arguing that
constitutional and legal points were involved. As Congressman Durward
G. Hall of Missouri put it: "The recommendations made in the report
and in the directive indicate a narrowness of vision which, in seeing
only the civil rights issue, has blinded itself to the question of
whether it is proper to use the Armed Forces to enforce a moral or
social, rather than a legal, issue in the civilian sector."[21-71]

[Footnote 21-70: Ltr, Fitt to author, 22 May 72.]

[Footnote 21-71: _Congressional Record_, 88th Cong.,
1st sess., vol. 109, p. 14350.]

Opponents argued generally that the directive represented government
by fiat, an unprecedented extension of executive power that imposed
the armed forces on civilian society in a new and illegal way. If the
administration was already empowered to protect the civil rights of
some citizens, why, they asked, was it pushing so hard for a civil
rights bill? The fact was, several legislators argued, the Department
of Defense was interfering with the civil rights of businessmen and
practicing a crude form of economic blackmail.[21-72]

[Footnote 21-72: Ibid., pp. 13778-87, 14349-56.]

Critics also discussed the directive in terms of military efficiency.
The secretary had given the commanders a new mission, Senator John
Stennis of Mississippi noted, that "can only be detrimental to
military tradition, discipline, and morale." Elaborating on this idea,
Congressman L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina predicted that the new
policy would destroy the merit promotion system. Henceforth, Rivers
forecast, advancement would depend on acceptance of integration;
henceforth, racial quotas would "take the place of competence for
purposes of promotion." Others were alarmed at the prospect of civil
rights advisers on duty at each base and outside the regular chain of
command. This outrage, Congressman H. R. Gross of Iowa charged, "would
create the biggest army of snoopers and informers that the military
has ever heard of."

Some legislators saw sinister things afoot in the Pentagon. Senator
Herman E. Talmadge of Georgia thought he recognized a return to the
military districting of Reconstruction days, and Congressman F. Edward
Hebert of Louisiana warned that "everybody should be prepared for the
midnight knock on the door." Congressman Otto E. Passman of Louisiana
thought it most likely that Attorney General Kenn