Not a History to Bragg About

Lately some folks in the US (especially in the South, you could even say the Old Confederacy) have become outraged over the idea of renaming military bases that have been named after Confederate military officers, such as Fort Bragg or Foot Hood. Often these folks equate such removal of CSA-related names as “erasing” or “ignoring” history.

This has even gotten the attention of Donald Trump, no doubt an aficionado of the Civil War (in addition to his many other intellectual pursuits) – no, I’m joking, he doesn’t even seem to know who won that war. Still, Trump has weighed in on the issue, declaring he will NOT allow the honor of men who fought against the United States to be desecrated in such a way. His press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, went so far as to evoke the horror that renaming Fort Bragg would bring to soldiers who were based there and later died in combat, as if being dead wasn’t torment enough.

This is, of course, closely related to the dreaded "cancel culture" and the controversy over removing statues of CSA generals from prominent public spaces, again an attempt (as some people see it) to prevent modern-day Americans from learning history. They have a point, of course, because the best way to learn about Civil War history is to stand before a statue of Robert E. Lee and stare at his visage in bronze, or lead, or stone, or whatever, just stare and stare at that image of a man on horseback long enough until suddenly all the details of his life, his battles, his strategy come flowing, like a beam of invisible light from the past, straight into your brain and, boom!, you’ve learned something about history.

Maybe that’s the way some people do it. Normally, I read books. Or Wikipedia. So, naturally, all this fuss about renaming Fort Bragg made me turn to my main source of book-learning on the Civil War, James McPherson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom”, to find out more about the man Fort Bragg is named after. Because, honestly, before all this controversy erupted, I can’t remember ever hearing anything about Braxton Bragg unlike, for example, Stonewall Jackson.

Turns out Bragg was not a stellar general. He was hot-tempered, constantly fighting with his subordinates, not an inspiring leader. He’s best known for leading the Army of Tennessee in a failed invasion of Kentucky, followed by inglorious retreats from the Battles of Perryville and Stones River, an evacuation from Chattanooga, a less than decisive victory in the Battle of Chicamauga, and then a decisive (even humiliating) defeat in the Battles of Chattanooga. It was the last one which opened the door for US general William T. Sherman to begin his March to the Sea through Georgia and for Bragg to be relieved of command of his army. McPherson labeled him a “bumbler”.

And for this legacy, this heritage of not only treason against the United States, but also incompetence in military execution, Bragg gets a major military installation named after him, an installation that’s supposed to inspire pride in the fighting men and women associated with it? Honoring Bragg this way in 1918, forty years after his death, was surely a form of consolation to politicians in the Jim Crow South butt-hurt over losing the war, which amazingly many modern-day politicians still seem to be 155 years later.

Bragg was a losing general for the losing side in a war against the United States, and this is the guy whose heritage Donald Trump -- not known for admiring losers -- is happy to preserve, as long as that’s what his supporters in the Old Confederacy want. Maybe if he actually knew some of the history, he'd change his mind. 

Sorry, joking again -- no chance that would happen. 

Gen. Braxton Bragg, loser extraordinaire.

Unknown author, restoration by Adam Cuerden.
Copyright US Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division.

Heritage, History and Gasligthing

After some back and forth with people on social media over the last few days, I have some thoughts on points I keep hearing from the other side of the Confederate statue issue.  

1. The question of “heritage”. Some folks seem captive to the past. They venerate the Civil War and honor the leaders of the traitorous Confederate States of America just because “my ancestors fought for the South”.  

It’s as if, once somebody takes a political stand, then all his descendants are locked into that position for generations to come. I really don’t get that. Speaking for myself, I am my own man. I decide what I think about an issue, how I see the world. What my ancestors might have done or thought doesn’t determine what I think.  

2. Even if you take the position that the traitorous CSA and its leaders should be honored because of your heritage, it’s important to remember that the South is home to a lot of people who don’t share that heritage, or whose heritage was slavery itself. Why should communities that are majority black have to put up with memorials of oppressors just because of “your” heritage.  

3. I continuously hear "you can’t rewrite history". Yes, you can. This is what whites in the South did decades ago with the Lost Cause myth-making, to the point where some people even today believe that slavery was NOT the cause of the Civil War. The truth of the conflict was “sanitized” to obscure the racist foundation of the CSA and encourage a sense of victimhood among the losers of the war. To make them feel better about their deplorable past. It is a decades-long process of gaslighting. 

4. In any case, history isn’t written in statues. It’s written in books. If statues are essential for the telling of American history, then why not erect some statues of Hitler, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein? Those guys are part of American history as well. In truth, the Confederate statues are about honoring CSA leaders (and in some cases, common soldiers), not “telling history”.  

5. A typical taking point of CSA apologists is “It’s heritage, not hate.” No, it’s both. It’s a heritage of hate. And it’s nothing to be proud of.