Exploring the Renaming of Fort Moore to Fort Benning and Its Implications

|
ByArmyConnect

BLUF

The first question you might ask is, “Where is the story on Fort Bragg?” We respond that Fort Bragg is Fort Bragg. Yes, we are displaying a bit of fence-sitting. Outside of Fort Liberty Community Bank, the surrounding community slow-rolled renaming or simply opted out. Additionally, the Army did not name Fort Liberty after a person.

Fort Moore is a different story.

Renaming Fort Moore comes across as grandstanding, fiscal irresponsibility, poor decision-making, and losing focus on the mission. That said, good soldiers follow orders, questionably political or not, and we expect the leaders of Fort Benning to execute them as ordered.

Introduction

In a significant move that has sparked reflection, debate, and frustration within the military community, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has directed the renaming of Fort Moore, Georgia, back to its former designation, Fort Benning (U.S. Department of Defense 2025). This decision represents a pivotal shift in the narrative surrounding military installations and their namesakes, reinstating a name steeped in history and honor. However, the abrupt reversal raises concerns about the unnecessary costs associated with updating signs, documentation, and training materials and the motivations behind the change. Many view this renaming as self-serving rather than a genuine acknowledgment of merit, as it seems misaligned with the Army’s core values of selfless service and honor. Just months earlier, Fort Moore was renamed to honor Army Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Compton Moore, recognizing their significant contributions to military service and leadership—a legacy that now feels overshadowed by this contentious decision.

While we will always ask critical questions, we also understand that Corporal Fred G. Benning neither asked for this criticism nor this honor. Everyone, regardless of where you stand, need to respect his service to our country in and out of uniform. Our report is about the process and intent to revive the Benning namesake.

Social Media Sentiment

Brand/Topic: Fort Benning
Sentiment: Neutral
Summary: The sentiment towards Fort Benning appears to be neutral. While some people may have positive experiences or opinions about the military base, others may have negative views, particularly relating to its role in the military. Overall, opinions seem to be mixed, resulting in a neutral sentiment.

Source: Hootsuite, March 2025

The recent change highlights the evolving discourse around military nomenclature. It raises questions about continuity, remembrance, and the values these names represent as the Department of Defense recognizes the legacy of CPL Fred G. Benning—a soldier renowned for his extraordinary heroism during World War I—presents an opportunity to explore the historical context behind these names and the implications of their changes. This article will delve into the significance of this renaming decision and what it means for the future of Fort Benning and the broader military community.

Historical Context of Renaming Fort Moore and Fort Benning

The story of Fort Benning is deeply intertwined with America’s military history, tracing its roots back to its establishment in October 1918 as Camp Benning. Initially named in honor of Confederate General Henry L. Benning, the U.S. Army created the installation during World War I to serve as a training facility for infantry soldiers. The choice of name reflected a time when local commanders named military installations, typically after notable figures from the Civil War era (U.S. Army Center of Military History 2024). The public has scrutinized this practice in light of modern values and perspectives.

As the years progressed and the nation’s understanding of its historical figures evolved, so did the installation’s name. In May 2023, the Department of Defense renamed Fort Benning to Fort Moore, paying homage to Army Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Compton Moore. This change was part of a broader initiative by the Department of Defense to address the legacies of namesakes associated with the Confederacy. The 2021 Naming Commission’s intent of renaming Fort Moore was to reflect a commitment to inclusivity and recognition of contributions from diverse military leaders and their families.

However, the recent directive from Secretary Hegseth to revert Fort Moore to Fort Benning underscores the complexities surrounding military naming conventions. This decision is not merely a matter of semantics; it reflects the ongoing struggle to reconcile historical legacies with modern values and the use of positional power to enact a personal preference. Fort Benning has long been a cornerstone of military training in the United States. It is known for its storied history, which includes hosting the United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, the Army Armor School, and the Army Infantry School. With over 120,000 active-duty personnel, family members, and retirees connected to the installation, its name carries significant weight in military tradition and community identity.

The renaming process is emblematic of a larger conversation about how military installations honor their past while adapting to a changing cultural and political landscape. As Fort Benning reclaims its name, it invites not only a reflection on the valor of CPL Fred G. Benning—whose actions during World War I earned him the Distinguished Service Cross—but also a critical examination of what these names signify for service members and the powers that leverage naming loopholes today and in the future. The transition from Fort Moore back to Fort Benning serves as a reminder that military history is constantly evolving, shaped by heroic deeds, the societal values that honor them, and the leaders that control them.

The issue of renaming installations is not without its controversies. Some historians argue that removing the names of Confederate generals from American military bases is an act of “whitewashing” history, erasing the complex and often painful events that define the nation’s past. The irony lies in the fact that many of these installations were initially named after Confederate leaders, figures who fought to uphold a system of enslavement and division. Keeping these names can serve as stark reminders of America’s tumultuous upbringing, the civil war that once tore the nation apart, and the ongoing efforts to reconcile and unify. Preserving these contentious names can foster a deeper understanding of the nation’s history, encouraging reflection on the values and struggles that have shaped modern America

CPL Fred G. Benning: A Heroic Legacy in Combat

CPL Fred G. Benning’s actions during World War I exemplify extraordinary heroism and unwavering commitment to his fellow soldiers. Here’s a summary of his remarkable contributions in combat:

  1. Early Enlistment:
    • He enlisted in the Army at the age of 17 in April 1917, demonstrating early dedication to serve his country.
  2. Deployment to Europe:
    • He deployed to Europe with the 16th Infantry Regiment, where he faced the rigors and challenges of World War I.
  3. Distinguished Service:
    • The Army awarded him the Distinguished Service Cross for “extraordinary heroism in action,” highlighting his bravery during critical battles.
  4. Leadership Under Fire:
    • On October 9, 1918, during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, after the enemy killed his platoon commander and incapacitated two senior non-commissioned officers, CPL Benning assumed command of the surviving 20 men in his company.
  5. Courageous Assault:
    • Led his men through heavy enemy fire to reach their assigned objective, showcasing his ability to inspire and guide his troops under extreme pressure.
  6. Selfless Service:
    • Continued to demonstrate selflessness and dedication throughout his military career, embodying the values of the Infantryman’s Creed.
  7. Post-War Contributions:
    • After returning home on September 3, 1919, CPL Benning served as the mayor of Neligh, Nebraska, further exemplifying his commitment to public service beyond his military tenure.
  8. Legacy of Valor:
    • Remembered not only for his individual acts of heroism but also for representing the spirit of all soldiers who have served with honor and integrity.

CPL Fred G. Benning’s actions during combat reflect a legacy of bravery that continues to inspire military personnel and the broader community today.

The Department of Defense’s Renaming Commission Initiative for Fort Benning

The renaming of Fort Moore back to Fort Benning is part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the Department of Defense’s Naming Commission, which Congress established under the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This commission is a response to the growing calls for a reevaluation of military installations named after figures associated with the Confederacy and other controversial historical legacies. Its mandate included reviewing the names of military bases and installations and recommending new names that better reflect the values and diversity of today’s military. The commission’s recommendations aimed to foster inclusivity and honor individuals whose legacies resonate positively with the ideals of service and sacrifice. The changes implemented by the commission represent an effort to align military honors with contemporary societal values, including renaming Fort Benning to Fort Moore in May 2023. However, the recent directive from Secretary Hegseth to revert to Fort Benning underscores the ongoing complexities and debates surrounding these critical naming conventions. These dynamics highlight the significance of historical context and the evolving discourse on how military installations commemorate their past in a manner relevant to current and future service members.

The Immediate Reaction to Renaming Fort Moore

The announcement of Fort Moore’s renaming back to Fort Benning has generated a diverse response from the public, reflecting the complexities surrounding military nomenclature. Many community members and advocates for the previous name expressed disappointment, viewing Fort Moore as a tribute to the significant contributions of Army Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Compton Moore. Those who appreciated the broader narrative of leadership and service that the Moores represented expressed this sentiment particularly strongly. Conversely, supporters of the renaming celebrated the recognition of CPL Fred G. Benning and his extraordinary heroism during World War I, viewing this decision as a reaffirmation of values tied to bravery and sacrifice. The absence of a formal ceremony to mark this transition has further fueled discussions, as many believe that significant changes in military nomenclature warrant commemorative events that honor the legacies of those memorialized.

The military response to the renaming has been equally nuanced, with service members expressing various feelings about the change. “Grey Beard” veterans will welcome the return to Fort Benning, but they do not fully appreciate the acknowledgment of CPL Benning’s valor and the installation’s historical significance. We suspect the renaming is a victory lap in name only, a political win. However, concerns remain about the impact on the Moore family, who have long been connected to the installation since its last renaming. The transition back to Fort Benning may evoke feelings of loss for the Moore family, as their legacy was celebrated briefly before being trumped. Additionally, many in the military community contemplate how such rapid changes in naming conventions affect unit cohesion and morale, raising essential questions about identity and belonging within the ranks. As these discussions unfold, it becomes clear that renaming an installation is not merely a logistical decision; it is a complex issue that reverberates through the lives of service members, their families, and those whose legacies are honored within military history.

Potential Challenges with the Sudden Change to Fort Benning

The sudden decision to rename Fort Moore back to Fort Benning presents various logistical challenges that could impact the installation and its community. One of the most immediate concerns is the necessity of changing signage, documentation, and training manuals that have already been updated to reflect the previous name. This process can be time-consuming and costly, involving physical changes across the installation and updates to digital platforms and official records. Furthermore, the rapid transition may disrupt ongoing operations and training schedules, creating confusion among service members who must adapt to the new designation. These logistical hurdles highlight the complexities of renaming military installations, which extend beyond mere nomenclature to affect daily functions and administrative processes.

In addition to practical implications, the renaming can influence unit cohesion and morale within the military community. Service members often develop strong attachments to their installations, and frequent name changes can create a sense of instability or disconnection from their environment. The swift shift back to Fort Benning may leave some personnel grappling with mixed emotions, particularly those who embraced the values associated with the Moore family during the brief period that Fort Moore was honored. As discussions arise about the significance of an installation’s name, there is a growing recognition of how such changes resonate with the troops’ identity and heritage. Ultimately, the decision to revert to Fort Benning aims to honor CPL Fred G. Benning’s legacy and also underscores the intricate relationship between military history, community identity, and the lived experiences of those in service.

How Much Will the Army Pay for the Renaming of Fort Benning?

The renaming of Fort Benning to Fort Moore involves various costs associated with changing the name of the base and its affiliated assets. As outlined in the Naming Commission’s report, the total estimated cost for the renaming process at Fort Benning is approximately $4,928,574. This list includes expenses related to signage, rebranding, and other modifications necessary to reflect the new name.

Cost Breakdown Table for Renaming Fort Benning in 2023

ItemEstimated Cost
Signage (Welcome signs, directional signs, etc.)$1,500,000
Rebranding of uniforms and equipment$1,200,000
Modifications to digital assets (websites, software)$500,000
Removal of Confederate symbols and names from memorials$800,000
Miscellaneous costs (administrative, community engagement)$928,574
Total Estimated Cost$4,928,574

Source: (The Naming Commission 2022)

Additional Considerations

  1. Community Engagement: Include costs associated with engaging the community for feedback on the renaming process in the miscellaneous expenses incurred throughout the community. The sunk costs are the money spent associated with community hours worked, signs, brand realignment, and Fort Moore memorabilia on and off-post (Bondarenko 2025).
  2. Ongoing Maintenance: Future costs will arise from maintaining the new signage and branding, which the initial estimate does not include.
  3. Potential Unforeseen Costs: During the implementation of any large-scale renaming initiative, unforeseen expenses may arise, increasing the overall cost. The estimated cost of renaming Fort Moore to Fort Benning is significantly less as no directives exist to reconstitute all Confederate symbols and names. Small miracles. But signs cost money. Payroll distractions cost money. Additional touch points to discuss the way forward cost money. Paying Unit Public Affairs Representatives, UPARs, to undo 21 months of work cost money.
  4. Local Sensitivities: Considering local sentiments and history in the renaming process may lead to additional costs related to community outreach and education.

In a fiscally austere environment, this effort is needless and exorbitantly expensive. Criticism aside, the fine soldiers and civilians of Fort Moore are probably hard at work making their leaders happy. The expenses reflect a comprehensive approach to renaming, ensuring that all aspects of the base’s identity are updated to reflect the new name.

Public Perception, Controversy, and Unnecessary Cost of Renaming Fort Benning

The renaming of Fort Moore back to Fort Benning has ignited a spirited debate regarding the broader implications of naming military installations, particularly in the context of historical legacies. Public sentiment surrounding renaming initiatives is often polarized, with some advocating for changes that reflect contemporary values and inclusivity while others view such actions as an erasure of history. Critics of the renaming decision argue that honoring figures associated with the Confederacy or other controversial pasts is a necessary acknowledgment of history. At the same time, supporters contend that military installations should represent ideals that align with the current ethos of the Armed Forces. The discourse surrounding the renaming reflects an ongoing struggle to reconcile the complexities of history with society’s evolving values, highlighting the challenge of navigating military honors in a modern context.

Within this contentious atmosphere, Secretary Hegseth’s directive to restore the name Fort Benning has drawn both support and criticism from various stakeholders. Advocates for the change emphasize the importance of recognizing CPL Fred G. Benning’s extraordinary heroism, viewing the decision as a means to celebrate valor and sacrifice in military service. Conversely, detractors express concern about the implications for the Moore family’s legacy, which was briefly honored under the previous name. This controversy underscores the delicate balance military leaders must strike when navigating historical narratives and public sentiment. As discussions about renaming military installations continue, it becomes clear that these decisions are not merely administrative—they resonate deeply with communities, service members, and families, shaping how history is remembered and honored within the fabric of military culture.

Reestablishing Historic Names: Shaping Military Heritage and Modern Values

The decision to restore historic names like Fort Benning carries significant weight in shaping narratives about military heritage, as these names serve as a bridge between the past and present by reinstating names associated with valor and heroism, such as that of CPL Fred G. Benning, the military acknowledges the contributions of individuals who have helped define its legacy. However, this process must also consider the importance of adapting to modern values, ensuring that the names we honor today reflect ideals of inclusivity, sacrifice, and dedication that resonate with current service members and society at large.

Critically, the motivations behind such renaming decisions can also reveal underlying themes—Secretary Pete Hegseth’s choice to revert to Fort Benning, an installation where he trained during active duty, raises questions about the self-serving nature of these actions. While honoring historical figures is essential, it is equally vital to scrutinize the intentions behind such decisions, as they can influence how military heritage is perceived and understood within the broader context of evolving societal values. Balancing historical significance with contemporary perspectives is crucial in fostering an identity that respects the past while remaining relevant and inclusive for future generations.

Conclusion: A Complex Legacy of Military Naming, Renaming and Identity

The recent renaming of Fort Moore back to Fort Benning encapsulates the intricate interplay between military history, public sentiment, and evolving values. As we reflect on the significance of honoring figures like CPL Fred G. Benning, it becomes clear that such decisions carry profound implications for remembering and commemorating the sacrifices made by service members throughout history. The discussion surrounding military naming conventions is not merely about names; it is a dialogue about identity, heritage, and the values that define our Armed Forces today. 

As we navigate this complex legacy, we must engage in open conversations about the meaning behind these names and the histories they represent. Recognizing the contributions of heroes like CPL Benning while also acknowledging the evolving ideals of inclusivity and representation. Benning is crucial in fostering an environment that honors both the past and present. Ultimately, the decisions made regarding military installations will continue to shape narratives about service, sacrifice, and personal preference, influencing how future service members connect with their history. By balancing respect for historical significance with a commitment to modern values, we can ensure that the legacies honored through military names reflect a diverse and inclusive vision for our nation’s armed forces.

Works Cited

Similar Posts