Now You Want to be Reasonable?

Connor Williams the lead historian with the Naming Commission made a point in his recent talk in Richmond that is worth exploring.

“…in fact, four of the Confederate generals whose names are on forts never served the United States Army…”

He goes on to clarify that one went to West Point but did not serve beyond that. This was part of his talk and was not a response to a question. The context is that the Confederate Army only existed for four years while the US Army has existed for 248 years as of 2023. Thus, such a short period in and of itself does not warrant commemoration. The rest of the argument is that there should be no fort named for someone who did not serve in the United States Army.

The official date of the US Army’s birth is June 14, 1775. At the formation of the Confederate Army, the US Army was 86 years old. Robert E. Lee served the US Army for 31 years before resigning his commission and Samuel Cooper served for 46 years. Lee’s service spanned 36% of the army’s existence at the time and Cooper more than half. Other than Winfield Scott, are there men at the time who had contributed more to the United States Army? This not only highlights the significance of their choices to resign but also the extent of the contributions they made based on the longevity of their service. Considering this, it is hard to understand the professors point.

As for forts named for people who never served the United States Army, I agree this is a strong argument for renaming four forts. Yet, this was not how Congress, and the Naming Commission approached the subject. It seems the professor has not read his own report. It is a hit job with historical inaccuracies. He can’t pretend to be reasonable now. The report is out, and he chose politics over history.