African Americans Against the Bomb

Nuclear Weapons, Colonialism, and the Black Freedom Movement

Vincent J. Intondi

• Publisher: Stanford University Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780804792752, 9780804789424
• eBook ISBN: 9780804793483
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: African American History
• Index: History

Well before Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out against nuclear weapons, African Americans were protesting the Bomb. Historians have generally ignored African Americans when studying the anti-nuclear movement, yet they were some of the first citizens to protest Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Now for the first time, African Americans Against the Bomb tells the compelling story of those black activists who fought for nuclear disarmament by connecting the nuclear issue with the fight for racial equality.

Intondi shows that from early on, blacks in America saw the use of atomic bombs as a racial issue, asking why such enormous resources were being spent building nuclear arms instead of being used to improve impoverished communities. Black activists' fears that race played a role in the decision to deploy atomic bombs only increased when the U.S. threatened to use nuclear weapons in Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam a decade later. For black leftists in Popular Front groups, the nuclear issue was connected to colonialism: the U.S. obtained uranium from the Belgian controlled Congo and the French tested their nuclear weapons in the Sahara.

By expanding traditional research in the history of the nuclear disarmament movement to look at black liberals, clergy, artists, musicians, and civil rights leaders, Intondi reveals the links between the black freedom movement in America and issues of global peace. From Langston Hughes through Lorraine Hansberry to President Obama, African Americans Against the Bomb offers an eye-opening account of the continuous involvement of African Americans who recognized that the rise of nuclear weapons was a threat to the civil rights of all people.

Chapter 1

The Response to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Are we to show our strength in guns and tanks—in atom bombs? Or, in food for the hungry, plows to till the field, and in bringing peace to men of good will?

—Mary McLeod Bethune, 1947

AS WORD SPREAD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMAN had instructed Emperor Hirohito to surrender, Chicago’s South Side erupted in approval. “I’m the happiest woman in the world,” exclaimed Mary Johnson, an African American South Sider. On August 18, 1945, the Chicago Defender declared, “America Hails End of War!” stating, “Everywhere Negro Americans welcomed the victory.” The New York Amsterdam News reported, “Harlem exploded with uncurbed joy upon hearing of Japan’s surrender.” In Pittsburgh, Laura Dillard sat on her stoop watching the V-J Day parade pass by. She exulted, “The prayers of the righteous bear fruit.” Described by the Pittsburgh Courier as representative of the “old South and new East,” Dillard said, “Maybe I’m not so righteous, but I have prayed for peace ever since the war started. We have all prayed . . . and our prayers have at last been answered.”¹ Throughout the country, it appeared that African Americans shared the same joyous response as most of the American public upon hearing the news that Japan had surrendered.

Much of the black community’s enthusiastic support for the war, however, came from a hope that African Americans’ loyalty, ability, and overall contribution to the war effort would be recognized and rewarded with progress toward gaining full equality. Many black soldiers shared these hopes. In March 1943, 42 percent of black soldiers thought they would be better off when they left the army. The same percentage foresaw better treatment for all African Americans after the war, with 43 percent anticipating “more rights and privileges.” One soldier commented, “If we lose, the Negro’s lot can’t improve; but if we win there is a chance.” Another declared, “By virtue of our valor, courage, and patriotism, things will be better for the Negro.”²

African American journalists even highlighted black scientists’ contribution to the atomic bomb to bolster the case for equality. On August 18, the Courier’s headline read, “Negro Scientists Played Important Role in Atomic Bomb Development.” The Defender also published a front-page article bearing the headline “Negro Scientists Help Produce 1st Atom Bomb.” The Washington Afro-American announced that seven thousand black workers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, had assisted in creating the atomic bomb; the article included photos of black men and women working in the plants.³ In each story, though, the writers reserved praise for the workers, not the bomb. The Courier published biographies of black chemists who had contributed to the development of the bomb. Journalists stressed the scientists’ education levels and ability to work side by side with white scientists. Writing for the Atlanta Daily World, the Reverend John C. Wright pointed out that black scientists who worked on the bomb were equal to whites in “scholastic backgrounds, research experience, and in the type of contribution they made to the project.” These men had become “masters in the fields of mathematics, chemistry, and physics, and showed the true potential of a liberal education from Negro Colleges and Universities in the South.” The Norfolk Journal and Guide described Dr. Ernest Wilkins, an African American chemist, as a “wizard of mathematics,” who received his PhD at nineteen and was recruited by the government from Tuskegee to work full time on the atomic bomb.⁴ Commenting on the level of black participation, Private First Class Jimmy Williams, in a letter to the editor, wrote: “We can truthfully say that the making of it [the atomic bomb] was in the hands of the Negro. In other things that we have accomplished why are we so still denied our advantages?”⁵

The black press also highlighted African Americans’ role in protecting classified information about the atomic bomb. The Courier reported that twenty-three African Americans were working for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and an additional “nine carefully selected Negroes” were in charge of guarding the building, safes, vaults, and confidential file cabinets of the AEC. The nine guards, veterans of both world wars, were described as “the sole custodians of the world’s top secrets.” Again, journalists reserved praise for the workers, not the bomb, calling them “the cream-of-the-crop personnel staff of Negro employees.” The Courier made clear that African Americans worked with whites, sharing the same locker room, and the atmosphere was “completely free of segregation.” The government’s hiring of African Americans showed “color was not an important factor” in a job that required loyalty and trust, the Courier concluded.⁶

The Criticism Begins

Most Americans justified the atomic bombings, many seeing them as revenge for Pearl Harbor. While many white Americans differentiated between Nazis and Germans, fascists and Italians, when it came to Japan, the entire country was responsible for Pearl Harbor. Historian John Dower explains that following the bombing of Pearl Harbor a majority of Americans developed a genocidal race hatred toward the Japanese. Ronald Takaki agrees, arguing that the anger over Pearl Harbor “aroused a national bloodthirstiness that seemed unquenchable until the enemy had been totally vanquished.” In January 1945 Newsweek reported, “Never before has the nation fought a war in which our troops so hate the enemy and want to kill him.” Indeed, a motto of the U.S. Marines stated, “Remember Pearl Harbor—keep’em dying.” Admiral William Halsey, commander of the South Pacific Force, gave his men a direct and simple message: “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs.”⁷

The U.S. military, press, and public at large routinely described the Japanese as apes, gorillas, “yellow monkeys,” demons, savages, subhumans, and beasts. General Joseph Stilwell wrote his wife, “When I think of how these bowlegged cockroaches have ruined our calm lives it makes me want to wrap Jap guts around every lamppost in Asia.” Time magazine declared, “The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing . . . indicates it.”⁸ These attitudes help explain why less than a week after the atomic bombings, a Gallup poll showed that 85 percent of respondents approved of Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb. Two months later, a Roper poll reported the following results when Americans were asked which of four statements best expressed their opinion about the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan.

1. We should not have used any atomic bomb at all: . . . . . 4.5%

2. We should have dropped one first on some unpopulated region, to show the Japanese its power, and dropped the second one on a city only if they hadn’t surrendered after the first one: . . . . . 13.8%

3. We should have used the two bombs on cities, just as we did: . . . . . 53.5%

4. We should have quickly used many more of the bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender: . . . . . 22.7%

5. Don’t know: . . . . . 5.5%

Historian Lawrence Wittner notes that no poll in late 1945 ever revealed more than 4.5 percent of respondents being opposed to the use of atomic bombs under any circumstances, concluding that after four years of war one out of four Americans’ primary concern was not to secure surrender, but to kill as many Japanese as possible.⁹

While much of the general public celebrated Truman’s decision, a smaller number immediately condemned the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some were members of traditional peace groups, such as the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Others came from the religious community, like the Catholic Church and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR). However, atomic scientists were among the earliest and most vociferous critics of the bomb.¹⁰

In November 1945, atomic scientists formed the Federation of Atomic Scientists (FAS). A month later, the FAS reorganized itself into the Federation of American Scientists and created the National Committee on Atomic Information (NCAI), an umbrella group that brought together labor, religious, educational, and professional organizations. The FAS distributed educational information to libraries, scientific organizations, and the media, including the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which became the definitive source for antinuclear information.¹¹ Like many atomic scientists, Jasper Jeffries, an African American physicist and member of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, believed that a world government through the United Nations was necessary to deal with the challenges of the nuclear age. He envisioned international control as the only safeguard against atomic energy coming under the control of national militaries. Without control, he warned, there would ultimately be a “mad race to arm with atomic weapons.” However, Jeffries concluded the best way to ensure peaceful uses of atomic energy was to “banish war entirely.”¹²

Jeffries was not alone. Inside black communities, pastors, poets, intellectuals, artists, and musicians condemned the atomic bombings and immediately criticized Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons. Many of these men and women were not lifelong peace activists, and for the first time they began to view colonialism, racism, and the bomb as links in the same chain.

African Americans were among the first to envision what historian Peter Kuznick refers to as the “apocalyptic narrative.”¹³ In late August, Gordon Hancock, a columnist for the Atlanta Daily World, warned readers that with the development of the atomic bomb, life on earth will “eventually be totally destroyed . . . Mankind will be the loser in the great game of human destructiveness.” He argued that unless mankind had a moral awakening, “we are all doomed.” Atomic weapons had made the world a “slaughter pen,” as children would be “snatched from their mothers’ knees to face a horrible destruction.” Hancock predicted that “wicked men” and the “science of human destruction” would end the world in the “twinkle of an eye.”¹⁴ William Fowlkes, managing editor and columnist for the World, described the atomic bomb as “a ghastly war weapon.” He told his readers that the atomic bombings left him with “a new horror of the future of mankind and respect for the Biblical Revelations of the destruction of earth’s creatures and their creations by man himself.”¹⁵ A few days after the atomic bombings, the Defender warned, “When the frightful horror and devastation of the new atomic bomb was unleashed on Japan, that shock was not only felt in Hiroshima but in every city and hamlet throughout the world. A tremor of foreboding fear must have shaken the spirits of men everywhere—an awesome dread lest this most formidable weapon of destruction turn out to be a Frankenstein to be turned against its democratic creators at some future date.”¹⁶ An editorial in the Washington Afro-American explained, “Each time a new weapon of offense is developed it becomes necessary to develop a new instrument of defense. All efforts are then bent toward the development of an even more lethal offensive weapon and so the vicious circle is perpetuated.”¹⁷

A little over a week after the atomic bombings, the Baltimore Afro-American polled African Americans in Newark, New Jersey, on the atomic bomb and its effect upon the future of the world. Of the statements the Afro-American printed, most expressed concern over the use of the atomic bomb. Muriel Blackburn, a student, said, “It is rather terrifying that it [the atomic bomb] should come out as a war weapon and not as an instrument to benefit mankind.” Beauty shop owner Mary Hall warned that the atomic bomb “will cause the other powers to create or release something even more stupendous. I do not think it will cause wars to cease but rather to be more destructive.” Edward Lewis, a truck driver, worried that the atomic bomb would “force civilization to thrive below the earth.” Even those who showed minor support for the bomb stressed the importance of controlling and monitoring its use. Martin Erwin Jr., a wholesale house manager, hoped that “men who will be in control of that bomb have the interest of humanity in their hearts.”¹⁸

Respondents to a similar question posed by the Norfolk Journal and Guide reacted more favorably to the use of the bomb. The paper asked five women, “What do you think of the atomic bomb?” All of the women praised the role of the bomb in bringing the war to an end. Selena Harris called the atomic bomb “the greatest destructive force of scientific discovery,” but also explained that when atomic energy was “directed into proper channels” the entire civilized world “would benefit greatly.” When Constance Quiero first heard of the bomb, she thought that “no nation could withstand the devastating effects of such a weapon” and thus the war would quickly end. Janette Spencer showed the most enthusiasm: “This deadly weapon of war can easily be termed the greatest discovery of the century . . . and if diverted to the good of mankind it will change completely the pattern of civilization. I think it has undreamed of possibilities.”¹⁹

Criticism of the bomb, however, could be found on both sides of the political aisle. Conservative journalist George Schuyler wrote a scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy, connecting the atomic bombings to race and colonialism:

The atom bomb puts the Anglo-Saxons definitely on top where they will remain for decades . . . This means that the Anglo-Saxons, led by the U.S.A., will have their way in the world until other people discover and perfect a weapon more devastating than the uranium bomb. That way, it must be admitted, is the way of white imperialism which firearms enabled them to establish two centuries ago. Controlling this tremendous power for evil are second-rate and small-minded men filled with racial arrogance such as Truman, Tom Connally, Jimmy Byrnes, Stimson, Bilbo and our military naval officer clique, who believe in racial segregation and color discrimination with religious fanaticism and have not the slightest intention of lowering the color barriers their forefathers established.²⁰

Schuyler referred to the bombings as the “murder ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Copyright
• Title Page
• Series Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. The Response to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• 2. “We Will Not Go Quietly into the Night”: Fighting for Peace and Freedom During the McCarthy Era
• 3. “Links in the Same Chain”: Civil Rights, Anticolonialism, and the Bomb in Africa
• 4. “Desegregation Not Disintegration”: The Black Freedom Movement, Vietnam, and Nuclear Weapons
• 5. “From Civil Rights to Human Rights”: African American Activism in the Post-Vietnam Era
• 6. A New START: Nuclear Disarmament in the Age of Obama
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• Series List