- [[1950's General Notes]] # Part A:  Consider Document 1.  What rights are promised in the First Amendment?  To whom do these rights apply?  How important are First Amendment rights to [[America|the United States]] and how do they define what it means to 'be American'? - [[First Amendment rights impacts groups not individuals]] [[McCarthyism sources]]# Part B:  In Documents 2-5, what did the House Un-American Activities Committee, J. Edgar Hoover, and Joseph McCarthy identify as the greatest threat to America?  How did they propose to identify and address this threat? How did they define what it means to 'be American'?  Use specific examples to illustrate. Let us first establish what even an anti-communist like [[Truman]] understands that the [[Communism]] practiced by the [[Russia|USSR]] was, "not [[Communism]] under any circumstances, it is [[totalitarianism]] of the worst brand." (Doc 6) When [[Hoover]] and McCarthy describe [[Communism]] they are inaccurately lumping together actual [[Communism]] with [[totalitarianism]]. [[Hoover]] and McCarthy do not do much to develop any idea of "[[America|Americanism]]" but they speak endlessly of what is un-American. This kind of political double speech is often called a dog whistle and is the tool of White Nationalists and Supremacists. This made clear when [[Hoover]] identifies the antidote to [[Communism]] as, "vigorous, intelligent, old-fashioned [[America|Americanism]], with eternal vigilance." (Doc3) [[Hoover]] and McCarthy's statements are full of fear-mongering such as, "communists have developed one of the greatest [[propaganda]] machines the world has ever known," (Doc 3) when the modern sources reveal that the American Communist Party was never a large or profoundly influential institution(Doc 5). They also intro the slander that has been slung at any [[Democratic]] politician remotely liberal for the past 70 years, "being the bedfellow of international [[Communism]]." (Doc 4) Of course, they both provide little course of action against this "dire" threat of political movement that supports, "old-age security, houses for veterans, child assistance" and secures the support of [[Christianity|Christian]] ministers. (Doc 3) McCarthy asks directly that [[Truman]] root out the 57 communists that work in the State Department that had been 205 communists only two days earlier (Doc 4). [[Hoover]] takes a less direct but far more effective root of calling on those who believe they have, "vigorous, intelligent, old-fashioned [[America|Americanism]]" to have "eternal vigilance," which was no doubt an encouragement to any listeners who may have wished to violently oust these dangerous Communists. The only definition of someone who is "American" that I can infer from these documents statements is someone who is willing to protect a document written in the 18th century that has had to be amended thirty-three times in order to provide for basic rights, (Doc 2, [[purpose]] 2) and will do anything to stop Communists from pushing the [[government]] to provide them more rights. The "[[America|Americanism]]" that [[Hoover]] and McCarthy promote is one and the same with the cultural homogeneity that justified the separate but equal doctrine that was deemed unconstitutional in 1954 (Lecture 19, part 2). ## Document 6:  [Truman's Response](http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/8078) - " 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." - "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...isolationism”" - considered McCarthy's actions dangerous to the "the bipartisan [[foreign policy]] of [[America|the United States]]. - "The policy of the [[Republican]] Party has endorsed the antics of Mr. McCarthy." ## Document 7:  ["National Suicide" Republican statement](http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6459) - "It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor." - "I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech, but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation." ## Document 8:  [Diary entries, White House Press Secretary](https://nwmissouri.instructure.com/courses/35892/files/4823187?wrap=1) - “if he wants to get recognized anymore,” Pres told Persons, “only way he can do it is to stand up and publicly say ‘I was wrong in browbeating witnesses, wrong in saying the Army is coddling Communists, and wrong in my attack on Stevens. I apologize’—that’s the only way I ever welcome him back into fold.” - “This amounts to nothing but a wholesale subversion of public service. McCarthy is making exactly the same plea of loyalty to him that [[Hitler]] made to the German people. Both tried to set up personal loyalty within the [[government]] while both were using the pretense of fighting [[Communism]]. McCarthy is trying deliberately to subvert the people we have in [[government]], people who are sworn to obey the law, the Constitution and their superior officers. I think this is the most disloyal act we have ever had by anyone in the [[government]] of [[America|the United States]].” - [[Eisenhower]] ## Document 9:  [Army-McCarthy Hearings](http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444) - Mr. Stevens is not speaking for the Army. He is speaking for Mr. Stevens, for Mr. Adams, and Mr. Hensel. The committee did not make the Army a party to this controversy, and I think it is highly improper to try to make the Army a party. Mr. Stevens can only speak for himself. . . - All we were investigating has been some Communists in the Army, a very small percentage, I would say much less than 1 percent. And when the Secretary says that, in effect “I am speaking for the Army,” he is putting the 99.9 percent of good, honorable, loyal men in the Army into the position of trying to oppose the exposure of Communists in the Army. - [ ] [Video version](https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html) ## Document 10:  [Colliers' Article](http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6449) - "Those accused by McCarthy faced loss of employment, damaged careers, and in many cases, broken lives." - We suppose the effect can be summarized in one word: damage. The legislative operations of [[Congress]] must have been delayed. The morale of the armed forces certainly could not have been heightened by the hearings. And our friends in other countries were obviously bewildered and dismayed by the goings on, with a consequent impairment of American prestige. But the greatest damage, we believe, occurred in the millions of homes where the televised proceedings were seen and heard. ## Document 11:  [Joseph McCarthy interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtVJFBSMXDk) - Censure meeting is "Lynch bee" because he labels the [[Democratic]] party as the party of [[Communism]] ## Document 12: [ Resolution to Censure McCarthy](https://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=false&page=transcript&doc=86&title=Transcript+of+Senate+Resolution+301%3A+Censure+of+Senator+Joseph+McCarthy+%281954%29) - "failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned." # Part C:  Consider Documents 6-12.  How did political leaders and other groups counter these accusations of disloyalty and being 'un-American'?  How did they define what it means to 'be American'?  Use specific examples to illustrate. It was not hard for most of the [[democratic]] leaders to deny these accusations of [[Communism]], because they were not even close to being Communists. Even some Republicans recognized the idiocy of these claims and stated that the constitution protected not just McCarthy's speech but also his target's right to a trial (Doc 7). In private, McCarthy was accused by politicians on both the isle of endangering the [[government]] by, "trying deliberately to subvert," people in the [[government]] (Doc 8), and by attacking the "the bipartisan [[foreign policy]] of [[America|the United States]]." (Doc 6) In the end, McCarthy's undoing was at the hands of his own hubris. When he came into a position of power in the Senate, he went too far by attacking the Army. While he claims to have only ever been going after a small percentage of the Army (Doc 9, para 6) and a small percentage of Democrats ([[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]1), he is still censured for "repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members" and "obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate." ([[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]2) I think the best definition of being American from McCarthy's opponents is described by [[Truman]]. It is one that supports the [[foreign policy]] of [[America|the US]] [[government]] because it has provided for their needs and is doing good in the world (Doc 6). It is also someone with restraint who does not "verbally attack" their fellow [[America|Americans]] (Doc 7, para 7). Finally, it is one that does not push hard against cultural norms. At this time the [[Civil Rights]] movement was strong, and yet the [[Civil Rights]] Act of 1957 was considered to be the "mildest [[Civil Rights]] bill possible" by [[Eisenhower]] and [[LBJ]] who passed it (Textbook, pg 988). # Part D: Prompt: Today, [[America|the United States]] finds itself in a position of ever increasing political divisiveness.  How is the nation divided over what it means to 'be American'?  Is the country headed for another version of the Second [[Red Scare]]?  How can we collectively use the rights promised in the First Amendment and our knowledge of the Second [[Red Scare]] to help ground that conversation the foundational ideals of the country? I see many parallels to McCarthy in today's Republicans. He shares racially charged statements like calling his censure a "lynch bee" ([[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]1), just like Trump used "Build the Wall." McCarthy and [[Hoover]]'s fearmongering and slander are identical to that which is thrown by modern Republicans in every way other than that Communist became radical Socialist. They still group Democrats together as radicals like McCarthy did even when most Democrats then and now are barely left of center. It is ironic how Republicans descry cancel culture when victims of McCarthyism, "faced loss of employment, damaged careers, and in many cases, broken lives," ([[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]0). The major difference was that McCarthyism was often based on unfounded or overblown accusations while modern cancel culture is often backed up by documented and obvious racist or violent behavior. I hope that nothing close to McCarthy's campaign will be seen again, but I do think that [[America]] is still overly wary of the terms Communist and Socialist when the downfalls of [[Capitalism]] are far more obvious now than they were in the [[1950s]], 60s, and 70s. The first amendment guarantees that a person's speech will not be censured by the [[government]], but it does not do anything to stop private corporations ([[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]). This is especially relevant in the age of the [[internet]] when you can find almost any opinion you want hosted by some private site, no matter how violent. I believe that the division of what it means to be American is between the old and the new. The old view is one held up by [[racism]], cultural homogeneity, economic inequality, and ultimately [[white supremacy]], and the new is one that is tolerant of all except for those that would be intollerant of others. - The [[America|Americanism]] that McCarthy's targets promote is one that is very cohesive with McCarthy's but that does not stop republicans from trying to use it for partisan advantage (Doc 6, para 21)