Download The Origins of the Second Red Scare Revisited

The Origins of the Second Red Scare Revisited
Abstract:
Recently, Representative Michelle Bachman insinuated that liberals were anti-American
and the media needed to investigate their anti-American activity. In my paper, I focus on a
period when the public might take such claims seriously: the Second Red Scare. Many historians
argue that the origins of the Second Red Scare begin after WWII. I show that historians
overlook the true origins of the Second Red Scare which actually date to the 1934. Communist
groups started to gain power in labor organizations, and those in the Federal Government
including Franklin Roosevelt and Daniel Tobin, one of his advisors, did not trust Communists.
In letters to Roosevelt, Tobin addresses his fear of having communist influence within the
United States. In addition, Roosevelt was afraid that communists may undermine the
government as they did with France while it was at war with Nazi Germany. Additionally, I
show that McCarthyism dates back to the 1938 House of Un-American Activities Committee,
chaired by Martin Dies. Dies once commented that Eleanor Roosevelt was “the best asset the
Communist Party has.” The fear of communism was already found in America before WWII.
The reason the fear of communism did not spread was due to WWII; however, after the war the
fear returned.
Gregory Moscow
Macalester College
Introduction
Following the Bolshevik Revolution 1917 there was a revulsion against revolutionaries
known as the Red Scare, epitomized by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer’s raids in 1918
throughout the United States. By the early 1950s there was a second Red Scare in the United
States, epitomized by the activities of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Conventional wisdom states that the origins of the Second Red Scare in the United States
occurred shortly after the Germans surrendered in 1945. After the war, the Soviet Union was the
new threat to the peace and prosperity of the United States. The Soviet Union occupied Eastern
Europe and was seen as an ideological and military threat to the United States1 with the 1948
blockade of Berlin and the 1949 test of its first nuclear weapons in 1949. Later that year, China
underwent a communist revolution. Those events strengthened the hand of the anti-communists.
Following these events, the Supreme Court ruled in Dennis v. United States that speech could be
limited; it was against the law to advocate for the overthrow of the government. Furthermore,
the fear of communism helped Joseph McCarthy gain prominence.2
In this paper, I argue that conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, the origins of the
Second Red Scare are found in the 1930s with the Coal Truckers Strike in Minneapolis. The
manner in which the Federal Government responded to this strike shows that the government
was petrified that communism might spread in the United States. Blinded by fear, the
government failed to recognize that not all communist parties were the same: in fact, many of
them did not get along with one another. The disdain of one communist faction for another was
clear throughout the 1930s but especially after Trotskyites came to power in Minneapolis,
following the Coal Truckers Strike.
In this paper I show how the successful Coal Truckers Strike, spearheaded by
Trotskyites, led to the Minneapolis Sedition Trials, the first cases brought under the Smith Act. I
1
Schmidt, Regin. Red Scare : FBI and the Origins of Anti-Communism in the United States. New York: LMuseum
Tusculanum P, 2000. 365.
2
Wiecek, William M. "The Legal Foundations of Domestic Anticommunism: The Background of Dennis v United
States." The Supreme Court Review (2001).
1
explain how the Smith Act came about, what the Smith Act is, and why it was only used to
prosecute communists. I demonstrate that some members of the Federal Government had a
vendetta against those perceived to be communists and were so scared of a communist revolution
that the White House sought to increase its power to suppress them.3 Congress, most notably the
House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) chaired by Martin Dies, and often
referred to as the Dies Committee exploited fear and built on that fear with its hearings. I will
show the similarities between Dies and Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. Lastly, I
show that World War II interrupted the Second Red Scare because during the war communism
was no longer the major threat; Nazi Germany had taken its place.
A Brief, Brief History of First Red Scare
Following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the United States government feared an
uprising in this country. President Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public
Information (CPI), which would later become the FBI. The CPI conducted many raids on radical
organizations that were against the United States entering World War I. The leader of the
Industrial Workers of the World, Eugene V. Debs, was one of the more outspoken figures against
the United States entering the war. Influential in both the labor movement and the socialist
movement, Debs founded the American Railway Union as part of the Industrial Workers of the
World and ran for President on the socialist platform in 1904, 1908 and 1912. Because he
advocated that people resist the draft, the government arrested Debs in 1918. A year later, the
court decided that anyone who presented a clear and present danger to the United States could
lawfully be imprisoned. Debs, the court found, presented a clear and present danger to the
country. In 1920, while in jail Debs ran for President. Appeal to Reason, a socialist newspaper,
featured a ballot for those who wanted to vote for Debs. Additionally, the paper notes that
“political power put Woodrow Wilson in the White House” and Attorney General Palmer in a
3
Steele, Richard. "Fear of the Mob and Faith in Government in Free Speech Discourse, 1919-1941." The American
Journal of Legal History 38 (1994): 78.
2
place “where he can determine the lives and liberties of his fellow citizens. Political power put
these men in office and political power will take them out of office.”4 The socialists at the time
understood that a revolution would not happen, but instead believed that they would be able to
change the United States by winning elections and in turn changing who had political power.
While socialists thought they would gain power through elections, the government was
afraid of a communist uprising. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer ensured it would not
happen. Palmer stated that the Justice Department would wage an “unflinching, persistent,
aggressive warfare” against Bolsheviks and other radicals.5 Palmer authorized raids- now seen
as illegal- against those who opposed the war, arresting and deporting thousands without trial.
The executive was not the only branch afraid of communists; the United States House of
Representatives failed to sit a socialist member from Wisconsin, because of his politics.
The First Red Scare started to wane following the end of WWI. Warren Harding, the new
President, pardoned Debs. In fact, Harding welcomed Debs at the White House and said “I am
very glad to meet you personally.” This change of attitude was a big adjustment and while it
marked the beginning of the end, the First Red Scare was not over yet. The First Red Scare
effectively ended in 1927 with the Supreme Court case of Whitney v. United States. Thereafter
the Depression created a “new tolerance for ideas that had once seemed radical.”6 In his
concurring opinion for Whitney, Justice Brandeis did not use the Clear and Present Danger test
which had been used previously, including against Debs. Instead, Brandeis believed that the
government needed to protect those with unpopular opinions. Just because people talked about
socialism, Brandeis reasoned, did not mean they were a threat to the government’s stability.
4
"We Nominate Debs For President! From Prison Cell to White House!" Appeal to Reason 24 May 1919: 1.
Whitten, Woodrow C. "Trial of Charlotte Anita Whitney." The Pacific Historical Review 15 (1946): 286.
6
Finan, Chris. From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act : A History of the Fight for Free Speech in America. New
York: Beacon P, 2008. 122
5
3
Coal Truckers’ Strike
With prosperity in the 1920s, mainstream society gave up communism as a threat. But the
Great Depression, starting in 1929, created a fertile ground for the rise of extremist groups. In
1934, one of the extremist groups gained power. Throughout the early 1930s, Trotskyites
became prominent members of a Minneapolis Teamster Union, Local 574.7 By May of 1934,
Vince, Miles and Grant Dunne gained the respect of truck drivers throughout Minneapolis by
calling a work stoppage and conducting a union election which was a big win for local 574. 8
The Coal Truckers went on strike because they wanted a 33-cent per hour pay increase from 50
cents to 83 cents, and they wanted to be reimbursed for gas as it was, they had to buy their own
gas. When the Dunne brothers asked the Teamsters for financial assistance from the AFL, a
request that was denied, Teamster President Daniel Tobin told them that the union would not
back a strike in 1934 because the local had not been part of the nation union for long enough.9 In
order to ensure that they did not have to strike, the union elected Miles Dunne as their
representative. The truckers’ employers, however, were very anti-union and refused to recognize
Miles Dunne. The truckers had no other choice but to strike: thankfully for them they were
joined by other Minneapolis labor groups.10
The first strike caused Mayor Floyd B. Olson to call in the National Guard and threaten
martial law if a deal could not be reached. A preliminary deal was set in which the truckers
would get 60 cents an hour with the promise that future raises would come, though they still
would have to pay for their own gas. Later that year, when it became apparent that there would
be no raise, Dunne declared another strike.11 The strike was both very violent and very effective.
Part of the reason it was risky was due to the fact that Minneapolis had a “settled dislike for
7
The number of the local union was changed to 544 in the mid 1930s
Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering and Struggle : Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis,
1915-1945. New York: University of North Carolina P, 1991. 72
9
Tobin, Daniel J. In a letter to Local 574. Feb. 7, 1934. M494 1928 Minneapolis Teamster Strike, 1934
10
Riehle, Dave. "The Minneapolis Teamster Strikes of 1934." Labor Standard. 24 Oct 2008
<http://www.laborstandard.org/MN_Teamster_Festival/Dave_R_on_1934.htm>.
11
Dunne, Miles. In a letter to his brothers in Local 574. July 6, 1934.
8
4
union labor.”12 Because the strike was violent, the National Guard was deployed, allowing only
farmers who needed to get food for their livestock to pass.13 On August 21st, the leaders of Local
544 finally got the wages and benefits they had been looking for. It took 35,000 building trade
workers to go on strike and 200 people to get injured with four fatalities, but the Dunne brothers
managed to win.14 The victory “marked the revival of the labor movement in [Minneapolis].”15
Under the leadership of the Dunne brothers, unions became an important part of Minneapolis
labor.
The victory raised the prestige of the Dunne brothers and allowed them to maintain their
dominance amongst the Minneapolis Teamsters.16 Farrell Dobbs, another key architect of the
strike, was able to expand the power of this union.17 Because the Dunne brothers had not
followed Tobin’s directions, and because Tobin was “fearful of Marxist penetration of trade
unions,” Tobin tried to break the Dunnes’ base of power.18 He failed because of the respect and
admiration the Dunne brothers had won amongst the rank and file members of the union.
Following his failure to get the Dunne brothers out of power, Tobin denounced the union and
declared that the leaders of the local union were nothing more than “riff-raff Commies …
bobbing up here and there in our unions.”19 The Dunne brothers ultimately moved their local
from the Teamsters Union to the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).20 Tobin failed to
recognize that the Dunne brothers were not part of the Communist Party but were Trotskyites,
part of the Socialist Workers Party.
12
"Three Little Men." 07 Jul 1941. Time Magazine. 20 Sept. 2008
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,790163-1,00.html>.
13
"1934 Truckers' Strike (Minneapolis)." Minnesota Historical Society. Minnesota Historical Society. 26 Oct 2008
<http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/81truckersstrike.html>.
14
Ibid.
15
Faue, 73
16
Steele, 130
17
James, Ralph C., and Estelle James. "The Purge of the Trotskyites from the Teamsters." Western Political
Quarterly 19 (1966): 5.
18
James, 6.
19
Tobin, Daniel J. "Communists & Radicals in Local Unions." Official Magazine of the Union July 1934: 13-14.
20
"Three Little Men."
5
Different Parties on the Left
After the August 21st 1939 peace treaty between the Soviet Union and Germany, the
differences between the communist parties and socialist parties became more apparent. The
communists took orders from the Russians on what to believe, to do, and to say; the socialists
continued their struggle for all workers in the world, not just Joseph Stalin’s followers.
Before the peace agreement, William Foster, a well known Communist Party leader was
going to endorse Roosevelt for president and condemn Hitlerism and Nazi Germany. After the
pact, Foster never made his endorsement speech and instead took his cues from the Soviet
Union.21 While the direction of the Communist Party came from the Kremlin, the Socialists
Workers Party took its cues from Leon Trotsky and ultimately from within their own ranks. The
distrust between the two parties was especially clear when Trotsky was murdered. An entire
issue of SWP newspaper, Labor Action, was dedicated to Trotsky. The paper noted “Leon
Trotsky is the victim of Cain Stalin, the gravedigger of the Russian Revolution, the assassin of
brave revolutionists.”22 Even after Stalin had Trotsky murdered the United States government
failed to recognize the differences between the two groups. The differences in the groups are
clearly evident in reading their respective newspapers; the communist party respected Stalin
while the socialist party respected Trotsky.
The Federal Government at this time failed to realize that the two groups were separate
and did not like one another.23 In his rise to power, Stalin exiled original members of the
communist party from the Soviet Union. Those he did not exile, Stalin killed. Between 1937
and 1938, Stalin orchestrated the Great Purge. Those who disagreed with Stalin were put on trial
for treason often being executed or sent to “labor camps”. In fact, Stalin exiled Trotsky in 1928
and murdered Trotsky in 1940. After Trotsky’s exile, the socialist and communist party
separated. At that time, the Communist League of America merged with the Workers Party, but
21
Dobbs, Farrell. Teamster Bureaucracy. New York: Pathfinder P, 1977. 40
"Farewell, Leon Trotsky..." Labor Action 26 Aug. 1940: 1.
23
Based on DoJ, “Socialist Workers Party,” 146-1-10, DoJ/FoI. Found in Steele, Richard W. Free Speech in the
Good War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
22
6
that merger did not work out. James Cannon, a founding member of the Workers Party, believed
that Trotskyites, like himself, were for more democracy within parties, while others wanted
bureaucratization.24 By 1938, the Socialist Workers Party formed, and only those who supported
Trotsky were members.
While the government failed to recognize these differences, some prominent labor leaders
understood the difference. Roger Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU, believed that
communists needed to be purged from the labor unions. He believed that communist
governments were “a police state.”25 While he was anti-communist, Baldwin was against the
prosecution of the Trotskyites from Local 544. The ACLU, under Baldwin, sent a letter to
Attorney General Biddle in regards to the Minneapolis Sedition Trial, saying “It seems more
reasonable to conclude that the government injected itself into an inter-union controversy in
order to promote the interests of the one side which supported the administration’s foreign and
domestic policies.”26 In a letter to James Farrell, Baldwin said, “this imprisonment never should
have taken place under a law which never should have been passed.”27 Communists in
Minnesota believed that the Dunne brothers gained too much attention and power with the
successful strike, so they gleefully accepted the fate of the Dunne brothers. 28 However, it was
not the Communist Party (CPUSA) that ended up being the most dangerous enemy the SWP had,
but rather it was Tobin, as he never would forget the Coal Truckers’ Strike and would ultimately
be the one to advocate their being put on trial.29
24
Cannon, James P. Socialism on Trial: the Official Court Record. New York, NY: Pioneer, 1942 14
Cottrell, Robert. "ROGER BALDWIN: FOUNDER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION." Harvard Square
Library. 2 Nov. 2008 <http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html>.
26
Novack, George E., and James T. Farrell. Witch Hunt in Minnesota. New York, NY: Civil Rights Defense
Committee 8. Found at Minnesota Historical Society 147.K.9.6F Box 6 LABOR
27
Letter from James Farrell to Recipient Unknown. Found in Minnesota Historical Society 156.I.2.3B Box 1
28
Cottrell
29
James, 6.
25
7
Daniel Tobin
For much of his working life, Daniel Tobin belonged to and supported unions. In fact,
Tobin joined the Teamsters union when it was first founded in 1903, and by the next year he was
the union’s business representative.30 In 1907, Tobin was elected Teamster President, and while
challenged in 1908-1910, did not face reelection for this post until his retirement in 1952.31
Under Tobin, the Teamsters union not only expanded, but also it began to become a more unified
group. Whereas before, each Teamster union chapter held its own power (mainly in cities),
Tobin created a joint council enabling the different chapters to contact one another. As he
gained power, Tobin became an important part of the labor community, befriending such people
as Samuel Gompers. However, Tobin and Gompers disagreed on a big issue: World War I.
Gompers supported Wilson’s plan to go to war while Tobin initially did not.32 Tobin gained
power, however, becoming the treasurer of the AFL. In that job he was forced to denounce
pacifism and support the war. As his power grew, Tobin never went back to his pre-World War I
beliefs; he gave up his ideals in exchange for the power he accumulated.
During World War I, Tobin started to show how much he disliked radical ideas.
Communists annoyed Tobin more then fascists though, due to their influence in American
Unions. And while Tobin hated radical ideas, he did not believe that ideas were enough to get a
worker expelled from a union unless his ideas were communist. Tobin’s anti-communist views,
along with his pride and support for Roosevelt led Tobin to advocate for the Smith Act to be
used against the members of Local 544. Tobin had tried to oust them from the union, but he had
never been able to break their hold on power. By having them arrested and sent to jail, Tobin was
able to guarantee that the Teamster Union would stand behind Roosevelt throughout the war:
communists would not be able to get in the way. Those on the left knew that they could not
speak against the war because of Tobin and the Smith Act.
30
"Daniel Tobin Dies," New York Times, November 15, 1955.
Foner, Philip S. History of the Labor Movement in the United States Vol. 3 : The Policies and Practices of the
AFL, 1900-1909. Boston: International Company, Incorporated, 1964. 157
32
Montgomery, David. The Fall of the House of Labor : The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism,
1865-1925. New York: Cambridge UP, 1987.
31
8
Why the Smith Act was Passed
When the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed in 1939, the citizens of the United
States (and not just the government) were once again afraid of the rise of communism with the
United States.33 In fact, that year Congress made it illegal to give any funds to “any person who
advocates, or who is a member of an organization that advocates the overthrow of the
government…through force or violence.” The Hatch Act, which came later in 1939, banned
federal employees from being in “any political party or organization that advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government.”34 By 1940, the war in Europe had turned
sour for Britain and France and by June of that year, France had surrendered to Germany. The
French military attributed the quick fall of France to “Nazi and Communist sympathizers within
France.”35
Franklin Roosevelt and the United States Congress had different ideas to ensure the same
fate did not meet the United States; however, they did agree that something had to be done
quickly. Roosevelt wanted substantial increases in defense appropriations and was able to get the
money.36 Congress reenacted the Espionage Act of 1917, marking it the first time that the
provisions were applicable during peacetime,37 and Congress also passed the Alien Registration
Act of 1940 (the Smith Act).38 Roosevelt did not veto the Smith Act because he believed the Act
“hardly…constitute an improper encroachment on civil liberties in the light of present world
33
Stone, Geoffrey. Perilous Times : Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism.
Boston: W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated, 2004250
34
Goldstein, Robert J. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976. New York: University of Illinois
P, 2001. Found in Stone Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on
Terrorism.
35
Stone 251
36
Ibid.251.
37
Ibid. 251 .
38
Goldstein, Found in Stone The same day that the French officially ended their resistance of the Germans, the
Smith Bill passed the House with only four members voting against the bill
9
conditions.”39 In fact, his acting Attorney General at the time, Francis Biddle, claimed to have
doubts about the constitutionality of the Smith Act. It took Roosevelt two and a half months to
have Biddle named Attorney General due to Biddle’s hesitancy to neglect civil liberties. During
that period, Roosevelt searched for a man who would be more aggressive in dealing with those
who opposed U.S interests.40 The main opponent of the Smith Act, Emmanuel Celler cosponsored the bill proclaiming, “in fear of a worse bill, we must accept this one.”41 Howard W.
Smith, the original sponsor of the bill believed that the Smith Act was good because it prevented
“treasonable American citizens” from overthrowing the government. While there were already
laws stating that aliens could not advocate the overthrow of the government, the Smith Act,
according to Congressman Smith, “leveled the playing field.”42 While the rhetoric surrounding
the Smith Act makes it seem neutral, the Smith Act was in practice only used against those on
the left. The Smith Act ended up being used as a mechanism for the government to prosecute
communists who they were afraid would end up as the “fifth column” and enable communists to
destroy the country. One of the reasons that the Smith Act was used against communists was the
rapidity with which the CPUSA was attracting converts, doubling its number of members
between 1936 and 1938.43 While those in the government began to fear communism, society as
a whole did not. In fact, many intellectuals spoke out against the bill; Zachariah Chafee argued
that the Smith Act was “like a loaded revolver.”44
39
Donner, Frank J. The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America's Political Intelligence System.
Knopf, 1980. 53-54. Found in Stone 252. Considering Roosevelt’s later actions of putting Japanese Americans into
camps, it is difficult to know whether or not there would be any act (according to Roosevelt) that would improperly
encroach on civil liberties the conditions WWII set up.
40
Steele 110.
41
Stone 251
42
Ibid 252
43
Finan, 139
44
Steele Free Speech in the Good War. 82
10
Use of the Smith Act
The Smith Act made it illegal to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach
the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United
States or of any State by force or violence.”45 The first time it was used was in 1941, when those
in charge of the 1934 Coal Truckers’ Strike in Minneapolis were prosecuted.46 During the war,
there was one case in which the government charged 28 alleged Nazi supporters; however, the
case was thrown out because the government failed to prosecute the case.47 There was a hiatus
in prosecuting communists during the War, however, when the United States was allied with the
Soviet Union and the CPUSA found itself supporting the war policies of Franklin Roosevelt.48
After WWII, Attorney General Francis Biddle went back to prosecuting communists.49
In fact, between 1940 and 1956 over “185 leaders of the Socialist Workers Party were indicted
under the Smith Act;”50 and the only case before WWII was the Minneapolis Sedition Trial,
when twenty-nine members of the Socialist Workers Party were tried for overthrowing the
government. However, the original twenty-nine members prosecuted under the Smith Act are not
those remembered by historians. Instead, historians focus on the cases that occur after WWII,
focusing on the 1951 trial of twenty three leaders of the CPUSA including Elizabeth Flynn, a
founding member of the ACLU.51
Events Leading to the Indictments of the SWP Members
45
Text of the 1940 Alien Registration Act (Smith Act)
I will be discussing this prosecution also known as the Minneapolis Sedition Trials later on in my paper.
47
Johnson, Claudius O. "The Status of Freedom of Expression under the Smith Act." The Western Political
Quarterly Sept. 1958.
48
Johnson
49
In my paper I will just be focusing on the Minneapolis Sedition Trial as it lays the ground work for other
communists to be tried under the Smith Act and is the only time the Smith Act was used before the traditional start
of the Second Red Scare. The next time communists were tried under the Smith Act occurred in 1948.
50
Kohn, Stephen M. American Political Prisoners : Prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. New York:
Praeger, 1994. Of these 185 leaders, twenty-nine were before the war.
51
Fried, Albert. McCarthyism, the Great American Red Scare : A Documentary History. New York: Oxford UP,
Incorporated, 1996.
46
11
In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt ran for President saying that the young men and women of
the United States would not be sent off to Europe. However, as things got worse and worse for
the Allies, it became apparent that the United States would have to get involved. By this time,
Daniel Tobin had become an important ally to Roosevelt and promised to get the unions to
support the war effort. However, those who had organized the Coal Truckers’ Strike were
staunchly anti-war: something had to be done in order to ensure that they did not cause the
government any problems. In 1939, Roosevelt ordered Attorney General Frank Murphy to
prosecute the employees who participated in the strike led by Local 544. And while thirty-three
were prosecuted for criminal conspiracy, the majority of cases were dismissed.52 In 1940, Tobin
was appointed to Roosevelt’s staff as an administrative assistant while retaining his leadership of
the Teamster Union. In May 1941, Tobin published an editorial in Teamsters Journal, in which
he threatened to remove any “known advocates of the Socialist Workers Party” from the
Teamsters Union.53 After the leaders of the SWP refused to resign and joined the CIO, Tobin
wrote Roosevelt that in such a dangerous time, people who “believe in the policies of foreign,
radical governments, must be in some way prevented from pursuing this dangerous course.54
Roosevelt then persuaded Attorney General Biddle to go after the Trotskyites in part because of
Roosevelt’s “political debt to Tobin for past services rendered,”55 and in part due to Roosevelt’s
fear of a communist uprising.
It was known that the members of Local 544 were anti-war since 1938 when they
declared, “it would oppose any war, continue the class struggle, use a war crisis for the
overthrow of U.S. capitalism and the victory of socialism.”56 In addition, the union leaders said
52
Steele Free Speech in the Good War. 130. The leaders would not be as lucky in the following year as the Smith
Act would give the government a new tool in going after these people.
53
Novack, George E., and James T. Farrell. Witch Hunt in Minnesota. New York, NY: Civil Rights Defense
Committee 8. Found at Minnesota Historical Society 147.K.9.6F Box 6 LABOR
54
N.Y. Times June 14, 1941 Found in Novack 9
55
Dobbs 188
56
"Three Little Men." In fact, by this time, the Trotskyite Party believed the war was important to save the Soviet
Union.
12
that they would not give “one iota of support to the armaments program for war!”57 Tobin,
however, believed that these members were “undercover agents of Germany and Russia” trying
to destroy the United States.58 On June 27, 1941, two weeks after Tobin sent his telegram,
federal agents raided the offices of the Socialist Workers Party and announced that the
government “would seek criminal indictments against the soapbox radicals.”59 Attorney General
Biddle proclaimed that the prosecution of the SWP members was due to their gaining “control of
a legitimate labor union to use it for illegitimate purposes.”60
The government chose to have Henry A. Schweinhaut, a Special Assistant to the
Attorney General fly out from Washington D.C. to oversee the case. Working with him was
United States Attorney Victor Anderson. Upon his arrival, Schweinhaut proclaimed that the
government was not to be bound by the Holmes-Brandeis theory of clear and present danger.61
Furthermore, he told the Minneapolis Tribune that “there was evidence of Socialist Workers
Party activities in the Twin Cities which goes far beyond public knowledge.”62 Anderson echoed
Schweinhaut’s comment saying that “This may be the start of a nationwide cleanup on
subversive activities.”63 However, the literature that the FBI agents who raided the branch offices
of the SWP found was Marxist literature, something that could be found in libraries.64 Much of
what was seized were articles written by either Marx or Trotsky. In fact, the “weapon arsenal”
they had available to overthrow the government by force and violence (the crime for which they
were indicted under the 1861 Sedition Act) consisted of just two guns.65 The second count of the
indictment was five activities prohibited under the Smith Act: “1) Advocating overthrow of the
57
Steele, Free Speech in the Good War. 131
Tel. Tobin to Press Secretary S. Early, June 12 th 1941, Official File [OF] 2978, Roosevelt papers. Found in Steele,
Richard W. Free Speech in the Good War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. 131
59
Press Release June 27th 1941 in file 100-16 sub. 44 in FBI/Fol Found in Steele, Richard W. Free Speech in the
Good War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999
60
Minneapolis Star-Journal, June 28 1941 Found in Novack
61
The Issues at Minneapolis. New York, NY: Civil Rights Defense Committee, 1941.
62
Dobbs 187
63
"Wider Probe Looms in Workers' Party." Tribune 2 July 1941. Found in Minnesota Historical Society Location
148.C.4.2F Box 7 Volume 2
64
Cannon, James 5
65
Dobbs.
58
13
government by force. 2) Publishing and circulating literature advocating this. 3) Forming
organizations to teach, advocate and encourage such overthrow. 4) Becoming members of such
organizations. 5) Distributing publication which advised, counseled and urged insubordination in
the armed forces.”66 Essentially, the second count was whether or not the writings of the SWP
were to be covered under the First Amendment: did the United States have free speech?
The Trial
While people knew of the probe into the SWP in Minneapolis, the government was
secretive about the hearings. Reporters were not allowed in the section of the Federal Courthouse
where the grand jurors were meeting.67 When Grace Carlson, a state SWP member mentioned
that the government was being too secretive, not only did Anderson strike back by claiming, “the
grand jury’s indictments will speak for themselves,”68 but Carlson was then put under
investigation for her statements.69 Within a week, 29 people were charged for seditious
conspiracy. Most but not all of the 29 were part of the leadership of Local 544; also included as
defendants were James Cannon, party secretary, Albert Goldman, Leon Trotsky’s attorney, Felix
Morrow, editor of the party’s newsletter, and Farrell Dobbs, labor secretary of the party. 70
Having people who were not related to the Coal Truckers Strike makes the theory that Roosevelt
was just prosecuting these members as a favor to Tobin less viable. While it was not known who
testified against the leaders of 544, it became apparent that they were disgruntled members. To
this day it is still unclear whether or not they were bribed by Daniel Tobin as Felix Morrow
asserts.71 Right after the indictment was handed down, the members of SWP blamed Roosevelt
saying, “the Roosevelt administration knows that the SWP is opposed to the war from a principle
66
Cannon 5
"Probe is Veiled by Secrecy." Star Journal 2 July 1941.
68
"U.S. Strikes Back at Charge of Secrecy in Probe of SWP." Star Journal 3 July 1941.
69
"Worker Party Organizer Is Under Probe." Tribune 4 July 1941.
70
"544 Leaders Indicted in SWP Inquiry." Minneapolis Daily Times 15 July 1941.
71
Cannon, James P. Socialism on Trial: the Official Court Record. New York, NY: Pioneer, 1942. Felix Morrow
wrote the forward for this book.
67
14
point of view; that is, we take the position that war on the part of Britain and the United States is
an imperialist war.”72
The 28 defendants (Raymond Dunne committed suicide before the trial) used James
Cannon as their main witness with Albert Goldman as the lawyer. Cannon was an important
figure to the left, defending Trotsky in the Dewey Commission and at the time of the trial, he
was the National Secretary of the SWP. Cannon later wrote that the point of the trial was to
“outlaw the party and deprive it, perhaps for a long time, of the active services of a number of its
most experienced leaders.”73 Cannon and the other SWP members agreed that instead of
pretending that their party had no influence, it would be beneficial to the party if they spoke to
their cause: “it was our aim to use the courtroom as a forum to popularize the principles of our
movement.”74
On October 27th, 1941 the Minneapolis Sedition Trials began. In his opening statement,
Anderson claimed that “Leon Trotsky had plotted with his American followers to overthrow the
U.S Government.”75 Throughout the trial Anderson used the writings of Lenin and Trotsky to
show the judge and jurors how dangerous the writings could be.76 In fact, there were so many
books and pamphlets used as evidence that Judge M. Joyce had to call a recess an order to
examine all the materials.77 The materials were memoirs describing how the Bolshevik
Revolution had worked. What is interesting is that the SWP members never denied that they
sought a revolution; they just “insisted that the revolution they planned would be a peaceful
one.”78 Also included in evidence was a framed picture of Trotsky with the inscription “With
72
"29 Reds Indicted in 'Overthrow plot." New York Times 16 July 1941.
Munis, Grandizo, and James P. Cannon. Defense Policy in the Minneapolis Trial. New York, NY: Pioneer, 1942.
17
74
Munis 17
75
"Government Says Trotsky Plotted U.S. Revolution." PM 29 Oct. 1941.
76
After Anderson used Lenin and Trotsky’s writings, Liston Oak wrote an article saying the Bill of Rights is on trial
due to the lack of protection for the first amendment. It can be found at Minnesota Historical Society 156.I.2.3B Box
1
77
"Writings of Lenin and Trotsky Are Studied in Plot of 28." Minneapolis Star Journal 30 Oct. 1941. 21 Almost a
week later, on November 3rd, the Judge declared that the books did not have any relevance to the trial.
78
Ibid. 21
73
15
Warmest Greetings to Comrade V.R. Dunne.”79 The defendants never denied their friendship,
nor did they deny being tied to Trotsky. The government tried to show that by being in contact
with Trotsky, the leaders of the SWP sought the knowledge of how to properly go about a
revolution. However, I believe that by resorting to a photograph of a slain revolutionary the
government weakened its case.
In addition to testifying at the grand jury, disgruntled members of the union also testified
at the trial. The most important witness was James Bartlett. Bartlett claimed that at a Workers
Party meeting in 1938, Vince Dunne said that the 1934 Coal Truckers’ Strike enabled the
Workers Party to effectively take over Minneapolis.80 In addition, Bartlett claimed that the
members of SWP believed they could overthrow the government with a small amount of people
by looking at the Bolshevik Revolution. There, 160,000 members were able to take control of a
country with 160,000,000 people. In fact, during the trial, Anderson admitted that the
government did not think the SWP revolution would succeed, going on to say that was not a
reason not to find the defendants guilty. Most of the government witnesses ended up being AFL
organizers who were of the Committee of 99 which “sought to purge Local 544 of Trotskyites.”81
After the prosecution rested, Judge Joyce dismissed the chargers against five of the members
being charged due to lack of evidence against them.
Throughout the trial, the members of SWP did not argue that they wanted the United
States to go through a revolution. When Bartlett mentioned the small percentage of Russians it
took to enable the Bolsheviks to come to power, Goldman pointed out an important distinction
between the SWP and Bolsheviks: the SWP wanted a “decisive majority” of people to agree with
the SWP.82 When Cannon was on the witness stand, he spoke about the alleged plot to
79
Ibid. 21. When this picture was introduced into evidence, Albert Goldman, the lawyer for the defendants objected
saying he could find a better picture of Trotsky. IT is clear the defendants did not believe the picture would cause
any trouble.
80
Holstrom, Ben. "Tells of Plan for Worker's Armed Revolt." Minneapolis Star Journal 31 Oct. 1941. This point
was argued by Goldman due to the fact that SWP did not exist at the time Bartlett claimed the meeting took place.
However, the Workers Party did and many of the same people left the Workers Party for the SWP
81
"'Treason' Trial Lacking Punch." PM 10 Nov. 1941: 13.
82
Holstrom, Ben. "SWP Jury Given Plan for Revolt." Minneapolis Star Journal 5 Nov. 1941: 1.
16
overthrow the government. Cannon rejected the notion of an armed evolution, claiming that over
50% of the population needed to believe in a revolution in order for the SWP to revolt.83
Another point that stuck with jurors was that any pamphlet that was distributed before the
signing of the Smith Act could not be used against the defendants however, their actions still
could.
On December 1st, the jury returned with a decision. Five defendants were acquitted on
both charges while the remaining eighteen were found guilty of willingly advocating the
overthrow of the government. Even though there were no overt acts proved showing that the
defendants wanted to overthrow the government, the jury, through the Smith Act, determined
that “merely speaking in favor of overthrow of the government was enough to convict.”84 The
Minneapolis Star Journal ran an editorial that day which noted “in times when the nation fear for
its security, the laws which bear on our civil liberties are stricter, and are more strictly construed,
than in times when there are no such fears.”85 If not for World War II, these people would not
have been tried, much less convicted. Had the Supreme Court taken the case, it would have been
a good case for Free Speech: when can we limit Free Speech? However, the Court refused to
take the case and thus those convicted were sentenced to jail. By refusing to hear the case, the
Supreme Court may have actually made the public more sympathetic to those put in jail:
“Regardless of our acceptance or rejection of the views of these men we know they should have
been granted a hearing, and the refusal of the Supreme Court is regrettable.”86 Twelve people
were sentenced to sixteen months in jail, while the remaining six had to serve 366 days. After
the outcome of the trial, the Civil Rights Defense Committee, a group that helped solicit
donations for those tried in Minneapolis, wrote a memo in which they listed eight talking points
83
84
Holstrom, Ben. "SWP Attitude Toward War Told at Trial." Minneapolis Star Journal 14 Nov. 1941: 1
Holstrom, Ben. "18 Convicted in SWP Case To Hear Sentence Monday." Minneapolis Star Journal 2 Dec. 1941:
1.
“The SWP Verdict” Minneapolis Star Journal 2 Dec 1941 12.
Mrs. Edith M. Hurley, President Penna. Assoc. of Teachers of Colored Children found in Minnesota Historical
Society 156.I.2.3B Box 1 There are many other examples of this including a letter John Green, President of
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America wrote to George Novack. They are all found in
the same box.
85
86
17
for their members if they want to write letters of behalf of those convicted of the Smith Act.87
Years after the trial, Attorney General Biddle “expressed regret for having authorized the
prosecution” because he felt the defendants were guilty of no more than “rhetorical excess.”88
By the time Biddle apologized, the damage to the First Amendment had already been done.
Roosevelt and Tobin were not the only members of the government fighting against a communist
uprising within the United States. In fact, the most notorious anti-communist at the time came
from the House of Representatives. In 1930, Martin Dies Jr. was elected to the House of
Representatives from Texas’ second district. A conservative southern democrat, Dies originally
supported the New Deal; however, by 1937 he had changed his mind. He believed communists
worked in organizations that the New Deal set up and did not see this as a positive development.
In fact, Dies said that the New Deal was “simply preparing the way for dictatorship… the Fifth
Column and the Trojan horse organizations.”89
The Federal Governments reaction to the Minneapolis Coal Truckers strike demonstrates
a fear of communism that did not previously have a place in mainstream society. The fear of an
uprising coupled with the rise of prominence of the Soviet Union enabled anti-communists to
create a way to rid the country of communists. Whether or not the leaders of the SWP were
prosecuted as a favor to Tobin does not matter. The government failed to protect civil rights
during this time period in order to ensure that the United States did not succumb to the rising
threat of communism.
Martin Dies Jr.
In 1938, Dies got his chance to rid organizations of anti-American members through the
establishment of the HUAC. For years, members of the House of Representatives had been
trying to set up such a committee that would investigate Nazi infiltration into the U.S; however,
87
This memo can be found in the Minnesota Historical Society 156.I.2.3B Box 1
Stone 255
89
Martin Dies, The Trojan Horse in America 355. Found in Stone 354.
88
18
it was not given adequate funding until May of 1938, when the situation in Europe worsened.90
And while HUAC was set up to look into German activity in the United States, it failed to do so.
While having disdain for Fritz Julius Kuhn, the leader of the largest Nazi organization in the
United States. Dies was “particularly interested in exposing the Communist influence in
government.”91 Not only did his proceedings name 640 organizations, 483 newspapers and 280
labor organizations as being communist, but Dies may have believed that communism had
spread to Hollywood, but he was certain that going after Hollywood personalities was good
press.92 Dies, like McCarthy would later, believed that Hollywood professionals sympathized
with communists. During the height of McCarthy there was a Hollywood blacklist of those who
supported communists. Both periods forced Hollywood studies to close down and figure out the
loyalties of their employers.
In 1939, a public poll showed that 59% of Americans knew of the activities of the Dies
Committee.93 A different poll showed that 74% of those who had heard of the Dies Committee
were hoping the investigations would continue causing Congress to continue and increase
funding for the Dies Committee.94 By August 1939, Dies used his committee to question the
influence communists had on individual politicians as well as various public works projects. Dies
publicly advocated the deportation of Harry Bridges, a labor leader in San Francisco with
communist ties.95 In late October 1939, Dies released the names of all government employees in
Washington, D.C., and two years later, Dies submitted a list of over 1,000 federal employees
who were affiliated with communism, to the Attorney General.96 Additionally, Dies requested
the FBI assign agents to HUAC. While this request was denied, Roosevelt did offer to give Dies
90
Stone 245
Steele Good War 39
92
Stone 246
93
Les K. Adler and Thomas G. Patterson, “Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the
American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930s-1950s” American Historical Review 75 found in Steele 37
94
Britt, Steuart H., and Selden C. Menefee. "Did the Publicity of the Dies Committee in 1938 Influence Public
Opinion?" The Public Opinion Quarterly 3 (1939).
95
In this paper I will not go into detail about the Bridges incident. In his book Reds or Rackets, The Making of
Radical and Conservative Unions on the Waterfront, Howard Kimeldorf details the incident regarding Bridges
96
Stone 247
91
19
confidential tax returns from those Dies believed to be communists. The FBI, Roosevelt
thought, could be better controlled; whereas Dies could not be controlled and could turn against
the Roosevelt administration. Dies would end up leading the “rising chorus of demands that the
government do something about the un-Americans”97 forcing the government to show the public
what efforts were being taken to ensure communists did not gain power.
Conclusion
From the Whitney decision in 1927 through the Coal Truckers Strike in 1934, the United
States government did not fear the spread of communism. However, after the Coal Truckers
Strike in 1934 the attitude of the government began to shift. Labor officials, worried about
communist infiltration of labor unions and their own possible loss of power, called on the
government to take actions. In 1938, Attorney General Frank Murphy “suggested that something
like the Palmer raids and deportations would not be such a bad idea.”98 The next year the NaziSoviet Pact was signed further damaging the communist reputation, as much of the support for
communists groups in the 1930 came from “the party’s denunciation of fascism.”99 Many
communists lost credibility with others because of their sudden shift in ideology regarding
fascism.
Following the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the United States government moved quickly to suppress
any uprisings. Daniel Tobin still upset about his loss in Minnesota help pressured the
government into trying the leaders of the Coal Truckers Strike. Fascism was not seen as a threat
to the United States peace and prosperity at this time. By 1940, the government had a new legal
tool in which to prosecute those seen as against the United States, the Smith Act. Six years after
the Coal Truckers Strike, the Smith Act, which could have been used to prosecute Pro-Nazi or
Pro-Soviet groups, was used solely against the successful leaders of the Coal Truckers Strike.
By arresting the leaders of the strike and their friends, the government demonstrated a fear of the
97
Steele Good War 41
Ibid. 43
99
Ibid. 39-40
98
20
influence that the SWP had. And while Attorney General Biddle would later apologize for the
trial, no publicly avowed communists ever gained control in a major metropolitan transit union.
Just as Tobin used fear of communism to keep his position, Dies played on the public’s
fear to gain additionally funding and publicity for his committee. Holding hearings, Dies
claimed that he had a list of communists within government organizations.100 Dies set up the
role that McCarthy would play over ten years later. Dies influence faded following the Nazi
invasion of the Soviet Union. Those who sympathized with the Soviet Union no longer called
for United States isolation, but rather believed the United States needed to rid the world of
fascism. This shift, coupled with German dominance of Europe forced the United States
government to ally with the communists. However, once the war was over, and fascism had
been dealt with, the United States government quickly renewed its fight against communism.
100
Ibid. 88
21