In a tense back-and-forth, Pete Hegseth stood firm against Senator Angus King in a discussion on renaming military bases that bear names associated with the Confederacy. Hegseth pushed back against what he deemed “woke pressure” from the Biden Administration to erase these historical names. The crux of Hegseth’s argument was clear: renaming bases like Fort Bragg erases history and disregards the strong emotional ties that service members have to these names.
King, a Democrat from Maine, opened with a series of complaints. He expressed his disdain for Confederate figures like Robert E. Lee, who he labeled a “traitor.” His view reflects a broader sentiment in some political circles that honor should not be given to those who took up arms against their country. “I grew up in Virginia, where Robert E. Lee was revered… But as I grew older, I learned that he fit the classic definition of a traitor,” King lamented, showcasing a transformation in his understanding of history. He continued, questioning the rationale behind honoring individuals who fought for the Confederacy. “What possible motivation can there be for this? Who is telling you to do this?” he pressed Hegseth.
Hegseth responded decisively, emphasizing the legacy shared by service members who have deployed from these bases. “Senator,” he said, “the veterans and service members across the country who have deployed from Fort Bragg or Fort Benning, or Fort Hood or Fort Pickett. There’s a legacy. There’s a connection to those bases… what they trained for there, what they did for, and what they came home back to that matters to them.” His words resonated with the audience’s respect for military history and the bonds formed at these locations.
Continuing his point, Hegseth shared how he regularly consults veterans about their views on the names of military bases. “Ask enough of them, as I do all the time before and later, and we recognize the service of those who were put into the replacement…” he asserted. He was clear that he did not dismiss the complexities of history but rather warned against erasing it. “What we’re looking at is erasing history,” he insisted, echoing a sentiment that many view as an affront to those who served their country.
Hegseth’s retort left little room for doubt. He confidently stated that service members express gratitude for the historical names sticking around. “Ask people to serve at Fort Bragg or Fort Benning, if they like, the fact that the names have been returned… to a man and to a woman, they will tell you, ‘Thank God we’re back to Fort Bragg…’” His call to recognize the pride service members take in their names could not be ignored.
King, flustered by Hegseth’s passionate defense, attempted to counter, claiming that they were not erasing history but recognizing it. He argued that honoring those who fought for the Confederacy was an insult to Americans who value unity and the sacrifices made against slavery. “I believe it is an insult to the people of the United States,” King said, highlighting the emotional stakes behind this contentious topic.
The exchange revealed stark differences in perspective on history and remembrance. Hegseth’s defense emphasized the importance of ties to tradition and the emotional legacy that these names carry for current and former service members, while King’s view aligned with a push for a more modern interpretation of America’s past. Each side is tapping into deeply held beliefs about how history should be remembered and honored.
This heated discussion is not just about names; it encapsulates broader debates on how to reconcile national history with contemporary values. It challenges professionals, policymakers, and citizens to confront their beliefs and consider the implications of historical legacies in today’s society.
"*" indicates required fields
