Naming Commission issued part 3 of the report on renaming (confederacy) of DOD facilities, pursuant to the NDAA-FY 21 & 22…
It’s more than just a name —think about the non-white members of our Military. That everyday they show up on a base that was named after slave owners, generals of the confederacy & shitty human beings
To be clear, I’ve never understood why so many DOD facilities were named after Confederate Generals. Nor is this about “Preserving our (White) Heritage” —simply put the DOD asset renaming initiative is long over due. And nope, it’s not racist to say “why are we glorifying horrid slave owners and Confederate Generals who waged war on other Americans” -nope- there’s nothing racist about it. Yet it seems somehow in 2022 the DOD might (operative word) be amenable to correct the wrongs of their past.
Not that my opinion matters, but I’d certainly like to see roads, schools, libraries, and DOD facilities named after other Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans. None of whom took up arms against their own Country. Looks around and slowly steps off my soap box… I mean I suppose I could simply retweet the numerous threads, research and data but shittlestix twitter (snort)
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 AND 2022
It is important to remind you that in December 2020 Donald J Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act because of the provision of examining the various Department of Defense asserts that were named after leaders of the Confederacy. Consequently this was one of the very few times that Congress overrode Trump’s veto. To be clear this isn’t about preserving “white” heritage —what this is about is righting a few wrongs. Largely because the Confederacy should be viewed as traitors —and certainly not something to honor or celebrate.
See S. 1605; NDAA 2022, which became Public Law 117-81 - the Naming Commission inherent responsibility pursuant to the NDAA-2022 include:
developing criteria and procedures for identifying and renaming assets,
assessing the cost of the renaming program and
creating a plan for preventing Confederate-aligned names from being commemorated by the DOD in the future
Congress thereafter voted (to override Trumps veto (see the January 2. 2021 video) —because of Trump’s resistance to the name changes, this also meant the name changes would occur during the Biden administration. (chef’s kiss) -the report also concluded, that this program would cost an “estimated $62.5 million to implement” —in my view that’s money worth spent.
Assess the cost of renaming or removing names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
Develop procedures and criteria to assess whether an existing name, symbol, monument, display, or paraphernalia commemorates the Confederate States of America or a person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
Recommend procedures for renaming assets of the DoD to prevent commemoration of the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
Develop a plan to remove names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from assets of the DoD, within the timeline established by this Act (i.e., not later than January 1, 2024).
Include in the plan procedures and criteria for collecting and incorporating local sensitivities associated with naming or renaming of DoD assets.
Keep in mind Section 503 of the NDAA required a more diverse membership in promotion selection boards for DOD active duty & reserve personnel. Additionally selection boards for education and other command assignments, in order to best represent “the diverse population of the armed force concerned to the extent practicable.”
Additionally under Section 524, promotion selection boards will no longer be provided photographs of candidates for promotion in order to avoid any inherent or unintended bias. In addition, DoD is now required to provide Congress with an annual report on the “utility of redacting or removing from selection board applications any information which might lead to inappropriate bias;” —said report also requires the inclusion of an assessment of the effects of removing such information, and a detailed implementation plan. The report must be provided to Congress within one year of enactment of the NDAA, and its plan must allow for implementation within two years of receipt of the report.
Section 370, of the NDAA FY-2022, requires that the DoD remove from its assets “all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia” that commemorate the confederacy or any person who served with it voluntarily. “Assets” include bases, installations, streets, building, facilities, aircrafts, ships or planes, weapons, monuments, and the like, though grave markers are specifically excluded. I think one could make a solid argument that when the DOD officially named the various assets (of which the US Army has the most named for Confederate Officers” clearly and unequivocally violated Army Regulation 1-33, which states in part;
…that the purpose of naming an installation is “to provide lasting honor and pay tribute to deceased Army military…personnel with records of outstanding and honorable service.”
Pretty sure waging a deadly civil war against your own country isn’t considered “honorable conduct” —but then again I could be naive in my previous assertion. Nonetheless the recommendations by the Naming Commission -were definitely throughout and researched.
Diversity is long over due but has finally arrived
Fort Lee in Virginia, which was originally named for Robert E. Lee, —the Commission suggested it be renamed for two African Americans, Charity Adams and Arthur J. Gregg.
Lieutenant General Arthur J. Gregg enlisted in 1945 and helped to rebuild Europe which was devastated by “carpet bombing”. Gregg, rose through the ranks and eventually became the logistics director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
US Army Fort Polk, located in Louisiana was originally named after Leonidas Polk, a “slave-owning bishop” who became a major general in the Confederate army, according to the report’s findings. The commission recommended it be renamed for
which was submitting to Congress on August 8, 2022 -as noted by the Committee, this is part of the Final Report provides the Commission's renaming recommendations for Nine Army bases.
PART II U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Naval Academy
this was also submitted to Congress on August 29, 2022 —Part II of III is part of the Commission’s Final Report. Part II specifically addresses various assets and renaming within the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) and the U.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis)
And the third installment of the Commission’s report was submitted Congress on September 19, 2022 — this final part of the Final Report —which seeks to address all other Department of Defense assets not covered in the first two parts.
An additional review of other military assets,
provided projected costs of the program, and
made recommendations for the DOD to rename or rebrand assets by a deadline of Jan. 1, 2024.
To give you a sense of just how many DOD assets are named after Confederate Officers, I’d recommend you read part III -specifically I’d recommend you read pages 29 thru 43
As of August 4, 2022, the Department of Defense and its Services reported these Confederate-affiliated assets for inclusion in the Final Report. While assets at the nine Army bases and the military service academies already reported in Part I: U.S. Army Bases and Part II: U.S. Military Acade- my and U.S. Naval Academy are not listed here, this inventory does include multiple Department of Defense 4th Estate (4E) assets at those locations. These assets were not previously reported, as they are operated by Defense agencies and organizations external to the military branches (e.g., Army & Air Force Exchange Service and Defense Commissary Agency maintain Exchange and Commissary stores across the aforementioned installations).
Parts I thru III summary
Fort Bragg NC —In North Carolina the Commission looked at Fort Bragg. Which was originally named after Braxton Bragg. Who was a well known slave-owning Confederate Army officer. Who was largely considered “one of the worse generals of the Civil War,” —the commission wrote
Fort Benning was named after Confederate general Henry L. Benning. The Commission noted that Benning was an “ardent secessionist” and “bitter opponent of abolition” -also see the; 2018 A Re-examination of General Henry L. Benning by PHILLIP LINN -to say Benning was an ardent secessionist might be an understatement,
…in 1861, he took his secessionist campaign to Virginia, where he complained to the legislature that the abolition of slavery would lead to 'black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?' …also predicted that 'the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa or Saint Domingo…Imagining a world in which former slave Frederick Douglass became President, I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.'
…He demonstrated his skill in leading this division during the Northern Virginia Campaign when he became one of the primary leaders of shock troops during the large assault on Pope's left flank at the Second Battle of Manassas, an assault which nearly destroyed the Union army.
Whereas the Commission’s report concerning Hood isn’t just unflattering it’s brutally honest. Other US Army bases slotted for renaming include:
LOCAL SENSITIVITIESTo meet the Section 370 requirement to collect and incorporate local sensitivities, the Commission decided on three ways to solicit input.
First, the Commission agreed it was vital to visit every installation under consideration for renaming or that was known to possess Confederacy-affiliated assets.
Between June and November 2021, Commissioners traveled to the bases (see Parts I and II) to view Confederate-named assets; learn about existing internal processes for renaming; engage with base leaders, personnel and other on-post stakeholders;
…engage with local community leaders and other off-post stakeholders to provide information and collect their feedback on the renaming process, along with their specific renaming recommendations.
The Commission provided guidance on its specific desires (engagements with stakeholders, military personnel, civilian workers, and senior leaders, along with opportunities to see Confederate-named assets) and the installation leadership developed the itinerary and selected the various stakeholders to engage.
in advance of installation visits, the Commission engaged with senators, representatives, and Governor
The Commission established a website allowing anyone to provide installation name recommendations (or other feedback) directly to the Commission from September 4 to December 1, 2021.
More than 34,000 submissions were received. Between March and April 2022, after all the installation visits were complete
the Commission re-engaged installation commanders, military personnel, leaders and other stakeholders from each community through virtual listening sessions.
the Commission presented candidate names for each installation (see Part I of the report). Although community feedback was non-binding on the Commission, it featured prominently in its deliberations and was instrumental to helping shape the focused lists of potential names as well for the final recommended name for each installation.
Non-saltwater therapy…
Last night’s sunset was spectacular —mainly because filming two fronts colliding with each other at the foothills via Timelapse made for one full spectrum sunset that I’ve filmed in a while. And yes I’m still “chasing THE shot” —in recent days I’ve gotten close but ultimately not close enough.
Again I’m super busy this week —which means my daily publication might be hit or miss until early October. And while some of my readers might not find today’s article interesting. I do know that a large portion of my readers are keen to know how the renaming process is going. Again the three part reports can be found here -notwithstanding I would recommend that you read all three reports. Largely because it explains the methodology and potential replacement names.
Our Final Report (which was released on September 26. 2022 and was submitted to Congress in three parts:
In the end I’m reminded about how in Nov 2008 I was incredibly hopeful that I’d be raising my children in a more inclusive America —but then again the vast majority of Republicans lost their ever loving minds that America elected its first African American president and four years later we re-elected Barrack Obama —the antithesis of Obama was/is Donald Trump. Period. Enough said.
I’ll see you on Wednesday or Thursday but definitely not tomorrow as I’m otherwise preoccupied with two back to back depos and making final travel arrangements for New Orleans for myself and a few of my boss… I’m still planning to use my coughing and sneezing as a post-pandemic defense mechanism because I generally do not like people that invade my personal space.
Thank you for all the cabinet full of files. This is a great history lesson and a lesson in empathy.
Re naming is happening all across Canada, and it is about time worldwide to put certain names in their graves without a headstone.