ld count only six black women in its 2,130 (p. 333)
total. Clearly, the oft repeated rationale for these statistics--Negroes
favored the Army because they were not a seafaring people--could
not explain them away.[13-62]

[Footnote 13-60: Testimony of Stickney Before the
President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and
Opportunity in the Armed Services, 25 Apr 49, pp.
19-20. See also, Memo, Actg SecNav for SecDef et
al., 28 Dec 48, sub: The Secretary of the Army's
Confidential Memorandum of 2 December....]

[Footnote 13-61: Lt Cmdr G. E. Minor, BuPers, Memo for
File, 10 Mar 49, sub: Information for Lt.
Nelson-Press Section, Pers 251, BuPersRecs.
_Separate_ is probably a better term for describing
the Steward's Branch, since the branch was never
completely segregated. On 31 March 1949, for
example, the racial and ethnic breakdown of the
branch was as follows:

Negro 10,499 Hawaiian 5
Filipino 4,707 Puerto Rican 4
Chamorro 641 Japanese 1
Chinese 55 American Indian 1
Samoan 25 Caucasian 1
Korean 9 Total 15,945

_Source_: Figures taken from BuPers, "Steward Group
Personnel by Race," 24 May 49, Pers 25,
BuPersRecs.]

[Footnote 13-62: This dubious assertion on the
seagoing interests of races had been most recently
expressed by the Chief of Naval Personnel before a
meeting of the President's Committee on Equality of
Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services;
see Testimony of Fechteler, 13 Jan 49, pp. 107-08.]

A substantial increase in the number of Negroes would have absolved
the Navy from some of the stigma of racial discrimination it endured
in the late 1940's. Since the size of the Steward's Branch was limited
by regulation and budget, any increase in black enlistment would
immediately raise the number of Negroes serving in the integrated