Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940 1965

M >> Morris J. MacGregor Jr. >> Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940 1965

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87

A furious secretary, learning of the second message from the press (p. 368)
stories, did enter the case. Branding the document a violation of his
announced policy, he had it rescinded and, publicizing a promise made
earlier to the committee, announced that qualified black specialists
would be assigned to some white units.[14-106] At the same time Gray
was not prepared to admit that the incident demonstrated how open his
plan was to evasion, just as he refused to admit that his rescinding
of the errant message represented a change in policy. He would
continue, in effect, the plan approved by the Secretary of Defense on
30 September, he told Fahy.[14-107]

[Footnote 14-106: DOD, Off of Pub Info, Release
400-49, 3 Nov 49, FC file.]

[Footnote 14-107: Ltr, SA to Fahy, 17 Nov 49, FC
file.]

The Army staff's draft revision of the Gillem Board circular, sent to
the committee on 25 November, reflected Gray's 30 September
plan.[14-108] In short, when it emerged from its journey through the
various Army staff agencies, the proposed revision still contained
none of the committee's key recommendations. It continued the severe
restrictions on the assignment of Negroes who had specialty training;
it specifically retained the numerical quota; and, with several
specific exceptions, it carefully preserved the segregation of Army
life.[14-109] Actually, the proposed revision amounted to little more
than a repetition of the Gillem Board policy with minor modifications
designed to make it easier to carry out. Fahy quickly warned the
Deputy Director of Personnel and Administration that there was no
chance of its winning the committee's approval.[14-110]

[Footnote 14-108: Ltr, Bendetsen to Fahy, 25 Nov 49;
Memo for Rcd, Kenworthy, 28 Nov 49; both in Fahy
Papers, Truman Library.]

[Footnote 14-109: Army Draft No. 1 of Revised Circular
124, 16 Nov 49, FC file.]

[Footnote 14-110: Ltr, Fahy to Maj Gen C. E. Byers, 30
Nov 49, FC file.]

_Assignments_

The quota and assignments issues remained the center of controversy
between the Army and the committee. Although Fahy was prepared to
postpone a decision on the quota while negotiations continued, he was
unwilling to budge on the assignments issue. As the committee had
repeatedly emphasized, the question of open, integrated assignment of
trained Negroes was at the heart of its program. Without it the
opening of Army schools and military occupational specialties would be
meaningless and the intent of Executive Order 9981 frustrated.

At first glance it would seem that the revision of Circular 124
supported the assignment of Negroes to white units, as indeed
Secretary Gray had recently promised. But this was not really the
case, as Kenworthy explained to the committee. The Army had always
made a distinction between _specialists_, men especially recruited for
critically needed jobs, and _specialties_, those military occupations
for which soldiers were routinely trained in Army schools. The draft
revision did not refer to this second and far larger category and was
intended to provide only for the placement of the rare black
specialist in white units. The document as worded even limited (p. 369)
the use of Negroes in overhead units. Only those with skills
considered appropriate by the personnel office--that is, those who
possessed a specialty either inappropriate in a black unit or in
excess of its needs--would be considered for racially mixed overhead
units.[14-111]

[Footnote 14-111: Memo, Kenworthy for President's
Cmte, 18 Nov 49, sub: Successor Policy to WD Cir
124; idem for Fahy, 28 Nov 49, sub: Revised WD Cir
124; both in Fahy Papers, Truman Library.]

Fahy was determined to have the Army's plan modified, and furthermore
he had learned during the past few weeks how to get it done. On 9
December Kenworthy telephoned Philleo Nash at the White House to
inform him of the considerable sentiment in the committee for
publicizing the whole affair and read to him the draft of a press
statement prepared by Fahy. As Fahy expected, the White House wanted
to avoid publicity; the President, through Nash, assured the committee
that the issues of assignment and quota were still under discussion.
Nash suggested that instead of a public statement the committee
prepare a document for the Army and the White House explaining what
principles and procedures were demanded by the presidential order. In
his opinion, Nash assured Kenworthy, the White House would order the
Army to meet the committee's recommendations.[14-112]

[Footnote 14-112: Memo for Rcd, Kenworthy, 9 Dec 49,
sub: Telephone Conversation With Nash, Fahy Papers,
Truman Library.]

White House pressure undoubtedly played a major role in the resolution
of the assignment issue. When on 14 December 1949 the committee
presented the Army and the President with its comments on the Army's
proposed revision of Circular 124, it took the first step toward what
was to be a rapid agreement on black assignments. At the same time it
would be a mistake to discount the effectiveness of reasonable men of
good will discussing their very real differences in an effort to reach
a consensus. There is considerable evidence that when Fahy met on 27
December with Secretary Gray and General J. Lawton Collins, the Chief
of Staff, he was able to convince them that the committee's position
on the assignment of black graduates of specialist schools was right
and inevitable.[14-113]

[Footnote 14-113: Interv, Nichols with Fahy. J. Lawton
Collins became Chief of Staff of the Army on 1
August 1949, succeeding Omar Bradley who stepped up
to the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.]

While neither Gray nor Collins could even remotely be described as
social reformers, both were pragmatic leaders, prepared to accept
changes in Army tradition.[14-114] Collins, unlike his immediate
predecessors, was not so much concerned with finding the Army in the
vanguard of American social practices as he was in determining that
its racial practices guaranteed a more efficient organization. While
he wanted to retain the numerical quota, lest the advantages of an
Army career attract so large a number of Negroes that a serious racial
imbalance would result, he was willing to accept a substantive
revision of the Gillem Board policy.

[Footnote 14-114: Intervs, Nichols with Gray and Fahy,
and author with Collins.]

Gray was perhaps more cautious than Collins. Confessing later that he
had never considered the question of equal opportunity until Fahy
brought it to his attention, Gray began with a limited view of the
executive order--the Army must eliminate racial discrimination, (p. 370)
not promote racial integration. In their meeting on 27 December Fahy
was able to convince Gray that the former was impossible without the
latter. According to Kenworthy, Gray demonstrated an "open and
unbiased" view of the problem throughout all discussions.[14-115]

[Footnote 14-115: Ltr, Kenworthy to Gray, 20 Jul 50,
FC file; Intervs, Nichols with Gray, Davenport, and
Fahy.]

[Illustration: SECRETARY OF THE ARMY GRAY.]

The trouble was, as Roy Davenport later noted, Gordon Gray was a
lawyer, not a personnel expert, and he failed to grasp the full
implications of the Army staff's recommendations.[14-116] Davenport
was speaking from firsthand knowledge because Gray, after belatedly
learning of his experience and influence with the committee, sent for
him. Politely but explicitly Davenport told Gray that the staff
officers who were advising him and writing the memos and directives to
which he was signing his name had deceived him. Gray was at first
annoyed and incredulous; after Davenport finally convinced him, he was
angry. Kenworthy, years later, wrote that the Gray-Davenport
discussion was decisive in changing Gray's mind on the assignment
issue and was of great help to the Fahy Committee.[14-117]

[Footnote 14-116: Interv, author with Davenport, 31
Oct 71.]

[Footnote 14-117: Memo, Kenworthy for Chief of
Military History, 13 Oct 76, CMH.]

Fahy reduced the whole problem to the case of one qualified black
soldier denied a job because of color and pictured the loss to the
Army and the country, eloquently pleading with Gray and Collins at the
27 December meeting to try the committee's way. "I can't say you won't
have problems," Fahy concluded, "but try it." Gray resisted at first
because "this would mean the complete end of segregation," but unable
to deny the logic of Fahy's arguments he agreed to try.[14-118] There
were compromises on both sides. When Collins pointed out some of the
administrative difficulties that could come from the "mandatory"
language recommended by the committee, Fahy said that the policy
should be administered "with latitude." To that end he promised to
suggest some changes in wording that would produce "a policy with some
play in the joints." The conferees also agreed that the quota issue
should be downplayed while the parties continued their discussions on
that subject.[14-119]

[Footnote 14-118: Memo for Rcd, Karl R. Bendetsen,
Spec Asst to SA, 27 Dec 49, sub: Conference With
Judge Charles Fahy, SA files. Intervs, Nichols with
Gray and Fahy, author with Fahy, and Blumenson with
Fahy.]

[Footnote 14-119: Memo for Rcd, Bendetsen, 27 Dec 49,
SA files; Ltr, Fahy to Cmte, 27 Dec 49, Fahy
papers, Truman Library.]

Agreement followed rapidly on the heels of the meeting of the
principals. Roy Davenport presented the committee members with the
final draft of the Army proposal and urged that it be accepted as (p. 371)
"the furthest and most hopeful they could get."[14-120] Lester
Granger, Davenport later reported, was the first to say he would
accept, with Fahy and the rest following suit,[14-121] and on 16
January 1950 the Army issued Special Regulation 600-629-1,
_Utilization of Negro Manpower in the Army_, with the committee's
blessing.

[Footnote 14-120: Interv, Nichols with Davenport.]

[Footnote 14-121: Ltr, Kenworthy to Nichols, 29 Jul
53, in Nichols Collection, CMH; Interv, Nichols
with Davenport.]

[Illustration: GENERAL COLLINS.]

Fahy reported to Truman that the new Army policy was consistent with
the executive order. Its paragraphs on assignments spelled out the
principle long advocated by the committee: "Negro manpower possessing
appropriate skills and qualifications will be utilized in accordance
with such skills and qualifications, and will be assigned to any ...
unit without regard to race or color." Adding substance to this
declaration, the Army also announced that a list of critical
specialties in which vacancies existed would be published periodically
and ordered major commanders to assign Negroes who possessed those
specialties to fill the vacancies without regard to race. The first
such list was published at the same time as the new regulation. The
Army had taken a significant step, Fahy told the President, toward the
realization of equal treatment and opportunity for all soldiers.[14-122]

[Footnote 14-122: Memo, Fahy for President, 16 Jan 50,
FC file; SR 600-629-1, 16 Jan 50; DOD, Off of Pub
Info, Release 64-50, 16 Jan 50. The special
regulation was circulated worldwide on the day of
the issue; see Memo, D/P&A to TAG, 16 Jan 50, WDGPA
291.2.]

Secretary of Defense Johnson was also optimistic, but he warned Gordon
Gray that many complex problems remained and asked the Army for
periodic reports. His request only emphasized the fact that the Army's
new regulation lacked the machinery for monitoring compliance with its
provisions for integration. As the history of the Gillem Board era
demonstrated, any attempt to change the Army's traditions demanded not
only exact definition of the intermediate steps but also establishment
of a responsible authority to enforce compliance.

_Quotas_

In the wake of the Army's new assignment regulation, the committee
turned its full attention to the last of its major recommendations,
the abolition of the numerical quota. Despite months of discussion,
the disagreement between the Army and the committee over the quota (p. 372)
showed no signs of resolution. Simply put, the Fahy Committee wanted
the Army to abolish the Gillem Board's racial quota and to substitute
a quota based on General Classification Test scores of enlistees. The
committee found the racial quota unacceptable in terms of the
executive order and wasteful of manpower since it tended to encourage
the reenlistment of low-scoring Negroes and thereby prevented the
enlistment of superior men. None of the Negroes graduating from high
school in June 1949, for example, no matter how high their academic
rating, could enlist because the black quota had been filled for
months. Quotas based on test scores, on the other hand, would limit
enlistment to only the higher scoring blacks and whites.

Specifically, the committee wanted no enlistment to be decided by
race. The Army would open all enlistments to anyone who scored ninety
or above, limiting the number of blacks and whites scoring between
eighty and eighty-nine to 13.4 percent of the total Army strength, a
percentage based on World War II strengths. With rare exception it
would close enlistment to anyone who scored less than eighty. Applying
this formula to the current Army, 611,400 men on 31 March 1949, and
assessing the number of men from seventeen to thirty-four years old in
the national population, the committee projected a total of 65,565
Negroes in the Army, almost exactly 10 percent of the Army's strength.
In a related statistical report prepared by Davenport, the committee
offered figures demonstrating that the higher black reenlistment rates
would not increase the number of black soldiers.[14-123]

[Footnote 14-123: D/PA Summary Sheet for SA, 28 Feb
50, sub: Fahy Committee Proposal re: Numerical
Enlistment Quota, CSGPA 291.2 (2 Nov 49); Roy
Davenport, "Figures on Reenlistment Rate and
Explanation," Document FC XL, FC file; Memo, Fahy
for SA, 9 Feb 50, sub: Recapitulation of the
Proposal of the President's Committee for the
Abolition of the Racial Quota, FC file; Memo,
Kenworthy for Dwight Palmer (cmte member), 8 Feb
50, Fahy Papers, Truman Library.]

The Army's reply was based on the premise that "the Negro strength of
the Army must be restricted and that the population ratio is the most
equitable method [of] limitation." In fact, the _only_ method of
controlling black strength was a numerical quota of original
enlistments. The personnel staff argued that enlistment specifically
unrestricted by race, as the high rate of unrestricted black
reenlistment had demonstrated, would inevitably produce a "very high
percentage of Negroes in the Army." A quota based on the
classification test scores could not limit sufficiently the number of
black enlistments if, as the committee insisted, it required that
identical enlistment standards be maintained for both blacks and
whites. Looking at the census figure another way, the Army had its own
statistics to prove its point. Basing its figures on the number of
Negroes who became eighteen each month (11,000), the personnel staff
estimated that black enlistments would total from 15 to 20 percent of
the Army's monthly strength if an entrance quota was imposed with the
cut-off score set at ninety or from 19 to 31 percent if the enlistment
standards were lowered to eighty. It also pointed to the experience of
the Air Force where with no quotas in the third quarter of 1949 black
enlistments accounted for 16.4 percent of the total; even when a (p. 373)
GCT quota of 100 was imposed in October and November, 10 percent of
all Air Force enlistees were black.[14-124]

[Footnote 14-124: Memo, Actg D/PA for Karl R.
Bendetsen, Spec Asst to SA, 13 Dec 49, sub: Ten
Percent Racial Quota; D/PA Summary Sheet, with
Incl, for SA, 28 Feb 50, sub: Fahy Committee
Proposals re: Numerical Enlistment Quota; both in
CSGPA 291.2 (2 Nov 49). The quotations are from the
former document.]

The committee quickly pointed out that the Army had neglected to
subtract from the monthly figure of 11,000 blacks those physically and
mentally disqualified (those who scored below eighty) and those in
school. Using the Army's own figures and taking into account these
deductions, the committee predicted that Negroes would account for
10.6 percent of the men accepted in the 8,000 monthly intake, probably
at the GCT eighty level, or 5 percent of the 6,000 men estimated
acceptable at the GCT ninety level.[14-125]

[Footnote 14-125: Memo, Kenworthy for Karl Bendetsen,
19 Oct 49, sub: Manpower Policy, Fahy Papers,
Truman Library.]

On 14 December 1949 the Army, offering to compromise on the quota,
retired from its statistical battle with the committee. It would
accept the unlimited enlistment of Negroes scoring 100 or better,
limiting the number of those accepted below 100 so that the total
black strength would remain at 10 percent of the Army's
population.[14-126] Attractive to the committee because it would
provide for the enlistment of qualified men at the expense of the less
able, the proposal was nevertheless rejected because it still insisted
upon a racial quota. Again there was a difference between the
committee and the Army, but again the advantage lay with the
committee, for the White House was anxious for the quota problem to be
solved.[14-127]

[Footnote 14-126: Memo for Rcd, Kenworthy, 14 Dec 49,
sub: Conference With Maj Lieblich and Col Smith, 14
Dec 49, FC file.]

[Footnote 14-127: Memo, Fahy for President's Cmte, 1
Feb 50, Fahy Papers, Truman Library.]

Niles warned the President that the racial imbalance which had for so
long frustrated equal treatment and opportunity for Negroes in the
Army would continue despite the Army's new assignment policy unless
the Army was able to raise the quality of its black enlistees. Niles
considered the committee's proposal doubly attractive because, while
it abolished the quota, it would also raise the level of black
recruits. The proposal was sensible and fair, Niles added, and he
believed it would reduce the number of black soldiers as it raised
their quality. It had been used successfully by the Navy and Air
Force, and, as it had in those services, would provide for the gradual
dissolution of the all-black units rather than a precipitous
change.[14-128] The Army staff did not agree, and as late as 28
February 1950 the Director of Personnel and Administration was
recommending that the Army retain the racial quota at least for all
Negroes scoring below 110 on the classification test.[14-129]

[Footnote 14-128: Ltr, Niles to President, 7 Feb 50,
Secretary's File (PSF), Truman Library.]

[Footnote 14-129: D/PA Summary Sheet for SA, 28 Feb
50, sub: Fahy Committee Proposal re: Numerical
Enlistment Quota, CSGPA 291.2 (2 Nov 49).]

Secretary Gray, aware that the Army's arguments would not move the
committee, was sure that the President did not want to see a
spectacular and precipitous rise in the Army's black strength. He
decided on a personal appeal to the Commander in Chief.[14-130] The
Army would drop the racial quota, he told Truman on 1 March, with (p. 374)
one proviso: "If, as a result of a fair trial of this new system,
there ensues a disproportionate balance of racial strengths in the
Army, it is my understanding that I have your authority to return to a
system which will, in effect, control enlistments by race."[14-131]
The President agreed.

[Footnote 14-130: Interv, Nichols with Gray.]

[Footnote 14-131: Ltr, SA to President, 1 Mar 50, Fahy
Papers, Truman Library.]

At the President's request, Gray outlined a program for open
recruitment, fixing April as the date when all vacancies would be open
to all qualified individuals. Gray wanted to handle the changes in
routine fashion. With the committee's concurrence, he planned no
public announcement. From his vacation quarters in Key West, Truman
added a final encouraging word: "I am sure that everything will work
out as it should."[14-132] The order opening recruiting to all races
went out on 27 March 1950.[14-133]

[Footnote 14-132: Memo, President for SA, 27 Mar 50,
FC file; Memo, SA for President, 24 Mar 50, sub:
Discontinuance of Racial Enlistment Quotas, copy in
CSGPA 291.2.]

[Footnote 14-133: Msg, TAG to Chief, AFF, et al., Fort
Monroe, Va., WCL 44600, 27 Mar 50, copy in FC
file.]

Despite the President's optimism, the Fahy Committee was beginning to
have doubts about just how everything would work out. Specifically,
some members were wondering how they could be sure the Army would
comply with the newly approved policies. Such concern was reasonable,
despite the Army's solemn commitments, when one considers the
committee's lengthening experience with the Defense Department's
bureaucracy and its familiarity with the liabilities of the Gillem
Board policy. The committee decided, therefore, to include in its
final report to the President a request for the retention of a
watchdog group to review service practices. In this its views clashed
directly with those of Secretary Johnson, who wanted the President to
abolish the committee and make him solely responsible for the equal
treatment and opportunity program.[14-134]

[Footnote 14-134: Memo, Clark Clifford for President
(ca. Mar 50), Nash Collection, Truman Library.]

Niles, anxious to settle the issue, tried to reconcile the
differences[14-135] and successfully persuaded the committee to omit a
reference in its final report to a successor group to review the
services' progress. Such a move, he told Kenworthy, would imply that,
unless policed, the services would not carry out their programs.
Public discussion about how long the committee was to remain in effect
would also tend to tie the President's hands. Niles suggested instead
that the committee members discuss the matter with the President when
they met with him to submit their final report and perhaps suggest
that a watchdog group be appointed or their committee be retained on a
standby basis for a later review of service actions.[14-136] Before
the committee met with the President on 22 May, Niles recommended to
Truman that he make no commitment on a watchdog group.[14-137]
Privately, Niles agreed with Clark Clifford that the committee should
be retained for an indefinite period, but on an advisory rather than
an operating basis so that, in Clifford's words, "it will be in a
position to see that there is not a gap between policy and an (p. 375)
administration of policy in the Defense Establishment."[14-138]

[Footnote 14-135: Interv, author with Kenworthy.]

[Footnote 14-136: Memo, Kenworthy for Fahy, 28 Apr 50,
Fahy Papers, Truman Library.]

[Footnote 14-137: Ltr, Niles to President, 22 May 50,
Nash Collection, Truman Library.]

[Footnote 14-138: Memo, Clifford for President, Nash
Collection, Truman Library.]

The President proceeded along these lines. Several months after the
committee presented its final report, _Freedom to Serve_,[14-139] in a
public ceremony, Truman relieved the group of its assignment.
Commenting that the services should have the opportunity to work out
in detail the new policies and procedures initiated by the committee,
he told Fahy on 6 July 1950 that he would leave his order in effect,
noting that "at some later date, it may prove desirable to examine the
effectuation of your Committee's recommendations, which can be done
under Executive Order 9981."[14-140]