, Bradley
declared that the Army would have to retain segregation as long as it
was the national pattern.[13-8] This statement prompted questions at
the President's next news conference, letters to the editor, and
debate in the press.[13-9] Bradley later explained that he had
supported the Army's segregation policy because he was against making
the Army an instrument of social change in areas of the country which
still rejected integration.[13-10] His comment, as amplified and
broadcast by military analyst Hanson W. Baldwin, summarized the Army's
position at the time of the Truman order. "It is extremely dangerous
nonsense," Baldwin declared, "to try to make the Army other than one
thing--a fighting machine." By emphasizing that the Army could not
afford to differ greatly in customs, traditions, and prejudices from
the general population, Baldwin explained, Bradley was only
underscoring a major characteristic of any large organization of
conscripts. Most import, Baldwin pointed out, the Chief of Staff
considered an inflexible order for the immediate integration of all
troops one of the surest ways to break down the morale of the Army and
destroy its efficiency.[13-11]

[Footnote 13-7: Bradley succeeded Eisenhower as Chief
of Staff on 7 February 1948.]

[Footnote 13-8: Washington _Post_, July 28, 1948;
Atlanta _Constitution_, July 28, 1948.]

[Footnote 13-9: News Conference, 29 Jul 48, _Public
Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman, 1948_,
p. 165; New York _Times_, July 30, 1948; Chicago
_Defender_, August 7, 1948; Pittsburgh _Courier_,
August 21, 1948; Washington _Post_, August 23,
1948.]

[Footnote 13-10: Interv, Nichols with Bradley.]

[Footnote 13-11: Hanson Baldwin, "Segregation in the
Army," New York _Times_, August 8, 1948.]

But such arguments were under attack by the very civil rights groups
the President was trying to court. "Are we to understand that the
President's promise to end discrimination," one critic asked,

was made for some other purpose than to end discrimination in its
worst form--segregation? General Bradley's statement, subsequent
to the President's orders, would seem to indicate that the
President either did not mean what