I happened to come across an interesting Editorial response, titled “To General H.P. McCain,” in The Crisis Vol. 15 No. 4, from February 1918. The response itself deals with a Colonel Charles Young, a black soldier who was repeatedly denied promotion based on his race, despite the recommendation of “Pershing, Roosevelt, Ballou, and a dozen others” (165). What I find most interesting about this response is the rhetoric; or rather, the way the rhetoric of this article has made me reconsider that of the Soldiers Number edition, which came out four months later. Du Bois’ response to General McCain is outraged, vengeful, and accusatory in the best sort of way. It begins, “WE would like to ask the Adjutant General of the United States Army a few questions:” and continues with a numbered list of questions that build in severity, as if a prosecutor were breaking down a key witness, or a drill sergeant were redressing their troops. Young’s name and rank are repeatedly capitalized to impress upon the audience his “quarter century of service”, alongside repeated questions concerning Young’s forced retirement. In the end, Du Bois questions the General’s inherent racism based on being from Louisiana, and suggests that he is “hindering and obstructing the efficiency of the United States Army and its work in this mighty and righteous war” (165). The turn from logos to ethos in the last question of the response works to magnificent effect; it preserves and capitalizes on the rising tension built by the short, punctual, and biting questions, transforming the critique into one that questions McCall’s patriotism and competence to succeed overseas.

Now, compare this to what we see in the Soldiers Number. This issue is focused on showing the part the black soldier is playing in the U.S. and overseas. It focuses on the number of enlisted black men and the reported quality of their service. Clearly this issue is focused on taking pride in the progress that has and is being made, and what that may hint or promise for the future. While I think this rhetorical decision makes sense in context, I still found the juxtaposition of the two articles striking.