The Biden Debacle: Bases Revert From Progressive Namesakes to Confederate Labels
In 2023, seven Army bases saw a significant shift in titles, shedding their Confederate-associated names as part of a broader national effort to address racial injustices. Fast forward to the present, and these establishments are back to wearing their original titles, albeit with different figures of honor sharing the Confederate surnames. This maneuver has sparked lively discourse across both military and civilian platforms, with many suspicious of underlying motives to keep the legacy of the Confederacy alive.
Those championing conservative Southern heritage have time and again clashed with the advocates for devalorizing figures who upheld slavery. With the latest name reinstatements, their battle is rekindled. From the perspective of skeptics, the subtlety of this maneuver hinders the progress made in moving away from shameful Confederate associations.
The head of a recognized civil rights organization, Marc Morial of the National Urban League, lambasted this move as a superficial difference. His remarks followed the erasure of names instituted by the Biden administration, which were mostly a tribute to service members who were either females or hailed from minority communities.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to be spearheading the name restoration, ostensibly falling into tandem with the Trump-designed crusade to purge all programs, references, policies, and literature connected to diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, this is a stark departure from efforts to move towards a more inclusive and diverse national narrative.
Federal regulations now prohibit the military from resurrecting the names of Confederates, presenting a legal challenge to Hegseth’s agenda. Yet, the name restoration finds a loophole, cleverly honoring service members with the same surnames as those held by Confederate figures who were once venerated.
To understand the magnitude of this issue, a flashback to the arrival of President Abraham Lincoln’s tenure is instrumental. His strong opposition to slavery’s expansion sparked a rift between the Southern states and the rest of the nation, culminating in a civil war.
Symbolic of the hold slavery had on the South, eleven states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy to uphold the institution that enslaved millions of African Americans. Their ideological warfare led them to the front lines of the Civil War, where their defeat came in 1865.
The recent use of non-Confederate names with historical Confederate associations is viewed as a slick and possibly covert maneuver to uphold a discredited legacy. For instance, Fort Bragg in North Carolina, recast as Fort Liberty during Biden’s administration, was renamed under a World War II veteran’s surname, with Hegseth overseeing the switch.
Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., voiced his discontent with what he described as Hegseth’s ‘cynical maneuver.’ He criticized the defense secretary’s methods, noting that while not breaking the law directly, Hegseth appeared to sidestep the spirit of the legislation with his actions.
This renaming spree is not limited to bases, presenting additional implications. Critics worry about the inefficiency and the potential promotion of Confederate figures, while some argue there are more effective ways to honor overlooked heroes without resorting back to Confederate-associated names.
Melodramatically holding on to these Confederate-affiliated names raises the question of whether bases should only reflect honor and sacrifice, rather than a tainted history. Stacy Rosenberg, a teaching associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, questions the rush towards renaming the bases and its impact on conservatives.
Angela Betancourt, a PR strategist and Air Force Reservist, views the ongoing military base renaming spree as each administration’s attempt to rebrand what the military represents to them. Underlining the dissension, she warned not to let the ignominious, Confederate-connected past overshadow the deserving new namesakes.
While recognizing the frustrations surrounding a potential return to names associated with the Confederacy, Betancourt affirms the honoring of unsung heroes. Using their names as military base titles is a step in the right direction, she maintaining, despite the controversy this process has stirred.