The swell of protests in May and June across the country condemning racism and urging reform is forcing a reckoning within the Department of Defense on the presence of Confederate symbology, including the names of iconic military bases. U.S. Army bases in the South present the most visible flashpoints, with 10 bases there named for Confederate generals of the Civil War. Some of those names are instantly recognizable to many Americans regardless of their veteran status, such as Fort Bragg—home to the famed 82nd Airborne Division.
One could make the case the name “Fort Bragg” now means “Airborne!” more than it honors Braxton Bragg, an ineffective and unadmirable Confederate general. However, increasing awareness of this embedded legacy of the Confederacy raises questions about the appropriateness of continuing this “tradition” in the 21st century. Both the Secretary of the Defense and the Secretary of the Army are now open to “a bipartisan discussion” on the topic of renaming those Confederate bases. This openness represents a significant change in official position on a topic the Congressional Research Service discussed at length in a 2017 report, which received some attention but resulted in no Army action. Renaming those bases would be a symbolic but important act to eliminate even a faint hint of honoring soldiers who fought against the Union in defense of the Southern states’ right to maintain an indefensible system of human bondage.
For the other military services, locations with Confederate historical namesakes present fewer challenges than face the Army. Founded almost 100 years after the Civil War, the Department of the Air Force never had any connection to Confederate history to commemorate. The Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps have announced the prohibition of Confederate memorabilia except in appropriate historical context. More specifically, the Marine Corps does not have prominent installations related to the Confederacy, and the Navy no longer has warships named for Confederate veterans. Previous names such as the USS Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee (former ballistic-missile submarines) and Hunley (a submarine tender) are unlikely to be reused. The USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) has received some press attention, since that cruiser is the only Navy ship named for a Confederate victory and its motto “Press On” echoes Confederate General Stonewall Jackson’s words to his troops. As a counterpoint, the ship’s crest also recognizes the tragic division of the Civil War and honors the Union Army’s efforts to preserve the United States.
The U.S. Naval Academy has its own Confederate legacy that should be evaluated, although the two Academy buildings at issue have different historical justifications and context when compared with the Army bases in question. The Army forts memorialize individuals who came to historical prominence specifically because of their leadership roles in the Confederate Army. Conversely, the two Academy buildings with Confederate ties recognize individuals for actions prior to the Civil War. Buchanan House, the home of the Academy superintendent, is named for Commander Franklin Buchanan, who served as the first superintendent (1845–47). Almost 15 years later, then-Captain Buchanan resigned his U.S. Navy commission, anticipating his home state of Maryland would secede from the Union. When Maryland remained loyal, Buchanan lobbied to be reinstated, but Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells refused his request, and Buchanan became the first admiral in the Confederate Navy.
Across the Yard, Maury Hall houses engineering departments and classrooms. Named for Matthew Fontaine Maury, a pioneering oceanographer known as the Pathfinder of the Seas, Maury Hall was built in the early 1900s as part of Ernest Flagg’s “new Naval Academy,” which also included Buchanan House. Maury resigned his U.S. Navy commission when Virginia seceded, and during the war he helped advance Confederate efforts to acquire ships and advanced technology. Just as Buchanan’s Naval Academy association predates the Civil War, Maury’s principal claim to fame is expanding the science of oceanography for the Navy in the decades before the Civil War. To be clear, both Buchanan and Maury took up arms against the Union and played important roles in the brief history of the Confederate Navy. However, the naming of Academy buildings in their honor had legitimate context at the time, and that historical perspective should be considered. Army leaders may have more difficulty making comparable distinctions regarding the rationale for the names of some forts.
If a good compromise can be defined as a solution equally dissatisfying to all parties, perhaps a “compromise” is truly the order of the day for the Academy buildings: neither retain the status quo nor wipe the slate clean. Instead, Buchanan House could be simplified to “Superintendent’s Quarters,” an even more accurate name since Buchanan never lived there. However, historical markings or signage indicating the building was named for him can and should remain in place as part of the historical record, and he should still be recognized as the first Academy superintendent. Maury Hall’s designation does not have a similarly obvious alternative, if the Academy desires to maintain consistency in naming buildings after people. Emphasizing that the building is named for Lieutenant Maury, the rank at which he started his career arc as the Pathfinder of the Seas in his 36 years in the Navy, presents a measured way to acknowledge the complex lives of many famous Americans. West Point could employ the same logic in deciding to keep a West Point barracks named for Cadet Robert E. Lee, who was a model cadet during his days at West Point.
A cultural sea change seems to be afoot as Americans conduct an earnest evaluation of long-standing perspectives on U.S. history and society. While the Navy should not feel compelled to change the names of its buildings in these cases, a change in the weather and sea state should spur an inspection of the ship’s rigging to be sure it meets current conditions. While the chair of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), has already called for the buildings to be renamed, perhaps a serious study of the Confederate legacy at the Academy by a diverse group of Academy alumni and informed by historical and cultural experts would be a prudent and meaningful first step. In addition to coming to consensus on Buchanan House and Maury Hall, this group may discover other connections that need to be addressed.
