Back in July, I reported that prior to President Truman’s 1948 executive order integrating the armed forces, the various military branches conducted a number of surveys of the attitudes of enlisted and nonenlisted troops towards black people and racial issues. At the time, the military — along with the overwhelming majority of the country — opposed integrating black servicemembers into the forces and preferred a ‘separate but equal’ approach that would have required the military to construct separate recreation spaces and facilities. According to the surveys, 3/4 Air Force men favored separate training schools, combat, and ground crews and 85% of white soldiers supported building separate service clubs in army camps.

Truman’s decision to desegregate the forces — despite the opposition of the troops — may hold important lessons for President Obama and Congress as they prepare to review the Pentagon’s year-long review of the policy, which includes separate surveys about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And, interestingly, so do the stories of black veterans “who served among the military’s first desegregated units during the Korean.” As the AP explained on Saturday, “Though the military may now seem to lag behind America’s acceptance of gays in civilian life, the armed forces led the charge in ending racial segregation in the 1940s and ’50s”:

“Many people used that same argument against African-Americans serving in the same units as whites,” said Cox, who teaches black military history to Citadel cadets. “Many people said it’s the end of the military. But the result was there were very few problems, the military ran very efficiently.”

The integration of blacks into all-white units in Korea was so uneventful that white soldiers like Phil McCraney hardly noticed. McCraney, 78, says his Army company of 150 troops had only four or five blacks by the time he returned home in 1951.

“It wasn’t that big a deal I don’t think,” said McCraney of Bartow, Fla. “We didn’t mistreat them by any chance. But we just didn’t associate with them that much.”

It was the battlefield pressures of war that ultimately pushed the armed forces into full-scale desegregation.

While the Navy had begun integrating crews aboard its warships in 1946, the Army and Marines resisted even after Truman’s 1948 order. They came around only after suffering heavy combat losses in Korea in 1950. [...]

“Our commander made a very simple statement: When a rifleman comes in with a certain skill, put him where he’s needed,” recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton Jr. “We became an integrated regiment.”

Becton, 84, of Springfield, Va., deployed to Korea in the summer of 1950 as a platoon leader in the all-black 3rd Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment. Then a lieutenant who had served in World War II, it wasn’t long before he was commanding white soldiers.

If there was resentment among the white soldiers taking orders from him, Becton insists he never heard it. “I suspect there may have been some of that, but you don’t have much choice when you’re being shot at,” he said. “I don’t think that white guy from Mississippi or that black guy from New York is going to care too much about who’s giving orders.”

Significantly, the early leaks from the Pentagon’s DADT survey suggest that today’s military is far more receptive to serving alongside openly gay and lesbian servicemembers than white soldiers were of black troops. According to military sources who have seen the report — which is scheduled for release on December 1 — a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers. On Thursday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported that for most soldiers, “it wasn’t that big of a deal.” “The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care,’” he said, adding “That’s significant.”

Moments ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request to stay a federal district court’s injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, pending the government’s appeal of the ruling. The court had previously extended only a temporary stay “to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented.” In an eight-page decision, the justices identify “three reasons that persuade us to grant a stay pending appeal”:

- First, Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional, creating an equity in favor of the government when balancing the hardships in a request for a stay pending appeal.

- Second, “‘judicial deference . . . is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies.”

- Third, the district court’s analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal: the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth.

“Accordingly, we conclude that the government’s colorable allegations that the lack of an orderly transition in policy will produce immediate harm and precipitous injury are convincing. We also conclude that the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military–if that is what is to happen–strongly militates in favor of a stay,” the court concludes.

Judge William Fletcher dissented in part, noting that he too would stay the district court’s injuction, but would prevent the government “from actually discharging anyone from the military, pursuant to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, during the pendency of the appeal.”

In September, Judge Virginia Phillis struck down the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy as unconstitutional in a case brought forward by the Log Cabin Republicans. In an 86 page opinion, Phillips ruled that DADT violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the servicemembers’ First Amendment rights. Phillips later issued an injunction of the policy, denying the government’s request to stay her decision. For a period of eight days, the Pentagon followed Phillips’ order and allowed gay people to enlist and announced announced that it would limit who could authorize discharges once the temporary stay went into effect.

The government will not be required to file its appeal brief until Monday, Jan. 24, 2011.

Read the full decision here (pdf).

[/update]

Just days after Ugandan Member of Parliament David Bahatai, the author of Uganda’s anti-gay bill, told CNN International that he is “confident” that the law will move forward, Rolling Stone — an anti-gay Ugandan tabloid not affiliated with the American magazine — published a second issue outing gay and lesbian Ugandans. Last month, the newspaper printed photographs of what it called Uganda’s “top” 100 gays, alongside yellow banner that read “Hang Them.”

The second edition claims that the anti-gay bill introduced by Bahati will move forward “as soon as the country starts drilling oil to sustain its own economy,” freeing itself from donors who have pressured the government to shelve the legislation. Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin has obtained a copy of the paper, which alleges, among other things:

- “[H]omosexuality is more dangerous than smoking as it reduces one’s lifespan by 24 years.”

- “[S]ome homosexuals in gay organizations are bribing teachers in schools to brainwash kids towards a bi-sexual orientation…Their target is to recruit at least 1 million kids by 2012 – is your kid safe?”

- “Homosexuality involves ‘fisting’ where one puts a hand in the rectum and may end up destroying it, causing fatal injuries, inflammation and transmission of HIV. No wonder homosexuals usually seal the butts with tiny pillows — to save the shattered buttocks from pain if they were to sit on a wooden chair.”

Despite several reports that Rolling Stone’s first issue led to at least four attacks against Ugandans, this issue notes, “we are sternly warning public not to attack homosexuals though there is no such case on record, but to report them to police for action.” Meanwhile, Burroway writes that “a similar outing campaign is currently taking place in at least one other tabloid Onion (also unrelated to the U.S. satirical paper by the same name). We also hear that Red Pepper [another tabloid] may also have launched a campaign as well.”