South Texas College of Law Houston Digital Collections
Not a member yet
1557 research outputs found
Sort by
Executive Committee Meeting Materials 10/2003.
No full textMaterials from the executive committee meeting held October 24, 2003, in Des Moines, IA
2007 Midyear Meeting
No full textMaterials from the midyear meeting helpd February 22-12, 2007 in Durham, NC
[Transcript. Supreme Court Advisory Committee Meeting, Afternoon Session, April 11, 2003.]
No full text[Letter] 2023 January 26, Claude Cummings, Jr., Vice President, Communication Workers of America, to to Hon. Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C.
No full textClaude Cummings, Jr., vice president of District 6, Communication Workers of America, writes to urge clemency on behalf of the soldiers of the 24th Infantry based on the maltreatment of the soldiers by the police and residents of Houston
[Letter] 2023 November 9. Christine E. Wormuth,Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C., to South Texas College of Law Houston, Houston, Tex.
No full textLetter from the Secretary of the Army informing of the decision to correct the military records of the soldiers in 24th to reflect they received an honorable discharge and that all rights and privleges lost because of the courts-marital convictions have been restored. A full list of those soldiers is included
[Letter] 2023 January 23 Lonita Baker, Esq., President, National Bar Association, to Hon. Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, and General James McConville, Office of the Chief of Staff, Washington, D.C.
No full text[Letter] 2023 February 3, Kim Ogg, Harris County District Attorney, to Hon. Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, and General James McConville, Office of the Chief of Staff, Washington, D.C.
No full text[Letter] 2023 November 9. Christine E. Wormuth,Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C., to Retired General and Flag Officers, Houston, Tex.
No full textLetter from the Secretary of the Army informing of the decision to correct the military records of the soldiers in 24th to reflect they received an honorable discharge and that all rights and privleges lost because of the courts-marital convictions have been restored. A full list of those soldiers is included
[Letter] 2022 January 10, Retired Flag Officers to Hon. Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, and General James McConville, Office of the Chief of Staff, Washington, D.C.
No full text1
January 10, 2022
The Honorable Christine Wormuth Secretary of the Army 101 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20310-0101
General James C. McConville Office of the Chief of Staff 200 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20310-0200
Re: Retired Flag Officers’ Endorsement of Clemency Petition for Members of 3d Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment Convicted in the 1917-1918 Houston “Mutiny” Courts-Martial
Dear Secretary Wormuth and General McConville:
We are a group of retired flag officers from various branches of the United States military. Many of us first coalesced in 2005 in an effort to get the United States out of the business of torture; and this effort ultimately succeeded. In December 2020, we became aware of a long-ago miscarriage of military justice which we believed should finally be addressed and rectified by the Army itself. In January 2021, we sent a letter to then-Secretary Ryan and General McConville supporting the clemency petition submitted on behalf of the 110 soldiers convicted by General Courts-Martial in United States v. Nesbit, et al., United States v. Washington, et al., and United States v. Tillman, et al., in 1917 and 1918, and who were discharged from the Army under dishonorable or less than honorable conditions. This letter is attached as Encl. A. We specifically requested that Secretary Ryan direct, as an exercise of posthumous clemency, the issuance of honorable discharges for all soldiers assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment who were convicted in these three trials. On January 19, 2021 we were informed by Undersecretary James E. McPherson that our request and accompanying documents would be forwarded to the Director of the Army Staff to arrange for a comprehensive review and recommendation to the Secretary and Chief of Staff as to the 110 convicted soldiers of the 3d Battalion, 24th Infantry. (Encl. B)
We have reviewed the addendum to the original clemency petition which was submitted to the Secretary through the Army General Counsel on 5 December 2021. The additional matters raised in the addendum only confirm our prior recommendation that the Army grant clemency to these 110 soldiers. We urge the Secretary to upgrade of the characterization of service for all 110 convicted soldiers to honorable and to forward these three trials to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records to evaluate if the substantial failure of due process in these three trials amounts to fundamental unfairness sufficient to overturn the convictions obtained as a result. In our opinion, that standard is more than met.
As we stated in our original letter, leaders in all branches of the United States armed forces are dedicated to eliminating racial inequities in a force where merit and experience lead to equal opportunities to excel and achieve. Nowhere is this more important than in the maintenance of good order and discipline. This remains a perpetual responsibility of all military leaders; a responsibility that still calls out to be fulfilled for these 110 soldiers 104 years later.
We continue to believe that it is necessary that the Army correct the injustice experienced by these soldiers even more than a century later. These soldiers served their nation in peace and in war, 2
serving in the Spanish-American War, in the Philippine Insurrection and pacification, and in the 1916 Punitive Expedition. These soldiers were ready and prepared to deploy to fight for our nation in World War I, and continued to seek return to the colors they served in order to do so. Loyalty in the military goes both ways; the Army has an obligation to provide justice to these soldiers, their descendants, and the victims harmed during the events in Houston on August 23, 1917. We urge you to do so on behalf of the Army and the nation that these soldiers served so loyally and well.
Respectfully and sincerely,
GEN Johnnie Wilson, USA (Ret) GEN Vincent K. Brooks, USA (Ret)
LTG Arthur J. Gregg, USA (Ret) MG Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret)
RADM John Hutson, USN (Ret) RADM Don Guter, USN (Ret)
MajGen Charles F. Bolden, Jr., USMC (Ret) BGen Leif Hendrickson, USMC (Ret)
LTG Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret) BGen Steve Cheney, USMC (Ret)
LTG Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret) RDML Jamie Barnett, USN (Ret)
MG John C. Doesburg, USA (Ret) MG Tony Taguba, USA (Ret)
RADM Robert E. Besal, USN (Ret) BG Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret)
BG Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret) MajGen Michael R. Lehnert, USMC (Ret)
LTG Paul T, Mikolashek, USA (Ret) LTG Charles P. Otstott, USA (Ret)
LTG Joseph Anderson, USA (Ret) MG Joseph Brendler, Sr., USA (Ret)
MG Roger F. Mathews, USA (Ret) MG William L. Nash, USA (Ret)
MG Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret) MG Jerome Johnson, USA (Ret)
BG Thomas P. Barrett, USA (Ret) BG David R. Irvine, USA (Ret)
LtGen Richard F. Natonski, USMC (Ret) BG Lawrence Gillespie, USA (Ret
[Letter] 2022 March 3, Derrick Johnson, Baltimore, MD, to Hon. Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, and General James McConville, Office of the Chief of Staff, Washington, D.C.
No full textDerrick Johnson, President and CEO of the NAACP, wrote a comprehensive letter in support of clemency for the men of the 24th. In it, he outlines the systemic racial discrimination of the United States Army, Jim Crow Houston, and the wider United States.March 3, 2022
The Honorable Christine Wormuth
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310-0101
General James C. McConville
Office of the Chief of Staff
200 Army Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310-0200
Re: Clemency for U.S. Soldiers Stationed at Camp Logan
Dear Secretary Wormuth and General McConville:
I write today on behalf of the NAACP, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization.
This matter is of utmost importance to the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committee of the
NAACP National Board and the NAACP as a whole and most importantly, the families of those soldiers
who were convicted during the Camp Logan Court Martials. The NAACP seeks clemency for the 110
Black soldiers of the 3d Battalion, 24th Infantry of the U.S. Army who were convicted without
competent legal counsel, unjustly punished and, in the cases of 19 men, executed, following the racially-charged
events in Houston, Texas on August 23, 1917. In making this request, the NAACP asks the
question: If not now, when? Literally, more than a century has passed since these men were unfairly
convicted, imprisoned, and killed.
As you know, racial discrimination and Jim Crow were so embedded in the culture of this
country that even our nation’s armed forces were segregated until after a 1948 Presidential Executive
Order. Even more unfortunate than the treatment of Black soldiers by the Houston police and white
citizenry that led to the events of August 23, 1917 was the treatment of these soldiers by the U.S. Army
following those events. Even by the standards of the day, the mass “trials” were a serious miscarriage of
justice. Following three mass trials where all defendants were represented by a single non-lawyer, a
total of 110 enlisted Black soldiers were found guilty, 19 were hanged, and 63 received life sentences.
These were not faceless, nameless statistics. These were men.
Historical Background
It is only possible to understand the events of August 23, 1917 within the context of the
pervasive and systemic racially-motivated discrimination and violence both in the U.S. Army and in
Houston, Texas. In 1917, Texas was widely known for its Jim Crow segregation, racially-motivated
mob violence and spectacle lynchings, and other forms of racism and violence against Black people.
Black soldiers representing the U.S. Army, in particular, faced resentment and violence by white Texans
during this time. Only a decade prior to the August, 23, 1917 incidents, an officer commanding Black
troops in the 25th Infantry wrote, “The sentiment in Texas is so hostile against colored troops that there
is always the danger of serious trouble between the citizens and soldiers whenever they are brought into
contact.”1
The racial animus and violence towards Black soldiers were so expected during this time that,
when he was ordered to Houston, the commanding officer of the 3d Battalion sought to get the orders
changed. Lieutenant Colonel William Newman reported that he had previously witnessed racial
violence against Black soldiers under his command, including when a Texas Ranger killed one of his
soldiers in Del Rio in 1916 “for no other reason than that he was a colored man; that it angered Texans
to see colored men in the uniform of a soldier.”2 Despite the known racial animus towards Black
soldiers, the U.S. Army sent battalions of the 24th Infantry to Houston without ensuring they would be
accepted and treated with respect by the community. The events of August 23, 1917 must be examined
within the context of this widely understood and well-documented racially-motivated discrimination and
violence.3
On August 16, 1917, six days prior, U.S. Senator James Vardaman, while on the Senate floor,
gave a blatantly racist speech and warned how the South would view Black soldiers. “The use of
firearms and the placing of the ballot in the hands of the negro in a white man’s country are inconsistent
with good government, good order, and good feeling between the races. The outcome of such an
experiment . . . will inevitably lead to disaster…. Impress the negro with the fact that he is defending the
flag, inflate his untutored soul with military airs, teach him that it is his duty to keep the emblem of the
Nation flying triumphantly in the air it is but a short step to the conclusion that his political rights must
be respected, even though it is necessary for him to give his life in defense of those rights, and you at
once create a problem far-reaching and momentous in its character. . . . The two races can not live
together on terms of and political equality.”4
Today, the Army undoubtedly is aware of the discrimination that Black soldiers faced. The U.S.
Armed Forces were racially segregated until President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 9981
directing the military to end segregation. The first article stated, “There shall be equality of treatment
and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national
origin.” That Executive Order, however, was not issued until 1948, more than 40 years after the events
at issue. President Truman had been especially moved by the story of Isaac Woodard, who had been
arrested, beaten and blinded by South Carolina police officers on February 12, 1946. At the time of the
1 Tempest in Texas: The Controversial Courts-Martial of an All-Black Regiment, John A. Haymond, HistoryNet, Spring
2021, https://www.historynet.com/tempest-in-texas-the-controversial-courts-martial-of-an-all-black-regiment.htm
2 The 1917 Houston Riots/Camp Logan Mutiny, Prairie View A&M University, https://www.pvamu.edu/tiphc/research-projects/
the-1917-houston-riotscamp-logan-mutiny/ (as of Feb. 3. 2022)
3 Two of the Army’s own Inspectors Generals who reviewed the Army’s response to these events separately concluded that
the citizens and law enforcement in Houston treated the Black soldiers with racial hostility since the unit arrived in the city.
Those Inspector general also concluded that Houston and its citizens were responsible for provoking the outbreak of violence
on August 23, 1917.
4 Cong. Rec. – Senate 6063-64 (1917) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1917-pt6-v55/pdf/GPO-CRECB-
1917-pt6-v55-18.pdf
attack, Woodard was still in uniform, having been honorably discharged from the Army only a few
hours earlier.5
“This We'll Defend”
“This We'll Defend”6 has been the motto of the United States Army since the Revolutionary
War. It still appears on the U.S. Army flag. The motto signifies the Army’s ever readiness to defend the
United States. Sadly, the soldiers of 3d Battalion, 24th Infantry were punished for taking this motto to
heart. As discussed below, these soldiers were prosecuted, imprisoned, and executed for daring to
defend the Army personnel of Camp Logan against perceived threats. The actions of the Army were the
embodiment of the racist dichotomy Black soldiers faced at the time. They were expected to defend
their country, but forbidden from defending themselves. All told, the Army would end the lives of 19
Black men as punishment for the 18 white lives lost during a night of violence prompted by the
unprovoked attack of a Black soldier.
The soldiers deployed to Camp Logan faced threats that their unit would be lynched before
leaving Houston. Earlier in the day on August 23, 1917, two members of the Houston police shot at,
beat, and arrested one of the battalion’s non-commissioned officers, Corporal Charles Baltimore. This
most recent act of racially-motivated violence heightened the fear and tension in the 3d Battalion’s camp
that day. Soldiers in the 3d Battalion feared for their safety and believed a mob was on its way to attack
their camp, a U.S. Army installation. The men took up arms to defend the camp from what they
believed was an advancing mob. The men heard a cry that a mob was coming and gunfire followed,
increasing the unrest in the camp even further. Though Major Kneeland S. Snow ordered that all
members of the camp were to remain in place that evening, he abandoned the camp and his men, fleeing
toward town in a panic. Major Snow left the 3d Battalion without officer leadership as alarm spread
through the camp.
On August 23, 1917, expecting an imminent mob attack, the non-commissioned officers
established defensive positions in the camp and distributed ammunition as gunfire ensued. Believing
they were under attack, Sergeant Vida Henry marched his unit toward town. The unit advanced,
believing it was marching out to defend against a mob attack. That night, the violence lasted
approximately three hours before the unit attempted to return to camp. Essentially, ignoring these
circumstances, the Army responded with what amounted to a serious and ultimately fatal miscarriage of
justice.
The prosecution team, led by Colonel John A. Hull, interrogated the soldiers at Fort Bliss where
they were held in confinement. From the outset of the investigation, the Army used improper, unjust,
and sometimes illegal, tactics and procedures to prosecute more than 100 defendants together. During
the interrogations, the Board of Investigation threatened these soldiers with execution if they did not
5 A short history of integration in the US armed forces, Walt Napier, 514th Air Mobility Wing, Official United States Air
Force Website, July 1, 2021, https://www.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/2676311/a-short-history-of-integration-
in-the-us-armed-forces/
6 “This” refers to the United States, the U. S. Constitution, and liberty. Those ideals to be defended included the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1886, both of which provided for the protection of the civil
rights of Black Americans, including the men of the 3d Battalion, 24th Infantry.
cooperate. Not only was this in violation of the law, but it indicates the Army’s gross malfeasance in its
investigation, prosecution, and overall treatment of these men.
Whether, due to collusion, apathy, or incompetence, the single non-attorney who represented
these more than 100 men at three mass trials did not make even the most basic arguments to defend
them. Indeed, following the first trial, which resulted in 13 Black soldiers being hanged within days
without any external review or opportunity for appeal, their counsel was commended by the opposing
attorney for not raising defenses that might have helped his clients.7 Following the verdicts, Major
General Ruckman ordered that the verdicts and execution sentences not be made public until after the
men were executed. The thirteen men who were executed were not given any opportunity to appeal or
even say goodbye to their families. The Army’s execution of these 13 men, without any external review
or appeals, remains the largest mass execution of American soldiers ever carried out by the Army.
This secret verdict that evaded external review was only legally permissible under the Articles of
War because Congress had declared war on Germany. Importantly, these provisions for hasty wartime
executions were intended to operate within the context of war, not within the United States. Further,
Article 51 of the Manual for Courts Martial expressly authorized Major General Ruckman to suspend
these executions “until the pleasure of the President shall be known”. Major General Ruckman chose
not to exercise his authority to ensure these men received an external review of their sentences and
instead ensured the Army hastily and secretly executed them. Given the circumstances surrounding the
perceived racially-motivated mob attack and consistent racist animosity Houston’s police and citizenry
held against the soldiers, Major General Ruckman’s decision not to seek external review of these
sentences was a tragic miscarriage of justice that ended the lives of 13 men. Newspaper reports of the
executions noted that the time and place of the execution were not revealed prior to the Army’s actions.
In short, in gruesome irony, the Army hanged in secret these Black soldiers who fought to protect
themselves from being lynched in public.
Another 15 men were tried in a second mass trial, all represented by the same non-lawyer that
represented the 63 defendants in the first trial. This trial resulted in 5 death sentences and a third
resulted in an additional 11 death sentences. Due to the national outcry following the hasty executions
that took place without any external review after the first trial, the Army implemented General Order
No. 7, which required that all death sentences be reviewed by the President. Of the 16 death sentences,
President Wilson approved only six.
In these three mass trials, there was not even an attempt to attain the truth or deliver justice. A
review of the record shows that the prosecution did not establish as to any defendant the elements of the
crimes of which these men were accused. Sadly, the outcomes of the trials were foregone conclusions –
white people were dead and Black men needed to pay. The soldiers were treated as fungible. The guilt
or innocence of any individual men was irrelevant.
The fact that more than 100 men were represented by a single non-lawyer who lacked adequate
court-martial experience alone is enough to conclude that the Army made no good faith effort to learn
what really transpired on August 23, 1917. It cannot reasonably be argued that this multitude of men
represented by a single non-lawyer received due process. That those men were tried in mass trials,
7 Major General Ruckman reviewed the trial record for this 30-day trial in only three days, rejecting the court-martial panel’s
clemency recommendation for one of the men and ordering the immediate execution of the thirteen death sentences.
resulting in death sentences that, in the cases of 13 men, were carried out without any external review,
further shows that these trials amounted to a serious and deadly miscarriage of justice.
Upon learning the facts of how the Army had handled the trials and punishment of the Camp
Logan soldiers, American Bar Association President George T. Page, on January 3, 1919, stated: “[O]ur
military laws and our systems of administering military justice are unworthy of the name of law or
justice.” In condemning the Army’s actions, he noted: “The negro soldiers convicted of shooting up a
Texas town were executed , , , before there was an opportunity for a review of the record of the trial.”8
In short, the NAACP’s request for clemency is not the result of viewing the Army’s 1917 actions
through a 2022 lens. Even by jurisprudence standards in place at that time, the handling of the trials and
punishments of these soldiers were a travesty of justice.
The Army failed to act justly throughout its entire investigation and prosecution of these soldiers.
The records show that the prosecution did not prove the elements of mutiny as to the vast majority of the
accused or consider clemency requests in good faith. This appears to be because there was no need to
do so. The trials were a foregone conclusion. As one clear indication that these mass trials were
nothing more than a severe miscarriage of justice, even men who reportedly never left the camp were
convicted of mutiny. Despite recommendations from two Inspectors General, the Army failed to refer
charges against the Battalion Commander, Major Kneeland S. Snow, who abandoned his unit and fled to
town before any of the Black soldiers who were sentenced in these trials left the camp. This is yet
another indication that the Army did not make a good faith attempt to justly seek accountability for
those responsible for the violence on August 23, 1917.
Given the circumstances of racially-motivated threats and unprovoked violence that sparked the
unrest on August 23, 1917, the abandonment of the unit by its own commanding officer, and the Army’s
abject failures in its response to these events, among other problems, it is clear that these men were
subjected to serious injustice by the Army.
The NAACP asks that the Army recognize the injustices that tainted the events of August 23,
1917 and the Army’s treatment of these men thereafter, including failure to afford these soldiers due
process, equal protection under the law, and competent legal representation. The NAACP requests that
the Army upgrade all 110 soldiers’ discharges to honorable due to the numerous and prejudicial
deficiencies during the investigation, resulting trials, verdicts, and executions.
Sincerely,
Derrick Johnson
President and CEO
NAACP
8 https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1919-01-04/ed-1/seq-16