By the same token, the a.s.signment of marines in the lower ranks was left to the individual commands, which filled quotas established by headquarters. Commanders usually filled the quotas from among eligible men longest on station, but whether or not Negroes were included in a transfer quota was left entirely to the discretion of the local commander. The Department of Personnel reserved the right, however, to make one racial distinction in regard to bulk quotas: it regulated the number of black marines it took from recruit depots as replacements, as insurance against a "disproportionate" number of Negroes in combat units. Under the screening procedures of Marine headquarters and unit commanders, black enlisted men were excluded from a.s.signment to reserve officer training units, recruiting stations, the State Department for duty at emba.s.sies and legations, and certain special duties of the Department of Defense and the Navy Department.[18-20]
[Footnote 18-20: Ibid., 4 Aug 52.]
For the service to reserve the right to restrict the a.s.signment of Negroes when it was of "overriding interest to the Marine Corps" was perhaps understandable, but it was also susceptible to considerable misinterpretation if not outright abuse. The Personnel Department was "constantly" receiving requests from commanders that no black noncoms be a.s.signed to their units. While some of these requests seemed reasonable, the chief of the division"s Detail Branch noted, others were not. Commanders of naval prison retraining centers did not want black noncommissioned officers a.s.signed because, they claimed, Negroes caused unrest among the prisoners. The Marine Barracks in Washington, D.C., where the commandant lived, did not want black marines because of the ceremonial nature of its mission. The Marine Barracks at Dahlgren, Virginia, did not want Negroes because conflicts might arise with civilian employees in cafeterias and movies. Other commanders questioned the desirability of a.s.signing black marines to the Naval Academy, to inspector-instructor billets in the clerical and supply fields, and to billets for staff chauffeurs. The Detail Branch wanted a specific directive that listed commands to which black marines should not be a.s.signed.[18-21]
[Footnote 18-21: Ibid., 10 Jun 52.]
Restrictions on the a.s.signment of black marines were never codified, but the justification for them changed. In place of the "overriding interest to the Marine Corps" clause, the corps began to speak of restrictions "solely for the welfare of the individual Marine." In 1955 the Director of Personnel, Maj. Gen. Robert O. Bare, pointed to the unusually severe hardships imposed on Negroes in some communities where the att.i.tude toward black marines sometimes interfered with their performance of duty. Since civilian pressures could not be recognized officially, Bare reasoned, they had to be dealt with informally on a person-to-person basis.[18-22] By this statement (p. 468) he meant the Marine Corps would informally exclude Negroes from certain a.s.signments. Of course no one explained how barring Negroes from a.s.signment to recruitment, inspector-instructor, emba.s.sy, or even chauffeur duty worked for "the welfare of the individual Marine." Such an explanation was just what Congressman Powell was demanding in January 1958 when he asked why black marines were excluded from a.s.signments to the American Emba.s.sy in Paris.[18-23]
[Footnote 18-22: Ltr, Maj Gen R. O. Bare to CO, 1st Mar Div, 14 Jul 55; Ltr, Dir of Pers to CG, 1st Mar Div (ca. 10 Dec 56). The quotation is from Ltr, CO, Marine Barracks, NAD, Hawthorne, Nev., to Dir of Pers, 15 Dec 62.]
[Footnote 18-23: Ltr, Powell to SecDef, 23 Jan 58. See also unsigned Draft Ltr for the commandant"s signature to Powell, 12 Feb 58.]
Community att.i.tudes toward Negroes in uniform had become a serious matter in all the services by the late 1950"s, and concern for the welfare of black marines was repeatedly voiced by Marine commanders in areas as far-flung as Nevada, Florida, and southern California.[18-24]
But even here there was reason to question the motives of some local commanders, for during a lengthy discussion in the Personnel Department some officials a.s.serted that the available evidence indicated no justification for restricting a.s.signments. Anxiety over a.s.signments anywhere in the United States was unfounded, they claimed, and offered in support statistics demonstrating the existence of a substantial black community in all the duty areas from which Negroes were unofficially excluded. The a.s.signment and Cla.s.sification Branch also pointed out that the corps had experienced no problems in the case of the thirteen black marines then a.s.signed to inspector-instructor duty, including one in Mobile, Alabama. The branch went on to discuss the possibility of a.s.signing black marines to recruiting duty. Since recruiters were a.s.signed to areas where they understood local att.i.tudes and customs, some officials reasoned, Negroes should be used to promote the corps among potential black enlistees whose feelings and att.i.tudes were not likely to be understood by white recruiters.
[Footnote 18-24: See Ltrs, A. W. Gentleman, Hq MC Cold Weather Tng Cen, Bridgeport, Calif., to Col Hartley, 12 Nov 57; CO, MB, NAS, Jacksonville, Fla., to Personnel Dept, 14 Dec 62; CO, MB, NAD, Hawthorne, Nev., to same, 15 Dec 62.]
These matters were never considered officially by the Marine Corps staff, and as of 1960 the Inspector General was still keeping a list of stations to which Negroes would not be a.s.signed. But the picture quickly changed in the next year, and by June 1962 all restrictions on the a.s.signment of black marines had been dropped with the exception of several installations in the United States where off-base housing was unavailable and some posts overseas where the use of black marines was limited because of the att.i.tudes of foreign governments.[18-25]
[Footnote 18-25: Draft Memo, Head of a.s.signment and Cla.s.sification Br for Dir, Pers (ca. 1961), sub: Restricted a.s.signments; Memo, IG for Dir, Pers, 31 Aug 62; Ltr, Lt Col A. W. Snell to Col R. S.
Johnson, CO, MB, Port Lyautey, 28 Jun 62. See also Memo, Maj E. W. Snelling, MB, NAD, Charleston, S.C., for Maj Duncan, 27 Nov 62; and the following Ltrs: Col S. L. Stephan, CO, MB, Norfolk Nav Shipyard, to Dir, Pers, 7 Dec 62; K. A. Jorgensen, CO, MB, Nav Base, Charleston, S.C., to Duncan, 7 Dec 62; Col R. J. Picardi, CO, MB, Lake Mead Base, to Duncan, 30 Nov 62.]
The perennial problem of an all-black Steward"s Branch persisted into the 1960"s. Stewards served a necessary though unglamorous function in the Marine Corps, and education standards for such duty were (p. 469) considerably lower than those for the rest of the service. Everyone understood this, and beyond the stigma many young people felt was attached to such duties, many Negroes particularly resented the fact that while the branch was officially open to all, somehow none of the less gifted whites ever joined. Stewards were acquired either by recruiting new marines with stewards-duty-only contracts or by accepting volunteers from the general service. The evidence suggests that there was truth in the commonly held a.s.sumption among stewards that when a need for more stewards arose, "volunteers" were secured by tampering with the cla.s.sification test scores of men in the general service.[18-26]
[Footnote 18-26: Shaw and Donnelly, _Blacks in the Marine Corps_, pp. 64-65.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: TRAINING EXERCISES _on Iwo Jima, March 1954_.]
The commandant seemed less concerned with methods than results when stewards were needed. In June 1950 he had reaffirmed the policy of allowing stewards to reenlist for general duty, but when he learned that some stewards had made the jump to general duty without being qualified, he announced that men who had signed contracts for stewards duty only were not acceptable for general duty unless they scored at least in the 31st percentile of the qualifying tests. To make the change to general duty even less attractive, he ruled that if a steward reenlisted for general duty he would have to revert to the rank of private, first cla.s.s.[18-27] Such measures did nothing to improve the morale of black stewards, many of whom, according to civil rights critics, felt confined forever to performing menial tasks, nor did it prevent constant shortages in the Steward"s Branch and problems arising from the lack of men with training in modern mess management.
[Footnote 18-27: Speed Ltr, CMC to Distribution List, 22 Jun 50; Routing Sheet, Pers Dept, 21 Jun 50, sub: Enlistment of Stewards.]
The corps tried to attack these problems in the mid-1950"s. At the behest of the Secretary of the Navy it eliminated the stewards-duty-only contract in 1954; henceforth all marines were enlisted for general duty, and only after recruit training could volunteers sign up for stewards duty. Acceptance of men scoring below ninety in the cla.s.sification tests would be limited to 40 percent of those volunteering each month for stewards duty.[18-28] The corps also inst.i.tuted special training in modern mess management for stewards. In 1953 the Quartermaster General had created an inspection and demonstration team composed of senior stewards to instruct members (p. 470) of the branch in the latest techniques of cooking and baking, supervision, and management.[18-29] In August 1954 the commandant established an advanced twelve-week course for stewards based on the Navy"s successful system.
[Footnote 18-28: Ltrs, CMC to Distribution List, 16 Apr 55 and 18 Nov 55.]
[Footnote 18-29: Memo, Head, Enlisted Monitoring Unit, Detail Br, for Lt Col Gordon T. West, 29 Oct 54, Pers A. See also Shaw and Donnelly, _Blacks in the Marine Corps_, pp. 65-66.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: MARINES FROM CAMP LEJEUNE ON THE USS VALLEY FORGE _for training exercises, 1958_.]
These measures, however, did nothing to cure the chronic shortage of men and the attendant problems of increased work load and low morale that continued to plague the Steward"s Branch throughout the 1950"s.
Consequently, the corps still found it difficult to attract enough black volunteers to the branch. In 1959, for example, the branch was still 8 percent short of its 826-man goal.[18-30] The obvious solution, to use white volunteers for messman duty, would be a radical departure from tradition. True, before World War II white marines had been used in the Marine Corps for duties now performed by black stewards, but they had never been members of a branch organized exclusively for that purpose. In 1956 tradition was broken when white volunteers were quietly signed up for the branch. By March 1961 the branch had eighty white men, 10 percent of its total. Reviewing the situation later that year, the commandant decided to increase the number of white stewards by setting a racial quota on steward a.s.signment. Henceforth, he ordered, half the volunteers accepted (p. 471) for stewards duty would be white.[18-31]
[Footnote 18-30: Memo, J. J. Holicky, Detail Br, for Dir of Pers, USMC, 3 Aug 59, sub: Inspection of Occupational Field 36 (Stewards), Pers 1, MC files.]
[Footnote 18-31: Memo, a.s.st Chief for Plans, BuPers (Rear Adm B. J. Semmes, Jr.), for Chief of NavPers, 22 Jun 61.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: COLONEL PETERSEN (_1968 photograph_).]
The new policy made an immediate difference. In less than two months the Steward"s Branch was 20 percent white. In marked contrast to the claims of Navy recruiters, the marines reported no difficulty in attracting white volunteers for messman duties. Curiously, the volunteers came mostly from the southeastern states. As the racial composition of the Steward"s Branch changed, the morale of its black members seemed to improve. As one senior black warrant officer later explained, simply opening stewards duty to whites made such duty acceptable to many Negroes who had been p.r.o.ne to ask "if it [stewards duty] was so good, why don"t you have some of the whites in it."[18-32] When transfer to general service a.s.signments became easy to obtain in the 1960"s, the Marine Corps found that only a small percentage of the black stewards now wished to make the change.
[Footnote 18-32: USMC Oral History Interview, CWO James E. Johnson, 27 Mar 73.]
There were still inequities in the status of black marines, especially the near absence of black officers (two on active duty in 1950, nineteen in January 1955) and the relatively slow rate of promotion among black marines in general. The corps had always justified its figures on the grounds that compet.i.tion in so small a service was extremely fierce, and, as the commandant explained to Walter White in 1951, a man had to be good to compete and outstanding to be promoted.
He cited the 1951 selection figures for officer training: out of 2,025 highly qualified men applying, only half were selected and only half of those were commissioned.[18-33] Promotion to senior billets for noncommissioned officers was also highly compet.i.tive, with time in service an important factor. It was unlikely in such circ.u.mstances that many black marines would be commissioned from the ranks or a higher percentage of black noncommissioned officers would be promoted to the most senior positions during the 1950"s.[18-34] The Marine Corps had begun commissioning Negroes so recently that the development of a representative group of black officers in a system of open compet.i.tion was of necessity a slow and arduous task. The task was further complicated because most of the nineteen black officers on (p. 472) active duty in 1955 were reservists serving out tours begun in the Korean War. Only a few of them had made the successful switch from reserve to regular service. The first two were 2d Lt. Frank E.
Petersen, Jr., the first black Marine pilot, and 2d Lt. Kenneth H.
Berthoud, Jr., who first served as a tank officer in the 3d Marine Division. Both men would advance to high rank in the corps, Petersen becoming the first black marine general.
[Footnote 18-33: Ltr, CMC to Walter White, 2 Jul 51, AO-1, MC files. See also Memo, Div of Plans and Policies (T. J. Colley) for a.s.st Dir of Public Info, 4 Jun 51, sub: Article in Pittsburgh _Courier_ of 26 May 51.]
[Footnote 18-34: Memo, Exec Off, ACofS, G-1, for William L. Taylor, a.s.st Staff Dir, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 27 Feb 63, sub: Personnel Information Requested, AO-1C, MC files.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: SERGEANT MAJOR HUFF.]
As for the noncommissioned officers, there were a number of senior enlisted black marines in the 1950"s, many of them holdovers from the World War II era, and Negroes were being promoted to the ranks of corporal and sergeant in appreciable numbers.
But the tenfold increase in the number of black marines during the Korean War caused the ratio of senior black noncommissioned officers to black marines to drop. Here again promotion to higher rank was slow. The first black marine to make the climb to the top in the integrated corps was Edgar R. Huff. A gunnery sergeant in an integrated infantry battalion in Korea, Huff later became battalion sergeant major in the 8th Marines and eventually senior sergeant major of the Marine Corps.[18-35]
[Footnote 18-35: Shaw and Donnelly, _Blacks in the Marine Corps_, pp. 62-63. 66.]
By 1962 there were 13,351 black enlisted men, 7.59 percent of the corps" strength, and 34 black officers (7 captains, 25 lieutenants, and 2 warrant officers) serving in integrated units in all military occupations. These statistics ill.u.s.trate the racial progress that occurred in the Marine Corps during the 1950"s, a change that was both orderly and permanent, and, despite the complicated forces at work, in essence a gift to the naval establishment from the Korean battlefield.
CHAPTER 19 (p. 473)
A New Era Begins
On 30 October 1954 the Secretary of Defense announced that the last racially segregated unit in the armed forces of the United States had been abolished.[19-1] Considering the department"s very conservative definition of a segregated unit--one at least 50 percent black--the announcement celebrated a momentous change in policy. In the little more than six years since President Truman"s order, all black servicemen, some quarter of a million in 1954, had been intermingled with whites in the nation"s military units throughout the world. For the services the turbulent era of integration had begun.
[Footnote 19-1: New York _Times_, October 31, 1954; ibid., Editorial, November 1, 1954.]
The new era"s turbulence was caused in part by the decade-long debate that immediately ensued over the scope of President Truman"s guarantee of equal treatment and opportunity for servicemen. On one side were ranged most service officials, who argued that integration, now a source of pride to the services and satisfaction to the civil rights movement, had ceased to be a public issue. Abolishing segregated units, they claimed, fulfilled the essential elements of the executive order, leaving the armed forces only rare vestiges of discrimination to correct. Others, at first princ.i.p.ally the civil rights bloc in Congress and civil rights organizations, but later black servicemen themselves, contended that the Truman order committed the Department of Defense to far more than integration of military units. They believed that off-base discrimination, so much more apparent with the improvement of on-base conditions, seriously affected morale and efficiency. They wanted the department to challenge local laws and customs when they discriminated against black servicemen.
This interpretation made little headway in the Department of Defense during the first decade of integration. Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations made commitments to the principle of equal treatment within the services, and both admitted the connection between military efficiency and discrimination, but both presumed, at least until 1963, severe limitations on their power to change local laws and customs. For their part, the services constantly referred to the same limitations, arguing that their writ in regard to racial reform ran only to the gates of the military reservation.
Yet while there was no substantive change in the services" view of their racial responsibilities, the Department of Defense was able to make significant racial reforms between 1954 and 1962. More than expressing the will of the Chief Executive, these changes reflected the fact that military society was influenced by some of the same forces that were operating on the larger American society. Possessed of a discipline that enabled it to reform rapidly, military society still shared the prejudices as well as the reform impulses of the (p. 474) body politic. Racial changes in the services during the first decade of integration were primarily parochial responses to special internal needs; nevertheless, they took place at a time when civil rights demands were stirring the whole country. Their effectiveness must be measured against the expectations such demands were kindling in the black community.
_The Civil Rights Revolution_
The post-World War II civil rights movement was unique in the nation"s history. Contrasting this era of black awakening with the post-Civil War campaign for black civil rights, historian C. Vann Woodward found the twentieth century phenomenon "more profound and impressive ...
deeper, surer, less contrived, more spontaneous."[19-2] Again in contrast to the original, the so-called second reconstruction period found black Americans uniting in a demand for social justice so long withheld. In 1953, the year before the Supreme Court decision to desegregate the schools, Clarence Mitch.e.l.l of the NAACP gave voice to the revolutionary rise in black expectations:
Twenty years ago the Negro was satisfied if he could have even a half-decent school to go to (and took it for granted that it would be a segregated school) or if he could go to the hotel in town or the restaurant maybe once a year for some special interracial dinner and meeting. Twenty years ago much of the segregation pattern was taken for granted by the Negro. Now it is different.[19-3]