On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981

[RetroLounge]

On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.



More here: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/welcome.html

The order here: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/eo9981.html

Isn't it amazing what a single executive order could set in motion and accomplish?

But I guess Truman could have called for a bipartisan agreement and waited for congress to change the laws.

:shrug:

RL

[Faygo Kid]

1. Point well taken.

Our president could take lessons from FDR and Truman, imperfections acknowledged.

[RetroLounge]

6. Yes, not saying it was perfect

but it put the President on the right side of history, politics be damned.

and I find it telling that one of the 3 posts below yours unrec'd this post.

RL

[BeHereNow]

21. A "True Believer" no doubt.

Funny thing is, they never see how they are exactly like
the Bush "True Believers..."

Wake up people.
Kissenger, Baker and their ilk run the country, not Obama.

BHN

[sandnsea]

2. That created a Committee to look into the rules

and make changes as rapidly as possible, with regard to the time required and "without impairing efficiency or morale".

If Obama signed that exact same Executive Order today, the gay community would flip out.

All of that is in affect and when they're done discussing the exact same rules, etc., that had to be looked into by Truman's Committee - they'll repeal DADT which is a LAW, and do the same kinds of things that integrated the troops in the 50s.

[MajorChode]

3. Truman wanted to sign a civil rights act in his presidency

But he lacked the political capital to do so. Still he made great strides toward that goal and worked with what he had. I think if many of the Democrats we have today had been around then, they would be calling him a failure on the basis of civil rights alone because he only managed to enact change in the executive branch. Change doesn't always happen overnight. Significant change generally happens through baby steps and inch pebbles rather than milestones.

[hfojvt]

4. and look what happened in 1948

Truman loses to Thurmond in Alabama, picks up 0% of the vote whereas in 1944, Roosevelt took 81.28% of the vote in 1944, and in 1952 Stevenson only took 64.55% in Alabama in 1960 Kennedy was down to 56.39.

Check it out. Those southern states used to be solid Democratic.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

[RetroLounge]

5. Ah, political expediency as opposed to doing the right thing

got it.

RL

[msongs]

7. yes white racists for dems, until they all went to wallace then nixon. nt

[roguevalley]

16. he knew it and did it anyway. the south is paying for it now, ditching

the dems and progressives gave them repuglicans and the current state of shit they are standing in now. check the alabama thread. Harry did it because it was right and he was a southerner from Missouri. He also had a pair and wasn't afraid to use them.

[RetroLounge]

20. "had a pair and wasn't afraid to use them"

Exactly!

:hi:

RL

[roguevalley]

33. back atcha sweet thing!

:hi:

[Johonny]

29. So I have to trade equal rights for Alabama...

I think I can safely say screw Alabama if it takes giving up civil rights to get them to vote Dem

[EFerrari]

31. Yes, they were, When black Americans were not allowed to vote

and when the Democratic Party shared a shower with the Klan.

The good old times. :sarcasm:

[bullwinkle428]

52. Please - your very sig-line revolves around Nixon's use of the "Southern strategy",

so your failure to recognize the thing that really drove the regional shift from D to R seems deliberately obtuse!

[sandnsea]

8. 1954, last all black unit integrated

http://tinyurl.com/yh8wzyb

The army didn't agree to integrate until 1950, in 1951 the NAACP had to sue because there was still segregation. The Executive Order did not instantly solve the problem.

[RetroLounge]

9. "Isn't it amazing what a single executive order could set in motion"

Try reading the black stuff on your screen.

RL

[sandnsea]

10. Why not just change the law

and get it done and over instead of dragging it out for 5+ years.

The point is, you wouldn't be satisfied with an executive order like that and you know it.

[RetroLounge]

11. Why not end it by executive order

then change the law?

The point is, you would be happy with anything the hopemobile drives into DC.

RL

[sandnsea]

12. An Order won't end anything, can't you see that

It didn't end anything in 1948 and it wouldn't end anything in 2009. A President can't do it by Order alone. That Truman Order ought to make that crystal clear to you. It didn't work. Court cases were required. It took years.

After health care, DADT needs to be next. A Commission, like Harry Truman created, needs to be given 6 months to pour through the regulations and identify everything that needs to be changed. Then a new law needs to be implemented. That's how it needs to be done.

[struggle4progress]

28. Truman's executive order didn't ignore or contravene existing law, did it?

[ruggerson]

53. Why are you so against doing both?

Obama could issue stop loss orders and command Gates to stop enforcing the law (just as he JUST did with the medical marijuana exec order).

Simultaneously, he could work with, and pressure Congress to formally repeal the policy.

This isn't rocket science.

[struggle4progress]

13. Here's an informative chronology from the Truman Library:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

[RetroLounge]

19. Thanks!

It was a long process and a drawn out fight.

Good to see a president actually believe in something and fight for it.

:hi:

RL

[struggle4progress]

27. There's also a useful chronology at your arsenal site:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/intchron.htm

[HamdenRice]

14. "Isn't it amazing what a single executive order could ...accomplish?" You mean nothing?

The North Koreans did more to integrate the armed services than that executive order by decimating forward battalions and forcing the Army to bring up reinforcements without regard to color.

[RetroLounge]

17. You forgot "could set in motion"

but I've seen your BS posts in GLBT so nothing you say really matters to me.

Nice pom pons, by the way.

RL

[HamdenRice]

22. Yeah, I forgot the actual chronology and details of African American history is offensive

to some people.

Better, I suppose, we should go with the fantasy and erase our history.

[RetroLounge]

23. ...

:rofl:

RL

[Vidar]

15. Recommended for a President who knew how to fight.

[RetroLounge]

18. Yup, didn't happen right away

But he fought every step of the way, with more than flowery speechifying...

:hi:

RL

[lonestarnot]

24. K & R!

[JamesA1102]

25. False analogy and intellectually dishonest.

There was no federal law segregating the armed services in 1948. Thus, Truman could reverse the policy with an Executive Order.

DADT is federal law. No President can legally issue an Executive Order telling a department of government to ignore or violate federal law. To do so is an impeachable offense.

[RetroLounge]

26. ...

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

RL

[Johonny]

30. exactly

the argument has been that as commander and Chief Obama it is well within his power to suspend enforcement of don't ask/don't tell in the armed forces. He can't overturn the laws however. Basically by stopping enforcement he would have at least shown good faith to the people that voted him in. As far as I can tell the counter argument is Obama has tried to not abuse his executive signing statements because it was felt Bushes administration abused the power and Obama wants to set an example for future presidents.

[JamesA1102]

32. Nothing there says that Executive Orders allow a President

to order a department of government to violate or ignore Federal law.

[RetroLounge]

34. I bet it makes you sad

that you can only unrec once, too.

RL

[JamesA1102]

37. No it makes me sad

when people have to resort to disinformation.

[Unvanguard]

35. Indeed. It's a poor comparison.

The only real option Obama has for stopping DADT by decree is a stop-loss order, which is not really how that mechanism is supposed to be used, and is thus of questionable legality.

The public in general tends to overestimate the powers of the President and neglect too much the influence of Congress, and this case--and DOMA too--seems to me to be an instance of that. We should pressure the federal government--we've waited far too long for equality--but we should not go after Obama. Our target should be those Democratic Senators who are being evasive and cowardly on DADT and DOMA; they are the ones who are blocking the filibuster-proof majority to get these things done.

[JamesA1102]

38. Agreed. Excellent post. nt.

[redqueen]

45. Thank you. (nt)

[RetroLounge]

46. Of course, never "go after" Obama

I guess all that speechifying about keeping his feet to the fire, etc., was just more Hopemobile Bumper Sticker bullshit.

RL

[Unvanguard]

48. In a word, yes. That's how the game is played.

People--not LGBT people in particular, all people--don't usually like it when politicians are honest with them, in part because they will be understandably tempted to interpret even honesty as self-serving political rhetoric.

[ruggerson]

55. So I take it you think he overstepped his bounds with the medical marijuana order

[ruggerson]

54. Then how did he just order that the marijuana laws not be enforced?

[JamesA1102]

56. That's not what he ordered.

Actually he didn't order anything. The AG set the policy that state laws would take precedent when there is a conflict with federal law. Something very different.

[ruggerson]

57. No not very different at all

there are still federal statutes in place. The policy enables the DOJ to not enforce federal law.

[JamesA1102]

58. The difference is

there are no state laws governing the military. Total apples and oranges comparison.

[ruggerson]

59. the difference is

using stop loss powers to halt DADT investigations until the statute is overturned by Congress means Obama would be spending political capital on an issue that might offend a religious constituency. Instructing the DOJ to ignore federal medical marijuana statutes does not raise nearly as many political hackles.

[JamesA1102]

60. Totally wrong.

The whole stop loss thing is not true. And when did he instruct the DOJ to do anything? AG Eric Holder sets policy in the DOJ. You're totally off base here.

[ruggerson]

63. Right

That's why Obama did a 180 on the DOMA brief on the Smelt case after it was on the front page of every newspaper and Hildebrandt told him what an enormous mistake it was. That's why they had to completely revise the brief and even issue a statement from the WH (not DOJ) indicating that they wanted DOMA repealed.

Let me guess. That was Holder too.

[JamesA1102]

64. We're talking about DADT, DOMA.

I'm not familar with the Smelt case so I really can't comment. But it seems that you're changing the subject.

[Garbo 2004]

61. No, that's not correct. AG & Admin policy is that it's not a priority to use limited Fed resources

to enforce Fed law in regards to marijuana in specified circumstances. It doesn't preclude Fed enforcement or assert that State laws supercede Fed law, which they simply don't in the case of Federal statutes regarding marijuana. The Federal law has not changed, Fed law still supercedes state law in this matter; Fed policy regarding level of enforcement of Fed laws re: marijuana in specific circumstances has. AG's memo articulating policy guidance here: http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192 .

(Gibbs referenced in WaPo: "White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, at a daily briefing in Washington, declined to address "what states should do" in response to the Justice Department guidance. But Gibbs said that the president since January had outlined his medical marijuana policy and that the Justice Department memo, signed by Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, helped to fill in the details." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101903638.html )


In regards to DADT, the Admin could also say as a matter of policy enforcing DADT is not a priority. Not all Federal statutes are enforced, and not all are enforced rigorously and without exception.

Especially in time of national need and for purposes of national security. Such as, for example, when there are stop loss measures, call backs to svs, and other measures to retain members in service. The Administration could in effect suspend enforcement while legislation is pursued to change statute. (Fed law also allows Executive to suspend laws relating to separations from service in times when stop loss and other measures are undertaken to retain troops in service.)

[JamesA1102]

62. The legality of stop loss in questionable.

And the analogy to the Medical MJ policy is dubious at best. The DOJ sets its own priorities based on it's resources. In 2000 John Ashcroft made enforcement of pornography laws a priority. No one is telling the DOJ to violate or ignore any laws, they are just setting priorities.

[Toasterlad]

66. Funny...Nobody Questions It When It's Applied to Straight Troops.

[Solly Mack]

36. K/R

[Toasterlad]

39. Wow. A Thread Full Of People Hoping to Keep Bigotry Thriving For As Long As Possible.

"Yay, Obama! Don't do what Truman did! It took years for it to work and anyway he was stupid! It's better that you do absolutely NOTHING despite your promises to do something! That way, we can keep that cozy discimination going until it's the next president's worry, and you won't be villified by history like Harry S Truman was!"

Sometimes this place is un-fucking-real.

[RetroLounge]

40. Why should they care?

It's only those pesky gays after all.

Bigotry against gays is tolerated here on DU and in my opinion encouraged.

RL

[Unvanguard]

43. It was never too soon to repeal DADT. But the president is not a dictator.

That is simply the reality. All the urgency in the world will not change it.

Find the Democratic members of Congress who are reluctant to vote for a repeal of DADT, and target them. They are a minority, but they are the stalling force, and unlike the Republicans they might respond to pressure and cooperate with Obama and the Congressional leadership.

[Toasterlad]

44. The President Can Send a Message to Congress By Suspending DADT

He is choosing not to. Also, when Rep Alcee Hastings introduced legislation to cut off funding for DADT, Obama pressured him to withdraw it.

Suspending DADT and not strong-arming Congress wouldn't make Obama a dictator.

[asdjrocky]

41. Wow, that took guts.

[RetroLounge]

47. Yeah, something lacking in Dems today.

:hi:

RL

[Captain Hilts]

42. Integration in the Army and Navy had already begun under FDR, they just decided not to announce

it. There are memoranda between FDR and Claude Swanson, Sec. of the Navy discussing how having black sailors as replacements on crews was not creating any significant problems. Same thing was going on in the Army.

[Kaleva]

49. Blacks were threatening to fight the draft.

Truman didn't sign the executive order out of the goodness of his heart.

[Toasterlad]

51. I Guess He Shouldn't Have Done It Then?

What do you suggest gays do in order to force Obama to do something about DADT, since he is ALSO not acting out of the goodness of his heart?

[RetroLounge]

65. Your question won't be answered

of course.

RL

[Kaleva]

68. I didn't say that.

I don't think gays themselves can do much to force Obama to do anything as far as DADT is concerned. There just isn't the numbers to make an impact. However, if a critical mass of straights join in, then there may be found enough votes in Congress to repeal DADT.

[Toasterlad]

69. So You're Okay With the President Endorsing Bigotry Because It's Politically Expedient?

[optimator]

50. lol

great post

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

67. In a sort of related way

I went to Disbursing School at Montford Point, Camp Lejuene, North Carolina which we were told used to be the 'black boot camp'.