continue naming bases after the Civil War to try and heal the divide?