FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534  
535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   >>   >|  
ved far more senior officials, and the Washington _Post_ claimed that the message "vitiates" even the limited improvements outlined in the Army's plan as approved by Secretary Johnson. The paper called on Secretary Gray to assert himself in the case.[14-105] [Footnote 14-103: Memo, Kenworthy for Chief of Military History, 13 Oct 76, CMH.] [Footnote 14-104: Idem for Cmte, 29 Oct 49, sub: Instructions to Commanding Generals on New Army Policy, Fahy Papers, Truman Library.] [Footnote 14-105: Lem Graves, Jr. (Washington correspondent of the Pittsburgh _Courier_), "A Colonel Takes the Rap," Pittsburgh _Courier_, October 29, 1949; Washington _Post_, November 3, 1949.] A furious secretary, learning of the second message from the press (p. 368) stories, did enter the case. Branding the document a violation of his announced policy, he had it rescinded and, publicizing a promise made earlier to the committee, announced that qualified black specialists would be assigned to some white units.[14-106] At the same time Gray was not prepared to admit that the incident demonstrated how open his plan was to evasion, just as he refused to admit that his rescinding of the errant message represented a change in policy. He would continue, in effect, the plan approved by the Secretary of Defense on 30 September, he told Fahy.[14-107] [Footnote 14-106: DOD, Off of Pub Info, Release 400-49, 3 Nov 49, FC file.] [Footnote 14-107: Ltr, SA to Fahy, 17 Nov 49, FC file.] The Army staff's draft revision of the Gillem Board circular, sent to the committee on 25 November, reflected Gray's 30 September plan.[14-108] In short, when it emerged from its journey through the various Army staff agencies, the proposed revision still contained none of the committee's key recommendations. It continued the severe restrictions on the assignment of Negroes who had specialty training; it specifically retained the numerical quota; and, with several specific exceptions, it carefully preserved the segregation of Army life.[14-109] Actually, the proposed revision amounted to little more than a repetition of the Gillem Board policy with minor modifications designed to make it easier to carry out
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534  
535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Footnote

 

revision

 

policy

 

Secretary

 

committee

 

Washington

 

message

 

announced

 

Pittsburgh

 
Courier

November

 
September
 
Gillem
 

proposed

 
approved
 

modifications

 

repetition

 

circular

 
Actually
 

amounted


designed

 

effect

 

Defense

 
continue
 
represented
 

change

 

Release

 

easier

 

reflected

 

severe


restrictions

 
assignment
 

continued

 

exceptions

 

recommendations

 

specific

 

Negroes

 

retained

 
numerical
 

specifically


training
 
specialty
 

carefully

 

emerged

 

journey

 

errant

 

contained

 
preserved
 

segregation

 
agencies