DON SURBER:
NO COLUMBUS, NO FREEDOM, OR KEEP THE STATUES OF COLUMBUS, TOSS THE CONFEDERATE TRAITORS
PETRAEUS' LETTER
@ ATLANTIC MAGAZINE
AS I have watched Confederate monuments being removed by state and local
governments, and sometimes by the forceful will of the American people,
the fact that 10 U.S. Army installations are named for Confederate
officers has weighed on me. That number includes the Army’s largest
base, one very special to many in uniform: Fort Bragg, in North
Carolina. The highway sign for Bragg proclaims it
Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces.
I had three assignments there during my career. Soldiers stationed at
Bragg are rightly proud to serve in its elite units. Some call it “the
Center of the Military Universe,” “the Mother Ship,” or even “Hallowed
Ground.” But Braxton Bragg—the general for whom the base was
named—served in the Confederate States Army.
The United States is now wrestling with repeated instances of abusive
policing caught on camera, the legacies of systemic racism, the
challenges of protecting freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill
of Rights while thwarting criminals who seek to exploit lawful
protests, and debates over symbols glorifying those who fought for the
Confederacy in the Civil War. The way we resolve these issues will
define our national identity for this century and beyond. Yesterday
afternoon, an Army spokesperson
said
that Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy is now “open to a bipartisan
discussion” on renaming the bases. That’s the right call. Once the names
of these bases are stripped of the obscuring power of tradition and
folklore, renaming the installations becomes an easy, even obvious,
decision.
My
life in uniform essentially unfolded at a series of what might be
termed “rebel forts.” I made many parachute jumps with the 82nd Airborne
Division at Fort Bragg, and I also jumped with 82nd Airborne
paratroopers at Fort Pickett, in Virginia (a National Guard post), and
Fort Polk, in Louisiana. I made official visits to Virginia’s Forts
Pickett and Lee, to Texas’s Fort Hood, and to Alabama’s Fort Rucker.
*
In Georgia, I visited Fort Gordon, and I attended Airborne School,
Ranger School, and the Infantry Officer Basic Course—rites of passage
for countless infantry soldiers—at Fort Benning. At the time, I was
oblivious to the fact that what was then called the “Home of the
Infantry” was named for Henry L. Benning, a Confederate general who was
such an enthusiast for slavery that as early as 1849 he argued for the
dissolution of the Union and the formation of a Southern slavocracy.
Fort Benning’s physical location, on former Native American territory
that became the site of a plantation, itself illustrates the turbulent
layers beneath the American landscape.
It
would be years before I reflected on the individuals for whom these
posts were named. While on active duty, in fact, I never thought much
about these men—about the nature of their service during the Civil War,
their postwar activities (which in John Brown Gordon’s case likely
included a leadership role in the first Ku Klux Klan), the reasons they
were honored, or the timing of the various forts’ dedications. Nor did I
think about the messages those names sent to the many African Americans
serving on these installations—messages that should have been noted by
all of us. Like many aspects of the military, the forts themselves were
so shrouded in tradition that everything about them seemed rock solid,
time tested, immortal. Their names had taken on new layers of meaning
that allowed us to ignore the individuals for whom they were named.
In
the course of their professional development, soldiers often study the
tactical and operational skills of leaders who fought for dubious
causes. Learning how to win a particular kind of battle is different
than learning how to win a war. Intellectual appreciation of a given
general’s tactical genius, however, should not become wholesale
admiration or a species of devotion. When I was a cadet at West Point in
the early 1970s, enthusiasm for Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall
Jackson was widespread. We were not encouraged to think deeply about the
cause for which they had fought, at least not in our military-history
classes. And throughout my Army career, I likewise encountered
enthusiastic adherents of various Confederate commanders, and a special
veneration for Lee.
It
also happens that—Lee excepted—most of the Confederate generals for
whom our bases are named were undistinguished, if not incompetent,
battlefield commanders.
Braxton Bragg, for example, left a great deal to be desired as a
military leader. After graduating from West Point in 1837, he served in
the Second Seminole War and the Mexican War. His reputation for physical
bravery was matched by one for epic irascibility. Bragg’s temper was so
bad, Ulysses S. Grant recounted in his memoirs, that an old Army story
had a superior once rebuking him, “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled
with every officer in the army, and now you are quarrelling with
yourself!” Bragg’s inability to cooperate diluted his effectiveness
until his resounding defeat at the Battle of Chattanooga, in November
1863, precipitated his resignation from the Confederate army.
For an organization designed to win wars to train for them at
installations named for those who led a losing force is sufficiently
peculiar, but when we consider the cause for which these officers
fought, we begin to penetrate the confusion of Civil War memory. These
bases are, after all,
federal installations, home to soldiers
who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States. The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms
against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is
inescapable to anyone paying attention. Now, belatedly, is the moment
for us to pay such attention.
It
gives me considerable pause, for example, to note that my alma mater,
West Point, honors Robert E. Lee with a gate, a road, an entire housing
area, and a barracks, the last of which was built during the 1960s. A
portrait of Lee with an enslaved person adorns a wall of the cadet
library, the counterpoint to a portrait of Grant, his Civil War nemesis,
on a nearby wall.
Lee’s history is, in fact, thoroughly woven through that of West Point
and the Army. Before he was the commander of the Confederate Army of
Northern Virginia, Lee was an outstanding cadet, a distinguished chief
of engineers in the Mexican War, and later the West Point
superintendent. I do not propose that we erase his role in this history.
We can learn from his battlefield skill and, beyond that, from his
human frailty, his conflicting loyalties, and the social pressures that
led him to choose Virginia over the United States. If we attempt to
repress the fact of his existence from our institutional memory, we risk
falling into the trap of authoritarian regimes, which routinely and
comprehensively obliterate whole swaths of national history as if they
never happened at all. What distinguishes democracies is their capacity
to debate even the most contentious issues vigorously and in informed,
respectful, deliberate ways and to learn from the errors of the past.
But remembering Lee’s strengths and weaknesses, his military and
personal successes and failures, is different from venerating him.
Confederate memorialization is only the most obvious expression of
formerly acceptable sentiments now regarded critically by many
Americans. Once unreservedly celebrated figures like Thomas Jefferson,
Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, to name just three, held
convictions and behaved in ways we now find deeply troubling. It is
indicative of the complexity of the problem that while the stained-glass
window honoring Robert E. Lee in the National Cathedral in Washington,
D.C., was removed, that of Wilson, an ardent segregationist, remains
(after a healthy debate).
But Confederate leaders are different
from these other examples not simply in degree, but in kind: Plainly
put, Lee, Bragg, and the rest committed treason, however much they may
have agonized over it.
*
The majority of them had worn the uniform of the U.S. Army, and that
Army should not brook any celebration of those who betrayed their
country.
A long-standing maxim for those in uniform is that one
should never begin a war without also knowing how to end it. And this is
a kind of war—a war of memory. The forts named for Confederate generals
were established before the formulation of the rules now codified in
Army Regulation 1-33,
which sets the criteria for memorializing soldiers. But, as is so often
the case when the Army is found to have fallen short of its elemental
values, it also possesses the remedy. While the regulation states,
“Rememorializing or rededicating actions are strongly discouraged, and
seldom appropriate,” it also outlines a clear administrative process to
follow when they are. This is the moment to pursue that process.
We
could probably disqualify the rebel generals on a technicality: After
all, none of them were actually in the U.S. Army when they performed the
actions for which they were honored. Nonetheless, I would prefer to
disqualify them on the grounds that they do not meet the letter or
spirit of the regulation’s second criterion: “Memorializations will
honor deceased heroes and other deceased distinguished individuals of
all races in our society, and will present them as inspirations to their
fellow Soldiers, employees, and other citizens.”
The magic of the republic to which many of us dedicated our
professional lives is that its definition of equality has repeatedly
demonstrated the capacity to broaden. And America’s military has often
led social change, especially in the area of racial integration. We do
not live in a country to which Braxton Bragg, Henry L. Benning, or
Robert E. Lee can serve as an inspiration. Acknowledging this fact is
imperative. Should it fail to do so, the Army, which prides itself on
leading the way in perilous times, will be left to fight a rearguard
action against a more inclusive American future, one that fulfills the
nation’s founding promise.
*******
David Petraeus is a retired U.S. Army general and served as the CIA director from 2011 to 2012.