Respect in a name
U.S. military posts should honor those who fought for our nation, not against it.
In the wake of protests over George Floyd’s death, top defense officials said Monday they were considering renaming Army posts named after Confederate leaders, including Fort Hood in Texas. U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said they were “open to a bipartisan discussion” on the issue — a timely and welcome development.
As he so often does when small signs of progress appear in his administration, President Donald Trump stepped all over it. He issued a tweet Wednesday afternoon saying none of that will be happening.
“These monumental and very powerful bases have become part of a great American heritage, and a history of winning, victory, and freedom,” Trump tweeted. “Our history as the greatest nation in the world will not be tampered with. Respect our military!”
Never mind that it was his own military bosses’ judgment he was trashing. Once again, the president shows he knows the words but not the music, crowing about reverence for the military while in opposition to the very values our soldiers are charged with protecting. There is nothing disrespectful about renaming these installations. Indeed, it’s indefensible to honor men who fought
against the same U.S. Army he is putatively defending, and did so to uphold a brutal, inhumane system whose legacy we continue to struggle with.
The announcement Monday by McCarthy and Esper had been an opportune reversal — and proof that some members of the Trump administration were listening to the voices of millions of Americans demanding change in the weeks following Floyd’s death — since as recently as February the Army said there were no plans for change.
“It is important to note that the naming of installations and streets was done in a spirit of reconciliation, not to demonstrate support for any particular cause or ideology,” an Army spokesperson told Task & Purpose at the time.
That was a poor rationale then and it remains one. Yes, there was a legitimate effort to welcome back into the American fold Confederate soldiers and others following the Civil War, to honor Abraham Lincoln’s exhortation to show “malice toward none.” But the Civil War was nearly a century old by the time Fort Hood, to take just one example, was established. Who were officials trying to reconcile in 1942, when the post, now America’s largest military installation, was designated?
Another rationale used by officials is that these installations are named for soldiers who hold a significant place in our military history. That argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, either.
Fort Hood’s namesake is John Bell Hood. The Confederate general is widely considered one of the worst commanders in the Civil War, losing all the major battles he fought and who accelerated the loss of Atlanta through his reckless assaults, according to George Eaton, historian at the U.S. Army Sustainment Command.
Military incompetence extends to Braxton Bragg, after which North Carolina’s Fort Bragg is named, and Leonidas Polk, who gives his name to Fort Polk in Louisiana.
Other installations the defense brass had said they’d consider renaming are Fort Rucker in Alabama; Camp Beauregard in Louisiana; Fort Benning and Fort Gordon in Georgia; and Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Lee and Fort Pickett in Virginia.
None of these officers were winners, to use Trump’s lexicon. They fought and lost their war against the United States. They were all traitors to the Union, whose names belong in history books and museums, not in a position of honor — especially not in the U.S. Army, which has itself played a role in helping desegregate America.
Change can be difficult, and there is an undeniable attachment for soldiers and veterans to the places where they formed lifelong bonds, but what Trump’s tweets don’t seem to understand is those places are much more than just a name, and those memories and relationships will remain regardless.
A council of Texas veterans and historian Eaton already have an idea for renaming Fort Hood to honor Special Forces Master Sgt. Roy Benavidez, a Texas native and Medal of Honor recipient who grew up an hour outside of Houston in El Campo.
As detailed last year in Texas Monthly, Benavidez survived 30 gunshot, bayonet, blunt trauma, and shrapnel wounds while rescuing a Green Beret patrol overrun by a thousand North Vietnamese infantry. The son of a Mexican American sharecropper and a Yaqui Indian mother, Benavidez grew up poor and disenfranchised before distinguishing himself through his service and beyond, continuing to fight for veterans’ benefits later in life.
Whether Fort Hood is renamed in his honor or not — a prospect Trump has now put on hold — Benavidez’s story captures the spirit of the United States at its best so much more fully than the life of Hood ever did.
The Army’s history is full of heroes who could serve as inspiring new namesakes, from the Navajo Code Talkers to the Buffalo Soldiers, to immigrants who’ve fought so bravely for a nation which they hadn’t even yet been made citizens of, to gays and lesbians who served courageously under oppressive restrictions to pioneering women who served in and out of combat.
If the president wants to show respect for our military, it is time to honor those who fought for, not against, the United States.