MANZANAR Historic Resource Study/Special History Study

One of the most significant chapters in the history of evacuation and relocation was the registration, leave-clearance, and segregation programs carried out at all relocation centers during 1943-44. These programs, "one of the most exacting experiences" that the War Relocation Authority would undergo during the war, represented "a fork in the road for the evacuated people — a testing of fundamental loyalties and democratic faiths in an atmosphere of high emotional tension." The program "brought to the surface grievances that had accumulated over a period of months and laid bare basic attitudes that had previously been submerged and indistinct.' Its net results were, according to the WRA, "unquestionably beneficial both for WRA and for the great bulk of the evacuated people." The trauma and turmoil that the efforts to determine evacuee loyalty brought to the relocation centers by these programs, however, would raise serious doubts concerning the credibility of this conclusion. [1]

NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXT

Registration Program

Military Background of Program. The military background of the registration program dated to the early phases of evacuation when the U.S. Selective Service System was advised by the War Department to discontinue inducting registrants of Japanese ancestry until further notice. On March 30, 1942, the War Department issued an order, discontinuing the induction of Nisei into the U.S. armed services and placing them in a IV-F classification (unsuitable for military service). At the time there were about 5,000 Nisei from Hawaii and the mainland in the Army, the majority having been drafted. Enlisted Japanese Americans in the Army soon found themselves in a precarious situation. The personal attitude of their commanding officers was decisive; some Nisei stayed in the service, while others were discharged without explanation.

No clear-cut Selective Service policy was established to evaluate the status of draft-age Japanese Americans until June 17, 1942, when the War Department announced that it would not, aside from exceptional cases, "accept for service with the armed forces Japanese or persons of Japanese extraction, regardless of citizenship status or other factors." Later on September 14, the Selective Service adopted regulations, prohibiting Nisei induction and classifying registrants of Japanese ancestry IV-C (declarant and nondeclarant aliens), the same status as that for enemy aliens. [2]

Soon after his appointment as Director of the WRA on June 17, 1942, Dillon Myer came to the realization "that the most important key to the regaining of status" of Japanese Americans "was the opportunity for service with [the] armed forces." Myer believed that participation in the military service was important for two reasons. First, as American citizens, the Nisei should have the same rights and responsibilities as other American citizens, including the responsibility to fight for their country. Second, it was important to the future of the Nisei that they have the opportunity to prove their patriotism in a dramatic manner, and thus regain their rightful place in American society. Starting in July 1942, he began pressing this point home to the Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy and other officials of the War Department. [3]

Myer's efforts would later be reinforced by the Japanese American Citizens League, which in November 1942 petitioned President Roosevelt for reinstatement of the draft for citizens of Japanese descent. The JACL conducted a one-week conference in Salt Lake City in late November 1942, that was attended by representatives from each of the relocation centers. Manzanar's representatives to the conference were Fred Tayama, Joe Grant Masaoka, and Kiyoshi Higashi, all of whom would play important roles in the violence that broke out at the camp less than two weeks later. At the conference, the JACL adopted resolutions declaring that it "its stand on the principles of duty to country and to Americanism is unwavering and holds even greater significance in these times of stress." In addition to asking for reinstatement of Selective Service procedures for Japanese Americans, other resolutions passed included expressions of confidence in the WRA, greetings to Nisei soldiers, commendation to the President of the United States on his selection of liberal personnel in WRA, gratitude to religious bodies for their work on behalf of loyal Americans and residents of Japanese ancestry, and an appeal for funds for recreational purposes in the relocation centers. [4]

During the summer of 1942, the War Department began a program to recruit some American citizens of Japanese descent as 'exceptional cases" under the meaning of its June 17 directive. The Military Intelligence Service (MIS), the intelligence branch of the U.S. Army, realizing that men skilled in the Japanese language would be vitally needed in the Pacific Theater, had established a language school for this purpose at Camp Savage, (and later at Fort Snelling), Minnesota, under the leadership of Colonel Kai E. Rasmussen. During the autumn of 1942, recruiting officers were sent out to all WRA centers in an effort to enlist volunteers among the male citizens at the centers who had a working knowledge of the Japanese language and who demonstrated promise that they could be trained to become language 'experts' in a comparatively brief period of time. The men were recruited both as instructors and translators. Ironically, many of the evacuees at the centers who were able to meet these qualifications were Kibei. a group considered by military and WRA experts to be generally the most disaffected element within the Japanese American population, and the largest number of volunteers came from the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, where "disloyal' sentiments were greatest. By the end of 1942, a total of 167 male American citizens at the centers had met the necessary requirements and were either already enrolled or in the process of being enrolled in the language school at Camp Savage. [5]

Nisei soldiers in the MIS were attached to every major combat unit in the Pacific, including the Alaskan Defense, Southeast Asia Area, Central Pacific Ocean, Southwest Pacific Area, and South Pacific Area commands, as well as the European Command. The Nisei "intelligence" soldiers were attached as individuals to military units in these commands and given noncommissioned ranks, thus depriving them of "proper recognition, awards and promotions." Nevertheless, they made considerable contributions to the American war effort. Due primarily to the work of the MIS, General Douglas MacArthur stated, 'Never in military history did an army know so much about the enemy prior to actual engagement.' General Charles Willoughby, G-2 intelligence chief, said, "The Nisei saved countless Allied lives and shortened the war by two years. [6]

On January 28, 1943, the Secretary of War Stimson announced that the Army had decided to form a special Japanese American combat team and that recruits would be accepted from the relocation centers, the Hawaiian Islands, and elsewhere on the mainland of the United States. In the near future, the secretary added, a special enlistment program to recruit personnel for the team would be carried out simultaneously at all relocation centers. Four days later, President Roosevelt wrote to Stimson, approving the combat team plan and calling it a step toward restoration of the evacuated people to their normal status in American society. By February 6, ten recruitment teams were on their way from the War Department in Washington to the relocation centers, and the 21,000 male citizens of military age in the centers faced one of the most crucial decisions of their lives. [7]

WRA Administrative Background of Program. In early January 1943, when the WRA was first informed of the plans for a large-scale Army recruitment program at the relocation centers, the agency was developing its own plans and strategies to conduct a mass registration of all adults in the centers to speed up the leave-clearance process — the process of determining leave eligibility for evacuees based on national security considerations. Prior to this time, the WRA had attempted carry through its leave and/or relocation policies with little effect because of red-tape involved with the clearance program. Both the Army and the WRA needed much the same type of background information on the people in the centers to conduct their respective recruitment and leave-clearance programs. The Army needed information on male citizens of draft age for induction purposes, while the WRA needed it on all residents 17 years of age and older for leave-clearance purposes. Thus, the decision was made to combine Army recruitment and WRA leave-clearance registration in one massive operation to be carried out jointly by both entities. [8]

Program Implementation. Two basic questionnaires were developed to implement the Army recruitment and WRA leave-clearance programs. One form (DSS Form 304A), titled, "Statement of United States Citizens of Japanese Ancestry," was for male citizens of draft age, while the other (WRA Form 126 Rev.), titled 'War Relocation Authority Application for Leave Clearance," was for all female citizens as well as alien males and females. The questionnaires were complicated and lengthy, each including some 30 questions. The questionnaire titles, wording of questions, and the fact that the Army questionnaire was voluntary while the WRA's was compulsory would lead to considerable misunderstanding and turmoil in all ten relocation centers during the registration program. [9]

The ten Army recruitment teams, each headed by a commissioned officer and staffed by two non-commissioned Caucasian sergeants plus one sergeant of Japanese ancestry, were organized quickly. One representative from the WRA staff at each relocation center (Robert B. Throckmorton, project attorney, was the representative from Manzanar) was brought to the War Department in Washington to be attached to the teams. During January 29 to February 5, 1943, the combined Army teams and WRA personnel were given an intensive course of training at the War Department in the details of handling the registration program at the relocation centers.

During the training sessions, it was decided that the detailed planning and implementation of the registration program at each relocation center would be the joint responsibility of each project director and Army recruiting team captain The Army recruiting teams would administer the military's role in the registration program, while the WRA would be responsible for the registration of female citizens and alien men and women.

At the training sessions in Washington a check-sheet of possible evacuee questions to be asked during the registration program was formulated for the Army recruiting teams. The check-sheet was to be read by a member of the Army team to the evacuees at each relocation center. In the document the possible implications of voluntary enlistment from behind barbed wire were rebutted by such statements as:

The circumstances were not of your own choosing, though it is true that the majority of you and your families accepted the restrictions placed upon your life with little complaint and without deviating from loyalty to the United States. [10]

The WRA did not prepare a similar check-sheet to explain its part of the registration program — an omission that would contribute to the agency's mishandling of its responsibilities.

On February 3, President Roosevelt, who had been informed about the upcoming registration program, sent a letter to Secretary of War Stimson in support of the undertaking. Roosevelt informed Stimson that the program was "a logical step, and no loyal citizen should be denied the democratic right to exercise the responsibilities of his citizenship, regardless of his ancestry" This letter would also be used by the army and read to the evacuees at each center before the registration program began. [11]

The teams arrived at the centers during the first week of February 1943 and immediately arranged for a series of meetings to be held with evacuees in designated messhalls. At these meetings prepared statements were read to the assembly residents regarding the purpose and significance of the registration program, and some minimal efforts were undertaken to answer questions. Actual registration was commenced at most centers around February 10.

At the outset, there was confusion, resentment, and widespread reluctance to register at virtually all the relocation centers. At some centers, such as Minidoka, these initial difficulties were quickly overcome, while at others, such as Tule Lake, they persisted and were even intensified as time went on. Despite the turbulence and the emotional atmosphere that prevailed for varying lengths of time at the relocation centers, the registration program produced useful information to both the Army and the WRA.

The primary benefit in terms of the WRA's administrative needs and ultimate objectives was the accumulation of extensive background information on virtually all adult residents of the centers. For the first time, data required in connection with leave-clearance determinations was readily available on practically everyone who might conceivably apply for indefinite leave. The ground work had been laid for faster processing of leave applications and decentralization of leave procedures, and ultimately a thoroughgoing program to segregate those whose loyalties lay with Japan.

The chief benefit for the Army was the recruitment of 1,208 carefully selected volunteers from the centers by June 30, 1943, the number of volunteers ranging from a low of 40 at Rohwer to a high of 236 at Poston Although this number was a small proportion of the 10,000 eligible that the War Department had estimated and fell short of the 3,000 that it had expected to recruit, those who did volunteer represented from the standpoint of both loyalty and military fitness, "the cream of the draft-age group at the relocation centers." Combined with several thousand volunteers of Japanese ancestry simultaneously recruited from the Hawaiian Islands and enlistment of several hundred Nisei from the mainland outside relocation centers, the volunteers formed the nucleus of "a hard-hitting combat unit." By the end of June, the greater proportion of the volunteers from the centers had entered the Army and were in training at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, in preparation for active duty overseas.

The most significant questions asked of the relocation center evacuees during the registration program were Questions 27 and 28 that appeared on both the Army and WRA questionnaires. The two questions on the Army form were to be answered only in front of a representative of the Army recruitment teams, while the other questions were to be filled out with the help of registrars or counselors at each of the centers. On the Army questionnaire, Question 27 asked draft-age males: "Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty, wherever ordered?" On the WRA form, Question 27 asked: "If the opportunity presents itself and you are found qualified, would you be willing to volunteer for the Army Nurse Corps or the WAAC?" On the Army questionnaire, Question 28, known as the "loyalty question," asked:

Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power or organization?

On the WRA questionnaire, Question 28 asked:

Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power or organization?

Before the registration program had progressed very far at most centers, however, large numbers of alien residents were protesting against the wording of Question 28. Since Japanese aliens were not eligible for naturalization as American citizens, they pointed out that they could not conscientiously answer "yes" to the question as it was worded without becoming virtually "men without a country." On the other hand, a "no" answer could result in deportation. Realizing the logic of this position, the WRA, on February 12, instructed all relocation centers to insert on WRA Form 126 Rev. — "for all aliens but not for female citizens" — the following substitute for the original Question 28.

Will you swear to abide by the laws of the United States and to take no action which would in any way interfere with the war effort of the United States?

Although this change in Question 28 was made to meet the objections of many aliens, other questionnaire problems were never addressed. For instance, the obvious absurdity of asking aliens, especially males, whether they would be willing to enlist in the Army Nurse Corps or the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps was never clarified. [12]

There were a total of 77,957 residents eligible to register at the ten relocation centers. Of this number, 65,078, or 87.4 percent, answered Question 28 with an unqualified "yes," while 5,376 answered "no," 1,041 qualified their answers, and 3,254 failed to register. Including the 234 who did not answer the question, 9,905 Japanese Americans did not answer the loyalty question with a "yes." Thus, approximately 12.6 percent of the total possible reacted negatively to the "loyalty" question The great bulk of the non-affirmative answers came from the citizen group. Approximately 26.3 percent of the male citizens and about 15 percent of the female citizens failed to provide unqualified affirmative answers. Only 3.6 of the male aliens, and 3.5 percent of the female aliens failed to provide unqualified affirmative answers. [13]

Aside from Questions 27 and 28, most of the other questions on the two forms were less controversial. The questions asked for information on topics such as education, previous employment, knowledge of the Japanese language, number of relatives in Japan, foreign investments and travel, religious and organizational affiliations, sports interests, hobbies, magazines and newspapers customarily read, and possession of dual citizenship. As the registration program was completed at the various centers and as the younger residents were subsequently registered upon reaching the age of 17, the completed questionnaires were transferred to WRA headquarters in Washington for cross checking against the records of federal investigative agencies. Under an agreement between the WRA and FBI, the latter took the principal responsibility for this record check and provided the WRA with information on each registrant that was available in its files as well as those of the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Military Intelligence Service. By July 1, some 73,900 cases had been submitted to the FBI, and approximately 61,200 had been returned with available intelligence information. [14]

Evacuee Reactions to the Registration Program. According to the WRA, the underlying factors explaining resistance to the registration program at most centers was "an extremely intricate pattern of influences dating back to the time of evacuation." Two of the most significant factors were "evacuee resentment against the government resulting from evacuation and detention in relocation centers," and "administrative miscalculations and errors of judgment both in the explanation and the execution of the registration program.

At the outset of the registration and enlistment program, most WRA personnel believed that it was "a distinctly forward step for the evacuated people." The War Department's decision to accept Army volunteers from the evacuee population at the centers was regarded as an opportunity for the evacuees to provide the American public with proof of their patriotism and loyalty The registration program was understood to be a practical administrative step taken to speed the return of qualified evacuees back to private life.

To many evacuees, however, both the recruitment and registration programs were understood "in a vastly different light." After undergoing the trying experiences of evacuation and the perplexities of several months' detention in a relocation center, "a considerable minority — particularly among the citizen group — was deeply resentful against the Federal government and highly suspicious of any action it might take affecting their future status." This point of view was reflected, according to the WRA, in some of the "milder" qualified answers to Question 28, such as "Yes, if my civil rights are fully restored" or "Yes, if I can return immediately to my former home. Furthermore, a "yes" answer to Question 28 proved offensive to many Nisei, because it implied that they once had an allegiance to Japan and its emperor. According to the WRA, some of the "most thoroughly embittered citizens tended to regard the whole enlistment and registration as 'just another government trick,' and nearly 3,000 "went to the point of requesting expatriation to Japan."

In hindsight, the WRA recognized that it had handled the program poorly At the time the agency "was so absorbed in the mechanics of an enormous operation that it failed to appreciate the advantages that might have been gained from early consultation with key evacuee residents." There was insufficient time for "adequate advance planning or for the formulation of wholly clear-cut instructions covering every phase of the operation." The confusion that arose about the original wording of Question 28 for aliens was one result of the haste in which the program was formulated.

The linkage of WRA registration and Army recruitment was also understood by the former agency's officials to be "unfortunate." The WRA stated:

. . . . From the very beginning, the recruitment phase of the operation, because of its more dramatic character, tended to obscure the real significance of registration not only in the minds of the evacuees but even in the eyes of many WRA staff members at the centers. And at some of the centers, this initial confusion was never entirely eliminated. It is probably literally true that hundreds of the evacuees went through the registration without any real understanding of the significance of Question 28 or even any adequate appreciation of the reasons why they were being asked to fill out the questionnaires. [15]

Other observers looked behind the responses for reasons to explain the evacuees' reaction to the registration program. These analysts argued that the registration program demanded a personal expression of position from each evacuee, a choice between faith in the future in America and outrage at present injustices. The registration raised the central question underlying exclusion policy, the loyalty issue which had dominated the political personal lives of the Nisei for the past year. Questions 27 and 28 forced evacuees to confront the conflicting emotions aroused by their relation to the government. To illustrate this point, one evacuee later noted:

Well, I am one of those that said 'no, no' on them, one of the 'no, no' boys, and it is not that I was proud about it, it was just that our legal rights were violated and I wanted to fight back. However, I didn't want to take this sitting down. I was really angry. It just got me so damned mad. Whatever we do, there was no help from outside, and it seems to me that we are a race that doesn't count. So, therefore, this was one of the reasons for the 'no, no' answer. [16]

Personal responses to the questionnaire inescapably became public acts open to community debate and scrutiny within the closed world of the relocation centers, thus making the difficult choices excruciating. One young evacuee, for instance, later related:

After I volunteered for the service, some people that I knew refused to speak to me. Some older people later questioned my father for letting me volunteer, but he told them that I was old enough to make up my own mind. [17]

Another evacuee later described his anguish in answering the questionnaire:

Because of the incarcerations, here I was, a 19-year-old, having to make a decision that would affect the welfare of the whole family If I sign, 'no, no,' I would throw away my citizenship and force my sisters and brother to do the same. Being the oldest son and being brought up in the Japanese tradition, it was up to me to take care of my parents, sisters, and brother. It was about a mile to the administration building. I can still remember vividly. Every step I took, I questioned myself, shall I sign it 'no, no,' or 'no, yes?' The walk seemed like it took hours and then when I got there a colonel asked me the first question and I cursed him and answered, 'no.' To me, he represented the powers that put me in this predicament. I answered 'yes' to the second question. In my 57 years, I have never had to make such a difficult decision as that. [18]

Loyalty Review. With the ambiguous results of the registration program in hand, the WRA began to decide who should leave the camps. The WRA's initial leave policies had been in effect for several months. With the results of the registration program, it was now ready to modify these policies. The War Department, however, was not content to leave this matter to the WRA. Despite the continuing protestations that evacuees were a matter for the civilian WRA, the War Department plan of January 20, 1943, called for the formation of a Japanese American Joint Board (JAJB), which would also have a hand in deciding whom to release from the centers. While the WRA would retain ultimate authority over leave clearance, the JAJB would recommend individual releases. [19]

Composed of one representative each from the WRA, Office of Naval Intelligence, Military Intelligence Service, and the Provost Marshal General's office, the board was established to assist in determining the loyalty of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, determine eligibility of applicants for war plant employment, and assist in the selection of volunteers for the Army Early in 1943 the board decided to consider the cases of all evacuee American citizens 17 years of age and older and make recommendations to the WRA on the granting of indefinite leave. [20]

The board floundered in its efforts to determine the "dangerousness" of each evacuee. Finally, an ever-changing system was adopted that would bring an adverse recommendation if any one of a number of "factors" were present. The "factors" included whether the person was Kibei; whether he refused to register; whether he was a leader in any organization controlled or dominated by aliens; and whether he had substantial fixed deposits in Japan. By adopting this approach, the board was spared having to find an illegal or even disloyal act as the basis of recommending continued confinement. Instead, individual characteristics and legal acts became cause for a finding of "dangerousness."

After about a year of making such determinations, as well as performing its other work such as clearing laborers for vital war plants, the board was terminated. It had handled nearly 39,000 cases and made over 25,000 recommendations for leave clearance. Of 12,600 recommendations against release, the Western Defense Command reported that the WRA ignored half of them and released the evacuees anyway. [21]

Participation in U.S. Armed Forces

Selective Service Milestones. Counting draftees, volunteers, and pre-Pearl Harbor enlistees, more than 33,000 Nisei served in World War II, 6,000 of them in the Pacific Theater. During 1943-45, some branches of the military, in addition to the regular Army, were opened to persons of Japanese ancestry On July 22, 1943, for instance, the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps began accepting Japanese Americans. On December 13, the first evacuee girl to be inducted into this organization, Miss Iris Watanabe of the Granada War Relocation Center, was sworn into service in the office of the Governor of Colorado in Denver. [22] Some branches of the military, however, remained closed to Japanese Americans for the duration of the war. The Navy, for instance, did not announce its acceptance of Nisei until November 14, 1945, several months after the war ended. At least one Japanese American served in the U.S. Marines, and several hundred served in the U.S. Merchant Marine. [23]

On January 20, 1944, the Army announced that Selective Service inductions of Nisei would be resumed. As a result, 3,377 men were called before July 1, 1944. Of this number, 1,430 were accepted, 460 were inducted into the Enlisted Reserve Corps, and 194 entered on active duty. Of those called, 188 refused induction, and 106 of them were arrested by officials of the Department of Justice by June 30, 1944. The "great majority answered the call willingly," however, and "the departure of most of the boys" who were "summoned to active duty" were occasions "marked by patriotic demonstrations in the centers."

The principal resistance to the Selective Service developed at the Heart Mountain War Relocation Center where 76 men refused to be inducted, "owing largely to the influence of a group in the community which called itself the 'Fair Play Committee."' The head of this committee argued that it was unjust to draft Nisei until all discrimination against Japanese Americans was eliminated, and the Nisei were admitted to all branches of the Army and Navy on an equal footing with other Americans. These arguments "were cautiously phrased, however, in an effort to avoid statements that might incriminate the committee members." The committee chairman, a U.S. citizen born in Hawaii who had never been to Japan and had no record of disloyalty, was segregated to Tule Lake on April 1, 1944, together with several of his principal supporters. At Tule Lake, he was later taken into custody by the FBI on charges of violating federal sedition and conspiracy laws. [24]

On June 12, 1944, a mass trial for 63 defendants from Heart Mountain began at the federal district court in Cheyenne. Wyoming. Each of the men was charged with violation of the Selective Service Act through failure to submit to a pre-induction physical examination. While acknowledging that the defendants "were loyal citizens of the United States" and that they desired "to fight for their country if they were restored their rights as citizens," the court sentenced all of the men to three years in a federal penitentiary on June 26. About half of the men went to Fort Leavenworth, while the remainder were sent to McNeil Island in Washington. The 63 men remained in prison until receiving conditional releases on an individual basis in 1946.

Meanwhile, on November 2, 1944, seven leaders of the Heart Mountain Fair Play Committee, who had played a leading role in resisting the Selective Service at that relocation center, were convicted of counseling others to resist the draft, but this conviction was overturned by the 10th District Court of Appeals on December 14. Later on December 12, 1947, President Harry S Truman officially pardoned all of the men, and their full citizenship rights were formally restored. Ultimately, 267 persons from all ten relocation centers would be convicted of draft resistance. [25]

On November 18, 1944, the Selective Service established procedures permitting voluntary induction of Issei. Several months later, on March 21, 1945, Kazuo Ono, an evacuee in the Minidoka War Relocation Center, was the first Japanese alien evacuee to volunteer for service in the Army Before being accepted by the Army, he made two unsuccessful attempts to enlist. [26]

On May 28, 1945, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision of a lower court that Americans of Japanese ancestry residing in relocation centers may not refuse draft summons. Less than one week later, on June 1, the U.S. Army ruled that drafted Japanese American soldiers would no longer be placed in the Enlisted Reserve Corps while awaiting call to active service. Henceforth they would be processed in military reception centers on the same basis as other drafted men. [27]

100th Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team. While Nisei evacuees in war relocation centers were officially prohibited from serving in the U.S. Army on June 17, 1942, an all-Nisei infantry battalion was activated in Hawaii on June 10. Ironically, no mass evacuation or confinement of Nisei in government-operated relocation centers had been undertaken in Hawaii in the wake of Pearl Harbor. [28]

The 100th Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team, which would ultimately develop from this activation, was noteworthy because it was the only Japanese American unit to be established in the U. S. Army. In addition, it was the most highly decorated unit in the Army. The unit also had the honor to be reviewed by President Harry S Truman in July 1945 upon its return to the United States. On July 15, 1946, President Truman would honor the unit with a Presidential Unit Citation. The combined 100th and 442nd suffered 9,486 casualties and won 18,143 individual decorations for valor in battle, including a Congressional Medal of Honor and almost 10,000 Purple Hearts. The casualty rate for the unit was more than 300 percent of its authorized strength of 4,000 men.

The 100th/442nd had an unusual organizational history. One of its units, the Anti-Tank Company, was assigned to a glider assault. The 100th Battalion was also credited for the capture of a German submersible in October 1944. In addition, by rescuing the "Lost Battalion" of the 36th Infantry Division, 442nd members became "honorary Texans." Two of the 442nd members would later become members of the U.S. Senate representing Hawaii during the postwar period — Masayuhi "Spark" Matsunaga and Daniel Inouye.The 100th Infantry Battalion was activated as a six rifle company Separate Battalion on June 10, 1942. The troops consisted of Japanese American members of the Hawaiian Territorial Guard. Because of doubts about its loyalty, the battalion was transferred to the mainland at Camp McCoy, Wisconsin, for training, and then was given only wooden guns with which to train. Correspondence of the soldiers was read by military authorities before being mailed. The battalion was transferred to Camp Shelby, Mississippi, in January 1943 to complete its training. The 100th arrived in Oran, North Africa, on September 2, 1943, and was attached to the 34th Infantry. It landed at Salerno on September 26 and participated in the Italian Campaign, fighting as part of the 34th at Cassino. As a result of its accomplishments during the Italian campaign, it became known at the "Purple Heart Battalion." On November 25, Secretary of War Stimson gave the battalion special recognition for its accomplishments during the Italian Campaign, announcing its casualty list, listing decorations, and mentioning high praise accorded the men by their officers.

Meanwhile, in January 1943, the War Department announced formation of the segregated 442nd Regimental Combat Team (RCT), and the new unit was activated on February 1, 1943. Upon announcement of the RCT, some 10,000 Nisei in Hawaii volunteered immediately On March 28, the Honolulu Chamber of Commerce held a farewell ceremony in front of Iolani Palace for 2,686 Nisei volunteers for the RCT. The RCT, composed of both Hawaiians and volunteers from the ten relocation centers, began military training at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, in May 1943. Later in January 1944 the Selective Service draft was reinstated for Nisei, thus providing additional personnel for the RCT. Comprised of three rifle battalions, an anti-tank company, a cannon company a service company, and a medical detachment, plus the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion and the 232nd Engineer Company (Combat), the only unit to start with Nisei officers, and the 206th Army Band, the 442nd went overseas in May 1943. The main body of the RCT arrived in Naples, Italy, on June 2, and on June 10 it was joined with the 100th Battalion in attachment to the 34th Infantry. After the breakout from Anzio, the RCT soon saw action north of Rome, where the 100th earned a Distinguished Unit Citation for liberating Belvedere, a town south of Florence and the seemingly impregnable Gothic Line. The 442nd stayed in Italy as part of the 34th Infantry until September 1944, when it went to France, landing at Marseilles on September 30. There it was attached to the 36th Division, also known as the Texas Division. The 442nd's Anti-Tank Company was detached to make a glider assault with the 517th Airborne. Soon the RCT was attached to the 36th Infantry for the Rhineland Campaign.

The 442nd fought in the Vosage at Bruyeres in eastern France, and then rescued the Texas "Lost Battalion" (1st Battalion, 141st Infantry Regiment, 36th Division). The 442nd's casualties resulting from the daring and highly-publicized relief effort for 211 men from October 15 to November 12 were heavy: 161 killed in action (13 were medics); 2,000 wounded (882 seriously); and 43 missing. Distinguished Unit Citations were awarded for actions at Belmont and Biffontaine prior to the rescue mission.

On November 28, 1944, the 442nd was posted to the French-Italian border with the 100th Battalion, near Monaco. This "Champagne Campaign" lasted until March 1945, when the regiment returned to Italy for the Po Valley Campaign. Attached to the 92nd Division, the RCT broke through the supposedly impregnable "Gothic Line" on April 5, less than one month before the war ended in Italy on May 2. In March the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion was detached from the RCT to participate with the 7th Army in the Central Europe Campaign, where it was among the first American units to liberate the German concentration camps at Dachau. [29]

Impact of Military Participation on Relocation Center Life. The movement of young men out of the relocation centers into the armed forces, although numerically small, had a profound impact on life in the camps. By December 1944, for instance, 1,543 men, ranging in numbers from less than 100 to nearly 300 from each center, had been accepted for service and were on active duty. By late 1944 the servicemen had been coming and going from the relocation centers for more than a year, returning to the relocation centers on furlough for visits with their families and friends. They had come back in uniform, and portions of barracks in all centers were established as United Services Organization (USO) entertainment facilities. Thus, the USO facilities became a feature of life in the relocation centers that link them with communities throughout the United States. In the centers, women worked on 1000-stitch belts, in the Buddhist tradition, for the protection of the soldiers on the battlefields. Mothers spent time preparing food for parties, and their daughters arranged dances and other social affairs attended by young people who gathered to socialize with the soldiers. The senryu poets, beginning in 1944, began to write of the uniformed Nisei and the feelings of their parents about them.

At first the coming and going of soldiers affected only relatively few persons in each center, but, many of those affected were parents who had themselves accepted the centers as homes for the duration of the war. Most of the parents of soldiers were men and women who belonged to the core of Issei who had formulated community sentiment. With reopening of Selective Service procedures to the Nisei in January 1944, more and more evacuees began to be affected as sons whose parents had opposed volunteering were taken in the draft. The activities of the USOs were increasingly participated in by at least mothers and sisters of families who had kept their attention averted from resettlement and the outside world. Farewell parties for drafted young men increased. Sometimes these events were merely family affairs, but more and more entire blocks became interested in the young men who were leaving. The recurring farewells became an increasingly prominent feature of relocation center life, and to a greater extent than in outside towns of similar size the whole community began to be affected and to give some recognition to the departing young men.

Inevitably, casualty lists began to have meaning for people in the relocation centers. Sentiment among the evacuees developed that the centers as a whole should pay tribute to the men in uniform. At first there was resistance to such ideas. Gradually, as the WRA administrators encouraged the erection of honor roll tablets listing the men in the armed forces in each center, sentiment swung behind the idea of community ceremonies. Buddhist and Christian ministers and community council chairmen and other evacuee spokesmen arranged ceremonies in honor of Nisei who had been killed. Memorial services became more and more frequent, and interest in them became widespread.

By midsummer 1944 the effects of Nisei participation in the U.S. armed forces on the evacuees in the relocation centers had become marked. For instance, an Issei mother observed in July:

You know things are a lot different than they were a while ago. People really rebelled at the time of registration. They said awful things about the government, and they spoke of the boys who volunteered almost as if they were traitors to the Japanese for serving a country that had treated the Japanese so badly. When Selective Service was re-instituted all one heard was that the government had no right to draft men out of a camp like this. At first when the boys left, their mothers wept with bitterness and resentment. They didn't think their sons should go. This week five have gone from our block. I tell you I'm surprised at the difference. Wives and mothers are sorry and they weep a lot. But now they really feel it is a man's duty to serve his country. They wouldn't want him not to go when he is called. When they talk among themselves, they tell each other these things. They feel more as they did before evacuation. [30]

Congressional Investigations

Prior to January 1943, the War Relocation Authority had implemented its evacuee relocation program with only a limited amount of national publicity. During the first half of 1943, however, as relocating evacuees began to fan out across roughly 75 percent of the country, the program attracted increasing attention from the national news media and Congress.

One of the developments that contributed toward making the WRA evacuee relocation program a national issue was the investigation conducted during January - March, 1943, by a special subcommittee of the Senate Committee of Military Affairs. The seven-member subcommittee, chaired by Senator A. B. Chandler of Kentucky, was appointed to consider the advisability of S. 444, a bill introduced for the purpose of placing the WRA under the administrative control of the War Department. The subcommittee opened its investigation in late January with hearings in Washington, D.C. Following these hearings in the nation's capital, Chandler and a special investigator travelled to the field and continued the investigation at a number of the relocation centers. The last formal public hearing was conducted by Chandler at Phoenix, Arizona, on March 8.

From the public relations standpoint, the investigation took on special significance since it occurred simultaneously with the registration program in the relocation centers. Statements attributed to the subcommittee chairman and others regarding the percentage of negative answers at some of the centers to Question 28 were widely published "without any indication of the background of registration or the climate of human emotion in which it was taking place." The impression created in the minds of the American public by these comments was "that a heavy proportion of the people in relocation centers were actively disloyal to the United States and basically loyal to the Emperor of Japan." Thus, a significant portion of the nation's press and public "became increasingly critical of WRA's policies governing relocation of the evacuated people and operation of the relocation centers."

The subcommittee report itself, however, expressed "only moderate disapproval of WRA activities," and it did not recommend placement of the agency in the War Department. In its final report, approved by the full Committee on Military Affairs on May 7 but not released until July 16, the subcommittee made four basic recommendations were :

1. That the draft law be made to apply to all Japanese in the same manner as to all other citizens and residents of the United States.

2. That those who answered 'No" to the loyalty question and those otherwise determined to be disloyal to the United States be forthwith placed in an internment camp, and that such determination should be made at the earliest possible date; and that the cases of those asking for repatriation should be disposed of at the earliest possible date.

3. That the loyal able-bodied Japanese be allowed to go out to work under proper supervision at the earliest possible time, in the areas where they will be accepted, and where the Army and Navy authorities consider it safe for them to go. . . .

4. That the proper, necessary Executive and departmental orders be issued to immediately make effective the policies outlined under Recommendations Nos 1 and 3. [31]

On July 3 WRA Director Myer testified before the Chandler subcommittee in executive session and approved California Senator Sheridan Downey's resolution for segregation of "disloyal" evacuees prior to its introduction in the U.S. Senate. Three days later, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 166, asking the President of the United States to order immediate segregation of "disloyal" persons of Japanese ancestry and calling for a public statement on conditions in relocation centers and plans for future WRA operations. [32]

During June 1943, the House Special Committee on Un-American Activities appointed a subcommittee to conduct an investigation of war relocation centers and WRA relocation and segregation policies, as well as evidence of subversion and disloyalty among the evacuee population. The subcommittee was composed of John M. Costello of California, chairman, Herman P. Eberharter of Pennsylvania, and Karl E. Mundt of South Dakota. Led by Congressman Costello who was determined to prove that the WRA was "coddling" disloyal evacuees in the relocation centers, the hearings began on June 8 with sensational anti-Japanese witnesses. Following its highly-publicized investigation during which it was critical of WRA policies, the committee recommended on September 30, 1943:

1. That the War Relocation Authority's belated announcement of its intention of segregating the disloyal from the loyal Japanese in the relocation centers be put into effect at the earliest possible moment.

2. That a board composed of representatives of War Relocation Authority and the various intelligence agencies of the Federal Government be constituted with full powers to investigate evacuees who apply for release from the centers and to pass finally upon their applications.

3. That the War Relocation Authority inaugurate a thorough-going program of Americanization for those Japanese who remain in the centers.The hearings of the Special Committee, as well as those of the Chandler committee, served as a catalyst to spur WRA efforts, already underway, to segregate the "disloyal" evacuees under its charge into a separate center. [33]

Segregation Program

The idea of separating the evacuated people into two groups on the basis of their "fundamental loyalties" stemmed back to the earliest days of the government's evacuation program. During the spring of 1942 Lieutenant Commander K. D. Ringle, Military Attache for the WRA from Naval Intelligence, prepared recommendations for segregation of those evacuees determined to be "disloyal." He urged the agency to conduct a segregation program based on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of "disloyal" evacuees would be found among the Kibei and their alien parents. Under his proposal, all Kibei should be questioned by administrative boards in the relocation centers and "called upon to declare and demonstrate where their natural sympathies lay." This early recommendation for the military's desire to divide persons of Japanese ancestry based on "loyalty," and especially singling out the Kibei for such segregation, would continue to be a theme that military authorities emphasized throughout 1942. [34]

In mid-December 1942 DeWitt proposed a more draconian plan for segregation. His plan envisioned a surprise move by military authorities in which designated evacuees would be gathered, placed aboard trains, and moved to the Poston relocation center, where evacuees not to be segregated would then be removed. The people to be segregated would include those who wished repatriation or expatriation; parolees from detention or internment camps to relocation centers; those with "evaluated" police records during their confinement in assembly or relocation centers; others whom the intelligence services identified as "potentially dangerous;" and immediate families of segregants or wished to join them. The plan, if implemented, would have affected approximately 60,000 persons, or more than half of the evacuee population in the relocation centers. [35]

The WRA, although itself considering segregation, objected to DeWitt's drastic proposals, because they suggested segregating by category and called for secrecy, military control, cancellation of normal relocation center activities, and raised the probability of rioting and bloodshed. Three steps already under way would, the WRA hoped, eliminate the need for segregation: the indefinite leave program; Justice Department custody for aliens whom the WRA believed should be interned; and an isolation center at Leupp for relocation center "troublemakers."

During the spring of 1943, however, pressures from the aforementioned Congressional investigations, War Department officials, and the Japanese American Citizens League, coupled with the larger-than-expected negative reaction to the registration program, provided the backdrop for a WRA-administered segregation program. From the beginning, however, the WRA took the position "that such a separation would have to be made with the utmost care and only after painstaking consideration of each individual case." Thus, once the registration program had been completed and the results had been tabulated, the WRA was "in position for the first time to undertake a really sound and equitable program of segregation."

Several developments indicated "the desirability of such a program" by May 1943. First, the disturbances at Manzanar and Poston in late 1942, together with the turmoil at Tule Lake and other relocation centers during the registration program in early 1943, demonstrated "that serious social tensions at the centers would doubtless continue and perhaps intensify as long as people of sharply diverging loyalties remained quartered close together." Second, many of the evacuees "whose loyalties lay with Japan — those, for example, who had requested repatriation — wanted nothing so much as to remain secluded for the duration of the war." Third, the "admixture of a disloyal minority in the population at relocation Centers was undoubtedly confusing the public mind about the loyalties of the entire group." Once "the patently disloyal had been weeded out," the WRA felt that the "problem of gaining public acceptance for relocation of the remainder would likely be greatly simplified." [36]

At a meeting of the project directors at WRA headquarters in Washington in late May 1943, the major point of discussion was a segregation program. Considerable attention was given to the fact that both "loyal" and "disloyal" elements in the centers were pressing for segregation as a way of alleviating the mounting tensions resulting from the turmoil in the aftermath of the registration program. When a final vote was taken at the end of this meeting, the overwhelming consensus of opinion was for segregation. By a vote of ten to one the final obstacle in the way of another forced movement of Japanese Americans had been cleared. All that remained was the development of procedures for the implementation of the program. The targeted groups and individuals to be segregated included repatriates and expatriates; those with records indicating subversive activities; those who answered "No" to Question 28 or provided seriously qualified answers to the question; and passive resisters. [37]

One of the initial problems faced by WRA administrators in connection with segregation was to find a place where the segregants might be quartered. As early as November 1942, the WRA attempted to find a suitable site for housing repatriates apart from other evacuees, but the search had been unsuccessful. By June 1943, however, the population of the ten relocation centers had dropped to the point where it was possible to designate one of them as a segregation center and to transfer the non-segregant evacuees residing in that center to several of the others. After further consideration, Tule Lake in northern California was selected on July 15 as the segregation center for four principal reasons:

1. It was one of the largest of the relocation centers with a capacity of approximately 16,000.

2. It contained extensive acreage readily available for agriculture and thus could provide the segregants with numerous work opportunities.

3. Its resident population contained a greater proportion of potential segregants than any other center.

4. It was one of the two centers lying in the evacuated zone and special restrictions imposed by the Western Defense Command made it less desirable than other centers for use as a relocation center. [38]

Whereas the registration program in the relocation centers had been implemented hastily amid confusion and turmoil, planning for the segregation program "was complete and practical." A "Manual of Evacuee Transfer Operations" was prepared by the WRA Solicitor's Office which set forth "a uniform conception of objectives and procedures, outlining a flexible plan of organization of the work entailed at the projects and providing the means of uniformity in essential detail while allowing latitude in project organization to accommodate special circumstances." The procedures "recognized the need of a well-informed staff and a well-informed resident population."

Director Myer and key members of the WRA's Washington staff met with the project directors and their principal staff members at a segregation conference held in Denver, Colorado, on July 26-27, 1943. The purpose of the conference was "to clarify by discussion and unify interpretation of the segregation policy."

At the conference, WRA Solicitor Philip Glick discussed the manner in which those to be segregated would be screened. Three separate types of 'hearings" would be used at each relocation center: segregation, welfare, and leave clearance. The function of the segregation hearings was

to determine that the man really said 'No" to question 28 and knew what it meant and intended to say "No" and still wants to say "No". Or that he refused to register, that he really wants to be Japanese, that the refusal to register was an evidence of his wanting to be Japanese, or that his failure to answer question 28 represents a desire to be Japanese.

The welfare hearings would

be held with the whole family. They will follow the segregation hearing and be held only with families of the segregants. The purpose of the welfare meetings will be to help the evacuees make a choice between centers, answer their travel questions, help them with arranging routine baggage check outs, etc.

The leave clearance hearings were

designed to be as complete an investigation as we can make to enable the director to determine whether a definite leave should be given or whether the person should be interned for the duration. This is a serious problem. Washington will send a docket if available. . . . the Leave Clearance Board will then hold exhaustive hearings, getting a written statement from the evacuee. The ideal way to do this would be to segregate no one until leave clearance hearings had been given, but we can't wait. We have to accomplish the mass segregation of those we are reasonably sure need to be segregated now. We are assuming that the repatriates and expatriates can be segregated now and the 'No's' can be segregated after a hearing to determine what the persons meant. For all others, we don't feel sure enough of our judgment to segregate and to deny indefinite leave unless we do complete elaborate leave clearance hearings. Hearings on them will be completed after segregation and we can determine then whether we have made a mistake. We are recognizing that mistakes will be made however careful we may be. [39]

An official pamphlet entitled, Segregation of Persons of Japanese Ancestry in Relocation Centers, was published by the WRA in August 1943 for distribution to all evacuees and WRA personnel in the ten relocation centers. According to the pamphlet, segregation was for

Those persons of Japanese ancestry now in relocation centers [who] have had the opportunity to state their individual choices and to back their statements by their actions. . . . one of the important sources of information which will be considered will be the answer given by each individual to Question 28 in the registration conducted in each relocation center during February and March, 1943.

The segregation manual outlined the groups of evacuees that would have to attend the segregation, welfare, and leave clearance hearings. Four groups were designated:

Group I. Persons who will be designated for segregation without further hearing. This group includes those persons who made formal application for repatriation or expatriation before July 1, 1943, and did not retract their applications before that date.

Group II. Those persons who, on the strength of their answers to Question 28 or their refusal to answer the question, would appear to be loyal to Japan rather than to the United States. Each of these persons will be asked to appear before a Board of Review for Segregation which will ascertain whether the evidence of pro-Japanese loyalty correctly represents the attitude of the individual. This group includes those who answered "No" to Question 28 and who did not change their answers to "Yes" before July 15, 1943; those who refused to register; those who registered but did not answer Question 28.

The hearings before the Board of Review will be comparatively brief. Those persons found by the Board to continue to hold to their pro-Japanese views will be designated for segregation. Those who sign a statement of loyalty to or sympathy with the United States at the hearings will reclassified to Group III for further hearings on eligibility for leave clearance.

Group III. Those persons who may have stated their loyalty to or sympathy with the United States, but whose loyalty or sympathy is in doubt because of previous statements or because of other evidence. This group includes:

a. Those reclassified from Group II.

b. Those who answered "No" to Question 28 at the time of registration but who changed their answers to "Yes" before July 15, 1943.

c. Those who qualified their affirmative answers to Question 28.

d. Those who requested repatriation or expatriation but retracted their requests before July 1, 1943.

e. Those about whom there is other information indicating lack of allegiance to the United States.

f. Those who have been denied leave by the Director.

Persons in Group III as outlined above will be given hearings by the Leave Section at the relocation center with sufficient thoroughness to enable the Leave Section to determine the true loyalty of each individual, and to decide whether or not he should be declared eligible for leave.

Group IV. Those who are eligible for leave. (Not to be segregated). [40]

In August 1943 a special review board composed of WRA appointed personnel members was established at each relocation center to conduct individual hearings for those persons who had answered the loyalty question in the negative or had failed or refused to answer it. Only those persons who filed applications for repatriation or expatriation to Japan and, as of July 1, 1943, had not retracted them were consigned to the segregation center at Tule Lake without an individual hearing. Each person who had given a negative answer (or none at all) to the loyalty question was asked if he wished to change his answer. If he said that he did not wish to change, the conversation was terminated. On the other hand, if he said that he wanted to change to an affirmative answer, he was questioned extensively as to his motives for changing, and at the close of the hearing the board made a recommendation to the project director for disposal of the case.

Despite the consequences, most evacuees stuck by their original statements and the rehearing process during the summer of 1943 at the relocation centers registered mostly grief, disappointment, and anger. Numerous Issei professed "disloyalty" as a way of getting back to California or of avoiding release. Many Kibei chose Tule Lake out of frustration with official distrust of their group. Others had no choice; they were family members — elderly, children, or handicapped — who could not leave their relatives. A number of evacuees already at Tule Lake embraced "disloyalty" to avoid moving again. [41]

On August 19, 1943, a WRA field station was established at Fort Douglas, Utah, to serve as liaison between the Ninth Service Command of the Army, which was handling the transportation for the segregation program, and WRA officials both in Washington and at the relocation centers. Prior to the first entrainment, a two-day conference was conducted at Fort Douglas, during which all military personnel, train commanders, mess and medical officers, and other staff members received detailed instruction regarding transportation operations.

Between September 13 and October 11, 1943, 33 train trips transported 15,148 evacuees, 6,289 from Tule Lake to other centers and 8,559 to Tule Lake. Each train trip of segregants was accompanied by a military detachment of 50 persons and a WRA staff member whose duty it was to be alert to safety measures, take necessary health and sanitary precautions, answer questions, and delegate to evacuee train monitors and coach captains responsibilities for getting volunteers to work en route and for keeping the railway cars in a sanitary condition. Evacuee volunteers served the regular meals prepared by army cooks, operated the auxiliary diners which furnished meals for the ill and infirm in sleeping cares, and maintained a high standard of sanitation and neatness in the coaches, kitchens, lavatories, and diners. Car mothers looked after children, and formula girls assisted the Army nurses in the preparation of formulas and infant diets. Arrangements for meals en route were made by the Army, with the WRA supplying perishables, fuel for gasoline stoves, and ice for refrigeration. In the course of these train movements, 129,846 meals were served. The Army, at the urging of the WRA, attempted to provide for the comfort and well-being of the aged, sick, expectant mothers, and mothers with small babies. Sickness en route was kept to a minimum, and no deaths or births took place on the trains. Six persons were removed from trains for hospitalization. No case of unrest, violence, disorderly conduct, or intentional resistance was observed by military personnel or WRA train riders on the trains. In view of wartime travel conditions, the service of the railroads was reportedly "excellent in respect to both equipment and schedules." While some trains were delayed in departure beyond their scheduled times, only two reached their destinations later than scheduled.

With one exception the program was conducted according to plan. It was found that housing at Tule Lake could not accommodate the total number of segregants. Consequently, the transfer of approximately 1,900 people from Manzanar was postponed until additional housing units could be constructed. When it became apparent that the movement of the Manzanar people would be delayed until early 1944, one trip was scheduled in early October to move 297 of the Manzanar segregants whose health required that they make the trip before the onslaught of severe winter weather.

During February 21-26, 1944, the second transfer movement of evacuees — 1,876 persons on four trains — from Manzanar to Tule Lake was accomplished. A third transfer movement of evacuees from Jerome, Rohwer, Granada, Heart Mountain, Minidoka, and Gila River to Tule Lake took place on May 4-25, 1944, when 1,654 persons were transferred via four special trains and two special cars on regular trains. [42]

Additional individual segregation hearings continued at the relocation centers, thus ensuring that small contingents of segregants were sent to Tule Lake from time to time. Others would be sent as they failed to convince Director Myer, or his authorized representatives, that they were "loyal" and should be granted leave clearance. All told, the later transfers moved 249 more residents out of Tule Lake, while 3,614 additional segregants transferred in. Altogether, some 6,000 evacuees remained at Tule Lake. Meanwhile, Tule Lake was being physically transformed into a segregation center. A double eight-foot barbed wire fence was erected, the military guard was increased to a battalion, and six tanks were lined up conspicuously on the center's perimeter. [43]

The Solicitor's Office was instrumental in establishing an Appeals Board at Tule Lake for handling cases in which persons denied leave clearance and transferred to Tule Lake might feel that "justice had miscarried." A panel of members for the Appeals Board, consisting of prominent citizens not connected with the WRA, was established, and hearings before the board were set for 1944. The Appeals Board, however, served only in an advisory capacity; the authority to grant or deny leave clearance rested in the final analysis solely with the Director of the WRA. Twenty-four appeals were made prior to June 30, 1944, and were scheduled to be heard by the Appeals Board in July. [44]

While embarking on the segregation program, the federal government also undertook measures to exchange nationals with the Japanese government. On September 2, 1943, the ship Gripsholm sailed from New York for Japan under an exchange of nationals arranged by the State Department, carrying 314 passengers from relocation centers, 149 of whom were American citizens. [45]

During fiscal year 1944, there were 8,981 requests by persons of Japanese ancestry for repatriation and expatriation to Japan, raising the total number of effective requests to 15,366. The WRA reported that a "marked increase in the number of requests for repatriation and expatriation "has followed every major change in government policy affecting evacuees." About 10,000 of the requests

on file were made during or immediately following crises brought about by the Army and leave clearance registration which was conducted in the spring of 1943, the segregation activities of the summer and fall, and the Army announcement on January 20, 1944, that Nisei were to be inducted under Selective Service procedures.

A large percentage of the requests appear to be based more on emotion than reason. The evacuation, the loss of economic security that went with it, and evidences of antagonism outside the centers have filled the evacuees with fear for the future, and any change of policy adds to their alarm. Few of them are motivated to request repatriation or expatriation because they have any real interest in Japan or expectation of going there. They are tired of moving and Tule Lake seems to them the one place where they may be allowed to stay for the duration of the war. They seek segregation to escape pressure to relocate under wartime conditions, to hold their families together, or to protest against the evacuation. Others who do look to a future in Japan have built up fantasies of life there with hardly any actual knowledge of the country they are choosing. [46]

Thus, the registration and segregation programs pushed evacuees in the relocation centers in opposite directions. Some were released and were heading toward a more normal, productive life in American society. To those who expressed their anger and frustration, however, the programs brought a more repressive, violent, and frustrating period at Tule Lake. The programs are appropriately remembered as one of the most divisive events in the camps. It broke apart the community of evacuees by forcing each to a declared choice — a choice that could be made only by guesswork about a very uncertain future. It was a choice that was hard to hedge, and it divided families and friends philosophically, emotionally, and finally, physically, as some went east to start new lives and others were taken off to the grimmer confinement of Tule Lake. [47]

MANZANAR HISTORIC CONTEXT

Registration Program

Program Implementation. The residents of Manzanar first learned of the forthcoming registration program when Assistant Project Director Robert Brown appeared before the Block Managers Assembly on January 29, 1943. Brown emphasized the Army's role in the registration, explaining "that just the Army would arrive and induct the members in this center." [48] Later on February 8, Brown informed the Block Managers that the Army was coming to implement the registration program and that the registration would apply to the entire center. Brown noted:

that they [the WRA] are working out a schedule by which everyone in every relocation center can register for this program. This program does make it easier to get clearance and leave permits for relocation purposes . Therefore, it serves a two-fold purpose. [49]

Lieutenant Eugene D. Bogard, Sergeant Irving V. Tierman, Sergeant James A. Hemphill, and Sergeant Kenneth M. Uni (the members of the Army team who were to supervise registration at Manzanar) were also introduced to the Block Managers on February 8. During the ensuing discussion, Throckmorton, Manzanar's project attorney who had attended the registration program training sessions at the War Department in Washington during the previous week, summarized the thrust of the registration process:

The Army plan is to form a combat unit composed entirely of Japanese-American soldiers, and those who volunteer will be given the opportunity to join this unit. He also mentioned the fact that it is under consideration as to the possibility of Japanese Americans eligible for other branches of the service, and even the AACS for the women. The citizens who are registered in this program will be given recommendation for any type of service if they qualify . . . The military officials are trying hard to get the Japanese back into normal channels. They figure that if the Japanese ate trustworthy enough to join the army, public opinion will favor the actions of the Japanese as a whole. The Army does not expect every loyal person to volunteer, but they will be given an opportunity to declare themselves loyal regardless of whether they are going to volunteer or not. This is the first step towards a solution to this whole evacuation program. [50]

In conjunction with the meetings held for the Block Managers, other meetings were held with the evacuees on a block-by-block basis. At these meetings, the Army team presented the information on its check-sheet. Reiterating the various factors that contributed to the registration program, Lieutenant Bogard stated in the Manzanar Free Press on February 11:

It is the intention of the Army to begin both the reestablishment of the Japanese population as a constructive part of the war effort and also to utilize the registration as a means of demonstrating the loyalty of the Japanese people once and for all. [51]

The actual registration program at Manzanar began on February 12, 1943, with five blocks in the center used as registration areas: one block for the Army team registration, and the other four for the female citizens and the alien males and females. The registration for the latter group was finished in four days, while the former was not completed until February 22 because of the stipulated requirement of having Questions 27 and 28 answered in front of a member of the Army team.

During the registration, the impracticality of Question 28 on the WRA form was quickly realized by the Manzanar appointed personnel. Upon consultation with the Washington Office on February 12, the Manzanar staff was "authorized to change the question in any way [they] saw fit or omit it entirely for aliens." Throckmorton informed Merritt, who was not present at Manzanar during the registration because of an appendicitis attack, what happened next:

Relying upon this verbal authorization. . . . I contacted the Negotiating Committee, consisting of 2 citizens and 2 aliens, in order to obtain its advice as to how the question should be altered for aliens. . . . We immediately agreed the question should be so formed that an alien could answer it in the affirmative without renouncing his Japanese citizenship. . . . the question that was finally agreed upon was as follows: "Are you sympathetic to the United States of America and do you agree to faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces?" [52]

The question as revised by the Manzanar staff was not used until February 13, but because of quick action, the Issei who registered on February 12 were not required to answer Question 28. At the other camps, the reaction of the project directors and their staff was one of wait-and-see for official recommendations or revisions. This waiting policy was well advised, because on the evening of February 13, WRA Director Myer sent telegrams to each center detailing the reworded question as formulated by the WRA.

Myer placed emphasis on the latitude possible in the handling of the question for aliens. He stated in the telegrams that the "substitute Question 28 may also be answered by aliens in a qualified way if they so desire." [53] When Throckmorton received the Myer telegram, he felt that the question formulated by the Manzanar staff was preferable even though he later expressed the opinion that the Manzanar form of Question 28 for aliens was "a strongly worded question." At the time, however, he felt that the Manzanar wording of the question was the best available. [54]

Rather than re-start the registration for the Issei, the Manzanar staff decided to use the question they had devised and at a later date repoll the aliens asking the question utilized at the other relocation centers. This policy was responsible for considerable confusion and misunderstanding for both the WRA and the evacuee population at Manzanar. [55]

Although the Manzanar staff anticipated that the aliens at Manzanar would be able to have a chance to answer the question as formulated in Washington, Project Director Merritt had to request permission for such action. In making this request on March 24, Merritt asked that citizens also be permitted to answer the revised question:

I cannot conscientiously refrain from bringing out this point which will now adversely affect the lives and position of so many of our people, nor can I refrain from urging upon you that we have an opportunity to recanvass the alien groups who have answered 'No" or who have answered "Yes" with qualifications, putting before them another opportunity to cancel their previous reply and answer the revised question sent out by Washington. . . . If this recanvass is permitted by you, I feel certain that we should also then allow our citizens to revise their answer. . . . [56]

At a special meeting of the Block Managers Assembly on March 30, 1943, Merritt solicited the opinion of this group on whether or not the aliens should be re-polled. According to the minutes of the meeting, Merritt explained why Manzanar had used a differently-worded question:

Mr. Merritt said that if the alien residents of Manzanar who answered "No" to Question 28 or gave a qualified answer wish to answer the question as it was asked at the other centers, he would advise the Washington authorities accordingly, and do everything possible to extend them the privilege of doing so. He explained that the reason for the different wording of Question 28 at Manzanar was due to the fact that we completed our registration in four days, and used a wording for Question 28 which was hastily made under pressure of completing the registration, and although Washington approved by telephone, this change of wording from the original wording, which was sent out from Washington gave them an entirely new wording for Question 28. Mr. Merritt stated that this matter is already causing adverse comments between the centers, and they result in unfavorable reactions. He said that for this reason he was laying the whole matter before the Block Managers to obtain their reactions and for them to obtain expression of opinion from the residents of their blocks. [57]

After discussion of Merritt's comments, the Block Managers Assembly agreed that the aliens should be given the opportunity to re-answer Question 28 based on Washington's rewording.

Approval for the re-polling was also received from Washington, and from April 12 to April 24, the 3,500 Issei at Manzanar answered the reworded loyalty question. Of this number, 3,418 or 97.68 percent of the Issei were able to answer the revised question with a "Yes' — a sharp contrast to the responses elicited during the earlier questioning.

As aforementioned, the results of the registration in the relocation centers were well below the expectations of the Army and the WRA. Instead, the number of persons who responded in the negative were surprisingly high at Jerome, Gila River, and Manzanar, and at Tule Lake a large number did not even register. At Manzanar, there were 6,897 persons of 17 years of age or over who filled out one of the two questionnaires. Of that number, 4,269, or 61.89 percent of those questioned, answered Question 28 with a "No' or a qualified answer before the re-polling of the aliens. Those who answered an unqualified "no" numbered 2,645, or 38.35 percent; while those who definitively answered "Yes" were 2,628, or 38.1 percent.

The answers to Question 27 on the Army questionnaire by male citizens at Manzanar also revealed a lack of interest in volunteering for military service. Only 94 Nisei out of a possible 1,909, or about 4 percent of those canvassed, eventually joined the 100th Battalion/442nd RCT. Of the 1,909 total registered, 960, or 52 percent of the male citizen group, answered Question 28 in the negative.

Even though Question 28 on the WRA questionnaire had been revised by the Manzanar staff largely on account of the Issei, they still reacted to it negatively. Of the 3,356 alien males and females registered at Manzanar, 1,978, or 59 percent, answered Question 28 in the negative or with qualifications. The female citizens also reacted negatively to Question 28. Of the 1,632 female citizens who answered the question, 731, or 45 percent, answered "No" or qualified their answer. [58]

Thus, at Manzanar a majority of both the male citizens and Issei, as well as nearly half of the female citizens, had answered "No" or qualified their answer to the "loyalty" question Bothered by this development, WRA officials undertook a series of studies and investigations to determine the reasons for this unexpected evacuee reaction to the registration program.

WRA and Army Investigations of Evacuee Reaction to Registration. In their haste to rectify the weighty problem of Japanese American loyalty, the Army and the WRA had underestimated the high number of negative responses that would be made during the registration program. For the Army, the registration results appeared to have corroborated their long-held contention that "disloyal" Japanese Americans made necessary an evacuation of all Americans of Japanese ancestry from the west coast. The strong negative response, and especially that of the Nisei, however, appears to have bewildered the WRA. At Manzanar, Lucy Adams, head of the Community Services Section and one of the principal appointed personnel in administering the program, noted:

All of us I think have been startled by the sweeping repudiation of loyalty to this country, or of hope of any future here. You expected it among the Kibei, but not among the citizens. And to find, by the hundreds, products of our high schools and colleges who've never been in Japan answering "No" to the loyalty question and adding "Want to go to Japan,' and listening to the reasons they gave, was shocking. Our first reaction, mine anyway, was anger. I wanted to wash my hands of the whole traitorous bunch and consign them to any concentration camp the public wanted to set up. [59]

In order to understand the reaction to the registration, both the Army and the WRA undertook analytic studies of the program's results. At Manzanar the first analysis of the registration program was provided by Project Director Merritt. In a letter written to WRA Director Myer on February 17, Merritt summarized his understanding of the causes for the negative responses by male citizens to Question 27.

There are, of course, the pressures of the older people who have answered "No" to their loyalty question, and there is the threat of physical violence which lies hidden in certain groups, particularly in the Kibei group who are openly anti-American. [60]

Merritt's singling out the Kibei as "anti-American" and as a primary factor for negative answers was echoed by Lucy Adams less than a week later. In a letter on February 23, she observed:

Another group, including some of the more highly educated ones, has made up its mind that the price in racial discrimination which they'll have to pay to stay in America is too high, and that the only worthwhile future is in Japan. . . . this group, which includes most of the Kibei, is the dangerous one and I believe the source of a lot of the intimidation and the propaganda.

Adams also echoed the project director's solution for the reluctant male citizen volunteers:

I agree with Mr. Merritt that the soundest thing, and the only one that will prevent the infection of disloyalty from spreading is to make them all immediately subject to the draft, and those who refuse to take the soldier's oath can then be dealt with under the penalties provided. [61]

While Merritt and Adams viewed disloyal groups, such as the Kibei, as subversive forces that worked against the registration program, the first compendium of reasons for the answers to the "loyalty registration' at Manzanar developed by a "representative group" of evacuee residents of the camp did not list such groups. In a report compiled on February 26, this evacuee group listed eleven reasons for the negative responses:

1. Inability to separate loyalty question from question on volunteering for service in the Army

2. Belief that there is no future in this country for Japanese or Americans of Japanese ancestry

3. Bitterness and rancor left from experience of evacuation

4. Family pressure and family ties

5. Fear that answer to "Yes" on the loyalty question would lose them any rights to Japanese citizenship which they may have

6. Emotional confusion

7. Broken promises made by the Army when evacuation first took place, and by the government

8. Age and lack of leadership among Nisei

9. Failure of Issei to understand the program

10. Rumor that answer on loyalty question would determine the Camp to which individuals would be sent, and anxiety of families to remain together

11. Hope that answer to "No" of loyalty question would prevent their being taken into the Army. [62]

On the same day that this report was issued another summarization of reasons for the negative answers was presented by the Army team at Manzanar. In the Army summary, many of the causes listed by the Manzanar evacuee group were reiterated. However, the army pinpointed several additional reasons. The Army list included:

1. Influence of parents

2. Bitterness and resentment caused by the evacuation and treatment since

3. Belief that Japan will win the war and a desire to be on the winning side

4. Threats by agitators; propaganda and rumors

5. Belief that racial discrimination will make any future in the United States too difficult, and that a return to Japan is the only solution

6. Lack of faith in the good intentions of the government

7. Bitterness left by Manzanar riot

8. Previous lack of assimilation in American society

9. Belief that the answer "no" would keep the individual from being drafted, and possibly insure his return to Japan

10. Ignorance and misunderstandings

In addition, the Army report listed three reasons for the scarcity of Nisei volunteers for active duty in the armed forces. These included:

1. Opposition to a Combat Unit composed of Japanese-Americans, because it continues the racial discrimination and segregation which they feel is the root of their troubles.

2. Fear that their families remaining in the Center will be ostracized and possibly terrorized if their sons volunteer.

3. Family pressure against volunteering - even when the parents are loyal.

The army report concluded that "with more than 90 percent of the persons interviewed, the answers given, and the reasons assigned for them, were genuine, at the moment. [63]

The latter statement echoed the opinion that Merritt had expressed some days earlier regarding the validity of the registration results. The project director had observed in his aforementioned letter to Myer on February 17:

What now is most needed is the creation of policies to meet the conditions that are disclosed by the first valid conclusions we have ever been able to reach on the matter of loyalties. [64]

Thus, the first administrative reactions to the registration program results were a sense of shocked disbelief followed by generally repressive proposals. Finally, the results of the registration were accepted. Certain groups and factors, however, appear to have become pinpointed as the principal causes of the negative answers at Manzanar.

In another letter to WRA Director Myer on March 5, Merritt again pointed out the Kibei as "troublemakers" who played a significant role in the large number of negative answers to the loyalty question at Manzanar. He stated:

Among those answering "No" to Question 28 one group stands out. These are the Kibei with no other members of the family in this country, all of whose education and most of whose lives have been in Japan. . . . we found only one of these among the "Yes' answers, and he had changed from "No" to "Yes". This is a group which should be carefully checked, and probably included in any plans for segregation.

Merritt continued by explaining that other groups, or "gangs,' were also responsible for "No' answers:

Among young men between the ages of 17 and 20, the strongest influence governing answers to Question 28 appears to be the gang rather than the parents. A sampling. . . . shows that in the cases of some of these gangs, the parents and sisters often answered "Yes" to 28, while the boys without exception said "No," and often added "want to go back to Japan". [65]

While Merritt believed that "gang" or peer pressure was the primary cause for a "No" answer for young men and Nisei in general, he believed that family ties were the greatest influence for 'No' answers. In another letter to Myer on February 27, he noted:

The motives lying behind the "No" answer of citizens stem largely from the attitude of the father who is a non-citizen. . . . the father signs "No" on his question of loyalty in the spirit of self-preservation. . . . the tradition of family unity being the basis of Japanese philosophy of life, the father, mother and son, therefore, will sign "No" to the loyalty question.

The project director also pointed out that the failure of the registration program was due in part to administrative mismanagement and lack of sensitivity to a complex situation. [66]

Throckmorton described this administrative failure in a letter to Merritt on March 2. He noted:

In the first place, the program was launched without sufficient preliminary education. To virtually all of the evacuees, the Army was a tough agency, personified by General DeWitt and the Military Police, which had led them into assembly and relocation centers. . . . there is also the factor that we were not allowed sufficient time to make an adequate presentation of the plan. . . . once registration was started we had to devote most of our energies to the procedure of registration and we were able to deny rumors and get out further information only by means of printed bulletins.

Throckmorton also analyzed the causes for "No" answers on a generational basis. For the Issei, he listed two principal reasons. The first was that "the Issei do not now plan to relocate. . . . on the contrary, most of them are at present planning to return to Japan when the war is over." The second reason given by the project attorney was linked with the first, in that the Issei who would return to Japan hoped that life would be financially easier there. Thus, "most of the Issei, primarily from economic motives, answered the loyalty question 'No.'"

Throckmorton also listed two major reasons why Nisei said "No." The first was a protest over the loss of their citizenship rights and discriminatory treatment, while the second was the "family tie." He commented further:

Most of the Issei are, at this time, planning to return to Japan after the duration and, generally speaking, they insist that the children go with them. The children accept the obligation to support the parents in their declining years and, for this reason, they are forced to plan for a future in Japan. . . . most of us, who have worked with the registration at Manzanar, are of the opinion that this is the main reason why many of the Nisei have answered the loyalty question negatively. [67]

On April 3, 1943, Morris E. Opler, the recently-arrived Community Analyst at Manzanar who had the task of defining trends, themes, and factors that had caused problems in the camp, issued his first study on the registration program at the center. In his report, he also placed emphasis on the family as a determining factor to explain Nisei answers to the loyalty question:

Once their parents. . . . determined that they would answer "No," the children were faced with a grave problem. . . . the pressure upon the children was intolerable. . . . the feeling of loyalty to the old people and the resolve to share their fortunes and keep the family united was the dominant factor in no answers of citizens.

Opler also introduced an element of skepticism in relationship to the accuracy of the registration program. He noted that

for all realistic purposes and in spite of the intentions of the framers of the questions, it is very doubtful whether these questions should be called loyalty questions at all. In a good many cases (the great majority, I suspect) the final decision had relatively little to do with affection for Japan or disaffection for the United States.

In addressing the question of why the Issei had forced their children to answer "No" to the loyalty question, Opler identified two major factors to explain the Issei's rationale:

In my judgment the element of protest dominated any element of affirmation. It was not interest in Japan, but blind resentment over discriminatory treatment which entered prominently into the decision; [and]. . . . the loss of confidence in themselves and in the American public which evacuation has entailed.

The Issei, according to Opler, had lost confidence in their ability to manage their lives "outside" of the centers. This was mainly due to the fact that the average age of the Issei was 56, too old they thought to restart their economic lives, and that many Issei had lost all of their money, land, and business as a result of evacuation. Any Issei who still retained sums of money was afraid of losing it in a further move or as a result of relocation. The fear of relocation was caused by the nature of the questionnaire filled in by the Issei which had been titled, "Application for Leave Clearance." Many respondents usually

assumed that if they answered all questions, and particularly Question 28, in a manner satisfactory to the authorities, they would be sent out to face the competitive system in the outside world at this time.

Issei fears and insecurities had thus mandated their "No" answers as well as the "No" answers of their children.

Opler examined the question of why so few Nisei had said "Yes" to Question 27 relating to volunteering for the military. The chief reason for this development, according to his analysis, was the argument presented by the male citizens that asking them to volunteer for the armed services from behind barbed wire was "superpatriotism expected of them" that oddly contrasted "with the abridgement" of their "citizenship rights." Another reason was that many of the male citizens were Kibei who had left Japan to avoid serving in the Japanese Imperial Army, and now they felt little inclination to be members of the U.S. Army. In addition, the attitude of Sergeant Uni, the only Japanese American on the army team at Manzanar, had contributed to the "No" answers. The sergeant was a person

who came from Hawaii [and] whose antipathy to Terminal Island and the residents of Little Tokyo was outspoken and most vigorous. We had many substantiated reports that young men would come before him at the time he was writing answers to various questions, and the sergeant would say, 'Another Terminal Islander — I suppose you are another 'No-No' boy and want to go to Japan?' Careful examination of the registration documents will show that in many cases 'wants to go to Japan' was written in the handwriting of the sergeant and that the person being interviewed vigorously denies that any such thing was ever said.

Opler concluded his report by stating that his study

by no means does justice to the complexity of the situation. But it indicates, I hope, that the "no" of a resident of Manzanar, like that of some young ladies, should not always be taken at face value. It suggests, I hope, that a complex situation cannot be properly described by a word of limited meaning, such as 'loyal' or 'disloyal'. Most of all, I trust I have made clear my conviction that the problems of Manzanar are not be settled with an adding machine. [68]

On May 21 Lieutenant Bogard, head of the Army recruiting team at Manzanar, refuted Opler's basic contention that the registration did not assess evacuee loyalty. He stated:

Attempts have been made. . . . to minimize the importance of the numerous negative answers of aliens and citizens at Manzanar to the 27th and 28th questions on the Selective Service and WRA Questionnaire. . . . it is believed by the Army Team that most of the decisions made by both the aliens and citizens definitely indicated their affection or disaffection for the United States.

Bogard also questioned the validity of Opler's opinion that the "loss of confidence of the Issei in their future and rehabilitation in America" had been a determining element of affirmation, thus making interest in Japan a matter of secondary importance in a decision to answer 'No" to the loyalty question. He explained:

It seems apparent that if the Japanese aliens do not believe their future and rehabilitation in America is possible, their loyalty likewise does not lie with the United States but rather with Japan, and their negative response to the 28th question truly reflects their disaffection for the United States.

He did agree, however, that parental pressure was responsible for the decisions of many Nisei:

The negative attitude of a majority of the parents in the Center was, in the opinion of the Army team, the strongest single reason causing male citizens to answer "no" to the loyalty questions The parents opposition to the War department's program was based on the deep-seated belief that Japan will win the war. Such matters as 'discrimination', 'harsh evacuation treatment,' etc., were used by the parents and Kibei to stimulate resentment in the children. [69]

Thus, both the WRA and the Army arrived at similar conclusions concerning the reasons for the highly negative response of Manzanar's evacuees to the registration program. These common factors, most of which applied to the other nine relocation centers, included fear of the world "outside" of the center, fear of making a living on the 'outside," and protests that their constitutional rights had been abrogated by the government. All that remained was the decision about what to do concerning the evacuees who gave the negative answers. [70]

Two alternative explanations for the results of the registration program were proposed by a nine-member panel of Manzanar appointed personnel, consisting primarily of heads of departments and sections including Opler. While the principal concerns of this group were directed toward an appraisal of the Nisei's plight, the alternatives they outlined for the WRA on May 18 were applicable to all Japanese Americans who had answered "No" to the loyalty question:

For some time, and particularly during the past few weeks, the newspapers, the congressional record and radio programs have been filled with references to the alleged 'disloyalty' of a substantial portion of young Americans of Japanese ancestry. It is charged that a particularly large proportion of the Nisei or American born persons of Japanese ancestry at Manzanar have 'proved' themselves 'disloyal.' The charges come from political figures who have toured a Relocation Center for a few hours or who have obtained their information from a prejudiced and disgracefully untrustworthy west coast press.

There is no evidence that any of those who talk so loudly or violently about the 'loyalty' or 'disloyalty' of the Nisei has ever come to know one of these young people, or has taken the pains to inform himself concerning the difficulties and perplexities with which we have confronted these young citizens. Yet these poorly informed politicians and professional patrioteers, with the noisy blessings of every organization which belongs to the extreme reactionary and fascistic fringe to spur them on, are riding the crest of war emotionalism and are demanding penalties and reprisals of one sort or another against those who they label 'disloyal.' Their proposals run an ominous gamut; from segregation of those termed 'disloyal,' through the establishment of strict, Nazi-type concentration camps for them, to the cancellation of their American citizenship and their deportation to Japan.

We speak for the Nisei. We speak for these young Americans because we believe that every American citizen must receive a fair hearing and just treatment in his native land if citizenship as such is to survive as a meaningful and dynamic concept. We speak for the Nisei because by doing so we strike out against the dangerous and un-American forces which have launched an unscrupulous campaign to discredit them. . . . Those who agitate for segregation, concentration camps, cancellation of citizenship, deportation and the like, are the mouthpieces for one or another of equally unwholesome and disreputable groups.

We have our answers now. We can make of them what we will. . . . we can take these answers literally and translate them into segregation or into legal penalties. . . we can loose the floodgates of fear, and watch the troubled waters engulf minority group after minority group until one-third of our population is viewing the other two-thirds with hostility and suspicion. We can write a black chapter in American history which will send the social historian to Nazi Germany for parallels.

Or we can act, even in time of war, like socialized human beings who have some comprehension of complex human situations. We can recognize that no setting was more unauspicious for a determination of simple loyalty than the one into which the Nisei were injected. We can recognize that the answers wrung from them under the strains and perplexities with which they were faced is no more an indication of disloyalty than medieval trials by torture were an evidence of witchcraft. No segment of our population or of any population would have answered differently in the same circumstances. A much more pressing question is that of America's loyalty to fair-play and the democracy credo. [71]

The WRA largely ignored this plea for sympathy and understanding, opting instead for segregation of the "disloyal" elements at Manzanar and the other relocation centers.

Segregation Program

Program Implementation. After the WRA segregation program was outlined, and the groups to be involved delineated, the segregation hearings began at each of the ten relocation centers in August 1943. At Manzanar, however, the WRA had "already gone into segregation, in the arrest of 26 people" following the violence at the camp on December 6, 1942. [72] Furthermore, Manzanar had already undertaken hearings for male Kibei who answered "No" on the "loyalty questionnaire" between April 15 and May 5. Thus, the initial segregation process and the Kibei hearings" had served as the focal point of the discussions held at the February and May WRA project directors' meetings dealing with segregation. As a result, Manzanar was the first center to experience "segregation," as well as the first to use hearings to determine those to be segregated based on the "loyalty registration" program.

In a May 21 report stemming from the "Kibei hearings" at Manzanar, Project Director Merritt, who feared this sizable group in his relocation center, explained the rationale for the hearings. They had been conducted because

503 of the Kibei at Manzanar answered "No" on question 28 out of the total 627 Manzanar Kibei registered by the Army Board in February 1943, inquiry into the questions of what is a Kibei and what creates this amazing percentage of apparent disloyalty, became of vital importance. There is apparently little known of this group of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. They are not the 'forgotten men', they are men who were never known or understood. As a group of possible danger and potential disloyalty, they are the product of American neglect. They represent the crux of the so-called Japanese problem. Therefore, at Manzanar. . . . a thorough and prolonged investigation of this group [was undertaken] in order that essential facts regarding them might be brought out for the guidance of any interested government agencies dealing with Kibei.

Accordingly, a "Review Board of Manzanar, consisting of Lucy Adams, Chief, Community Services; Throckmorton, project attorney; Robert L. Brown, Assistant Project Director, and Director Merritt, had been established. "Each of the 503 Kibei men who had answered No came before this Board and were interviewed at as great a length as seemed necessary in order to permit them to state their position." Merritt continued:

When the Board reviewed the 503 cases it found 138 of that number who desired to swear allegiance to the United States and forswear allegiance to the Japanese Emperor. . . . the remainder of the group, 365, or approximately 60%, express a desire to say "No" to the loyalty question and most of them added that they desired to return to Japan.

The reasons for maintaining a "No" answer at this hearing, according to Merritt, were:

1. Lack of ability to speak English and an education that is Japanese.

2. Parents or other relatives in Japan and a desire to return to them, in accordance with Japanese custom and tradition by which a son must support his parents and a family must be a unit.

3. Property in Japan owned by the family.

4. Distrust of American officials or the position of the American Government, and lack of confidence in the future of any Japanese in the United States.

Merritt recommended that those Kibei who answered "Yes" or changed to "Yes" (and were approved by the Board) be given leave clearance; those who answered "No" not be given leave clearance; and if any of the Kibei were "uncooperative," they be removed from Manzanar and placed under "military control in another center." Merritt also recommended that Congress enact legislation making it possible for dual citizens (the laws of Japan and the United States made dual citizenship possible) to divest themselves of their United States citizenship and

to protect the exercise of the rights of citizenship by requiring those, who by accident of birth, were endowed with citizenship but who have been educated in he language and institutions of a foreign land, to demonstrate their ability to speak the language of this country and display a reasonable degree of understanding with regard to the Constitution, the laws and governmental philosophies of the American people. . . .

Merritt concluded the study by stating that

the alien Japanese, proven to be dangerous and the Kibei, actually or potentially un-Americanized as shown by his statements or his record, are the two groups requiring closest attention among those of Japanese ancestry in the United States. [73]

Throckmorton, a member of the review board that conducted the Kibei Hearings" at Manzanar, concluded "that the original answers to question 28 should not be made the basis for any important action unless they are supplemented by additional information." He observed that it was "quite clear that there was a great deal of misunderstanding as to the meaning of question 28." There had also been "much pressure and confusion at the time of registration that caused people to answer question 28 not in the light of their own personal loyalty but on the basis of other considerations." [74]

The WRA's failure to understand the ramifications of those "considerations" played a major role in its initiation of a segregation program. However, the recommendation for acquisition of additional information was followed by the WRA when it determined that "segregation hearings" would be conducted. [75]

The first official mention of the pending "segregation hearings" at Manzanar was announced by Merritt at a special Block Managers meeting on July 13, 1943. Merritt noted that segregation would "commence September 1 and will probably end about October 20 or later." A report by Opler stated that "there was no demonstration of excitement on the part of the residents when they heard this announcement." A survey of first reactions indicated that the appointed personnel were "more excited and disturbed over the question of segregation than the evacuees themselves." Opler continued:

. . . . Evidently, they [appointed personnel] feel that this should be handled delicately and cautiously, and that the residents should be given the fullest information relative to the question, its implications and consequences. Realizing that their action and procedure during the February registration was hasty and that to a certain degree the issues were involved and confused at that particular time, they are now working on the assumption that if the residents are psychologically prepared they may be able to avoid the tensions and misunderstandings which they fear may possibly arise. [76]

In another report issued on July 15, Opler noted rather optimistically:

Segregation has been anticipated by many as the only means by which normal expressions can have free, unhampered outlet. . . . Segregation will dissolve the constant bickering back and forth between pro-Japanese and pro-American thinking persons. [77]

Five days later, on July 15, Opler prepared another report on segregation, summarizing the opinion of Kazuyuki Takahashi, Block Manager of Block 35. Takahashi believed that

The whole thing is that the people are sick of this uncertainty. They want some security and peace. They are going to answer anything to get in a center where they can have it. The feeling is that as long as they are going to be pushed out again they might as well go to the segregation camp and feel secure for the duration. I get the feeling that the majority of the administration is thinking in terms of how to get the people out. The residents are thinking in terms of how to remain in a center. So one side doesn't understand the other side's point of view, I guess. Don't you think that most of the aliens do not give a hoot whether they are considered loyal or disloyal by people on the outside? All they are interested in now is in living in peace and security during the war and in not getting pushed around. That will be the main thing in these answers from now on. Family unity and security is what matters to these people now.

People are getting madder and madder about relocation. . . . I suppose these people figure that after segregation there will be nothing that will hold up relocation in the loyal camps.

Takahashi also reported a rumor that reflected another concern of some evacuees at Manzanar regarding segregation. According to the "fantastic" rumor, after segregation "Japanese music, kendo, and flower making or anything that is Japanese" would not be permitted "in the loyal camps." [78]

Thus, the residents of Manzanar reacted to the first announcement of segregation with attitudes ranging from apprehension to anxious expectation."Segregation Hearings" and "Leave Clearance Hearings" were held concurrently at Manzanar during August-November 1943. The hearings stretched over a four-month period because of the number of hearings involved and the fact that many of the same Manzanar appointed personnel served on review boards for both sets of hearings. Approximately 2,550 segregation hearings for individual evacuees were held before the "Board of Review for Segregation" Of this number, about 1,000 evacuees also attended a 'Leave Clearance Hearing."

In a Summary of Segregation Program, Project Director Merritt informed the evacuee population at Manzanar of the need for segregation as determined by the WRA. He also explained that

Members of the immediate family of a person to be transferred to Tule Lake may accompany him. The immediate family includes the following persons: 1. The spouse; 2. Dependent parent, grandparents; 3. All unmarried children living in the immediate household of the family, including adult children. [79]

The decision to allow the families of segregants to accompany them to Tule Lake would have a significant impact on the retention or deletion of a "No" answer to questions of loyalty during the segregation hearings.

Robert Brown, assistant project director, and Merritt characterized the impact of this decision in the Final Report, Manzanar. They observed:

Segregation hearings were a long and painful process since Washington decreed that fathers and mothers who desired repatriation were to be segregees or that entire families might become segregees if one family member asked for segregation. Parents who were repatriates influenced as many family members as possible to join them in requesting segregation. Young men and women, and many boys and girls who never thought of themselves as anything but loyal American citizens, found themselves trapped in the family unity plea and their names appeared on the list of those to be sent to Tule Lake. . . .

Brown and Merritt explained the parents' motivation in influencing their children by saying that "Craftiness for self-protection was made the motivating factor in segregation by the majority of alien segregees. Loyalty was only a minor factor." [80]

Another reason for the "long and painful process' of the segregation hearings at Manzanar was reflected in a letter from Philip M. Glick to J. Benson Saks, who had replaced Throckmorton as project attorney on August 20. Glick noted:

. . . . you state that you have two hearing boards and that you allow yourselves approximately 30 minutes for each hearing. It is my understanding from experience reported at other centers that the great majority of those who answered "No" to Question 28 on the registration form are simply adhering to their original answers so that no lengthy interview is necessary for such persons. I wonder whether, in view of the large number of interviews which probably have to be held at Manzanar, it might not be possible to schedule the interviews at much shorter intervals with the expectation that only a few of them would require as long as 30 minutes. [81]

Saks responded to Glick on August 28, explaining that "one of the boards was probing the impalpable aspects of intent and attitude too deeply, and too much at length, and that its hearing was more nearly that contemplated for leave clearance, while the other board was moving along at a much faster clip, and with but perhaps a surface scratching of the factors that induced the original "No" answer and the factors which are controlling with the evacuees at the present time." "Where we are satisfied that we can recommend leave clearance we take the opportunity. at the segregation hearing, of so writing on the evacuee's papers and thus obviate the necessity of a later leave clearance hearing." Segregation was "explained in terms of its being an American problem and a Japanese problem." The board made "it clear that Tule Lake is to be the place for those who prefer the Japanese traditions, customs and ways of life while the other centers are for those evacuees who look to America and our ways of living. [82]

Of the approximately 2,550 segregation hearings at Manzanar, about 1,000 resulted in having evacuees change their "No" answers to "Yes" on the loyalty question. This group, along with those who had given a qualified answer to loyalty, or who had changed "No" to "Yes" before July 15 [518 evacuees] were to have leave clearance hearings. Denial of leave clearance resulted in transfer to Tule Lake. [83]

"Leave clearance hearings" had been held in the relocation centers virtually since they had opened. The "registration program," for instance, was essentially a "leave clearance hearing." With the advent of the segregation program, the WRA believed it possible to have a mass issuance of "leave" from the relocation centers based on the hearings conducted to implement the segregation process.

The "leave clearance hearings" consisted of questions related to the original "No" answer, the reasons for a change in answer, and the current status of the evacuee's attitude toward the United States. In a letter to Glick on October 4, Saks elaborated:

. . . . the Board conveys to the subject the understanding that its function is to help him state his case fully and without reservation so that the Board in Washington will have a complete and clear picture of the entire individual involved. . . . the interviews consume in the neighborhood of thirty minutes. . . . After the interview is over the Board reaches a decision as to its recommendation and records the flavor of the interview as well as any impressions gained of the subject or subjects.

Final authority to grant leave clearance resided with the Washington staff, the director supposedly reviewing and approving all requests for leave. [84]

By the end of November 1943, nearly all of the evacuees at Manzanar had gone through one or more hearings relating to the question of loyalty. The hearings relating to segregation and leave clearance, however, posed different issues relating to loyalty. On December 1, Lucy Adams reported:

In contrast to the Segregation hearings which discovered the number of people, especially young people who had given up the battle to remain American and had retreated toward Japan, the Leave Clearance hearings were concerned with people, the majority of whom after an initial repudiation or hesitancy about their loyalty have not definitely made up their minds that they wish to remain in this country and are prepared to carry out the responsibilities of citizenship.

Adams attributed this difference between the two types of hearings to the fact that the evacuees involved in "leave clearance hearings"

want intensely to be Americans and are prepared to undergo hardship and opposition and put up a fight for their birthright as citizens or as aliens prevented by law from becoming citizens but wanting to make this their home and the place where they raise their children.

Nevertheless, Adams acknowledged the effect of Japanese culture even among these evacuees, stating that the

feeling toward Japan is mixed. . . . but a majority acknowledge some tie — sometimes racial, sometimes cultural, sometimes family, since almost every family has close relatives living there, and often members of the immediate family.

Adams summed up the "leave clearance hearings" by a discussion of Question 28, the original precursor of the segregation program:

Question 28, the Board members felt, has come to be generally accepted as a fair test and the cornerstone of loyalty, and in general, in contrast to the almost unthinking way it was frequently answered at the time of registration, or until the segregation hearings the answer was sometimes changed, it now has almost the solemnity of an oath. [85]

Thus, during 1943 the evacuees at Manzanar had been subject to continuous and successive appeals to express their loyalty to America or Japan. The "loyalty registration," Kibei hearings," "segregation hearings," and the "leave clearance hearings" were all structured to discern commitment. The "welfare hearings," however, were different; their primary purpose was to aid the segregants and their families in their pending transfer to Tule Lake. As head counselor of the Community Welfare Section at Manzanar, Margaret D'Ille personally conducted these hearings. In the Final Report, Manzanar, D'Ille wrote:

Approximately 300 . . . . cases were referred to Welfare for counseling, there often being more than one interview per case. Such interviews and plans for these families necessitated joint planning between the Welfare, Education, and Health Section. [According to D'Ille, 106 were deferred for medical reasons, and 260 for other reasons.]

Family interviews often revealed widely differing points of view in the one family group. . . .

Typical questions asked in the interviews included: Would the children be able to go to school if the family segregated? Would they get the same kind of training that the children were getting in Manzanar? What effect would segregation have upon the family's future possibilities of earning a livelihood in the United States?. . . . would an expected baby be an American citizen if it was born in the segregation center? Were all segregees to be deported and when? will the children lose their American citizenship could we ever come back to California? [86]

Thus, even the "welfare hearings" were a reflection of the rumors and fears that existed in the camp as a result of one year's search for "loyalty."

At the conclusion of the "segregation hearings," more than 2,200 persons were transferred from Manzanar to Tule Lake. On October 9, 1943, 297 residents were transferred by train. This first group of segregants was composed chiefly of unattached Kibei and Issei.

Departure of the second and much larger group of segregants was delayed by the housing shortage at Tule Lake. According to the Final Report, Manzanar, 1,876 persons left Manzanar for Tule Lake on February 21, 23, 24, and 26, 1944, after additional housing at the segregation center had been made available. Family members of segregants who were seniors in high school were given the option of staying until June 1944 to complete their classwork and obtain their high school diplomas. A few family members refused to follow their families to Tule Lake and were allowed to stay in Manzanar.

After the second group of segregants left for Tule Lake, many evacuees at Manzanar who had not previously asked for repatriation filed requests. Some had originally answered "No" to the loyalty question, later had changed their answers to "Yes," and had been given leave clearance. Some cancelled their applications after several weeks, but other families filed new applications. Transfer of these evacuees to Tule Lake, however, was prevented by the lack of housing space. The segregation center was still not ready to receive any additional residents when the exclusion ban was lifted on January 2, 1945. Thus, a third segregation movement from Manzanar to Tule Lake never took place. [87]

WRA Investigations of Evacuee Reaction to Segregation Program. Although the various review boards at Manzanar prepared little consistent analytic studies of the segregation program at the camp. Morris E. Opler, the Community Analyst who attended many of the hearings, prepared a number of detailed studies on the WRA's "loyalty registration" and segregation programs in the camp. While there had been disturbances in some relocation centers before the registration program in 1943, it was the evacuees' negative response and resistance to the "loyalty registration" that led to establishment of the WRA's Community Analysis Section and that group's subsequent concentration on the issues engendered in the registration and segregation programs. [88]

In his first report concerning the segregation program on July 16, 1943, Opler observed that the "two largest groups which will be affected by segregation are the repatriates and their families and those citizens (kibei and nisei) who either maintain their 'No' answer to the loyalty question or whose behavior or record do not convince the review board that they are interested in the United States rather than in Japan"

Opler also provided his personal opinion on the purpose of segregation. He stated:

. . . . I feel that the effect of the segregation program on the center, practically and psychologically, will depend in large measure upon whether the definition of segregation. . . . is actually observed. It makes all the difference in the world whether those segregated are persons who really, by trustworthy standards, have indicated their desire to be identified with Japan rather than with the United States or whether some mechanical and arbitrary means is adopted which throws people of various interests into this category.

In the report, Opler also addressed the rationale for the "No" answers given during the already concluded "Kibei hearings." He observed:

. . . . it is well known that many of these kibei, by giving their "no" answers in the first instance and by holding to it, are much more interested in avoiding the military service which they believe is in the offing for the technically 'loyal' than in demonstrating affection for Japan. Many of them came to this country during Japan's expansionist and military phase rather than serve in the Japanese army. A large number of them are cultural intermediates without the strongest ties to either country. That most of them lean toward Japan in their sympathies now is due to the harsh treatment and suspicion to which they have been subjected in this country since the war began. In other words, question 28 has not been answered on its merits by a considerable number of individuals of this group (and any others, incidently) but has been used as a counter with which to deal with the selective service machinery.

Opler foresaw some of the side issues that would affect the subsequent segregation and leave clearance hearings. In his discussion on the possibility of forced resettlement, which stemmed in large part from the registration program, Opler understood that

this anxiety over compulsory resettlement. . . . has begun to overshadow the basic issue of identification with the United States. Should this trend persist, and many citizens who are essentially American in viewpoint and background are influenced to remain in the 'no' column and so become subject to segregation, a peculiar and illogical condition will arise. Alien parents, who are almost without exception in the 'yes' column, will remain unsegregated and eligible for relocation. Their American-born children, in many instances, will be labelled disloyal', will fail to obtain leave clearance, and will be due to be segregated. [89]

In his studies Opler continued to explore the subject of loyally among the Kibei at Manzanar. On July 31, 1943, for instance, he interviewed a young, unmarried Kibei who informed him:

. . . . I think it should be understood that there are subgroups among the Kibei. There are not just two classes of people, loyal and disloyal. There are at least three groups; loyal, non-loyal, and disloyal. I consider myself in the non-loyal group. A good many of the 'No-No' people are in this group. They feel that they must go to Japan for personal reasons.

A similar tripartite division existed for the Issei and Nisei at Manzanar. Thus, while it appeared that the majority of the Kibei were among the "non-loyal" group, the majority of those involved in segregation could also be considered to be "non-loyal." [90]

On September 23, 1943, Opler prepared a report entitled, "A Preliminary Analysis of the Segregation Group at Manzanar." In the study, he observed that the segregation roster contained 2,242 individuals, of whom 630, or 28 percent, were 16 years of age or younger. These young people, according to Opler, must be considered "non-loyal," having had no chance to answer Question 28. This "non-loyal" group was augmented by those segregants who had answered "Yes" on Question 28 so that the "total number of persons who have never been confronted with Question 28 or who have answered it in the affirmative is . . . 1113, or almost exactly half of the designated segregants.

Of the remaining 1,129 segregants, 234 were repatriates and 170 were expatriates — two groups that fit the "disloyal" label. Yet Opler noted that in

97 of the 170 cases of expatriation we can say that the action was not self-initiated but arose from the acts and decisions of repatriate or expatriate elders.

Thus, even in cases of expatriation and repatriation the issue of loyalty was affected significantly by personal and family pressures.

The final group of segregants reviewed by Opler in the report was composed of those who had answered "No" to Question 28. He observed that contrary to the "popular impression in many quarters" and the "generally voiced press opinion" that virtually all evacuees destined to Tule Lake had answered "No" to the loyalty question. "it is startling to realize that only 796 of those to be segregated or 35 percent of the 2242 total have maintained a 'no' answer." [91]

Later on January 22, 1944, Opler would submit a memorandum to Lucy Adams in which he reflected on the reasons for the "35 percent." Opler believed that there were four principal reasons that explained the answers of this group: community pressure, family pressure, citizenship protest, and miscellaneous. However, he believed that community pressure was the most significant reason, even though most evacuee respondents would not admit to the fact:

. . . . This is what might be expected. It would be considered too ignoble by the individual to ascribe his final negative decision to gossip, rumor or fear of personal safety. However, we know and we can assume that community attitudes exercised a background influence in a good many instances . In my judgement, though it is difficult to prove it, community pressure was most important in many of these cases and the individual now, because he is unwilling to change his stand, has rationalized the whole process in other terms. The influence of the Japanese tradition of 'not backing down' and 'not losing face' after avowing oneself on a subject, must not be underestimated. [92]

While Opler's suspicions about "community pressure" remained speculative, his interest in the causes of segregation continued. In Part One of a report, prepared on October 19, 1943 and entitled, "Studies of Segregants at Manzanar: The General Picture," Opler took particular interest in the citizen segregants:

It seems obvious. . . . that persons of widely different backgrounds and experiences, particularly in terms of their contacts with and relations to Japan, have become members of the group. At one extreme we have the . . . Kibei, many of them dual citizens. At the other extreme there are the . . . young Americans of Japanese ancestry who possess American citizenship only and who have never left these shores. These two polarities alone account for . . . more than 61 percent of the citizen segregants. . . . Despite the common belief that but one kind of person is going to Tule Lake, namely, a uniformly disloyal individual who has been subjected to much Japanese 'influence, who has some realistic knowledge of Japan and its culture and who has chosen 'to live the Japanese way', the evidence indicates the existence among the segregants of at least two major groups, each separated from the other by a wide gap in linguistic, educational and travel experiences. . . . [93]

In Part Two of the report, which was issued on December 14, 1943, and was entitled, "Studies of Segregants at Manzanar: United States Citizens Only With No Foreign Travel," Opler focused on citizen segregants who were United States citizens only and who had never undertaken foreign travel. Whatever this group knew

about Japan has been learned indirectly; it has come from the reading of books or from the lips of others. They are not dual citizens; they have no political claim upon Japan whatever. As the evidence introduced will indicate, a surprising number of these individuals admit that they do not speak Japanese particularly well. Many more freely confess that they read and write Japanese hardly at all. Yet these are people who presumably have indicated, by the maintenance of a 'no' answer to Question No. 28 that they 'prefer the Japanese way of life' and wish to live in Japan after the war! . . .

It may be assumed that if there are motivations other than preference for Japan which stimulated 'no' answers this is certainly the group in which they will be found, for loyalty to a land one has never seen and to which one is attached only through intermediaries is a somewhat artificial and unrealistic construct.

At Manzanar 155 evacuees fell into this category out of the 501 who had maintained "No" answers before the segregation hearing boards.

In his study of this group, Opler listed four categories of "causation" that led these individuals to opt for segregation. The categories were: protest against abridgement of citizenship rights, race discrimination, and property loss; fear of forced relocation; marriage to aliens or Kibei; and parental influence. Opler utilized a number of representative cases to illustrate each category, providing extensive verbatim excerpts from the segregation hearings accompanied by his professional analysis.

After reviewing ten representative cases illustrating "protest against abridgement of citizenship rights," Opler observed:

. . . . it is evident that the citizenship issue has been of considerable importance. And it should be apparent, moreover, that the loss of citizenship rights has been so keenly felt precisely because we are dealing with a group to whom American citizenship was precious and important. . . .

. . . Those of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast have long been used as a political issue. They have learned that economic security depends for them on political security. The political security of the Nisei had been assumed until evacuation. This assumption has buckled under the impact of removal. Those who answered 'no' primarily on the grounds of opposition to the invasion of their citizenship rights now assume the opposite; they assume that the floodgates of prejudice and arbitrary treatment which their parents confronted are now to be loosed upon them. No matter how little they know of Japan or of the Japanese language, they have decided that any fate, anywhere, is preferable to this. Perhaps it is, ironically, a compliment to the American ideal that those who have been brought up to it will not accept less in the land of their birth. . . .

After reviewing two cases that illustrated "protest against race discrimination," Opler noted that Nisei who had "flourished" in the "democratic setting" of the prewar years "have in some cases failed to make peace with discriminatory measures." He continued:

. . . . Whether or not one agrees that the discriminatory measures were a military necessity, there remains the question of whether we who taught these young people to think of themselves as individuals and as Americans first are not in part responsible for the 'no' which is a protest against race discrimination, and whether we should not have some more constructive answer to this 'no' than a trip to Tule Lake and a threat of deportation to Japan.

Opler reviewed three cases to illustrate his "protest against property loss" category. Based on this survey, Opler commented that the property losses of the Nisei, while not "as severe on the average as those suffered" by the Issei "were nevertheless serious.' Not only were "present possessions lost but future prospects of gain through inheritance were destroyed." This development had "been especially disconcerting for the oldest child, for it has been the practice to inherit obligations toward parents and family and the means with which to discharge them together." "Now only the former" were "left."

After reviewing five cases for his "fear of forced relocation" category, Opler observed that this "fear has been particularly acute among the residents of Manzanar." He continued:

. . . In the first place Manzanar was established as the first assembly center. . . . at a time when the evacuation program was extremely fluid. The first-corners to Manzanar brought with them a conception of a place where they would stay only until investigations of possible subversives were completed and plans for resettlement elsewhere were consummated. Even after the project had officially become a [relocation] center the outcry against it in Owens Valley and in the Los Angeles Press led to the conviction that some day the authorities would yield to the pressure, close the place at short notice and expect the evacuees to make hurried plans for maintaining themselves elsewhere. After the riot there was an almost unanimous conviction that the Center would be closed as a reprisal.

The people who might be expected to react negatively to these rumors and alarms and who dread to attempt a new start now, are those who lost particularly heavily in evacuation, those who have large families, those who are in poor health, those who would find difficulty in making an occupational adjustment outside and those who have misgivings about public opinion in localities where they might settle.

Manzanar has a large number of residents who fall into one or another of these classification[s]. Since the Los Angeles district, which has been the center of anti-Japanese agitation, is the nearest metropolitan area, the Los Angeles papers are the ones which are read at the Center. Thus an exaggerated notion of the degree of public animosity which exists is generated. The two West Coast groups which suffered the most severe property losses during evacuation were probably the people from Terminal Island and the people from the Florin district. Both are particularly well represented at Manzanar. Also, because Manzanar houses a good many people who came from the Boyle Heights district or the business section of Little Tokyo [of Los Angeles], many of the residents do not feel that they have the occupational background for adjustment under present conditions. These persons were salesmen, managers of businesses or wholesale or retail dealers in produce. They understood conditions of a special nature in a circumscribed area. They are decidedly uneasy about the prospects of functioning well in a different environment, away from the advantages which a large settlement of persons of Japanese ancestry provided. The families which evidence the great panic at the rumors of the summary closing of Manzanar or the prospects of forced relocation are those with special health problems, however.

. . . in spite of the basic assumption of the segregation program, it is sobering to discover how small a part friendly feeling for Japan plays in the decisions reached. From my review of the data I conclude that because of the tremendous force of the fear of forced relocation, it is altogether likely that those segregated may on the whole represent the individuals weakest in health, wealth and future prospects, rather than those weakest in essential loyalty.

Opler used four cases to illustrate his "marriage to aliens or Kibei category. He noted that one of the "most tragic series of cases is that involving women who have never been abroad and who are nationals of the United States only but who have maintained a 'no' answer because of an alien husband or because of marriage to a kibei who has been 'previously interviewed' and is therefore being automatically segregated." He continued that there were

a substantial number of women, American citizens only with no foreign residence, who have answered 'no' in order to accommodate alien husbands or to record answers which agree with those given by kibei husbands. I have the record of at least a dozen such women, who, if these complications did not exist, would, I am certain, be more than happy to answer 'yes'. . . .

After reviewing 13 cases to illustrate his "parental influence" category, Opler observed that it was "difficult to measure precisely the influence of the aliens upon their citizen children" in regard to segregation. However, he found "certain statistics" to be "informative and revealing":

. . . .Seven hundred and thirty-five or approximately one-third of all persons listed on the segregation roster are aliens. Of this number only 238 are repatriates and but 28 are aliens who themselves have answered 'no' to the loyalty question. Four hundred and sixty-nine or 21% of all persons on the segregation roster, therefore, are aliens who are going to Tule Lake as the result of the maintenance of 'no' answers by citizen members of their families. In 86 cases one young citizen is responsible for taking alien parents and other members of the family to Tule Lake. Fifty-six of these young people are the sons of aliens and 30 are daughters. In 19 instances the fathers are the only aliens in the family. In 15 cases it is the alien mother who will accompany the child as a family member. In 52 cases both parents are living and present and are able to go to Tule Lake only as the result of the 'no' answer of one of their children. In other words 86 citizen children are making it possible for 138 aliens to go to Tule Lake.

When we come to examine the group characteristics of those on the basis of those 'no' answers aliens and other family members are going to Tule Lake we find that youth is the outstanding characteristic. Eighty-two percent of them are 29 years of age or younger. More of them (22) belong to the 18 year old group than fall into any other age classification. We might guess, even if the case records that have been introduced did not offer such conclusive evidence of it, that these youngsters, in spite of the theoretical positions in which their answers place them, are not the ones who have actually determined the destination and the future of the families. . . .

After sketching the struggles of the Issei in the United States prior to World War II, Opler turned to the impacts of evacuation on the Issei and their children. He observed that evacuation

happened not when the aliens were in the prime of life, capable of absorbing some severe buffeting as they had been in the past, but after they had spent 25 to 45 years of the most exacting labor in this country and were in average between 55 and 60 years old.

If the issei were old and toil-worn for the contemplation of fresh tasks and a new start, their children were too young and untried to face the aftermath of evacuation with confidence and realistic planning. The immigrants had married late. The age difference between the generations is unusually great. Evacuation found most of the nisei of school age, with the thoughts and dreams and dependency of school children.

Thus, Opler observed that the

stage was set for a confession on the part of many issei that their life work and mission in the New World had failed. They felt that they were too old to begin life over again in America. They knew that this time the cooperative methods by which they had surmounted past difficulties would not suffice. All sections of the population had been uprooted and dispossessed. The distress and the need were too uniform and widespread.

At Manzanar this feeling of hopelessness and grievance was especially marked. Here were the people of Terminal Island and of Florin whose economic losses were among the most severe suffered in evacuation. The people of the Venice district are well represented at Manzanar, too, and they, with the Terminal Islanders, were particularly plagued by internments.

The events preceding registration did not reconcile embittered issei to a post-war future in America. The section of the American Press which they saw was the most outspoken in its attacks upon them. They felt the impact of campaigns to force them to sell their remaining land holdings and agricultural machinery. The political air was thick with threats of deportation and further legal penalization.

At Manzanar, too, were the members of the Los Angeles branch of the Japanese American Citizen's League, who were accused of poor leadership and over-complacency during the evacuation crisis. As the issei counted their losses the murmur grew that these persons had led the evacuees to camp for a price and were acting as informers even while the people were in camp. Recrimination and strife broke out among the evacuees and culminated in the December riot and bloodshed.

It was in this charged atmosphere and while these many wounds still smarted that registration began in February. Issei, who were painfully and doubtfully considering how they might pick up the threads of their lives in America after the war, were appalled to see that the questionnaire submitted to them was for the purpose of leave clearance. They envisaged themselves forced Out of the Center at a time when they were poor and discouraged and in the face of hostile public opinion. Those who had depended upon a Japanese community economically and socially, were dismayed at the program for thin dispersal in unfamiliar regions.

But their most decided reaction was to Question 28, the 'loyalty' question submitted to them. It called upon them, in effect, to renounce their Japanese citizenship, something that enemy aliens, ineligible to American citizenship could hardly be expected to accept without protest. . . . Many of them resolved to anticipate their 'liquidation in America' and to cast the die without further delay. . . .

In the meantime, government officials had recognized the doubtful legality of the original alien question 28. Those who were in charge at Manzanar understood that they were authorized to offer a substitute question. However, in their desire to stay reasonably close to the Washington version and because of a misunderstanding that arose in translating a word from English into Japanese (where the nearest Japanese equivalent has a much stronger and more military connotation) the Manzanar revision was still not acceptable to many issei. Besides, by this time, a negative attitude had swept the camp which would have made a receptive state of mind toward any question impossible at that time.

It was at this time that the aliens turned to counsel and instruct their children. Those who had decided that there was no longer a place for them in America were determined that this country would not 'rob' them of their children as it had taken their possessions. There began a campaign to prevail upon the children 17 years of age and over to say 'no' to their loyalty question. The friction that was generated in homes over this issue is almost unbelievable. The scenes of argument and tears which marked the period are indescribable. In order to persuade children to answer 'no,' parents had to constantly remind them that they were being treated as aliens, that America had rejected them, that their citizenship had not served to protect them. . . .

Moreover, the nisei had many complaints of their own. They were anything but pleased with the Question 28 submitted to citizens. This was especially true of those who did not possess dual citizenship, for the question called upon them to forswear allegiance to the Japanese emperor. It read more like a naturalization oath than something prepared for American citizens. Question 27, the answers to which were to be used as the basis for organizing a volunteer nisei army combat team, was viewed with great suspicion, too. It was whispered about that the announcement of the formation of the combat team had coincided mysteriously with the arrival from Salt Lake City of the Manzanar delegates from the convention of the Japanese American Citizens League and that this was the work of the 'dogs' who were more interested in sacrificing citizens of Japanese ancestry in battle than in protecting their rights. As a result all the bitterness and factionalism born of the December incident was injected into the issue.

Out of the turmoil and confusion came family decisions. Though there were some families that split on the issue, in the main the problem was threshed out in the family circle and parents and children answered in much the same vein. In view of the rumors and fears, the suspicion and irritation, the setting and the intimidation, it is remarkable that so many did hold to a 'yes' answer. . . .

When the machinery for segregation was set up, it was assumed that persons who had answered question 28 in the affirmative were undoubtedly loyal to the United States and eager to continue residence in this country, and that one of the best ways to discover those of contrary opinion and mind would be to review the cases of individuals whose answers had been 'no.' Allowances were not made for the peculiar sequences of events at Manzanar whereby those with 'no' answers finally turned out to be, in the majority of instances, individuals who had been persuaded and influenced to take their stand by family members who had since passed over into the 'yes' category. And with the ruling that persons with 'yes' answers could not be segregated except as members of families of those who maintained a 'no,' the gate was opened for every alien who had made up his mind to go to Tule Lake or to Japan to bring pressure upon his child to retain the 'no' answer and they make it possible for him to realize his desires. . . .

The influence of the issei on the answers of the citizens, then, is actually an index of the total disillusionment and dispossession of the aliens. That it has become such an important factor is a sign that a chapter in American history is closed. . . .

There is evidence now that for the first time in our history, a substantial group of people who have lived here for a life's span, who have seen children and grandchildren born on American soil, have come to believe that existence in the United States is untenable for them. While the 'no' answers of the niseis is a barometer of this to some extent, the full story is not yet told. I know of many issei, who, though they do not intend to make themselves and their children the targets of anti-Japanese elements by entering a segregation Center, nevertheless have made up their minds to return to Japan at the earliest possible moment. There are more than a few others who have adopted a 'wait and see' policy. If restitution for losses incurred in evacuation is not forthcoming, if prejudice and discrimination persist into the post-war period, they too, will leave this country. Then there are those who await the outcome of the war. What they do will depend on economic and social conditions in Japan and in this country after the war. [94]

In addition to his analytic studies of the results of the segregation hearings at Manzanar, Opler interviewed a number of camp residents regarding their individual viewpoints concerning the factors that led some evacuees to segregate to Tule Lake. On December 15, 1943, for instance, he prepared a report based on discussions with an embittered Nisei from Terminal Island. Opler noted:

After he and his family arrived in Manzanar, most of the Terminal Island people were housed in the same blocks, therefore they were in constant touch with each other. He lived in the environment of bitterness for which the Terminal Islanders were noted. They nursed their bitterness along, never forgetting, always remembering what they had and how much they lost. Naturally if one is constantly reminded of his troubles and injustices, they will always stay with him. The younger people went around in 'gangs' and generally stuck with their own crowd.

When groups were allowed to go out on furlough to the sugar beet fields of Montana and Idaho, this boy went too. Suddenly his father was taken ill, and sent to the Center's hospital. After a month or so he died. This happened while the boy was still out on a furlough and he didn't even know his Dad was sick. Before he left his father was 'perfectly healthy, or else I wouldn't have gone.' When he got home (he wasn't even notified his dad was in the hospital), he found his father dying, and soon after — dead. Maybe it's harsh of the boy to blame the evacuation, and his father's previous internment in the concentration camps of the Alien Japanese rounded up by the F.B.I. 'My Dad couldn't stand this life, and if he had had better attention, he might be alive today.'

All this time he was in constant touch with his grandfather. (I forgot to mention that his father was released and sent to Manzanar to join his family, but the grandfather was kept interned, because of his business 'connections.') His grandfather was in a Federal Internment camp. Almost every day this boy would write a letter to him, telling how they were getting along and encouraging him.

Then he heard that his grandfather was going to be sent to Japan on the exchange ship. The grandfather was given practically no notice of his sailing, so by the time he was able to notify his grandson, he had only a week or so left. The boy made frantic effort[s] to obtain permission to visit his grandfather, and to get power of attorney so that he would dispose of his grandfather's holdings here. His request was denied, on the grounds that he was a 'no' answer, therefore not entitled to any special privileges. One cannot imagine the boy's feelings at this time. He was so confused and all the things he had done previously, in his confused state, were backfiring on him. His one thought was to get to his grandfather, so that maybe for the last time, he could see him, because, in his own words, 'My grandfather is so old, maybe he won't last the trip out to Japan. If I could only see him!'

Then to top it all, he was fired from his evacuee job, because the Caucasian head thought he was not paying enough attention to his work, because he had used office time to send the telegrams, see the Project Director, and all the other things necessary in order to try to get a permit to visit his grandfather. But by then, I don't think he cared much, as his grandfather had sailed without them having a chance to see each other. Here was another thing to be held against the government, in the boy's mind. He had been willing to pay his own way to see his grandfather, but now nothing seemed to matter. So when the rehearings came up, and his name was called, he said he was going to say, 'No, no, no. No to anything he was asked. To h___ with it. To h__ with everything.' It was unfortunate that his rehearing came so soon after his grandfather sailed and after he had been denied permission to see him. The wound was too raw for him to do anything but say 'No, I want to go to Japan.' What he meant was, he wanted to go see his grandfather. . . .

I saw him only the other day, and he said, 'Gosh. I wish I could go out [relocate in the United States], but I can't. Who's going to take care of the family? My old man's dead, and my grandfather is in Japan. The only thing we can do is to go to Tule Lake, and later join my grandfather. But I still wish I could go out.' [95]

On January 24, 1944, Opler prepared a report based on an interview with a "well-educated man of professional background" from Santa Monica. This evacuee, although generally optimistic about his future in America, offered some perceptive insights as to the reasons why many persons from the Florin area near Sacramento had opted for segregation to Tule Lake. The evacuee observed:

I think you'll find that the real reason back of most of the 'no' answers have to do with economics rather than nationalism. The property losses are just too much to take. The government didn't do a thing for us. One agency passed the buck to another. If they had left some the farmers stay to harvest the crops or if they had some arrangements so that money could have been borrowed to save property on which payments were due, it would have helped. Even those who seem to have salvaged something are discouraged. Take the Sacramento Valley farmers, for instance. People who own vineyards around Florin feel that these vineyards are ruined. These people put in a tremendous amount of hand labor to keep these vines in shape. Those who took them over simply won't put in the labor. Vines that are not properly cared for for two years are ruined. It takes years to bring them back. It has been two years already, The whole thing is a vicious circle. The whole area is run down Farms are not in operation and the value of the crops is less. As a result, business in the area slumps and land values go down. The people see nothing to look forward to there, even if they do go back after this is all over. So they get disgusted, say 'no' and go to Tule Lake. You will notice that a good many 'noes' are from this district. [96]

Opler devoted considerable attention to the residents at Manzanar who had been evacuated from the Venice area of Los Angeles County. Most of these evacuees had been farmers prior to evacuation, and the majority opted for segregation to Tule Lake. On January 20, 1944, Opler prepared a report based on conversations with a young Nisei farmer from Venice. This man

said that he and his family would not be Tule Lake bound now if they still had their farming equipment. It seems that most of the Venice farmers were emphatically told to sell their farming equipment prior to evacuation.

This young farmer did not divulge the figures in the transaction but he intimated that the family lost a great deal of money in selling this equipment.

At the time of evacuation to Manzanar, the farmer had about 12 acres of celery ready for harvest. A white "friend" had taken care of the harvest for him, but as a result the Nisei had received less than half the market value for his crop. Opler continued:

No wonder this young farmer is bitter! He is not so bitter about the under handed deal as about the selling of the farm equipment so cheaply because he sees no way of establishing himself again without the equipment. This man told me that if he had his farming equipment now he would go out and farm instead of going to Tule Lake. [97]

In another report on February 11, 1944, Opler interviewed an evacuee who offered his perspectives on the reasons why so many of the Venice people were segregating to Tule Lake. This evacuee observed:

There are 93 people, I understand, going to Tule Lake from our block. All you see is packing and all your hear is hammering these days. Sixteen families are involved. This means that more than one—third of those in the block are going.

I think it can be explained in this way. These are farmers from around the Venice district. The children were used to working on the farm for their parents and minding their parents. They are less independent than the city children and influence the parents less. The children were used to taking orders from the parents without any protest. Consequently there are almost no family splits; if the family goes, it goes as a unit. And since these are country people the families are pretty large. Also, since they are country people they are pretty conservative. Add to this that the people of the Venice region lost particularly heavily in evacuation and you get your picture. [98]

Five days later, on February 16, 1944, Opler issued a report on the background of "No" answers by evacuees from Venice. The report featured the observations of an embittered Nisei:

Yes, I'm going. It's no sudden decision with me. I've been 'no' from the beginning. Everyone of the children in our family who was of age said 'no'. I'm from Venice. Lots of the people who lived around Venice said 'no' and are going to Tule. It's on account of the dirty deal we got. We haven't asked for repatriation or expatriation. We are just going on 'no' answers.... It was bad enough without registration and question 28 but when that came along it turned the minds of about half of the nisei. Up to that time we had some hope. But we took the stand that the government had no right to ask us such a question; it showed that they were regarding us as aliens. If you had left us outside you could have asked us anything you wanted. Even if some of us had been attacked, even if a few had been killed, it would have been better. It would have been up to us. If we wanted to stay we would have been taking our own chances. Even if the aliens had been made to move, the citizens should have been allowed to remain. It would have showed that this government was treating its citizens alike, regardless of ancestry. I grew up in this country. I can speak Japanese pretty well but I can't read or write it. I've never been to Japan. But if citizenship and hard work and a good record don't bring you any consideration; if they can still do this to you, there's no use talking about loyalty. A man's got to go where there is some security and chance for him and where his face won't be against him. [99]

On August 24, 1944, an evacuee research assistant under Opler prepared a report based on an interview with a successful Nisei farmer from Venice who had married a Kibei. Commenting on the large number of Venice evacuees who opted for Tule Lake, the Nisei stated:

There were about eighty-eight Japanese families in Venice. Today the majority of them have gone to Tule Lake. The departure of so many for that Center is due to reasons such as these: they see no future in this country for them since they suffered tremendous losses materially and financially; they believe that Tule Lake will be the only Center that will stay open for the duration; the old people simply wish to go back to their native land; some fear another evacuation if Japan and America should have a war in another decade or two; others feel a summons to take care of their parents in Japan; young people have complied with the wishes of the older folks to accompany them to Tule Lake.

The Nisei farmer had also wanted to go to Tule Lake, but his Kibei wife had "argued tirelessly that he would be making a mistake." She knew the "economic system in Japan," and that "a person as out-spoken as her husband would never be happy there." She argued successfully that 'since he must start from scratch, he would be wiser to begin in America, even though he had been humiliated and depressed." [100]

Cultural Perspectives on Segregation Program. In contrast to WRA investigations examining evacuee resistance to the registration and segregation programs, David A. Hacker, a historian, prepared an academic study linking the registration/segregation responses of residents at Manzanar with their cultural re-identification during the war. This re-identification had begun immediately after the evacuation and was given impetus by the WRA's 'Americanization' program which had attempted to transform the evacuees into "100%" Americans. However, the countervailing Japanization of the relocation centers was acknowledged as a concern of the WRA from the beginning of the camps. Despite pressures both from within and without the camps, the WRA continued to clamor for a continual 'Americanization' program throughout the war. The Americanization program, according to Hacker, failed to fulfill its objectives. In reality, the camps became more and more Japanese in character.

Japanese culture contained specialized controls that defined and proscribed social behavior. Nearly all of these controls were expressions of obligation — to nation, community, family, and intermingling social interactions. In Japanese society, the community and family interacted as controlling agencies, and gained support from each other. Thus, the family in Japanese society was an enforcer of community standards and mores, while the community provided a clear and concise niche for the individual, but only as a member of the family.

In Japan, the community controlled behavior through formal and informal means. The formal means of control limited behavior by limiting choice. The informal controls utilized gossip, and the fear of rejection caused by it, as well as a system of authority structuring that honored the elders.

Many of the social values and controls used in Japan had been continued by the Issei in the United States. The hostility of outside Caucasian communities in the nation had enforced continuation of those processes as protectors and comforters for Japanese Americans. Thus, the social system produced by Japanese Americans in their prewar communities was neither wholly Japanese, nor wholly American in cultural preference. Predominantly Japanese population settlements had become enclaves, where a hybrid cultural social system evolved, cognizant of economic and social contacts with American culture, while isolated for decades from the mainstream of Japanese culture.

Upon evacuation, the Japanese American social system so carefully constructed before the war, began to disintegrate under the social pressures of their wartime experience. Feelings of rejection, reinforced by evacuation, however, led to heightened group solidarity and identification.

This identification within the camps led to resistance, which was generally understood by the WRA as ideological or political. This stance, according to Hacker, failed to incorporate preexisting conditions in the historical development of Japanese American communities in its analysis and, therefore, was unable to see such resistance as a natural part of the cultural milieu of the evacuees.

After an initial period of disorganization, the communities within the relocation centers began to more closely approximate their prewar configurations. Those configurations were a unique blend of traditional Japanese culture as well as American culture. In the relocation centers, Japanese Americans were faced with rigorous attempts to "Americanize" the social system propagated by them in their prewar communities on the west coast. Redevelopment of this culture at Manzanar, according to Hacker, was the first instance of resistance to WRA policies. Stabilization of that community feeling had progressed enough by the time of the registration program so that responses to it were predicated on community opinion trends.

In controlling the response to registration, the evacuee community used traditional means, such as gossip, to limit positive answers. Even the term inu was used to control responses, although gossip itself was often sufficient. The result of this control was the high number of negative answers to the loyalty questions at Manzanar.

This resistance to registration and segregation, as well as relocation, was community-motivated and was meant to maintain the solidarity and identity of the community threatened by those programs. Thus, a cultural choice was more important than a nationalistic one, and community sentiment was more significant than individual sentiment.

According to Hacker, the re-emerged Japanized community at Manzanar had utilized traditional forms of control, such as the maintenance of filial piety and continuance of Issei leadership to determine responses to the registration and segregation programs. As expressed on the block level in the camp, for instance, this control could mandate either a "Yes" or a "No." Before this occurred, however, the traditional leadership which controlled the block had to approve the decision.

For those choosing to segregate, the rejection they felt from America, coupled with the fear of Manzanar's closing had been been major factors. For the segregating Nisei, this rejection had more shocking, but for the Issei, it represented a continuation of historical rejection by American society.

Thus, the evacuees at Manzanar chose a path that led them into conflict with their government supervisors over the government's "Americanization" program. This insistence on American culture as the dominant cultural mode of socialization in the relocation centers led to chronic generational conflict between those Nisei willing to support the WRA program and those Issei, as well as Nisei, wishing to restructure anew their prewar cultural social system. This conflict, according to Hacker, led many observers of the Japanese American evacuees during the war to the belief that pro-Japanese and pro-American factions existed, in toto, within Manzanar and the other relocation centers.

However, a large segment of evacuees at Manzanar rejected the WRA's "Americanization" program and resisted attempts to classify or designate themselves as pro- or anti- American. They revived their prewar cultural milieu in order to protect and comfort themselves amid the struggles brought on by evacuation. They had been rejected by America and, in turn, were forced to reject America. Many went so far in their rejection that they chose to segregate to Tule Lake rather than risk the possibility of finding themselves relocated in a hostile, culturally different America. More than 6,000 evacuees remained at Manzanar, however, because of the increasing security that developed there after the violence in early December 1942. They had gained that security by the accommodation of the camp's administration, as both the WRA appointed personnel led by Project Director Merritt and the evacuees had agreed to pursue the "Peace of Manzanar." In the wake of the violence, the administration had allowed many of the physical aspects of Japanese culture that had been transplanted in the Japanese American prewar communities to be recreated at Manzanar in exchange for a dubious "peace." The evacuees maintained that "peace," but only so much as it was a natural part of their culture, and only so long as it was convenient. [101]

Participation in the Armed Forces

Military Intelligence Service. During 1942, prior to implementation of the registration and segregation programs at Manzanar, representatives of the Military Intelligence Service visited the camp to recruit evacuee males. According to the Final Report, Manzanar, "Nisei boys were used in a program clothed with military security long before the Army was re opened to persons of Japanese ancestry." The report continued:

. . . . Periodically Army officials came from the Military Intelligence Language School at Fort Savage, Minnesota, (later Fort Snelling) both to secure Japanese instructors to teach the Japanese language to Army and Navy personnel destined for specially trained occupation units and to recruit and train Japanese American boys as interpreters and translators in combat scenes in the Pacific War Theater. Aliens and American-born citizens were both used in such military and naval language schools, in the Office of War Information, and in the Office of Strategic Services. There are no statistics at the Project to show how many evacuees left the Center for employment of this kind. The best estimate, exclusive of Nisei who arranged for their transfer to Fort Snelling after entering the regular Army, is 100, the largest proportion of whom were American citizens.

The report continued:

Before segregation, a feeling prevailed in Manzanar among the first generation, that to accept work of this kind with the Army constituted turning against one's own country. Yet periodically Japanese aliens would appear in the office of the Relocation Representative, and after talking aimlessly. would say something to this effect: 'I have lived in this country for years. My children are American citizens. I will never go back to Japan, and even though you call me an alien, I regard this as my country. Is there not something I can do to help America?' Appropriate employment would then be quietly arranged through a suitable agency.

The report went on to state that great "determination and courage were shown by one particular alien who had been an ordinary grocery clerk before evacuation." After passing tests "for employment in broadcasting activities with the Australian Government, an Australian flight lieutenant "stopped at the Center to pick him up, and actually trembling, he left on an air trip for Australia." At the time he left the center, according to the report, persons who took such positions were not infrequently referred to as 'dogs' by the Japanese in Manzanar, who also whispered that retaliation would be taken against the families of such people." [102]

One of the most prominent evacuees at Manzanar to join the Military Intelligence Service was Karl G. Yoneda. A Kibei born in Southern California, Yoneda went to Japan with his family at the age of 11. Attracted by books as a young man, he developed an interest in Marxism and left home at the age of 16, bound for China in search of a Russian writer whose works he admired. In order to avoid being drafted into the Japanese army, he returned to the United States and quickly became involved in the labor movement in California. He joined the Communist Party, and spent the 1930s as the editor of the Communist newspaper Rodo Shimbun and as an organizer of Japanese labor in California and Alaska. He married fellow Communist and labor activist Elaine Black, a Caucasian, in 1933 — a union that would last for more than 55 years.

With the coming of World War II, Yoneda, along with all members of Japanese ancestry, was expelled from the Communist Party. Yoneda volunteered to evacuate to Manzanar, and was among the large contingent of evacuees that left Los Angeles by train on March 23. He was later joined by his wife and young son, although government authorities attempted to prevent her from joining her husband and son who were required to evacuate. The Yonedas lived in Block 4, Building 2, Apartment 2 at Manzanar. Yoneda emerged as one of the leaders of the evacuee faction at the camp that advocated cooperation with WCCA and WRA administrators.

On April 4, less than two weeks after arriving at Manzanar as a volunteer, Yoneda was called to the camp administration office to be questioned by two sergeants from U. S. Army Intelligence concerning his thoughts about the center and the number of Communists residing there. Yoneda reportedly told them that Japanese American Communist Party members and supporters were participating actively in the war against the Axis Powers and were willing to enlist if the Army would take them. In the meantime, they would take the message of democracy to the evacuees to help build a livable place and would attempt to aid the war effort in every way possible. He told them the majority of the evacuees were loyal to America, but he refused to provide names of Communists in the camp. Despite his "patriotic" statements, the FBI assigned an evacuee informer, identified as "B," to monitor and report on Yoneda's activities at Manzanar.

Yoneda emerged as one of the leaders of the evacuee faction at Manzanar that advocated working with WCCA and WRA administrators. On July 20, he attended the meeting in Togo Tanaka's quarters during which the Manzanar Citizens Federation was established to press for improved living conditions in the center and help promote the war effort. The organizing group included Koji Ariyoshi, Kiyoshi Higashi, Joe Grant Masaoka, Kiro Neeno, James Oda, Togo Tanaka, Fred Tayama, Tad Uyeno, and Tom Yamazaki, nearly half of whom were members of the Japanese American Citizens League.

During late July. Yoneda and Ariyoshi circulated a petition addressed to President Roosevelt, asking that he "utilize the manpower of Americans of Japanese ancestry, now in evacuation camps, for front line duty in the United States Armed Forces." They obtained 218 evacuee signatures, 50 of whom were women. The petition was forwarded with an "open" letter to Roosevelt on August 5, but no response was ever received.

On August 6, Colonel Kai E. Rasmussen, Commandant of the Military Intelligence Service Language School, accompanied by Sergeant Joe Masuda, interviewed some 90 candidates for the Military Intelligence Service in Block 1 at Manzanar. Yoneda played an active role in the Kibei meeting on August 8, opposing the efforts of the embittered Joseph Kurihara to dominate the proceedings. In late August Yoneda, Ariyoshi, and Masaoka composed a letter to Roosevelt asking that he allow evacuees to do farm work outside the relocation centers in support of the war effort. They collected 793 signatures from Issei and Nisei who were willing to serve in the Food for Freedom Campaign. Although never receiving a direct answer from Roosevelt, the WRA soon implemented a program for evacuees to harvest sugar beets in several western states. During October and November Yoneda left Manzanar with 21 other men, including "four Terminal Island 'tough boys' who had become disenchanted with Black Dragon doings," for a one-month labor contract with a sugar company in Idaho.

On November 23, 1942, a MIS recruiting team headed by Major Karl Gould, accompanied by Sergeant Masuda, arrived at Manzanar for actual recruiting purposes.. More than 50 Nisei and Kibei were interviewed and given physicals and oral and written examinations. Fourteen men were selected, including six Kibei. The men, who were sworn into the U.S. Army on November 28 as 'buck privates" by Major Karl Gould, included Ichiro L. Obikane, Shori Hiraide, James S. Oda, Sho Onodera, Yoshiki Hirabayashi, Harry Yamashita, Nobuo Yamashita, James J. Kaminishi, William Y. Murata, Keichi K. Amino, Frank K. Ishida, Henry T. Uyehara, and Koji Ariyoshi. On December 2, four days before violence would break out in the camp, the fourteen men left Manzanar for Camp Savage, Minnesota, via Los Angeles, accompanied by two Army sergeants. On December 7 the men arrived at Camp Savage.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the violence at Manzanar, Yoneda's wife and son, who were on the "death lists," were taken to the camp's Administration Building by a member of the military police patrolling the camp and given protection by WRA authorities. James Ito, the youth that was killed during the violence on December 6, had been a member of Yoneda's Idaho sugar beet crew and had signed the petition to Roosevelt drawn up by Yoneda and Ariyoshi asking that persons of Japanese ancestry be accepted for military service. On December 10, Elaine Yoneda and her son were transferred, along with 63 other evacuees, to the abandoned Cow Creek Civilian Conservation Corps camp in Death Valley. On December 19, Elaine Yoneda and her son left for Los Angeles at her own expense after WRA authorities intervened to obtain travel permits for her son.

After graduating from the MIS Language School, Yoneda served in the China-Burma-India Office of the War Information Psychological Warfare Team. He was first stationed in Ledo, India, where he wrote propaganda leaflets, prepared radio broadcasts, and interrogated Japanese prisoners of war. During the next two years, he conducted broadcasts to enemy lines in Myitkyina, Burma, before being sent to Kunming, China, where he prepared propaganda leaflets for air-drops to enemy troops until V-J Day. [103]

Koji Ariyoshi, an associate of Yoneda who was selected for the Military Intelligence Service from Manzanar, would later gain some notoriety. After training at the MIS Language School, he was also assigned to intelligence work in the China-Burma-India Office of the War Information Psychological Warfare Team. A native of Hawaii, Ariyoshi returned to Honolulu after the war and established the Honolulu Record, a progressive newspaper that he edited from 1948-58. Having become an admirer of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communists while stationed in Yenan, China, during the war, Ariyoshi promoted U.S-China relationships during the Cold War era. In 1951-52 he and six others were arrested and convicted for "conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence," but his conviction was overturned in 1958. [104]

Service in the U.S. Army. As a result of the registration program in February-March 1943, approximately 100 Nisei at Manzanar volunteered for the Regimental Combat Team. After the Selective Service was reopened to Japanese Americans in January 1944, some Nisei in other relocation centers refused to report for Army duty when drafted. At Manzanar, however, every drafted man responded for a physical examination.

Prior to September 1944, the Personnel Section at Manzanar handled Selective Service activities. In September, an assistant relocation adviser was appointed as a representative of the local draft board. From that time on, this adviser handled the registration of Manzanar men reaching their 18th birthday as well as other matters pertaining to Selective Service procedures. By the end of the war, 116 Manzanar men had been inducted into the Army, while 66 more were classified as 1-A, and 87 were rejected as unfit for service. Four evacuees from Manzanar were killed in action, and 14 were wounded. [105]

An article in the Manzanar Free Press on April 7, 1943, stated that "Nearly 300 stars will grace Manzanar's Service flag now being made to honor those who are full-fledged nephews of Uncle Sam." Each star would "represent one service man from this center including all soldiers with families in Manzanar, the volunteers now in training at Camp Savage Military Intelligence School and for the combat unit, as well as those who joined the ranks from the appointed personnel staff." The article noted that the volunteers for the RCT from Manzanar had completed their medical examinations and would soon leave for induction at Fort Douglas, Utah. [106]

On July 29, 1944, the Manzanar Free Press reported that Mr. and Mrs. Takeyoshi Arikawa, residents of Block 31, Building 3, Apartment 4, had been notified three days earlier of the death their son, Private First Class Frank Nobuo Arikawa, Company F, 2nd Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team. He had been killed in action near Castellina, Italy, on July 6. Frank, who was awarded the purple heart and the combat infantry badge, was the brother of Burns T. Arikawa who had also volunteered for the RCT from Manzanar and was on active duty in Italy. Another brother, James, was on duty at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. Both "Frank and James" had been "in the services prior to evacuation." [107] In an editorial that day, the center newspaper observed that:

Manzanar has its first gold star mother. We had dreaded the day when some family in Manzanar would receive the fatefull [sic] telegram, yet not one of us would have denied that someone here would someday receive that notice. . . .

Mr. and Mrs. Arikawa with two blue stars and a gold star on their service flag, reside in a relocation center. Made homeless and their security jeopardized by the very agency to which they have given their sons, they must wonder what their reward will be. [108]

A memorial service was held for Frank Arikawa in the recently-completed Auditorium on Sunday afternoon, August 6. Edwin E. Ferguson, Acting Solicitor, sent a memorandum to Director Myer on August 23 that contained excerpts of a description of the service prepared by Kent Silverthorne, Acting Project Attorney at Manzanar. Silverthorne observed that the memorial service had been "the most impressive and moving" service he had ever "experienced." He commented further:

. . . . I had rather expected that they [the Arikawas] would be bitter over their loss, but on the contrary, they are proud that their son has given his life for his country.

On the surface the services were ordinary enough, but the implications were extremely dramatic. Many who wept, I am sure, wept not so much for Pfc. Arikawa as for those who under such strange and anomalous circumstances were gathered to pay him tribute.

First a squad of soldiers performed the ceremony of placing the flag at half-mast to the accompaniment of the Star Spangled Banner — a stirring ceremony under any circumstances. It tightened one's throat to see how meticulously Nisei and Issei held hat or hand over their hearts as the National Anthem was being played. . . . Then the services in the auditorium were begun before a large audience. The platform was filled with speakers, not the least conspicuous of whom, was our Property Officer, Mr. Bromley, dressed in the full regalia of a Commander of the American Legion. The parents of Frank Arikawa are Buddhists but their children are Christians, so they insisted upon having Japanese Christian Ministers officiate. The fact that their prayers were rendered in broken, barely understandable English, certainly did nothing to detract from their significance. Christian hymns were sung — not too lustily; since fully three fourths of the audience was composed of Issei Buddhists. Mr. Merritt gave a splendid talk which I thought exceptionally honest and courageous. Mr. Bromley made a few appropriate remarks and read an original poem which was worthy of a Rupert Brookes. . . . Mrs. Adams' tribute was especially effective because she addressed her remarks directly to the members of the Arikawa family who sat in the front row throughout the services.

The rest of the speakers were evacuees, Issei and Nisei. One Nisei boy gave a particularly fine talk; his thesis being that in spite of evacuation, in spite of the barbed wire, this still the best country of all. The contrast between this and the Issei speakers who respectfully bowed to the chairman and then to the picture of the dead boy before speaking, or reading Japanese poems, was like something in a mixed up dream. [109]

Meanwhile, the first group of 25 inductees at Manzanar was sworn into the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the U.S. Army in an induction ceremony in Mess Hall 16 on July 31, 1944. The men were inducted by Captain J. M. Lyle, Jr., assistant induction officer from the Ninth Service Command headquarters in San Francisco. Other members of the induction team included: Captain R. A. Smithson, medical examiner; Staff Sergeant Robert N. Bare, administrative assistant; Corporal Francis Halstead, medical assistant; and Private Charles Foo, psychologist's assistant. In addressing the group of inductees, Lyle stated that the men would be subject to call sometime within 30 to 60 days. He also noted: "What assignment you receive or where you will be sent, no one knows. But remember that there is a definite job for you to do."

During the ceremony, Kiyoharu Anzai, chairman of the Block Managers, told the men that the

highest honor a person could have is when he is selected to serve in the armed forces of his country. Wherever you are sent, whatever you do, give and do the best of your ability; be proud to have been selected to serve your country. Where you were born, what ancestry you are or what you are doesn't mean a thing as long as you serve your country when she needs you.

Project Director Merritt also spoke at the ceremony, commenting that the group of 25 inductees was "the first evidence that this country is recognizing the statement that 'all men are created free and equal.'" [110]

Twenty-five more men were inducted into the Enlisted Reserve Corps during a second induction ceremony held at Mess Hall 16 on August 2. [111]

On May 22, 1944, the Manzanar USO Committee held an "enthusiastic" meeting in the office of its treasurer, Edwin H. Hooper, a WRA employee. During the meeting, Henry Tsurutani, chairman of the committee, exhibited the certificate of recognition of the Manzanar USO that had been received from the National USO. It was announced that USO headquarters would be established in the YMCA clubhouse in Block 19, Building 15. Magazines, newspapers, and USO stationery would be available in the club rooms.

In addition to the chairman and treasurer, the members of the Manzanar USO Committee included: Mrs. May Ichida, vice-chairman; Joan Fukuda, secretary; Mrs. Lucy Adams, Mrs. Ralph Merritt, Mrs. Margaret D'Ille, Aksei Nielsen, Arthur Miller, Rev. H. G. Bovenkerk, Father Leo Steinbach, Mrs. Henry Tsurutani, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Shikami, and Mrs. Asa Ikeda. [112]

On September 4, parents and family members of service men in the U.S. armed forces were honored during a "Get Acquainted Party" sponsored by the Manzanar chapter of the USO in Mess Hall 16. The meeting drew a capacity crowd of some 350-450 persons. The featured speaker was Sergeant Shori Hiraide, who had returned from the South Pacific and was visiting his parents in Block 23, Building 5, Apartment 2. He related his experiences while serving with the MIS in the South Pacific. Sergeant Fujino spoke on the meaning of Army enlistments by Nisei and the soldiers' hopes and aspirations. He noted that the 'Niseis who give their lives and blood willingly for the Stars and Stripes have foremost in their minds the welfare of the Niseis in America and their future, and the hope of seeing them achieve a glorious place in American life." An explanation of the G.I. Bill of Rights and the Soldiers' Dependency Benefits was given by Koichi Ozone in Japanese. Two films, one entitled, "Go For Broke," that featured Nisei service men of the RCT in training, and the other on the invasion of Europe were shown. [113]

Evacuee Reaction. The announcement in January 1944 that Nisei would henceforth be subject to Selective Service procedures resulted in considerable debate among the evacuees at Manzanar. [114] One Nisei from Terminal Island, for instance, described his ambivalence to the announcement on February 18:

. . . . If only this country had given us our full rights of citizenship the spirit in which we go out to fight would be entirely different. No matter from what angle I think about it, this recent evacuation was plain discrimination and undemocratic. I cannot see that there was any necessity for all the hardships and bitterness we had to go through. 'We are fighting for freedom! for our rights!' says Uncle Sam, but it is hard for us remaining loyal niseis to fight for something when we don't know what credit we'll get at the end. Maybe the good side of America will give us our full rights of citizenship, but it is depressing and disappinting [sic] to hear the phrase, 'Once a Jap always a Jap' after we fight and fight and shed our blood for the victory of our country. There are already about 20,000 people of Japanese blood in Tule Lake but not all went because they were disloyal to this country. Most went because they are fed up with mistreatment, because they think that this country is not worth fighting for, because they fear that this country will never give us the full rights of our citizenship, because they think that this country will go on discriminating against us and treat us like the Negroes have been treated all these years. The Negroes have fought and fought ever since Lincoln gave their right to vote, but what do they get for it?

Well, I am one of the many loyal niseis who are adhering to this country because we still hope and we still think that we can fight to regain our equal rights. Will this be all in vain? What will the outcome be? [115]

As a result of the intense feelings that the announcement created in the camp, WRA camp administrators authorized meetings in each block on February 25-26, the purpose of which were to frame resolutions to be submitted to a general meeting with Project Director Merritt on February 27 and to select three representatives from each block who would speak for them at that time. Merritt had indicated that he would take the camp's resolutions to Washington, providing they were not "written in a demanding way." [116]

Opler attended one block meeting [117] that "was conducted in a relatively calm and orderly manner and there was little indication of extreme and irreconcilable bitterness except in one or two instances." According to Opler

. . . . For the most part the young men took the attitude that the draft was inevitable but felt nevertheless that they should protest against features of its application to them which they resented. While the implication at times was that compliance with the draft rested upon the fulfillment by the government of certain conditions, this was not clearly and definitely expressed. A good many of the boys, when the formal meeting was over and informal discussion was taking place, showed a wry but good-natured skepticism. . . .

In other blocks however, divisions and strong feelings were more in evidence, many Nisei indicating they did not mind being drafted but first they wanted a restoration of their civil rights. [118]

One of Opler's reports, issued on April 25, 1944, provided an evacuee's description of the meeting with Merritt on February 27 and a follow-up meeting on February 29 when the final resolutions were adopted by 102 Nisei block representatives. The evacuee observed:

After the Project Director and other Caucasians left our meeting on [February 27], we drew up a list of resolutions to be taken to Washington, D.C. by our Project Director.

. . . . So we delegates were allowed to speak. We voted for a Chairman. The Chairman carried on with discussion and resolutions. After each resolution was proposed we were allowed to vote for or against it.

There were quite a few agitators. We expected that. But the Chairman reminded the delegates of what the Project Director said he would do, and what kind of a petition was required before the Project Director would accept the job of taking it to Washington That carried the meeting along on a more quiet basis. After the petition was drawn up, a vote was taken to find out how many approved or disapproved of the whole thing. The majority approved so we elected an 11 man delegation to write up the resolutions in final form. . . .

On Tuesday night [February 29], another meeting was called for final approval of the Resolutions as they had been drawn up by the delegates. This meeting was held at 22 mess hall. . . . The agitation was somewhat stronger this time. Some got up and said that the resolutions should be written in a demanding way and should say that all nisei should not be called on to join the army until they had their full rights. . . .

Finally, the chairman said that those who are taking a stand should be clear about what they intend to do and should be ready to take the consequences. He asked how many were willing to go to jail rather than accept the draft under present conditions. About 18 fellows stood up. Then, he asked for a standing vote of those who wanted the resolutions to read that the nisei wouldn't go into the army until they had certain guarantees. If the majority had stood up this time the 'noes' would have won and the resolutions as they were written by the Committee would have had to be changed. About twice as many got up as got up the first time. But it was not enough. So the 'yes' won and resolutions remained intact. Of course, there were some who just didn't know what to do. In other words they were easily influenced and would jump to the winning side.

I spoke to some of the fellows and said this: 'The resolution already drawn up by the committee will not hurt us or do us harm. In fact, it gives us more of a winning chance to let the public know what we are up against.' Some of us are willing to join the army And I hope the 'noes' do not take too many chances. In fact, I am inclined to believe they wanted to blow off some steam and the meeting was just the place. . . .

In a foreword to the report, Opler noted that since the final resolutions had been adopted on February 29, calmer "heads have prevailed and even many of those who first spoke most strongly have moderated their tone." However, the "amount and intensity of feeling that was displayed at the Tuesday evening meeting suggests that the crisis cannot be considered entirely past until the test, the induction of a considerable body of young men, has taken place without incident." [119]

The "Manzanar Resolutions," as finally adopted on February 29, consisted of a memorandum to Merritt and resolutions to be submitted to the War Department as well as to the WRA. The resolutions to be submitted to the War Department included:

that in the future we be given the right to fight side by side with our fellow caucasian citizens. . . . and that we be given the opportunity and privilege to enlist or volunteer for all branches of the Armed Services without discrimination or segregation.

that all ranking officers be made to recognize that we are loyal Americans and that no discriminatory treatment be shown and that equal privileges and opportunities for advancement as enjoyed by other American soldiers be also given to us.

that all possible efforts be made by the War Department to acquaint these officers with the difference between the enemy and the loyal Japanese-Americans.

The resolutions to be submitted to the WRA included:

that we in Manzanar be considered as loyal to the United States and that military restrictions against our return to our former homes be lifted by the War Department as soon as possible.

that loyal aliens be given this privilege without discrimination as to race or color.

that where the inductee is the head of the family or is the chief support of the family, the Department of Interior upon request should protect and assist his family until such time as a home can be established elsewhere.

that serious consideration be given by the Department of Interior to problems of needy people of Japanese ancestry in the post-war period.

that honest, sincere efforts be made to impress the employers of such [war related] factories that no discrimination will be tolerated in the employment of Japanese-Americans.

that the WRA should not consider said organization [Japanese American Citizens League] as the spokesman for or in behalf of the citizens in the Manzanar Relocation Center. [120]

On March 1, the day after the "Manzanar Resolutions" were adopted, Opler prepared a report analyzing the Nisei reaction to the draft. Before listing the principal elements which entered "into the total Nisei reaction," he discussed "what the reaction does not mean." In his opinion it did not

mean that these boys as a group are cowards and are afraid of war and danger. Individuals among them may rationalize distaste for warfare in terms of past mistreatment and therefore may assert a lack of obligation to serve, but there are too many instances of present protestants whose brothers volunteered before evacuation, or who themselves actually were in the army before evacuation and who were discharged, or who were in a 1-A classification before evacuation and were quietly and without protest awaiting their call, to permit acceptance of such an explanation. Nor do I think the response is related to any widespread shiftlessness or abnormal unwillingness to face responsibilities. Too many of these young men had assumed considerable work responsibilities and family responsibilities before this issue arose.

Accordingly, Opler listed eight factors which he considered to be the most significant in explaining the Nisei reaction to the draft at Manzanar. The eight factors were:

1. Resentment over evacuation and the need to reestablish status.

2. Rejection of Services in the Past.

3. Special Treatment of February, 1943 [associated with registration].

4. Isolation and time element.

5. Unfavorable publicity.

6. Distrust of the Motives of the Federal Government.

7. Repudiation of past leadership [JACL].

8. Lack of tangible incentives, present and future.

In conclusion, Opler observed that the "eight major factors which I have enumerated are not an exhaustive list but they do point to the most important considerations involved." The factors

not only explain, in large measure, the attitude toward the draft, but they also throw much light on the present movement for expatriation and repatriation among evacuee children and their parents. As long as the issue of the draft did not arise, parents, even though they were uncertain of the future in America, were willing to take a 'wait and see attitude' and to hope that somehow the problems of compensation, prejudice and rehabilitation would be worked out and that they would be able to remain in this country. Even through their skepticism was great they saw no need to take the initiative in a move that would cut them and their children off from a possible future in America. They had shown, however, at the time of the February registration that they would take such action if they felt unfairly pressed. Then, as a reaction the original Question 28 submitted to aliens, which was interpreted by them as an attack upon their Japanese citizenship, many refused to answer until the wording was modified. At the same time there was a rash of requests for repatriation and expatriation. It is plain, then, that any action which will bring about a more affirmative attitude toward the draft, will likewise ease the situation concerning repatriation and expatriation requests. [121]

Although such sentiments would continue throughout the history of Manzanar, there were no incidents of draft evasion among the Nisei at Manzanar.

Photo 90: Lt. Eugene Bogard, U.S. Army, explaining registration, Manzanar War Relocation Center;
photo by Francis Stewart, February 11, 1943; RG 210, Still Pictures Branch, National Archives and Records Administration.

Photo 91: Memorial service for Pfc. Frank Arikawa, auditorium, August 6, 1944, Manzanar War Relocation Center;
Toyo Miyatake Photograph Collection, Toyo Miyatake Studio, San Gabriel, California.