A Step Backward: Confederate Base Names Return

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The echoes of the past can certainly be loud, especially when they involve names etched into our nation’s military installations. This is certainly the case for President Donald Trump’s announced plans to restore the original Confederate names to seven U.S. military bases. This controversial decision clearly reverses changes made during the previous administration. For Black Americans and the African Diaspora, this move is more than a simple nomenclature change; it represents a profound and troubling step backward in the ongoing struggle for equity and recognition. The bases, once symbols of progress and inclusion, now threaten to revert to honoring figures who fought to preserve human bondage. People across the nation are watching how these changes will impact the military and broader society, especially those who have long advocated for a more inclusive historical narrative.

This article will delve into the details of this decision, exploring the historical context, the locations impacted, the financial implications, and the public sentiment surrounding such a monumental reversal. Our focus remains on understanding the deeper significance for Black communities, whose ancestors endured the very system the Confederacy sought to uphold.

Confederate Legacy and Renaming Efforts

Long before our modern debates, the term “Confederate” held a clear and painful meaning for Black people across the United States. It refers to a member or supporter of the Confederate States of America, commonly known as the CSA (Wikipedia). This alliance of states seceded from the Union before the Civil War, primarily to preserve the institution of chattel slavery and assert states’ rights over federal authority (Britannica). The Confederacy was formed by eleven Southern states and gained no recognition from foreign governments during its existence (Study.com). For generations of Black Americans, these names on military bases have been painful reminders of a war fought to maintain their enslavement and the subsequent systemic oppression that followed.

The military base renaming process, which began to gain significant momentum around 2022, was initiated due to deep concerns about the symbolism of honoring Confederate figures. The movement gained significant traction after public events, such as the Charlottesville protests, highlighted the divisive nature of Confederate monuments and symbols. These renaming efforts were an integral part of broader initiatives aimed at addressing racial and social justice issues within powerful institutions, including the U.S. military. The goal was to remove names that represented a legacy of oppression and instead honor individuals who truly embodied the values of a united, equitable military. Many hoped these changes would help foster an environment where all service members, particularly those from historically marginalized communities, would feel valued and respected, rather than forced to serve on grounds named for those who fought against their very freedom.

The Reversal: Trump’s Vision and Affected Bases

President Donald Trump made his announcement regarding the Confederate names during a visit to Fort Bragg (Time). He chose to reveal this decision early, despite suggestions to wait, stating a desire to deliver the news directly to his friends at the base. This move is presented as part of a broader effort by Trump to align his administration with conservative values (Black Enterprise). For many, particularly those within the Black community, this aligns with a concerning pattern of challenging efforts toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The reversal sends a clear signal about which historical narratives and values will be prioritized within the nation’s military establishment.

A total of seven substantial military installations will once again bear names honoring Confederate figures (Time). In Virginia, Fort Gregg-Adams will revert to Fort Robert E. Lee, a figure recognized as the commander of the Confederate Army (WTVM; Wikipedia). Fort Walker will be renamed Fort A.P. Hill, a key general in the Confederate Army known for tactical decisions (WTVM; Wikipedia). Fort Barfoot will also become Fort Pickett (WTVM). Beyond Virginia, the affected bases include Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Rucker in Alabama, and Fort Polk in Louisiana (10News). The collective names on this list represent leaders who fought rigorously for a system built upon racial exploitation, a fact that is particularly poignant for Black Americans serving in uniform today.

The Price Tag and Public Sentiment

The previous renaming process, undertaken to remove the divisive Confederate names, certainly incurred significant financial costs. The total estimated expense for changing the names of military installations was approximately $39 million (WTVM). This included a wide variety of expenses beyond simply changing signs, such as updating uniforms, identification cards, official documents, and internal branding. For example, the cost of renaming Fort Lee to Fort Gregg-Adams alone was estimated at $1.5 million (WTVM). Highway signage changes also added to the overall bill; the Virginia Department of Transportation spent an additional $200,000 for signs related to Fort Gregg-Adams (WTVM). Reversing these changes will undoubtedly incur further, costly, and arguably unnecessary expenses, creating another round of administrative and logistical hurdles for the military.

The decision to revert to Confederate names has indeed been met with mixed public reactions. Some people view this move as a necessary correction to historical changes, while others see it as wasteful and misguided (WTVM). From the perspective of many Black Americans and the African Diaspora, there are deeply rooted concerns about the wisdom of allocating significant funds for this purpose. Many question why resources should be spent on reversing changes that brought the military into greater alignment with democratic values, especially when numerous other societal needs exist (WTVM). These public concerns highlight the ongoing tension between differing interpretations of history and differing priorities for allocating national resources.

Deeper Implications for Black Communities and Beyond

The legal authority for a president to reverse policy changes within the military typically stems from executive powers and existing military command structures. The Department of Defense plays a crucial role in implementing and overseeing these changes. The proposed reversal of military base names holds significant, long-term implications for African American communities and Black service members. Names like Robert E. Lee and A.P. Hill are not merely historical figures; they represent a brutal chapter of exploitation and a direct assault on the freedom of Black people. To reinstate these names after a painstaking process to remove them sends a chilling message to Black soldiers, sailors, and airmen who dedicate their lives to protecting a nation that, at times, struggles to honor their full humanity. It can deeply affect troop morale and alienate underrepresented groups who look to the military as a path to equity and advancement.

The previous renaming effort aimed to promote a more inclusive environment within the military by removing symbols associated with the Confederacy. This was part of a larger ongoing dialogue on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which strive to ensure all personnel feel valued and respected regardless of background. DEI policies aim to address historical inequalities and biases, fostering a more equitable organizational culture through training programs, diversity hiring practices, and inclusive policies. This reversal directly challenges these DEI efforts, implying that historical reconciliation and inclusivity concerns are secondary to a particular interpretation of history. While some communities might adapt quickly to such changes, others, particularly those with strong historical ties to the Confederacy, may experience resistance to further changes. However, for many Black communities, this decision only reinforces existing skepticism about genuine commitment to racial justice in powerful institutions. The constant back-and-forth on such symbolically charged issues only highlights the deep divisions that persist within American society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.