WW 1968: Black GIs stand firm at ‘riot-duty’ refusal trial

Editor’s note: Workers World is in its 50th year of publication. Throughout the year, we will share with our readers some of the paper’s content over the past half century. Below is an article on the trial of the Fort Hood 43 originally published in the issue dated Nov. 10, 1968.

Racist brass nervous, give light sentences; ASU, ECLC cooperate for defense

On Aug. 24, 1968, electrifying news of a demonstration by over 100 black soldiers against possible riot duty in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention came from Fort Hood, Texas. Just after 6 a.m. that morning MPs were ordered to break up the all-night demonstration at Central Ave. & 65th in the middle of the 40,000-man army fort. Forty-three black GIs were arrested on the pretext that they were missing reveille formation. Those arrested were later beaten by military police in the post stockade annex.

As soon as this news broke, the American Servicemen’s Union called the Public Information Officer at Fort Hood and demanded to know the names of the men arrested. The PIO refused, but within a few hours the Union had obtained the names its own way. The men were contacted and legal defense arranged. When hearings began in September, ASU members went to Fort Hood and were arrested for “vagrancy” by local cops in collusion with the military.

The following account of the trial of six black GIs is written by Ellen Catalinotto, who went to Fort Hood with representatives of The Bond and the ASU to show support for the men singled out for more serious general courts-martial.

By Ellen Catalinotto

FORT HOOD, Texas, Oct. 25 – The court-martial of six black GIs who demonstrated along with 100 others against racism and riot control duty ended here tonight after four days. Two men were acquitted, two got sentences of three months hard labor and the others received bad conduct discharges. The sentences, considerably less than the maximum, were an indication of the Army’s fear that harsher punishment might backfire and lead to open rebellion.

The convictions were the expected outcome of military “justice” so the real climax of the trial came when the convicted men took the stand and put the Army on trial for racism.

The six men on trial today–Pfc. Guy Smith, Sgt. Robert Rucker, Sp/4 Tollie Royal, Pvt. Ernest Frederick, Pfc. Ernest Bess and Sp/4 Albert Henry–were the first of 19 soldiers who face more serious general courts-martial, which can hand down maximum sentences of five years hard labor and a dishonorable discharge. Twenty-two others were tried by special court-martial, in which six months hard labor and a fine is the maximum penalty. Civilian lawyers for all the men were arranged for by the American Servicemen’s Union so the accused would not have to depend on Army officers to “defend” them, as is customary.

Tension built up outside building 2230–Fort Hood Courtroom–this afternoon as the defendants, civilian supporters from the Committee for GI Rights, The Bond and the Oleo Strut, and GI sympathizers awaited the verdict. The court (equivalent of a civilian jury) of 17 officers and noncommissioned officers–the latter are called “enlisted men” to pretend that the accused are before a jury of their peers–deliberated from 10:25 a.m. until 1:15 p.m. before declaring Smith, Frederick, Royal and Henry guilty of “willfully disobeying the lawful command of a superior officer.” Rucker and Bess were acquitted of the same charge.

Throughout the four-day proceedings, black and white GIs came to the courtroom to show their solidarity with the men on trial. They were subjected to constant harassment by the unsettled brass for doing so.

A black soldier in civilian dress, who was being separated from the Army and only awaited the final processing of his papers, was arrested for failure to salute during flag-lowering as he stood outside the court building. A white GI who pulled his car into the drive outside the building was ticketed for “blocking the roadway” although a jeep had passed him without trouble.

After the verdict was returned, defense attorney Michael Kennedy of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee called those convicted to the stand to testify on their own behalf.

Sp/4 Tollie Royal told the court he had studied biology in college for a year before beginning a two-year hitch in the Army. He was the outstanding soldier of his cycle in basic training and was assigned to the infantry. Royal is married and the father of three young sons.

Royal stood up and said with emotion, “I know I am innocent.... Tell me how you found me guilty.” The court was apparently stunned by this. Their eyes were averted and no one answered. After repeating his question, Royal was interrupted by the law officer (similar to a civilian judge), Col. Barry. Barry said the question was improper since the court was bound not to reveal how it reached its conclusion during secret deliberations, etc., etc.

Sp/4 Albert Henry took the stand next. Henry, 19, was wounded twice in Vietnam, once while pulling a wounded comrade out of fire despite an order to stay behind. He told the court, “I know I was innocent but you found me guilty and I will accept your punishment.... This won’t stop anything. What is going on at Fort Hood is not right.”

Pvt. Frederick let the court have it. “I’m no angel and don’t claim to be one,” he said. (His record, which included such “crimes” as taking an unauthorized Christmas leave, had been read to the court.) He defended the demonstration by black GIs and ended by saying, “I am not guilty.”

Pfc. Guy Smith was the last to speak. He had spent two months in the stockade in Vietnam for refusing the order of a racist NCO who assigned him to guard duty when Smith was due for R&R after four months in the field. He told the court, “I demonstrated against Army policy here and in Vietnam.... There is racism and prejudice here. General Bowles said he would do something about it, but nothing has been done.... There are clubs in Killeen [the base town] where black GIs can’t go.... The black man has been held back because of his color. Your convictions add to the injustice.” And he warned, “Too many black people are taking too much now.”

In summing up the testimony for mitigation and extenuation, attorney Kennedy said, “The Army’s racist policies are on trial. Indicate that you will work to end racism in the Army.”

The reply of the prosecutor, Capt. Trammel, was very brief. “This United States Army, this United States,” he said, “cannot survive without law and order.”

Deliberation on the sentences took over three hours and it was dark when the court convened for the last time. Royal was sentenced to three months unconfined hard labor, reduction to lowest rank and fined $75. Henry got the same sentence but with confinement for three months. Smith and Frederick got bad conduct discharges.

Morale was high as the men left the courtroom, shaking hands and gathering around the jeep that was to take Henry to the stockade. The relatively lenient sentences were a victory–not of justice, but of the strength and determination of the black soldiers not to be used against their brothers.

If justice had figured in this at all, there would have been no convictions to begin with, since the prosecution’s case was practically non-existent.

A Col. Cassidy was brought in to testify that he heard Col. Kulo, who was Provost Marshal of Fort Hood at the time, order the black soldiers to disperse. Col. Kulo then testified to that himself, although on cross-examination it appeared that the order was not really an order but merely an instruction. An MP sergeant likewise said he heard the order and that is was an order. Lt. John Baker, who was on duty at the stockade when the 43 prisoners arrived, read the blotter entry indicating the names of the men on trial today and the charges against them. On questioning by Kennedy it was revealed that the charges listed on the blotter were not the charges for which they were on trial. Furthermore, only one of the men on trial was identified by prosecution witnesses.

The defense then made a motion to throw the whole case out on the grounds that no evidence had been presented linking the accused with the charge–violation of Article 90–for which they were being tried. The motion was denied by Col. Barry just as he consistently denied numerous defense motions.

Early in the proceedings Kennedy had put the prosecutor on the stand and asked why 19 men, including his six clients, were referred to general courts-martial when 22 others had been tried by special courts. Capt. Trammel said it could be because of previous convictions or the records of the men. But when Kennedy asked him to compare the record of one GI given a special court-martial with Sgt. Rucker’s record–Rucker had a much better record than the other man–Trammel hemmed and hawed and stammered. It was apparent that the brass thought these six men were leaders of the protest and tried to hit them harder with general courts-martial, but were afraid to say so. Col. Barry finally rescued the prosecution by saying that it was up to the discretion of the commanding officer as to what kind of court-martial a soldier gets and that was that.