To Make America Safe for Democracy
On April 2, 1917, a solemn Woodrow Wilson appeared before a special session of the United States Congress. The reason for this meeting was clear to the American people before he even stepped forward to present his speech: America could not longer ignore Germany’s belligerent actions toward the United States. Unrestricted U-boat warfare and Germany’s refusal to respect the American flag on the high seas combined with the infamous Zimmerman Telegram to create a tough decision for the American leadership. This decision was made even more difficult in that some of these men, most notably the President, strongly wanted to maintain neutrality.
But as he stood before Congress, Wilson delivered a stirring speech, calling on all Americans to dedicate everything they possessed to the protection of the values they held dear. He claimed this war was in fact “the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance.” However, he continued by supporting America’s entrance, claiming, “the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried near our hearts…for democracy…the world must be made safe for democracy.”[1] It was an eloquent speech, clearly revealing America’s reasons for entering the war, but also warning it’s citizens of the tremendous cost they would pay for the defense of freedom.
One phrase from Wilson’s speech truly resounded with many Americans: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” That appeal would accompany the American soldiers as they joined the British and French troops being fired upon in the front lines. But while that rallying cry resonated deeply with many Americans, some greeted the message with cynicism. While President Wilson sought to make the worldfree for democracy, he refused to address the issue of violated democracy in his own country. Instead, segregation was the accepted law of the land. A spirit and law of limited democracy only extended to certain citizens of the U.S., leaving black Americans wondering if they would ever be equal with their white neighbors, free from the prejudice that governed their daily lives.
The aim of this research is to examine the plight of black American men in the military within the first two decades of the twentieth century, specifically the time leading up to and during the First World War. Two specific areas are examined within the context of this paper: racism in the years leading up to 1917 in American society, and the treatment of blacks in the military by white soldiers and military leaders. World War I marked a unique point in America’s military history; in this war the concept of race would directly affect many forms of military policy, in the form of segregation and demotion of black troops. Military leaders would enforce racist policies from the top down, but the large amount of white civilian-soldiers played a more significant role in changing or enforcing official military policy toward black men.
An accurate history of black men’s involvement in the First World War should begin with an examination of race in American society shortly before the onset of the war. Black soldiers of the “Great War” were the sons of former slaves, just one generation removed from the Civil War. They were not, unfortunately, quite so far removed from the racist ideology deeply imbedded in the causes for that war: Jim Crow laws kept alive the ideologies behind slavery, keeping blacks at the status of second-class citizens. They were segregated in almost every area of life; restaurants and railroad cars were designated for “white” or “black,” and even certain drinking fountains barred the thirsty of a darker color.
Racism against blacks also contained an even more ugly and violent side than segregation; lynching remained a common sight throughout the South states and occasionally even took place in the North. The summer of 1917, just after President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany U.S., there were seventy incidents of lynching in the States, as opposed to fifty-four the previous year. As mentioned, these violent acts of racist sadism were not restricted to the South, as there were incidents of racial mob violence in the northern states of Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky that same summer.[2]
The responses to these acts on the governmental level varied. At the federal level, President Wilson refused to address the topic, and when asked to speak out against the continuing violence, “he replied that he had not authority in such matters, which by the Constitution were left to state control.”[3] State governments often chose to use their authority in different ways, at best remaining complacent and at worst outright supporting lynching. Some government leaders perhaps saw it as a way to keep the peace, to keep the larger white community placated. This idea of pacification would be echoed in the civilian army soon to be formed at America’s entrance into war.
The continued suppression of the black community in the South through public lynchings and other means led to their mass exodus to the North in the early 1900’s, a migration which greatly increased after 1914. The black migrants saw hope in the North; hope for better jobs, better pay, and a slackening of the intense prejudice they endured in the southern states. Though their new lives still contained hardships, “it is undeniable that [the black man] had more freedom and less fear there than in the South.”[4]
Some Northern politicians even dared raise their voices against racism, such as Senator Charles S. Thomas of Colorado. He voiced his objections to lynching on the eve of the First World War because “the nation should not expect black men to fight for democracy in France while their relatives are being butchered at home.”[5] This was a challenge to Wilson’s earlier call for the defense of democracy; how could these soldiers fight abroad to defend something they themselves did not experience?
This continued violence in their native country did lead many blacks to wonder how and even if their situation would change should they enter the American forces as active and willing participants. If they were able to show their nation they were equally as loyal, hard working, and intelligent as their fellow white soldiers, could their treatment by whites become more just, more democratic?
The more appropriate question, however, was whether or not these willing black citizen-soldiers would get the chance to prove themselves. They certainly did show up to fight; though both black and white men entered the military in 1917 both as volunteers and as draftees, one historical accounting of the black response to the draft was that “in the South, blacks provided grossly more than their share.”
This was the first time in the history of the U.S. that the majority of her army consisted of drafted men. Citizen-soldiers had been conscripted in the Civil War on both sides, but those draftees only made up about 10 percent of their respective armies. In World War I this figure jumped to around 60 percent.[6] President Wilson made clear the immensity of the draft when he stated, “It is not an army we must shape and train for war; it is a nation. The nation needs all men: but it needs each man not in the field that will most please him, but in the endeavor that will best serve the common good.”[7] Wilson went on to explain that soldiers should not expect to choose what position they would occupy. Whether sharpshooter or machinist, the nation needed men willing to go where they were sent. This message seemed to apply specially to black soldiers, whose “endeavor that will best serve the common good” turned out to be across-the-board segregation or servitude to white regiments.
The segregation imposed on blacks in this situation involved three different areas. First, the majority of the new black soldiers were quickly deemed mentally inferior to white soldiers. In a report entitled, “Disposal of the Colored Drafted Men,” a member of the General Staff commented on the mental capacity of black men. He did not deny that some, the “cream of the colored draft,” were capable of becoming excellent combat troops. But he went on to write, “After this cream has been skimmed off, there remains large percentage of colored men of the ignorant illiterate day labor class.”[8]He further described other instances where the Germans targeted other “colored” nationalities, such as Portuguese and Hindu Indians, because of their inherent “weakness” in combat positions.
E.D. Anderson, the author of this memorandum, highlighted not only colored men’s incompetence mentally, but also physically. He explained that the “remaining large percentage” of black men—after the “cream has been skimmed off”—“have not…the physical stamina to withstand the hardships and exposure of hard field service.” He presented an example, stating that both the French and British had to remove their “colored troops” from France because they “could not stand the nervous strain of trench warfare.”[9] These two areas, that of mental and physical inferiority, show how the military leadership formed their case in order to restrict the vast majority of black troops to labor units only.
But according to Anderson, there existed a third component inherently lacking in the vast majority of black troops: moral ability. He states in his report, “The poorer class of backwoods negro has not the mental stamina and moral sturdiness to put him in the line against opposing German troops…”[10] Though each of these points smacks of eugenic thought, this point in particular references an evolution of man in regards to morals. The black man was not physically, intellectually, or—and some would have said, most importantly—morally equal to his fellow American of lighter-colored skin. One magazine writer put it in these words: “The negro is not a white man with black skin; he is a different race at a different stage in evolution…that fact…should throw light upon the white man’s program for the negro.”[11] One historical account mentioned that, “Top military men voiced their opinions that blacks had inherent character weaknesses, were cowards and increasingly showed a tendency toward moral worthlessness.”[12] Many military leaders espoused this type of policy, sending a message from the top down enforcing the inferiority of black troops.
But it was not just the military leaders and members of the General Staff who espoused limited action for and segregation of black troops. Since this army was made up largely of citizen soldiers who had been drafted, it is within reason to assume that these civilians would take their culture and society into the military with them, a society that was deeply embedded with racist thought.[13]
Due to this similarity between society and the military, segregation was the law concerning army units. Although many other ethnic minorities were allowed to assimilate into white American units, “the segregation of blacks was a forgone conclusion.”[14] At first it seemed that, although the units were segregated, both black and white unites would share similar duties regarding combat; the General Staff first intended to use all-black units in combat situations.
The Great War was certainly not the first time blacks had seen action in active military duty; they had been involved in military forces from the time of the Revolutionary War. Some black units were retained after the Civil War to be used in Reconstruction Era and later used in military campaigns concerning Mexicans and Indians. These early regiments seem to have enjoyed a reputation of being hard-working and efficient; the only complaint lodged against them by military officials was that “the high rate of illiteracy…resulted in incomplete paperwork.”[15] The idea then, that all-black units could be used in combat seemed valid and time-tested.
But the objections of E.B. Andersonand others quickly applied pressure to the decision-makers. Some army officials argued that they “could not trust a radical group who seemed more committed to winning their own political battles than to victory on the battlefield.”[16] Across the nation people expressed serious concern at the idea of black men being armed in great number in training camps across America before being sent overseas.
But when we keep in mind the horrible racism blacks were enduring back home—lynching, segregation,and other forms of daily oppression—W.E.B. Du Bois’ comments on the subject ring true: “It is not so much that they [white Americans] fear that the Negro will strike if he gets a chance, but rather that they assume with curious unanimity that he has reason to strike, that any other persons in his circumstances or treated as he is would rebel.”[17] Though these white people saw reason for the blacks to take up arms against them, it is sadly ironic to note that they did not see any reason to try to remove those reasons for rebellion.
Thus the General Staff changed their initial decision and decided “to use most black troops in non-combatant capacities and to maintain white majorities at all training camps.”[18]These “non-combat capacities” included manual labor, as well cooking and baking positions, which were all normally assigned to each soldier in turn. Some worried at the effectiveness of these measures and wondered if this could create discontent among white soldiers; these were positions often given as punishment for misbehavior and Army officials feared whites would refuse to serve alongside blacks after receiving said punishment. This shows how fear of racial instability dominated and troubled the minds of military leaders at this time.
The level of control held by the civilian-soldiers was greater than most previous wars, largely due to the amount of draftees and volunteers. As previously mentioned, the racism exhibited by white soldiers in society followed them into the military. These soldiers found ways to disrespect not only black soldiers, but black officers and military police as well.
At one camp in Arkansas, most of the white men refused to salute black officers, and their colonel claimed he could not force them to do so. This led to the colonel’s somewhat dramatic report to the General Staff that unless black officers were removed from the camp, the white soldiers would lose respect for all Army authority.[19] It would seem that this colonel never considered that caving in to soldiers’ demands may also cause them to lose respect for Army authority. But this view was somewhat typical; many military leaders thought they must give in to the white soldiers or be faced with mass rioting. Such was the strength of the democratic movement among white American soldiers.
White troops directed their derision not only at black officers, but also to blacks in the role of military police. The military police possessed limited authority in that they were not always allowed to carry guns, but did possess the authority to stop soldiers leaving and entering camp and request to see their pass. This led to problems when white soldiers refused to acknowledge the authority of a black guard.
An example of this occurred in Camp Hill, Virginia, when a black guard stopped a white soldier leaving camp and requested to see his pass. This soldier complained to his lieutenant who, instead of upholding the authority of the guard, took a group of men with him and confronted the black man. The military guard calmly informed the lieutenant that he was just following orders, to which the lieutenant replied, “Damn the order! My men must not be stopped!”[20] Other black MPs were beaten up for asserting their authority or for simply holding a position of authority. Most men who committed these crimes were never punished or accused of any wrongdoing. These stories continue to illustrate how the leaders often followed the demands and complaints or their soldiers, rather than enforce proper military discipline.
Though these scenes paint a bleak picture, there were occasionally scenes of unity in uniform. In some camps, “white and black troops played games together, watched movies and shows, or wrote letters for each other. A white lieutenant in Camp Shelby, Mississippi went as far as to organize a series of baseball games between his black labor outfit and a unit of white engineers.”[21] The Knights of Columbus was held up as an organization that encouraged integration; “in all camps the K. of C [Knights of Columbus] displayed the word ‘welcome,’ which meant all that the word implied,” reported an investigator of a specific army camp.[22] Though these incidents were rare, they were somewhat feared by army leaders, who did not think the peace would last, and the ensuing eruption would be worse than the consequences of segregation.