After the violence in Charlottesville, mayors around the country are having to decide whether to take down statues of Confederate icons like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. As part of that national dialogue, we might want to consider whether it remains appropriate to have military bases named for soldiers who took up arms against the government of the United States of America.
Ten major Army bases are named for Confederate generals: Forts Beauregard, Benning, Bragg, Gordon, Hill, Hood, Lee, Pickett, Polk, and Rucker. General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard fired the first shots at Fort Sumter, initiating our Civil War. Brigadier General Henry Benning was a Georgia judge and early advocate of secession. General Braxton Bragg commanded the Army of the Mississippi. General John Brown Gordon was the head of the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia, “the living embodiment of the Confederacy.” Lieutenant General A.P. Hill commanded Lee’s three corps. General John Bell Hood led the Confederate assault on Chickamauga. General Robert E. Lee led the military effort of the rebellion. Major General George Pickett commanded the charge at Gettysburg around which center so many elegies of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk fought all the way through the Atlanta campaign, where he was killed in action. Colonel Edmund Rucker was in Bedford Forrest’s cavalry that killed all the Union prisoners in the Fort Pillow massacre.
Not surprisingly, all ten of the major bases named for Confederates are in the South. When challenged in 2015 about bases named for traitors to the Union, the Army’s spokesman at the time, Brigadier General Malcolm Frost, defended the practice, saying “these historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies. It should be noted that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” While there are officially five criteria for name selection, they build down to “a national hero of absolute preeminence by virtue of high position,” preferably one who died of battle wounds.
The Army makes little effort to disguise political motive in selecting names for posts (as Army bases are properly termed). Its official website says: “Public opinion and political influence sometime weighed heavily on the decisions…the regional connection, however, cannot be overemphasized.”
The argument for naming bases in honor of Confederate soldiers is that the Army wants the support of the local communities. They were named in tribute of fearsome soldiers in the same tenor that so many weapons systems are named for fearsome Native American tribes against which the Army fought. Interestingly, the names were bestowed long after the Civil War, mostly in the 1920s-1940s as the Army expanded to fight the world wars and then remained a standing peacetime army, an anomaly for Americans.
The Army’s justification for naming bases in honor of Confederate soldiers is that it was done in the spirit of reconciliation, not division. Those names no longer symbolize reconciliation. As our country reconsiders the symbolism of Confederate iconography and the political purposes Confederate elegies serve, the Army could elect to change post names from soldiers who committed treason by force of arms. The sting might dissipate if posts were renamed in commemoration of local recipients of the Medal of Honor, fighting for our country in our current wars. Surely that is a proud enough banner for our soldiers and communities to celebrate.
