The IWW and Oppositional Politics in World War I: Pushing the System Beyond its Limits

Abstract

Torchbearers of Democracy: African American Soldiers in the World War I Era. By Chad L. Williams. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010. Pp. xiii, 452. Introduction, illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $34.95.) Chad Williams' Torchbearers of Democracy provides an excellent examination of the many challenges facing African- American soldiers before, during, and after the Great War. Scholars of American military history will appreciate Williams' level of detail, while general readers will enjoy the overall readability of the work. President Woodrow Wilson's call to arms, characterizing the war as an opportunity to display the potential of American democracy, resonated loudly within the black community. African-American citizens, viewing the war as an opportunity to prove themselves as equals to whites, enlisted in great numbers. But for some, the war had an even greater potential. W. E. B. Du Bois believed that African- American soldiers would serve as Torch Bearers for freedom and equality not only for themselves but also for the rest of the oppressed world. While the African- American community dreamed of domestic and international equality, the American military establishment largely mirrored the beliefs of its officer corps, a group of men sympathetic to white southern sensibilities on racial matters. They decided it was best to segregate blacks and limit the role they played in the war. After all, to grant African-American soldiers an equal role would put the racial status quo in jeopardy, a prospect that white southerners within the military would not accept. As a result, the majority of black draftees and volunteers found themselves relegated to work details in America and in war-torn Europe. African-American soldiers, however, were not exclusively limited to work as stevedores or laborers. During the buildup of American forces, the War Department created two all-black combat units: the Ninety-second and Ninety-third divisions. As Williams notes, though, the experiences of the two divisions differed sharply, largely due to institutional racism. The Ninety-second division, which remained attached to the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), received shabby training, was staffed by racist white officers, and was placed in an unenviable position during its early involvement in the war. The result was an outfit that performed in an inconsistent manner and that earned a reputation for lacking courage under fire, thereby becoming the great example, in the minds of whites, of the inability of black soldiers to perform well in combat. …