Here’s a truth bomb: In 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, of all people, signed Executive Order 9066, setting off one of the most controversial periods in American history. It was February 19, to be exact. The decision came amidst the chaos of World War II when America was on high alert after the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7, 1941. With national security at the forefront of everyone's mind, Roosevelt took a bold step, authorizing the Secretary of War to designate military areas and exclude persons considered security threats. The majority of those affected were Japanese Americans on the West Coast, about 120,000 people, many of whom were US citizens.
While some may cry foul over "civil liberties," let’s get one thing straight: Roosevelt’s decision was about safeguarding the American homeland from espionage and sabotage. With Japanese submarines prowling off the California coast and the U.S. fresh in the line of fire, a strong protective measure was necessary. We were at War – a real War – and unlike some, Roosevelt took actions he deemed necessary in such unprecedented times.
Let’s talk about the big picture. Roosevelt’s executive order was not about racism or xenophobia, as some like to brand it. Here's a tidbit often brushed under the carpet: Executive Order 9066 also served as a legal means to exclude around 11,000 persons of German and Italian ancestry. But mostly, its impact on Japanese Americans is the focal point of endless critiques. The priority then was national safety, and harsh decisions were the order of the day. The U.S. was grappling with a terrifying enemy from the Pacific, and an attack on the mainland was not a far-fetched scenario.
Moving the narrative forward, once this executive order was signed, the Western Defense Command was created under the direction of Lieutenant General John DeWitt. He’s often the scapegoat, labeled as having unnecessary biases. But let’s reflect; he had a duty to carry out orders in a manner that protected the American people. Men like DeWitt had to act on the intelligence and situations presented to them, and they believed temporary relocation was an effective method.
The relocation involved assembling Japanese Americans in temporary centers at places like racetracks and fairgrounds before they were moved to more permanent "War Relocation Centers." These were essentially desolate, remote camps with minimal comforts, but this disruption was believed necessary by leadership during a perilous time. Critics latch on to these camps as institutions of suffering, failing to contextualize the nation’s predicament.
In the years following the war, America re-examined this chapter of its history, and it culminated with President Reagan signing the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. This act apologized and provided reparations to affected Japanese Americans. But here’s the kicker: it’s easy to retrospectively criticize the actions of our wartime leaders while sitting on modern-day comfy couches.
Some traditionalists get lambasted for pointing out that decisions of that era were made under extreme duress and high stakes. Perspective is key. The security challenges faced back then were real, not cooked up fantasies. Leaders, forced to address the imminent menace at the shores, chose policies they deemed defensive steps, however imperfect.
So when critics get onto their moral high horses, perhaps they should ask themselves what they’d propose in a similar tight spot. The complexities of executive choices during World War II sometimes get lost in simplistic rhetoric. Just because modern pundits are distant from those experiences doesn't mean they possess the magic answers for past conflicts.
The complexity of Executive Order 9066 isn’t about demonizing one pole of politics or the other. Sometimes harsh actions were taken not out of malice, but necessity in the context of preservation. It’s not about justifying all decisions made, but acknowledging the forced hand of the leadership trying to fend off the threats of the era. Empires rise and fall not by soft talk and idealistic dithering, but by taking decisive actions, however challenging and scrutinized they may be in hindsight.