The Political Party That Stood Against Japanese Internment Camps

During World War II, the internment of Japanese Americans in camps across the United States was met with widespread criticism, though opposition was not uniform across political parties. The Democratic Party, which held the presidency under Franklin D. Roosevelt, was primarily responsible for implementing Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment. While many Democrats supported the policy, some within the party, particularly those on the progressive wing, voiced concerns about its constitutionality and moral implications. The Republican Party, though generally supportive of the war effort, had members who opposed the internment on civil liberties grounds. Notably, figures like Republican Governor Earl Warren of California initially supported the camps but later expressed regret. However, the most consistent and vocal opposition came from smaller political groups and individual activists, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and various religious organizations, which transcended party lines to advocate for the rights of Japanese Americans.

Explore related products

Democratizing the Enemy: The Japanese American Internment

$29.42 $45

Japanese American Internment Camps (Heroes of World War II (Alternator Books ® ))

$4.75 $9.99

Enemy Child: The Story of Norman Mineta, a Boy Imprisoned in a Japanese American Internment Camp During World War II

$17.65 $22.99

Facing the Mountain: An Inspiring Story of Japanese American Patriots in World War II

$10.47 $19

Barbed Voices: Oral History, Resistance, and the World War II Japanese American Social Disaster (Nikkei in the Americas)

$27.5 $31.95

The Japanese Internment Camps: A History Perspectives Book (Perspectives Library)

$12.5 $14.21

Democratic Party's Stance: Key figures and policies opposing Japanese internment during WWII

During World War II, the Democratic Party was not uniformly opposed to Japanese internment, but key figures within the party emerged as vocal critics of this policy. One of the most prominent was First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who used her platform to advocate for the rights of Japanese Americans. Despite her husband President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment, Eleanor consistently expressed her dissent. She wrote in her newspaper column, *My Day*, about the injustice of internment and privately urged her husband to reconsider the policy. Her stance, though not always public, highlighted the moral complexities within the Democratic Party during this period.

Another critical figure was Colorado Governor Ralph Lawrence Carr, a Democrat who stood firmly against internment. Carr refused to comply with the federal government’s demands to establish camps in his state and publicly condemned the policy as unconstitutional. His famous declaration, “The Japanese-Americans in Colorado are not enemies,” set him apart from many of his contemporaries. Carr’s opposition came at a political cost; his stance alienated voters, and he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate in 1940. Yet, his principled stand remains a testament to the courage of those within the Democratic Party who opposed internment.

The Democratic Party’s official policies during this time were largely aligned with the federal government’s actions, but grassroots movements and individual legislators pushed for change. Representative Jeanette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to Congress, was a staunch opponent of internment. She argued that the policy violated the Constitution and fundamental American values. Rankin’s opposition was part of her broader pacifism, but it underscored the diversity of thought within the Democratic Party. Her efforts, though unsuccessful in halting internment, laid the groundwork for later critiques of the policy.

While the Democratic Party’s overall stance was not one of outright opposition, these key figures demonstrate that dissent existed within its ranks. Their actions provide a critical lens through which to analyze the party’s role during this dark chapter in American history. Practical takeaways from their efforts include the importance of individual moral courage in politics and the need for sustained advocacy, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. These figures remind us that even within a dominant political narrative, voices of dissent can shape future discourse and policy.

Civil Liberties Advocates: Groups like ACLU fought against internment on constitutional grounds

During World War II, as the U.S. government forcibly relocated over 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps, civil liberties advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) emerged as a critical voice of dissent. While many organizations remained silent or acquiesced to wartime hysteria, the ACLU took a bold stand, challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066. Their efforts, though often overshadowed by the era’s nationalism, laid the groundwork for future legal battles over civil rights and due process.

The ACLU’s opposition was rooted in a meticulous analysis of the Constitution, particularly the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. They argued that the internment of Japanese Americans without individual hearings or evidence of wrongdoing violated these fundamental rights. In a 1942 statement, the ACLU declared that “the guilt or innocence of individual citizens cannot be determined by their racial ancestry.” This principled stance came at a cost: the organization faced public backlash, with some accusing it of disloyalty during wartime. Yet, the ACLU’s legal team, led by figures like Ernest Besig, persisted in filing amicus briefs and supporting cases like *Korematsu v. United States*, despite the Supreme Court’s eventual upholding of the internment policy.

To understand the ACLU’s strategy, consider their three-pronged approach: legal advocacy, public education, and coalition-building. First, they provided pro bono legal assistance to internees, such as Fred Korematsu, who refused to comply with the relocation order. Second, they published pamphlets and articles debunking the government’s claims of military necessity, emphasizing the absence of evidence linking Japanese Americans to espionage or sabotage. Third, they collaborated with religious groups, labor unions, and other civil rights organizations to amplify their message. For instance, the ACLU worked with the American Friends Service Committee to document the inhumane conditions in the camps, further exposing the injustice.

A comparative analysis reveals the ACLU’s unique role in this historical moment. While some liberal politicians, like Democratic Congressman Vito Marcantonio, spoke out against internment, their efforts were largely symbolic and lacked the ACLU’s sustained legal and educational campaigns. Similarly, while Japanese American organizations like the Japanese American Citizens League initially cooperated with the government, the ACLU remained steadfast in its opposition. This contrast highlights the ACLU’s willingness to prioritize constitutional principles over political expediency, even when doing so was deeply unpopular.

In retrospect, the ACLU’s fight against Japanese American internment serves as a cautionary tale and a call to action. It reminds us that civil liberties are most vulnerable during times of crisis, when fear and prejudice can override rational judgment. For modern advocates, the ACLU’s example offers practical lessons: stay grounded in constitutional principles, build diverse coalitions, and be prepared to endure criticism for upholding justice. As we confront contemporary challenges to civil rights, from immigration policies to surveillance laws, the ACLU’s wartime efforts remain a beacon of resistance and resilience.

Religious Opposition: Quakers and other faiths actively resisted internment policies

During World War II, while many Americans supported the internment of Japanese Americans, a coalition of religious groups, led by the Quakers, emerged as a vocal and organized opposition. Their resistance was rooted in deeply held beliefs about justice, equality, and the inherent dignity of all people. The Quakers, formally known as the Religious Society of Friends, had a long history of advocating for social justice, including abolitionism and pacifism. When Executive Order 9066 was issued in 1942, they quickly mobilized to challenge the policy, viewing it as a violation of fundamental human rights.

The Quakers’ opposition was not merely symbolic; it was strategic and multifaceted. They established the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) to provide direct aid to interned families, helping them navigate the harsh conditions of the camps and advocating for their release. The AFSC also published reports and pamphlets exposing the injustices of internment, distributing them widely to raise public awareness. Their efforts were bolstered by partnerships with other faith-based organizations, including the Federal Council of Churches and Jewish groups like the American Jewish Congress, who saw parallels between the treatment of Japanese Americans and the persecution of Jews in Europe.

One of the most impactful actions taken by these religious groups was their legal and legislative advocacy. They lobbied Congress, testified at hearings, and supported lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of internment. Their persistence helped lay the groundwork for the eventual Supreme Court cases *Korematsu v. United States* and *Endo v. United States*, though the former upheld the internment policy, the latter led to the release of internees deemed "loyal." The religious opposition also provided moral support to Japanese American communities, offering scholarships, employment assistance, and housing to those who were released from the camps.

Comparatively, while political parties like the Republican and Democratic establishments largely remained silent or supportive of internment, religious groups filled the void of moral leadership. Their opposition was not driven by political expediency but by a commitment to ethical principles. This distinction highlights the unique role of faith-based organizations in challenging state-sanctioned injustice, even when it was unpopular or risky to do so. The Quakers and their allies demonstrated that religious conviction could be a powerful force for social change, transcending partisan divides.

In practical terms, the religious opposition’s efforts offer a blueprint for modern activism. They combined direct service, public education, and political advocacy to address systemic injustice. For those seeking to resist contemporary policies that target marginalized groups, the Quakers’ example underscores the importance of coalition-building across faith traditions and the need to ground activism in a clear moral framework. Their legacy reminds us that even in times of national fear and division, principled resistance can make a difference.

Explore related products

Impounded: Dorothea Lange and the Censored Images of Japanese American Internment

$19.95

Internment

$10.48 $12.99

Looking Like the Enemy: My Story of Imprisonment in Japanese American Internment Camps

$9.52 $17

American Internment: World War II Japanese American Internment Camps

$8.97

Fish for Jimmy: Inspired by One Family's Experience in a Japanese American Internment Camp

$8.99 $16.95

Children of Internment - German Families In US Camps

$4.99

Legal Challenges: Court cases, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, contested internment legality

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was not only a moral stain on the nation but also a legal quagmire. While the Democratic administration under President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the camps through Executive Order 9066, legal challenges emerged to contest their constitutionality. Among these, *Korematsu v. United States* (1944) stands as the most infamous case, though its legacy is one of both judicial failure and eventual reckoning. Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old American citizen of Japanese descent, refused to comply with the internment order and was arrested. His case reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the government’s actions in a 6-3 decision, citing military necessity. This ruling, however, was not the end of the story. Decades later, historians and legal scholars uncovered evidence that the government had withheld critical information from the Court, including reports downplaying the security threat posed by Japanese Americans. In 1983, a federal court formally overturned Korematsu’s conviction, and in 2018, the Supreme Court explicitly repudiated its 1944 decision in *Trump v. Hawaii*, though not by name. This reversal underscores the enduring importance of legal challenges in correcting historical injustices.

While *Korematsu* is the most well-known case, it was not the only legal battle against internment. *Ex parte Endo* (1944) presented a different approach. Mitsuye Endo, a Japanese American woman who had been interned despite her loyalty and willingness to serve the government, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in her favor, stating that the government could not detain loyal citizens indefinitely. Unlike *Korematsu*, which focused on the constitutionality of exclusion orders, *Endo* challenged the internment itself. This decision, handed down just three weeks after *Korematsu*, led to the eventual closure of the camps and the release of internees. The contrast between these cases highlights the complexity of legal strategies during this period: while *Korematsu* sought to confront the broader constitutional issue, *Endo* employed a narrower, more practical challenge that ultimately proved more effective in ending internment.

Legal challenges to internment were not limited to the Supreme Court. Lower courts and administrative bodies also played a role, though with mixed results. For instance, in *Yasui v. United States* (1943) and *Hirabayashi v. United States* (1943), the Supreme Court upheld curfews and exclusion orders against Japanese Americans, setting the stage for *Korematsu*. These cases demonstrate how the judiciary initially deferred to the government’s claims of military urgency, even at the expense of civil liberties. However, grassroots efforts by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) kept the issue alive, filing lawsuits and lobbying for redress. Their persistence laid the groundwork for the eventual overturning of these decisions and the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided reparations to surviving internees.

The legacy of these legal challenges extends beyond the internment era. They serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked executive power and judicial deference during times of crisis. For modern activists and legal scholars, these cases offer practical lessons: first, the importance of documenting and preserving evidence, as seen in the Korematsu case’s reversal; second, the value of pursuing multiple legal avenues, as demonstrated by *Endo*’s success where *Korematsu* failed; and third, the need for sustained public advocacy to counter systemic injustices. Today, as debates over immigration, national security, and civil rights continue, the internment cases remind us that the law is not static—it can be a tool for both oppression and redemption, depending on how it is wielded.

Public Dissent: Writers, artists, and citizens voiced opposition through media and protests

During World War II, as the U.S. government forcibly relocated over 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps, a vocal minority of writers, artists, and citizens emerged to challenge this injustice. Their dissent took many forms, from scathing editorials to symbolic acts of resistance, often risking their own reputations and safety. For instance, *Pacific Citizen*, a Japanese-American newspaper, published defiant articles questioning the constitutionality of the camps, while photographer Dorothea Lange captured haunting images of families being uprooted, humanizing their plight for a broader audience.

One of the most instructive examples of public dissent came from the pen of Carey McWilliams, a journalist and author. His 1944 book, *Prejudice: Japanese-Americans, Symbol of Racial Intolerance*, meticulously dismantled the government’s rationale for internment, using data and legal analysis to expose its racist underpinnings. McWilliams’ work not only educated the public but also provided a blueprint for future civil rights advocacy. Similarly, artist Miné Okubo’s graphic memoir, *Citizen 13660*, used stark illustrations to depict life in the camps, offering a visceral counterpoint to official narratives.

To replicate such impactful dissent today, consider these steps: First, leverage multiple mediums—written, visual, and digital—to reach diverse audiences. Second, ground your arguments in facts and personal stories to build empathy. Third, collaborate with marginalized communities to amplify their voices authentically. Caution against tokenism or speaking over those directly affected. Finally, sustain your efforts; dissent often requires persistence to effect change.

Comparatively, the dissent of the 1940s stands out for its courage in an era of widespread conformity. Unlike modern activism, which benefits from social media’s rapid dissemination, these writers and artists relied on traditional platforms like newspapers, books, and exhibitions. Their work, however, shared a common goal: to challenge authority and uphold human dignity. For instance, while McWilliams’ writing appealed to intellectual audiences, Okubo’s art resonated with those who might not engage with dense texts, demonstrating the power of diverse approaches.

Descriptively, the protests and media campaigns of this era were acts of defiance in a climate of fear. Imagine a crowded gallery displaying Okubo’s sketches, each line a silent rebuke to the camps’ dehumanization. Or picture a lone protester holding a sign outside a relocation center, their message amplified by a local journalist’s report. These actions, though seemingly small, collectively chipped away at the public’s complacency. Today, their legacy serves as a reminder that dissent is not just a right but a responsibility, especially when injustice is cloaked in legality.

Frequently asked questions