What Do You Think Of The Japanese Civilans In American Concentration Camps

Devilsadvocate wrote:

"There was no hard evidence of widespread German or Italian espionage in the US except, as you say, a fragmented spy effort later in the war. "

I did not write or say '..later in the war'. Dont put words in others mouths, particularly in such a obvious manner. It makes you look both untrustworty and stupid.

 

Granted, you did not put the issue in exactly the words I used to paraphrase your statement and I apologize for any misstatement of your position.

What you actually posted was;

Now, the very clear implication of exactly what I wrote about your statement is certainly plain; that, although US government did not view it as such at the time, the German spy effort was fragmented and weak and occurred later in the war (after the Spring of 1942). My point was that the Federal government had no hard evidence of a coordinated and effective German espionage system at the beginning of the war, as it did of Japanese espionage on the West Coast. And my statement is accurate in so far as the only hard evidence of German espionage came later in the war with the landing of agents from submarines which you did mention.

There is absolutely nothing "devious" about what I wrote. In fact, you seem to be rather devious in making the statement. You first claim that the "FBI and others in the Federal government thought there was a significant network of German and Italian agents in the US", which is fine, although there was no evidence for that perception. But then you say that "intercepting agents arriving, including the group that landed by submarine on Long island, supported this premise". Clearly you are trying to use events that occurred later in the war to make the early war premise of a widespread and active German/Italian espionage system appear more reasonable when in reality it was unfounded. A careful reader could reasonably conclude that either you are confused or wish to mislead others.

 

A good discussion chaps, but without being too pedantic or provoking a flame war, can I ask one of you to clarify this for me?

.

Do you mean the start of WW2...or the start of American mobilisation after Pearl Harbour?

 

Nuise away, I'm finding this discussion very interesting, and done at a high level.

Provided it's all done under the Marquess of Queensberry rules it's fine with me.

 

To Advocate and fellow posters,
I am Sorry it took so long to respond, but I've been very busy. Additionally, while my library is good, I needed to refer to some other sources in this case.

“The court may well interpret that the Constitution authorizes a draft law, but there is no such specific language in the Constitution….The original Framers of the Constitution did not think drafting men was necessary.”
Simply not true. This is Washington’s view "... it must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our (democratic) system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defence of it.”
How about Jefferson, “But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings." Or again, “We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done.”
Thomas Paine decried the “summer soldier and the sunshine patriot.”
While you might make a persuasive argument that the founding fathers were divided, to argue that they did not want a draft is not supported by the data. The fact is that a draft scared them a lot less than the thought of a large standing army. Furthermore, the framers were intentionally vague in many aspects of their construction of the Constitution; They were wise enough to know that there was no way men of the 18th century could predict what the issues would be in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

“What makes you think it was less of a threat in Hawaii than on the mainland? Hawaii was placed under martial law and all citizens were subject to restrictions on their activities because of the threat. In addition, plans were underway to intern Japanese citizens in Hawaii, but the government realized it was impractical to do so. In fact, there were instances of espionage and/or seditious activities carried out by persons of Japanese descent in Hawaii.”


I never said that Nisei were less of a threat in Hawaii. Given that there were Nisei in Hawaii too, my question was “why not intern them too?" As you mentioned, there were Japanese arrested in Hawaii for feeding information to the Imperial government before Pearl Harbor. Since the Hawaiian Nisei were the ones who produced intel that was actually used at Pearl, then why not intern them? Furthermore, since we had a much larger Japanese population by percentage in the islands, then why not detain them too? Impracticable? How about impossible. If they detain the entire Japanese population in Hawaii it would have wrecked the local economy, not to mention the riots that would have ensued.

“I'm not sure Hoover was the "most responsible" person for countering espionage in the US. The FBI was not directly involved in the investigation of the Japanese espionage activities prior to the war; It was the responsibility of the ONI and it was that agency which documented the situation. It's quite possible Hoover didn't have enough data to make an informed decision on the matter.”
Since I’m not a lawyer maybe you can clarify something for me. Did ONI have any regulatory enforcement authority against private citizens? If not, then I find it difficult to believe that the organization that would have been the lead on enforcement wasn’t directly involved. Further, Gordon Prange disputes the lack of FBI involvement in At Dawn We Slept. The FBI was very active in Hawaii prior to and after Pearl Harbor.


“I don't know, and frankly, I don't think it's relevant unless you're seriously suggesting that the US government should consult with an unelected, unofficial, private citizen before acting on matters of national security. Perhaps Mrs. Roosevelt didn't think it was a threat because she was not privy to briefings on enemy espionage activities by the Office of Naval Intelligence, or perhaps Mr. Roosevelt didn't feel it was any of her business, so he didn't keep her informed of such matters. Had Mrs. Roosevelt won the Presidential election instead of Mr. Roosevelt, I'm sure her opinion would have carried more weight.”
The federal government consults private, unelected citizens all the time. Sometimes even unofficially. And while I’m not in the habit of quoting Hillary Clinton, “you get the whole package.” Furthermore, I’ve seen it suggested in multiple sources that Mrs. Roosevelt was the most well-informed and wielded the most “unofficial” power of any first lady in the history of the republic. In short, she knew everything.



“President Roosevelt wasn't required to demonstrate to the Court that a threat existed…”
Not so. In the “Ex Parte Endo” case the court did indeed unanimously evacuate a detainment order authorized under Executive order 9066, stating “For we conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure.” This was the beginning of the end of Nisei internment.

“You have not presented any evidence that the internment of Japanese Americans was a capricious act motivated by mere dislike of a specific ethnic group….”
Quite to the contrary, I’ve presented compelling evidence of institutional racism. But maybe I can add more. Again unanimously in “Endo,” the court wrote “To read them(Executive orders 9066 and 9102) that broadly would be to assume that the Congress and the President intended that this discriminatory action should [323 U.S. 283, 304] be taken against these people wholly on account of their ancestry even though the government conceded their loyalty to this country. We cannot make such an assumption.” In a concurrent opinion, Justice Murphy went further, “I join in the opinion of the Court, but I am of the view that detention in Relocation Centers of persons of Japanese ancestry regardless of loyalty is not only unauthorized by Congress or the Executive but is another example of the unconstitutional resort to racism inherent in the entire evacuation program.”

“…that is simply your conclusion based on what appears to be an emotional bias.”
I won’t dignify this with a response.


Concluding, then…While I’m not sold on your “threat,” that is secondary. Even if there was a widespread problem with some Nisei committing espionage that does not excuse detaining the whole group. The fact is that the Nisei were interned solely based on their ethnicity. And I will state again without hesitation that this was not the proudest chapter in the proud history of our nation.

 

To Advocate and fellow posters,

I am Sorry it took so long to respond, but I've been very busy. Additionally, while my library is good, I needed to refer to some other sources in this case.


"The court may well interpret that the Constitution authorizes a draft law, but there is no such specific language in the Constitution….The original Framers of the Constitution did not think drafting men was necessary.”

Simply not true. This is Washington’s view "...it must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our (democratic) system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defence of it.”


How about Jefferson, “But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings." Or again, “We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done.”

Thomas Paine decried the "summer soldier and the sunshine patriot.”

While you might make a persuasive argument that the founding fathers were divided, to argue that they did not want a draft is not supported by the data. The fact is that a draft scared them a lot less than the thought of a large standing army. Furthermore, the framers were intentionally vague in many aspects of their construction of the Constitution; They were wise enough to know that there was no way men of the 18th century could predict what the issues would be in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.


“What makes you think it was less of a threat in Hawaii than on the mainland? Hawaii was placed under martial law and all citizens were subject to restrictions on their activities because of the threat. In addition, plans were underway to intern Japanese citizens in Hawaii, but the government realized it was impractical to do so. In fact, there were instances of espionage and/or seditious activities carried out by persons of Japanese descent in Hawaii.”


I never said that Nisei were less of a threat in Hawaii. Given that there were Nisei in Hawaii too, my question was “why not intern them too?" As you mentioned, there were Japanese arrested in Hawaii for feeding information to the Imperial government before Pearl Harbor. Since the Hawaiian Nisei were the ones who produced intel that was actually used at Pearl, then why not intern them? Furthermore, since we had a much larger Japanese population by percentage in the islands, then why not detain them too? Impracticable? How about impossible. If they detain the entire Japanese population in Hawaii it would have wrecked the local economy, not to mention the riots that would have ensued.


"I'm not sure Hoover was the "most responsible" person for countering espionage in the US. The FBI was not directly involved in the investigation of the Japanese espionage activities prior to the war; It was the responsibility of the ONI and it was that agency which documented the situation. It's quite possible Hoover didn't have enough data to make an informed decision on the matter.”

Since I’m not a lawyer maybe you can clarify something for me. Did ONI have any regulatory enforcement authority against private citizens? If not, then I find it difficult to believe that the organization that would have been the lead on enforcement wasn’t directly involved. Further, Gordon Prange disputes the lack of FBI involvement in At Dawn We Slept. The FBI was very active in Hawaii prior to and after Pearl Harbor.


"I don't know, and frankly, I don't think it's relevant unless you're seriously suggesting that the US government should consult with an unelected, unofficial, private citizen before acting on matters of national security. Perhaps Mrs. Roosevelt didn't think it was a threat because she was not privy to briefings on enemy espionage activities by the Office of Naval Intelligence, or perhaps Mr. Roosevelt didn't feel it was any of her business, so he didn't keep her informed of such matters. Had Mrs. Roosevelt won the Presidential election instead of Mr. Roosevelt, I'm sure her opinion would have carried more weight.”

The federal government consults private, unelected citizens all the time. Sometimes even unofficially. And while I’m not in the habit of quoting Hillary Clinton, “you get the whole package.” Furthermore, I’ve seen it suggested in multiple sources that Mrs. Roosevelt was the most well-informed and wielded the most “unofficial” power of any first lady in the history of the republic. In short, she knew everything.


“President Roosevelt wasn't required to demonstrate to the Court that a threat existed…”

Not so. In the “Ex Parte Endo” case the court did indeed unanimously evacuate a detainment order authorized under Executive order 9066, stating “For we conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure.” This was the beginning of the end of Nisei internment.


You have not presented any evidence that the internment of Japanese Americans was a capricious act motivated by mere dislike of a specific ethnic group….”

Quite to the contrary, I’ve presented compelling evidence of institutional racism. But maybe I can add more. Again unanimously in “Endo,” the court wrote "To read them(Executive orders 9066 and 9102) that broadly would be to assume that the Congress and the President intended that this discriminatory action should [323 U.S. 283, 304] be taken against these people wholly on account of their ancestry even though the government conceded their loyalty to this country. We cannot make such an assumption.” In a concurrent opinion, Justice Murphy went further, “I join in the opinion of the Court, but I am of the view that detention in Relocation Centers of persons of Japanese ancestry regardless of loyalty is not only unauthorized by Congress or the Executive but is another example of the unconstitutional resort to racism inherent in the entire evacuation program.”


"that is simply your conclusion based on what appears to be an emotional bias.”

I won’t dignify this with a response.


Concluding, then…While I’m not sold on your “threat,” that is secondary. Even if there was a widespread problem with some Nisei committing espionage that does not excuse detaining the whole group. The fact is that the Nisei were interned solely based on their ethnicity. And I will state again without hesitation that this was not the proudest chapter in the proud history of our nation.

 

*** no longer relevant *** Modereators delete if possible and not too much trouble.

 

:eyebrows:

 

Doh! Sorry, folks! Did it in Word, and forgot about the font. I'll edit.

 

First you claim that the Constitution authorizes a "draft" to enable an army to be established, but when challenged on that claim, what do you offer as evidence? George Washington's opinion that every citizen owes personal service for the defense of the Republic. That's a very long way from specific language in the Constitution authorizing a draft law. I'll readily agree that George Washington felt that citizens ought to serve in the armed forces or militia, but being drafted is quite something else again. Paine and Jefferson may have agreed with Washington (although I believe Jefferson was referring specifically to service in a local militia), but so what? Neither mentioned a draft.

Which is neither here nor there. if the Founding Fathers had felt the need for a draft law, they would not have been shy about saying so and placing specific language authorizing such in the Constitution. They didn't, and I have seen absolutely no evidence in any source that any of the prominent Founders felt such a radical (for the time) measure was called for. Again I assert, there is no specific language in the Constitution providing for the legality of a draft law. If you think otherwise, please cite the appropriate clause.

You mentioned Hawaii as an example of a place where there were large numbers of Japanese Americans in the population and yet there was not a sufficient perception of a threat to warrant internment; this is not true. Internment was considered for the Japanese in Hawaii by the government. The reason it was not carried out was only partially due to economic reasons and had nothing to do with the fear of riots. The limiting factor was primarily logistical shipping to transport the internees to the mainland, and the requirement that Hawaii produce sufficient food to feed the population with supplemental provisions from the mainland. The Japanese were heavily involved in the production of food in Hawaii. It was also decided that the imposition of martial law, which was not considered desirable on the mainland, would provide sufficient control of the population to prevent any serious pro-Japanese activities.

The ONI had the authority to investigate activities relating to espionage efforts against US armed forces and defense facilities. It was authorized to arrest and detain US citizens and non-citizens, although the usual practice was to turn them over to either the FBI or US Marshal's after arrest. Prange may be correct that the FBI was active in Hawaii prior to and after Pearl Harbor, but as Prados points out, it was the ONI which carried out the investigations on the West Coast. Prados also indicates that not a single FBI arrest was made in Hawaii for espionage activity there. In the case of the Japanese espionage rings, the FBI was not the "lead enforcement" agency.

Maybe so, but the Federal government is not required to consult with every civilian "know-it-all" that holds a contrary opinion. I'd like to see a source that claims Mrs. Roosevelt had specific knowledge of Japanese espionage activities, or lack thereof, on the West Coast of the US prior to WW II. If you want to claim that she had expert knowledge, that's fine, but back it up with some authoritative references.

But in the Korematsu case, the Court held that no such showing of an immediate and specific threat need be demonstrated by the government before internment could proceed.

Of course, internment was based on the ancestry of of the internees, the government never disputed that. That was the criteria for the entire process because the government determined that there was a higher likelihood of disloyalty in that racial group. It was not because the government somehow disliked that particular class of people. You are reasoning that because the government decided to intern, or not to intern, on the basis of ethnicity, it must have disliked that ethnic group, but there is no evidence for that. The evidence is that the government had good reason to believe that ethnic Japanese were more likely to be involved in espionage activities than non-Japanese. That belief was borne out by the post-war studies that 10% of Japanese- American citizens and 25% of Japanese aliens did demonstrate disloyalty to the United States in one way or another.

It would be analogous to argue that scrutiny of Middle Eastern ethnicities by anti-terrorist agencies today is solely based on "institutional racism" rather than the higher probability of them being involved in terrorist activities. That may be the politically correct stance, but it ignores reality.

By discounting the very real threat posed by Japanese espionage activities, which was the basis of the internment process, you attempt to make internment seem to be a case of simple dislike by the government of a racial group. This was not the case, and such an argument can only be made in hindsight, and then only very marginally. Was it the "proudest chapter" in our country's history? No, but it was reasonably felt to be a necessary measure to protect the United States from enemies that would stop at nothing to inflict defeat on this country. Neither was it something to engage in politically correct hand-wringing over. It was a distinct burden on Japanese Americans, but no more so than burdens the government imposed on other specific classes of people as a result of war time necessities.

 

It has now reached the :deadhorse: zone LOL. :headbash: :headbonk:. I would love to hear from anyone who was actually alive at the time to hear what they think since they were obviously more informed on the mores,values and views at the time.

 

That would be a sensible idea. There hasn't been any similar contoversy over Italian/German/Austrian internees here, and the only people trying to making an issue out of it are those born long after the war ended.
Let's remember that the past is a strange country...they do things differently there.

 

Bro, you got that right. Now it's opposite with me. Every chance I get, I try to "soak in" what the Vets tell me. I wish I still had my voice activated recorder-which would come in handy instead of trying to remember everything.

 

A fair point from the members here. Perhaps the irresistable force has simply met the immovable object. As to the Historian's point, I only chose the Nisei because I knew a little something about it; the German and Italian issue is for somebody else to discuss.

Maybe it is just time that we agree to disagree, Advocate. It's pretty obvious that we are not going to change each others view. For what it's worth, I find your debate stimulating.

 

Kingthreehead, please be careful when you use the word Japanese whereas you are actually talking about American citizens (mostly) and think it was ok to lock them up. Yes, most of them were American citizens (not all , but many were actually born in the U.S.) Secondly they were mostly American Patriots and ready to give their lives for the U.S. Later some of the men were given the "opportunity" to join the Nisei troops. I hope you are aware these were among the bravest units and that they had to do some really dirty jobs. This "opportunity" was actually a terrible choice: you either joined this unit and go into terrible combats or you would refuse and be considered a traitor. I don't think Germans and Italians had to make this choice to prove their loyalty.
Their loyalty was beyond any doubt, and still had to prove it every day. Yes some Germans and Italians have been detained because there were some suspicions, but never have their communities been locked up in such large scales with women and chidren, taken away from their homes and locked into camps. And please don't tell me this was for their own good. It was the way it was back then, but it was totally unjustified and
these civilians had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by the Japanese army.
As to locking up millions of Iraqis just in case , I shall not even comment...

 

I appreciate your opinions but do not happen to share them. I also find your style of debate refreshing, thank you for a fascinating discussion.

 

As originally written, the US Constitution neither authorizes nor prohibits conscription of men for military service. However, as amended by the 13th. Amendment in 1865, the Constitution does prohibit "involuntary servitude" except as a punishment for criminal behavior. Since military conscription is a classic example of involuntary servitude, the US Constitution does explicitly prohibit a military draft. This simply points up the folly of invoking the Constitution as a guide for what the Federal government may, or may not, be permitted to do, especially in times of national crisis.

The Second Amendment (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) mentions the militia only as a justification for prohibiting the government from restricting citizens from owning and carrying arms. It does not authorize either state governments or the Federal government to conscript men for military service. It is, incidentally, another example of government ignoring constitutional restrictions on it's power.

Originally, the states were expected to raise units to supplement the Federal Army in time of war, but these differed from militia units which customarily were only required to serve locally. State military units were normally raised by enlistment for a specific period of time and this was considered to be a contractual arrangement as demonstrated by troops simply leaving for home when their enlistments expired. Some states provided for conscription of men for military service, but most states preferred to resort to bounties and other inducements for voluntary enlistment. It was a rare state legislature or governor who would risk the political consequences of military conscription except in the most dire of circumstances, and only then as a last resort.

The militia in this country evolved from the English militia system of having local men serve as temporary soldiers to defend the community in times of crisis. All able bodied men were expected to participate, but in fact, the governor had no means of compelling service and relied on peer pressure to insure that individuals heeded the call to service. militia troops were expected to serve only locally and only for the duration of a specific crisis. Militias might be called out by the governor of a state or any other official, or even simply turn out as a spontaneous reaction to a perceived threat.

It was not until 1863 during the Civil War that the US Federal government attempted to introduce military conscription as a means of raising Federal troops, and it precipitated widespread and violent resistance, most notably in the New York Draft riots. Suffice it to say, that both the military draft and internment of civilian citizens represent actions which are supposedly prohibited by the Constitution, but which the government routinely engages in during times of crisis. Both impose burdens on arbitrary classes of people in the interests of state security and both are disruptive of people's lives, but by and large, the American public and the judicial system support such actions so long as they are invoked during times of national crisis and appear fairly reasonable.

 

I definitely agree. The Government, like all governments worldwide, does what it feels is best in times of crisis and finds ways to justify it's actions later. Sometimes, it turns out to be wrong in hindsight, but usually history vindicates it's actions. Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law, internment of civilians, and conscription are all measures which seriously impinge on the liberties of citizens and non-citizens alike, but generally are considered necessary at the time. These days, it is fashionable to deplore the internment of Japanese Americans as motivated solely by racism, but in early 1942, the view was much different, and the historical evidence is that it may have been closer to the truth than most critics are willing to admit today. In any case, internment was no worse than what many other Americans experienced as a result of government actions during the war. So, while I am sympathetic for what the Japanese Americans went through, I don't consider it unjustified, or racist, or something to be deplored, anymore than I consider the draft something to be deplored.