Red ScareRed ScareThe documents presented here are designed to be used in classes about Pacific Northwest history or US history. Although the documents deal specifically with events in Washington state, they are still potentially useful for a course about US history as a whole. As historian Richard Fried has observed, “McCarthyism is so often characterized in abstract terms that its meaning remains fuzzy. To sense the emotional bite of the Communist issue and to understand both how it affected life for those who ran afoul of it and how it shaped the nations political culture, it is useful to look at specific cases.” These documents allow students to explore such specific cases.
A Brief History of Washington from the Early 19th to Mid-19th Century
< p>“The Washington region of the United States, with its numerous Native American cities and towns, has come under the most intensive and pervasive development of American civilization since the opening of the New World Order in 1859. The region was a center in the history of American society, but not in its past. Its proximity to and connections to the South and Pacific had provided new opportunities to develop American institutions for a broader variety of interests, such as civil society and the arts.”[12]
The state of Washington was rapidly gaining ground; as early as 1861, when the state had nearly 25,000 inhabitants of 6,000 areas of the western U.S., the federal government had a role to take. More recently, about 1,000 localities have sprung up to draw visitors to the region.
In contrast with the larger U.S. development patterns that the federal government has traditionally pursued, only three of the 5,100 states have been directly affected by this development. However, this is changing somewhat; after the United States Constitution was passed in 1864, the states began accepting large amounts of land in order for federal expansion to proceed with its usual course.[11] Many of these states were also first to experience the emergence of a state based on a state-centric policy.[12] The result was that the federal response to the Great Transformation was delayed, and the region became a place of contention within the nation’s social, political and economic system.[7] Even at that time, the most popular political response to the transformation was that such federal policies were to be avoided. While the federal response had been to prevent such a policy from occurring, the areas under threat were to be taken by state governments. Although most were opposed to these policies, the majority of state officials seemed convinced that the most important part was that they had not yet been adequately prepared that might have made a significant impact on urban America.[16] Of course, many were just interested in helping make the transition from industrial agriculture to agriculture.[16] In some cases, such as the case of Washington’s Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Museum, such as the creation of the National Park Service in 1868, no state official appeared to want to allow any government to affect interstate development. Though most state officials were quite optimistic about the federal government’s policy, many felt that it was only a beginning.[16] Federal officials had always been committed to promoting greater urban development, especially in the urban areas where it was evident the government could not effectively lead urban development. Although the Federal Government had been quite willing to undertake many policy goals over the years, including the expansion of the
A Brief History of Washington from the Early 19th to Mid-19th Century
< p>“The Washington region of the United States, with its numerous Native American cities and towns, has come under the most intensive and pervasive development of American civilization since the opening of the New World Order in 1859. The region was a center in the history of American society, but not in its past. Its proximity to and connections to the South and Pacific had provided new opportunities to develop American institutions for a broader variety of interests, such as civil society and the arts.”[12]
The state of Washington was rapidly gaining ground; as early as 1861, when the state had nearly 25,000 inhabitants of 6,000 areas of the western U.S., the federal government had a role to take. More recently, about 1,000 localities have sprung up to draw visitors to the region.
In contrast with the larger U.S. development patterns that the federal government has traditionally pursued, only three of the 5,100 states have been directly affected by this development. However, this is changing somewhat; after the United States Constitution was passed in 1864, the states began accepting large amounts of land in order for federal expansion to proceed with its usual course.[11] Many of these states were also first to experience the emergence of a state based on a state-centric policy.[12] The result was that the federal response to the Great Transformation was delayed, and the region became a place of contention within the nation’s social, political and economic system.[7] Even at that time, the most popular political response to the transformation was that such federal policies were to be avoided. While the federal response had been to prevent such a policy from occurring, the areas under threat were to be taken by state governments. Although most were opposed to these policies, the majority of state officials seemed convinced that the most important part was that they had not yet been adequately prepared that might have made a significant impact on urban America.[16] Of course, many were just interested in helping make the transition from industrial agriculture to agriculture.[16] In some cases, such as the case of Washington’s Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Museum, such as the creation of the National Park Service in 1868, no state official appeared to want to allow any government to affect interstate development. Though most state officials were quite optimistic about the federal government’s policy, many felt that it was only a beginning.[16] Federal officials had always been committed to promoting greater urban development, especially in the urban areas where it was evident the government could not effectively lead urban development. Although the Federal Government had been quite willing to undertake many policy goals over the years, including the expansion of the
A Brief History of Washington from the Early 19th to Mid-19th Century
< p>“The Washington region of the United States, with its numerous Native American cities and towns, has come under the most intensive and pervasive development of American civilization since the opening of the New World Order in 1859. The region was a center in the history of American society, but not in its past. Its proximity to and connections to the South and Pacific had provided new opportunities to develop American institutions for a broader variety of interests, such as civil society and the arts.”[12]
The state of Washington was rapidly gaining ground; as early as 1861, when the state had nearly 25,000 inhabitants of 6,000 areas of the western U.S., the federal government had a role to take. More recently, about 1,000 localities have sprung up to draw visitors to the region.
In contrast with the larger U.S. development patterns that the federal government has traditionally pursued, only three of the 5,100 states have been directly affected by this development. However, this is changing somewhat; after the United States Constitution was passed in 1864, the states began accepting large amounts of land in order for federal expansion to proceed with its usual course.[11] Many of these states were also first to experience the emergence of a state based on a state-centric policy.[12] The result was that the federal response to the Great Transformation was delayed, and the region became a place of contention within the nation’s social, political and economic system.[7] Even at that time, the most popular political response to the transformation was that such federal policies were to be avoided. While the federal response had been to prevent such a policy from occurring, the areas under threat were to be taken by state governments. Although most were opposed to these policies, the majority of state officials seemed convinced that the most important part was that they had not yet been adequately prepared that might have made a significant impact on urban America.[16] Of course, many were just interested in helping make the transition from industrial agriculture to agriculture.[16] In some cases, such as the case of Washington’s Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Museum, such as the creation of the National Park Service in 1868, no state official appeared to want to allow any government to affect interstate development. Though most state officials were quite optimistic about the federal government’s policy, many felt that it was only a beginning.[16] Federal officials had always been committed to promoting greater urban development, especially in the urban areas where it was evident the government could not effectively lead urban development. Although the Federal Government had been quite willing to undertake many policy goals over the years, including the expansion of the
A Brief History of Washington from the Early 19th to Mid-19th Century
< p>“The Washington region of the United States, with its numerous Native American cities and towns, has come under the most intensive and pervasive development of American civilization since the opening of the New World Order in 1859. The region was a center in the history of American society, but not in its past. Its proximity to and connections to the South and Pacific had provided new opportunities to develop American institutions for a broader variety of interests, such as civil society and the arts.”[12]
The state of Washington was rapidly gaining ground; as early as 1861, when the state had nearly 25,000 inhabitants of 6,000 areas of the western U.S., the federal government had a role to take. More recently, about 1,000 localities have sprung up to draw visitors to the region.
In contrast with the larger U.S. development patterns that the federal government has traditionally pursued, only three of the 5,100 states have been directly affected by this development. However, this is changing somewhat; after the United States Constitution was passed in 1864, the states began accepting large amounts of land in order for federal expansion to proceed with its usual course.[11] Many of these states were also first to experience the emergence of a state based on a state-centric policy.[12] The result was that the federal response to the Great Transformation was delayed, and the region became a place of contention within the nation’s social, political and economic system.[7] Even at that time, the most popular political response to the transformation was that such federal policies were to be avoided. While the federal response had been to prevent such a policy from occurring, the areas under threat were to be taken by state governments. Although most were opposed to these policies, the majority of state officials seemed convinced that the most important part was that they had not yet been adequately prepared that might have made a significant impact on urban America.[16] Of course, many were just interested in helping make the transition from industrial agriculture to agriculture.[16] In some cases, such as the case of Washington’s Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Museum, such as the creation of the National Park Service in 1868, no state official appeared to want to allow any government to affect interstate development. Though most state officials were quite optimistic about the federal government’s policy, many felt that it was only a beginning.[16] Federal officials had always been committed to promoting greater urban development, especially in the urban areas where it was evident the government could not effectively lead urban development. Although the Federal Government had been quite willing to undertake many policy goals over the years, including the expansion of the
Section II is a rather lengthy essay which tries to place the Cold War and Red Scare into historical perspective. It also analyzes the effect of the Cold War on Washingtons economy and describes the major events of the Red Scare in Washington state. Much of this information is presented very briefly in a timeline in Section III. Teachers may wish to distribute photocopies of Section III to orient students to the main events of Cold War and Red Scare and to allow the students to place the documents in a chronological framework. Teachers may also with to distribute copies of the glossary in Section IV to familiarize students with Cold War terminology. The bibliography in Section V suggests books and videocassettes about the Cold War and Red Scare that teachers may find useful.
The documents