Any copyrighted material on these pages is used in "fair use", for the purpose of study, review
or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner(s).
PARENTS OF THE REVOLUTION:
AN INDIGENOUS OR ALIEN MOVEMENT
DOCUMENT 1: PLYMOUTH COLONY GOVERNOR
WILLIAM BRADFORD CRITIQUES COMMUNAL LIVING
EXPERIMENT, 1620s
...All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So
they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter
crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much
debate of things, the Gov'[ernor] (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that
they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves;
in all other things to goe on in ye generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a
parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but
made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some familie. This had
very good success; for it made all hands very industrious as much more corne was planted then
would have bene by any means ye Gov'[ernor] or any other could use, and saved him a great
deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and
tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie;
whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.
The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and
that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other
ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that ye taking away of propertie, and bring-in in
comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser
then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent
and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yongmen that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their
time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The
strong, or man of parts, had no more In devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake
and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver
men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c, with ye meaner & yonger
sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded
to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a
kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it Upon ye poynte all being to have
alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as
another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at
least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them.
And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none objecte this is
men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption
in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.
DOCUMENT 2: ANARCHIST JOSIAH WARREN,
REMINISCING IN 1856 ABOUT HIS PARTICIPATION IN
THE FAILED "NEW HARMONY" UTOPIAN
COMMUNITY, 1825-1829
"It seemed that the difference of opinion, tastes and purposes increased just in proportion to
the demand for conformity. Two years were worn out in this way; at the end of which, I believe
that not more than three persons had the least hope of success. Most of the experimenters left
in despair of all reforms, and conservatism felt itself confirmed. We had tried every conceivable
form of organization and government. We had a world in miniature. --we had enacted the
French revolution over again with despairing hearts instead of corpses as a result. ...It appeared
that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests'
were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of selfpreservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so
are concessions and compromises indispensable."
DOCUMENT 3: EXCERPTS FROM THE OCT. 7, 1886
SPEECH OF ANARCHIST AUGUST SPIES, ON TRIAL
FOR INCITING THE HAYMARKET SQUARE MARKET
RIOT IN CHICAGO, MAY 3, 1886
"Anarchism is on trial! If that is the case your honor, very well; you may sentence me, for I am
an anarchist. I believe that the stat of castes and classes--the state where one class dominates
over and lives upon the labor of another class, and calls this order--yes, I believe that this
barbaric form of social organization, with its legalized plunder and murder, is doomed to die and
make room for a free society, voluntary association, or universal brotherhood, if you like. You
may pronounce the sentence upon me, honorable judge, but let the world know that in A.D.
1886, in the state of Illinois, eight men were sentenced to death because they believed in a
better future; because they had not lost their faith in the ultimate victory of liberty and justice!...
You gentlemen, are the revolutionists! You rebel against the effects of social conditions which
have tossed you, by the fair hands of fortune, into a magnificent paradise. Without inquiring, you
imagine that no one else has a right in that place. You insist that you are the chosen ones, the
sole proprietors. The forces that tossed you into the paradise, the industrial forces, are still at
work. They are growing more active and intense from day to day. Their tendency is to elevate all
mankind to the same level, to have all humanity share in the paradise you now monopolize. You
in your blindness, think you can stop the tidal wave of civilization and human emancipation by
placing a few policemen, a few Gattling guns and some regiments of militia on the shore; you
think you can frighten the rising waves back into the unfathomable depths whence they have
arisen by erecting a few gallows in the perspective. You oppose the natural course of things,
you are the real revolutionists. You alone are the conspirators and destructionists!...
Look upon the economic battlefields! Behold the carnage and plunder of the Christian
patricians! Accompany me to the quarters of the wealth creators in this city. Go with me to the
half starved miners of the Hocking Valley. Look at the pariahs ( out casts ) in the Mongahela
Valley, and many other mining districts in this country, or pass along the railroads of that great
and most orderly and law abiding citizen Jay Gould. And tell me whether this order has in it any
moral principle for which it should be preserved. I say that preservation of such an order is
criminal--is murderous. It means the preservation of the systematic destruction of children and
women in factories. It means the preservation of enforced idleness of large armies of men, and
their degradation. It means the preservation of intemperance, and sexual as well as intellectual
prostitution. It means the preservation of misery, want, and servility on the one hand, and the
dangerous accumulation of spoils, idleness, voluptuousness, and tyranny on the other. It means
the preservation of vice in every form. And last but not least, it means the preservation of the
class struggle, of strikes, riots, and bloodshed. That is your "order" gentlemen. Yes, and it is
worthy of you to be the champions of such an order. You are eminently fitted for that role. You
have my compliments!"
DOCUMENT 4: Industrialist Andrew Carnegie’s essay,
“Wealth,” originally published in the North American
Review (1889)
We accept and welcome . . . as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves great
inequality of environment, the concentration of business—industrial and commercial—in the
hands of a few, and the law of competition between these as being not only beneficial but
essential for the future progress of the race. Having accepted these, it follows that there must be
great scope for the exercise of special ability in the merchant and in the manufacturer who has
to conduct affairs upon a great scale. That this talent for organization and management is rare
among men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures for its possessor enormous rewards,
no matter where or under what laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the
man whose services can be obtained as a partner as not only the first consideration but such as
to render the question of his capital scarcely worth considering, for such men soon create
capital; while, without the special talent required, capital soon takes wings.
Such men become interested in firms or corporations using millions; and estimating only simple
interest to be made upon the capital invested, it is inevitable that their income must exceed their
expenditures and that they must accumulate wealth. Nor is there any middle ground which such
men can occupy, because the great manufacturing or commercial concern which does not earn
at least interest upon its capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must either go forward or fall behind:
to stand still is impossible. It is a condition essential for its successful operation that it should be
thus far profitable, and even that, in addition to interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a
law, as certain as any of the others named, that men possessed of this peculiar talent for affairs,
under the free play of economic forces, must, of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue
than can be judiciously expended upon themselves; and this law is as beneficial for the race as
the others.
Objections to the foundations upon which society is based are not in order because the
condition of the race is better with these than it has been with any others which have been tried.
Of the effect of any new substitutes proposed, we cannot be sure. The socialist or anarchist who
seeks to overturn present conditions is to be regarded as attacking the foundation upon which
civilization itself rests, for civilization took its start from the day that the capable, industrious
workman said to his incompetent and lazy fellow, “If thou dost not sow, thou shalt not reap,” and
thus ended primitive Communism by separating the drones from the bees. One who studies this
subject will soon be brought face to face with the conclusion that upon the sacredness of
property civilization itself depends—the right of the laborer to his $100 in the savings bank, and
equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions.
To those who propose to substitute Communism for this intense individualism the answer,
therefore, is: The race has tried that. All progress from that barbarous day to the present time
has resulted from its displacement. Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the
accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it. But even if we
admit for a moment that it might be better for the race to discard its present foundation,
individualism—that it is a nobler ideal that man should labor, not for himself alone but in and for
a brotherhood of his fellows and share with them all in common, realizing Swedenborg’s idea of
heaven, where, as he says, the angels derive their happiness, not from laboring for self but for
each other—even admit all this, and a sufficient answer is: This is not evolution, but revolution.
It necessitates the changing of human nature itself—a work of aeons, even if it were good to
change it, which we cannot know. It is not practicable in our day or in our age. Even if desirable
theoretically, it belongs to another and long-succeeding sociological stratum. Our duty is with
what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to
waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly accomplish
is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production
of good fruit under existing circumstances.
We might as well urge the destruction of the highest existing type of man because he failed to
reach our ideal as to favor the destruction of individualism, private property, the law of
accumulation of wealth, and the law of competition; for these are the highest results of human
experience, the soil in which society so far has produced the best fruit. Unequally or unjustly,
perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the idealist, they
are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity
has yet accomplished.
We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are
promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they
exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises—and, if the
foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal—What is the proper
mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it
into the hands of the few? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It
will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of
effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of
families. This is not wealth but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire.
There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can be left to the
families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be
administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the
wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider
each of these modes.
The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion of
the wealth are left to the first son that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought
that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of
this class in Europe today teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. The successors have
become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great
Britain the strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an hereditary
class. Its soil is rapidly passing into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions the
division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon
thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is
done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking,
it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state.
Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate
allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable
that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients.
Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of
the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.
It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast
them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives,
or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in a position to
labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary considerations, then, of course, the duty of
the parent is to see that such are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires'
sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community. Such
are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the
exception but the rule that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums
conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, “I would as soon leave to my son
a curse as the almighty dollar,” and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children but
family pride which inspires these enormous legacies.
As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is
only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead
before it becomes of much good in the world. Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed
is not calculated to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished.
The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are
they few in which his real wishes are thwarted. In many cases the bequests are so used as to
become only monuments of his folly.
It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquired the
wealth to use it so as to be really beneficial to the community. Besides this, it may fairly be said
that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by the
community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who leave vast sums in this way may
fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all had they been able to take it with them.
The memories of such cannot be held in grateful remembrance, for there is no grace in their
gifts. It is not to be wondered at that such bequests seem so generally to lack the blessing.
The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering
indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The state of Pennsylvania now
takes—subject to some exceptions—one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget
presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death duties; and,
most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems
the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for
public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in
the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at
death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life.
It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set
bounds to the share of a rich man’s estate which should go at his death to the public through the
agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing
upon moderate sums to dependents and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until, of the
millionaire’s hoard as of Shylock’s, at least——-The other half comes to the privy coffer of the
state.
This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of
wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by
far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of
enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to
leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention,
and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from
their fortunes.
There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true
antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the
poor—a reign of harmony—another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist in
requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our
civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared
to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state
in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many,
because administered for the common good; and this wealth, passing through the hands of the
few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been
distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this
and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow citizens and spent for public
purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if
scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.
Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life; narrow our horizon; our best work most
imperfect; but rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. They have it in their power
during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their
fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives. The highest life is probably
to be reached, not by such imitation of the life of Christ as Count Tolstoi gives us but, while
animated by Christ’s spirit, by recognizing the changed conditions of this age and adopting
modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live; still
laboring for the good of our fellows, which was the essence of his life and teaching, but laboring
in a different manner.
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: first, to set an example of modest,
unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate
wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which
come to him simply as trust funds which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a
matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce
the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent
and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience,
and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves. . . .
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves;
to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those
who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither
the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare
cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in
cases of accident or sudden change. Everyone has, of course, cases of individuals brought to
his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he will not
overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is
necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is
the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid
the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by
rewarding vice than by relieving virtue. . . .
Thus is the problem of rich and poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free; the
laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for
the poor; entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but
administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. The best
minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly seen
that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men
into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good.
This day already dawns. But a little while, and although, without incurring the pity of their
fellows, men may die sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or
has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at death for public uses, yet the man who dies
leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass
away “unwept, unhonored, and unsung,” no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he
cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: “The man who dies thus
rich dies disgraced.”
Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some
day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring "Peace on earth, among men
goodwill."
Source: North American Review (June 1889). Reprinted in The Annals of America, vol. 11, 1884–1894 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1968), 222–226. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5767
DOCUMENT 5: “THE GENERAL STRIKE,” SPEECH BY
WILLIAM D. HAYWOOD AT MEETING HELD FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE BUCCAFORI DEFENSE, AT
PROGRESS ASSEMBLY ROOMS, NEW YORK, MARCH
16, 1911.
Comrades and Fellow Workers: I am here to-night with a heavy heart. I can see in that
Raymond Street jail our comrade and fellow-worker Buccafori in a cell, a miserable cell, perhaps
4 1/2 feet wide, 7 feet long, sleeping on an iron shelf, wrapped up in a dirty blanket, vermininfested perhaps; surrounded by human wolves, those who are willing to tear him limb from
limb, those who will not feel that their duty to the political state is entirely fulfilled until Buccafori's
heart ceases to beat. I had felt that this would be a great meeting. I feel now that I would hate to
be in Buccafori's place. It is better, when charged with crime by a capitalist or by the capitalist
class, to hold a prominent office in a great labor organization. You will then draw around you
support--support sufficient to protect and to save your life. Had I been an ordinary member of
the rank and file of a labor organization no more prominent than a shoe worker of Brooklyn I
would not be here to-night. I am certain that I would be sleeping in a bed of quicklime within the
walls of the Idaho State penitentiary. But it happened that I was a prominent official of a labor
organization that was known world-wide; and for one to raise his voice in defense of the officials
of that organization meant to give the speaker prominence. To speak in favor of Buccafori is to
come into an out-of-the-way part of town and to speak to a small audience. There are those who
prefer prominence to saving a fellow-worker's life. I came here to-night to do my little part,
feeling that Buccafori is as much to the labor movement, is as much to the working class, is as
beneficial to society as I myself, as any member here, or any of those who ever lifted their voice
for me.
I am sorry that I haven't supernatural strength to reach into that prison and release Buccafori. I
am sorry that I can't bring together the forces that saved my life. I can only speak here as an
individual.
I came to-night to speak to you on the general strike. And this night, of all the nights in the year,
is a fitting time. Forty years ago to-day there began the greatest general strike known in modern
history, the French Commune; a strike that required the political powers of two nations to
subdue, namely, that of France and the iron hand of a Bismarck government of Germany. That
the workers would have won that strike had it not been for the copartnership of the two nations,
there is to my mind no question. They would have overcome the divisions of opinion among
themselves. They would have re-established the great national workshops that existed in Paris
and throughout France in 1848. The world would have been on the highway toward an industrial
democracy, had it not been for the murderous compact between Bismarck and the government
of Versailles.
We are met to-night to consider the general strike as a weapon of the working class. I must
admit to you that I am not well posted on the theories advanced by Jaures, Vandervelde,
Kautsky, and others who write and speak about the general strike. But I am not here to theorize,
not here to talk in the abstract, but to get down to the concrete subject whether or not the
general strike is an effective weapon for the working class. There are vote-getters and
politicians who waste their time coming into a community where 90 per cent. of the men have no
vote, where the women are disfranchised 100 per cent. and where the boys and girls under age,
of course, are not enfranchised. Still they will speak to these people about the power of the
ballot, and they never mention a thing about the power of the general strike. They seem to lack
the foresight, the penetration to interpret political power. They seem to lack the understanding
that the broadest interpretation of political power comes through the industrial organization; that
the industrial organization is capable not only of the general strike, but prevents the capitalists
from disfranchising the worker; it gives the vote to women, it re-enfranchises the black man and
places the ballot in the hands of every boy and girl employed in a shop, makes them eligible to
take part in the general strike, makes them eligible to legislate for themselves where they are
most intrested[sic] in changing conditions, namely, in the place where they work.
I am sorry sometimes that I am not a better theorist, but as all theory comes from practice you
will have observed, before I proceed very long, that I know something about the general strikes
in operation.
Going back not so far as the Commune of Paris, which occurred in 1871, we find the great strike
in Spain in 1874, when the workers of that country won in spite of combined opposition against
them and took control of the civil affairs. We find the great strike in Bilboa, in Brussels. And
coming down through the halls of time, the greatest strike is the general strike of Russia, when
the workers of that country compelled the government to establish a constitution, to give them a
form of government--which, by the way, has since been taken from them, and it would cause
one to look on the political force, of Russia at least, as a bauble not worth fighting for. They
gave up the general strike for a political constitution. The general strike could and did win for
them many concessions they could gain in no other way.
While across the water I visited Sweden, the scene of a great general strike, and I discovered
that there they won many concessions, political as well as economic; and I happened to be in
France, the home of all revolutions, during the strike on the railroads, on the state as well as the
privately owned roads. There had been standing in the parliament of France many laws looking
toward the improvement of the men employed on the railroads. They became dissatisfied and
disgruntled with the continued dilatory practices of the politicians and they declared a general
strike. The demands of the workers were for an increase of wages from three to five francs a
day, for a reduction of hours and for the retroaction of the pension law. They were on strike
three days. It was a general strike as far as the railroads were concerned. It tied up
transportation and communication from Paris to all the seaport towns. The strike had not been
on three days when the government granted every demand of the workers. Previous to this,
however, Briand had issued his infamous order making the railroaders soldiers--reservists. The
men went back as conscripts; and many scabs, as we call them over here (I don't know what
the French call them; in England they call them "blacklegs"), were put on the roads to take the
places of 3,500 discharged men.
The strike apparently was broken, officially declared off by the workers. It's true their demands
had all been granted, but remember there were 3,500 of their fellow-workers discharged. The
strikers immediately started a campaign to have the victimized workers reinstated. And their
campaign was a part of the general strike. It was what they called the "greve perlee," or the
"drop strike"--if you can conceive of a strike while everybody is at work; everybody belonging to
the union receiving full time, and many of them getting overtime, and the strike in full force and
very effective. This is the way it worked--and I tell it to you in hopes that you will spread the
good news to your fellow-workers and apply it yourselves whenever occasion demands-namely, that of making the capitalist suffer. Now there is only one way to do that; that is, to
strike him in the place where he carries his heart and soul, his center of feeling--the pocketbook.
And that is what those strikers did. They began at once to make the railroads lose money, to
make the government to lose money, to make transportation a farce so far as France was
concerned. Before I left that country, on my first visit--and it was during the time that the strike
was on--there were 50,000 tons of freight piled up at Havre, and a proportionately large amount
at every other seaport town. This freight the railroaders would not move. They did not move it at
first, and when they did it was in this way; they would load a trainload of freight for Paris and by
some mistake would be billed through to Lyons, and when the freight was found at Lyons,
instead of being sent to the consignee at Paris it was carried straight through the town on to
Bayonne or Marseilles or some other place--to any place but where it properly belonged.
Perishable freight was taken out by the trainload and sidetracked. The condition became such
that the merchants themselves were compelled to send their agents down into the depots to
look up their consignments of freight--and with very little assurance of finding it at all. That this
was the systematic work of the railroaders there is no question, because a package addressed
to Merle, one of the editors of "La Guerre Sociale," now occupying a cell in the Prison of the
Saint, was marked with an inscription on the corner "Sabotagers please note address." This
package went through posthaste. It worked so well that some of the merchants began using the
name of "La Guerre Sociale" to have their packages immediately delivered. It was necessary for
the managers of the paper to threaten to sue them unless they refrained from using the name of
the paper for railroad purposes.
Nearly all the workers have been reinstated at the present time on the railroads of France.
That is certainly one splendid example of what the general strike can accomplish for the working
class.
Another is the strike of the railroaders in Italy. The railroaders there are organized in one great
industrial union, one card, taking into membership the stenographers, train dispatchers, freight
handlers, train crews and section crews. Everyone who works on the railroad is a member of the
organization; not like it is in this country, split up into as many divisions as they can possibly get
them into. There they are all one. There was a great general strike. It resulted in the country
taking over the railroads. But the government made the mistake of placing politicians in control,
giving politicians the management of the railroads. This operated but little better than under
private capitalism. The service was inefficient. They could make no money. The rolling stock
was rapidly going to wreck. Then the railroad organizations issued this ultimatum to the
government, and its now stands: "Turn the railroads over to us. We will operate them and give
you the most efficient service to be found on railroads in any country." Would that be a success
for the general strike? I rather think so.
And in Wales it was my good fortune to be there, not to theorize but to take part in the general
strike among the coal miners. Previous to my coming, or in previous strikes, the Welsh miners
had been in the habit of quitting work, carrying out their tools, permitting the mine managers to
run the pumps, allowing the engine winders to remain at work, carrying food down to the horses,
keeping the mines in good shape, while the miners themselves were marching from place to
place singing their old-time songs, gathering on the meeting grounds of the ancient Druids and
listening to the speeches of the labor leaders; starving for weeks contentedly, and on all
occasions acting most peaceably; going back to work when they were compelled to by
starvation. But this last strike was an entirely different one. It was like the shoemakers' strike in
Brooklyn. Some new methods had been injected into the strike. I had spoken there on a number
of occasions previous to the strike being inaugurated, and I told them of the methods that we
adopted in the West, where every man employed in and around the mine belongs to the same
organization; where, when we went on strike, the mine closed down. They thought that that was
a very excellent system. So the strike was declared. They at once notified the engine winders,
who had a separate contract with the mine owners, that they would not be allowed to work. The
engine winders passed a resolution saying that they would not work. The haulers took the same
position. No one was allowed to approach the mines to run the machinery. Well, the mine
manager, like the mine managers everywhere, taking unto himself the idea that the mines
belonged to him, said, "Certainly the men won't interfere with us. We will go up and run the
machinery." And they took along the office force. But the miners had a different notion and they
said, "You can work in the office, but you can't run this machinery. That isn't your work. If you
run that you will be scabbing; and we don't permit you to scab--not in this section of the country,
now." They were compelled to go back to the office. There were 325 horses underground, which
the manager, Llewellyn, complained about being in a starving condition. The officials of the
union said, "We will hoist the horses out of the mine."
"Oh, no," he said, "we don't want to bring them up. We will all be friends in a few days."
"You will either bring up the horses now or you will let them stay there."
He said, "No, we won't bring them up now."
The pumps were closed down on the Cambria mine. 12,000 miners were there to see that they
didn't open. Llewellyn started a hue and cry that the horses would be drowned, and the king
sent the police, sent the soldiers and sent a message to Llewellyn asking "if the horses were still
safe." He didn't say anything about his subjects, the men. Guarded by soldiers, a few scabs,
assisted by the office force, were able to run the pumps. Llewellyn himself and his bookkeeping
force went down and fed the horses.
Had there been an industrial organization comprising the railroaders and every other branch of
industry, the mines of Wales would be closed down to-day.
We found the same condition throughout the West. We never had any trouble about closing the
mines down; and could keep them closed down for an indefinite period. It was always the craft
unions that caused us to lose our fights when we did lose. I recall the first general strike in the
Coeur d'Alenes, when all the mines in that district were closed down to prevent a reduction of
wages. The mine owners brought in thugs the first thing. They attempted to man the mines with
men carrying sixshooters and rifles. There was a pitched battle between miners and thugs. A
few were killed on each side. And then the mine owners asked for the soldiers, and the soldiers
came. Who brought the soldiers? Railroads manned by union men; engines fired with coal
mined by union men. That is the division of labor that might have lost us the strike in the Coeur
d'Alenes. It didn't lose it, however. We were successful in that issue. But in Leadville we lost the
strike there because they were able to bring in scab labor from other communities where they
had the force of the government behind them, and the force of the troops. In 1899 we were
compelled to fight the battle over in a great general strike in the Coeur d'Alenes again. Then
came the general strike in Cripple Creek, the strike that has become a household word in labor
circles throughout the world. In Cripple Creek 5,000 men were on strike in sympathy with 45
men belonging to the Millmen's Union in Colorado City; 45 men who had been discharged
simply because they were trying to improve their standard of living. By using the state troops
and the influence of the Federal government they were able to man the mills in Colorado City
with scab millmen; and after months of hardship, after 1,600 of our men had been arrested and
placed in the Victor Armory in one single room that they called the "bullpen," after 400 of them
had been loaded aboard special trains guarded by soldiers, shipped away from their homes,
dumped out on the prairies down in New Mexico and Kansas; after the women who had taken
up the work of distributing strike relief had been placed under arrest--we find then that they were
able to man the mines with scabs, the mills running with scabs, the railroads conveying the ore
from Cripple Creek to Colorado City run by union men--the connecting link of a proposition that
was scabby at both ends! We were not thoroughly organized. There has been no time when
there has been a general strike in this country.
There are three phases of a general strike. They are:
A general strike in an industry;
A general strike in a communitv; or
A general national strike.
The conditions for any of the three have never existed. So how any one can take the position
that a general strike would not be effective and not be a good thing for the working class is more
than I can understand. We know that the capitalist uses the general strike to good advantage.
Here is the position that we find the working class and the capitalists in. The capitalists have
wealth; they have money. They invest the money in machinery, in the resources of the earth.
They operate a factory, a mine, a railroad, a mill. They will keep that factory running just as long
as there are profits coming in. When anything happens to disturb the profits, what do the
capitalists do? They go on strike, don't they? They withdraw their finances from that particular
mill. They close it down because there are no profits to be made there. They don't care what
becomes of the working class. But the working class, on the other hand, has always been
taught to take care of the capitalist's interest in the property. You don't look after your own
interest, your labor power, realizing that without a certain amount of provision you can't
reproduce it. You are always looking after the interest of the capitalist, while a general strike
would displace his interest and would put you in possession of it.
That is what I want to urge upon the working class; to become so organized on the economic
field that they can take and hold the industries in which they are employed. Can you conceive of
such a thing? Is it possible? What are the forces that prevent you from doing so? You have all
the industries in your own hands at the present time. There is this justification for political action,
and that is, to control the forces of the capitalists that they use against us; to be in a position to
control the power of government so as to make the work of the army ineffective, so as to abolish
totally the secret service and the force of detectives. That is the reason that you want the power
of government. That is the reason that you should fully understand the power of the ballot. Now,
there isn't any one, Socialist, S. L. P., Industrial Worker or any other workingman or woman, no
matter what society you belong to, but what believes in the ballot. There are those--and I am
one of them--who refuse to have the ballot interpreted for them. I know, or think I know, the
power of it, and I know that the industrial organization, as I stated in the beginning, is its
broadest interpretation. I know, too, that when the workers are brought together in a great
organization they are not going to cease to vote. That is when the workers will begin to vote, to
vote for directors to operate the industries in which they are all employed.
So the general strike is a fighting weapon as well as a constructive force. It can be used, and
should be used, equally as forcefully by the Socialist as by the Industrial Worker.
The Socialists believe in the general strike. They also believe in the organization of industrial
forces after the general strike is successful. So, on this great force of the working class I believe
we can agree that we should unite into one great organization--big enough to take in the
children that are now working; big enough to take in the black man; the white man; big enough
to take in all nationalities--an organization that will be strong enough to obliterate state
boundaries, to obliterate national boundaries, and one that will become the great industrial force
of the working class of the world. (Applause.)
I have been lecturing in and around New York now for three weeks; my general topic has been
Industrialism, which is the only force under which the general strike can possibly be operated. If
there are any here interested in industrial unionism, and they want any knowledge that I have, I
will be more than pleased to answer questions, because it is only by industrial unionism that the
general strike becomes possible. The A. F. of L. couldn't have a general strike if they wanted to.
They are not organized for a general strike. They have 27,000 different agreements that expire
27,000 different minutes of the year. They will either have to break all of those sacred contracts
or there is no such thing as a general strike in that so-called "labor organization." I said, "socalled;" I say so advisedly. It is not a labor organization; it is simply a combination of job trusts.
We are going to have a labor organization in this country. And I assure you, if you could attend
the meetings we have had in Philadelphia, in Bridgeport last night, in Haverhill and in Harrison,
and throughout the country, you would agree that industrialism is coming. There isn't anything
can stop it. (Applause.)
Questions by the Audience.
Q.--Don't you think there is a lot of waste involved in the general strike in that the sufferers
would be the workers in larger portion than the capitalists? The capitalist class always has
money and can buy food, while the workers will just have to starve and wait. I was a strong
believer in the general strike myself until I read some articles in The Call a while ago on this
particular phase.
A.--The working class haven't got anything. They can't lose anything. While the capitalist class
have got all the money and all the credit, still if the working class laid off the capitalists couldn't
get food at any price. This is the power of the working class: If the workers are organized
(remember now, I say" if they are organized" --by that I don't mean 100 per cent, but a good
strong minority), all they have to do is to put their hands in their pockets and they have got the
capitalist class whipped. The working class can stand it a week without anything to eat--I have
gone pretty nearly that long myself, and I wasn't on strike. In the meantime I hadn't lost any
meals; I just postponed them. (Laughter.) I didn't do it voluntarily, I tell you that. But all the
workers have to do is to organize so that they can put their hands in their pockets: when they
have got their hands there, the capitalists can't get theirs in. If the workers can organize so that
they can stand idle they will then be strong enough so that they can take the factories. Now, I
hope to see the day when the man who goes out of the factory will be the one who will be called
a scab; when the good union man will stay in the factory, whether the capitalists like it or not;
when we lock the bosses out and run the factories to suit ourselves. That is our program. We
will do it.
Q.--Doesn't the trend of your talk lead to direct action, or what we call revolution? For instance,
we try to throw the bosses out; don't you think the bosses will strike back?
Another thing: Of course, the working class can starve eight days, but they can't starve nine.
You don t have to teach the workingman how to starve, because there were teachers before
you. There is no way out but fight, as I understand it. Do you think you will get your industrialism
through peace or through revolution?
A.--Well, comrade, you have no peace now. The capitalist system, as peaceable as it is, is
killing off hundreds of thousands of workers every year. That isn't peace. One hundred
thousand workers were injured in this state last year. I do not care whether it's peaceable or not;
I want to see it come.
As for starving the workers eight days, I made no such program I said that they could, but I don't
want to see them do it. The fact that I was compelled to postpone a few meals was because I
wasn't in the vicinity of any grub. I suggest that you break down that idea that you must protect
the boss's property. That is all we are fighting for--what the boss calls his "private property,"
what he calls his private interest in the things that the people must have, as a whole, to live.
Those are the things we are after.
Q.--Do the Industrial Unionists believe in political action? Have they got any special platforms
that they support?
A.--The Industrial Workers of the World is not a political organization.
J[sic].--Just like the A. F. of L.?
A.--No.
Q.--They don't believe in any political action, either, so far as that is concerned.
A.--Yes, the A. F. of L. does believe in political action. It is a political organization. The Industrial
Workers of the World is an economic organization without affiliation with any political party or
any non-political sect. I as an Industrialist say that industrial unionism is the broadest possible
political interpretation of the working-class political power, because by organizing the workers
industrially you at once enfranchise the women in the shops, you at once give the black men
who are disfranchised politically a voice in the operation of the industries; and the same would
extend to every worker. That to my mind is the kind of political action that the working class
wants. You must not be content to come to the ballot box on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November, the ballot box erected by the capitalist class, guarded by capitalist
henchmen, and deposit your ballot to be counted by black-handed thugs, and say, "That is
political action." You must protect your ballot with an organization that will enforce the mandates
of your class. I want political action that counts. I want a working class that can hold an election
every day if they want to.
Q.--By what means could an Industrial Unionist propagate Industrial Unionism in his
organization of the A. F. of L.? He would be fired out and lose his job.
A.--Well, the time is coming when he will have to quit the A. F. of L. anyway. And remember,
that there are 35,000,000 workers in the United States who can't get in the A.F. of L. And when
you quit you are quitting a caste, you are getting back into your class. The Socialists have been
going along maintaining the Civic Federation long enough. The time has almost arrived when
you will have to quit and become free men and women. I believe that the A. F. of L. won't take in
the working class. They don't want the working class. It isn't a working-class organization. It's a
craft organization. They realize that by improving the labor power of a few individuals and
keeping them on the inside of a corral, keeping others out with initiation fees, and closing the
books, and so on, that the favored few are made valuable to the capitalists. They form a little job
trust. It's a system of slavery from which free people ought to break away. And they will, soon.
Q.--About the political action we had in Milwaukee: there we didn't have Industrial Unionism, we
won by the ballot; and while we haven't compelled the government to pass any bills yet, we are
at it now.
A.--Yes, they are at it. But you really don't think that Congressman Berger is going to compel
the government to pass any bills in Congress ? This Insurgent bunch that is growing up in the
country is going to give you more than the reform Socialists ever asked for yet. The opportunists
will be like the Labor party in England. I was in the office of the Labor Leader and Mr. Whiteside
said to me: "Really, I don't know what we are going to do with this fellow, Lloyd-George. He has
taken every bit of ground from under our feet. He has given the working class more than the
Labor party had dared to ask for." And so it will be with the Insurgents, the "Progressives" or
whatever they propose to call themselves. They will give you eight-hour laws, compensation
laws, liability laws, old-age pensions. They will give you eight hours; that is what we are striking
for, too--eight hours. But they won't get off the workers backs. The Insurgents simply say.[sic]
"It's cruel, the way the capitalists are exploiting the workers. Why, look! whenever they go to
shear them they take off a part of the hide. We will take all the wool, but we will leave the hide."
(Laughter.)
Q. (By a woman comrade)--Isn't a strike, theoretically, a situation where the workingmen lay
down their tools and the capitalist class sits and waits, and they both say, "Well, what are you
going to do about it?" And if they go beyond that, and go outside the law, is it any longer a
strike? Isn't it a revolution?
A.--A strike is an incipient revolution. Many large revolutions have grown out of a small strike.
Q.--Well, I heartily believe in the general strike if it is a first step toward the revolution, and I
believe in what you intimate--that the workers are damn fools if they don't take what they want,
when they can't get it any other way. (Applause.)
A.--That is a better speech than I can make. If I didn't think that the general strike was leading
on to the great revolution which will emancipate the working class I wouldn't be here. I am with
you because I believe that in this little meeting there is a nucleus here that will carry on the work
and propagate the seed that will grow into the great revolution that will overthrow the capitalist
class.
Q.--How do you account for the course of the Western Federation of Miners in applying for a
charter in the A. F. of L.?
A.--I wish I knew just what happened to the Western Federation of Miners when they asked for
a charter from the A. F. of L. However, it's only in the shape of an application. The A.F. of L. did
nothing for us while we were in jail, but the local unions that comprise the A. F.of L.'s
membership did a great deal in the way of moral support, and they furnished a great deal of
money. That trial cost $324,000--my trial. I don't look worth that much, but I am in my own
estimation. Of the total amount the outside organizations contributed $75,000, the Western
Federation of Miners put up nearly $250,000. There was a tremendous agitation throughout the
country and the officials of the organization felt that the trade unions had come to them in a
crisis and that they ought to join hands with the A. F. of L. movement. I feel that they assisted in
that crisis, but it wasn't through the trade union machine--it was through the working class.
Gompers never said a word until a Socialist in the central labor body here made him open his
mouth. The officials of the trade unions never came to our relief. It was the Socialists, the
S.L.P.'s, the I.W.W.'s, some trade-unionist members of local unions, local officials. It wasn't the
machine. So, while I feel and I know I owe my life to the workers of the nation, it is to the
working class of the nation that I am under obligation, not to any subdivision of that class. That
is why I am here now. That is why I am talking working-class solidarity, because I want to see
the working class do for themselves what they did for me.
Q.--What do you think about the Socialist movement in Germany?
A.--I think I know something about Germany, and if you want my opinion I will say that the
Socialist movement in Germany seems to me to be a topheavy one; that is, that the force
comes from the top down--that is not a purely democratic movement, coming from the working
class up.
Q.-Is it the capitalist class, or is it a labor movement, or both combined, or some conditions in
between them that has anything to do with the insurrection in Mexico?
A.--I think the capitalist class are responsible for the insurrection in Mexico. Incidentally, the
revolutionists, Magon, Villareal, Sarabia and Rivera, and their followers, have something to do
with it, as also the local unions of the Industrial Workers of the World, there now being at this
time three locals whose entire membership have gone across the line and joined the insurgents,
and Berthold, one of the commandants, is an officer in the I.W.W. at Holtville, Cal. So that they
have something to do with the insurrection. But the revolution in Mexico has been brought on by
the capitalists, and it was no snap judgment on the part of Taft, the sending of the troops to the
Mexican border. You recall two years ago Elihu Root went down to Mexico to visit Mr. Diaz, and
following Root's visit, on the I6th of October a year ago, Mr. Taft went down and met with Diaz in
Juarez and El Paso. Here is, to my mind, the nut of it, here is the milk in that cocoanut: the
Japanese have been crowding into Mexico ever since the Japanese said they wouldn't come to
the United States. They have been coming into Mexico in swarms, until now the administration
looks on with a great deal of dread as to just what it means, if there is going to be a Japanese
war, with the little brown fellows right down there in Mexico ready to come across the border.
Again, Mr. Taft would like to extend the territory of the United States by benevolent assimilation
down to the Isthmus of Panama. He would like to take in all of Mexico and Central America.
Why? Because the interests of this country--when I say "the interests" I mean the big ones, the
Standard Oil and the Morgans, and even the fellows on the undercrust, like Bill Hearst--have got
vast interests down in Mexico. Not that it cost them a great deal of money. Hearst has a million
and a half acres down there that he estimates to be worth $12,000,000, and he paid perhaps
half a million for it. But their interests are there. Mexico is a wonderful country. The remarkable
thing is that the capitalists have let it go as long as they have. It is a wonder they hadn't jumped
on Mexico as the dons of Spain did, because there is no country under the sun that is as rich as
Mexico. Central America is a marshy country, but in Mexico you come to the highlands and the
plateaus; and that country, situated as it is, a narrow land between the Gulf of Mexico and the
Gulf of California and the Pacific gets the benefit of the atmospheric precipitation, the benefit of
the waters from both sides, so that they have plenty of rain, and can raise crops of everything-from rubber, cocoa, cotton, the tropical fruits, to the very hardest of wheat. The primeval forests
in Mexico are second to nothing except the jungles of Africa. There they have great forests of
mahogany, of dragonsblood wood, ironwood, copal, juniper and cedar that have never been
touched. Just at this stage the reading of Prescott's "Conquest of Mexico" would be very
interesting, also Humboldt's and Buckle's. The latter book I found to be perhaps not as
exhaustive as Prescott's, but splendidly written. Those I read while I was on my vacation, when I
didn't have anything else to do but read. (Laughter.)
The capitalists, who are responsible for all wars are responsible for the present trouble in
Mexico. (Applause.)
DOCUMENT 6: PROCLAMATION OF THE STRIKING
OF THE TEXTILE WORKERS OF LAWRENCE (1912)
We, the 20,000 textile workers of Lawrence, are out on strike for the right to live free from
slavery and starvation; free from overwork and underpay; free from a state of affairs that had
become so unbearable and beyond our control, that we were compelled to march out of the
slave pens of Lawrence in united resistance against the wrongs and injustice of years and years
of wage slavery.
In our fight we have suffered and borne patiently the abuse and calumnies of the mill owners,
the city government, police, militia, State government, legislature, and the local police court
judge. We feel that in justice to our fellow workers we should at this time make known the
causes which compelled us to strike against the mill owners of Lawrence. We hold that as
useful members of society and as wealth producers we have the right to lead decent and
honorable lives; that we ought to have homes and not shacks; that we ought to have clean food
and not adulterated food at high prices; that we ought to have clothes suited to the weather and
not shoddy garments. That to secure sufficient food, clothing and shelter in a society made up of
a robber class on the one hand and a working class on the other hand, it is absolutely
necessary for the toilers to band themselves together and form a union, organizing its powers in
such form as to them seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that conditions long established should not be changed for light or
transient causes, and accordingly all experience has shown that the workers are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves, by striking against the misery to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and illtreatment, pursuing
invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them to a state of beggary, it is their duty
to resist such tactics and provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient
sufferance of these textile workers, and such is now the necessity which compels them to fight
the mill-owning class.
The history of the present mill owners is a history of repeated injuries, all having in direct object
the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these textile workers. To prove this let facts be
submitted to all right-thinking men and women of the civilized world. These mill owners have
refused to meet the committees of the strikers. They have refused to consider their demands in
any way that is reasonable or just. They have, in the security of their sumptuous offices, behind
stout mill gates and serried rows of bayonets and policemen’s clubs, defied the State, city, and
public. In fact, the city of Lawrence and the government of Massachusetts have become the
creatures of the mill owners. They have declared that they will not treat with the strikers till they
return to the slavery against which they are in rebellion. They have starved the workers and
driven them to such an extent that their homes are homes no longer, inasmuch as the mothers
and children are driven by the low wages to work side by side with the father in the factory for a
wage that spells bare existence and untimely death. To prove this to the world the large death
rate of children under one year of age in Lawrence proves that most of these children perish
because they were starved before birth. And those who survive the starving process grow up
the victims of malnutrition.
These mill owners have charged the strikers with violence and then in the best of times they
have paid the workers a starvation wage. They have built large mills within the last 10 years,
and paid annual dividends, and they ask the workers to submit to a wage that even a coolie
would despise. They have pitted the women and children against the men and so brought
wages down to a level where an honest living is beyond the average textile worker. They have
introduced improved machinery into the factories and thrown the workers out on the streets to
starve, or used the surplus labor created by labor-saving machinery to grind the lives out of
those who were fortunate enough to have a job.
These mill owners not only have the corrupting force of dollars on their side, but the powers of
the city and State government are being used by them to oppress and sweep aside all
opposition on the part of those overworked and underpaid textile workers. The very courts,
where justice is supposed to be impartial, are being used by the millionaire mill owners. And so
serious has this become that the workers have lost all faith in the local presiding judge. Without
any attempt at a trial, men have been fined or jailed from six months to a year on trumped-up
charges, that would be a disgrace even in Russia. This judge is prejudiced and unfair in dealing
with the strikers. He has placed all the strikers brought before him under excessive bail. He has
dealt out lengthy sentences to the strikers as if they were hardened criminals, or old-time
offenders. He has refused to release on bail two of the leaders of the strike, while he released a
prisoner charged with conspiracy and planting dynamite, on a thousand dollars’ bail. He
sentenced, at one morning’s session of court, 23 strikers to one year in jail on the fake charge of
inciting to riot. This judge has declared he is opposed to the union that is conducting the strike.
The brutality of the police in dealing with the strikers has aroused them to a state of rebellious
opposition to all such methods of maintaining order. The crimes of the police during this trouble
are almost beyond human imagination. They have dragged young girls from their beds at
midnight. They have clubbed the strikers at every opportunity. They have dragged little children
from their mothers’ arms and with their clubs they have struck women who are in a state of
pregnancy. They have placed people under arrest for no reason whatsoever. They have
prevented mothers from sending their children out of the city and have laid hold of the children
and the mothers violently and threw the children into waiting patrol wagons like so much
rubbish. They have caused the death of a striker by clubbing the strikers into a state of violence.
They have arrested and clubbed young boys and placed under arrest innocent girls for no
offense at all.
The militia has used all kinds of methods to defeat the strikers. They have bayoneted a young
boy [John Rami, a Syrian striker died from a bayonet wound to his back]. They have beaten up
the strikers. They have been ordered to shoot to kill. They have murdered one young man, who
died as a result of being bayoneted in the back. They have threatened one striker with death if
he did not close the window of his home. They have threatened to stay in this city until the strike
is over. They have bayoneted one citizen because he would not move along fast enough. And
they have held up at the point of the bayonet hundreds of citizens and Civil War veterans.
The city government has denied the strikers the right to parade through the streets. They have
abridged public assemblage by refusing the strikers the use of the city hall and public grounds
for public meetings. They have turned the public buildings of the city into so many lodging
houses for an army of hirelings and butchers. They have denied the strikers the right to use the
Common for mass meetings, and they have ordered the police to take little children away from
their parents, and they are responsible for all the violence and brutality on the part of the police.
The Massachusetts Legislature has refused to use any of the money of the State to help the
strikers. They have voted $150,000 to maintain an army of 1,500 militiamen to be ready to shoot
down innocent men, women, and children who are out on strike for a living wage. They have
refused to use the powers of the State for the workers. They have appointed investigation
committees, who declare, after perceiving the signs of suffering on the part of the strikers on
every side, that there is no trouble with these people.
All the nations of the world are represented in this fight of the workers for more bread. The
flaxen-haired son of the North marches side by side with his dark-haired brother of the South.
They have toiled together in the factory for one boss. And now they have joined together in a
great cause, and they have cast aside all racial and religious prejudice for the common good,
determined to win a victory over the greed of the corrupt, unfeeling mill owners, who have ruled
these people so long with the whip of hunger and the lash of the unemployed.
Outlawed, with their children taken away from them, denied their rights before the law,
surrounded by bayonets of the militia, and driven up and down the streets of the city by an
overfed and arrogant body of police, these textile workers, sons and daughters of the working
class, call upon the entire civilized world to witness what they have suffered at the hands of the
hirelings of the mill-owning class. These men and women can not suffer much longer; they will
be compelled to rise in armed revolt against their oppressors if the present state of affairs is
allowed to continue in Lawrence.
DOCUMENT 7: MARY K. O’SULLIVAN, “THE LABOR
WAR AT LAWRENCE,” SURVEY (6 APRIL 1912)
Mrs. O'Sullivan is the first of the old line labor leaders in America to challenge the organizations
which have built up the trade union movement of the United States, to adjust their policies and
spirit to the industrial changes which have been going forward in the last twenty years and to
voice the needs of the whole of the labor force rather than merely the ranks of the skilled
workers. Mrs. O'Sullivan organized the Women's Bookbinder's Union, No.1 in Chicago and
Boston in 1884, became in 1892 the first woman organizer of the American Federation of Labor
and was the first woman to preside at its annual conventions. With William English Walling, Mrs.
O'Sullivan organized the Women's Trade Union League of America in 1903. She at present
carries a card of the News Writers' Union of Boston.
Throughout the Lawrence strike, Mrs. O'Sullivan was in touch with the Strikers' Committee, with
the representatives of the state, and with the employers, and performed important services at
different junctures. It is, therefore, as a life-long friend of an old organization falling on new days,
and of a keen observer watching the work of a new organization, that she writes this, her first
interpretation of the meaning of the Lawrence strike to organized labor.]
"We were drowning men ready to grasp at a straw when the Industrial Workers of the World
appeared to save us," said more than one striker in Lawrence.
First of all, it must be understood that the Lawrence strike was not caused either by the
Industrial Workers of the World or by the reduction of the working week from fifty-six to fifty-four
hours with the ensuing loss of pay. The reduction was only the last straw in a situation that the
workers could not endure any longer. The many injustices of the section boss with his personal
discrimination against men and women who refuse to submit to his standards helped to bring on
a rebellion. The rise in cost of living during the last two years, including increased rents, had
reduced the mill hands to an extremity where the loss of a few cents weekly in their wages
became a calamity in hundreds of homes. At the turn of the year, then, the strike began
spontaneously without recognized leadership.
Up to the present time, the Textile Workers of the American Federation of Labor have failed to
organize the unskilled and underpaid workers. Blocked by the mill interests, they have been
defeated in their larger efforts for the skilled workers, and they have neglected the interests of
the unskilled. They have ignored their capacity for strength and failed to win them to their cause
or to better their condition.
In the past the foreigners have been the element through which strikes in the textile industry
have been lost. This is the first time in the history of our labor struggles that the foreigners have
stood to the man to better their conditions as underpaid workers. The Textile Workers had only
one permanent organization at Lawrence at the beginning of the strike (the Mule Spinners
Union), while the Industrial Workers of the World had not any direct organization within the
industry. Many of the unskilled workers, however, had independent unions not affiliated with any
national organization. John Golden, the official head of the Textile Workers of America, instead
of remaining in Lawrence and fighting for the interests of the workers, went to Boston and was
reported to have denounced the strike as being led by a band of revolutionists, thus leaving
them to be organized by any persons who might choose to use or help them. This was the first
time in the history of the American Federation movement that a leader failed the people in his
industry.
Members of the Industrial Workers of the World sent for Joe Ettor and in four days he organized
a fighting unit such as never existed in New England before. At the head of it was a strikers'
committee representing eighteen nationalities and composed of fifty-six members, each with an
alternate trained to act in case of the disablement of his principal. This committee was
organized, not to represent the Industrial Workers of the World, but to win the strike; and when it
first met not a half dozen of its members were inside the ranks of that organization. Even at the
close of the strike only a minority of the committee belonged to the Industrial Workers of the
World. In this connection it is worth noting that the riots, to which such exception has been
taken, occurred before Ettor's organization was effected, when the strikers gathered about the
mills as an organized mob and mill bosses turned streams of water upon them in zero weather.
After the "blood-stained Anarchists" arrived on the scene, a policy of non-resistance to the
aggressions of the police and the militia prevailed. It is worth remembering, also, that thousands
of striking operatives never attended a meeting of any sort. They sat in their homes, trusting
their leaders, and determined to stay out until these leaders gave the word to go back to the
mills.
The strike developed leadership among the workers of the most surprising caliber and
personality,--women such as Mrs. Wessenback, the highest paid worker and expert mender in
the mill, who stood out for the despised foreigner; the underpaid skilled workers such as Riley
and Adamson of the committee, who with others developed into remarkable leaders in the
struggle; Yates, a textile worker up till the time of the strike who had been a mill hand since he
was ten years of age, and who showed unexampled executive ability. He will be heard from now
on. These men represent to me as an old trade unionist, the old religion and the spirit of the
trade union movement when men worked for the cause regardless of consideration.
In the long run, from the organizer's standpoint this new insurgent movement may be the best
possible thing that could happen to the labor unions of America. On the one hand the success
of this struggle is a warning to employers who are on the job that they can no longer afford to
beat down and block conservative organizations that stand for contracts and trade agreements
which give the management a guarantee and surety in making estimates in business. On the
other hand, the trade union with a vision will also profit by this note of warning.
There were many seeming injustices done the strikers, such as the arrest of Mrs. Wessenback
and her two sisters. The evidence brought out in their trial for alleged intimidation fell flat; it was
clearly a pretense to make an example of well-known workers who had thrown their lot in with
the strike. Yet these girls were arrested in the middle of the night, made to dress and taken from
their lodgings to the lock-up. More consideration than that was shown the murderer of Avis
Linnell at Boston. One of these girls was so young that she had to go to the juvenile court to be
tried. Her, they fined $5; her sisters, $20 each. A Syrian father who was buying milk for his child
in the morning, was told to go back in the house by a militiaman and because he did not obey or
understand, whichever the case might be, the militiaman as he passed him by struck him across
the face and broke his cheek bone. The killing of the young Syrian boy who was told to move,
by running a bayonet through him, all these injustices, created in the hearts of the people a
distrust for those seeming to oppose them.
Nothing was so conducive to organization by the Industrial Workers of the World as the
methods used by the three branches of the American Federation of Labor. These were the
Lawrence Central Labor Union, the Boston Women's Trade Union League, and the Textile
Workers of America. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and unbelievers--men and women of many
races and languages,--were working together as human beings with a common cause. The
American Federation of Labor alone refused to cooperate. As a consequence, the strikers came
to look upon the federation as a force almost as dangerous to their success as the force of the
employers themselves, and I violate no confidence in saying that the operatives represented in
the strike committee have more respect for the mill owners than for the leaders of this
antagonistic element within their own ranks. A striker who went to the federation for relief was
looked upon as recreant to his cause and before the strike ended the American Federation of
Labor organizations, by openly refusing to give help to anyone who refused to return to work,
came to be looked upon as a trap designed in the interests of the mills to catch any workers
who could be induced to desert their cause.
This opposition gathered all the recruits possible from the ranks of the strikers; they offered the
mill owners a scale of demands in the hope that the employers would make the necessary
concessions and that enough workers would then return to the mills to break the strike and
leave the opposition in the command of the field. The mill owners refused to deal with an
organization whose recruits were so few in numbers and therefore could not settle the strike.
The crusade against the exportation of children, which resulted in the deplorable incident at the
railway station where women were clubbed by the police, was one of the direct results of their
agitation. The heckling continued until the end of the strike when the courts were called into use
to handicap the strike by demanding an accounting of the funds. This injunction was sought by
Rev. Herbert S. Johnson, Robert A. Woods, a social worker, Judge Leverony of the Juvenile
Court, and Mr. Pendergast, an attorney.
In 1894 I helped to raise $75,000 for the Fall River strikes, and John Golden was in charge of
the fund. The courts were not then asked for an accounting and to expose their war chest to the
inspection of their enemies. Why this discrimination?
It will be hard to find any fair minded person who went to Lawrence during the strike and
examined the conditions there who is not fully in accord with the object of the strikers. Everyone
who knows the situation admits that their cause is just. Yet there is in Boston a group of social
workers who have not gone to Lawrence, who are believed to have been guided by the
president of the Textile Workers of America, and who have fought the strikers from the
beginning. Among them are some who have asserted that it would be better for the strike to be
lost than to obtain a settlement through the general strike committee. These social workers
know or should know that under the old regime, children, thousands of them, suffered from
under-feeding, and that other children as old as nine years have never seen the inside of a
schoolhouse because they have no clothes.
The acts championed by these obstructionists must, of course, be attributed either to the
American Federation of Labor as an organization or to the leader of its New England forces as
an individual. The influence of Mr. Golden with the power and prestige of the American
Federation of Labor in the background, has proved astounding. Yet, judging by the relief funds
that have continued to pour in to the general strike committee from unions in the American
Federation, the organization as a whole could not have approved his acts. The newspapers
appear to have relied upon him and upon the Lawrence police for information. It is this fact that
accounts for the wide difference of opinion between those persons, social workers and public
spirited citizens, who have gone to Lawrence and studied conditions at first hand and those
others who have been guided by Mr. Golden and the newspapers.
I want to add an expression of personal opinion, based on twenty-six years' active experience in
the labor movement. The sub-committee of Lawrence strikers which conducted the negotiations
that ended in a victory for all the textile workers of New England, is the most unselfish strike
committee I have ever known. With two exceptions its members are skilled workers in the
Lawrence mills. It was at the suggestion of these skilled workers that the lowest paid, unskilled
workers of Lawrence received the largest advance in wages and the highest skilled workers
received the smallest.
DOCUMENT 8: PROCLAMATION OF THE SOCIALIST
NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON IMMEDIATE ACTION,
PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK CALL, AUGUST 12,
1914
To demonstrate that the workers of the world have no quarrel- among themselves, the party
called upon the foreign-born workers, particularly those who came from the warring nations, to
hold joint demonstrations of protest against the war in Europe. The United States government
was also urged to open immediate negotiations for a speedy termination of the conflict.
The Socialist Party of the United States hereby extends its sympathy to the workers of Europe
in their hour of trial, when they have been plunged into bloody and senseless conflict by
ambition-crazed monarchs, designing politicians and scheming capitalists.
We bid them to consider that the workers of the various nations involved have no quarrel with
each other, and that the evils from which they suffer—poverty, want, unemployment,
oppression—are inflicted upon them not by the workers of some other country, but by the ruling
classes of their own country.
We bid them to take thought before they allow themselves to be used blindly by heartless and
inhuman despots who would spill the blood of thousands, inflict pain and sorrow upon millions;
devastate the land and set back civilization in order to further their own wretched plots and
schemes.
The Socialist Party of the United States, in conformity with the declarations of the international
Socialist movement, hereby reiterates its opposition to this and all other wars, waged upon any
pretext whatsoever; war being a crude, savage and unsatisfactory method of settling real or
imaginary differences between nations, and destructive of the ideals of brotherhood and
humanity to which the international Socialist movement is dedicated.
The Socialist Party of the United States hereby expresses its condemnation of the ruling classes
of Europe and points out to the world that by their action in this crisis they have conclusively
proven that they are unfit to administer the affairs of nations in such a manner that the lives and
happiness of the people may be safeguarded.
The Socialist Party of the United States hereby calls upon all foreign-born workingmen residing
in this country, particularly upon those whose home governments are engaged in the present
strife to hold joint mass-meetings for the purpose of emphasizing the fraternity and solidarity of
all working people, irrespective of color, creed, race or nationality. We call upon the Socialist
locals throughout the country to promote such meetings and to give all possible assistance.
The Socialist Party of the United States hereby pledges its loyal support to the Socialist parties
of Europe in any measures they might think it necessary to undertake to advance the cause of
peace and of good will among men.
The Socialist Party of the United States hereby calls upon the national administration to prove
the genuineness of its policy of peace by opening immediate negotiations for mediation and
extending every effort to bring about the speedy termination of this disastrous conflict.
DOCUMENT 9: MANIFESTO OF THE SOCIALIST
NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON IMMEDIATE ACTION,
AUGUST 14, 1914
“Starve the War and Feed America!”—slogan adopted by the American Socialist Party
To the American People:
A desperate situation confronts the people of America. Unscrupulous capitalists, using the
European War as a pretext, are increasing the cost of food so that millions are threatened with
starvation.
The President of the United States has ordered an investigation of the increase in food prices
and the prosecution of those responsible for it. Such investigations and prosecutions have
brought no results whatsoever in the past and are not likely to do so now.
European governments, when confronted with a similar situation, realized that there was only
one measure that can be depended upon to being relief—the seizure of all plants and industries
responsible for the increase in prices and their operation by the government for the benefit of
the people.
We demand that the government, as an emergency measure, seize the packing houses, cold
storage warehouses, granaries, flour mills and such other plants and industries as may be
necessary to safeguard the food of the people.
Such seizure will not only benefit the people of the United States, but also the people of Europe.
When the government controls the industries, the exportation of foods to Europe can be
prevented. The rulers of Europe unable to secure food for their armies, will be forced to call off
their soldiers.
We also demand that the exportation of money and of munitions of war to the European nations
be prohibited. The United States must not aid the powers of Europe to continue their fratricidal
strife. We call upon the people everywhere to hold mass-meetings and to send resolutions to
the President and Congress demanding immediate and decisive action. ■ The need is urgent.
We must act.
DOCUMENT 10: ELIZABETH GURLEY FLYNN,
SABOTAGE (CLEVELAND, OHIO: I.W.W. PUBLISHING
BUREAU, 1916)
SABOTAGE
The interest in sabotage in the United States has developed lately on account of the case of
Frederick Sumner Boyd in the state of New Jersey as an aftermath of the Paterson strike.
Before his arrest and conviction for advocating sabotage, little or nothing was known of this
particular form of labor tactic in the United States. Now there has developed a two-fold
necessity to advocate it: not only to explain what it means to the worker in his fight for better
conditions, but also to justify our fellow-worker Boyd in everything that he said. So I am desirous
primarily to explain sabotage, to explain it in this two-fold significance, first as to its utility and
second as to its legality.
Its Necessity In The Class War
I am not going to attempt to justify sabotage on any moral ground. If the workers consider that
sabotage is necessary, that in itself makes sabotage moral. Its necessity is its excuse for
existence. And for us to discuss the morality of sabotage would be as absurd as to discuss the
morality of the strike or the morality of the class struggle itself. In order to understand sabotage
or to accept it at all it is necessary to accept the concept of the class struggle. If you believe that
between the workers on the one side and their employers on the other there is peace, there is
harmony such as exists between brothers, and that consequently whatever strikes and lockouts
occur are simply family squabbles; if you believe that a point can be reached whereby the
employer can get enough and the worker can get enough, a point of amicable adjustment of
industrial warfare and economic distribution, then there is no justification and no explanation of
sabotage intelligible to you. Sabotage is one weapon in the arsenal of labor to fight its side of
the class struggle. Labor realizes, as it becomes more intelligent, that it must have power in
order to accomplish anything; that neither appeals for sympathy nor abstract rights will make for
better conditions. For instance, take an industrial establishment such as a silk mill, where men
and women and little children work ten hours a day for an average wage of between six and
seven dollars a week. Could any one of them, or a committee representing the whole, hope to
induce the employer to give better conditions by appealing to his sympathy, by telling him of the
misery, the hardship and the poverty of their lives; or could they do it by appealing to his sense
of justice? Suppose that an individual working man or woman went to an employer and said, "I
make, in my capacity as wage worker in this factory, so many dollars' worth of wealth every day
and justice demands that you give me at least half." The employer would probably have him
removed to the nearest lunatic asylum. He would consider him too dangerous a criminal to let
loose on the community! It is neither sympathy nor justice that makes an appeal to the
employer. But it is power. If a committee can go to the employer with this ultimatum: "We
represent all the men and women in this shop. They are organized in a union as you are
organized in a manufacturers' association. They have met and formulated in that union a
demand for better hours and wages and they are not going to work one day longer unless they
get it. In other words, they have withdrawn their power as wealth producers from your plant and
they are going to coerce you by this withdrawal of their power; into granting their demands," that
sort of ultimatum served upon an employer usually meets with an entirely different response;
and if the union is strongly enough organized and they are able to make good their threat they
usually accomplish what tears and pleadings never could have accomplished.
We believe that the class struggle existing in society is expressed in the economic power of the
master on the one side and the growing economic power of the workers on the other side
meeting in open battle now and again, but meeting in continual daily conflict over which shall
have the larger share of labor's product and the ultimate ownership of the means of life. The
employer wants long hours, the intelligent workingman wants short hours. The employer wants
low wages, the intelligent workingman wants high wages. The employer is not concerned with
the sanitary conditions in the mill, he is concerned only with keeping the cost of production at a
minimum; the intelligent workingman is concerned, cost or no cost, with having ventilation,
sanitation and lighting that will be conducive to his physical welfare. Sabotage is to this class
struggle what the guerrilla warfare is to the battle. The strike is the open battle of the class
struggle, sabotage is the guerrilla warfare, the day-by-day warfare between two opposing
classes.
General Forms of Sabotage
Sabotage was adopted by the General Federation of Labor of France in 1897 as a recognized
weapon in their method of conducting fights on their employers. But sabotage as an instinctive
defense existed long before it was ever officially recognized by any labor organization.
Sabotage means primarily: the withdrawal of efficiency. Sabotage means either to slacken up
and interfere with the quantity, or to botch in your skill and interfere with the quality, of capitalist
production or to give poor service. Sabotage is not physical violence, sabotage is an internal,
industrial process. It is something that is fought out within the four walls of the shop. And these
three forms of sabotage—to affect the quality, the quantity and the service are aimed at
affecting the profit of the employer. Sabotage is a means of striking at the employer's profit for
the purpose of forcing him into granting certain conditions, even as workingmen strike for the
same purpose of coercing him. It is simply another form of coercion.
There are many forms of interfering with efficiency, interfering with quality and the quantity of
production: from varying motives—there is the employer's sabotage as well as the worker's
sabotage. Employers interfere with the quality of production, they interfere with the quantity of
production, they interfere with the supply as well as with the kind of goods for the purpose of
increasing their profit. But this form of sabotage, capitalist sabotage, is antisocial, for the reason
that it is aimed at the good of the few at the expense of the many, whereas working-class
sabotage is distinctly social, it is aimed at the benefit of the many, at the expense of the few.
Working-class sabotage is aimed directly at "the boss" and at his profits, in the belief that that is
the solar plexus of the employer, that is his heart, his religion, his sentiment, his patriotism.
Everything is centered in his pocket book, and if you strike that you are striking at the most
vulnerable point in his entire moral and economic system.
Short Pay, Less Work, "Ca Canny"
Sabotage, as it aims at the quantity, is a very old thing, called by the Scotch "ca canny." All
intelligent workers have tried it at some time or other when they have been compelled to work
too hard and too long. The Scotch dockers had a strike in 1889 and their strike was lost, but
when they went back to work they sent a circular to every docker in Scotland and in this circular
they embodied their conclusions, their experience from the bitter defeat. It was to this effect,
"The employers like the scabs, they have always praised their work, they have said how much
superior they were to us, they have paid them twice as much as they have ever paid us; now let
us go back to the docks determined that since those are the kind of workers they like and that is
the kind of work they endorse we will do the same thing. We will let the kegs of wine go over the
docks as the scabs did. We will have great boxes of fragile articles drop in the midst of the pier
as the scabs did. We will do the work just as clumsily, as slowly, as destructively, as the scabs
did. And we will see how long our employers can stand that kind of work." It was very few
months until through this system of sabotage they had won everything they had fought for and
not been able to win through the strike. This was the first open announcement of sabotage in an
English-speaking country.
I have heard of my grandfather telling how an old fellow came to work on the railroad and the
boss said, "Well, what can you do?"
"I can do 'most anything," said he—a big husky fellow.
"Well," said the boss, "can you handle a pick and a shovel?"
"Oh, sure. How much do you pay on this job?"
"A dollar a day."
Is that all? Well,—all right. I need the job pretty bad. I guess I will take it." So he took his pick
and went leisurely to work. Soon the boss came along and said:
"Say, can't you work any faster than that?"
"Sure I can."
"Well, why don't you?"
"This is my dollar-a-day clip."
"Well " said the boss, "let's see what the $1.25-a-day clip looks like."
That went a little better. Then the boss said, "Let's see what the $1.50-a-day clip looks like." The
man showed him. "That was fine," said the boss, "well, maybe we will call it $1.50 a day." The
man volunteered the information that his $2-a-day clip was "a hummer." So, through this
instinctive sort of sabotage this poor obscure workingman on a railroad in Maine was able to
gain for himself an advance from $1 to $2 a day. We read of the gangs of Italian workingmen,
when the boss cuts their pay—you know, usually they have an Irish or American boss and he
likes to make a couple of dollars a day on the side for himself, so he cuts the pay of the men
once in a while without consulting the contractor and pockets the difference. One boss cut them
25 cents a day The next day he came on the work, to find that the amount of dirt that was being
removed hat lessened considerably. He asked a few questions: "What's the matter?"
"Me no understan' English"—none of them wished to talk.
Well, he exhausted the day going around trying to find one person who could speak and tell him
what was wrong. Finally he found one man, who said, "Well, you see, boss, you cutta da pay,
we cutta da shob."
That was the same form of sabotage—to lessen the quantity of production in proportion to the
amount of pay received. There was an Indian preacher who went to college and eked out an
existence on the side by preaching. Somebody said to him, "John, how much do you get paid ?"
"Oh, only get paid $200 a year."
"Well, that's damn poor pay, John."
"Well," he said, "Damn poor preach!"
That, too, is an illustration of the form of sabotage that I am now describing to you, the "ca
canny" form of sabotage, the "go easy" slogan, the "slacken up, don't work so hard" species,
and it is a reversal of the motto of the American Federation of Labor, that most "safe, sane and
conservative" organization of labor in America. They believe in "a fair day's wage for a fair day's
work." Sabotage is an unfair day's work for an unfair day's wage. It is an attempt on the part of
the worker to limit his production in proportion to his remuneration. That is one form of
sabotage.
Interfering With Quality of Goods
The second form of sabotage is to deliberately interfere with the quality of the goods. And in this
we learn many lessons from our employers, even as we learn how to limit the quantity. You
know that every year in the western part of this United States there are fruits and grains
produced that never find a market; bananas and oranges rot on the ground, whole skiffs of fruits
are dumped into the ocean. Not because people do not need these foods and couldn't make
good use of them in the big cities of the east, but because the employing class prefer to destroy
a large percentage of the production in order to keep the price up in cities like New York,
Chicago, Baltimore and Boston. If they sent all the bananas that they produce into the eastern
part of the United States we would be buying bananas at probably three for a cent. But by
destroying a large quantity, they are able to keep the price up to two for 5c. And this applies to
potatoes, apples, and very many other staple articles required by the ma jority of people. Yet if
the worker attempts to apply the same principle, the same theory, the same tactic as his
employer we are confronted with all sorts of finespun moral objections.
Boyd's Advice to Silk Mill Slaves
So it is with the quality. Take the case of Frederic Sumner Boyd, in which we should all be
deeply interested because it is evident Frederic Sumner Boyd is to be made "the goat" by the
authorities in New Jersey. That is to say, they want blood, they want one victim. If they can't get
anybody else they are determined they are going to get Boyd, in order to serve a two-fold
purpose to cow the workers of Paterson, as they believe they can, and to put this thing,
sabotage, into the statutes, to make it an illegal thing to advocate or to practice. Boyd said this:
"If you go back to work and you find scabs working alongside you, you should put a little bit of
vinegar on the reed of the loom in order to prevent its operation." They have arrested him under
the statute forbidding the advocacy of the destruction of property. He advised the dyers to go
into the dye houses and to use certain chemicals in the dyeing of the silk that would tend to
make that silk unweavable. That sounded very terrible in the newspapers and very terrible in the
court of law. But what neither the newspapers nor the courts of law have taken any cognizance
of is that these chemicals are being used already in the dyeing of the silk. It is not a new thing
that Boyd is advocating, it is something that is being practised [sic] in every dye house in the city
of Paterson already, but it is being practiced for the employer and not for the worker.
"Dynamiting" Silk
Let me give you a specific illustration of what I mean. Seventy-five years ago when silk was
woven into cloth the silk skein was taken in the pure, dyed and woven, and when that piece of
silk was made it would last for 50 years. Your grandmother could wear it as a wedding dress.
Your mother could wear it as a wedding dress. And then you, if you, woman reader, were
fortunate enough to have a chance to get married, could wear it as a wedding dress also. But
the silk that you buy today is not dyed in the pure and woven into a strong and durable product.
One pound of silk goes into the dye house and usually as many as three to fifteen pounds come
out. That is to say, along with the dyeing there is an extraneous and an unnecessary process of
what is very picturesquely called "dynamiting." They weight the silk. They have solutions of tin,
solutions of zinc, solutions of lead. If you will read the journals of the Silk Association of America
you will find in there advice to master dyers as to which salts are the most appropriate for
weighting purposes. You will read advertisements—possibly you saw it reprinted in "The
Masses" for December, 1913—of silk mills, Ashley & Bailey's in Paterson, for instance,
advertised by an auctioneer as having a plant for weighting, for dynamiting silk par excellence.
And so when you buy a nice piece of silk today and have a dress made for festive occasions,
you hang it away in the wardrobe and when you take it out it is cracked down the pleats and
along the waist and arms. And you believe that you have been terribly cheated by a clerk. What
is actually wrong is that you have paid for silk where you have received old tin cans and zinc
and lead and things of that sort. You have a dress that is garnished with silk, seasoned with silk,
but a dress that is adulterated to the point where, if it was adulterated just the slightest degree
more, it would fall to pieces entirely.
Now, what Frederic Sumner Boyd advocated to the silk workers was in effect this: "You do for
yourselves what you are already doing for your employers. Put these same things into the silk
for yourself and your own purposes as you are putting in for the employer's purposes." And I
can't imagine—even in a court of law—where they can find the fine thread of deviation—where
the master dyers' sabotage is legal and the worker's sabotage illegal, where they consist of
identically the same thing and where the silk remains intact. The silk is there. The loom is there.
There is no property destroyed by the process. The one thing that is eliminated is the efficiency
of the worker to cover up this adulteration of the silk, to carry it just to the point where it will
weave and not be detected. That efficiency is withdrawn. The veil is torn from off production in
the silk-dyeing houses and silk mills and the worker simply says, "Here, I will take my hands off
and I will show you what it is. I will show you how rotten, how absolutely unusable the silk
actually is that they are passing off on the public at two and three dollars a yard."
Non-Adulteration and Over-Adulteration
Now, Boyd's form of sabotage was not the most dangerous form of sabotage at that. If the
judges had any imagination they would know that Boyd's form of sabotage was pretty mild
compared with this: Suppose that he had said to the dyers in Paterson, to a sufficient number of
them that they could do it as a whole, so that it would affect every dye house in Paterson:
"Instead of introducing these chemicals for adulteration, don't introduce them at all. Take the
lead, the zinc, and the tin and throw it down the sewer and weave the silk, beautiful, pure,
durable silk, just as it is. Dye it pound for pound, hundred pound for hundred pound." The
employers would have been more hurt by that form of sabotage than by what Boyd advocated.
And they would probably have wanted him put in jail for life instead of for seven years. In other
words, to advocate nonadulteration is a lot more dangerous to capitalist interests than to
advocate adulteration. And nonadulteration is the highest form of sabotage in an establishment
like the dye houses of Paterson, bakeries, confectioners, meat packing houses, restaurants, etc.
Interfering with quality, or durability, or the utility of a product, might be illustrated as follows:
Suppose a milkman comes to your house every day and delivers a quart of milk and this quart
of milk is half water and they put some chalk in it and some glue to thicken it. Then a milk driver
goes on that round who belongs to a union. The union strikes. And they don't win any better
conditions. Then they turn on the water faucet and they let it run so that the mixture is four-fifths
water and one-fifth milk. You will send the "milk" back and make a complaint. At the same time
that you are making that complaint and refusing to use the milk, hundreds and thousands of
others will do the same thing, and through striking at the interests of the consumer once they
are able to effect better conditions for themselves and also they are able to compel the
employers to give the pure product. That form of sabotage is distinctly beneficial to the
consumer. Any exposure of adulteration, any over-adulteration that makes the product
unconsumable is a lot more beneficial to the consumer than to have it tinctured and doctored so
that you can use it but so that it is destructive to your physical condition at the same time.
Interfering with quality means, can be instanced in the hotel and restaurant kitchens. I
remember during the hotel workers strike they used to tell us about the great cauldrons of soup
that stood there month in and month out without ever being cleaned, that were covered with
verdigris and with various other forms of animal growth, and that very many times into this soup
would fall a mouse or a rat and he would be fished out and thrown aside and the soup would be
used just the same. Now, can anyone say that if the workers in those restaurants, as a means
of striking at their employers, would take half a pound of salt and throw it into that soup
cauldron, you as a diner, or consumer, wouldn't be a lot better off? It would be far better to have
that soup made unfit for consumption than to have it left in a state where it can be consumed
but where it is continually poisonous to a greater or less degree. Destroying the utility of the
goods sometimes means a distinct benefit to the person who might otherwise use the goods.
Interfering With Service. "Open Mouth" Sabotage
But that form of sabotage is not the final form of sabotage. Service can be destroyed as well as
quality. And this is accomplished in Europe by what is known as "the open mouth sabotage." In
the hotel and restaurant industry, for instance—I wonder if this judge who sentenced Boyd to
seven years in state's prison, would believe in this form of sabotage or not? Suppose he went
into a restaurant and ordered a lobster salad, and he said to the spic and span waiter standing
behind the chair, "Is the lobster salad good?" "Oh, yes, sir," said the waiter. "It is the very best in
the city." That would be acting the good wage slave and looking out for the employer's interest.
But if the waiter should say, "No, sir, it's rotten lobster salad. It's made from the pieces that have
been gathered together here for the last six weeks," that would be the waiter who believed in
sabotage, that would be the waiter who had no interest in his boss' profits, the waiter who didn't
give a continental whether the boss sold lobster salad or not. And the judge would probably
believe in sabotage in that particular instance. The waiters in the city of New York were only
about 5,000 strong. Of these, about a thousand were militant, were the kind that could be
depended on in a strike. And yet that little strike made more sensation in New York City than
200,000 garment workers who were out at the same time. They didn't win very much for
themselves, because of their small numbers, but they did win a good deal in demonstrating the
power to the employer to hurt his business. For instance, they drew up affidavits and they told
about every hotel and restaurant in New York, the kitchen and the pantry conditions. They told
about how the butter on the little butter plates was sent back to the kitchen and somebody with
their fingers picked out cigar ashes and the cigarette butts and the matches and threw the butter
back into the general supply. They told how the napkins that had been on the table, used
possibly by a man who had consumption or syphillis, were used to wipe the dishes in the pantry.
They told stories that would make your stomach sick and your hair almost turn white, of
conditions in the Waldorf, the Astor, the Belmont, all the great restaurants and hotels in New
York. And I found that that was one of the most effective ways of reaching the public, because
the "dear public" are never reached through sympathy. I was taken by a lady up to a West Side
aristocratic club of women who had nothing else to do, so they organized this club. You know—
the white-gloved aristocracy! And I was asked to talk about the hotel workers' strike. I knew that
wasn't what they wanted at all. They just wanted to look at what kind of person a "labor agitator"
was. But I saw a chance for publicity for the strikers. I told them about the long hours in the hot
kitchens; about steaming, smoking ranges. I told them about the overwork and the underpay of
the waiters and how these waiters had to depend upon the generosity or the drunkenness of
some patron to give them a big tip; all that sort of thing. And they were stony-faced. It affected
them as much as an arrow would Gibraltar. And then I started to tell them about what the
waiters and the cooks had told me of the kitchen conditions and I saw a look of frozen horror on
their faces immediately. They were interested when I began to talk about something that
affected their own stomachs, where I never could have reached them through any appeal for
humanitarian purposes. Immediately they began to draw up resolutions and to cancel
engagements at these big hotels and decided that their clubs must not meet there again. They
caused quite a commotion around some of the big hotels in New York. When the workers went
back to work after learning that this was a way of getting at the boss via the public stomach they
did not hesitate at sabotage in the kitchens. If any of you have ever got soup that was not fit to
eat, that was too salty or peppery, maybe there were some boys in the kitchen that wanted
shorter hours, and that was one way they notified the boss. In the Hotel McAlpin the head waiter
called the men up before him after the strike was over and lost and said, "Boys, you can have
what you want, we will give you the hours, we will give you the wages, we will give you
everything, but, for God's sake, stop this sabotage business in the kitchen!" In other words, what
they had not been able to win through the strike they were able to win by striking at the taste of
the public, by making the food non-consumable and therefore compelling the boss to take
cognizance of their efficiency and their power in the kitchen.
Following The "Book of Rules"
Interfering with service may be done in another way. It may be done, strange to say, sometimes
by abiding by the rules, living up to the law absolutely. Sometimes the law is almost as
inconvenient a thing for the capitalist as for a labor agitator. For instance, on every railroad they
have a book of rules, a nice little book that they give to every employe [sic], and in that book of
rules it tells how the engineer and the fireman must examine every part of the engine before
they take it out of the round house. It tells how the brakeman should go the length and the width
of the train and examine every bit of machinery to be sure it's in good shape. It tells how the
stationmaster should do this and the telegraph operator that, and so forth, and it all sounds very
nice in the little book. But now take the book of rules and compare it with the timetable and you
will realize how absolutely impossible the whole thing is. What is it written for? An accident
happens. An engineer who has been working 36 hours does not see a signal on the track, and
many people are killed. The coroner's jury meets to fix the responsibility. And upon whom is it
fixed? This poor engineer who didn't abide by the book of rules! He is the man upon whom the
responsibility falls. The company wipe their hands and say, "We are not responsible. Our
employe[sic] was negligent. Here are our rules." And through this book of rules they are able to
fix the responsibility of every accident on some poor devil like that engineer, who said the other
day, after a frightful accident, when he was arrested, "Yes, but if I didn't get the train in at a
certain time I might have lost my job under the new management on the New Haven road." That
book of rules exists in Europe as well. In one station in France there was an accident and the
station master was held responsible. The station masters were organized in the Railwaymen's
Union. And they went to the union and asked for some action. The union said, "The best thing
for you men to do is to go back on the job and obey that book of rules letter for letter. If that is
the only reason why accidents happen we will have no accidents hereafter." So they went back
and when a man came up to the ticket office and asked for a ticket to such-and-such a place,
the charge being so much, and would hand in more than the amount, he would be told, "Can't
give you any change. It says in the book of rules a passenger must have the exact fare." This
was the first one. Well, after a lot of fuss they chased around and got the exact change, were
given their tickets and got aboard the train. Then when the train was supposedly ready to start
the engineer climbed down, the fireman followed and they began to examine every bolt and
piece of mechanism on the engine. The brakeman got off and began to examine everything he
was supposed to examine. The passengers grew very restless. The train stood there about an
hour and a half. They proceeded to leave the train. They were met at the door by an
employe[sic] who said, "No, it's against the rules for you to leave the train once you get into it,
until you arrive at your destination." And within three days the railroad system of France was so
completely demoralized that they had to exonerate this particular station master, and the
absurdity of the book of rules had been so demonstrated to the public that they had to make
over their system of operation before the public would trust themselves to the railroad any
further.
This book of rules has been tried not only for the purpose of exoneration; it has been tried for
the purpose of strikes. Where men fail in the open battle they go back and with this system they
win. Railroad men can sabotage for others as well as for themselves. In a case like the miners
of Colorado where we read there that militiamen were sent in against the miners. We know that
they are sent against the miners because the first act of the militia was to disarm the miners and
leave the mine guards, the thugs, in possession of their arms. Ludlow followed! The good judge
O'Brien went into Calumet, Mich., and said to the miners—and the president of the union, Mr.
Moyer, sits at the table as chairman while he said it— "Boys, give up your guns. It is better for
you to be shot than it is to shoot anybody." Now, sabotage is not violence, but that does not
mean that I am deprecating all forms of violence. I believe for instance in the case of Michigan,
in the case of Colorado, in the case of Roosevelt, N. J., the miners should have held onto their
guns, exercised their "constitutional right" to bear arms, and, militia or no militia, absolutely
refused to give them up until they saw the guns of the thugs and the guns of the mine guards on
the other side of the road first. And even then it might be a good precaution to hold on to them in
case of danger! Well, when this militia was being sent from Denver up into the mining district
one little train crew did what has never been done in America before; something that caused a
thrill to go through the humblest toiler. If I could have worked for twenty years just to see one
little torch of hope like that, I believe it worth while. The trail was full of soldiers. The engineer,
the fireman, all the train crew stepped out of the train and they said, "We are not going to run
this train to carry any soldiers in against our brother strikers." So they deserted the train, but it
was then operated by a Baldwin detective and a deputy sheriff. Can you say that wasn't a case
where sabotage was absolutely necessary?
Putting The Machine on Strike
Suppose that when the engineer had gone on strike he had taken a vital part of the engine on
strike with him, without which it would have been impossible for anyone to run that engine. Then
there might have been a different story. Railroad men have a mighty power in refusing to
transport soldiers, strike-breakers and ammunition for soldiers and strike-breakers into strike
districts. They did it in Italy. The soldiers went on the train. The train guards refused to run the
trains. The soldiers thought they could run the train themselves. They started and the first signal
they came to was "Danger." They went along very slowly and cautiously, and the next signal
was at "Danger." And they found before they had gone very far that some of the switches had
been turned and they were run off on to a siding in the woods somewhere. Laboriously they got
back onto the main track. They came to a drawbridge and the bridge was turned open. They
had to go across in boats and abandon the train. That meant walking the rest of the way. By the
time they got into the strike district the strike was over. Soldiers who have had to walk aren't so
full of vim and vigor and so anxious to shoot "dagoes" down when they get into a strike district
as when they ride in a train manned by union men.
The railroad men have mighty power in refusing to run these trains and putting them in such a
condition that they can't be run by others. However, to anticipate a question that is going to be
asked about the possible disregard for human life, remember that when they put all the signals
at danger there is very little risk for human life, because the train usually has to stop dead still.
Where they take a vital part of the engine away the train does not run at all. So human life is not
in danger. They make it a practice to strike such a vital blow that the service is paralyzed
thereafter.
With freight of course they do different things. In the strike of the railroad workers in France they
transported the freight in such a way that a great trainload of fine fresh fruit could be run off into
a siding in one of the poorest districts of France. It was left to decay. But it never reached the
point of either decay or destruction. It was usually taken care of by the poor people of that
district. Something that was supposed to be sent in a rush from Paris to Havre was sent to
Marseilles. And so within a very short time the whole system was so clogged and demoralized
that they had to say to the railroad workers, "You are the only efficient ones. Come back. Take
your demands. But run our railroads."
"Print The Truth or You Don't Print at All"
Now, what is true of the railroad workers is also true of the newspaper workers. Of course one
can hardly imagine any more conservative element to deal with than the railroad workers and
the newspaper workers. Sometimes you will read a story in the paper that is so palpably false, a
story about strikers than[sic] planted dynamite in Lawrence for instance (and it came out in a
Boston paper before the dynamite was found), a story of how the Erie trains were "dynamited"
by strikers in Paterson; but do you realize that the man who writes that story, the man who pays
for that story, the owners and editors are not the ones that put the story into actual print? It is
put in print by printers, compositors, typesetters, men who belong to the working class and are
members of unions. During the Swedish general strike these workers who belonged to the
unions and were operating the papers rebelled against printing lies against their fellow strikers.
They sent an ultimatum to the newspaper managers: "Either you print the truth or you'll print no
papers at all." The newspaper owners decided they would rather print no paper at all than tell
the truth. Most of them would probably so decide in this country, too. The men went on strike
and the paper came out a little bit of a sheet, two by four, until eventually they realized that the
printers had them by the throat, that they could not print any papers without the printers. They
sent for them to come back and told them, "So much of the paper will belong to the strikers and
they can print what they please in it."
But other printers have accomplished the same results by sabotage. In Copenhagen once there
was a peace conference and a circus going on at the same time. The printers asked for more
wages and they didn't get them. They were very sore. Bitterness in the heart is a very good
stimulus for sabotage. So they said, "All right, we will stay right at work, boys, but we will do
some funny business with this paper, so they won't want to print it tomorrow under the same
circumstances." They took the peace conference, where some high and mighty person was
going to make an address on international peace and they put that man's speech in the circus
news; they reported the lion and the monkey as making speeches in the peace conference and
the Honorable Mr. So-and-so doing trapeze acts in the circus. There was great consternation
and indignation in the city. Advertisers, the peace conference, the circus protested. The circus
would not pay their bill for advertising. It cost the paper as much, eventually, as the increased
wages would have cost them, so that they came to the men figuratively on their bended knees
and asked them, "Please be good and we will give you whatever you ask." That is the power of
interfering with industrial efficiency by bad service. It is not the inefficiency of a poor workman,
but the deliberate withdrawal of efficiency by a competent worker.
"Used Sabotage, But Didn't Know What You Called It"
Sabotage is for the workingman an absolute necessity. Therefore it is almost useless to argue
about its effectiveness. When men do a thing instinctively continually, year after year and
generation after generation, it means that that weapon has some value to them. When the Boyd
speech was made in Paterson, immediately some of the socialists rushed to the newspapers to
protest. They called the attention of the authorities to the fact that the speech was made. The
secretary of the socialist party and the organizer of the socialist party repudiated Boyd. That
precipitated the discussion into the strike committee as to whether speeches on sabotage were
to be permitted. We had tried to instill into the strikers the idea that any kind of speech was to be
permitted; that a socialist or a minister or a priest, a union organizer, an A. F. of L. man, a
politician, an I. W. W. man, an anarchist, anybody should have the platform. And we tried to
make the strikers realize. "You have sufficient intelligence to select for yourselves. If you haven't
got that, then no censorship over your meetings is going to do you any good." So they had a
rather tolerant spirit and they were not inclined to accept this socialist denunciation of sabotage
right off the reel. They had an executive session and threshed it out and this is what occurred.
One worker said, "I never heard of this thing called sabotage before Mr. Boyd spoke about it on
the platform. I know once in a while when I want a half-day off and they won't give it to me I slip
the belt off the machine so it won't run and I get my half day. I don't know whether you call that
sabotage, but that's what I do."
Another said, "I was in the strike of the dyers eleven years ago and we lost. We went back to
work and we had these scabs that had broken our strike working side by side with us. We were
pretty sore. So whenever they were supposed to be mixing green we saw to it that they put in
red, or when they were supposed to be mixing blue we saw to it that they put in green. And
soon they realized that scabbing was a very unprofitable business. And the next strike we had,
they lined up with us. I don't know whether you call that sabotage, but it works."
As we went down the line, one member of the executive committee after another admitted they
had used this thing but they "didn't know that was what you called it!" And so in the end
democrats, republicans, socialists, all I. W. W.'s in the committee voted that speeches on
sabotage were to be permitted, because it was ridiculous not to say on the platform what they
were already doing in the shop.
And so my final justification of sabotage is its constant use by the worker. The position of
speakers, organizers, lecturers, writers who are presumed to be interested in the labor
movement, must be one of two. If you place yourself in a position outside of the working class
and you presume to dictate to them from some "superior" intellectual plane, what they are to do,
they will very soon get rid of you, for you will very soon demonstrate that you are of absolutely
no use to them. I believe the mission of the intelligent propagandist is this: we are to see what
the workers are doing, and then try to understand why they do it; not tell them its[sic] right or
its[sic] wrong, but analyze the condition and see if possibly they do not best understand their
need and if, out of the condition, there may not develop a theory that will be of general utility.
Industrial unionism, sabotage are theories born of such facts and experiences. But for us to
place ourselves in a position of censorship is to alienate ourselves entirely from sympathy and
utility with the very people we are supposed to serve.
Sabotage and "Moral Fiber"
Sabotage is objected to on the ground that it destroys the moral fiber of the individual, whatever
that is! The moral fibre[sic] of the workingman! Here is a poor workingman, works twelve hours
a day seven days a week for two dollars a day in the steel mills of Pittsburg. For that man to use
sabotage is going to destroy his moral fiber. Well, if it does, then moral fiber is the only thing he
has left. In a stage of society where men produce a completed article, for instance if a
shoemaker takes a piece of raw leather, cuts it, designs it, plans the shoes, makes every part of
the shoes, turns out a finished product, that represents to him what the piece of sculpturing
represents to the artist, there is joy in handicraftsmanship, there is joy in labor. But can anyone
believe that a shoe factory worker, one of a hundred men, each doing a small part of the
complete whole, standing before a machine for instance and listening to this ticktack all day
long—that such a man has any joy in his work or any pride in the ultimate product? The silk
worker for instance may make beautiful things, fine shimmering silk. When it is hung up in the
window of Altman's or Macy's or Wanamaker's it looks beautiful. But the silk worker never gets a
chance to use a single yard of it. And the producing of the beautiful thing instead of being a
pleasure is instead a constant aggravation to the silk worker. They make a beautiful thing in the
shop and then they come home to poverty, misery, and hardship. They wear a cotton dress
while they are weaving the beautiful silk for some demi monde in New York to wear.
I remember one night we had a meeting of 5,000 kiddies. (We had them there to discuss
whether or not there should be a school strike. The teachers were not telling the truth about the
strike and we decided that the children were either to hear the truth or it was better for them not
to go to school at all.) I said, "Children, is there any of you here who have a silk dress in your
family? Anybody's mother got a silk dress?" One little ragged urchin in front piped up, "Shure,
me mudder's got a silk dress."
I said, "Where did she get it ?"—perhaps a rather indelicate question, but a natural one.
He said, "Me fadder spoiled the cloth and had to bring it home."
The only time they get a silk dress is when they spoil the goods so that nobody else will use it;
when the dress is so ruined that nobody else would want it. Then they can have it. The silk
worker takes pride in his products! To talk to these people about being proud of their work is just
as silly as to talk to the street cleaner about being proud of his work, or to tell the man that
scrapes outmthe sewer to be proud of his work. If they made an article completely or if they
made it all together under a democratic association and then they had the disposition of the
silk—they could wear some of it, they could make some of the beautiful salmon-colored and the
delicate blues into a dress for themselves—there would be pleasure in producing silk. But until
you eliminate wage slavery and the exploitation of labor it is ridiculous to talk about destroying
the moral fiber of the individual by telling him to destroy "his own product." Destroy his own
product! He is destroying somebody else's enjoyment, somebody else's chance to use his
product created in slavery. There is another argument to the effect that "If you use this thing
called sabotage you are going to develop in yourself a spirit of hostility, a spirit of antagonism to
everybody else in society, you are going to become sneaking, you are going to become
cowardly. It is an underhanded thing to do." But the individual who uses sabotage is not
benefiting himself alone. If he were looking out for himself only he would never use sabotage. It
would be much easier, much safer not to do it. When a man uses sabotage he is usually
intending to benefit the whole; doing an individual thing but doing it to the benefit of himself and
others together. And it requires courage. It requires individuality. It creates in that workingman
some self-respect for and self-reliance upon himself as a producer. I contend that sabotage
instead of being sneaking and cowardly is a courageous thing, is an open thing. The boss may
not be notified about it through the papers, but he finds out about it very quickly, just the same.
And the man or woman who employs it is demonstrating a courage that you may measure in
this way: How many of the critics would do it? How many of you, if you were dependent on a job
in a silk town like Paterson, would take your job in your hands and employ sabotage? If you
were a machinist in a locomotive shop and had a good job, how many of you would risk it to
employ sabotage? Consider that and then you have the right to call the man who uses it a
coward—if you can.
Limiting The Over-Supply of Slaves
It is my hope that the workers will not only "sabotage" the supply of products, but also the oversupply of producers. In Europe the syndicalists have carried on a propaganda that we are too
cowardly to carry on in the United States as yet. It is against the law. Everything is "against the
law," once it becomes large enough for the law to take cognizance that it is in the best interests
of the working class. If sabotage is to be thrown aside because it is construed as against the
law, how do we know that next year free speech may not have to be thrown aside? Or free
assembly or free press ? That a thing is against the law, does not mean necessarily that the
thing is not good. Sometimes it means just the contrary: a mighty good thing for the working
class to use against the capitalists. In Europe they are carrying on this sort of limitation of
product: they are saying, "Not only will we limit the product in the factory, but we are going to
limit the supply of producers. We are going to limit the supply of workers on the market." Men
and women of the working class in France and Italy and even Germany today are saying, "We
are not going to have ten, twelve and fourteen children for the army, the navy, the factory and
the mine. We are going to have fewer children, with quality and not quantity accentuated as our
ideal who can be better fed, better clothed, better equipped mentally and will become better
fighters for the social revolution." Although it is not strictly scientific definition I like to include this
as indicative of the spirit that produces sabotage. It certainly is one of the most vital forms of
class warfare there are, to strike at the roots of the capitalist system by limiting their supply of
slaves and creating individuals who will be good soldiers on their own behalf.
Sabotage a War Measure
I have not given you a rigidly defined thesis on sabotage because sabotage is in the process of
making. Sabotage itself is not clearly defined. Sabotage is as broad and changing as industry,
as flexible as the imagination and passions of humanity. Every day workingmen and women are
discovering new forms of sabotage, and the stronger their rebellious imagination is the more
sabotage they are going to invent, the more sabotage they are going to develop. Sabotage is
not, however, a permanent weapon. Sabotage is not going to be necessary, once a free society
has be established. Sabotage is simply a war measure and it will go out of existence with the
war, just as the strike, the lockout, the policeman, the machine gun, the judge with his
injunction, and all the various weapons in the arsenals of capital and labor will go out of
existence with the advent of a free society. "And then," someone may ask, "may not this instinct
for sabotage have developed, too far, so that one body of workers will use sabotage against
another; that the railroad workers, for instance, will refuse to work for the miners unless they get
exorbitant returns for labor?" The difference is this: when you sabotage an employer you are
sabotaging somebody upon whom you are not interdependent, you have no relationship with
him as a member of society contributing to your wants in return for your contribution. The
employer is somebody who depends absolutely on the workers. Whereas, the miner is one unit
in a society where somebody else supplies the bread, somebody else the clothes, somebody
else the shoes, and where he gives his product in exchange for someone else's; and it would be
suicidal for him to assume a tyrannical, a monopolistic position, of demanding so much for his
product that the others might cut him off from any other social relations and refuse to meet with
any such bargain. In other words, the miner, the railroad worker, the baker is limited in using
sabotage against his fellow workers because he is interdependent on his fellow workers,
whereas he is not materially interdependent on the employer for the means of subsistence.
But the worker will not be swerved from his stern purpose by puerile objections. To him this is
not an argument but a struggle for life. He knows freedom will come only when his class is
willing and courageous enough to fight for it. He knows the risks, far better than we do. But his
choice is between starvation in slavery and starvation in battle. Like a spent swimmer in the sea,
who can sink easily and apathetically into eternal sleep, but who struggles on to grasp a stray
spar, suffers but hopes in suffering—so the worker makes his choice. His wife's worries and
tears spur him forth to don his shining armor of industrial power; his child's starry eyes mirror the
light of the ideal to him and strengthens his determination to strike the shackles from the wrists
of toil before that child enters the arena of industrial life; his manhood demands some rebellion
against daily humiliation and intolerable exploitation. To this worker, sabotage is a shining
sword. It pierces the nerve centers of capitalism, stabs at its hearts and stomachs, tears at the
vitals of its economic system. It is cutting a path to freedom, to ease in production and ease in
consumption.
Confident in his powers, he hurls his challenge into his master's teeth—I am, I was and I will
be—
"I will be, and lead the nations on, the last of all
your hosts to meet,
Till on your necks, your heads, your crowns, I'll
plant my strong, resistless feet.
Avenger, Liberator, Judge, red battles on my
pathway hurled,
I stretch forth my almighty arm till it revivifies
the world."
DOCUMENT 11: I.W. W. PREAMBLE (CHICAGO: I.W.W.
PUBLISHING BUREAU, [1916?])
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so
long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few, who make up
the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must
go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the
machinery of production, and abolish the wage system. We find that the centering of the
management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope
with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs
which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry,
thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing
class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with
their employers. These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld
only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all
industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lookout is on in any department
thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all. Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair
day's wages for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword,
"Abolition of the wage system." It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with
capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for the every day struggle with
capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By
organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
Knowing, therefore, that such an organization is absolutely necessary for our emancipation, we
unite under the following constitution:…
DOCUMENT 12: STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE I.W.W. ON WAR [Undated]
The General Executive Board of the I.W.W. in session assembled, reaffirm with unfaltering
determination the un-alterable opposition of the Industrial Workers of the World and its
membership to all wars, and the participation therein of the membership of the Industrial
Workers of the World.
We wish to draw to the attention of the membership of the I.W.W. the fact, that any member of
the Industrial Workers of the World who becomes a member of the military or naval forces of
this, or any other country where we organized, cannot retain his membership in this
organization.
Members of the I.W.W. who at the outbreak of the European War enlisted in the Canadian
forces, were summarily expelled from the organization, this action will be strictly followed in all
cases.
In this mad chaos of bloodshed and slaughter that has engulfed the world, all the rights we have
fought so long and bitterly to retain and enlarge, are in danger of being crushed and suppressed
by the ruthless powers of Capitalism, therefore it behooves the membership of the I.W.W. to
lock well to their rights, and to battle for their principles with intensified vigor and courage. We
must not allow the masters of industry, under the cloak of “military expediency” or the subtle and
hypocritical lie of this being a “war for Democracy” to destroy every vestige of our organization,
to stifle the voice of the workers, to crush the working-class press, by abrogating the rights of
Free Speech, Free Press and Free assemblage, as they are now doing on every hand, these
tyrannical acts and usurpation of power, we cannot and shall not tolerate without protest and
resistance by all methods within our power, we must let these tyrants understand that they
cannot fool us with their “War for Democracy” lies, by destroying Democracy here.
We of the Industrial Workers of the World who have always opposed war and any participation
therein, consider our membership exempt from any participation in this or any other war, just as
much as the Quakers or any religious sect that oppose war, we oppose war not from religious
motives, but from motives of principle, abhor war, because we abhor murder, rapine and wanton
destruction.
We further wish to assure the membership that the entire strength of the organization, morally,
economically and financially will be used to support any of our members in their refusal to kill or
be killed.
We wish to serve notice on our Capitalist masters, that we are just as bitterly opposed to their
wars of commercialism, to-day, as we ever were, and our refusal to endorse of participate in
their wars is just as firm to day, as it ever was, and that we will resent with all power at our
command any attempt upon their part, to compel us – the disinherited, to participate in a war,
that can only bring in its wake death and untold misery, privation and suffering to millions of
workers, and only serve to further rivet the chains of slavery on our necks, and render still more
secure the power of the few to control the destinies of the many.
DOCUMENT 13: WARNING: A DEADLY PARALLEL
DOCUMENT 14: LYRICS EXCERPTED FROM:
JOE HILL, I.W.W. SONGS TO FAN THE FLAMES OF
DISCONTENT (CHICAGO: I.W.W. PUBLISHING
BUREAU, 1917.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, AWAKEN!
By Joe Hill
Workers of the world, awaken!
Break your chains, demand your rights.
All the wealth you make is taken
By exploiting parasites.
Shall you kneel in deep submission
From your cradles to your graves?
Is the height of your ambition
To be good and willing slaves?
CHORUS:
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!
Fight for your own emancipation;
Arise, ye slaves of every nation.
In One Union grand.
Our little ones for bread are crying
And millions are from hunger dying;
The end the means is justifying,
'Tis the final stand.
If the workers take a notion
They can stop all speeding trains;
Every ship upon the ocean
They can tie with mighty chains.
Every wheel in the creation,
Every mine and every mill
Fleets and armies of the nation,
Will at their command stand still.
Join the union, fellow workers
Men and women, side by side;
We will crush the greedy shirkers
Like a sweeping; surging tide;
For united we are standing,
But divided we will fall;
Let this be our understanding-"All for one and one for all."
Workers of the world, awaken!
Rise in all your splendid might;
Take the wealth that you are making,
It belongs to you by right.
No one will for bread be crying,
We'll have freedom[, lo]ve and health.
When the grand red flag is flying
In the Workers' Commonwealth.
THE BANNER OF LABOR
(Tune: "The Star Spangled Banner")
Oh, say can you hear, coming near and more near,
The call now resounding: "Come all ye who labor?"
The Industrial band, throughout all the land
Bid toilers, remember each toiler his neighbor.
Come, workers, unite! 'tis Humanity's fight.
We call, you come forth in your manhood and might.
CHORUS
And the BANNER OF LABOR will surely soon wave
O'er the land that is free from the master and slave.
And the BANNER OF LABOR will surely soon wave
O'er the land that is free from the master and slave.
The blood and the lives of children and wives
Are ground into dollars for parasites' pleasure;
The children now slave, till they sink in their graveThat robbers may fatten and add to their treasure.
Will you idly sit by, unheeding their cry?
Arise! Be ye men! See, the battle draws nigh!
Long, long has the spoil of labor and toil
Been wrung from the workers by parasite classes;
While Poverty gaunt, Desolation and Want
Have dwelt in the bowels of earth's toiling masses.
Through bloodshed and tears, our day star appears,
INDUSTRIAL UNION, the wage slave now cheers.
HARVEST WAR SONG
By Pat[ ]rennan
(Tune: "Tipperary")
We are coming home, John Farmer, we are coming back to stay.
For nigh on fifty years or more, we've gathered up your hay.
We have slept out in your hayfields, we have heard your morning shout;
We've heard you wondering where in hell's them pesky go-abouts?
CHORUS
It's a long way, now understand me; it's a long way to town;
It's a long way across the prairie, and to hell with Farmer John.
Up goes machine or wages, and the hours must come down;
For we're out for a winter's stake this summer, and we want no scabs around.
You've paid the going wages, that's what kept us on the bum,
You say you've done your duty, you chin-whiskered son of a gun.
We have sent your kids to college, but still you must rave and shout,
And call us tramps and hoboes, and pesky go-abouts.
But now the wintry breezes are a-shaking our poor frames,
And the long drawn days of hunger try to drive us boes insane.
It is driving us to action--we are organized today;
Us pesky tramps and hoboes are coming back to stay.
WHAT WE WANT
By Joe Hill
(Tune: "Rainbow")
We want all the workers in the world to organize
Into a great big union grand
And when we all united stand
The world for workers we'll demand
If the working class could only see and realize
What mighty power labor has
Then the exploiting master class
It would soon fade away.
CHORUS
Come all ye toilers that work for wages,
Come from every land,
Join the fighting band,
In one union grand,
Then for the workers we'll make upon this earth a paradise
When the slaves get wise and organize.
We want the sailor and the tailor and the lumberjacks,
And all the cooks and laundry girls,
We want the guy that dives for pearls,
The pretty maid that's making curls,
And the baker and staker and the chimneysweep
We want the man that's slinging hash,
The child that works for little cash
In one union grand.
We want the tinner and the skinner and the chambermaid,
We want the man that spikes on soles,
We want the man that's digging holes,
We want the man that's climbing poles,
And the trucker and the mucker and the hired man
And all the factory girls and clerks,
Yes, we want every one that works,
In one union grand.
WORKINGMAN, UNITE!
By E. S. Nelson
(Tune: "Red Wing.")
Conditions they are bad,
And some of you are sad;
You cannot see your enemy,
The class that lives in luxury,-You workingmen are poor,--
Will be forevermore,-As long as you permit the few
To guide your destiny.
Shall we still be slaves and work for wages?
It is outrageous--has been for ages;
This earth by right belongs to toilers,
And not to spoilers of liberty.
The master class is small,
But they have lots of "gall."
When we unite to gain our right,
If they they[sic] resist we'll use our might;
There is no middle ground
This fight must be one round
To victory, for liberty,
Our class is marching on!
Workingmen, unite!
We must put up a fight,
To make us free from slavery
And capitalistic tyranny;
This fight is not in vain,
We've got a world to gain.
Will you be a fool, a capitalist tool,
And serve your enemy?
A DREAM
By Richard Brazier
(Tune: "The Holy City")
One day as I lay dreaming, this vision came to me:
I saw an army streaming, singing of liberty;
I marked these toilers passing by, I listened to their cry.
It was a triumphant anthem--an anthem filled with joy;
It was a triumphant anthem--an anthem filled with joy.
CHORUS
One union, industrial union;
Workers of the world unite,
To make us free from slavery
And gain each man his right.
I saw the ruling classes watching this grand array
Of marching, toiling masses passing on their way;
With pallid cheeks and trembling limbs they gazed upon this throng
And ever as they marched along the workers sang the song;
And ever as they marched along the workers sang the song:
CHORUS
Methought I heard the workers call to that ruling band-Come into our ranks, ye shirkers, for we now rule this land.
Work or starve, the workers said, for you must earn your bread.
Then into their ranks came the masters and joined the workers' song;
Then into their ranks came the masters and joined the workers' song.
INDEX
All workers, "The Armor of Production,' in One Big
Union, regardless of age, creed, color or sex, is invincible.
Labor is entitled to all it produces. An injury to one
is an injury to all.
THE TRAMP
By Joe Hill
(Tune: "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys Are Marching")
If you all will shut your trap,
I will tell you 'bout a chap,
That was broke and up against it, too, for fair;
He was not the kind that shirk,
He was looking hard for work,
But he heard the same old story everywhere.
CHORUS
Tramp, tramp, tramp, keep on a-tramping,
Nothing doing here for you;
If I catch you 'round again,
You will wear the ball and chain.
Keep on tramping, that's the best thing you can do.
He walked up and down the street,
'Till the shoes fell off his feet.
In a house he spied a lady cooking stew,
And he said, "How do you do,
May I chop some wood for you?"
What the lady told him made him feel so blue.
CHORUS
'Cross the street a sign he read,
"Work for Jesus," so it said,
And he said, "Here is my chance, I'll surely try,"
And he kneeled upon the floor,
'Till his knees got rather sore,
But at eating-time he heard the preacher cryCHORUS
Down the street he met a cop,
And the copper made him stop,
And he asked him, "When did you blow into town?
Come with me up to the judge."
But the judge he said, "Oh fudge,
Bums that have no money needn't come around."
CHORUS
Finally came that happy day
When his life did pass away,
He was sure he'd go to heaven when he died,
When he reached the pearly gate,
Santa Peter, mean old skate,
Slammed the gate right in his face and loudly cried:
WE COME
(Air: "Toreador Song")
Workers, the World!
The Masters call in vain.
Though ground down pitiless,
We rise again;
And to the call of millions crying from the depths,
We shout our message to man-And from the hearts of all the land
Comes loud and clear
The answering call,
"We Come."
Workers, be brave;
Through nights of toil and pain,
Oppression and slavery,
Priest, gun and chain,
Law and the bribings of a cruel, despotic class,
We march and sing our refrain-Singing hopes of a million slaves:
"Workers, unite
Unite."
Workers, be strong;
They offer bribes in vain,
Promise and trick us,
Keep us enchained;
But to humanity's call we answering come,
Chanting our far flung refrain-And from the hearts of all the land
Comes loud and clear
The answer to us,
Workers, unite,
"We Come."
Workers, the World!
Though Masters call in vain,
Grind us down pitiless,
We'll rise again.
And to the call of millions crying from the depths
We fling our challenge for right-And from the hearts of all the land
Comes loud and clear
The answering call,
"We Come!"
INDEX
THE PREACHER AND THE SLAVE
By Joe Hill
(Tune: "Sweet Bye and Bye")
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
CHORUS
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
And the starvation army they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray.
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:
Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,
And they holler, they jump and they shout.
"Give your money to Jesus," they say,
"He will cure all diseases today."
If you fight hard for children and wife-Try to get something good in this lifeYou're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.
Workingmen of all countries, unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight:
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:
LAST CHORUS
You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.
INDEX
THEY ARE ALL FIGHTERS
By Richard Brazier
(Tune: "San Antonio")
There is a bunch of honest workingmen;
They're known throughout the land.
They've seen the horrors of the bull-pen,
From Maine to the Rio Grande.
They've faced starvation, hunger, privation;
Upon them the soldiers were hurled.
Their organization is known to the nation
As the Industrial Workers of the World.
Then hail to this fighting band!
Good luck to their union grand!
CHORUS
They're all fighters from the word go,
And to the master
They'll bring disaster.
And if you'll join them
They'll let you know
Just the reason the boss must go.
They've faced the Pinkertons and Gatling guns
In defense of their natural rights;
They proved themselves to be labor's sons
In all of the workers' fights;
They have been hounded by power unbounded
Of capitalists throughout the land,
But all are astounded, our foes are confounded
For we still remain a union grand.
Then hail to this fighting band!
Good luck to their union grand!
You live on coffee and on doughnuts;
The Boss lives on porterhouse steak.
You work ten hours a day and live in huts;
The Boss lives in the palace you make.
You face starvation, hunger, privation,
But the Boss is always well fed.
Though of low station, you've built this nation-Built it upon your dead.
Then when will you ever get wise;
When will you open your eyes?
INDEX
THERE IS POWER IN A UNION
By Joe Hill
(Tune: "There Is Power in the Blood")
Would you have freedom from wage slavery,
Then join in the grand Industrial band;
Would you from mis'ry and hunger be free,
Then come! Do your share, like a man.
CHORUS
There is pow'r, there is pow'r
In a band of workingmen,
When they stand hand in hand,
That's a pow'r, that's a pow'r
That must rule in every landOne Industrial Union Grand.
Would you have mansions of gold in the sky,
And live in a shack, way in the back?
Would you have wings up in heaven to fly,
And starve here with rags on your back?
If you've had "nuff" of "the blood of the lamb,"
Then join in the grand Industrial band;
If, for a change, you would have eggs and ham,
Then come, do your share, like a man.
If you like sluggers to beat off your head,
Then don't organize, all unions despise,
If you want nothing before you are dead,
Shake hands with your boss and look wise.
Come, all ye workers, from every land,
Come, join in the grand Industrial band,
Then we our share of this earth shall demand.
Come on! Do your share, like a man.
INDEX
"Why should one man's belly be empty when ten men
can produce enough to feed a hundred?"
TA-RA-RA-BOMM[sic]DE-AY
By Joe Hill
I had a job once threshing wheat, worked sixteen hours with hands and feet.
And when the moon was shining bright, they kept me working all the night.
One moonlight night, I hate to tell, I "accidentally" slipped and fell.
My pitchfork went right in between some cog wheels of that thresh-machine.
CHORUS
Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay!
It made a noise that way,
And wheels and bolts and hay,
Went flying every way.
That stingy rube said, "Well!
A thousand gone to hell."
But I did sleep that night,
I needed it all right.
Next day that stingy rube did say, "I'll bring my eggs to town today;
You grease my wagon up, you mutt, and don't forget to screw the nut."
I greased his wagon all right, but I plumb forgot to screw the nut,
And when he started on that trip, the wheel slipped off and broke his hip.
SECOND CHORUS
Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay!
It made a noise that way,
That rube was sure a sight,
And mad enough to fight;
His whiskers and his legs
Were full of scrambled eggs:
I told him, "That's too badI'm feeling very sad."
And then that farmer said, "You turk! I bet you are an I-Won't Work."
He paid me off right there, By Gum! So I went home and told my chum.
Next day when threshing did commence, my chum was Johnny on the fence;
And 'pon my word, that awkward kid, he dropped his pitchfork, like I did.
THIRD CHORUS
Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay!
It made a noise that way,
And part of that machine
Hit Reuben on the bean.
He cried, "Oh me, oh my;
I nearly lost my eye."
My partner said, "You're rightIt's bedtime now, good night."
But still that rube was pretty wise, these things did open up his eyes.
He said, "There must be something wrong; I think I work my men too long."
He cut the hours and raised the pay, gave ham and eggs for every day,
Now gets his men from union hall, and has no "accidents" at all.
FOURTH CHORUS
Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay!
That rube is feeling gay;
He learned his lesson quick,
Just through a simple trick.
For fixing rotten jobs
And fixing greedy slobs,
This is the only way,
Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay!
INDEX
Education is ammunition. Organization the weapon.
Aim true and keep your powder dry.
THE NINETY AND NINE
By Rose Elizabeth Smith
(Tune: "Ninety and Nine")
There are ninety and nine that work and die,
In hunger and want and cold,
That one may revel in luxury,
And be lapped in the silken fold.
And ninety and nine in their hovels bare,
And one in a palace of riches rare.
From the sweat of their brow the desert blooms
And the forest before them falls;
Their labor has builded noble homes,
And cities with lofty halls;
And the one owns cities and houses and lands
And the ninety and nine have empty hands.
But the night so dreary and dark and long,
At last shall the morning bring;
And over the land the victor's song
Of the ninety and nine shall ring,
And echo afar, from zone to zone,
"Rejoice! for Labor shall have its own."
THE ROAD TO EMANCIPATION
By Lone Wolf
( Tune: "Tipperary" )
Now, workingmen, you know you live a life of misery,
So join the union of your class, determined to be free.
Don't let the master gouge your lives for many years to come,
But organize upon the job and put him on the bum.
CHORUS
It's the road to Emancipation, it's the right way to go;
For the toilers to run the nation and the world, both high and low.
Kick in, and do your duty; for it's up to you and me-It's the One Big Union of the Workers that will bring prosperity.
Don't be a meek and lowly slave like lots of those you meet;
Don't be a servile scissor bill and lick the bosses' feet.
Don't let them starve you off the earth, don't fear their prison cell,
Make your laws in the union hall--the rest can go to hell.
Now, workingmen, the masters they have no more jobs to give;
You must form the taking habit if you ever wish to live.
Postponing meals is suicide on the installment plan,
So organize to get the goods, and take them like a man.
MR. BLOCK
By Joe Hill
(Air: "It Looks To Me Like a Big Time Tonight")
Please give me your attention, I'll introduce to you
A man that is a credit to "Our Red, White and Blue";
His head is made of lumber, and solid as a rock;
He is a common worker and his name is Mr. Block.
And Block he thinks he may
Be President some day.
CHORUS
Oh, Mr. Block, you were born by mistake,
You take the cake,
You make me ache.
Tie on a rock to your block and then jump in the lake,
Kindly do that for Liberty's sake.
Yes, Mr. Block is lucky; he found a job, by gee!
The sharks got seven dollars, for job and fare and fee.
They shipped him to a desert and dumped him with his truck,
But when he tried to find his job, he sure was out of luck.
He shouted, "That's too raw,
I'll fix them with the law."
Block hiked back to the city, but wasn't doing well.
He said, "I'll join the union--the great A.F. of L."
He got a job next morning, got fired in the night,
He said, "I'll see Sam Gompers and he'll fix that foreman
right."
Sam Gompers said, "You see,
You've got our sympathy."
Election day he shouted, "A Socialist for Mayor!"
The "comrade" got elected, he happy was for fair,
But after the election he got an awful shock,
A great big socialistic Bull did rap him on the block.
And Comrade Block did sob,
"I helped him to his job."
The money kings in Cuba blew up the gunboat Maine,
But Block got awful angry and blamed it all on Spain.
He went right in the battle and there he lost his leg,
And now he's peddling shoestrings and is walking on a peg.
He shouts, "Remember Maine,
Hurrah! To hell with Spain!"
Poor Block he died one evening, I'm very glad to state,
He climbed the golden ladder up to the pearly gate.
He said, "Oh, Mr. Peter, one word I'd like to tell,
I'd like to meet the Astorbilts and John D. Rockefell."
Old Pete said, "Is that so?
You'll meet them down below."
STAND UP! YE WORKERS
By Ethel Comer
(Air: "Stand Up for Jesus")
Stand up! Stand up! Ye workers;
Stand up in all your might.
Unite beneath our banner,
For Liberty and right.
From victory unto victory
This army sure will go,
To win the world for labor
And vanquish every foe.
Stand up! Stand up! Ye workers;
Stand up in every land.
Unite, and fight for freedom,
In ONE BIG UNION grand.
Put on the workers' armor,
Which is the card of Red,
Then all the greedy tyrants
Will have to earn their bread.
Arouse! Arouse! Ye toilers,
The strife will not be long.
This day the noise of battle,
The next the victor's song.
All ye that slave for wages,
Stand up and break your chain:
Unite in ONE BIG UNION-you've got a world to gain.
CHRISTIANS AT WAR
By John [ ]Kendrick
(Tune: "Onward, Christian Soldiers")
Onward, Christian soldiers! Duty's way is plain:
Slay your Christian neighbors, or by them be slain.
Pulpiteers are spouting effervescent swill,
God above is calling you to rob and rape and kill,
All your acts are sanctified by the lamb on high;
If you love the Holy Ghost, go murder, pray and die.
Onward, Christian soldiers, rip and tear and smite!
Let the gentle Jesus, bless your dynamite.
Splinter skulls with shrapnel, fertilize the sod;
Folks who do not speak your tongue, deserve the curse of God.
Smash the doors of every home, pretty maidens seize;
Use your might and sacred right to treat them as you please.
Onward, Christian soldiers! Eat and drink your fill;
Rob with bloody fingers, Christ O. K.'s the bill.
Steal the farmer's savings, take their grain and meat;
Even though the children starve, the Saviour's bums must eat.
Burn the peasant's cottages, orphans leave bereft;
In Jehovah's holy name, wreak ruin right and left.
Onward, Christian soldiers! Drench the land with gore;
Mercy is a weakness all the gods abhor.
Bayonet the babies, jab the mothers, too;
Hoist the cross of Calvary to hallow all you do.
File your bullets' noses flat, poison every well;
God decrees your enemies must all go plumb to hell.
Onward, Christian soldiers! Blighting all you meet,
Trampling human freedom under pious feet.
Praise the Lord whose dollar sign dupes his favored race!
Make the foreign trash respect your bullion brand of grace.
Trust in mock salvation, serve as pirates' tools;
History will say of you: "That pack of G-- d--- fools."
WORKERS Of THE WORLD
( Air: "Lillibulero" )
By Connell
Stand up, ye toilers, why crouch ye like cravens?
Why clutch an existence of insult and want?
Why stand to be plucked by an army of ravens,
Or hoodwink'd forever by twaddle and cant?
Think of the wrongs ye bear,
Think on the rags ye wear,
Think on the insults endur'd from your birth;
Toiling in snow and rain,
Rearing up heaps of grain,
All for the tyrants who grind you to earth.
Your brains are as keen as the brains of your masters,
In swiftness and strength ye surpass them by far;
Ye've brave hearts to teach you to laugh at disasters,
Ye vastly outnumber your tyrants in war.
Why, then, like cowards stand,
Using not brain or hand,
Thankful like dogs when they throw you a bone?
What right have they to take
Things that ye toil to make?
Know ye not, workers, that all is your own?
Rise in your might, brothers, bear it no longer;
Assemble in masses throughout the whole land;
Show these incapables who are the stronger
When workers and idlers confronted shall stand.
Thro' Castle, Court and Hall,
Over their acres all,
Onwards we'll press like waves of the sea,
Claiming the wealth we've made,
Ending the spoiler's trade;
Labor shall triumph and mankind be free.
INDEX
"War is Hell" for the workers. Let us make the Class
War a nightmare for the masters.
"The poor--is any country his? What are to me your
glories and your industries--they are not mine."
SOLIDARITY FOREVER
By Ralph H. Chaplin
( Tune: "John Brown's Body" )
When the Union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
But the Union makes us strong.
CHORUS
Solidarity forever!
Solidarity forever!
Solidarity forever!
For the Union makes us strong.
Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left for us but to organize and fight?
For the Union makes us strong.
It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade,
Dug the mines and built the workshops; endless miles of railroad laid.
Now we stand, outcast and starving, 'mid the wonders we have made;
But the Union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones, is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skywards, stone by stone.
It is ours, and not to slave in, but to master and to own,
While the Union makes us strong.
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn.
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power; gain our freedom, when we learn
That the Union makes us strong.
In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold;
Greater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand fold.
We can bring to birth the new world from the ashes of the old,
For the Union makes us strong.
OVERALLS AND SNUFF
(Tune: "Wearing of the Green")
One day as I was walking along the railroad track,
I met a man in Wheatland with his blankets on his back,
He was an old-time hop picker, I'd seen his face before,
I knew he was a wobbly, by the button that he wore.
By the button that he wore, by the button that he wore,
I knew he was a wobbly, by the button that he wore.
He took his blankets off his back and sat down on the rail
And told us some sad stories 'bout the workers down in jail.
He said the way they treat them there, he never saw the like,
For they're putting men in prison just for going out on strike,
Just for going out on strike, just for going out on strike,
They're putting men in prison, just for going out on strike.
They have sentenced Ford and Suhr, and they've got them in the pen,
If they catch a wobbly in their burg, they vag him there and then.
There is one thing I can tell you, and it makes the bosses sore,
As fast as they can pinch us, w e can always get some more.
We can always get some more, we can always get some more,
As fast as they can pinch us, we can always get some
more. Oh, Horst and Durst are mad as hell, they don't know what to do.
And the rest of those hop barons are all feeling mighty blue.
Oh, we've tied up all their hop fields, and the scabs refuse to come,
And we're going to keep on striking till we put them on the bum.
Till we put them on the bum, till we put them on the bum,
We're going to keep on striking till we put them on the bum.
Now we've got to stick together, boys, and strive with all our might,
We must free Ford and Suhr, boys, we're got to win this fight.
From these scissor bill hop barons we are taking no more bluff,
We'll pick no more damned hops for them, for overalls and snuff,
For our overalls and snuff, for our overalls and snuff,
We'll pick no more damned hops for them, for overalls
and snuff.
THE "BLANKET STIFF"
He built the road,
With others of his class he built the road,
Now o'er it, many a weary mile, he packs his load,
Chasing a job, spurred on by hunger's goad,
He walks and walks and walks and walks
And wonders why in Hell he built the road.
IT IS THE UNION
By Richard Brazier
(Tune: "We Have a Navy")
Sing a song in praise of toiling masses,
Sing a song about our sons of toil;
Sing of wrongs done to the working classes,
Wrongs that make our hearts boil.
We have always borne the blows and lashesNo more we'll patient stand,
But on every hand, throughout this splendid land,
We sons of toil will make our stand.
Then in our glory will we tower,
What will be the secret of our power?
CHORUS.
It is the Union, the Industrial Union-Our banner is unfurled.
We will unite in all our splendid might
In the Industrial Workers of the World.
We have a union, a fighting union,
And our masters know that, too.
It will keep them in their place
When they know they have to face
Our union of workingmen that's true.
For countless years and ages we've been enslaved
Beneath the capitalistic rule;
We, the strong, cringing to those men depraved.
In whose hands we have ever been a tool.
But the day of liberty is dawning-Freedom now draws nigh.
We must unite to win the fight-Wage slavery then will die.
Then in our glory will we tower;
Great will be the workers' power.
INDEX
An eight-hour day for all employed workers would put
thousands of the unemployed to work.
WE WILL SING ONE SONG
By Joe Hill
(Air: "My Old Kentucky Home")
We will sing one song of the meek and humble slave,
The horn-handed son of the toil,
He's toiling hard from the cradle to the grave,
But his master reaps the profits from his toil.
Then we'll sing one song of the greedy master class,
They're vagrants in broadcloth, indeed,
They live by robbing the ever-toiling mass,
Human blood they spill to satisfy their greed.
CHORUS.
Organize! Oh, toilers, come organize your might;
Then we'll sing one song of the workers' commonwealth.
Full of beauty, full of love and health.
We will sing one song of the politician sly,
He's talking of changing the laws;
Election day all the drinks and smokes he'll buy,
While he's living from the sweat of your brow.
Then we'll sing one song of the girl below the line,
She's scorned and despised everywhere,
While in their mansions the "keepers" wine and dine
From the profits that immoral traffic bear.
We will sing one song of the preacher, fat and sleek,
He tells you of homes in the sky.
He says, "Be generous, be lowly, and be meek,
If you don't you'll sure get roasted when you die."
Then we'll sing one song of the poor and ragged tramp,
He carries his home on his back;
Too old to work, he's not wanted 'round the camp,
So he wanders without aim along the track.
We will sing one song of the children in the mills,
They're taken from playgrounds and schools,
In tender years made to go the pace that kills,
In the sweatshops, 'mong the looms and the spools.
Then we'll sing one song of the One Big Union Grand,
The hope of the toiler and slave,
It's coming fast; it is sweeping sea and land,
To the terror of the grafter and the knave.
THE REBEL GIRL
Words and Music by Joe Hill
(Copyrighted, 1916)
There are women of many descriptions
In this queer world, as everyone knows,
Some are living in beautiful mansions,
And are wearing the finest of clothes.
There are blue blooded queens and princesses,
Who have charms made of diamonds and pearl;
But the only and thoroughbred lady
Is the Rebel Girl.
CHORUS.
That's the Rebel Girl, that's the Rebel Girl!
To the working class she's a precious pearl.
She brings courage, pride and joy
To the fighting Rebel Boy.
We've had girls before, but we need some more
In the Industrial Workers of the World.
For it's great to fight for freedom
With a Rebel Girl.
Yes, her hands may be hardened from labor,
And her dress may not be very fine;
But a heart in her bosom is beating
That is true to her class and her kind.
And the grafters in terror are trembling
When her spite and defiance she'll hurl;
For the only and thoroughbred lady
Is the Rebel Girl.
WE'RE READY
(Air: "Soldier's Song")
Courage and honor to him who's jailed;
Our hearts shall cheer him and cry "All Hail!"
Our hands shall help to win the fight-We're ready to fight, we're ready to die
For Liberty.
Words and Music of "The Rebel Girl" may be obtained
in popular sheet from by applying to I. W. W. Publishing
Bureau. Price, 25 cents.
WAGE WORKERS, COME JOIN THE UNION
(Tune: "Battle Hymn of the Republic")
We have seen the reaper toiling in the heat of summer sun,
We have seen his children needy when the harvesting was
done,
We have seen a mighty armor dying, helpless, one by one,
While their flag went marching on.
CHORUS.
Wage workers, come join the union!
Wage workers, come join the union!
Wage workers, come join the union!
Industrial Workers of the World.
O, the army of the wretched, how they swarm the city street-We have seen them in the midnight, where the Goths and Vandals meet;
We have shuddered in the darkness at the noises of their feet,
But their cause went marching on.
Our slavers' marts are empty, human flesh no more is sold,
Where the dealer's fatal hammer wakes the clink of leaping gold,
But the slavers of the present more relentless powers hold,
Though the world goes marching on.
But no longer shall the children bend above the whizzing wheel,
We will free the weary women from their bondage under steel;
In the mines and in the forest worn and helpless man shall feel
That his cause is marching on.
Then lift your eyes, ye toilers, in the desert hot and drear,
Catch the cool winds from the mountains. Hark! the river's voice is near;
Soon we'll rest beside the fountain and the dreamland will be here
As we go marching on.
THE PARASITES
By John E. Nordquist
(Tune: "Annie Laurie")
Parasites in this fair country, lice from honest labor's
sweat;
There are some who never labor, yet labor's product get;
They never starve or freeze, nor face the wintry breeze;
They are well fed, clothed and sheltered,
And they do whate'er they please.
These parasites are living, in luxury and state;
While millions starve and shiver, and moan their wretched fate;
They know not why they die, nor do they ever try
Their lot in life to better;
They only mourn and sigh.
These parasites would vanish and leave this grand old world,
If the workers fought together, and the scarlet flag unfurled;
When in One Union grand, the working class shall stand,
The parasites will vanish.
And the workers rule the land.
UP FROM YOUR KNEES!
By Ralph H. Chaplin
(Air: "Song of a Thousand Years")
Up from your knees, ye cringing serfmen!
What have ye gained by whines and tears?
Rise! they can never break our spirits
Though they should try a thousand years.
CHORUS
A thousand years, then speed the victory!
Nothing can stop us nor dismay.
After the winter comes the springtime;
After the darkness comes the day.
Break ye your chains; strike off your fetters;
Beat them to swords--the foe appears-Slaves of the world, arise and crush him;
Crush him or serve a thousand years.
Join in the fight--the Final Battle.
Welcome the fray with ringing cheers.
These are the times al Freemen dreamed of-Fought to attain a thousand years.
Be ye prepared; be not unworthy,-Greater the task when triumph nears.
Master the earth, O Men of Labor,-Long have ye learned--a thousand years.
Over the hills the sun is rising
Out of the gloom the light appears.
See! at your feet the world is waiting,-Bought with your blood a thousand years.
DUMP THE BOSSES OFF YOUR BACK
By John Brill
(Tune: "Take It to the Lord in Prayer")
Are you poor, forlorn and hungry?
Are there lots of things you lack?
Is your life made up of misery?
Then dump the bosses off your back.
Are your clothes all patched and tattered?
Are you living in a shack?
Would you have your troubles scattered?
Then dump the bosses off your back.
Are you almost split asunder?
Loaded like a long-eared jack?
Boob--why don't you buck like thunder?
And dump the bosses off your back.
All the agonies you suffer,
You can end with one good whack-Stiffen up, you orn'ry duffer-And dump the bosses off your back.
If you would be informed of the every-day struggles,
the theory and ultimate aim of the Revolutionary Labor
Movement, you must read SOLIDARITY.
EVERYBODY'S JOINING IT
By Joe Hill
(Air: "Everybody's Doin' It")
Fellow workers, can't you hear,
There is something in the air.
Everywhere you walk, everybody talk
'Bout the I.W.W.
They have got a way to strike
That the master doesn't like-Everybody stick, that's the only trick,
All are joining it now.
CHORUS.
Everybody's joining it! Joining what? Joining it!
Everybody's joining it! Joining what? Joining it!
One Big Union; that's the workers' choice,
One Big Union; that's the only noise,
One Big Union; shout with all your voice;
Make a noise, make a noise, make a noise, boys,
Everybody's joining it! Joining what? Joining it!
Everybody's joining it! Joining what? Joining it!
Joining in this union grand,
Boys and girls in every land;
All the workers hand in hand-Everybody's joining it now.
Th' Boss is feeling mighty blue,
He don't know just what to do.
We have got his goat, got him by the throat,
Soon he'll work or go starving.
Join I.W.W.,
Don't let bosses trouble you,
Come and join with us--everybody does-You've got nothing to lose.
Will the One Big Union grow?
Mister Bonehead wants to know.
Well! What do you think, of that funny gink
Asking such foolish questions?
Will it grow ? Well! Look a here,
Brand new unions everywhere,
Better take a hunch, join the fighting bunch,
Fight for Freedom and Right.
A. F. OF L. SYMPATHY
By B. L. Weber
(Tune: "All I Got Was Sympathy")
Bill Brown was a worker in a great big shop,
Where there worked two thousand others;
They all belonged to the A.F. of L.,
And they called each other "brothers."
One day Bill Brown's union went out on strike,
And they went out for higher pay;
All the other crafts remained on the job,
And Bill Brown did sadly say:
CHORUS
All we got was sympathy;
So we were bound to lose, you see;
All the others had craft autonomy,
Or else they would have struck with glee,
But I got good and hungry,
And no craft unions go for me.
Gee! Ain't it hell, in the A. F. of L.
All you get is sympathy.
Bill Brown was a thinker, and he was not a fool,
And fools there are many, we know.
So he decided the A.F. of L.
And its craft divisions must go.
Industrial Unions are just the thing,
Where the workers can all join the fight;
So now on the soap box boldly he stands,
A singing with all of his might:
CHORUS
There are but two nations, a nation of Masters and a nation of Slaves.
One active agitating worker in the industry, is worth a dozen in the jungle.
One Big Union, One Enemy--The Boss.
JOHN GOLDEN AND THE LAWRENCE STRIKE
By Joe Hill
(Tune: "A Little Talk With Jesus")
In Lawrence, when the starving masses struck for more
to eat
And wooden-headed Wood he tried the strikers to defeat,
To Sammy Gompers wrote and asked him what he thought,
And this is just the answer that the mailman brought:
CHORUS
A little talk with Golden
Makes it right, all right;
He'll settle any strike,
If there's coin in sight;
Just take him up to dine
And everything is fine-A little talk with Golden
Makes it right, all right.
The preachers, cops and money-kings were working hand
in hand,
The boy in blue, with stars and stripes were sent by
Uncle Sam;
Still things were looking blue, 'cause every striker knew
That weaving cloth with bayonets is hard to do.
John Golden had with Mr. Wood a private interview,
He told him how to bust up the "I double double U."
He came out in a while and wore the Golden smile.
He said: "I've got all labor leaders skinned a mile."
John Golden pulled a bogus strike with all his "pinks and
stools."
He thought the rest would follow like a bunch of crazy
fools.
But to his great surprise the "foreigners" were wise,
In one big solid union they were organized.
CHORUS OF LAST VERSE
That's one time Golden did not
Make it right, all right;
In spite of all his schemes
The strikers won the fight.
When all the workers stand
United hand in hand,
The world with all its wealth
Will be at their command.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE
By Walquist
(Tune: "Love Me and the World Is Mine")
I wander up and down the street,
Till I have blisters on my feet.
My belly's empty, I've no bed,
No place to rest my weary head.
There's millions like me wandering,
Who are deeply pondering,
Oh, what must we do to live?
Shall the workers face starvation, mis'ry and privation,
In a land so rich and fair?
CHORUS
Unite, my Fellow Men, unite!
Take back your freedom and your right
You have nothing to lose now,
Workers of the World, unite.
Oh! workingmen, come organize,
Oh! when, oh! when will you get wise?
Are you still going to be a fool,
And let the rich man o'er you rule?
It is time that you were waking,
See the dawn is breaking,
Come now, wake up from your dream.
All this wealth belong to toilers,
And not to the spoilers,
Wage slaves throw your chains away.
CHORUS
Unite, my Fellow Man, unite!
And crush the greedy tyrant's might.
The earth belongs to Labor,
Workers of the World, unite.
DON'T FORGET that you have been up against it this
winter. How about next winter?
LABOR'S DIXIE
By Charles M. Robinson
Work away down South in the land of cotton,
"Citizen's Leagues" and all that's rotten,
Work away, day by day, nary pay, Dixie land;
Work away down South in Dixie,
Work away, nary pay,
In Dixie land the children toil
And the mothers moil in Dixie land,
Work away, day by day, nary pay down South in Dixie.
CHORUS
Work away, work away, away, away,
Away down South in Dixie!
In Dixie land let's take our stand
And live and die for Dixie!
In Dixie land is the Democratic party,
Organized to make the darkie
Work away, day by day, nary pay, Dixie land;
Work away down South in Dixie,
Work away, nary pay,
In Dixie land it grinds and grabs
And burns and stabs in Dixie land,
Work away, day by day, nary pay down South in Dixie.
In Dixie land is the thief land-holder-Used to be bold, but he's now grown bolder,
Work away, day by day, nary pay, Dixie land;
Work away down South in Dixie,
Work away, nary pay,
In Dixie land he drags white "tramps"
Off to his camps in Dixie land,
Work away, day by day, nary pay down South in Dixie.
But in Dixie land we're organizing,
Soon results will be surprising,
Work away, day by day, it will pay, Dixie land;
Work away, day by day, it will pay down South in
Dixie.
Work away down South in Dixie,
Work away, it will pay,
For in Dixie land we'll strike the blow-The boss must go from Dixie land--
THE WORKERS OF THE WORLD ARE NOW AWAKING
By Richard Brazier
(Tune: "The Shade of the Old Apple Tree")
The Workers of the World are now awaking;
The earth is shakin' with their mighty tread.
The master class in great fear now are quaking,
The sword of Damocles hangs o'er their head.
The toilers in one union are uniting,
To overthrow their cruel master's reign.
In one union now they all are fighting,
The product of their labor to retain.
CHORUS
It's a union for true Liberty,
It's a union for you and for me;
It's the workers' own choice,
It's for girls and for boys,
Who want freedom from wage slavery;
And we march with a Red Flag ahead,
'Cause the blood of all nations is red-Come and join in the fray,
Come and join us today,
We are fighting for Freedom and Bread.
The master class in fear have kept us shaking,
For long in bondage they held us fast;
But the fight the Industrial Workers are now making
Will make our chains a relic of the past.
Industrial unionism now is calling,
The toilers of the world they hear its cry.
In line with the Industrial Workers they are falling,
By their principles to stand or fall and die.
DON'T FORGET that eight hours a day would put
thousands to work.
Why does a short work day and a long pay always go
together?
PAINT 'ER RED
By Ralph H. Chaplin
(Tune: "Marching Through Georgia")
Come with us, you workingmen, and join the rebel band;
Come, you discontented ones, and give a helping hand,
We march against the parasite to drive him from the land.
With ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
CHORUS
Hurrah! hurrah! we're going to paint 'er red!
Hurrah! hurrah! the way is clear ahead-We're gaining shop democracy and liberty and bread
With ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
In factory and field and mine we gather in our might,
We're on the job and know the way to win the hardest fight,
For the beacon that shall guide us out of darkness into light,
Is ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
Come on, you fellows, get in line; we'll fill the boss with fears;
Red's the color of our flag, it's stained with blood and tears-We'll flout it in his ugly mug and ring our loudest cheers
For ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
"Slaves" they call us "working plugs," inferior by birth,
But when we hit their pocketbooks we'll spoil their smiles of mirth-We'll stop their dirty dividends and drive them from the earth
With ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
We hate their rotten system more than any mortals do,
Our aim is not to patch it up, but build it all anew,
And what we'll have for government, when finally we're through,
Is ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION!
GONE ARE THE DAYS
By Richard Brazier
(Tune: "Old Black Joe")
Gone are the days, when the master class could say,
"We'll work you long hours for little pay;
We'll work you all day and half the night as well."
But I hear the workers' voices saying, "You will, like Hell."
CHORUS
For we're going, we're going to take an eight hour day.
We surely will surprise the Boss some first of May.
Now, workmen, it's up to you to say
If you want a general eight hour day.
As soon as you are ready, we are with you heart and hand.
All you have to do is to join our Union grand.
CHORUS
Now, workingmen, we are working far too long;
That's why we've got this vast unemployed throng.
Give every worker a chance to work each day;
Let's all join together and to the Boss all say,
CHORUS
SABOTAGE
Make it too expensive for the boss to take the lives and
liberty of the workers. Stop the endless court trials by
using the Wooden Shoe on the job.
Secure a bundle order of Solidarity each week for
distribution, one and one-half cents per copy.
"War is Hell." Let the capitalists go to war to protect
their own property.
COME JOIN THEME BIG UNION, DO
(Tune: "My Hula Hula Love")
By Richard Brazier
Down in Lawrence, Massachusetts, where we held the
Woolen Trust at bay
And won a shorter day, and a big increase in pay;
Where the workers showed the shirkers just what they could do.
In Little Falls, too, they won the day.
CHORUS
Workers, oh workers, let's show this gang of shirkers
What we can do with One Union true.
For you our Union is fighting, for you your wrongs we're righting;
Come join the One Big Union, do.
Down in Louisiana, where the fighting lumberjacks do dwell,
Their labor power sell, in Kirby's peon hell;
Where the masters met disaster, when they met these
workingmen who knew
That One Big Union true, could win the fray.
The women in the sweatshops, and the children working in the mills;
The stockyard's man who kills, the miner in the hills;
Must stick together, in all weather; in One Big Union they must fight
Against the master's might, they must unite.
INDEX
DON'T FORGET that our fight is your fight. So let's fight together.
Organize yourself and fellow workers on the job for
higher wages, shorter hours and better conditions.
DON'T FORGET that a short work day, and big pay, always go together.
WALKING ONCE GRASS
(Tune: "The Wearing of the Green")
In this blessed land of freedom where King Mammon wears the crown,
There are many ways illegal now to hold the people down.
When the dudes of state militia are slow to come to time,
The law upholding Pinkertons are gathered from the slime.
There are wisely framed injunctions that you must not leave your job,
And a peaceable assemblage is declared to be a mob,
And Congress passed a measure framed by some consummate ass,
So they are clubbing men and women just for walking on the grass.
In this year of slow starvation, when a fellow look's for work,
The chances are a cop will grab his collar with a jerk;
He will run him in for vagrancy, he is branded as a tramp,
And all the well-to-do will shout: "It serves him right, the scamp!"
So we let the ruling class maintain the dignity of law,
When the court decides against us we are filled with wholesome awe,
But we cannot stand the outrage without a little sauce
When they're clubbing men and women just for walking on the grass.
The papers said the union men were all but anarchist,
So the job trust promised work for all who wouldn't enlist;
But the next day when the hungry horde surrounded city hall,
He hedged and said he didn't promise anything at all.
So the powers that be are acting very queer to say the least--
They should go and read their Bible and all about Belshazzar's feast,
And when mene tekel at length shall come to pass,
They'll stop clubbing men and women just for walking on the grass.
LIBERTY FOREVER
(Air: "Anvil Chorus")
We broke the yoke of a pitiless class,
And we burst all asunder our bonds and chains;
Our organization will win when it strikes,
And no more shall a king or a crown remain-United fast are we with bonds that naught can sever;
Long, loud and clear and far our battle cry rings ever-Liberty for aye and aye!
Liberty for ever!
Liberty for ever!
Shall be our battle cry.
If Freedom's road seems rough and hard,
And strewn with rocks and thorns,
Then put your wooden shoes on, pard,
And you won't hurt your corns,
To organize and teach, no doubt,
Is very good--that's true,
But still we can't succeed without
The Good Old Wooden Shoe.
J. Hill.
UNION SCABS
My dear brother, I am sorry to be under contract to
hang you, but I know it will please you to hear that the
scaffold is built by union carpenters, the rope bears the
label and here is my card.
THE BONEHEAD WORKING MAN
Mr. Slave, Mr. Slave, listen to the call,
Of the brave to the brave; take the world for all.
Now you need the light and might to free all homeless working men,
Look around, all around and see,
Hear the pound, hear the sound of machinery.
How the owners fool you, how they rule you.
Just hear the bosses blow.
CHORUS
Hurry up! Hurry up! on my new machine.
Man, you're slow, boss is losing money.
It displaces seventy men. If you cannot speed up you're fired then.
Go and look, go and look for another master.
Good or bad, you sure will make him wealthy.
It's God darned hard to wake you up.
YOU'RE A BONEHEAD WORKING MAN.
Mr. Slave, Mr. Slave, hear the union grand.
It's a wave, it's a wave rolling through the land.
This the masters fear we are here to free our class from slavery.
Get a book, get a book, read the word of light,
Take a look, take a look, join the band of might.
Come and be a wobbly, then you'll probably
Not let the bosses cry:
CHORUS
I.W.W. PENNANTS
Full size red felt pennants with large I. W. W. label and
the wording, One Big Union. With the design and wording
in three colors this makes an attractive appearance for
demonstrations, and for decorating halls, etc. Price 25
cents each, postpaid.
ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION
By G. G. Allen
(Air: "Marching Through Georgia")
Bring the good old red book, boys, we'll sing another song.
Sing it to the wage slave who has not yet joined the throng
Of the revolution that will sweep the world along,
To One Big Industrial Union.
CHORUS
Hooray! Hooray! The truth will make you free.
Hooray! Hooray! When will you workers see?
The only way you'll gain your economic liberty,
Is One Big Industrial Union.
How the masters holler when they hear the dreadful sound
Of sabotage and direct action spread the world around;
They's getting ready to vamoose with ears close to the
ground,
From One Big Industrial Union.
Now the harvest String Trust they would move to Germany.
The Silk Bosses of Paterson, they also want to flee
From strikes and labor troubles, but they cannot get away
From One Big Industrial Union.
You migratory workers of the common labor clan,
We' sing to you to join and be a fighting Union Man;
You must emancipate yourself, you proletarian,
With One Big Industrial Union.
CHORUS
Hooray! Hooray! Let's set the wage slave free.
Hooray! Hooray! With every victory
We'll hum the workers' anthem till you finally must be
In One Big Industrial Union.
NOVEMBER NINETEENTH
By John E. Nordquist
(Tune: "The Red Flag")
They've shot Joe Hill, his life has fled,
They've filled his manly heart with lead;
But his brave spirit hovers near
And bids each fellow worker cheer.
CHORUS
On high the blood red banners wavy!
The flag for which his life he gave;
The master class shall rue the day
They took Joe Hillstrom's life away.
Now, fellow workers, shed no tear,
For brave Joe Hill died without fear;
He told the bosses' gunmen, low:
"I'm ready; fire! Let her go!"
No more Joe Hill shall pen the songs
That pictured all the workers' wrongs;
His mighty pen shall rust away,
But all his songs are here to stay.
Now Salt Lake City's Mormon throngs
Must list to Joe Hill's rebel songs;
While angry sabs shall prowl the night
To show the One Big Union's might.
March on, march on, you mighty host,
And organize from coast to coast;
And Joe Hill's spirit soon shall see
Triumphant Labor's victory.
"Military preparedness" is a part of the "preparedness
of the capitalist class" for larger and more intensive
exploitation of labor. One Big Union of the working class
will be sufficient "preparedness" to enable the working
class to overcome their enemy-ON ANY FIELD.
JOE HILL'S LAST WILL
(Written in his cell, November 18, 1915,
on the eve of his execution)
My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide.
My kin don't need to fuss and moan-"Moss does not cling to a rolling stone."
My body? Ah, If I could choose,
I would to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my last and final will.
Good luck to all of you,
JOE HILL.
"I have lived like an artist; I shall die like an artist." -- Joe Hill
"Don't waste any time mourning-ORGANIZE! "--Joe Hill
WORDS AND MUSIC
IN
POPULAR SHEET FORM
OF
the following songs written by Joe Hill:
"The Rebel Girl."
"Don't Take My Papa Away from Me."
"Workers of the World, Awaken."
Single copies, 25c, 5 for $1.00, 60 for $10.00.
I.W. W. Publishing Bureau.
HOW TO JOIN THE I.W.W.
Any wage worker wishing to become a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, may
proceed in the following manner:
1. If you live in a locality where there is a union of your industry already in exisence[sic], apply to
the secretary of that union. He will furnish you with an application blank containing the Preamble
to the I. W. W. Constitution and the two questions which each candidate must answer in the
affirmative. The questions are as follows:
"Do you agree to abide by the constitution and regulations of this organization?"
"Will you diligently study its principles and make yourself acquainted with its purposes?"
The initiation fee is fixed by the union, but cannot be more than $5.00 in any instance, and is
usually $2.00. The monthly dues cannot exceed $1.00 and are in most unions 50 cents.
2. If there is no union of the I. W. W. in your vicinity, you may become a Member of the General
Recruiting Union by making application to the General Secretary, whose address is given
below. You will be required to answer affirmatively the two above questions, and pay an
initiation fee of' $2.00. The monthly dues are 50c for membership.
3. Better still write to the General Secretary for a Charter Application Blank. Get no less than
TWENTY signatures thereon, of bona fide wage workers in any one industry and send the
charter application with the names to the General Secretary, with the $10.00 charter fee.
Supplies, constitutions and instructions will then be sent you, and you can proceed to organize
the union.
Join the I.W.W. Do it now!
The address of the General Secretary-Treasurer of the I.W.W. is, Wm. D. Haywood, 1001 W.
Madison Street, Chicago, Ill.
Any wage worker wishing to become a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, may
proceed in the following manner:
1. If you live in a locality where there is a union of your industry already in exisence[sic], apply to
the secretary of that union. He will furnish you with an application blank containing the Preamble
to the I. W. W. Constitution and the two questions which each candidate must answer in the
affirmative. The questions are as follows:
"Do you agree to abide by the constitution and regulations of this organization?"
"Will you diligently study its principles and make yourself acquainted with its purposes?"
The initiation fee is fixed by the union, but cannot be more than $5.00 in any instance, and is
usually $2.00. The monthly dues cannot exceed $1.00 and are in most unions 50 cents.
2. If there is no union of the I. W. W. in your vicinity, you may become a Member of the General
Recruiting Union by making application to the General Secretary, whose address is given
below. You will be required to answer affirmatively the two above questions, and pay an
initiation fee of' $2.00. The monthly dues are 50c for membership.
3. Better still write to the General Secretary for a Charter Application Blank. Get no less than
TWENTY signatures thereon, of bona fide wage workers in any one industry and send the
charter application with the names to the General Secretary, with the $10.00 charter fee.
Supplies, constitutions and instructions will then be sent you, and you can proceed to organize
the union.
Join the I.W.W. Do it now!
The address of the General Secretary-Treasurer of the I.W.W. is, Wm. D. Haywood, 1001 W.
Madison Street, Chicago, Ill.
WWI, THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION,
& THE 1ST “RED SCARE”
DOCUMENT 15: THE "MAJORITY" AND "MINORITY"
REPORTS OF THE ST. LOUIS CONVENTION, April 714, 1917
MAJORITY REPORT
The Socialist Party of the United States in the present grave crisis, solemnly reaffirms its
allegiance to the principle of internationalism and working class solidarity the world over, and
proclaims its unalterable opposition to the war just declared by the government of the United
States.
Modern wars as a rule have been caused by the commercial and financial rivalry and intrigues
of the capitalist interests in the different countries. Whether they have been frankly waged as
wars of aggression or have been hypocritically represented as wars of "defense", they have
always been made by the classes and fought by the masses. Wars bring wealth and power to
the ruling classes, and suffering, death and demoralization to the workers.
They breed a sinister spirit of passion, unreason, race hatred and false patriotism. They obscure
the struggles of the workers for life, liberty and social justice. They tend to sever the vital bonds
of solidarity between them and their brothers in other countries, to destroy their organizations
and to curtail their civic and political rights and liberties.
The Socialist Party of the United States is unalterably opposed to the system of exploitation and
class rule which is upheld and strengthened by military power and sham national patriotism.
We, therefore, call upon the workers of all countries to refuse support to their governments in
their wars. The wars of the contending national groups of capitalists are not the concern of the
workers. The only struggle which would justify the workers in taking up arms is the great
struggle of the working class of the world to free itself from economic exploitation and political
oppression, and we particularly warn the workers against the snare and delusion of so-called
defensive warfare. As against the false doctrine of national patriotism we uphold the ideal of
international working-class solidarity. In support of capitalism, we will not willingly give a single
life or a single dollar; in support of the struggle of the workers for freedom we pledge our all.
The mad orgy of death and destruction which is now convulsing unfortunate Europe was caused
by the conflict of capitalist interests in the European countries.
In each of those countries, the workers were oppressed and exploited. They produced
enormous wealth but the bulk of it was withheld from them by the owners of the industries. The
workers were thus deprived of the means to repurchase the wealth which they themselves had
created.
The capitalist class of each country was forced to look for foreign markets to dispose of the
accumulated "surplus" wealth. The huge profits made by the capitalists could no longer be
profitably reinvested in their own countries, hence, they were driven to look for foreign fields of
investment. The geographical boundaries of each modern capitalist country thus became too
narrow for the industrial and commercial operations of its capitalist class.
The efforts of the capitalists of all leading nations were therefore centered upon the domination
of the world markets. Imperialism became the dominant note in the politics of Europe. The
acquisition of colonial possessions and the extension of spheres of commercial and political
influence became the object of diplomatic intrigues and the cause of constant clashes between
nations.
The acute competition between the capitalist powers of the earth, their jealousies and distrusts
of one'another and the fear of the rising power of the working class forced each of them to arm
to the teeth. This led to the mad rivalry of armament, which, years before the outbreak of the
present war, had turned the leading countries of Europe into armed camps with standing armies
of many millions, drilled and equipped for war in times of "peace."
Capitalism, imperialism and militarism had thus laid the foundation of an inevitable general
conflict in Europe. The ghastly war in Europe was not caused by an accidental event, nor by the
policy or institutions of any single nation. It was the logical outcome of the competitive capitalist
system.
The six million men of all countries and races who have been ruthlessly slain in the first thirty
months of this war, the millions of others who have been crippled and mairiled, the vast
treasures of wealth that have been destroyed, the untold misery and sufferings of Europe, have
not been sacrifices exacted in a struggle for principles or ideals, but wanton offerings upon the
altar of private profit.
The forces of capitalism which have led to the war in Europe are even more hideously
transparent in the war recently provoked by the ruling class of this country.
When Belgium was invaded, the government enjoined upon the people of this country the duty
of remaining neutral, thus clearly demonstrating that the "dictates of humanity," and the fate of
small nations and of democratic institutions were matters that did not concern it. But when our
enormous war traffic was seriously threatened, our government calls upon us to rally to the
"defense of democracy and civilization."
Our entrance into the European war was instigated by the predatory capitalists in the United
States who boast of the enormous profit of seven billion dollars from the manufacture and sale
of munitions and war supplies and from the exportation of American food stuffs and other
necessaries. They are also deeply interested in the continuance of war and the success of the
allied arms through their huge loans to the governments of the allied powers and through other
commercial ties. It is the same interests which strive for imperialistic domination of the Western
Hemisphere.
The war of the United States against Germany cannot be justified even on the plea that it is a
war in defense of American rights or American "honor." Ruthless as the unrestricted submarine
war policy of the German government was and is, it is not an invasion of the rights of the
American people, as such, but only an interference with the opportunity of certain groups of
American capitalists to coin cold profits out of the blood and sufferings of our fellow men in the
warring countries of Europe.
It is not a war against the militarist regime of the Central Powers. Militarism can never be
abolished by militarism.
It is not a war to advance the cause of democracy in Europe. Democracy can never be
imposed upon any country by a foreign power by force of arms.
It is cant and hypocrisy to say that the war is not directed against the German people, but
against the Imperial Government of Germany. If we send an armed force to the battlefields of
Europe, its cannon will mow down the masses of the German people and not the Imperial
German Government.
Our entrance into the European conflict at this time will serve only to multiply the horrors of the
war, to increase the toll of death and destruction and to prolong the fiendish slaughter. It will
bring death, suffering and destitution to the people of the United States and particularly to the
working class. It will give the powers of reaction in this country, the pretext for an attempt to
throttle our rights and to crush our democratic institutions, and to fasten upon this country a
permanent militarism.
The working class of the United States has no quarrel with the working class of Germany or of
any other country. The people of the United States have no quarrel with the people of Germany
or any other country. The American people did not want and do not want this war. They have
not been consulted about the war and have had no part in declaring war. They have been
plunged into this war by the trickery and treachery of the ruling class of the country through its
representatives in the National Administration and National Congress, its demagogic agitators,
its subsidized press, and other servile instruments of public expression.
We brand the declaration of war by our government as a crime against the people of the United
States and against the nations of the world.
In all modern history there has been no war more unjustifiable than the war in which we are
about to engage.
No greater dishonor has ever been forced upon a people than that which the capitalist class is
forcing upon this nation against its will.
In harmony with these principles, the Socialist Party emphatically rejects the proposal that in
time of war the workers should suspend their struggle for better conditions. On the contrary, the
acute situation created by war calls for an even more vigorous prosecution of the class struggle,
and we recommend to the workers and pledge ourselves to the following course of action:
1. Continuous, active, and public opposition to the war, through demonstrations, mass
petitions, and all other means within our power.
2. Unyielding opposition to all proposed legislation for military or industrial conscription.
Should such conscription be forced upon the people, we pledge ourselves to continuous efforts
for the repeal of such laws and to the support of all mass movements in opposition to
conscription. We pledge ourselves to oppose with all our strength any attempt to raise money
for payment of war expense by taxing the necessaries of life or issuing bonds which will put the
burden upon future generations. We demand that the capitalist class, which is responsible for
the war, pay its cost. Let those who kindled the fire, furnish the fuel.
3. Vigorous resistance to all reactionary measures, such as censorship of press and mails,
restriction of the rights of free speech, assemblage, and organization, or compulsory arbitration
and limitation of the right to strike.
4. Consistent propaganda against military training and militaristic teaching in the public
schools.
5. Extension of the campaign of education among the workers to organize them into strong,
class-conscious, and closely unified political and industrial organizations, to enable them by
concerted and harmonious mass action to shorten this war and to establish lasting peace.
6. Widespread educational propaganda to enlighten the masses as to the true relation
between capitalism and war, and to rouse and organize them for action, not only against
present war evils, but for the prevention of future wars and for the destruction of the causes of
war.
7. To protect the masses of the American people from the pressing danger of starvation
which the war in Europe has brought upon them, and which the entry of the United States has
already accentuated, we demand—
(a) The restriction of food exports so long as the present shortage continues, the fixing of
maximum prices and whatever measures may be necessary to prevent the food speculators
from holding back the supplies now in their hands;
(b) The socialization and democratic management of the great industries concerned with the
production, transportation, storage, and the marketing of food and other necessaries of life;
(c) The socialization and democratic management of all land and other natural resources now
held out of use for monopolistic or speculative profit.
These measures are presented as means of protecting the workers against the evil results of
the present war. The danger of recurrence of war will exist as long as the capitalist system of
industry remains in existenpe. The end of wars will come with the establishment of socialized
industry and industrial democracy the world over. The Socialist Party calls upon all the workers
to join it in its struggle to reach this goal, and thus bring into the world a new society in which
peace, fraternity, and human brotherhood will be the dominant ideals.
MINORITY REPORT
Congress has declared that a state of war exists between this nation and Germany. War
between the two nations is a fact.
We opposed the entrance of this republic* into the war, but we failed. The political and
economic organizations of the working class were not strong enough to do more than protest.
Having failed to prevent the war by our agitation, we can only recognize it as a fact and try to
force upon the government, through pressure of public opinion, a constructive program.
Our aim now must be to minimize the suffering and misery which the war will bring to our own
people, to protect our rights and liberties against reactionary encroachments, and to promote an
early peace upon a democratic basis, advantageous to the international working class.
Furthermore we must seize the opportunity presented by war conditions to advance our
program of democratic collectivism. Every one of the other belligerent nations has discovered
through the war that capitalism is inherently inefficient. To secure a maximum of efficiency,
whether for military or civil needs, it has been found necessary to abandon the essential
principle of capitalist industry. The warring nations have had to give up the organization and
operation of industry and primary economic functions for profit, and to adopt the Socialist
principle of production for use. Thus the war has demonstrated the superior efficiency of
collective organization and operation of industry.
Guided by this experience, we would so reorganize our economic system as to secure for our
permanent domestic needs the greatest possible results from the proper utilization of our
national resources.
In furtherance of these aims we propose the following:
1. We propose that the Socialist Party shall establish communication with the Socialists within
the enemy nations, to the end that peace may be secured upon democratic terms at the earliest
possible moment.
2. We demand that there be no interference with freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
and freedom of assemblage.
3. We demand that dealings between the government and the workers in all of the industries
and services taken over and operated by the government shall be conducted through their
organizations with due regard to the right of organization of those not yet organized.
4. We demand that conscription, if it come at all, shall begin with wealth. All annual incomes
in excess of $5,000 should be taken by the government and used to pay the current expenses
of the war. If it is just to conscript a human being, it is just to conscript wealth. Money is not as
sacred as human life.
5. We demand that there shall be no conscription of men until the American people shall have
been given the right to vote upon it. Under the British empire the people of Australia were
permitted to decide by ballot whether they should be conscripted. We demand for the American
people the same right.
6. We demand that the government seize and operate for the benefit of the whole people, the
great industries concerned with production, transportation, storage and marketing of the food
and other necessities of the people.
7. We demand that the government seize all suitable vacant land, and have the same
cultivated for the purpose of furnishing food supplies for the national use.
8. We demand that the government take over and operate all land and water transport
facilities; all water powers and irrigation plants; mines, forests and oil fields; and all industrial
monopolies; and that this be done at once, before the nation shall suffer calamity from the
failure of their capitalist direction and management under war pressure.
DOCUMENT 16: ADDRESS TO THE JURY / BY EMMA
GOLDMAN, [DELIVERED DURING HER ANTICONSCRIPTION TRIAL, NEW YORK CITY, JULY, 9,
1917]
Gentlemen of the Jury:
As in the case of my co-defendant, Alexander Berkman, this is also the first time in my life I
have ever addressed a jury. I once had occasion to speak to three judges.
On the day after our arrest it was given out by the U.S. Marshal and the District Attorney's office
that the "big fish" of the No-Conscription activities had been caught, and that there would be no
more trouble-makers and disturbers to interfere with the highly democratic effort of the
Government to conscript its young manhood for the European slaughter. What a pity that the
faithful servants of the Government, personified in the U.S. Marshal and the District Attorney,
should have used such a weak and flimsy net for their big catch. The moment the anglers pulled
their heavily laden net ashore, it broke, and all the labor was so much wasted energy.
The methods employed by Marshal McCarthy and his hosts of heroic warriors were sensational
enough to satisfy the famous circus men, Barnum & Bailey. A dozen or more heroes dashing up
two flights of stairs, prepared to stake their lives for their country, only to discover the two
dangerous disturbers and trouble-makers, Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, in their
separate offices, quietly at work at their desks, wielding not a sword, nor a gun or a bomb, but
merely their pens! Verily, it required courage to catch such big fish.
To be sure, two officers equipped with a warrant would have sufficed to carry out the business
of arresting the defendants Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman. Even the police know that
neither of them is in the habit of running away or hiding under the bed. But the farce-comedy
had to be properly staged if the Marshal and the District Attorney were to earn immortality.
Hence the sensational arrest; hence also, the raid upon the offices of The Blast, Mother Earth,
and the No-Conscription League.
In their zeal to save the country from the trouble-makers, the Marshal and his helpers did not
even consider it necessary to produce a search warrant. After all, what matters a mere scrap of
paper when one is called upon to raid the offices of Anarchists! Of what consequence is the
sanctity of property, the right of privacy, to officials in their dealings with Anarchists! In our day
of military training for battle, an Anarchist office is an appropriate camping ground. Would the
gentlemen who came with Marshal McCarthy have dared to go into the offices of Morgan, or
Rockefeller, or of any of those men without a search warrant? They never showed us the search
warrant, although we asked them for it. Nevertheless, they turned our office into a battlefield, so
that when they were through with it, it looked like invaded Belgium, with the only difference that
the invaders were not Prussian barbarians but good American patriots bent on making New
York safe for democracy.
The stage having been appropriately set for the three-act comedy, and the first act successfully
played by carrying off the villains in a madly dashing automobile--which broke every traffic
regulation and barely escaped crushing every one in its way--the second act proved even more
ludicrous. Fifty thousand dollars bail was demanded, and real estate refused when offered by a
man whose property is rated at three hundred thousand dollars, and that after the District
Attorney had considered and, in fact, promised to accept the property for one of the defendants,
Alexander Berkman, thus breaking every right guaranteed even to the most heinous criminal.
Finally the third act, played by the Government in this court during the last week. The pity of it is
that the prosecution knows so little of dramatic construction, else it would have equipped itself
with better dramatic material to sustain the continuity of the play. As it was, the third act fell flat,
utterly, and presents the question, Why such a tempest in a teapot? Gentlemen of the jury, my
comrade and co-defendant having carefully and thoroughly gone into the evidence presented by
the prosecution, and having demonstrated its entire failure to prove the charge of conspiracy or
any overt acts to carry out that conspiracy, I shall not impose upon your patience by going over
the same ground, except to emphasize a few points. To charge people with having conspired to
do something which they have been engaged in doing most of their lives, namely their
campaign against war, militarism and conscription as contrary to the best interests of humanity,
is an insult to human intelligence.
And how was that charge proven? By the fact that Mother Earth and The Blast were printed by
the same printer and bound in the same bindery. By the further evidence that the same
expressman had delivered the two publications! And by the still more illuminating fact that on
June 2nd Mother Earth and The Blast were given to a reporter at his request, if you please, and
gratis.
Gentlemen of the jury, you saw the reporter who testified to this overt act. Did any one of you
receive the impression that the man was of conscriptable age, and if not, in what possible way is
the giving of Mother Earth to a reporter for news purposes proof demonstrating the overt act?
It was brought out by our witnesses that the Mother Earth magazine has been published for
twelve years; that it was never held up, and that it has always gone through the U.S. mail as
second-class mail matter. It was further proven that the magazine appeared each month about
the first or second, and that it was sold or given away at the office to whoever wanted a copy.
Where, then, is the overt act?
Just as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, so has it also failed
to prove the overt act by the flimsy testimony that Mother Earth was given to a reporter. The
same holds good regarding The Blast.
Gentlemen of the jury, the District Attorney must have learned from the reporters the gist of the
numerous interviews which they had with us. Why did he not examine them as to whether or not
we had counseled young men not to register? That would have been a more direct way of
getting at the facts. In the case of the reporter from the New York Times, there can be no doubt
that the man would have been only too happy to accommodate the District Attorney with the
required information. A man who disregards every principle of decency and ethics of his
profession as a newspaper man, by turning material given him as news over to the District
Attorney, would have been glad to oblige a friend. Why did Mr. Content neglect such a golden
opportunity? Was it not because the reporter of the Times, like all the other reporters, must have
told the District Attorney that the two defendants stated, on each and every occasion, they
would not tell people not to register?
Perhaps the Times reporter refused to go to the extent of perjuring himself. Patrolmen and
detectives are not so timid in such matters. Hence Mr. Randolph and Mr. Cadell, to rescue the
situation. Imagine employing tenth-rate stenographers to report the very important speeches of
dangerous trouble-makers! What lack of forethought and efficiency on the part of the District
Attorney! But even these two members of the police department failed to prove by their notes
that we advised people not to register. But since they had to produce something incriminating
against Anarchists, they conveniently resorted to the old standby, always credited to us, "We
believe in violence and we will use violence."
Assuming, gentlemen of the jury, that this sentence was really used at the meeting of May 18th,
it would still fail to prove the indictment which charges conspiracy and overt acts to carry out the
conspiracy. And that is all we are charged with. Not violence, not Anarchism. I will go further
and say, that had the indictment been for the advocacy of violence, you gentlemen of the jury,
would still have to render a verdict of "Not Guilty," since the mere belief in a thing or even the
announcement that you would carry out that belief, can not possibly constitute a crime.
However, I wish to say emphatically that no such expression as "We believe in violence and we
will use violence" was uttered at the meeting of May 18th, or at any other meeting. I could not
have employed such a phrase, as there was no occasion for it. If for no other reason, it is
because I want my lectures and speeches to be coherent and logical. The sentence credited to
me is neither.
I have read to you my position toward political violence from a lengthy essay called "The
Psychology of Political Violence."
But to make that position clearer and simpler, I wish to say that I am a social student. It is my
mission in life to ascertain the cause of our social evils and of our social difficulties. As a student
of social wrongs it is my aim to diagnose a wrong. To simply condemn the man who has
committed an act of political violence, in order to save my skin, would be as unpardonable as it
would be on the part of the physician, who is called to diagnose a case, to condemn the patient
because the patient has tuberculosis, cancer, or some other disease. The honest, earnest,
sincere physician does not only prescribe medicine, he tries to find out the cause of the disease.
And if the patient is at all capable as to means, the doctor will say to him, "Get out of this putrid
air, get out of the factory, get out of the place where your lungs are being infected." He will not
merely give him medicine. He will tell him the cause of the disease. And that is precisely my
position in regard to acts of violence. That is what I have said on every platform. I have
attempted to explain the cause and the reason for acts of political violence.
It is organized violence on top which creates individual violence at the bottom. It is the
accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized injustice which
drives the political offender to his act. To condemn him means to be blind to the causes which
make him. I can no more do it, nor have I the right to, than the physician who were to condemn
the patient for his disease. You and I and all of us who remain indifferent to the crimes of
poverty, of war, of human degradation, are equally responsible for the act committed by the
political offender. May I therefore be permitted to say, in the words of a great teacher: "He who
is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Does that mean advocating violence? You
might as well accuse Jesus of advocating prostitution, because He took the part of the
prostitute, Mary Magdalene.
Gentlemen of the jury, the meeting of the 18th of May was called primarily for the purpose of
voicing the position of the conscientious objector and to point out the evils of conscription. Now,
who and what is the conscientious objector? Is he really a shirker, a slacker, or a coward? To
call him that is to be guilty of dense ignorance of the forces which impel men and women to
stand out against the whole world like a glittering lone star upon a dark horizon. The
conscientious objector is impelled by what President Wilson in his speech of Feb. 3, 1917,
called "the righteous passion for justice upon which all war, all structure of family, State and of
mankind must rest as the ultimate base of our existence and our liberty." The righteous passion
for justice which can never express itself in human slaughter--that is the force which makes the
conscientious objector. Poor indeed is the country which fails to recognize the importance of
that new type of humanity as the "ultimate base of our existence and liberty." It will find itself
barren of that which makes for character and quality in its people.
The meeting of May 18th was held before the Draft Bill had actually gone into effect. The
President signed it late in the evening of the 18th. Whatever was said at that meeting, even if I
had counseled young men not to register, that meeting cannot serve as proof of an overt act.
Why, then, has the Prosecuting Attorney dwelt so much, at such length, and with such pains on
that meeting, and so little on the other meetings held on the eve of registration and after? Is it
not because the District Attorney knew that we had no stenographic notes of that meeting? He
knew it because he was approached by Mr. Weinberger and other friends for a copy of the
transcript, which request he refused. Evidently, the District Attorney felt safe to use the notes of
a patrolman and a detective, knowing that they would swear to anything their superiors wanted.
I never like to accuse anyone--I wouldn't go so far as my co-defendant, Mr. Berkman, in saying
that the District Attorney doctored the document; I don't know whether he did or not. But I do
know that Patrolman Randolph and Detective Cadell doctored the notes, for the simple reason
that I didn't say those things. But though we could not produce our own stenographic notes, we
have been able to prove by men and women of unimpeachable character and high intelligence
that the notes of Randolph are utterly false. We have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
and Mr. Content did not dare question our proof, that at the Hunts' Point Palace, held on the eve
of registration, I expressly stated that I cannot and will not tell people not to register. We have
further proven that this was my definite stand, which was explained in my statement sent from
Springfield and read at the meeting of May 23rd.
When we go through the entire testimony given on behalf of the prosecution, I insist that there is
not one single point to sustain the indictment for conspiracy or to prove the overt acts we are
supposed to have committed. But we were even compelled to bring a man eighty years of age
to the witness stand in order to stop, if possible, any intention to drag in the question of German
money. It is true, and I appreciate it, that Mr. Content said he had no knowledge of it. But,
gentlemen of the jury, somebody from the District Attorney's office or someone from the
Marshal's office must have given out the statement that a bank receipt for $2,400 was found in
my office and must have told the newspapers the fake story of German money. As if we would
ever touch German money, or Russian money, or American money coming from the ruling
class, to advance our ideas! But in order to forestall any suspicion, any insinuation, in order to
stand clear before you, we were compelled to bring an old man here to inform you that he has
been a radical all his life, that he is interested in our ideas, and that he is the man who
contributed the money for radical purposes and for the work of Miss Goldman.
Gentlemen of the jury, you will be told by the Court, I am sure, that when you render a verdict
you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; that you must not assume that we are guilty
before we are proven guilty; and that it is your duty to assume that we are innocent. And yet, as
a matter of fact, the burden of proof has been laid upon us. We had to bring witnesses. If we
had had time we could have brought fifty more witnesses, each corroborating the others. Some
of those people have no relation with us. Some are writers, poets, contributors to the most
conventional magazines. Is it likely that they would swear to something in our favor if it were not
the truth? Therefore I insist, as did my co-defendant Alexander Berkman, that the prosecution
has made a very poor showing in proving the conspiracy or any overt act.
Gentlemen of the jury, we have been in public life for twenty-seven years. We have been hauled
into court, in and out of season--we have never denied our position. Even the police know that
Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman are not shirkers. You have had occasion during this
trial to convince yourselves that we do not deny. We have gladly and proudly claimed
responsibility, not only for what we ourselves have said and written, but even for things written
by others and with which we did not agree. Is it plausible, then, that we would go through the
ordeal, trouble and expense of a lengthy trial to escape responsibility in this instance? A
thousand times no! But we refuse to be tried on a trumped-up charge, or to be convicted by
perjured testimony, merely because we are Anarchists and hated by the class whom we have
openly fought for many years.
Gentlemen, during our examination of talesmen, when we asked whether you would be
prejudiced against us if it were proven that we propagated ideas and opinions contrary to those
held by the majority, you were instructed by the Court to say, "If they are within the law." But
what the Court did not tell you is, that no new faith--not even the most humane and peaceable-has ever been considered "within the law" by those who were in power. The history of human
growth is at the same time the history of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter
dawn, and the brighter dawn has always been considered illegal, outside of the law.
Gentlemen of the jury, most of you, I take it, are believers in the teachings of Jesus. Bear in
mind that he was put to death by those who considered his views as being against the law. I
also take it that you are proud of your Americanism. Remember that those who fought and bled
for your liberties were in their time considered as being against the law, as dangerous disturbers
and trouble-makers. They not only preached violence, but they carried out their ideas by
throwing tea into the Boston harbor. They said that "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."
They wrote a dangerous document called the Declaration of Independence. A document which
continues to be dangerous to this day, and for the circulation of which a young man was
sentenced to ninety days prison in a New York Court, only the other day. They were the
Anarchists of their time--they were never within the law.
Your Government is allied with the French Republic. Need I call your attention to the historic fact
that the great upheaval in France was brought about by extra-legal means? The Dant[on]s, the
Robespierres, the Marats, the Herberts, aye even the man who is responsible for the most
stirring revolutionary music, the Marseillaise (which unfortunately has deteriorated into a war
tune) even Camille Desmoulins, were never within the law. But for those great pioneers and
rebels, France would have continued under the yoke of the idle Louis XVI., to whom the sport of
shooting jack rabbits was more important than the destiny of the people of France.
Ah, gentlemen, on the very day when we were being tried for conspiracy and overt acts, your
city officials and representatives welcomed with music and festivities the Russian Commission.
Are you aware of the fact that nearly all of the members of that Commission have only recently
been released from exile? The ideas they propagated were never within the law. For nearly a
hundred years, from 1825 to 1917, the Tree of Liberty in Russia was watered by the blood of
her martyrs. No greater heroism, no nobler lives had ever been dedicated to humanity. Not one
of them worked within the law. I could continue to enumerate almost endlessly the hosts of men
and women in every land and in every period whose ideas and ideals redeemed the world
because they were not within the law.
Never can a new idea move within the law. It matters not whether that idea pertains to political
and social changes or to any other domain of human thought and expression--to science,
literature, music; in fact, everything that makes for freedom and joy and beauty must refuse to
move within the law. How can it be otherwise? The law is stationary, fixed, mechanical, "a
chariot wheel" which grinds all alike without regard to time, place and condition, without ever
taking into account cause and effect, without ever going into the complexity of the human soul.
Progress knows nothing of fixity. It cannot be pressed into a definite mould. It cannot bow to the
dictum, "I have ruled," "I am the regulating finger of God." Progress is ever renewing, ever
becoming, ever changing--never is it within the law.
If that be crime, we are criminals even like Jesus, Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, John Brown and
scores of others. We are in good company, among those whom Havelock Ellis, the greatest
living psychologist, describes as the political criminals recognized by the whole civilized world,
except America, as men and women who out of deep love for humanity, out of a passionate
reverence for liberty and an all-absorbing devotion to an ideal are ready to pay for their faith
even with their blood. We cannot do otherwise if we are to be true to ourselves--we know that
the political criminal is the precursor of human progress--the political criminal of to-day must
needs be the hero, the martyr and the saint of the new age.
But, says the Prosecuting Attorney, the press and the unthinking rabble, in high and low station,
"that is a dangerous doctrine and unpatriotic at this time." No doubt it is. But are we to be held
responsible for something which is as unchangeable and unalienable as the very stars hanging
in the heavens unto time and all eternity?
Gentlemen of the jury, we respect your patriotism. We would not, if we could, have you change
its meaning for yourself. But may there not be different kinds of patriotism as there are different
kinds of liberty? I for one cannot believe that love of one's country must needs consist in
blindness to its social faults, to deafness to its social discords, of inarticulation to its social
wrongs. Neither can I believe that the mere accident of birth in a certain country or the mere
scrap of a citizen's paper constitutes the love of country.
I know many people--I am one of them--who were not born here, nor have they applied for
citizenship, and who yet love America with deeper passion and greater intensity than many
natives whose patriotism manifests itself by pulling, kicking, and insulting those who do not rise
when the national anthem is played. Our patriotism is that of the man who loves a woman with
open eyes. He is enchanted by her beauty, yet he sees her faults. So we, too, who know
America, love her beauty, her richness, her great possibilities; we love her mountains, her
canyons, her forests, her Niagara, and her deserts--above all do we love the people that have
produced her wealth, her artists who have created beauty, her great apostles who dream and
work for liberty--but with the same passionate emotion we hate her superficiality, her cant, her
corruption, her mad, unscrupulous worship at the altar of the Golden Calf.
We say that if America has entered the war to make the world safe for democracy, she must
first make democracy safe in America. How else is the world to take America seriously, when
democracy at home is daily being outraged, free speech suppressed, peaceable assemblies
broken up by overbearing and brutal gangsters in uniform; when free press is curtailed and
every independent opinion gagged. Verily, poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it
to the world? We further say that a democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses,
in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all. It
is despotism--the cumulative result of a chain of abuses which, according to that dangerous
document, the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to overthrow.
The District Attorney has dragged in our Manifesto, and he has emphasized the passage,
"Resist conscription." Gentlemen of the jury, please remember that that is not the charge
against us. But admitting that the Manifesto contains the expression, "Resist conscription," may
I ask you, is there only one kind of resistance? Is there only the resistance which means the
gun, the bayonet, the bomb or flying machine? Is there not another kind of resistance? May not
the people simply fold their hands and declare, "We will not fight when we do not believe in the
necessity of war"? May not the people who believe in the repeal of the Conscription Law,
because it is unconstitutional, express their opposition in word and by pen, in meetings and in
other ways? What right has the District Attorney to interpret that particular passage to suit
himself? Moreover, gentlemen of the jury, I insist that the indictment against us does not refer to
conscription. We are charged with a conspiracy against registration. And in no way or manner
has the prosecution proven that we are guilty of conspiracy or that we have committed an overt
act.
Gentlemen of the jury, you are not called upon to accept our views, to approve of them or to
justify them. You are not even called upon to decide whether our views are within or against the
law. You are called upon to decide whether the prosecution has proven that the defendants
Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman have conspired to urge people not to register. And
whether their speeches and writings represent overt acts.
Whatever your verdict, gentlemen, it cannot possibly affect the rising tide of discontent in this
country against war which, despite all boasts, is a war for conquest and military power. Neither
can it affect the ever increasing opposition to conscription which is a military and industrial yoke
placed upon the necks of the American people. Least of all will your verdict affect those to
whom human life is sacred, and who will not become a party to the world slaughter. Your verdict
can only add to the opinion of the world as to whether or not justice and liberty are a living force
in this country or a mere shadow of the past. Your verdict may, of course, affect us temporarily,
in a physical sense--it can have no effect whatever upon our spirit. For even if we were
convicted and found guilty and the penalty were that we be placed against a wall and shot dead,
I should nevertheless cry out with the great Luther: "Here I am and here I stand and I cannot do
otherwise." And gentlemen, in conclusion let me tell you that my co-defendant, Mr. Berkman,
was right when he said the eyes of America are upon you. They are upon you not because of
sympathy for us or agreement with Anarchism. They are upon you because it must be decided
sooner or later whether we are justified in telling people that we will give them democracy in
Europe, when we have no democracy here? Shall free speech and free assemblage, shall
criticism and opinion--which even the espionage bill did not include--be destroyed? Shall it be a
shadow of the past, the great historic American past? Shall it be trampled underfoot by any
detective, or policeman, anyone who decides upon it? Or shall free speech and free press and
free assemblage continue to be the heritage of the American people?
Gentlemen of the jury, whatever your verdict will be, as far as we are concerned, nothing will be
changed. I have held ideas all my life. I have publicly held my ideas for twenty-seven years.
Nothing on earth would ever make me change my ideas except one thing; and that is, if you will
prove to me that our position is wrong, untenable, or lacking in historic fact. But never would I
change my ideas because I am found guilty. I may remind you of two great Americans,
undoubtedly not unknown to you, gentlemen of the jury; Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry
David Thoreau. When Thoreau was placed in prison for refusing to pay taxes, he was visited by
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Emerson said: "David, what are you doing in jail?" and Thoreau
replied: "Ralph, what are you doing outside, when honest people are in jail for their ideals?"
Gentlemen of the jury, I do not wish to influence you. I do not wish to appeal to your passions. I
do not wish to influence you by the fact that I am a woman. I have no such desires and no such
designs. I take it that you are sincere enough and honest enough and brave enough to render a
verdict according to your convictions, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Please forget that we are Anarchists. Forget that it is claimed that we propagated violence.
Forget that something appeared in Mother Earth when I was thousands of miles away, three
years ago.3. The bomb exploded in the apartment of anarchist Louise Berger, half sister of
Charles Berg, at 1626 Lexington Avenue between 103rd and 104th Streets, a large tenement
area populated mainly by recently arrived immigrants. Forget all that, and merely consider the
evidence. Have we been engaged in a conspiracy? has that conspiracy been proven? have we
committed overt acts? have those overt acts been proven? We for the defense say they have
not been proven. And therefore your verdict must be not guilty.
But whatever your decision, the struggle must go on. We are but the atoms in the incessant
human struggle towards the light that shines in the darkness--the Ideal of economic, political
and spiritual liberation of mankind!
Trial and Speeches of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman in the United States District Court, in the City of New York, July,
1917 (New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association [1917]), p. 56-66.
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Speeches/170709.html
DOCUMENT 17: EUGENE V. DEBS, “THE CANTON
OHIO SPEECH, DELIVERED JUNE 16, 1918.
June 16, 1918
Comrades, friends and fellow-workers, for this very cordial greeting, this very hearty reception, I
thank you all with the fullest appreciation of your interest in and your devotion to the cause for
which I am to speak to you this afternoon.
To speak for labor; to plead the cause of the men and women and children who toil; to serve the
working class, has always been to me a high privilege; a duty of love.
I have just returned from a visit over yonder, where three of our most loyal comrades are paying
the penalty for their devotion to the cause of the working class. They have come to realize, as
many of us have, that it is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free
speech in a country fighting to make democracy safe in the world.
I realize that, in speaking to you this afternoon, there are certain limitations placed upon the
right of free speech. I must be exceedingly careful, prudent, as to what I say, and even more
careful and prudent as to how I say it. I may not be able to say all I think; but I am not going to
say anything that I do not think. I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a
sycophant and coward in the streets. They may put those boys in jail—and some of the rest of
us in jail—but they can not put the Socialist movement in jail. Those prison bars separate their
bodies from ours, but their souls are here this afternoon. They are simply paying the penalty that
all men have paid in all the ages of history for standing erect, and for seeking to pave the way to
better conditions for mankind.
If it had not been for the men and women who, in the past, have had the moral courage to go to
jail, we would still be in the jungles.
This assemblage is exceedingly good to look upon. I wish it were possible for me to give you
what you are giving me this afternoon. What I say here amounts to but little; what I see here is
exceedingly important. You workers in Ohio, enlisted in the greatest cause ever organized in the
interest of your class, are making history today in the face of threatening opposition of all
kinds—history that is going to be read with profound interest by coming generations.
There is but one thing you have to be concerned about, and that is that you keep foursquare
with the principles of the international Socialist movement. It is only when you begin to
compromise that trouble begins. So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what others may
say, or think, or do, as long as I am sure that I am right with myself and the cause. There are so
many who seek refuge in the popular side of a great question. As a Socialist, I have long since
learned how to stand alone. For the last month I have been traveling over the Hoosier State;
and, let me say to you, that, in all my connection with the Socialist movement, I have never seen
such meetings, such enthusiasm, such unity of purpose; never have I seen such a promising
outlook as there is today, notwithstanding the statement published repeatedly that our leaders
have deserted us. Well, for myself, I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged
with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders,
and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you
go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you
will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of
Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses—you will find that almost all of them claim, in
glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am
very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from
the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.
When I came away from Indiana, the comrades said: “When you cross the line and get over into
the Buckeye State, tell the comrades there that we are on duty and doing duty. Give them for
us, a hearty greeting, and tell them that we are going to make a record this fall that will be read
around the world.”
The Socialists of Ohio, it appears, are very much alive this year. The party has been killed
recently, which, no doubt, accounts for its extraordinary activity. There is nothing that helps the
Socialist Party so much as receiving an occasional deathblow. The oftener it is killed the more
active, the more energetic, the more powerful it becomes.
They who have been reading the capitalist newspapers realize what a capacity they have for
lying. We have been reading them lately. They know all about the Socialist Party—the Socialist
movement, except what is true. Only the other day they took an article that I had written—and
most of you have read it—most of you members of the party, at least—and they made it appear
that I had undergone a marvelous transformation. I had suddenly become changed—had in fact
come to my senses; I had ceased to be a wicked Socialist, and had become a respectable
Socialist , a patriotic Socialist—as if I had ever been anything else.
What was the purpose of this deliberate misrepresentation? It is so self-evident that it suggests
itself. The purpose was to sow the seeds of dissension in our ranks; to have it appear that we
were divided among ourselves; that we were pitted against each other, to our mutual undoing.
But Socialists were not born yesterday. They know how to read capitalist newspapers ; and to
believe exactly the opposite of what they read.
Why should a Socialist be discouraged on the eve of the greatest triumph in all the history of the
Socialist movement? It is true that these are anxious, trying days for us all—testing days for the
women and men who are upholding the banner of labor in the struggle of the working class of all
the world against the exploiters of all the world; a time in which the weak and cowardly will falter
and fail and desert. They lack the fiber to endure the revolutionary test; they fall away; they
disappear as if they had never been. On the other hand, they who are animated by the
unconquerable spirit of the social revolution; they who have the moral courage to stand erect
and assert their convictions; stand by them; fight for them; go to jail or to hell for them, if need
be —they are writing their names, in this crucial hour—they are writing their names in faceless
letters in the history of mankind.
Those boys over yonder—those comrades of ours—and how I love them! Aye, they are my
younger brothers ; their very names throb in my heart, thrill in my veins, and surge in my soul. I
am proud of them; they are there for us; and we are here for them. Their lips, though temporarily
mute, are more eloquent than ever before; and their voice, though silent, is heard around the
world.
Are we opposed to Prussian militarism? Why, we have been fighting it since the day the
Socialist movement was born; and we are going to continue to fight it, day and night, until it is
wiped from the face of the earth. Between us there is no truce—no compromise.
But, before I proceed along this line, let me recall a little history, in which I think we are all
interested.
In 1869 that grand old warrior of the social revolution, the elder Liebknecht, was arrested and
sentenced to prison for three months, because of his war, as a Socialist, on the Kaiser and on
the Junkers that rule Germany. In the meantime the Franco-Prussian war broke out. Liebknecht
and Bebel were the Socialist members in the Reichstag. They were the only two who had the
courage to protest against taking Alsace-Lorraine from France and annexing it to Germany. And
for this they were sentenced two years to a prison fortress charged with high treason; because,
even in that early day, almost fifty years ago, these leaders, these forerunners of the
international Socialist movement were fighting the Kaiser and fighting the Junkers of Germany.
They have continued to fight them from that day to this. Multiplied thousands of Socialists have
languished in the jails of Germany because of their heroic warfare upon the despotic ruling class
of that country.
Let us come down the line a little farther. You remember that, at the close of Theodore
Roosevelt’s second term as President, he went over to Africa to make war on some of his
ancestors. You remember that, at the close of his expedition, he visited the capitals of Europe;
and that he was wined and dined, dignified and glorified by all the Kaisers and Czars and
Emperors of the Old World. He visited Potsdam while the Kaiser was there; and, according to
the accounts published in the American newspapers, he and the Kaiser were soon on the most
familiar terms. They were hilariously intimate with each other, and slapped each other on the
back. After Roosevelt had reviewed the Kaiser’s troops, according to the same accounts, he
became enthusiastic over the Kaiser’s legions and said: “If I had that kind of an army, I could
conquer the world.” He knew the Kaiser then just as well as he knows him now. He knew that he
was the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin. And yet, he permitted himself to be entertained by that
Beast of Berlin; had his feet under the mahogany of the Beast of Berlin; was cheek by jowl with
the Beast of Berlin. And, while Roosevelt was being entertained royally by the German Kaiser,
that same Kaiser was putting the leaders of the Socialist Party in jail for fighting the Kaiser and
the Junkers of Germany. Roosevelt was the guest of honor in the white house of the Kaiser,
while the Socialists were in the jails of the Kaiser for fighting the Kaiser. Who then was fighting
for democracy? Roosevelt? Roosevelt, who was honored by the Kaiser, or the Socialists who
were in jail by order of the Kaiser?
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
When the newspapers reported that Kaiser Wilhelm and ax-President Theodore recognized
each other at sight, were perfectly intimate with each other at the first touch, they made the
admission that is fatal to the claim of Theodore Roosevelt, that he is the friend of the common
people and the champion of democracy; they admitted that they were kith and kin; that they
were very much alike; that their ideas and ideals were about the same. If Theodore Roosevelt is
the great champion of democracy —the arch foe of autocracy , what business had he as the
guest of honor of the Prussian Kaiser? And when he met the Kaiser, and did honor to the
Kaiser, under the terms imputed to him, wasn’t it pretty strong proof that he himself was a
Kaiser at heart? Now, after being the guest of Emperor Wilhelm, the Beast of Berlin, he comes
back to this country, and wants you to send ten million men over there to kill the Kaiser; to
murder his former friend and pal. Rather queer, isn’t it? And yet, he is the patriot, and we are the
traitors. I challenge you to find a Socialist anywhere on the face of the earth who was ever the
guest of the Beast of Berlin , except as an inmate of his prison—the elder Liebknecht and the
younger Liebknecht, the heroic son of his immortal sire.
A little more history along the same line. In 1902 Prince Henry paid a visit to this country. Do
you remember him? I do, exceedingly well. Prince Henry is the brother of Emperor Wilhelm.
Prince Henry is another Beast of Berlin, an autocrat, an aristocrat, a Junker of Junkers—very
much despised by our American patriots. He came over here in 1902 as the representative of
Kaiser Wilhelm; he was received by Congress and by several state legislatures—among others,
by the state legislature of Massachusetts, then in session. He was invited there by the capitalist
captains of that so-called commonwealth. And when Prince Henry arrived, there was one
member of that body who kept his self-respect, put on his hat, and as Henry, the Prince, walked
in, that member of the body walked out. And that was James F. Carey, the Socialist member of
that body. All the rest—all the rest of the representatives in the Massachusetts legislature—all,
all of them—joined in doing honor, in the most servile spirit, to the high representative of the
autocracy of Europe. And the only man who left that body, was a Socialist. And yet , and yet
they have the hardihood to claim that they are fighting autocracy and that we are in the service
of the German government.
A little more history along the same line. I have a distinct recollection of it. It occurred fifteen
years ago when Prince Henry came here. All of our plutocracy, all of the wealthy
representatives living along Fifth Avenue—all, all of them—threw their palace doors wide open
and received Prince Henry with open arms. But they were not satisfied with this; they got down
and grovelled in the dust at his feet. Our plutocracy—women and men alike—vied with each
other to lick the boots of Prince Henry, the brother and representative of the “Beast of Berlin.”
And still our plutocracy, our Junkers, would have us believe that all the Junkers are confined to
Germany. It is precisely because we refuse to believe this that they brand us as disloyalists.
They want our eyes focused on the Junkers in Berlin so that we will not see those within our
own borders.
I hate, I loathe, I despise Junkers and junkerdom. I have no earthly use for the Junkers of
Germany, and not one particle more use for the Junkers in the United States.
They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are
a free and self-governing people. This is too much, even for a joke. But it is not a subject for
levity; it is an exceedingly serious matter.
To whom do the Wall Street Junkers in our country marry their daughters? After they have
wrung their countless millions from your sweat, your agony and your life’s blood, in a time of war
as in a time of peace, they invest these untold millions in the purchase of titles of broken-down
aristocrats, such as princes, dukes, counts and other parasites and no-accounts. Would they be
satisfied to wed their daughters to honest workingmen? To real democrats? Oh, no! They scour
the markets of Europe for vampires who are titled and nothing else. And they swap their millions
for the titles, so that matrimony with them becomes literally a matter of money.
These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim
from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in
hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the
men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder
Sam Johnson declared that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He must have had
this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the
tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or
religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.
They would have you believe that the Socialist Party consists in the main of disloyalists and
traitors. It is true in a sense not at all to their discredit. We frankly admit that we are disloyalists
and traitors to the real traitors of this nation; to the gang that on the Pacific coast are trying to
hang Tom Mooney and Warren Billings in spite of their well-known innocence and the protest of
practically the whole civilized world.
I know Tom Mooney intimately—as if he were my own brother. He is an absolutely honest man.
He had no more to do with the crime with which he was charged and for which he was convicted
than I had. And if he ought to go to the gallows, so ought I. If he is guilty every man who belongs
to a labor organization or to the Socialist Party is likewise guilty.
What is Tom Mooney guilty of? I will tell you. I am familiar with his record. For years he has
been fighting bravely and without compromise the battles of the working class out on the Pacific
coast. He refused to be bribed and he could not be browbeaten. In spite of all attempts to
intimidate him he continued loyally in the service of the organized workers, and for this he
became a marked man. The henchmen of the powerful and corrupt corporations, concluding
finally that he could not be bought or bribed or bullied, decided he must therefore be murdered.
That is why Tom Mooney is today a life prisoner, and why he would have been hanged as a
felon long ago but for the world-wide protest of the working class.
Let us review another bit of history. You remember Francis J. Heney, special investigator of the
state of California, who was shot down in cold blood in the courtroom in San Francisco. You
remember that dastardly crime, do you not? The United Railways, consisting of a lot of
plutocrats and highbinders represented by the Chamber of Commerce, absolutely control the
city of San Francisco. The city was and is their private reservation. Their will is the supreme law.
Take your stand against them and question their authority, and you are doomed. They do not
hesitate a moment to plot murder or any other crime to perpetuate their corrupt and enslaving
regime. Tom Mooney was the chief representative of the working class they could not control.
They own the railways; they control the great industries; they are the industrial masters and the
political rulers of the people. From their decision there is no appeal. They are the autocrats of
the Pacific coast—as cruel and infamous as any that ever ruled in Germany or any other
country in the old world. When their rule became so corrupt that at last a grand jury indicted
them and they were placed on trial, and Francis J. Heney was selected to assist in their
prosecution, this gang, represented by the Chamber of Commerce; this gang of plutocrats,
autocrats and highbinders, hired an assassin to shoot Heney down in the courtroom. Heney,
however, happened to live through it. But that was not their fault. The same identical gang that
hired the murderer to kill Heney also hired false witnesses to swear away the fife of Tom
Mooney and, foiled in that, they have kept him in a foul prisonhole ever since.
Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an
arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for
democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these
red-handed robbers and murderers, the “patriots,” while the men who have the courage to stand
face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims—they are the
disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in
this fight.
The other day they sentenced Kate Richards O’Hare to the penitentiary for five years. Think of
sentencing a woman to the penitentiary simply for talking. The United States, under plutocratic
rule, is the only country that would send a woman to prison for five years for exercising the right
of free speech. If this be treason, let them make the most of it.
Let me review a bit of history in connection with this case. I have known Kate Richards O’Hare
intimately for twenty years. I am familiar with her public record. Personally I know her as if she
were my own sister. All who know Mrs. O’Hare know her to be a woman of unquestioned
integrity.’ And they also know that she is a woman of unimpeachable loyalty to the Socialist
movement. When she went out into North Dakota to make her speech, followed by plain-clothes
men in the service of the government intent upon effecting her arrest and securing her
prosecution and conviction—when she went out there, it was with the full knowledge on her part
that sooner or later these detectives would accomplish their purpose. She made her speech,
and that speech was deliberately misrepresented for the purpose of securing her conviction.
The only testimony against her was that of a hired witness. And when the farmers, the men and
women who were in the audience she addressed—when they went to Bismarck where the trial
was held to testify in her favor, to swear that she had not used the language she was charged
with having used, the judge refused to allow them to go upon the stand. This would seem
incredible to me if I had not had some experience of my own with federal courts.
Who appoints our federal judges? The people? In all the history of the country, the working
class have never named a federal judge. There are 121 of these judges and every solitary one
holds his position, his tenure, through the influence and power of corporate capital. The
corporations and trusts dictate their appointment. And when they go to the bench, they go, not
to serve, the people, but to serve the interests that place them and keep them where they are.
Why, the other day, by a vote of five to four—a kind of craps game—come seven, come‘leven
—they declared the child labor law unconstitutional—a law secured after twenty years of
education and agitation on the part of all kinds of people. And yet, by a majority of one, the
Supreme Court a body of corporation lawyers, with just one exception, wiped that law from the
statute books, and this in our so-called democracy, so that we may continue to grind the flesh
and blood and bones of puny little children into profits for the Junkers of Wall Street. And this in
a country that boasts of fighting to make the world safe for democracy! The history of this
country is being written in the blood of the childhood the industrial lords have murdered.
These are not palatable truths to them. They do not like to hear them; and what is more they do
not want you to hear them. And that is why they brand us as undesirable citizens , and as
disloyalists and traitors. If we were actual traitors—traitors to the people and to their welfare and
progress, we would be regarded as eminently respectable citizens of the republic; we would
hold high office, have princely incomes, and ride in limousines; and we would be pointed out as
the elect who have succeeded in life in honorable pursuit, and worthy of emulation by the youth
of the land. It is precisely because we are disloyal to the traitors that we are loyal to the people
of this nation.
Scott Nearing! You have heard of Scott Nearing. He is the greatest teacher in the United States.
He was in the University of Pennsylvania until the Board of Trustees, consisting of great
capitalists, captains of industry, found that he was teaching sound economics to the students in
his classes. This sealed his fate in that institution. They sneeringly charged—just as the same
usurers, money-changers, pharisees, hypocrites charged the Judean Carpenter some twenty
centuries ago—that he was a false teacher and that he was stirring up the people.
The Man of Galilee, the Carpenter, the workingman who became the revolutionary agitator of
his day soon found himself to be an undesirable citizen in the eyes of the ruling knaves and they
had him crucified. And now their lineal descendants say of Scott Nearing, “He is preaching false
economics. We cannot crucify him as we did his elder brother but we can deprive him of
employment and so cut off his income and starve him to death or into submission. We will not
only discharge him but place his name upon the blacklist and make it impossible for him to earn
a living. He is a dangerous man for he is teaching the truth and opening the eyes of the people.”
And the truth, oh, the truth has always been unpalatable and intolerable to the class who live out
of the sweat and misery of the working class.
Max Eastman has been indicted and his paper suppressed, just as the papers with which I have
been connected have all been suppressed. What a wonderful compliment they pay us! They are
afraid that we may mislead and contaminate you. You are their wards; they are your guardians
and they know what is best for you to read and hear and know. They are bound to see to it that
our vicious doctrines do not reach your ears. And so in our great democracy, under our free
institutions, they flatter our press by suppression; and they ignorantly imagine that they have
silenced revolutionary propaganda in the United States. What an awful mistake they make for
our benefit! As a matter of justice to them we should respond with resolutions of thanks and
gratitude. Thousands of people who had never before heard of our papers are now inquiring for
and insisting upon seeing them. They have succeeded only in arousing curiosity in our literature
and propaganda. And woe to him who reads Socialist literature from curiosity! He is surely a
goner. I have known of a thousand experiments but never one that failed.
John M. Work! You know John, now on the editorial staff of the Milwaukee Leader! When I first
knew him he was a lawyer out in Iowa. The capitalists out there became alarmed because of the
rapid growth of the Socialist movement. So they said: “We have to find some able fellow to fight
this menace.” They concluded that John Work was the man for the job and they said to
him:“John, you are a bright young lawyer; you have a brilliant future before you. We want to
engage you to find out all you can about socialism and then proceed to counteract its baneful
effects and check its further growth.”
John at once provided himself with Socialist literature and began his study of the red menace,
with the result that after he had read and digested a few volumes he was a full-fledged Socialist
and has been fighting for socialism ever since.
ŒHow stupid and shortsighted the ruling class really is! Cupidity is stone blind. It has no vision.
The greedy, profit-seeking exploiter cannot see beyond the end of his nose. He can see a
chance for an“opening”; he is cunning enough to know what graft is and where it is, and how it
can be secured, but vision he has none—not the slightest. He knows nothing of the great
throbbing world that spreads out in all directions. He has no capacity for literature; no
appreciation of art; no soul for beauty. That is the penalty the parasites pay for the violation of
the laws of life. The Rockefellers are blind. Every move they make in their game of greed but
hastens their own doom. Every blow they strike at the Socialist movement reacts upon
themselves. Every time they strike at us they hit themselves. It never fails. Every time they
strangle a Socialist paper they add a thousand voices proclaiming the truth of the principles of
socialism and the ideals of the Socialist movement. They help us in spite of themselves.
Socialism is a growing idea; an expanding philosophy. It is spreading over the entire face of the
earth: It is as vain to resist it as it would be to arrest the sunrise on the morrow. It is coming,
coming, coming all along the line. Can you not see it? If not, I advise you to consult an oculist.
There is certainly something the matter with your vision. It is the mightiest movement in the
history of mankind. What a privilege to serve it! I have regretted a thousand times that I can do
so little for the movement that has done so much for me. The little that I am, the little that I am
hoping to be, I owe to the Socialist movement. It has given me my ideas and ideals; my
principles and convictions, and I would not exchange one of them for all of Rockefeller’s
bloodstained dollars. It has taught me how to serve—a lesson to me of priceless value. It has
taught me the ecstasy in the handclasp of a comrade. It has enabled me to hold high
communion with you, and made it possible for me to take my place side by side with you in the
great struggle for the better day; to multiply myself over and over again, to thrill with a fresh-born
manhood; to feel life truly worthwhile; to open new avenues of vision; to spread out glorious
vistas; to know that I am kin to all that throbs; to be class-conscious, and to realize that,
regardless of nationality, race, creed, color or sex, every man, every woman who toils, who
renders useful service, every member of the working class without an exception, is my comrade,
my brother and sister—and that to serve them and their cause is the highest duty of my life.
And in their service I can feel myself expand; I can rise to the stature of a man and claim the
right to a place on earth—a place where I can stand and strive to speed the day of industrial
freedom and social justice.
Yes, my comrades, my heart is attuned to yours. Aye, all our hearts now throb as one great
heart responsive to the battle cry of the social revolution. Here, in this alert and inspiring
assemblage our hearts are with the Bolsheviki of Russia. Those heroic men and women, those
unconquerable comrades have by their incomparable valor and sacrifice added fresh luster to
the fame of the international movement. Those Russian comrades of ours have made greater
sacrifices, have suffered more, and have shed more heroic blood than any like number of men
and women anywhere on earth; they have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that
ever drew the breath of life in this world. And the very first act of the triumphant Russian
revolution was to proclaim a state of peace with all mankind, coupled with a fervent moral
appeal, not to kings, not to emperors, rulers or diplomats but to the people of all nations. Here
we have the very breath of democracy, the quintessence of the dawning freedom. The Russian
revolution proclaimed its glorious triumph in its ringing and inspiring appeal to the peoples of all
the earth. In a humane and fraternal spirit new Russia, emancipated at last from the curse of the
centuries, called upon all nations engaged in the frightful war, the Central Powers as well as the
Allies, to send representatives to a conference to lay down terms of peace that should be just
and lasting. Here was the supreme opportunity to strike the blow to make the world safe for
democracy. Was there any response to that noble appeal that in some day to come will be
written in letters of gold in the history of the world? Was there any response whatever to that
appeal for universal peace? No, not the slightest attention was paid to it by the Christian nations
engaged in the terrible slaughter.
It has been charged that Lenin and Trotsky and the leaders of the revolution were treacherous,
that they made a traitorous peace with Germany. Let us consider that proposition briefly. At the
time of the revolution Russia had been three years in the war. Under the Czar she had lost more
than four million of her ill-clad, poorly-equipped, half-starved soldiers, slain outright or disabled
on the field of battle. She was absolutely bankrupt. Her soldiers were mainly without arms. This
was what was bequeathed to the revolution by the Czar and his regime; and for this condition
Lenin and Trotsky were not responsible, nor the Bolsheviki. For this appalling state of affairs the
Czar and his rotten bureaucracy were solely responsible. When the Bolsheviki came into power
and went through the archives they found and exposed the secret treaties—the treaties that
were made between the Czar and the French government, the British government and the
Italian government, proposing, after the victory was achieved, to dismember the German Empire
and destroy the Central Powers. These treaties have never been denied nor repudiated. Very
little has been said about them in the American press. I have a copy of these treaties, showing
that the purpose of the Allies is exactly the purpose of the Central Powers, and that is the
conquest and spoilation of the weaker nations that has always been the purpose of war.
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when
the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine
concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they
declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the
modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages,
the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable
serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to
believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall
upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and
barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always
declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all
to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—
especially their lives.
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and
to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the
people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by
any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working
class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working
class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either
declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone
declare war and they alone make peace.
Yours not to reason why;
Yours but to do and die.
That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly
above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace.
Rose Pastor Stokes! And when I mention her name I take off my hat. Here we have another
heroic and inspiring comrade. She had her millions of dollars at command. Did her wealth
restrain her an instant? On the contrary her supreme devotion to the cause outweighed all
considerations of a financial or social nature. She went out boldly to plead the cause of the
working class and they rewarded her high courage with a ten years’ sentence to the
penitentiary. Think of it! Ten years! What atrocious crime had she committed? What frightful
things had she said? Let me answer candidly. She said nothing more than I have said here this
afternoon. I want to admit—I want to admit without reservation that if Rose Pastor Stokes is
guilty of crime, so am I. If she is guilty for the brave part she has taken in this testing time of
human souls I would not be cowardly enough to plead my innocence. And if she ought to be
sent to the penitentiary for ten years, so ought I without a doubt.
What did Rose Pastor Stokes say? Why, she said that a government could not at the same time
serve both the profiteers and the victims of the profiteers. Is it not true? Certainly it is and no
one can successfully dispute it.
Roosevelt said a thousand times more in the very same paper, the Kansas City Star. Roosevelt
said vauntingly the other day that he would be heard if he went to jail. He knows very well that
he is taking no risk of going to jail. He is shrewdly laying his wires for the Republican nomination
in 1920 and he is an adept in making the appeal of the demagogue. He would do anything to
discredit the Wilson administration that he may give himself and his party all credit. That is the
only rivalry there is between the two old capitalist parties—the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party—the political twins of the master class. They are not going to have any friction
between them this fall. They are all patriots in this campaign, and they are going to combine to
prevent the election of any disloyal Socialist. I have never heard anyone tell of any difference
between these corrupt capitalist parties. Do you know of any? I certainly do not. The situation is
that one is in and the other trying to break in, and that is substantially the only difference
between them.
Rose Pastor Stokes never uttered a word she did not have a legal, constitutional right to utter.
But her message to the people, the message that stirred their thoughts and opened their eyes—
that must be suppressed; her voice must be silenced. And so she was promptly subjected to a
mock trial and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. Her conviction was a foregone
conclusion. The trial of a Socialist in a capitalist court is at best a farcical affair. What ghost of a
chance had she in a court with a packed jury and a corporation tool on the bench? Not the least
in the world. And so she goes to the penitentiary for ten years if they carry out their brutal and
disgraceful graceful program. For my part I do not think they will. In fact I feel sure they will not.
If the war were over tomorrow the prison doors would open to our people. They simply mean to
silence the voice of protest during the war.
What a compliment it is to the Socialist movement to be thus persecuted for the sake of the
truth! The truth alone will make the people free. And for this reason the truth must not be
permitted to reach the people. The truth has always been dangerous to the rule of the rogue,
the exploiter, the robber. So the truth must be ruthlessly suppressed. That is why they are trying
to destroy the Socialist movement; and every time they strike a blow they add a thousand new
voices to the hosts proclaiming that socialism is the hope of humanity and has come to
emancipate the people from their final form of servitude.
How good this sip of cool water from the hand of a comrade! It is as refreshing as if it were out
on the desert waste. And how good it is to look into your glowing faces this afternoon! You are
really good looking to me, I assure you. And I am glad there are so many of you. Your tribe has
increased amazingly since first I came here. You used to be so few and far between. A few
years ago when you struck a town the first thing you had to do was to see if you could locate a
Socialist; and you were pretty lucky if you struck the trail of one before you left town. If he
happened to be the only one and he is still living, he is now regarded as a pioneer and
pathfinder; he holds a place of honor in your esteem, and he has lodgment in the hearts of all
who have come after him. It is far different now. You can hardly throw a stone in the dark
without hitting a Socialist. They are everywhere in increasing numbers; and what marvelous
changes are taking place in the people!
Some years ago I was to speak at Warren in this state. It happened to be at the time that
President McKinley was assassinated. In common with all others I deplored that tragic event.
There is not a Socialist who would have been guilty of that crime. We do not attack individuals.
We do not seek to avenge ourselves upon those opposed to our faith. We have no fight with
individuals as such. We are capable of pitying those who hate us. We do not hate them; we
know better; we would freely give them a cup of water if they needed it. There is no room in our
hearts for hate, except for the system, the social system in which it is possible for one man to
amass a stupendous fortune doing nothing, while millions of others suffer and struggle and
agonize and die for the bare necessities of existence.
President McKinley, as I have said, had been assassinated. I was first to speak at Portsmouth,
having been booked there some time before the assassination. Promptly the Christian ministers
of Portsmouth met in special session and passed a resolution declaring that “Debs, more than
any other person, was responsible for the assassination of our beloved President.” It was due to
the doctrine that Debs was preaching that this crime was committed, according to these patriotic
parsons, and so this pious gentry, the followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene, concluded that
I must not be permitted to enter the city. And they had the mayor issue an order to that effect. I
went there soon after, however. I was to speak at Warren, where President McKinley’s doublecousin was postmaster. I went there and registered. I was soon afterward invited to leave the
hotel. I was exceedingly undesirable that day. I was served with notice that the hall would not be
opened and that I would not be permitted to speak. I sent back word to the mayor by the only
Socialist left in town—and he only remained because they did not know he was there—I sent
word to the mayor that I would speak in Warren that night, according to schedule, or I would
leave there in a box for the return turn trip.
The Grand Army of the Republic called a special meeting and then marched to the hall in full
uniform and occupied the front seats in order to silence me if my speech did not suit them. I
went to the hall, however, found it open, and made my speech. There was no interruption. I told
the audience frankly who was responsible for the President’s assassination. I said: “As long as
there is misery caused by robbery at the bottom there will be assassination at the top.” I showed
them, evidently to their satisfaction, that it was their own capitalist system that was responsible;
the system that had impoverished and brutalized the ancestors of the poor witless boy who had
murdered the President. Yes, I made my speech that night and it was well received but when I
left there I was still an “undesirable citizen.”
Some years later I returned to Warren. It seemed that the whole population was out for the
occasion. I was received with open arms. I was no longer a demagogue; no longer a fanatic or
an undesirable citizen. I had become exceedingly respectable simply because the Socialists
had increased in numbers and socialism had grown in influence and power. If ever I become
entirely respectable I shall be quite sure that I have outlived myself.
It is the minorities who have made the history of this world. It is the few who have had the
courage to take their places at the front; who have been true enough to themselves to speak the
truth that was in them; who have dared oppose the established order of things; who have
espoused the cause of the suffering, struggling poor; who have upheld without regard to
personal consequences the cause of freedom and righteousness. It is they, the heroic, selfsacrificing few who have made the history of the race and who have paved the way from
barbarism to civilization. The many prefer to remain upon the popular side. They lack the
courage and vision to join a despised minority that stands for a principle; they have not the
moral fiber that withstands, endures and finally conquers. They are to be pitied and not treated
with contempt for they cannot help their cowardice. But, thank God, in every age and in every
nation there have been the brave and self-reliant few, and they have been sufficient to their
historic task; and we, who are here today, are under infinite obligations to them because they
suffered, they sacrificed, they went to jail, they had their bones broken upon the wheel, they
were burned at the stake and their ashes scattered to the winds by the hands of hate and
revenge in their struggle to leave the world better for us than they found it for themselves. We
are under eternal obligations to them because of what they did and what they suffered for us
and the only way we can discharge that obligation is by doing the best we can for those who are
to come after us. And this is the high purpose of every Socialist on earth. Everywhere they are
animated by the same lofty principles; everywhere they have the same noble ideals; everywhere
they are clasping hands across national boundary lines; everywhere they are calling one
another Comrade, the blessed word that springs from the heart of unity and bursts into blossom
upon the lips. Each passing day they are getting into closer touch all along the battle line, wagig
the holy war of the working class of the world against the ruling and exploiting class of the world.
They make many mistakes and they profit by them all. They encounter numerous defeats, and
grow stronger through them all. They never take a backward step. Œ
The heart of the international Socialist never beats a retreat.
They are pressing forward, here, there and everywhere, in all the zones that girdle the globe.
Everywhere these awakening workers, these class-conscious proletarians, these hardy sons
and daughters of honest toil are proclaiming the glad tidings of the coming emancipation,
everywhere their hearts are attuned to the most sacred cause that ever challenged men and
women to action in all the history of the world. Everywhere they are moving toward democracy
and the dawn; marching toward the sunrise, their faces all aglow with the light of the coming
day. These are the Socialists, the most zealous and enthusiastic crusaders the world has ever
known. They are making history that will light up the horizon of coming generations, for their
mission is the emancipation of the human race. They have been reviled; they have been
ridiculed, persecuted, imprisoned and have suffered death, but they have been sufficient to
themselves and their cause, and their final triumph is but a question of time.
Do you wish to hasten the day of victory? Join the Socialist Party! Don’t wait for the morrow.
Join now! Enroll your name without fear and take your place where you belong. You cannot do
your duty by proxy. You have got to do it yourself and do it squarely and then as you look
yourself in the face you will have no occasion to blush. You will know what it is to be a real man
or woman. You will lose nothing; you will gain everything. Not only will you lose nothing but you
will find something of infinite value, and that something will be yourself. And that is your
supreme need—to find yourself—to really know yourself and your purpose in life.
You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and
cannon fodder. You need to know that you were not created to work and produce and
impoverish yourself to enrich an idle exploiter. You need to know that you have a mind to
improve, a soul to develop, and a manhood to sustain.
You need to know that it is your duty to rise above the animal plane of existence. You need to
know that it is for you to know something about literature and science and art. You need to know
that you are verging on the edge of a great new world. You need to get in touch with your
comrades and fellow workers and to become conscious of your interests, your powers and your
possibilities as a class. You need to know that you belong to the great majority of mankind. You
need to know that as long as you are ignorant, as long as you are indifferent, as long as you are
apathetic, unorganized and content, you will remain exactly where you are. You will be
exploited; you will be degraded, and you will have to beg for a job. You will get just enough for
your slavish toil to keep you in working order, and you will be looked down upon with scorn and
contempt by the very parasites that live and luxuriate out of your sweat and unpaid labor.
If you would be respected you have got to begin by respecting yourself. Stand up squarely and
look yourself in the face and see a man! Do not allow yourself to fall into the predicament of the
poor fellow who, after he had heard a Socialist speech concluded that he too ought to be a
Socialist. The argument he had heard was unanswerable. “Yes,” he said to himself, “all the
speaker said was true and I certainly ought to join the party.” But after a while he allowed his
ardor to cool and he soberly concluded that by joining the party he might anger his boss and
lose his job. He then concluded: “I can’t take the chance.” That night he slept alone. There was
something on his conscience and it resulted in a dreadful dream. Men always have such
dreams when they betray themselves. A Socialist is free to go to bed with a clear conscience.
He goes to sleep with his manhood and he awakens and walks forth in the morning with his selfrespect. He is unafraid and he can look the whole world in the face, without a tremor and
without a blush. But this poor weakling who lacked the courage to do the bidding of his reason
and conscience was haunted by a startling dream and at midnight he awoke in terror, bounded
from his bed and exclaimed: “My God, there is nobody in this room.” He was absolutely right.
There was nobody in that room.
How would you like to sleep in a room that had nobody in it? It is an awful thing to be nobody.
That is certainly a state of mind to get out of, the sooner the better.
There is a great deal of hope for Baker, Ruthenberg and Wagenknecht who are in jail for their
convictions; but for the fellow that is nobody there is no pardoning power. He is “in”for life.
Anybody can be nobody; but it takes a man to be somebody.
To turn your back on the corrupt Republican Party and the still more corrupt Democratic Party—
the gold-dust lackeys of the ruling class counts for still more after you have stepped out of those
popular and corrupt capitalist parties to join a minority party that has an ideal, that stands for a
principle, and fights for a cause. This will be the most important change you have ever made
and the time will come when you will thank me for having made the suggestion. It was the day
of days for me. I remember it well. It was like passing from midnight darkness to the noontide
light of day. It came almost like a flash and found me ready. It must have been in such a flash
that great, seething, throbbing Russia, prepared by centuries of slavery and tears and
martyrdom, was transformed from a dark continent to a land of living light.
There is something splendid, something sustaining and inspiring in the prompting of the heart to
be true to yourself and to the best you know, especially in a crucial hour of your life. You are in
the crucible today, my Socialist comrades! You are going to be tried by fire, to what extent no
one knows. If you are weak-fibered and fainthearted you will be lost to the Socialist movement.
We will have to bid you goodbye. You are not the stuff of which revolutions are made. We are
sorry for you unless you chance to be an “intellectual.” The “intellectuals,” many of them, are
already gone. No loss on our side nor gain on the other.
I am always amused in the discussion of the “intellectual” phase of this question. It is the same
old standard under which the rank and file are judged. What would become of the sheep if they
had no shepherd to lead them out of the wilderness into the land of milk and honey?
Oh, yes, “I am your shepherd and ye are my mutton.”
They would have us believe that if we had no “intellectuals” we would have no movement. They
would have our party, the rank and file, controlled by the“intellectual” bosses as the Republican
and Democratic parties are controlled. These capitalist parties are managed by “intellectual”
leaders and the rank and file are sheep that follow the bellwether to the shambles.
In the Republican and Democratic parties you of the common herd are not expected to think.
That is not only unnecessary but might lead you astray. That is what the “intellectual” leaders
are for. They do the thinking and you do the voting. They ride in carriages at the front where the
band plays and you tramp in the mud, bringing up the rear with great enthusiasm.
The capitalist system affects to have great regard and reward for intellect, and the capitalists
give themselves full credit for having superior brains. When we have ventured to say that the
time would come when the working class would rule they have bluntly answered “Never! it
requires brains to rule.” The workers of course have none. And they certainly try hard to prove it
by proudly supporting the political parties of their masters under whose administration they are
kept in poverty and servitude.
The government is now operating its railroads for the more effective prosecution of the war.
Private ownership has broken down utterly and the government has had to come to the rescue.
We have always said that the people ought to own the railroads and operate them for the
benefit of the people. We advocated that twenty years ago. But the capitalists and their
henchmen emphatically objected.“You have got to have brains to run the railroads,” they
tauntingly retorted. Well, the other day McAdoo, the governor-general of the railroads under
government operation; discharged all the high-salaried presidents and other supernumeraries.
In other words, he fired the“brains” bodily and yet all the trains have been coming and going on
schedule time. Have you noticed any change for the worse since the “brains” are gone? It is a
brainless system now, being operated by “hands.” But a good deal more efficiently than it had
been operated by so-called “brains” before. And this determines infallibly the quality of their
vaunted, high-priced capitalist “brains.” It is the kind you can get at a reasonable figure at the
market place. They have always given themselves credit for having superior brains and given
this as the reason for the supremacy of their class. It is true that they have the brains that
indicates the cunning of the fox, the wolf, but as for brains denoting real intelligence and the
measure of intellectual capacity they are the most woefully ignorant people on earth. Give me a
hundred capitalists just as you find them here in Ohio and let me ask them a dozen simple
questions about the history of their own country and I will prove to you that they are as ignorant
and unlettered as any you may find in the so-called lower class. They know little of history; they
are strangers to science; they are ignorant of sociology and blind to art but they know how to
exploit, how to gouge, how to rob, and do it with legal sanction. They always proceed legally for
the reaon that the class which has the power to rob upon a large scale has also the power to
control the government and legalize their robbery. I regret that lack of time prevents me from
discussing this phase of the question more at length.
They are continually talking about your patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that
they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them
to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.
And now among other things they are urging you to “cultivate” war gardens, while at the same
time a government war report just issued shows that practically 52 percent of the arable, tillable
soil is held out of use by the landlords, speculators and profiteers. They themselves do not
cultivate the soil. They could not if they would. Nor do they allow others to cultivate it. They keep
it idle to enrich themselves, to pocket the millions of dollars of unearned increment. Who is it
that makes this land valuable while it is fenced in and kept out of use? It is the people. Who
pockets this tremendous accumulation of value? The landlords. And these landlords who toil not
and spin not are supreme among American “patriots.”
In passing I suggest that we stop a moment to think about the term “landlord.” “LANDLORD!”
Lord of the Land! The lord of the land is indeed a superpatriot. This lord who practically owns
the earth tells you that we are fighting this war to make the world safe for democracy—he who
shuts out all humanity from his private domain; he who profiteers at the expense of the people
who have been slain and mutilated by multiplied thousands, under pretense of being the great
American patriot. It is he, this identical patriot who is in fact the archenemy of the people; it is he
that you need to wipe from power. It is he who is a far greater menace to your liberty and your
well-being than the Prussian Junkers on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.
Fifty-two percent of the land kept out of use, according to their own figures! They tell you that
there is an alarming shortage of flour and that you need to produce more. They tell you further
that you have got to save wheat so that more can be exported for the soldiers who are fighting
on the other side, while half of your tillable soil is held out of use by the landlords and profiteers.
What do you think of that?
Again, they tell you there is a coal famine now in the state of Ohio. The state of Indiana, where I
live, is largely underlaid with coal. There is practically an inexhaustible supply. The coal is
banked beneath our very feet. It is within touch all about us—all we can possibly use and more.
And here are the miners, ready to enter the mines. Here is the machinery ready to be put into
operation to increase the output to any desired capacity. And three weeks ago a national officer
of the United Mine Workers issued and published a statement to the Labor Department of the
United States government to the effect that the 600,000 coal miners in the United States at this
time, when they talk about a coal famine, are not permitted to work more than half time. I have
been around over Indiana for many years. I have often been in the coal fields; again and again I
have seen the miners idle while at the same time there was a scarcity of coal.
They tell you that you ought to buy your coal right away; that you may freeze next winter if you
do not. At the same time they charge you three prices for your coat Oh, yes, this ought to suit
you perfectly if you vote the Republican or Democratic ticket and believe in the private
ownership of the coal mines and their operation for private profit.
The coal mines now being privately owned, the operators want a scarcity of coal so they can
boost their prices and enrich themselves accordingly. If an abundance of coal were mined there
would be lower prices and this would not suit the mine owners. Prices soar and profits increase
when there is a scarcity of coal.
It is also apparent that there is collusion between the mine owners and the railroads. The mine
owners declare there are no cars while the railroad men insist that there is no coal. And
between them they delude, defraud and rob the people.
Let us illustrate a vital point. Here is the coal in great deposits all about us; here are the miners
and the machinery of production. Why should there be a coal famine upon the one hand and an
army of idle and hungry miners on the other hand? Is it not an incredibly stupid situation, an
almost idiotic if not criminal state of affairs?
We Socialists say: “Take possession of the mines in the name of the people.” Set the miners at
work and give every miner the equivalent of all the coal he produces. Reduce the work day in
proportion to the development of productive machinery. That would at once settle the matter of
a coal famine and of idle miners. But that is too simple a proposition and the people will have
none of it. The time will come, however, when the people will be driven to take such action for
there is no other efficient and permanent solution of the problem.
In the present system the miner, a wage slave, gets down into a pit 300 or 400 feet deep. He
works hard and produces a ton of coal. But he does not own an ounce of it. That coal belongs to
some mine-owning plutocrat who may be in New York or sailing the high seas in his private
yacht; or he may be hobnobbing with royalty in the capitals of Europe, and that is where most of
them were before the war was declared. The industrial captain, so- called, who lives in Paris,
London, Vienna or some other center of gaiety does not have to work to revel in luxury. He
owns the mines and he might as well own the miners.
That is where you workers are and where you will remain as long as you give your support to
the political parties of your masters and exploiters. You vote these miners out of a job and
reduce them to corporation vassals and paupers.
We Socialists say: “Take possession of the mines; call the miner to work and return to him the
equivalent of the value of his product.” He can then build himself a comfortable home; live in it;
enjoy it with his family. He can provide himself and his wife and children with clothes—good
clothes—not shoddy; wholesome food in abundance, education for the children, and the chance
to live the lives of civilized human beings, while at the same time the people will get coal at just
what it costs to mine it.
Of course that would be socialism as far as it goes. But you are not in favor of that program. It is
too visionary because it is so simple and practical. So you will have to continue to wait until
winter is upon you before you get your coal and then pay three prices for it because you insist
upon voting a capitalist ticket and giving your support to the present wage-slave system. The
trouble with you is that you are still in a capitalist state of mind.
Lincoln said: “If you want that thing that is the thing you want”; and you will get it to your heart’s
content. But some good day you will wake up and realize that a change is needed and wonder
why you did not know it long before. Yes, a change is certainly needed, not merely a change of
party but a change of system; a change from slavery to freedom and from despotism to
democracy, wide as the world. When this change comes at last, we shall rise from brutehood to
brotherhood, and to accomplish it we have to educate and organize the workers industrially and
politically, but not along the zigzag craft lines laid down by Gompers, who through all of his
career has favored the master class. You never hear the capitalist press speak of him
nowadays except in praise and adulation. He has recently come into great prominence as a
patriot. You never find him on the unpopular side of a great issue. He is always conservative,
satisfied to leave the labor problem to be settled finally at the banqueting board with Elihu Root,
Andrew Carnegie and the rest of the plutocratic civic federationists. When they drink wine and
smoke scab cigars together the labor question is settled so far as they are concerned.
And while they are praising Gompers they are denouncing the I.W.W. There are few men who
have the courage to say a word in favor of the I.W.W. I have. Let me say here that I have great
respect for the I.W.W. Far greater than I have for their infamous detractors.
Listen! There has just been published a pamphlet called “The Truth About the I.W.W.”It has
been issued after long and thorough investigation by five men of unquestioned standing in the
capitalist world. At the head of these investigators was Professor John Graham Brooks of
Harvard University, and next to him John A. Fish of the Survey of the Religious Organizations of
Pittsburgh, and Mr. Bruere, the government investigator. Five of these prominent men
conducted an impartial examination of the I.W.W. To quote their own words they “followed its
trail.” They examined into its doings beginning at Bisbee where the “patriots,” the cowardly
business men, the arch-criminals, made up the mob that deported 1,200 workingmen under the
most brutal conditions, charging them with being members of the I.W.W. when they knew it to
be false.
It is only necessary to label a man “I.W.W.” to have him lynched as they did Praeger, an
absolutely innocent man. He was a Socialist and bore a German name, and that was his crime.
A rumor was started that he was disloyal and he was promptly seized and lynched by the
cowardly mob of so-called “patriots.”
War makes possible all such crimes and outrages. And war comes in spite of the people. When
Wall Street says war the press says war and the pulpit promptly follows with its Amen. In every
age the pulpit has been on the side of the rulers and not on the side of the people. That is one
reason why the preachers so fiercely denounce the I.W.W.
Take the time to read this pamphlet about the I.W.W. Don’t take the word of Wall Street and its
press as final. Read this report by five impartial and highly reputable men who made their
investigation to know the truth, and that they might tell the truth to the American people. They
declare that the I.W.W. in all its career never committed as much violence against the ruling
class as the ruling class has committed against the I.W.W.
You are not now reading any reports in the daily press about the trial at Chicago, are you? They
used to publish extensive reports when the trial first began, and to prate about what they
proposed to prove against the I.W.W. as a gigantic conspiracy against the government. The trial
has continued until they have exhausted all their testimony and they have not yet proven
violence in a single instance. No, not one! They are utterly without incriminating testimony and
yet 112 men are in the dock after lying in jail for months without the shadow of a crime upon
them save that of belonging to the I.W.W. That is enough it would seem to convict any man of
any crime and send his body to prison and his soul to hell. Just whisper the name of the I.W.W.
and you are branded as a disloyalist. And the reason for this is wholly to the credit of the I.W.W.,
for whatever may be charged against it the I.W.W. has always fought for the bottom dog. And
that is why Haywood is despised and prosecuted while Gompers is lauded and glorified by the
same gang.
Now what you workers need is to organize, not along craft lines but along revolutionary
industrial lines. All of you workers in a given industry, regardless of your trade or occupation,
should belong to one and the same union.
Political action and industrial action must supplement and sustain each other. You will never
vote the Socialist republic into existence. You will have to lay its foundations in industrial
organization. The industrial union is the forerunner of industrial democracy. In the shop where
the workers are associated is where industrial democracy has its beginning. Organize according
to your industries! Get together in every department of industrial service! United and acting
together for the common good your power is invincible.
When you have organized industrially you will soon learn that you can manage as well as
operate industry. You will soon realize that you do not need the idle masters and exploiters.
They are simply parasites. They do not employ you as you imagine but you employ them to take
from you what you produce, and that is how they function in industry. You can certainly
dispense with them in that capacity. You do not need them to depend upon for your jobs. You
can never be free while you work and live by their sufferance. You must own your own tools and
then you will control your own jobs, enjoy the products of your own labor and be free men
instead of industrial slaves.
Organize industrially and make your organization complete. Then unite in the Socialist Party.
Vote as you strike and strike as you vote.
Your union and your party embrace the working class. The Socialist Party expresses the
interests, hopes and aspirations of the toilers of all the world.
Get your fellow workers into the industrial union and the political party to which they rightly
belong, especially this year, this historic year in which the forces of labor will assert themselves
as they never have before. This is the year that calls for men and women who have courage,
the manhood and womanhood to do their duty.
Get into the Socialist Party and take your place in its ranks; help to inspire the weak and
strengthen the faltering, and do your share to speed the coming of the brighter and better day
for us all.
When we unite and act together on the industrial field and when we vote together on election
day we shall develop the supreme power of the one class that can and will bring permanent
peace to the world. We shall then have the intelligence, the courage and the power for our great
task. In due time industry will be organized on a cooperative basis. We shall conquer the public
power. We shall then transfer the title deeds of the railroads, the telegraph lines, the mines,
mills and great industries to the people in their collective capacity; we shall take possession of
all these social utilities in the name of the people. We shall then have industrial democracy. We
shall be a free nation whose government is of and by and for the people.
And now for all of us to do our duty! The clarion call is ringing in our ears and we cannot falter
without being convicted of treason to ourselves and to our great cause.
Do not worry over the charge of treason to your masters, but be concerned about the treason
that involves yourselves. Be true to yourself and you cannot be a traitor to any good cause on
earth.
Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We
are going to destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free
and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism
is setting; the sun of socialism is rising. It is our duty to build the new nation and the free
republic. We need industrial and social builders. We Socialists are the builders of the beautiful
world that is to be. We are all pledged to do our part. We are inviting—aye challenging you this
afternoon in the name of your own manhood and womanhood to join us and do your part.
In due time the hour will strike and this great cause triumphant—the greatest in history—will
proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the brotherhood of all mankind.
E.V. Debs Internet Archive, 2001
Transcribed/HTML Markup: John Metz for the Illinois Socialist Party Debs Archive & David Walters for the Marxists Internet Archive
Debs Archive: http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1918/canton.htm
DOCUMENT 18: MANIFESTO AND PROGRAM.
CONSTITUTION. REPORT TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL [1919]
READ ON-LINE AT:
http://www.archive.org/stream/ManifestoAndProgram.Constitution.ReportToTheCommunistInternatio
nal/202295#page/n0/mode/2up
DOCUMENT 19: ROBERT BENCHLEY, “THE MAKING
OF A RED,” PUBLISHED IN THE NATION (MARCH
1919) IN RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL A.
MITCHELL PALMER’S WARRANTLESS
SURVEILLANCE OF AND RAIDS ON “BOLSHEVIK
AGITATORS,” AND THE ROUNDING UP FOR
DEPORTATION OF DANGEROUS “RADICALS”
You couldn’t have asked for anyone more regular than Peters. He was an eminently safe
citizen. Although not rich himself, he never chafed under the realization that there were others
who possessed great wealth. In fact, the thought gave him rather a comfortable feeling.
Furthermore, he was one of charter members of the war. Long before President [Woodrow]
Wilson saw the light, Peters was advocating the abolition of German from the public-school
curriculum. There was, therefore, absolutely nothing in his record which would in the slightest
degree alter the true blue of a patriotic litmus. And he considered himself a liberal when he
admitted that there might be something in this man [labor leader Samuel] Gompers, after all.
That is how safe he was.
But one night he made a slip. It was ever tiny a slip, but in comparison with it De Maupassant’s
famous piece of string was barren of consequences. Shortly before the United States entered
the war, Peters made a speech at a meeting of the Civic League in his home town. His subject
was “Interurban Highways: Their Development in the Past and Their Possibilities for the Future.”
So far, 100 percent American. But, in the course of his talk, he happened to mention the fact
that war, as an institution, has almost always had an injurious effect on public improvements of
all kinds. In fact (and note this well—the government’s sleuth in the audience did) he said that,
all other things being equal, if he were given his choice of war or peace in the abstract, he would
choose peace as a condition under which to live. Then he went on to discuss the comparative
values of macadam and wood blocks for paving.
In the audience was a civilian representative of the Military Intelligence Service. He had a
premonition that some sort of attempt was going to be made at this meeting of the Civic League
to discredit the war and America’s imminent participation therein. And he was not disappointed
(no Military Intelligence sleuth ever is), for in the remark of Peters, derogatory to war as an
institution, his sharp ear detected the accent of the Wilhelmstrasse.
Time went by. The United States entered the war, and Peters bought Liberty Bonds. He didn’t
join the Army, it is true, but, then, neither did James M. Beck, and it is an open secret that Mr.
Beck was for the war. Peters did what a few slangy persons called “his bit,” and not without a
certain amount of pride. But he did not hear the slow, grinding noise from that district in which
are located the mills of the gods. He did not even know that there was an investigation going on
in Washington to determine the uses to which German propaganda money had been put. That
is, he didn’t know it until he opened his newspaper one morning and, with that uncanny
precipitation with which a man’s eye lights on his own name, discovered that he had been
mentioned in the dispatches. At first he thought that it might be an honor list of Liberty Bond
holders, but a glance at the headline chilled that young hope in his breast. It read as follows:
Pro-German List Bared by Army Sleuth
Prominent Obstructionists Named at Senate Probe
And then came the list. Peters’s eye ran instinctively down to the place where, in what seemed
to him to be 24-point Gothic caps, was blazoned the name “Horace W. Peters, Pacifist Lecturer,
Matriculated at Germantown (Pa.) Military School.” Above his name was that of Emma
Goldman, “Anarchist.” Below came that of Fritz von Papen, “agent of the Imperial German
Government in America,” and Jeremiah O’Leary, “Irish and Pro-German Agitator.”
Peters was stunned. He telegraphed to his senator at Washington and demanded that the
outrageous libel be retracted. He telegraphed to the Military Intelligence office and demanded to
know who was the slanderer who had traduced him, and who in h-l this Captain Whatsisname
was who had submitted the report. He telegraphed to Secretary Baker and he cabled to the
President. And he was informed, by return stagecoach, that his telegrams had been received
and would be brought to the attention of the addressees at the earliest possible moment.
Then he went out to look up some of his friends, to explain that there had been a terrible
mistake somewhere. But he was coolly received. No one could afford to be seen talking with
him after what had happened. His partner merely said “Bad business, Horace. Bad business!”
The elevator starter pointed him out to a subordinate, and Peters heard him explain “That’s
Peters, Horace W. Peters. Did’je see his name in the papers this morning with them other
German spies?” At the club, little groups of his friends dissolved awkwardly when they saw him
approaching, and, after distant nods, disappeared in an aimless manner. After all, you could
hardly blame them.
The next morning the Tribune had a double-leaded editorial entitled “Oatmeal,” in which it was
stated that the disclosures in Washington were revealing the most insidious of all kinds of
German propaganda—that disseminated by supposedly respectable American citizens. “It is not
a tangible propaganda. It is an emotional propaganda. To the unwary it may resemble realestate news, or perhaps a patriotic song, but it is the pap of Prussianism. As an example, we
need go no further than Horace W. Peters. Mr. Peters’s hobby was interurban highways. A very
pretty hobby, Mr. Peters, but it won’t do. It won’t do.” The Times ran an editorial saying,
somewhere in the midst of a solid slab of type, that no doubt it would soon be found that Mr.
Peters nourished Bolshevist sentiments, along with his teammate Emma Goldman. Emma
Goldman! How Peters hated that woman! He had once written a letter to this very paper about
her, advocating her electrocution.
He dashed out again in a search of someone to whom he could explain. But the editorials had
done their work. The doorman at the club presented him with a letter from the House Committee
saying that, at a special meeting, it had been decided that he had placed himself in a position
offensive to the loyal members of the club and that it was with deep regret that they informed
him, etc. As he stumbled out into the street, he heard someone whisper to an out-of-town friend,
“There goes Emma Goldman’s husband.”
As the days went by, things grew unbelievably worse. He was referred to in public meetings
whenever an example of civic treachery was in order. A signed advertisement in the
newspapers protesting, on behalf of the lineal descendants of the Grand Duke Sergius, against
the spread of Bolshevism in northern New Jersey, mentioned a few prominent snakes in the
grass, such as Trotzky, Victor Berger, Horace W. Peters, and Emma Goldman.
Then something snapped. Peters began to let his hair grow long and neglected his linen. Each
time he was snubbed on the street he uttered a queer guttural sound and made a mark in a little
book he carried about with him. He bought a copy of “Colloquial Russian at a Glance,” and
began picking out inflammatory sentences from the Novy Mir. His wife packed up and went to
stay with her sister when he advocated, one night at dinner, the communization of women. The
last prop of respectability having been removed, the descent was easy. Emma Goldman, was
it? Very well, then, Emma Goldman it should be! Bolshevist, was he? They had said it! “After all,
who is to blame for this?” he mumbled to himself "Capitalism! Militarism! Those Prussians in the
Intelligence Department and the Department of Justice! The damnable bourgeoisie who sit back
and read their Times and their Tribune and believe what they read there!" He had tried
explanations. He had tried argument. There was only one thing left. He found it on page 112 of
a little book of Emma Goldman’s that he always carried around with him.
You may have read about Peters the other day. He was arrested, wearing a red shirt over his
business cutaway and carrying enough TNT to shift the Palisades back into the Hackensack
marshes. He was identified by an old letter in his pocket from Henry Cabot Lodge thanking him
for a telegram of congratulation Peters had once sent him on the occasion of a certain speech in
the Senate.
The next morning the Times said, editorially, that it hoped the authorities now saw that the only
way to crush Bolshevism was by the unrelenting use of force.
Source: Robert Benchley, “The Making of a Red,” Nation 15 March 1919. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4982
DOCUMENT 20: “CHICAGOANS CHEER TAR WHO
SHOT MAN,” ARTICLE IN THE WASHINGTON POST,
(MAY 7, 1919)
CHICAGOANS CHEER TAR WHO SHOT MAN ; SAILOR WOUNDS PAGEANT SPECTATOR
DISRESPECTFUL TO FLAG
Chicago, May 6—Disrespect for the American flag and a show of resentment toward the
thousands who participated in a victory loan pageant here tonight may cost George Goddard his
life. He was shot down by a sailor of the United States navy when he did not stand and remove
his hat while the band was playing the “Star-Spangled Banner.”
Goddard had a seat of vantage in the open amphitheater. When he failed to stand he was the
most conspicuous figure among the throng. When he fell at the report of the “sailor’s” gun the
crowd burst into cheers and hand-clapping. When Goddard failed to respond to the first strains
of the national anthem Samuel Hagerman, sailor in the guard of honor, asked him to get up.
“What for?” demanded Goddard.
"Hagerman touched him with his bayonet.
“Get up. Off with your hat.”
Goddard muttered and drew a pistol.
With military precision Hagerman stepped back a pace and slipped a shell into his gun.
Goddard started away. As the last notes of the anthem sounded the sailor commanded him to
halt. Then he fired into the air.
“Halt!”
Goddard paid no attention.
The sailor aimed and fired three times. Goddard fell wounded. Each shot found its mark.
When he [Goddard] was searched, an automatic pistol, in addition to the one he had drawn,
was found. Another pistol and fifty cartridges were found in a bag he carried. He said he was a
tinsmith, out of work. Papers showed he had been at Vancouver and Seattle and it was believed
by the authorities he had come here for the I.W.W. convention.
Source: Washington Post, 7 May 1919, 2. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4981
DOCUMENT 21: ATTORNEY GENERAL A. MITCHELL
PALMER MAKES “THE CASE AGAINST THE REDS” IN
FORUM 63 (1920) JUSTIFYING HIS “RED” RAIDS AND
DEPORTATION CAMPAIGN, 1919-1921
In this brief review of the work which the Department of Justice has undertaken, to tear out the
radical seeds that have entangled American ideas in their poisonous theories, I desire not
merely to explain what the real menace of communism is, but also to tell how we have been
compelled to clean up the country almost unaided by any virile legislation. Though I have not
been embarrassed by political opposition, I have been materially delayed because the present
sweeping processes of arrests and deportation of seditious aliens should have been vigorously
pushed by Congress last spring. The failure of this is a matter of record in the Congressional
files.
The anxiety of that period in our responsibility when Congress, ignoring the seriousness of
these vast organizations that were plotting to overthrow the Government, failed to act, has
passed. The time came when it was obviously hopeless to expect the hearty cooperation of
Congress in the only way to stamp out these seditious societies in their open defiance of law by
various forms of propaganda.
Like a prairie-fire, the blaze of revolution was sweeping over every American institution of law
and order a year ago. It was eating its way into the homes of the American workmen, its sharp
tongues of revolutionary heat were licking the altars of the churches, leaping into the belfry of
the school bell, crawling into the sacred corners of American homes, seeking to replace
marriage vows with libertine laws, burning up the foundations of society.
Robbery, not war, is the ideal of communism. This has been demonstrated in Russia, Germany,
and in America. As a foe, the anarchist is fearless of his own life, for his creed is a fanaticism
that admits no respect of any other creed. Obviously it is the creed of any criminal mind, which
reasons always from motives impossible to clean thought. Crime is the degenerate factor in
society.
Upon these two basic certainties, first that the “Reds” were criminal aliens and secondly that the
American Government must prevent crime, it was decided that there could be no nice
distinctions drawn between the theoretical ideals of the radicals and their actual violations of our
national laws. An assassin may have brilliant intellectuality, he may be able to excuse his
murder or robbery with fine oratory, but any theory which excuses crime is not wanted in
America. This is no place for the criminal to flourish, nor will he do so so long as the rights of
common citizenship can be exerted to prevent him.
Our Government In Jeopardy
It has always been plain to me that when American citizens unite upon any national issue they
are generally right, but it is sometimes difficult to make the issue clear to them. If the
Department of Justice could succeed in attracting the attention of our optimistic citizens to the
issue of internal revolution in this country, we felt sure there would be no revolution. The
Government was in jeopardy; our private information of what was being done by the
organization known as the Communist Party of America, with headquarters in Chicago, of what
was being done by the Communist Internationale under their manifesto planned at Moscow last
March by Trotzky, Lenin and others addressed “To the Proletariats of All Countries,” of what
strides the Communist Labor Party was making, removed all doubt. In this conclusion we did not
ignore the definite standards of personal liberty, of free speech, which is the very temperament
and heart of the people. The evidence was examined with the utmost care, with a personal
leaning toward freedom of thought and word on all questions.
The whole mass of evidence, accumulated from all parts of the country, was scrupulously
scanned, not merely for the written or spoken differences of viewpoint as to the Government of
the United States, but, in spite of these things, to see if the hostile declarations might not be
sincere in their announced motive to improve our social order. There was no hope of such a
thing.
By stealing, murder and lies, Bolshevism has looted Russia not only of its material strength but
of its moral force. A small clique of outcasts from the East Side of New York has attempted this,
with what success we all know. Because a disreputable alien—Leon Bronstein, the man who
now calls himself Trotzky—can inaugurate a reign of terror from his throne room in the Kremlin,
because this lowest of all types known to New York can sleep in the Czar’s bed, while hundreds
of thousands in Russia are without food or shelter, should Americans be swayed by such
doctrines?
Such a question, it would seem, should receive but one answer from America.
My information showed that communism in this country was an organization of thousands of
aliens who were direct allies of Trotzky. Aliens of the same misshapen caste of mind and
indecencies of character, and it showed that they were making the same glittering promises of
lawlessness, of criminal autocracy to Americans, that they had made to the Russian peasants.
How the Department of Justice discovered upwards of 60,000 of these organized agitators of
the Trotzky doctrine in the United States is the confidential information upon which the
Government is now sweeping the nation clean of such alien filth. . . .
Will Deportation Check Bolshevism?
Behind, and underneath, my own determination to drive from our midst the agents of
Bolshevism with increasing vigor and with greater speed, until there are no more of them left
among us, so long as I have the responsible duty of that task, I have discovered the hysterical
methods of these revolutionary humans with increasing amazement and suspicion. In the
confused information that sometimes reaches the people they are compelled to ask questions
which involve the reasons for my acts against the “Reds.” I have been asked, for instance, to
what extent deportation will check radicalism in this country. Why not ask what will become of
the United States Government if these alien radicals are permitted to carry out the principles of
the Communist Party as embodied in its so-called laws, aims and regulations?
There wouldn’t be any such thing left. In place of the United States Government we should have
the horror and terrorism of bolsheviki tyranny such as is destroying Russia now. Every scrap of
radical literature demands the overthrow of our existing government. All of it demands
obedience to the instincts of criminal minds, that is, to the lower appetites, material and moral.
The whole purpose of communism appears to be a mass formation of the criminals of the world
to overthrow the decencies of private life, to usurp property that they have not earned, to disrupt
the present order of life regardless of health, sex or religious rights. By a literature that promises
the wildest dreams of such low aspirations, that can occur to only the criminal minds,
communism distorts our social law. . . .
It has been inferred by the “Reds” that the United States Government, by arresting and
deporting them, is returning to the autocracy of Czardom, adopting the system that created the
severity of Siberian banishment. My reply to such charges is that in our determination to
maintain our government we are treating our alien enemies with extreme consideration. To deny
them the privilege of remaining in a country which they have openly deplored as an
unenlightened community, unfit for those who prefer the privileges of Bolshevism, should be no
hardship. It strikes me as an odd form of reasoning that these Russian Bolsheviks who extol the
Bolshevik rule should be so unwilling to return to Russia. The nationality of most of the alien
“Reds” is Russian and German. There is almost no other nationality represented among them.
It has been impossible in so short a space to review the entire menace of the internal revolution
in this country as I know it, but this may serve to arouse the American citizen to its reality, its
danger, and the great need of united effort to stamp it out, under our feet, if needs be. It is being
done. The Department of Justice will pursue the attack of these “Reds” upon the Government of
the United States with vigilance, and no alien, advocating the overthrow of existing law and
order in this country, shall escape arrest and prompt deportation.
It is my belief that while they have stirred discontent in our midst, while they have caused
irritating strikes, and while they have infected our social ideas with the disease of their own
minds and their unclean morals we can get rid of them and not until we have done so shall we
have removed the menace of Bolshevism for good.
Source: A. Mitchell Palmer, “The Case Against the ‘Reds’,” Forum 63 (1920): 173–185. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4993
DOCUMENT 22: L. S. G., “THE MOST BRAINIEST
MAN,” ARTICLE IN THE NATION 110 (April 17, 1920)
A Bond salesman named Herbert Warner walked into a clothing store in Waterbury,
Connecticut, in January. He had been told that some one there might buy bonds. Joseph
Yenowsky, a salesman, met him. Yenowsky’s savings consisted of $300 in Liberty bonds, and
he refused to convert them. The result was an argument about bonds, sugar, and Lenin,
followed by Yenowsky’s conviction under the Connecticut Sedition law, and his sentence to six
months in jail
This Connecticut Sedition law, be it said, is one of the shortest and most comprehensive laws
on the statute books. “No person,” it declares, “shall in public, or before any assemblage of ten
or more persons, advocate in any language any measure, doctrine, proposal, or propaganda
intended to injuriously affect the Government of the United States or the State of Connecticut.”
The measure advocated, it will be noted, need not involve force or illegality; the sole test of its
criminality is some one’s opinion as to what is “injurious.”
Now Yenowsky is a Socialist and a member of the American Legion, and on both counts he
disliked a bond salesman who had never been in the army. When Warner suggested
opportunities for rapid wealth, Yenowsky retorted “There is only one way of making money
quick, and that is to steal it.” "Steal in a legal way,“ he explained. ”Rockefeller, he can go out
and steal millions and get away with it."
Here the testimony diverges. According to Warner, “We talked on some things which I do not
remember.” According to Yenowsky, Warner thought Rockefeller’s method “a good way to get
ahead.” This naturally led the discussion to wander. It touched the price of sugar, and led to a
copy of the Liberator lying on the table. Yenowsky pointed to a picture of Lenin.
“There is what I consider one of the brainiest men in the world,” he says he remarked.
According to Warner, however, he declared that Lenin was “the greatest, the most brainiest man
on earth today.”
“Are you sure he used that expression?” the Magistrate asked, when the case came up in court.
“Yes.”
“The most brainiest man on earth?”
“Yes, the greatest and the most brainiest man.”
“Which did he say?”
“He said the most brainy man on earth today.”
“He said the most brainy, not the most brainiest, man?”
“Yes.”
“On earth today?”
“Yes.”
This matter settled, the Court relapsed into silence.
Warner, however, had more to day. He insisted that a third man had intervened to declare that
Yenowsky was a “Bolsheviki.” According to Warner, Yenowsky had also said he did not like the
government of the United States, and would like to see a soviet form of government here, but
that he would not go back to Russia because he was going to “stay here and fight for the
freedom of the government.” At that, Warner reported, “I got so thoroughly wrought up I could
not stand it any longer.” So he went out and got a detective to arrest Yenowsky.
This entire conversation was denied by Yenowsky. It was also denied by Abraham Lichtenstein,
proprietor of the clothing store, who heard the discussion, and by another employee. The man,
who according to Warner, had intervened to declare Yenowsky was “a Bolsheviki,” could not be
discovered, and the only other weirdnesses at the trial were character witnesses for the
defendant. Lichtenstein remembered the argument about bonds, but had heard nothing about
the government of the United States or soviets. “They were arguing about bonds, see,” he
testified, “and he said he has got enough bonds, and he showed him the picture, That is were
that man got hot-headed. . . . Mr. Yenowksy said ‘He [Lenin] is a brave man,’ and that is all.”
Louis Levine, the other clerk, heard them “arguing about sugar, twenty-five cents a pound, and
then they were talking about bank bonds, and then when the argument was all over Mr. Warner
got hot-headed and asked Mr. Yenowsky for his name, and Mr. Yenowsky refused to give him
his name, and he went out and he brought a detective with him and they took Mr. Yenowsky to
the station.”
Charles M. Peach, twice Socialist candidate for mayor of Waterbury, and John W. Ring,
secretary of the Socialist local, testified to Yenowsky’s reputation for truth and veracity, and that
they had never discovered symptoms of communism or anarchism in his conversation.
The Court was once more aroused to interest. “You did not talk about the principles of Lenin or
Trotzky or any of those people?” The Court was back on the trail of the most brainiest man.
“No,” Ring replied, “I know nothing about them only what I have read in the newspapers here.”
“And more than most of us want to know about them,” came from the Magistrate.
The defense rested. There was no summing-up.
“I will take jurisdiction,” the Court announced immediately. “Six months in jail. Bonds for an
appeal, $51,000.”
Source: L. S. G., “The Most Brainiest Man,” Nation 110 (April 17, 1920): 510–511. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4980
DOCUMENT 23: HEADLINES AND SEPT. 17, 1920 NEW
YORK TIMES ARTICLE: SCENE OF THE FATAL
EXPLOSION IN WALL STREET
HAVOC WROUGHT IN MORGAN OFFICES ; WIRE SCREEN A SHIELD ; POLICE GUARD
OFFICES ; LIKE SNOW, SAYS MARKLE, SAYS MARKLE, INJURED COAL OPERATOR
DESCRIBES GLASS SHOWER IN MORGAN OFFICES.
One employe[e] of J.P. Morgan Co., William Joyce, of the securities department, was killed
yesterday by the explosion in Wall Street between the Morgan Co. building and the United
States Assay Office….
READ THE REMAINDER OF THE TEXT ONLINE AT: http://uery.nytimes.com/mem/archivefree/pdf?res=9C05E5D61E31E433A25754C1A96F9C946195D6CF
ALIENS & THE ANARCHIST THREAT IN AMERICA
DOCUMENT 24: Felix Frankfurter, “The Case of Sacco
and Vanzetti,” The Atlantic (March 1927)
For more than six years the Sacco-Vanzetti case has been before the courts of Massachusetts.
In a state where ordinary murder trials are promptly dispatched such extraordinary delay in itself
challenges attention. The fact is that a long succession of disclosures has aroused interest far
beyond the boundaries of Massachusetts and even of the United States, until the case has
become one of those rare causes célèbres which are of international concern. The aim of this
paper is to give in the briefest compass an accurate résumé of the facts of the case from its
earliest stages to its present posture.
I.
At about three o'clock in the afternoon of April 15, 1920, Parmenter, a paymaster, and
Berardelli, his guard, were fired upon and killed by two men armed with pistols, as they were
carrying two boxes containing the pay roll of the shoe factory of Slater and Morrill, amounting to
$15,776.51, from the company's office building to the factory through the main street of South
Braintree, Massachusetts. As the murder was being committed, a car containing several other
men drew up to the spot. The murderers threw the two boxes into the car, jumped in
themselves, and were driven away at high speed across some near-by railroad tracks. Two
days later this car was found abandoned in woods at a distance from the scene of the crime.
At the time of the Braintree holdup the police were investigating a similar crime in the
neighboring town of Bridgewater. In both cases a gang was involved. In both they made off in a
car. In both eyewitnesses believed the criminals to be Italians. In the Bridgewater holdup the car
had left the scene in the direction of Cochesett. Chief Stewart of Bridgewater was therefore, at
the time of the Braintree murder, on the trail of an Italian owning or driving a car in Cochesett.
He found his man in one Boda, whose car was in a garage awaiting repairs. Stewart instructed
the garage proprietor to telephone to the police when anyone came to fetch it. Pursuing his
theory, Stewart found that Boda had been living in Cochesett with a radical named Coacci. Now
on April 16, 1920, which was the day after the Braintree murders, Stewart, at the instance of the
Department of Justice, then engaged in the wholesale rounding up of Reds, had been to the
house of Coacci to see why he had failed to appear at a hearing regarding his deportation. He
found Coacci packing a trunk and apparently very anxious to leave. At the time, Coacci's trunk
and his haste to depart for Italy were not connected in Chief Stewart's mind with the Braintree
affair. But when, subsequently, the tracks of a smaller car were found near the murder car, he
surmised that this car was Boda's; and in the light of his later discoveries he jumped to the
conclusion that Coacci, Boda's pal, had "skipped with the swag." As a matter of fact, the
contents of the trunk were found eventually to be wholly innocent. In the meantime, however,
Chief Stewart continued to work on his theory that whosoever called for Boda's car at Johnson's
garage would be suspect of the Braintree crime. On the night of May 5, Boda and three other
Italians did in fact call. To explain how they came to do so we must go back a few days.
During the proceedings for the wholesale deportation of Reds under Attorney General Palmer in
the spring of l920, one Salsedo was held incommunicado in a room in the New York offices of
the Department of Justice, on the fourteenth floor of a Park Row building. This Salsedo was a
radical friend of Boda and his companions. On May 4 these friends learned that Salsedo had
been found dead on the sidewalk outside the Park Row building. Already frightened by the Red
raids, they bestirred themselves to "hide the literature and notify the friends against the federal
police." For this purpose an automobile was needed, and they turned to Boda.
Such were the circumstances under which the four Italians appeared on the evening of May 5 at
the Johnson garage. Two of them were Sacco and Vanzetti. The car was not available and the
Italians left, but the police were notified. Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested on a street car, Boda
escaped, and the fourth, Orciani, was arrested the next day.
Chief Stewart at once sought to apply his theory of the commission of the two "jobs" by one
gang. The theory, however, broke down. Orciani had been at work on the days of both crimes,
so he was let go. Sacco, a shoe operative, in steady employment at a shoe factory in
Stoughton, had taken a day off, and this was April 15. Hence, while he could not be charged
with the Bridgewater crime, he was charged with the Braintree murder. Vanzetti, as a fish
peddler at Plymouth and his own employer, could not give the same kind of alibi for either day
and so he was held for both crimes. Stewart's theory that the crime was committed by these
Italian radicals was not shared by the head of the state police, who always maintained that it
was the work of professionals. [In this account of the joint trial of Sacco and Vanzetti the details
of Vanzetti's separate trial cannot find a place. But Vanzetti's prosecution for the Bridgewater
job was merely a phase of the South Braintree affair.].
Charged with the crime of murder on May 5, Sacco and Vanzetti were indicted on September
14, 1920, and put on trial May 21, 1921, at Dedham, Norfolk County. The setting of the trial, in
the courthouse opposite the old home of Fisher Ames, furnished a striking contrast to the
background and antecedents of the prisoners. Dedham is a quiet residential suburb, inhabited
by well-to-do Bostonians, with a surviving element of New England small farmers. Part of the
jury was specially selected by the sheriff's deputies from Masonic gatherings and from persons
whom the deputies deemed "representative citizens," "substantial" and "intelligent." The
presiding judge was Webster Thayer of Worcester. The chief counsel for these Italians was a
Westerner, a radical and a professional defender of radicals. In opinion, as well as in fact, he
was an outsider. Unfamiliar with the traditions of the Massachusetts bench, not even a member
of the Massachusetts bar, the characteristics of Judge Thayer unknown to him, Fred H. Moore
found neither professional nor personal sympathies between himself and the Judge. So far as
the relations between court and counsel seriously, even if unconsciously, affect the current of a
trial, Moore was a factor of irritation. Sacco and Vanzetti spoke very broken English and their
testimony shows how often they misunderstood the questions put to them. In fact, an interpreter
had to be used, whose conduct raised such doubts that the defendants brought their own
interpreter to check his questions and answers. The trial lasted nearly seven weeks, and on July
14, 1921, Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty of murder in the first degree.
II.
So far as the crime is concerned, we are dealing with a conventional case of payroll robbery. At
the trial the killing of Parmenter and Berardelli was undisputed. The only issue was the identity
of the murderers. Were Sacco and Vanzetti two of the assailants of Parmenter and Berardelli, or
were they not?
On this issue there was at the trial a mass of conflicting evidence. Fifty-nine witnesses testified
for the Commonwealth and ninety-nine for the defendants. The evidence offered by the
Commonwealth was not the same against both defendants. The theory of the prosecution was
that Sacco did the actual shooting while Vanzetti sat in the car as one of the collaborators in a
conspiracy to murder. Witnesses testified to having seen both defendants in South Braintree on
the morning of April l5; they claimed to recognize Sacco as the man who shot the guard
Berardelli and to have seen him subsequently escape in the car. Expert testimony (the
character of which, in the light of subsequent events, constitutes one of the most important
features of the case and will be dealt with later) was offered seeking to connect one of four
bullets removed from Berardelli's body with the Colt pistol found on Sacco at the time of his
arrest. As to Vanzetti, the Commonwealth adduced evidence placing him at the murder car.
Moreover, the Commonwealth introduced the conduct of the defendants, as evinced by pistols
found on their persons and lies admittedly told by them when arrested, as further proof of
identification, in that such conduct revealed "consciousness of guilt."
The defense met the Commonwealth's eyewitnesses by other eyewitnesses, slightly more
numerous and at least as well circumstanced to observe the assailants, who testified that the
defendants were not the men they saw. Their testimony was confirmed by witnesses who
proved the presence of Sacco and Vanzetti elsewhere at the time of the murder. Other
witnesses supported Sacco's testimony that on April l5—the day that he was away from work—
he was in Boston seeing about a passport to Italy, whither he was planning shortly to return to
visit his recently bereaved father. The truth of that statement was supported by an official of the
Italian consulate in Boston who deposed that Sacco visited his consulate at an hour that made it
impossible for him to have been one of the Braintree murder gang. The claim of Vanzetti that on
April 15 he was pursuing his customary trade as fish peddler was sustained by a number of
witnesses who had been his customers that day.
From this summary it must be evident that the trustworthiness of the testimony which placed
Sacco and Vanzetti in South Braintree on April 15 is the foundation of the case.
I. As to Sacco:—
The character of the testimony of the five witnesses who definitely identified Sacco as in the car
or on the spot at the time of the murders demands critical attention. These witnesses were Mary
Splaine, Frances Devlin, Lola Andrews, Louis Pelzer, Carlos E. Goodridge.
1. Splaine and Devlin were working together on the second floor of the Slater and Morrill factory
with windows giving on the railroad crossing about sixty feet away. Both heard the shot, ran to
the window, and saw an automobile crossing the tracks. Splaine's identification of Sacco as one
of the occupants of this escaping car was one of the chief reliances of the prosecution. Viewing
the scene from a distance of from sixty to eighty feet, she saw a man previously unknown to her
in a car traveling at the rate of from fifteen to eighteen miles per hour, and she saw him only for
a distance of about thirty feet—that is to say, for from one and a half to three seconds. Yet after
more than a year she testified:—
The man that appeared between the back of the front seat and the back seat was a man slightly
taller than the witness. He weighed possibly from 140 to 145 pounds. He was muscular, an
active-looking man. His left hand was a goodsized hand, a hand that denoted strength.
Q. So that the hand you said you saw where? A. The left hand, that was placed on the back of
the front seat. He had a gray, what I thought was a shirt—had a grayish, like navy color, and the
face was what we would call clear-cut, clean-cut face. Through here [indicating] was a little
narrow, just a little narrow. The forehead was high. The hair was brushed back and it was
between, I should think, two inches and two and one-half inches in length and had dark
eyebrows, but the complexion was a white, peculiar white that looked greenish.
Q. Is that the same man you saw at Brockton?
A. It is.
Q. Are you sure?
A. Positive.
The startling acuity of Splaine's vision was, as a matter of fact, the product of a year's reflection.
Immediately after Sacco's arrest the police, in violation of approved police methods for the
identification of suspects, brought Sacco alone into Splaine's presence. Then followed in about
three weeks the preliminary hearing at which Sacco and Vanzetti were bound over for the grand
jury. At this hearing—only forty days after the crime—Splaine was unable to identify Sacco.
Q. You don't feel certain enough in your position to say he is the man?
A. I don't think my opportunity afforded me the right to say he is the man.
When confronted with this contradiction between her uncertainty a month after her observation
and her certainty more than a year after her observation; she first took refuge in a claim of
inaccuracy in the transcript of the stenographer's minutes. This charge she later withdrew and
finally maintained:—
From the observation I had of him in the Quincy court and the comparison of the man I saw in
the machine, on reflection I was sure he was the same man.
Then followed this cross-examination:—
Q. Your answer in the lower court was you didn't have opportunity to observe him. What did you
mean when you said you didn't have opportunity sufficient, kindly tell us, you didn't have
sufficient opportunity to observe him?
A. Well, he was passing on the street.
Q. He was passing on the street and you didn't have sufficient opportunity to observe him to
enable you to identify him?
A. That is what I meant.
Q. That is the only opportunity you had?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have had no other opportunity but that one meeting glance?
A. The remembrance of that.
Let Dr. Morton Prince, professor of dynamic psychology at Harvard University, comment on this
testimony:—
I do not hesitate to say that the star witness for the government testified, honestly enough, no
doubt, to what was psychologically impossible. Miss Splaine testified, though she had only seen
Sacco at the time of the shooting from a distance of about sixty feet for from one and one-half to
three seconds in a motor car going at an increasing rate of speed at about fifteen to eighteen
miles an hour; that she saw and at the end of a year she remembered and described sixteen
different details of his person, even to the size of his hand, the length of his hair as being
between two and two and one-half inches long, and the shade of his eyebrows! Such perception
and memory under such conditions can be easily proved to be psychologically impossible.
Every psychologist knows that—so does Houdini. And what shall we think of the animus and
honesty of the state that introduces such testimony to convict, knowing that the jury is too
ignorant to disbelieve?
2. Devlin, at Quincy a month after the murder, merely said, "He [Sacco] looks very much like the
man that stood up in the back seat shooting."
Q. Do you say positively he is the man?
A. I don't say positively.
At the trial, over a year later, she had no doubt and when asked, "Have you at any time had any
doubt of your identification of this man?" replied, "No." The obvious discrepancy of an
identification reaching certainty by lapse of time, without any additional opportunity for
verification, she explained thus: "At the time there I had in my own mind that he was the man,
but on account of the immensity of the crime and everything, I hated to say right out and out."
The inherent improbability of making any such accurate identification on the basis of a fleeting
glimpse of an unknown man in the confusion of a sudden alarm is affirmed by the testimony of
two other eyewitnesses. Ferguson and Pierce, from a window above Splaine and Devlin, on the
next floor of the factory, had substantially the same view. They found it impossible to make any
identification.
3. Pelzer, a young shoe-cutter, swore that when he heard the shooting he pulled up his window,
took a glance at the scene, and saw the man who murdered Berardelli.
Q. How long did you stay in the window?
A. Oh, about—I would say about a minute....
Q. Then what did you do?
A. I seen everything happen about that time, about in a minute.
This was the foundation for the following identification:—
Q. Do you see in the courtroom the man you saw shooting Berardelli that day?
A. Well, I wouldn't say it was him, but he is a dead image of him.
Witness points out Mr. Sacco.
Q. Have you seen him since that time until you saw him in the courtroom?
A. No, sir.
Witness was shown picture of him by Mr. Williams to-day.
Q. You say you wouldn't say it is him, but he is the dead image of him? What do you mean by
that?
A. Well, he has got the same appearance.
On cross-examination Pelzer admitted that immediately after Sacco's arrest, on May 6 or 7, he
was unable to make any identification. His inability in May 1920 to make the identification which
he made in June 1921 was confirmed by three fellow workmen. Two of them testified that
instead of pulling up the window he took shelter under a bench, and the third in addition said: "I
heard him say that he did not see anybody."
Pelzer's tergiversations and falsifications extracted from the District Attorney, Mr. Katzmann, the
following eulogy:—
He was frank enough here, gentlemen, to own that he had twice falsified before to both sides,
treating them equally and alike, and he gave you his reason. I think he added that he had never
been in court before. If not, somebody has and I confused him. It is of little consequence. He is
big enough and manly enough now to tell you of his prior falsehoods and his reasons for them.
If you accept them, gentlemen, give such weight to his testimony as you say should be given.
4. Lola Andrews, a woman of doubtful reputation, testified that at about 11 A.M. on the day of
the murders, while in company with a Mrs. Campbell, she saw an automobile standing outside
the Slater and Morrill factory. She saw a "very light" man inside the car (concededly neither
Sacco nor Vanzetti) and another man "bending over the hood of the car," whom she
characterized as a "dark-complexioned man." She went into the factory in search of a job and at
the time "had no talk with either of the men." When she came out "fifteen minutes later" the dark
man "was down under the car like he was fixing something" and she asked him the way to
another factory. He told her. That was the whole conversation between them. After Sacco's
arrest she was taken to the Dedham jail and identified Sacco as the dark-complexioned man.
She again identified him at the trial.
How came she to connect the dark man under the car with the murders which took place four
hours later?
Q. Would you say that the man had a fuller or more slender face [than the man in a photograph
shown to the witness]?
A. I don't know. He had a funny face....
Q. Meaning by that a face that was not a kindly face, a kind of brutal face?
A. He did not have a real good looking face.
Q. (by the District Attorney) What came to your mind, if anything, when you learned of the
shooting?
A. Why, the only way I can answer that is this: When I heard of the shooting I somehow
associated the man I saw at the car.
Four reputable witnesses completely discredited the Andrews testimony. The following sample
must suffice. It is the testimony of a Quincy shopkeeper.
I said to her, 'Hello, Lola,' and she stopped and she answered me. While she answered me I
said, 'You look kind of tired.' She says, 'Yes.' She says, 'They are bothering the life out of me.' I
says, 'What?' She says, 'I just come from jail.' I says, 'What have you done in jail?' She says,
'The Government took me down and want me to recognize those men.' she says, 'and I don't
know a thing about them. I have never seen them and I can't recognize them.' She says,
'Unfortunately I have been down there to get a job and I have seen many men that I don't know
and I have never paid any attention to anyone.'
Yet the District Attorney not only offered the Andrews testimony for the consideration of the jury,
but gave it the weightiest possible personal sponsorship:—
And then there is Lola Andrews. I have been in this office, gentlemen, for now more than eleven
years. I cannot recall in that too long service for the Commonwealth that ever before I have laid
eye or given ear to so convincing a witness as Lola Andrews.
5. Carlos E. Goodridge (who after the trial was discovered to be a fugitive from justice in another
state and to have given evidence under a false name) swore that at the time of the shooting he
was in a poolroom in South Braintree, heard shots, stepped to the door, and saw an automobile
coming toward him, and that when he got to the sidewalk a man in the automobile "poked a gun
over towards him," whereupon he "went back into the poolroom." About seven months later he
identified Sacco as the man for the first time and identified him again at the trial.
Four witnesses, including his employer, squarely contradicted Goodridge's belated
identification. Even when completely disinterested, identification testimony runs all the grave
hazards due to the frailties and fallibilities of human observation and memory. But Goodridge's
testimony, in addition to everything else, was tainted with self-interest. At the time he was a
witness for the Commonwealth, he was facing jail under an indictment for larceny to which he
had pleaded guilty. The case "had been filed,"—that is, no sentence had been imposed,—and
Goodridge had been placed on probation. The Judge did not allow the defense to show that
Goodridge's testimony on behalf of the Commonwealth was influenced by leniency previously
shown to him by the District Attorney in connection with the confessed charge of larceny and by
fear of losing his immunity. In the light of settled principles of the law of evidence, this ruling,
though later sustained by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, is indefensible.
II. As to Vanzetti:—
The Commonwealth offered two witnesses who claimed to identify Vanzetti as an occupant of
the murder car. Of these one, Dolbeare, claimed to have seen him hours before the murder,
leaving only a single individual, LeVangie, who claimed to have seen him on the spot. The
Commonwealth sought to piece out the tenuous testimony by the evidence of two other
witnesses who claimed to have seen Vanzetti during the day of the murder elsewhere than at
Plymouth, but not at South Braintree. One witness, Faulkner, testified to recollecting a fellow
passenger on a train going from Cochesett to Boston who got out at East Braintree at 9.54, and
identified Vanzetti as that passenger. The basis of Faulkner's recollection was so frail, and was
so fully destroyed by three railroad officials, that further recital of his testimony is superfluous.
Finally Reed, a crossing tender, purported to recognize Vanzetti as the man sitting on the front
seat of a car which he claimed to identify as the murder car. This was at some distance from
Braintree, more than an hour after the murders. Reed's testimony placing Vanzetti on the front
seat of the car ran counter to the theory of the Commonwealth that Vanzetti was at the rear.
Moreover, Reed testified that "the quality of the English [of Vanzetti] was unmistakable and
clear," while at the trial Vanzetti's English was found to be so imperfect that an interpreter had to
be employed.
1. Harry E. Dolbeare testified that somewhere between 10 and 12 A.M. he saw a car going past
him in South Braintree with five people in it, one of whom he identified as Vanzetti:—
I felt it was a tough-looking bunch. That is the very feeling that came to my mind at the time....I
guess that is all. That is all I recall now.
There is nothing other than what he has already given by which he characterizes these men as
a tough-looking bunch. He does not know whether the other two men who sat on the back seat
had moustaches or beards of any kind. He does not know what kind of a hat or cap the man in
the middle, who leaned forward to speak, wore. He does not know whether this man had a cap
with a visor projecting out or whether he had on a slouch hat.
2. LeVangie, the gate tender of the New Haven railroad, was on duty at the South Braintree
grade crossing on the day of the murder. According to his testimony, the murder car drove up to
the crossing just as he was lowering the gate, and a man inside forced him at the point of a
revolver to let the car through before the advancing train. LeVangie identified Vanzetti as the
man who was driving the car. LeVangie's testimony was discredited by the testimony of
McCarthy, a locomotive fireman of the New Haven, who testified that three quarters of an hour
after the murders he had the following conversation with LeVangie:—
LeVangie said, 'There was a shooting affair going on.' I says, 'Someone shot?' I says, 'who?'
'Someone, a fellow got murdered.' I said, 'who did it?' He said he did not know. He said there
was some fellows went by in an automobile and he heard the shots, and he started to put down
the gates, and as he started to put them down one of them pointed a gun at him and he left the
gates alone and ducked in the shanty. I asked him if he knew them. He said, no, he did not. I
asked him if he would know them again if he saw them. He said, 'No.' He said all he could see
was the gun and he ducked.
Moreover, LeVangie was discredited by all the other identification witnesses on both sides, who
insisted that the driver of the car was a young, small, light-haired man, whereas Vanzetti was
middle-aged, dark, with a black moustache. But, though the District Attorney had to repudiate
LeVangie, he characteristically held on to LeVangie's identification. The following quotation from
the District Attorney's summing up reveals the worthlessness of LeVangie's testimony; it throws
no less light on the guiding attitude of the prosecution:—
They find fault, gentlemen, with LeVangie. They say that LeVangie is wrong in saying that
Vanzetti was driving that car. I agree with them, gentlemen. I would not be trying to do justice to
these defendants if I pretended that personally so far as you are concerned about my personal
belief on that, that Vanzetti drove that car over the crossing. I do not believe any such thing. You
must be overwhelmed with the testimony that when the car started it was driven by a lighthaired man who showed every indication of being sickly.
We cannot mould the testimony of witnesses, gentlemen. We have got to take them as they
testify on their oath, and we put LeVangie on because necessarily he must have been there. He
saw something. He described a light-haired man to some of the witnesses. They produced
Carter, the first witness they put on, to say that he said the light-haired man—the driver was a
light-haired man. That is true. I believe my brothers will agree with me on that proposition, but
he saw the face of Vanzetti in that car, and is his testimony to be rejected if it disagrees with
everybody else if you are satisfied he honestly meant to tell the truth?
And can't you reconcile it with the possibility, no, the likelihood, or, more than that, the
probability that at that time Vanzetti was directly behind the driver in the quick glance this man
LeVangie had of the car going over when they were going up over the crossing?...
Right or wrong, we have to take it as it is. And I agree if it depends on the accuracy of the
statement that Vanzetti was driving, then it isn't right, because I would have to reject personally
the testimony of witnesses for the defense as well as for the Commonwealth who testified to the
contrary. I ask you to find as a matter of common sense he was, in the light of other witnesses,
in the car, and if on the left side that he may well have been immediately behind the driver.
In other words, obliged to repudiate the testimony of LeVangie that Vanzetti was on the front
seat, the Commonwealth urged the jury to find that, although LeVangie said Vanzetti was on the
front seat, he meant he was on the back seat.
At the time that he urged on the jury this testimony of LeVangie, the District Attorney had held
interviews with, and had in his possession written statements of, the only two persons, Kelly and
Kennedy, who had an extended opportunity to observe the driver of the car. The detailed
description given by them absolutely excluded Vanzetti. The reliability of these observers and of
their statements has not been challenged. Yet they were not called by the District Attorney;
instead he called LeVangie. Unfortunately the existence of Kelly and Kennedy was until very
recently unknown to the defense, and of course, therefore, their testimony was unavailable for
Sacco and Vanzetti at the trial.
The alibi for Vanzetti was overwhelming. Thirty-one eyewitnesses testified positively that no one
of the men that they saw in the murder car was Vanzetti. Thirteen witnesses either testified
directly that Vanzetti was in Plymouth selling fish on the day of the murder or furnished
corroboration of such testimony.
What is the worth of identification testimony even when uncontradicted? The identification of
strangers is proverbially untrustworthy. The hazards of this type of testimony are established by
a formidable number of instances in the records of English and American trials. These instances
are recent—not due to the brutalities of ancient criminal procedure.
In the Sacco-Vanzetti case the elements of uncertainty were intensified. All the identifying
witnesses were speaking from casual observation of men they had never seen before, men of
foreign race, under circumstances of unusual confusion. Thus, one witness, Cole, "thought at
the first glance that the man was a Portuguese fellow named Tony that he knew." Afterward he
was sure it was Vanzetti. Nor can we abstain from comment on the methods pursued by the
police in eliciting subsequent identification. The recognized procedure is to line up the suspect
with others, and so far as possible with individuals of the same race and class, so as not to
provoke identification through accentuation. In defiance of these necessary safeguards, Sacco
and Vanzetti after their arrest were shown singly to persons brought there for the purposes of
identification, not as part of a "parade." Moreover, Sacco and Vanzetti were not even allowed to
be their natural selves; they were compelled to simulate the behavior of the Braintree bandits.
Under such conditions identification of foreigners is a farce.
After the conviction Judge Thayer himself abandoned the identification of Sacco and Vanzetti as
the ground on which the jury's verdict rested. In denying a motion for a new trial, based on the
discovery of a new eyewitness with better opportunities for observation than any of the other
witnesses on either side, who, in his affidavit, swore that Sacco was not the man in the car,
Judge Thayer ruled that this evidence
would simply mean one more piece of evidence of the same kind and directed to the same end,
and in my judgment would have no effect whatever upon the verdicts. These verdicts did not
rest, in my judgment, upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses, for the defendants, as it was,
called more witnesses than the Commonwealth to testify that neither of the defendants were in
the bandit car.
The evidence that convicted these defendants was circumstantial and was evidence that is
known in law as 'consciousness of guilt.'
III.
"Consciousness of guilt" meant that the conduct of Sacco and Vanzetti after April 15 was the
conduct of murderers. This inference of guilt was drawn from their behavior on the night of May
5, before and after arrest, and also from their possession of firearms. It is vital to keep in mind
the evidence on which, according to Judge Thayer, these two men are to be sentenced to
death. There was no claim whatever at the trial, and none has ever been suggested since, that
Sacco and Vanzetti had any prior experience in holdups or any previous association with
bandits; no claim that the sixteen thousand dollars taken from the victims ever found its way into
their pockets; no claim that their financial condition or that of Sacco's family (he had a wife and
child, and another child was soon to be born) was in any way changed after April 15; no claim
that after the murder either Sacco or Vanzetti changed his manner of living or employment.
Neither of these men had ever been accused of crime before their arrest. Nor did they during
the three weeks between the murder and their arrest behave like men who were concealing the
crime of murder. They did not go into hiding; they did not abscond with the spoils; they did not
live under assumed names. They maintained their old lodgings; they pursued openly their
callings within a few miles of the town where they were supposed to have committed murder in
broad daylight; and when arrested Sacco was found to have in his pocket an announcement of
a forthcoming meeting at which Vanzetti was to speak. Was this the behavior of men eluding
identification?
What, then, was the evidence of guilty conduct against them?
1. Sacco and Vanzetti, as we have already explained, were two of four Italians who called for
Boda's car at Johnson's garage on the evening of May 5. Mrs. Johnson gave the pretext of
having to fetch some milk and went to a neighbor's house to telephone the police. She testified
that the two defendants followed her to the house on the opposite side of the street, and when,
after telephoning, she reappeared they followed her back. The men then left without taking the
car, having been advised by Mr. Johnson not to run it without the current year's number plate.
Q. Now, Boda came there to get his car, didn't he?
A Yes.
Q. There were no 1920 number plates on it?
A. No.
Q. You advised him not to take the car and run it without the 1920 number plates, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And he accepted your view?
A. He seemed to.
Q. He seemed to. And after some conversation went away?
A. Yes.
This was the whole of the testimony on the strength of which Judge Thayer put the following
question to the jury:—
Did the defendants, in company with Orciani and Boda, leave the Johnson house because the
automobile had no l920 number plate on it, or because they were conscious of or became
suspicious of what Mrs. Johnson did in the Bartlett house? If they left because they had no 1920
number plates on the automobile, then you may say there was no consciousness of guilt in
consequence of their sudden departure, but if they left because they were consciously guilty of
what was being done by Mrs. Johnson in the Bartlett house, then you may say that is evidence
tending to prove consciousness of guilt.
2. Following their departure from the Johnson house, Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested by a
policeman who boarded their street car as it was coming into Brockton. Three policemen
testified as to their behavior after being taken into custody. The following will serve as a
sample:—
I told them when we started that the first false move I would put a bullet in them. On the way up
to the station Sacco reached his hand to put under his overcoat and I told him to keep his hands
outside of his clothes and on his lap.
Q. Will you illustrate to the jury how he placed his hands?
A. He was sitting down with his hands that way [indicating] and he moved his hand up to put it in
under his overcoat.
Q. At what point?
A. Just about the stomach there, across his waistband, and I says to him, 'Have you got a gun
there?' He says, 'No.' He says, 'I ain't got no gun.' 'Well,' I says, 'keep your hands outside of
your clothes.' We went along a little further and he done the same thing. I gets up on my knees
on the front seat and I reaches over and I puts my hand under his coat, but I did not see any
gun. 'Now,' I says, Mister, if you put your hand in there again, you are going to get into trouble.'
He says, 'I don't want no trouble.'
3. In statements made to the District Attorney and to the Chief of Police at the police station
after their arrest, both Sacco and Vanzetti lied. By misstatements they tried to conceal their
movements on the day of their arrest, the friends they had been to see, the places they had
visited. For instance, Vanzetti denied that he knew Boda.
What of this evidence of "consciousness of guilt"? The testimony of the police that Sacco and
Vanzetti were about to draw pistols was emphatically denied by them. These denials, it was
urged, were confirmed by the inherent probabilities of the situation. Did Sacco and Vanzetti
upon arrest reveal the qualities of the perpetrators of the Braintree murders? Would the ready
and ruthless gunmen at Braintree have surrendered themselves so quietly into custody on a
capital charge of which they knew themselves to be guilty? If Sacco and Vanzetti were the
holdup men of Braintree, why did they not draw upon their expert skill and attempt to make their
escape by scattering shots? But, not being gunmen, why should Sacco and Vanzetti have
carried guns? The possession of firearms in this country has not at all the significance that it
would have, say, in England. The extensive carrying of guns by people who are not "gunmen" is
a matter of common knowledge. Sacco acquired the habit of carrying a pistol while a night
watchman in the shoe factory, because, as his employer testified, "night watchmen protecting
property do have guns." Vanzetti carried a revolver "because it was a very bad time, and I like to
have a revolver for self-defense."
Q. How much money did you use to carry around with you?
A. When I went to Boston for fish, I can carry eighty, one hundred dollars, one hundred and
twenty dollars.
There were many crimes, many holdups, many robberies at that time.
The other evidence from which "consciousness of guilt" was drawn the two Italians admitted.
They acknowledged that they behaved in the way described by Mrs. Johnson; and freely
conceded that when questioned at the police station they told lies. What was their explanation of
this conduct? To exculpate themselves of the crime of murder they had to disclose elaborately
their guilt of radicalism. In order to meet the significance which the prosecution attached to the
incidents at the Johnson house and those following, it became necessary for the defendants to
advertise to the jury their offensive radicalism, and thereby to excite the deepest prejudices of a
Norfolk County jury picked for its respectability and sitting in judgment upon two men of alien
blood and abhorrent philosophy.
Innocent men, it is suggested, do not lie when picked up by the police. But Sacco and Vanzetti
knew they were not innocent of the charge on which they supposed themselves arrested, and
about which the police interrogated them. For, when apprehended, Sacco and Vanzetti were not
confronted with the charge of murder; they were not accused of banditry; they were not given
the remotest intimation that the murders of Parmenter and Berardelli were laid at their door.
They were told they were arrested as "suspicious characters," and the meaning which that
carried to their minds was rendered concrete by the questions that were put to them.
Q. Tell us all you recall that Stewart, the chief, asked of you?
A. He asked me why we were in Bridgewater, how long I knew Sacco, if I am a radical, if I am
an anarchist or Communist, and he asked me if I believe in the government of the United
States.
Q. Did either Chief Stewart at the Brockton police station or Mr. Katzmann tell you that you were
suspected of robberies and murder?
A. No.
Q. Was there any question asked of you or any statement made to you to indicate to you that
you were charged with that crime on April 15?
A. No.
Q. What did you understand, in view of the questions asked of you, what did you understand
you were being detained for at the Brockton police station?
A. I understand they arrested me for a political matter....
Q....Why did you feel you were being detained for political opinions?
A. Because I was asked if I was a Socialist. I said, 'Well—'
Q. You mean by reason of the questions asked of you?
A. Because I was asked if I am a Socialist, if I am I.W.W., if I am a Communist, if I am a Radical,
if I am a Black Hand.
Plainly their arrest meant to Sacco and Vanzetti arrest for radicalism.
Boston was one of the worst centres of the lawlessness and hysteria that characterized the
campaign of the Department of Justice for the wholesale arrest and deportation of Reds. Its
proximity to industrial communities having a large proportion of foreign labor and a history of
past industrial conflicts lent to the lawless activities of the government officials the widespread
support of influential public opinion. Mr. John F. Moors, himself a banker, has called attention to
the fact that "the hysteria against 'the reds' was so great, at the time when these men were
convicted, that even the most substantial bankers in this city [Boston] were carried away to the
extent of paying for full-page advertisements about the red peril." Sacco and Vanzetti were
notorious Reds. They were associates of leading radicals; they had for some time been on the
list of suspects of the Department of Justice; and they were especially obnoxious because they
were draft-dodgers.
The terrorizing methods of the Government had very specific meaning for the two Italians. Two
of their friends had already been deported. The arrest of the New York radical Salsedo, and his
detention incommunicado by the Department of Justice, had been for some weeks a source of
great concern to them. Vanzetti was sent to New York to confer with a committee having charge
of the case of Salsedo and other Italian political prisoners. On his return, May 2, he reported to
his Boston friends the advice which had been given him: namely, to dispose of their radical
literature and thus eliminate the most damaging evidence in the deportation proceedings they
feared. The urgency of acting on this advice was intensified by the tragic news of Salsedo's
death after Vanzetti's return from New York. Though Salsedo's death was unexplained, to
Sacco and Vanzetti it conveyed only one explanation. It was a symbol of their fears and an
omen of their own fate.
On the witness stand Sacco and Vanzetti accounted for their movements on April 15. They also
accounted for their ambiguous behavior on May 5. Up to the time that Sacco and Vanzetti
testified to their radical activities, their pacifism, their flight to Mexico to avoid the draft, the trial
was a trial for murder and banditry; with the cross-examination of Sacco and Vanzetti patriotism
and radicalism became the dominant emotional issues. Outside the courtroom the Red hysteria
was rampant; it was allowed to dominate within. The prosecutor systematically played on the
feelings of the jury by exploiting the unpatriotic and despised beliefs of Sacco and Vanzetti, and
the judge allowed him thus to divert and pervert the jury's mind. The opening question in the
cross-examination of Vanzetti by the District Attorney discloses a motif that he persistently
played upon:—
Q. (by Mr. Katzmann) So you left Plymouth, Mr. Vanzetti, in May, 1917, to dodge the draft, did
you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When this country was at war, you ran away, so you would not have to fight as a soldier?
A. Yes.
This method was elaborated when Sacco took the stand:—
Q. (by Mr. Katzmann) Did you say yesterday you love a free country?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you love this country in the month of May, 1917?
A. I did not say—I don't want to say I did not love this country.
Q. Did you go to Mexico to avoid being a soldier for this country that you loved?
A. Yes.
Q. And would it be your idea of showing your love for your wife that, when she needed you, you
ran away from her?
A. I did not run away from her.
Q. Don't you think going away from your country is a vulgar thing to do when she needs you?
A. I don't believe in war.
Q. You don't believe in war?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you think it is a cowardly thing to do what you did?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you think it is a brave thing to do what you did?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think it would be a brave thing to go away from your own wife?
A. No.
Q. When she needed you?
A. No.
THE COURT. All I ask is this one question, and it will simplify matters very much. Is it your claim
that in the collection of the literature and the books and papers that that was done in the interest
of the United States?
MR. JEREMIAH MCANARNEY. I make no such broad claim as that....
MR. KATZMANN. Well, he [Sacco] stated in his direct examination yesterday that he loved a
free country, and I offer it to attack that statement made in his examination by his own counsel.
THE COURT. That is what I supposed, and that is what I supposed that remark meant when it
was introduced in this cross-examination, but counsel now say they don't make that claim.
MR. KATZMANN. They say they don't make the claim that gathering up the literature on May 5
at West Bridgewater was for the purpose of helping the country, but that is a different matter,
not released [sic] to May 5.
THE COURT. I will let you inquire further first as to what he meant by the expression.
Q. What did you mean when you said yesterday you loved a free country?
A. Give me a chance to explain.
Q. I am asking you to explain now.
A. When I was in Italy, a boy, I was a Republican, so I always thinking Republican has more
chance to manage education, develop, to build some day his family, to raise the child and
education, if you could. But that was my opinion; so when I came to this country I saw there was
not what I was thinking before, but there was all the difference, because I been working in Italy
not so hard as I been work in this country. I could live free there just as well. Work in the same
condition but not so hard, about seven or eight hours a day, better food. I mean genuine. Of
course, over here is good food, because it is bigger country, to any those who got money to
spend, not for the working and laboring class, and in Italy is more opportunity to laborer to eat
vegetable, more fresh, and I came in this country. When I been started work here very hard and
been work thirteen years, hard worker, I could not been afford much a family the way I did have
the idea before. I could not put any money in the bank; I could no push my boy some to go to
school and other things. I teach over here men who is with me. The free idea gives any man a
chance to profess his own idea, not the supreme idea, not to give any person, not to be like
Spain in position, yes, about twenty centuries ago, but to give a chance to print and education,
literature, free speech, that I see it was all wrong. I could see the best men, intelligent,
education, they been arrested and sent to prison and died in prison for years and years without
getting them out, and Debs, one of the great men in his country, he is in prison, still away in
prison, because he is a Socialist. He wanted the laboring class to have better conditions and
better living, more education, give a push his son if he could have a chance some day, but they
him in prison. Why? Because the capitalist class, they know, they are against that, because the
capitalist class, they don't want our child to go to high school or college or Harvard College.
There would be no chance, there would not be no—they don't want the working class
educationed; they want the working class to be a low all the times, be underfoot, and not to be
up with the head. So, sometimes, you see, the Rockefellers, Morgans, they give fifty—I mean
they give five hundred thousand dollars to Harvard College, they give a million dollars for
another school. Every day say, 'Well, D . Rockefeller is a great man, the best man in the
country.' I want to ask him who is going to Harvard College? What benefit the working class they
will get by those million dollars they give by Rockefeller, D. Rockefellers. They won't get, the
poor class, they won't have no chance to go to Harvard College because men who is getting
$21 a week or $30 a week, I don't care if he gets $80 a week, if he gets a family of five children
he can't live and send his child and go to Harvard College if he wants to eat everything nature
will give him. If he wants to eat like a cow, and that is the best thing, but I want men to live like
men. I like men to get everything that nature will give best, because they belong—we are not
the friend of any other place, but we are belong to nations. So that is why my idea has been
changed. So that is why I love people who labor and work and see better conditions every day
develop, makes no more war. We no want fight by the gun, and we don't want to destroy young
men. The mother has been suffering for building the young man. Some day need a little more
bread, so when the time the mother get some bread or profit out of that boy, the Rockefellers,
Morgans, and some of the peoples, high class, they send to war. Why? What is war? The war is
not shoots like Abraham Lincoln's and Abe Jefferson, to fight for the free country, for the better
education to give chance to any other peoples, not the white people but the black and the
others, because they believe and know they are mens like the rest, but they are war for the
great millionaire. No war for the civilization of men. They are war for business, million dollars
come on the side. What right we have to kill each other? I been work for the Irish. I have been
working with the German fellow, with the French, many other peoples. I love them people just as
I could love my wife, and my people for that did receive me. Why should I go kill them men?
What he done to me? He never done anything, so I don't believe in no war. I want to destroy
those guns. All I can say, the Government put the literature, give us educations. I remember in
Italy, a long time ago, about sixty years ago, I should say, yes, about sixty years ago, the
Government they could not control very much those two—devilment went on, and robbery, so
one of the government in the cabinet he says, 'If you want to destroy those devilments, if you
want to take off all those criminals, you ought to give a chance to Socialist literature, education
of people, emancipation. That is why I destroy governments, boys.' That is why my idea I love
Socialists. That is why I like people who want education and living, building, who is good, just as
much as they could. That is all.
Q. And that is why you love the United States of America?
A. Yes.
Q. She is back more than twenty centuries like Spain, is she?
A. At the time of the war they do it.
Q. So without the light of knowledge on that subject, you are condemning even Harvard
University, are you, as being a place for rich men?....
Q. Did you intend to condemn Harvard College? (Objection overruled.)
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you ready to say none but the rich could go there without knowing about offering
scholarships? (Objection overruled.)
Q. The question is this: As far as you understood Fruzetti's views, were yours the same?
(Objection overruled.)
Q. Answer, please.
A. (through the interpreter) I cannot say yes or no.
Q. Is it because you can't or because you don't want to?
A. (through the interpreter) Because it is a very delicate question.
Q. It is very delicate, isn't it, because he was deported for his views?
Q. Do you know why Fruzetti was deported?
A. (through the interpreter) Yes.
Q. Was it because he was of anarchistic opinions?
THE INTERPRETER. He says he understands it now.
Q. Was it because Fruzetti entertained anarchistic opinions?
A. One reason, he was an anarchist. Another reason, Fruzetti been writing all the time on the
newspapers, and I am not sure why the reason he been deported.
Q. And the books which you intended to collect were books relating to anarchy, weren't they?
A. Not all of them.
Q. How many of them?
A. Well, all together. We are Socialists, democratic, any other socialistic information, Socialists,
Syndicalists, Anarchists, any paper.
Q. Bolshevist?
A. I do not know what Bolshevism means.
Q. Soviet?
A. I do not know what Soviet means.
Q. Communism?
A. Yes. I got some on astronomy, too.
Q. You weren't going to destroy them?
A. I was going to keep them.
Q. You were going to keep them and when the time was over, you were going to bring them out
again, weren't you?
A. Yes.
In the Anglo-American system of criminal procedure the role of a public prosecutor is very
different from that of an advocate in a private cause. In the words of a leading New York case:—
Language which might be permitted to counsel in summing up a civil action cannot with
propriety be used by a public prosecutor, who is a quasi-judicial officer, representing the people
of the state, and presumed to act impartially in the interest only of justice. If he lays aside the
impartiality that should characterize his official action to become a heated partisan, and by
vituperation of the prisoner and appeals to prejudice seeks to procure a conviction at all
hazards, he ceases to properly represent the public interest, which demands no victim, and
asks no conviction through the aid of passion, sympathy, or resentment.
In 1921 the temper of the times made it the special duty of a prosecutor and a court engaged in
trying two Italian radicals before a jury of native New Englanders to keep the instruments of
justice free from the infection of passion or prejudice. In the case of Sacco and Vanzetti no such
restraints were respected. By systematic exploitation of the defendants' alien blood, their
imperfect knowledge of English, their unpopular social views, and their opposition to the war,
the District Attorney invoked against them a riot of political passion and patriotic sentiment; and
the trial judge connived at—one had almost written, cooperated in—the process. To quote the
argument of Mr. William G. Thompson:—
The persistent attempt of the Court in the presence of the jury to suggest that the defendants
were claiming that the suppression of the Socialist literature was 'in the interest of the United
States,' to which exception was taken, was even more objectionable and prejudicial. It seems
incredible that the Court could have believed from any testimony that had been given by
Vanzetti or Sacco that their purpose in collecting and suppressing the Socialist literature had
anything to do with the interest of the United States. If anything had been made plain, it was that
they were actuated by personal fear of sharing the fate of Salsedo, not merely deportation, but
death by violence while awaiting deportation. Yet the Court eight times, in the face of as many
explicit disclaimers from Mr. McAnarney, suggested that that was the defendants' claim. Had
that claim been made it would, of course, have been the grossest hypocrisy, and might well
have sealed the fate of both defendants with the jury. The repeated suggestion of the Court in
the presence of the jury that that was the claim amounted to a violation by the Court of the
defendants' elementary constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. It was not cured by the
Court's disclaimer made immediately after the exception was taken to the effect that he did not
intend 'to prejudice the rights of either of these defendants.' Whatever the Court intended, he
had fatally prejudiced their right to a fair trial, and no general disclaimer could undo the harm.
That the real purpose of this line of the prosecutor's cross-examination was to inflame the jury's
passions is suggested by the professed ground on which, with the Court's sanction, it was
conducted. The Commonwealth claimed that the alleged anxiety of Sacco and Vanzetti on the
evening of their arrest and the lies they told could be explained only by the fact that they were
the murderers of Parmenter and Berardelli. The defense replied that their conduct was clearly
accounted for by the fact that the men were Reds in terror of the Department of Justice. To test
the credibility of this answer the District Attorney proposed to examine Sacco and Vanzetti to
find out whether they were really radicals or only pretending to be. In effect the Commonwealth
undertook to show that the defendants were impostors, that they were spurious Reds. This it
made not the least attempt to do. It never disputed their radicalism. Instead of undermining the
claim of the defendants by which their conduct was explained, the District Attorney adopted their
confession of radicalism, exaggerated and exploited it. He thereby wholly destroyed the basis of
his original claim, for what reason was there any longer to suppose that the "consciousness of
guilt" was consciousness of murder rather than of radicalism?
IV.
The deliberate effort to excite the emotions of jurors still in the grip of war fever is not
unparalleled in the legal history of the times. During the year 1918-19 in the United States, fortyfour convictions were reversed by appellate courts for misconduct of the trial judge or the public
prosecutor; thirty-three of them for inflammatory appeals made by the district attorney on
matters not properly before the jury. Appellate courts interfere reluctantly in such cases and only
where there has been a flagrant abuse, so that we may safely assume the above figures
indicate an even more widespread evil. What is unparalleled is that such an abuse should have
succeeded in a Massachusetts court.
As things were, what wonder the jury convicted? The last words left with them by Mr. Katzmann
were an appeal to their solidarity against the alien: "Gentlemen of the jury, do your duty. Do it
like men. Stand together, you men of Norfolk." The first words of Judge Thayer's charge revived
their memories of the war and sharpened their indignation against the two draft-dodgers whose
fate lay in their hands: "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts called upon you to render a most
important service. Although you knew that such service would be arduous, painful, and
tiresome, yet you, like the true soldier, responded to that call in the spirit of supreme American
loyalty. There is no better word in the English language than 'loyalty.'" It had been to the
accompaniment of this same war motif that the jurors were first initiated into the case: by the
license allowed to the prosecution it had remained continuously in their ears throughout the trial;
and now by the final and authoritative voice of the Court it was a soldier's loyalty which was
made the measure of their duty.
The function of a judge's charge is to enable the jury to find its way through the maze of
conflicting testimony, to sift the relevant from the irrelevant, to weigh wisely, and to judge
dispassionately. A trial judge is not expected to rehearse all the testimony; in Massachusetts he
is not allowed to express his own opinion on it. But in drawing the disconnected threads of
evidence and marshaling the claims on both sides he must exercise a scrupulous regard for
relevance and proportion. Misplaced emphasis here and omission there may work more
damage than any outspoken comment. By his summing up a judge reveals his estimate of
relative importance. Judge Thayer's charge directs the emotions only too clearly. What
guidance does he give to the mind? The charge occupies twenty-four pages; of these, fourteen
are consumed in abstract legal generalities and moral exhortations. Having allowed the minds of
the jurors to be impregnated with war feeling, Judge Thayer now invited them to breathe "a
purer atmosphere of unyielding impartiality and absolute fairness." Unfortunately the passion
and prejudice instilled during the course of a long trial cannot be exorcised by the general,
placid language of a charge after the mischief is done. Every experienced lawyer knows that it is
idle to ask jurors to dismiss from their memory what has been deposited in their feelings.
In this case the vital issue was identification. That the whole mass of conflicting identification
testimony is dismissed in two pages out of twenty-four is a fair measure of the distorted
perspective in which the Judge placed the case. He dealt with identification in abstract terms
and without mentioning the name of any witness on either side. The alibi testimony he likewise
dismissed in two paragraphs, again without reference to specific witnesses. In striking contrast
to this sterile treatment of the issue whether or not Sacco and Vanzetti were in South Braintree
on April 15 was his concrete and elaborate treatment of the inferences which might be drawn
from the character of their conduct on the night of their arrest. Five pages of the charge are
given over to "consciousness of guilt," set forth in great detail and with specific mention of the
testimony given by the various police officials and by Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. The
disproportionate consideration which Judge Thayer gave to this issue, in the light of his
comments during the trial, must have left the impression that the case turned on "consciousness
of guilt." As we have seen, Judge Thayer himself did in fact so interpret the jury's verdict
afterward.
As to motive, the Court expatiated for more than a page on his legal conception and the
undisputed claim of the Commonwealth that the motive of the murder of Parmenter and
Berardelli was robbery, but made no comment whatever on the complete failure of the
Commonwealth to trace any of the stolen money to either defendant or to connect them with the
art of robbery. Undoubtedly, great weight must have been attached by the jury, as it was by the
Court, to the identification of the fatal bullet taken from Berardelli's body as having passed
through Sacco's pistol. The Court instructed the jury that Captain Proctor and another expert
had testified that "it was his [Sacco's] pistol that fired the bullet that caused the death of
Berardelli," when in fact that was not Captain Proctor's testimony. Of course, if the jury believed
Proctor's testimony as interpreted by Judge Thayer, Sacco certainly was doomed. In view of the
temper of the times, the nature of the accusation, the opinions of the accused, the tactics of the
prosecution, and the conduct of the Judge, no wonder the "men of Norfolk" convicted Sacco and
Vanzetti!
Hitherto the methods pursued by the prosecution, which explain the convictions, rested on
inferences, however compelling. But recently facts have been disclosed, and not denied by the
prosecution, to indicate that the case against these Italians for murder was part of a collusive
effort between the District Attorney and agents of the Department of Justice to rid the country of
Sacco and Vanzetti because of their Red activities. In proof of this we have the affidavits of two
former officers of the Government, one of whom served as post-office inspector for twenty-five
years, and both of whom are now in honorable civil employment. Sacco's and Vanzetti's names
were on the files of the Department of Justice "as radicals to be watched"; the Department was
eager for their deportation, but had not evidence enough to secure it; and inasmuch as the
United States District Court for Massachusetts had checked abuses in deportation proceedings,
the Department had become chary of resorting to deportation without adequate legal basis. The
arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti, on the mistaken theory of Chief Stewart, furnished the agents of
the Department their opportunity. Although the opinion of the agents working on the case was
that "the South Braintree crime was the work of professionals," and that Sacco and Vanzetti,
"although anarchists and agitators, were not highway robbers, and had nothing to do with the
South Braintree crime," yet they collaborated with the District Attorney in the prosecution of
Sacco and Vanzetti for murder. For "it was the opinion of the Department agents here that a
conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti for murder would be one way of disposing of these two men."
Here, to be sure, is a startling allegation. But it is made by a man of long years of important
service in the Government's employ. It is supported by the now admitted installation of a
government spy in a cell adjoining Sacco's with a view to "obtaining whatever incriminating
evidence he could...after winning his confidence"; by the insinuation of an "under-cover man"
into the councils of the Sacco-Vanzetti Defense Committee; by the proposed placement of
another spy as a lodger in Mrs. Sacco's house; and by the supplying of information about the
radical activities of Sacco and Vanzetti to the District Attorney by the agents of the Department
of Justice.
These joint labors between Boston agents of the Department of Justice and the District Attorney
led to a great deal of correspondence between the agent in charge and the District Attorney and
to reports between the agents of the Department and Washington. These records have not
been made available, nor has their absence been accounted for. An appeal to Attorney-General
Sargent proved fruitless, although supported by Senator Butler of Massachusetts, requesting
that Mr. West, the then agent in charge, "be authorized to talk with counsel for Sacco and
Vanzetti and to disclose whatever documents and correspondence are on file in his office
dealing with the investigation made by the Boston agents before, during, and after the trial of
Sacco and Vanzetti." The facts upon which this appeal was made stand uncontradicted. West
made no denial whatever and the District Attorney only emphasized his failure to deny the facts
charged by the two former agents of the Department of Justice by an affidavit confined to a
denial of some of the statements of a former government spy. The charge that the principal
agent of the Department of Justice in Boston and the District Attorney collaborated to secure the
conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti is denied neither by the agent nor by the District Attorney.
Chief Stewart of Bridgewater takes it upon himself to say that the officials of the Department
"had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of this case for trial." Instead of making a full
disclosure of the facts, the representative of the Commonwealth indulged in vituperation against
the former officers of the Department of Justice as men who were guilty of "a breach of loyalty"
because they violated the watch word of the Department of Justice, "Do not betray the secrets
of your departments." To which Mr. Thompson rightly replies, "What are the secrets which they
admit?...A government which has come to value its own secrets more than it does the lives of its
citizens has become a tyranny.....Secrets, secrets! And he says you should abstain from
touching this verdict of your jury because it is so sacred. Would they not have liked to know
something about the secrets? The case is admitted by that inadvertent concession. There are,
then, secrets to be admitted." Yet Judge Thayer found in these circumstances only opportunity
to make innuendo against a former official of the Government well known for his long and
honorable service, and an elaborate denial of a claim that was never made. Not less than twelve
times Judge Thayer ridicules the charge of a conspiracy between "these two great
Governments—that of the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"! He
indulges in much patriotic protestation, but is wholly silent about the specific acts of wrongdoing
and lawlessness connected with the Red raids of 1920. The historian who relied on this opinion
would have to assume that the charge of lawlessness and misconduct in the deportations of
outlawed radicals was the traitorous invention of a diseased mind.
V.
The verdict of guilty was brought in on July 14, 1921. The exceptions which had been taken to
rulings at the trial were made the basis of an application for a new trial, which Judge Thayer
refused. Subsequently a great mass of new evidence was unearthed by the defense, and made
the subject of other motions for a new trial, all heard before Judge Thayer and all denied by him.
The hearing on the later motions took place on October 1, l923, and was the occasion of the
entry into the case of Mr. William G. Thompson, a powerful advocate bred in the traditions of the
Massachusetts courts. The espousal of the Sacco-Vanzetti cause by a man of Mr. Thompson's
professional prestige at once gave it a new complexion and has been its mainstay ever since.
For he has brought to the case, not only his great ability as a lawyer, but the strength of his
conviction that these two men are innocent and that their trial was not characterized by those
high standards which are the pride of Massachusetts justice.
We have now reached a stage of the case the details of which shake one's confidence in the
whole course of the proceedings and reveal a situation which undermines the respect usually to
be accorded to a jury's verdict. By prearrangement the prosecution brought before the jury a
piece of evidence apparently most damaging to the defendants, when in fact the full truth
concerning this evidence was very favorable to them. Vital to the identification of Sacco and
Vanzetti as the murderers was the identification of one of the fatal bullets as a bullet coming
from Sacco's pistol. The evidence excluded the possibility that five other bullets found in the
dead bodies were fired by either Sacco or Vanzetti. When Judge Thayer placed the case in the
jury's hands for judgment he charged them that the Commonwealth had introduced the
testimony of two experts, Proctor and Van Amburgh, to the effect that the fatal bullet went
through Sacco's Pistol.
Such was not the belief of Proctor; he refused to accede to this view in the course of the
preparation of the case, and the District Attorney knew that such was not intended to be his
testimony. These startling statements call for detailed proof.
Proctor at the time of his testimony was head of the state police and had been in the
Department of Public Safety for twenty-three years. On the witness stand he was qualified at
length as an expert who had for twenty years been making examination of, and experiments
with, bullets and revolvers and had testified in over a hundred capital cases. His testimony was
thus offered by the State as entitled to the greatest weight. If the jury could be convinced that
the bullet found in Berardelli's body came out of Sacco's pistol, the State's case was invincible.
On this crucial issue Captain Proctor testified as follows at the trial:—
Q. Have you an opinion as to whether bullet Number 3 (Exhibit 18) was fired from the Colt
automatic, which is in evidence?
A. I have.
Q. And what is your opinion?
A. My opinion is that it is consistent with being fired from that pistol.
The Government placed chief reliance on his expert testimony. In his closing argument the
District Attorney told the jury, "You might disregard all the identification testimony, and base
your verdict on the testimony of these experts." It weighed heavily in the Court's charge. In
simple English he interpreted the evidence to mean that
it was his [Sacco's] pistol that fired the bullet that caused the death of Berardelli. To this effect
the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of two witnesses, Messrs. Proctor and Van
Amburgh.
Naturally the Court's interpretation became the jury's. By their silence the District Attorney and
the counsel for the defense acquiesced in the Court's interpretation, showing that counsel for
both sides apparently attached the same meaning to this testimony. After the conviction Proctor
in an affidavit swore to the following account of his true views and the manner in which they
were phrased for purposes of the trial. After giving his experience and the fact that he had had
the custody of the bullets, cartridges, shells, and pistols in the case, he swore that one of the
bullets
was, as I then testified and still believe, fired from a Colt automatic pistol of 32 calibre. During
the preparation for the trial, my attention was repeatedly called by the District Attorney and his
assistants to the question: whether I could find any evidence which would justify the opinion that
the particular bullet taken from the body of Berardelli, which came from a Colt automatic pistol,
came from the particular Colt automatic pistol taken from Sacco. I used every means available
to me for forming an opinion on this subject. I conducted, with Captain Van Amburgh, certain
tests at Lowell, about which I testified, consisting in firing certain cartridges through Sacco's
pistol. At no time was I able to find any evidence whatever which tended to convince me that the
particular model bullet found in Berardelli's body, which came from a Colt automatic pistol,
which I think was numbered 3 and had some other exhibit number, came from Sacco's pistol
and I so informed the District Attorney and his assistant before the trial. This bullet was what is
commonly called a full metal-patch bullet and although I repeatedly talked over with Captain
Van Amburgh the scratch or scratches which he claimed tended to identify this bullet as one
that must have gone through Sacco's pistol, his statements concerning the identifying marks
seemed to me entirely unconvincing.
At the trial, the District Attorney did not ask me whether I had found any evidence that the socalled mortal bullet which I have referred to as Number 3 passed through Sacco's pistol, nor
was I asked that question on cross-examination. The District Attorney desired to ask me that
question, but I had repeatedly told him that if he did I should be obliged to answer in the
negative; consequently, he put to me this question: Q. Have you an opinion as to whether bullet
Number 3 was fired from the Colt automatic which is in evidence? To which I answered, "I
have." He then proceeded. Q. And what is your opinion? A. My opinion is that it is consistent
with being fired by that pistol.
He proceeded to state that he is still of the same opinion:—
But I do not intend by that answer to imply that I had found any evidence that the so-called
mortal bullet had passed through this particular Colt automatic pistol and the District Attorney
well knew that I did not so intend and framed his question accordingly. Had I been asked the
direct question: Whether I had found any affirmative evidence whatever that this so-called
mortal bullet had passed through this particular Sacco's pistol, I should have answered then, as
I do now without hesitation, in the negative.
This affidavit of Proctor was made the basis of Mr. Thompson's motion for a new trial before
Judge Thayer. Here was a charge going to the vitals of the case, made by a high official of the
police agencies of the state. How did the District Attorney meet it? Mr. Katzmann and his
assistant, Mr. Williams, filed affidavits in reply. Did they contradict Proctor? They could not deny
his testimony or the weight that the prosecution and the Court had attached to it. These were
matters of record. Did they deny the prearrangement which he charged? Did they deny that he
told them he was unable to identify the mortal bullet as Sacco's bullet?
Katzmann's affidavit stated that
prior to his testifying, Captain Proctor told me that he was prepared to testify that the mortal
bullet was consistent with having been fired from the Sacco pistol; that I did not repeatedly ask
him whether he had found any evidence that the mortal bullet had passed through the Sacco
pistol, nor did herepeatedly tell me that if I did ask him that question he would be obliged to
reply in the negative. [Italics ours].
Williams's affidavit, after setting forth that Captain Proctor told him before the trial that
comparisons of the mortal bullet with bullets "pushed by him through various types of pistols"
showed that "the mortal bullet had been fired in a Colt automatic pistol," proceeded:—
He said that all he could do was to determine the width of the landmarks upon the bullet. His
attention was not repeatedly called to the question, whether he could find any evidence which
would justify the opinion that this bullet came from the Sacco pistol. I conducted the direct
examination of Captain Proctor at the trial and asked him the question quoted in his affidavit,
"Have you an opinion as to whether bullet Number 3 was fired from the Colt automatic which is
in evidence?
This question was suggested by Captain Proctor himself as best calculated to give him an
opportunity to tell what opinion he had respecting the mortal bullet and its connection with the
Sacco pistol. His answer in court was the same answer he had given me personally before.
Proctor's disclosures remain uncontradicted: he was unable to identify the murder bullet as
Sacco's bullet; he told Katzmann and Williams that he was unable to do it; he told them if he
were asked the question on the witness stand he would have to testify that he could not make
the identification; a form of words was therefore found by which, without committing perjury, he
could convey the impression that he had testified to the identification. The only contradiction by
Katzmann and Williams of Proctor's account affects the number of times that he told them that
he was unable to make the identification, he having sworn that he told them "repeatedly" and
they denying that he told them "repeatedly." Yet Judge Thayer found no warrant in the Proctor
incident for directing a new trial. And why?
The Judge quotes the Proctor questions and answers and argues that the questions were clear
and must have been perfectly understood by Captain Proctor. Of course the questions were
clear and clearly understood by Proctor. The whole meaning of Captain Proctor's affidavit was
that the questions and answers were prearranged and that by this prearrangement court and
jury were misled with terrible harm to the defendants.
The Judge is extraordinarily versatile in misinterpreting the true purport of the Proctor affidavit.
Thus he seriously asks why, if Captain Proctor at the trial was "desirous of expressing his true
opinion," he used the phrase "consistent with," language selected by himself. The crux of the
matter is that Captain Proctor at the trial was not "desirous of expressing his true opinion," that
the District Attorney was very desirous that he should not do so, and that between them they
agreed on a form of words to avoid it.
The Judge next attempts to belittle the weight of Proctor's testimony two years after he was
offered by the Commonwealth with elaborate reliance as a most important expert. We must
dwell on one amazing statement of the Court. "With his limited knowledge," says Judge Thayer,
"Captain Proctor did not testify that the mortal bullet did pass through Sacco's pistol, but that
from his examination of the facts it was simply consistent with it." Why did not Judge Thayer say
this to the jury when he charged them with determining the guilt or innocence of Sacco? Why
did the Judge charge the jury that Captain Proctor did testify that the mortal bullet passed
through Sacco's pistol? And why, having in October 1924, for the purpose of denying the
Proctor motion, minimized the Proctor testimony by saying that Proctor testified that the passing
of the mortal bullet through Sacco's pistol was "simply consistent with" the facts, does he two
years later, in order to show how strong the case was at the original trial, state that the "experts
testified in their judgment it [the mortal bullet] was perfectly consistent with" having been fired
through the Sacco pistol? In charging the jury Judge Thayer misled them by maximizing the
Proctor testimony as the prearrangement intended that it should be maximized. When the
prearrangement was discovered and made the basis of a motion for a new trial, Judge Thayer
depreciated Proctor's qualifications as an expert and minimized Proctor's actual testimony.
Finally, when confronted with new evidence pointing seriously to guilt for the Berardelli murder,
not only away from Sacco and Vanzetti, but positively in another direction, in order to give the
appearance of impressiveness to the facts before the jury Judge Thayer again relies upon the
weightiness of Proctor's expert testimony and maximizes Proctor's evidence at the trial, but not
to the extent that he did in charging the jury because Proctor's affidavit now prevents him from
doing so!
This is the attitude of mind which has guided the conduct of this case from the beginning; this is
the judge who has for all practical purposes sat in judgment upon his own conduct.
English criminal justice is constantly held up to us, and rightly so, as an example. One ventures
confidently to say that conduct like that revealed by the Proctor incident is inconceivable in an
English prosecution. But if it did take place, there is no possible doubt that the corrective
resources of the English courts would not allow a verdict secured by such means to stand. Such
behavior surely violates the standards which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has
laid down for district attorneys:—
The power of a district attorney under our laws are very extensive. They affect to a high degree
the liberty of the individual, the good order of society, and the safety of the community. His
natural influence with the grand jury, and the confidence commonly reposed in his
recommendations by judges, afford to the unscrupulous, the weak or the wicked incumbent of
the office vast opportunity to oppress the innocent and to shield the guilty, to trouble his
enemies and to protect his friends, and to make the interest of the public subservient to his
personal desires, his individual ambitions, and his private advantage....Powers so great impose
responsibilities correspondingly grave. They demand character incorruptible, reputation
unsullied, a high standard of professional ethics, and sound judgment of no mean order.
If the Proctor situation does not come within the condemnation of these requirements, language
certainly has strange meaning. Yet the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that Judge Thayer's
decision could not "as a matter of law" be reversed.
VI.
On May 12, 1926, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts found 'no error' in any of the rulings of
Judge Thayer. The guilt or innocence of the defendants was not retried in the Supreme Court.
That court could not inquire whether the facts as set forth in the printed record justified the
verdict. Such would have been the scope of judicial review had the case come before the New
York Court of Appeals or the English Court of Criminal Appeal. In those jurisdictions a judgment
upon the facts as well as upon the law is open, and their courts decide whether convictions
should stand in view of the whole record. A much more limited scope in reviewing connections
prevails in Massachusetts. What is reviewed in effect is the conduct of the trial judge; only so
called questions of law are open.
The merits of the legal questions raised by the exceptions cannot be discussed here. Suffice it
to say, with deference, that some of the Supreme Court rulings are puzzling in the extreme. One
question of law, however, can be explained within small compass, and that is the question
which is the crux of the case: Did Judge Thayer observe the standards of Anglo-American
justice? In legal parlance, was there abuse of "judicial discretion" by Judge Thayer? What, then,
is "judicial discretion"? Is it a legal abracadabra, or does it imply standards of conduct within the
comprehension of the laity in whose interests they are enforced? The present Chief Justice of
Massachusetts has given an authoritative definition:—
Discretion in this connection means a sound judicial discretion, enlighted by intelligence and
learning, controlled by sound principles of law. Of firm courage combined with the calmness of a
cool mind, free from partiality, not swayed by sympathy nor warped by prejudice nor moved by
any kind of influence save alone the overwhelming passion to do that which is just. It may be
assumed that conduct manifesting abuse of judicial discretion will be reviewed and some relief
afforded.
This is the test by which Judge Thayer's conduct must be measured. The Supreme Court found
no abuse of judicial discretion on the record presented at the first hearing before it. In other
words, the Court was satisfied that throughout the conduct of the trial and the proceedings that
followed it Judge Thayer was governed by "the calmness of a cool mind, free from partiality, not
swayed by sympathy nor warped by prejudice nor moved by any kind of influence save alone
the overwhelming passion to do that which is just."
The reader has now had placed before him fairly, it is hoped, however briefly, the means of
forming a judgment. Let him judge for himself !
VII.
Hitherto the defense has maintained that the circumstances of the case all pointed away from
Sacco and Vanzetti. But the deaths of Parmenter and Berardelli have remained unexplained.
Now the defense has adduced new proof, not only that Sacco and Vanzetti did not commit the
murders, but also, positively, that a well-known gang of professional criminals did commit them.
Hitherto a new trial has been pressed because of the character of the original trial. Now a new
trial has been demanded because an impressive body of evidence tends to establish the guilt of
others.
Celestino F. Madeiros, a young Portuguese with a bad criminal record, was in 1925 confined in
the same prison with Sacco. On November 18, while his appeal from a conviction of murder
committed in an attempt at bank robbery was pending in the Supreme Court, he sent to Sacco
through a jail messenger the following note:—
I hear by confess to being in the South Braintree shoe company crime and Sacco and Vanzetti
was not in said crime.
—CELESTINO F. MADEIROS
The confession of a criminal assuming guilt for a crime laid at another's door is always suspect
and rightly so. But, as we cannot too strongly insist, the new evidence is not contained in the
Madeiros confession. His note to Sacco was only the starting point which enabled the defense
to weave the network of independent evidence implicating the Morelli gang of Providence.
As soon as Sacco's counsel was apprized of this note he began a searching investigation of
Madeiros's claim. It then appeared that Madeiros had tried several times previously to tell Sacco
that he knew the real perpetrators of the Braintree job, but Sacco, fearing he was a spy, had
disregarded what he said. An interview with Madeiros revealed such circumstantiality of detail
that an examination of Madeiros, both by the defense and by the Commonwealth, was plainly
called for. The various affidavits given by Madeiros and the deposition of one hundred pages, in
which he was cross-examined by the District Attorney, tell the following story.
In 1920 Madeiros, then eighteen years old, was living in Providence. He already had a criminal
record and was associated with a gang of Italians engaged in robbing freight cars. One evening,
when they were talking together in a saloon in Providence, some members of the gang invited
him to join them in a pay-roll robbery at South Braintree. A holdup was a new form of criminal
enterprise for him, but they told him "they had done lots of jobs of this kind" and persuaded him
to come along. As an eighteen-year-old novice he was to be given only a subordinate part. He
was to sit in the back of a car with a revolver and "help hold back the crowd in case they made a
rush." Accordingly a few days later, on April 15, 1920, the plan was carried into execution. In the
party, besides Madeiros, were three Italians and a "kind of a slim fellow with light hair," who
drove the car. In order to prevent identification they adopted the familiar device of using two
cars. They started out in a Hudson, driving to some woods near Randolph. They then
exchanged the Hudson for a Buick brought them by another member of the gang. In the Buick
they proceeded to South Braintree, arriving there about noon. When the time came the actual
shooting was done by the oldest of the Italians, a man about forty, and one other. The rest of
the party remained near by in the automobile. As the crime was being committed they drove up,
took aboard the murderers and the money, and made off. They drove back to the Randolph
woods, exchanged the Buick again for the Hudson, and returned to Providence. The
arrangement was that Madeiros should meet the others in a saloon at Providence the following
night to divide the spoils. Whether this arrangement was kept and whether he got any of the
Braintree loot Madeiros persistently refused to say. This refusal was in pursuance of Madeiros's
avowed policy. From the outset he announced his determination not to reveal the identity of his
associates in the Braintree job, while holding back nothing which seemed to implicate himself
alone. To shield them he obstinately declined to answer questions and, if necessary, frankly
resorted to lies. Thus, examination could not extort from him the surnames of the gang, and he
further sought to cover up their identity by giving some of them false Christian names. Madeiros
showed considerable astuteness in evading what he wanted to conceal. But in undertaking to
tell the story of the crime without revealing the criminals he set himself an impossible task. In
spite of his efforts, a lawyer as resourceful as Mr. Thompson was able to elicit facts which, when
followed up, established the identity of the gang and also strongly corroborated the story of
Madeiros.
Madeiros said that the gang "had been engaged in robbing freight cars in Providence." Was
there such a gang? There was the Morelli gang, well known to the police of Providence and
New Bedford as professional criminals, several of whom at the time of the Braintree murders
were actually under indictment in the United States District Court for Rhode Island for stealing
from freight cars. Five out of nine indictments charging shoe thefts were for stealing
consignments from Slater and Morrill at South Braintree and from Rice and Hutchins, the factory
next door. In view of their method of operations, the gang must have had a confederate at South
Braintree to spot shipments for them. The Slater and Morrill factory was about one hundred
yards from the South Braintree railroad station and an accomplice spotting shipments would be
passed by the paymaster on his weekly trip. It will be recalled that the pay roll was that of the
Slater and Morrill factory and that the murder and the robbery occurred in front of these two
factories. The Morellis under indictment were out of jail awaiting trial. They needed money for
their defense; their only source of income was crime. They were at large until May 25, when
they were convicted and sent to Atlanta.
Madeiros did not name the gang, but described the men who were with him at South Braintree.
How did his descriptions fit the Morelli gang? The leader of the gang was Joe, aged thirty-nine.
His brothers were Mike, Patsy, Butsy, and Fred. Other members were Bibba Barone, Gyp the
Blood, Mancini, and Steve the Pole. Bibba Barone and Fred Morelli were in jail on April 15,
1920. According to Madeiros there were five, including himself, in the murder car, three of whom
were Italians, and the driver "Polish or Finland or something northern Europe." The shooting
was done by the oldest of the Italians, a man of about forty, and another called Bill. A fourth
Italian brought up the Buick car for exchange at Randolph. As far as his descriptions carry,
Madeiros's party fits the members of the Morelli Gang. But the testimony of independent
witnesses corroborates Madeiros and makes the identification decisive. One of the gravest
difficulties of the prosecution's case against Sacco and Vanzetti was the collapse of the
Government's attempt to identify the driver of the murder car as Vanzetti. The District Attorney
told the jury that "they must be overwhelmed with the testimony that when the car started it was
driven by a light-haired man, who gave every appearance of being sickly." Steve the Pole
satisfies Madeiros's description of the driver as well as the testimony at the trial. To set the
matter beyond a doubt, two women who were working in the Slater and Morrill factory identified
Steve the Pole as the man they saw standing for half an hour by a car outside their window on
that day. Two witnesses who testified at the trial identified Joe Morelli as one of the men who
did the shooting and another identified Mancini. The Morellis were American-born, which will
explain the testimony at the trial that one of the bandits spoke clear and unmistakable English, a
thing impossible to Sacco and Vanzetti.
Plainly the personnel of the Morelli gang fits the Braintree crime. What of other details? The
mortal bullet came out of a 32 Colt; Joe Morelli had a 32 Colt at this time. Mancini's pistol was of
a type and calibre to account for the other five bullets found in the victims. The "murder car" at
the trial was a Buick. Madeiros said a Buick was used; and Mike Morelli, according to the New
Bedford police, at this time was driving a Buick, which disappeared immediately after April 15,
1920. In fact, the police of New Bedford, where the Morelli gang had been operating, suspected
them of the Braintree crime, but dropped the matter after the arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti.
Shortly after the Braintree job, Madeiros was imprisoned for five months for larceny of an
amount less than $100. But immediately after his release he had about $2800 in bank, which
enabled him to go on a pleasure trip to the West and Mexico. The $2800 is unaccounted for
otherwise than as his share of the Braintree booty. Joe Morelli, as we know, was sent to Atlanta
for his share in the robbery of the Slater and Morrill shoes. While confined he made an
arrangement with a fellow prisoner whereby the latter was to furnish him with an alibi, in case of
need, for April 15, 1920, placing Morelli in New York.
Even so compressed a precis of the evidence of many witnesses will have made it clear that the
defense has built up a powerful case, without the resources at the command of the State in
criminal investigations. The witnesses other than Madeiros of themselves afford strong
probability of the guilt of the Morellis. What of the intrinsic credibility of Madeiros's confession,
which, if believed, settles the matter? A criminal's confession, as we have noted, must be
scrutinized with the utmost skepticism. A man who assumes guilt for one crime while about to
undergo the penalty of death for another does not carry the least conviction. The circumstances
of Madeiros's confession, however, free it from suspicion and furnish assurances of its
trustworthiness. Far from having nothing to lose by making the confession, Madeiros stood to
jeopardize his life. For while, to be sure, at the time of his confession he was under sentence for
another murder, an appeal from this conviction was pending, which was in fact successful in
getting him a new trial. Could anything be more prejudicial to an effort to reverse conviction for
one crime than to admit guilt for another? So clearly prejudicial, in fact, was his confession that
by arrangement with the District Attorney it was kept secret until after the outcome of his appeal
and the new trial which followed it. Moreover, the note of confession sent by Madeiros to Sacco
on November 18 was not, as we have seen, his first communication to Sacco. Nor was it his first
explicit confession. The murder for which he had been convicted, together with a man named
Weeks,—the Wrentham bank crime,—was a holdup like the Braintree job. Weeks, under life
sentence in another jail, when questioned revealed that in planning the Wrentham job Madeiros
drew on his experience at South Braintree. During their partnership Madeiros had frequently
referred to the Braintree job, saying it was arranged by the Morelli gang (whom Weeks knew),
and at one time identifying a speak-easy in which they found themselves as the one the gang
visited before the Braintree holdup. In planning the Wrentham job Madeiros further told Weeks
that he "had had enough of the Buick in the South Braintree job." Before the Wrentham crime he
had talked to the couple who kept the roadhouse where for a time he was a "bouncer" of his
part in the Braintree crime and said "that he would like to save Sacco and Vanzetti because he
knew they were perfectly innocent."
These earlier disclosures by Madeiros completely refute the theory that he was led to make his
latest confession in 1925 by the hope of getting money. It is suggested that in November 1925
he had seen the financial statement of the Sacco-Vanzetti Defense Committee. But, in the first
place there is no proof that Madeiros saw this statement before he made the confession.
Secondly, he could not have had knowledge of this statement before he talked to Weeks and
the others and when he attempted the prior communications to Sacco, because it was not then
in existence. It is incredible that a man fighting for his life on a charge for one murder would, in
the hope of getting money, falsely accuse himself of another murder. Madeiros knew the danger
of a confession, for his conviction in the Wrentham case largely rested upon confessions made
by him. Why should he be believed and suffer death when he confesses one crime and not be
believed when he confesses another of the same character? Is not his own statement in
accordance with the motives even of murderer?
I [have] seen Sacco's wife come up here with the kids and I felt sorry for the kids.
Let us compare the two hypotheses. The Morelli theory accounts for all members of the
Braintree murder gang; the Sacco-Vanzetti theory for only two, for it is conceded that, if
Madeiros was there, Sacco and Vanzetti were not. The Morelli theory accounts for all the bullets
found in the dead men; the Sacco-Vanzetti theory for only one out of six. The Morelli
explanation settles the motive, for the Morelli gang were criminals desperately in need of money
for legal expenses pending their trial for felonies, whereas the Sacco-Vanzetti theory is
unsupported by any motive. Moreover, Madeiros's possession of $2800 accounts for his share
of the booty, whereas not a penny has ever been traced to anybody or accounted for on the
Sacco-Vanzetti theory. The Morelli story is not subject to the absurd premise that professional
holdup men who stole automobiles at will and who had recently made a haul of nearly $16,000
would devote an evening, as did Sacco and Vanzetti the night of their arrest, to riding around on
suburban street cars to borrow a friend's six-year-old Overland. The character of the Morelli
gang fits the opinion of police investigators and the inherent facts of the situation, which tended
to prove that the crime was the work of professionals, whereas the past character and record of
Sacco and Vanzetti have always made it inherently incredible that they should spontaneously
become perpetrators of a bold murder, executed with the utmost expertness. A good mechanic,
regularly employed at his trade, but away from work on a particular day which is clearly
accounted for, and a dreamy fish peddler, openly engaged in political propaganda, neither do
nor can suddenly commit an isolated job of highly professional banditry.
Can the situation be put more conservatively than this? Every reasonable probability points
away from Sacco and Vanzetti; every reasonable probability points toward the Morelli gang.
How did these facts appear to Judge Thayer?
VIII.
At the outset the scope of Judge Thayer's duty toward the motion for a new trial based upon this
new evidence must be kept in mind. It was not for him to determine the guilt of the Morellis or
the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti; it was not for him to weigh the new evidence as though he
were a jury, determining what is true and what is false. Judge Thayer's duty was the very narrow
one of ascertaining whether here was new material fit for a new jury's judgment. May honest
minds, capable of dealing with evidence, reach a different conclusion, because of the new
evidence, from that of the first jury? Do the new facts raise debatable issues? Could another
jury, conscious of its oath and conscientiously obedient to it, be sufficiently impressed with the
new evidence to reach a verdict contrary to the one that was reached on a record wholly
different from the present, in view of evidence recently discovered and not adduceable by the
defense at the time of the original trial? To all these questions Judge Thayer says, "No." This
amazing conclusion he reached after studying the motion "for several weeks without
interruption" and set forth in an opinion of 25,000 words! We wish for nothing more than that
every reader who has proceeded thus far should study the full text of this latest Thayer opinion.
Space precludes its detailed treatment here. To quote it, to analyze it, adequately to comment
upon it would require a book. Having now put the materials for detailed judgment at the disposal
of readers, we are compelled to confine ourselves to a few brief observations. By what is left out
and by what is put in, the uninformed reader of Judge Thayer's opinion would be wholly misled
as to the real facts of the case. Speaking from a considerable experience as a prosecuting
officer, whose special task for a time it was to sustain on appeal convictions for the
Government, and whose scientific duties since have led to the examination of a great number of
records and the opinions based thereon, I assert with deep regret, but without the slightest fear
of disproof, that certainly in modern times Judge Thayer's opinion stands unmatched for
discrepancies between what the record discloses and what the opinion conveys. His 25,000word document cannot accurately be described otherwise than as a farrago of misquotations,
misrepresentations, suppressions, and mutilations. The disinterested inquirer could not possibly
derive from it a true knowledge of the new evidence that was submitted to him as the basis for a
new trial. The opinion is literally honeycombed with demonstrable errors, and a spirit alien to
judicial utterance permeates the whole. A study of the opinion in the light of the record led the
conservative Boston Herald, which long held the view that the sentence against these men
should be carried out, to a frank reversal of its position.
Dr. Morton Prince writes that any expert psychologist reading the Thayer opinion "could not fail
to find evidences that portray strong personal feeling, poorly concealed, that should have no
place in a judicial document." One or two illustrations must suffice. William G. Thompson is one
of the leaders of the Boston bar. Yet Judge Thayer thus characterized Mr. Thompson's activities
in behalf of these two Italians:—
Since the trial before the jury of these cases a new type of disease would seem to have
developed. It might be called 'lego-psychic neurosis' or hysteria, which means: 'A belief in the
existence of something which in fact and truth has no such existence.
And this from a judge who gives meretricious authority to his self-justification by speaking of the
verdict which convicted these men as "approved by the Supreme Judicial Court of this
Commonwealth." The Supreme Court never approved the verdict; nor did it pretend to do so.
The Supreme Court passed on technical claims of error, and, "finding no error, the verdicts are
to stand." Judge Thayer knows this, but laymen may not. Yet Judge Thayer refers to the verdict
as "approved by the Supreme Judicial Court."
No wonder that Judge Thayer's opinion has confirmed old doubts as to the guilt of these two
Italians and aroused new anxieties concerning the resources of our law to avoid grave
miscarriage of justice. The courageous stand taken by theBoston Herald has enlisted the
support of some of the most distinguished citizens of Massachusetts. The Independent has thus
epitomized this demand:—
"Because of the increasing doubt that surrounds the question of the guilt of these men,
springing from the intrinsic character of Judge Thayer's decision, and instanced by the judgment
of the herald editorial writer and other observers whose impartiality is unquestioned, we strongly
hope that a new trial will be granted. It is important to note that the appeal is being made on the
basis of new evidence never passed on before the Supreme Court."
No narrow, merely technical, question is thus presented. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts
will be called upon to search the whole record in order to determine whether Judge Thayer duly
observed the traditional standards of fairness and reason which govern the conduct of an AngloAmerican judge, particularly in a capital case. This court has given us the requirements by
which Judge Thayer's decision is to be measured and the tests which it will use in determining
whether a new trial shall be granted:—
The various statements of the extent of the power and of limitations upon the right to grant new
trials...must yield to the fundamental test, in aid of which most rules have been formulated, that
such motions ought not to be granted unless on a survey of the whole case it appears to the
judicial conscience and judgment that otherwise a miscarriage of justice will result.
Nor must a new trial be withheld where in justice it is called for because thereby encouragement
will be given to improper demands for a new trial. For, as the Chief Justice of Massachusetts
has announced, courts cannot close "their eyes to injustice on account of facility of abuse."
With these legal canons as a guide, the outcome ought not to be in doubt.
“WE TOLD YOU SO”:
COMMUNISTS & THE GREAT DEPRESSION
DOCUMENT 25: HAMILTON FISH, JR., “THE MENACE
OF COMMUNISM,” IN THE ANNALS, v. 156 (JULY,
1931), p. 54-61.
Communism is the most important, the most vital, and the most far-reaching issue in the world,
affecting the civilization of the world and the happiness and safety of our people. The merits and
the demerits of prohibition sink into insignificance compared to this question of Communism,
whose ramifications reach into every human sphere and activity, and which is a great world
issue. It may be divided into three parts: the revolutionary or political, the moral or religious,
and the economic.
Revolutionary and Religious Phases.
So far as the first is concerned, that of revolution, I wish to make clear in the beginning, in spite
of what you may read in some of the papers, that I am not an arch Fascist or an extreme
conservative; I am not an alarmist. I do not believe that there is any likelihood of a Communist
revolution in the United States this year or next year or for many years to come, or until
Communism has spread out from Soviet Russia into China and India and Germany, where there
are some 15 million Communists. We have nothing to fear in this country from a revolutionary
point of view until there is a Communist revolution in Germany; and that will come whenever
Soviet Russia is ready to have it come, and not before. On the question of a revolution in this
country, there is another good, sound reason why we will not have one. There are only, as our
Committee found, 5 or 600,000 Communists out of 120 million people. The Communists (we
must give them credit for many things) are intelligent, are well disciplined, and take their orders
direct from Moscow and are proud of it. They know that they could not accomplish anything
by having a revolution in the United States at this time. They further know that if there was a
revolution the regular army and the National Guard and the American Legion, using a Russian
word, could “liquidate” all the Communists in the United States in a few weeks’ time. Therefore I
do not want anyone to think either that I am an alarmist or that I anticipate a revolution in this
country at this time from Communist sources. The question of the moral or religious aspect is
perhaps the most appalling and the most tragic, if not the most dangerous; because there is a
country of 160 million people, one-sixth of the territory in the world, with some 10 million children
going to school, where it is mandatory to teach hatred of all forms of religion and hatred of God
and of religious beliefs. Now, it is none of our business what kind of a government they may
have in Russia or what they teach there. All I am trying to do is to present the facts as we have
found them through intensive study. I think, and the Fish Committee believes, that the best way
to combat Communism is to expose its principles and objectives, and what it has done in
Russia, to the American people; because it will not go very far in America if the American
people know just what it is. This religious issue is of particular interest to the women of this
country. Not only is Soviet Russia trying to wipe out all forms of religion, but it is successful
in doing it. Not only are the leaders undermining the faith of 10 or 12 million children in Russia,
but they are actually successful in teaching hatred of God and all religious beliefs to such an
extent that the children at school must hold their parents in contempt and disobey them if the
parents have the temerity to maintain any religious belief.
Historical Sketch.
Let me outline somewhat of the history of Communism. There is a great misunderstanding in
America, largely due to Communists and Socialists and pink intellectuals, who lecture
throughout this land and make most of the noise and represent about 5 percent of the
population. They want you to believe that the Communists overthrew the Tsar’s regime and that
there is some connection between Liberalism and Communism. The truth is that in March 1917
the Tsar abdicated to the Provisional Government of Russia, the first democratic government
that Russia had ever known, and the United States of America was the first government to
recognize that Provisional Government of Russia. At that time, Lenin was living in Switzerland
as an exile, our old friend Trotsky was living in the Bronx in the city of New York, Stalin was an
exile in Siberia, and all the other Communist leaders were either out of Russia or in exile. They
had little or nothing to do with the overthrow of the Tsar’s regime. I do not hold any brief for that
old despotism. I believe a dozen revolutions were justifiable against that misgovernment and
misrule, inhumanity, and the stupidity of the old system. But after the Provisional Government
was set up, the German General Staff sent Lenin with some of his colleagues in a closed car
through Germany into Russia to advocate chaos — a separate peace for the war-weary
Russian army, land to the peasants, factories to the workers, and so on — to undermine the first
democratic government of Russia. After 6 months’ time, in November, through the help of
deserters from the front, some 30,000 Communists overthrew the democratic government of
Russia by force and violence, and established their dictatorship, which is the worst form of
autocracy the world has ever known, wiping out all civil rights, freedom of speech, of assembly,
and of the press, trial by jury, and so on. It amounts to a government of fear and by fear,
through force and violence. Again, we have nothing to do with the form of government in Soviet
Russia; it is none of our affair what kind of a government they have over there. But when they
interfere, through the Communist International, with our domestic institutions and with our
form of government, then it is very decidedly the business of the American people and of the
Congress of the United States. That is one reason why the government has steadily refused to
recognize Soviet Russia. So far as I am concerned, it is the only reason why we should not. The
question of debts is immaterial. The serious issue is that of interference from a foreign
government supposed to be friendly, but using its diplomatic officials and its consulates for
propaganda purposes.
Principles of Communism.
What are the principles of Communism? In other words, what is Communism? There is much to
be admired about the Communists, because we know exactly what they stand for, and they do
not change their principles as the Republicans and the Democrats do in this country. All
Communists, whether they live in Moscow or Berlin or Paris or New York or Los Angeles or
Tokyo, believe in the same fundamental principles. Now, what are those principles? First, the
abolition of all forms of religious belief. Second, the abolition of all forms of private property and
inheritance. Third, the promotion of the bitterest kind of class hatred of a certain part of the
working class against all other classes. Fourth, the promotion through the Communist
International in foreign countries, of strikes, riots, sabotage, and industrial unrest. Fifth, the
promotion of class or civil war in order to obtain the objective, which is, sixth, the establishment
of a Soviet form of government, the dictatorship of the proletariat, with headquarters in Moscow.
If you believe in those six principles, you are a Communist, and you ought openly to state that
you are a Communist. If you are in sympathy with those methods, you ought to advocate them.
But our Committee believes, as I said before, that the best way to combat Communism is to
expose it — to state those tenants clearly, so that the American people may know just what they
are. The Communists go through this country under certain camouflages. They even come
down to Washington to the Congress of the United States and advocate other issues, such as
unemployment insurance or protection for the foreign-born, that have nothing to do with the
fundamental principles of Communism, but simply constitute a temporary appeal to certain
classes for support for their party. If those six principles are understood in this country and
elsewhere, the Communists will not get very far.
Labor Conditions.
The Communists in Russia, so we are told, are all employed. That may be true. The
Communists over there control the country. There are only one and a half million Communists
out of 160 million people, and if the rest of the people are employed, they are not employed in
the capacity of free men and women, but as serfs, shackled and harnessed to the job, receiving
about 20 cents gold a day, not permitted to strike, but simply to work and obey orders. Yet there
are some intellectuals in this country that delight in comparing free American labor with that kind
of labor that is used in Soviet Russia. Why, if Soviet Russia would permit its people to leave the
country, half the population would move out in 30 days, and they would all like to come into the
United States if they could find their way over here. For the last 30 years we in this country have
been wiping out abuse after abuse to protect the wage earners and to give them better
conditions of labor. And yet you will find some people criticizing the United States — criticizing
our government and our economic system, under which the wage earners, in spite of a
temporary period of depression, have been for many, many years the best paid, the best fed,
the best clothed, the best housed, and the most contented in the world. That is why all the
foreigners, if we gave them a chance, would like to come over to the United States of America.
In spite of that, the Communists and the Socialists are joining hands. The trouble about the
Socialists is that they hate to admit that there is any such thing as a Communist. They are very
much annoyed with me because they do not want anybody to know that there are any
Communists in America. The Socialists have lost the rank and file of their party, who have gone
into the Communist Party. All that is left of the Socialist Party is a few Protestant ministers, a lot
of pink intellectuals, and many sobbing sisters owning pearl necklaces and having Liberty
Bonds safely tucked away somewhere. Those people are the ones that denounce everything
about our republican form of government, about our ways of doing business and about our labor
conditions. In their opinion everything is wrong with us, everything is corrupt, and everything is
angelic in Russia and everywhere else but in the United States. We are not going to borrow
anything from Socialism in our structure. We can have social reforms and justice, but we are not
going to change our form of government for Socialism or Communism in any respect whatever.
The Socialists represent a foreign form of government. They take their principles exactly as
the Communists do, from the manifesto of Karl Marx, issued in 1848. The Socialists do not deny
it. The Communists do not deny it. The Communist Party is not an American party; it is a section
of the Communist International, taking its orders from Moscow. Even if its candidates ran for
office and were elected, they could not take the oath of office and allegiance to our government.
This is the reason the party should be kept off the ballot. Who is best able to speak for labor?
Why, that organization that has done more to combat and expose Communism than any other
in the United States. The American Federation of Labor has for the last 14 years refused to
compromise with Communism in this country to any degree. If the Communists had succeeded
in taking over the American Federation of Labor in Chicago and Los Angeles and elsewhere, as
they tried to do, Communism would be a very serious threat in this country today, in every
industry from Philadelphia to the Pacific Coast.
Communistic Methods.
You probably would like to know how the Communists operate. They are well organized,
although few in number. They have 20 districts, each with its local manager. They take their
orders direct from Moscow, and glory in taking those orders. They are the most skilled
propagandists in the world. They realize that the way to develop their cause is to reach the
children. In my district alone, I found three summer camps some 50 miles up the Hudson River
in New York. Our Committee was delegated by the Congress of the United States to get the
facts, so we went up peacefully to those camps to see if they existed, to see what type of boys
and girls went to the camps, and to see what they were taught there. We found a lot of healthy
young boys and girls, mostly aliens, and these aliens who should become good American
citizens were being taught nothing but hatred of our traditions, our ideals, our government, and
our flag. These three camps were turning out 15,000 a year; and those camps are multiplied 10
times throughout the United States. There are camps outside of New York, Chicago, Seattle,
Detroit, Los Angeles, and other industrial cities. We had some 275 witnesses appear before our
Committee, under oath, from all groups and classifications of people, and many of the leading
Communists in America. We went from east to west and north to south, and covered all the
industrial sections. We also investigated the American Civil Liberties Union, and found that
about 90 percent of the work of that organization consists in upholding the activities of the
Communists in the United States seeking to destroy all civil liberties in this country. I do not
want anybody to think I am unfriendly to the aliens. I believe the aliens that come into this
country do and should make as good citizens as those of us who have been born here, if not
better. They come here of their own accord, and they really owe more to the country. But so far
as the Communists are concerned, we found that 70 percent of the Communist in the United
States were aliens, that 20 percent were naturalized citizens, and that only 10 percent were
American-born citizens, whether they were white or black. The Communists in the United States
constitute an alien conspiracy, aimed at the heart of the government and the happiness of the
people. That is why our Committee proposed that all alien Communists who would not go back
to their own countries of their own accord, but insisted on staying in the United States to spread
this doctrine of hate and urge the overthrow of the government by false propaganda, should be
deported by the Congress of the United States. If they do not like it here, if they do not like our
laws and our country and our institutions, let them go home where they can enjoy the lack of
freedom of speech and the oppressive laws to which they have been accustomed in the past. If
they insist on staying here and continuing this propaganda of hate, there is nothing for Congress
to do but to enact laws to see that alien Communists are deported. These people are not afraid
of our police, of our courts, of our jails. The only thing they are afraid of is being sent home. The
American people and the Congress of the United States have already compromised with them
too long. We have tolerated their insults too long, and if they will not cease this propaganda or
go home of their own accord, I can assure you that the next session of Congress will enact
legislation to see that all alien Communists are deported to their native lands.
Department of Justice Should Have More Power.
You may be interested to know how I became interested in this question of Communism. I went
to Russia in 1912 and again in 1923. I was not particularly interested when I came home. But I
found out through entering a debate on the recognition of Russia that no department of our
government had any authority or funds from Congress to investigate Communism, and no
department of the government, particularly the Department of Justice, knew anything about the
revolutionary activities of the Communists in the United States. We have about 100,000
Communists in New York, and if they were so minded, they could raid the White House and
kidnap the President, and no department of the government would know anything about it until
they read it in the newspapers the next day. I want to assure you that I do not think they are so
minded at this time. Naturally, ,we propose that the Department of Justice shall be given ample
power to investigate these revolutionary activities in our midst as a precautionary method. We
do not propose to give the Department the power to raid and to arrest, but merely to secure
information and to act as a clearing house; not to restore the old espionage act of war times.
If this empowerment of the Department of Justice and the provision for deportation of alien
Communists were submitted to the American public throughout the country, I am convinced that
they would be carried in a plebiscite or a referendum 99 to 1. I am opposed to Communism and
its activities in this country because of the investigation and the facts that we found. I am
furthermore opposed to it because in politics, I am of a liberal trend of mind. I am just as much
opposed to Fascism as I am to Communism, but I am opposed to Communism more as a liberal
who believes in popular government and human rights, and in government by consent of the
governed. That is why I believe that Communism is the most important, the most vital, the most
far-reaching, and the most dangerous issue in the world.
The Economic Phase.
So far as we are concerned, the economic phase of it is the most serious at the present time to
the American people because free American labor cannot compete with labor in Russia,
hackled and harnessed to the job and paid 20 cents a day. Furthermore, we have more to fear
from Russia than from any other country, because it is a great country like our own, with
enormous natural resources in wheat, oil, lumber, and cotton. It is not Russian imports in this
country, but Russian competition in the world markets, that we have to fear. Ten years ago, it
was thought that Russia would not succeed and that she was not an economic menace. That
was perfectly true at that time. What enabled her to succeed? American brains, American
implements, and American capitalists and industrialists. The Russians themselves have built
only one large factory. We have more engineers over there than all the other nations combined.
Russia killed off her engineers and her businessmen, and now she has to have Americans to
help her out. Although I am a politician, and know that it is very dangerous to predict or to
promise jobs in politics, I do not mind predicting that, thanks to American capitalists, American
credit, American brains, American tractors and sawmill machinery and oil equipment, the FiveYear Plan will be successful, and that within the next four years, we will lose in wheat, oil,
lumber, and cotton, over a billion dollars in export trade, which will affect the pocketbook of
everybody in this country, and affect our standard of living. Lenin was a great man, and he once
said that capitalists will commit suicide for temporary profit. That is exactly what the American
capitalists, industrialists, and bankers have been trying to do for the last two years, and they
have succeeded in building up the Five-Year program which has for its final objective the
destruction of all democratic forms of government and all capitalism throughout the world.
Propaganda.
Now, some people will say, “Well, how do we know that there are any Communists in America?”
There are 11 or 12 daily Communist newspapers, with a total circulation of 264,000. All except
one are in foreign languages. They are spreading the most vicious, poisonous hatred against
everything in which we believe in this country, against our institutions and our government and
our flag, among aliens and naturalized foreigners who ought to be good citizens. Those 264,000
papers are not read simply by one person each, but by entire families. That propaganda is going
on throughout this country, and many of the editors of those papers are aliens. Again, there is
the propaganda among the Negroes. The Communists in Russia believe that the 12 million
Negroes in America do not realize that they have lived here generation after generation, and the
Communists think that they can rouse the racial hatred of the Negroes and develop a
revolutionary spirit against the government. I have personally seen order after order from
Moscow to the Communists in this country, demanding that an intense campaign be conducted
among the Negroes, both North and South, in order to turn them against the government. The
Communists cannot understand why the Negroes have not succumbed to their propaganda of
social equality, or intermarriage and racial equality, and so on. The fact is that the colored man
and woman in America are loyal to their country, their flag, and their governmental institutions,
in spite of inequalities. They are not colonials, they are native-born Americans; and the women,
particularly, of the colored race find no appeal in the Communist propaganda when it comes
to the abolition of religion. The colored man and woman believe in God and are a churchgoing
people. Whenever there is a Communist meeting, the white and the colored people assemble
together and dance together. The Communists mean just what they say, so their propaganda
has some little appeal. Colored men and women are going to Moscow all the time to be trained
in the revolutionary schools. Does anyone think that aliens would be permitted to go into Soviet
Russia and criticize the government and the institutions? You know as well as I do that those
aliens would not be deported — they would be shot. I am glad that in this country of ours we can
talk on this question of Soviet Russia on both sides and present facts for the information of the
public. I would favor recognition of Russia if we could have a guarantee that she would not use
here embassies and her consulates to spread propaganda. But so long as she will not divorce
the Communist International from the Soviet government, the United States government will not
recognize Soviet Russia. Personally, I would go a step farther; I would recognized Soviet Russia
if she would restore civil rights and liberties there and let the people vote for their own form of
government.
Defense of Our Government.
But my message is not one of recognition, or of trade, or of political revolution. In spite of the
beautiful things we hear about Russia — this great peaceful nation where everybody is rich and
happy and sublime — the one main statement of Communists throughout this country, and of
their Socialist friends, and of many of our intellectual professors, is that we are a great, warlike,
aggressive, imperialistic nation and that we want to declare war on Russia. Yet we are the most
peaceful nation in the world, with out military establishment smaller than that of almost any other
nation; while Russia has an army of 600,000, armed to the teeth, with tanks and airplanes and
heavy artillery. If there is to be a big war in the next five years, that war will come out of Soviet
Russia. It will come when the Five-Year Plan is completed and the armaments are in readiness
and when Russia is ready to release the Communists in Germany for action; then it will come
through an internal revolution in Germany, with the big Russian army coming over Poland
into Germany to help. After 11 years’ service in the congress of the United States, I have no
criticism of our form of government, in spite of the fact that the Communists say that our
government is one of wealth and is owned by 59 men in Wall Street. Our government is owned
by the sovereign people. We still have a popular government; not only have we a republican
form of government, but our people control that government through their legislators. So my
main message is that we have nothing whatever to gain from Communism, from Socialism,
or from a dictatorship. Our government is still the soundest, the fairest, the most honorable, and
the wisest form of government yet devised by the mind of man.
DOCUMENT 26: PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, JOHN L. LEWIS’
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE ON THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
PROTECTING WORKERS, FEB. 1933 (BEFORE THE
PASSAGE OF THE N.R.A.)
The political stability of the republic is imperiled. In excess of twelve million wage earning are
unemployed. In certain industrial states the percentage of unemployed equals 40 percent of the
enrolled workers. Of the remaining 60 percent a large number are employed on a part-time
basis, and are the victims of a continuous schedule of wage cutting. Those who are employed,
directly or indirectly, must inevitably bear the burden of supporting the millions to whom
employment is unavailable. The cost of maintenance of government, and the support of non-
productive institutions, is, therefore, day by day being passed to the continuously decreasing
number of citizens who are privileged to work.
Our Republic and our institutions can not be expected to exist under the progressive
accumulation of ills which result from our inability to properly organize our economic processes.
Manifestations of widespread unrest and discouragement almost akin to despair, are daily
becoming more violent. Over wide areas insurance companies and other investors find the
population in rebellion against the usual processes of recovery from debt defaulters. Violent
resistance to evictions for rent default daily becoming more evident. Disorder and rioting,
because of the inadequacy of public relief, is increasingly prevalent. Continuing bank failures
with their consequent train of human tragedies add to the sum total of bitterness of a population
sick with waiting and deferred hope for intelligent economic and financial leadership. A student
of history will find, in many a duplication of these appalling conditions in the misery of the
French people antedating the French Revolution. The Bourbons of France like some of the
modern Bourbons in our own country, indulged themselves in idle chatter and continued to
believe in their own security, notwithstanding the suffering and degradation of the masses. They
paid for their error and their inaction with their heads.
The appalling social and political problems arising from the present emergency are of a
fundamentally economic concept. The restoration of order in our economic and industrial
household is primarily essential to any intelligent disposition of the social and political problems
of the nation. We are victims of our own national short-sightedness by failure in the halcyon
days of prosperity to intelligently plan for the future. A horde of small-time leaders in industry
and finance like the freebooters of old, vied with each other, looted the purse of the population,
and diverted the proceeds to their own interests. Now that the day of adversity has come, these
same leaders are destitute of competent suggestion to safeguard the present or the future, and
they expect the population of this country to remain quiescent while they utter ponderous
platitudes about balancing the budget, and the necessity for further wage reductions. The very
application of their wage-cutting fallacy further reduces the national income to a point where the
population can not sustain itself and the national budget can not remain balanced.
The balancing of the budget will not in itself place a teaspoonful of milk in a hungry baby’s
stomach, or remove the rags from its mother’s back.
It must be obvious to any thoughtful person that the national budget can never be permanently
stabilized in the face of ever-growing unemployment, shrinkage in business volume, mounting
inability to pay taxes, and consequently depreciation of national income.
If democracy and corporate participation in industry are to survive in America, labor must have
an opportunity to exercise its industrial rights for the protection of itself and our democratic and
economic institutions. an emergency now exists which is more critical than would be the case if
a fleet of a foreign power were at this moment bombarding the defenses of one of our major
ports. The very foundation of democracy and integrity of American institutions is threatened.
Labor should be granted the right of collective bargaining, with representatives of its own
choosing, in those major industries of the Country where this right is now withheld.
In large areas of the coal, textile, lumber and steel industries, workers are denied the rights of
collective bargaining and are treated more or less as serfs, compelled to accept any wage, no
matter how inadequate, declared by a harassed employer existing on the verge of financial
bankruptcy. Democracy in these industries is supplanted by an industrial autocracy.
Legalized collective bargaining will permit the workers of America to exercise their birthright of
participation in the fixation of' the prices of their services and the conditions of employment.
Labor should be given greater recognition in the affairs of government and its spokesmen
should be given representation upon boards and commissions exercising governmental
functions.
During the period of the World-war labor was given such recognition, and inasmuch as the
nation is now confronted with an emergency even more grave than was the case during the
years of 1917 and 1918, labor should again be given its seat at the council table.
If given the right to organize in our major industries, labor can police those industries against
communism, or any other false and destructive philosophy, more efficiently than can the
government itself. American labor has in the past demonstrated its patriotism and its desire to
stand behind and protect the accredited institutions of our land.
If labor is accorded its fundamental rights, it can render great service in the present crisis.
In consideration of the obvious circumstances, Congress should pass a joint resolution
declaring a state of national emergency to effectuate intelligent organization of the industrial and
financial activities of the nation.
A board of emergency control should be created. It should be composed of representatives of
industry, labor, agriculture and finance. It should he given plenary emergency power under the
direction of the President.
The board should be instructed to reduce the hours of labor, and the number of days in the work
week to a point where the industrial machinery of the nation can substantially take up the slack
of unemployment and under conditions where labor is accorded the right of collective bargaining
through representatives of its own choosing.
This board should also be instructed to stabilize the prices of agricultural products and other
commodities to a point that will express reasonable return to the producers thereof.
The board should be given such other instructions as to fundamental economic planning and
other matter, in accordance with the judgment of the Congress
The foregoing recommendation may be criticized by some as being a form of dictatorship
repugnant to the American concept of government. Nevertheless, it is the form of procedure
resorted to by our nation during the crisis of the World war, when the enemy was three
thousand miles from our shore. Today the enemy is within the boundaries of the nation, and is
stalking through every community and every home, and, obviously, this proposal is the most
democratic form of internal regulation that can be devised to deal with our economic and
industrial collapse.
Source: United Mine Workers Journal 44,(March 1, 1933): 3–4. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5135
DOCUMENT 27: FATHER CHARLES COUGHLIN,
“ADDRESS ON THE NATIONAL UNION FOR SOCIAL
JUSTICE,” (NOV. 11, 1934)
My friends, the outworn creed of capitalism is done for. The clarion call of communism has been
sounded. I can support one as easily as the other. They are both rotten! But it is not necessary
to suffer any longer the slings and arrows of modern capitalism any more than it is to surrender
our rights to life, to liberty and to the cherished bonds of family to communism.
The high priests of capitalism bid us beware of the radical and call upon us to expel him from
our midst. There will be no expulsion of radicals until the causes which breed radicals will first
be destroyed!
The apostles of Lenin and Trotzsky bid us forsake all rights to private ownership and ask us to
surrender our liberty for that mess of pottage labeled "prosperity," while it summons us to
worship at the altar where a dictator of flesh and blood is enthroned as our god and the citizens
are branded as his slaves.
Away with both of them! But never into the discard with the liberties which we have already won
and the economic liberty which we are about to win — or die in the attempt!
My friends, I have spent many hours during these past two weeks — hours, far into the night,
reading thousands of letters which have come to my office from the young folks and the old
folks of this nation. I believe that in them I possess the greatest human document written within
our times.
I am not boasting when I say to you that I know the pulse of the people. I know it better than all
your newspaper men. I know it better than do all your industrialists with your paid-for advice. I
am not exaggerating when I tell you of their demand for social injustice which, like a tidal wave,
is sweeping over this nation.
Nor am I happy to think that, through my broadcasts, I have placed myself today in a position to
accept the challenge which these letters carry to me — a challenge for me to organize these
men and women of all classes, not for the protection of property rights as does the American
Liberty League; not for the protection of political spoils as do the henchmen of the Republican or
Democratic parties. Away with them too!
But, happy or unhappy as I am in my position, I accept the challenge to organize for obtaining,
for securing and for protecting the principles of social justice.
To organize for action, if you will! To organize for social united action which will be founded on
God-given social truths which belong to Catholic and Protestant, to Jew and Gentile, to black
and white, to rich and poor, to industrialist and to laborer.
I realize that I am more or less a voice crying in the wilderness. I realize that the doctrine which I
preach is disliked and condemned by the princes of wealth. What care I for that! And, more than
all else, I deeply appreciate how limited are my qualifications to launch this organization which
shall be known as the NATIONAL UNION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.
But the die is cast! The word has been spoken! And by it I am prepared either to stand or to fall;
to fall, if needs be, and thus, to be remembered as an arrant upstart who succeeded in doing
nothing more than stirring up the people.
How shall we organize To what principles of social justice shall we pledge ourselves? What
action shall we take? These are practical questions which I ask myself as I recognize the fact
that this NATIONAL UNION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE must be established in every county and
city and town in these United States of America.
It is for the youth of the nation. It is for the brains of the nation. It is for the farmers of the nation.
It is for everyone in the nation.
Establishing my principles upon this preamble, namely, that we are creatures of a beneficent
God, made to love and to serve Him in this world and to enjoy Him forever in the next; that all
this world's wealth of field, of forest, of mine and of river has been bestowed upon us by a kind
Father, therefore I believe that wealth, as we know it, originates from natural resources and from
the labor which the children of God expend upon these resources. It is all ours except for the
harsh, cruel and grasping ways of wicked men who first concentrated wealth into the hands of a
few, then dominated states, and finally commenced to pit state against state in the frightful
catastrophes of commercial warfare.
Following this preamble, these shall be the principles of social justice towards the realization of
which we must strive:
1. I believe in liberty of conscience and liberty of education, not permitting the state to
dictate either my worship to my God or my chosen avocation in life.
2. I believe that every citizen willing to work and capable of working shall receive a just,
living, annual wage which will enable him both to maintain and educate his family
according to the standards of American decency.
3. I believe in nationalizing those public resources which by their very nature are too
important to be held in the control of private individuals.
4. I believe in private ownership of all other property.
5. I believe in upholding the right to private property but in controlling it for the public good.
6. I believe in the abolition of the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking system and in
the establishment of a Government owned Central Bank.
7. I believe in rescuing from the hands of private owners the right to coin and regulate the
value of money, which right must be restored to Congress where it belong.
8. I believe that one of the chief duties of this Government owned Central Bank is to
maintain the cost of living on an even keel and arrange for the repayment of dollar debts
with equal value dollars.
9. I believe in the cost of production plus a fair profit for the farmer.
10. I believe not only in the right of the laboring man to organize in unions but also in the
duty of the Government, which that laboring man supports, to protect these
organizations against the vested interests of wealth and of intellect.
11. I believe in the recall of all non-productive bonds and therefore in the alleviation of
taxation.
12. I believe in the abolition of tax-exempt bonds.
13. I believe in broadening the base of taxation according to the principles of ownership and
the capacity to pay.
14. I believe in the simplification of government and the further lifting of crushing taxation
from the slender revenues of the laboring class.
15. I believe that, in the event of a war for the defense of our nation and its liberties, there
shall be a conscription of wealth as well as a conscription of men.
16. I believe in preferring the sanctity of human rights to the sanctity of property rights; for
the chief concern of government shall be for the poor because, as it is witnessed, the
rich have ample means of their own to care for themselves.
These are my beliefs. These are the fundamentals of the organization which I present to you
under the name of the NATIONAL UNION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. It is your privilege to reject
or to accept my beliefs; to follow me or to repudiate me.
Hitherto you have been merely an audience. Today, in accepting the challenge of your letters, I
call upon every one of you who is weary of drinking the bitter vinegar of sordid capitalism and
upon everyone who is fearsome of being nailed to the cross of communism to join this Union
which, if it is to succeed, must rise above the concept of an audience and become a living,
vibrant, united, active organization, superior to politics and politicians in principle, and
independent of them in power.
This work cannot be accomplished in one week or two weeks or in three months, perchance.
But it must begin today, at this moment. It shall be a Union for the employed and the
unemployed, for the old and the young, for the rich and the poor, independent of race, color or
creed. It is my answer to the challenge received from the youth of the nation; my answer to
those who have dared me to act!...
This is the new call to arms — not to become cannon fodder for the greedy system of an
outworn capitalism nor factory fodder for the slave whip of communism.
This is the new call to arms for the establishment of social justice!
God wills it! Do you?
Source: Charles Coughlin, A Series of Lectures on Social Justice. (Royal Oak, Mich.: The Radio League of the Little
Flower, 1935), 15-19.
DOCUMENT 28: SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY, THE NRA:
“NATIONAL RETROGRESSION ACT”: A "NEW DEAL"
FOR THE WORKERS, OR THE SAME OLD ORDEAL OF
EXPLOITATION AND POVERTY? (NEW YORK: NEW
YORK LABOR NEWS CO., 1933)
“A series of articles viewing the so-called National Recovery Act, and the present almost total
collapse, from various angles, demonstrating the futility of the efforts now being made by the
Roosevelt Administration to reconstitute capitalism. The Socialist Labor Party solution--Industrial
Self-Government by the Working Class--is clearly and repeatedly emphasized. As it is
impossible to restore life to a corpse--though an electric current may induce spasms resembling
life even in a corpse--so it is utterly impossible to restore life to the corpse of capitalism. Away
with the putrid thing!” READ FULL TEXT ONLINE AT: www.library.wolfsonian.org
DOCUMENT 29: ROBERT BENDINER REMINISCES
ABOUT THE COMMUNISTS IN THE EARLY 1930s:
"In my working hours I saw the comrades from time to time in skirmishes with the police, who
were always called 'Cossacks,' in Union Square and City Hall Park. Their demands on those
occasions were chanted rhythmically and repeatedly, every word receiving the same stress,
until they had a hypnotic effect--'We-want-jobs, We-want-jobs,' 'Free-Tom-Mooney, Free-TomMooney.' Against the background of this chorus went a brand of oratory new to me, featuring
figures of speech exotic to my Western Pennsylvanian ear. The speakers, usually mounted on
soft-drink boxes, seemed to live in a world of outlandish creatures, where 'petty bourgeois
degenerates' walked by day and 'Social Fascist reptiles' crawled by night. Observing even this
much of the Communists, I had no trouble believing tales of their total divorce from reality, like
the story--there were several versions--of the Daily Worker reporter who burst into his office one
day yelling, 'Hold everything, it's begun! The masses are storming the Amalgamated Bank!'
But if the Communists alone were too odd to move me, even in mass renditions of 'The
International,' the police could sometimes be counted on to move me for them. The thud of a
night stick on a human body was enough to send my temperature soaring and the sight of a
mounted cop charging into a packed sidewalk made me, at least for the moment, a silent but
seething defender of the masses.
Such flashes of empathy were soon gone, however. Another taste of Communist rhetoric and
I was back to my old bourgeois self...."
Source: Robert Bendiner, Just Around the Corner: A Highly Selective History of the Thirties (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1967), 79-80.
DOCUMENT 30: Excerpt from John Steinbeck’s novel,
The Grapes of Wrath (1939)
..."Well, I was there. They wasn't no agitators. What they called reds. What the hell is these
reds anyways?
..."They's a lot a fellas wanta know what red is." He laughed. "One of our boys foun'
out....Fella named Hines--got 'bout thirty thousan' acres, peaches and grapes--got a cannery an'
a winery. Well, he's all a time talkin' about 'them goddamn reds.' 'Goddamn reds is drivin' the
country to ruin,' he says, an' 'We got to drive these here red bastards out.' Well, they were a
young fella jus' come out west here, an' he's listenin' one day. He kinda scratched his head an'
he says, 'Mr. Hines, I ain't been here long. What is these goddamn reds?' Well, sir, Hines says,
'A red is any son-of-a-bitch that wants thirty cents an hour when we're payin' twenty-five!' Well,
this young fella he thinks about her, an' he scratches his head, an' he says, 'Well, Jesus, Mr.
Hines. I ain't a son-of-a-bitch, but if that's what a red is--why, I want thirty cents an hour.
Ever'body does. Hell, Mr. Hines, we're all reds.'"
COMMUNISM & CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISM
DOCUMENT 31: BLACK COMMUNIST ACTIVIST
ANGELO HERNDON ADDRESSES THE JURY AT HIS
TRIAL IN 1932 IN GEORGIA ON THE CHARGE OF
“INCITING INSURRECTION”
"They knew that the workers of Atlanta were starving, and by arresting Angelo Herndon on a
charge of attempting to incite insurrection the unity of Negro and white workers that was
displayed in the demonstration that forced the County Commissioners to kick in with $6,000,
would be crushed forever. They locked Angelo Herndon up on such charges. But I can say this
quite clearly, if the State of Georgia and the City of Atlanta think that by locking up Angelo
Herndon, the question of unemployment will be solved, I say you are deadly wrong. If you really
want to do anything about the case, you must go out and indict the social system. I am sure that
if you would do this, Angelo Herndon would not be on trial here today, but those who are really
guilty of insurrection would be here in my stead. But this you will not do, for your role is to
defend the system under which the toiling masses are robbed and oppressed. There are
thousands of Negro and white workers who, because of unemployment and hunger, are
organizing. If the state wants to break up this organization, it cannot do it by arresting people
and placing them on trial for insurrection, insurrection laws will not not fill empty stomachs. Give
the people bread....
DOCUMENT 32: SCOTTSBORO—A STORY IN BLOCK
CUTS [UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT, ILLUSTRATED
AND WRITTEN BY LIN SHI KHAN AND RALPH
AUSTIN, 1932?]
READ ONLINE AT: http://www.wolfsonian.org/collections/c9/main7.html
DOCUMENT 33: “THE SOUTH COMES NORTH IN
DETROIT’S OWN SCOTTSBORO CASE.” AN
ADDRESS DELIVERED BY HARRY HAYWOOD,
GENERAL SECRETARY, LEAGUE OF STRUGGLE FOR
NEGRO RIGHTS. MAY 22, 1934
READ ONLINE AT:
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/AFS/dmc/radicalism/public/all/southcomesnorth/AAK.pdf?CFID=5171
542&CFTOKEN=34331723
DOCUMENT 34: “SHARE THE WEALTH”: NATIONAL
RADIO ADDRESS, APRIL 1935, BY LOUISIANA’S
POPULIST GOVERNOR, SENATOR, AND
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, HUEY P. LONG
Now in the third year of his [Roosevelt’s] administration, we find more of our people unemployed
than at any other time. We find our houses empty and our people hungry, many of them halfclothed and many of them not clothed at all.
Mr. Hopkins announced twenty-two millions on the dole, a new high-water mark in that particular
sum, a few weeks ago. We find not only the people going further into debt, but that the United
States is going further into debt. The states are going further into debt, and the cities and towns
are even going into bankruptcy. The condition has become deplorable. Instead of his promises,
the only remedy that Mr. Roosevelt has prescribed is to borrow more money if he can and to go
further into debt. The last move was to borrow $5 billion more on which we must pay interest for
the balance of our lifetimes, and probably during the lifetime of our children. And with it all, there
stalks a slimy specter of want, hunger, destitution, and pestilence, all because of the fact that in
the land of too much and of too much to wear, our president has failed in his promise to have
these necessities of life distributed into the hands of the people who have need of them.
Now, my friends, you have heard me read how a great New York newspaper, after
investigations, declared that all I have said about the bad distribution of this nation’s wealth is
true. But we have been about our work to correct this situation. That is why the Share Our
Wealth societies are forming in every nook and corner of America. They’re meeting tonight.
Soon there will be Share Our Wealth societies for everyone to meet. They have a great work to
perform.
Here is what we stand for in a nutshell:
Number one, we propose that every family in America should at least own a homestead equal in
value to not less than one third the average family wealth. The average family wealth of
America, at normal values, is approximately $16,000. So our first proposition means that every
family will have a home and the comforts of a home up to a value of not less than around
$5,000 or a little more than that.
Number two, we propose that no family shall own more than three hundred times the average
family wealth, which means that no family shall possess more than a wealth of approximately $5
million—none to own less than $5,000, none to own more than $5 million. We think that’s too
much to allow them to own, but at least it’s extremely conservative.
Number three, we propose that every family shall have an income equal to at least one third of
the average family income in America. If all were allowed to work, there’d be an income of from
$5,000 to $10,000 per family. We propose that one third would be the minimum. We propose
that no family will have an earning of less than around $2,000 to $2,500 and that none will have
more than three hundred times the average less the ordinary income taxes, which means that a
million dollars would be the limit on the highest income.
We also propose to give the old-age pensions to the old people, not by taxing them or their
children, but by levying the taxes upon the excess fortunes to whittle them down, and on the
excess incomes and excess inheritances, so that the people who reach the age of sixty can be
retired from the active labor of life and given an opportunity to have surcease and ease for the
balance of the life that they have on earth.
We also propose the care for the veterans, including the cash payment of the soldiers' bonus.
We likewise propose that there should be an education for every youth in this land and that no
youth would be dependent upon the financial means of his parents in order to have a college
education.
Source: Courtesy of Andy Lanset. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5109/
DOCUMENT 35: JAMES FORD AND JAMES S. ALLEN,
THE NEGROES IN A SOVIET AMERICA. [New York :
Workers Library Publishers, 1935].
READ ONLINE AT: http://library.wolfsonian.org
DOCUMENT 36: NOMINATING SPEECH BY ELLA
REEVE BLOOR NOMINATING JAMES W. FORD FOR
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE CPUSA
[1936], AND ACCEPTANCE SPEECH BY JAMES FORD
It is one of the high points of my long life spent with the workers and farmers of America to be
able to present to this Nominating Convention of the Communist Party the name of an able and
beloved comrade, as the Vice-Presidential nominee of our Party.
This comrade is a Negro comrade who has added luster to the name of his people and who has
strengthened and inspired their struggles for freedom and liberation. We are proud that one of
the best sons of the Negro people is a member and leader of our Party. He symbolizes the
ceaseless efforts of the Negro people to free themselves from oppression and lynch terror. At
the same time he represents and symbolizes the fact that our Party is the champion of the
Negro people, that we are proud to be known as the Party of the Negro people, that we will
never rest until Negro and white workers, shoulder to shoulder, win the final emancipation of the
Negro people as part of the freedom of all enslaved humanity.
This comrade represents the fighting traditions of the Negro people against oppression. He is
the Nat Turner and Frederick Douglass of today. His people see in him a leader who through his
own example, through his tireless work, his heroism, shows them that path of struggle along
which lie freedom and liberty.
At the same time tens of thousands of white workers know him as a hard fighter for the working
class in New York and throughout the country. We know him as the champion of militant trade
unionism, as a fighter for the unemployed, as a war veteran who has fought for the bonus and
every need of his fellow veterans. He is a worker and a son of workers who has never spared
himself in battling for his class and for his people.
I have watched him grow and develop to meet the ever-greater problems of his people and his
class. His work is known far beyond the limits of our own country. He is known for his work in
behalf of the oppressed Negro peoples and of the colonial peoples, of all those victimized by
imperialist rule throughout the world. He is a member of the general staff of the working class of
the world—the Executive Committee of the Communist International. But you people of Harlem
here in this great hall today are even prouder that he is the leader of the Communist and Negro
liberation movement in Harlem.
Four years ago you chose this comrade to take his place beside Comrade Foster as the banner
bearer of our Party. Today I ask you once again to call upon him to stand with Comrade
Browder, as the Communist representative of the American people. Together they will help us
mobilize the Negro people, the workers and farmers of America, to beat back the forces of
reaction which threaten our liberties and our welfare. Together they will help forge the
unshakable unity of Negro and white toilers which will blaze the way to the final emancipation of
all humanity.
Comrades I give you as our candidate for the Vice-President of the United States, James W.
Ford.
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF
James W. Ford
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
COMRADES and friends, it is indeed an honor that the Communist Party has tendered me. But I
do not take it as an individual tribute to myself. It is a tribute to the entire Negro people; it is
another proof that the Communist Party is the outstanding fighter for their freedom from
segregation and oppression of every kind. The other parties lavish sweet words on the Negro
people; but it is only the Communist Party which day in and day out fights for every demand and
need of the Negroes in the terror- and lynch-ridden South and the poverty-stricken slums of
Harlem and South Chicago.
In these elections the American people face their greatest crisis since the Civil War. This recalls
the heroic part played by Negro regiments in turning the tide towards victory, and the role
played by that great Negro liberation leader—Frederick Douglass. His close associate was John
Brown who saved Kansas from slavery and who died that the Negro people might be freed. I am
proud to be on the same ticket with a son of Kansas—Earl Browder, friend and fighter for the
Negro people, my people.
John Brown was an individualist who died in a brave but individualist attempt to free the slaves.
Earl Browder symbolizes an invincible international movement dedicated to the liberation, not
only of the Negro people, but of all oppressed races and nationalities. Earl Browder and the
Communist Party are the inheritors of Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln and John Brown.
We Communists, Negro and white together, will carry out what they dreamed of.
The Republican Party' has always posed as the friend of the Negro people. It even sent a Negro
Congressman to Washington. But Mr. De Priest was part and parcel of the corrupt machine
which brutally suppresses the Negroes in Chicago. The Republicans have not fought against
segregation, against discrimination on jobs and relief. Today, the Republicans, sponsored by
the Liberty Leaguers, are in alliance with the most bitter enemies of the Negro people. It was
they who subsidized the infamous Grass Roots-Ku Klux Klan Convention of hate led by
Governor Talmadge of Georgia.
The Democratic Administration has been a little more favorable to Negroes. But in the South
Democratic officials have openly countenanced lynchings and tortures, are responsible for
Scottsboro, and are trying to send Herndon to death on the chain gang. Roosevelt makes
gestures to win the Negro vote, but he has never opened his mouth to protest this thralldom of
an entire people.
I urge the Negro people, in their own interests, in the interests of freedom and equal rights, to
support the Communist Party which saved the Scottsboro boys, which stands for every Negro
demand, which is the Party of the Negro people.
I appeal to the white workers, Communists and non-Communists, to remember that the Negro
people must not be left to fight alone. The responsibility lies with the white workers to help free
their brothers in a black skin. Unless the Negro people are freed there can be no freedom for
the white worker. Both must fight shoulder to shoulder against their common enemy, Wall
Street, which waxes fat on their misery and suffering. Both must defeat the sinister forces of
reaction which plan to enslave not only the Negro workers, but the white workers as well.
Let us unite to defeat this monster of reaction. Let us go forward to freedom and equality for the
Negro people in a free, happy, and prosperous America.
DOCUMENT 37: TESTIMONY OF FEDERAL THEATRE
PROJECT (FTP) DIRECTOR, HALLIE FLANAGAN
BEFORE THE HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
COMMITTEE (HUAC), DEC. 1938
THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, you have reached approximately twenty-five per cent of our
population with your plays?
MRS. FLANAGAN: Something like that. One of the great problems, if you will permit me to
speak for just a minute—
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma’am.
MRS. FLANAGAN: One of the great problems is that, while in the other art projects it is possible
to establish them in every state in the Union, which we would also like to do here, it is not
possible with us, because, while an artist can paint or a musician play or a writer write if there is
no audience or only one or two people involved, we cannot set up theaters except in states
where there are twenty-five or more people of satisfactory type on the relief rolls. So that one of
our problems is this centralization of the theater industry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Where have your audiences been? What localities have you played mostly?
MRS. FLANAGAN: We have played, I think I am safe in saying, the widest variety of American
audiences that any
theater has ever played.
THE CHAIRMAN: In what localities, Mrs. Flanagan?
MRS. FLANAGAN: The chief localities are, first, New York City, and next Los Angeles and
Chicago, because that is where the greatest unemployment exists. They are the three largest
cities. But if you are speaking now of the audiences themselves—I want to pick up that point, if
you don’t mind—
THE CHAIRMAN: I merely want to know the places where you have played, but if you want to
discuss audiences, it is all right.
MRS. FLANAGAN: I do want to discuss them, because that allegation was made here by one of
your witnesses, which I would not like to remain in the minds of any of you around this table. My
impression is that you are trying to get at all the facts.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. And if this statement is untrue, we want you to refute it.
MRS. FLANAGAN: I want to quote from her allegation. Miss Huffman says, “They couldn’t get
any audiences for anything except Communistic plays.” Now, gentlemen, I have here the proof
that that is an absolutely false statement. We have, as sponsoring bodies for the Federal
Theater, lists of organizations covering twenty pages of this brief, which I intend to write into the
record; and I will summarize them for you. Two hundred and sixty-three social clubs and
organizations, two hundred and sixty-four welfare and civic organizations, two hundred and
seventy-one educational organizations, ninety-five religious organizations, ninety-one
organizations from business industries, sixteen mass organizations, sixty-six trade-unions, sixtytwo professional unions, seventeen consumers' unions, twenty-five fraternal unions, and fifteen
political organizations. Note, gentlemen, that every religious shade is covered and every political
affiliation and every type of educational and civic body in the support of our theater. It is the
widest and most American base that any theater has ever built upon, and I request you not only
to write that into the record but to read the list of public schools and universities and churches
and the civic and social groups that are supporting this Federal Theater.
MR. STARNES: I want to quote finally from your article “A Theater Is Born,” on page 915 of the
Theatre Arts Monthly, edition of November 1931.
MRS. FLANAGAN: Is this the same article, Mr. Starnes?
MR. STARNES: Yes. “The power of these theaters springing up everywhere throughout the
country lies in the fact that they know what they want. Their purpose—restricted, some will call
it, though it is open to question whether any theater which attempts to create a class culture can
be called restricted—is clear. This is important because there are only two theaters which wants
to make money; the other is the workers‘ theater which wants to make a new social order. The
workers’ theaters are neither infirm nor divided in purpose. Unlike any art form existing in
America today, the workers' theaters intend to shape the life of this country, socially, politically,
and industrially. They intend to remake a social structure without the help of money—and this
ambition alone invests their undertaking with a certain Marlowesque madness.” You are quoting
from this Marlowe. Is he a Communist?
MRS. FLANAGAN: I am very sorry. I was quoting from Christopher Marlowe.
MR. STARNES: Tell us who Marlowe is, so we can get the proper reference, because that is all
that we want to do.
MRS. FLANAGAN: Put in the record that he was the greatest dramatist in the period
immediately preceding Shakespeare.
MR. STARNES: Put that in the record because the charge has been made that this article of
yours is entirely Communistic, and we want to help you.
MRS. FLANAGAN: Thank you. That statement will go in the record.
MR. STARNES: Of course, we had what some people call ‘Communists’ back in the days of the
Greek theater.
MRS. FLANAGAN: Quite true.
MR. STARNES: And I believe Mr. Euripides was guilty of teaching class consciousness also,
wasn’t he?
MRS. FLANAGAN: I believe that was alleged against all of the Greek dramatists.
MR. STARNES: So we cannot say when it began.
Source: Excerpts from Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968 in Eric Bentley (ed.),Thirty
Years of Treason. Excerpts from Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968.(New York: The
Viking Press, 1971), pp. 24–5. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/131
MOSCOW PURGES AND ABORTS ITS
“POPULAR FRONT” POLICY
DOCUMENT 38: VIEW THE BRIEF FOOTAGE FROM
THE MOSCOW ‘SHOW” TRIALS ONLINE AT:
http://wn.com/The_Trial_of_the_Twenty-One
DOCUMENT 39: SOCIALIST PARTY LEADER NORMAN
THOMAS REFLECTS ON “THE MOSCOW TRIALS,” in
THE MODERN MONTHLY [NEW YORK], V. 10, N. 11
(MARCH 1938), P. 4, 13.
The one certain thing about the Moscow trials is that they constitute the most dreadful single
chapter in the story of the degradation of a self-proclaimed socialist movement. The crimes of
the Russian totalitarian state under Stalin’s monolithic party have hurt the labor movement of
the world and dimmed our hopes as no single act of our avowed enemies could possibly do.
These confessions, true, false, or partly true and partly false, are for us who have believed in
socialism as the hope of the world the occasion of bitter tears and deep humiliation.
Of course it is not socialism which has failed but the Stalinite perversion of it. And this is true
whatever one thinks of the incredible confessions. I use the word incredible deliberately.
Nothing about them makes sense. E. Phillips Oppenheim has to be more careful of the
probabilities in the construction of his fantastic plots. At no point yet have any of the
confessions, which mention dates and names, checked up with external testimony. Indeed, it is
possible that some of Stalin’s latest victims count on this fact to let the world know that they are
liars confessing under some sort of strange compulsion.
I do not pretend to know why these men, some of them seasoned revolutionists, should make
such strange confessions. All that we can say is that under the Spanish Inquisition and the
witchcraft trials similar false confessions were made. The practice has become almost habitual
in Russia, at least since the Menshevik trial [1931]. I understood how it could happen a little bit
better after a short visit to the USSR. At best in that vast land the individual is completely
isolated from the world, completely at the mercy of Stalin’s bureaucracy and army, and Stalin
knows better than to permit another Socrates to make his dying words immortal.
There are physical tortures and there are psychological tortures which break men down.
Perhaps those who confessed are trying to win the privilege of dying without first suffering slow
torture in secret dungeons. Perhaps they are trying to win some immunity for their family and
friends from the brutal, wholly amoral ruthlessness of Stalin. Perhaps they are trying in their way
to save their party and their regime by assuming personal responsibility for crimes which they
did not commit. Eugene Lyons reminds us of a popular Russian novel, Chocolate, in which the
hero did precisely this thing. But all in all it constitutes a shameful and humiliating spectacle for
which words are inadequate, when world-famous revolutionists and honored physicians confess
to that which destroys all public confidence in comradeship, good faith, and integrity.
I assume that in a regime which makes possible no legal or democratic opposition even within
the Communist Party to the decisions of the bureaucracy there have been plots. This was
probably especially true in the dark days of 1932-1933. Stalin may be capitalizing his knowledge
of that fact.
The important thing is that there is no interpretation of these trials which does not bring shame
upon the regime. Stalin has been telling us to laud and praise in extravagant terms a regime
administered by men most of whom he has now brought to trial for the most abominable crimes.
There is a story to the effect that Ambassador Troyanovsky told a visitor that at least four of
these defendants should be shot, especially [former NKVD head Genrik] Yagoda, because, said
he, think of all the men Yagoda has killed. But Troyanovsky and every other Communist has to
applaud all that Yagoda did. The propaganda machinery unleashed the bloodhounds against
Yagoda’s victims just as they now unleash them against Yagoda, who doubtless deserves to
die.
•••••
His own testimony as to his crimes and the great fear that the physicians had of him ring more
true in my ears than any other testimony. Remember that the same Yagoda set the stage for all
the other trials in which the Communists told us there was no torture or intimidation used to get
confessions!
I do not think that this degradation of socialism, this frustration of our aspirations, is to be
explained primarily in terms of the Slavic temperament, the Asiatic heritage, or the tradition of
Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, whom Stalin seems to regard as his forerunners. It is to
be explained primarily in terms of the whole doctrine of the monolithic party, which can use any
means which it thinks will advance its ends. It is a condemnation of the whole theory of the
dictatorship of the lie. Lenin was a great enough man to master the amoral tactics which he
consciously used with some regard for proportion and achievement. None of his successors has
that ability. Insofar as Lenin, yes, and Trotsky, were responsible for this exaltation of secular
Jesuitism as a kind of working class virtue, they must share in the guilt of its complete
degeneration under Stalin. Some of Stalin’s theoretical policies may be mistaken. I think they
are. But his supreme failure has been an exaltation of a regime which makes suspicion of one’s
closest comrades inevitable and plots and counterplots the only vehicle of effective political
activity.
Various socialist and revolutionary groups are still debating whether Russian can still be called a
proletarian state. It now seems to me a verbal exercise of no great importance. Certainly Russia
is not a socialist state. It is a totalitarian state under a monolithic party which through the state
apparatus appropriates the surplus value of labor as it wills and for its own ends. In no sense
important to masses of human beings does the state become a working class institution simply
by reason of the absence of private capitalism or by the constant assertion that all its deeds,
good and bad alike, are done in the name and for the sake of the workers.
This conclusion I myself have reached with great reluctance and considerable resistance. The
Moscow trials leave me no other choice. I now look to see what Stalin will do next. Obviously he
has abandoned his hope of an understanding with Great Britain, although Earl Browder still
goes around talking about it in the name of collective security. Otherwise Great Britain
would not be so frequently mentioned in the trials. The French alliance is breaking down; the
Popular Front is dissolving. A change in Communist line impends. I think it might well be an
alliance or understanding with Hitler were it not, first, that I think Hitler for his own reasons would
refuse it and, second, that Stalin has perhaps publicized Hitler too largely as the enemy in
Russia. Stalin evidently still has hopes of the United States as an ally because America has not
been dragged into the trial.
But whatever the verbal explanation of a new line, or the revolutionary and Marxist pyrotechnics
which may accompany it, as long as Stalin and his bureaucracy remain in power at the head of
a monolithic party in charge of a totalitarian state, the essential reality will be what the world has
come to regard as fascist rather than socialist, and the original great and important differences
between the USSR and the fascist state will steadily diminish. Mussolini’s jest that Stalin must
be a fascist because he is killing Communists will keep its point. This is the tragedy of the whole
world. It remains for who still believe in socialism, to work with new energy for the positive
vindication of its principles and its honor.
DOCUMENT 40: EARL BROWDER, TRAITORS IN
AMERICAN HISTORY: LESSONS OF THE MOSCOW
TRIALS (NEW YORK: WORKERS LIBRARY
PUBLISHERS, 1938) READ THIS PAMPHLET ONLINE AT:
http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/12HYTRKNT4VQ8PA6HR6HNDPTAFL849XCBU3MAC9CPF1YCN98FA-04014?func=results-jumpfull&set_entry=000049&set_number=000313&base=GEN01-FCL01
DOCUMENT 41: AUGUST 14, 1939, TO ALL ACTIVE
SUPPORTERS OF DEMOCRACY AND PEACE:
THE TEXT OF AN OPEN LETTER CALLING FOR GREATER UNITY OF THE ANTI-FASCIST
FORCES AND STRENGTHENING OF THE FRONT AGAINST AGGRESSION THROUGH
CLOSER COOPERATION WITH THE SOVIET UNION, RELEASED ON AUGUST 14 BY 400
LEADING AMERICANS.
One of the greatest problems confronting all those engaged in the struggle for democracy and
peace, whether they be liberals, progressives, trade unionists, or others, is how to unite their
various forces so as to achieve victory for their common goals. The Fascists and their allies
are well aware that democracy will win if its supporters are united. Accordingly, they are intent
on destroying such unity at all costs. On the international scene the Fascists and their friends
have tried to prevent a united anti-aggression front by sowing suspicion between the Soviet
Union and other nations interested in maintaining peace. On the domestic scene the
reactionaries are attempting to split the democratic front by similar tactics. Realizing that here in
America they cannot get far with a definitely pro-fascist appeal, they strive to pervert American
antifascist sentiment to their own ends. With the aim of turning anti-fascist feeling against the
Soviet Union they have encouraged the fantastic falsehood that the USSR and the totalitarian
states are basically alike. By this strategy they hope to create dissension among the progressive
forces whose united strength is a first necessity for the defeat of fascism. Some sincere
American liberals have fallen into this trap and unwittingly aided a cause to which they are
essentially opposed. Thus, a number of them have carelessly lent their signatures to the recent
manifesto issued by the so-called Committee for Cultural Freedom. This manifesto denounces
in vague, undefined terms all forms of “Dictatorship” and asserts that the Fascist states and
Soviet Russia equally menace American institutions and the democratic way of life. While we
prefer to dwell on facts rather than personalities, we feel it is necessary to point out that among
the signers of this manifesto are individuals who have for years had as their chief political
objective the maligning of the Soviet people and their government, and it is precisely these
people who are the initiators and controllers of the committee. A number of other committees
have been formed which give lip service to democracy and peace while actually attacking the
Soviet Union and aiding reaction. Honest persons approached by such committees should
scrutinize their aims very carefully and support only those groups genuinely interested in
preserving culture and freedom and refusing to serve as instruments for attacking the Soviet
Union or aiding Fascism in any other way. The undersigned do not represent any committee
or organization, nor do they propose to form one. Our object is to point out the real purpose
behind all these attempts to bracket the Soviet Union with the Fascist states, and to make it
clear that Soviet and Fascist policies are diametrically opposed. To this end we should like to
stress ten basic points in which Soviet socialism differs fundamentally from totalitarian fascism.
1. The Soviet Union continues as always to be a consistent bulwark against war and
aggression, and works unceasingly for the goal of a peaceful international order.
2. It has eliminated racial and national prejudice with in its borders, freed the minority peoples
enslaved under the Tsars, stimulated the development of the culture and economic welfare of
these peoples, and made the expression of anti-Semitism or any racial animosity a criminal
offense.
3. It has socialized the means of production and distribution through the public ownership of
industry and the collectivization of agriculture.
4. It has established nationwide socialist planning, resulting in increasingly higher living
standards and the abolition of unemployment and depression.
5. It has built the trade unions, in which almost 24,000,000 workers are organized, into the very
fabric of its society.
6. The Soviet Union has emancipated woman and the family, and has developed an advanced
system of child care.
7. From the viewpoint of cultural freedom, the difference between the Soviet Union and the
Fascist countries is most striking. The Soviet Union has effected one of the most far-reaching
cultural and educational advances in all history and among a population which at the start was
almost three-fourths illiterate. Those writers and thinkers whose books have been burned by the
Nazis are published in the Soviet Union. The best literature from Homer to Thomas Mann, the
best thought from Aristotle to Lenin, is available to the masses of the Soviet people, who
themselves actively participate in the creation of culture.
8. It has replaced the myths and superstitions of old Russia with the truths and techniques of
experimental science, extending scientific procedures to every field, from economics to public
health. And it has made science and scientific study available to the mass of the people.
9. The Soviet Union considers political dictatorship a transitional form and has shown a steadily
expanding democracy in every sphere. Its epoch-making new Constitution guarantees Soviet
citizens universal suffrage, civil liberties, the right to employment, to leisure, to free education, to
free medical care, to material security in sickness and old age, to equality of the sexes in all
fields of activity, and to equality of all races and nationalities.
10. In relation to Russia’s past, the country has been advancing rapidly along the road of
material and cultural progress in ways that the American people can understand and appreciate.
The Soviet Union has an economic system different from our own. But Soviet aims and
achievements make it clear that there exists a sound and permanent basis in mutual ideals for
cooperation between the U.S.A. and the USSR on behalf of world peace and the security and
freedom of all nations. Accordingly, the signers of this letter urge Americans of whatever political
persuasion to stand firmly for close cooperation in this sphere between the United States and
Soviet Russia, and to be on guard against any and all attempts to prevent such cooperation in
this critical period in the affairs of mankind.
Among the 400 Signers of the Open Letter Are:
Dr. Thomas Addis, Professor of Medicine, Leland Stanford University
Helen Alfred, Executive Director National Public Housing Conference
Prof. Newton Arvin, Professor of English, Smith College
Dr. Charles S. Bacon, Honorary President, American Russian Institute,
Chicago, Ill.
Frank C. Bankcroft, Editor, Social Work Today
Bessie Beatty, writer
Maurice Becker, artist
Meta Berger, writer, widow of the first Socialist Congressman
Louis P. Birk, Editor, Modern Age Books, Inc.
T.A. Bisson, Reseach Associate, Foreign Policy Association
Allice Stone Blackwell, suffragist, writer
Katherine Devereaux Blake, teacher
Mark Blitzstein, composer
Anita Block, Theatre Guild playreader
Stirling Bowen, poet
Richard Boyer, staff writer, The New Yorker
Millen Brand, writer
Simon Breines, architect
Prof. Dorothy Brewster, Assistant Professor of English,
Columbia University
Robert Briffault, writer
Prof. Edwin Berry Burgum, Associate Professor of
Economics, University of California
Fielding Burke, writer
J.E. Bromberg, actor
Vea Caspary, scenario writer
Prof. Haakon Chevalier, Professor of French, University
of California
Maria Christina Chambers, Research Professor of
Biology, New York University
Harold Clurman, producer
Robert M. Coates, writer
Lester Cohen, writer
Prof. George B. Cressey, Chairman of the Department
of Geology and Geography, Syracuse University
Kyle Crichton, editorial staff of Collier’s Weekly
Miriam Allen de Ford, writer
Paul de Kruif, writer
Pietro di Donato, writer
William F. Dodd, Jr., Chairman, Anti-Nazi Literature
Committee
Stanley D. Dodge, University of Michigan
Prof. Dorothy Douglas, Department of Economics,
Smith College
Muriel Draper, writer
Prof. L.C. Dunn, Professor of Zoology, Columbia
University
Harriet G. Eddy, library specialist
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild, Professor of Sociology,
New York University
Prof. Mildred Fairchild, Professor of Economics, Bryn
Mawr College
Kenneth Fearing, poet
Allice Withrow Field, writer
Sara Bard Field, writer
William O. Field, Jr., Chairman of the Board, American
Russian Institute
Irving Fineman, writer
Marjorie Fischer, writer
Angel Flores, writer, critic
Waldo Frank, writer
Wanda Gag, artist
Hugo Gellert, artist
Robert Gessner, Department of English, New York
University
Prof. Willystine Goodsell, Associate Professor of
Education (retired), Columbia University
Mortimer Graves, of the American Council of Learned
Societies
Dr. John H. Gray, economist, former President of the
American Economics Association
William Gropper, artist
Maurice Halperin, Associate Editor, Books Abroad
Earl P. Hanson, explorer, writer
Prof. Samuel N. Harper, Professor of Russian Language
and Institutions, Chicago University
Rev. Thomas L. Harris, National Executive Secretary,
American League for Peace and Democracy
Dashiell Hammett, writer
Ernest Hemmingway
Granville Hicks, writer
Prof. Norman E. Himes, Department of Sociology,
Colgate University
Charles J. Hendley, President Teachers’ Union of the
City of New York
Leo Huberman, writer
Langston Hughes, poet
Agatha Illes, writer
Rev. Otis G. Jackson, Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal
Church, Flint, Michigan
Sam Jaffe, actor
Orrick Johns, poet
Matthew Josephson, writer
George Kauffman, playwright
Prof. Alexander Kaun, Associate Professor of Slavic
Languages, University of California
Fred C. Kelly, writer
Rockwell Kent, artist
Dr. John A. Kingsbury, social worker, Administrative
Consultant, W.P.A.
Beatrice Kinkead, writer
Lincoln E. Kirstein, ballet producer
Arthur Kober, playwright
Alfred Kreymborg, poet
Edward Lamb, lawyer
Dr. Corliss Lamont, writer, lecturer
Margaret I. Lamont, sociologist
J.J. Lankes, artist
Jay Leyda, cinema critic
John Howard Lawson, playwright
Emil Lengyle, writer, critic
Prof. Max Lerner, Professor of Government, Williams College
Meridel LeSeuer, writer
Meyer Levin, writer
Prof. Charles W. Lightbody, Department of Government
and History, St. Lawrence University
Robert Morss Lovett, Governor of the Virgin Islands,
and Editor of The New Republic.
Prof. Halford E. Lucckock, Yale University Divinity School
Katherine DuPré Lumpkin, writer
Klaus Mann, lecturer, writer, son of Thomas Mann
Prof. F.O. Mathiessen, Associate Professor of History of
Literature, Harvard University
Dr. Anita Marburg, Department of English, Sarah
Lawrence College
Dr. George Marshall, economist
Clifford T. McAvoy, Instructor, Department of Romance
Languages, College of the City of New York
Prof. V.J. McGill, Professor of Philosophy, Hunter College
Prof. Robert McGregor, Reed College
Ruth McKenney, writer
Darwin J. Meserole, lawyer
Prof. Herbert A. Miller, Professor of Economics,
Bryn Mawr College
Harvey O’Connor, writer
Clifford Odets, playwright
Shaemus O’Sheel, writer, critic
Mary White Ovington, social worker
S.J. Perelman, writer
Dr. John P. Peters, Department of Internal Medicine,
Yale University Medical School
Dr. Emily M. Pierson, physician
Walter N. Polakov, engineer
Prof. Alan Porter, Professor of German, Vassar College
Geroge D. Pratt, Jr., agriculturalist
John Hyde Preston, writer
Samuel Putnam, writer
Prof. Paul Radin, Professor of Anthropology,
University of California
Prof. Walter Rautenstrauch, Professor of Industrial
Engineering, Columbia University
Bernard J. Reis, accountant
Bertha C. Reynolds, social worker
Lynn Riggs, playwright
Col. Raymond Robins, former head of American
Red Cross in Russia
William Rollis, Jr., writer
Harold J. Rome, composer
Ralph Roeder, writer
Dr. Joseph Rosen, former head, Jewish Joint
Distribution Board
Eugene Schoen, architect
“Open Letter of the 400” [Aug. 14, 1939] 5
Prof. Margaret Schlauch, Associate Professor of
English, New York University
Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, Professor of Government,
Williams College
Prof. Vida D. Scudder, Professor Emeritus of
English, Wellesley College
George Seldes, writer
Vincent Sheean, writer
Viola Brothers Shore, scenario writer
Herbert Shumlin, producer
Prof. Ernest J. Simmons, Assistant Professor of
English Literature, Harvard University
Irina Skariatina, writer
Dr. F. Tredwell Smith, educator
Dr. Stephenson Smith, President Oregon Commonwealth
Federation
Hester Sondergaard, actress
Isobel Walker Soule, writer, editor
Lionel Stander, actor
Christina Stead, writer
A.E. Steig, artist
Alfred K. Stern, housing specialist
Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, Department of Sociology,
Columbia University
Donald Ogden Steward, writer
Maxwell S. Steward, Associate Editor, The Nation
Paul Strand, producer and photographer
Prof. Dirk J. Struik, Professor of Mathematics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Tasker, scenario writer
C. Fayette Taylor, aeronautical engineer, head of
Automotive Labs, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
James Thurber, artist, writer
Rebecca Janney Timbres, social worker, writer
Jean Starr Untermeyer, poet
Louis Untermeyer, poet
Mary van Kleeck, economist, Associate Director
International Industrial Relations Institute
Stuyvesant van Veen, artist
J. Raymond Walsh, economist
Dr. William Henry Walsh, physician
Prof. Harry F. Ward, Professor of Christian Ethics,
Union Theological Seminary
Lynd Ward, artist
Morris Watson, New York Newspaper Guild
Clara Weatherwax, writer
Max Weber, artist
Dr. Gerald Wendt, Director of Science and Education,
New York World’s Fair
Rev. Robert Whitaker, clergyman and lecturer
Albert Rhys Williams, writer
Dr. William Carlos Williams, writer
Ella Winter, writer
Richard Wright, writer
Art Young, artist
Leane Zugsmith, writer
DOCUMENT 42: THE MEANING OF THE NONAGGRESSION PACT. AN UNSIGNED EDITORIAL
FROM SOVIET RUSSIA TODAY.
We stopped the presses at the last minute to give our readers the official text of the
non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany signed in Moscow on August 23,
1939. There has been much confusion and some deliberate distortion of the meaning of this
pact. The British Tories are enraged because the Soviet Union and Germany promised not to
attack one another. These hypocritical protests, and similar outcries from like circles in this
country, may be taken as a measure of the a desire of such elements to provoke Germany into
war against the Soviet Union. Speaking in Leningrad on November 28, 1937, Litvinov said:
Concerned with the maintenance of peace not only on a our own frontiers, but
with guaranteeing likewise the security of all peoples, on the basis of the
indivisibility of peace, we agreed to enter into regional pacts of mutual a
assistance and concluded such pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. ...
I regret to say that not all powers — not even the dominant powers — have
shown the same sincerity, the same consistency and the same preparedness as
the Soviet Government to carry out measures for organized a peace....
They do not go beyond words and declarations, and with words and declarations,
you will not crush the aggressors.
Events proved these misgivings to have been understated. Spain and Czechoslovakia
revealed that the “dominant powers” — the democracies of Chamberlain and
Bonnet — not only failed to offer any resistance to aggression but even a encouraged
and connived with the aggressors. In March, 1939, Stalin made his brilliant analysis of
this situation:
The non-aggressor democratic states combined are undoubtedly stronger than
the fascist states, both economically and militarily. Such being the case, how can
the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors be
explained? This might be explained by fear of revolution which may break out
should the non aggressor states become involved in war and should the war
become worldwide. Bourgeois politicians know that the first imperialist world war
brought about the victory of the revolution in one of the biggest countries. They
are afraid that a second imperialist world war may also lead to the victory of
revolution in one or several countries. But at present this is not the sole, not even
the main reason. The main reason is that the majority of nonaggressor
countries, and primarily England and France, have abandoned the policy of
collective resistance to aggressors. They have taken up the position of
nonintervention, the position of “neutrality.” In actual fact, however war —
consequently, to its transformation into world war. Through the policy of nonintervention, there runs the eagerness, the desire not to prevent the aggressors
from perpetrating their black deeds, not to prevent, say, Japan, from becoming
involved in war with China, or still better, with the Soviet Union; not to prevent,
say Germany from becoming enmeshed in European affairs, from becoming
involved in war with the Soviet Union; to allow all belligerents to sink deep into
the mire of war, stealthily to encourage them to follow this line; to allow them to
exhaust one another and when they are sufficiently weakened, to appear on the
scene with fresh forces...to dictate terms to the weakened belligerent nations. It
is cheap and it serves the purpose....
Take Germany, for instance. They let her have Austria despite the obligation to defend
Austria’s independence; they ceded the Sudeten region; they left Czechoslovakia to her
own fate, thereby violating every obligation and then began to lie vociferously in the
press about the “weakness of the Russian Army,” about “riots” in the Soviet Union,
urging the Germans on to march further east, promising them easy
pickings and egging them on — just you start a war against the Bolsheviks and
then everything will go nicely. It must be admitted that this looks very much like
encouraging the aggressor....
Some European and American politicians and newspapermen who lost patience
waiting for the “march on Soviet Ukraine” are themselves beginning to reveal the
real background of the policy of non-intervention. They openly state and write in
black and white that the Germans have “disappointed” them cruelly, that instead
of marching on further east against the Soviet Union, they have turned to the
west, if you please, and demand colonies. One might think that the districts of
Czechoslovakia were ceded to Germany as the price for an undertaking to
launch war on the Soviet Union, and now the Germans refuse to pay the note,
telling their creditors to go chase themselves.
Stalin concluded this dissection of the treacheries of the dominant European powers with a
warning:
Far be it from me to sermonize apropos of the policy of non-intervention, to
speak of betrayal, or treachery, etc. It would be naive to preach morals to people
who recognize no human morality. Politics are politics, as old and hardened
bourgeois diplomats say. It must be remarked however, that the big and
dangerous political game which adherents of the policy of non-intervention have
started may end in serious failure for themselves.
It was in this speech that Stalin stated the foreign policy of the Soviet Union so clearly:
We stand for peace and for the strengthening of businesslike relations with all
countries....
We stand for close and neighborly relations with all neighboring countries....
We stand for the rendering of support to nations which have fallen prey to
aggression and are fighting for the independence of their countries.
And finally, but not least important,
We are not afraid of threats from aggressors and we are ready to deal two blows
for one against war-makers who attempt to infringe on the integrity of the Soviet
border.
To carry out this policy, said Stalin, it was necessary “to be careful not to allow our country to be
involved in conflicts by instigators of war who are used to getting other people to pull chestnuts
out of the fire for them, to strengthen the fighting power of our Red Army and Navy to the
utmost; to strengthen our international bonds of friendship with the working people of all
countries who are interested in peace and friendship between nations.”
We recommend Stalin’s great program of peace to those who seek a clear guide to recent
events. Read the words of Stalin, then read the text of the non-aggression pact between the
Soviet Union and Germany. “Businesslike relations with all countries ...
close and neighborly relations with all neighboring countries,” and not forgetting these words:
“Support to nations fighting for the independence of their countries...bonds of friendship with the
working people of all countries who are interested in peace and friendship between nations.”
Read also, and very carefully, from the same speech, Stalin’s list of the elements upon which
the Soviet foreign policy relies:
Firstly, its growing economic, political and cultural strength.
Secondly, the moral and political unit of Soviet society.
Thirdly, friendship among the peoples of our country.
Fourthly, its Red Army and Red Navy.
Fifthly, its policy of peace.
Sixthly, the moral support of the working people of all countries to whom the
preservation of peace is of vital concern.
Seventhly, the common sense of countries which for one reason or another are
not interested in the violation of peace.
With this preparation, read carefully the words of the non-aggression pact. It is just what it says
— a pact of non-aggression. A pact against war. Germany promises not to attack the Soviet
Union. Germany promises not to participate in any alliance aimed against the Soviet Union. Our
readers may have their own opinions as to the value of a Nazi signature. But there are the
words, there is the promise not to attack; there is the declaration before all the world. It may be
violated. Well, then, it is violated and, therefore, void. You may be sure that the Soviet Union
does not depend on this pact or any other for the protection of its territory. Recall the words of
Stalin: “Strengthen the fighting power of our Red Army and Red Navy.” The Soviet Union gives
reciprocal pledges. These are less important because the non-aggressive nature of the Soviet
Union has long been displayed before the whole world. The Soviet Union never threatened to
attack Germany. No responsible Soviet leader ever threatened an inch of German territory. The
Soviet Union would never enter an aggressive alliance directed against Germany — as the antiComintern pact was directed against the Soviet Union. Molotov’s signature merely confirmed
the traditional peace policy of businesslike and neighborly relations with all countries willing to
observe the same relations toward the Soviet Union. For this Hitler sent Ribbentrop to Moscow,
Molotov did not go to Berlin. Clearly audible in the angry cries from the British Tories and Roy
Howard is the fear of such a reversal of Munich, a terrible fear of such a victory of - Soviet
diplomacy, such a tribute to Soviet power. The Herald Tribune says:
Stalin has suddenly and dramatically seized the whip hand over the whole
negotiation to which the reality of Russian power perhaps entitles him, but it is
not clear that he has decisively altered the basic orientation of his policy.
Elsewhere in the same Herald Tribune, Leland Stowe exposed the hypocrisy of those who
pretend to see the nonaggression pact as an “alliance between Nazism and Communism.”
Before August 23rd the Soviet Union had nonaggression pacts with eight countries, of all
political varieties ranging from Afghanistan to Italy. But, as Mr. Stowe points out, no one ever
suggested that the Soviet Union and Italy “thereby became bosom partners for a universal
ideological offense.” Yet this is precisely what the New York Times says in its alarm over the
pact. Mr. Stowe remarks further “The U.S.S.R. and Poland have been linked by a nonaggression agreement for seven years and the Poles were joined to Nazi Germany by a similar
compact during five of these years; but it was never assumed that Poland had sold itself either
to Communism or Hitlerism.”
It would be possible to interpret the pact between the Soviet Union and Germany in terms of
who likes it and doesn’t. The New York Times does not like it, the boy reporters on the New
York Post and Mr. Howard’s editorial writers do not like it. The Japanese militarists hate it. It
was not well received by General Franco. But dispatches tell us that it had a fine reception in
China. We can believe that millions of honest people in Germany will see in it the first break in
the dark cloud of lies so long surrounding them. Ribbentrop flies to Moscow. The Nazis promise
not to attack the Soviet Union. Mein Kampf is on the dust heap. The pact will appeal mightily to
the great masses throughout the world. It is a pact for peace. It is not an alliance of Communism
and Fascism. It is not an alliance of any kind. It is a stroke for peace — a brilliant stroke, a
courageous stroke, a mightily successful stroke. The Associated Press admits it: “On the whole
observers are giving Russia credit for having achieved a major diplomatic triumph. Moscow has
maneuvered the Soviet Union into one of the strongest, if not the strongest, positions of any
European power.” (And that goes for Asia too.) And what is this power to be used for? Our
readers know the answer. It will be used for peace and for the benefit of all mankind. Izvestiia,
the official Soviet Government organ, commenting on the pact, says:
Ideological differences and differences in the political systems of the two
countries cannot and should not stand in the way of the establishment and
preservation of good neighborly relations between the two countries.
The pact does not remove these differences. On the contrary, both Izvestiia and Pravda took
occasion to point out their existence the day after the signing of the pact. The pact does not
bring a social revolution to Germany. Ribbentrop brought nothing to Moscow except an
unnecessary number of “experts” and a fountain pen. The pact is signed. The Chamberlains
and Bonnets are cheated. So what? Chamberlain went to Berchtesgaden. But Ribbentrop flew
to Moscow. Why? Because the Soviet people are united and the Red Army and Red Fleet are
strong. Munich was the way to capitulation, the way to war, to victory for aggressors and
oppressors. Moscow is the way to peace, to liberation, to victory for humanity.
Non-Aggression Pact.
The Government of the USSR and the Government of Germany, led by a desire to consolidate
the cause of peace between the USSR and Germany, and proceeding from the basic provisions
of the treaty on neutrality concluded between the USSR and Germany in April 1926, arrived at
the following agreement:
Article I — The Two contracting parties undertake to refrain from any violence, from any
aggressive action and any attack against each other, either individually or jointly with other
powers.
Article II — In the event that either of the contracting parties should be subjected to military
action on the part of a third power, the other contracting party will not lend that power support in
any form.
Article III — The governments of the two contracting parties will in the future maintain contact for
consultation in order to inform each other on matters affecting their common interests.
Article IV — Neither of the contracting parties will participate in any grouping of powers which
either directly or indirectly is aimed against the other contracting party.
Article V — In the event of disputes or conflicts arising between the contracting parties on
matters of one or another kind, the two parties will solve these disputes or conflicts exclusively
in a peaceful way through an amicable exchange of views or, in case of
need, by setting up commissions for the settlement of the conflict.
Article VI — The present pact is concluded for a term of ten years with the provision that, unless
one of the contracting parties denounces it one year before the expiration of this term, the term
of the validity of the pact will be considered automatically prolonged
for the next five years.
Article VII — The present pact is subject to ratification within the shortest possible space of time.
The exchange of the instruments of ratification shall take place in Berlin. The pact comes into
effect as soon as it is signed.
Done in Moscow in two originals in the German and Russian languages on August 23, 1939,
signed on the authorization of the Government of the USSR by Molotov;
For the Government of Germany, by Ribbentrop.
Originally published in: Soviet Russia Today, v. 8, no. 5 (Sept. 1939), p. 5-6. Edited by Tim Davenport.
DOCUMENT 43: [SECRET ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL]
OF THE MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT, 1939
[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]
Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the
Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall
represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection
the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the
Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded
approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an
independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely
determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its
interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these
areas.
Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.
Moscow, August 23, 1939.
For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop
Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov
Source: Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html
DOCUMENT 44: EXCHANGE OF CABLES BETWEEN J.
B. MATTHEWS, CHIEF INVESTIGATOR OF THE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UNAMERICAN
ACTIVITIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND LEON
TROTSKY IN MEXICO CITY, OCT. 12, 1939.
Edited by Tim Davenport.
Matthews to Trotsky.
Washington, DC, October 12, 1939
Leon Trotsky
Mexico City, Mexico
Dies Committee of the United States House
of Representatives invites you to appear as
witness before it in the city of Austin, Texas,
a city designed with a view to your personal
convenience. Date of your appearance to
be approximately four weeks from now.
Dies Committee agrees to arrange fro your
entry into the United States for the purpose
of testifying before it. Will also arrange for
proper protection. The committee desires to
have a complete record on the history of
Stalinism and invites you to answer
questions which can be submitted to you in
advance if you so desire. Your name has
been mentioned frequently by such
witnesses as Browder and Foster. This
committee will accord you opportunity to
answer their charges.
You will please treat this invitation as not for
publicity for the present.
J.B. Matthews, Chief Investigator,
Special Committee on Unamerican
Activities. Official Business.
Trotsky to Matthews
1939 Oct 12 PM 9: 50 [rubberstamped]
NA1012 80 Collect=Mexico City 12 75OP
J.B. Matthews, Chief Investigator,
Special Committee on Unamerican
Activities, Wash DC
I accept your invitation as a political duty. I
will undertake necessary measures in order
to overcome practical difficulties. Please
arrange under the same conditions entry for
my wife. She is indispensable for the
purpose of locating the necessary
documents, quotations, dates in my files.
Necessary to have your questions as soon
as possible in order to select the necessary
documents. Also desire exact quotations
from depositions of Foster and Browder
concerning me personally.
Leon Trotsky.
DOCUMENT 45: IN OLD MOSCOW, (WALTER CLIFF,
AKA WALTER GOURLAY) (TUNE: MY DARLING
CLEMENTINE) PART OF A SKIT PREPARED BY THE
JACOBIN JERQUES, YOUNG PEOPLE’S SOCIALIST
LEAGUE (4th INTERNATIONAL), STATEN ISLAND,
N.Y. [CA. 1940-'41]. Lyrics and info kindly provided by Bill Friedland.
On August 23, 1939. Stalin shocked Communist partics all over the world when he signed a
pact with Hitler. 'The Daily Worker' missed publication for one day until the new line was handed
down. Said the new line was "Fascism was no longer a threat" ... it was only a matter of 'taste.'
Nazis ceased to be beasts, and any opposition to Hitler was branded as detrimental to the
cause of 'world revolution.' The new slogan of the American CP was "The Yanks are not
coming" as the Nazis and the Communists embraced in old Moscow. In Old Moscow was
written by Walter Gourlay under his party name Walter Cliff. Friedland met Gourlay while he was
living in Staten Island. "He recruited me to the Shachtman group," he said. "He wrote beautiful
polemical parodies. 'In Old Moscow' was one of his songs. We used to build skits around these
things - whole skits - and that was only one of the songs we used. This would have been around
1941."
In old Moscow, in the Kremlin,
In the fall of thirty nine.
Sat a Russian and a Prussian
Writing out the party line.
Chorus:
Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
Oh my darling party line.
Oh, I never will desert you
Cause I love this life of mine.
1
Leon Trotsky was a Nazi,
Oh, we knew it for a fact.
2
Pravda said it, we all read it
Before the Stalin-Hitler Pact.
Once a Nazi would be shot, see.
That was then the party line.
Now a Nazi's hotsy-totsy,
Trotsky's laying British mines.
Now the Nazis, without Trotsky,
[ALTERNATE: Now the Nazis and Der Fuehrer]
Stand within the party line.
All the Russians love the Prussians
Volga boatmen sail the Rhine.
1
Trotsky, Leon: In a series of frame-up trials held in Moscow in 1936-38, the co- architect of the Bolshevik Revolution, first Foreign
Commissar, founder of the Red Army and Commissar for War (1918-1925) was 'proved' to have been an agent in the pay of various
foreign governments, including Hitler's Germany. Once Hitler became an ally of Stalin, the latter accusation became somewhat
'inappropriate.'
2
Pravda: The official party organ in the Soviet Union.
Source: Ronald D. Cohen & Dave Samuelson, liner notes for "Songs for Political Action," Bear Family Records, BCD 15 720 JL,
1996, p. 196.
UNCOMFORTABLE WARTIME ALLIES
DOCUMENT 45: MEMORANDUM BY THE ACTING
SECRETARY OF STATE (WELLES) REGARDING A
CONVERSATION WITH THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR
(OUMANSKY) ON A PLANNED GERMAN ATTACK ON
THE SOVIET UNION, 20 MARCH, 1941
[WASHINGTON], March 20, 1941.
After the conclusion of the general conference with the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon, I
asked the Ambassador to remain in order that I might talk with him alone for a few minutes. The
Ambassador asked if I had any further information in confirmation of what I stated to him
secretly in our last interview, namely, that this Government believed that Germany was planning
to attack the Soviet Union. I said that I had additional information in confirmation of that report.
S[UMNER] W[ELLES]
Source: U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 638. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/welles3.htm
DOCUMENT 46: SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY/
WORKERS PARTY SPLIT: DEFEND THE SOVIET
UNION, MANIFESTO OF THE SOCIALIST WORKERS
PARTY, JUNE 23, 1941
The Soviet Union is in mortal danger! Under the most adverse conditions the Soviet masses are
heroically defending the Workers’ State against imperialist invasion. The Second World War,
which could have been prevented only by victorious socialist revolution and destruction of world
capitalism, menaces the very existence of the isolated Workers’ State. All the warnings of Lenin
and Trotsky have come true.
German imperialism seeks to overthrow the October revolution and to restore the capitalist
system in its degenerate fascist form. This is the essential meaning of Hitler’s attack on the
Soviet Union. Every worker who realizes the significance of this attack will have no hesitation in
accepting the slogan of our party:
Defend the Soviet Union at all costs and under all circumstances against imperialist attack!
The Russian working class in October, 1917, established a government of Soviets which took
the land from the landlords and gave it to the peasants, and took the banks, industries and
railroads from the capitalists and placed them—as nationalized property—under the
management and control of the workers. Thereby the Soviets abolished the system of private
property which permits a handful of capitalists to own the wealth of a country and to exploit the
vast majority of the people. This achievement of the October revolution is the greatest advance
ever made by any people. It proved, beyond any refutation, that the working class is capable of
taking its destiny into its own hands. The unprecedented development of this nationalized
property proved for all time the superiority of socialist methods of production over capitalist
anarchy.
The productive forces were nationalized by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’
Deputies under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. Those Soviets no longer exist. They have
been destroyed by the Kremlin bureaucracy, which has usurped all political power. But the
productive forces are today still not in the hands of private owners. This means that, ‘in spite of
the damage done to the revolution by Stalin and his Kremlin clique, the essential conquest of
that revolution survives.
It is this nationalized property that we call upon the workers of the world to defend against
every enemy. It is this nationalized property which the capitalists of Germany, represented by
Hitler, are out to seize and transform into capitalist property. Today, therefore, the main enemy
of the Soviet workers is German imperialism. Against this enemy must be pitted every worker
conscious of the tremendous advance which the October revolution made in the progress of
mankind. Every blow of the Red Army against German imperialism is a blow for the socialist
future of mankind. It is the duty of every worker to aid the Red Army to victory.
What We Do Not Defend
The Soviet Union and Stalin’s regime are not at all identical. The October revolution was not
made for the bureaucrats who have usurped the seats of power. In defending the Soviet Union,
we do not defend these usurpers. Stalin and his clique have brought the Soviet Union to a point
where Hitler feels confident that he can in a short time conquer it. Within the Soviet Union the
Stalinist bureaucracy has destroyed every form of workers’ democracy established under Lenin
and Trotsky. The Cain in the Kremlin has murdered the best, the most devoted and most
capable Bolshevik leaders of the Soviet workers, and at this very moment keeps imprisoned in
his dungeons hundreds of thousands of revolutionary workers upon whom he now perpetrates
the last indignity of all—he prevents them from defending the Soviet Union arms in hand.
Outside the Soviet Union, Stalin strangled the Chinese revolution and led the whole European
labor movement to catastrophic defeats. Thus the Soviet Union was deprived of its only reliable
allies.
By his pact with Hitler, his collaboration with the Nazis in dismembering Poland, his 1939
attack on Finland, and his leaving Hitler free to master Europe, Stalin has alienated from the
Soviet Union the sympathies of tens of millions of workers.
Not for one moment do we suspend our struggle against the Kremlin dictator and the
bureaucracy which he represents. For the fact is already evident, and will become more so with
each day, that the Soviet workers must rid themselves Of this bureaucracy and re-establish
workers’ democracy in order to assure victory against the Nazi armies. The overthrow of Stalin
by the workers is demanded by the needs of the struggle to save the Soviet Union. We are
confident that the Russian workers who made three revolutions in the space of twelve years—
1905, February 1917, October 1917—will rise again to the level of their great revolutionary
traditions.
Stalin must be overthrown—but only by the working class. His overthrow by Hitler would
mean restoration of capitalism. For the sake of the Soviet Union and of the World Socialist
Revolution, the workers’ struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy must be subordinated to the
struggle against the main enemy—the armies of Hitler Germany. Everything that we say or do
must have as its primary object the victory of the Red Army.
The Soviet Union can be best understood as a great trade union fallen into the hands of
corrupt and degenerate leaders. Our struggle against Stalinism is a struggle within the labor
movement. Against the bosses we preserve the unity of the class front, we stand shoulder to
shoulder with all workers. The Soviet Union is a Workers’ State, although degenerated because
of Stalinist rule. Just as we support strikes against the bosses even though the union conducting
the strike is under the control of Stalinists, so do we support the Soviet Union against
imperialism. Despite imprisonment and repression, our comrades in the Soviet Union, the
hounded Trotskyist, will prove to the Soviet masses that the Trotskyist are the best fighters
against the capitalist enemy.
Defense of the USSR against its Capitalist Allies
Churchill has indicated that he will consummate some form of military alliance with the
Kremlin. When the United States reaches the “shooting war” stage, Roosevelt will likewise enter
into a formal alliance.
The Soviet Union is now compelled by sad necessity to seek these alliances. That is
necessitated by the isolation and weakness of the Soviet Union. What, however, shall be the
attitude of the working class toward the Soviet Union’s capitalist allies? The Communist
International today evades answering the fundamental question; tomorrow it will answer it as in
the period of the Franco-Soviet pact—calling upon the workers to support the imperialist war of
the “democracies.”
We warn the workers: the “democratic” ally is just as hostile to the nationalized property of the
Soviet Union as is the fascist enemy. Roosevelt and Churchill will seek two things at the same
time: the defeat of their German imperialist rival, and also to prevent the Soviet Union from
strengthening itself through victory. Even at the cost of weakening their tight against their
imperialist rival, Roosevelt and Churchill will try to hold down the world working class, including
the Soviet Union.
The chief contradiction in modern society, we have said since 1917, is between the Soviet
Union and the imperialist world. That still holds true. Special circumstances now, as during the
time of the Stalin-Laval pact, bring about an alliance between the Soviet Union and capitalist
countries. Not the least of these circumstances is that Stalin’s reactionary policy lessens
capitalist fears of the revolutionary role of the Soviet Union and weakens the effect of the
example of the October revolution. But only for the time being is the fundamental antagonism
between the Soviet Union and Anglo-American imperialism relegated to the background.
The fundamental antagonism remains and will come to the fore precisely if the “democracies”
begin to win. Only a week ago the sober spokesman of American monopoly, the New York
Times, said about the Soviet Union: “The democracies, having got rid of dictatorship in
Germany, would hardly support dictatorship elsewhere.” The Times has not unsaid this vicious
threat, any more than Churchill unsaid his enmity to the Soviet Union. Kerensky, the
representative of Russian “democratic” capitalism; hails the democracies for agreeing to “help”
the Soviet Union; “a victory of the democracies,” he says, “would end in the collapse of the
Soviet regime’’—that is, in the restoration of capitalism. The Vatican announces it is training
priests for work in Russia in case of a “change"—which it anticipates whether the fascist or the
democratic imperialisms become masters of Europe. Irreconcilable proletarian opposition to the
imperialist allies of the Soviet Union offers the only guarantee that the workers will be on guard
to save the Soviet Union from destruction at the hands of the victorious “democracies.”
Even during the course of the war, Churchill and Roosevelt, in the name of greater efficiency
in the prosecution of the war, may attempt to intervene in the economic life of the Soviet Union.
The already grave economic crisis in the Soviet Union—caused by capitalist encirclement and
the uncontrolled mismanagement of the bureaucrats—will grow ever more profound under the
stress of war. The Kremlin bureaucracy will tend to yield to close collaboration with the
“economic experts” of Roosevelt and Churchill. For their “services” the capitalists will demand
immediate payment in the form of economic concessions which would undermine the
nationalized property. It is unquestionable, we repeat, that the “democracies” are just as anxious
to destroy nationalized property as is Hitler.
Hitler understands very well that the fundamental antagonism of modern society is between
the Soviet Union and the capitalist world. While alluding to an alleged agreement between
Britain and the Soviet Union as one of his pretexts for the invasion, Hitler’s main war-cry is that
he is saving Europe from Bolshevism. While preparing for the contingency of waging a fulllength war against a Soviet-British alliance, Hitler is also exploring the possibility that he will
secure a free hand against the USSR. It is plain that he has hopes of forcing a peace in the
west during the course of his war against the Red Army.
Hitler’s role as guardian of Europe against Bolshevism brought him rich dividends from
Chamberlain. The party of Chamberlain is still at the helm in England. The main driving force in
Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union was undoubtedly the wheat, oil and other raw
materials which he needs for a long war. But he also hopes that his anti-Bolshevik slogans will
again win him an understanding with his imperialist rivals.
Thus far Churchill, representing at present the most important section of British imperialism,
has rejected the perspective of negotiating a peace; Churchill and Roosevelt fear Hitler more
than Stalin. However, the powerful groups of imperialists in England and here who are anxious
to make peace with Hitler will now redouble their efforts to win the British and American
governments to their program.
Appeasement gains mightily from Hitler’s assault on the Red Army, for the basic motivation of
the appeasers is a belief in capitalist solidarity against the workers of the world. The real fight
against the appeasers is not aided by those who line up with the capitalist war-mongers. Those
who subordinate the working class to the governments of the “democracies” make it that much
easier for the Roosevelt and Churchill to come to an agreement with the appeasers without any
fear of a vigilant and independent working class movement.
On guard against the capitalist allies of the Soviet Union! That is the only possible position of
the real defenders of the Soviet Union: irreconcilable opposition to all the imperialist powers,
whether “allies” or enemies.
For Revolutionary War
To rally the utmost energies of the Soviet masses, to rally around the Soviet Union the
masses of all countries, to arouse in the German proletariat the determination at all costs to
undermine and sabotage the Nazi war machine—these tasks of the hour require a policy in the
Bolshevik spirit of Lenin and Trotsky, tribunes of the people summoning the whole world to
revolt. Nothing could be further from this than the statement of Molotov upon the outbreak of
hostilities.
It could have emanated from the most conservative capitalist regime in the world. There is in
it not a word of appeal to the world masses; nor a word about socialism or the traditions of the
October revolution. Molotov seeks to inspire the Soviet masses by reminding them that “This is
not the first time that our people have had to deal with the attack of an arrogant foe.” That is
true. Enshrined forever in the hearts of the working class are the successes of Trotsky’s Red
Army in beating back on twenty-two fronts the armies of the imperialist world. But that is not the
tradition that Molotov is talking about! His tradition how is “our people’s reply was war for the
fatherland’’—against Napoleon! In this avoidance of the traditions of the October revolution,
Molotov reveals the character of the Kremlin regime, its fear of the masses and their
revolutionary heritage.
In everything it does the Stalinist bureaucracy indicates its lack of trust in and fear of the great
masses. It is to the capitalist masters that the Kremlin looks for aid. In his policy Stalin finds a
place for the masses only as so many pawns whom he can yield to the bourgeois masters as
payment for collaboration. The Soviet broadcasts of Churchill’s speech omitted Churchill’s antiCommunist statements; Stalin is already dressing up the leader of British imperialism.
The Kremlin bureaucracy is interested only in maintaining its privileges, at no matter what
cost to the Soviet and world masses. Stalin gave Hitler everything that he could, so long as
these concessions did not directly involve the surrender of the power and position of the
bureaucracy.
In the light of his fundamental policy, Stalin surely will not carry on this war as it ought to be
carried on—as a war in which the Soviet Union, though taking advantage of all aid from Hitler’s
imperialist enemies, plays the independent role of a Workers’ State, rallies the world masses to
the banner of socialism, calls upon the working masses of Germany to overthrow Hitler and
capitalism and to join in an alliance with the Soviet Union. Stalin represents the antithesis to
such a revolutionary policy, he has crushed that policy wherever he could, inside and outside
the Soviet Union. He has murdered its best representative, Leon Trotsky.
Workers and peasants of the Soviet Union! We appeal to you in the name of our martyred
leader, Comrade Trotsky. His voice would now be urging you on to revolutionary war against
Hitler. This was the hour of danger which Trotsky was destined to turn into the hour of
proletarian triumph —but his noble and heroic mind was crushed by Stalin’s pickaxe. Since he
has been denied the happiness of participating in your decisive battles and final victory, let
Trotsky henceforth participate invisibly in your struggle. Let his voice, stilled by Stalin but living
on in the movement which bears his name, advise you in your struggle for a better world.
Avenge his death by destroying Hitler, overthrowing the Cain in the Kremlin, and reviving the
Soviet democracy which in the heroic years of the October revolution made possible the victory
over imperialist intervention.
Revolutionary workers of America! In the defense of the Soviet Union, clarity is necessary
above all.
The Communist Party
What has been happening in the Soviet Union may be unknown to you, but you have
evidence at hand to show you that Stalinism is incapable of leading the defense of the Soviet
Union. You have the evidence of the Stalinist organ, the Daily Worker. Until after the invasion
began, the Daily Worker had not one word to say to warn and arouse the workers about the,
danger of a Nazi attack. On the contrary, it branded “the extravaganzas now being dressed up
as news” of a crisis between Germany and the Soviet Union as “Wall Street” lies “designed to
give the impression that the Soviet Union is ‘weak’ and that it is ‘isolated.’” Stalin’s vainglorious
boasting about the great gains resulting from the Stalin-Hitler pact, and his pretense that the
pact was forced upon Hitler by the might of the Red Army, dictated the Daily Worker ’s
conspiracy of silence about the terrible danger confronting the Soviet Union. Moreover the Daily
Worker’s editors—believing that Stalin would enter into still another agreement with Hitler—
denounced the reports of impending Nazi-Soviet war as designed “to discredit such further
steps for the advancement of peace and for the safeguarding of Soviet neutrality that the Soviet
Union may take.” This lying and stupid policy, dictated by the Kremlin, left the members of the
Communist Party more unprepared for the terrible news than any other group of the population.
The Communist Party is not an independent revolutionary party which boldly speaks out in
the interests of the international working class. On the contrary, it is merely the supine agent of
the Kremlin bureaucrats. Precisely now, when one of the main duties of a genuine revolutionary
party is to speak out and warn the workers of England and America to be on guard against the
capitalist “allies” of the Soviet Union, the Stalinist parties are beginning to shift their line toward
open support of the imperialist war waged by these capitalists. The instructions they will receive
from the Kremlin will be in the spirit of the “editing” of Churchill’s speech by the Moscow
broadcasters: to dress up the “democratic” imperialists as progressive friends of the Soviet
Union. The Stalinist parties tomorrow will “discover” that the imperialist war is no longer
imperialist. They will drop their pseudo-militancy in the trade unions. They will sing Roosevelt’s
praises again as loudly as they did in 1936. They will, in a word, do their utmost to deliver the
workers bound hand and foot to Churchill and Roosevelt, as Stalin’s cynical payment to the
imperialists for an alliance.
class="sub"> The Main Tasks of the American Working Class
Every worker must defend the Soviet Union as a class duty. The revolutionary worker cannot
accept the corrupt and opportunistic line of the Stalinists. He defends the nationalized property
of the Soviet Union and not the Kremlin bureaucrats. He defends the Soviet Union because
capitalism has been overthrown there. He can under no circumstances support the imperialist
war of Britain and the United States, no more than he would support the imperialist war of Nazi
Germany. The revolutionary worker understands that if Churchill and Roosevelt find themselves
allied to the Soviet Union that does not change by one iota the reactionary character of the war
that Churchill and Roosevelt are waging.
The workers must fight fascism to the death—but the imperialist war of Britain and the United
States is not a war against fascism, it is a war against their imperialist rivals. The only way the
workers can fight against fascism is to take the power and establish a Workers and Farmers
Government in the United States. Only such a socialist government would be a real ally of the
Soviet Union.
Meanwhile the method to defend the Soviet Union is to continue the class struggle against
the imperialists. Defend the workers’ rights against government strikebreaking! Build the power
of the working class until it becomes the governmental power. That is the best service which the
American workers can render to their brothers in the Soviet Union.
Defend the Soviet Union! Defend the conquests of the October revolution!
Down with the Stalinist bureaucracy that weakens the Soviet Union!
Revolutionary war to the death against fascism!
Against all the imperialists in this war!
On guard against the capitalist allies of the Soviet Union!
For a Workers and Farmers Government, the only reliable ally of the Soviet Union!
Long live the world socialist revolution!
Source: Fourth International, New York, Volume II, No. 1, July 1941, pages 170-73. Transcribed/HTML Markup: Daniel Gaido and
David Walters, November, 2006. Public Domain: Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line 2006. Marxists Internet Archive:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/fi/1938-1949/ww/1941-ww03.htm
DOCUMENT 47: ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE,
SUMNER WELLES' STATEMENT ON THE GERMAN
REICH'S ATTACK ON THE SOVIET UNION,
WASHINGTON, JUNE 23, 1941
If any further proof could conceivably be required of the real purposes and projects of the
present leaders of Germany for world domination, it is now furnished by Hitler's treacherous
attack upon Soviet Russia.
We see once more, beyond peradventure of doubt, with what intent the present Government of
Germany negotiates "non-aggression pacts." To the leaders of the German Reich sworn
engagements to refrain from hostile acts against other countries-engagements regarded in a
happier and a civilized world as contracts to the faithful observance of which the honor of
nations themselves was pledged-are but a symbol of deceit, and constitute a dire warning on
the part of Germany of hostile and murderous intent.
To the present German Government the very meaning of the word "honor" is unknown.
This government often has stated and in many of his public statements the President has
declared that the United States maintains that freedom to worship God as their consciences
dictate is the great and fundamental right of all peoples. This right has been denied to their
peoples by both the Nazi and the Soviet Governments.
To the people of the United States this and other principles and doctrines of communistic
dictatorship are as intolerable and as alien to their own beliefs as are the principles and
doctrines of Nazi dictatorship. Neither kind of imposed overlordship can have, or will have, any
support or any sway in the mode of life, or in the system of government, of the American people.
But the immediate issue that presents itself to the people of the United States is whether the
plan for universal conquest, for the cruel and brutal enslavement of all peoples and for the
ultimate destruction of the remaining free democracies which Hitler is now desperately trying to
carry out, is to be successfully halted and defeated.
That is the present issue which faces a realistic America. It is the issue at this moment which
most directly involves our own national defense and the security of the New World in which we
live.
In the opinion of this government, consequently, any defense against Hitlerism, any rallying of
the forces opposing Hitlerism, from whatever source these forces may spring, will hasten the
eventual downfall of the present German leaders, and will therefore redound to the benefit of
our own defense and security.
Hitler's armies are today the chief dangers of the Americas.
Source: [New York Times, June 24, 1941]: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410623a.html
DOCUMENT 48: EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN
THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE SUMNER
WELLES AND THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR TO THE
UNITED STATES, CONSTANTINE A. OUMANSKY,
AUGUST 2, 1941
THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE AMBASSADOR OF THE SOVIET UNION.
August 2, 1941
MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:
I am pleased to inform you that the Government of the United States has decided to give all
economic assistance practicable for the purpose of strengthening the Soviet Union in its
struggle against armed aggression. This decision has been prompted by the conviction of the
Government of the United States that the strengthening of the armed resistance of the Soviet
Union to the predatory attack of an aggressor who is threatening the security and independence
not only of the Soviet Union but also of all other nations is in the interest of the national defense
of the United States.
In accordance with this decision of the Government of the United States and in order to
implement the policy enunciated above, the Government of the United States is giving the most
friendly consideration to requests from the Government, institutions, or agencies of the Soviet
Union relative to the placing in this country of orders for articles and materials urgently required
for the needs of the national defense of the Soviet Union and, for the purpose of promoting the
speedy completion and delivery of such articles, is extending to these orders priority assistance
upon the principles applicable to the orders of countries struggling against aggression.
In order to facilitate the extension of economic assistance to the Soviet Union, the Department
of State is also issuing unlimited licenses permitting the export to the Soviet Union of a wide
variety of articles and materials needed for the strengthening of the defense of that country, in
accordance with the principles applicable to the furnishing of such articles and materials as are
needed for the same purpose by other countries resisting aggression.
The appropriate authorities of the Government of the United States, in pursuance of the
decision to which I have above referred, are also giving their favorable consideration to requests
for the extension of available American shipping facilities for the purpose of expediting the
shipment to the Soviet Union of articles and materials needed for the national defense of that
country.
I am, etc.
SUMNER WELLES.
[Department of State Bulletin, August 9, 1941.]
DOCUMENT 49: AMBASSADOR OF THE SOVIET
UNION TO THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE
August 2, 1941
MY DEAR MR. ACTING SECRETARY:
I am pleased to take notice of the contents of your communication of this date in which you
informed me that the Government of the United States has decided to give all economic
assistance practicable for the purpose of strengthening the Soviet Union in its struggle against
armed aggression. You add that this decision has been prompted by the conviction of the
Government of the United States that the strengthening of the armed resistance of the Soviet
Union to the predatory attack of an aggressor who is threatening the security and independence
not only of the Soviet Union but also of all other nations is in the interest of the national defense
of the United States.
On behalf of my Government, I wish to emphasize the correctness of the view that the
aggressor who has treacherously invaded my country is threatening the security and
independence of all freedom loving nations and that this threat naturally creates a community of
interest of national defense of those nations. My Government has directed me to express to the
Government of the United States its gratitude for the friendly decision of the Government of the
United States and its confidence that the economic assistance you refer to in your note will be of
such scope and carried out with such expedition as to correspond to the magnitude of the
military operations in which the Soviet Union is engaging, in offering armed resistance to the
aggressor--a resistance which, as you so justly observed, is also in the interest of the national
defense of the United States.
I am also pleased to note your statement that:
"In accordance with this decision of the Government of the United States and in order to
implement the policy enunciated above, the Government of the United States is giving the most
friendly consideration to requests from the Government, institutions, or agencies of the Soviet
Union relative to the placing in this country of orders for articles and materials urgently required
for the needs of the national defense of the Soviet Union and, for the purpose of promoting the
speedy completion and delivery of such articles and materials, is extending to these orders
priority assistance upon the principles applicable to the orders of countries struggling against
aggression.
"In order to facilitate the extension of economic assistance to the Soviet Union, the Department
of State is also issuing unlimited licenses permitting the export to the Soviet Union of a wide
variety of articles and materials needed for the strengthening of the defense of that country, in
accordance with the principles applicable to the furnishing of such articles and materials as are
needed for the same purpose by other countries resisting aggression.
"The appropriate authorities of the Government of the United States, in pursuance of the
decision to which I have above referred, are also giving their favorable consideration to requests
for the extension of available American shipping facilities for the purpose of expediting the
shipment to the Soviet Union of articles and materials needed for the national defense of that
country."
I am [etc.]
CONSTANTINE A. OUMANSKY.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410802a.html
DOCUMENT 50: JOINT MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT
ROOSEVELT AND PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL TO
JOSEPH STALIN, PRESIDENT OF THE SOVIET OF
PEOPLE’S COMMISSARS OF THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AUGUST 15, 1941
We have taken the opportunity afforded by the consideration of the report of Mr. Harry Hopkins
on his return from Moscow to consult together as to how best our two countries can help your
country in the splendid defense that you are making against the Nazi attack: We are at the
moment cooperating to provide you with the very maximum of supplies that you most urgently
need. Already many shiploads have left our shores and more will leave in the immediate future.
We must now turn our minds to the consideration of a more long term policy, since there is still a
long and hard path to be traversed before there can be won that complete victory without which
our efforts and sacrifices would be wasted.
The war goes on upon many fronts and before it is over there may be further fighting fronts that
will be developed. Our resources though immense are limited, and it must become a question
as to where and when those resources can best be used to further the greatest extent our
common effort. This applies equally to manufactured war supplies and to raw materials.
The needs and demands of your and our armed services can only be determined in the light of
the full knowledge of the many factors which must be taken into consideration in the decisions
that we make. In order that all of us may be in a position to arrive at speedy decisions as to the
apportionment of our joint resources, we suggest that we prepare for a meeting to be held at
Moscow, to which we would send high representatives who could discuss these matters directly
with you. If this conference appeals to you, we want you to know that pending the decisions of
that conference we shall continue to send supplies and material as rapidly as possible.
We realize fully how vitally important to the defeat of Hitlerism is the brave and steadfast
resistance of the Soviet Union and we feel therefore that we must not in any circumstances fail
to act quickly and immediately in this matter on planning the program for the future allocation of
our joint resources.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
Source: U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943), p. 710-711. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/stalin.htm
DOCUMENT 51: LETTER FROM PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT TO PREMIER JOSEPH
STALIN, OCTOBER 8, 1941
[Department of State Bulletin, October 11, 1941.]
MY DEAR MR. STALIN:
"This note will be presented to you by my friend Averill Harriman, whom I have asked to be head
of our delegation to Moscow.
"Mr. Harriman is well aware of the strategic importance of your front and will, I know, do
everything that he can to bring the negotiations in Moscow to a successful conclusion.
"Harry Hopkins has told me in great detail of his encouraging and satisfactory visits with you. I
can't tell you how thrilled all of us are because of the gallant defense of the Soviet armies.
"I am confident that ways will be found to provide the material and supplies necessary to fight
Hitler on all fronts, including your own.
"I want particularly to take this occasion to express my great confidence that your armies will
ultimately prevail over Hitler and to assure you of our great determination to be of every possible
material assistance.
"Yours very sincerely,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT"
Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411008a.html
DOCUMENT 52-54: EARL BROWDER, HEAD OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA (CPUSA) AND COMMUNIST POLITICAL
ASSOCIATION (CPA) ADDRESSES THE ALLIANCE OF
COMMUNISTS AND CAPITALISTS IN THE WAR
EFFORT
READ THE FOLLOWING PAMPHLETS ONLINE:
52 Make 1943 the decisive year New York: Workers Library Publishers 1943.
http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/12HYTRKNT4VQ8PA6HR6HNDPTAFL849XCBU3MAC9CPF1YCN98FA-03726?func=results-jumpfull&set_entry=000019&set_number=000289&base=GEN01-FCL01
53 Economic problems of the war and peace, New York: Workers Library Publishers 1944.
http://digitool.fcla.edu/view/action/singleViewer.do?dvs=1312743110903~280&locale=en_US&VIEWER_URL=/view/action/singleVie
wer.do?&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=7&search_terms=Economic%20problems%20of%20the%20war%20and%20peace&adjacency=N&
application=DIGITOOL-3&frameId=1&usePid1=true&usePid2=true
54 The road ahead to victory and lasting peace, New York: Workers Library Publishers 1944.
http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/GMN4UM5LG3VVVQYXG83BDB268UK5FJ3L8PQYAM8VI2H6IBAN7E-01224?func=results-jumpfull&set_entry=000008&set_number=000295&base=GEN01-FCL01
COLD WAR ABROAD, PARANOIA AT HOME
DOCUMENT 55: “I NEVER MET A BLACK PERSON
WHO WAS IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY BECAUSE OF
THE SOVIET UNION:” INTERVIEW WITH JACK
O’DELL, UNION ORGANIZER AND CPUSA MEMBER
ON FIGHTING RACISM IN THE 1940s
O’DELL: A good buddy of mine, Jesse Gray, he went into the Merchant Marines. He came back.
So I went out to see him and he says, “Man, I found a Union where there’s no segregation.”
He’d shipped out in the SIO where they had—you know—black and white jobs because all
blacks were confined to the Steward Department and whites had all the other jobs. He said, “But
I found a Union that you could just throw in your card and you could ship deck, you could ship
engineer room, absolutely no segregation. It’s called National Maritime Union. And guess what?
They’ve got a black who’s Secretary General, named Ferdinand Smith.” I said, "Oh, you’re
kidding!. So, that inspired the idea that I would go into the Merchant Marines because I wasn’t
going to have to put up with a lot of Jim Crow.
I had three role models as men in my upbringing my grandfather, John O’Dell, who was a janitor
in the public library. He got up every morning at 6:30 and went to work. I learned my work habits
from him. My second role model was my father, Jack O’Dell. I liked just the way he was as a
human being. I wanted to be like him in the sense of, I don’t know how to describe it, just a love
for my father — many sides to him. And the third role model was Paul Robeson. When I was
getting ready to go away to college my mother told me, “Honey, if you decide to join a fraternity,
join the Alphas.” I said, “Why?” She said, “Because Paul Robeson’s there. (chuckles) I said,
”Okay." You know? That didn’t mean anything to me but it still stuck with me. I had heard Paul
Robeson was a Communist. I had heard a lot about Paul Robeson. He sang down at Booker T.
Washington High School in New Orleans my sophomore year and I went to the concert. He
sang songs from China, the Soviet Union, Negro spirituals; had a great presence. But I was
most impressed when, after the concert, he spent an hour signing autographs for students and
asking them where they were in school ad what you were doing, and so forth, and I was in that
line. So Paul Robeson became a political model. I liked his militancy, I liked his stance, I liked
his integrity and he was a powerful symbol. I began to follow his career more closely because,
as I said, he was a role model for manhood,—black manhood.
So it was from the larger progressive movement that I as a seaman got an interpretation of what
was going on. It wasn’t just an NMU thing. It wasn’t just a CIO thing. There were lynchings going
on in the south of veterans returning from World War II. Segregation was still up. What had
begun to emerge in the country was an assault on racism coming out of World War II by the
NAACP and Unions. And the segregationists defended segregation by saying they weren’t
against blacks —they weren’t against equal rights for blacks —they were against communism.
But their interpretation of Communist was anybody who supported the right of blacks to have
civil rights. While most blacks didn’t join the Communist Party, they understood that the
Communists were the fighters. And they knew individual Communists who were fighters, and
they were black and white and Latino, and so forth. And with this anti-Communism that now was
becoming the state religion and with the persecution of the Communists, I just said, well to show
where I’m at I’ll join the communists. I’ll join the Communist Party. And I did, and I remained an
active member of the Party for about seven years.
I was first and foremost a person with the African-American experience. I knew living in the
north and I knew living in the south and I knew the contradiction that this country was living with
great hypocrisy. Secondly, I was viewing this as a trade Unionist because militancy of the trade
Union movement appealed to me. I knew you had to fight and you had to fight in an organized
way and you had to fight with a weapon. And for me the weapon was the Union. So the fight to
keep the Union true to the course that it had set for itself was of great priority. Thirdly, I found
within the Union a left called Communists and other variations of that which I respected. I was
not, shall we say, inexorably attracted to them for any particular reason except that I saw the
role they played in the Union and that there would not have been a good NMU without their
participation, from what I could see.
At the same time, the NMU stood as a bulwark against the kind of institutional racism that I had
experienced. I knew that people had different views with respect to, say, the Soviet Union. I’ve
never taken a census, but I never met a black person who was in the Communist Party because
of the Soviet Union. We joined the Communist Party because they fought against racism and
they were dependable in that fight. And they were Union builders. They were mass movement
organized builders. And I knew that as an individual you were strengthened by the fact of unity
with other people. So it was precisely that perspective that led me into a relationship to the left.
Source: Interviewed by Sam Sills 8/5/93, Courtesy Sam Sills
DOCUMENT 56: VICE-PRESIDENT HENRY WALLACE
URGES PRESIDENT HARRY TRUMAN TO ADOPT AN
ALTERNATIVE TO COLD WAR CONTAINMENT, JULY
23, 1946, AND IS ASKED TO RESIGN
The Secretary of Commerce Washington 25
July 23, 1946
The President
The White House
My Dear Mr. President:
I hope you will excuse this long letter. Personally I hate to write long letters, and I hate to
receive them.
My only excuse is that this subject is a very important one—probably the most important in the
world today. I checked with you about this last Thursday and you suggested after Cabinet
meeting on Friday that you would like to have my views.
I have been increasingly disturbed about the trend of international affairs since the end of the
war, and I am even more troubled by the apparently growing feeling among the American
people that another war is coming and the only way that we can head it off is to arm ourselves
to the teeth. Yet all of past history indicates that an armaments race does not lead to peace but
to war. The months just ahead may well be the crucial period which will decide whether the
civilized world will go down in destruction after the five or ten years needed for several nations
to arm themselves with atomic bombs. Therefore, I want to give you my views on how the
present trend toward conflict might be averted. . . .
How do American actions since V-J Day appear to other nations? I mean by actions the
concrete things like $13 billion for the War and Navy Departments, the Bikini tests of the atomic
bomb and continued production of bombs, the plan to arm Latin America with our weapons,
production of B-29s and planned production of B-36s, and the effort to secure air bases spread
over half the globe from which the other half of the globe can be bombed. I cannot but feel that
these actions must make it look to the rest of the world as if we were only paying lip service to
peace at the conference table.
These facts rather make it appear either (1) that we are preparing ourselves to win the war
which we regard as inevitable or (2) that we are trying to build up a predominance of force to
intimidate the rest of mankind. How would it look to us if Russia had the atomic bomb and we
did not, if Russia had 10,000-mile bombers and air bases within a thousand miles of our
coastlines, and we did not?
Some of the military men and self-styled “realists” are saying: “What’s wrong with trying to build
up a predominance of force? The only way to preserve peace is for this country to be so well
armed that no one will dare attack us. We know that America will never start a war.”
The flaw in this policy is simply that it will not work. In a world of atomic bombs and other
revolutionary new weapons, such as radioactive poison gases and biological warfare, a peace
maintained by a predominance of force is no longer possible.
Why is this so? The reasons are clear:
FIRST. Atomic warfare is cheap and easy compared with old-fashioned war. Within a very few
years several countries can have atomic bombs and other atomic weapons. Compared with the
cost of large armies and the manufacture of old-fashioned weapons, atomic bombs cost very
little and require only a relatively small part of a nation’s production plant and labor force.
SECOND. So far as winning a war is concerned, having more bombs—even many more
bombs—than the other fellow is no longer a decisive advantage. If another nation had enough
bombs to eliminate all of our principal cities and our heavy industry, it wouldn’t help us very
much if we had ten times as many bombs as we needed to do the same to them.
THIRD. And most important, the very fact that several nations have atomic bombs will inevitably
result in a neurotic, fear-ridden, itching-trigger psychology in all the peoples of the world, and
because of our wealth and vulnerability we would be among the most seriously affected. Atomic
war will not require vast and time-consuming preparations, the mobilization of large armies, the
conversion of a large proportion of a country’s industrial plants to the manufacture of weapons.
In a world armed with atomic weapons, some incident will lead to the use of those weapons.
There is a school of military thinking which recognizes these facts, recognizes that when several
nations have atomic bombs, a war which will destroy modern civilization will result and that no
nation or combination of nations can win such a war. This school of thought therefore advocates
a “preventive war,” an attack on Russia now before Russia has atomic bombs.
This scheme is not only immoral, but stupid. If we should attempt to destroy all the principal
Russian cities and her heavy industry, we might well succeed. But the immediate
countermeasure which such an attack would call forth is the prompt occupation of all
Continental Europe by the Red Army. Would we be prepared to destroy the cities of all Europe
in trying to finish what we had started? This idea is so contrary to all the basic instincts and
principles of the American people that any such action would be possible only under a
dictatorship at home. . . .
In general there are two overall points of view which can be taken in approaching the problem of
the United States-Russian relations. The first is that it is not possible to get along with the
Russians and therefore war is inevitable. The second is that war with Russia would bring
catastrophe to all mankind, and therefore we must find a way of living in peace. It is clear that
our own welfare as well as that of the entire world requires that we maintain the latter point of
view. I am sure that this is also your opinion, and the radio address of the Secretary of State on
July 15 clearly indicates that he is prepared to negotiate as long as may be necessary to work
out a solution on this basis.
We should try to get an honest answer to the question of what the factors are which cause
Russia to distrust us, in addition to the question of what factors lead us to distrust Russia. I am
not sure that we have as a nation or an Administration found an adequate answer to either
question, although we have recognized that both questions are of critical importance.
FACTORS IN AMERICAN DISTRUST OF RUSSIA
Our basic distrust of the Russians, which has been greatly intensified in recent months by the
playing up of conflict in the press, stems from differences in political and economic organization.
For the first time in our history defeatists among us have raised the fear of another system as a
successful rival to democracy and free enterprise in other countries and perhaps even our own.
I am convinced that we can meet that challenge as we have in the past by demonstrating that
economic abundance can be achieved without sacrificing personal, political and religious
liberties. We cannot meet it as Hitler tried to by an anti-Comintern alliance.
It is perhaps too easy to forget that despite the deep-seated differences in our cultures and
intensive anti-Russian propaganda of some twenty-five years standing, the American people
reversed their attitudes during the crisis of war. Today, under the pressure of seemingly
insoluble international problems and continuing deadlocks, the tide of American public opinion is
again turning against Russia. In this reaction lies one of the dangers to which this letter is
addressed.
FACTORS IN RUSSIAN DISTRUST OF THE WESTERN WORLD
I should list the factors which make for Russian distrust of the United States and of the Western
world as follows: The first is Russian history, which we must take into account because it is the
setting in which Russians see all actions and policies of the rest of the world. Russian history for
over a thousand years has been a succession of attempts, often unsuccessful, to resist invasion
and conquest—by the Mongols, the Turks, the Swedes, the Germans and the Poles. The scant
thirty years of the existence of the Soviet Government has in Russian eyes been a continuation
of their historical struggle for national existence. The first four years of the new regime, from
1917 through 1921, were spent in resisting attempts at destruction by the Japanese, British and
French, with some American assistance, and by the several White Russian armies encouraged
and financed by the Western powers. Then, in 1941, the Soviet State was almost conquered by
the Germans after a period during which the Western European powers had apparently
acquiesced in the rearming of Germany in the belief that the Nazis would seek to expand
eastward rather than westward. The Russians, therefore, obviously see themselves as fighting
for their existence in a hostile world.
Second, it follows that to the Russians all of the defense and security measures of the Western
powers seem to have an aggressive intent. Our actions to expand our military security system—
such steps as extending the Monroe Doctrine to include the arming of the Western Hemisphere
nations, our present monopoly of the atomic bomb, our interest in outlying bases and our
general support of the British Empire—appear to them as going far beyond the requirements of
defense. I think we might feel the same if the United States were the only capitalistic country in
the world, and the principal socialistic countries were creating a level of armed strength far
exceeding anything in their previous history. From the Russian point of view, also, the granting
of a loan to Britain and the lack of tangible results on their request to borrow for rehabilitation
purposes may be regarded as another evidence of strengthening of an anti-Soviet bloc.
Finally, our resistance to her attempts to obtain warmwater ports and her own security system in
the form of “friendly” neighboring states seems, from the Russian point of view, to clinch the
case. After twenty-five years of isolation and after having achieved the status of a major power,
Russia believes that she is entitled to recognition of her new status. Our interest in establishing
democracy in Eastern Europe, where democracy by and large has never existed, seems to her
an attempt to reestablish the encirclement of unfriendly neighbors which was created after the
last war and which might serve as a springboard of still another effort to destroy her.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO
If this analysis is correct, and there is ample evidence to support it, the action to improve the
situation is clearly indicated. The fundamental objective of such action should be to allay any
reasonable Russian grounds for fear, suspicion and distrust. We must recognize that the world
has changed and that today there can be no “one world” unless the United States and Russia
can find some way of living together. For example, most of us are firmly convinced of the
soundness of our position when we suggest the internationalization and defortification of the
Danube or of the Dardanelles, but we would be horrified and angered by any Russian counterproposal that would involve also the internationalizing and disarming of Suez or Panama. We
must recognize that to the Russians these seem to be identical situations.
We should ascertain from a fresh point of view what Russia believes to be essential to her own
security as a prerequisite to the writing of the peace and to cooperation in the construction of a
world order. We should be prepared to judge her requirements against the background of what
we ourselves and the British have insisted upon as essential to our respective security. We
should be prepared, even at the expense of risking epithets of appeasement, to agree to
reasonable Russian guarantees of security. . . .
We should be prepared to negotiate a treaty which will establish a definite sequence of events
for the establishment of international control and development of atomic energy. This, I believe,
is the most important single question, and the one on which the present trend is definitely
toward deadlock rather than ultimate agreement.
We should make an effort to counteract the irrational fear of Russia which is being
systematically built up in the American people by certain individuals and publications. The
slogan that communism and capitalism, regimentation and democracy, cannot continue to exist
in the same world is, from a historical point of view, pure propaganda. Several religious
doctrines, all claiming to be the only true gospel and salvation, have existed side by side with a
reasonable degree of tolerance for centuries. This country was for the first half of its national life
a democratic island in a world dominated by absolutist governments.
We should not act as if we too felt that we were threatened in today’s world. We are by far the
most powerful nation in the world, the only Allied nation which came out of the war without
devastation and much stronger than before the war. Any talk on our part about the need for
strengthening our defenses further is bound to appear hypocritical to other nations.
SUMMARY
This proposal admittedly calls for a shift in some of our thinking about international matters. It is
imperative that we make this shift. We have little time to lose. Our postwar actions have not yet
been adjusted to the lessons to be gained from experience of Allied cooperation during the war
and the facts of the atomic age.
It is certainly desirable that, as far as possible, we achieve unity on the home front with respect
to our international relations; but unity on the basis of building up conflict abroad would prove to
be not only unsound but disastrous. I think there is some reason to fear that in our earnest
efforts to achieve bi-partisan unity in this country we may have given way too much to
isolationism masquerading as tough realism in international affairs.
The real test lies in the achievement of international unity. It will be fruitless to continue to seek
solutions for the many specific problems that face us in the making of the peace and in the
establishment of an enduring international order without first achieving an atmosphere of mutual
trust and confidence. The task admittedly is not an easy one. There is no question, as the
Secretary of State has indicated, that negotiations with the Russians are difficult because of
cultural differences, their traditional isolationism, and their insistence on a visible quid pro quo in
all agreements. But the task is not an insuperable one if we take into account that to other
nations our foreign policy consists not only of the principles that we advocate but of the actions
we take. Fundamentally, this comes down to the point discussed earlier in this letter, that even
our own security, in the sense that we have known it in the past, cannot be preserved by military
means in a world armed with atomic weapons. The only type of security which can be
maintained by our own military force is the type described by a military man before the Senate
Atomic Energy Commission—a security against invasion after all our cities and perhaps 40
million of our city population have been destroyed by atomic weapons. That is the best that
“security” on the basis of armaments has to offer us. It is not the kind of security that our people
and the people of the other United Nations are striving for.
I think that progressive leadership along the lines suggested above would represent and best
serve the interests of the large majority of our people, would reassert the forward looking
position of the Democratic Party in international affairs, and, finally, would arrest the new trend
towards isolationism and a disastrous atomic world war.
Respectfully,
[Signed] H. A. Wallace
Source: Secretary of Commerce Henry A. Wallace to President Harry S. Truman, July 23, 1946, in Papers of Harry S. Truman,
President’s Secretary’s Files, Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri.
DOCUMENT 57: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE
STATEMENTS IN THE 1949 TRIAL OF CPUSA PARTY
LEADERS
[In 1940, Congress passed the Smith Act, making illegal the advocacy of overthrowing state or national governments. Although the
Act was not used against members of the Communist Party during World War II, 11 Communist Party leaders were convicted under
the Act in 1949 following the build up of Cold War tensions. In the following opening statements of that trial, the U.S. prosecuting
attorney, John F. X. McGohey and the general secretary of the Communist Party, Eugene Dennis, offered widely divergent
descriptions of the Party’s goals. The Supreme Court upheld the guilty verdicts in 1951, ruling that government action against the
defendants was required under the “clear and present danger” test. The ruling further argued that the Party, which was “in the very
least ideologically attuned” with Communist countries, had formed “a highly organized conspiracy,” that created the present danger.
In subsequent years, Congress passed additional anti-Communist laws, and courts obtained 93 convictions of Party members. After
the liberal-leaning Warren Court’s 1956 ruling that mere advocacy of revolution was insufficient grounds to convict, the U.S.
government ended their prosecution of Communists for Party membership alone.]
John F. X. McGohey, Opening Statement on Behalf of the Government, March 21, 1949
The charge of conspiracy is set forth in the first paragraph of the indictment, which his Honor
has just read to you.
The remaining nine paragraphs of the indictment set forth the details of the indictment. Briefly,
these paragraphs charge that these defendants brought about meetings in New York City in
June and July of 1945 of the National Committee and the National Board and the National
Convention of the Communist Political Association, in order to dissolve that Association and to
organize in its stead the Communist Party of the United States of America. They charged that it
was a part of the conspiracy that these defendants would assume leadership of the Communist
Party of the United States of America; it is further charged that the defendants would organize
clubs, district and state units of their party; that they would recruit new members of their party;
and that they, the defendants, would publish books, magazines, and newspapers; that they
would organize schools and classes, in all of which it was planned that there would be taught
and advocated the Marxist-Leninist principles of the duty and necessity of overthrowing and
destroying the Government of the United States by force and violence.
Now, that is what we charge. To support that charge we propose to prove by witnesses on that
stand, and documents which they will introduce, just what these defendants did, what these
defendants said, and what these defendants caused others under their supervision and control
to do, and to say what the defendants actually did at that Convention in July 1945, according to
their own statements, was to reconstitute the Communist Party of the United States of America;
to educate the working class in the course of its day-to-day struggles, for its historic mission, the
establishment of Socialism. They based the party upon the principles of Marxism-Leninism. . . .
I ask you ladies and gentlemen to remember that phrase Marxism-Leninism. You will hear it
frequently throughout this trial. We propose, we say, that we will establish that it is fundamental
in the principles of Marxism-Leninism:
(1) That Socialism cannot be established by peaceful evolution but, on the contrary can be
established only by violent revolution; by smashing the machinery of government, and setting up
in its stead a dictatorship—a dictatorship of the proletariat.
(2) That this smashing of the machinery of government and setting up of the dictatorship of the
proletariat can be accomplished only by the violent and forceful seizure of power by the
proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party.
The revolutionary doctrines of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin are constantly repeated in the lectures
and in the discussions, and the thinking of both the teachers and the students is constantly
checked against these revolutionary writers. In each of these schools it is reiterated constantly
that the students are being trained as professional revolutionaries. Marxism, they are taught, is
not merely dogma, it is a guide to action. . . . At the proper time, they are taught—the proper
time being a time of national crisis, unrest, disorder brought about by a severe depression or
war—at such a time the Party members will be in positions of influence in the key trades in the
basic industries, and when the National Board decides that the revolutionary situation is at
hand, the Party will lead the proletariat in violent revolution. They teach that this revolution
cannot be without violence, for to be successful the entire apparatus of the Government must be
smashed. Every vestige of the bourgeois state and class must be wiped out. Only when this has
been accomplished can the program of Marxian Socialism be successfully carried out.
Now there are sections in the constitution of the Communist party which was adopted at its
convention in July 1945 that purport to urge support of American democracy. These are in that
document for legal purposes only, as we will show from witnesses on this stand. We will show
that such declarations as I have referred to are mere talk; that they are just empty phrases, that
they are inconsistent with the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the overthrow of the Government by
force and violence.
Eugene Dennis, Opening Statement on Behalf of the Communist Party, March 21, 1949
In view of the opening statement of the prosecution the defense is obliged to make sure that the
jury fully understands just what the indictment charges and what it does not charge. The
foreboding-sounding words “overthrow and destruction of the Government of the United States
by force and violence” appear five times in the ten paragraphs of the indictment. But I call to
your attention that not one of . . . these ten paragraphs charges that we Communist leaders at
any time committed a single act, a single overt act of force and violence against the
Government of the United States, or that we ever directly or indirectly advocated or attempted
its forcible overthrow.
The alleged conspiracy as stated in the indictment limps only on three active verbs—to organize
the Communist Party, to teach, and to advocate.
Since no overt criminal act is even alleged there is no X to mark the spot where it was not
committed. . . .
The allegation of crime rests on the charge that we Communist leaders used our inalienable
American rights of free speech, press, and association, and sought to advance certain general
political doctrines which the indictment falsely says teach and advocate the duty and necessity
to overthrow the Government of the United States by force and violence. . . .
We 11 defendants will prove that the very time when we allegedly began this menacing
conspiracy we were in fact advocating and organizing all-out support to the Government of the
United States. . . .
We will prove that all of us . . . taught the duty of upholding the United States Government and
of intensifying the anti-Axis war effort . . . and we defendants will put in evidence the honorable
war record of the 15,000 American Communists who, in accord with what we taught and
advocated, served with the armed forces in the military defense of our country. . . .
We Communist leaders will show that in June and July of 1945 we thought that labor and the
people could not rely on the Truman Administration to curb the greedy monopolists. We taught
that, on the contrary, the people would have to resist the efforts of the administration and the
bipartisan Congress, to scuttle FDR’s progressive policies. We will also prove that we did not
even consider, let alone teach or advocate, that the Government, headed by President Truman,
should therefore be overthrown by force and violence. We will establish that everything we did
teach and advocate was in the interests of the American people and in accord with their
understanding of achieving a Government of, by, and for the people. . . .
. . . My co-defendants and I will show that we put into practice the real principles of MarxismLeninism, by teaching that labor and the people should intervene to defend their living
standards, their democratic rights, and world peace. . . .
We will show with what peaceful intent we taught and advocated, amongst other things . . . to
oppose American support to the unjust and criminal war against the Chinese people waged by
the miserable Chiang Kai-shek, to oppose the civil war against the Greeks, waged by the
monarchist-fascist puppet of the American trusts, with the American people footing the bill, to
oppose the Anglo-American oil lords against the new State of Israel, and the people of
Indonesia, and to oppose the restoration of the German and Japanese monopolies and war
potential under the new management of the American cartelists. . . .
I and my co-defendants will show, we will show that we publicly advocated that all peace-loving
Americans should unite that the Truman Administration enter into direct negotiations with the
U.S.S.R. and respond in good faith to its repeated disarmament and other peace proposals. . . .
And to establish further the record of what we defendants actually have done in the period
covered by the indictment, we Communist leaders will show that we have advocated defense of
the people’s living standards as an inseparable part of the struggle for democracy and peace. . .
. . . The defense will squarely meet and disprove the prosecution’s charge that the principles of
scientific socialism teach or imply the duty or the necessity to overthrow the United States
Government by force and violence. . . .
When the defense puts our Communist Party constitution in evidence, the jury will see that it
speaks of the duty to organize and educate the working class, and declares that Socialism
should be established, not by force and violence, but “by the free choice of the majority of the
American people.”
We defendants will prove that we have always taught that capitalism in America or elsewhere
cannot be abolished by plots, or conspiracies, or adventures, or by power revolutions. We will
put in evidence our teaching that this fundamental change can be brought about only when both
of two conditions have been fulfilled, when capitalism has fully outlived its social usefulness and
when a majority of the American people—I repeat, a majority—led by labor and the Communists
resolve to get rid of a system of social production that has become destructive of their right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . .
I have already indicated how we American Marxists will prove that we teach that Socialism is
not an immediate issue in the United States today, but that the central issues, the central
immediate issues confronting our people are peace or war, democracy or fascism. . . .
You will see that our Communist Party Constitution acknowledges not only that we learn from
Marx and Lenin but that we owe much to and learn from the teachings of men like Thomas
Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, William Sylvis, and Eugene V. Debs. . . .
. . . The prosecution asks this jury for what amounts to a preventative conviction, in order that
we Communist leaders may be put under what the Nazis called protective custody. I ask the jury
to weigh the prosecution’s case against the proof we defendants will offer to establish that we
have taught and advocated the duty and necessity to prevent the force and violence of Fascism,
imperialists of war and lynching and anti-Semitism. I ask you to weigh carefully our sincere offer
of proof which demonstrates that we Communists are second to none in our devotion to our
people and to our country, and that we teach and advocate and practice a program of peace, of
democracy, equality, economic security, and social progress.
Source: Trial testimony in Joint Appendix, United States of America v. Eugene Dennis et al., United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s
Press, 1994), p. 174–78. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6446
DOCUMENT 58: EXCERPT FROM JOSEPH
McCARTHY'S SPEECH ALLEDGING COMMUNIST
INFILTRATION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, 1950
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Tonight as we celebrate the 141st birthday of one of the great men in American history, I would
like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we
celebrate the birth of this man, who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be
able to speak of peace in our time, of war being outlawed, and of worldwide disarmament.
These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of
Abraham Lincoln.
Five years after a world war has been won, men's hearts should anticipate a long peace, and
men's minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a
period -- for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of the Cold War. This is a time when all
the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps -- a time of a great armaments
race. Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god
of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the hills of Indochina, from the shores
of Formosa right over into the very heart of Europe itself. ...
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity.
The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and
gentlemen, the chips are down -- they are truly down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of
communism today -- Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said -- not back in 1928, not before the war,
not during the war -- but two years after the last war was ended: "To think that the communist
revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means
one has either gone out of one's mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and
openly repudiated the communist revolution."
And this is what was said by Lenin in 1919, which was also quoted with approval by Stalin in
1947: "We are living," said Lenin, "not merely in a state but in a system of states, and the
existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with Christian states for a long time is unthinkable.
One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful
collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable."
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone here tonight who is so blind as to say that the war
is not on? Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the communist world has said, "The
time is now" -- that this is the time for the showdown between the democratic Christian world
and the communist atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be
paid by those who wait too long.
Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out peace -- Dumbarton Oaks -- there
was within the Soviet orbit 180 million people. Lined up on the anti-totalitarian side there were in
the world at that time roughly 1.625 billion people. Today, only six years later, there are 800
million people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia -- an increase of over 400
percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500 million. In other words, in less than six
years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the
swiftness of the tempo of communist victories and American defeats in the Cold War. As one of
our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be
because of enemies from without but rather because of enemies from within." The truth of this
statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.
At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on Earth and, at least potentially, the most
powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the
desert of destruction, a shining, living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself.
Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful,
potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions
of those who have been treated so well by this nation. It has not been the less fortunate or
members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out, but rather those who have
had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer -- the finest homes, the
finest college education, and the finest jobs in government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with
silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.
Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or department in general
terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case -- the case of a man who has done
much to shape our foreign policy.
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man
named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to work for the communization of China.
Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo
our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later, this man -- John Service -- was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for
turning over to the communists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he
was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the undersecretary of state, who insisted on his
prosecution, was forced to resign. Two days after, Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over
as undersecretary of state, this man -- John Service -- who had been picked up by the FBI and
who had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated
in the State Department but promoted; and finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all
placements and promotions. Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to
represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta -- by far and away the most important
listening post in the Far East.
Now, let's see what happens when individuals with communist connections are forced out of the
State Department. Gustave Duran, who was labeled as, I quote, "a notorious international
communist," was made assistant secretary of state in charge of Latin American affairs. He was
taken into the State Department from his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Communist
International Brigade. Finally, after intense congressional pressure and criticism, he resigned in
1946 from the State Department -- and, ladies and gentlemen, where do you think he is now?
He took over a high-salaried job as chief of Cultural Activities Section in the office of the
assistant secretary-general of the United Nations. ...
This, ladies and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of individuals who have
been helping to shape our foreign policy. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of
the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with communists.
I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members
or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our
foreign policy.
One thing to remember in discussing the communists in our government is that we are not
dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of new weapons. We are
dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape
our policy.
This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss, who is important not as an individual
anymore but rather because he is so representative of a group in the State Department. It is
unnecessary to go over the sordid events showing how he sold out the nation which had given
him so much. Those are rather fresh in all of our minds. However, it should be remembered that
the facts in regard to his connection with this international communist spy ring were made
known to the then-Undersecretary of State Berle three days after Hitler and Stalin signed the
Russo-German Alliance Pact. At that time one Whittaker Chambers -- who was also part of the
spy ring -- apparently decided that with Russia on Hitler's side, he could no longer betray our
nation to Russia. He gave Undersecretary of State Berle -- and this is all a matter of record -practically all, if not more, of the facts upon which Hiss' conviction was based.
Undersecretary Berle promptly contacted Dean Acheson and received word in return that
Acheson, and I quote, "could vouch for Hiss absolutely" -- at which time the matter was
dropped. And this, you understand, was at a time when Russia was an ally of Germany. This
condition existed while Russia and Germany were invading and dismembering Poland, and
while the communist groups here were screaming "warmonger" at the United States for their
support of the Allied nations.
Again in 1943, the FBI had occasion to investigate the facts surrounding Hiss' contacts with the
Russian spy ring. But even after that FBI report was submitted, nothing was done.
Then, late in 1948 -- on August 5 -- when the Un-American Activities Committee called Alger
Hiss to give an accounting, President Truman at once issued a presidential directive ordering all
government agencies to refuse to turn over any information whatsoever in regard to the
communist activities of any government employee to a congressional committee.
Incidentally, even after Hiss was convicted, it is interesting to note that the president still labeled
the expose of Hiss as a "red herring."
If time permitted, it might be well to go into detail about the fact that Hiss was Roosevelt's chief
adviser at Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in ill health and tired physically and mentally ...
and when, according to the secretary of state, Hiss and Gromyko drafted the report on the
conference.
According to the then-Secretary of State Stettinius, here are some of the things that Hiss helped
to decide at Yalta: (1) the establishment of a European High Commission; (2) the treatment of
Germany -- this you will recall was the conference at which it was decided that we would occupy
Berlin with Russia occupying an area completely encircling the city, which as you know, resulted
in the Berlin airlift which cost 31 American lives; (3) the Polish question; (4) the relationship
between UNRRA and the Soviet; (5) the rights of Americans on control commissions of
Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary; (6) Iran; (7) China -- here's where we gave away Manchuria;
(8) Turkish Straits question; (9) international trusteeships; (10) Korea.
Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department had this to say: "As I
glanced over the document, I could not believe my eyes. To me, almost every line spoke of a
surrender to Stalin."
As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to yourself, "Well, why doesn't
the Congress do something about it?" Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important
reasons for the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high
government positions -- one of the most important reasons why this continues -- is a lack of
moral uprising on the part of the 140 million American people. In the light of history, however,
this is not hard to explain.
It is the result of an emotional hangover and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war. It
is the apathy to evil which people who have been subjected to the tremendous evils of war feel.
As the people of the world see mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent
people, and all of the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and
apathetic. It has always been thus after war. However, the morals of our people have not been
destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and apathy has only needed a spark to
rekindle them. Happily, this spark has finally been supplied.
As you know, very recently the secretary of state proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what
has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes -- of being a traitor to the
people who gave him a position of great trust. The secretary of state, in attempting to justify his
continued devotion to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to
Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefore, and the reaction of the
American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy. When this
pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American
people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred
trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American
people.
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole
sorry mess of twisted warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a
new birth of national honesty and decency in government.
DOCUMENT 59: PRESIDENT HARRY S. TRUMAN
REACTS TO SENATOR JOSEPH McCARTHY’S
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION AND ACCUSATIONS OF
COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF THE STATE
DEPARTMENT, KEY WEST, MARCH 30, 1950
Q. Mr. President, do you think Senator McCarthy is getting anywhere in his attempt to win the
case against the State Department?
The President. What’s that?
Q. Do you think that Senator McCarthy can show any disloyalty exists in the State Department?
The President. I think the greatest asset that the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy.
Q. Would you care to elaborate on that?
The President. I don’t think it needs any elaboration—I don’t think it needs any elaboration.
Q. Brother, will that hit page one tomorrow!
Q. If you think we are going to bust down the fence on what you have got later, that’s a pretty
good starter. [Laughter]
Q. Mr. President, could we quote that one phrase, “I think the greatest asset the Kremlin has is
Senator McCarthy”?
The President. Now let me give you a little preliminary, and then I will tell you what I think you
ought to do. Let me tell you what the situation is.
We started out in 1945, when I became President, and the two wars were still going on, and the
Russians were our allies, just the same as the British and the French and Brazil and the South
American countries. And we won the war together.
We organized the United Nations in April 1945, and one of the first questions that was asked
me, after I was sworn in at 7:09 o’clock on the 12th of April, was whether or not the San
Francisco conference on the United Nations should go ahead. And I said it certainly will. It went
ahead and we finally succeeded in getting a charter and getting it agreed to by I think 51
nations, if I remember correctly.
Then our objective was to—as quickly as possible—get peace in the world. We made certain
agreements with the Russians and the British and the French and the Chinese. We kept those
agreements to the letter. They have nearly all been—those agreements where the Russians
were involved—been broken by the Russians. And it became perfectly evident that they had no
intention of carrying out the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and the
agreements which had been made at Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam. And it became evident that
there was an endeavor on the part of the Kremlin to control the world.
A procedure was instituted which came to be known as the cold war. The airlift to Berlin was
only one phase of it. People became alarmed here in the United States then, that there might be
people whose sympathies were with the Communist ideal of government—which is not
communism under any circumstances, it is totalitarianism of the worst brand. There isn’t any
difference between the totalitarian Russian Government and the Hitler government and the
Franco government in Spain. They are all alike. They are police state governments.
In 1947 I instituted a loyalty program for Government employees, and that loyalty procedure
program was set up in such a way that the rights of individuals were respected.
In a survey of the 2,200,000 employees at that time, I think there were some 205—something
like that—who left the service. I don’t know—a great many of them left of their own accord.
Q. How many, Mr. President?
The President. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 205. Does anybody remember those figures
exactly? It’s a very small figure.
Q. Very small.
The President. An infinitesimal part of 1 percent. We will get the figures for you.
And then, for political background, the Republicans have been trying vainly to find an issue on
which to make a bid for the control of the Congress for next year. They tried “statism.” They tried
“welfare state.” They tried “socialism.” And there are a certain number of members of the
Republican Party who are trying to dig up that old malodorous dead horse called “isolationism.”
And in order to do that, they are perfectly willing to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy of the
United States. And this fiasco which has been going on in the Senate is the very best asset that
the Kremlin could have in the operation of the cold war. And that is what I mean when I say that
McCarthy’s antics are the best asset that the Kremlin can have.
Now, if anybody really felt that there were disloyal people in the employ of the Government, the
proper and the honorable way to handle the situation would be to come to the President of the
United States and say, “This man is a disloyal person. He is in such and such a department.”
We will investigate him immediately, and if he were a disloyal person he would be immediately
fired.
That is not what they want. They are trying to create an issue, and it is going to be just as big a
fiasco as the campaign in New York and other places on these other false and fatuous issues.
With a little bit of intelligence they could find an issue at home without a bit of trouble!
Q. What would it be, Mr. President?
The President. Anything in the domestic line. I will meet them on any subject they want, but to
try to sabotage the foreign policy of the United States, in the face of the situation with which we
are faced, is just as bad as trying to cut the Army in time of war.
Q. On that question we were just kidding.
The President. And that gave me a chance to give you an answer. To try to sabotage the
foreign policy of the United States is just as bad in this cold war as it would be to shoot our
soldiers in the back in a hot war.
I am fed up with what is going on, and I am giving you the facts as I see them.
Q. Mr. President, do you consider the Republican Party as a party?
The President. The policy of the Republican Party has endorsed the antics of Mr. McCarthy.
Q. That affects the bipartisan—
The President. That’s what it is for—that’s what it is for. They are anxious for the return of
isolationism.
Q. Do you think that this has torpedoed, then, the bipartisan—
The President. It is an endeavor to torpedo the bipartisan foreign policy. They are not going to
succeed, because the levelheaded Republicans do not believe that at all, as note Mr. Stimson,
Senator Vandenberg, Senator Saltonstall, and a dozen others I could name, who know exactly
what is going on and are trying their best to cooperate. And I am going to try to help them
prevent it going under.
Q. Well, Mr. President, to carry that out to its logical conclusion, when Dean Acheson will go
down in history as one of the great Secretaries of State, nothing that the Democratic Party can
do except simply to sit on the sidelines and say, “Well?”
The President. Well, it’s too bad. It’s a dangerous situation, and it has got to be stopped. And
every citizen in the United States is going to find out just exactly what the facts are when I get
through with this thing.
Q. You will stand up on one side, and they will stand up on the other?
The President. There’s only one side that the people will stay on, and that is the side that will
lead to peace. That is all we are after. This is just another fiasco to find an issue. This is not it.
Q. Mr. President, would you like to name any others besides Senator McCarthy who have
participated in this attempt to sabotage our foreign policy?
The President. Senator Wherry.
Q. Yes, sir?
The President. Senator Bridges.
Q. Yes, sir?
The President. That’s about as far as I care to go.
Q. Okay, sir.
Q. Now, what I forgot to say was would you like to say anything about Mr. Acheson and Mr.
Lattimore, and—what’s his name—the Ambassador at Large?
The President. Jessup. I think I made myself perfectly clear that I think Dean Acheson will go
down in history as one of the great Secretaries of State. You know very well that Mr. Jessup is
as able and distinguished a citizen as this country has ever produced. Lattimore is a member of
the faculty of Johns Hopkins University and is a very well informed person on foreign affairs.
Q. You don’t believe he is a spy?
The President. Why of course not. It’s silly on the face of it.
Q. Mr. President, don’t you think the American people recognize this for what it is?
The President. There is no doubt about it. I am just emphatically bringing it to their attention.
Q. For direct quotes, could we have that, "I think the greatest asset—
The President. I would rather you would say that the greatest asset the Kremlin has is the
present approach of those in the Senate who are trying to sabotage the bipartisan foreign
policy.
Q. Could we have that read back to us?
The President. Sure. Jack?
Mr. Romagna. I’m all balled up.
The President. Take your time—take your time.
The greatest asset that the Kremlin has is the partisan attempt in the Senate to sabotage the
bipartisan foreign policy of the United States.
Q. This may seem redundant, but this is just for the record. The partisan effort, of course, is the
effort by the Republicans in the Senate—
The President. Well now, I didn’t say that, “partisan effort.” Leave it at that. Draw your own
conclusions.
Source: Reaction of President Harry Truman to Loyalty Investigation “News Conference at Key West” March 30, 1950, Public
Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1950 (Washington, DC), 234–236 in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Roger Burns,
Congress Investigates: A Documented History, 1792–1974 (New York: Chelsea House, 1963), 31–38, 80–83.
DOCUMENT 60: RADICAL ATTORNEY ROBERT
TREUHAFT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF THE
HUAC INQUISITIONS, DEC. 3, 1953
[In 1940, Congress passed the Smith Act making it illegal to support the overthrow of state or national governments. In 1949, 11
Communist Party leaders were convicted under this Act. The attorneys for the accused were themselves convicted of contempt of
court and half served prison terms. Subsequently, most lawyers refused to represent suspected Communists unless they
themselves were members of the Communist Party. In the following testimony before a House Committee on Un-American Activities
(HUAC) hearing investigating Communist activities in the San Francisco area, radical attorney Robert E. Treuhaft (1912–2001)
described his unsuccessful attempts to hire respected lawyers—who privately disapproved of HUAC—to represent him. Treuhaft, an
Oakland-based lawyer who had represented labor unions and African-Americans deprived of civil rights, had joined the Communist
Party in the 1940s. Subsequently, he became the unpaid counsel for the Civil Rights Congress (CRC), a trust fund that supplied bail
money for Communists arrested under the Smith Act. The Justice Department included the CRC on their official list of subversive
organizations, and following his appearance before HUAC, the Committee listed Treuhaft among the 39 most dangerous subversive
lawyers in their pamphlet, “Communist Legal Subversives: The Role of the Communist Lawyer.” Jessica Mitford, Treihaft’s wife,
wrote in her memoir, A Fine Old Conflict, that the San Francisco HUAC hearing did serious damage "in destroying livelihoods and
muzzling political dissent at the grass-roots level."]
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. TREUHAFT . . .
Mr. TREUHAFT. I am obliged to appear before this committee without assistance of counsel,
Mr. Tavenner, because of the fact that the repressive activities of this committee have made it
impossible for me to secure the assistance of attorneys of my choice. This is a serious charge
for a lawyer to make. I am compelled, however, to make it because the state of affairs that I
have found to exist in this regard is truly shocking.
A month ago I received a subpoena calling for my appearance before this committee. My law
partner and I have been, for many years, and are now, general counsel for the East Bay
Division of Warehouse Union Local 6, ILWU, a labor organization which is one of the principal
targets under attack by this committee. In fact, I am sure this was well known to the committee’s
investigators, and I cannot down the suspicion that my representation of this union had
something to do with the fact that my law partner and I are the only East Bay lawyers
subpoenaed before the committee at these hearings so far as I know.
I readily agreed to represent four East Bay members of this union as their attorney, who likewise
were subpoenaed, despite the fact that I, myself, had been subpoenaed as a witness.
Upon receipt of my subpoena I immediately began to make diligent efforts to secure counsel to
represent me. I compiled a list of the 7 leading East Bay lawyers whom I would want to
represent me because of their known ability in their profession and because all of them had,
from time to time, shown themselves to be champions of the right of advocacy. All had a sound
understanding of due process of law and of the other constitutional rights and immunities which
are daily trampled upon by this committee. . . .
The first lawyer, whom I will call lawyer No. 1, holds high office in the Alameda County Bar
Association. When I first approached this lawyer, he told me that he could see no reason why
he could not represent me. The next day, however, he informed me that he felt that he could not
do so because of the controversial nature and the publicity attendant upon hearings before this
committee and because of his position in the county bar association.
The second lawyer I consulted out of this list, lawyer No. 2, is a former judge who has an active
practice on both sides of the bay. I discussed with him the position which I intended to take
before this committee; that is, to uphold the Constitution and to rely upon the first and fifth
amendments to the Constitution as they might apply to every question that this committee might
put to me.
This attorney, who is highly placed in the bar, agreed fully with me in principle and stated that it
was his opinion that my decision was sound and wise. He told me that he would like to
represent me.
After conferring with his associate, however, he called me in again, and he said that he was
very sorry that he could not because representing me with the attendant publicity or
representing any witness before this committee would involve financial hardship. He said that he
regretted very much to give me this answer because we have been on friendly terms. He said to
me, although he is a well-established lawyer, and older than I am, “Why don’t you find some
older lawyer, someone who is in a better financial position, to take this risk?”
The third lawyer I went to see and offered a retainer to represent me before these hearings was
an older lawyer, and he was a better financially established lawyer so far as I know. He formerly
held high office in the American Bar Association, and he, too, has been a champion of the right
of advocacy. He told me, “Try to find a younger lawyer. The activities before this committee
would be too strenuous,” he thought, the publicity would be harmful.
The fourth lawyer I went to is a leading criminal lawyer in the East Bay. We have been on very
friendly terms, and he readily agreed to represent me without any hesitation at all. When I
offered him a retainer, he said that he would not accept a retainer from a fellow lawyer. He took
the subpoena, and we proceeded to discuss the position I was going to take, and he agreed
with me fully that anybody who had represented unpopular causes as a lawyer, as I have, would
face grave dangers in answering any questions put by this committee. Three days ago I—I
consulted him 2 weeks ago—3 days ago, the day before—3 days before I was supposed to
come here, he called me, and he told me that his partner had just returned from out of town and
had learned that he had undertaken to represent me. He said that his partner represented a
bank, and that his partner felt that the attendant publicity would be so harmful to them that he
insisted that they could not represent a witness before this committee.
He told me this with very personal regret. He also expressed the view—his partner did—that
any attorney who represented a witness before this committee might find himself in a position
where he was persecuted by other governmental agencies, as was Vincent Hallinan, against
whom reprisals were taken, because he had the courage and temerity to represent a client who,
in some eyes, was considered unpopular.
Lawyer No. 5 is one of the most distinguished members of the bar of Contra Costa County. He
has held high office in the bar association there, and he is a leading lawyer in every sense of the
word. He has also been a fighter for the right of advocacy. He told me with very great regret that
he had discussed with some of his corporate clients the advisability of his intention to represent
a witness before this committee. These clients told him that they would consider it an unfriendly
act if he were to represent a witness before this committee. He said that although he was well
established, he had very high overhead and that he didn’t want to subject his organization to the
financial hardship and risk of losing clients that would be involved in representing anyone before
this committee. I told him that I intended to take this matter up with the bar association and also
to make a statement to this committee on my experiences in attempting to obtain counsel, and
that I intended to keep the names of the individuals that I had consulted confidential. He said,
“Bob, a fact is a fact. I feel rotten about telling you what I have to tell you, but a fact is a fact; you
state the facts, and I authorize you to use my name and to give the reasons that I have given
you.”
This man had real courage.
Mr. SCHERER. He didn’t appear, though, did he?
Mr. TREUHAFT. No; he authorized me to say that he couldn’t appear because these slanderous
accusations by committees like this made it dangerous financially.
Mr. SCHERER. That is the man you say had real courage?
Mr. TREUHAFT. Yes; he had real courage, and all of these lawyers that I named had real
courage. I went to them because they were courageous. I am not condemning nor criticizing the
lawyers. I am condemning this committee for trying its cases in the newspapers and over the
radio. I am condemning this committee for depriving me of right of counsel by its slanderous
attacks, attacks by inference, which even repel and revolt some of the Democratic members of
this committee . . .
Now the canon of ethics of the American Bar Association, as I think Representative Moulder has
referred to, states, and this is law for lawyers, that no lawyer shall, for reasons personal to
himself, reject any cause because it is unpopular. All of the lawyers that I consulted did reject
this cause for reasons personal to themselves, but for reasons created by the hysteria
engendered by this committee in the public mind, the fear that anybody who appears before this
committee is labeled as a spy or something subversive, and that the taint may rub off onto the
lawyer. . . .
This whole situation is McCarthyism. President Truman recently described it as such. He said
that it is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of
Americanism—in quotes—and security—in quotes. It is the use of the power of the demagogue
who lives on untruth, and I am reading here, Mr. Jackson, because I am quoting, and I don’t
want to be inaccurate:
“It is the spread of fear,” President Truman said, “and the destruction of faith at every level of
our society. This horrible cancer,” he said, “is eating at the vitals of America, and it can destroy
the great edifice of freedom.”
Mr. Truman went on to say that this situation should serve to alert the people to the terrible
danger that our Nation and each citizen faces and urge his fellow countrymen to “be aroused
and fight this evil at every level of our national life.”
I am prepared to fight this evil at every level, and I intend to ask the State bar to look into a
situation which I think is truly disgraceful, where lawyers with real courage and standing are
afraid to come forward and represent clients before this committee. . . .
Mr. TAVENNER. Is it your position that you would desire your appearance continued until you
have an opportunity to consult other counsel?
Mr. TREUHAFT. I would desire to have my appearance continued until such time as the
hysteria engendered by this committee has abated to such an extent that it is possible for me to
have counsel of my choice and to such time as it is possible for me to have one of these
advocates that I consulted represent me. The Constitution says that I am entitled to counsel of
my choice, not counsel of your choice.
Mr. TAVENNER. My question is this: Are you asking this committee to postpone your
appearance until you can obtain counsel?
Mr. TREUHAFT. Yes, and that postponement would have to await the time that this committee
changes its rules so that it conforms with due process of law so that lawyers can appear here
with dignity and without fear of reprisal.
Mr. TAVENNER. Well, in light of that type of answer, I will proceed with my questioning. . . .
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Communist Activities in the San Francisco Area—
Part 3. Hearing before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., December 3,
1953 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954).
DOCUMENT 61: THREE “FRIENDLY” HUAC
HOLLYWOOD WITNESSES (JACK L. WARNER OF
WARNER BROS., LOUIS B. MAYER OF MGM, AND
RUSSIAN-BORN SCREENWRITER, AYN RAND)
ASSESS PRO-SOVIET WARTIME FILMS, 1947
TESTIMONY OF JACK L. WARNER . . .
Ideological termites have burrowed into many American industries, organizations, and societies.
Wherever they may be, I say let us dig them out and get rid of them. My brothers and I will be
happy to subscribe generously to a pest-removal fund. We are willing to establish such a fund to
ship to Russia the people who don’t like our American system of government and prefer the
communistic system to ours.
That’s how strongly we feel about the subversives who want to overthrow our free American
system.
If there are Communists in our industry, or any other industry, organization, or society who seek
to undermine our free institutions, let’s find out about it and know who they are. Let the record
be spread clear, for all to read and judge. The public is entitled to know the facts. And the
motion-picture industry is entitled to have the public know the facts.
Our company is keenly aware of its responsibilities to keep its product free from subversive
poisons. With all the vision at my command, I scrutinize the planning and production of our
motion pictures. It is my firm belief that there is not a Warner Bros. picture that can fairly be
judged to be hostile to our country, or communistic in tone or purpose.
Many charges, including the fantasy of “White House pressure” have been leveled at our
wartime production Mission to Moscow. In my previous appearance before members of this
committee, I explained the origin and purposes of Mission to Moscow.
That picture was made when our country was fighting for its existence, with Russia as one of
our allies. It was made to fulfill the same wartime purpose for which we made such other
pictures as Air Force, This Is the Army, Objective Burma, Destination Tokyo, Action in the North
Atlantic, and a great many more.
If making Mission to Moscow in 1942 was a subversive activity, then the American Liberty ships
which carried food and guns to Russian allies and the American naval vessels which convoyed
them were likewise engaged in subversive activities. The picture was made only to help a
desperate war effort and not for posterity. . . .
Mr. STRIPLING. Well, is it your opinion now, Mr. Warner, that Mission to Moscow was a
factually correct picture, and you made it as such?
Mr. WARNER. I can’t remember.
Mr. STRIPLING. Would you consider it a propaganda picture?
Mr. WARNER. A propaganda picture—
Mr. STRIPLING. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. In what sense?
Mr. STRIPLING. In the sense that it portrayed Russia and communism in an entirely different
light from what it actually was?
Mr. WARNER. I am on record about 40 times or more that I have never been in Russia. I don’t
know what Russia was like in 1937 or 1944 or 1947, so how can I tell you if it was right or
wrong?
Mr. STRIPLING. Don’t you think you were on dangerous ground to produce as a factually
correct picture one which portrayed Russia—
Mr. WARNER. No; we were not on dangerous ground in 1942, when we produced it. There was
a war on. The world was at stake.
Mr. STRIPLING. In other words—
Mr. WARNER. We made the film to aid in the war effort, which I believe I have already stated.
Mr. STRIPLING. Whether it was true or not?
Mr. WARNER. As far as I was concerned, I considered it true to the extent as written in Mr.
Davies' book.
Mr. STRIPLING. Well, do you suppose that your picture influenced the people who saw it in this
country, the millions of people who saw it in this country?
Mr. WARNER. In my opinion, I can’t see how it would influence anyone. We were in war and
when you are in a fight you don’t ask who the fellow is who is helping you.
Mr. STRIPLING. Well, due to the present conditions in the international situation, don’t you think
it was rather dangerous to write about such a disillusionment as was sought in that picture?
Mr. WARNER. I can’t understand why you ask me that question, as to the present conditions.
How did I, you, or anyone else know in 1942 what the conditions were going to be in 1947. I
stated in my testimony our reason for making the picture, which was to aid the war effort—
anticipating what would happen.
Mr. STRIPLING. I don’t see that this is aiding the war effort, Mr. Warner—with the cooperation
of Mr. Davies or with the approval of the Government—to make a picture which is a fraud in
fact.
Mr. WARNER. I want to correct you, very vehemently. There was no cooperation of the
Government.
Mr. STRIPLING. You stated there was.
Mr. WARNER. I never stated the Government cooperated in the making of it. If I did, I stand
corrected. And I know I didn’t.
Mr. STRIPLING. Do you want me to read that part, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. No; I think we have gone into this Mission to Moscow at some length. . . .
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS B. MAYER . . .
During my 25 years in the motion-picture industry I have always sought to maintain the screen
as a force for public good.
The motion-picture industry employs many thousands of people. As is the case with the
newspaper, radio, publishing, and theater businesses, we cannot be responsible for the political
views of each individual employee. It is, however, our complete responsibility to determine what
appears on the motion-picture screen.
It is my earnest hope that this committee will perform a public service by recommending to the
Congress legislation establishing a national policy regulating employment of Communists in
private industry. It is my belief they should be denied the sanctuary of the freedom they seek to
destroy. . . .
The primary function of motion pictures is to bring entertainment to the screen. But, like all other
industries, we were lending every support to our Government in the war effort, and whenever a
subject could be presented as entertaining, we tried, insofar as possible, to cooperate in
building morale. . . .
There were a number of representatives of the Government who made periodical visits to the
studios during the war. They discussed with us from time to time the types of pictures which
they felt might assist the war effort. They were coordinators and at no time did they attempt to
tell us what we should or should not do. We made our own decisions on production. We are
proud of our war efforts and the results speak for themselves.
Mention has been made of the picture Song of Russia, as being friendly to Russia at the time it
was made. Of course it was. It was made to be friendly. In 1938 we made Ninotchka, and
shortly thereafter Comrade X, with Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr—both of these films kidded
Russia.
It was in April of 1942 that the story for Song of Russia came to our attention. It seemed a good
medium of entertainment and at the same time offered an opportunity for a pat on the back for
our then ally, Russia. It also offered an opportunity to use the music of Tschaikovsky. We
mentioned this to the Government coordinators and they agreed with us that it would be a good
idea to make the picture.
According to research I have made, our newspapers were headlining the desperate situation of
the Russians at Stalingrad at that time. Admiral Standley, American Ambassador to the Soviet
Union, made a vigorous plea for all-out aid. He pleaded for assistance second only to the
supplies being provided the United States Fleet, and emphasized that the best way to win the
war was to keep the Russians killing the Germans, and that the most effective way was to give
them all the help they needed.
The United States Army Signal Corps made The Battle of Stalingrad, released in 1943, with a
prolog expressing high tribute from President Roosevelt, our Secretaries of State, War, and
Navy, and from Generals Marshall and MacArthur.
The final script of Song of Russia was little more than a pleasant musical romance—the story of
a boy and girl that, except for the music of Tschaikovsky, might just as well have taken place in
Switzerland or England or any other country on the earth. . . .
Since 1942 when the picture was planned, our relationship with Russia has changed. But
viewed in the light of the war emergency at the time, it is my opinion that it could not be
construed as anything other than for the entertainment purpose intended and a pat on the back
for our then ally, Russia. . . .
TESTIMONY OF MISS AYN RAND . . .
Mr. STRIPLING: Now, Miss Rand, you have heard the testimony of Mr. Mayer?
Miss RAND: Yes.
Mr. STRIPLING: You have read the letter I read from Lowell Mellett?
Miss RAND: Yes.
Mr. STRIPLING: Which says that the picture “Song of Russia” has no political implications?
Miss RAND: Yes.
Mr. STRIPLING: Did you at the request of Mr. Smith, the investigator for this committee, view
the picture “Song of Russia”?
Miss RAND: Yes.
Mr. STRIPLING: Within the past 2 weeks?
Miss RAND: Yes; on October 13, to be exact.
Mr. STRIPLING: In Hollywood?
Miss RAND: Yes.
Mr. STRIPLING: Would you give the committee a break-down of your summary of the picture
relating to either propaganda or an untruthful account or distorted account of conditions in
Russia?
Miss RAND: Yes.
First of all I would like to define what we mean by propaganda. We have all been talking about
it, but nobody—
Mr. STRIPLING: Could you talk into the microphone?
Miss RAND: Can you hear me now?
Nobody has stated just what they mean by propaganda. Now, I use the term to mean that
Communist propaganda is anything which gives a good impression of communism as a way of
life. Anything that sells people the idea that life in Russia is good and that people are free and
happy would be Communist propaganda. Am I not correct? I mean, would that be a fair
statement to make—that that would be Communist propaganda?
Now, here is what the picture “Song of Russia” contains. It starts with an American conductor,
played by Robert Taylor, giving a concert in America for Russian war relief. He starts playing the
American national anthem and the national anthem dissolves into a Russian mob, with the
sickle and hammer on a red flag very prominent above their heads. I am sorry, but that made
me sick. That is something which I do not see how native Americans permit, and I am only a
naturalized American. That was a terrible touch of propaganda. As a writer, I can tell you just
exactly what it suggests to the people. It suggests literally and technically that it is quite all right
for the American national anthem to dissolve into the Soviet. The term here is more than just
technical. It really was symbolically intended, and it worked out that way. The anthem continues,
played by a Soviet band. That is the beginning of the picture.
Now we go to the pleasant love story. Mr. Taylor is an American who came there apparently
voluntarily to conduct concerts for the Soviets. He meets a little Russian girl from a village who
comes to him and begs him to go to her village to direct concerts there. There are no GPU
agents [State Political Administration, forerunner of the KGB]and nobody stops her. She just
comes to Moscow and meets him. He falls for her and decides he will go, because he is falling
in love. He asks her to show him Moscow. She says she has never seen it. He says, “I will show
it to you.”
They see it together. The picture then goes into a scene of Moscow, supposedly. I don’t know
where the studio got its shots, but I have never seen anything like it in Russia. First you see
Moscow buildings—big, prosperous-looking, clean buildings, with something like swans or
sailboats in the foreground. Then you see a Moscow restaurant that just never existed there. In
my time, when I was in Russia, there was only one such restaurant, which was nowhere as
luxurious as that and no one could enter it except commissars and profiteers. Certainly a girl
from a village, who in the first place would never have been allowed to come voluntarily, without
permission, to Moscow, could not afford to enter it, even if she worked 10 years. However, there
is a Russian restaurant with a menu such as never existed in Russia at all and which I doubt
even existed before the revolution. From this restaurant they go on to this tour of Moscow. The
streets are clean and prosperous-looking. There are no food lines anywhere. You see shots of
the marble subway—the famous Russian subway out of which they make such propaganda
capital. There is a marble statue of Stalin thrown in. . . .
Incidentally, I must say at this point that I understand from correspondents who have left Russia
and been there later than I was and from people who escaped from there later than I did that the
time I saw it, which was in 1926, was the best time since the Russian revolution. At that time
conditions were a little better than they have become since. In my time we were a bunch of
ragged, starved, dirty, miserable people who had only two thoughts in our mind. That was our
complete terror—afraid to look at one another, afraid to say anything for fear of who is listening
and would report us—and where to get the next meal. You have no idea what it means to live in
a country where nobody has any concern except food, where all the conversation is about food
because everybody is so hungry that that is all they can think about and that is all they can
afford to do. They have no idea of politics. They have no idea of any pleasant romances or
love—nothing but food and fear.
That is what I saw up to 1926. That is not what the picture shows.
Now, after this tour of Moscow, the hero—the American conductor—goes to the Soviet village.
The Russian villages are something—so miserable and so filthy. They were even before the
revolution. They weren’t much even then. What they have become now I am afraid to think. You
have all read about the program for the collectivization of the farms in 1933, at which time the
Soviet government admits that 3,000,000 peasants died of starvation. Other people claim there
were seven and a half million, but 3,000,000 is the figure admitted by the Soviet government as
the figure of people who died of starvation, planned by the government in order to drive people
into collective farms. That is a recorded historical fact.
Now, here is the life in the Soviet village as presented in “Song of Russia.” You see the happy
peasants. You see they are meeting the hero at the station with bands, with beautiful blouses
and shoes, such as they never wore anywhere. You see children with operetta costumes on
them and with a brass band which they could never afford. You see the manicured starlets
driving tractors and the happy women who come from work singing. You see a peasant at home
with a close-up of food for which anyone there would have been murdered. If anybody had such
food in Russia in that time he couldn’t remain alive, because he would have been torn apart by
neighbors trying to get food. But here is a close-up of it and a line where Robert Taylor
comments on the food and the peasant answers, “This is just a simple country table and the
food we eat ourselves.” . . .
Now, here comes the crucial point of the picture. In the midst of this concert, when the heroine
is playing, you see a scene on the border of the U.S.S.R. You have a very lovely modernistic
sign saying “U.S.S.R.” I would just like to remind you that that is the border where probably
thousands of people have died trying to escape out of this lovely paradise. It shows the
U.S.S.R. sign, and there is a border guard standing. He is listening to the concert. Then there is
a scene inside kind of a guardhouse where the guards are listening to the same concert, the
beautiful Tschaikowsky music, and they are playing chess. Suddenly there is a Nazi attack on
them. The poor, sweet Russians were unprepared. Now, realize—and that was a great shock to
me—that the border that was being shown was the border of Poland. That was the border of an
occupied, destroyed, enslaved country which Hitler and Stalin destroyed together. That was the
border that was being shown to us—just a happy place with people listening to music.
Also realize that when all this sweetness and light was going on in the first part of the picture,
with all these happy, free people, there was not a GPU agent among them, with no food lines,
no persecution—complete freedom and happiness, with everybody smiling. . . .
Now, here is what I cannot understand at all: If the excuse that has been given here is that we
had to produce the picture in wartime, just how can it help the war effort? If it is to deceive the
American people, if it were to present to the American people a better picture of Russia than it
really is, then that sort of an attitude is nothing but the theory of the Nazi elite, that a choice
group of intellectual or other leaders will tell the people lies for their own good. That I don’t think
is the American way of giving people information. We do not have to deceive the people at any
time, in war or peace.
If it was to please the Russians, I don’t see how you can please the Russians by telling them
that we are fools. To what extent we have done it, you can see right now. You can see the
results right now. If we present a picture like that as our version of what goes on in Russia, what
will they think of it? We don’t win anybody’s friendship. We will only win their contempt, and as
you know the Russians have been behaving like this.
My whole point about the picture is this: I fully believe Mr. Mayer when he says that he did not
make a Communist picture. To do him justice, I can tell you I noticed, by watching the picture,
where there was an effort to cut propaganda out. I believe he tried to cut propaganda out of the
picture, but the terrible thing is the carelessness with ideas, not realizing that the mere
presentation of that kind of happy existence in a country of slavery and horror is terrible
because it is propaganda. You are telling people that it is all right to live in a totalitarian state. . .
.
Mr. WOOD: Let me see if I understand your position. I understand, from what you say, that
because they were a dictatorship we shouldn’t have accepted their help in undertaking to win a
war against another dictatorship.
Miss RAND: That is not what I said. I was not in a position to make that decision. If I were, I
would tell you what I would do. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact
that our country was an ally of Russia, and the question is, What should we tell the American
people about it—the truth or a lie? If we had good reason, if that is what you believe, all right,
then why not tell the truth? Say it is a dictatorship, but we want to be associated with it. Say it is
worth while being associated with the devil, as Churchill said, in order to defeat another evil
which is Hitler. There might be some good argument made for that. But why pretend that Russia
was not what it was?
Mr. WOOD: Well—
Miss RAND: What do you achieve by that?
Mr. WOOD: Do you think it would have had as good an effect upon the morale of the American
people to preach a doctrine to them that Russia was on the verge of collapse?
Miss RAND: I don’t believe that the morale of anybody can be built up by a lie. If there was
nothing good that we could truthfully say about Russia, then it would have been better not to say
anything at all.
Mr. WOOD: Well—
Miss RAND: You don’t have to come out and denounce Russia during the war; no. You can
keep quiet. There is no moral guilt in not saying something if you can’t say it, but there is in
saying the opposite of what is true. . .
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion
Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, October 20, 1947 in William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, Discovering the
American Past: A Look at the Evidence, Volume II: Since 1865, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 249–52, 254–56.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6442
DOCUMENT 62: MOVIE “CZAR” AND PRESIDENT OF
THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
ERIC JOHNSTON TESTIFIES BEFORE HUAC,
OCTOBER 1947
TESTIMONY OF ERIC ALLEN JOHNSTON . . .
I’m not here to try to whitewash Hollywood, and I’m not here to help sling a tar brush at it, either.
I want to stick to the facts as I see them.
There are several points I’d like to make to this committee.
The first one is this: A damaging impression of Hollywood has spread all over the country as a
result of last week’s hearings. You have a lot of sensational testimony about Hollywood. From
some of it the public will get the idea that Hollywood is running over with Communists and
communism.
I believe the impression which has gone out is the sort of scare-head stuff which is grossly
unfair to a great American industry. It must be a great satisfaction to the Communist leadership
in this country to have people believe that Hollywood Communists are astronomical in number
and almost irresistible in power.
Now, what are the facts? Not everybody in Hollywood is a Communist. I have said before that
undoubtedly there are Communists in Hollywood, but in my opinion the percentage is extremely
small.
I have had a number of close looks at Hollywood in the last 2 years, and I have looked at it
through the eyes of an average businessman. I recognize that as the world’s capital of show
business, there is bound to be a lot of show business in Hollywood. There is no business, Mr.
Chairman, like show business. But underneath there is the solid foundation of patriotic,
hardworking, decent citizens. Making motion pictures is hard work. You just don’t dash off a
motion picture between social engagements. . . .
I wind up my first point with a request of this committee. The damaging impression about
Hollywood should be corrected. I urge your committee to do so in these public hearings.
There is another damaging impression which should be corrected. The report of the
subcommittee said that some of the most flagrant Communist propaganda films were produced
as the result of White House pressure. This charge has been completely refuted by the
testimony before you.
My second point includes another request of the committee.
The report of your subcommittee stated that you had a list of all pictures produced in Hollywood
in the last 8 years which contained Communist propaganda. Your committee has not made this
list public. Until the list is made public the industry stands condemned by unsupported
generalizations, and we are denied the opportunity to refute these charges publicly.
Again, I remind the committee that we have offered to put on a special showing of any or all of
the pictures which stand accused so that you can see for yourselves what’s in them. The
contents of the pictures constitute the only proof.
Unless this evidence is presented and we are given the chance to refute it in these public
hearings, it is the obligation of the committee to absolve the industry from the charges against it.
Now, I come to my third point—a vitally important one to every American and to the system
under which we live.
It is free speech. . . .
When I talk about freedom of speech in connection with this hearing, I mean just this: You don’t
need to pass a law to choke off free speech or seriously curtail it. Intimidation or coercion will do
it just as well. You can’t make good and honest motion pictures in an atmosphere of fear.
I intend to use every influence at my command to keep the screen free. I don’t propose that
Government shall tell the motion-picture industry, directly or by coercion, what kind of pictures it
ought to make. I am as whole-souledly against that as I would be against dictating to the press
or the radio, to the book publishers or to the magazines. . . .
To sum up this point: We insist on our rights to decide what will or will not go in our pictures. We
are deeply conscious of the responsibility this freedom involves, but we have no intention to
violate this trust by permitting subversive propaganda in our films.
Now, my next point is this:
When I was before this committee last March, I said that I wanted to see Communists exposed.
I still do. I’m heart and soul for it. An exposed Communist is an unarmed Communist. Expose
them, but expose them in the traditional American manner.
But I believe that when this committee or any other agency undertakes to expose communism it
must be scrupulous to avoid tying a red tag on innocent people by indiscriminate labeling.
It seems to me it is getting dangerously easy to call a man a Communist without proof or even
reasonable suspicion. When a distinguished leader of the Republican Party in the United States
Senate is accused of following the Communist Party line for introducing a housing bill, it is time,
gentlemen, to give a little serious thought to the dangers of thoughtless smearing by gossip and
hearsay.
Senator Robert Taft isn’t going to worry about being called a Communist. But not every
American is a Senator Taft who can properly ignore such an accusation. Most of us in America
are just little people, and loose charges can hurt little people. They take away everything a man
has—his livelihood, his reputation, and his personal dignity.
When just one man is falsely damned as a Communist in an hour like this when the Red issue is
at white heat, no one of us is safe.
Gentlemen, I maintain that preservation of the rights of the individual is a proper duty for this
Committee on Un-American Activities. This country’s entire tradition is based on the principle
that the individual is a higher power than the state; that the state owes its authority to the
individual, and must treat him accordingly.
Expose communism, but don’t put any American who isn’t a Communist in a concentration
camp of suspicion. We are not willing to give up our freedoms to save our freedoms.
I now come to my final point:
What are we going to do positively and constructively about combating communism? It isn’t
enough to be anti-Communist any more than it is to be antismallpox. You can still die from
smallpox if you haven’t used a serum against it. A positive program is the best antitoxin of the
plague of communism.
Communism must have breeding grounds. Men and women who have a reasonable measure of
opportunity aren’t taken in by the prattle of Communists. Revolutions plotted by frustrated
intellectuals at cocktail parties won’t get anywhere if we wipe out the potential causes of
communism. The most effective way is to make democracy work for greater opportunity, for
greater participation, for greater security for all our people.
The real breeding ground of communism is in the slums. It is everywhere where people haven’t
enough to eat or enough to wear through no fault of their own. Communism hunts misery, feeds
on misery, and profits by it.
Freedoms walk hand-in-hand with abundance. That has been the history of America. It has
been the American story. It turned the eyes of the world to America, because America gave
reality to freedom, plus abundance when it was still an idle daydream in the rest of the world.
We have been the greatest exporter of freedom, and the world is hungry for it. Today it needs
our wheat and our fuel to stave off hunger and fight off cold, but hungry and cold as they may
be, men always hunger for freedom.
We want to continue to practice and to export freedom.
If we fortify our democracy to lick want, we will lick communism—here and abroad. Communists
can hang all the iron curtains they like, but they’ll never be able to shut out the story of a land
where freemen walk without fear and live with abundance.
[Applause.]
(The chairman pounding gavel.) . . .
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion
Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, in William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker Discovering the American Past: A
Look at the Evidence, Volume II: Since 1865, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 280–83.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6443
DOCUMENT 63: “FRIENDLY” HUAC WITNESSES
RONALD REAGAN AND WALT DISNEY BLAME
HOLLYWOOD LABOR STRIFE ON COMMUNIST
INFILTRATORS
[During the 1930s, the dominant labor union in Hollywood, the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees Union
(IATSE), was led by men with ties to organized crime. Studio heads also supported union leaders financially in order to inhibit strikes
and keep labor cost increases low. After IATSE leaders were sentenced to prison terms for extortion, organizing drives by
opposition labor groups began to surge. The Conference of Studio Unions (CSU), a craft union coalition headed by Herbert K.
Sorrell, was founded in 1941 following a divisive, but successful strike against Walt Disney Productions by cartoonists aligned with
Sorrell. During an eight-month CSU-led industry-wide strike in 1945, IATSE, aided by the Motion Picture Alliance for the
Preservation of American Values (MPA), a right-wing anticommunist industry group, launched a campaign to brand their rival as
communistic. A further strike marked by police violence occurred the following year, and in 1947, with the cooperation of Screen
Actors’ Guild president Ronald Reagan, the studio heads, MPA, and IATSE emerged victorious in the jurisdictional battle. In the
following testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)—which the MPA had repeatedly urged to
investigate subversives in the industry—Reagan and Disney portrayed the labor struggles solely in terms of a battle between forces
for and against Communism.]
TESTIMONY OF RONALD REAGAN . . .
Mr. STRIPLING: As a member of the board of directors, as president of the Screen Actors
Guild, and as an active member, have you at any time observed or noted within the organization
a clique of either Communists or Fascists who were attempting to exert influence or pressure on
the guild?
Mr. REAGAN: Well, sir, my testimony must be very similar to that of Mr. (George) Murphy and
Mr. (Robert) Montgomery. There has been a small group within the Screen Actors Guild which
has consistently opposed the policy of the guild board and officers of the guild, as evidenced by
the vote on various issues. That small clique referred to has been suspected of more or less
following the tactics that we associate with the Communist Party.
Mr. STRIPLING: Would you refer to them as a disruptive influence within the guild?
Mr. REAGAN: I would say that at times they have attempted to be a disruptive influence.
Mr. STRIPLING: You have no knowledge yourself as to whether or not any of them are
members of the Communist Party?
Mr. REAGAN: No, sir; I have no investigative force, or anything, and I do not know.
Mr. STRIPLING: Has it ever been reported to you that certain members of the guild were
Communists?
Mr. REAGAN: Yes, sir; I have heard different discussions and some of them tagged as
Communists. . . .
Mr. STRIPLING: Would you say that this clique has attempted to dominate the guild?
Mr. REAGAN: Well, sir, by attempting to put their own particular views on various issues, I
guess in regard to that you would have to say that our side was attempting to dominate, too,
because we were fighting just as hard to put over our views, in which we sincerely believed, and
I think, we were proven correct by the figures—Mr. Murphy gave the figures—and those figures
were always approximately the same, an average of 90 percent or better of the Screen Actors
Guild voted in favor of those matters now guild policy.
Mr. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, there has been testimony to the effect here that numerous
Communist-front organizations have been set up in Hollywood. Have you ever been solicited to
join any of those organizations or any organization which you considered to be a Communistfront organization?
Mr. REAGAN: Well, sir, I have received literature from an organization called the Committee for
a Far-Eastern Democratic Policy. I don’t know whether it is Communist or not. I only know that I
didn’t like their views and as a result I didn’t want to have anything to do with them.
Mr. STRIPLING: Were you ever solicited to sponsor the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee?
Mr. REAGAN: No, sir; I was never solicited to do that, but I found myself misled into being a
sponsor on another occasion for a function that was held under the auspices of the Joint AntiFascist Refugee Committee.
Mr. STRIPLING: Did you knowingly give your name as a sponsor?
Mr. REAGAN: Not knowingly. Could I explain what that occasion was?
Mr. STRIPLING: Yes sir.
Mr. REAGAN: I was called several weeks ago. There happened at the time in Hollywood to be a
financial drive on to raise money to build a badly needed hospital in a certain section of town,
called the All Nations Hospital. I think the purpose of the building is so obvious by the title that it
has the support of most of the people of Hollywood—or, of Los Angeles, I should say. Certainly
of most of the doctors, because it is very badly needed.
Some time ago I was called to the telephone. A woman introduced herself by name. Knowing
that I didn’t know her I didn’t make any particular note of her name and I couldn’t give it now.
She told me that there would be a recital held at which Paul Robeson would sing and she said
that all the money for the tickets would go to the hospital and asked if she could use my name
as one of the sponsors. I hesitated for a moment because I don’t think that Mr. Robeson’s and
my political views coincide at all and then I thought I was being a little stupid because, I thought,
here is an occasion where Mr. Robeson is perhaps appearing as an artist and certainly the
object, raising money, is above any political consideration, it is a hospital supported by
everyone. I have contributed money myself. So I felt a little bit as if I had been stuffy for a
minute and I said, certainly, you can use my name.
I left town for a couple of weeks and when I returned I was handed a newspaper story that said
that this recital was held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles under the auspices of the Joint
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee. The principal speaker was Emil Lustig, Robert Burman took
up a collection, and the remnants of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were paraded to the platform.
I did not in the newspaper story see one word about the hospital. I called the newspaper and
said I am not accustomed to writing to editors, but would like to explain my position, and he
laughed and said, “You needn’t bother, you are about the fiftieth person that has called with the
same idea, including most of the legitimate doctors who had also been listed as sponsors of that
affair.”
Mr. STRIPLING: Would you say from your observation that that is typical of the tactics or
strategy of the Communists, to solicit and use the names of prominent people to either raise
money or gain support?
Mr. REAGAN: I think it is in keeping with their tactics; yes, sir.
Mr. STRIPLING: Do you think there is anything democratic about those tactics?
Mr. REAGAN: I do not, sir.
Mr. STRIPLING: As president of the Screen Actors Guild you are familiar with the jurisdictional
strike which has been going on in Hollywood for some time?
Mr. REAGAN: Yes, sir.
Mr. STRIPLING: Have you ever had any conferences with any of the labor officials regarding
this strike?
Mr. REAGAN: Yes, sir. . . .
Mr. STRIPLING: Do you know whether the Communists have participated in any way in this
strike?
Mr. REAGAN: Sir, the first time that this word “Communist” was ever injected into any of the
meetings concerning the strike was at a meeting in Chicago with Mr. William Hutchinson,
president of the carpenters union, who were on strike at the time. He asked the Screen Actors
Guild to submit terms to Mr. (Richard) Walsh, for Walsh to give in in the settling of this strike,
and he told us to tell Mr. Walsh that if he would give in on these terms he in turn would break
run this Sorrell and the other commies out—I am quoting him—and break it up. I might add that
Mr. Walsh and Mr. Sorrell were running the strike for Mr. Hutchinson in Hollywood.
Mr. STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, what is your feeling about what steps should be taken to rid the
motion-picture industry of any Communist influences, if they are there?
Mr. REAGAN: Well, sir . . . 99 percent of us are pretty well aware of what is going on, and I think
within the bounds of our democratic rights, and never once stepping over the rights given us by
democracy, we have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people’s activities
curtailed. After all, we must recognize them at present as a political party. On that basis we
have exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda, and I
can certainly testify that in the case of the Screen Actors Guild we have been eminently
successful in preventing them from, with their usual tactics, trying to run a majority of an
organization with a well organized minority.
So that fundamentally I would say in opposing those people that the best thing to do is to make
democracy work. In the Screen Actors Guild we make it work by insuring everyone a vote and
by keeping everyone informed. I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American
people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake.
Whether the party should be outlawed, I agree with the gentlemen that preceded me that that is
a matter for the Government to decide. As a citizen I would hesitate, or not like, to see any
political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. We have spent 170 years in this
country on the basis that democracy is strong enough to stand up and fight against the inroads
of any ideology. However, if it is proven that an organization is an agent of a power, a foreign
power, or in any way not a legitimate political party, and I think the Government is capable of
proving that, if the proof is there, then that is another matter. . . .
I happen to be very proud of the industry in which I work; I happen to be very proud of the way
in which we conducted the fight. I do not believe the Communists have ever at any time been
able to use the motion-picture screen as a sounding board for their philosophy or ideology. . . .
The CHAIRMAN: There is one thing that you said that interested me very much. That was the
quotation from Jefferson. That is just why this committee was created by the House of
Representatives, to acquaint the American people with the facts. Once the American people are
acquainted with the facts there is no question but what the American people will do a job, the
kind of a job that they want done; that is, to make America just as pure as we can possibly make
it.
We want to thank you very much for coming here today.
Mr. REAGAN: Sir, if I might, in regard to that, say that what I was trying to express, and didn’t
do very well, was also this other fear. I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than
that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I
never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this
group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or
resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER E. DISNEY
Mr. SMITH: Have you ever made any pictures in your studio that contained propaganda and
that were propaganda films?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, during the war we did. We made quite a few—working with different
Government agencies. We did one for the Treasury on taxes and I did four anti-Hitler films. And
I did one on my own for Air Power.
Mr. SMITH: From those pictures that you made have you any opinion as to whether or not the
films can be used effectively to disseminate propaganda?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes, I think they proved that.
Mr. SMITH: How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, on the one for the Treasury on taxes, it was to let the people know that taxes
were important in the war effort. As they explained to me, they had 13,000,000 new taxpayers,
people who had never paid taxes, and they explained that it would be impossible to prosecute
all those that were delinquent and they wanted to put this story before those people so they
would get their taxes in early. I made the film and after the film had its run the Gallup poll
organization polled the public and the findings were that 29 percent of the people admitted that
it had influenced them in getting their taxes in early and giving them a picture of what taxes will
do.
Mr. SMITH: Aside from those pictures you made during the war, have you made any other
pictures, or do you permit pictures to be made at your studio containing propaganda?
Mr. DISNEY: No; we never have. During the war we thought it was a different thing. It was the
first time we ever allowed anything like that to go in the films. We watch so that nothing gets into
the films that would be harmful in any way to any group or any country. We have large
audiences of children and different groups, and we try to keep them as free from anything that
would offend anybody as possible. We work hard to see that nothing of that sort creeps in.
Mr. SMITH: Do you have any people in your studio at the present time that you believe are
Communist or Fascist employed there?
Mr. DISNEY: No; at the present time I feel that everybody in my studio is 100 percent American.
Mr. SMITH: Have you had at any time, in your opinion, in the past, have you at any time in the
past had any Communists employed at your studio?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes; in the past I had some people that I definitely feel were Communists.
Mr. SMITH: As a matter of fact, Mr. Disney, you experienced a strike at your studio, did you not?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes.
Mr. SMITH: And is it your opinion that that strike was instituted by members of the Communist
Party to serve their purposes?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, it proved itself so with time, and I definitely feel it was a Communist group
trying to take over my artists and they did take them over.
The CHAIRMAN: Do you say they did take them over?
Mr. DISNEY: They did take them over.
Mr. SMITH: Will you explain that to the committee, please?
Mr. DISNEY: It came to my attention when a delegation of my boys, my artists, came to me and
told me that Mr. Herbert Sorrell—
Mr. SMITH: Is that Herbert K. Sorrell?
Mr. DISNEY: Herbert K. Sorrell, was trying to take them over. I explained to them that it was
none of my concern, that I had been cautioned to not even talk with any of my boys on labor.
They said it was not a matter of labor, it was just a matter of them not wanting to go with Sorrell,
and they had heard that I was going to sign with Sorrell, and they said that they wanted an
election to prove that Sorrell didn’t have the majority, and I said that I had a right to demand an
election. So when Sorrell came I demanded an election.
Sorrell wanted me to sign on a bunch of cards that he had there that he claimed were the
majority, but the other side had claimed the same thing. I told Mr. Sorrell that there is only one
way for me to go and that was an election and that is what the law had set up, the National
Labor Relations Board was for that purpose. He laughed at me and he said that he would use
the Labor Board as it suited his purposes and that he had been sucker enough to go for that
Labor Board ballot and he had lost some election—I can’t remember the name of the place—by
one vote. He said it took him 2 years to get it back. He said he would strike, that that was his
weapon. He said, “I have all of the tools of the trade sharpened,” that I couldn’t stand the ridicule
or the smear of a strike. I told him that it was a matter of principle with me, that I couldn’t go on
working with my boys feeling that I had sold them down the river to him on his say-so, and he
laughed at me and told me I was naive and foolish. He said, you can’t stand this strike, I will
smear you, and I will make a dust bowl out of your plant.
The CHAIRMAN: What was that?
Mr. DISNEY: He said he would make a dust bowl out of my plant if he chose to. I told him I
would have to go that way, sorry, that he might be able to do all that, but I would have to stand
on that. The result was that he struck.
I believed at that time that Mr. Sorrell was a Communist because of all the things that I had
heard and having seen his name appearing on a number of Commie front things. When he
pulled the strike the first people to smear me and put me on the unfair list were all of the
Commie front organizations. I can’t remember them all, they change so often, but one that is
clear in my mind is the League of Women Shoppers, The People’s World, The Daily Worker,
and the PM magazine in New York. They smeared me. Nobody came near to find out what the
true facts of the thing were. And I even went through the same smear in South America, through
some Commie periodicals in South America, and generally throughout the world all of the
Commie groups began smear campaigns against me and my pictures.
Mr. MCDOWELL: In what fashion was that smear, Mr. Disney, what type of smear?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, they distorted everything, they lied; there was no way you could ever
counteract anything that they did; they formed picket lines in front of the theaters, and, well, they
called my plant a sweat-shop, and that is not true, and anybody in Hollywood would prove it
otherwise. They claimed things that were not true at all and there was no way you could fight it
back. It was not a labor problem at all because—I mean, I have never had labor trouble, and I
think that would be backed up by anybody in Hollywood.
Mr. SMITH: As a matter of fact, you have how many unions operating in your plant?
The CHAIRMAN: Excuse me just a minute. I would like to ask a question.
Mr. SMITH: Pardon me.
The CHAIRMAN: In other words, Mr. Disney, Communists out there smeared you because you
wouldn’t knuckle under?
Mr. DISNEY: I wouldn’t go along with their way of operating. I insisted on it going through the
National Labor Relations Board. And he told me outright that he used them as it suited his
purposes.
The CHAIRMAN: Supposing you had given in to him, then what would have been the outcome?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I would never have given in to him, because it was a matter of principle with
me, and I fight for principles. My boys have been there, have grown up in the business with me,
and I didn’t feel like I could sign them over to anybody. They were vulnerable at that time. They
were not organized. It is a new industry.
The CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH: How many labor unions, approximately, do you have operating in your studios at
the present time?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, we operate with around 35—I think we have contacts with 30.
Mr. SMITH: At the time of this strike you didn’t have any grievances or labor troubles
whatsoever in your plant?
Mr. DISNEY: No. The only real grievance was between Sorrell and the boys within my plant,
they demanding an election, and they never got it.
Mr. SMITH: Do you recall having had any conversations with Mr. Sorrell relative to communism?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes, I do.
Mr. SMITH: Will you relate that conversation?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I didn’t pull my punches on how I felt. He evidently heard that I had called
them all a bunch of Communists—and I believe they are. At the meeting he leaned over and he
said, “You think I am a Communist, don’t you,” and I told him that all I knew was what I heard
and what I had seen, and he laughed and said, “Well, I used their money to finance my strike of
1937,” and he said that he had gotten the money through the personal check of some actor, but
he didn’t name the actor. I didn’t go into it any further. I just listened.
Mr. SMITH: Can you name any other individuals that were active at the time of the strike that
you believe in your opinion are Communists?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I feel that there is one artist in my plant, that came in there, he came in about
1938, and he sort of stayed in the background, he wasn’t too active, but he was the real brains
of this, and I believe he is a Communist. His name is David Hilberman.
Mr. SMITH: How is it spelled?
Mr. DISNEY: H-i-l-b-e-r-m-a-n, I believe. I looked into his record and I found that, No. 1, that he
had no religion and, No. 2, that he had considerable time at the Moscow Art Theater studying
art direction, or something.
Mr. SMITH: Any others, Mr. Disney?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I think Sorrell is sure tied up with them. If he isn’t a Communist, he sure
should be one.
Mr. SMITH: Do you remember the name of William Pomerance, did he have anything to do with
it?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes, sir. He came in later. Sorrell put him in charge as business manager of
cartoonists and later he went to the Screen Actors as their business agent and in turn he put in
another man by the name of Maurice Howard, the present business agent. And they are all tied
up with the same outfit.
Mr. SMITH: What is your opinion of Mr. Pomerance and Mr. Howard as to whether or not they
are or are not Communists?
Mr. DISNEY: In my opinion they are Communists. No one has any way of proving those things.
Mr. SMITH: Were you able to produce during the strike?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes, I did, because there was a very few, very small majority that was on the
outside, and all the other unions ignored all the lines because of the set-up of the thing.
Mr. SMITH: What is your personal opinion of the Communist Party, Mr. Disney, as to whether or
not it is a political party?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I don’t believe it is a political party. I believe it is an un-American thing. The
thing that I resent the most is that they are able to get into these unions, take them over, and
represent to the world that a group of people that are in my plant, that I know are good, 100
percent Americans, are trapped by this group, and they are represented to the world as
supporting all of those ideologies, and it is not so, and I feel that they really ought to be smoked
out and shown up for what they are, so that all of the good, free causes in this country, all the
liberalisms that really are American, can go out without the taint of Communism. That is my
sincere feeling on it.
Mr. SMITH: Do you feel that there is a threat of communism in the motion-picture industry?
Mr. DISNEY: Yes, there is, and there are many reasons why they would like to take it over or
get in and control it, or disrupt it, but I don’t think they have gotten very far, and I think the
industry is made up of good Americans, just like in my plant, good, solid Americans.
My boys have been fighting it longer than I have. They are trying to get out from under it and
they will in time if we can just show them up.
Mr. SMITH: There are presently pending before this committee two bills relative to outlawing the
Communist Party. What thoughts have you as to whether or not those bills should be passed?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I don’t know as I qualify to speak on that. I feel if the thing can be proven unAmerican that it ought to be outlawed. I think in some way it should be done without interfering
with the rights of the people. I think that will be done. I have that faith. Without interfering, I
mean, with the good, American rights that we all have now, and we want to preserve.
Mr. SMITH: Have you any suggestions to offer as to how the industry can be helped in fighting
this menace?
Mr. DISNEY: Well, I think there is a good start toward it. I know that I have been handicapped
out there in fighting it, because they have been hiding behind this labor set-up, they get
themselves closely tied up in the labor thing, so that if you try to get rid of them they make a
labor case out of it. We must keep the American labor unions clean. We have got to fight for
them. . . .
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion
Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, October 23–24, 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947).
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458
DOCUMENT 64: TESTIMONY OF JOHN MOFFITT AND
JOHN HOWARD LAWSON BEFORE HUAC, OCT., 1947
[Playwright and screenwriter John Howard Lawson, the president and organizing force of the Screen Writers’ Guild and
acknowledged leader of the Communist Party in Hollywood in the late 1930s, became the first “unfriendly” witness subpoenaed to
testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) on October 27, 1947. This followed a week-long session
during which numerous studio heads, stars, and others spoke at length about purported Communist activity in the industry. During
that first week, film critic and former screenwriter John Charles Moffitt detailed Lawson’s supposed instructions to writers on how to
get propaganda into films. When his turn came, Lawson attempted unsuccessfully to read a statement into the record warning that
the investigation threatened basic American rights and liberties. That statement appears below following the testimonies of Moffitt
and Lawson. With nine other “unfriendly” witnesses, Lawson gambled that the Committee would issue contempt citations for their
refusal to answer questions about their political associations and beliefs, and that after a court case and appeal, the Supreme Court
would rule that such questioning violated their First Amendment rights. Further HUAC interrogations would thus be stopped. In
1949, however, before the appeal reach the high court, two liberal justices died, and the next year, the newly constituted Court
refused to hear their appeal. The Ten were sent to prison as a result, and in 1951, HUAC continued its Hollywood probe.]
TESTIMONY OF JOHN CHARLES MOFFITT . . .
Mr. STRIPLING. Did you ever join any organizations while you were in Hollywood in connection
with being a writer for the motion-picture industry?
Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, sir; I did. In 1937, shocked by the conduct of the Fascists in Spain, I joined
an organization known as the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League. Both my wife and I became
members of that organization. We contributed considerable sums of money—for us—to what we
supposed was the buying of ambulances and medical supplies for the assistance of the
Loyalists in Spain.
After we had been in that organization some months we were invited to what turned out to be a
more or less star chamber meeting, an inner corps meeting. It took place in the home of Mr.
Frank Tuttle, a director. Mr. Herbert Biberman, who had been responsible for my being in the
Anti-Nazi League, was there, as was his wife, Miss Gail Sondergaard, an actress. Donald
Ogden Stewart was also one of those present. . . .
Mr. STRIPLING. Would you give the committee an account of the activities that you observed
as a member during those 6 weeks?
Mr. MOFFITT. Well, the most significant activity I observed came out in a conversation with Mr.
John Howard Lawson—
Mr. STRIPLING. Would you identify Mr. Lawson?
Mr. MOFFITT. Yes, sir.
Mr. STRIPLING. He is a writer, is he not?
Mr. MOFFITT. John Howard Lawson is a writer. He was the first president of the Screen Writers
Guild.
It has been testified before the Tenney committee of the California legislature that Mr. Lawson
was sent to Los Angeles by the Communist Party for the purpose of organizing Communist
activities in Hollywood. It was testified by a former secretary of the Communist Party for Los
Angeles County. . . .
Mr. STRIPLING. We will go back to your activities in the Anti-Nazi League.
Mr. MOFFITT. During the period I referred to, the period between the time I discovered that this
was a Communist front organization and the period some 6 weeks later, there, when I resigned,
I had several conversations with Mr. Biberman, Mr. Lawson, and others of that organization.
During the course of it Mr. Lawson made this significant statement:
He said: As a writer do not try to write an entire Communist picture.
He said: The producers will quickly identify it and it will be killed by the front office.
He said: As a writer try to get 5 minutes of the Communist doctrine, 5 minutes of the party line in
every script that you write.
He said: Get that into an expensive scene, a scene involving expensive stars, large sets or
many extras, because—
he said: then even if it is discovered by the front office the business manager of the unit, the
very watchdog of the treasury, the very servant of capitalism, in order to keep the budget from
going too high, will resist the elimination of that scene. If you can make the message come from
the mouth of Gary Cooper or some other important star who is unaware of what he is saying, by
the time it is discovered he is in New York and a great deal of expense will be involved to bring
him back and reshoot the scene.
If you get the message into a scene employing many extras it will be very expensive to reshoot
that scene because of the number of extras involved or the amount of labor that would be
necessary to light and reconstruct a large set.
That was the nucleus of what he said at that time.
I later heard another statement by Mr. Lawson. That was made in the summer of 1941 when
some young friends of mine who were attending what was purported to be a school for actors in
Hollywood—I think it was on Labrea Boulevard—asked me to go over and hear one of the
lectures, instructions on acting.
I went over on this night and Mr. Lawson was the lecturer. During the course of the evening Mr.
Lawson said this—and I think I quote it practically verbatim—Mr. Lawson said to these young
men and women who were training for a career of acting, he said:
It is your duty to further the class struggle by your performance.
He said: If you are nothing more than an extra wearing white flannels on a country club veranda
do your best to appear decadent, do your best to appear to be a snob; do your best to create
class antagonism.
He said: If you are an extra on a tenement street do your best to look downtrodden, do your
best to look a victim of existing society. . . .
TESTIMONY OF JOHN HOWARD LAWSON
Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement here which I wish to make—
The CHAIRMAN. Well, all right, let me see your statement.
(Statement handed to the chairman.)
The CHAIRMAN. I don’t care to read any more of the statement. The statement will not be read.
I read the first line.
Mr. LAWSON. You have spent 1 week vilifying me before the American public—
The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute—
Mr. LAWSON. And you refuse to allow me to make a statement on my rights as an American
citizen.
The CHAIRMAN. I refuse you to make the statement, because of the first sentence in your
statement. That statement is not pertinent to the inquiry.
Now, this is a congressional committee— a congressional committee set up by law. We must
have orderly procedure, and we are going to have orderly procedure.
Mr. Stripling, identify the witness.
Mr. LAWSON. The rights of American citizens are important in this room here, and I intend to
stand up for those rights, Congressman Thomas.
Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Lawson, will you state your full name, please?
Mr. LAWSON. I wish to protest against the unwillingness of this committee to read a statement,
when you permitted Mr. Warner, Mr. Mayer, and others to read statements in this room.
My name is John Howard Lawson. . . .
Mr. STRIPLING. What is your occupation, Mr. Lawson?
Mr. LAWSON. I am a writer.
Mr. STRIPLING. How long have you been a writer?
Mr. LAWSON. All my life—at least 35 years—my adult life.
Mr. STRIPLING. Are you a member of the Screen Writers Guild?
Mr. LAWSON. The raising of any question here in regard to membership, political beliefs, or
affiliation—
Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chairman—
Mr. LAWSON. Is absolutely beyond the powers of this committee.
Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chairman—
Mr. LAWSON. But—
(The chairman pounding gavel.)
Mr. LAWSON. It is a matter of public record that I am a member of the Screen Writers Guild.
Mr. STRIPLING. I ask—
[Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. I want to caution the people in the audience: You are the guests of this
committee and you will have to maintain order at all times. I do not care for any applause or any
demonstrations of one kind or another.
Mr. STRIPLING. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am also going to request that you instruct the witness to
be responsive to the questions.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the witness will be more responsive to the questions.
Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, you permitted—
The CHAIRMAN (pounding gavel). Never mind—
Mr. LAWSON (continuing). Witnesses in this room to make answers of three or four or five
hundred words to questions here.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lawson, you will please be responsive to these questions and not
continue to try to disrupt these hearings.
Mr. LAWSON. I am not on trial here, Mr. Chairman. This committee is on trial here before the
American people. Let us get that straight.
The CHAIRMAN. We don’t want you to be on trial.
Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Lawson, how long have you been a member of the Screen Writers Guild?
Mr. LAWSON. Since it was founded in its present form, in 1933.
Mr. STRIPLING. Have you ever held any office in the guild?
Mr. LAWSON. The question of whether I have held office is also a question which is beyond the
purview of this Committee.
(The chairman pounding gavel.)
Mr. LAWSON. It is an invasion of the right of association under the Bill of Rights of this country.
The CHAIRMAN. Please be responsive to the question.
Mr. LAWSON. It is also a matter—
(The chairman pounding gavel.)
Mr. LAWSON. Of public record—
The CHAIRMAN. You asked to be heard. Through your attorney, you asked to be heard, and
we want you to be heard. And if you don’t care to be heard, then we will excuse you and we will
put the record in without your answers.
Mr. LAWSON. I wish to frame my own answers to your questions, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to
do so.
....
Mr. LAWSON. It is absolutely beyond the power of this committee to inquire into my association
in any organization.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lawson, you will have to stop or you will leave the witness stand. And you
will leave the witness stand because you are in contempt. That is why you will leave the witness
stand. And if you are just trying to force me to put you in contempt, you won’t have to try much
harder. You know what has happened to a lot of people that have been in contempt of this
committee this year, don’t you?
Mr. LAWSON. I am glad you have made it perfectly clear that you are going to threaten and
intimidate the witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
(The chairman pounding gavel.)
Mr. LAWSON. I am an American and I am not at all easy to intimidate, and don’t think I am.
(The chairman pounding gavel.)
....
The CHAIRMAN (pounding gavel). Mr. Lawson, just quiet down again.
Mr. Lawson, the most pertinent question that we can ask is whether or not you have ever been
a member of the Communist Party. Now, do you care to answer that question?
Mr. LAWSON. You are using the old technique, which was used in Hitler Germany in order to
create a scare here—
The CHAIRMAN (pounding gavel). Oh—
Mr. LAWSON. In order to create an entirely false atmosphere in which this hearing is
conducted—
(The chairman pounding gavel.)
...
The CHAIRMAN (pounding gavel). Excuse the witness—
Mr. LAWSON. As they do from what I have written.
The CHAIRMAN (pounding gavel). Stand away from the stand—
Mr. LAWSON. I have written Americanism for many years, and I shall continue to fight for the
Bill of Rights, which you are trying to destroy.
The CHAIRMAN. Officers, take this man away from the stand—
[Applause and boos.]
The CHAIRMAN (pounding gavel). There will be no demonstrations. No demonstrations, for or
against. Everyone will please be seated. . . .
A Statement by John Howard Lawson [note: This statement was never put into the public
record by HUAC.]
For a week, this Committee has conducted an illegal and indecent trial of American citizens,
whom the Committee has selected to be publicly pilloried and smeared. I am not here to defend
myself, or to answer the agglomeration of falsehoods that has been heaped upon me, I believe
lawyers describe this material, rather mildly, as “hearsay evidence.” To the American public, it
has a shorter name: dirt. Rational people don’t argue with dirt. I feel like a man who has had
truckloads of filth heaped upon him; I am now asked to struggle to my feet and talk while more
truckloads pour more filth around my head.
No, you don’t argue with dirt. But you try to find out where it comes from. And to stop the evil
deluge before it buries you—and others. The immediate source is obvious. The so-called
“evidence” comes from a parade of stool-pigeons, neurotics, publicity-seeking clowns, Gestapo
agents, paid informers, and a few ignorant and frightened Hollywood artists. I am not going to
discuss this perjured testimony. Let these people live with their consciences, with the knowledge
that they have violated their country’s most sacred principles.
These individuals are not important. As an individual, I am not important. The obvious fact that
the Committee is trying to destroy me personally and professionally, to deprive me of my
livelihood and what is far dearer to me—my honor as an American—gains significance only
because it opens the way to similar destruction of any citizen whom the Committee selects for
annihilation.
I am not going to touch on the gross violation of the Constitution of the United States, and
especially of its First and Fifth Amendments, that is taking place here. The proof is so
overwhelming that it needs no elaboration. The Un-American Activities Committee stands
convicted in the court of public opinion.
I want to speak here as a writer and a citizen. . . .
My political and social views are well known. My deep faith in the motion picture as a popular art
is also well known. I don’t “sneak ideas” into pictures. I never make a contract to write a picture
unless I am convinced that it serves democracy and the interests of the American people. I will
never permit what I write and think to be subject to the orders of self-appointed dictators,
ambitious politicians, thought-control gestapos, or any other form of censorship this UnAmerican Committee may attempt to devise. My freedom to speak and write is not for sale in
return for a card signed by J. Parnell Thomas saying “O.K. for employment until further notice.”
Pictures written by me have been seen and approved by millions of Americans. A subpoena for
me is a subpoena for all those who have enjoyed these pictures and recognized them as an
honest portrayal of our American life.
Thus, my integrity as a writer is obviously an integral part of my integrity as a citizen. As a
citizen I am not alone here. I am not only one of nineteen men who have been subpoenaed. I
am forced to appear here as a representative of one hundred and thirty million Americans
because the illegal conduct of this Committee has linked me with every citizen. If I can be
destroyed no American is safe. You can subpoena a farmer in a field, a lumberjack in the
woods, a worker at a machine, a doctor in his office—you can deprive them of a livelihood,
deprive them of their honor as Americans.
Let no one think that this is an idle or thoughtless statement. This is the course that the UnAmerican Activities Committee has charted. Millions of Americans who may as yet be
unconscious of what may be in store for them will find that the warning I speak today is literally
fulfilled. No American will be safe if the Committee is not stopped in its illegal enterprise.
I am like most Americans in resenting interference with my conscience and belief. I am like most
Americans in insisting on my right to serve my country in the way that seems to me most helpful
and effective. I am like most Americans in feeling that loyalty to the United States and pride in
its traditions is the guiding principle of my life. I am like most Americans in believing that divided
loyalty—which is another word for treason—is the most despicable crime of which any man or
woman can be accused.
It is my profound conviction that it is precisely because I hold these beliefs that I have been
hailed before this illegal court. These are the beliefs that the so-called Un-American Activities
Committee is seeking to root out in order to subvert orderly government and establish an
autocratic dictatorship.
I am not suggesting that J. Parnell Thomas aspires to be the man on horseback. He is a petty
politician, serving more powerful forces. Those forces are trying to introduce fascism in this
country. They know that the only way to trick the American people into abandoning their rights
and liberties is to manufacture an imaginary danger, to frighten the people into accepting
repressive laws which are supposedly for their protection.
....
Today, we face a serious crisis in the determination of national policy. The only way to solve
that crisis is by free discussion. Americans must know the facts. The only plot against American
safety is the plot to conceal facts. I am plastered with mud because I happen to be an American
who expresses opinions that the House Un-American Activities Committee does not like. But my
opinions are not an issue in this case. The issue is my right to have opinions. The Committee’s
logic is obviously: Lawson’s opinions are properly subject to censorship; he writes for the motion
picture industry, so the industry is properly subject to censorship; the industry makes pictures
for the American people, so the minds of the people must be censored and controlled.
Why? What are J. Parnell Thomas and the Un-American interests he serves, afraid of? They’re
afraid of the American people. They don’t want to muzzle me. They want to muzzle public
opinion. They want to muzzle the great Voice of democracy. Because they’re conspiring against
the American way of life. They want to cut living standards, introduce an economy of poverty,
wipe out labor’s rights, attack Negroes, Jews, and other minorities, drive us into a disastrous
and unnecessary war.
The struggle between thought-control and freedom of expression is the struggle between the
people and a greedy unpatriotic minority which hates and fears the people. I wish to present as
an integral part of this statement, a paper which I read at a Conference on Thought Control in
the United States held in Hollywood on July 9th to 13th. The paper presents the historical
background of the threatening situation that we face today, and shows that the attack on
freedom of communication is, and has always been, an attack on the American people.
The American people will know how to answer that attack. They will rally, as they have always
rallied, to protect their birthright.
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion
Picture Industry, 80th Congress, 1st Session, October 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947); “A Statement by John
Howard Lawson,” published in Gordon Kahn, Hollywood on Trial (New York, 1948); quoted in Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts
from Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968, Eric Bentley, ed. (New York: Viking Press,
1971), P. 161–65. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6441
DOCUMENT 65: SCREENWRITER LILLIAN HELLMAN
WRITES HUAC, ASKING NOT TO HAVE TO NAME
NAMES, MAY 19, 1952
[HUAC held hearings in 1947 on Communist activity in Hollywood. Ten writers and directors were held in contempt when they
refused to answer questions regarding their political affiliations or beliefs. They later served prison terms after the Supreme Court in
April 1950 turned down their appeal that such questioning violated their First Amendment rights. Hearings began again in March
1951. While almost half of those testifying from the entertainment industry informed on their colleagues, others like playwright and
screenwriter Lillian Hellman invoked the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. This route insured that they would
not be hired for future work in the industry. In the following letter to HUAC’s chairman, Hellman offered to testify as to her own
activities if she would not be forced to inform on others. When the Committee refused her request, she took the Fifth and was
blacklisted.]
Lillian Hellman, Letter to HUAC, May 19, 1952
Dear Mr. Wood:
As you know, I am under subpoena to appear before your committee on May 21, 1952.
I am most willing to answer all questions about myself. I have nothing to hide from your
committee and there is nothing in my life of which I am ashamed. I have been advised by
counsel that under the fifth amendment I have a constitutional privilege to decline to answer any
questions about my political opinions, activities, and associations, on the grounds of selfincrimination. I do not wish to claim this privilege. I am ready and willing to testify before the
representatives of our Government as to my own opinions and my own actions, regardless of
any risks or consequences to myself.
But I am advised by counsel that if I answer the committee’s questions about myself, I must also
answer questions about other people and that if I refuse to do so, I can be cited for contempt.
My counsel tells me that if I answer questions about myself, I will have waived my rights under
the fifth amendment and could be forced legally to answer questions about others. This is very
difficult for a layman to understand. But there is one principle that I do understand: I am not
willing, now or in the future, to bring bad trouble to people who, in my past association with
them, were completely innocent of any talk or any action that was disloyal or subversive. I do
not like subversion or disloyalty in any form and if I had ever seen any I would have considered
it my duty to have reported it to the proper authorities. But to hurt innocent people whom I knew
many years ago in order to save myself is, to me, inhuman and indecent and dishonorable. I
cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions, even though I long ago came to
the conclusion that I was not a political person and could have no comfortable place in any
political group.
I was raised in an old-fashioned American tradition and there were certain homely things that
were taught to me: To try to tell the truth, not to bear false witness, not to harm my neighbor, to
be loyal to my country, and so on. In general, I respected these ideals of Christian honor and did
as well with them as I knew how. It is my belief that you will agree with these simple rules of
human decency and will not expect me to violate the good American tradition from which they
spring. I would, therefore, like to come before you and speak of myself.
I am prepared to waive the privilege against self-incrimination and to tell you everything you
wish to know about my views or actions if your committee will agree to refrain from asking me to
name other people. If the committee is unwilling to give me this assurance, I will be forced to
plead the privilege of the fifth amendment at the hearing.
A reply to this letter would be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Lillian Hellman
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding Communist Infiltration of the Hollywood
Motion-Picture Industry, 82d Congress, May 21, 1952, in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents
(Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1994), p. 201–2. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6454
DOCUMENT 66: TESTIMONY OF ARTIST ROCKWELL
KENT BEFORE HUAC IN 1953
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kent, will you raise your right hand and be sworn, please? Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in the matter now in hearing shall be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. KENT. I do.
Mr. COHN. Your full name is Rockwell Kent?
Mr. KENT. It is.
Mr. COHN. You are the artist?
Mr. KENT. Yes.
Mr. COHN. Mr. Kent, are you a member of the Communist party?
Mr. KENT. I am going to avail myself of the privilege of the Fifth Amendment and, if you please,
not answer that question.
The CHAIRMAN. You can assert your privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. KENT. I take it as my right.
Mr. COHN. Mr. Kent, the State Department information program is using in libraries overseas a
great many of your works and publications. I want to ask you a few questions about them. Do
you receive any remuneration or compensation for that?
Mr. KENT. It is different for different books. If you will name the books I will tell you.
Mr. COHN. Oh, the American Artists Group, Rockwellkentiana, Wilderness, World Famous
Paintings, etc.
Mr. KENT. They are all out of print.
Mr. COHN. Well, when they were active?
Mr. KENT. Oh, yes. I received the author’s royalties.
Mr. COHN. Did you contribute any of those royalties to the Communist party at any time? You
can confer with counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. Counsel, before the witness answers, I wish you would explain to him that he
can only refuse to answer if he honestly feels an honest answer might tend to incriminate him.
Mr. KENT. I will answer that question, ‘‘No.’’
Mr. COHN. Have you ever given any money to the Communist party?
Mr. KENT. That is a very interesting question and I want to answer it. The answer will be at
some length. It could be ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’
Mr. COHN. We don’t have too much time so could you give it as brief as possible.
… International Workers Order, Incorporated, which New York State dissolved in 1951.
Mr. KENT. I gave it as a matter of being so damned mad at something that happened that I
thought, ‘‘Where can I give that money that the people the money came from hated most?’’ I
looked it up in the New York telephone directory and gave it to the Communist party. I took a
check for $800.00, which was the full rent on my house in the country and endorsed it and sent
it to the Communist party. That is all I ever contributed.
Mr. COHN. Have you ever contributed money to any organization listed by the attorney general
as subversive, such as the IWO, etc.
Mr. KENT. I have.
Mr. COHN. Have you contributed any monies received from your works as royalties or anything
like that?
Mr. KENT. That is a difficult question. I earn my living at different things.
Mr. COHN. Would this be a fair statement? The money you earned from royalties and other
things you didn’t keep separate, but out of the general fund you did make some contributions to
some organizations listed by the attorney general.
Mr. KENT. I had rather have you put it to ‘‘causes.’’
The CHAIRMAN. I am curious about this other answer you started to give. You said you were
so damned mad. I am curious to know what you were mad about.
Mr. KENT. I think you will like it. I love my home and I have never in my life rented a home with
my things in it. I would not rent the place I love to anyone. I was in Greenland. I was there for a
year and a half, and through a misunderstanding my wife—not my present wife—rented the
house. I didn’t know about it until I was on my way back from Greenland. I came back too soon.
She was in Arizona. She had rented the house to Martha Blaine, who used to be a Washington
columnist and a friend of Arthur Krock. I wrote her a polite letter and told her about the renting
and stated, ‘‘I beg you to be my guest for the summer. I cannot accept money for my home.’’
She wrote me the most insulting letter I have ever gotten in my life. I took the two checks that
were still left and sent those to the Communist party. They were $200.00 apiece. I made out my
own check for the other two months and sent that to the Communist party.
Mr. COHN. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1933?
The CHAIRMAN. Before your client answers may I suggest that you instruct your client he can
only refuse to answer if he feels and honestly feels, that a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate him.
Mr. RYAN. I have discussed that with him.
Mr. KENT. Or might lead to a chain of questioning that would tend to be incriminating. It might
be a link.
The CHAIRMAN. If you think it could in any way tend to incriminate you, you are entitled to
refuse to answer. If you think the following answer might tend to incriminate you.
Mr. KENT. Senator, if I might say this, I think I know the origin of this provision under the Fifth
Amendment, and I think it is applied for protection of the innocent as well as a shield for the
guilty. I do in this case invoke that privilege.
The CHAIRMAN. You may invoke it, but we interpret the right if you feel a truthful answer would
tend to incriminate you——
Mr. KENT. If the committee would choose to interpret it that way——
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kent, would you report at 10:20 at room 318.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Volume2.pdf
DOCUMENT 67: FRANK WILKINSON RECALLS
ACTOR ZERO MOSTEL’S “PERFORMANCE” BEFORE
HUAC INVESTIGATORS, AUG. 14, 1955
"It began with the committee's counsel immediately launching his attack. 'Mr. Mostel, are you or
are you not a Communist?' Zero leaped out of his chair behind the counsel's table, knocking the
microphones to the floor, and reached for the throat of HUAC's attorney while shouting, 'That
man called me a Communist! Get him out of here! He asked me if I'm a Communist! Get him out
of here!'
"The committee was roaring with laughter. They were delighted. Here they had Zero Mostel all
to themselves, on stage, in a private dining room. Zero went on playing and parlaying with them
for at least twenty minutes, responding to their questions by reciting each amendment in the Bill
of Rights.
"Finally, HUAC's lawyers cautiously said, 'Mr. Mostel, we know all about those amendments.
We simply want to know are you, or are you not, claiming the Fifth Amendment'.
"He didn’t ask Zero, 'Are you or are you not a Communist.' He asked him, 'Are you or are you
not claiming the Fifth Amendment.' What they wanted him to say was 'Yes'. After another ten
minutes of sparring, Zero said, 'Yes, I'm claiming the Fifth Amendment'.
"The hearings were stopped right there. The committee's PR guy goes to the door and opens it.
He doesn't say a word to the crowd of reporters. He just holds up five fingers, and the press
dashes off to the telephones there in the hotel. The headlines the next morning: 'Zero Mostel
Pleads Fifth Amendment at HUAC Meeting.'"
DOCUMENT 68: FOLK SINGER PETE SEEGER
REFUSES TO “SING” FOR HUAC, Pete Seeger
Refuses to “Sing” for HUAC, AUGUST 18, 1955
[During the Cold War era, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) interrogated more
than 3,000 government officials, labor union leaders, teachers, journalists, entertainers, and others. They
wanted to purge Communists, former Communists, and “fellow travelers” who refused to renounce their
past and inform on associates from positions of influence within American society. Among the
Committee’s targets were performers at events held in support of suspect organizations. Pete Seeger
acquired a love of American folk music while traveling through the South in the 1930s with his father, a
musicologist and classical composer, and as an employee in the Library of Congress’ Archive of
American Folk Song. As a folksinger motivated by concerns for social justice, cross-cultural
communication, and international peace, Seeger performed songs from diverse sources to many kinds of
audiences, and in 1948 campaigned for Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace as part of the folk
music organization People’s Songs. In the following testimony before HUAC, Seeger refused to invoke
the Fifth Amendment, protecting citizens from self-incrimination. Instead he insisted that the Committee
had no right to question him regarding his political beliefs or associations. This strategy resulted in prison
terms for contempt of Congress for the Hollywood Ten in 1947. Seeger himself was sentenced to a year
in prison for contempt, but the verdict was reversed in 1962. Nevertheless, Seeger remained on a
network television blacklist until the late 1960s.]
. . . Mr. TAVENNER: The Committee has information obtained in part from the Daily Worker
indicating that, over a period of time, especially since December of 1945, you took part in
numerous entertainment features. I have before me a photostatic copy of the June 20, 1947,
issue of the Daily Worker. In a column entitled “What’s On” appears this advertisement:
“Tonight—Bronx, hear Peter Seeger and his guitar, at Allerton Section housewarming.” May I
ask you whether or not the Allerton Section was a section of the Communist Party?
Mr. SEEGER: Sir, I refuse to answer that question whether it was a quote from the New York
Times or the Vegetarian Journal.
Mr. TAVENNER: I don’t believe there is any more authoritative document in regard to the
Communist Party than its official organ, the Daily Worker.
Mr. SCHERER: He hasn’t answered the question, and he merely said he wouldn’t answer
whether the article appeared in the New York Times or some other magazine. I ask you to direct
the witness to answer the question.
Chairman WALTER: I direct you to answer.
Mr. SEEGER: Sir, the whole line of questioning—
Chairman WALTER: You have only been asked one question, so far.
Mr. SEEGER: I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or
religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private
affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under
such compulsion as this. I would be very glad to tell you my life if you want to hear of it.
Mr. TAVENNER: Has the witness declined to answer this specific question?
Chairman WALTER: He said that he is not going to answer any questions, any names or things.
Mr. SCHERER: He was directed to answer the question.
Mr. TAVENNER: I have before me a photostatic copy of the April 30, 1948, issue of the Daily
Worker which carries under the same title of “What’s On,” an advertisement of a “May Day
Rally: For Peace, Security and Democracy.” The advertisement states: “Are you in a fighting
mood? Then attend the May Day rally.” Expert speakers are stated to be slated for the program,
and then follows a statement, “Entertainment by Pete Seeger.” At the bottom appears this:
“Auspices Essex County Communist Party,” and at the top, “Tonight, Newark, N.J.” Did you lend
your talent to the Essex County Communist Party on the occasion indicated by this article from
the Daily Worker?
Mr. SEEGER: Mr. Walter, I believe I have already answered this question, and the same
answer.
Chairman WALTER: The same answer. In other words, you mean that you decline to answer
because of the reasons stated before?
Mr. SEEGER: I gave my answer, sir.
Chairman WALTER: What is your answer?
Mr. SEEGER: You see, sir, I feel—
Chairman WALTER: What is your answer?
Mr. SEEGER: I will tell you what my answer is.
I feel that in my whole life I have never done anything of any conspiratorial nature and I resent
very much and very deeply the implication of being called before this Committee that in some
way because my opinions may be different from yours, or yours, Mr. Willis, or yours, Mr.
Scherer, that I am any less of an American than anybody else. I love my country very deeply,
sir.
Chairman WALTER: Why don’t you make a little contribution toward preserving its institutions?
Mr. SEEGER: I feel that my whole life is a contribution. That is why I would like to tell you about
it.
Chairman WALTER: I don’t want to hear about it.
Mr. SCHERER: I think that there must be a direction to answer.
Chairman WALTER: I direct you to answer that question.
Mr. SEEGER: I have already given you my answer, sir.
Mr. SCHERER: Let me understand. You are not relying on the Fifth Amendment, are you?
Mr. SEEGER: No, sir, although I do not want to in any way discredit or depreciate or depredate
the witnesses that have used the Fifth Amendment, and I simply feel it is improper for this
committee to ask such questions.
Mr. SCHERER: And then in answering the rest of the questions, or in refusing to answer the
rest of the questions, I understand that you are not relying on the Fifth Amendment as a basis
for your refusal to answer?
Mr. SEEGER: No, I am not, sir. . . .
Mr. TAVENNER: You said that you would tell us about the songs. Did you participate in a
program at Wingdale Lodge in the State of New York, which is a summer camp for adults and
children, on the weekend of July Fourth of this year?
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
Mr. SEEGER: Again, I say I will be glad to tell what songs I have ever sung, because singing is
my business.
Mr. TAVENNER: I am going to ask you.
Mr. SEEGER: But I decline to say who has ever listened to them, who has written them, or other
people who have sung them.
Mr. TAVENNER: Did you sing this song, to which we have referred, “Now Is the Time,” at
Wingdale Lodge on the weekend of July Fourth?
Mr. SEEGER: I don’t know any song by that name, and I know a song with a similar name. It is
called “Wasn’t That a Time.” Is that the song?
Chairman WALTER: Did you sing that song?
Mr. SEEGER: I can sing it. I don’t know how well I can do it without my banjo.
Chairman WALTER: I said, Did you sing it on that occasion?
Mr. SEEGER: I have sung that song. I am not going to go into where I have sung it. I have sung
it many places.
Chairman WALTER: Did you sing it on this particular occasion? That is what you are being
asked.
Mr. SEEGER: Again my answer is the same.
Chairman WALTER: You said that you would tell us about it.
Mr. SEEGER: I will tell you about the songs, but I am not going to tell you or try to explain—
Chairman WALTER: I direct you to answer the question. Did you sing this particular song on the
Fourth of July at Wingdale Lodge in New York?
Mr. SEEGER: I have already given you my answer to that question, and all questions such as
that. I feel that is improper: to ask about my associations and opinions. I have said that I would
be voluntarily glad to tell you any song, or what I have done in my life.
Chairman WALTER: I think it is my duty to inform you that we don’t accept this answer and the
others, and I give you an opportunity now to answer these questions, particularly the last one.
Mr. SEEGER: Sir, my answer is always the same.
Chairman WALTER: All right, go ahead, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. TAVENNER: Were you chosen by Mr. Elliott Sullivan to take part in the program on the
weekend of July Fourth at Wingdale Lodge?
Mr. SEEGER: The answer is the same, sir.
Mr. WILLIS: Was that the occasion of the satire on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Mr. TAVENNER: The same occasion, yes, sir. I have before me a photostatic copy of a page
from the June 1, 1949, issue of the Daily Worker, and in a column entitled “Town Talk” there is
found this statement:
The first performance of a new song, “If I Had a Hammer,” on the theme of the Foley Square
trial of the Communist leaders, will be given at a testimonial dinner for the 12 on Friday night at
St. Nicholas Arena. . . .Among those on hand for the singing will be . . . Pete Seeger, and Lee
Hays—
and others whose names are mentioned. Did you take part in that performance?
Mr. SEEGER: I shall be glad to answer about the song, sir, and I am not interested in carrying
on the line of questioning about where I have sung any songs.
Mr. TAVENNER: I ask a direction.
Chairman WALTER: You may not be interested, but we are, however. I direct you to answer.
You can answer that question.
Mr. SEEGER: I feel these questions are improper, sir, and I feel they are immoral to ask any
American this kind of question.
Mr. TAVENNER: Have you finished your answer?
Mr. SEEGER: Yes, sir. . . .
Mr. TAVENNER: Did you hear Mr. George Hall’s testimony yesterday in which he stated that, as
an actor, the special contribution that he was expected to make to the Communist Party was to
use his talents by entertaining at Communist Party functions? Did you hear that testimony?
Mr. SEEGER: I didn’t hear it, no.
Mr. TAVENNER: It is a fact that he so testified. I want to know whether or not you were engaged
in a similar type of service to the Communist Party in entertaining at these features.
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
Mr. SEEGER: I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I
never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in
life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I
have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.
Chairman WALTER: Mr. Tavenner, are you getting around to that letter? There was a letter
introduced yesterday that I think was of greater importance than any bit of evidence adduced at
these hearings, concerning the attempt made to influence people in this professional
performers' guild and union to assist a purely Communist cause which had no relation
whatsoever to the arts and the theater. Is that what you are leading up to?
Mr. TAVENNER: Yes, it is. That was the letter of Peter Lawrence, which I questioned him about
yesterday. That related to the trial of the Smith Act defendants here at Foley Square. I am trying
to inquire now whether this witness was party to the same type of propaganda effort by the
Communist Party.
Mr. SCHERER: There has been no answer to your last question.
Mr. TAVENNER: That is right; may I have a direction?
Mr. SEEGER: Would you repeat the question? I don’t even know what the last question was,
and I thought I have answered all of them up to now.
Mr. TAVENNER: What you stated was not in response to the question.
Chairman WALTER: Proceed with the questioning, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. TAVENNER: I believe, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will have the question read to
him. I think it should be put in exactly the same form.
(Whereupon the reporter read the pending question as above recorded.)
Mr. SEEGER: “These features”: what do you mean? Except for the answer I have already given
you, I have no answer. The answer I gave you you have, don’t you? That is, that I am proud that
I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I have never refused to sing for
anybody because I disagreed with their political opinion, and I am proud of the fact that my
songs seem to cut across and find perhaps a unifying thing, basic humanity, and that is why I
would love to be able to tell you about these songs, because I feel that you would agree with me
more, sir. I know many beautiful songs from your home county, Carbon, and Monroe, and I
hitchhiked through there and stayed in the homes of miners.
Mr. TAVENNER: My question was whether or not you sang at these functions of the Communist
Party. You have answered it inferentially, and if I understand your answer, you are saying you
did.
Mr. SEEGER: Except for that answer, I decline to answer further. . . .
Mr. SCHERER: Do you understand it is the feeling of the Committee that you are in contempt as
a result of the position you take?
Mr. SEEGER: I can’t say.
Mr. SCHERER: I am telling you that that is the position of the Committee. . . .
Mr. SEEGER: I decline to discuss, under compulsion, where I have sung, and who has sung my
songs, and who else has sung with me, and the people I have known. I love my country very
dearly, and I greatly resent this implication that some of the places that I have sung and some of
the people that I have known, and some of my opinions, whether they are religious or
philosophical, or I might be a vegetarian, make me any less of an American. I will tell you about
my songs, but I am not interested in telling you who wrote them, and I will tell you about my
songs, and I am not interested in who listened to them. . . .
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Communist Activities, New York Area
(Entertainment): Hearings, 84th Congress, August 18, 1955. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6457
DOCUMENT 68: TESTIMONY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
ACTOR AND SINGER PAUL ROBESON BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,
JUNE 12, 1956
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will be in order. This morning the Committee resumes its
series of hearings on the vital issue of the use of American passports as travel documents in
furtherance of the objectives of the Communist conspiracy. . . .
Mr. ARENS: Now, during the course of the process in which you were applying for this passport,
in July of 1954, were you requested to submit a non-Communist affidavit?
Mr. ROBESON: We had a long discussion—with my counsel, who is in the room, Mr. [Leonard
B.] Boudin—with the State Department, about just such an affidavit and I was very precise not
only in the application but with the State Department, headed by Mr. Henderson and Mr.
McLeod, that under no conditions would I think of signing any such affidavit, that it is a complete
contradiction of the rights of American citizens.
Mr. ARENS: Did you comply with the requests?
Mr. ROBESON: I certainly did not and I will not.
Mr. ARENS: Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. ROBESON: Oh please, please, please.
Mr. SCHERER: Please answer, will you, Mr. Robeson?
Mr. ROBESON: What is the Communist Party? What do you mean by that?
Mr. SCHERER: I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question.
Mr. ROBESON: What do you mean by the Communist Party? As far as I know it is a legal party
like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Do you mean a party of people who have
sacrificed for my people, and for all Americans and workers, that they can live in dignity? Do you
mean that party?
Mr. ARENS: Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. ROBESON: Would you like to come to the ballot box when I vote and take out the ballot and
see?
Mr. ARENS: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the witness be ordered and directed to
answer that question.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer the question.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. ROBESON: I stand upon the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution.
Mr. ARENS: Do you mean you invoke the Fifth Amendment?
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. ARENS: Do you honestly apprehend that if you told this Committee truthfully—
Mr. ROBESON: I have no desire to consider anything. I invoke the Fifth Amendment, and it is
none of your business what I would like to do, and I invoke the Fifth Amendment. And forget it.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer that question.
MR, ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment, and so I am answering it, am I not?
Mr. ARENS: I respectfully suggest the witness be ordered and directed to answer the question
as to whether or not he honestly apprehends, that if he gave us a truthful answer to this last
principal question, he would be supplying information which might be used against him in a
criminal proceeding.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer that question, Mr. Robeson.
Mr. ROBESON: Gentlemen, in the first place, wherever I have been in the world, Scandinavia,
England, and many places, the first to die in the struggle against Fascism were the Communists
and I laid many wreaths upon graves of Communists. It is not criminal, and the Fifth
Amendment has nothing to do with criminality. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren,
has been very clear on that in many speeches, that the Fifth Amendment does not have
anything to do with the inference of criminality. I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. ARENS: Have you ever been known under the name of “John Thomas”?
Mr. ROBESON: Oh, please, does somebody here want—are you suggesting—do you want me
to be put up for perjury some place? “John Thomas”! My name is Paul Robeson, and anything I
have to say, or stand for, I have said in public all over the world, and that is why I am here
today.
Mr. SCHERER: I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question. He is making a speech.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Arens, may we have the photographers take their pictures,
and then desist, because it is rather nerve-racking for them to be there.
THE CHAIRMAN: They will take the pictures.
Mr. ROBESON: I am used to it and I have been in moving pictures. Do you want me to pose for
it good? Do you want me to smile? I cannot smile when I am talking to him.
Mr. ARENS: I put it to you as a fact, and ask you to affirm or deny the fact, that your Communist
Party name was “John Thomas.”
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment. This is really ridiculous.
Mr. ARENS: Now, tell this Committee whether or not you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.
Mr. SCHERER: Mr. Chairman, this is not a laughing matter.
Mr. ROBESON: It is a laughing matter to me, this is really complete nonsense.
Mr. ARENS: Have you ever known Nathan Gregory Silvermaster?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. ARENS: Do you honestly apprehend that if you told whether you know Nathan Gregory
Silvermaster you would be supplying information that could be used against you in a criminal
proceeding?
Mr. ROBESON: I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I invoke the Fifth—
Mr. ARENS: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the witness be directed to answer that question.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer the question.
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth.
Mr. SCHERER: The witness talks very loud when he makes a speech, but when he invokes the
Fifth Amendment I cannot hear him.
Mr. ROBESON: I invoked the Fifth Amendment very loudly. You know I am an actor, and I have
medals for diction.
....
Mr. ROBESON: Oh, gentlemen, I thought I was here about some passports.
Mr. ARENS: We will get into that in just a few moments.
Mr. ROBESON: This is complete nonsense.
....
THE CHAIRMAN: This is legal. This is not only legal but usual. By a unanimous vote, this
Committee has been instructed to perform this very distasteful task.
Mr. ROBESON: To whom am I talking?
THE CHAIRMAN: You are speaking to the Chairman of this Committee.
Mr. ROBESON: Mr. Walter?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr. ROBESON: The Pennsylvania Walter?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
Mr. ROBESON: Representative of the steelworkers?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
Mr. ROBESON: Of the coal-mining workers and not United States Steel, by any chance? A
great patriot.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
Mr. ROBESON: You are the author of all of the bills that are going to keep all kinds of decent
people out of the country.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, only your kind.
Mr. ROBESON: Colored people like myself, from the West Indies and all kinds. And just the
Teutonic Anglo-Saxon stock that you would let come in.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are trying to make it easier to get rid of your kind, too.
Mr. ROBESON: You do not want any colored people to come in?
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. . . .
Mr. ROBESON: Could I say that the reason that I am here today, you know, from the mouth of
the State Department itself, is: I should not be allowed to travel because I have struggled for
years for the independence of the colonial peoples of Africa. For many years I have so labored
and I can say modestly that my name is very much honored all over Africa, in my struggles for
their independence. That is the kind of independence like Sukarno got in Indonesia. Unless we
are double-talking, then these efforts in the interest of Africa would be in the same context. The
other reason that I am here today, again from the State Department and from the court record of
the court of appeals, is that when I am abroad I speak out against the injustices against the
Negro people of this land. I sent a message to the Bandung Conference and so forth. That is
why I am here. This is the basis, and I am not being tried for whether I am a Communist, I am
being tried for fighting for the rights of my people, who are still second-class citizens in this
United States of America. My mother was born in your state, Mr. Walter, and my mother was a
Quaker, and my ancestors in the time of Washington baked bread for George Washington’s
troops when they crossed the Delaware, and my own father was a slave. I stand here struggling
for the rights of my people to be full citizens in this country. And they are not. They are not in
Mississippi. And they are not in Montgomery, Alabama. And they are not in Washington. They
are nowhere, and that is why I am here today. You want to shut up every Negro who has the
courage to stand up and fight for the rights of his people, for the rights of workers, and I have
been on many a picket line for the steelworkers too. And that is why I am here today. . . .
Mr. ARENS: Did you make a trip to Europe in 1949 and to the Soviet Union?
Mr. ROBESON: Yes, I made a trip. To England. And I sang.
Mr. ARENS: Where did you go?
Mr. ROBESON: I went first to England, where I was with the Philadelphia Orchestra, one of two
American groups which was invited to England. I did a long concert tour in England and
Denmark and Sweden, and I also sang for the Soviet people, one of the finest musical
audiences in the world. Will you read what the Porgy and Bess people said? They never heard
such applause in their lives. One of the most musical peoples in the world, and the great
composers and great musicians, very cultured people, and Tolstoy, and—
THE CHAIRMAN: We know all of that.
Mr. ROBESON: They have helped our culture and we can learn a lot.
Mr. ARENS: Did you go to Paris on that trip?
Mr. ROBESON: I went to Paris.
Mr. ARENS: And while you were in Paris, did you tell an audience there that the American
Negro would never go to war against the Soviet government?
Mr. ROBESON: May I say that is slightly out of context? May I explain to you what I did say? I
remember the speech very well, and the night before, in London, and do not take the
newspaper, take me: I made the speech, gentlemen, Mr. So-and-So. It happened that the night
before, in London, before I went to Paris . . . and will you please listen?
Mr. ARENS: We are listening.
Mr. ROBESON: Two thousand students from various parts of the colonial world, students who
since then have become very important in their governments, in places like Indonesia and India,
and in many parts of Africa, two thousand students asked me and Mr. [Dr. Y. M.] Dadoo, a
leader of the Indian people in South Africa, when we addressed this conference, and remember
I was speaking to a peace conference, they asked me and Mr. Dadoo to say there that they
were struggling for peace, that they did not want war against anybody. Two thousand students
who came from populations that would range to six or seven hundred million people.
Mr. KEARNEY: Do you know anybody who wants war?
Mr. ROBESON: They asked me to say in their name that they did not want war. That is what I
said. No part of my speech made in Paris says fifteen million American Negroes would do
anything. I said it was my feeling that the American people would struggle for peace, and that
has since been underscored by the President of these United States. Now, in passing, I said—
Mr. KEARNEY: Do you know of any people who want war?
Mr. ROBESON: Listen to me. I said it was unthinkable to me that any people would take up
arms, in the name of an Eastland, to go against anybody. Gentlemen, I still say that. This United
States Government should go down to Mississippi and protect my people. That is what should
happen.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you say what was attributed to you?
Mr. ROBESON: I did not say it in that context.
Mr. ARENS: I lay before you a document containing an article, “I Am Looking for Full Freedom,”
by Paul Robeson, in a publication called the Worker, dated July 3, 1949.
At the Paris Conference I said it was unthinkable that the Negro people of America or elsewhere
in the world could be drawn into war with the Soviet Union.
Mr. ROBESON: Is that saying the Negro people would do anything? I said it is unthinkable. I did
not say that there [in Paris]: I said that in the Worker.
Mr. ARENS:
I repeat it with hundredfold emphasis: they will not.
Did you say that?
Mr. ROBESON: I did not say that in Paris, I said that in America. And, gentlemen, they have not
yet done so, and it is quite clear that no Americans, no people in the world probably, are going
to war with the Soviet Union. So I was rather prophetic, was I not?
Mr. ARENS: On that trip to Europe, did you go to Stockholm?
Mr. ROBESON: I certainly did, and I understand that some people in the American Embassy
tried to break up my concert. They were not successful.
Mr. ARENS: While you were in Stockholm, did you make a little speech?
Mr. ROBESON: I made all kinds of speeches, yes.
Mr. ARENS: Let me read you a quotation.
Mr. ROBESON: Let me listen.
Mr. ARENS: Do so, please.
Mr. ROBESON: I am a lawyer.
Mr. KEARNEY: It would be a revelation if you would listen to counsel.
Mr. ROBESON: In good company, I usually listen, but you know people wander around in such
fancy places. Would you please let me read my statement at some point?
THE CHAIRMAN: We will consider your statement.
Mr. ARENS:
I do not hesitate one second to state clearly and unmistakably: I belong to the American
resistance movement which fights against American imperialism, just as the resistance
movement fought against Hitler.
Mr. ROBESON: Just like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman were underground
railroaders, and fighting for our freedom, you bet your life.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to have to insist that you listen to these questions.
MR, ROBESON: I am listening.
Mr. ARENS:
If the American warmongers fancy that they could win America’s millions of Negroes for a war
against those countries (i.e., the Soviet Union and the peoples‘ democracies) then they ought to
understand that this will never be the case. Why should the Negroes ever fight against the only
nations of the world where racial discrimination is prohibited, and where the people can live
freely? Never! I can assure you, they will never fight against either the Soviet Union or the
peoples’ democracies.
Did you make that statement?
Mr. ROBESON: I do not remember that. But what is perfectly clear today is that nine hundred
million other colored people have told you that they will not. Four hundred million in India, and
millions everywhere, have told you, precisely, that the colored people are not going to die for
anybody: they are going to die for their independence. We are dealing not with fifteen million
colored people, we are dealing with hundreds of millions.
Mr. KEARNEY: The witness has answered the question and he does not have to make a
speech. . . .
Mr. ROBESON: In Russia I felt for the first time like a full human being. No color prejudice like in
Mississippi, no color prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being.
Where I did not feel the pressure of color as I feel [it] in this Committee today.
Mr. SCHERER: Why do you not stay in Russia?
Mr. ROBESON: Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country, and I
am going to stay here, and have a part of it just like you. And no Fascist-minded people will
drive me from it. Is that clear? I am for peace with the Soviet Union, and I am for peace with
China, and I am not for peace or friendship with the Fascist Franco, and I am not for peace with
Fascist Nazi Germans. I am for peace with decent people.
Mr. SCHERER: You are here because you are promoting the Communist cause.
Mr. ROBESON: I am here because I am opposing the neo-Fascist cause which I see arising in
these committees. You are like the Alien [and] Sedition Act, and Jefferson could be sitting here,
and Frederick Douglass could be sitting here, and Eugene Debs could be here.
....
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what prejudice are you talking about? You were graduated from
Rutgers and you were graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. I remember seeing you
play football at Lehigh.
Mr. ROBESON: We beat Lehigh.
THE CHAIRMAN: And we had a lot of trouble with you.
Mr. ROBESON: That is right. DeWysocki was playing in my team.
THE CHAIRMAN: There was no prejudice against you. Why did you not send your son to
Rutgers?
Mr. ROBESON: Just a moment. This is something that I challenge very deeply, and very
sincerely: that the success of a few Negroes, including myself or Jackie Robinson can make
up—and here is a study from Columbia University—for seven hundred dollars a year for
thousands of Negro families in the South. My father was a slave, and I have cousins who are
sharecroppers, and I do not see my success in terms of myself. That is the reason my own
success has not meant what it should mean: I have sacrificed literally hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of dollars for what I believe in.
Mr. ARENS: While you were in Moscow, did you make a speech lauding Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: I do not know.
Mr. ARENS: Did you say, in effect, that Stalin was a great man, and Stalin had done much for
the Russian people, for all of the nations of the world, for all working people of the earth? Did
you say something to that effect about Stalin when you were in Moscow?
Mr. ROBESON: I cannot remember.
Mr. ARENS: Do you have a recollection of praising Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: I said a lot about Soviet people, fighting for the peoples of the earth.
Mr. ARENS: Did you praise Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: I do not remember.
Mr. ARENS: Have you recently changed your mind about Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: Whatever has happened to Stalin, gentlemen, is a question for the Soviet
Union, and I would not argue with a representative of the people who, in building America,
wasted sixty to a hundred million lives of my people, black people drawn from Africa on the
plantations. You are responsible, and your forebears, for sixty million to one hundred million
black people dying in the slave ships and on the plantations, and don’t ask me about anybody,
please.
Mr. ARENS: I am glad you called our attention to that slave problem. While you were in Soviet
Russia, did you ask them there to show you the slave labor camps?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have been so greatly interested in slaves, I should think that you would
want to see that.
Mr. ROBESON: The slaves I see are still in a kind of semiserfdom. I am interested in the place I
am, and in the country that can do something about it. As far as I know, about the slave camps,
they were Fascist prisoners who had murdered millions of the Jewish people, and who would
have wiped out millions of the Negro people, could they have gotten a hold of them. That is all I
know about that.
Mr. ARENS: Tell us whether or not you have changed your opinion in the recent past about
Stalin.
Mr. ROBESON: I have told you, mister, that I would not discuss anything with the people who
have murdered sixty million of my people, and I will not discuss Stalin with you.
Mr. ARENS: You would not, of course, discuss with us the slave labor camps in Soviet Russia.
Mr. ROBESON: I will discuss Stalin when I may be among the Russian people some day,
singing for them, I will discuss it there. It is their problem.
....
Mr. ARENS: Now I would invite your attention, if you please, to the Daily Worker of June 29,
1949, with reference to a get-together with you and Ben Davis. Do you know Ben Davis?
Mr. ROBESON: One of my dearest friends, one of the finest Americans you can imagine, born
of a fine family, who went to Amherst and was a great man.
THE CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes?
Mr. ROBESON: Nothing could make me prouder than to know him.
THE CHAIRMAN: That answers the question.
Mr. ARENS: Did I understand you to laud his patriotism?
Mr. ROBESON: I say that he is as patriotic an American as there can be, and you gentlemen
belong with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and you are the nonpatriots, and you are the unAmericans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, the hearing is now adjourned.
Mr. ROBESON: I should think it would be.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have endured all of this that I can.
Mr. ROBESON: Can I read my statement?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you cannot read it. The meeting is adjourned.
Mr. ROBESON: I think it should be, and you should adjourn this forever, that is what I would
say. . . .
Source: Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of the Unauthorized Use of U.S. Passports, 84th
Congress, Part 3, June 12, 1956; in Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts from Hearings Before the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, 1938–1968, Eric Bentley, ed. (New York: Viking Press, 1971), 770. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6440
DOCUMENT 69: ARTHUR MILLER, "ARE YOU NOW
OR WERE YOU EVER?" PUBLISHED IN The
Guardian/The Observer (on line), June 17, 2000
[Are you now or were you ever...? The McCarthy era's anti-communist trials destroyed lives and friendships. Arthur Miller describes
the paranoia that swept America - and the moment his then wife Marilyn Monroe became a bargaining chip in his own prosecution]
Saturday June 17, 2000
It would probably never have occurred to me to write a play about the Salem witch trials of 1692
had I not seen some astonishing correspondences with that calamity in the America of the late
40s and early 50s. My basic need was to respond to a phenomenon which, with only small
exaggeration, one could say paralysed a whole generation and in a short time dried up the
habits of trust and toleration in public discourse.
I refer to the anti-communist rage that threatened to reach hysterical proportions and sometimes
did. I can't remember anyone calling it an ideological war, but I think now that that is what it
amounted to. I suppose we rapidly passed over anything like a discussion or debate, and into
something quite different, a hunt not just for subversive people, but for ideas and even a
suspect language. The object was to destroy the least credibility of any and all ideas associated
with socialism and communism, whose proponents were assumed to be either knowing or
unwitting agents of Soviet subversion.
An ideological war is like guerrilla war, since the enemy is an idea whose proponents are not in
uniform but are disguised as ordinary citizens, a situation that can scare a lot of people to death.
To call the atmosphere paranoid is not to say that there was nothing real in the American-Soviet
stand-off. But if there was one element that lent the conflict a tone of the inauthentic and the
invented, it was the swiftness with which all values were forced in months to reverse
themselves.
Death of a Salesman opened in February 1949 and was hailed by nearly every newspaper and
magazine. Several movie studios wanted it and finally Columbia Pictures bought it, and
engaged a great actor, Frederick March, to play Willy [the central character].
In two years or less, with the picture finished, I was asked by a terrified Columbia to sign an
anti-communist declaration to ward off picket lines which the rightwing American Legion was
threatening to throw across the entrances of theatres showing the film. In the phone calls that
followed, the air of panic was heavy. It was the first intimation of what would soon follow. I
declined to make any such statement, which I found demeaning; what right had any
organisation to demand anyone's pledge of loyalty? I was sure the whole thing would soon go
away; it was just too outrageous.
But instead of the problem disappearing, the studio actually made another film, a short to be
shown with Salesman. This was called The Life of a Salesman and consisted of several lectures
by City College School of Business professors - which boiled down to selling was a joy, one of
the most gratifying and useful professions, and that Willy was simply a nut. Never in showbusiness history has a studio spent so much good money to prove that its feature film was
pointless. In less than two years Death of a Salesman had gone from being a masterpiece to
being a heresy, and a fraudulent one at that.
In 1948-51, I had the sensation of being trapped inside a perverse work of art, one of those
Escher constructs in which it is impossible to make out whether a stairway is going up or down.
Practically everyone I knew stood within the conventions of the political left of centre; one or two
were Communist party members, some were fellow-travellers, and most had had a brush with
Marxist ideas or organisations. I have never been able to believe in the reality of these people
being actual or putative traitors any more than I could be, yet others like them were being fired
from teaching or jobs in government or large corporations. The surreality of it all never left me.
We were living in an art form, a metaphor that had suddenly, incredibly, gripped the country.
In today's terms, the country had been delivered into the hands of the radical right, a ministry of
free-floating apprehension toward anything that never happens in the middle of Missouri. It is
always with us, this anxiety, sometimes directed towards foreigners, Jews, Catholics, fluoridated
water, aliens in space, masturbation, homosexuality, or the Internal Revenue Department. But in
the 50s any of these could be validated as real threats by rolling out a map of China. And if this
seems crazy now, it seemed just as crazy then, but openly doubting it could cost you.
So in one sense The Crucible was an attempt to make life real again, palpable and structured.
One hoped that a work of art might illuminate the tragic absurdities of an anterior work of art that
was called reality, but was not. It was the very swiftness of the change that lent it this surreality.
Only three or four years earlier an American movie audience, on seeing a newsreel of Stalin
saluting the Red Army, would have applauded, for that army had taken the brunt of the Nazi
onslaught, as most people were aware. Now they would look on with fear or at least
bewilderment, for the Russians had become the enemy of mankind, a menace to all that was
good. It was the Germans who, with amazing rapidity, were turning good. Could this be real?
In the unions, communists and their allies, known as intrepid organisers, were to be shorn of
membership and turned out as seditious. Harry Bridges, the idol of west coast longshoremen,
whom he had all but single-handedly organised, was subjected to trial after trial to drive him
back to his native Australia as an unadmitted communist. Academics, some prominent in their
fields, were especially targeted, many forced to retire or fired for disloyalty. Some were
communists, some were fellow travellers and, inevitably, a certain number were unaffiliated
liberals refusing to sign one of the dozens of humiliating anti-communist pledges being required
by terrified college administrations.
But it is impossible to convey properly the fears that marked that period. Nobody was shot, to be
sure, although some were going to jail, where at least one, William Remington, was murdered
by an inmate hoping to shorten his sentence by having killed a communist. Rather than physical
fear, it was the sense of impotence, which seemed to deepen with each week, of being unable
to speak accurately of the very recent past when being leftwing in America, and for that matter
in Europe, was to be alive to the dilemmas of the day.
As for the idea of willingly subjecting my work not only to some party's discipline but to anyone's
control, my repugnance was such that, as a young and indigent writer, I had turned down
lucrative offers to work for Hollywood studios because of a revulsion at the thought of someone
owning the paper I was typing on. It was not long, perhaps four or five years, before the
fraudulence of Soviet cultural claims was as clear to me as it should have been earlier. But I
would never have found it believable, in the 50s or later, that with its thuggish self-righteousness
and callous contempt for artists' freedoms, that the Soviet way of controlling culture could be
successfully exported to America.
Some greatly talented people were driven out of the US to work in England: screenwriters like
Carl Foreman and Donald Ogden Stewart, actors like Charlie Chaplin and Sam Wanamaker. I
no longer recall the number of our political exiles, but it was more than too many and disgraceful
for a nation prideful of its democracy.
Writing now, almost half a century later, with the Soviet Union in ruins, China rhetorically fending
off capitalism even as in reality it adopts a market economy, Cuba wallowing helplessly in the
Caribbean, it is not easy to convey the American fear of a masterful communism. The quickness
with which Soviet-style regimes had taken over eastern Europe and China was breathtaking,
and I believe it stirred up a fear in Americans of our own ineptitudes, our mystifying inability,
despite our military victories, to control the world whose liberties we had so recently won back
from the Axis powers.
In 1956, the House Un-American Activities Committee (Huac) subpoenaed me - I was cited for
contempt of Congress for refusing to identify writers I had met at one of the two communist
writers' meetings I had attended many years before. By then, the tide was going out for Huac
and it was finding it more difficult to make front pages. However, the news of my forthcoming
marriage to Marilyn Monroe was too tempting to be passed. That our marriage had some
connection with my being subpoenaed was confirmed when Chairman Walters of the Huac sent
word to Joseph Rauh, my lawyer, that he would be inclined to cancel my hearing if Miss Monroe
would consent to have a picture taken with him.
The offer having been declined, the good chairman, as my hearing came to an end, entreated
me to write less tragically about our country. This lecture cost me $40,000 in lawyer's fees, a
year's suspended sentence for contempt of Congress, and a $500 fine. Not to mention about a
year of inanition in my creative life.
My fictional view of the period, my sense of its unreality had been, like any impotence, a
psychologically painful experience. A similar paralysis descended on Salem. In both places, to
keep social unity intact, the authority of leaders had to be hardened and words of scepticism
toward them constricted. A new cautionary diction, an uncustomary prudence inflected our way
of talking to one another. The word socialism was all but taboo. Words had gotten fearsome. As
I learned directly in Ann Arbor on a 1953 visit, university students were avoiding renting rooms
in houses run by the housing cooperative for fear of being labelled communist, so darkly
suggestive was the word cooperative. The head of orientation at the university told me, in a
rather cool, uninvolved manner, that the FBI was enlisting professors to report on students
voicing leftwing opinions, and - more comedy - that they had also engaged students to report on
professors with the same views.
In the early 50s, along with Elia Kazan, who had directed All My Sons and Death of a Salesman,
I submitted a script to Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Pictures. It described the murderous
corruption in the gangster-ridden Brooklyn longshoremen's union. Cohn read the script and
called us to Hollywood, where he casually informed us that he had had the script vetted by the
FBI, and that they had seen nothing subversive in it. But the head of the AFL motion picture
unions in Hollywood, Roy Brewer, had condemned it as untrue communist propaganda, since
there were no gangsters on the Brooklyn waterfront. Cohn, no stranger to gangsterism, having
survived an upbringing in the tough Five Points area of Manhattan, opined that Brewer was only
trying to protect Joe Ryan, head of the Brooklyn longshoremen (who, incidentally, would go to
Sing Sing prison for gangsterism).
Brewer threatened to call a strike of projectionists in any theatre daring to show the film. Cohn
offered his solution to the problem: he would produce the film if I would make one change - the
gangsters in the union were to be changed to communists. This would not be easy; I knew all
the communists on the waterfront- there were two of them (both of whom in the following
decade became millionaire businessmen). So I had to withdraw the script, which prompted an
indignant telegram from Cohn: "As soon as we try to make the script pro-American you pull out."
One understood not only the threat but also the cynicism: he knew the mafia controlled
waterfront labour. Had I been a movie writer, my career would have ended. But the theatre had
no such complications, no blacklist - not yet - and I longed to respond to this climate of fear, if
only to protect my sanity. But where to find a transcendent concept?
The heart of the darkness was the belief that a massive, profoundly organised conspiracy was
in place and carried forward mainly by a concealed phalanx of intellectuals, including labour
activists, teachers, professionals, sworn to undermine the American government. And it was
precisely the invisibility of ideas that was frightening so many people. How could a play deal
with this mirage world?
Paranoia breeds paranoia, but below paranoia there lies a bristling, unwelcome truth, so
repugnant as to produce fantasies of persecution to conceal its existence. The unwelcome truth
denied by the right was that the Hollywood writers accused of subversion were not a menace to
the country, or even bearers of meaningful change. They wrote not propaganda but
entertainment, some of it of a mildly liberal cast, but most of it mindless, or when it was political,
as with Preston Sturges or Frank Capra, entirely and exuberantly un-Marxist.
As for the left, its unacknowledged truth was more important for me. If nobody was being shot in
our ideological war but merely vivisected by a headline, it struck me as odd, if understandable ,
that the accused were unable to cry out passionately their faith in the ideals of socialism. There
were attacks on the Huac's right to demand that a citizen reveal his political beliefs; but on the
idealistic canon of their own convictions, the defendants were mute. The rare exception, like
Paul Robeson's declaration of faith in socialism as a cure for racism, was a rocket that lit up the
sky.
On a lucky afternoon I happened upon The Devil in Massachusetts, by Marion Starkey, a
narrative of the Salem witch-hunt of 1692. I knew this story from my college reading, but in this
darkened America it turned a completely new aspect toward me: the poetry of the hunt. Poetry
may seem an odd word for a witch-hunt but I saw there was something of the marvellous in the
spectacle of a whole village, if not an entire province, whose imagination was captured by a
vision of something that wasn't there.
In time to come, the notion of equating the red-hunt with the witch-hunt would be condemned as
a deception. There were communists and there never were witches. The deeper I moved into
the 1690s, the further away drifted the America of the 50s, and, rather than the appeal of
analogy, I found something different to draw my curiosity and excitement.
Anyone standing up in the Salem of 1692 and denying that witches existed would have faced
immediate arrest, the hardest interrogation and possibly the rope. Every authority not only
confirmed the existence of witches but never questioned the necessity of executing them. It
became obvious that to dismiss witchcraft was to forgo any understanding of how it came to
pass that tens of thousands had been murdered as witches in Europe. To dismiss any relation
between that episode and the hunt for subversives was to shut down an insight into not only the
similar emotions but also the identical practices of both officials and victims.
There were witches, if not to most of us then certainly to everyone in Salem; and there were
communists, but what was the content of their menace? That to me became the issue. Having
been deeply influenced as a student by a Marxist approach to society, and having known
Marxists and sympathisers, I could simply not accept that these people were spies or even
prepared to do the will of the Soviets in some future crisis. That such people had thought to find
hope of a higher ethic in the Soviet was not simply an American, but a worldwide, irony of
catastrophic moral proportions, for their like could be found all over the world.
But as the 50s dawned, they were stuck with the past. Part of the surreality of the anti-left
sweep was that it picked up people for disgrace who had already turned away from a pro-Soviet
past but had no stomach for naming others who had merely shared their illusions. But the hunt
had captured some significant part of the American imagination and its power demanded
respect.
Turning to Salem was like looking into a petri dish, an embalmed stasis with its principal moving
forces caught in stillness. One had to wonder what the human imagination fed on that could
inspire neighbours and old friends to emerge overnight as furies secretly bent on the torture and
destruction of Christians. More than a political metaphor, more than a moral tale, The Crucible,
as it developed over more than a year, became the awesome evidence of the power of human
imagination inflamed, the poetry of suggestion, and the tragedy of heroic resistance to a society
possessed to the point of ruin.
In the stillness of the Salem courthouse, surrounded by the images of the 1950s but with my
head in 1692, what the two eras had in common gradually gained definition. Both had the
menace of concealed plots, but most startling were the similarities in the rituals of defence, the
investigative routines; 300 years apart, both prosecutions alleged membership of a secret,
disloyal group. Should the accused confess, his honesty could only be proved by naming former
confederates. The informer became the axle of the plot's existence and the investigation's
necessity.
The witch-hunt in 1692 had a not dissimilar problem, but a far more poetic solution. Most
suspected people named by others as members of the Devil's conspiracy had not been shown
to have done anything, neither poisoning wells, setting barns on fire, sickening cattle, aborting
babies, nor undermining the virtue of wives (the Devil having two phenomenally active penises,
one above the other).
To the rescue came a piece of poetry, smacking of both legalistic and religious validity, called
Spectral Evidence. All the prosecution need do was produce a witness who claimed to have
seen, not an accused person, but his familiar spirit - his living ghost - in the act of throwing a
burning brand into a barn full of hay. You could be at home asleep in your bed, but your spirit
could be crawling through your neighbour's window to feel up his wife. The owner of the
wandering spirit was obliged to account to the court for his crime. With Spectral Evidence, the
air filled with the malign spirits of those identified by good Christians as confederates of
theBeast, and the Devil himself danced happily into Salem village and took the place apart.
I spent 10 days in Salem courthouse reading the crudely recorded trials of the 1692 outbreak,
and it was striking how totally absent was any sense of irony, let alone humour. I can't recall if it
was the provincial governor's nephew or son who, with a college friend, came from Boston to
watch the strange proceedings. Both boys burst out laughing at some absurd testimony: they
were promptly jailed, and faced possible hanging.
Irony and humour were not conspicuous in the 1950s either. I was in my lawyer's office to sign
some contract and a lawyer in the next office was asked to come in and notarise my signature.
While he was stamping pages, I continued a discussion with my lawyer about the Broadway
theatre, which I said was corrupt; the art of theatre had been totally displaced by the bottom line,
all that mattered any more. Looking up at me, the notarising lawyer said, "That's a communist
position, you know." I started to laugh until I saw the constraint in my lawyer's face, and I quickly
sobered up.
I am glad that I managed to write The Crucible, but looking back I have often wished I'd had the
temperament to do an absurd comedy, which is what the situation deserved. Now, after more
than three-quarters of a century of fascination with the great snake of political and social
developments, I can see more than a few occasions when we were confronted by the same
sensation of having stepped into another age.
A young film producer asked me to write a script about what was then called juvenile
delinquency. A mystifying, unprecedented outbreak of gang violence had exploded all over New
York. The city, in return for a good percentage of profits, had contracted with this producer to
open police stations and schools to his camera. I spent the summer of 1955 in Brooklyn streets
with two gangs and wrote an outline. I was ready to proceed with the script when an attack on
me as a disloyal lefty opened in the New York World Telegram. The cry went up that the city
must cancel its contract with the producer so long as I was the screenwriter. A hearing was
arranged, attended by 22 city commissioners, including the police, fire, welfare and sanitation
departments, as well as two judges.
At the conference table there also sat a lady who produced a thick folder of petitions and
statements I had signed, going back to my college years, provided to her by the Huac. I
defended myself; I thought I was making sense when the lady began screaming that I was
killing the boys in Korea [this was during the Korean war]. She meant me personally, as I could
tell from the froth at the corners of her mouth, the fury in her eyes, and her finger pointing
straight into my face.
The vote was taken and came up one short of continuing the city's collaboration, and the film
was killed that afternoon. I always wondered whether the crucial vote against me came from the
sanitation department. But it was not a total loss; the suffocating sensation of helplessness
before the spectacle of the impossible coming to pass would soon help in writing The Crucible.
That impossible coming to pass was not an observation made at a comfortable distance but a
blade cutting directly into my life. This was especially the case with Elia Kazan's decision to
cooperate with the Huac. The surrounding fears felt even by those with the most fleeting of
contacts with any communist-supported organisation were enough to break through long
associations and friendships.
Kazan had been a member of the Communist party only a matter of months, and even that link
had ended years before. And the party had never been illegal, nor was membership in it. Yet
this great director, left undefended by 20th Century Fox executives, his longtime employers,
was told that if he refused to name people whom he had known in the party - actors, directors
and writers - he would never be allowed to direct another picture in Hollywood, meaning the end
of his career.
These names were already known to the committee through other testifiers and FBI informants,
but exactly as in Salem - or Russia under the Czar and the Chairman, and Inquisition Spain,
Revolutionary France or any other place of revolution or counter-revolution - conspiracy was the
name for all opposition. And the reformation of the accused could only be believed when he
gave up the names of his co-conspirators. Only this ritual of humiliation, the breaking of pride
and independence, could win the accused readmission into the community. The process
inevitably did produce in the accused a new set of political, social and even moral convictions
more acceptable to the state whose fist had been shoved into his face, with his utter ruin
promised should he resist.
I had stopped by Kazan's house in the country in 1952 after he had called me to come and talk,
an unusual invitation - he had never been inclined to indulge in talk unless it concerned work. I
had suspected from his dark tone that it must have to do with the Huac, which was rampaging
through the Hollywood ranks .
Since I was on my way up to Salem for research on a play that I was still unsure I would write, I
called at his house, which was on my route. As he laid out his dilemma and his decision to
comply with the Huac (which he had already done) it was impossible not to feel his anguish, old
friends that we were. But the crunch came when I felt fear, that great teacher, that cruel
revealer. For it swept over me that, had I been one of his comrades, he would have spent my
name as part of the guarantee of his reform. Even so, oddly enough, I was not filling up with
hatred or contempt for him; his suffering was too palpable. The whole hateful procedure had
brought him to this, and I believe made the writing of The Crucible all but inevitable. Even if one
could grant Kazan sincerity in his new-found anti-communism, the concept of an America where
such self-discoveries were pressed out of people was outrageous, and a contradiction of any
concept of personal liberty.
Is all this of some objective importance in our history, this destruction of bonds between people?
I think it may be, however personal it may appear. Kazan's testimony created a far greater
shock than anyone else's. Lee J Cobb's similar testimony and Jerome Robbins's cooperation
seemed hardly to matter. It may be that Kazan had been loved more than any other, that he had
attracted far greater affection from writers and actors with whom he had worked, and so what
was overtly a political act was sensed as a betrayal of love.
It is very significant that in the uproar set off by last year's award to Kazan of an Oscar for life
achievement, one heard no mention of the name of any member of the Huac. One doubted
whether the thought occurred to many people that the studio heads had ignominiously collapsed
before the Huac's insistence that they institute a blacklist of artists, something they had once
insisted was dishonourable and a violation of democratic norms. Half a century had passed
since his testimony, but Kazan bore very nearly the whole onus of the era, as though he had
manufactured its horrors - when he was surely its victim. The trial record in Salem courthouse
had been written by ministers in a primitive shorthand. This condensation gave emphasis to a
gnarled, densely packed language which suggested the country accents of a hard people. To
lose oneself day after day in that record of human delusion was to know a fear, not for one's
safety, but of the spectacle of intelligent people giving themselves over to a rapture of
murderous credulity. It was as though the absence of real evidence was itself a release from the
burdens of this world; in love with the invisible, they moved behind their priests, closer to that
mystical communion which is anarchy and is called God.
Evidence, in contrast, is effort; leaping to conclusions is a wonderful pleasure, and for a while
there was a highly charged joy in Salem, for now that they could see through everything to the
frightful plot that was daily being laid bare in court sessions, their days, formerly so eventless
and long, were swallowed up in hourly revelations, news, surprises. The Crucible is less a
polemic than it might have been had it not been filled with wonder at the protean imagination of
man.
The Crucible straddles two different worlds to make them one, but it is not history in the usual
sense of the word, but a moral, political and psychological construct that floats on the fluid
emotions of both eras. As a commercial entertainment the play failed [it opened in 1953]. To
start with there was the title: nobody knew what a crucible was. Most of the critics, as
sometimes does happen, never caught on to the play's ironical substructure, and the ones who
did were nervous about validating a work that was so unkind to the same sanctified procedural
principles as underlay the hunt for reds. Some old acquaintances gave me distant nods in the
theatre lobby on opening night, and even without air-conditioning the house was cool. There
was also a problem with the temperature of the production.
The director, Jed Harris, a great name in the theatre of the 20s, 30s and 40s, had decided that
the play, which he believed a classic, should be staged like a Dutch painting. In Dutch paintings
of groups, everyone is always looking front. Unfortunately, on a stage such rigidity can only lead
an audience to the exits. Several years after, a gang of young actors, setting up chairs in the
ballroom of the McAlpin Hotel, fired up the audience, convinced the critics, and the play at last
took off and soon found its place. There were cheering reviews but by then Senator McCarthy
was dead. The public fever on whose heatwaves he had spread his wings had subsided.
The Crucible is my most-produced play. It seems to be one of the few surviving shards of the
so-called McCarthy period. And it is part of the play's history that, to people in so many parts of
the world, its story seems to be their own. I used to think, half seriously, that you could tell when
a dictator was about to take power, or had been overthrown, in a Latin American country, if The
Crucible was suddenly being produced in that country.
The result of it all is that I have come, rather reluctantly, to respect delusion, not least of all my
own. There are no passions quite as hot and pleasurable as those of the deluded. Compared to
the bliss of delusion, its vivid colours, blazing lights, explosions, whistles and liberating joys, the
search for evidence is a deadly bore. My heart was with the left. if only because the right hated
me enough to want to kill me, as the Germans amply proved. And now, the most blatant and
most foul anti-semitism is in Russia, leaving people like me filled not so much with surprise as a
kind of wonder at the incredible amount of hope there once was, and how it disappeared and
whether in time it will ever come again, attached, no doubt, to some new illusion.
There is hardly a week that passes when I don't ask the unanswerable question: what am I now
convinced of that will turn out to be ridiculous? And yet one can't forever stand on the shore; at
some point, filled with indecision, scepticism, reservation and doubt, you either jump in or
concede that life is forever elsewhere. Which, I dare say, was one of the major impulses behind
the decision to attempt The Crucible.
Salem village, that pious, devout settlement at the edge of white civilisation, had displayed three centuries before the Russo-American rivalry and the issues it raised - what can only be
called a built-in pestilence in the human mind; a fatality forever awaiting the right conditions for
its always unique, forever unprecedented outbreak of distrust, alarm, suspicion and murder. And
for people wherever the play is performed on any of the five continents, there is always a certain
amazement that the same terror that is happening to them or that is threatening them, has
happened before to others. It is all very strange. But then, the Devil is known to lure people into
forgetting what it is vital for them to remember - how else could his endless reappearances
always come as such a marvellous surprise?
Source: Arthur Miller, “The crucible in history and Other Essays,” published by Methuen on 13 July 2000.
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/miller-mccarthyism.html
DOCUMENT 70: FOREIGN NEWS: WE WILL BURY
YOU! (TIME MAGAZINE, Nov. 26, 1956)
At the final reception for Poland's visiting Gomulka, stubby Nikita Khrushchev planted himself
firmly with the Kremlin's whole hierarchy at his back, and faced the diplomats of the West, and
the satellites, with an intemperate speech that betrayed as much as it threatened.
"We are Bolsheviks!" he declared pugnaciously. "We stick firmly to the Lenin precept—don't be
stubborn if you see you are wrong, but don't give in if you are right." "When are you right?"
interjected First Deputy Premier Mikoyan—and the crowd laughed. Nikita plunged on, turning to
the Western diplomats. "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we
exist. If you don't like us. don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you.
Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!"
Just the day before, ambassadors of twelve NATO nations had walked out on a Khrushchev
tirade that lumped Britain, France and Israel as bandits. Now Khrushchev was off again.
The Kremlin men cheered. Gomulka laughed. Red-faced and gesticulating, Nikita rolled on:
"The situation is favorable to us. If God existed, we would thank him for this. On Hungary—we
had Hungary thrust upon us. We are very sorry that such a situation exists there, but the most
important thing is that the counterrevolution must be shattered. They accuse us of interfering in
Hungary's internal affairs. They find the most fearful words to accuse us. But when the British.
French and Israelis cut the throats of the Egyptians, that is only a police action aimed at
restoring order! The Western powers are trying to denigrate Nasser, although Nasser is not a
Communist. Politically, he is closer to those who are waging war on him. and he has even put
Communists in jail."
"He had to," offered Soviet President Kliment Voroshilov. Khrushchev turned on him and said:
"Don't try to help me."
"Nasser is the hero of his nation, and our sympathies are on his side. We sent sharp letters to
Britain, France and Israel —well, Israel, that was just for form, because, as you know, Israel
carries no weight in the world, and if it plays any role, it was just to start a fight. If Israel hadn't
felt the support of Britain, France and others, the Arabs would have been able to box her ears
and she would have remained at peace. I think the British and French will be wise enough to
withdraw their forces, and then Egypt will emerge stronger than ever."
Turning again to the Westerners, Khrushchev declared: "You say we want war, but you have
now got yourselves into a position I would call idiotic" ("Let's say delicate," offered Mikoyan) "but
we don't want to profit by it. If you withdraw your troops from Germany, France and Britain —I'm
speaking of American troops—we will not stay one day in Poland, Hungary and Rumania." His
voice was scornful as he added: "But we, Mister Capitalists, we are beginning to understand
your methods."
By this time, the diplomats—who, in turn, have come to understand Mister Khrushchev's
methods—had already left the room.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,867329,00.html
DOCUMENT 71: SPEECH BY NIKITA KHRUSCHCHEV
ON THE CUBAN CRISIS, MAY 23, 1963
[...]
No matter how much imperialist reaction, headed by the United States, tries to stop or check the
great revolutionary process of liberation of mankind, it is powerless to do so. People fighting for
their freedom and independence are strong enough to defend their gains with the backing of all
the forces of peace and socialism. This was convincingly demonstrated by what took place in
the Caribbean towards the end of last year.
Today, six months later, the extent of the danger threatening peace as a result of the
treacherous actions of the aggressive forces of American imperialism has become even clearer.
At that time, the bellicose circles in the United States took steps which brought mankind to the
brink of world thermonuclear war.
The Caribbean crisis was one of the sharpest clashes between the forces of socialism and
imperialism, the forces of peace and war in the entire post-war period. When they prepared their
invasion of Cuba, the American belligerents thought that the Soviet Union and other socialist
countries would not be able to render effective aid to the Cuban Republic.
The imperialists reckoned on the geographical remoteness of Cuba from the socialist countries
allowing them to utilise their overwhelming military superiority in this area and attack the Cuban
people and wipe out their revolutionary gains. As everyone is aware the American imperialists
are no greenhorns when it comes to suppressing the liberation struggle in Latin America and
other areas of the world.
The imperialists' plans to strangle the Cuban revolution came to grief thanks to the firm stand of
the Cuban Government headed by Comrade Fidel Castro, the fighting solidarity of the Cubans,
the military might of the Soviet Union and the powerful political and moral support of the socialist
countries and all the peace-loving forces which joined the united front to defend the heroic
Island of Freedom. Due to the fact that a real danger arose of an open conflict between two
nuclear Powers, the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., the Cuban crisis turned from a local one to a
world crisis. In these circumstances it was necessary to seek a way out of the situation on the
basis of sensible compromise.
The settlement of the crisis in the Caribbean meant upsetting the plans of the American military
clique. The unity and solidarity of all peoples who came together to repulse the most aggressive
and reckless imperialist circles tied the hands of those who were ready to doom millions of
people to death and destruction just because of their own selfish interests. This was the triumph
of the policy of peace and peaceful coexistence, thanks to which the revolutionary gains of the
Cuban people were successfully defended, the prestige of the socialist countries was raised
even higher and the threat of world thermonuclear war, which would have resulted in untold
suffering, sacrifice and destruction to people of every country, was averted.
In the United States of America, we hear again the voices of the "wild men" calling for a
blockade and even an armed attack on Cuba. Some Senators and the Pentagon leaders have
been talking of the need to conduct a more tough policy in relation to Cuba. All this cannot but
put us on our guard. Are these big noises once more thinking of creating a crisis like the one
which existed in the Caribbean last October?
I must declare with the utmost gravity that if the U.S. Government does not display the
necessary common sense and appreciation of the situation and lets itself be dragged onto a
dangerous path, an even more threatening situation could occur in the world than did last
October. If the bellicose imperialist forces were to create such a situation it would apparently be
considerably more difficult to find a way out of the crisis than in 1962.
A violation of the pledges given by the United States of America could only be judged as perfidy.
It would gravely undermine good faith and would thus make the possibility of reaching
agreement harder. From this it is obvious that if the Government of the United States of America
does not firmly adhere to the agreement which has been reached and aggravates the situation,
peace may hang by a more slender thread than at the time of last year's Caribbean crisis.
If this happens we shall be obliged to carry out our international duty, our pledges to the
fraternal Cuban people and come to their aid. We declare with the utmost gravity: "Don't play
with fire, gentlemen, and don't play with people's destinies!"
We consider that a normalisation of the Caribbean situation could be achieved on the basis of
the implementation of the five points put forward by Fidel Castro, Prime Minister of the
Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba. The just demands of the Cuban people are
supported by the Soviet Union, by all the socialist countries and by all progressive mankind.
Source: Speech at a Cuba-U.S.S.R. Friendship Meeting, May 23, 1963. Pravda, May 24, 1963.
DOCUMENT 72: ABOVE GROUND NUCLEAR TESTING
SPEECH BY JOHN F. KENNEDY, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
JUNE 10, 1963
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old
colleague Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night
law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, ladies and gentlemen:
"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Mansfield, in his
tribute to English universities - and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires
and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university,
he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where
those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often
abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world
peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced
on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the
slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living,
the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their
children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace
in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when
great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to
surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear
weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in
the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a
nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of
the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of
making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the
acquisition of such idle stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only,
much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the
pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - and frequently the words of the
pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and
that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude.
I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our
own attitude - as individuals and as a nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every
graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace,
should begin by looking inward - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace,
toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace
here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too
many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that
war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by
man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human
beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe
they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which
some fantasize and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams, but we
merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - based not on a sudden
revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions - on a series of
concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no
single, simple key to this peace - no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two
powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be
dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a
process - a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interest, as there are within families
and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his
neighbour - it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes
to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enemies between nations, as
between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide
of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and
neighbours.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be the impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By
defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can
help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that
their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a
recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly
baseless and incredible claims - such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are
preparing to unleash different types of wars... that there is a very real threat of a preventive war
being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union... (and that) the political
aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and
other capitalist countries... (and) to achieve world domination by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read
these Soviet statements - to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning - a
warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a
distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation
as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government of social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in
virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal
freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their economic and industrial
growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than
our mutual abhorrence to war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never
been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the
Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives.
Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory,
including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland - a loss equivalent
to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again - no matter how - our two countries would become
the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in
the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in
the first 24 hours. And even in the Cold War, which brings burdens and dangers to so many
countries, including this nation's closest allies - our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For
we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to
combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous
cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget
counter-weapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a
mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to
this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours - and even the most hostile
nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty
obligations, which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests
and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our
differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our
most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We
all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Third: Let us re-examine our attitude toward the Cold War, remembering that we are not
engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or
pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have
been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes
within the Communist Bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We
must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a
genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert
those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a
nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the
bankruptcy of our policy - or of a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America's weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled, designed
to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and
disciplined self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely
rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not
need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out
of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on the earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to
make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system
- a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large
and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations,
all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite
Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in
the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent have been persistent and patient
despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others - by seeking to
adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbours in Mexico and Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by
alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our
commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished
because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet
Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our
partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing
the paths of peace. It is our hope - and the purpose of allied policies - to convince the Soviet
Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does
not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and
economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no
doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the
peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law - a new context for world discussions. It will
require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased
understanding will require increased contact and communications. One step in this direction is
the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each
side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which
might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control, designed
to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary longrange interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament - designed to take
pace by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace
which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this
Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations.
And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort - to continue it in
order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities
of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is
badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusions of such a treaty, so near
and yet so far, would check the spiralling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would
place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards
which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security - it
would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our
steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to
give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. I am taking this opportunity,
therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level
discussions will shortly begin in Moscow, looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive
test-ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go
the hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that
the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other
states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a
formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a
substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace, and freedom here at
home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We
must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will
have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the
proposed national Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and
freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because
freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government - local, State, and
national - to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their
authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is
not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of
this country to respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell
us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last
analysis, basically a matter of human rights - the right to live out our lives without fear of
devastation - the right to breathe air as nature provided it - the right of future generations to a
healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests.
And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it
may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security
against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can - if it is sufficiently effective in its
enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far
fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not
now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough - more than enough of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try
to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and
the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident
and unafraid, we labour on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
DOCUMENT 73: BARRY GOLDWATER’S 1964
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH AT THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL CONVENTION, SAN FRANCISCO
From this moment, united and determined, we will go forward together, dedicated to the ultimate
and undeniable greatness of the whole man. Together we will win.
I accept your nomination with a deep sense of humility. I accept, too, the responsibility that goes
with it, and I seek your continued help and your continued guidance. My fellow Republicans, our
cause is too great for any man to feel worthy of it. Our task would be too great for any man, did
he not have with him the heart and the hands of this great Republican Party. And I promise you
tonight that every fiber of my being is consecrated to our cause, that nothing shall be lacking
from the struggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work.
In this world no person, no party can guarantee anything, but what we can do and what we shall
do is to deserve victory, and victory will be ours. The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to
be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland
of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism.
Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have
followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways-- not because they are
old, but because they are true.
We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with
its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and
that is freedom.
Freedom made orderly for this nation by our constitutional government. Freedom under a
government limited by laws of nature and of nature's God. Freedom balanced so that liberty
lacking order will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order
will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle.
Now, we Americans understand freedom; we have earned it, we have lived for it, and we have
died for it. This nation and its people are freedom's models in a searching world. We can be
freedom's missionaries in a doubting world.
But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our
own homes.
During four, futile years the administration which we shall replace has distorted and lost that
faith. it has talked and talked and talked and talked the words of freedom, but it has failed and
failed and failed in the works of freedom.
Now failure cements the wall of shame in Berlin; failures blot the sands of shame at the Bay of
Pigs; failures marked the slow death of freedom in Laos; failures infest the jungles of Vietnam;
and failures haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark
ever erected by free nations, the NATO community.
Failures proclaim lost leadership, obscure purpose, weakening wills, and the risk of inciting our
sworn enemies to new aggressions and to new excesses.
And because of this administration we are tonight a world divided. We are a nation becalmed.
We have lost the brisk pace of diversity and the genius of individual creativity. We are plodding
at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation
without recourse.
Rather than useful jobs in our country, people have been offered bureaucratic make-work;
rather than moral leadership, they have been given bread and circuses; they have been given
spectacles, and, yes, they've even been given scandals.
Tonight there is violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness among our
youth, anxiety among our elderly; and there's a virtual despair among the many who look
beyond material success toward the inner meaning of their lives. And where examples of
morality, should be set, the opposite is seen. Small men seeking great wealth or power have too
often and too long turned even the highest levels of public service into mere personal
opportunity.
Now, certainly simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government. We find it in
most. Republicans demand it from everyone. They demand it from everyone no matter how
exalted or protected his position might be.
The growing menace in our country tonight, to personal safety, to life, to limb and property, in
homes, in churches, on the playgrounds and places of business, particularly in our great cities,
is the mounting concern-- or-- should be-of every thoughtful citizen in the United States.
Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary
and fundamental purpose of any government, and a government that cannot fulfill this purpose
is one that cannot long command the loyalty of its citizens.
History shows us, demonstrates that nothing, nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than
the failure of public officials to keep the streets from bullies and marauders.
Now, we Republicans see all this as more-much more-than the rest: of mere political differences
or mere political mistakes. We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong
view of man, his nature and his destiny.
Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberty in return for relieving you of yours,
those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen, must see ultimately a world in which
earthly power can be substituted for divine will. And this nation was founded upon the rejection
of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.
Now, those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good,
are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me
remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny.
Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.
Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and gentlemen, of equality. Equality,
rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation
of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first
to conformity and then to despotism.
Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private
or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism.
It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people--and,
so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican president will do with the help of a Republican
Congress.
It is further the cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man
over man in the world at large. it is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard
decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow resolve itself into a world of
harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression-and this is hogwash.
It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves, and the world, that only the strong
can remain free: that only the strong can keep the peace.
Now, I needn't remind you, or my fellow Americans regardless of party, that Republicans have
shouldered this hard responsibility and marched in this cause before. It was Republican
leadership under Dwight Eisenhower that kept the peace, and passed along to this
administration the mightiest arsenal for defense the world has ever known.
And I needn't remind you that it was the strength and the unbelievable will of the Eisenhower
years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Strait, and in
Lebanon, and by showing it courageously at all times.
It was during those Republican years that the thrust of Communist imperialism was blunted. It
was during those years of Republican leadership that this world moved closer not to war but
closer to peace than at any other time in the last three decades.
And I needn't remind you- but I will-that it's been during Democratic years that our strength to
deter war has been stilled and even gone into a planned decline. it has been during Democratic
years that we have weakly stumbled into conflicts, timidly refusing to draw our own lines against
aggression, deceitfully refusing to tell even our people of our full participation and tragically
letting our finest men die on battlefields unmarked by purpose, unmarked by pride or the
prospect of victory.
Yesterday it was Korea; tonight it is Vietnam. Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this
under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the president, who is the commander in chief
of our forces, refuses to say-refuses to say, mind you-whether or not the objective over there is
victory, and his secretary of defense continues to mislead and misinformation the American
people, and enough of it has gone by.
And I needn't remind you-but I will-it has been during Democratic years that a billion persons
were cast into Communist captivity and their fate cynically sealed.
Today, today in our beloved country, we have an administration which seems eager to deal with
communism in every coin known-from gold to wheat, from consulates to confidence, and even
human freedom itself.
Now, the Republican cause demands that we brand communism as the principal disturber of
peace in the world today. Indeed, we should brand it as the only significant disturber of the
peace. And we must make clear that until its goals of conquest are absolutely renounced and its
rejections with all nations tempered, communism and the governments it now controls are
enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free.
Now, we here in America can keep the peace only if we remain strong. Only if we keep our eyes
open and keep our guard up can we prevent war. And I want to make this abundantly clear--I
don't intend to let peace or freedom be torn from our grasp because of lack of strength, or lack
of will--and that I promise you Americans.
I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I
believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will instead give way to the forces of
freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy
our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world
that will redeem the suffering of those will be liberated from tyranny.
I can see, and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate, the flowering of an Atlantic
civilization, the whole world of Europe reunified and free, trading openly across its borders,
communicating openly across the world.
It is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot. It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to
set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see, and all free men
must thrill to, the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by a straight ocean highway to the
United States. What a destiny! What a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar
linking Europe, the Americans, and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific!
I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system-a
system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in
a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence.
We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped
away in an hour. But we pledge, we pledge, that human sympathy-what our neighbors to the
south call an attitude of simpatico--no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide.
And I can see this Atlantic civilization galvanizing and guiding emergent nations everywhere.
Now, I know this freedom is not the fruit of every soil. I know that our own freedom was
achieved through centuries by unremitting efforts by brave and wise men. And I know that the
road to freedom is a long and a challenging road, and I know also that some men may walk
away from it, that some men resist challenge, accepting the false security of governmental
paternalism.
And I pledge that the America I envision in the years ahead will extend its hand in help in
teaching and in cultivation so that all new nations will be at least encouraged to go our way, so
that they will not wander down the dark alleys of tyranny or to the dead-end streets of
collectivism.
My fellow Republicans, we do no man a service by hiding freedom's light under a bushel of
mistaken humility. I seek an American proud of its past, proud of its ways, proud of its dreams,
and determined actively to proclaim them. But our examples to the world must, like charity,
begin at home.
In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room, room for the
liberation of the energy and the talent of the individual, otherwise our vision is blind at the
outset.
We must assure a society here which while never abandoning the needy, or forsaking the
helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive.
We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.
And I cherish the day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and
women who, unafraid and undaunted, pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make
fruitful our natural environment, and produce the inventive engines of production-science and
technology.
This nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again
thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we-we as individual citizens-can and should
do.
During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of
their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations nation where all who can
will be self-reliant.
We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which
assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man as the great reason for instituting
orderly government in the first place.
We see in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property the one
way to make government a durable ally of the whole man rather than his determined enemy.
We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional
government in a free society.
And beyond all that we see and cherish diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives, and
accomplishments. We don't seek to live anyone's life for him. We only seek to secure his rights,
guarantee him opportunity, guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing
only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.
We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a
stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy, and
enforcing law and order.
Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creative difference within a stable order, for we
Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels-- preferably, though,
the one closest to the people involved: our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our
states, then our regional contacts, and only then the national government.
That, let me remind you, is the land of liberty built by decentralized power. On it also we must
have balance between the branches of government at every level.
Balance, diversity, creative difference-these are the elements of Republican equation.
Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications.
But we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are
Republicans.
This is a party-- this Republican party is a party for free men. Not for blind followers and not for
conformists. Back in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said this of the Republican party-and I quote him
because he probably could have said it during the last week or so-it was composed of strained,
discordant, and even hostile elements. End of the quote, in 1958 [sic].
Yet all of these elements agreed on paramount objective: to arrest the progress of slavery, and
place it in the course of ultimate extinction.
Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and
enlarging freedom at home and safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is
great,enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength.
Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those, those who do not care for our cause,
we don"t expect to enter our ranks, in any case. And let our Republicanism so focused and so
dedicated not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you
also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
The beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty
of this federal system of ours, is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see
malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not
inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.
Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computerregimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty
throughout the world. Ours is a very human cause for very humane goals. This party, its good
people, and its unquestionable devotion to freedom will not fulfill the purposes of this campaign
which we launch here now until our cause has won the day, inspired the world, and shown the
way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesteryears.
I repeat, I accept your nomination with humbleness, with pride, and you and I are going to fight
for the goodness of our land. Thank you.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Goldwater.html
DOCUMENT 74: INFAMOUS “DAISY” ANTI-BARRY
GOLDWATER ATTACK AD FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION OF 1964
VIEW ON YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k&feature=related
DOCUMENT 75: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ROBERT
McNAMARA’S “MUTUAL DETERRENCE” SPEECH,
SAN FRANCISCO, SEPT. 18, 1967
In a complex and uncertain world, the gravest problem that an American Secretary of Defense
must face is that of planning, preparation and policy against the possibility of thermonuclear
war. It is a prospect that most of mankind understandably would prefer not to contemplate. For
technology has now circumscribed us all with a horizon of horror that could dwarf any
catastrophe that has befallen man in his more than a million years on earth.
Man has lived now for more than twenty years in what we have come to call the Atomic Age.
What we sometimes overlook is that every future age of man will be an atomic age, and if man
is to have a future at all, it will have to be one overshadowed with the permanent possibility of
thermonuclear holocaust. About that fact there is no longer any doubt. Our freedom in this
question consists only in facing the matter rationally and realistically and discussing actions to
minimize the danger.
No sane citizen, political leader or nation wants thermonuclear war. But merely not wanting it is
not enough. We must understand the differences among actions which increase its risks, those
which reduce them and those which, while costly, have little influence one way or another. But
there is a great difficulty in the way of constructive and profitable debate over the issues, and
that is the exceptional complexity of nuclear strategy. Unless these complexities are well
understood rational discussion and decision-making are impossible.
One must begin with precise definitions. The cornerstone of our strategic policy continues to be
to deter nuclear attack upon the United States or its allies. We do this by maintaining a highly
reliable ability to inflict unacceptable damage upon any single aggressor or combination of
aggressors at any time during the course of a strategic nuclear exchange, even after absorbing
a surprise first strike. This can be defined as our assured-destruction capability.
It is important to understand that assured destruction is the very essence of the whole
deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that
capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our
assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an
attack is in fact unwavering. The conclusion, then, is clear: if the United States is to deter a
nuclear attack in itself or its allies, it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction
capability.
When calculating the force required, we must be conservative in all our estimates of both a
potential aggressor's capabilities and his intentions. Security depends upon assuming a worst
plausible case, and having the ability to cope with it. In that eventuality we must be able to
absorb the total weight of nuclear attack on our country -- on our retaliatory forces, on our
command and control apparatus, on our industrial capacity, on our cities, and on our population
-- and still be capable of damaging the aggressor to the point that his society would be simply
no longer viable in twentieth-century terms. That is what deterrence of nuclear aggression
means. It means the certainty of suicide to the aggressor, not merely to his military forces, but to
his society as a whole.
Let us consider another term: first-strike capability. This is a somewhat ambiguous term, since it
could mean simply the ability of one nation to attack another nation with nuclear forces first. But
as it is normally used, it connotes much more: the elimination of the attacked nation's retaliatory
second-strike forces. This is the sense in which it should be understood.
Clearly, first-strike capability is an important strategic concept. The United States must not and
will not permit itself ever to get into a position in which another nation, or combination of nations,
would possess a first-strike capability against it. Such a position not only would constitute an
intolerable threat to our security, but it obviously would remove our ability to deter nuclear
aggression.
We are not in that position today, and there is no foreseeable danger of our ever getting into
that position. Our strategic offensive forces are immense: 1,000 Minuteman missile launchers,
carefully protected below ground; 41 Polaris submarines carrying 656 missile launchers, with
the majority hidden beneath the seas at all times; and about 600 long-range bombers,
approximately 40 percent of which are kept always in a high state of alert.
Our alert forces alone carry more than 2,200 weapons, each averaging more than the explosive
equivalent of one megaton of TNT. Four hundred of these delivered on the Soviet Union would
be sufficient to destroy over one-third of her population and one-half of her industry. All these
flexible and highly reliable forces are equipped with devices that ensure their penetration of
Soviet defenses.
Now what about the Soviet Union? Does it today possess a powerful nuclear arsenal? The
answer is that it does. Does it possess a first-strike capability against the United States? The
answer is that it does not. Can the Soviet Union in the foreseeable future acquire such a firststrike capability against the United States? The answer is that it cannot. It cannot because we
are determined to remain fully alert and we will never permit our own assured-destruction
capability to drop to a point at which a Soviet first-strike capability is even remotely feasible.
Is the Soviet Union seriously attempting to acquire a first-strike capability against the United
States? Although this is a question we cannot answer with absolute certainty, we believe the
answer is no. In any event, the question itself is -- in a sense -- irrelevant: for the United States
will maintain and, where necessary strengthen its retaliatory forces so that, whatever the Soviet
Union's intentions or actions, we will continue to have an assured-destruction capability vis a vis
their society.
Source: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deterrence/Deterrence.shtml
DOCUMENT 76: SNCC CHAIRMAN JOHN LEWIS’S
SPEECH, MARCH ON WASHINGTON, AUGUST 1963
(ORIGINAL)
We march today for jobs and freedom, but we have nothing to be proud of, for hundreds and
thousands of our brothers are not here, for they are receiving starvation wages or no wages at
all. While we stand here, there are sharecroppers in the Delta of Mississippi who are out in the
fields working for less than three dollars per day, 12 hours a day. While we stand here, there are
students in jail on trumped-up charges. Our brother James Farmer, along with many others, is
also in jail.
We come here today with a great sense of misgiving. It is true that we support the
administration's Civil Rights Bill. We support it with great reservation, however. Unless title three
is put in this bill, there's nothing to protect the young children and old women who must face
police dogs and fire hoses in the South while they engage in peaceful demonstration.
In its present form this bill will not protect the citizens of Danville, Virginia, who must live in
constant fear of a police state. It will not protect the hundreds and thousands of people that
have been arrested on trumped charges. What about the three young men, SNCC's field
secretary in Americus, Georgia, who face the death penalty for engaging in peaceful protest?
As it stands now, the voting section of this bill will not help the thousands of people who want to
vote. It will not help the citizens of Mississippi, of Alabama and Georgia who are unqualified to
vote for lack of sixth grade education. One man, one vote is the African cry. It is ours too. It
must be ours.
We must have legislation that will protect the Mississippi sharecroppers, who have been forced
to leave their homes because they dared to exercise their right to register to vote. We need a bill
that will provide for the homeless and starving people of this nation. We need a bill that will
ensure the equality of a maid who earns five dollars a week in the home of a family whose total
income is 100,000 dollars a year. We must have a good FEPC bill.
My friends let us not forget that we are involved in a serious social revolution. By and large,
politicians who build their career on immoral compromise and allow themselves an open forum
of political, economic and social exploitation dominate American politics.
There are exceptions, of course. We salute those. But what political leader can stand up and
say, "My party is a party of principles"? For the party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland.
The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political
party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington? Where is the political party that
will make it unnecessary to march in the streets of Birmingham? Where is the political party that
will protect the citizens of Albany, Georgia?
Do you know that in Albany, Georgia nine of our leaders have been indicted, not by the
Dixiecrats but by the federal government for peaceful protest? But what did the federal
government do when Albany deputy sheriff beat Attorney C.B. King and left him half-dead?
What did the federal government do when local police officials kicked and assaulted the
pregnant wife of Slater King and she lost her baby?
To those who have said, "Be patient and wait," we must say that we cannot be patient. We do
not want our freedom gradually but we want to be free now.
We are tired. We are tired of being beat by policemen. We are tired of seeing our people locked
up in jail over and over again, and then you holler "Be patient." How long can we be patient? We
want our freedom and we want it now.
We do not want to go to jail, but we will go to jail if this is the price we must pay for love,
brotherhood and true peace. I appeal to all of you to get into this great revolution that is
sweeping this nation. Get in and stay in the streets of every city, every village and hamlet of this
nation until true freedom comes, until a revolution is complete. We must get in this revolution
and complete the revolution. In the Delta of Mississippi, in Southwest Georgia, in the Black Belt
of Alabama, in Harlem, in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and all over this nation the black
masses are on a march for jobs and freedom.
They're talking about slow down and stop. We will not stop. All of the forces of Eastland,
Barnett, Wallace, and Thurmond will not stop this revolution. If we do not get meaningful
legislation out of this Congress, the time will come when we will not confine our march into
Washington. We will march through the South, through the streets of Jackson, through the
streets of Danville, through the streets of Cambridge, through the streets of Birmingham. But we
will march with the spirit of love and with the spirit of dignity that we have shown here today.
By the forces of our demands, our determination and our numbers, we shall send a
desegregated South into a thousand pieces, put them together in the image of God and
Democracy. We must say wake up America, wake up! For we cannot stop, and we will not and
cannot be patient.
[The Kennedy administration and some of the more conservative speakers objected to some of Lewis's
language. Lewis agreed to modify some elements of the speech. He cut the words that criticized the
President's bill as being "too little and too late,” as well as the call to march "through the heart of Dixie, the
way Sherman did." He also didn’t ask, "which side is the federal government on?" The word "cheap" was
removed to describe some political leaders].
Source: http://sheg.stanford.edu/?q=node/43
DOCUMENT 77: BLACK ACTIVIST JACK O’DELL
RECALL RECALLS RED-BAITING IN THE CIVIL
RIGHTS MOVEMENT
[Anti-communism still had tremendous political weight during the early 1960’s, when opponents of Civil Rights used it to undermine
support for the African-American movement. Like many other black leaders, Jack O’Dell, who was the director of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) office in New York in 1963, became the target of an FBI operation. The bureau leaked
unsubstantiated charges against him in an attempt to smear the SCLC as communist influenced. O’Dell remembered that President
Kennedy pressured Martin Luther King, Jr. to sever ties with O’Dell, who Kennedy described as a notorious communist, in order to
win support for the Civil Rights Act.]
O’DELL: We may have been out from under McCarthyism by the ’60s but we were not out from
under the official ideology of anti-Communism. President Kennedy on June the 23rd of 1963,
had a meeting at the White House with the civil rights leadership because he had introduced the
civil rights bill. He took Martin out on the White House lawn and told him that his relations with
Jack O’Dell was jeopardizing the passage of the civil rights bill. He told Martin that I was the
number four Communist in the United States. Martin said, “Well, I want to see the
documentation of that?” He said, “Okay. We’ll set up for you to see it.” This is what Martin
reported to us. Kennedy’s rationale was that Strom Thurman and some of the southern
Democrats were getting ready to make an issue of who Martin’s connections were that they
considered communists, Jack O’Dell being on the staff and Stanley Levinson as a confidant.
Kennedy, said to Martin, according to Martin, that if they made that a public issue he, Kennedy,
would not support the civil rights bill. So Martin has a choice, in effect, coming out of that
conversation, to sever these ties and salvage Kennedy’s support for the civil rights bill or stay
with his friends and have an attack come from Strom Thurman. Unless you sacrificed your
principles you couldn’t escape the anti- Communism. They had no reason to Red bait him but it
went on anyway. I’m just saying that the anti-Communism had become institutionalized as an
effective weapon in intimidating and preventing the movement from developing. And of course,
it had succeeded in some instances and failed also because movement was developing
anyway.
Source: Interviewed by Sam Sills 8/5/93, courtesy Sam Sills
DOCUMENT 78: CHE GUEVARA’S SPEECH AT THE
19TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS,
NEW YORK, DEC. 11, 1964
Mr. President;
Distinguished delegates:
The delegation of Cuba to this Assembly, first of all, is pleased to fulfill the agreeable
duty of welcoming the addition of three new nations to the important number of those
that discuss the problems of the world here. We therefore greet, in the persons of their
presidents and prime ministers, the peoples of Zambia, Malawi and Malta, and express
the hope that from the outset these countries will be added to the group of Nonaligned
countries that struggle against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism.
We also wish to convey our congratulations to the president of this Assembly [Alex
Quaison-Sackey of Ghana], whose elevation to so high a post is of special significance
since it reflects this new historic stage of resounding triumphs for the peoples of Africa,
who up until recently were subject to the colonial system of imperialism. Today, in their
immense majority these peoples have become sovereign states through the legitimate
exercise of their self-determination. The final hour of colonialism has struck, and millions
of inhabitants of Africa, Asia and Latin America rise to meet a new life and demand their
unrestricted right to self-determination and to the independent development of their
nations.
We wish you, Mr. President, the greatest success in the tasks entrusted to you by the
member states.
Cuba comes here to state its position on the most important points of controversy and
will do so with the full sense of responsibility that the use of this rostrum implies, while at
the same time fulfilling the unavoidable duty of speaking clearly and frankly.
We would like to see this Assembly shake itself out of complacency and move
forward. We would like to see the committees begin their work and not stop at the first
confrontation. Imperialism wants to turn this meeting into a pointless oratorical
tournament, instead of solving the serious problems of the world. We must prevent it
from doing so. This session of the Assembly should not be remembered in the future
solely by the number 19 that identifies it. Our efforts are directed to that end.
We feel that we have the right and the obligation to do so, because our country is one
of the most constant points of friction. It is one of the places where the principles
upholding the right of small countries to sovereignty are put to the test day by day,
minute by minute. At the same time our country is one of the trenches of freedom in the
world, situated a few steps away from U.S. imperialism, showing by its actions, its daily
example, that in the present conditions of humanity the peoples can liberate themselves
and can keep themselves free.
Of course, there now exists a socialist camp that becomes stronger day by day and
has more powerful weapons of struggle. But additional conditions are required for
survival: the maintenance of internal unity, faith in one's own destiny, and the irrevocable
decision to fight to the death for the defense of one's country and revolution. These
conditions, distinguished delegates, exist in Cuba.
Of all the burning problems to be dealt with by this Assembly, one of special
significance for us, and one whose solution we feel must be found first —so as to leave
no doubt in the minds of anyone — is that of peaceful coexistence among states with
different economic and social systems. Much progress has been made in the world in
this field. But imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, has attempted to make the world
believe that peaceful coexistence is the exclusive right of the earth's great powers. We
say here what our president said in Cairo, and what later was expressed in the
declaration of the Second Conference of Heads of State or Government of Nonaligned
Countries: that peaceful coexistence cannot be limited to the powerful countries if we
want to ensure world peace. Peaceful coexistence must be exercised among all states,
regardless of size, regardless of the previous historical relations that linked them, and
regardless of the problems that may arise among some of them at a given moment.
At present, the type of peaceful coexistence to which we aspire is often violated.
Merely because the Kingdom of Cambodia maintained a neutral attitude and did not bow
to the machinations of U.S. imperialism, it has been subjected to all kinds of treacherous
and brutal attacks from the Yankee bases in South Vietnam.
Laos, a divided country, has also been the object of imperialist aggression of every
kind. Its people have been massacred from the air. The conventions concluded at
Geneva have been violated, and part of its territory is in constant danger of cowardly
attacks by imperialist forces.
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam knows all these histories of aggression as do
few nations on earth. It has once again seen its frontier violated, has seen enemy
bombers and fighter planes attack its installations and U.S. warships, violating territorial
waters, attack its naval posts. At this time, the threat hangs over the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam that the U.S. war makers may openly extend into its territory the
war that for many years they have been waging against the people of South Vietnam.
The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have given serious warnings to
the United States. We are faced with a case in which world peace is in danger and,
moreover, the lives of millions of human beings in this part of Asia are constantly
threatened and subjected to the whim of the U.S. invader.
Peaceful coexistence has also been brutally put to the test in Cyprus, due to
pressures from the Turkish Government and NATO, compelling the people and the
government of Cyprus to make a heroic and firm stand in defense of their sovereignty.
In all these parts of the world, imperialism attempts to impose its version of what
coexistence should be. It is the oppressed peoples in alliance with the socialist camp
that must show them what true coexistence is, and it is the obligation of the United
Nations to support them.
We must also state that it is not only in relations among sovereign states that the
concept of peaceful coexistence needs to be precisely defined. As Marxists we have
maintained that peaceful coexistence among nations does not encompass coexistence
between the exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressors and the oppressed.
Furthermore, the right to full independence from all forms of colonial oppression is a
fundamental principle of this organization. That is why we express our solidarity with the
colonial peoples of so-called Portuguese Guinea, Angola and Mozambique, who have
been massacred for the crime of demanding their freedom. And we are prepared to help
them to the extent of our ability in accordance with the Cairo declaration.
We express our solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico and their great leader, Pedro
Albizu Campos, who, in another act of hypocrisy, has been set free at the age of 72,
almost unable to speak, paralyzed, after spending a lifetime in jail. Albizu Campos is a
symbol of the as yet unfree but indomitable Latin America. Years and years of prison,
almost unbearable pressures in jail, mental torture, solitude, total isolation from his
people and his family, the insolence of the conqueror and its lackeys in the land of his
birth — nothing broke his will. The delegation of Cuba, on behalf of its people, pays a
tribute of admiration and gratitude to a patriot who confers honor upon our America.
The United States for many years has tried to convert Puerto Rico into a model of
hybrid culture: the Spanish language with English inflections, the Spanish language with
hinges on its backbone — the better to bow down before the Yankee soldier. Puerto
Rican soldiers have been used as cannon fodder in imperialist wars, as in Korea, and
have even been made to fire at their own brothers, as in the massacre perpetrated by
the U.S. Army a few months ago against the unarmed people of Panama — one of the
most recent crimes carried out by Yankee imperialism. And yet, despite this assault on
their will and their historical destiny, the people of Puerto Rico have preserved their
culture, their Latin character, their national feelings, which in themselves give proof of
the implacable desire for independence lying within the masses on that Latin American
island. We must also warn that the principle of peaceful coexistence does not
encompass the right to mock the will of the peoples, as is happening in the case of socalled British Guiana. There the government of Prime Minister Cheddi Jagan has been
the victim of every kind of pressure and maneuver, and independence has been delayed
to gain time to find ways to flout the people's will and guarantee the docility of a new
government, placed in power by covert means, in order to grant a castrated freedom to
this country of the Americas. Whatever roads Guiana may be compelled to follow to
obtain independence, the moral and militant support of Cuba goes to its people.[15]
Furthermore, we must point out that the islands of Guadaloupe and Martinique have
been fighting for a long time for self-government without obtaining it. This state of affairs
must not continue. Once again we speak out to put the world on guard against what is
happening in South Africa. The brutal policy of apartheid is applied before the eyes of
the nations of the world. The peoples of Africa are compelled to endure the fact that on
the African continent the superiority of one race over another remains official policy, and
that in the name of this racial superiority murder is committed with impunity. Can the
United Nations do nothing to stop this?
I would like to refer specifically to the painful case of the Congo, unique in the history
of the modern world, which shows how, with absolute impunity, with the most insolent
cynicism, the rights of peoples can be flouted. The direct reason for all this is the
enormous wealth of the Congo, which the imperialist countries want to keep under their
control. In the speech he made during his first visit to the United Nations, compañero
Fidel Castro observed that the whole problem of coexistence among peoples boils down
to the wrongful appropriation of other peoples' wealth. He made the following statement:
“End the philosophy of plunder and the philosophy of war will be ended as well.”
But the philosophy of plunder has not only not been ended, it is stronger than ever.
And that is why those who used the name of the United Nations to commit the murder of
Lumumba are today, in the name of the defense of the white race, murdering thousands
of Congolese. How can we forget the betrayal of the hope that Patrice Lumumba placed
in the United Nations? How can we forget the machinations and maneuvers that
followed in the wake of the occupation of that country by UN troops, under whose
auspices the assassins of this great African patriot acted with impunity? How can we
forget, distinguished delegates, that the one who flouted the authority of the UN in the
Congo — and not exactly for patriotic reasons, but rather by virtue of conflicts between
imperialists — was Moise Tshombe, who initiated the secession of Katanga with Belgian
support? And how can one justify, how can one explain, that at the end of all the United
Nations' activities there, Tshombe, dislodged from Katanga, should return as lord and
master of the Congo? Who can deny the sad role that the imperialists compelled the
United Nations to play?[16]
To sum up: dramatic mobilizations were carried out to avoid the secession of
Katanga, but today Tshombe is in power, the wealth of the Congo is in imperialist hands
— and the expenses have to be paid by the honorable nations. The merchants of war
certainly do good business! That is why the government of Cuba supports the just
stance of the Soviet Union in refusing to pay the expenses for this crime.
And as if this were not enough, we now have flung in our faces these latest acts that
have filled the world with indignation. Who are the perpetrators? Belgian paratroopers,
carried by U.S. planes, who took off from British bases. We remember as if it were
yesterday that we saw a small country in Europe, a civilized and industrious country, the
Kingdom of Belgium, invaded by Hitler's hordes. We were embittered by the knowledge
that this small nation was massacred by German imperialism, and we felt affection for its
people. But this other side of the imperialist coin was the one that many of us did not
see. Perhaps the sons of Belgian patriots who died defending their country's liberty are
now murdering in cold blood thousands of Congolese in the name of the white race, just
as they suffered under the German heel because their blood was not sufficiently Aryan.
Our free eyes open now on new horizons and can see what yesterday, in our condition
as colonial slaves, we could not observe: that “Western Civilization” disguises behind its
showy facade a picture of hyenas and jackals. That is the only name that can be applied
to those who have gone to fulfill such “humanitarian” tasks in the Congo. A carnivorous
animal that feeds on unarmed peoples. That is what imperialism does to men. That is
what distinguishes the imperial “white man.”
All free men of the world must be prepared to avenge the crime of the Congo.
Perhaps many of those soldiers, who were turned into sub-humans by imperialist
machinery, believe in good faith that they are defending the rights of a superior race. In
this Assembly, however, those peoples whose skins are darkened by a different sun,
colored by different pigments, constitute the majority. And they fully and clearly
understand that the difference between men does not lie in the color of their skin, but in
the forms of ownership of the means of production, in the relations of production. The
Cuban delegation extends greetings to the peoples of Southern Rhodesia and SouthWest Africa, oppressed by white colonialist minorities; to the peoples of Basutoland,
Bechuanaland, Swaziland, French Somaliland, the Arabs of Palestine, Aden and the
Protectorates, Oman; and to all peoples in conflict with imperialism and colonialism. We
reaffirm our support to them.
I express also the hope that there will be a just solution to the conflict facing our sister
republic of Indonesia in its relations with Malaysia. Mr. President: One of the
fundamental themes of this conference is general and complete disarmament. We
express our support for general and complete disarmament. Furthermore, we advocate
the complete destruction of all thermonuclear devices and we support the holding of a
conference of all the nations of the world to make this aspiration of all people a reality. In
his statement before this assembly, our prime minister warned that arms races have
always led to war. There are new nuclear powers in the world, and the possibilities of a
confrontation are growing. We believe that such a conference is necessary to obtain the
total destruction of thermonuclear weapons and, as a first step, the total prohibition of
tests. At the same time, we have to establish clearly the duty of all countries to respect
the present borders of other states and to refrain from engaging in any aggression, even
with conventional weapons.
In adding our voice to that of all the peoples of the world who ask for general and
complete disarmament, the destruction of all nuclear arsenals, the complete halt to the
building of new thermonuclear devices and of nuclear tests of any kind, we believe it
necessary to also stress that the territorial integrity of nations must be respected and the
armed hand of imperialism held back, for it is no less dangerous when it uses only
conventional weapons. Those who murdered thousands of defenseless citizens of the
Congo did not use the atomic bomb. They used conventional weapons. Conventional
weapons have also been used by imperialism, causing so many deaths.
Even if the measures advocated here were to become effective and make it
unnecessary to mention it, we must point out that we cannot adhere to any regional pact
for denuclearization so long as the United States maintains aggressive bases on our
own territory, in Puerto Rico, Panama and in other Latin American states where it feels it
has the right to place both conventional and nuclear weapons without any restrictions.
We feel that we must be able to provide for our own defense in the light of the recent
resolution of the Organization of American States against Cuba, on the basis of which
an attack may be carried out invoking the Rio Treaty.[17]If the conference to which we
have just referred were to achieve all these objectives — which, unfortunately, would be
difficult — we believe it would be the most important one in the history of humanity. To
ensure this it would be necessary for the People's Republic of China to be represented,
and that is why a conference of this type must be held. But it would be much simpler for
the peoples of the world to recognize the undeniable truth of the existence of the
People's Republic of China, whose government is the sole representative of its people,
and to give it the seat it deserves, which is, at present, usurped by the gang that controls
the province of Taiwan, with U.S. support.
The problem of the representation of China in the United Nations cannot in any way
be considered as a case of a new admission to the organization, but rather as the
restoration of the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China.
We must repudiate energetically the “two Chinas” plot. The Chiang Kai-shek gang of
Taiwan cannot remain in the United Nations. What we are dealing with, we repeat, is the
expulsion of the usurper and the installation of the legitimate representative of the
Chinese people.
We also warn against the U.S. Government's insistence on presenting the problem of
the legitimate representation of China in the UN as an “important question,” in order to
impose a requirement of a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. The
admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations is, in fact, an
important question for the entire world, but not for the machinery of the United Nations,
where it must constitute a mere question of procedure. In this way justice will be done.
Almost as important as attaining justice, however, would be the demonstration, once and
for all, that this august Assembly has eyes to see, ears to hear, tongues to speak with
and sound criteria for making its decisions. The proliferation of nuclear weapons among
the member states of NATO, and especially the possession of these devices of mass
destruction by the Federal Republic of Germany, would make the possibility of an
agreement on disarmament even more remote, and linked to such an agreement is the
problem of the peaceful reunification of Germany. So long as there is no clear
understanding, the existence of two Germanys must be recognized: that of the German
Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic. The German problem can be solved
only with the direct participation in negotiations of the German Democratic Republic with
full rights. We shall only touch on the questions of economic development and
international trade that are broadly represented in the agenda. In this very year of 1964
the Geneva conference was held at which a multitude of matters related to these
aspects of international relations were dealt with. The warnings and forecasts of our
delegation were fully confirmed, to the misfortune of the economically dependent
countries.
We wish only to point out that insofar as Cuba is concerned, the United States of
America has not implemented the explicit recommendations of that conference, and
recently the U.S. Government also prohibited the sale of medicines to Cuba. By doing so
it divested itself, once and for all, of the mask of humanitarianism with which it attempted
to disguise the aggressive nature of its blockade against the people of Cuba.
Furthermore, we state once more that the scars left by colonialism that impede the
development of the peoples are expressed not only in political relations. The so-called
deterioration of the terms of trade is nothing but the result of the unequal exchange
between countries producing raw materials and industrial countries, which dominate
markets and impose the illusory justice of equal exchange of values.
So long as the economically dependent peoples do not free themselves from the
capitalist markets and, in a firm bloc with the socialist countries, impose new relations
between the exploited and the exploiters, there will be no solid economic development.
In certain cases there will be retrogression, in which the weak countries will fall under
the political domination of the imperialists and colonialists.
Finally, distinguished delegates, it must be made clear that in the area of the
Caribbean, maneuvers and preparations for aggression against Cuba are taking place,
on the coasts of Nicaragua above all, in Costa Rica aswell, in the Panama Canal Zone,
on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico, in Florida and possibly in other parts of U.S. territory
and perhaps also in Honduras. In these places Cuban mercenaries are training, as well
as mercenaries of other nationalities, with a purpose that cannot be the most peaceful
one. After a big scandal, the government of Costa Rica — it is said — has ordered the
elimination of all training camps of Cuban exiles in that country.
No-one knows whether this position is sincere, or whether it is a simple alibi because
the mercenaries training there were about to commit some misdeed. We hope that full
cognizance will be taken of the real existence of bases for aggression, which we
denounced long ago, and that the world will ponder the international responsibility of the
government of a country that authorizes and facilitates the training of mercenaries to
attack Cuba. We should note that news of the training of mercenaries in different parts in
the Caribbean and the participation of the U.S. Government in such acts is presented as
completely natural in the newspapers in the United States. We know of no Latin
American voice that has officially protested this. This shows the cynicism with which the
U.S. Government moves its pawns.
The sharp foreign ministers of the OAS had eyes to see Cuban emblems and to find
“irrefutable” proof in the weapons that the Yankees exhibited in Venezuela, but they do
not see the preparations for aggression in the United States, just as they did not hear
the voice of President Kennedy, who explicitly declared himself the aggressor against
Cuba at Playa Girón [Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961]. In some cases, it is a blindness
provoked by the hatred against our revolution by the ruling classes of the Latin American
countries. In others — and these are sadder and more deplorable — it is the product of
the dazzling glitter of mammon.
As is well known, after the tremendous commotion of the so-called Caribbean crisis,
the United States undertook certain commitments with the Soviet Union. These
culminated in the withdrawal of certain types of weapons that the continued acts of
aggression of the United States — such as the mercenary attack at Playa Girón and
threats of invasion against our homeland — had compelled us to install in Cuba as an
act of legitimate and essential defense.
The United States, furthermore, tried to get the UN to inspect our territory. But we
emphatically refuse, since Cuba does not recognize the right of the United States, or of
anyone else in the world, to determine the type of weapons Cuba may have within its
borders.
In this connection, we would abide only by multilateral agreements, with equal
obligations for all the parties concerned. As Fidel Castro has said: “So long as the
concept of sovereignty exists as the prerogative of nations and of independent peoples,
as a right of all peoples, we will not accept the exclusion of our people from that right. So
long as the world is governed by these principles, so long as the world is governed by
those concepts that have universal validity because they are universally accepted and
recognized by the peoples, we will not accept the attempt to deprive us of any of those
rights, and we will renounce none of those rights.” The Secretary-General of the United
Nations, U Thant, understood our reasons. Nevertheless, the United States attempted to
establish a new prerogative, an arbitrary and illegal one: that of violating the airspace of
a small country. Thus, we see flying over our country U-2 aircraft and other types of spy
planes that, with complete impunity, fly over our airspace. We have made all the
necessary warnings for the violations of our airspace to cease, as well as for a halt to
the provocations of the U.S. Navy against our sentry posts in the zone of Guantánamo,
the buzzing by aircraft of our ships or the ships of other nationalities in international
waters, the pirate attacks against ships sailing under different flags, and the infiltration of
spies, saboteurs and weapons onto our island.
We want to build socialism. We have declared that we are supporters of those who
strive for peace. We have declared ourselves to be within the group of Nonaligned
countries, although we are Marxist-Leninists, because the Nonaligned countries, like
ourselves, fight imperialism. We want peace. We want to build a better life for our
people. That is why we avoid, insofar as possible, falling into the provocations
manufactured by the Yankees. But we know the mentality of those who govern them.
They want to make us pay a very high price for that peace. We reply that the price
cannot go beyond the bounds of dignity.
And Cuba reaffirms once again the right to maintain on its territory the weapons it
deems appropriate, and its refusal to recognize the right of any power on earth — no
matter how powerful — to violate our soil, our territorial waters, or our airspace.
If in any assembly Cuba assumes obligations of a collective nature, it will fulfill them to
the letter. So long as this does not happen, Cuba maintains all its rights, just as any
other nation. In the face of the demands of imperialism, our prime minister laid out the
five points necessary for the existence of a secure peace in the Caribbean. They are:
1. A halt to the economic blockade and all economic and trade pressures by the
United States, in all parts of the world, against our country.
2. A halt to all subversive activities, launching and landing of weapons and
explosives by air and sea, organization of mercenary invasions, infiltration of
spies and saboteurs, acts all carried out from the territory of the United States
and some accomplice countries.
3. A halt to pirate attacks carried out from existing bases in the United States and
Puerto Rico.
4. A halt to all the violations of our airspace and our territorial waters by U.S.
aircraft and warships.
5. Withdrawal from the Guantánamo naval base and return of the Cuban territory
occupied by the United States.”
None of these elementary demands has been met, and our forces are still being
provoked from the naval base at Guantánamo. That base has become a nest of thieves
and a launching pad for them into our territory. We would tire this Assembly were we to
give a detailed account of the large number of provocations of all kinds. Suffice it to say
that including the first days of December, the number amounts to 1,323 in 1964 alone.
The list covers minor provocations such as violation of the boundary line, launching of
objects from the territory controlled by the United States, the commission of acts of
sexual exhibitionism by U.S. personnel of both sexes, and verbal insults. It includes
others that are more serious, such as shooting off small caliber weapons, aiming
weapons at our territory, and offenses against our national flag. Extremely serious
provocations include those of crossing the boundary line and starting fires in installations
on the Cuban side, as well as rifle fire. There have been 78 rifle shots this year, with the
sorrowful toll of one death: that of Ramón López Peña, a soldier, killed by two shots fired
from the U.S. post three and a half kilometers from the coast on the northern boundary.
This extremely grave provocation took place at 7:07 p.m. on July 19, 1964, and the
prime minister of our government publicly stated on July 26 that if the event were to
recur he would give orders for our troops to repel the aggression. At the same time
orders were given for the withdrawal of the forward line of Cuban forces to positions
farther away from the boundary line and construction of the necessary fortified positions.
One thousand three hundred and twenty-three provocations in 340 days amount to
approximately four per day. Only a perfectly disciplined army with a morale such as ours
could resist so many hostile acts without losing its self-control.
Forty-seven countries meeting at the Second Conference of Heads of State or
Government of Nonaligned Countries in Cairo unanimously agreed:
Noting with concern that foreign military bases are in practice a means of
bringing pressure on nations and retarding their emancipation and development,
based on their own ideological, political, economic and cultural ideas, the
conference declares its unreserved support to the countries that are seeking to
secure the elimination of foreign bases from their territory and calls upon all
states maintaining troops and bases in other countries to remove them
immediately. The conference considers that the maintenance at Guantánamo
(Cuba) of a military base of the United States of America, in defiance of the will
of the government and people of Cuba and in defiance of the provisions
embodied in the declaration of the Belgrade conference, constitutes a violation of
Cuba's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Noting that the Cuban Government expresses its readiness to settle its
dispute over the base at Guantánamo with the United States of America on an
equal footing, the conference urges the U.S. Government to open negotiations
with the Cuban Government to evacuate their base.
The government of the United States has not responded to this request of the Cairo
conference and is attempting to maintain indefinitely by force its occupation of a piece of
our territory, from which it carries out acts of aggression such as those detailed earlier.
The Organization of American States — which the people also call the U.S. Ministry of
Colonies — condemned us “energetically,” even though it had just excluded us from its
midst, ordering its members to break off diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba. The
OAS authorized aggression against our country at any time and under any pretext,
violating the most fundamental international laws, completely disregarding the United
Nations. Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile and Mexico opposed that measure, and the government
of the United States of Mexico refused to comply with the sanctions that had been
approved. Since then we have had no relations with any Latin American countries
except Mexico, and this fulfills one of the necessary conditions for direct aggression by
imperialism.
We want to make clear once again that our concern for Latin America is based on the
ties that unite us: the language we speak, the culture we maintain, and the common
master we had. We have no other reason for desiring the liberation of Latin America
from the U.S. colonial yoke. If any of the Latin American countries here decide to
reestablish relations with Cuba, we would be willing to do so on the basis of equality,
and without viewing that recognition of Cuba as a free country in the world to be a gift to
our government. We won that recognition with our blood in the days of the liberation
struggle. We acquired it with our blood in the defense of our shores against the Yankee
invasion.
Although we reject any accusations against us of interference in the internal affairs of
other countries, we cannot deny that we sympathize with those people who strive for
their freedom. We must fulfill the obligation of our government and people to state
clearly and categorically to the world that we morally support and stand in solidarity with
peoples who struggle anywhere in the world to make a reality of the rights of full
sovereignty proclaimed in the UN Charter.
It is the United States that intervenes. It has done so historically in Latin America.
Since the end of the last century Cuba has experienced this truth; but it has been
experienced, too, by Venezuela, Nicaragua, Central America in general, Mexico, Haiti
and the Dominican Republic. In recent years, apart from our people, Panama has
experienced direct aggression, where the marines in the Canal Zone opened fire in cold
blood against the defenseless people; the Dominican Republic, whose coast was
violated by the Yankee fleet to avoid an outbreak of the just fury of the people after the
death of Trujillo; and Colombia, whose capital was taken by assault as a result of a
rebellion provoked by the assassination of Gaitán [leftist presidential candidate]. Covert
interventions are carried out through military missions that participate in internal
repression, organizing forces designed for that purpose in many countries, and also in
coups d'état, which have been repeated so frequently on the Latin American continent
during recent years. Concretely, U.S. forces intervened in the repression of the peoples
of Venezuela, Colombia and Guatemala, who fought with weapons for their freedom. In
Venezuela, not only do U.S. forces advise the army and the police, but they also direct
acts of genocide carried out from the air against the peasant population in vast insurgent
areas. And the Yankee companies operating there exert pressures of every kind to
increase direct interference. The imperialists are preparing to repress the peoples of the
Americas and are establishing an International of Crime.
The United States intervenes in Latin America invoking the defense of free
institutions. The time will come when this Assembly will acquire greater maturity and
demand of the U.S. Government guarantees for the life of the blacks and Latin
Americans who live in that country, most of them U.S. citizens by origin or adoption.
Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the
color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them,
and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate
rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of
freedom? We understand that today the Assembly is not in a position to ask for
explanations of these acts. It must be clearly established, however, that the government
of the United States is not the champion of freedom, but rather the perpetrator of
exploitation and oppression against the peoples of the world and against a large part of
its own population.
To the ambiguous language with which some delegates have described the case of
Cuba and the OAS, we reply with clear-cut words and we proclaim that the peoples of
Latin America will make those servile, sell-out governments pay for their treason.
Cuba, distinguished delegates, a free and sovereign state with no chains binding it to
anyone, with no foreign investments on its territory, with no proconsuls directing its
policy, can speak with its head held high in this Assembly and can demonstrate the
justice of the phrase by which it has been baptized: “Free Territory of the Americas.”Our
example will bear fruit in the continent, as it is already doing to a certain extent in
Guatemala, Colombia and Venezuela.
There is no small enemy nor insignificant force, because no longer are there isolated
peoples. As the Second Declaration of Havana states:
No nation in Latin America is weak — because each forms part of a family of
200 million brothers, who suffer the same miseries, who harbor the same
sentiments, who have the same enemy, who dream about the same better
future, and who count upon the solidarity of all honest men and women
throughout the world...
This epic before us is going to be written by the hungry Indian masses, the
peasants without land, the exploited workers. It is going to be written by the
progressive masses, the honest and brilliant intellectuals, who so greatly abound
in our suffering Latin American lands. Struggles of masses and ideas. An epic
that will be carried forward by our peoples, mistreated and scorned by
imperialism; our people, unreckoned with until today, who are now beginning to
shake off their slumber. Imperialism considered us a weak and submissive flock;
and now it begins to be terrified of that flock; a gigantic flock of 200 million Latin
Americans in whom Yankee monopoly capitalism now sees its gravediggers...
But now from one end of the continent to the other they are signaling with
clarity that the hour has come — the hour of their vindication. Now this
anonymous mass, this America of color, somber, taciturn America, which all over
the continent sings with the same sadness and disillusionment, now this mass is
beginning to enter definitively into its own history, is beginning to write it with its
own blood, is beginning to suffer and die for it.
Because now in the mountains and fields of America, on its flatlands and in its
jungles, in the wilderness or in the traffic of cities, on the banks of its great
oceans or rivers, this world is beginning to tremble. Anxious hands are stretched
forth, ready to die for what is theirs, to win those rights that were laughed at by
one and all for 500 years. Yes, now history will have to take the poor of America
into account, the exploited and spurned of America, who have decided to begin
writing their history for themselves for all time. Already they can be seen on the
roads, on foot, day after day, in endless march of hundreds of kilometers to the
governmental “eminences,” there to obtain their rights.
Already they can be seen armed with stones, sticks, machetes, in one
direction and another, each day, occupying lands, sinking hooks into the land
that belongs to them and defending it with their lives. They can be seen carrying
signs, slogans, flags; letting them flap in the mountain or prairie winds. And the
wave of anger, of demands for justice, of claims for rights trampled underfoot,
which is beginning to sweep the lands of Latin America, will not stop. That wave
will swell with every passing day. For that wave is composed of the greatest
number, the majorities in every respect, those whose labor amasses the wealth
and turns the wheels of history. Now they are awakening from the long,
brutalizing sleep to which they had been subjected.
For this great mass of humanity has said, “Enough!” and has begun to march.
And their march of giants will not be halted until they conquer true independence
— for which they have vainly died more than once. Today, however, those who
die will die like the Cubans at Playa Girón [the Bay of Pigs]. They will die for their
own true and never-to-be-surrendered independence.
All this, distinguished delegates, this new will of a whole continent, of Latin America, is
made manifest in the cry proclaimed daily by our masses as the irrefutable expression of
their decision to fight and to paralyze the armed hand of the invader. It is a cry that has
the understanding and support of all the peoples of the world and especially of the
socialist camp, headed by the Soviet Union.
That cry is: Patria o muerte! [Homeland or death]
DOCUMENT 79: MALCOLM X, "THE BALLOT OR THE
BULLET" SPEECH, CLEVELAND, OHIO, APRIL 3, 1964
Mr. Moderator, Brother Lomax, brothers and sisters, friends and enemies: I just can't believe
everyone in here is a friend, and I don't want to leave anybody out. The question tonight, as I
understand it, is "The Negro Revolt, and Where Do We Go From Here?" or What Next?" In my
little humble way of understanding it, it points toward either the ballot or the bullet.
Before we try and explain what is meant by the ballot or the bullet, I would like to clarify
something concerning myself. I'm still a Muslim; my religion is still Islam. That's my personal
belief. Just as Adam Clayton Powell is a Christian minister who heads the Abyssinian Baptist
Church in New York, but at the same time takes part in the political struggles to try and bring
about rights to the black people in this country; and Dr. Martin Luther King is a Christian minister
down in Atlanta, Georgia, who heads another organization fighting for the civil rights of black
people in this country; and Reverend Galamison, I guess you've heard of him, is another
Christian minister in New York who has been deeply involved in the school boycotts to eliminate
segregated education; well, I myself am a minister, not a Christian minister, but a Muslim
minister; and I believe in action on all fronts by whatever means necessary.
Although I'm still a Muslim, I'm not here tonight to discuss my religion. I'm not here to try and
change your religion. I'm not here to argue or discuss anything that we differ about, because it's
time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have
the same problem, a common problem, a problem that will make you catch hell whether you're a
Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Muslim, or a nationalist. Whether you're educated or illiterate,
whether you live on the boulevard or in the alley, you're going to catch hell just like I am. We're
all in the same boat and we all are going to catch the same hell from the same man. He just
happens to be a white man. All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at
the hands of the white man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social
degradation at the hands of the white man.
Now in speaking like this, it doesn't mean that we're anti-white, but it does mean we're antiexploitation, we're anti-degradation, we're anti-oppression. And if the white man doesn't want us
to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us. Whether we are
Christians or Muslims or nationalists or agnostics or atheists, we must first learn to forget our
differences. If we have differences, let us differ in the closet; when we come out in front, let us
not have anything to argue about until we get finished arguing with the man. If the late President
Kennedy could get together with Khrushchev and exchange some wheat, we certainly have
more in common with each other than Kennedy and Khrushchev had with each other.
If we don't do something real soon, I think you'll have to agree that we're going to be forced
either to use the ballot or the bullet. It's one or the other in 1964. It isn't that time is running out -time has run out!
1964 threatens to be the most explosive year America has ever witnessed. The most explosive
year. Why? It's also a political year. It's the year when all of the white politicians will be back in
the so-called Negro community jiving you and me for some votes. The year when all of the white
political crooks will be right back in your and my community with their false promises, building
up our hopes for a letdown, with their trickery and their treachery, with their false promises
which they don't intend to keep. As they nourish these dissatisfactions, it can only lead to one
thing, an explosion; and now we have the type of black man on the scene in America today -I'm sorry, Brother Lomax -- who just doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer.
Don't let anybody tell you anything about the odds are against you. If they draft you, they send
you to Korea and make you face 800 million Chinese. If you can be brave over there, you can
be brave right here. These odds aren't as great as those odds. And if you fight here, you will at
least know what you're fighting for.
I'm not a politician, not even a student of politics; in fact, I'm not a student of much of anything.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican, and I don't even consider myself an American. If you
and I were Americans, there'd be no problem. Those Honkies that just got off the boat, they're
already Americans; Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans.
Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American. And as long
as you and I have been over here, we aren't Americans yet.
Well, I am one who doesn't believe in deluding myself. I'm not going to sit at your table and
watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't
make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't
make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American. Why, if
birth made you American, you wouldn't need any legislation; you wouldn't need any
amendments to the Constitution; you wouldn't be faced with civil-rights filibustering in
Washington, D.C., right now. They don't have to pass civil-rights legislation to make a Polack an
American.
No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of
Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but
disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a
flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I
see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American
nightmare.
These 22 million victims are waking up. Their eyes are coming open. They're beginning to see
what they used to only look at. They're becoming politically mature. They are realizing that there
are new political trends from coast to coast. As they see these new political trends, it's possible
for them to see that every time there's an election the races are so close that they have to have
a recount. They had to recount in Massachusetts to see who was going to be governor, it was
so close. It was the same way in Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and in many other parts of the
country. And the same with Kennedy and Nixon when they ran for president. It was so close
they had to count all over again. Well, what does this mean? It means that when white people
are evenly divided, and black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to
determine who's going to sit in the White House and who's going to be in the dog house.
lt. was the black man's vote that put the present administration in Washington, D.C. Your vote,
your dumb vote, your ignorant vote, your wasted vote put in an administration in Washington,
D.C., that has seen fit to pass every kind of legislation imaginable, saving you until last, then
filibustering on top of that. And your and my leaders have the audacity to run around clapping
their hands and talk about how much progress we're making. And what a good president we
have. If he wasn't good in Texas, he sure can't be good in Washington, D.C. Because Texas is
a lynch state. It is in the same breath as Mississippi, no different; only they lynch you in Texas
with a Texas accent and lynch you in Mississippi with a Mississippi accent. And these Negro
leaders have the audacity to go and have some coffee in the White House with a Texan, a
Southern cracker -- that's all he is -- and then come out and tell you and me that he's going to
be better for us because, since he's from the South, he knows how to deal with the Southerners.
What kind of logic is that? Let Eastland be president, he's from the South too. He should be
better able to deal with them than Johnson.
In this present administration they have in the House of Representatives 257 Democrats to only
177 Republicans. They control two-thirds of the House vote. Why can't they pass something
that will help you and me? In the Senate, there are 67 senators who are of the Democratic
Party. Only 33 of them are Republicans. Why, the Democrats have got the government sewed
up, and you're the one who sewed it up for them. And what have they given you for it? Four
years in office, and just now getting around to some civil-rights legislation. Just now, after
everything else is gone, out of the way, they're going to sit down now and play with you all
summer long -- the same old giant con game that they call filibuster. All those are in cahoots
together. Don't you ever think they're not in cahoots together, for the man that is heading the
civil-rights filibuster is a man from Georgia named Richard Russell. When Johnson became
president, the first man he asked for when he got back to Washington, D.C., was "Dicky" -that's how tight they are. That's his boy, that's his pal, that's his buddy. But they're playing that
old con game. One of them makes believe he's for you, and he's got it fixed where the other one
is so tight against you, he never has to keep his promise.
So it's time in 1964 to wake up. And when you see them coming up with that kind of conspiracy,
let them know your eyes are open. And let them know you -- something else that's wide open
too. It's got to be the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet. If you're afraid to use an
expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get back in the cotton
patch; you should get back in the alley. They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the
Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big
Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's
camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to knock out the
Democrats for the Republicans. We'll get to them in a minute. But it is true; you put the
Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.
Look at it the way it is. What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate?
What alibi do they use when you and I ask, "Well, when are you going to keep your promise?"
They blame the Dixiecrats. What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a
Democrat in disguise. The titular head of the Democrats is also the head of the Dixiecrats,
because the Dixiecrats are a part of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never kicked
the Dixiecrats out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once, but the Democrats didn't
put them out. Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists put the Northern Democrats
down. But the Northern Democrats have never put the Dixiecrats down. No, look at that thing
the way it is. They have got a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the
middle. It's time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to
understand it like it is; and then we can deal with it like it is.
The Dixiecrats in Washington, D.C., control the key committees that run the government. The
only reason the Dixiecrats control these committees is because they have seniority. The only
reason they have seniority is because they come from states where Negroes can't vote. This is
not even a government that's based on democracy. lt. is not a government that is made up of
representatives of the people. Half of the people in the South can't even vote. Eastland is not
even supposed to be in Washington. Half of the senators and congressmen who occupy these
key positions in Washington, D.C., are there illegally, are there unconstitutionally.
I was in Washington, D.C., a week ago Thursday, when they were debating whether or not they
should let the bill come onto the floor. And in the back of the room where the Senate meets,
there's a huge map of the United States, and on that map it shows the location of Negroes
throughout the country. And it shows that the Southern section of the country, the states that are
most heavily concentrated with Negroes, are the ones that have senators and congressmen
standing up filibustering and doing all other kinds of trickery to keep the Negro from being able
to vote. This is pitiful. But it's not pitiful for us any longer; it's actually pitiful for the white man,
because soon now, as the Negro awakens a little more and sees the vise that he's in, sees the
bag that he's in, sees the real game that he's in, then the Negro's going to develop a new tactic.
These senators and congressmen actually violate the constitutional amendments that guarantee
the people of that particular state or county the right to vote. And the Constitution itself has
within it the machinery to expel any representative from a state where the voting rights of the
people are violated. You don't even need new legislation. Any person in Congress right now,
who is there from a state or a district where the voting rights of the people are violated, that
particular person should be expelled from Congress. And when you expel him, you've removed
one of the obstacles in the path of any real meaningful legislation in this country. In fact, when
you expel them, you don't need new legislation, because they will be replaced by black
representatives from counties and districts where the black man is in the majority, not in the
minority.
If the black man in these Southern states had his full voting rights, the key Dixiecrats in
Washington, D. C., which means the key Democrats in Washington, D.C., would lose their
seats. The Democratic Party itself would lose its power. It would cease to be powerful as a
party. When you see the amount of power that would be lost by the Democratic Party if it were
to lose the Dixiecrat wing, or branch, or element, you can see where it's against the interests of
the Democrats to give voting rights to Negroes in states where the Democrats have been in
complete power and authority ever since the Civil War. You just can't belong to that Party
without analyzing it.
I say again, I'm not anti-Democrat, I'm not anti-Republican, I'm not anti-anything. I'm just
questioning their sincerity, and some of the strategy that they've been using on our people by
promising them promises that they don't intend to keep. When you keep the Democrats in
power, you're keeping the Dixiecrats in power. I doubt that my good Brother Lomax will deny
that. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for a Dixiecrat. That's why, in 1964, it's time now for you
and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we're
supposed to get when we cast a ballot; and that if we don't cast a ballot, it's going to end up in a
situation where we're going to have to cast a bullet. It's either a ballot or a bullet.
In the North, they do it a different way. They have a system that's known as gerrymandering,
whatever that means. It means when Negroes become too heavily concentrated in a certain
area, and begin to gain too much political power, the white man comes along and changes the
district lines. You may say, "Why do you keep saying white man?" Because it's the white man
who does it. I haven't ever seen any Negro changing any lines. They don't let him get near the
line. It's the white man who does this. And usually, it's the white man who grins at you the most,
and pats you on the back, and is supposed to be your friend. He may be friendly, but he's not
your friend.
So, what I'm trying to impress upon you, in essence, is this: You and I in America are faced not
with a segregationist conspiracy, we're faced with a government conspiracy. Everyone who's
filibustering is a senator -- that's the government. Everyone who's finagling in Washington, D.C.,
is a congressman -- that's the government. You don't have anybody putting blocks in your path
but people who are a part of the government. The same government that you go abroad to fight
for and die for is the government that is in a conspiracy to deprive you of your voting rights,
deprive you of your economic opportunities, deprive you of decent housing, deprive you of
decent education. You don't need to go to the employer alone, it is the government itself, the
government of America, that is responsible for the oppression and exploitation and degradation
of black people in this country. And you should drop it in their lap. This government has failed
the Negro. This so-called democracy has failed the Negro. And all these white liberals have
definitely failed the Negro.
So, where do we go from here? First, we need some friends. We need some new allies. The
entire civil-rights struggle needs a new interpretation, a broader interpretation. We need to look
at this civil-rights thing from another angle -- from the inside as well as from the outside. To
those of us whose philosophy is black nationalism, the only way you can get involved in the
civil-rights struggle is give it a new interpretation. That old interpretation excluded us. It kept us
out. So, we're giving a new interpretation to the civil-rights struggle, an interpretation that will
enable us to come into it, take part in it. And these handkerchief-heads who have been
dillydallying and pussy footing and compromising -- we don't intend to let them pussyfoot and
dillydally and compromise any longer.
How can you thank a man for giving you what's already yours? How then can you thank him for
giving you only part of what's already yours? You haven't even made progress, if what's being
given to you, you should have had already. That's not progress. And I love my Brother Lomax,
the way he pointed out we're right back where we were in 1954. We're not even as far up as we
were in 1954. We're behind where we were in 1954. There's more segregation now than there
was in 1954. There's more racial animosity, more racial hatred, more racial violence today in
1964, than there was in 1954. Where is the progress?
And now you're facing a situation where the young Negro's coming up. They don't want to hear
that "turn the-other-cheek" stuff, no. In Jacksonville, those were teenagers, they were throwing
Molotov cocktails. Negroes have never done that before. But it shows you there's a new deal
coming in. There's new thinking coming in. There's new strategy coming in. It'll be Molotov
cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. It'll be ballots,
or it'll be bullets. It'll be liberty, or it will be death. The only difference about this kind of death -it'll be reciprocal. You know what is meant by "reciprocal"? That's one of Brother Lomax's words.
I stole it from him. I don't usually deal with those big words because I don't usually deal with big
people. I deal with small people. I find you can get a whole lot of small people and whip hell out
of a whole lot of big people. They haven't got anything to lose, and they've got every thing to
gain. And they'll let you know in a minute: "It takes two to tango; when I go, you go."
The black nationalists, those whose philosophy is black nationalism, in bringing about this new
interpretation of the entire meaning of civil rights, look upon it as meaning, as Brother Lomax
has pointed out, equality of opportunity. Well, we're justified in seeking civil rights, if it means
equality of opportunity, because all we're doing there is trying to collect for our investment. Our
mothers and fathers invested sweat and blood. Three hundred and ten years we worked in this
country without a dime in return -- I mean without a dime in return. You let the white man walk
around here talking about how rich this country is, but you never stop to think how it got rich so
quick. It got rich because you made it rich.
You take the people who are in this audience right now. They're poor. We're all poor as
individuals. Our weekly salary individually amounts to hardly anything. But if you take the salary
of everyone in here collectively, it'll fill up a whole lot of baskets. It's a lot of wealth. If you can
collect the wages of just these people right here for a year, you'll be rich -- richer than rich.
When you look at it like that, think how rich Uncle Sam had to become, not with this handful, but
millions of black people. Your and my mother and father, who didn't work an eight-hour shift, but
worked from "can't see" in the morning until "can't see" at night, and worked for nothing, making
the white man rich, making Uncle Sam rich. This is our investment. This is our contribution, our
blood.
Not only did we give of our free labor, we gave of our blood. Every time he had a call to arms,
we were the first ones in uniform. We died on every battlefield the white man had. We have
made a greater sacrifice than anybody who's standing up in America today. We have made a
greater contribution and have collected less. Civil rights, for those of us whose philosophy is
black nationalism, means: "Give it to us now. Don't wait for next year. Give it to us yesterday,
and that's not fast enough."
I might stop right here to point out one thing. Whenever you're going after something that
belongs to you, anyone who's depriving you of the right to have it is a criminal. Understand that.
Whenever you are going after something that is yours, you are within your legal rights to lay
claim to it. And anyone who puts forth any effort to deprive you of that which is yours, is
breaking the law, is a criminal. And this was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision. It
outlawed segregation.
Which means segregation is against the law. Which means a segregationist is breaking the law.
A segregationist is a criminal. You can't label him as anything other than that. And when you
demonstrate against segregation, the law is on your side. The Supreme Court is on your side.
Now, who is it that opposes you in carrying out the law? The police department itself. With
police dogs and clubs. Whenever you demonstrate against segregation, whether it is
segregated education, segregated housing, or anything else, the law is on your side, and
anyone who stands in the way is not the law any longer. They are breaking the law; they are not
representatives of the law. Any time you demonstrate against segregation and a man has the
audacity to put a police dog on you, kill that dog, kill him, I'm telling you, kill that dog. I say it, if
they put me in jail tomorrow, kill that dog. Then you'll put a stop to it. Now, if these white people
in here don't want to see that kind of action, get down and tell the mayor to tell the police
department to pull the dogs in. That's all you have to do. If you don't do it, someone else will.
If you don't take this kind of stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think
"shame." If you don't take an uncompromising stand, I don't mean go out and get violent; but at
the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm
nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then
you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do. And that's the way every
Negro should get. Any time you know you're within the law, within your legal rights, within your
moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in. But don't die alone. Let your
dying be reciprocal. This is what is meant by equality. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander.
When we begin to get in this area, we need new friends, we need new allies. We need to
expand the civil-rights struggle to a higher level -- to the level of human rights. Whenever you
are in a civil-rights struggle, whether you know it or not, you are confining yourself to the
jurisdiction of Uncle Sam. No one from the outside world can speak out in your behalf as long as
your struggle is a civil-rights struggle. Civil rights comes within the domestic affairs of this
country. All of our African brothers and our Asian brothers and our Latin-American brothers
cannot open their mouths and interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States. And as long
as it's civil rights, this comes under the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam.
But the United Nations has what's known as the charter of human rights; it has a committee that
deals in human rights. You may wonder why all of the atrocities that have been committed in
Africa and in Hungary and in Asia, and in Latin America are brought before the UN, and the
Negro problem is never brought before the UN. This is part of the conspiracy. This old, tricky
blue eyed liberal who is supposed to be your and my friend, supposed to be in our corner,
supposed to be subsidizing our struggle, and supposed to be acting in the capacity of an
adviser, never tells you anything about human rights. They keep you wrapped up in civil rights.
And you spend so much time barking up the civil-rights tree, you don't even know there's a
human-rights tree on the same floor.
When you expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights, you can then take the
case of the black man in this country before the nations in the UN. You can take it before the
General Assembly. You can take Uncle Sam before a world court. But the only level you can do
it on is the level of human rights. Civil rights keeps you under his restrictions, under his
jurisdiction. Civil rights keeps you in his pocket. Civil rights means you're asking Uncle Sam to
treat you right. Human rights are something you were born with. Human rights are your Godgiven rights. Human rights are the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth. And any
time any one violates your human rights, you can take them to the world court.
Uncle Sam's hands are dripping with blood, dripping with the blood of the black man in this
country. He's the earth's number-one hypocrite. He has the audacity -- yes, he has -- imagine
him posing as the leader of the free world. The free world! And you over here singing "We Shall
Overcome." Expand the civil-rights struggle to the level of human rights. Take it into the United
Nations, where our African brothers can throw their weight on our side, where our Asian
brothers can throw their weight on our side, where our Latin-American brothers can throw their
weight on our side, and where 800 million Chinamen are sitting there waiting to throw their
weight on our side.
Let the world know how bloody his hands are. Let the world know the hypocrisy that's practiced
over here. Let it be the ballot or the bullet. Let him know that it must be the ballot or the bullet.
When you take your case to Washington, D.C., you're taking it to the criminal who's responsible;
it's like running from the wolf to the fox. They're all in cahoots together. They all work political
chicanery and make you look like a chump before the eyes of the world. Here you are walking
around in America, getting ready to be drafted and sent abroad, like a tin soldier, and when you
get over there, people ask you what are you fighting for, and you have to stick your tongue in
your cheek. No, take Uncle Sam to court, take him before the world.
By ballot I only mean freedom. Don't you know -- I disagree with Lomax on this issue -- that the
ballot is more important than the dollar? Can I prove it? Yes. Look in the UN. There are poor
nations in the UN; yet those poor nations can get together with their voting power and keep the
rich nations from making a move. They have one nation -- one vote, everyone has an equal
vote. And when those brothers from Asia, and Africa and the darker parts of this earth get
together, their voting power is sufficient to hold Sam in check. Or Russia in check. Or some
other section of the earth in check. So, the ballot is most important.
Right now, in this country, if you and I, 22 million African-Americans -- that's what we are -Africans who are in America. You're nothing but Africans. Nothing but Africans. In fact, you'd get
farther calling yourself African instead of Negro. Africans don't catch hell. You're the only one
catching hell. They don't have to pass civil-rights bills for Africans. An African can go anywhere
he wants right now. All you've got to do is tie your head up. That's right, go anywhere you want.
Just stop being a Negro. Change your name to Hoogagagooba. That'll show you how silly the
white man is. You're dealing with a silly man. A friend of mine who's very dark put a turban on
his head and went into a restaurant in Atlanta before they called themselves desegregated. He
went into a white restaurant, he sat down, they served him, and he said, "What would happen if
a Negro came in here? And there he's sitting, black as night, but because he had his head
wrapped up the waitress looked back at him and says, "Why, there wouldn't no nigger dare
come in here."
So, you're dealing with a man whose bias and prejudice are making him lose his mind, his
intelligence, every day. He's frightened. He looks around and sees what's taking place on this
earth, and he sees that the pendulum of time is swinging in your direction. The dark people are
waking up. They're losing their fear of the white man. No place where he's fighting right now is
he winning. Everywhere he's fighting, he's fighting someone your and my complexion. And
they're beating him. He can't win any more. He's won his last battle. He failed to win the Korean
War. He couldn't win it. He had to sign a truce. That's a loss.
Any time Uncle Sam, with all his machinery for warfare, is held to a draw by some rice eaters,
he's lost the battle. He had to sign a truce. America's not supposed to sign a truce. She's
supposed to be bad. But she's not bad any more. She's bad as long as she can use her
hydrogen bomb, but she can't use hers for fear Russia might use hers. Russia can't use hers,
for fear that Sam might use his. So, both of them are weapon-less. They can't use the weapon
because each's weapon nullifies the other's. So the only place where action can take place is on
the ground. And the white man can't win another war fighting on the ground. Those days are
over The black man knows it, the brown man knows it, the red man knows it, and the yellow
man knows it. So they engage him in guerrilla warfare. That's not his style. You've got to have
heart to be a guerrilla warrior, and he hasn't got any heart. I'm telling you now.
I just want to give you a little briefing on guerrilla warfare because, before you know it, before
you know it. It takes heart to be a guerrilla warrior because you're on your own. In conventional
warfare you have tanks and a whole lot of other people with you to back you up -- planes over
your head and all that kind of stuff. But a guerrilla is on his own. All you have is a rifle, some
sneakers and a bowl of rice, and that's all you need -- and a lot of heart. The Japanese on some
of those islands in the Pacific, when the American soldiers landed, one Japanese sometimes
could hold the whole army off. He'd just wait until the sun went down, and when the sun went
down they were all equal. He would take his little blade and slip from bush to bush, and from
American to American. The white soldiers couldn't cope with that. Whenever you see a white
soldier that fought in the Pacific, he has the shakes, he has a nervous condition, because they
scared him to death.
The same thing happened to the French up in French Indochina. People who just a few years
previously were rice farmers got together and ran the heavily-mechanized French army out of
Indochina. You don't need it -- modern warfare today won't work. This is the day of the guerrilla.
They did the same thing in Algeria. Algerians, who were nothing but Bedouins, took a rine and
sneaked off to the hills, and de Gaulle and all of his highfalutin' war machinery couldn't defeat
those guerrillas. Nowhere on this earth does the white man win in a guerrilla warfare. It's not his
speed. Just as guerrilla warfare is prevailing in Asia and in parts of Africa and in parts of Latin
America, you've got to be mighty naive, or you've got to play the black man cheap, if you don't
think some day he's going to wake up and find that it's got to be the ballot or the bullet.
l would like to say, in closing, a few things concerning the Muslim Mosque, Inc., which we
established recently in New York City. It's true we're Muslims and our religion is Islam, but we
don't mix our religion with our politics and our economics and our social and civil activities -- not
any more We keep our religion in our mosque. After our religious services are over, then as
Muslims we become involved in political action, economic action and social and civic action. We
become involved with anybody, any where, any time and in any manner that's designed to
eliminate the evils, the political, economic and social evils that are afflicting the people of our
community.
The political philosophy of black nationalism means that the black man should control the
politics and the politicians in his own community; no more. The black man in the black
community has to be re-educated into the science of politics so he will know what politics is
supposed to bring him in return. Don't be throwing out any ballots. A ballot is like a bullet. You
don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep
your ballot in your pocket.
The political philosophy of black nationalism is being taught in the Christian church. It's being
taught in the NAACP. It's being taught in CORE meetings. It's being taught in SNCC Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee meetings. It's being taught in Muslim meetings. It's being
taught where nothing but atheists and agnostics come together. It's being taught everywhere.
Black people are fed up with the dillydallying, pussyfooting, compromising approach that we've
been using toward getting our freedom. We want freedom now, but we're not going to get it
saying "We Shall Overcome." We've got to fight until we overcome.
The economic philosophy of black nationalism is pure and simple. It only means that we should
control the economy of our community. Why should white people be running all the stores in our
community? Why should white people be running the banks of our community? Why should the
economy of our community be in the hands of the white man? Why? If a black man can't move
his store into a white community, you tell me why a white man should move his store into a
black community. The philosophy of black nationalism involves a re-education program in the
black community in regards to economics. Our people have to be made to see that any time you
take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don't live, the
community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your
money will get richer and richer.
Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I
are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man
has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at
sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere. He's got us in a
vise.
So the economic philosophy of black nationalism means in every church, in every civic
organization, in every fraternal order, it's time now for our people to be come conscious of the
importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the
businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we're developing
to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind. Once you gain control of the
economy of your own community, then you don't have to picket and boycott and beg some
cracker downtown for a job in his business.
The social philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to get together and remove
the evils, the vices, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other evils that are destroying the moral
fiber of our community. We our selves have to lift the level of our community, the standard of our
community to a higher level, make our own society beautiful so that we will be satisfied in our
own social circles and won't be running around here trying to knock our way into a social circle
where we're not wanted. So I say, in spreading a gospel such as black nationalism, it is not
designed to make the black man re-evaluate the white man -- you know him already -- but to
make the black man re-evaluate himself. Don't change the white man's mind -- you can't change
his mind, and that whole thing about appealing to the moral conscience of America -- America's
conscience is bankrupt. She lost all conscience a long time ago. Uncle Sam has no conscience.
They don't know what morals are. They don't try and eliminate an evil because it's evil, or
because it's illegal, or because it's immoral; they eliminate it only when it threatens their
existence. So you're wasting your time appealing to the moral conscience of a bankrupt man
like Uncle Sam. If he had a conscience, he'd straighten this thing out with no more pressure
being put upon him. So it is not necessary to change the white man's mind. We have to change
our own mind. You can't change his mind about us. We've got to change our own minds about
each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers
and sisters. We have to come together with warmth so we can develop unity and harmony that's
necessary to get this problem solved ourselves. How can we do this? How can we avoid
jealousy? How can we avoid the suspicion and the divisions that exist in the community? I'll tell
you how.
I have watched how Billy Graham comes into a city, spreading what he calls the gospel of
Christ, which is only white nationalism. That's what he is. Billy Graham is a white nationalist; I'm
a black nationalist. But since it's the natural tendency for leaders to be jealous and look upon a
powerful figure like Graham with suspicion and envy, how is it possible for him to come into a
city and get all the cooperation of the church leaders? Don't think because they're church
leaders that they don't have weaknesses that make them envious and jealous -- no, everybody's
got it. It's not an accident that when they want to choose a cardinal, as Pope I over there in
Rome, they get in a closet so you can't hear them cussing and fighting and carrying on.
Billy Graham comes in preaching the gospel of Christ. He evangelizes the gospel. He stirs
everybody up, but he never tries to start a church. If he came in trying to start a church, all the
churches would be against him. So, he just comes in talking about Christ and tells everybody
who gets Christ to go to any church where Christ is; and in this way the church cooperates with
him. So we're going to take a page from his book.
Our gospel is black nationalism. We're not trying to threaten the existence of any organization,
but we're spreading the gospel of black nationalism. Anywhere there's a church that is also
preaching and practicing the gospel of black nationalism, join that church. If the NAACP is
preaching and practicing the gospel of black nationalism, join the NAACP. If CORE is spreading
and practicing the gospel of black nationalism, join CORE. Join any organization that has a
gospel that's for the uplift of the black man. And when you get into it and see them pussyfooting
or compromising, pull out of it because that's not black nationalism. We'll find another one.
And in this manner, the organizations will increase in number and in quantity and in quality, and
by August, it is then our intention to have a black nationalist convention which will consist of
delegates from all over the country who are interested in the political, economic and social
philosophy of black nationalism. After these delegates convene, we will hold a seminar; we will
hold discussions; we will listen to everyone. We want to hear new ideas and new solutions and
new answers. And at that time, if we see fit then to form a black nationalist party, we'll form a
black nationalist party. If it's necessary to form a black nationalist army, we'll form a black
nationalist army. It'll be the ballot or the bullet. It'll be liberty or it'll be death.
It's time for you and me to stop sitting in this country, letting some cracker senators, Northern
crackers and Southern crackers, sit there in Washington, D.C., and come to a conclusion in
their mind that you and I are supposed to have civil rights. There's no white man going to tell me
anything about my rights. Brothers and sisters, always remember, if it doesn't take senators and
congressmen and presidential proclamations to give freedom to the white man, it is not
necessary for legislation or proclamation or Supreme Court decisions to give freedom to the
black man. You let that white man know, if this is a country of freedom, let it be a country of
freedom; and if it's not a country of freedom, change it.
We will work with anybody, anywhere, at any time, who is genuinely interested in tackling the
problem head-on, nonviolently as long as the enemy is nonviolent, but violent when the enemy
gets violent. We'll work with you on the voter-registration drive, we'll work with you on rent
strikes, we'll work with you on school boycotts; I don't believe in any kind of integration; I'm not
even worried about it, because I know you're not going to get it anyway; you're not going to get
it because you're afraid to die; you've got to be ready to die if you try and force yourself on the
white man, because he'll get just as violent as those crackers in Mississippi, right here in
Cleveland. But we will still work with you on the school boycotts be cause we're against a
segregated school system. A segregated school system produces children who, when they
graduate, graduate with crippled minds. But this does not mean that a school is segregated
because it's all black. A segregated school means a school that is controlled by people who
have no real interest in it whatsoever.
Let me explain what I mean. A segregated district or community is a community in which people
live, but outsiders control the politics and the economy of that community. They never refer to
the white section as a segregated community. It's the all-Negro section that's a segregated
community. Why? The white man controls his own school, his own bank, his own economy, his
own politics, his own everything, his own community; but he also controls yours. When you're
under someone else's control, you're segregated. They'll always give you the lowest or the
worst that there is to offer, but it doesn't mean you're segregated just because you have your
own. You've got to control your own. Just like the white man has control of his, you need to
control yours.
You know the best way to get rid of segregation? The white man is more afraid of separation
than he is of integration. Segregation means that he puts you away from him, but not far enough
for you to be out of his jurisdiction; separation means you're gone. And the white man will
integrate faster than he'll let you separate. So we will work with you against the segregated
school system because it's criminal, because it is absolutely destructive, in every way
imaginable, to the minds of the children who have to be exposed to that type of crippling
education.
Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns.
The only thing that I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either
unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to
defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me
the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This
doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks,
although you'd be within your rights -- I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we
don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and
shotguns, then let the government do its job.
That's all. And don't let the white man come to you and ask you what you think about what
Malcolm says -- why, you old Uncle Tom. He would never ask you if he thought you were going
to say, "Amen!" No, he is making a Tom out of you." So, this doesn't mean forming rifle clubs
and going out looking for people, but it is time, in 1964, if you are a man, to let that man know.
If he's not going to do his job in running the government and providing you and me with the
protection that our taxes are supposed to be for, since he spends all those billions for his
defense budget, he certainly can't begrudge you and me spending $12 or $15 for a single-shot,
or double-action. I hope you understand. Don't go out shooting people, but any time -- brothers
and sisters, and especially the men in this audience; some of you wearing Congressional
Medals of Honor, with shoulders this wide, chests this big, muscles that big -- any time you and I
sit around and read where they bomb a church and murder in cold blood, not some grownups,
but four little girls while they were praying to the same God the white man taught them to pray
to, and you and I see the government go down and can't find who did it.
Why, this man -- he can find Eichmann hiding down in Argentina somewhere. Let two or three
American soldiers, who are minding somebody else's business way over in South Vietnam, get
killed, and he'll send battleships, sticking his nose in their business. He wanted to send troops
down to Cuba and make them have what he calls free elections -- this old cracker who doesn't
have free elections in his own country.
No, if you never see me another time in your life, if I die in the morning, I'll die saying one thing:
the ballot or the bullet, the ballot or the bullet.
If a Negro in 1964 has to sit around and wait for some cracker senator to filibuster when it
comes to the rights of black people, why, you and I should hang our heads in shame. You talk
about a march on Washington in 1963, you haven't seen anything. There's some more going
down in '64.
And this time they're not going like they went last year. They're not going singing ''We Shall
Overcome." They're not going with white friends. They're not going with placards already
painted for them. They're not going with round-trip tickets. They're going with one way tickets.
And if they don't want that non-nonviolent army going down there, tell them to bring the filibuster
to a halt.
The black nationalists aren't going to wait. Lyndon B. Johnson is the head of the Democratic
Party. If he's for civil rights, let him go into the Senate next week and declare himself. Let him go
in there right now and declare himself. Let him go in there and denounce the Southern branch of
his party. Let him go in there right now and take a moral stand -- right now, not later. Tell him,
don't wait until election time. If he waits too long, brothers and sisters, he will be responsible for
letting a condition develop in this country which will create a climate that will bring seeds up out
of the ground with vegetation on the end of them looking like something these people never
dreamed of. In 1964, it's the ballot or the bullet.
Thank you.
Source: http://thespeechsite.com/en/famous/MalcolmX-1.shtml
DOCUMENT 80: “BLACK POWER” ACTIVIST
STOKELY CARMICHAEL ADVOCATES DESTROYING
THE “CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM WHICH ENSLAVES US”
BEFORE A SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE AND DURING A
VISIT TO CUBA IN 1967
[In June 1966, the national chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Stokely Carmichael, first voiced
the slogan “Black Power” during a march in Mississippi. James Meredith initiated the march to protest white resistance, in defiance
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to black voter registration. Meredith was shot and wounded, but other black leaders, including
Martin Luther King, Jr., and Carmichael, continued the march. In conflict with King’s nonviolent philosophy, Carmichael told
marchers in Greenwood, Mississippi, “We have got to get us some black power.” He later explained that the slogan was “a call for
black people in this country to begin to define their own goals, to lead their own organizations.” Carmichael’s rhetoric, influenced by
Malcolm X, signified a growing divide in the civil rights movement between those who encouraged interracial collaboration and those
who advocated black separatism. Carmichael himself left SNCC in 1967 and joined the Black Panther Party. The following
testimony by Carmichael before a Senate subcommittee investigating internal security includes an interview Carmichael recorded
during a visit to Cuba in 1967. Although he advocated an international struggle to end capitalism, the following year Carmichael
announced that “Communism is not an ideology suited for black people.” Carmichael moved to Guinea in 1969, where he changed
his name to Kwame Ture and formed the Pan-Africanist All-African People’s Party. He died in 1998.]
TESTIMONY OF STOKELY CARMICHAEL . . .
Mr. SOURWINE. You were born in Trinidad?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. That is correct, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. When, sir?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. June 1941, according to the records, and my mother.
Mr. SOURWINE. You are a naturalized citizen of the United States?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I am.
Mr. SOURWINE. Naturalized in New York City in 1954?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. And you are a graduate of Howard university?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. That is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. What was your degree?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I received a B.A. majoring in philosophy. I did work in political science, and I
did work in sociology. I carried a double major and a minor in history. And I was an honor
student.
Mr. SOURWINE. Thank you. Do you have any graduate degrees?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Not officially.
Mr. SOURWINE. You are not a man of independent wealth, are you?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I would rather take the first and the fifth on that.
Mr. SOURWINE. I am sorry, I meant nothing by that question except to lead up to this one. Did
you work your way through school? You made your own way through school by your own
efforts, did you not?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I received several scholarships.
Mr. SOURWINE. You earned your scholarships?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. That is all I am trying to get on the record. . . .
Mr. SOURWINE. Are you currently connected with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I would plead the fifth on that.
Mr. SOURWINE. Will you tell us if you were ever connected with the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Yes, I was.
Mr. SOURWINE. In what position, sir?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. In different capacities. I served as field organizer, particularly in Mississippi
and Sunflower County, where Senator James O. Eastland is from. My job then was to organize
my people, Africans living in the United States here who were constitutionally denied the right to
vote, even though they had the basic right to vote, to organize them and try to bring them into a
broadening political modernization so that they would be entitled to the right to vote.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever become a principal officer of SNCC.
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Yes, I did. And I moved up and became chairman of the organization.
Mr. SOURWINE. You would, then, be in a position to know whether that organization was at any
time infiltrated by members of the Communist Party, U.S.A.?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Well, it would depend. Is there some way that I can identify—
Mr. SOURWINE. I am not holding you responsible for knowing all about everybody who ever
joined SNCC.
Mr. Chairman, may I strike the last question?
Let me ask a more direct question.
During the time that you were the head of SNCC, and prior thereto, did you ever have any
personal knowledge of an attempt to infiltrate the organization by the Communist Party, U.S.A.?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I will plead the fifth on that.
Mr. SOURWINE. You have been called the organizer of the Black Panther organization, is that
correct?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I will plead the fifth on that.
Mr. SOURWINE. Have you had any connection with the Black Panther organization?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I will plead the fifth on that.
Mr. SOURWINE. Are you in a position to tell us anything about the source of funds used by the
Black Panther organization?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I will plead the fifth on that. . . .
Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Carmichael, this news story on which you have declined to comment
indicates that you did participate in the signing of a so-called protocol of cooperation with one
Juan Mari Bras, the head of the Movement for Independence of Puerto Rico.
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I don’t—
Mr. SOURWINE. I am not arguing with you, believe me; I do not say that by way of argument.
Do you care to tell us whether it is true that this protocol stated that the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee and the MPI were united “in the vanguard of a common struggle
against U.S. imperialism.”?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. The protocol speaks for itself. But I would say that I never take newspaper
articles as authorities, because myself having been in public, I know how they misquote either
maliciously, or it is sometimes impossible for a journalist to get all of it, and it puts down what he
thinks is said. I have heard statements over the radio or television by journalists, and I am
sometimes shocked as to what they say I have said. So I never accept newspaper articles as
authorities. . . .
Mr. SOURWINE. During the recess, Mr. Chairman, I gave Mr. Carmichael a document of some
14 single-spaced typewritten pages. Did you have an opportunity to complete it?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. No, I did not.
Mr. SOURWINE. This purports to be, Mr. Carmichael, a copy of a broadcast report with respect
to statements made by you in the course of an interview given by you in Havana, Cuba, to one
Mario Menendez, editor of the Mexican magazine Sucesos. Do you recall having given such an
interview?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I plead the fifth.
Mr. SOURWINE. From the portion of this document that you were able to read, are there any
comments that you care to make with respect to it?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. None whatsoever.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you want to have it back to complete reading of it?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. No.
Mr. SOURWINE. Without objection, I ask for the admission of the document. . . .
EXCERPTS OF UNDATED RECORDED INTERVIEW GIVEN BY STOKELY CARMICHAEL TO
MARIO MENENDEZ, EDITOR OF MEXICAN MAGAZINE SUCESOS, DURING
CARMICHAEL’S STAY IN HAVANA
Question. What is the students nonviolent coordinating committee?
Answer. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee is the organization for which I work
and a group of young black people in the United States who decided to come together to fight
racial and economic exploitation.
Question. When and why was it founded?
Answer. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was founded in 1960 by a group of
young black students who felt the need to come together and actively fight against racial
segregation in the United States. They came together because they felt the older organizations
were not doing an effective job and were not actively participating. Most of them were taking
their troubles to the courts and we felt that you could not take a problem of injustice by some
white people to black people to the courts if those courts were again all white. You were taking
an unjust problem to the people who themselves were unjust.
It could not be solved that way. The only way to solve it was in the streets. We used the name
nonviolent because at that time Martin Luther King was the central figure of the black struggle
and he was still preaching nonviolence, and anyone who talked about violence at that time was
considered treasonable—amounting—to treason, so we decided that we would use the name
nonviolent, but in the meantime we knew our struggle was not about to be nonviolent, but we
would just wait until the time was right for the actual (word indistinct) name. We came together,
we would coordinate activities between the students whereever we would have a nonviolent
demonstration.
But after 1 year many of us decided that demonstrations were not the answer. The only answer
was organizing our people. So we moved into the worst State, Mississippi, and began to
organize our people to fight, and we’re now at the front where we are encouraging prople to pick
up arms and fight back.
Question. What are the political, social, and economic goals pursued by your organization?
Answer. Politically, we want black people inside the United States to be free of oppression. We
also want the peoples of the third world to be free from oppression particularly Africa, Asia, and
Latin America. We see that our freedom, our liberation, depends on these people and vice
versa, their liberation depends on us, so we must wage the same struggle.
Politically speaking (words indistinct) inside the United States we want the right to politically
control the communities in which we live. Inside the United States we cannot do that. The
communities in which we live, which they call ghettos, are politically controlled by whites. So in a
real sense, we’re colonials inside the United States, just like colonials in Latin American
countries, or I would say probably all the Latin American countries, with the exception of Cuba,
are controlled politically from the outside by the United States. They are now colonies on the
outside. But politically, we would seek to free those colonies of any political intervention from the
outside.
Economically speaking, we want our people to be able to enjoy a life and to get all the things
they need to have a decent life without having to struggle as hard as they now do because
they’re economically exploited by the imperialist power structure of the United States, just as the
colonies outside are economically able to divide those resources among the people of the—
backward—communities. We do not want to set up, for example, a black capitalist system. We
want to economically destroy capitalism because capitalism goes hand in hand with racism and
exploitation. Wherever capitalism has gone, those two characteristics are sure to follow, racism
and exploitation, so we must destroy the capitalistic system which enslaves us on the inside and
the people of the third world on the outside.
Socially, I guess we want what most people want out of life, where we could have people who
are happy and who are free and who can live a life (? better) than they now live and who could
make the decisions and participate in decisions that affect their lives, and that they would never
feel ashamed of the color of their skin or ashamed of their culture. In order for capitalism to exist
it must make the people they conquer, make them feel ashamed of themselves, ashamed of
their culture. And what we want to do is to make our people not ashamed (word indistinct) so
that they can feel that they’re equal to anybody else, psychologically, physically, and morally.
Question. What are the relations between the colored people of the North and the South,
especially, and in the whole Unites States of America?
Answer. The Black people who are living in the North are first generation people; that is to say,
it is the first generation of Black people that have been born in the North. Most of the people in
the North migrated from the South right after World War II. They migrated from the South
because racial discrimination was the (worst) and most brutal in the South and they were told
that in the North people didn’t care about the color of your skin. It didn’t matter. You could get an
opportunity and good job if you just worked hard.
And we believed that nonsense and packed up our bags and went north. But what we found
when we got north was that life was the same. So the (word indistinct) that we found in the
North was that there’s nowhere in the United States where you can go under the capitalistic
system and enjoy a decent way of life. So that you have now people who do not have hope in
any of the legal systems (words indistinct). So that the relationship has become very strong
because the people from the South no longer look to the North as an escape, and we now see
that the only way that we’re going to get out of our, of the capitalistic system, and get our
liberation is that both of us join hands and see ourselves as one people.
What you have now across the United States is a feeling of solidarity among Black people
wherever we are, and our saying is that when they touch one, they have to touch all. That
saying is more than a slogan because it now has meaning. Every time a racist police dog shoots
one of us they have to fight the entire city, and now it is not only one city, they have to fight
entire cities, so the Black feeling of solidarity is very, very near.
Question. Some persons think the Negroes in the United States only think of the fight as a racial
conflict against the whites instead of interpreting the case as a class struggle. What do you have
to say on this matter?
Answer. Well, that’s very, very important, because inside the United States the racism is so
strong it is almost impossible to get white people to struggle with them, and there are many
reasons for that. Most of the poor whites, the white working class in the United States, when
they organize, their fight is never a fight for the redistribution of land. Their fight is a fight for
more money. All they want is more money. They do not have any concept of the distribution of
wealth because they are so capitalistic in their own approach. So what happens is that the ruling
class of America then begins to exploit other countries in the third world and make more money.
When they get more of those profits, they share those profits with the white working class.
But the ruling class never cuts down on its profits. It makes more, as a matter of fact. Once it
begins to share its profits with the working class, the working class becomes part and parcel of
the capitalistic system and they enjoy blood money. They enjoy the money that is exploiting
other people, so that they are then incapable of fighting the very system, because they become
a part of it by accepting the blood money. So it’s hard to develop a white working class
revolutionary consciousness. What you have then is white people who are fighting to save their
money. . . .
And finally, I think that what people outside the United States recognize is that unlike any other
people, we were the only people who were made slaves inside the continent of the people who
were exploiting us. Other people were slaves in their own countries, so that when they fought
they could develop a nationalistic concept as a point of unity to come together. We were brought
inside the United States, which is the most vicious thing that the United States could have done.
So we cannot develop a nationalistic concept. Our concept must be around our color, because it
was our color around which they decided to make us slaves. . . .
Question. What sort or type of fight will develop in the United States against the imperialist
policy? Do you think that the armed way is [the] only way left for the North American people . . .
to obtain the Government? What is your opinion (replacing) the revolutionary violence with the
reactionary violence?
Answer. When we say that we insist, we say very clearly, that the only solution is black
revolution and that we’re not concerned with peaceful coexistence, armed struggle is the only
way, not only for us but for all oppressed people around the world for a number of reasons.
People who talk about peaceful coexistence are talking about maintaining the status quo
because the only way that you can disrupt an imperialistic system is when you disrupt it by
force. You do not disrupt it with talk. That has been crystal clear to us. It has been crystal clear
to us, especially, because for 400 years the majority of African-Americans inside the United
States have been talking, talking, and talking. And the reason is because when you talk, you
play the imperialist game. They invented the game of talk, and when you talk, you talk in their
language.
But now we have a new game. It’s called guerrilla warfare. They cannot play our game and if
you want to win a game, you’ve got to make the rules. If somebody else makes the rules, they’ll
always win. The imperialists have made the rules of talk, so when you sit down to talk with them
you can’t possibly win. They’ll always find a reason why they can’t do this now, or why they can’t
do it then, and they’ll seem very rational and you will sit there and try to reason with them, on
their grounds, in their terms, but they can’t do that. In the first place, they have no right to
oppress people, so there’s no need to talk about oppression. They have absolutely no right to
oppress and to exploit anybody else, so to begin to talk about freeing yourself from exploitation
and oppression from the people who oppress you, gets to be ridiculous. It’s like a slave sitting
down with a master and talking to his master about when his master is going to let him go free.
That’s nonsense. The master has no business enslaving him. So all the slave has to do is get
up and kill the master if the master refuses to stop enslaving him. That is the only solution.
So it is crystal clear, as far as we’re concerned, armed struggle, that is all, no time for talk. We
have talked and talked and talked and talked for too long. You must disrupt the system by any
means necessary. . . .
It is crystal clear that the West has developed the best system of weapons that they have, but
there is one thing. Weapons can never defeat the will of men to fight and that is precisely where
the world is today. The oppressed people have the will to fight and they’re fighting the people
who oppress them, and they have weapons. A good example of that would be Vietnam where
the United States, with all of its weapons, cannot defeat a little nation as small as Vietnam
because they have the will to fight and they’re willing to fight to the death rather than to let the
United States enslave them. That is very important. . . .
Question. What do you think of guerrilla warfare in the American Continent to obtain its
liberation? What do you think of this sort of fight being developed by the colored people in the
country and cities of the United States of America?
Answer. . . . Urban guerrilla warfare is the one way we will beat the United States because they
cannot use bombs on us, because we are inside their country. They will have to fight us handto-hand combat. We will win, we will win.
The counterpart of that will be in the south, in the country, where we know the land, where we
know the terrain, where we have worked it for years, where the white man is in (word indistinct)
with sweat from us. He has enjoyed us walking all over the country. Well, we’ve walked over it
so much so that when we take to the hills there, he doesn’t know it. He will be unable to find us.
We will (?hit him) again, we will be able to beat him again in guerrilla warfare. The only way that
you can bring men to their knees is through guerrilla warfare because guerrilla warfare is the
one warfare they cannot fight with their big guns and their big bombs. And that is the one place
you beat them because they do not have any guts.
Question. What do you think of solidarity between all countries that fight for their liberation?
Answer. It is the only answer. I think that what we do not recognize, or we have not recognized
in the past, is that capitalism has become international, and that we are fighting international
capitalism. In order to fight international capitalism, you must wage an international fight. What
has happened in the past, for example, is that if one nation was struggling everybody wished
that nation good luck, but nobody (?served) as part of that same fight. Although they could see
that the same countries were oppressing their countries they still didn’t make the connection in
their minds that that was their common enemy.
What we’ve done today is that we have made the connection in our minds. We do see a
common enemy. So that it is crystal clear to us that we’re fighting an international structure that
enslaves us all, and the only way we can beat it is to internationalize our struggle. So you have
an international power fighting an international power. That is the only way we can win because
if we do what Che says we should do, that is, to create two, three, many Vietnams, we will have
them fighting on all fronts at the same time, and they cannot win. . . .
But more importantly is that once we have seized power—as we will—the question is to begin to
develop an international system that will not give vent to capitalism, where we can trade with
each other based on our needs, on what we need and on what each country has, rather than
fight to control the world market where we would set prices for goods by profits and not by
needs of humanity. And that is the concept that we must begin to talk more and more about,
because we will find out that as we seize power unless we have the spirit, the will, and the
intelligence of the leaders in Cuba, most of us will end up the way all other countries that have
coups or that seize power end up, they will accept the entire bureaucratic structure that the
imperialists have imposed on their countries and will not be able to fight that. So we must begin
to do that. . . .
Question. The fight you are developing in the United States signifies for people, for outsiders,
that you have signed your death sentence. What do you think, or have to say, about that?
Answer. Brother Malcolm used to tell us that there were several types of death. I think a
dehumanized people who do not fight back are a dead people. That is what the West has been
able to do to most of us. . . . Dehumanized us to the point where we would not even fight back.
Once you’ve begun to fight back, you are alive, you are alive, and bullets won’t kill you. If you do
not fight back, you’re dead, you are dead, and all the money in the world can’t bring you alive.
So we’re alive today, and we’re alive all over the world. All of your black people are coming alive
because they’re fighting back. They’re fighting for their humanity. They’re doing the type of thing
that Fidel talks about, when you become alive and you want to live so much that you fight to
live.
You fight to live. See, when you’re dead, when you don’t rebel, you’re not fighting to live, you’re
already dead. Well, we are alive and we love life so much that we’re willing to die for it. So,
we’re alive. Death can’t stop us.
Source: Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Testimony of Stokely Carmichael., United States Senate, 91st Congress,
2d Session, March 25, 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970). http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6461
DOCUMENT 81: “THE REAGAN DOCTRINE” [A
CRITIQUE] BY ISAAC ASIMOV, FROM THE AUSTIN
AMERICAN-STATESMAN, MAY 10, 1981
Some time ago, Ronald Reagan pointed out that one couldn't trust the Soviet government
because the Soviets didn't believe in God or in an afterlife and therefore had no reason to
behave honorably, but would be willing to lie and cheat and do all sorts of wicked things to aid
their cause. Naturally, I firmly believe that the president of the United States knows what he is
talking about, so I've done my very best to puzzle out the meaning of that statement.
Let me begin by presenting this "Reagan Doctrine" (using the term with all possible respect):
"No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." If this is true (and it
must be if the president says so), then people are just naturally dishonest and crooked and
downright rotten. In order to keep them from lying and cheating every time they open their
mouths, they must be bribed or scared out of doing so. They have to be told and made to
believe that if they tell the truth and do the right thing and behave themselves, they will go to
heaven and get to plunk a harp and wear the latest design in halos. They must also be told and
made to believe that if they lie and steal and run around with the opposite sex, they are going to
hell and will roast over a brimstone fire forever.
It's a little depressing, if you come to think of it. By the Reagan Doctrine, there is no such thing
as a person who keeps his word just because he has a sense of honor. No one tells the truth
just because he thinks that it is the decent thing to do. No one is kind because he feels
sympathy for others, or treats others decently because he likes the kind of world in which
decency exists.
Instead, according to the Reagan Doctrine, anytime we meet someone who pays his debts, or
hands in a wallet he found in the street, or stops to help a blind man cross the road, or tells a
casual truth -- he's just buying himself a ticket to heaven, or else canceling out a demerit that
might send him to hell. It's all a matter of good, solid business practice; a matter of turning a
spiritual profit and of responding prudently to spiritual blackmail.
Personally, I don't think that I -- or you -- or even president Reagan -- would knock down an old
lady and snatch her purse the next time we're short a few bucks. If only we were sure of that
heavenly choir, or if only we were certain we wouldn't get into that people-fry down in hell. But
by the Reagan Doctrine, if we didn't believe in God and in an afterlife, there would be nothing to
stop us, so l guess we all would.
But let's take the reverse of the Reagan Doctrine. If no one who disbelieves in God and in an
afterlife can possibly be trusted, it seems to follow that those who do believe in God and in an
afterlife can be trusted. Since the American government consists of god-fearing people who
believe in an afterlife, it seems pretty significant that the Soviet Union nevertheless would not
trust us any farther than they can throw an ICBM. Since the Soviets are slaves to godless
communism, they would naturally think everyone else is as evil as they are. Consequently, the
Soviet Union's distrust of us is in accordance with the Reagan Doctrine.
Yet there are puzzles. Consider Iran. The Iranians are a god-fearing people and believe in an
afterlife, and this is certainly true of the mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise their government.
And yet we are reluctant to trust them for some reason. President Reagan himself has referred
to the Iranian leaders as "barbarians."
Oddly enough, the Iranians are reluctant to trust us, either. They referred to the ex-president (I
forget his name for he is never mentioned in the media anymore) as the "Great Satan" and yet
we all know that the ex-president was a born-again Christian. There's something wrong here.
God-fearing Americans and god-fearing Iranians don't trust each other and call each other
terrible names. How does that square with the Reagan Doctrine?
To be sure, the God in whom the Iranians believe is not quite the God in whom we believe, and
the afterlife they believe in is a little different from ours. There are no houris, alas, in our heaven.
We call our system of belief Christianity and they call theirs Islam, and come to think of it, for
something like twelve centuries, good Christians believed Islam was an invention of the devil
and believers in Islam ("Moslems") courteously returned the compliment so that there was
almost continuous war between them. Both sides considered it a holy war and felt that the
surest way of going to heaven was to clobber an infidel. What's more, you didn't have to do it in
a fair and honorable way, either. Tickets of admission just said, "Clobber!"
This bothers me a little. The Reagan Doctrine doesn't mention the variety of god or afterlife that
is concerned. It doesn't indicate that it matters what you call God -- Allah, Vishnu, Buddha,
Zeus, Ishtar. I don't think that president Reagan meant to imply a Moslem couldn't trust a
Shintoist or that a Buddhist couldn't trust a Parsee. I think it was just the godless Soviets he was
after.
Yet perhaps he was just being cautious in not mentioning the fact that the variety of deity
counted. But even if that were so there are problems.
For instance, the Iranians are Moslems and the Iraqi are Moslems. Both are certain that there is
no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet and believe it with all their hearts. And yet,
at the moment, Iraq doesn't trust Iran worth a damn, and Iran trusts Iraq even less than that. If
fact, Iran is convinced that Iraq is in the pay of the Great Satan (that's god-fearing America, in
case you've forgotten) and Iraq counters with the accusation that it is Iran who is in the pay of
the great Satan. Neither side is accusing the godless Soviets of anything, which is a puzzle.
But then, you know, they are Moslems and perhaps we can't just go along with any old god. I
can see why Reagan might not like to specify, since it might not be good presidential business
to offend the billions of people who are sincerely religious but lack the good taste to be
Christians. Still, just among ourselves, and in a whisper, perhaps the only people you can really
trust are good Christians.
Yet even that raises difficulties. For instance, I doubt that anyone can seriously maintain that the
Irish people are anything but god-fearing, and certainly they don't have the slightest doubts
concerning the existence of an afterlife. Some are Catholics and some are Protestants, but both
of these Christian varieties believe in the Bible and in God and in Jesus and in heaven and in
hell. Therefore, by the Reagan Doctrine, the people of Ireland should trust each other.
Oddly enough, they don't. In Northern Ireland there has been a two-sided terrorism that has
existed for years and shows no sign of ever abating. Catholics and Protestants blow each other
up every chance they get and there seems to be no indication of either side trusting the other
even a little bit.
But then, come to think of it, Catholics and Protestants have had a thing about each other for
centuries. They have fought each other, massacred each other, and burned each other at the
stake. And at no time was this conflict fought in a gentlemanly, let's-fight-fair manner. Any time
you caught a heretic or an idolater (or whatever nasty name you wanted to use) looking the
other way, you sneaked up behind him and bopped him and collected your ticket to heaven.
We can't even make the Reagan Doctrine show complete sense here in the United States.
Consider the Ku Klux Klan. They don't like the Jews or the Catholics, but then, the Jews don't
accept Jesus and the Catholics do accept the Pope, and these fine religious distinctions
undoubtedly justify distrust by a narrow interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine. The protestant Ku
Klux Klan can only cotton to Protestants.
Blacks, however, are predominantly protestant, and of southern varieties, too, for that is where
their immediate ancestors learned their religion. Ku Kluxers and Blacks have very similar
religions and therefore even by a narrow interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine should trust each
other. It is difficult to see why they don't.
What about the Moral Majority? They're absolute professionals when it comes to putting a lot of
stock in God and in an afterlife. They practice it all day, apparently. Naturally, they're a little
picky. One of them said that God didn't listen to the prayers of a Jew. Another refused to share
a platform with Phyllis Schlafly, the moral majority's very own sweetheart, because she was a
Catholic. Some of them don't even require religious disagreements, just political ones. They
have said that one can't be a liberal and a good Christian at one and the same time so that if
you don't vote right, you are going straight to hell whatever your religious beliefs are.
Fortunately, at every election they will tell you what the right vote is so that you don't go to hell
by accident.
Perhaps we shouldn't get into the small details, though. The main thing is that the Soviet Union
is Godless and, therefore, sneaky, tricky, crooked, untrustworthy, and willing to stop at nothing
to advance their cause. The United States is god-fearing and therefore forthright, candid,
honest, trustworthy, and willing to let their cause lose sooner than behave in anything but the
most decent possible way.
It bothers the heck out of me therefore that there's probably not a country in the world that
doesn't think the United States, through the agency of the CIA and its supposedly underhanded
methods, has upset governments in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran (among others), has tried to
overthrow the Cuban government by a variety of economic, political, and even military methods,
and so on. In every country, you'll find large numbers who claim that the United States fought a
cruel and unjust war in Vietnam and that it is the most violent and crime-ridden nation in the
world.
They don't seem to be impressed by the fact that we're god-fearing. Next they'll be saying that
Ronald Reagan (our very own president) doesn't know what he's talking about.
DOCUMENT 82: RONALD REAGAN’S “EVIL EMPIRE”
SPEECH TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 8,
1982
We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but
because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in
order because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From
Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had
more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But none -- not one regime -- has yet been
able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.
The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates the truth told in an
underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is that the Soviet Union would remain a one-party
nation even if an opposition party were permitted because everyone would join the opposition
party....
Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of
the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their
nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear
monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the world-would look very different today. And certainly they will note it was not the democracies that
invaded Afghanistan or suppressed Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in
Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.
If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We
see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma--predictions of doomsday, antinuclear
demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling
participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and
conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is
our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet,
deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?
Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or even that it was imminent. He
said, "I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and
the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today
while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of
freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."
Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be
easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point.
In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a
crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political
order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West but in the home of MarxismLeninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying
human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate
of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half
of what it was then.
The dimensions of this failure are astounding: a country which employs one-fifth of its
population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the
tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine.
These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly onequarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables.
Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best
resources into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic
growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet
people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic
base, a society where productive forced are hampered by political ones.
The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise to us. Wherever the
comparisons have been made between free and closed societies -- West Germany and East
Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam -- it is the democratic countries
that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their people. And one of the simple but
overwhelming facts of our time is this: of all the millions of refugees we've seen in the modern
world, their flight is always away from, not toward the Communist world. Today on the NATO
line, our military forces face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the line,
the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from leaving.
The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will.
Whether it is the growth of the new schools of economics in America or England or the
appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying thread running
through the intellectual work of these groups -- rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the
refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the realization that
collectivism stifles all the best human impulses....
Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must
continue and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and peace.
Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own constitutions, abiding by
their own laws, and complying with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask
only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant transformation.
We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement there has been and will
continue to be repeated explosion against repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself
is not immune to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to
legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives
people to resist it, if necessary, by force.
While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare
our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch
in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and
universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections.
The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the
system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful
means.
This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and
protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures
and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people
prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote,
decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers,
prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of
those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of
a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity.
Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training and assistance to MarxistLeninists in many countries. Of course, it also has promoted the use of violence and subversion
by these same forces. Over the past several decades, West European and other social
democrats, Christian democrats, and leaders have offered open assistance to fraternal, political,
and social institutions to bring about peaceful and democratic progress. Appropriately, for a
vigorous new democracy, the Federal Republic of Germany's political foundations have become
a major force in this effort.
We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of our allies have already done,
toward realizing this same goal. The chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and
Democratic party organizations are initiating a study with the bipartisan American Political
Foundation to determine how the United States can best contribute as a nation to the global
campaign for democracy now gathering force. They will have the cooperation of congressional
leaders of both parties, along with representatives of business, labor, and other major
institutions in our society. I look forward to receiving their recommendations and to working with
these institutions and the Congress in the common task of strengthening democracy throughout
the world.
It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation -- in both the public and private sectors -- to
assisting democratic development....
What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and
democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other
tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why
we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our zero-option
initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third
reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.
Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the
hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the
world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the
values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.
The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and a little bit of hope, the forces of
good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the
Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the
great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under
God.
I've often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these
ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect
world. This reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of the elderly
lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of
brandy she'd stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she
was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a taste of it. She came
around immediately and said, "Here now -- there now, put it back. That's for emergencies."
Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go to our strength. Let us offer
hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.
During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with
courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, "What kind of people do they
think we are?" Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are.
But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We
dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, "What kind of people do we think we
are?" And let us answer, "Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so
but to help others gain their freedom as well."
Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost an election just as the fruits of
victory were about to be enjoyed. But he left office honorably and, as it turned out, temporarily,
knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than the fate of any single leader.
History recalls his greatness in ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of
hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as opposition leader in the
Commons nearly twenty-seven years ago, when he said, "When we look back on all the perils
through which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid low and all the dark and
deadly designs that we have frustrated, why should we fear for our future? We have," he said,
"come safely through the worst."
Well, the task I've set forth will long outlive our own generation. But together, we too have come
through the worst. Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best -- a crusade for freedom
that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake of peace and justice,
let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.
Source: Internet Modern History Sourcebook. (c)Paul Halsall May1998, halsall@murray.fordham.edu
DOCUMENT 83: RONALD REAGAN MAKES A
DANGEROUS JOKE ON THE RADIO, AUGUST 11,
1984:
LISTEN TO THE AUDIO ONLINE AT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos
DOCUMENT 84: CATO POLICY ANALYSIS NO. 74:
TED GALEN CARPENTER, “U.S. AID TO ANTICOMMUNIST REBELS: THE “REAGAN DOCTRINE”
AND ITS PITFALLS,” JUNE 24, 1986
Executive Summary
A critical change in U.S. foreign policy toward world communism has begun during the past
year. In marked contrast to the established cold war doctrine of "containing" Soviet
expansionism, the new strategy envisions American moral and material support for insurgent
movements attempting to oust Soviet-backed regimes in various Third World nations. Initial
hints of this "Reagan Doctrine" surfaced in the president's February 1985 State of the Union
Address when he affirmed, "We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives--on
every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua--to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights
which have been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense."[1] Administration
rhetoric on this theme increased dramatically thereafter. In a speech on February 16, 1985,
President Reagan reiterated his assumption that a kinship exists between this country and anticommunist liberation movements:
Time and again we've aided those around the world struggling for freedom, democracy,
independence and liberation from tyranny. . . . In the 19th century we supported Simon Bolivar,
the great liberator. We supported the Polish patriots, the French resistance and others seeking
freedom. It's not in the American tradition to turn away.[2]
The implication was obvious: the United States has an obligation to aid the latest generation of
"freedom fighters." Secretary of State George Shultz expanded on this embryonic policy
assumption in a February 22, 1985, speech before San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. There
and in a subsequent Foreign Affairs article, Shultz asserted that a wave of democratic revolution
was sweeping the world. He contended that for years the USSR and its proxies have acted
without restraint to back insurgencies designed to spread communist dictatorships. Wars of
national liberation "became the pretext for subverting any non-communist country in the name of
so-called 'socialist interationalism."' At the same time, the infamous "Brezhnev Doctrine"
proclaimed that any victory of communism was irreversible. According to Shultz, the Soviets
were saying to the world: "What's mine is mine. What's yours is up for grabs."[3]
Although for a time Moscow's strategy seemed to be working, Shultz stated, such Soviet
"pretensions" have provoked a wave of democratic rebellions in the 1980s. In Afghanistan,
Nicaragua, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, and elsewhere, forces have arisen to challenge
Marxist hegemony. This change was of momentous importance, according to Shultz:
Where once the Soviets may have thought all discontent was ripe for turning into communist
insurgencies, today we see a new and different kind of struggle: people around the world risking
their lives against communist despotism. We see brave men and women fighting to challenge
the Brezhnev doctrine.[4]
America has a long tradition of supporting the struggle of other peoples for freedom, democracy,
and independence, the secretary of state emphasized. To turn our back on that tradition would
mean conceding that communist revolutions were irreversible, something the Reagan
administration would never countenance. "So long as communist dictatorships feel free to aid
and abet insurgencies in the name of 'socialist internationalism,'" Shultz asked, "why must the
democracies, the target of this threat, be inhibited from defending their own interests and the
cause of democracy itself?"[5]
Initially, the Reagan administration's rhetoric was considerably more universal than its actual
policies. Indeed, even Shultz conceded that the "nature and extent" of U.S. support "necessarily
varies from case to case."[6] In practice, this proviso meant that Washington was willing to
provide material assistance to Afghan resistance fighters facing Soviet occupation forces and to
Nicaraguan contras seeking to oust the Sandinista government. The Reagan administration
seemed considerably less responsive to the aid requests of insurgent movements in Cambodia,
Angola, and Mozambique. Particularly in the latter two cases, embracing the rebel cause
conflicted with other foreign policy objectives, most notably the promotion of regional political
stability.
If the administration assumed that it could confine support for anti-Marxist insurgencies to the
realm of rhetoric, translating words into concrete action only in selected cases such as
Nicaragua, it miscalculated. The Reagan Doctrine fired the enthusiasm of the conservative
movement in the United States as no foreign policy issue has done in decades. At last, said
conservatives, there was a strategy that transcended the sterile, defensive containment doctrine
and offered the possibility of helping to liberate nations already suffering under communist
domination. r 71
Existing conservative organizations and a proliferation of new ones have rushed to promote the
cause of Third World "freedom fighters." Some have raised funds or provided direct material
assistance (medical supplies, clothing, and sometimes military hardware) to specific rebel
movements.[8] In the summer of 1985, Lewis Lehrman, chairman of Citizens for America, even
organized a conclave of four insurgent leaders in Jamba, capital of rebel-held Angola, to form
the Democratic International.[9]
Conservatives who embrace the Reagan Doctrine express outrage that the administration's
actions have not always matched its rhetoric. Ironically, Shultz, who initially articulated aspects
of the doctrine, has become the principal target of rightist wrath for not implementing its
objectives with sufficient zeal.[10] Throughout 1985 and early 1986, conservative pressure
mounted on the administration to translate its rhetorical support for anti-communist rebellions
into sustained and consistent action. There are unmistakable signs, most notably with respect to
Angola, that this criticism is having an effect.
Since the Reagan Doctrine promises to become a program with far-reaching foreign policy
implications, it is vital to examine its assumptions and probable consequences. Before the U.S.
government decides to encourage and endorse anti-communist insurgent movements--much
less provide material assistance to them--some serious questions must be addressed. First, is
there an underlying theme to the struggles, or are the dynamics of each "revolutionary situation"
radically different? Second, would U.S. support essentially counteract existing intervention by
the Soviet bloc, or would it constitute egregious interference in the internal affairs of other
nations? Third, is the administration correct in its perception that the various insurgencies are
animated by democratic, pro-Western, and anti-Soviet values? Fourth, can the United States
assist these rebellions without risking either a direct clash with the USSR or a gradual
escalation of commitments that may culminate in a disastrous military entanglement? Finally--
and most important--is supporting anti-communist insurgencies in the Third World essential to
American security?
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. The strength of the case for U.S. support
of rebel movements varies markedly from country to country, but the preponderance of the
evidence suggests three important, general conclusions. First, in only some instances do the
circumstances warrant an official U.S. endorsement of the insurgency and (perhaps) diplomatic
recognition. Second, in no case is the situation sufficiently compelling to justify aid programs-especially military assistance-- on the part of the American government. Third, private
individuals and organizations wishing to support foreign movements compatible with their own
ideologies should be able to do so without governmental restrictions or harassment. Indeed,
privatizing the Reagan Doctrine is the most attractive and feasible alternative to existing policy.
Five Revolutionary Environments
One of the more dubious assumptions held by some Reagan Doctrine proponents is that the
new Third World insurgencies are manifestations of a general anti-Soviet uprising. This theory
holds that the rebel movements are essentially similar in their objectives and that the nations
involved are just "battlefields" or "fronts" in the war against Soviet hegemony.[11] The reality is
considerably more complex. An examination of the conflicts in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola,
Mozambique, and Nicaragua reveals a varied array of circumstances that precipitated the
fighting or continue to sustain it.[12] There is also a considerable difference in the nature and
magnitude of direct Soviet-bloc interference. All-encompassing generalizations, therefore, have
little meaning in this context.
Afghanistan
The struggle in Afghanistan is the clearest case of blatant external aggression. Not only was the
Soviet Union implicated in the 1978 coup that initially brought a communist government to
power, but Soviet intervention has been massive since the USSR poured troops across the
border in December 1979 to preserve the Afghan Communist party's tenuous control. Today, at
least 110,000 and perhaps as many as 150,000 Soviet soldiers occupy Afghanistan. This
domination extends beyond the military sphere. Soviet administrators were in charge of every
department of Babrak Karmal's puppet regime, and they continue to direct the government of
Karmal's replacement, former secret-police chief Najibullah. Moscow has also embarked on a
concerted campaign to indoctrinate Afghans in the virtues of Marxism-Leninism, even going so
far as to remove thousands of children from their parents to be "educated" in the USSR.[13]
Arrayed against this massive Soviet presence are the mujaheddin, who comprise a loose
confederation of seven rebel organizations. Despite rampant factionalism, especially between
Islamic fundamentalist and more moderate groups, and a shortage of military hardware, the
mujaheddin have mounted a ferocious resistance. Although the Soviet invaders control
Afghanistan's cities and-- at least in daylight--the principal roads linking them, a majority of the
countryside remains in rebel hands. The fighting has been devastating, with an estimated
50,000-100,000 mujaheddin fighters and almost 1 million Afghan civilians having perished under
relentless Soviet aerial bombardment. Another 2-3 million, victims of a deliberate Soviet
scorched-earth policy, are now homeless refugees.[14]
The military and political situation in Afghanistan is essentially at a stalemate. Despite covert
U.S. military assistance estimated at $250 million per year channeled through neighboring
Pakistan, the mujaheddin lack the power to expel the Soviet invaders.[15] At the same time, the
Soviets seem no closer to subduing the country now than when they first embarked on their
intervention more than six years ago. It is a foregone conclusion that the puppet government in
Kabul would collapse in a matter of days if its overlords withdrew. Afghanistan is both a blatant
example of Soviet aggression and an instructive lesson on the limits to what can be
accomplished through military intervention.
Cambodia
Like the Afghan government, the current government of Cambodia is a puppet regime, installed
by a Soviet-bloc invader. The Cambodian situation is more ambiguous, however. The
Vietnamese army that entered Cambodia in the final weeks of 1978 expelled an indigenous
government, but the ousted Pol Pot regime had amassed a record of brutality comparable only
with that of the Third Reich or Stalinist Russia. In less than four years, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge
had systematically exterminated one- fifth to one-third of Cambodia's population. Not
surprisingly, the survivors initially welcomed the Vietnamese as liberators, in spite of
longstanding racial and cultural hostility.[16]
It soon became evident, though, that Hanoi did not launch the invasion out of any noble desire
to terminate the Cambodian genocide. Rather, the invasion was merely another step in
Vietnam's relentless drive to control all of Indochina. Unlike Laos, which had tacitly accepted
Vietnamese domination since the fall of its noncommunist government in 1975, the Khmer
Rouge repeatedly refused to accept Hanoi's dictation. The Vietnamese leadership therefore
decided that Pol Pot's regime had to be replaced by a more "cooperative" (i.e., compliant)
government. Today, 160,000 occupation troops remain to enforce Hanoi's writ. The Phnom
Penh "government" is entirely subservient, and, as in Afghanistan, the invader dominates
virtually all key decision-making posts. Moreover, some 600,000-700,000 Vietnamese "settlers"
have taken much of the best land.[17] The USSR has supported Hanoi's occupation through
extensive military and economic subsidies.
Two important differences exist between the revolutionary environments in Afghanistan and
Cambodia. Unlike the mujaheddin, the three Cambodian rebel organizations have thus far been
able to mount only a feeble resistance, largely along the Thai border. Furthermore, one of those
insurgent groups--and by far the most significant militarily--is the Khmer Rouge, which continues
to receive financial and military aid from China.
Western attempts to influence the course of events in Cambodia have been relatively modest. A
diplomatic front led by China, the United States, and the five-member Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) has succeeded in blocking UN recognition of the Phnom Penh quisling
regime. The UN and many individual nations regard a coalition composed of representatives
from the three rebel organizations as the legitimate government of Cambodia. China has
provided some military aid-- primarily to the Khmer Rouge--and ASEAN directs efforts to provide
a modest amount of economic and humanitarian assistance. Such involvement in Cambodian
affairs, however, pales in comparison to the massive Vietnamese intervention.
Until mid-1985, the United States remained aloof from the struggle, although Washington has
consistently supported ASEAN's diplomatic initiatives and humanitarian-aid programs. During
the past year, however, a more activist policy consistent with the Reagan Doctrine seemed to
be emerging. CIA director William Casey toured the region in the summer of 1985, apparently to
assess the military capability of the rebel coalition. The administration also responded cautiously
but favorably to a congressional effort led by New York Democratic congressman Stephen
Solarz to provide $5 million in military aid to the Cambodian insurgency. The measure passed
both houses of Congress in December 1985.[18] Such events, combined with an increasingly
mili- tant ASEAN stance and continuing Vietnamese intransigence, suggest that the level of
external involvement in Cambodia is likely to escalate rather than diminish.
Angola
The current conflict in Angola began as a three-cornered struggle for power during the waning
days of Portuguese colonialism in the early and mid-1970s. When a new revolutionary
government in Lisbon sought to jettison Angola and other remnants of Portugal's once extensive
empire, three competing left-of-center Angolan factions maneuvered for political and military
dominance. The U.S. government, with customary acumen, backed the weakest organization-the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA)--led by Holden Roberto, who was a
relative by marriage to Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, a longtime American client. The
FNLA was a significant force only in the provinces along Angola's northern border with Zaire. A
second group, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), was the dominant
power throughout the western portion of the country, including the crucial capital city Luanda.
Moscow threw its support to this faction. The third element in the struggle was the National
Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), most active in the southern and eastern
provinces, and backed initially by both Communist China and South Africa.
Massive external interference was the hallmark of the final stages of Angola's drive for
independence in 1975. The CIA funneled money and arms to the FNLA and, to a lesser extent,
to UNITA until Congress, fearful of another Vietnam-style quagmire, passed the Clark
Amendment terminating all aid. South Africa not only backed UNITA with funds and equipment
but sent its own armored units into the fray. The Soviet Union and its principal client state Cuba
more than matched this assistance. Moscow equipped MPLA forces with sophisticated weapons
and brought in more than 20,000 Cuban troops, backed by tanks and rockets. The combined
MPLA-Cuban force smashed the FNLA while driving back UNITA and its South African allies,
and the MPLA was able to proclaim itself the legitimate government of Angola.[19]
In the subsequent decade, the level of external interference in Angola's affairs has scarcely
diminished. The USSR continues to pour economic and military aid into the country, a subsidy
that now approaches $2 billion annually. Equally important, a Cuban combat force of some
30,000 soldiers is crucial to keeping the Luanda regime in power. Thus, while not as blatant as
in Afghanistan and Cambodia and not on the same scale, the level of communist-bloc
intervention in Angola remains high.
It is pertinent to note that the Soviet bloc is not the only source of interference in Angola. Since
the passage of the Clark Amendment, the United States has not--at least until very recently-been an active participant in the struggle. Both the Carter and Reagan administrations pursued
a policy of accommodation toward the MPLA government, including encouraging private U.S.
investment in Angola, while pressing for the removal of Cuban forces. Repeal of the Clark
Amendment in mid1985 and President Reagan's increasingly vocal support for UNITA suggest
a major shift in policy, but heretofore the United States has adopted a strategy of minimal
involvement.
South Africa has not exercised the same restraint. Pretoria continued to fund and equip Jonas
Savimbi's UNITA forces, now numbering 50,000-60,000, following the initial 1975 setback. On
more than a few occasions, South Africa has also used its own troops in combat operations
inside Angola. An MPLA offensive against UNITA in the autumn of 1985 failed when South
Alrican planes provided Savimbi's beleaguered troops with air support. Pretoria's military
activities in southern Angola are so extensive that several provinces have virtually become
occupied territory.[20] Such action counterbalances most of the Cuban intervention and has
contributed in no small measure to UNITA's ability to establish control over nearly one-third of
Angola's territory. The civil war in that country drags on with both domestic factions receiving
extensive support from their foreign patrons.
Mozambique
The same collapse of Portuguese colonialism in the mid-1970s that sparked the Angolan civil
war also brought a rabidly leftist government to power in Mozambique. The dominant political
organization, the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO), had begun in the early
1960s as a broad-based nationalist organization seeking independence from Portugal. MarxistLeninist elements purged their noncommunist rivals, however, and when independence came in
1975, FRELIMO established a socialist dictatorship.
The Soviet Union promptly exploited this development by providing extensive economic and
military aid to the new regime. Bulgaria, East Germany, and Cuba sent in military advisers to
train FRELIMO security forces. As in Angola, the noncommunist elements were outmaneuvered
but not destroyed. Regrouping under the Mozambique National Resistance (RENAMO) banner,
they launched a guerrilla struggle against the government. Rhodesia and later South Africa
provided funds, equipment, and logistical support to RENAMO, much as Pretoria was doing with
UNITA. Then, in March 1984, Mozambique and South Africa concluded the Nkomati accord,
whereby each government pledged to stop supporting each other's internal opposition. If
Pretoria had honored that agreement, RENAMO might have been finished, but aid in fact
continues to flow quite freely.[21] As a result, the rebels have been able to exploit the Maputo
regime's manifest military and eco- nomic incompetence to attain substantial strength, making
siz- able portions of Mozambique largely ungovernable.
The political and military situation in Mozambique is especially complex. Although FRELIMO
continues to receive Soviet-bloc aid, the bulk of its direct military assistance comes from such
nonaligned (albeit left-leaning) African states as Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania. Those three
nations now station several thousand troops in Mozambique who openly engage rebel forces.
Meanwhile, the United States seeks to exploit the Maputo government's mounting
disenchantment with Moscow's wretched economic advice and imperialist pretensions by
offering its own package of economic and military assistance. There is ample evidence of
external interference in Mozambique's affairs, but it is hardly limited to the communist bloc.
Nicaragua
While there is little argument among Americans that Soviet-bloc intervention has been
substantial in the four nations examined thus far, no such consensus exists for Nicaragua. Many
advocates of aid to the contra rebels insist that the Sandinista regime is little more than a
puppet kept in power by Soviet money and several thousand Cuban military "advisers." Some
even contend that the Sandinistas could not have ousted the Somoza government in 1979
without Cuba's assistance--combined with the foolish U.S. decision to abandon a longtime
ally.[22]
It is difficult to sustain the latter contention. Havana unquestionably assisted the Sandinista
insurgency with both money and arms, but the revolution was an indigenous Nicaraguan affair.
The repressive and corrupt 40-year dictatorship of the Somoza family inexorably alienated
democratic elements and eventually impelled them to make common cause with the Marxistdominated Sandinista front. This powerful, although inherently unstable, alliance overthrew
Anastasio Somoza in 1979 to the acclaim of the overwhelming majority of Nicaraguans.
The degree of Soviet-bloc interference since the Sandinista victory is more debatable. Since
1980, Moscow has provided the revolutionary regime with at least $500 million in military aid
plus several hundred million dollars in economic assistance. This largesse has constituted more
than a minor factor in the buildup of Nicaragua's army to more than 100,000 troops--by far the
largest military establishment in Central America--and the equipping of that force with an array
of tanks, combat helicopters, and other sophisticated weapons. More disquieting is the
presence of some 2,000-3,500 Cuban military advisers. There is increasing evidence that these
so-called advisers in fact direct Nicaraguan combat units and even fly the lethal Hind (M-24)
helicopters in missions against the contras.[23]
Nonetheless, the degree of Soviet-bloc interference in Nicaragua is significantly lower than in
Angola and Mozambique and nowhere near the suffocating level in Cambodia and Afghanistan.
Cuba and the USSR may have played--and continue to play-- a role in the Nicaraguan
revolution, but their involvement scarcely constituted the determining factor. Moreover, the
Reagan administration has also adopted a meddlesome policy. By the time Congress
terminated military aid in early 1985, the administration had provided nearly $100 million in
assistance to insurgent forces over a four-year period. There is considerable evidence that the
CIA helped organize and finance the initial contra organization, composed of ex-Somoza
National Guard officers. CIA operatives have been involved in plotting rebel strategy and on
several occasions, especially the notorious harbor-mining incident in 1984, participated directly
in combat operations.[24]
Such episodes are consistent with an ongoing U.S. policy to destabilize the Sandinista
government. The Reagan administration has imposed an economic embargo against Nicaragua
and continues to orchestrate a military buildup in neighboring Honduras. American forces
repeatedly conduct maneuvers in that country as well as in Gulf waters off Nicaragua's coast,
conveying a none-too-subtle message of intimidation. U.S. leaders also have pressured the
Honduran government to allow contra units to use border provinces as staging areas for
operations inside Nicaragua, despite evidence of mounting Honduran uneasiness about doing
so.[25]
As in Angola and Mozambique, there is serious external intervention in Nicaragua, but once
again it is not exclusively, or even primarily, confined to Soviet-bloc machinations. Yet even with
ongoing U.S. encouragement and assistance, the two principal contra forces, the Nicaraguan
Democratic Force (FDN) and the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE), have been unable
to offer a serious challenge to the Sandinista regime. With the possible exception of Cambodia,
Nicaragua seems the least propitious arena for a military victory by anti-Marxist rebels.
The Diversity of Revolutionary Environments
There is a tenuous theme linking these various insurgencies, in that they are all directed against
radical leftist dictatorships backed by the Soviet Union. But here the similarity ends. The Afghan
and Cambodian rebels confront blatant quisling regimes installed and sustained entirely by a
Soviet-bloc invader. In Afghanistan, the insurgents have mounted a ferocious resistance and
are receiving modest but significant amounts of Western, including U.S., military aid. The
Cambodian rebels have obtained substantial diplomatic support from China, the United States,
and ASEAN, but military assistance has been meager and the insurgency poses little more than
an annoyance to Vietnamese occupation forces.
Both the Angolan and Mozambican struggles are ongoing civil wars that began during the initial
post-colonial period in the mid-1970s. The Soviet Union and Cuba have provided extensive
economic and military assistance to Marxist factions, including a direct Cuban combat role in
Angola. At the same time, South Africa has assisted noncommunist rebel forces in the two
countries and on occasion has become a direct participant in military operations. Complicating
matters even further in Mozambique, nonaligned African regimes aid the existing government by
providing 'expeditionary" forces to fight the rebels. Insurgents in both nations control significant
amounts of territory and pose serious, although not yet lethal, challenges to the current regimes.
The conflict in Nicaragua remains essentially a post-revolutionary power struggle. While SovietCuban military and economic assistance to the Sandinista government and American support
for the contras muddy the political waters, the fighting is still primarily an internal affair. Despite
Managua's increasingly repressive policies, the rebels have thus far failed to galvanize the
population or exhibit significant combat prowess.
Given the diversity of these five revolutionary environments, portraying the insurgencies as
representing a global struggle against Soviet imperialism is dangerously simplistic. Only in
Afghanistan is the anti-Soviet component undeniably dominant. Cambodia represents a fight
against a pro-Soviet but notoriously independent invader. Angola and Mozambique are
instances of civil wars that have been highly contaminated by Western as well as Soviet-bloc
interference. Nicaragua threatens to travel the same path, but the conflict in that country still
reflects predominantly internal factors.
An effective and prudent U.S. foreign policy must take into account such variations and
ambiguities. Judged solely on the basis of countering existing Soviet-bloc intervention, the
strongest case for providing U.S. support to rebel forces exists with regard to Afghanistan and
Cambodia, the weakest with respect to Nicaragua. Angola and Mozambique constitute
intermediate cases. It is evident, however, that U.S. policy cannot and should not be formulated
entirely on that basis. Other concerns must be addressed, not the least of which is the
ideological makeup of the rebel organizations. If the American government proposes to
embrace an insurgent movement, it is essential that no endorsement be given to a faction that
would merely substitute one brand of repression for another.
Ideological Orientations
Just as the revolutionary environments are diverse, so too are the ideological orientations of the
various insurgent movements. It is a grave oversimplification to portray all anti-Marxist rebels as
"freedom fighters," as American conservatives are prone to do. By the same token, some
liberals in the United States too readily dismiss many of the insurgents--particularly in Angola,
Mozambique, and Nicaragua--as "opportunists" or "terrorists." In reality, ideological coloration
varies considerably from country to country and even among competing rebel factions within
individual countries.
The Fragmented Mujaheddin
The Afghan resistance, despite its considerable effectiveness in the field, is also the most
factionalized and striferidden of the various anti-Marxist rebellions. There are no less than seven
insurgent organizations in Afghanistan, each with a political apparatus and a fighting force, as
well as an assortment of minor splinter groups. In May 1985, the seven principal resistance
groups formed an official alliance, the Islamic Unity of Afghan Mujaheddin, to coordinate political
and military activities, but intense rivalries persist.[26]
Part of the rivalry reflects the maneuvering of ambitious politicians for power and a desire to
control the distribution of the limited amount of military equipment and aid funds channeled
through neighboring Pakistan. But some deeper philosophical and ideological differences also
exist. Four of the organizations, the Memiat, Khalis, Younis, and Hesbiz, are permeated in
varying degrees with Islamic fundamentalism. The leader of the Hesbiz, Gubiddin Hekmaktyar,
in fact, is an admirer of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and routinely denounces the United States as
the "Great Satan." He rejects Western values, including capitalism and democracy, as social
poisons and vows to create a 'pure" Islamic republic in Afghanistan.[27]
Arrayed against the four fundamentalist groups are three factions, the Mohaz, Harakat, and
Nijat, all of which stress a more secular Afghan nationalism. But this contrast, while significant,
is largely a matter of degree. Even these "moderate" organizations have little enthusiasm for a
Western-style pluralistic nation. It is important to note that the term mujaheddin does not mean
"freedom fighters," as their admirers in the United States imply. The correct translation is "holy
warriors'--a very different connotation indeed.
Americans can and should sympathize with the plight of Afghanistan. It is entirely appropriate
that the U.S. government condemn the ongoing Soviet occupation and genocide, endorse the
right of the Afghan people to national self-determination, and pursue all possible diplomatic
avenues to seek the removal of Soviet troops. But those who support the mujaheddin, whether
inside or outside the American government, should entertain no illusions. A rebel victory in all
probability will not bring about a capitalist economic system or a political system based on
respect for individual rights. Even if the "moderates" triumphed, the most likely outcome would
be a conservative Islamic state similar to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. If the fundamentalists
emerged dominant in a postwar government--a distinct possibility since the fanatical Hesbiz is
the strongest single rebel faction--they would impose a ruthless Islamic theocracy. There should
be considerable reluctance to back the mujaheddin with U.S. influence and tax dollars when
there is a significant risk of creating an Iranian-style dictatorship in Afghanistan.
The Curious Cambodian Coalition
The Cambodian resistance to Heng Samrin's puppet regime and the Vietnamese army of
occupation is divided into three sharply divergent factions. They are officially united in a coalition
government recognized by the United States and many other countries, but the mutual
animosity is deep and abiding. The most promising group, in terms of ideological orientation, is
the Khmer Peoples National Liberation Front (KPNLF). Headed at least nominally by 75-yearold former prime minister Son Sann, the KPNLF professes an enthusiasm for both democracy
and free enterprise. Son Sann was the principal founder of the Cambodian Democratic party
and has worked for several decades to fashion a multi-party parliamentary democracy. One of
the chief KPNLF military commanders, Dien Del, also seems committed to a pluralistic political
system and has stated that he wants "an economy like Singapore's' for Cambodia. A healthy
degree of entrepreneurial capitalism is apparent among KPNLF followers in various refugee
camps maintained by the organization.[28]
A more amorphous group is the Armee Nationaliste Sihanou- kiste (ANS), consisting of
guerrillas loyal to former head of state Prince Norodom Sihanouk. During the 30 years he ruled
Cambodia prior to his ouster in 1970, Sihanouk was noted principally for an opulent lifestyle and
authoritarian methods. Throughout his long political career, he has at various times cultivated
the Vietnamese, the Communist Chinese, the United States, and the Khmer Rouge, as well as
noncommunist Cambodian elements. If his faction should ever regain power, there is little
evidence to suggest that this record of rank opportunism would not be repeated.
The third component of the rebel triad is the Khmer Rouge. Although Pol Pot resigned his
leadership post in early 1986, he is still rumored to be the guiding force behind this faction. The
two other principal leaders, Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan, were both top-level officials in the
Khmer Rouge government that ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1978 and committed unspeakable
atrocities.
A troubling issue that proponents of military aid to the Cambodian insurgents must address is
whether an attempt to oust the puppet regime of Heng Samrin might inadvertently return the
Khmer Rouge to power. This is no idle fear. The ANS fields scarcely 5,000 guerrillas, and the
KPNLF has 12,000-15,000. Neither faction is particularly well trained or equipped. The Khmer
Rouge, on the other hand, has more than 30,000 experienced troops, and, thanks to Chinese
largesse, they are supplied with an array of modern weapons. This severe disparity in strength
does not bode well for any post-revolutionary struggle for power. It is true that the KPNLF has a
sizable civilian following, perhaps as many as 250,000, among refugees in camps across the
Thai border, but there is no certainty that this factor could be translated into sufficient military
power even with external aid.[29] While the ongoing Vietnamese presence in Cambodia is
clearly a violation of international law and partakes more than a little of imperialist exploitation,
the alternative might well be a new Khmer Rouge government and another round of genocide. It
is a distressing dilemma that cannot be ignored.
UNITA: Freedom Fighters or Opportunists?
While the Afghan mujaheddin have attracted pervasive U.S. sympathy and the Cambodian
rebels (except, or course, the murderous Khmer Rouge) have broad-based American support,
the Angolan insurgency provokes intense domestic controversy. Conservative admirers hail
UNITA's Jonas Savimbi as a charismatic "pro-Western" leader and a dedicated "freedom
fighter" against the Marxist regime in Luanda. Conversely, liberal opponents castigate him as a
"megalomaniac," an "opportunist," and, because his organization accepts the friendship and
assistance of South Africa's racist government, an "Uncle Tom."[30]
Part of the problem is that Savimbi has had a rather enigmatic if not checkered political career.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, he solicited military and financial support primarily from such
leftist sources as North Korea, Communist China, Nasser's Egypt, and the Soviet Union. When
it became evident in the mid-1970s that the Soviet bloc was backing the rival MPLA, Savimbi
sought moderate and conservative sponsors--most notably the United States and South Africa.
Critics contend that such ideological promiscuity demonstrates that Savimbi is merely an
opportunist who is now using democratic pro-Western rhetoric because he senses an
opportunity to exploit anti-communist hysteria among gullible American conservatives--including
President Reagan--to secure military aid.[31]
At the root of liberal animosity toward Savimbi is his willingness to accept assistance from South
Africa's white supremacist regime. Condemnation on that basis is not entirely fair. Rebel
movements have habitually sought and accepted aid wherever they could find it, and an intense
struggle for political power often precludes any other course. It should be remembered that Ho
Chi Minh, certainly a devout communist, initially solicited help from the United States in his
campaign against French colonialism in Vietnam. Even our own revolutionaries sought and
gladly accepted support from France and Spain, two of the most reactionary monarchies in
18th-century Europe. Liberals routinely deride the notion that if an insurgency receives military
aid from the USSR it automatically becomes a Soviet puppet, yet they condemn Savimbi as a
South Airican lackey because he cooperates militarily with Pretoria. It is difficult to escape the
conclusion that a double standard is in operation.
At the same time, U.S. policymakers should regard UNITA's recent professed allegiance to the
values of democracy and free enterprise with healthy skepticism. UNITA's official seal proclaims
it to be a socialist organization, and Jonas Savimbi, at least until his most recent campaign to
secure American military aid, advocated widespread government ownership or control of most
economic sectors. Equally unsettling are reports from rebel-controlled territory that Savimbi
encourages the "personality cult" so typical of dictators and would-be dictators.[32]
Those Americans who assume that a UNITA victory would bring about a democratic capitalist
system are proceeding on faith, not evidence. Democratic and capitalist values are essentially
alien to the traditions of Angola. The indigenous culture of all three principal tribes (Bakongo,
Mbundu, and Ovimbundu) stresses communal ownership of property and an authoritarian
leadership structure.[33] Nor did Angolans learn much about capitalist economics or democratic
politics from their Portuguese rulers during the long decades of colonial subjugation. It is
conceivable, of course, that Savimbi might be a sincere convert to Western values and that
once in power UNITA would encourage free enterprise and political pluralism. Nevertheless, it is
imprudent to stake U.S. prestige on or spend American tax dollars to support UNITA based on
that expectation. It is quite possible that a UNITA government would not differ radically from its
MPLA rival in either economic philosophy or political methods.
RENAMO: Patriotic Movement or Terrorist Gang?
The rebel movement in Mozambique labors under a burden similar to UNITA's--a political and
military association with South Africa's government. To many Western moderates and liberals,
RENAMO's willingness to accept help from Pretoria disqualifies it from any claim to legitimacy.
Again, such an assessment seems too harsh: the Mozambican insurgents can be expected to
accept help from any available source.
Nevertheless, there are reasons for the United States to be cautious about embracing this
rebellion. For one thing, RENAMO is afflicted with rampant factionalism. Some of its leaders,
including the official head of the organization, Alfonso Dklakama, have expressed and
demonstrated a reasonably consistent commitment to democracy and private enterprise; the
orientation of other key figures is much less certain. RENAMO's official 10-point program does
advocate a national constitution guaranteeing individual rights and providing for free elections
and a federal form of government, but such paper promises are easily made. Some analysts
who have visited guerrilla encampments report a pervasive enthusiasm for Western political and
economic values together with a virulent hostility toward FRELIMO's repression and
collectivization programs--all healthy signs. At the same time, much of RENAMO's support
comes from traditional rural village chiefs displaced by the new political order.[34] Few of those
individuals are likely to exhibit much commitment to either free markets or democracy. Indeed,
most insurgent propaganda stresses Mozambican nationalism, not democratic freedoms, as a
rallying cry against FRELIMO and it Soviet-bloc sponsors.
The most disquieting factor, however, involves continuing reports of rebel atrocities against
civilians. Defenders of the organization contend that most of these atrocities were committed by
government troops disguised as RENAMO partisans in a campaign to discredit the
insurgency.[35] The sheer number of episodes and their location, at times deep inside rebel
territory, undercuts this explanation. While not definitive, considerable evidence suggests that
RENAMO's military personnel exhibit a brutal streak that would not bode well for a pluralistic
society should the rebellion prove successful.
While the Reagan administration should abandon its support for Samora Machel's FRELIMO
dictatorship--exemplified by last year's proposal to Congress for $40 million in economic and
military aid--there is no compelling case for aiding RENAMO. The insurgency apparently
contains some democratic capitalist elements, but there is scant evidence that they constitute
the dominant force in the organization. The struggle in Mozambique is one in which Washington
would be well advised to adopt a position of discreet neutrality.
The Controversial Contras
Nicaragua's contra rebels arouse even more divisive emotions than either UNITA or RENAMO.
President Reagan and his political followers continually portray them as democratic freedom
fighters comparable to America's own Founding Fathers. The president has gone so far as to
proclaim himself a contra in spirit.[36] According to contra supporters in the United States, most
of the rebels opposed the Somoza dictatorship, even collaborating with the Sandinistas in
engineering its ouster. They then watched with mounting horror and anger as the "totalitarian"
Sandinista comandantes captured what was initially a democratic revolution and embarked on a
drive to create a communist dictatorship. When it became evident that peaceful methods could
not dislodge the Marxists from power, these patriots took up arms, seeking to bring true
democracy to their nation.[37]
American critics of the contras perceive a very different movement. In their view, most of the
contras, especially the military commanders, were disgruntled members of Somoza's hated
security forces and National Guard. They have a meager following among the Nicaraguan
people, most of whom genuinely support the Sandinista regime. Indeed, according to many
critics, the principal contra organizations are little more than CIA fronts, set up and maintained
by U.S. tax dollars. To make matters worse, contra military units routinely engage in atrocities
against civilians, as verified by several independent human-rights organizations.[38] The
Nicaraguan rebels are not free- dom fighters but terrorists far worse than the Sandinistas they
seek to displace. If successful, they would impose another reactionary dictatorship on
Nicaragua, their critics insist.[39]
Both portrayals of the contras, while accurate in some respects, are ultimately stereotypes that
serve primarily to justify existing ideological positions. Describing the rebels as noble freedom
fighters enables the Reagan administration to advocate military-aid programs without apology.
Portraying the contras as terrorist thugs allows the administration's liberal opponents to oppose
deeper U.S. involvement in Central America without having to address more ambiguous and
troubling security issues.
Since the summer of 1985, the principal rebel organizations have been united under the banner
of the United Nicaraguan Opposition, a union the United States encouraged and perhaps even
demanded. In reality, though, the constituent groups still operate with considerable
independence, and they exhibit rather different political orientations. For example, the
Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE), founded by former Sandinista comandante Eden
Pastora, displays much of that mercurial personality's vague socialism (as opposed to
doctrinaire Marxism- Leninism). Pastora has now severed his connections with ARDE and
abandoned the war effort in response to the organization's willingness to join with other contra
groups and accept heightened U.S. supervision and funding. Even with Pastora's departure,
ARDE's commitment to free enterprise is negligible and its adherence to democratic principles
open to some question.[40]
The dominant group in the contra coalition is the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN), which
has received the bulk of U.S. assistance. The FDN is a successor to the Fifteenth of September
Legion and the Nicaraguan Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ADRIN), initial contra
organizations composed of former National Guard officers and assisted by the CIA in late 1981
and early 1982.[41] The principal civilian leaders of the FDN, most notably Adolfo Calero and
Arturo Cruz, seem sincerely committed to creating a pluralistic democratic society. Their
economic views, while far from embodying consistent free-market principles, are clearly
preferable to the Marxist policies of the Sandinistas and represent a significant improvement on
the Somoza regime's corrupt kleptocracy. Most rank-and-file soldiers in the FDN come from
Nicaragua's peasant class. While the depth of their belief in democratic capitalism is
problematical, especially given their country's extremely limited experience with the value, there
is little discernible evidence that they wish to return to the authoritarianism of the Somoza
years.[42]
The most disturbing feature of the FDN is the pervasive presence of officers from Somoza's
security police and National Guard in the military command structure. Some estimates suggest
that such officers constitute 95 percent of the field and regional commanders. Other estimates
are lower, but there is no question that military figures from the old regime predomin- ate.[43]
Indeed, the FDN s military commander in chief, Enrique Bermudez, was a colonel in the
National Guard during the Somoza years.
The mere presence of these individuals, of course, is not definitive evidence that they would
pervert a contra triumph by restoring a rightist dictatorship. Not every member, or even officer,
in the Guard was necessarily an admirer of Somoza. There is modest evidence that Enrique
Bermudez himself exhibited reformist tendencies, which impelled Somoza to assign him to the
embassy in Washington--a comfortable but effective exile.[44] It is even possible that under a
different set of circumstances in 1979, Bermudez and like-minded officers might have played a
role similar to that of Philippine general Fidel Ramos and his followers in his nation's recent
revolution.
Nevertheless, the predominance of ex-Somoza officers in the contra military command should
cause U.S. policymakers to pause before endorsing, much less assisting, this insurgency. Most
contra political leaders are ideologically palatable, but there is a disturbing parallel between their
current position in relation to contra military leaders and their position in 1979-81 vis-a-vis the
Sandinista comandantes. Many of these same politicians, most notably Arturo Cruz and Alfonso
Robelo, formed a tactical alliance with the Marxist Sandinista military leaders. In the postrevolutionary power struggle, the moderate democratic elements lost out largely because the
Marxists had most of the guns. A similar problem would exist in a contra victory since the rebel
military would be under the control of Somoza-era military leaders. The manifest inability of the
civilian leadership to prevent contra units from committing atrocities is an ominous indication
that their control of the FDN is less than secure. U.S. officials must consider the serious
possibility that aiding the rebel cause may serve simply to impose another rightist dictatorship
on Nicaragua.
Realism about Rebel Ideologies
The ideological composition of anti-Marxist rebel movements varies tremendously. There lS
virtually no possibility of a democratic capitalist outcome in Afghanistan, since the mujaheddin
are dominated by conservative or rabidly fundamentalist Islamic elements. The situation in
Cambodia is more ambiguous but equally depressing. One of the three insurgent organizations,
the KPNLF, does exhibit a considerable commitment to democratic pluralism and free
enterprise. But any candid assessment must conclude that this group would probably lose out to
the murderous Khmer Rouge in the inevitable post- revolutionary competition for power.
Angola and Mozambique present a rather murky ideological picture. Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in
Angola professes an adherence to democracy, but the depth and sincerity of that commitment is
open to question. In the economic sphere, the bulk of the evidence indicates that a UNITA
government would encourage more socialism than capitalism. Mozambique's RENAMO
insurgents proclaim their adherence to democracy and at least some recognition of privateproperty rights, but once again it is uncertain whether this allegiance is sincere or merely a
propaganda ploy to win Western support. The documented brutality of RENAMO military units
does not encourage hope for the emergence of a humane government if RENAMO proved
victorious. Expectations of a democratic capitalist outcome in either country must be tempered
since both values are largely alien to those societies.
A contra triumph in Nicaragua offers some chance of a new government based on the principles
of democracy and private enterprise. The civilian leaders of the United Nicaraguan Opposition
seem committed to those values. Even here, however, there are ample reasons for concern.
The domination of the rebel military command by ex-Somoza officers raises serious doubts
about the contra civilian leadership's ability to prevail in a post-revolutionary political
environment.
Judged solely according to the criterion of ideological orientation, the strongest case can be
made for supporting the Nicaraguan contras. Lesser cases can be made for assisting the
Angolan and Mozambican insurgents. Virtually no plausible ideological case can be made for
aiding the Afghan mujaheddin or the Cambodian rebels. It should be emphasized, however, that
in no instance--even Nicaragua--is there a compelling argument for Washington to assist an
insurgency out of ideological considerations.
The Danger of Confrontation or Entanglement
U.S.-Soviet Confrontation
While U.S. officials can offer verbal or even diplomatic support to one or more rebel causes
without incurring serious risk to this country's well-being, the same cannot be said of material
assistance. Providing financial subsidies and military aid to any of the five insurgencies creates
some danger of either a direct clash with the Soviet Union or a gradual escalation of
commitments and undesirable entanglements. The nature and scope of these risks vary from
locale to locale, but they are present to some degree in all five arenas.
There is only a minimal possibility of a U.S.-Soviet confrontation over Cambodia. Since the
USSR can rely on Hanoi's powerful army to sustain the Soviet bloc's foreign policy aims in
Southeast Asia, there is little likelihood that Moscow would perceive any reason to become
directly involved in the Cambodian struggle. Conversely, the United States tacitly conceded
Indochina to the communist sphere of influence following the failure of America's attempt to
assist noncommunist regimes in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos during the late 1960s and
early 1970s. It would be difficult to envision any U.S. administration attempting to recapture that
long-abandoned geopolitical position. Consequently, there are virtually no scenarios that would
produce a Soviet-U.S. clash in the region.
The danger of a confrontation in Mozambique lS likewise very small. Neither superpower seems
to regard the Mozambican struggle as a high-priority foreign policy concern. Moscow initially
provided a considerable amount of aid and guidance to Somora Machel's regime, but in the last
two years it has accepted a diminution of Soviet influence with only minor resistance. To a
certain extent, the Mozambican withdrawal from Soviet tutelage replicates the USSR's
experiences in Indonesia, Egypt, and Ghana, where once-friendly governments became
disenchanted with the Soviet model. Even if the United States abandoned its policy of trying to
woo Machel away from the Eastern bloc and decided to aid RENAMO, it is unlikely that Moscow
would up the strategic ante. While the USSR would like to sustain the presence of "friendly"
regimes in southern Africa and is willing to do so as long as the costs remain modest, there is
no evidence that the Kremlin intends to make a large geostrategic investment in Mozambique.
The probability of a superpower confrontation over Nicaragua is likewise rather low, but for a
slightly different reason. As in Mozambique, the USSR does not seem willing to make the
Nicaraguan struggle a high-priority item. Moscow undoubtedly likes the emergence of leftist
regimes in Central America and the Caribbean--if for no other reason than their "nuisance"
value in distracting U.S. attention and tying up military resources. At the same time, given their
renowned pragmatism, Soviet leaders recognize that American power in the region is
overwhelming. There is little Moscow could do to prevent the United States from ousting the
Sandinistas or any other unpalatable regime in Central America if it decided to do so. The
Kremlin's acceptance of the Grenada invasion is indicative of that realism. While the Soviets
could be expected to orchestrate a massive propaganda campaign against U.S. meddling in
Central America and might cautiously escalate their level of aid to the Sandinista government,
the possibility of a more substantive military role is very slight. Nicaragua remains an unlikely
arena for a U.S.-Soviet clash even if the United States becomes committed to the contra cause.
The danger is somewhat greater with Angola. Largely because of the nation's vast mineral
wealth, the USSR has invested billions of dollars in economic and military aid to the MPLA
government, provided several hundred military advisers, and sponsored 30,000-35,000 Cuban
combat forces--all of which suggests that Moscow regards Angola as a reasonably high-priority
foreign policy concern.[45] Although any introduction of Soviet combat forces remains unlikely, it
is a possibility that cannot be ruled out if the United States decides to back UNITA with
extensive military assistance. The Reagan administration's increasing enthusiasm for UNITA
thus presents at least a modest danger of confrontation with the USSR over Angola. At the very
le