U.S. Army Installations Named for Confederates

Where do we go from here?

Bob Milani, Kennesaw, GA -- June 14, 2020

As the national debate unfolds over the renaming of U.S. Army installations that honors men who fought to preserve slavery – I think it a good time for reflection on what that means to soldiers and Americans alike.

Military history, and especially the U.S. Civil War, is my hobby. For most of my adult life, I have lived in Georgia and Virginia. I have lived among the buildings, monuments, and streets, named after many Confederate generals. I have toured many battlefields and have an excellent collection of military history books devoted to the Civil War.

While in college, I had a summer job at the Chamberlain Hotel, located at Ft. Monroe, an island in the Chesapeake Bay. Fort Monroe – a fort encircled by a moat, had been dredged by a young West Point graduate and engineer, Robert E. Lee. I was responsible for giving tours of the fort and its historical sites. The Battle of Hampton Roads featuring the first duel between two ironclad ships, the USS Monitor and the CSS Merrimack, occurred in front of the Chamberlain Hotel. I also gave tours of the Casemate Museum and the jail cell of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy, imprisoned at Fort Monroe for two years after the Civil War.

I've been stationed or trained at five U.S. Army installations named for former Confederate generals: Fort Bragg, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Hood, Fort Pickett, and Fort Benning. While I never served at Fort Polk, I know a lot about Gen. Leonidas Polk. He was an Episcopalian bishop and founder of the University of the South, in Suwanee, Tennessee. A Union-fired cannonball killed him on Pine Mountain, Georgia, a large hill that is the backdrop of my neighborhood.

When I was training and learning military history, I found it mildly curious that the U.S. Army allowed its bases, some of the largest military bases in the world, to be named after Confederate generals. As I have become a more astute student of warfare, I found it even more curious that we would name our bases after Confederate generals known more for losing than winning. Generals Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood are two that come to mind. The former, Bragg, is generally considered the worst general of the Civil War and was relieved by Jefferson Davis as his army was routed by Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in the Chattanooga campaigns. The latter, Hood, was known for his recklessness and making huge gambles. Union Gen. George Thomas all but obliterated Hood's army in the Battle of Nashville.

For anyone who has served in the U.S. Army, their service is typically synonymous with their duty location. "When I was at Bragg …" implies that one was a paratrooper or even a special operator. If a soldier said, "I was at Hood …" this means that one was in the cavalry or a tanker or part of a large mechanized force serving at the largest military base in the world. And my favorite, "I served at Benning …" implies being in the infantry and all that comes from training in the rain, red clay, and amongst those god-awful mites known as 'chiggers' in southwest Georgia. These names reflect the service, the training, and in many cases – the ability of soldiers to persevere in the most stressful and god-awful environments the U.S. Army can pick for a training post. Our experiences are identified in the names of these institutions and transcend the unfortunate name of the installation and its historical implication.

You could say because of my upbringing, my Civil War avocation, and my service in the U.S. Army, that I have an emotional and deep connection to the South, the Civil War, and the U.S. Army. I can see all sides. But despite the personal connection I have to the bases named after Confederate generals, I believe we are at a moment in history that deserves a re-thinking of why we name our military bases the way we do.

We should welcome this debate and ensure it is not one characterized by politics – but by a genuine desire to celebrate heroes – real American heroes!

I worry that the renaming of U.S. Army bases will become a political exercise. I would recommend that we form a commission -- let's assemble a panel of historians, military officers, soldiers, and other stakeholders and debate the merits. One side can argue why the name should stay the same; the other side can argue why it should change. We should debate and vote democratically, not leave this to 'government knows best' mandates and forced change viewed through the lens of modern-day sensibilities and righteousness.

If you sat on this commission or panel -- what would be your recommendation? What would you do? What base name would you recommend to be changed or left as is?

There is a trick question that some Civil War enthusiasts ask. It is, 'Who is the winningest civil war general from the state of Virginia?' Most people answer Robert E. Lee. The correct answer (according to some:) is Union General George Thomas. Thomas chose to remain with the U.S. Army for the Civil War as a Southern Unionist despite his heritage as a Virginian. George Thomas, the hero of so many battles and known as the 'Rock of Chickamauga' is mostly a forgotten hero. He was considered a traitor by his own family and scorned by Virginians and Southerners. Union officers never fully accepted him into their ranks and questioned his loyalty. Yet, he was an American first and foremost and gave so much to this country. He exemplified the motto of his alma mater: Duty, Honor, Country. Wouldn't it be interesting if we chose to name Ft. Lee, Virginia, named after Robert E Lee, to Ft Thomas?

I note in correspondence Lee had with one bitter Confederate widow after the war, he wrote, "Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring your children up to be Americans." Lee wanted the country to heal and move on. That's what I want too --