For over 100 years, Fort Benning in Georgia was named after a Confederate general known for his pro-slavery stance. Previously renamed during a military initiative two years ago, the Trump administration now aims to honor a different Benning by reinstating the base’s previous name. This time, the namesake will be Fred Benning, a Nebraskan native celebrated for his bravery as an 18-year-old corporal in World War I. Recognized with the military’s second-highest honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, Fred Benning’s valor was also characterized by his modest lifestyle after the war — running a bakery and serving as mayor of Neligh, Nebraska. Despite his reluctance to discuss his wartime experiences, he remained a respected figure until his death in 1974.
Federal regulations prevent reverting to names associated with Confederacy figures; however, the reinstated name appeals to the familiarity cherished by past soldiers. This reversion aligns with President Donald Trump’s appeal to working-class voters against elitism, although there are lingering questions about whether such renamings truly honor the legacy of individuals like Fred Benning. Andrew Orr, a military history expert, argues Fred Benning deserves this recognition, given his significant role during intense American assaults on German defenses in World War I.
In the broader context of renaming military bases, Congress previously endorsed an initiative to eliminate references to Confederacy figures from military sites following the 2020 protests sparked by George Floyd’s death. Consequently, Fort Benning and North Carolina’s Fort Bragg, both established in 1918, were initially renamed. In 2023, Fort Moore replaced Fort Benning, honoring Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia, acknowledging both his military service and her advocacy for dignified casualty notifications. Fort Bragg was renamed Fort Liberty, now honoring World War II paratrooper Army Pfc. Roland L. Bragg.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently emphasized the intention to reconnect with local communities by reverting to original names, asserting that the recent changes diminished the legacies of these bases. Critics question the motivations behind honoring someone like Fred Benning so prominently, suspecting the initiative leans more towards preserving nostalgic names rather than honoring individual achievements. Nevertheless, Steven Clay, preserving the legacy of the 16th Infantry Regiment to which Benning belonged, acknowledges the importance of Benning’s exploits but questions the basis for the honor.
In the small town of Neligh, Nebraska, Fred Benning is remembered not only for his wartime bravery but also for his substantial contributions to the community. Born near Omaha and later settling in Neligh with a family, Benning’s involvement in local civic life enhanced the town’s infrastructure and civic services during his mayoral tenure. Known for being active in the local American Legion Post and Chamber of Commerce, he continued to serve the community while maintaining his successful bakery until his retirement in 1965.
Despite skepticism about the political motivations for restoring Fort Benning’s name, Orr suggests that the town of Neligh should embrace its connection to Fred Benning, celebrating his enduring legacy detached from broader political motives. While recognizing the contentious backdrop of renaming debates, Orr encourages the community to focus on honoring Fred Benning’s genuine contributions and his rightful place in history.
