Slavery

I had a disturbing encounter with some very dear friends earlier this evening. These friends are intelligent, passionate and principled, They do not, in my experience, take serious matters lightly, nor vice-versa.

So, when the discussion came up regarding the recent trend within the United States military (and, specifically, within the United States Army) of renaming military installations, I was initially surprised at their opposition to such decisions.

The practice of re-naming (or naming) military institutions after Confederate military personnel began in the early 20th century with the rise of “Lost Cause” rebel sympathizers. These individuals sought to reframe the southern position for war in the 1860s as one of “states rights” or economics rather than a white supremecist position to support and advance race-based slavery. It was purely political on their part. The military conceding to these people was justified by the bases in question all being in former Confederate territory and the United States Army seeking recruits and local good will.

Fort Benning (Georgia), which currently bears the name of the moody-yet-capable Confederate general Henry Benning, is suggested to become Fort Moore in honor of Vietnam-era Lt. Gen. Hal Moore (author of “We Were Soldiers Once – And Young”) and his wife, Julia (Julie) Moore, who was the driving force behind United States Army uniformed casualty notification teams.

Fort Bragg (North Carolina), for the time being, still bearing the name of the moderately effective rebel general Braxton Bragg, will hopefully be renamed Fort Liberty.

Fort Gordon (Georgia) is currently named after John Brown Gordon, a man who achieved battlefield notoriety largely upon his ability to attract bullets like a magnet. It will hopefully be re-named Fort Eisenhower upon which no further explanation for its namesake will be required.

Fort A.P. Hill (Virginia) is named for Ambrose Powell Hill, popular, fun and wounded more with venereal disease than he ever was with bullets, and possibly one of the few Confederate military generals to have never owned a slave. It will be renamed Fort Walker, in honor of Mary Walker, a Union volunteer who was denied enlistment but served as a medic, POW and ultimately the nation’s first (and, still, only) female Medal of Honor recipient.

Fort Hood (Texas) is named after John Bell Hood of Kentucky, a man whose promotion to general of the Confederate Army of Tennessee was called by Pulitzer-prize winning historian Bruce Catton, “probably the single largest mistake that either government made during the war.” It is suggested to be named Fort Cavazos in honor of Korean War and Vietnam War veteran Gen. Richard Cavazos, a native Texan, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. Twice. In two separate wars.

Fort Lee (Virginia) is named after Robert E. Lee, the poster child for the causes of the American Civil War. It’s suggested that it be named Fort Gregg-Adams after two Army veterans of some merit, Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams.

Fort Pickett (Virginia) is named after Major General George Pickett. Alone among the remembered military leaders of the Confederacy, the last graduate of West Point in 1846, he was popular, fun and tenacious. Regrettably, he also murdered 22 United States Army prisoners. It is to be renamed Fort Barfoot in honor of Tech. Sgt. Van Barfoot who earned the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in Italy during World War II.

Fort Polk (Louisiana) is NOT named for former President James Knox Polk (who served as a cavalry captain in Tennessee), but rather named for rebel general Leonidas Polk whose largest positive characteristic was that he was viscerally hated by fellow Confederate Braxton Bragg. It will likely bear the name Fort Johnson in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Henry Johnson, who, during World War I, in what often degenerated into hand-to-hand knife combat, fought off a German ambush.

Finally, Fort Rucker (Alabama) bears its name for rebel officer Edmund Rucker, who can claim fame as having been ransomed from a Union prison camp by the man who would later found the Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest. It will be named Fort Novosel in what maybe one of the most understated honors ever bestowed. Michael Novosel was an Army veteran of World War II, Korean War (as a USAFR colonel) and Vietnam War (as a CWO4), where he would ultimately earn the Medal of Honor for making 15 trips into a hot fire zone in his UH-1, rescuing 29 SVA soldiers.

There are absolutely NO circumstances that have been suggested by the Pentagon wherein the traitorous individuals for whom southern, former rebel territory bases were named aren’t more appropriately named for American military heroes.

As the discussion with my friends progressed, it came to light that the objection was more to the perceived yielding to current political pressures than it was to the actual names of the facilities themselves. I made clear that my support of changing the nomenclature of these military installations was solely based upon my visceral, passionate hatred of the Confederacy.

Ironically, the political environment of the United States of America immediately following the end of the Civil War was largely unsympathetic to the rebellion itself. For obvious reasons, northern citizens held regionally based antipathy toward the former Confederate states.

But, it should be noted, many within the southern states themselves were unhappy with former Confederates. The state of Tennessee, for example, voted in 1861 to remain within the Union. It was that state’s governor at the outbreak of secession, Isham G. Harris, who ignored the outcome of the public vote and allied the state with the rebellion. In that decision, Harris brought much bloodshed and destruction upon the Volunteer State which, had he followed the plebiscite, would have been minimized or eliminated.

It needs to be restated that the bases in question are all located in former Confederate states. These locations were named (or in most cases RE-named) for rebel leaders because of the military’s desire to improve recruitment in these areas and to improve PR among local communities.

These locations did NOT receive their names because the particular individuals bore any nobility of character or contributed to development of the nation which they all betrayed.

This fact, however, led to a deeper discussion regarding the actual motives and prosecution of the American Civil War itself.

Col. Ty Seidule, former Chair of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, summarizes the cause of the American Civil War in a brief YouTube presentation through Prager University.

He is in error regarding the votes of secession not being close (as we have mentioned, Tennessee citizens actually voted to remain within the Union, although he is likely only referring to representative votes among state legislatures). All his other points in this video are historically and factually accurate.

In the interest of candor, I should say that I am a historical and political conservative. Along with this, I am an originalist in American constitutional interpretation. It is a proven fact that Black Americans are progressively achieving higher levels of recognition in the United States, as well as equal justice under law (this final point has seen the pendulum pursuit of justice swing wildly out of hand, in some cases).

Obviously, both our government and our citizens must remain vigilant to ensure equal applications of law and justice with no regard for race of any kind.

This said, history clearly demonstrates that the foundation of this country ignored in its charter, the Constitution of the United States of America, the obvious, self-evident truth “that all men are created equal.” It did so by allowing the southern colonies to continue to practice and advance “the peculiar institution” of race-based slavery despite the northern colonies being willing to eliminate chattel slavery as it was a moral evil and an obvious violation of the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence itself.

While slavery was established by the British (and also advanced by the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French and others) in what would become the United States, the British Empire itself outlawed chattel slavery on February 23, 1807, a full 54 years prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War over the continued practice and advancement of slavery.

So, having made the moral compromise that continued to imprison innocent humans for labor based solely upon the color of their skin, the United States had exchanged its existence for what would become the freedom and lives of around 4,000,000 people.

Should this compromise have been made? If it hadn’t been made, it is unlikely that the United States would have come into existence. What the world would have looked like without America, is a question that arises out of this. Is there ever a good time to intentionally make a moral compromise?