African American ordnance battalion sailors assemble 5-inch shells in a Port Chicago Naval Magazine workshop, circa 1943-44 at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Port Chicago (Photo: U.S. Navy)
On the 80th anniversary of the Port Chicago disaster, the U.S. Navy on Wednesday exonerated the 50 African American sailors convicted of mutiny after they refused to load explosives onto ships following explosions that killed 320 men.
The Navy also exonerated the 208 men who initially refused, then went back to work loading explosives, but were convicted of disobeying orders.
“Today’s announcement marks the end of a long and arduous journey for these Black sailors and their families, who fought for a nation that denied them equal justice under law,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “May we all remember their courage, sacrifice, and service to our nation.”
Port Chicago was at the northern tip of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, a busy hub during World War II in the Pacific against Japan.
Sailors were loading the S.S. E.A. Bryan cargo ship when unsafe conditions led to it and another ship exploding on July 17, 1944, killing 320 men — two-thirds of them African American — and wounding another 400. The explosion also destroyed a train and flattened the town of Port Chicago.
The cause of the blast, which was powerful enough to be felt as far away as San Francisco, was never determined.
The dangerous task loading of weapons was done exclusively by African American sailors at the base and was supervised by white commanders, who frequently pushed sailors to work harder. The disaster accounted for about a quarter of all African American deaths in World War II.
The 50 African American sailors were convicted of mutiny after refusing to go back to loading ammunition at nearby Mare Island in Vallejo in the weeks after the disaster, while white commanders were granted leave.
The Black sailors were also tasked with cleaning up the aftermath of the explosion.
The Navy said Thursday each of the sailors were sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 15 years confinement with hard labor and total forfeitures of their pay.
During subsequent reviews of the general court martial, the dishonorable discharges were suspended and the period of confinement was reduced from 15 years to 17 to 29 months. One conviction was also set aside for mental incompetency. The Navy said by January 1946, nearly all the sailors were released and given the opportunity to finish their contracts.
“After nearly a decade fighting for justice for the Port Chicago 50, I commend the U.S. Navy and thank Navy Secretary (Carlos) Del Toro for exonerating these heroes and President Biden for his support,” said Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Walnut Creek. “Today our nation stands one step closer to fulfilling its founding promise of equality and justice for all.”
The sailors were represented during their appeal by future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom the East Bay Regional Park District named its nearby still-to-be-developed park on the former Navy base.
Marshall was lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The Navy closed the base in 1999.
Though all 50 were convicted and sentenced to prison, Marshall’s campaign was widely credited with President Harry Truman’s decision to end segregation in the armed forces in 1948.
“This is a monumental day for justice and for the families of the Port Chicago 50,” said Congresswoman Barbara Lee, D-Oakland. “I appreciate the Secretary of the Navy taking this crucial action to exonerate these courageous men who were unjustly court-martialed by the Navy following the explosion at Port Chicago. On the 80th anniversary of this tragic event, it’s fitting that these men are not only exonerated, but honored for their service to this country.”
The 80th anniversary of the explosion will be commemorated this week with Port Chicago Weekend, a four-day festival of music, art, cuisine, theater, exhibits, and entertainment from Thursday through Sunday in various Bay Area cities. For more information, go to https://portchicagoweekend.org/.
It was only World War II ……. nothing worth risking your life over, right?
So now what?
What would the outcome of the Normandy or Pacific island landings have been if the the young soldiers and Marines had refused to go because of the danger after seeing hundreds of their buddies getting slaughtered as soon as they got on the beach?
I wrote before coming back to read Clay Campbell. I feel better to know others understand what was at stake.🇺🇸
The soldiers who stormed the beaches at Normandy were not asked to clean up the beaches.
They have / had units dedicated to that task. You are comparing 2 very different situations, as well as 2 different branches who have very different jobs.
Thank you, Congressman DeSaulnier for your years of effort toward this outcome
Tough work, little understanding of risk…… glad some survived and hope they find some peace here.
Base isn’t closed…bigger but out of site, Military ocean terminal
I wonder, ~~~ what the outcome of the War might have been if those brave, frightened men who didn’t drown or get shot or blown up while storming the beaches or parachuting in behind enemy lines on D- Day, just weeks before “Port Chicago” … those battle weary men who trudged on…fought on… watching friends fall… ~~~ what would the world have become if they had just said; This ain’t fair—I quit.”
NO EXCUSES,
.
The mutiny didn’t occur at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine or the Concord Naval Weapons Station, but at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo.
Yes, of course. Both the Naval Magazine and the town Port Chicago was a pile of wood and steel splinters…with with little more than piles of lumber, weed littered streets and stop signs to show that a town had been there ~~ and the surviving sailors and munitions operations had been rerouted to Mare Island.
Interesting too: Shortly after the Port Chicago incident, in Dec 1944 Negro Naval personnel on Guam also boycotted and rioted. 36 from Guam ended up in the Disciplinary Quarters (brig) down at Terminal Island, San Pedro area…along with the 50 “Port Chicago” mutineers. Just two years later, 83 of the 86 were released on probation and “restored to duty” in Jan 1946, 3 from Port Chicago were deemed ‘unfit’ to be released. I know nothing further about them.
I do know my paratrooper Dad spent more time as a prisoner of war with no shoes at Stalag VI-C in Germany than the mutineers getting three hots and a cot spent in a California brig.
NO EXCUSES,
.
It’s amazing how many people actually believe the mutiny was in Port Chicago.
This cannot be compared to a battlefield. It was a blatant, lazy way to get cheap, disposable labor to do a dangerous job with no training. Had these men been trained on proper handling of these munitions, this tragedy would not have occurred. The young soldiers and sailors on the front lines died for a purpose and with honor. Still sad, but they were defending us all from evil. One group earned our respect, the survivors of Port Chicago were court marshaled for asking for minimal safety training away from the battlefield.
Gee…. I thought they were court martialed for mutiny & refusing to obey orders during a time of war when our soldiers desperately needed munitions for their very survival and to win the war.
How do you know if they were “trained” it wouldn’t have happened? Says in the article that cause of the explosion was never determined.
Because for people who are familiar with this incident, the Port Chicago 50 had received sub-par training. That stands regardless of whether or not the ignition point could be determined.
My Grandfather was the Navy Liaison at Mare Island when this happened, and his assessment was pretty much what you just posted.
I do not disagree with what you are saying, but poor men without training, doing dangerous work, you say?
I must add that After Pearl Harbor, when we were dragged into war, MILITARY Boot Camp for the Navy was cut to just 3 weeks, Marines, 4 weeks. Once the billets were in better shape, training was increased to 6-7 weeks. A soldier just out of high school, who grew up never having used a gun was given 4 weeks of training. Sniper shooting, jumping into 12 ft of water with full pack, repelling off a cliff and then jumping off tower on a guy wire with a full pack, and then one day, before he even had a chance to call home, he was marched onto a plane just to get pushed out of that plane behind enemy lines…His Mission: To draw fire and attention from what was going to happen at the beaches in a couple days. So, yeah…I have zero tolerance for wartime mutineers that were Stateside doing dangerous jobs.
Thanks for putting this into context.
This exoneration is decades overdue.
This exoneration is ridiculous !
It is this kind of backwards mentality that is responsible for the lack of serious law & order in this liberal circus of a state… honoring mutineers as if they were heroes!
As for cause of the explosion, that has never been determined and I would not be so fast to blame it on the soldiers lack of training.
Fact is they used to have races to see who could load the ships the fastest and winners would be awarded additional leave.
It could have been simple equipment failure, a snapped cable or broken hydraulic line… it could have been a Japanese mini submarine (They used them at pearl harbor despite all the anti sub defenses).
The point is, all the friggin’ training in the world doesn’t mean squat when you throw caution to the wind and RACE to see who can load EXPLOSIVES the FASTEST!
No matter what caused it, refusing to load desperately needed munitions during a war was NEVER AN OPTION!
Everyone’s life was in danger… overseas and in the USA.
Mourn the dead and honor all that served…. but save all this idiotic praise for the mutineers.
It is undeserved.
In that era, unfortunately they were expendable because of skin color.
The battle of Iwo Jima alone cost the lives of 5,931 Marines killed in action…. expendable?
No life is expendable !
But those years last Century black skin meant inferior intellect
suitable for menial or dangerous jobs.
Definitely wrong but back then that’s how it was.
.
Wasn’t until July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed an executive order
banning segregation in the Armed Forces. Guess congress couldn’t be trusted to act.
.
Aboard USS West Virginia (BB-48) was Seaman Doris Miller who worked ship’s mess.
December 7, 1941 he helped wounded and using .50-Caliber Machine Gun, he’d never been trained on, shot down 3 – 4 attacking planes.
https://americacomesalive.com/dorie-miller-1919-1943-hero-of-world-war-ii/
I’m not questioning the quality of ANY soldier who did his duty no matter what his color was, nor am I denying the racial prejudice that existed in that era.
Black soldiers were denied combat roles for a long time while many of them were demanding to be allowed to fight and displayed the courage to do so….the Port Chicago 50 did not, and their stateside role as stevedores wasn’t nearly as hazardous as combat tho stevedores played a vital role in winning the war… or at least most of them did.
WWPD?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrtS2_TfbeY
It’s so weird how soldiers were put into dangerous situations that they didn’t have to be in, in a situation that could have been prevented, and in which danger was exasperated by betting and forcing them to load and work faster than military standards, asking them to sacrifice safety…and only the black soldiers were made to do this dangerous work and people are, like “too bad so sad should have listened!”. After the disaster, white soldiers were given leave and REASSIGNED to less dangerous work because they feared for their lives (poor babies!) after this and black soldiers were told to go back onto the line to more of this dangerous loading.
Like, all of these soldiers would have fought for their country because they had to, I’m sure. But, like, to be purposefully put in a dangerous situation simply because of their skin-color, in a situation that can be made safe but white American commanders made a betting game of black American lives? Like, what are people not understanding about this?
Like, for sure!!!
Glad you pointed out speech patterns and ignored all of the other points in to comment because it apparently suits your opinion better? Weird way to say, “I didn’t understand what you said and have no rebuttal.” But okay.
JESSICA,
.
They weren’t soldiers, they were more “like” sailors. You stated “and only the black soldiers were made to do this dangerous work and people are, like “too bad so sad should have listened!”” Then you also stated, “After the disaster, white soldiers were given leave and REASSIGNED to less dangerous work because they feared for their lives (poor babies!).” Make up your mind, were they all black “soldiers” or not. Your statement is also incorrect, many black sailors who were stationed at Port Chicago Naval Magazine were reassigned to do other work, and some were transferred and reassigned to do other work at different Naval installations far from Port Chicago Naval Magazine and Mare Island Naval Shipyard. You also stated that that “other work” was less dangerous,” but that would be subjective, some was less dangerous and some was more dangerous. What was the race of the individuals who did the “dangerous work” of producing the munitions, loading the trains with munitions at the munitions factories, that of the train engineers and conductors who manned the munition trains to Port Chicago, the crew that manned the ships transporting those munitions to the Pacific, and that of the sailors using those munitions in the Pacific? Or was that work not considered “dangerous work” to you? The cause of the explosion was never determined, when I was an MDUSD student we were taught that it was a mine that caused the explosion, although, while it’s a possibility, it’s unlikely. You severly overused the word “like.”
Since the cause of the Pier 1 explosion was never identified, it’s very difficult to place blame.
It was the biggest stateside loss of life during WWII, so it was investigated to a fine degree.
No definitive cause was ever stated. Somebody screwed up. We’ll never know how or why.
It was the logical move to transfer operations to Mare Island as the Port Chicago facility was
attached to Mare Island.
I think I would rather be stateside than fighting in Guadalcanal, Bataan Death March, Iwo Jima
the Battle of the Bulge or D-Day.
Better late than never.
Only 2/3 of those who died were Black…. the rest are just ignored.
Yep, that seems fair.