General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConfederate base names, and Trump's veto threat, the only roadblock for $740 billion defense bill
Congressional negotiations on a bill to authorize more than $740 billion in defense spending hinge on only one point of contention: whether lawmakers will order the Pentagon to rename bases that commemorate Confederate generals.
The debate has raged against the backdrop of national protests over racial injustice and grew more contentious this summer when President Trump threatened to veto the annual defense bill if it ordered such changes. Both the House and Senate, with veto-proof majorities, nonetheless passed separate versions of the spending authorization containing directives and deadlines to change the names.
But in the months since and now despite Trumps lame-duck status Republican leaders on the armed services committees have become adamant that as long as he is threatening a veto, compromises must be made.
Theres already a softening of positions, that I have seen, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in an interview Wednesday. We have to have a bill.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has a policy, Inhofe said: Hes not going to put anything on the floor that has a veto threat. And so we have to overcome that.
There are 10 Army posts located in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas that carry the names of Confederate generals. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a defense bill that ordered the names to be changed within three years, while the House passed a bill ordering the changes within one.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/confederate-base-names-and-trump-s-veto-threat-the-only-roadblock-for-740-billion-defense-bill/ar-BB1b8PKt?li=BBnbfcQ&ocid=DELLDHP
Why does the party of Abraham Lincoln insist on honoring the side that murdered him?
bullimiami
(13,082 posts)Kaleva
(36,290 posts)The Lee, the Stuart, the Jackson.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,837 posts)Kaleva
(36,290 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,837 posts)Kaleva
(36,290 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,837 posts)The Lee was actually called the Grant. Some later revisionists tried to rename it.
And I've had enough of your childish games. Welcome to ignore.
Kaleva
(36,290 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The ones you cite were given by British and Commonwealth forces. The official US name was just letters and numbers.
Even the famous Sherman got its name from the UK.
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The US turret design was called Lee and the British turret design was called Grant. Both were M3 tanks.
The British also named the Stuart tank.
Kaleva
(36,290 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Because they needed them so badly they put US turret designs into British service.
Kaleva
(36,290 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)It's an informal name. And that's why it would be pointless to argue over renaming it. You can't get that toothpaste back into the tube.
Whiskeytide
(4,461 posts)... produced and leased to other countries were nick-named by the British after U.S. Civil War generals. Before that most of them carried letter/numeric names. We adopted the policy following the war, but I dont think we used confederate generals names.
I could be remembering that wrong, though.