a google search reveals a lot of articles and information regarding the pros and cons, but very little substance, those opposed seems to be leftist cancel and history erasure culture going on. T
The pro articles did not offer a lot of historical information. It is basically "they served in the military honorably before the war and it has always been named after the Confederate soldiers so grow up kindergarten and romper room cadets," message to it. Neither side presenting very valid reasoning. What is valid, the enormous cost of changing the names of the Installations, and its ramifications of the name change in confusion as to which Installation is which and where they located which can delay operations and notification. Requiring extensive expense not only the physical signs on post, but new publishing of all written materials, enormous amount of manpower, to insure all forms, documents, electronic records are all updated in files. All because non military citizens and weak politicians do not like a name of post. It is the name of the Post we are talking about.
I know speaking for my circle of combat veterans:" Who Cares if a Post is named Hood for General John Bell or Little Red Riding Hood, or Camp Pike is named for General Albert Pike and not explorer Zebulon Pike?"
It is just a name. My serving on a Post named Benning, Leonard Wood, Sill, Hood, Pickett, Hill, Lee, has no bearing on me, who I believe what I believe, my being at Ft. Lee does not bear Robert E Lee any more honor, nor does it mean we are going to go out, and support secession, join a rebel army, or that we believe in Slavery. Going to a Post named Fort Obama, does not mean people serving their are going to be more or less loyal, or more progressive. As for my personal opinion, my nominations for Fort names for Arkansas, would be Fort Cleburne, Fort Govan, Ft. McCulloch (Confederate) and Fort Baxter, Ft. Livingston, Ft. Curtis (Union). All these officers North and South, were example of military conduct, devotion to duty, and how to conduct yourself personally in dealing with the enemy and civilians.
The media and citizens are missing the point that changing the military posts by Congress, is again, Unconstitutional and again an example of legislative branch circumventing the Constitution. I make this statement, as this is a power, delegated to the Executive Branch, as the President is Commander in Chief, and ultimately the power/and authority for all things Military. The power and authority for naming of Installations by delegation by the Executive State, has been given to the Department of Defense, who has in turn delegated further, by Military Regulation, to Authorities within the Branches. Technically all Congress can do, is to study and Recommend, and endorse, names.
That authority currently falls to the Department of Defense, Not the Legislative branch. Nothing in the Constitution or law, gives Congress the express right, to mandate to Military Installations the name of the post.
The Military cannot dictate to Congress how to do their job, no does Congress have the right to dictate to the Military or tell them how to do their job. Congress and the President must work together, only Congress can declare a state of war, they control budget and money given. They only control what weapons they will pay for, The Military chooses which weapons, President has the last say. The President can have a short emergency call up. War is declared by Congress. Congress approves officer appointments, but they are not accepted until the President signs the Commission and okays the orders.
The naming of the Posts, by Military Regulation, is by Secretary of Defense and the Departments. In case of US Army bases, the Department of the army.
This is part of the founding Father's Checks and Balances, it is Not Congress's Army, It is not the President's Army, it is the United States Army. They, According to the Constitution, work for the citizens of the United States. The Citizens of the United States are not here to work and do the will of the Government, The government is there to do the will of the people. They are employees of the people. That is why the founding fathers opposed and tried to prevent Professional Politicians.
As in the time of the Civil War, we have the same issues appearing again. Branch battles, violation of checks and balances, usurping of authority, forcing political viewpoints, whether they have the right or not.