the right to enforce the law in their
communities? And surely the white soldier deserved the freedom to
choose his associates.[21-68] Another correspondent reproached
McNamara: "you have, without conscience and with total disregard for
the honorable history of the Military of our Great Nation, signed our
freedom away." And still another saw her white supremacy menaced: "We
have a bunch of mad dogs in Washington and if you and others like you
are not stopped, our children will curse us. We don't want black
grandchildren and we won't have them. If you want to dance with
them--you have two legs, start dancing."

[Footnote 21-68: Ltr to SecDef, 29 Jul 63. This letter
and the two following are typical of hundreds
received by the secretary and filed in the records
of ASD (M).]

Not all the correspondents were racist or hysterical. Some thoughtful
citizens were concerned with what they considered extramilitary and
illegal activities on the part of the services and took little comfort
from the often repeated official statement that the Secretary of
Defense had no present plans for the use of sanctions and hoped that
they would never have to be used.[21-69]

[Footnote 21-69: Ltr, DASD (CR) to James Wilson,
Director, National Security Commission, American
Legion, 24 Sep 63, written when the legion had the
adoption of a resolution against the directive
under consideration. See also Ltrs, DASD (CR) to
Sen. Frank Moss, 16 Aug 63, and ASD (M) to
Congressman George Huddleston, 13 Aug 63; ASD (M),
"Straightening Out the Record," 19 Aug 63; Memo,
DASD (CR) for General Counsel, 4 Sep 63, sub: Use
of the Off-Limits Power. All in DASD (CR) files.]

Some defenders of the directive saw the whole controversy over (p. 550)
sanctions as a red herring dragged across the path of a genuine
equal treatment and opportunity program.[21-70] During congressional
debate on the directive, the use of off-limits sanctions quickly
became the respectable issue behind which those opposed to any reform
could rally. The Senate debated the subject on 31 July; the House on 7
August. During lengthy sessions on those days, opponents cast the
controversy in the familiar context of states' rights,