Truman did not end segregation in the armed forces
In a recent discussion about diversity in the military, CNN host Victor Blackwell referred to President Truman’s ending segregation in the armed forces in 1948. That is not quite accurate.
Facing threats of a march on Washinton led by the NAACP – when Truman was running for reelection — he reluctantly agreed to sign Executive Order 9981, calling for the end of segregation in the military. However, he did little to implement the order for several years after winning reelection. It was President Eisenhower who put the cap on segregation in the military. Ironically, it was Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander, who was the first to integrate military units in World War II years before Truman’s EO.
Find this book on Amazon now!
Here is an excerpt from my book, “Who Put Blacks in That PLACE? – The long sad history of the Democratic Party’s oppression of Black Americans – to this day.”, that provides greater detail.
“Approaching the 1948 presidential election, Truman was in trouble – especially with Black Americans. Further complicating the situation was the fact that the Republican Party had made desegregation of the armed forces a plank in the Party’s 1948 platform which the Democratic Party had refused to do.
In response, Truman took a much stronger civil rights position in his campaign. He officially reversed two of Wilson’s most discriminatory actions – the segregation of the armed forces and the Executive Branch of the federal government.
According to an article on the Library of Congress website entitled “NAACP – A century in the fight for freedom,” the decisive pressure to integrate the armed forces also came from the NAACP, which threatened street demonstrations throughout the country.
On July 21, just months before the General Election, Truman opened federal employment to Blacks with Executive Order 9980, and on July 26, he issued Executive Order 9981 which ordered the desegregation of the United States armed services. In so doing, Truman undertook two actions that were promised by Roosevelt but never delivered despite his twelve-plus years in the Oval Office. It was also an action that Truman did not take during his first three years as President.
Truman got the response he wanted. The Black newspaper, the Chicago Defender, carried a bold banner headline: “PRESIDENT TRUMAN WIPES OUT SEGREGATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.”
The facts did not live up to the headline. Once reelected, Truman did virtually nothing to enforce his own Order. It was not until 1954 that the last segregated military units were finally abolished by order of Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson, serving under Republican President Eisenhower. In just more than one year in office, Eisenhower ended segregation in the military – an accomplishment that Truman failed to achieve in almost eight years in office, and the four years following his Executive Order.”
The book also explains Eisenhower’s role in integrating units during World War II.
“Though President Harry Truman is often given credit for desegregating the armed services, he did not blaze the trail. Republican General Eisenhower had called for desegregation of the military and had actually done so. Using his power as Supreme Commander, Eisenhower integrated some combat units during World War II — four years before Truman’s Executive Order, as reported in National Geographic:
‘One major breakthrough came during the Battle of the Bulge, in late 1944, says Ambrose. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, faced with Hitler’s advancing army on the Western Front, temporarily desegregated the army, calling for urgent assistance on the front lines. More than 2,000 black soldiers volunteered to fight.
Similarly, demands in Italy called the Tuskegee Airmen to action. In 1944, they began flying alongside white pilots in the European theatre, successfully running bombing missions and becoming the only U.S. unit to sink a German destroyer.
African American women also fought to serve in the war effort as nurses. Despite early protests that black nurses treating white soldiers would not be appropriate, the War Department relented, and the first group of African American nurses in the Army Nurse Corps arrived in England in 1944.’
The word “relented” is emphasized because it clearly shows that Eisenhower’s integration of black and white service personnel was not received with enthusiasm by Democrats in Washington.”
So, there ‘tis.
First comment on this unabashedly immodest blatant promotion of the author’s book ” now on sale from Amazon” may speak to book copy sales. These days hard copy books in demand are found in an audiobook library online with the Libby app. If I search on Libby for this title will it appear?
Last hard book I purchased was written by an acquaintance who happened to be in town on a speaking engagement. I bought it so he would sign e inside cover page. It is a good read for one with a teachable mentality.
Larry does not give credit to his information sources but in this article he has copies while passages in his book as proof text for the point he is attempting.
The point being more to do with the Republicans not the Democrats opening the military to integration of Black persons in the 1950’s and in 1944 when sneaky General Ike took black soldiers into his army.
Why is it all about partisanship competition which party first introduced a social revolutionist idea and which party had a humbug perspective.
Who did what and when they did it too often gives credit for an innovation to the wrong person(s).
History knowledge is advantageous in the present day’s circumstance only if the story being ripped from history’s pages comes with its complete context held intact.
Assumptions by today’s authors that the public is uneducated and easily hoodwinked into believing revisionist rewrites of historical facts are patently wrong. As PBP authors play fast and loose with true facts to suit their particular fanciful rendition they publish as if it’s the truth.
Reviewing current culture from the perspective of the conservative right may be enlightening for some readers who have information given from the liberal left perspective. Intelligent people weigh the opinions that identify each positions stance. Critical thinkers when given a wide range of political views will choose the facts that prove true and discard ideas proved to be propaganda untruths promoting conspiracies.
The election earlier this month was barely won by Republicans because they were able to convince the gullible right with Trump’s propagandist brand of advertising. By Election Day the electorate on the right would believe any words Trump uttered no matter how disgusting, crude, and inappropriate all were seen in Trump’s speeches and physical antics performed on stage. It now is Trump exemplifying what America is about to the peoples of the World. Republicans may have won the prized presidential election, but look at what a bad bargain they struck and how extravagant was its cost.
AC …There is also an eBook on Amazon and Kindel. Have you made your purchase yet? Now you attack me for advertising my book. How petty can you get? That is what authors and publishing houses do. Duh! I do not play fast and loose with facts. Everything in the commentary is fact based. You think the winning side is composed of gullible people and on your side is all the smart folks. How arrogant is that? It is your abyssal ignorance — tied to an obsessive bias — that makes your writing so meaningless. Not to mention that you writing is often incoherent. You make Harris’ word salads sound like William Jennings Bryon. But if it makes you feel good… have at it.
Sorry Trumper, but your reckoning of the Harris world salad falls way short of the weave. You do know she lost the election and has two months in lame duck mode? Only 60 more days to get your final nasty cracks in.
No reviews on Amazon; is no news, good news?
I like you printing book bits. saves money seeing my pass make sense ;-). You see I just don’t have time to read incredibly long tomes that weave nowhere like this article. Just kidding, but sound familiar?, Now, if you post clips of you doing the Trump. or doing Trump, now that could sell some books.
Hey, how’d you like those State Capitol building breaches. Still have brain fog over that. Not a peep yet. Kvetch got your tongue?
Soon u b singing that ole S&G song: hello Ukraine my ole friend, I’ve done bargained a country away again. Just like the afghans and the Kurds. You gotta haveta believe my lying words. Cuz soon you be living in the deadly sounds of silence.
Frank how did your legal charges get settled?You really should keep your hands off of kids Did you plead guilty to lesser charges? Or am I mistaking you for someone else? Your brother perhaps? Just don’t do things like that. Are you in therapy?
Seth with the ole false loaded question logical fallacy often known as the “are you still beating you wife” fallacy.
Seth, who is so angry that he wants to deport or execute half his neighbors in America.
Seth, seriously. if you can’t muster a cogent argument. we can talk. But as a slam artist, this is not your best work. Weak tea.
Next time you’re so frustrated with your life choices, just go outside, look up at the sky, and howl at the moon. More satisfying than weak tea.
So you say, it’s not always as you say. Another person’s perspective from your particular perspective is ignorant. How arrogant is that coming from you?
It’s very infrequent for authors I read online that They quote there own work while make a point in their opinion article.
You report that it’s a common practice in the book publishing business for a political opinion author’s new book to be found advertised for-sale in an opinion piece. Well, your announcement that your book is available may be seen as kosher to you. Book advertising on PBP is pretty rare and that it’s yours means you must have paid for the ad space the same as any other advertising sponsor. (One wonders who PBP is targeting with those ads, is that really the market PBP sees itself reaching? Then, Sponsor advertisers must be receiving an acceptable return on their ad investment. But, I digress.)
Point has little to do with advertising your work on your own blog, even if it does pass the ethics smell test . And neither is it a point that my perspective does not goose-step in tune with your opinion perspective with regard to who should be credited with ingratiating the US Army and when it was done.
What seems out of oder in this article is your reprinting whole sections of your book with a reiteration of the same points just stated. If you researched your points then wouldn’t crediting your source and not your own work have strong enough proof? Although, you wish your readers took you at your word for and not question your scholarship. So, not crediting your source indicates there’s no distinct source other than your own opinion. Be that as it has always been and always will be, opinion fabricated as you see it. Discerning minds will not always agree and send their opinion your way. Will you show a willingness to at the minimum agree to disagree finding common ground in shared humanity as a species. I realize that’s a big ask of you.
That asked question, how will Republicans in Congress, across the country, and as individuals like you relate with persons you call “others”? Will you, can you amicably agree that of course you will have major disagreements, but you must know the moral/ethical high ground is what is beneficial for our country’s 9O%. This country’s top 10% have seen social/political/ financial benefit far in excess of the investment they made in the country that made their wealth possible.
Reagan and other R’s after the minted the false economy called trickle down. His idea that allowing industry to keep its profits and industry reinvesting those profits in the corporations’ improvements and in education their people would, eventually, reach the country’s worker population’s pocket book. It didn’t happen exactly the way Reagan had promoted the idea. Man’s basic instinct was then as it is today, full of self, me first, and forget you. Nobody earned these profits and deserves payment besides the CEO and major owners, and stockholders.
The corporation’s profit dispersion is at the will of its officers and its Board of Owners. They vote as to how the profits will be spent. Corporate officers’ bonuses, stock dividend payment, reinvest in business assets, or…employee bonuses if after everyone and thing before any form of profit trickles down to employee compensation.
Truth in fact is that corporate profits poured into the business’ economy funnel compensates the top echelon first and huge bonuses get awarded, stock holders receive dividends voted to their stock,
And assets could be renovated or purchased new. Hourly and salaried employees once could plan on receiving bonuses. Now, since 2008’s bankers stupid greed brought on the bank stock failure and an economic recession. Corporations have become more stingy with sharing its profits with employees on its lowest wrung of compensation.
Then the regular workers experience layoffs and separation from employer when the economy generally went flat during shutdown because of a worldwide health epidemic crisis.
The two plus years post pandemic have not brought the 90% back all the way to pre-pandemic economy status. The 10% grew their wealth disproportionately and the majority saw their income shrink.
Trickle down economics assumes those with decision making control over capital and manufacturing assets will be fair and altruistic when they decide the share held for themselves and the rest divided as owner decide.
Billionaires’ compensation is what it has come to in the world out of a skewed valuation of the corporation’s stock and its owners return on others investment hours and input talents.
Just saying, if during the next four years with the new administration’s hand on the country’s steering wheel, our economy rewards the wealthiest and fails the 45-60% will not those gloating about their party’s “landslide” win will you admit buyers remorse and agree on much of the things that are too important for any disagreement.
Thin skin in all circumstances means personal vulnerability on every front and forces that person into a constant defensive posture. Win, lose, or draw that person has no possibility of intelligent thought processing and expected presidential decision making. By January 20, 2025 Trump’s direction will be plain for all to see, if people drop the Trump
Fantasy and gain a spine and common sense enough for mental survival.