Congressman Mark DeSaulnier announced he successfully passed a measure that would direct the Secretary of the United States Navy to publicly exonerate the Port Chicago 50, the 50 African American sailors wrongfully convicted of mutiny after standing against racial discrimination in the Navy during World War II.
The effort was included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7900) which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 329-to-101.
The passage of the effort comes almost seventy-eight years to the day after the devastating explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Port Chicago, California on July 17, 1944. The NDAA now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
“Fulfilling our nation’s founding promise of equality and justice for all requires confronting our past and working to right historical injustices,” said Congressman DeSaulnier. “I have been proud to spearhead the effort with Congresswoman Lee to bring justice to the Port Chicago 50. This is an important step toward addressing the systemic racism in our history. I urge the Senate to pass this measure and restore the Port Chicago 50’s service records and the honor they deeply deserve.”
“When 50 African American sailors at Port Chicago boldly stood against discrimination and refused to return to unsafe work conditions, they were treated horribly by the Navy and convicted of mutiny,” said Congresswoman Lee. “It is our duty to call out this racial discrimination and ensure history recognizes them as heroes, and criminals. I am proud to have passed this effort recognizing the Port Chicago 50’s courage and calling for their public exoneration. Only when we right the wrongs of our history and directly confront the impact of systemic racism can we move forward and begin to heal as a nation.”
After experiencing segregation in the Navy, 435 African American munitions sailors, who were not properly trained or supported by the Navy, were killed or injured when a cargo vessel exploded as they were loading munitions. This incident accounted for more than 15 percent of all African American Naval casualties during WWII and was the deadliest home front disaster during the war. While White officers were given time off, African American sailors were forced to return to the same unsafe working conditions that killed their colleagues. When 50 of these men understandably refused, they were discriminately charged and convicted of mutiny.
If 220 deaths account for 15% of all black naval casualties in World War II, I would say as a whole, they got off pretty easy. Over 62,000 American sailors were killed in WWII.
Were they mistreated? Yes. But there was a war on and munitions were in short supply.
My father was a sailor during WWII. He said what bothered sailors the most was when the blacks mutinied and tried to leave the dock, the navy used fire hoses to push them back towards the work area. That the Navy would treat any sailor that way upset a lot of sailors. I don’t think a lot of people know about that incident. I never read about it.
For real.
You can call me whatever crass, racist, horrible names you want, if I am also entitled to a massively lower likelihood of being violently crushed by a Panzer Tank, or shot twice in the stomach by the wehrmacht and left to bleed out in the hot French sun. What logical person wouldn’t prefer the safety of a Navy kitchen, skinning potatoes, if the only downside is being called ugly names?
What is the navy supposed to do with mutineers? Rub their feet and buy them champagne?
@Anon No, they should get the same penalty any other sailor received. There were several mutinies by black servicemen during WWII. A few involved blacks opening fire on their white officers. These were all swept under the rug and no one knew about them until years later. Here’s one instance.
“An Australian historian has uncovered hidden documents which reveal that more than 600 African-American troops turned their guns on their white officers during a siege on at base in North Queensland in 1942.”
https://ab.co/3RH4UkJ
Didn’t we just go through this ten years ago and then again three or four years ago. Seems this is brought up every few years. Lots of men and women lost their lives in WW2. I am all for giving something to those who died in the explosion if they haven’t already done that. The Navy did what they had to do. Our guys fighting needed the ammo.
When my uncles were fighting for their lives they didn’t get a chance to refuse to work . This pardon nonsense is so DeSaulnier.
The NDAA is dead on arrival in the senate because some other demo loons “passed a measure” calling for a comprehensive investigation into “white supremacy” in the armed forces. All 49 republicans in senate are against. So looks like useless virtue signaling again by Mark unless under reconciliation they drop the investigation.
Anything to distract attention from the runaway inflation caused by this administration’s irresponsible spending bills and bad energy policy
I don’t think we will ever get the whole story.
Mutiny is very hard to prove.
The work got done in the end, by who??? Brave men
Mark and Barb must have overlooked (or opted to omit) that Clinton pardoned all 50.
Pardons are not the same as Exoneration.
2 different things
I’m gonna go with a Thumbs Up on this one…
This was a total failure of leadership by the USN, because the men who worked at Port Chicago were expendable because of their race. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/port-chicago/port-chicago-lessons-learned.html
@freado
My four uncles were Vietnam combat vets, two made it back. I guess they were expendable because of their race (Americans of Irish decent). Last I checked they couldn’t refuse to fight.
So the men were expendable?
Were the ships expendable too?
How about all those desperately needed munitions?
Those things were expendable? In the middle of a war?
Sorry, race is a bogus excuse, there was alot more at stake than just the men loading the ship, and the guys who were fighting the Japanese were in much worse danger than the loaders at Port Chicago were.
Ok .. I’m the congressman might have something valid. But I wish she would spend more time trying to help his average consistuence deal with the economic suffering we’ve begun to go through, and that promises to get even worse!
The congressman Mark is off on these ethereal topics
This is great news. If he spends time on this stuff, it keeps him distracted from creating other crisis that don’t exist.
My grandfather was in the Marine Corps and was the Navel liaison for Mare Island when this happened. I remember him talking about how they the men over at Port Chicago were not trained properly, tlnot only were they not given the gloves used in moving the ordinance, there were people smoking in the dock.
He says (I can’t verify, but I give my Grandpa the benefit) that he chewed out the brass for the situation they were creating. They told him to go back to Vallejo the day before it happened.
Expendability is something applied to all soldiers, because they are pawns. But this was an instance where the Navy made them fodder for not training them how to handle the payload. That is obscene and justifies the survivors response to cleaning up their own men.
Now that Mark is done working on issues from 1944 any suggestions for 1945 that he could cover? So glad we don’t have any pressing current issues that need his attention.
While I do feel for those who were court marshalled, couldn’t the military just reverse this without having to get Congress involved? But then where will Mark’s self pats on the back come from?
The Demos in this state and nationwide are in a panic that they will be overwhelmed come November and into 2024!! People of Claycord we need to vote out DeSaulnier, Lee, Weenie-Weiner, Bonta, Pelosi, Lofgren, Skinner, and all these minions.
I am not a Republican or Demo or Libertarian! I like to view myself as an American!!
+1
More pandering. That’s California and democrats.
So the work was so dangerous that when these 50 black men refused…
50 men of other races stood ready and just did the job.
What participant in ww2 wasn’t exposed to unsafe conditions, by current standards? These 50 men could have already been fighting in Europe, risking their lives in a far more dangerous way. They had it easy, yet they mutinied.