Renaming Army Bases

 

There has been a surprising amount of controversy over the government’s plan to rename army posts now named after confedrate officers. I think the renaming is a good idea. The men the forts are named after now committed treason against the United States. Those who were serving officers in the U.S. army broke their oath to the republic to join a rebellion to protect the institution of slavery. They do not deserve to be honored by the army they abandoned and fought against. (I have heard some people joke, though, that an exception might be made for Fort Bragg, since Braxton Bragg was so incompetent that he did more to aid the Union cause than any other general in the war except Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas.) It is better for the forts to be named after people who served the U.S. army honorably and well.

The naming commission has published a list of the eight people after whom the nine forts will be named - with Fort Bragg not being not named after any person but to be called Fort Liberty. None of the choices is a bad one, and some of the of the selections such as Eisenhower and the men and woman who won the Congressional Medal of Honor are very good. If, as the commission’s FAQ indicates, the commission was operating under at least implicit quotas for race and sex, it at least found worthy if not always optimal choices to fill them.

With only nine bases to rename, many good nominees were left out including two obvious ones. There should have been a couple of bases named for Audie Murphy and Alvin York. That would have been better, but what was done is not bad. At at least the traitors will be gone.