Annals of DADT: The verdict of history smiles on Harry Truman for desegregating the U.S. armed forces

Got guts? Today's right-wingers have plenty of gall, but that's not the same thing. Meanwhile the Obama administration, guided by that truly gutless wonder Master Rahm Emanuel, can rarely manage even that. However, Harry Truman, faced with an indefensibly segregated military, did what he knew had to be done, knowing only too well that the reaction wouldn't be friendly.

"My grandfather was appalled that African-American service members had been beaten and lynched upon their return from World War II. They had risked their lives to defend our nation, but were denied the full rights of American citizenship. For him, it was an issue of fairness -- an issue of human rights. He listened to the arguments made by his senior military advisors, men he respected, who had served this country honorably. But he knew what was right and was determined to get it done. . . .

"Extending equal treatment and opportunity to all in our nation’s service, regardless of sexual orientation, is the right thing to do. I hope the example of my grandfather, President Harry Truman, will help our president, Congress, and our military leaders to act with the same courage and conviction to get the job done this year."

-- Clifton Truman Daniel, the oldest grandson

of President Truman, in The Hill

by Ken

"The verdict of history" -- it's a phrase we throw around a lot." Too bad we so rarely take it seriously.

Remember that last frantic, pathetic year in office of Chimpy the Prez, when he more or less gave up playing president and, in what we might call the presidential equivalent of a deathbed conversion, devoted the rest of his time in office (barring some momentary attention he was unaccountably forced to divert in that last autumn to some foolishness about the economy) to a last-ditch effort to polish his "legacy," to redeem his place in history from the savage and unremitting assault he had unleashed on it for seven monstrous years without precedent in the annals of the American republic. The time for him to consider his place in history was while he was dumping the toxic sludge of his mind, heart, and soul upon the country and the world.

Oh, I suspect that some of the archdevils of the Right think they're bad-acting for history. Human waste like "Big Dick" Cheney and "Tiny John" Roberts clearly think they have access to Higher Truths that give them the right -- no, obligation -- to burn a path of destruction through mere earthly reality. But a delusional history constructed from ignorance and psychosis, not to mention plain old dishonesty, really doesn't count.

I haven't made any attempt to maintain any running account -- since I wrote last May, "Can we recall that LGBT military exclusion is a national security issue, not just a "gay" one?" -- of the increasingly unhopeful prospects for repeal of the dreadful military policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, especially as it seemed increasingly likely to be a casualty of the Obama administration's gutlessness, which becomes virtually all-encompassing when it comes to matters that administration insiders really don't much care about. I've been content to leave coverage of the yawning gap between Obama campaign promise and administration delivery on LGBT issues to Howie (here, for example).

I trust that DWT readers have remained aware of the twists and turns over the last year, and that recently, as it appeared that the whole show was headed for the dustbin, a divergent convergence of forces forged a compromise that, for all its shackles and awkwardnesses, might actually lead to substantive change in the DADT policy within a couple of years, once the Pentagon as completed its famous review and a year or two's worth of kabuki theater has played out.

Now a perhaps unexpected voice has been heard in one of the bastions of Beltway insiderdom, The Hill:

Truman fight akin to ‘Don’t ask’ debate

By Clifton Truman Daniel - 05/26/10 07:17 PM ET

This month, my family and I mark the 126th anniversary of the birth of my grandfather, President Harry Truman. We celebrate his life and his many contributions to our nation, but we are particularly proud of his decision to desegregate the U.S. Armed Forces in July 1948.

It wasn’t easy. He faced fierce opposition from inside and outside the military. Many military leaders, including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Omar Bradley, argued that mixing black and white soldiers would destroy the Army. General George Marshall said “experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale.” Others said the military should not adopt a policy contrary to the views of a majority of the people. At that time, Gallup polls found that 82 percent of Americans disagreed with my grandfather’s civil rights initiatives.

My grandfather was appalled that African-American service members had been beaten and lynched upon their return from World War II. They had risked their lives to defend our nation, but were denied the full rights of American citizenship. For him, it was an issue of fairness — an issue of human rights. He listened to the arguments made by his senior military advisors, men he respected, who had served this country honorably. But he knew what was right and was determined to get it done.

There are parallels between the opposition to the desegregation of the military and the debate on “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that requires the firing of a service member based solely on his or her sexual orientation. Like the opponents of desegregation, supporters of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” argue that allowing openly gay and lesbian service members to serve alongside their heterosexual comrades is a “social experiment” and will endanger discipline and morale.

The majority of Americans, however, support open service. An estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen serve honorably alongside heterosexual comrades who, in many cases, already know and do not care. Senior military leaders support ending the ban on open service. Admiral Michel Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a February 2, 2010 Senate hearing that “allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at the same hearing that he supports President Obama’s decision to repeal the law. Now, they must decide how to move forward.

All agree this change must be done wisely and in a way that will minimize any adverse impact on our military. In fact, an assessment is already underway at the Pentagon. But the order to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” must come from Congress and there are questions as to when this should occur.

When agreement exceeds disagreement, there is no reason to delay doing the right thing. When the executive order to end segregation was drafted, my grandfather decided to include the establishment of a presidential committee to implement the order. As he told the members of that committee, “I want the job done and I want it done in a way so that everyone will be happy to cooperate to get it done.”

Congressional action on repeal can — and should — be taken this year. It can and should be respectful of the Pentagon’s timeline and implementation recommendations. This can be accomplished by delaying the effective date of repeal until after the study is concluded, which is expected to be December 1, 2010.

While I have no idea where my grandfather would stand on “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” I would hope he would want his gay great-granddaughter and others like her to have the opportunity to serve the country they love with dignity and integrity. He so appreciated service and sacrifice that ensuring the “equality of treatment and opportunity” for all, regardless of race, could not wait — even in an election year.

Extending equal treatment and opportunity to all in our nation’s service, regardless of sexual orientation, is the right thing to do. I hope the example of my grandfather, President Harry Truman, will help our president, Congress, and our military leaders to act with the same courage and conviction to get the job done this year.

Clifton Truman Daniel is the director of public relations for Harry S Truman College and is President Harry S. Truman’s grandson.

I just want to spotlight a couple of points Daniel makes, about the opposition his grandfather faced in making his historic decision.

First, there's the opposition within the military. In 1948 both the country and the military seem to have been far more unified in their opposition to a racially integrated military than they are today with regard to a sexually nondiscriminatory one.

I'm especially struck by the forcefulness of the opposition of Gens. Omar Bradley and George Marshall, figures of something like reverence in American military history (and in Marshall's case a major figure in American diplomatic history). And yet on the issue of integrating the U.S. military, they were simply wrong -- wrong on principle (there was simply no principled excuse for maintaining segregation) and wrong on the facts (the military did not fall apart as a result of dropping the racial divide).

And then I'm struck by the reminder of the overwhelming public opposition to President Truman's civil rights initiatives. We are clearly much farther along the path of general acceptance of the equal rights of LGBT Americans. As more and more Americans become aware that they actually know LGBT folk, and that they're basically no different from any other kind of folk, in shocking contradiction of the intentionally hateful stereotypes perpetuated by the increasingly desperate forces of bigotry and reaction, it becomes harder for them to think of their LGBT relatives, friends, and coworkers in the framework of the old demonic abstractions.

The fact is, we've been hearing from large numbers of high-ranking American military men that they see no military-preparedness obstacle to jettisoning DADT. Will there be problems with the transition to this newly integrated U.S. military? Of course. Just as there have been problems in incorporating women into the services. But they're problems that can and will be dealt with, for the simplest reason, so well understood by Harry Truman: If we Americans are who and what we think we are, we have no choice.

And the result will be a military that much stronger for taking advantage of the desire to serve and the talents of all its citizens. As soon as the people responsible for setting that transition in motion get their act together.


LESSONS FROM HISTORY:

THE TIMELINE ON DESEGREGATING

Some LGBT colleagues are now circulating a link to a timeline of "Desegretation of the Armed Forces" on the website of the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, stretching from the September 1945 appointment by Secretary of War Robert Patterson of "a board of three general officers to investigate the Army's policy with respect to African-Americans and to prepare a new policy that would provide for the efficient use of African-Americans in the Army" to the October 1953 announcement by the Army "that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units."

This history is fascinating, and valuable for the reminder that such policies are not changed "with the stroke of a pen." However, the implication of those now circulating the link seems to me misleading: that it took eight years to desegregate the military, so why is anyone complaining if it's still going to take us a few more years to change military policy to full acceptance of homosexuals?

But that isn't quite what this history shows me. What I see is a couple of years of bureaucratic paper-shuffling before President Truman decided to take decisive action and issued Executive Order 9981, on July 26, 1948, stating:

"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."

It took a lot of head-cracking yet to ensure that procedures implementing the goals of Executive 9981 were developed and enacted. Still, according to the history, by the spring of 1950, the policy of racially segregated armed forces was changed. Yes, it did take additional time for the new policy to be fully carried out. The 1951 dates are assorted markers of how the changed policy was shown to be in force.

Those who are claiming that the desegregation of the armed forces was an "eight-year process" are fudging at both ends, 1945-48 and 1951-53. The only date in 1953 is that 95% figure noted above -- a measurement of successful implementation.

As far as I can see, we have a number of high-level government officials saying they will support a change from DADT to, well, something else, at some vague point under some vague condtions sometime in the future. If anything equivalent to Executive Order 9981 making nondiscrimination official U.S. policy and insisting that everyone involved in setting and enforcing policies and procedures to act accordingly.

Maybe by the end of this Pentagon review we'll be closer to an Executive Order 9981 moment, but it seems to me that under the most favorable analysis we're still trapped in the DADT equivalent of that 1945-48 paper-shuffling phase -- with, I might add, no indication that such a moment is in the cards. To put it another way, there's no Harry Truman in sight. All the players seem only too happy to let other players have the fun.

So yes, it's well to remember that desegregation did not happen overnight in 1948. However, I don't take away from history the lesson that all forms of bureaucratic hemming and hawing count toward the goal of changing the policy discriminating against gay people serving in the military.

#