ERASE HISTORY

[QA1517]

Let us not forget that Arlington National Cemetery was built on Lee's beloved farm to serve as a reminder for what he had done and initially held a community of freed slaves.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I do think you can differentiate between people who had slaves (Jefferson, Washington, etc.) and people who fought against the United States in the Civil War, who also had slaves. There's no reason to name bases after Confederates.

When I was a cadet, Daughters of Confederate Soldiers gave an award to cadets (seniors maybe) and that didn't make sense to me. There are obviously historical figures who, by today's standards, wouldn't be acceptable, whether it be because they owned slaves, mistreated women, were racist, etc. But there are also figures who actively fought against the U.S., and I see no reason to honor them.

I leave near a battlefield with the statue of a Confederate general. The general won a battle there and in my opinion, that's historic. But, having something named after someone unrelated to location? Times have changed.

 

[sanman]

I only moved to the US 8 years ago. One thing that I learned back in the U.K. and I know is an item of some disagreement between historians even now is the the southern states wanted to separate from the north initially due to taxation. Some historians maintain that Lincoln moved the focus to slavery to make the war more palatable.

However back to the point in hand. I am not a believer of trying to remove history. We cannot apply today’s morality to the people and their actions that happened in the past. As an English citizen should I demand reparations from Italy for when most of Britain was under the rule of Romans and many of us were enslaved, or from France for when we were ruled by Normans, or the Danish for when the Danes pillaged large areas of England.

The protests we are seeing in the US following the death of George Floyd are now happening in the U.K. The protestors are demanding the removal of the statues of people like Winston Churchill and Baden-Powell.

We need to learn from history but not dwell on it. Live for the present and the future.

 

[bruno]

I only moved to the US 8 years ago. One thing that I learned back in the U.K. and I know is an item of some disagreement between historians even now is the the southern states wanted to separate from the north initially due to taxation. Some historians maintain that Lincoln moved the focus to slavery to make the war more palatable.

Since you just moved to the US a few years ago I will give you a pass on the history, but no serious historians believe this for good reason- the reality is that the only cause that the states cited in their reasons for secession was slavery. The only cause. This is a link to the South Carolina causes for secession- it is copied almost verbatim in almost all of the other states justifications. You will notice nothing about taxation. You will notice nothing about tariffs- all of that is post civil war southern apologists trying to put lipstick on the pig and turning it into a “glorious cause“. It wasn’t a glorious cause - it was all about the perceived right to maintain and expand the right of slavery anywhere in the country unfettered by even criticism ( read the document if you think otherwise) https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Despite being a VMI alum where this stuff surrounds you- I have little to no use for statues of confederate generals prominently displayed like they are in Richmond ( or Stonewall Jackson in front of the Barracks at VMI). Those guys were traitors leading the fight for an ignoble cause - and a pretty high percentage of those statues were erected at the very same time that reconstruction was being demolished and the basic human and civil rights of the black citizens were being Forcibly curtailed - ditto the confederate battle flag.
Every day those statues and flags are up and in a place of prominence is a day that one of our fellow citizens is reminded that we are honoring a leader in a war to keep their ancestors in bondage - and was erected by the descendants of those leaders as part of the effort to strip the hard won basic human rights back away from black citizens. I don’t see how a statue of Lee of Jefferson Davis etc.. can be seen as anything other than that. Further - if you care about your fellow citizens — I would suggest that whether or not I take offense to something is missing the point- why would anyone be in favor of retaining something that a large segment of our fellow citizens see as a gratuitously insulting reminder of a time in which anyone who looked like them was treated as something less than a man? Finally- These aren’t statues that speak to the pain and suffering caused by that war. You don’t see these statues portraying soldiers In agony or mothers mourning their lost boys- they are always heroic poses of “heroic” leaders standing tall. A much more appropriate approach from my perspective is the statue of “Virginia Mourning her Dead” on the VMI post- she is bent over with her head in her hands and you can see agony at the cost she has paid. Big difference.

I have different and mixed-feelings about renaming Ft Bragg, Benning, Hood etc... Those places have been around for a nearly a century or more, and have had hundreds of thousands , or even millions of Soldiers associated with them - they have developed their own history completely independent of whomever they were first named for. Just as New York, New Jersey and New England have built their own histories, which have no relationship with the places for which they were first named- so too these posts are part of the history & legacy of the US Army - completely divorces from the person for whom they were originally named. At this point- it’s not Ft Braxton Bragg- it is Ft Bragg NC home of the 82d Airborne Division and 18th ABN Corps since 1942 . It’s not Ft John B. Hood, it is Ft Hood - the premier armor post in the Army; and who the heck even knows who Benning was named after(? )- but since the 1920’s it has been Fr Benning, home of the US Army Infantry. That is an awful lot of the US Army’s history that you are suddenly terminating for an association that seems more academic than actual at this point.

The Army will eventually do what is right for its Soldiers ( regardless of what DJT tweets); but this issue is one that I think is not nearly as clear cut as moving a statue or banning a flag. If they survey the troops at those places and find that black Soldiers do feel like the posts are offensive to them then I would be in favor of renaming them- but I suspect that this is not a cause high on those Soldier’s agenda

 

[cb7893]

I know is an item of some disagreement between historians even now is the the southern states wanted to separate from the north initially due to taxation.

@bruno, you beat me to it.

The only historian who would stake a claim that taxation was the salient issue leading up to the firing on Ft. Sumter, is one with tenure. The Southern economy was based on slavery. It was completely dependent upon it. They were attempting to preserve a feudal system which had been been all but abandoned by the rest of what we refer to as Western Civilization. (Which is very ironic since the torch bearers in Charlottesville claimed to be the protectors of Western Civilization). The only major European country to preserve serfdom was Russia, which to this day prides itself on not being Western.

Some historians maintain that Lincoln moved the focus to slavery to make the war more palatable.

Those historians would never have gotten tenure in the United States, because they would know this history:

New York Draft Riots: 1863, Civil War & Causes | HISTORY

The New York Draft Riots of 1863 were a violent uprising against a strict military draft during the Civil War. Blacks were a frequent target of the violence.

www.history.com

The abolition of slavery was very popular among the Abolitionists and Radical Republicans, but it wasn't a motivating force for the Union.

 

[A1Janitor]

My understanding was the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln supported banning slavery in all the U.S. territories. The Southern states viewed this as a violation of their constitutional rights, and as the first step in a grander Republican plan to eventually abolish slavery.

Lincoln wasn’t elected with just “radical” Republicans voting.

 

[cb7893]

I have different and mixed-feelings about renaming Ft Bragg, Benning, Hood etc... Those places have been around for a nearly a century or more, and have had hundreds of thousands , or even millions of Soldiers associated with them - they have developed their own history completely independent of whomever they were first named for. Just as New York, New Jersey and New England have built their own histories, which have no relationship with the places for which they were first named- so too these posts are part of the history & legacy of the US Army - completely divorces from the person for whom they were originally named. At this point- it’s not Ft Braxton Bragg- it is Ft Bragg NC home of the 82d Airborne Division and 18th ABN Corps since 1942 . It’s not Ft John B. Hood, it is Ft Hood - the premier armor post in the Army; and who the heck even knows who Benning was named after(? )- but since the 1920’s it has been Fr Benning, home of the US Army Infantry. That is an awful lot of the US Army’s history that you are suddenly terminating for an association that seems more academic than actual at this point.

Someone earlier asked, "Who cares?"--about renaming of Ft. Bragg of any number of other installations. I am very curious what service members, who have cycled through Ft. Bragg over the past several years, would say about the renaming--before and after a quick history lesson about who the man was and what he staked his life on.

I am not suggesting that we give in to the latest fad, but there is such a glaring dichotomy. People of yours and my age have learned to live with it. Does that mean that all future generations should as well.

I appreciate your thoughtful post.

 

[Chockstock]

***MOD HAT OFF***

Okay...where to begin? First, let's discuss one statement you made, incorrectly, immediately. "Why do you falsely present Lee's personal quotes as representative of all Confederate soldiers and their beliefs?" First, I presented nothing "falsely" and your statement that I did is tantamount to calling me a liar, which you have no reason to do and no basis in facts to state. I simply described the general populace beliefs of the time as is illustrated in numerous history books, accounts, diaries, books, etc., of how people generally viewed their allegiance, especially in the South and Midwest. With my comments about Lee, I simply presented Lee's own words to show the angst that he suffered in his decision making. As for the "other Confederate soldiers and their beliefs? Neither you nor I can know what was in the heart of the literally hundreds of thousands of Confederate or Union soldiers. I can speak for the "maybe a dozen" diaries I have read (written in their own hand) of some Confederate soldiers and some Union soldiers (these diaries are held by families I know). In them, they don't speak of grandiose philosophical debates of the union, national identity, the Constitution of the USA, or anything so grand. The southern soldiers speak of "northern troops invading our homes, destroying our farms, killing our livestock." Like the majority of soldiers in the Union armies, the Confederate soldiers were, by and large, a simple people. There are some excellent books, now being reprinted, that were written in the late 1800s by former soldiers of both armies. Check them out if you never have; they offer some very interesting perspectives from first-hand narratives.

Lastly...nowhere did you see me argue that the creation of the Confederate States of America wasn't treason. Your comment "I'm just a little disturbed that anyone would try to argue that the Confederacy was not treason. It most definitely was." If you assumed that because I didn't go into more depth, okay, that's fair but incorrect. My comments were directed at the agony of the decision Lee and others had to make and, taken into context of the time, how challenging it had to be. Nothing more. Of course, at the end of the day, it was determined to be treason, and while people may argue that, in my mind with the decision of the Supreme Court, the argument is moot.

I think you may be contradicting yourself a little here. You write: "I simply described the general populace beliefs of the time" and then "Neither you nor I can know what was in the heart of the literally hundreds of thousands of Confederate or Union soldiers." Well, which is it? Were Lee's personal conflicts shared by the "general populace" as you seemed to purport in your first post? I also am not calling you a liar (you didn't lie about anything); I am merely stating that it is wrong for you to suggest that the majority of Southerners shared Lee's internal struggle over slavery and race relations. While the vast majority of Southern whites did not own slaves, they believed in slavery. Racial hierarchy was a uniting factor for poor and rich whites. As long as there was a class of sub-humans below even the poorest white, there was incentive to preserve slavery. The claim that cotton was the future was just poor economic foresight when Europe and Japan had and were accumulating vast wealth through colonialism and the Industrial Revolution.

"With my comments about Lee, I simply presented Lee's own words to show the angst that he suffered in his decision making." Well, I wasn't so sure of that when I wrote my initial response. Perhaps the true meaning of your words were lost over text. But it felt you were trying to insinuate that Lee and his Confederate brethren did not commit treason. After all, you preface Lee's quotes with the following: "So many people speak of the confederate soldiers/sailors as "traitors to their country." I would ask that you look at Robert E. Lee's comments about the agonizing decision he had to make when offered command of all the Union armies; two quotes I have known since I was young". What do Lee's personal feelings about being torn between two allegiances have anything to do with calling them traitors or not?

Next..."Does his own moral struggle over violating his oath and yes, even over the institution of slavery (commendable as it is), somehow make his indefensible actions defensible....?" Again, an excellent but questionable statement. You say he "violated his oath." What oath? When he resigned his commission, he was released of any oath of fealty to any prince or potentate. At that point, he was under no obligation, legally, to any federal government. One could argue that "yes, he was obligated to obey local and state laws and any federal laws that applied to all the states as a citizen of the United States." Okay, however at that time there was no law against secession as the Supreme Court decision on this didn't come until 1869. Interesting that you find that amusing, but that's your opinion and that's fine. My opinion is different, and that's fine too. I think that one's actions in such a unique situation and time are a little more "fuzzy" than "black and white" in the matter of law, honor, and integrity. At that time, allegiance to the state was first and foremost in most people's minds/hearts (definitely in the South, but also manifested in New England and the MidWest). Yes, when taking a position with the military they swore an oath to the Federal government. And by all accounts, they (generic all-encompassing) served honorably. However many chose to resign those commissions and to renew their allegiance to their native state in a time of national crisis. And when their state determined that it no longer wanted to be part of the "great experiment" and voted to secede, they offered to serve their state and the new nation. Again, given the times, the beliefs of the peoples of the time, this is understandable from a historical context. There is no statement or declaration in the Constitution of the United States prohibiting secession.

"are you implying that because it was not explicitly illegal to do so, the Confederacy's actions can be partially or wholly excused?" I believe, again based upon studying the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the national "mood" of the times, yes, you can argue that their actions were based upon a belief in legality. I make no "excuse" for the action, I simply understand its cause at that time. Later decisions in law determined that there is no provision in the US Constitution to allow for secession and therefore that action was illegal. Your comment re: stare decisis is telling. You believe (my understanding, based upon your tone) is that we shouldn't have relied upon stare decisis because the country was "not even 80 years old (was judicial review even a thing?" If we're to be consistent in the argument, then yes it should have been applied and the fact that it hadn't been decided prior agrees that no law then on the books, or interpretation of the Constitution, would hold against secession, and therefore, it would be legal.

Putting all that aside (I told you, I go all over on this, it's a topic of great interest, mental debate, and food for thought all at the same time), Isn't it telling though that President Andrew Johnson on Christmas Day, 1868, by Executive Order, pardoned all individuals that had served the CSA in any capacity? Wouldn't it have been grand if people, from that point forward, worked together instead of against each other? However, the times and society being what it was then, that wasn't going to happen. NorwichDad's post above is superb, and speaks to the times and the societal mores...would that it had changed. Think about how much better we might be today.***Side note: NorwichDad mentions Grant...if you missed the three-day mini on Grant recently, I highly recommend it!!***

With the benefit of 160 years of history and social/national change, it's easy for people to label others. "All individuals, regardless of anything, were traitors if they served, fought, or aided the Confederacy." Okay...that can be argued based upon the Constitutional definition of treason and the Supreme Court decision of 1869, and there's little argument to oppose it. However, do we truly need to add vitriol to labeling? How about we just teach history, in all its context, so that todays youth, and tomorrows, know all, not just select bits? Perhaps in 100 years people will be different, but open vitriol against certain people, that but for four years, would be normally revered in US history, is just going to cause more angst. Better to leave the lessons in history.

A good discussion, you made me think and that's always appreciated!

Steve

***BACK TO MOD WORK***

We can agree to disagree here. You are pointing out technicalities to prove that secession was indeed Constitutionally legal. Do you believe the
Constitution was perfect and the Founding Fathers anticipated every political crisis of the future? Again I will have to repeat what I said earlier: Just because it was not explicitly banned in the Constitution, is secession (on behalf of racial SLAVERY) in keeping with the original Founding Fathers' intent, the spirit upon which the Constitution was drafted, or even a democratic means to settle a political dispute? You proclaim that there is nothing prohibiting a state from seceding. Sure, but is that how we should settle differences in our country? If you disagree with the direction the Nation is going, just pack your bags and leave while shooting anyone that tries to stop you? Our citizens' experiment in democracy, to quote Mattis, deserves better than that.

If you feel that at any given moment you choose to resign your commission it automatically and totally absolves you of your obligations to your country, that is fine, even though I highly disagree with it and can only imagine a few very extreme scenarios where something like that would be appropriate for any commissioned officer. I think trying to "understand it from a historical context" merits some study but you need to proceed with great caution. The South was not seceding to protest a righteous cause, say, a federal government that had turned tyrannical. By making arguments such as yours, it may give the appearance that you support secession as Constitutionally sanctioned "states rights" while conveniently side-stepping the real issue of slavery and white supremacy. I concede that it is not fair nor appropriate to judge the past with the lens of the 21st century. But invoking personal diaries of Confederate soldiers and describing them as "simple men" who merely fought against the "Northern invaders" smells more of "Lost Cause" revisionism and a detraction from the core issue that ignited the conflict. The CSA and its supporters failed to live up to the highest ideals of the Constitution, that of equality for all before God and the law, and when they saw the national and international political discourse moving away from slavery, they took matters into their own hands.

While the words "treason" and "traitors" certainly have negative connotations, I still believe that is what the Confederates committed. We'll have to agree to disagree here as well. We can debate the legal definition of treason all we want. And in fact, you may even be right about it. Not only may it be historically and legally incorrect to call them traitors but also unnecessarily incendiary and nonconstructive. But at the end of the day, the CSA sought to destroy the Union and came exceedingly close to altering the course of history, destroying hundreds of thousands of lives, and preventing the creation of the United States of America as we know it; all in the name of a caste system based upon a racial hierarchy. And that is how it should be taught in our schools.

 

[A1Janitor]

Someone earlier asked, "Who cares?"--about renaming of Ft. Bragg of any number of other installations. I am very curious what service members, who have cycled through Ft. Bragg over the past several years, would say about the renaming--before and after a quick history lesson about who the man was and what he staked his life on.

I am not suggesting that we give in to the latest fad, but there is such a glaring dichotomy. People of yours and my age have learned to live with it. Does that mean that all future generations should as well.

I appreciate your thoughtful post.

I didn’t serve there ... but after reading here (and further reading elsewhere) I have changed my mind slightly and wouldn’t oppose changing the names or taking the statutes down.

I would favor a museum be created to house this stuff.

 

[Chockstock]

Since you just moved to the US a few years ago I will give you a pass on the history, but no serious historians believe this for good reason- the reality is that the only cause that the states cited in their reasons for secession was slavery. The only cause. This is a link to the South Carolina causes for secession- it is copied almost verbatim in almost all of the other states justifications. You will notice nothing about taxation. You will notice nothing about tariffs- all of that is post civil war southern apologists trying to put lipstick on the pig and turning it into a “glorious cause“. It wasn’t a glorious cause - it was all about the perceived right to maintain and expand the right of slavery anywhere in the country unfettered by even criticism ( read the document if you think otherwise) https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Despite being a VMI alum where this stuff surrounds you- I have little to no use for statues of confederate generals prominently displayed like they are in Richmond ( or Stonewall Jackson in front of the Barracks at VMI). Those guys were traitors leading the fight for an ignoble cause - and a pretty high percentage of those statues were erected at the very same time that reconstruction was being demolished and the basic human and civil rights of the black citizens were being Forcibly curtailed - ditto the confederate battle flag.
Every day those statues and flags are up and in a place of prominence is a day that one of our fellow citizens is reminded that we are honoring a leader in a war to keep their ancestors in bondage - and was erected by the descendants of those leaders as part of the effort to strip the hard won basic human rights back away from black citizens. I don’t see how a statue of Lee of Jefferson Davis etc.. can be seen as anything other than that. Further - if you care about your fellow citizens — I would suggest that whether or not I take offense to something is missing the point- why would anyone be in favor of retaining something that a large segment of our fellow citizens see as a gratuitously insulting reminder of a time in which anyone who looked like them was treated as something less than a man? Finally- These aren’t statues that speak to the pain and suffering caused by that war. You don’t see these statues portraying soldiers In agony or mothers mourning their lost boys- they are always heroic poses of “heroic” leaders standing tall. A much more appropriate approach from my perspective is the statue of “Virginia Mourning her Dead” on the VMI post- she is bent over with her head in her hands and you can see agony at the cost she has paid. Big difference.

I have different and mixed-feelings about renaming Ft Bragg, Benning, Hood etc... Those places have been around for a nearly a century or more, and have had hundreds of thousands , or even millions of Soldiers associated with them - they have developed their own history completely independent of whomever they were first named for. Just as New York, New Jersey and New England have built their own histories, which have no relationship with the places for which they were first named- so too these posts are part of the history & legacy of the US Army - completely divorces from the person for whom they were originally named. At this point- it’s not Ft Braxton Bragg- it is Ft Bragg NC home of the 82d Airborne Division and 18th ABN Corps since 1942 . It’s not Ft John B. Hood, it is Ft Hood - the premier armor post in the Army; and who the heck even knows who Benning was named after(? )- but since the 1920’s it has been Fr Benning, home of the US Army Infantry. That is an awful lot of the US Army’s history that you are suddenly terminating for an association that seems more academic than actual at this point.

The Army will eventually do what is right for its Soldiers ( regardless of what DJT tweets); but this issue is one that I think is not nearly as clear cut as moving a statue or banning a flag. If they survey the troops at those places and find that black Soldiers do feel like the posts are offensive to them then I would be in favor of renaming them- but I suspect that this is not a cause high on those Soldier’s agenda

What did you major in? That is some fine penmanship and eloquently written.

 

[sanman]

Since you just moved to the US a few years ago I will give you a pass on the history, but no serious historians believe this for good reason- the reality is that the only cause that the states cited in their reasons for secession was slavery. The only cause. This is a link to the South Carolina causes for secession- it is copied almost verbatim in almost all of the other states justifications. You will notice nothing about taxation. You will notice nothing about tariffs- all of that is post civil war southern apologists trying to put lipstick on the pig and turning it into a “glorious cause“. It wasn’t a glorious cause - it was all about the perceived right to maintain and expand the right of slavery anywhere in the country unfettered by even criticism ( read the document if you think otherwise)

So is this inaccurate Link

 

[CatDog99]

A few of you have a broad command of history and an excellent foundation in Constitutional law. Here’s a question — what do you think the federal government would do today if a state legislature (or several states) voted to secede from the union and attacked a US military base? Would US military put down by force if negotiations failed? Even if you don’t care to answer in this forum it’s interesting to think about. Would we go to war, again, to preserve the union?

 

[Tbpxece]

... and who the heck even knows who Benning was named after(? )

Found this on Task and Purpose--> Fort Benning

 

[BBBRRRTT]

When's the Washington Monument scheduled to be demolished? Just checking, want to get some pics before the razing.

 

[unkown1961]

Found this on Task and Purpose--> Fort Benning

Along those lines, this is an interesting article of suggested name changes. One thing I found interesting was that there were still segregated units during the Korean War. I thought those were stopped after WWII.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/

 

[sheriff3]

Taking the name of a Confederate or Union slave owner or traitor off of a military installation or building is not 'erasing history". History cannot be erased... it is something that happened... it is not a video to be deleted or chalk mark to be wiped away. Honoring these people by keeping their names on military installations/buildings is sending the message we are celebrating their achievements and condone what they stood for. If you need statues put them in a museum along with accurate historical information, not upon a pedestal in a prominent location.

It is past time for change and for this country to stop celebrating the traitors, slave owners and racists of our history.

I see some quotes in this string and would like to offer some others....

“If not now, when? If not you, who?”
― Hillel the Elder

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
Desmond Tutu

 

[Devil Doc]

What about Elihu Yale? He was a slave trader and his name is still on the sign at Yale University. Of course Yale has many powerful alumni and lots of wealthy donors. That might be a heavy lift to remove that name.

Fort Benning and Fort Bragg should be much easier. The alumni of those two places aren’t nearly as important I bet. Surely most of them never acquired much wealth and carry no influence. Easy fix.

 

[FutureAcademyDad?]

Of course, Yale is a private institution, not a government military base.

Not quite apples to apples.

 

[flieger83]

It is past time for change and for this country to stop celebrating the traitors, slave owners and racists of our history.

Then you would brand the following individuals' racists and remove them from any celebration of their contributions to this country, change names nation-wide, remove monuments, close displays?

Andrew Jackson	Martha Washington
Andrew Johnson	P. T. Barnum
Benjamin Franklin	Patrick Henry
Dolly Madison	Peter Faneuil
Ezra Taft Benson (Native American Slaves)	Philip Schuyler
Francis Scott Key	Richard Henry Lee
George Washington	Stephen F. Austin
James K. Polk	Thomas Jefferson
James Madison	Ulysses S. Grant
James Monroe	William Henry Harrison
John Hancock	Zachary Taylor
John Jay

I don't think it's as "cut and dried" as it's being portrayed nationally. I look at Fort Bragg...opened in 1918 as a posting for artillery. The commander then named it for an army artillery expert and West Point graduate. I'm not prescient enough to know if there was any alterior motive in the naming but be that as it may, I have never met anyone in my career that said "I'm based at Fort Braxton Bragg." Folks say, in my experience, "I'm at Bragg..." or, "I'm at FayetteNam." I truly wonder how many people today would even make that connection were it not in the news.

Just my humble thoughts and opinion which, here in AZ with $1.08 will get you an XL soda at Circle K.

Steve

 

[Torero_dad]

Then you would brand the following individuals' racists and remove them from any celebration of their contributions to this country, change names nation-wide, remove monuments, close displays?

Andrew Jackson	Martha Washington
Andrew Johnson	P. T. Barnum
Benjamin Franklin	Patrick Henry
Dolly Madison	Peter Faneuil
Ezra Taft Benson (Native American Slaves)	Philip Schuyler
Francis Scott Key	Richard Henry Lee
George Washington	Stephen F. Austin
James K. Polk	Thomas Jefferson
James Madison	Ulysses S. Grant
James Monroe	William Henry Harrison
John Hancock	Zachary Taylor
John Jay

I don't think it's as "cut and dried" as it's being portrayed nationally. I look at Fort Bragg...opened in 1918 as a posting for artillery. The commander then named it for an army artillery expert and West Point graduate. I'm not prescient enough to know if there was any alterior motive in the naming but be that as it may, I have never met anyone in my career that said "I'm based at Fort Braxton Bragg." Folks say, in my experience, "I'm at Bragg..." or, "I'm at FayetteNam." I truly wonder how many people today would even make that connection were it not in the news.

Just my humble thoughts and opinion which, here in AZ with $1.08 will get you an XL soda at Circle K.

Steve

That's an odd list... not sure what Martha Washington did to get on it. But PT Barnum was a jerk! Happy Fourth of July to All!