Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Harry Truman, Barack Obama, And The Mythic Executive Order

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 01:45 PM
Original message
Harry Truman, Barack Obama, And The Mythic Executive Order
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 01:51 PM by Bolo Boffin
http://blog.reidreport.com/2009/10/harry-truman-barack-obama-and-the-mythic-executive-order/

I just found this article looking for the specific circumstances of the Truman executive order that desegregated the military. The truth is a bit more complicated, and though I still believe Obama could be doing more on this front, something Joy Reid does point out, the "stroke of the pen" language I've used here isn't actually true.

That’s not to say that gay rights activists shouldn’t advocate for their cause, but if they’re going to use history as a cudgel over this president’s head, they should at least know the history. Saying President Obama could institute open service with the stroke of a pen is both historicaly inaccurate, and politically ignorant. It ignores the key facts about Truman’s action:

1. Integration of the military was initiated by the military itself, not by the president;
2. Truman’s order did not immediately desegregate the military; and
3. Truman did not desegregate the military at the beginning of his term, when he was at his most popular, having succeeded a popular Democratic president and won the war (by nuking Japan.) He waited until the end of his term, despite having had the military’s internal report on desegregation on his desk for three years. In fact, it was only in what amounted to the final hour of his presidency (again, he very nearly lost the election) that Truman acted. No one knows why, especially since black soldiers had distinguished themselves as patriots during the war, and one would think that the immediate aftermath was the time to act. But wait he did. Sometimes, the politics of the moment requires a president to wait.


Lots, lots more at the link. It's one of the best defenses of Obama's track to repeal DADT that I've read.

ETA: And I thought I would add that personally I know that ending DADT isn't going to be an overnight thing, any more that desegregation was or getting out of Iraq would be. But the process needs to get started and keep moving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. A few more points of information
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 02:33 PM by HamdenRice
(I assume that since this has nothing to do w/ 9/11 you won't mind my responding and agreeing.)

Truman issued his order because he was trying to get African American votes at the last minute as the election approached.

The order had almost no effect. The military basically said, "no," they weren't going to desegregate. The military was divided, with the manpower and training specialists arguing for desegregation in the report you mention, but the joint chiefs and operational officers objecting.

Having the military tell a president "no" is not a good thing for the tradition of civilian control of the military. Moreover, the person who said "no" was the tremendously popular Omar Bradley, the "GI General" of WWII (at the time iirc chairman of the joint chiefs of secretary of the Army), who was not personally prejudiced, and had been much loved by black WWII troops, but Bradley argued that the Army would desegregate when American society was desegregated. They were able to get away with saying "no" because Truman's order was so vaguely worded anyway. It did not actually say the Army had to desegregate; only that African American soldiers had to be given "equal opportunity," which the Army interpreted as equality within the context of "separate but equal" along the lines of civilian society.

The North Koreans did more to desegregate the Army than any other force. When the Korean war started, forward battalions were decimated, and in the chaos, the US Army sent black replacement troops from segregated units to decimated white units. Even then, they tried to keep strict bureaucratic segregation of who was assigned to what units on a permanent or temporary basis. Eventually it proved cumbersome, and in the heat of battle, the Army was desegregated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Not the same set of problems
During the Truman years, the armed services were not segregated by law. They were segregated by directives issued by the Army, Navy, and Air Force Secretaries/departments. Truman did not have to have Congress do anything to change the status of AM troops in the armed services. All he had to do as C-in-C was issue the order. DADT is law established by Congress and signed by the President. To change it permantely, Congress must act and the President has to sign the legislation. President Obama has authority to suspend discharges under DADT. He has chosen not do do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC