David Petraeus: Remove Names of Confederate ‘Traitors’ from Army Bases

BREITBART ^ | 9 Jun 2020 | JOSHUA CAPLAN

[SJackson]

Of course if we’re going after grandparents, both John McCain and President Obama have slaveholders in their background. Kamala Harris too.

[DoodleDawg]

I believe secession was wrong but they did not want to overthrow the U.S. government. They resigned any commissions they had in the U.S. army and it can be argued once their states seceded they were no longer U.S. citizens. So where was the treason?

It can also be argued that since their acts of secession were unconstitutional then by waging armed rebellion against the U.S. they committed treason as defined by Article III of the Constitution.

[DoodleDawg]

They will have to remove all traces of President John Tyler as well. Tyler was elected to the Confederate Congress.

Uh, what traces of John Tyler?

[RedEyeJack]

Surprised that they do not want to change the name of the John Stennis.

[robowombat]

Yes, and good. But the left is putting down a marker and they will keep after this. Within the decade there wil lbe a major demrat push to purge any reference to any SOutherner or Confederate anywhere. The goal is to abolish American history and replace it with the left’s woke narrative.

[BroJoeK]

"What about the items named for Indian tribes and chiefs?
They were at war with the US at one timw."

Obviously, you don't understand PC World.
In PC World there's no crime or shame in waging war against oppressive white Americans, in fact, that's celebrated endlessly.
It would only ever become a crime if or when large majorities of native Americans begin voting Republican.
Then suddenly their heroes will become traitors and so removed from public admiration.

And that will happen, I'm pretty sure, in the days just before heck freezes over... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

"Since Betrayus feels that these past historical figures don’t represent “who we are”, he perhaps would support renaming military bases after George Floyd, Gentle Giant Michael Brown, Travon Martin, and others..."

I had very similar thoughts as to what we **should** name those old Confederate posts.
Let's see...

• Fort Polk can become Fort Pelosi

• Fort Bragg could be Fort Biden

• Fort Lee could be Fort Sheila Jackson Lee

• Fort Hood could be Fort Hoyer

• Fort A.P. Hill could be Fort A.O. Cortez

• Fort Gordon could be Fort Turbin, right?

Just think how much that would help with recruitment and army morale. </sarcasm>

[robowombat]

Fort Lee to Ft Nat Turner

Fort Bragg to Fort Dessalines

Fort Polk to Fort Pinckney Pinchbeck

Fort Benning to Fort Kilpatrick

Fort Hood to Fort Juan N Cortina

Fort Jackson to Fort Denmark Vessey

Fort Gordon to Fort Giddings

[lastchance]

I would not concede to that argument. At the time there was no consensus that secession violated the Constitution.

[DoodleDawg]

I would not concede to that argument. At the time there was no consensus that secession violated the Constitution.

And no consensus that it didn't. It took the Supreme Court to rule after the rebellion was over that secession without the consent of the states was not supported by the Constitution.

[lastchance]

As if they would rule any other way. I think secession was fool hardy and wrong for several reasons. I don’t think it was illegal at the time. We will never know whether Lincoln would have called up troops if Fort Sumter had not been fired upon. Once that happened the U.S. government was justified in going to war against the Confederacy.

My point is that those who fought for the Confederacy were not traitors. Even if after the war the secession was found to be illegal when they enlisted in the Confederate military they believed they were fighting on behalf of a separate country and not making war on their own nation.

[DoodleDawg]

As if they would rule any other way.

It wouldn't make any sense to rule any other way.

I don’t think it was illegal at the time.

So you believe the Founding Fathers would agree to a system where states can walk out at will, without discussion, taking every bit of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation, and walk away from their responsibility for their share of national debt and from national commitments? I could not design a method for leaving more likely to leave acrimony and hard-feelings if I tried, and I cannot believe men like Madison and Washington and Hamilton would purposely do so as well.

We will never know whether Lincoln would have called up troops if Fort Sumter had not been fired upon.

Lincoln had not, while Davis called up 75,000 troops prior to beginning the war at Sumter. Which side had the more hostile intentions?

My point is that those who fought for the Confederacy were not traitors.

One can respect them for their fight while not being under any illusions on their actions. They were, by the definition given in Article III, traitors.

Even if after the war the secession was found to be illegal when they enlisted in the Confederate military they believed they were fighting on behalf of a separate country and not making war on their own nation.

True. But the men fighting the revolutionary war felt that they were also fighting for a country, and I doubt that the British would have been as generous in victory as the North was.

[lastchance]

The numerous scholars have not come to an agreement on the matter so why should we?

I do think the founding fathers would have a great respect for state sovereignty and that freely joined states would also be free to leave. Without conceding that federal property within the state could just carted off or that legitimate costs and obligations should not be met.

Hostile intentions ? I would not put it like that. The Confederate government knew damn well that firing on Fort Sumter was an act of war. So odds are they figured Lincoln would respond by calling for troops. Troops that would be marching south. Seems it would be logical for Davis to call up troops.

Again. I do not agree they were traitors. You are right that the North was certainly generous in victory. If things had continued that way it would have been much better for all concerned. Booth’s cowardly act sure put an end to that possibility.

P.S. If you are interested in Civil War history My husband’s GG Grandfather (Bradford Thompson) was a captain in the 112th Regiment of the Illinois Volunteers. He wrote a book of his experience. His wife’s brother was captured at Cleveland, Tennessee and died in Andersonville.

[DoodleDawg]

The numerous scholars have not come to an agreement on the matter so why should we?

Because the only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court's, and they ruled that secession as practiced by the Southern states is not constitutional.

I do think the founding fathers would have a great respect for state sovereignty and that freely joined states would also be free to leave. Without conceding that federal property within the state could just carted off or that legitimate costs and obligations should not be met.

Except that with the exception of the original 13 states, the other states didn't 'freely join' anything. They were admitted, and only with the approval of the other states. But I believe that the Founding Fathers would have agreed that states were free to leave, but only after negotiating all matters of disagreement before leaving. That is the only way to have a peaceful separation, something that I have to believe the Founding Fathers would have preferred.

Hostile intentions ? I would not put it like that. The Confederate government knew damn well that firing on Fort Sumter was an act of war.

Then they were planning their war well in advance. The call for 75,000 troops was long before they fired on Sumter.

So odds are they figured Lincoln would respond by calling for troops. Troops that would be marching south. Seems it would be logical for Davis to call up troops.

Yes, if Davis was set on war. And you're seeming to agree that he did.

Again. I do not agree they were traitors.

We will have to agree to disagree.

P.S. If you are interested in Civil War history

Am I interested in Civil War history???? I would think it obvious, I am fascinated by the Civil War. I have over 200 books devoted to the war. I would certainly be interested in your relative's book. So if you could provide the details I will see if I can find it, either in print or online.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I’m not sure Petraeus is precisely the right point man to be pointing up Confederate Generals as traitors, if ya know what I mean.

[lastchance]

Here is a link to the book on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/History-Regiment-Illinois-Volunteer-Infantry/dp/B009OYE5WM

You may also find this interesting it is letter he wrote to his wife Elizabeth Bevier Thompson.

https://sparedshared13.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/1862-bradford-foster-thompson-to-elizabeth-bevier-thompson/

Thanks for being so courteous.

[DoodleDawg]

Thanks for being so courteous.

And thank you for the links. I look forward to reading both of them.

[piasa]

North America : Time for a New Focus
Chairs: David H. Petraeus, KKR Global Institute, and Robert B. Zoellick, Goldman Sachs & Co.
Project Director: Shannon K. O’Neil, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Program
Program Director: Christopher M. Tuttle, Managing Director, Washington and Independent Task Force Programs

OCTOBER 2014 : (-—See WAR ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNITY) North America - task-force-report-north-america-time-for-a-new-focus [BOOK]
Publisher : Council on Foreign Relations Press
Release Date : October 2014
Price : $27.50 paper
138 pages
ISBN 978-0-87609-599-7
Task Force Report No. 71

A new CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force report, North America: Time for a New Focus, asserts that elevating and prioritizing the U.S.-Canada-Mexico relationship offers the best opportunity for strengthening the United States and its place in the world.
“It is time to put North America at the forefront of U.S. policy,” the report says. “The development and implementation of a strategy for U.S. economic, energy, security, environmental, and societal cooperation with its two neighbors can strengthen the United States at home and enhance its influence abroad.”
Chaired by David H. Petraeus, retired U.S. Army general and chairman of the KKR Global Institute, and Robert B. Zoellick, former president of the World Bank Group and chairman of Goldman Sachs’s International Advisors, the Task Force is composed of a diverse and distinguished group of experts that includes former government officials, scholars, and others. The project is directed by CFR Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies Shannon K. O’Neil.
The Task Force proposes a comprehensive set of recommendations for deepening North American integration, concentrating on four pivotal areas—energy, economic competitiveness, security, and community. These include:
Capitalizing on North America’s promising energy outlook. The North American countries need a regional energy strategy to strengthen the continent’s energy infrastructure, expand energy exports, support Mexico’s historic reforms, improve safety, and encourage harmonized policies to promote energy conservation and reduce carbon emissions.
“For economic, environmental, and diplomatic reasons, the Task Force recommends that the U.S. government encourage increased energy connections with Canada and Mexico. The U.S. government should approve additional pipeline capacity, including the Keystone XL pipeline,” the report says. “The Task Force also proposes that the United States end restrictions on energy exports, including oil and LNG (liquefied natural gas).”
Bolstering economic competitiveness through the freer movement of goods and services across borders. Upgrading infrastructure and policies across borders would interconnect national economies securely and efficiently. Recognizing trilateral economic interests, the United States should also include Canada and Mexico in its negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and other free trade agreements.
“The United States’ ability to compete in a dynamic and competitive world economy would be strengthened by enhanced economic ties with Canada and Mexico,” the report explains. “The Task Force recommends working toward the free and unimpeded movement of goods and services across North America’s common borders.”
Strengthening security through a unified continental strategy and “continuous border innovation.” While working toward the goal of a unified security strategy for North America, the United States and Canada should support Mexican efforts to strengthen the democratic rule of law, dismantle criminal networks, contribute to the development of resilient and cohesive communities, and reduce arms smuggling and drug consumption.
“The United States should shift from border-centric security toward a strategy of combining perimeter protection with security in depth through the use of intelligence, risk assessment, shared capabilities, and joint actions throughout the region,” the report says.
Fostering a North American community through comprehensive immigration reform, workforce development, and the creation of a mobility accord to facilitate the movement of workers. The U.S. Congress should pass comprehensive immigration reforms. To better aid the movement of North American workers, the three countries should also create a North American Mobility Accord, expand visas for skilled workers, streamline recognition of professional credentials, and develop a regional educational innovation strategy.
“The Task Force strongly recommends the passage of comprehensive federal immigration reform that secures U.S. borders, prevents illegal entry, provides visas on the basis of economic need, invites talented and skilled people to settle in the United States, and offers a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants now in the United States,” the report says.
The report of the Independent Task Force on Noncommunicable Diseases, chaired by Mitchell E. Daniels and Thomas E. Donilon, will be released later this fall. Previous Independent Task Force reports have covered the open Internet, U.S.-Turkey relations, U.S. education reform and national security, and other relevant issues.

Note: This report is available in French and Spanish.
Professors: To request an exam copy, contact publications@cfr.org. Please include your university and course name.
Bookstores: To order bulk copies, please contact Ingram. Visit https://ipage.ingrambook.com, call 800.234.6737, or email orders@ingrambook.com. ISBN: 978-0-87609-599-7

More on... Americas, Trade, Border and Port Security
More About This Publication
Task Force Members

Bernard W. Aronson, ACON Investments
Jodi Hanson Bond, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Robert C. Bonner, Sentinel HS Group, LLC
Jason Eric Bordoff, Columbia University
Timothy P. Daly, Western Union
Jorge I. Domínguez, Harvard University
Stephen E. Flynn, Northeastern University
Gordon D. Giffin, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
Neal R. Goins, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Kenneth I. Juster, Warburg Pincus LLC
Marie-Josée Kravis, Hudson Institute
Jane Holl Lute, Council on CyberSecurity
Jason Marczak, Atlantic Council
Diana Natalicio, University of Texas at El Paso
Shannon K. O’Neil, Council on Foreign Relations
Maria Otero, Independent Consulting
James W. Owens, Caterpillar Inc.
David H. Petraeus, KKR Global Institute
Adrean Scheid Rothkopf, Millicom
Clifford M. Sobel, Valor Capital Group
James S. Taylor, Vianovo
Robert B. Zoellick, Goldman Sachs & Co.