ight D. Eisenhower,
1959_, p. 122; see also Washington _Post_ January
28, 1959.]

The controversy over schools for dependents demonstrated the (p. 499)
limits of federal intervention in the local community on behalf of the
civil rights of servicemen. Before these limits could be breached a
new administration would have to redefine the scope of the Defense
Department's power. Nevertheless, the armed forces had scored some
dramatic successes in the field of race relations by 1960. Some five
million servicemen, civilians, and their dependents were proving the
practicality of integration on the job, in schools, and in everyday
living. Several writers even suggested that the services' experience
had itself become a dynamic force for social change in the United
States.[19-102] The New York _Times's_ Anthony Lewis went so far as to
say that the successful integration of military society led to the
black crusade against discrimination in civilian society.[19-103]
Others took the services' influence for granted, as Morton Puner did
when he observed in 1959 that "the armed services are more advanced in
their race relations than the rest of the United States. Perhaps it is
uniquely fitting that this should be so, that in one of the greatest
peacetime battles of our history, the armed forces should be leading
the way to victory."[19-104]

[Footnote 19-102: See Fred Richard Bahr, "The
Expanding Role of the Department of Defense as an
Instrument of Social Change" (Ph.D. dissertation,
George Washington University, February 1970), ch.
III.]

[Footnote 19-103: As quoted, ibid., p. 87.]

[Footnote 19-104: Morton Puner, "Integration in the
Army," _The New Leader_ 42 (January 12, 1959).]

As such encomiums became more frequent, successful integration became
a source of pride to the services. Military commanders with experience
in Korea had, according to Assistant Secretary of Defense Hannah,
universally accepted the new order as desirable, conceding that
integration worked "very well" despite predictions to the
contrary.[19-105] Nor was this attitude limited to military
commanders, for there had been considerable change in sentiment among
senior defense officials. Citing the major economies realized in the
use of manpower and facilities, Sec