McCarhty TrialsEssay Preview: McCarhty TrialsReport this essayI understand you have been studying the McCarthy period, which has also been described as a witch hunt. I looked witch hunt up in the Webster College dictionary where it is in part defined like this: “An investigation usually conducted with much publicity, supposedly to uncover subversive political activity, disloyalty, etc., but really to harass and weaken the entire political opposition.”
I think that is a fair description of the McCarthy witch hunt. It was indeed for the purpose of weakening the entire political opposition to the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Since that countrys revolution in 1919 which changed its capitalist economy into a socialist economy, the capitalist countries, particularly the United States and Great Britain plotted to overturn the new Soviet government, first by military intervention, in which they were joined by the French, and failing that, by trade boycotts.
However, when faced with the threat of Hitler Germanys invasion of both France and England, the United States, France and Great Britain became allies of the Soviet Union, the result of which Hitlers fascist army was defeated. After the war public approval of the Soviet Unions great contribution to the victory was at an all-time high. The U.S. General McArthur said: “Thank God for the Red Army.”
To return to the pre-war agenda of destroying the socialism of the Soviet Union it was necessary to turn around the thinking of the general public. So, Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain, made his famous speech at Fulton, Missouri, saying that the Soviet Union was the enemy that must be fought on all fronts. President Truman took up where Churchill left off and by executive action ordered that all government employees be forced to take loyalty oaths and declare they were not, nor ever had, been Communists.
Loyalty or disloyalty is a very private matter because there is no way, with or without oaths, can the secrecy of ones inmost thoughts be known. Therefore, it is obvious that the sole purpose of the loyalty oath was to intimidate people into suppressing their ideas of what they thought of the Cold War campaign. Many refused to take the oaths as a matter of principle, claiming that membership in the Communist Party was their right as citizens of a free country, just as was membership in the Democratic, Republican, or any other political party.
So, it was through the Democratic President, Harry Truman, that the Cold War was launched and it was carried through by the succeeding Republican presidents into the period of political repression known as the McCarthy period.
McCarthy was a senator from Wisconsin who was obsessed by the anti-Communist virus and carried on a hysterical campaign, supported by the newspapers, TV and radio for several tragic years, until finally his arrogance and extremism led to public refusal to take any more of it, and he went down to defeat. But not until damage was done to the lives of uncounted thousands of people.
The witch hunt penetrated into every part of our society. For example, the churches were ordered to have their governing members take loyalty oaths, stating they were not Communists. Most churches caved in. However, one church in Los Angeles, the Unitarian Church, refused to take the oath and was immediately punished by the Internal Revenue Service, demanding them to pay taxes on their church building and property, even though it was, and still is, the law that churches pay no taxes.
The church brought legal action against this injustice. After several years in court they won their case and the Internal Revenue Service was forced to return the taxes. That settled the matter for all other churches.
Unions were forced to take loyalty oaths that none of their officers was a Communist. Many, if not most, gave in to this pressure and actually expelled officers or members who had fought against corruption, racism or other discriminatory acts within the union. Seamen had to take loyalty oaths or their right to employment was forfeited. Thousands lost their jobs.
The Democratic Political party suffered loss of many good leaders through the witch hunt within the party.All teachers were forced to take the oath or lose their jobs. Many were accused of having unpopular political opinions and found themselves unemployed and blacklisted. Hundreds of the best and most courageous teachers were lost to the schools, and, of course, to the students. But many fought back. For example, a number of professors at the University of Washington brought suit against the loyalty oath, and after a long court battle, won their case, thus making an important contribution to civil liberties in this country.
The arts came under attack. Among others the great African American baritone singer, Paul Robeson, was brought before the national Unamerican Activities Committee and questioned. He made a courageous and principled defense. Nevertheless, the government punished him by refusing to let him leave the country to give concerts abroad. On one occasion he was to sing at a convention of the Seamens Union in Vancouver, B.C. but was not permitted to cross the border. So he returned to Seattle and sang to them over the telephone with some loud-speaker device. He promised to return to the Peace Park on the Canadian border, which he did. His open-air concert was attended by thousands of people from both Canada and the United States.
–Paul B. Robinson, CTV News, “Robinson to Unite Union of Students and Professionals,” July 4, 2012
Caught by surprise and without context, the federal government issued a “notice” denying Robson’s petition for public assistance.
Why isn’t the Government of Canada releasing this?
A few days before the news broke of Robson’s arrest on Nov. 14, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a similar notice on Nov. 27 and 30 in the name of the Public Defender of Canada (DC). When a journalist and Toronto Toronto Globe and Mail reporter were able to track down Robson in early December, both documents revealed an additional six documents that may or may not have been the result of a misunderstanding. In one document, he was asked: “What happens to my records on my home address, my family name – all of which remain open and accessible to the people of Canada?” The answer was yes, all of which were in the custody of a private trust. On Nov. 28 the same day, the DC letter was sent to three DC offices. The documents indicate that the DC issued the notice to the DDC not to release the public records.
Why was it that the government didn’t immediately release the documents to the press? Why was it not made available to the public the next day? Since the CTV News blog is a public institution, only a small number of public records are kept publicly in a large centralized database such as the CTV Public Access Web site or public documents website. (CTV doesn’t have access to the documents in its database — the CTV records are held on computers and mobile phones.) This is a public policy issue that is being debated all over the country in the media. Why can’t those records be released? Is that what the government is worried about? Why didn’t it release the documents in those three places without taking the time to get permission from the public to take any reasonable action? Because the public, who are more knowledgeable about public records, might have some trouble understanding or comprehending these documents. Because if such documents were kept privately, they would be very difficult to find. In other words, if the public has questions or concerns, even if the documents are so small, they don’t have the knowledge to discuss them. If they were released to the press immediately, or should they be released to the press only to be asked back, that could cause problems.
-James Smith, CTV News, “Burglars arrested by federal law enforcement for ‘secret’ songs and songs written to them,” Oct. 4, 2012
The Harper government has just released about three quarters of the 40-page public records documents in its Criminal Justice and Immigration Detention Act. The Harper government released the remainder on July 27 that same day. The
–Paul B. Robinson, CTV News, “Robinson to Unite Union of Students and Professionals,” July 4, 2012
Caught by surprise and without context, the federal government issued a “notice” denying Robson’s petition for public assistance.
Why isn’t the Government of Canada releasing this?
A few days before the news broke of Robson’s arrest on Nov. 14, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a similar notice on Nov. 27 and 30 in the name of the Public Defender of Canada (DC). When a journalist and Toronto Toronto Globe and Mail reporter were able to track down Robson in early December, both documents revealed an additional six documents that may or may not have been the result of a misunderstanding. In one document, he was asked: “What happens to my records on my home address, my family name – all of which remain open and accessible to the people of Canada?” The answer was yes, all of which were in the custody of a private trust. On Nov. 28 the same day, the DC letter was sent to three DC offices. The documents indicate that the DC issued the notice to the DDC not to release the public records.
Why was it that the government didn’t immediately release the documents to the press? Why was it not made available to the public the next day? Since the CTV News blog is a public institution, only a small number of public records are kept publicly in a large centralized database such as the CTV Public Access Web site or public documents website. (CTV doesn’t have access to the documents in its database — the CTV records are held on computers and mobile phones.) This is a public policy issue that is being debated all over the country in the media. Why can’t those records be released? Is that what the government is worried about? Why didn’t it release the documents in those three places without taking the time to get permission from the public to take any reasonable action? Because the public, who are more knowledgeable about public records, might have some trouble understanding or comprehending these documents. Because if such documents were kept privately, they would be very difficult to find. In other words, if the public has questions or concerns, even if the documents are so small, they don’t have the knowledge to discuss them. If they were released to the press immediately, or should they be released to the press only to be asked back, that could cause problems.
-James Smith, CTV News, “Burglars arrested by federal law enforcement for ‘secret’ songs and songs written to them,” Oct. 4, 2012
The Harper government has just released about three quarters of the 40-page public records documents in its Criminal Justice and Immigration Detention Act. The Harper government released the remainder on July 27 that same day. The
Charlie Chaplin, the great British comedian, who had made his residence in this country, where he made some of the worlds most outstanding movies, was deported to England.
Ronald Reagan, who was then a B-rated movie actor and president of the Screen Actors Guild, led a movement to blacklist actors and technicians. The blacklist threw hundreds of them out of jobs with no hope of finding others in the movie industry.
A famous court trial of what was known as the Hollywood Ten, sentenced them to prison for refusal to take the oath or state whether or not they were or ever had been Communists. Among them were some of the finest artists.
One of the Ten, I think it was John Howard Lawson, wrote a movie under the assumed name of “Rich”. It was entitled “Friendly Persuasion”, a beautiful story of the Quakers in the Civil War. It won an Oscar and no one knew or heard of, or knew the whereabouts of Mr. Rich – until some time later. Public outrage at this injustice to talented writers of movie scenarios helped put a stop to this attack on the arts.
A whole crew of professional stool pigeons erupted, who for a fee, would appear in court or at governmental state and national Unamerican Activities Committee hearings, and swear that this, that and other accused was a Communist. It is interesting that