Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,837 posts)
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:21 PM Nov 2020

Confederate 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 Trump’s 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.

“There’s 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: “He’s 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?

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Confederate base names, and Trump's veto threat, the only roadblock for $740 billion defense bill (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2020 OP
we need to start by halving the defense budget. its stupid beyond stupid. bullimiami Nov 2020 #1
A few of our WWII tanks were named after Confederate Generals Kaleva Nov 2020 #2
So? Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2020 #3
The tanks could be renamed to remove any history of honoring traitors. Kaleva Nov 2020 #4
You're grasping for straws Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2020 #5
I take that to mean you are ok with our history of honoring traitors? Kaleva Nov 2020 #6
Oh bullshit Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2020 #9
well, you didn't deny you don't have an issue with honoring traitors. Kaleva Nov 2020 #12
The names aren't official. NutmegYankee Nov 2020 #10
SO ? Confederate Generals ARE RACIST PIGS !!!!!!!!! stonecutter357 Nov 2020 #17
If I recall correctly, it was the British who named them "Lee". NutmegYankee Nov 2020 #7
The Brits called the M3 tank the Grant if I recall correctly Kaleva Nov 2020 #8
Only if it had the British turret design. They also used Lee tanks. NutmegYankee Nov 2020 #11
The M36 Jackson was an American designation though. Kaleva Nov 2020 #13
Not officially. NutmegYankee Nov 2020 #14
I think all of the WWII tanks we ... Whiskeytide Nov 2020 #15
The one thing I hate the most is a RACIST PIG ! stonecutter357 Nov 2020 #16

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,837 posts)
9. Oh bullshit
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:48 PM
Nov 2020

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.

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
10. The names aren't official.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:48 PM
Nov 2020

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.

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
7. If I recall correctly, it was the British who named them "Lee".
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:44 PM
Nov 2020

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.

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
11. Only if it had the British turret design. They also used Lee tanks.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:50 PM
Nov 2020

Because they needed them so badly they put US turret designs into British service.

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
14. Not officially.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:58 PM
Nov 2020

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)
15. I think all of the WWII tanks we ...
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 11:07 PM
Nov 2020

... 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 don’t think we used confederate general’s names.

I could be remembering that wrong, though.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Confederate base names, a...