Laurence Silberman, a federal judge on the court of appeals for the District of Columbia, kicked off this year's Juneteenth week with a screed to his court. One of the court's law clerks politely set him to rights.
Ten military bases in the United States are named after Confederate officers -- the only instances I'm aware of in which the United States has named military bases after officers of a defeated military opponent, no matter how illustrious. Our military does not drill at Camp Cornwallis or Fort Rommel.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced legislation to require the military to rename those bases after people who did not rebel against the United States. Judge Silberman disapproves.
On June 14, Judge Silberman wrote to the judges and judicial clerks in the circuit and described as "madness" Senator Warren's proposal to rename the bases after soldiers who did not fight against the United States. He described her proposal, which involved no graveyards, as "the desecration of Confederate graves." He continued, "It's important to remember that Lincoln did not fight the war to free the slaves. Indeed, he was willing to put up with slavery if the Confederate states returned." (I've corrected Judge Silberman's errors of capitalization and punctuation.) He pointed to his own family history as a reason to commemorate both sides of the Civil War: the judge's great-grandfather fought for the Union and the great-grandfather's brother fought for the Confederacy.
One day later a judicial clerk became the first to answer Judge Silberman. Here are some excerpts from the brave law clerk's response:
I am only one of five black law clerks in this entire circuit. Since no one in the court's leadership has responded to your message, I thought I would give it a try. * * * [M]y maternal ancestors were enslaved in Mississippi. While the laws of this nation viewed my ancestors as property, I view them as hostages. In a hostage situation, when someone does something that leads to the freeing of the hostages, I am not sure if the hostages would be concerned as to whether the person that saved them, actually intended to save them. My ancestors would not have been involved in the philosophical and political debates about Lincoln’s true intentions.
It is very clear what the Confederacy stood for. In 1861, at the Virginia secession convention, Henry L. Benning (for whom Fort Benning is named) in explaining the reasoning for Georgia’s decision to secede from the United States stated, “[it] was a conviction … that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery…[I]t is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back.” Unfortunately, in this scenario, no matter how bravely your uncle fought for the Confederacy, the foundation of his fight was a decision that he agreed more with the ideals of the Confederacy, than he did with those of the Union. And in the end, he chose the losing side of history.
Finally, I will note that the current movement to rename Government owned facilities is in line with your previous opinions on the importance of names and what they represent. In 2005, you publicly advocated for the removal of J. Edgar Hoover’s name from the FBI Building due to the problematic material you came across in your review of his FBI files after his death. You equated it to the Defense Department being named for Aaron Burr. * * * It is very strange that you would be against renaming our military facilities, since the legacy of the Confederacy represents the same thing.
Thanks to The Intercept for reporting this story.