Why we have a “Fort Bragg”
First, we must understand why Fort Bragg, and 10 other army posts in the south were named for Confederate generals in the first place.
These posts were constructed prior to World War II. The Army needed to obtain large tracts of land, so they bowed to pressure from local officials. This was at the height of the Jim Crow era, and the Army itself was segregated at the time. The feelings of Black Americans – like me – weren’t considered when agreeing to name a federal installation after an individual who had taken up arms against the federal government. And who often supported slavery.
To those who say that these designations represent our traditions of honor and victory, I would point out that, in the case of Bragg, the fort was named for a general who was considered one of the most bumbling commanders in the war, even by his own side. He was removed from his command after a rout at the Battle of Chattanooga. Only support from Confederate president Jefferson Davis kept him from being cashiered from the Confederate army. The name is insulting to soldiers of color, sure – but it is also insulting to those who think an army’s job is to win.
The same can be said of other bases. Fort Hood in Texas, for example, is named for John Bull Hood, who was not a native Texan, and whose reckless decisions sped the fall of Atlanta.
I will not argue that removing these names from U.S. Army installations will be controversial. Change is always controversial. But this should not be “divisive.” In the current climate, it is more divisive to refuse to consider doing so. Even the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee is supportive, and the public mood, in the wake of recent incidents of police violence against people of color, is swinging in the direction of change.