WASHINGTON (CBS/AP) — A GOP-led Senate panel approved a plan by Sen. Elizabeth Warren Thursday that would remove the names of Confederate figures from military bases and other Pentagon assets. President Donald Trump, however, is vowing not to change names like Fort Bragg and Fort Hood.

Confederate monuments have emerged as a flashpoint since the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis. But Republicans in the Senate, who are at risk of losing their majority in the November elections, aren’t with Trump on this issue.

Warren is calling for military leaders to thoughtfully consider who they memorialize, and to honor the contributions of service members of color and women.

“It’s long past time to stop honoring this ugly legacy,” she tweeted. “Donald Trump should listen to his own party members and Pentagon leaders who recognize that it’s time to respect generations of loyal US servicemembers and rename these bases.”

Warren’s plan also requires the Pentagon to remove any honors or commemorations of the Confederate state from military property.

Trump has said that military bases named for Confederate generals “have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom.”

“Seriously failed presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, just introduced an Amendment on the renaming of many of our legendary Military Bases from which we trained to WIN two World Wars,” he tweeted Thursday. “Hopefully our great Republican Senators won’t fall for this!”

(© Copyright 2020 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

Comments (7)
  1. Are we to rewrite history too? What about Washington and Jefferson are we to remove their names from the books,take their images off our money,rename all the monuments. Do we take white out to the Declaration of Independence. 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration owned slaves. Many are heroes with statues and monuments in their home states. What of them? If we remove all these remembrances will that mean we have removed slavery from our histories? Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

  2. coch01 says:

    Except neither this article NOR the bill is about Slave owners. It is about removing the names of treasonous generals who seceded from and fought against their home country.

    1. Were charges of treason ever brought against any officer in the confederacy? President Lincoln expressly decided that the men who lead confederacy were men of conscious . Not even Jefferson Davis President of the confederacy was charged with Treason. Arrested on it..but never tried. You probably think these men were fighting to sustain slavery. You are wrong. Less than 5% of those fighting in the civil war were slave owners. These men were fighting for the sovereignty of their home states to govern themselves. It was here in Boston abolitionists once again, that the civil war became about slavery. What the Generals these bases were named after fought for was the right of their home state to choose.

      Braxton Bragg like many confederate Generals served to distinction in the Mexican American war. Braxton Bragg unlike a lot of the Generals of the Confederacy was not in the service of the US at the time the civil war began.To be honest,like John Bell Hood,he was not very distinguished in the Civil War. Bragg and Hood were merely favorite sons who were remembered by local commissions at the time these Pre World War Bases Bragg pre WWI and Hood WWII.

      I think the Senator has lost focus. Ms. Warren this is about people of color who die from excessive force by police officers. Take off those Cambridge academically accepted heel and put your Birkenstock’s on,pack up the granny glasses and return to the Republic of Cambridge. They love legislators who are Bizarre. Unfortunately you have inflicted yourself on a whole state.

      1. coch01 says:

        not sure why they deleted my reply to you but I’ll try to sum it up.
        Yes, they were charged with treason, all the generals and leaders. They were all, including Davis, charged but they were not tried because the Federal government thought it would be pointless going to trial in the south as the juries would all be overly sympathetic. Lincoln would have very little, if anything, to do deciding the fate of those men as he was dead, pre-war Lincoln did not respect Davis and after secession thought of Davis as a leader of insurgents not a man of conscience. Post war, Jackson issued pardons to all Southerners who would take the oath…except the high-ranking Generals and Confederate leaders who were never allowed to vote or hold office in the union.
        Yes, these men were fighting to sustain slavery, even the American Civil War Museum in VA states that on their websites and at their locations just to name one very major source. It is estimates that 5-10% were slave owners but 80% of these men fighting were fighting to maintain the lifestyle. Slaves were expensive but pretty ubiquitous. These men were fighting because they’d been told for decades that if the north wins the slaves would think themselves equal, like in the free east indies and Haiti, and want to marry their daughters. White people thought that black people could never be equal in anyway.
        Regardless of Bragg serving with distinction in both the second Seminole and Mexican-American war (that is to be debated) he, and the others, chose treason and secession. You know who else was a very highly decorated and very distinguished officer, Major General Benedict Arnold. Even without the racist connotations of fighting to sustain slavery like Bragg, Lee, or Davis. You won’t find any monument with Arnold’s name on it.
        As for the Senator, you are welcome to your own opinions regarding her but not your own facts regarding the American Civil War.
        Please, educate yourself a little, you come off as a Southern apologies. It seems like you got all your information from a bad Bill O’Reilly book and you decided to take umbrage with someone (me) who is knows a lot about the American Civil War. As I’ve mentioned the ACWM (American Civil War Museum is an amazing website and their locations in VA are not only beautiful but heart wrenchingly informative. That war was one of the worst episodes in America’s history

      2. “But roam he did, because when Lee surrendered, he secured from Union General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant a “solemn parole of honor” that protected Lee and his army “from molestation so long as they conformed to its condition.” Grant had been eager to avoid any further bloodbaths, and granting the paroles was, by his estimate, the easiest way to induce Lee’s surrender.”
        The Washing ton Examiner

        “A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.

        In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

        A key issue was states’ rights”

        https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/#:~:text=A%20common%20explanation%20is%20that,was%20central%20to%20the%20conflict.

        “Yes, these men were fighting to sustain slavery, even the American Civil War Museum in VA states that on their websites and at their locations just to name one very major source.”

        I have spent an hour search the ACWM.COM website. No where does it say the Civil War was fought singularly for slavery

        “Please, educate yourself a little, you come off as a Southern apologies. It seems like you got all your information from a bad Bill O’Reilly book and you decided to take umbrage with someone (me) who is knows a lot about the American Civil War”

        You make assumptions not based on fact. You also interpret the events of that time with a decided slant. Not looking at the big picture.

        Remember we had the Gorilla/range war in Kansas. The New Territory’s coming into the union and Texas.

  3. coch01 says:

    not sure if they locked this or what but my responses to you won’t post. You’ve moved the narrative of the discussion far from the original argument so I won’t be responding after today. Your like to PBS link supports my factual assertion that the war was over slavery. You saying Grant pardoned them…he couldn’t and didn’t. The pardon happened years later under Jackson and was not for Davis or the upper generals. Even being pardoned they still committed treason.

Leave a Reply