Promulgation_of_Anti-Communism_in_the_1950s

Promulgation of Anti-Communism In order to promote anti-communism, the anti-communists employed several strategies to spread their beliefs and recruit members to the anti-communist movement. These strategies included legislation like the Executive Order 9385 and the Smith Act as well as using propaganda to emphasize the fact that communists were threats to national security. In addition, the anti-communist party used the process of naming names, as seen with the case of Albert Hiss and in addition to blacklisting alleged communists like the Hollywood Ten and punishing them to the highest degrees, as seen in the example of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Although these strategies helped gain support for the anti-communist campaign, the communist ‘witch-hunt’ eventually went too far, exemplified when Truman vetoed the McCarran act and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas criticized the growing political conformity of the anti-communist movement. Legislation was a large proponent of anti-communism, supported by a strongly anti-communist congress, executive and judicial branch of government. President Harry S. Truman jumped on the anti-communist band wagon with his issuing of Executive Order 9835 in March of 1947. This Executive Order functioned to create a loyalty program, requiring all employees of the federal government to take loyalty oaths in order to ensure that the federal government was not infiltrated by communists and preserving national security. However, like many of the anti-communist campaigns, this too wildly in just. For example, the Executive order required only one piece of “derogatory information,” to warrant a full scale investigation of the person accused. In addition, employment to the person could be denied if any evidence manifested to determine that a person was involved in any activities “disloyal,” to the government of the United States. This was due to the Executive Order’s use of “sympathetic association,” with communism which required only a vague association with the communist party in order to justify a full scale investigation. For example, one man was suspended from his government job because he was “in close and continuing association with [his] parents,” who were under suspicion because they had joined a group on the attorney general’s list of communist organizations so they could buy cheap insurance and a burial plot. In addition to the use of Executive Order 9835, the Smith Act was also used to prosecute potential communist. The Smith Act, or Alien Registration Act, was passed in 1940 and made it a criminal offence for anyone to teach or advise the overthrow of the United States Government by “force and violence.” However, the communist party often functioned “peacefully,” and focused on education rather than the violent overthrow of the American government. Therefore, the United States government claimed that by supporting communist principles and “Marxist-Leninist” doctrine, “they were actually calling for the overthrow of the American government.” This shows how the federal government sometimes twisted the wording of legislation in order to suit their needs. In a 1949 court case, John F.X. McGohey goes into great detail, accusing those on trial of attempting to overthrow the government and promoting it with Marxist-Leninist literature. However, the defense points out that there is no criminal act being done, merely the use of our “inalienable American rights of free speech, press, and association.” The further exemplifies how the American government used un-Constitutional, unjust practices in order to eradicate potential communists and bolster support for the anti-communist campaign. The anti-communist campaign could not have had so much success if not for the support of popular groups like the American Legion. Many groups like the Legion urged members to take certain steps in order to aid larger organizations like the House of Un-American Activities (HUAC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI.) The American Legion called for constant vigilance against anti-communism and warned members that anyone who called for progressive change was most likely an anti-communist attempting to disguise themselves. J. Edgar Hoover emphasized the same idea in a testimony before HUAC, showing that while the name of the Communist party has and will keep changing, its support of Marxist-Leninst doctrine has not faltered and rooting out these American communists is necessary for national security. In addition, the American Legion stated that education was required to make sure that the crafty anti-communists did not fool the loyal American and the American Legion advocated a “few hours of serious study and reading each week plus consultation with recognized experts.” While it was HUAC job to expose communists and the FBI’s job to investigate, it was the job of everyday people to educate themselves against the communist-threat and when necessary, report alleged communists and communist sympathizers. With this in mind, HUAC, under J. Edgar Hoover was a large part of the anti-communist campaign. Hoover emphasized the role of HUAC and the FBI to protect national security and emphasized its importance in doing so. HUAC was a proponent of the communist “witch hunt” that took place in the Federal Government, as exemplified with the case of Alger Hiss, and employee of the State Department. Although Hiss’ actually innocence/guilt is unknown, he was eventually convicted perjury despite the fact that he was put on trial for espionage activities. The government was not going to let anybody convicted of communism get through and would convict alleged communists, with either false evidence or a different charge. The FBI similarly bent the facts in order to expose and convict potential communists. This is exemplified in the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The FBI knew that Ethel Rosenberg was not a spy, however she was used by the FBI and the Justice Department to make her husband Julius confess. There was not sufficient evidence to convict her by herself and so, it was believed that she could be used “as a lever” against her husband. One could say that it was by her association with Julius that Ethel Rosenberg was investigated, convicted and sentenced to death. The Rosenbergs were a beacon of warning to all of those with communist sympathies, and their case was to be used as “a coercive bludgeon against all dissenters.” The fact that the Rosenbergs were put to death shows how seriously the FBI and the Justice Department took the anti-communism campaign. On a somewhat similar note, the anti-communist campaign used the technique of black listing and labeling certain organizations as communist such as the Attorney General’s List of Totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, Subversive, and Other Organizations. According to J. Edgar Hoover, “American communists launched a furtive attack on Hollywood in 1935 by the issuance of a directive calling for a concentration in Hollywood.” This led to the HUAC investigation of Hollywood which really gained national attention for the Committee. Many of those investigated did not cooperate with HUAC, including the Hollywood Ten, a group of screenwriters and directors who not only refused to answer HUAC’s questioning regarding their political affiliation, but even went so far as to defend themselves against the committee. The Hollywood Ten argued that their constitutional freedom of speech and association was being violated. John Howard Lawson, in his testimony before HUAC, even went so far as to accuse the committee of violating the rights of the American people, and suggested that it was not he who was on trial before the committee, but rather the committee was on trial “before the American people.” This was perhaps the first instance in which the anti-communist campaign was strongly challenged and further emphasizes how the government violated first amendment rights in conducting communist investigations. Despite their fiery self-defense, the Hollywood Ten were fired and blacklisted. Blacklisting became quite a popular tool in the anti-communist campaign and being blacklisted would completely ruin someone’s career. Producers were required to submit the names of selected persons, who were either cleared or blacklisted, and this submission of names just fostered the growth of the blacklist. In his testimony, Producer David Susskind admitted to submitting about five thousand names. Eventually the process of blacklisting became so strong, that just taking a stand against it was enough to destroy someone’s career. However, with its strength also came the growing number of irrelevant names, names that had ended up on the list in cases of mistaken identity, etc. The list became so long it was quite unmanageable. As the anti-communist campaign grew to a nearly unmanageable size, government officials began speaking out against it. While anti-communist strategies worked for a time, eventually the violation of First Amendment rights became too much for the American public. For example, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas criticized the intolerance of Americans during the McCarthy era and compares this to the Soviet Union. He discussed how it is fear that has caused Americans to lose their ideals and allow the anti-communism campaign to be “magnified and exalted beyond its realities.” In addition, in his vetoing of the Internal Security Act of 1950, President Truman discussed how the Act could be “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press and assembly.” While his opposition had little effect, it still demonstrated the frustration with the “excesses of McCarthyism,” and how it clearly violated First Amendment Rights. Thinkers like Douglas and Truman demonstrate how excessive the anti-communism was becoming, and can mark the decline of the campaign in the United States. The anti-communist campaign of the 1940s and 1950s used a multitude of methods in order to promote anti-communist sentiment in the United States. The federal government issued legislation like the Executive Order 9835 and the Smith Act to criminalize communists and communist sympathizers. This in addition to blacklisting and severe punishments for anti-communists led to wide support of the anti-communist party and therefore, these methods were successful. However, as they became excessive in their employment, many began to speak out against the violation of First Amendment rights and the extreme measures taken to prevent communism in the United States.