CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal perspective

14 June 2010- Flag Day Special Edition

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson

1. Pledges of Allegiance

Original by Francis Bellamy

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Pre-1954

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

2. Star-Spangled Banner by Francis Scott Key

Original Version + 5th stanza by Oliver Wendall Holmes

Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose bright stars and broad stripes, through the clouds of the fight*,

O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

*"Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight," This line eventually became the 3rd line. Source- Wikipedia.


On the shore, dimly seen through the glass of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

When our land is illumined with liberty's smile,
If a foe from within strikes a blow at her glory,
Down, down with the traitor that tries to defile
The flag of the stars, and the page of her story!
By the millions unchained,
Who their birthright have gained
We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained;
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave,
While the land of the free is the home of the brave.*

* This last stanza was written by Oliver Wendall Holmes. Source- Wikipedia


3. What Does Old Glory Stand for?

A favorite pastime for GOP politicians is trying to amend the US Constitution. Reportedly, 42 amendments are up for consideration in Congress, including one that would ban the burning of Old Glory which would naturally conflict with their support of property rights. What if someone purchased red, white and blue colored cloth and skillfully created an American flag. Would the flag suddenly be protected by an amendment from being destroyed and would in effect transform that flag from being ones personal property to the property of the nation? This would result in its supposed owner merely becoming the caretaker of that flag as opposed to its real owner.

As offensive as burning the American flag is, it is currently protected speech under the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights which bothers conservatives. There is much in this nation which is offensive to someone, such as the perpetual lies emanating from FOX news is to liberals. Should FOX news be banned on the grounds of offensiveness?

The passage of the flag burning amendment would in effect modify the 1st amendment. What conservatives, who are in favor of banning this offense to our nation's pride, seem not to understand is the flag itself is not as important as the ideals it represents or perhaps they are just too busy wrapping themselves up within the flag in order to show off their patriotism and in doing so, score political points with the their base.

The Bill of rights protecting the rights of the citizenry of the USA is more than just the right to bare arms, a right dear to the hearts of conservatives. It also guarantees the freedom of expression, the right to freely petition the government to address ones personal grievances, the right to be free from having ones property searched and seized without just cause and compensation and the right to due process and trial by ones peers. That is what America is theoretically about.

Our flag represents our freedoms, such as that of free speech. This means ironically that our flag which symbolizes our freedoms, includes the right to commit the extremely offensive act of burning that flag. It is the respect for the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which must be extended to all of our fellow citizens and beyond, that will make the United States of America the great nation that it should be.


 4. Treason, the GOP & the RWLM-part 1:

McCarthy & his ism

In the post civil war days up to the passing of the 19th century, the symbolic bloody shirt was routinely raised and waved, cutting through the heated political climate of the times. Both of two major political parties used the legacy of the Civil War to demonize the opposition. For the Republican Party, the  bloody shirt represented the rebellious Democratic Party's Southern base along with the Northern Copperhead sympathizers of the Southern cause as well. For the Southerns of the latter, it represented the War of Northern Aggression. Neither side would forgive the sins of the other for blood of their own spilled in the American Civil War until the generation who had fought in that civil war had passed away.

The modern equivalent of the bloody shirt is the domain of the Right Wing Lying Machine (RWLM) through their Republican Party proxy. Today it seems to be an political version of the Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen's act with a political twist- the dummy is represented by the GOP which fronts for the RWLM, its ventriloquist master. Once more the battle cry echoing throughout the land is treason, which began in the waning days of New Deal era and rose to fever pitch under the tutelage of Joe McCarthy in the early 1950's. This coincided with the life of that famous ventriloquist- dummy act.

Ironically, the McCarthyism of Senator McCarthy actually preceded the Senator. It actually begun with the creation of the House Unamerican Activities Committee by Democratic Representatives Martin Dies of Texas and Samuel Dickstein of New York. Also Ironic, the latter was later discovered to be a paid Soviet agent, according to the Venona Project.*

According to the historian Allen Weinstein, documents that were discovered in 1990s in the Moscow archives backed up the project's findings. They showed that Dickstein was paid $1,250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency which preceded the KGB. The motive of NKVD was to to gain secret information from HUAC on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces in America. He was dropped from the Soviet payroll after he had left the committee. The value of the information passed on is unknown.

Whereas Congressman Dickstein was more likely interested in the investigation of the extreme right, Representative Dies, while being unaware of a Soviet agent in his midst, was more interested in investigating the New Deal for communist infiltration. As the committee's first chairman, that is exactly what he set out to do. Under later chairmen, the focus of the committee's investigations would shift to Hollywood.


At a time when Southern Democrats and Conservative Republicans had formed an anti-New Deal coalition, the conservative Republicans were the natural believers of the anti-communist cause. Forever fearful of any perceived fidelity to the Communist cause, they became the primary supporters of the McCarthyism before McCarthy became a household name.

In 1946, Richard Nixon was elected to the US House of Representatives as a member of Californian delegation and Joe McCarthy was elected as a US Senator from Wisconsin. The former would make a name for himself as a member of HUAC in the investigation of Alger Hiss of being a Soviet spy. Alger Hiss would later be convicted of perjury for his testimony before the committee. Both Nixon and McCarthy had similar backgrounds. Both had law degrees and were veterans of WWII- McCarthy in the Marines and Nixon in the navy. McCarthy also had judicial experience.

In 1950, Nixon would be elevated to the Senate by defeating Helen Gahagan Douglas. In that campaign, Nixon would dub Douglas "the pink lady". However it was the defeated Douglas who would have the last laugh, for it was she that coined the enduring nickname for her opponent- Tricky Dick. Nixon, who shared McCarthy's anti-Communism views, differed from him for being much more restrained in his rhetoric than McCarthy.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Joseph McCarthy was initially elected to the Senate against the Progressive Party's Robert M. La Follette, who was for running reelection as a Republican. McCarthy would get 61% of the vote for his candidacy. According to anti-communist polemicist Arnold Beichman, McCarthy ironically won with the support of the Communist-controlled United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of the CIO whose preference of him over La Follette was because of the latter's anti-communist credentials. But McCarthy did not repudiate the union's support since it would not be to his benefit.

McCarthy's first claim to infamy was his defense of Waffen-SS soldiers guilty of massacring 84 American POW's at Malmedy on the 17th of December 1944, in what would later be known as the Malmedy massacre. Other such war crimes would be committed later at Baugnez where 120 Americans were slaughtered and elsewhere. Altogether 362 American soldiers and 111 Belgian civilians were murdered for the duration of what would later be known as the Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945).

McCarthy would later lobby for the commuting the death sentences given to the Waffen-SS personnel guilty of these war crimes. He based his argument that these German personnel were tortured prior to confessing their alleged crimes. Sitting in on a Senatorial Subcommittee investigating this matter, one in which he was not even a member, he constantly interrupted and disrupted the proceedings. He accused the US Army of covering up it's alleged misconduct in the acquisition and conviction of the Waffen-SS personnel. But McCarthy was unable to back up his accusations, which would prove to be an omen of things to come. These actions would later prove to be problematic for the apologists of the RWLM on McCarthy's cold war antics. For the most part these apologists would ignore this blemish on the good Senator's character when they defended him and his anti-communist crusade.

Perhaps later on when McCarthy was carrier the anti- communist and pro-American banner, he was in actuality a secret red out to discredit the anti-communist movement by his reckless conduct. This is a possibility not even considered by the RWLM by virtue of the fact that is exactly how they conduct themselves in their own crusades. But seriously, the man who carried the anti-communist banner in the early 1950's was the defender of the arch enemies of communists in 1946, which were Nazis. It would be hard to imagine the same apologists giving Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) a pass if he had similarly defended Vietcong guilty of murdering American soldiers.

Shortly after these hearings, a poll of the Senate press corps voted McCarthy to be "the worst US senator" who was then serving in office. Given McCarthy's recklessness in making accusations he could not prove, the question arises as to why this Senator would be taken so seriously later on in his anti-communist crusade. The answer could be summed in two words- partisan politics.

As to why McCarthy would defend Nazi war criminals while being unable to prove his charges is up for debate. After all he alienated the Veterans of Foreign Wars who were representing his fellow World War II veterans.

xxxxxxxx

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Senator of Wisconsin began his infamous crusade against communists in America on the 9th of February in 1950. It was in Wheeling, West Virginia speaking at women's club where he made the following statement as he waved a piece of paper ;

The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205*—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary  of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.

It was a about a month latter that Herblock coined the term McCarthyism. Originally defined by Senator McCarthy's propensity to use slander and libel against those vulnerable to charges of being one of those conspicuously conspiring communists, such as liberals. The reason why liberals are vulnerable is because they are the agents of change, while conservatives either stand by the status quo of the present or at some time in the past more to their liking.

Eventually this definition was extended to one making reckless and unsubstantiated accusations against the character or patriotism of one's political opponents. The most common users and abusers of this ism are of the the scoundrels who find refuge in wrapping themselves up in the flag. They are the self proclaimed patriots whose vision of America is clearly defined and if one have the gall to disagree with that vision, then one is clearly not an American and maybe even harbors hatred America as well.

There is considerable over exactly what was said insofar as no recording survived. His reported remarks was what many of those in attendance reported. Also in dispute were the exact numbers of communists involved. The number 205 was undermined by McCarthy with his use of 57 in Salt Lake City a few days later and in both a telegram to President Truman and in the Congressional Record. However in a five hour long tirade on the Senate floor on February 20, the claim of 81 "loyalty risks" embedded within the State Department was raised.

With number of security risks in constant flux, going up and down as a roller coaster at a dizzying pace, his source for his claim of Communist subversion of State became a matter of interest. For example, there was a letter that the Wisconsin Senator cited from the Secretary of State to a congressman. Byrnes reported that the State Department had conducted security sweeps which had resulted in 284 persons being recommended "against permanent employment". Of the 284,  79 were removed from their jobs. What was remaining were the 205 supposedly still on the State Department's payroll. The truth of the matter was that only 65 of those listed were still employed after undergoing further security checks.

Regarding 81 as the number in use, the source seemed to be the "Lee list", named after an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee. This was a report created for the House Appropriations Committee and was based on a review of security clearance documents. This report had been compiled three years previously. Insofar as 57 is concerned, it's source might very well be Heinz 57.

Senator McCarthy claimed that he had managed to penetrate the "iron curtain" of State Department secrecy with the aid of "some good, loyal Americans. The exaggeration of the information from the Lee list would become the modus operandi for the Senator in the future. In his rhetoric, hearsay would be converted into fact and any alleged inclination to the Communist cause would be upgraded to a dedication to that cause. The usage of guilt by association was a given and an accusation was regarded as an convection.

Whatever the number of State department personnel were allegedly listed will always be uncertain by virtue of the fact that that paper was never shown to anyone before McCarthy supposedly managed to lose it. One observer noted that that scrap of paper could have been a laundry list. By making those accusations, McCarthy gained the notice of the nation's media. The publicity from the media would lead him into an ego-driven anti Communist crusade.

 

The Tydings Committee was formed in the Senate to investigate the charges brought forth by the junior Senator from Wisconsin. This committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for the purpose of conducting "full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State." With the intent of using the hearings to prove that the evidence did not exist to back up his accusations, Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland and the Democratic majority of the subcommittee intended to discredit the Wisconsin Senator. The Maryland Senator was reported to to have said of Senator McCarthy, "Let me have him for three days in public hearings, and he'll never show his face in the Senate again." But this was not the way it would be.

Amidst partisan bickering, Joe McCarthy abandoned the original list which was believed to have been the Lee list and narrowed down the accusations of treason to nine people. Some of those accused were either ex-employees of the State Department or had never even been employed there. Prominent among those accused were Dorothy Kenyon, Owen Lattimore, John S. Service and Phillip Jessup. McCarthy in making these accusations, was quite aware of Senatorial immunity he possessed from slander and libel suits being brought against him in court. He had a license to be as reckless in his accusations as he wished. Owen Lattimore in particular was described a "top Russian spy." Throughout the hearings, McCarthy produced not one  shred of evidence to back up his accusations of disloyalty and those accused of treason would never have their day in court.


The final report, written by the Democratic majority, came to conclusion that the individuals accused were neither Communists nor fellow travelers, and argued that the State Department already had an effective security program.* The Tydings Report stated that the charges brought forth by McCarthy were a "fraud and a hoax," and that the end result of McCarthy's rhetoric was to "confuse and divide the American people ... to a degree far beyond the hopes of the Communists themselves."  The full Senate never succeeded in accepting this report even after having voted for it three times along party lines.

In 1950 Senator McCarthy supported Senator Tydings Republican opponent, in addition to seven other Republican candidates as well. In his speeches in support of Butler,  McCarthy accused Tydings of "protecting Communists" and "shielding traitors." McCarthy's staff was also heavily involved in the Butler- Tydings campaign. Also involved in that campaign was the Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose members still angry over McCarty's defense of German war criminals, supported Tydings.

During that campaign, a tabloid containing within it a composite photograph in which was somehow mysteriously doctored to make it seem that Tydings was intimately conversing with the leader of the Communist Party, Earl Russell Browder. A Senate subcommittee later investigated this election and referred to it as "a despicable, back-street type of campaign," as well as recommending that the use of defamatory literature in a campaign be made grounds for expulsion from the Senate. Nothing came of this of course and Tydings lost, along with the seven other candidates that McCarthy had endorsed. Senator McCarthy had now was at the apex of his power. In regards to the doctored photograph that surfaced during the Butler- Tydings campaign, a similar occurrence would take place during the Army-McCarthy Hearings in 1954.

So far what has been written was concerned with the rise of McCarthy to the status of a major political figure. McCarthy characterized Truman and the Democratic Party as soft on, or even in league with, Communists, and spoke of the Democrats' "twenty years of treason". For his part, President Truman called Senator McCarthy as "the best asset the Kremlin has. With considerable irony, historians have argued that by 1950 security risks had already been purged from government.


Truman's Secretary of Defense and also his former Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, became a target for McCarthy. This was the ex-General who had served ably as the Army Chief of Staff during World War II, as the architect of the Marshall Plan for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 and as a highly respected statesman and general. McCarthy being the lying lowlife that he was, smeared Marshal's reputation with the implication that he, Marshall, was a traitor. McCarthy charged Marshall of being responsible for the lost of China to Communism, an absurdity since we as Americans was never in possession of that nation in the first place.

Short of a major intervention in a civil war taking place in the most populated nation in the world, one in which the Japanese could not conquer beyond its coastal ports; one whose Nationalist government led by Chiang Kai Shek was corrupt and lacked popular support; one whose government the Communist forces led by Mao Zedong were attempting to overthrow and had the support of the Soviet Union; Could the United States have saved China from Communism without risking the specter of a World War III? How could of such an event have an outcome less of a catastrophe for America and the world? And would getting bogged down in such a major conflict be supported by the American public? Marshall's appraisal of Nationalist government being a lost cause that would be a needless drain on our nation's resources was arguably correct.

In a speech on the Senate floor, McCarthy made the following declarations- "if Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country's interest" and of being a part of "a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man." His speech would later be published under the title America's Retreat From Victory: The Story Of George Catlett Marshall. Shortly afterwards, Marshall would throw in the towel and resign.

McCarthy would continue his campaign of smears as another kind of campaign was heating up- the 1952 Presidential race. In that campaign, he naturally supported ex-General Dwight D. Eisenhower, after Eisenhower beaten Senator Robert Taft for the Republican nomination. One of the  prominent events during that campaign was when Eisenhower traveled through Wisconsin and campaigned with McCarthy by his side. The speech Eisenhower intended to deliver in Green Bay had early versions which included a strong defense of his mentor, George Marshall. Naturally this would be a direct rebuke of McCarthy's slanderous accusations impinging Marshall's character. However, under pressure from his conservative supporters, who were concerned that Eisenhower could not carry Wisconsin if he proceeded to alienate the supporters of McCarthy. Eisenhower then decided not to do the honorable thing and deleted this defense of his mentor from later versions of his speech. This was soon discovered by a reporter employed by the New York Times. Subsequently, this was featured on the next day's front page. Eisenhower was afterwards criticized  by many for betraying his personal convictions in favor of political expediencies.

In November of that year, the Republican Party gained control of both houses of Congress by narrow margins, Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected President and McCarthy was reelected to another six year term as Senator. Eisenhower carried Wisconsin with a 60% majority whereas McCarthy received a less impressive 54% majority. The latter figure was down from the 61% he had received in his 1946 election. Also elected to public office was the Vice Presidential candidate chosen by Eisenhower to be his running mate, Richard M. Nixon.

Now McCarthy was no longer a Democratic problem, but rather a Republican one and one for President Eisenhower in particular. McCarthy did not intend "to go gentle into that good night" just because his party was the party in power. The "twenty years of treason" would soon in McCarthy's own words, morph into "twenty-one years of treason".

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

A new Congress met on the first Monday of January in 1953. The Senate being organization by the Republican Party, chose Senator Taft, the man Eisenhower had deprived of the Republican nomination the previous year, to become the Senate Majority Leader. One of the major tasks facing the Majority of the Senate is the appointment of Committee chairmen and one in particular- Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. It was a matter of finding a niche where the Senator could do little harm. The solution was making him the chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations where in the words of Senate Majority Leader Taft, "he where he can't do any harm." The rationale was that the Wisconsin Senator would be denied the opportunity of chairing the Internal Security Subcommittee, with the responsibility of the investigation of any possible Communists within the government. The Senate Committee on Government Operations by contrasts had more mundane responsibilities. But what was overlooked was the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a part of McCarthy's legislative domain. This subcommittee's job description gave McCarthy enough leeway to go on a snipe hunt for suspected Communists within the executive branch of the US government. Needless to say, that was more than enough for McCarthy in his ego-driven crusade. As for Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft, by the end of the year he would be dead.

Later it would be said that the downfall of McCarthy began with his political fight with Ed Murrow of See it Now fame, or maybe the controversial appointment by McCarthy of J(oseph) B(rown) Matthews to the subcommittee staff. But in any case, the seeds of his fall was planted with his appointment of Roy Cohn as the Chief Counsel of the the McCarthy committee based upon the recommendation of the FBI chief, J. Edgar Hoover. Cohn was an attorney who had been involved in  some of the prosecutions of Communists, such as Alger Hiss for perjury and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. Cohn would in turn have G. David Schine added to the committee staff as an unpaid chief consultant.

G(erard) David Schine was born as an heir of hotel chain. In 1952, he wrote and published a pamphlet entitled Definition of Communism, which took a hostile view of that ism. It was something of a farce since it was riddled with errors of fact, but nevertheless it came to the attention of George Sokolsky, a newspaper columnist, who discovered it in one of Schine's daddy's hotels. On his own initiative, G. David Schine had his little creation scattered in every room in every hotel in his daddy's chain of hotels like Bibles. Sokolsky after discovering this little gem would afterwards introduce Cohn to Schine and thus the famous Communist busting team of Cohn & Schine was created.

The relationship between Cohn & Schine is open to debate, even today. It became known years later that Cohn was a homosexual. There were rumors that both of this famed duo had a sexual relationship. Even though no proof came to light to prove this and some historians have concluded that the two were just friends, the obsession Cohn would show for Schine later suggests otherwise. Perhaps Schine, who would later marry, was bisexual. In any case Cohn and Schine were certainly close, as demonstrated by the two renting nearby office  space rather than work out of available office space provided by the Senate. Ironically, homosexuality would be consider a security risk by the McCarthy committee and the grounds for dismissal from public service.

I addition to the appointment of Cohn to the committee staff in the beginning days of his chairmanship, another appointment was also made, that of J(oseph) B(rown) Matthews. Matthews, a former Methodist missionary in Java and a former member of the faculty of Scarritt, a Methodist college located in Nashville, was appointed the staff director of Subcommittee on Investigations aka the McCarthy Committee. A qualification for this position was his being the chief investigator for HUAC under its first chairman, Martin Dies.

The appointment of J. B. Matthews would bring about the first political setback for McCarthy. However, it was the coupling of the Cohn & Schine would begin the chain of events that led to McCarthy's political destruction. The fate of McCarthy would be that of Icarus.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

In Hemingway's The Sun also Rises, somebody asked Mike Campbell, "How did you go bankrupt." His reply was, "Gradually, then suddenly." From the onset of the 83rd Congress, McCarthy gradually began his descent towards political bankruptcy as he seemed to be at the apex of his career. His antics in his anti- Communist crusade would divide both the Conservative movement and the Republican Party. McCarthy, by his own recklessness, was making enemies in very high places, most importantly within the executive branch.

The McCarthy Committee would be where much of McCarthy's most controversial antics would take place, often in closed executive session. After such sessions concluded, McCarthy would be the first one to give his spin on the proceedings reporters. In the preface of the publication of these closed sessions, Senators Susan Collins and Carl Levin wrote;

"Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings... These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur."

(Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations. U.S. Government Printing Office.)

At first McCarthy's subcommittee investigated the allegations of Communists penetration and influence in the Voice of America. At that time, the VOA was administered by the State Department's United States Information Agency, thus once more McCarthy was looking for Communists at Foggy Bottom. As usual, he made false accusations of subversion which he naturally could not prove. With VOA personnel questioned before television cameras and a gallery packed with the media; with McCarthy lacing the questions he directed to those VOA personnel with inimical innuendos and acrimonious accusations; the end result was not surprisingly a demoralized agency.

In the midst of the Cold War, the VOA was instrumental in combating Communist propaganda. What McCarthy did was arguably quite counterproductive towards achieving that goal. Ed Kretzman, a policy advisor working for the VOA, would later say that this was its "darkest hour when Senator McCarthy and his chief hatchet man, Roy Cohn, almost succeeded in muffling it."

McCarthy's subcommittee then turned its attention to the overseas library program ran by International Information Agency, also ran by the Department of State. Cohn & Schine went a jaunt throughout Europe examining every card catalogue of every State Department library they visited in search of  books by authors they, in their collective wisdom, deemed not appropriate.

McCarthy later recited to the press the list of subversive literature written by supposedly pro-communist authors such as Dashiell Hammett's nonpolitical detective novels The Maltese Falcon and The Thin Man. The State Department under the hawkish and Conservative John Foster Dulles naturally caved in to McCarthy and ordered its overseas librarians to remove from their shelves books lacking McCarthy's seal of approval. Some libraries went so far as to burn these literary works.

Shortly after the overseas jaunt of Cohn & Schine, President Eisenhower implored Americans: "Don't join the book burners. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book." This was apparently subtle criticism of McCarthy. However, he still was not ready to respond directly to McCarthy. His modus operandi was to use surrogates instead. Vice President Nixon, for example, made a speech on 4th March 1954 in which he declared "Men who have in the past done effective work exposing Communists in this country have, by reckless talk and questionable methods, made themselves the issue rather than the cause they believe in so deeply."

By taking on the VOA and the International Information Agency, in a indirect way it could be said that McCarthy was taking on the Eisenhower Administration. More directly was his opposition to Charles Bohlen as the Ambassador to the Soviet Union. In April 1953 President Eisenhower nominated  Bohlen ambassador to the Soviet Union, which was of course subject to Senate confirmation. McCarthy opposed this nomination. His opposition was later satirized by Herblock when his depiction of McCarthy had him accusing Bohlen of planning a trip to Moscow as a basis to refuse confirmation of him as the Ambassador to Moscow. Bohlen was confirmed by the Senate in a 74–13 vote.

The appointment of J. B. Mathews to McCarthy's subcommittee staff became controversial in July 1953 with the publication of an article entitled "Reds in our Churches" in the American Mercury magazine. Its author, J. B. Matthews,  wrote that United States Protestant ministers "are the largest single group supporting" Communism in the United States. Nothing else would raise the political furies quicker than a smear directed against Protestantism in general and McCarthy had just associated himself with some one who was guilty of doing just that. 

Denounced for a "shocking and unwarranted attack against the American clergy", the appointment of J. B. Matthews became the focal point of criticism against McCarthy within the Senate. Demands within Senate were raised for the dismissal of Matthews. Even the majority of the senatorial investigative subcommittee McCarthy presided over, which included defections from his own party, were against him. After resisting at first, McCarthy finally gave in and accepted the "resignation" of Matthews.

Ultimately, it was the beginning of television as a media that destroyed McCarthy's political career by exposing his true nature before his own country. As Icarus in Greek mythology flew too close to the sun in spite of being warned by his father Daedalus not to, so would McCarthy metaphorically do likewise, without any parental oversight, before the American public.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quite often historical events are influenced by what seems to be rather mundane. The coupling of Cohn & Schine on the McCarthy Committee which begun a friendship is one of them. Another one is the discovery of a pink dentist at Fort Monmouth. The outcome of these two events was the Army-McCarthy Hearings which ultimately lead to the fall of  Senator McCarthy.

The friendship of Cohn & Schine was abruptly disrupted by the latter being drafted into the U.S. Army, much to the chagrin of Cohn. Being unable to prevent Schine's induction into the Army, Cohn did his best to make his friend comfortable during his basic training by pressuring the Army to bestow upon his friend preferential treatment, such as providing frequent weekend passes specially made gloves for the rifle range in which only the trigger finger was exposed.  Such things were naturally not bestowed upon the other inductees. In regards to Cohn's harassment of the Army on behalf of Private Schine, McCarthy himself would in private remark that Cohn was unreasonable in matters pertaining to that most famous private in the entire U.S. Army.

The spark that ignited the political conflagration that ultimately brought down McCarthy were McCarthy's interrogation of  General Zwicker in the hearing with McCarthy presided. It was supposedly McCarthy's intent to ferret out subversives who had infiltrated Fort Monmouth and hence had become security risks that must be dealt with.

The fall of McCarthy from the apex of power he had acquired was broadcasted nationwide through the medium of television. The McCarthy Committee's  hearings on security risks imagined by the chairman of the committee was broadcasted live by CBS from coast to coast. Ed Murrow provided a context for these hearings on See it Now.

Annie Moss 

General Zwicker

The Army-McCarthy hearings were held in order to  investigate the conflicting accusations between the Army and Senator. The Army accused Cohn of pressuring the Army to bestow upon Schine preferential treatment not given to other trainers. From McCarthy came the counter-charges that the Army was acting in bad faith and that their accusation against Cohn was merely in retaliation for the aggressive investigations undertaken of suspected security risks within the Army.

work in progress

The making of unsubstantiated accusations is just smoke and mirrors. Mirrors like those in carnivals can distort reality. As for the smoke, it has been said that where there's smoke, there's fire. Anyone who has said that, might not have ever witnessed a professional magic act, for the key to a magic act is misdirection. The magician has his audience looking in the wrong direction while the real "magic" worked goes unnoticed. It is merely a question of what is in the magician's other hand or up his sleeve. The smoke and mirrors are merely the means of misdirection.

Senator McCarthy had discovered his path to fame or infamy, depending upon ones political perspective. Although there were others of his ilk, such as Democratic Senator Patrick A. McCarran (Nev.) and Republican Senators Kenneth S. Wherry (Neb.), Henry S. Bridges (NH) and William Jenner (Ind.), on the anti-communism bandwagon at that time, he was one of the most vocal in the imagined cause of saving the nation from the red menace. But one undeniable fact is that he became the most recognizable with his reckless, unsubstantiated accusations flying forth from his mouth of card carrying members of Communist Party, who along with their fellow travelers, of being traitors. All that was perceived wrong with the nation, he argued, was the result of acts of treason committed by those treacherous traitors.

Icarus flew too close to the sun and sun melted the wax holding the wings onto his torso, resulting in his fall to the earth and his death. Like Icarus, McCarthy metaphorically flew too close to the sun, but for him the fall from grace was merely political. His ultimate death in 1957 was from booze and self pity.


*The Venona project was a secret collaboration of the US and UK intelligence agencies in which involved decoding messages sent by the various spy agencies of the former Soviet Union. For the most part  this took place for the duration of WWII.





5.Speech of Joseph McCarthy, Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9, 1950

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the one hundred forty-first birthday of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time—of war being outlawed—and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a long peace—and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of “the cold war.” This is a time when all the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps—a time of a great armament race.

Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the Indochina hills, from the shores of Formosa, right over into the very heart of Europe itself.

The one encouraging thing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly . . . and that is that we are now engaged in a show-down fight . . . not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies.

The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous.

Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west could most certainly still live in peace.

The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . . invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.

Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state.

Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this “soulful ravings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . .

Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.

Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war—but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution.” . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic world?

Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.

Six years ago, . . . there was within the Soviet orbit, 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that time, roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only six years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia—an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than six years, the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us.

This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.” . . .

The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores . . . but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of minority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to offer . . . the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in government we can give.

This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been most traitorous. . . .

I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. . . .

As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes—being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust—high treason. . . .

He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency in government.


6. Joseph McCarthy to President Harry Truman, February 11, 1950

In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State Department employees for the purpose of weeding out fellow travelers—men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a painstaking job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic connections.

While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an important link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order forbidding the State Department’s giving any information in regard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to the Congress.

Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. This list is available to you but you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still working in the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum which can be expected of you in this case.

1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still working in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections.

2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any information or help in exposing Communists.

Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of being the bedfellow of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and the House.

Source: U.S. Senate, State Department Loyalty Investigation Committee on Foreign Relations, 81st Congress; Joseph McCarthy to President Harry Truman February 11, 1950, Congressional Record, 81st Congress


7. Reaction of President Harry Truman to Loyalty Investigation, “News Conference at Key West,” March 30, 1950

Question- Mr. President, do you think Senator McCarthy is getting anywhere in his attempt to win the case against the State Department?

President Truman- What’s that?

Question- Do you think that Senator McCarthy can show any disloyalty exists in the State Department?

Truman- I think the greatest asset that the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy.

Question- Would you care to elaborate on that?

Truman- I don’t think it needs any elaboration—I don’t think it needs any elaboration.

Question- Brother, will that hit page one tomorrow!

Question- If you think we are going to bust down the fence on what you have got later, that’s a pretty good starter. [Laughter]

Question- Mr. President, could we quote that one phrase, “I think the greatest asset the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy”?

Truman- Now let me give you a little preliminary, and then I will tell you what I think you ought to do. Let me tell you what the situation is.

We started out in 1945, when I became President, and the two wars were still going on, and the Russians were our allies, just the same as the British and the French and Brazil and the South American countries. And we won the war together.

We organized the United Nations in April 1945, and one of the first questions that was asked me, after I was sworn in at 7:09 o’clock on the 12th of April, was whether or not the San Francisco conference on the United Nations should go ahead. And I said it certainly will. It went ahead and we finally succeeded in getting a charter and getting it agreed to by I think 51 nations, if I remember correctly.

Then our objective was to—as quickly as possible—get peace in the world. We made certain agreements with the Russians and the British and the French and the Chinese. We kept those agreements to the letter. They have nearly all been—those agreements where the Russians were involved—been broken by the Russians. And it became perfectly evident that they had no intention of carrying out the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and the agreements which had been made at Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. And it became evident that there was an endeavor on the part of the Kremlin to control the world.

A procedure was instituted which came to be known as the cold war. The airlift to Berlin was only one phase of it. People became alarmed here in the United States then, 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. There isn’t any difference between the totalitarian Russian Government and the Hitler government and the Franco government in Spain. They are all alike. They are police state governments.

In 1947 I instituted a loyalty program for Government employees, and that loyalty procedure program was set up in such a way that the rights of individuals were respected.

In a survey of the 2,200,000 employees at that time, I think there were some 205—something like that—who left the service. I don’t know—a great many of them left of their own accord.

Question- How many, Mr. President?

Truman- Somewhere in the neighborhood of 205. Does anybody remember those figures exactly? It’s a very small figure.

Question- Very small.

Truman- An infinitesimal part of 1 percent. We will get the figures for you.

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.” And there are a certain number of members of the Republican Party who are trying to dig up that old malodorous dead horse called “isolationism.” And in order to do that, they are perfectly willing to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. And this fiasco which has been going on in the Senate is the very best asset that the Kremlin could have in the operation of the cold war. And that is what I mean when I say that McCarthy’s antics are the best asset that the Kremlin can have.

Now, if anybody really felt that there were disloyal people in the employ of the Government, the proper and the honorable way to handle the situation would be to come to the President of the United States and say, “This man is a disloyal person. He is in such and such a department.” We will investigate him immediately, and if he were a disloyal person he would be immediately fired.

That is not what they want. They are trying to create an issue, and it is going to be just as big a fiasco as the campaign in New York and other places on these other false and fatuous issues.

With a little bit of intelligence they could find an issue at home without a bit of trouble!

Question- What would it be, Mr. President?

Truman- Anything in the domestic line. I will meet them on any subject they want, but to try to sabotage the foreign policy of the United States, in the face of the situation with which we are faced, is just as bad as trying to cut the Army in time of war.

Question- On that question we were just kidding.

Truman- And that gave me a chance to give you an answer. To try to sabotage the foreign policy of the United States is just as bad in this cold war as it would be to shoot our soldiers in the back in a hot war.

I am fed up with what is going on, and I am giving you the facts as I see them.

Question- Mr. President, do you consider the Republican Party as a party?

Truman- The policy of the Republican Party has endorsed the antics of Mr. McCarthy.

Question- That affects the bipartisan—

Truman- That’s what it is for—that’s what it is for. They are anxious for the return of isolationism.

Question- Do you think that this has torpedoed, then, the bipartisan—

Truman- It is an endeavor to torpedo the bipartisan foreign policy. They are not going to succeed, because the levelheaded Republicans do not believe that at all, as note Mr. Stimson, Senator Vandenberg, Senator Saltonstall, and a dozen others I could name, who know exactly what is going on and are trying their best to cooperate. And I am going to try to help them prevent it going under.

Question- Well, Mr. President, to carry that out to its logical conclusion, when Dean Acheson will go down in history as one of the great Secretaries of State, nothing that the Democratic Party can do except simply to sit on the sidelines and say, “Well?”

Truman- Well, it’s too bad. It’s a dangerous situation, and it has got to be stopped. And every citizen in the United States is going to find out just exactly what the facts are when I get through with this thing.

Question- You will stand up on one side, and they will stand up on the other?

Truman- There’s only one side that the people will stay on, and that is the side that will lead to peace. That is all we are after. This is just another fiasco to find an issue. This is not it.

Question- Mr. President, would you like to name any others besides Senator McCarthy who have participated in this attempt to sabotage our foreign policy?

Truman- Senator Wherry.

Question- Yes, sir?

Truman- Senator Bridges.

Question- Yes, sir?

Truman- That’s about as far as I care to go.

Question- Okay, sir.

Question- Now, what I forgot to say was would you like to say anything about Mr. Acheson and Mr. Lattimore, and—what’s his name—the Ambassador at Large?

Truman- Jessup. I think I made myself perfectly clear that I think Dean Acheson will go down in history as one of the great Secretaries of State. You know very well that Mr. Jessup is as able and distinguished a citizen as this country has ever produced. Lattimore is a member of the faculty of Johns Hopkins University and is a very well informed person on foreign affairs.

Question- You don’t believe he is a spy?

Truman- Why of course not. It’s silly on the face of it.

Question- Mr. President, don’t you think the American people recognize this for what it is?

Truman- There is no doubt about it. I am just emphatically bringing it to their attention.

Question- For direct quotes, could we have that, "I think the greatest asset—

Truman- I would rather you would say that the greatest asset the Kremlin has is the present approach of those in the Senate who are trying to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy.

Question- Could we have that read back to us?

Truman- Sure. Jack?

Mr. Romagna. I’m all balled up.

Truman- Take your time—take your time.

The greatest asset that the Kremlin has is the partisan attempt in the Senate to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States.

Question- This may seem redundant, but this is just for the record. The partisan effort, of course, is the effort by the Republicans in the Senate—

Truman- Well now, I didn’t say that, “partisan effort.” Leave it at that. Draw your own conclusions.

Source: Reaction of President Harry Truman to Loyalty Investigation “News Conference at Key West” March 30, 1950, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1950 (Washington, DC), 234–236 in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Roger Burns, Congress Investigates: A Documented History, 1792–1974 (New York: Chelsea House, 1963), 31–38, 80–83.



8. Declaration of Conscience by Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R)- June 1, 1950

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the legislative branch or the executive branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to any American, who is not a Senator, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American—and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against it—yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

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. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we “dish out” to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its Members to do some soul searching—for us to weigh our consciences—on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America; on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. 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.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause Nation-wide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation—in addition to being a party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes. Today we have a Democratic administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs. History is repeating itself—and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears. America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances—that show the people that our Democratic administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this Nation. The Nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could—simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.

As members of the minority party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in Senate debate—and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.” As an American, I don’t want a Democratic administration “whitewash” or “cover-up” any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Democrat “Communist.” I condemn a Democrat “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Republican “Communist.” They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our Nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts I have drafted what I call a Declaration of Conscience. I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye and Senator Hendrickson, have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

Statement of Seven Republican Senators

1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion.

2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics.

3. Certain elements of the Republican Party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears.

4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.”

5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Source: "Declaration of Conscience" by Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Statement of Seven Senators, June 1, 1950, Congressional Record, 82nd Congress. 1st Session, in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Roger Burns, Congress Investigates: A Documented History, 1792–1974 (New York: Chelsea House, 1963), 84–88.


9. McCarthy's Senatorial Speech Slandering George C. Marshall's Character

Mr. President, in closely following the testimony before the joint committee on Foreign Relations and Armed Services, sitting jointly, which is conducting an investigation of the dismissal of Douglas MacArthur, I have become more and more impressed by two inescapable facts: 
First. That it is impossible to develop the facts in the MacArthur inquiry without at the same time bringing to some of the facts which bear on the question of why we fell from our position as the most powerful nation on earth at the end of World War II to a position of declared weakness by our leadership. 
Second. That it will be equally impossible to obtain the answers to the above without a conspiracy so immense and infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. During the Marshall testimony, one of Senators, obviously troubled by the odor of a conspiracy which was commencing to rise as a result of the constant probing by the members of the committee- troubled by the fringes of the conspiracy which were commencing to show- came to my office and asked me for information on a subject which was troubling and puzzling him greatly. While I cannot quote him verbatim, the questions he asked were substantially as follows:

First.
Who was close to Marshall and succeeded in deceiving this great American at Yalta when his military advice was that we turn Manchuria over to Russia, thereby signing at least the first section in the death warrant of the Republic of China.
Second. Who twisted and perverted the thinking of this great American and misguided him into the folly of his disastrous mission to China?
Third. Who, of tortured disloyalty to America, succeeded in deceiving this great general during the course of World War II to the end that he always sided with Stalin and against Churchill when history's great decisions were being made- decisions which turned out so bad for the free world and so good for international communism?
Upon searching for the answers for the Senator, I found to my surprise that Marshall, who, by the alchemy of propaganda, became the "greatest living American," and recently proclaimed "master of global strategy" for the party in power, has never had his recorded subjected to the searching light of any historian. In view of the fact that the committee, the Congress and the American people are being called upon either to endorse or reject Marshall's global strategy, I felt that it was urgent that such a study be made and submitted to the Russell committee....

It is needless to tell you that this was a monumental task, but one in which I felt had to be done, for unless we understand the record of Marshall it will be impossible to even remotely grasp the planned steady retreat from victory which commenced long before World War II. Unless we carefully study the records of Marshall and Acheson, who have worked together so closely, it will be impossible to foretell the next move on a timetable of a conspiracy.

I realize full well how unpopular it is lay hands on the laurels a man who was built into a great hero. I very much dislike this unpleasant task, but I feel that it must be done if we are to intelligently make the proper decisions in the issues of life and death before us....
This administration, which has given us a caricature of war, is now bent on a even worse horror- a phony and fradulent peace. It is planed by Secretary Marshall and the elegant and alien Acheson- Russian as to heart, British as to manner. We even hear cries for a fradulent peace within this chamber. In support of its campaign for a fradulent peace, its advocates wage a campaign of fear.
 
The President threatens us with the destruction of our cities by Russian bombs unless we continue to pursue his empty, defeatist strategy in the Far East. The President's only answer to the council of General McArthur is that we must not on no account offend the Soviet Union. One of the administration's two principal spokesmen on this matter seeks to frighten us with the admonition that unless we mind our P's and Q's in Korea,"This very Capitol Building  may be blown to smithereens next week or the week after." Mr. President, that is not the great heart of America speaking.
 
I do not think we need to fear too much about the Communists dropping atomic bombs on Washington. They would kill too many of their freinds that way....
 
 
 

 
 

Source: Joseph R. McCarthy Edited by Allen J. Matusow (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970) 82-8

10. McCarthy Committee (18 February 1954)-
McCarthy vs. General Zwicker

McCarthy- You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for this man, knowing that he was a Fifth Amendment Communist, do you not?

Zwicker- I know that a honorable discharge was signed for the man.

McCarthy- The day the
honorable discharge was signed,were you aware of the fact that he had appeared before our committee?

Zwicker- I was.

McCarthy- And had refused to answer certain questions?

Zwicker- No sir, not specifically on answering any any questions. I knew that he appeared before your committee.

McCarthy- Didn't you read the news?

Zwicker- I read the news releases.

McCarthy- And the news releases were to the effect he had refused to tell whether he was a Communist, and that there was evidence that he had attended Communist leadership schools. It was on all the wire service stories, was it not? You knew generally what he was here for, did you not.

Zwicker- Yes; indeed.

McCarthy- And you knew generally that he refused to tell whether he was a Communist, did you not?

Zwicker- I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist.

McCarthy- Are you the commanding officer there?

Zwicker- I am the commanding General.

McCarthy- When an officer appears before a committee and refuses to answer, would you not read that story rather carefully?

Zwicker- I read the press releases.

McCarthy- Then General, you knew, did you not, that he appeared before the  committee and refused, on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment, to tell about his Communist activities? You knew that, did you not?

Zwicker- I knew everything that was in the press. 

McCarthy- Don't be coy me General.

Zwicker- I am not being coy, sir.

McCarthy- Did you have that general picture?

Zwicker- I believe I remember reading in the paper that he had taken refuge in the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions before the committee.

McCarthy- About Communism?

Zwicker- I am not too certain about that.

McCarthy- Do you mean that you did not have enough interest in the case, General, the case of the major who was in your command, to get some idea of what questions he refused to answer? Is that correct?

Zwicker- I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr. Chairman.

McCarthy- You put it right, then.

Zwicker- I have great interest in all the officers of my command, with whatever they do.

McCarthy- Let's stick to the fifth amendment Communists, now. Let's stick to him. You told us you read the press releases.

Zwicker- I did.

McCarthy- But now you indicate that you that you did you not know he refused to tell about his Communist activities. Is that correct?

Zwicker- I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.

McCarthy- Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist activities.

Zwicker- Specifically, I don't believe so.

McCarthy- Did you have any idea?

Zwicker- Of course I had an idea.

McCarthy- What do you think he was called down here for?

Zwicker- For that specific purpose.

McCarthy- Then you knew that those were the questions he were asked, did you not. I am going to keep you here as long as you keep hedging and hemming.

Zwicker- I am not hedging.

McCarthy- Or hawing.

Zwicker- I am not hawing and I don't like to have anyone impugn my honesty, which you just did.

McCarthy- Either your honesty or intelligence; I can't help help impugning one or the other, when you tell us that a major in your command who was known to you to have been before a Senate committee and

Zwicker- I am sure I had that impression....

McCarthy- Will you tell me whether or not you were at all concerned about the fact that this man was getting an honorable discharge after the chairman of the Senate Investigating Committee had suggested to the Army that he be court-martialed? Did that concerned you?

Zwicker- It may have concerned me, but it could not have changed anything that was done in carrying out this order.

McCarthy- Did you take any steps to have him retained until the Secretary of the Army could decide whether he should be court-martialed?

Zwicker- No sir.

McCarthy- Did it occur to you that you should?

Zwicker- No sir.

McCarthy- Could you have taken such steps?

Zwicker- No sir.

McCarthy- In other words, there is nothing you could have done; is that your statement?

Zwicker- That is my opinion....

McCarthy- Do you think, General, that anyone who is responsible for giving an honorable discharge to a man who who has been named under oath as a member of the Communist conspiracy should himself be removed from the military?

Zwicker- You are speaking of generalities now and not on specifics- is that right, sir, not mentioning about any one particular person?

McCarthy- That is right.

Zwicker- I have no brief for that kind of person and if there exists or has existed something in the system that permits that, I say that that is wrong.

McCarthy- I am not talking about the system. I am asking you this question, General, a very simple question: Let us assume that John Jones, who is a major in the United States Army-

Zwicker- A what, sir?

McCarthy- Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the United States Army. Let us assume that there was sworn testimony to the effect that he is part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools.  Let us assume that Major John Jones is under oath before the committee and says, "I cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear it might tend to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith was responsible for this man receiving an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do you think that General Smith should be removed from the military or do you think that he should be kept on in it?

Zwicker- He should be by all means kept if he were acting competent orders to separate that man.

McCarthy- Let us say that he is the man who signed the orders. Let us say General Smith is the man who originated the order.

Zwicker- Originated the order directing his separation?

McCarthy- Directing his honorable discharge.

Zwicker- Well, that is pretty hypothetical.

McCarthy- That is pretty real, general.

Zwicker- Sir, on one point yes. I mean, on an individual, yes. But you know that there are thousands and thousands of people being separated daily from our army

McCarthy- General, you understand my question-

Zwicker- Maybe not.

McCarthy- And are you going to answer it.

Zwicker- Repeat it.

McCarthy- The reporter will repeat it.

(The reporter reads the question again.)

Zwicker- That is not an answer for me to decide, Senator.

McCarthy- You are ordered to answer it, General. You are an employee of the people.

Zwicker- Yes, sir.

McCarthy- You have a rather important job. I want to know how you feel about getting rid of Communists?

Zwicker- I am all for it.

McCarthy- All right. You will answer that question, unless you take the fifth amendment. I do not care how long we stay here, you are going to answer it.

Zwicker- Do you mean how I feel towards Communists?

McCarthy- I mean exactly what I asked you, General; nothing else. And anyone with the brains of a five year old child can understand that question. The reporter will read it to you as often as you need to hear it so that you can answer it and then you will answer it.

Zwicker- Start it over please.

(The reporter reads the question again.)

Zwicker- I do not think he should be removed from the military.

McCarthy- Then, General, you should be removed from any command. Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to General and says, "I will protect another General who has protected Communists," is not fit to wear that uniform, General. I think it is a tremendous disgrace to the army to have this sort of thing given to the public. I intend to give it to them. I have a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said. So you know that. You will be back here, General.
Source: Joseph R. McCarthy Edited by Allen J. Matusow (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970) 82-8


11. See It Now (23 February 1954)-
McCarthy vs. General Zwicker

When the transcript of the sensational attack on a witness is published, it is natural to expect it to supply the reason of the attack. Senator McCarthy last night read passages from the transcript of his examination of General Ralph Zwicker commandant  of Fort Kilmer. That was a speech accepting a gold medal from the sons of the American Revolution. Now the whole transcript of the Generals examination has been published. It fails to answer the questions the needs clarification if the public is to judge whether Senator McCarthy was justified in denouncing the General.

The Senator at the hearing was trying to show that that
General Zwicker should have delayed the honorable discharge of Major Irving Peress, a dental officer, which he had been ordered to give. The Senator thought he should have done it (delayed discharge) because of evidence about Peress heard by his subcommittee. This evidence had been heard after the General had received the orders to give the honorable discharge. The Senator passionately denied General Zwicker's
fitness for command on the ground that he did not postpone the action.

What needs to be made clear,if possible, is why the General did not act. He said it was because the evidence of the McCarthy subcommittee on Peress was a matter already known to those who ordered the
honorable discharge. Senator McCarthy at the hearing presented this analogy. Suppose a major was about to be honorably discharged, someone and someone brought him evidence of a fifty dollar theft. Would the General delay the honorable discharge? The 
General said he would, so as to check the facts. Then why not do it if the allegation was membership in a Communist conspiracy, Senator McCarthy asked. The way the question was put made it sound as though the General did not think that membership in a Communist conspiracy was as bad as a fifty dollar theft. But the General patiently explained that he did not postpone the discharge on his own initiative because he knew of no new evidence before the McCarthy  Committee which had not been known to those who ordered the discharge. That is, without new evidence, he couldn't interfere. He had not heard of any new evidence. And even a statement of an undercover agent that Major Peress had been the liaison between his [the agent's] Communist cell and the American Labor was not, he said, substantially new.

Surely the issue insofar as General Zwicker is concerned is whether the McCarthy subcommittee had produced the evidence the Army had not known, so that the General would be justified in postponing the discharge. The  transcript does not show that Senator McCarthy tried to establish that the evidence it had produced was of this kind. New or not, he used it as a basis to attack the fitness of General Zwicker for command.

Last night
Senator McCarthy told his audience that he had been too temperate in the attack and if he had it to do over again he would be even more vigorous. But he did not  attempt to show that the General had been given the new facts that he needs for action. All he did was to strengthen his  attack. It is a familiar stratagem to strengthen an accusation without strengthening the evidence. In present-day America, charges are easily mistaken as evidence, something
Senator McCarthy well knows.

People who have read only of the abuse heaped on General Zwicker may not realize what Army Secretary Stevens last week wrote Senator McCarthy about the Peress case. He told the Senator new procedures had been ordered so that another Peress case would not occur. He also told the Senator that he did not believe a man should be given a commission who refused to answer properly asked questions about his loyalty. This is what Dr. Peress had done in pleading the Fifth  Amendment at the McCarthy hearing. It can't happen again, Mr. Stevens assured the Senator. But he also told him that what had been done could not well be undone. "The separation of an officer under circumstances such as this", he wrote, "is a final action and there is no means of which I am aware by which the action could be successfully reversed." He said the only the fact available to the Army on which charges could be based was the refusal to answer questions before the committee. A previous case based on a similar charge, he told the Senator, had failed in court martial. All this General Zwicker knew before he testified. And so did Senator McCarthy. So what the Senator was trying to do was to do was to maneuver the General into criticizing his orders and those who issued them. The General did say that he thought Communists should not not receive commissions or honorable discharges. But he was under Presidential orders not to testify on security matters and when to violate the order, he refused. When he refused, he was abused.

There may not be any permanent harm in this abuse, but more is at stake than a scolding by Senator
McCarthy. What is at issue is whether a senator is to delve into departmental matters, goad subordinates into criticism of their superiors, taint them with insinuations of Communist symphonies and impugn their judgment and integrity to the demoralization of the department. This is not the way Senate investigations are supposed, or entailed, to function. They do have a proper and important role in our system of government. This is not the  role.

(See It Now- 9 March 1954)
This is the broadcast in which Murrows tactics by the use of film footage and commentary. His remarks at the end of that program is 17 in this edition.)

 Source: In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow 1938 - 1961 Edited by Edward Bliss (Discus, New York, Avon, 1967) 265-6

12. See It Now (11 March 1954)-
"Tried by hearsay evidence, rumor and innuendo"

Mrs. Annie Lee Moss was suspended from her job with Army Signal Corps because she was accused of being a "dues-paying, card carrying member Communist" in 1943. The charge was made by Mary Markward, a former FBI counterspy who testified before the McCarthy committee that she had seen Mrs. Moss's on a list of dues-paying Communists. Today, Senator McCarthy, who left the hearing early, told Mrs. Moss, "We had testimony that you are a a Communist and we are rather curious to know how people like yourself were shifted from waitress to the code room. Mrs. Moss then testified she did not work in the Signal Corps code room, had never worked in a code room in her life. She said, "At no time have I ever been a member of the Communist Party and I have never seen seen a Communist card." She said she never subscribed to The Daily Worker and didn't know what Communism meant  until 1948, five years after she was supposed to be a party member.

Committee Counsel Roy Cohn told the Senators that the committee had evidence to corroborate that of Mary Markward from another witness he did not name. At this point Democratic Senator McClellan of Arkansas objected. And Acting Chairman Mundt ordered Counsel Cohn's statement stricken from the record. Mundt explained that the "other witness" was now in contact with the FBI and the committee would have to consider whether to release the name. McClellan objected again. He said, "That testimony shouldn't be revealed to the public until we have a chance to weigh  it. If you cannot call a witness, you should not mention it. McClellan charged that Mrs. Moss was tried by hearsay evidence, rumor and innuendo. And Democratic Senator Symington told her, "I believe you are telling the truth." Mrs. Moss replied "I certainly am." And the Senator went on to say "I believe in this country a person innocent until proven guilty. I think it very important that evidence be presented along with the implication of additional evidence." And he told the suspended Army Signal Corps employee, "If you are not taken back by the Army, come around and see me and I'll get you a job."
Source: In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow- 1938 - 1961 Edited by Edward Bliss (Discus, New York, Avon, 1967) 266-7

13. See It Now (28 May 1954)-
McCarthy vs. Eisenhower

I should like to read the text of the statement issued by the White House today, for it is likely to be a considerable footnote in the history of our turbulent time. Jim Hagerty, the President's news secretary, told reporters:

I talked this morning with the  President and the Attorney General and at the direction of the Attorney General I should like to issue a statement in his name, with the approval of the President. The obligations and duties of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of our government are defined by the Constitution. The executive branch of government has the sole and fundamental responsibility under the Constitution for the enforcement of our laws and presidential orders. They include those to protect the security of our nation, which were carefully drawn for this purpose. That
responsibility cannot be usurped by an individual who may seek to set himself above the laws of our land, or to override orders of the President of the  United States to federal employees of the executive branch of the government.

This was an obvious and direct reference to Senator McCarthy's statement of yesterday when he said publicly, "I would like to notify those two million federal employees that I feel that it is their duty to give us any information which they have graft, corruption, Communists, treason and that there is no loyalty to a superior which can tower above and beyond their
loyalty to their country."  Today Senator McCarthy's reply to the White  House statement was that he hoped to remain in the Senate, see many Presidents come and go; said he would continue to get information from within the government whenever he can and to protect his informants.

In this reporter's opinion the issue between the  Eisenhower Administration  and Senator McCarthy has been joined. It is constitutional and therefore fundamental. The  President and the Attorney General have labeled the Senator as one who seeks to set himself above the laws of our land and to override orders of the President of the United States to federal employees of the executive branch of the government. This is not a dispute between the Attorney General and the Senator about a document or ruling by the Justice Department. It is a head on collision between the President and the Senator. It due course it will cause senators and citizens to be counted on whether or not there is to  be  an elaborate system of informers inside the government violating the law and their oath by providing to a senator documents and information which can only properly be described as stolen. There arises the question, at least in theory, about the legal status of those who knowingly receive stolen goods. For many months supporters of the President have been saying in due course and on a ground of his own choosing, the President would deal with Senator McCarthy. The ground has been chosen. The President, even before he was elected, did everything possible to appease the Senator, to make him a "member of the team." It didn't work. And once more  the result of appeasement is conflict.

Both sides are fully committed and there would seem to be no possibility of compromise or withdrawal. On the investigative committee, the  Republicans have supported or at least not opposed, Senator McCarthy's position. Now they and other members of the Senate must choose on a fundamental issue between the position taken up and clearly defined by the  President of the  United States on the one hand and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin on the other.

A great deal has been spoken and written about the waste of time, the circus atmosphere, the need to expedite and the unimportance of the current investigation. But out of it has emerged,in outlines so clear that all can understand, a basic constitutional issue. It can be simply stated. Who is going to run the government of this  country, protect its security, direct its affairs, and manage the nation's business. There have been times in our history when the executive branch of government has attempted to dominate the legislature and even the judicial. There have been times when Congress have made inroads of the prerogative of the  executive. What is here involved is whether a single senator shall publicly recruit and legalize what might be called a private Gestapo within the ranks of those employed by the federal government. The contribution to the public enlightenment that has been made by the  President and by the Senator is to delineate and define the issue so that reasoning men and women may debate it.


Source: In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow- 1938 - 1961 Edited by Edward Bliss (Discus, New York, Avon, 1967) 273-5

14. See It Now()-
McCarthy vs. Murrow

Edward R. Murrow: One month ago tonight we presented a report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. We labeled it as controversial. Most of that report consisted of words and pictures of the Senator. At that time we said, "If the Senator believes we have done violence to his words or pictures, if he desires to speak to answer himself, an opportunity will be afforded him on this program. The Senator sought the opportunity, asked for a delay of three weeks because he said he was very busy and he wished adequate time to prepare his reply. We agreed. We supplied the Senator with a kinescope of that program of March 9*, and with such scripts and recordings as he requested. We placed no restrictions upon the manner or method of the presentation of his reply, and we suggested that we would not take time to comment on this particular program. The Senator chose to make his reply on film. Here, now, is Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, junior Senator from Wisconsin.

*See the "See it now- Conclusion of 9 March 1954 broadcast" for Ed Murrow concluding remarks for this broadcast.

Joseph McCarthy- Good evening. Mr. Edward R. Murrow, Educational Director of the Columbia Broadcasting System, devoted his program to an attack on the work of the United States Senate Investigating Committee, and on me personally as its chairman. Now over the past four years he has made repeated attacks upon me and those fighting Communists.

Now, of course, neither Joe McCarthy nor Edward R. Murrow is of any great importance as individuals. We are only important in our relation to the great struggle to preserve our American liberties. The Senate Investigating Committee has forced out of government, and out of important defense plants, Communists engaged in the Soviet conspiracy. And you know it's interesting to note that the viciousness of Murrow's attacks is in direct ratio to our success in digging out Communists.

Now, ordinarily -- ordinarily, I would not take time out from the important work at hand to answer Murrow. However, in this case I feel justified in doing so because Murrow is a symbol, a leader, and the cleverest of the jackal pack which is always found at the throat of anyone who dares to expose individual Communists and traitors. I am compelled by the facts to say to you that Mr. Edward R. Murrow, as far back as twenty years ago, was engaged in propaganda for Communist causes. For example, the Institute of International Education of which he was the Acting Director, was chosen to act as a representative by a Soviet agency to do a job which would normally be done by the Russian Secret Police. Mr. Murrow sponsored a Communist school in Moscow. In the selection of American students and teachers who were to attend, Mr. Murrow's organization acted for the Russian espionage and -- and propaganda organization known as Voks (V-O-K-S). And many of those selected were later exposed as Communists. Murrow's organization selected such notorious Communists as Isadore Begun, David Zablodowsky. (Incidentally, Zablodowsky was forced out of the United Nations, when my chief counsel presented his case to the grand jury and gave a picture of his Communist activities).

Now, Mr. Murrow, by his own admission, was a member of the IWW (that's the Industrial Workers of the World), a terrorist organization cited as subversive by an attorney general of the United States, who stated that it was an organization which seeks, and I quote: "to alter the government of the United States by unconstitutional means." Now, other government committees have had before them actors, screen writers, motion picture producers, and others, who admitted Communist affiliations but pleaded youth or ignorance. Now, Mr. Murrow can hardly make the same plea. On March 9 of this year, Mr. Murrow, a trained reporter, who had traveled all over the world, who is the Educational Director of CBS, followed implicitly the Communist line, as laid down in the last six months, laid down not only by the Communist Daily Worker, but by the Communist magazine Political Affairs and by the National Conference of the Communist Party of the United States of America.

Now the question, why is it important to you, the people of America, to know why the Educational Director and the Vice President of CBS so closely follow the Communist Party line? To answer that question we must turn back the pages of history.

A little over a hundred years ago, a little group of men in Europe conspired to deliver the world to a new system, to Communism. Under their system, the individual was nothing; the family was nothing; God did not even exist. Their theory was that an all-powerful State should have the power of life or death over its citizens without even a trial; that everything and everybody belonged to the rulers of the states. They openly wrote -- Nothing's secret about it -- that, in their efforts to gain power, they would be justified in doing anything; they would be justified in following the trail of deceit, lies, terror, murder, treason, blackmail. All these things were elevated to virtues in the Communist rule book. If a convert to Communism could be persuaded that he was a citizen of the world, it of course would be much easier to make him a traitor to his own country.

Now for 70 years the Communists made little progress. Let me show you a map of the world as it stood in the middle of the First World War of 1917, before the Russian Revolution. You will see there is not a single foot of ground on the face of the globe under the domination or control of the Communists, and bear in mind that this was only 36 years ago. In 1917 we were engaged in a great World War in defense of our way of life and in defense of American liberty. The Kaiser was obliged to divide his armies and fight in both eastern and the western fronts. In the midst of the war, the Russian people overthrew their Czarist master and they set up a democratic form of government under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky. Now, Kerensky's government instantly pledged all-out support to the allies. At this instant the imperial German government secretly financed the return to Russia of seven Communist exiles led by Nicolai Lenin exiles who had been forced to flee the country, a rather important event in the history of the world.

Now, once in Russia, by the same methods which the Communists are employing in the United States today, they undermined the Army; they undermined the Navy; the civilian heads of the government. And in one hundred days those seven Communists were literally the masters of Russia. Now, with all of -- of the wealth of the nation at their command, they proceeded to finance Communist parties in every country in the world. They sent to those countries trained propagandists and spies. In every country they of course had to find glib, clever men like Edward R. Murrow who would sponsor invitations to students and teachers to attend indoctrinational schools in Moscow, exactly as Murrow has done. They trained Communists in every country in the world. Their sole purpose was [to] infiltrate the government, and once Communists were in government they in turn brought others in.

Now let us look at the map of the world as it was twenty years ago. At that time there was one country with 180,000,000 people in Communist chains.

Now let us look at a map of the world as of tonight, this 6th day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four. Over one-third of the earth's area under Communist control and 800,000,000 people in Communist chains, in addition to the 800,000,000 in Communist chains in Europe and Asia. Finally, the Communists have gained a foothold and a potential military base here in our half of the world, in Guatemala, with the Communists seeping down into the Honduras. My good friends, how much of this was achieved by military force and how much was achieved by traitors and Communist-line propagandists in our own government and in other free governments?

Let's start in Europe, if we may. They took by military force a little piece of Finland. In the same way they took three small Baltic states: Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. They took half of Poland in the same way. They acquired the rest of Poland through Polish traitors and Communists in our own government, who gave American dollars and American support to the Communists in Poland. They took over Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, without firing a single shot. They did this by the infiltration of Communists in a [sic] key spots in the governments. The Communists took over Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. This they did by the infiltration of Communists into the Czechoslovakian government also. And listen to what a high official in the anti-Communist government of Czechoslovakia had to say about the Communist enslavement of Czechoslovakia. Here's what he said. He said,

In my country, the pattern was identical to what it is in the United States. If anyone, before the Communists took over, dared to attack those Communists who were preparing and shaping the policy of my government, shaping the policy to betray my people, he was promptly attacked and destroyed by a combination of Communists, fellow travelers and those unthinking people who thought they were serving the cause of liberalism and progress, but who were actually serving the cause of the most reactionary credo of all times, Communism.

Still quoting: "Because of those people, night has fallen upon my nation and slavery upon my people."

Now, shifting to another area of the world, to the East, how about this vast land area and the teeming masses of China? Let's just take a look at that map, if you please. Keep in mind that a few short years ago China was a free nation, friendly to the United States. Now, were the --were -- let's take a look at that map. Were those 400,000,000 Chinese captured by force of arms? Certainly not. They were delivered -- delivered to Communist slave masters by the jackal pack of Communist-line propagandists, including the friends of Mr. Edward R. Murrow, who day after day shouted to the world that the Chinese Communists were agrarian reformers, and that our ally, the Republic of China, represented everything that was evil and wicked.

Now my good friends, if there were no Communists in our government, would we have consented to and connived to turn over all of our Chinese friends to the Russians? Now my good friends, if there had been no Communists in our government, would we have rewarded them with all of Manchuria, half of the Kurile Islands and one-half of Korea? Now how many Americans -- how many Americans have died and will die because of this sell-out to Communist Russia? God only knows.

If there were no Communists in our government, why did we delay for 18 months, delay our research on the hydrogen bomb, even though our intelligence agencies were reporting day after day that the Russians were feverishly pushing their development of the H-bomb? And may I say to America tonight that our nation may well die -- our nation may well die -- because of that 18-months deliberate delay. And I ask you, who caused it? Was it loyal Americans? Or was it traitors in our government?

It is often said by the left wing that it is sufficient to fight Communism in Europe and Asia, but that Communism is not a domestic American issue. But the record, my good friends, is that the damage has been done by cleverly calculated subversion at home, and not from abroad. It is this problem of -- of subversion that our Committee faces.

Now let us very quickly glance at some of the work of our Committee, some of the work it's done in slightly over a year's time. For example, 238 witnesses were examined in public session; 367 witnesses examined in executive session; 84 witnesses refused to testify as to Communist activities on the ground that, if they told the truth, they might go to jail; 24 witnesses with Communist backgrounds have been discharged from jobs [in] which they were handling secret, top-secret, confidential material, individuals who were exposed before our Committee.

Of course you can't measure the success of a committee by a box score, based on the number of Communist heads that have rolled from secret jobs. It is completely impossible to even estimate the -- the effect on our government of the day-to-day plodding exposure of Communists. And that is, of course, why the Murrows bleed. For example, the exposure of only one Fifth Amendment Communist in the Government Printing Office, an office having access to secret material from almost every government agency, resulted in an undisclosed number of suspensions. It resulted in the removal of the Loyalty Board, and the revamping of all the royal -- of the loyalty rules, so that we do have apparently a good, tight loyalty set up in the Printing Office at this time. Also disclosure of Communists in the military and in the radar laboratories resulted in the abolition of the Pentagon board which had cleared and ordered reinstated Communists who had for years been handling government secrets. Also, as a result of those hearings, Army orders have been issued to prevent a recurrence of the Major Irving Peress scandal, which was exposed by the Committee. Now to attempt to evaluate the effect of the work of an investigating committee would be about as impossible as to attempt to evaluate the effect of well-trained watchdogs upon the activities of potential burglars.

We Americans live in a free world, a world where we can stand as individuals, where we can go to the church of our own choice and worship God as we please, each in his own fashion, where we can freely speak our opinions on any subject, or on any man. Now whether -- whether we -- we shall continue to so live has come to issue now. We will soon know whether we are going to go on living that kind of life, or whether we are going to live the kind of life that 800,000,000 slaves live under Communist domination. The issue is simple. It is the issue of life or death for our civilization.

Now Mr. Murrow said on this program -- and I quote -- he said: "The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have given considerable comfort to the enemy." That is the language of our statute of treason -- rather strong language. If I am giving comfort to our enemies, I ought not to be in the Senate. If, on the other hand, Mr. Murrow is giving comfort to our enemies, he ought not to be brought into the homes of millions of Americans by the Columbia Broadcasting System.

Now this is a question which can be resolved with very little difficulty. What do the Communists think of me? And what do the Communists think of Mr. Murrow? One of us is on the side of the Communists; the other is against the Communists, against Communist slavery.

Now the Communists have three official publications in America, and these are not ordinary publications. They have been officially determined to be the transmission belts through which Communists in America are instructed as to the party-line, or the position which Communist writers and playwrights must take -- also, of course, telecasters, broadcasters. The first of these is a booklet which I would like to show you, if I may. It's entitled "The Main Report,"³ delivered at the National Conference of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. -- published in New York in October, 1953. The report states, quote: "The struggle against McCarthyism is developing currently along the following main line" -- Keep in mind this is a Communist publication giving instructions to members of the Party -- "along the following main line: the struggle against witch hunting, the struggle against investigations of the McCarthy/ McCarren type, and defense of the victims of McCarthyism such as Owen Lattimore, etc. In addition there is the direct attack on McCarthy." Let me ask you, does that sound somewhat like the program of Edward R. Murrow of March 9 over this same station?

Now in this -- in this report, the Communists do not hesitate to instruct -- to instruct the comrades that their fight on McCarthy is only a means to a larger end. Again, let me quote from the instructions from the Communist Party to its membership, on page 33, I quote:Our main task is to mobilize the masses for the defeat of the foreign and domestic policy of the Eisenhower Administration and for the defeat of the Eisenhower regime itself. The struggle against McCarthyism contributes to this general objective.

Just one more quotation, if I may, from page 31 of these instructions of the Communist Party to its members, and I quote: "Since the elections, McCarthyism has emerged as a menace of major proportions." I think maybe we know what the Communist Party means by "a menace of major proportions." They mean a menace of major proportions to the Communist Party.

Now let's take 30 seconds or so, if we may, to look a little further to see who's giving comfort to our enemies. Here is a Communist Daily Worker of March 9, containing seven articles and a principal editorial, all attacking McCarthy. And the same issue lists Mr. Murrow's program as -- listen to this -- "One of tonight's best bets on TV." And then -- just one more -- here's the issue of March 17. Its principal front-page article is an attack on McCarthy. It has three other articles attacking McCarthy. It has a special article by William Z. Foster, the head of the Communist Party in America -- and now under indictment on charges of attempting to overthrow this government by force and violence -- this article by Foster, praising Edward R. Murrow. Just one more, if I may impose on your time: the issue of March 26. This issue has two articles attacking witch-hunting, three articles attacking McCarthy, a cartoon of McCarthy, and an article in praise of Mr. Edward R. Murrow.

And now I would like to also show you the Communist political organ, entitled Political Affairs. The lead article is a report dated November 21, 1953 of the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States, attacking McCarthy and telling how the loyal members of the Communist Party can serve their cause by getting rid of this awful McCarthy.

Now, as you know, Owen Lattimore has been named as a conscious, articulate instrument of the Communist conspiracy. He's been so named by the Senate Internal Security Committee. He is now under criminal indictment for perjury with respect to testimony in regard to his Communist activities. In his book Ordeal by Slander, he says -- I think I can quote him verbatim -- he says, "I owe a very special debt to a man I have never met. I must mention at least Edward R. Murrow." Then there's the book by Harold Laski, admittedly the greatest Communist propagandist of our time in England. In his book Reflections on the Revolution of our Times, he dedicates the book to "my friends E. R. Murrow and Latham Tichener, with affection." Now, I am perfectly willing to let the American people decide who's giving comfort to our enemies. Much of the documentation which we have here on the table tonight will not be available to the American people by way of television. However, this will all be made available to you within the next two weeks.

In conclusion, may I say that under the shadow of the most horrible and destructive weapons that man has ever devised, we fight to save our country, our homes, our churches, and our children. To this cause, ladies and gentlemen, I have dedicated and will continue to dedicate all that I have and all that I am. And I want to assure you that I will not be deterred by the attacks of the Murrows, the Lattimores, the Fosters, the Daily Worker, or the Communist Party itself.

Now I make no claim to leadership. In complete humility, I do ask you and every American who loves this country to join with me.

Edward R. Murrow- That was film of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presented at our invitation. It was in response to a program we presented on March 9th. This reporter undertook to make no comment at this time, but naturally reserved his right to do so subsequently.

Good night, and good luck.


Ed Murrow's Response

Last week, Senator McCarthy appeared on this program to correct any errors he might have thought we made in our report of March 9th. Since he made no reference to any statements of fact that we made, we must conclude that he found no errors of fact. He proved again that anyone who exposes him, anyone who does not share his hysterical disregard for decency and human dignity and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, must be either a Communist or a fellow traveler.

I fully expected this treatment. The Senator added this reporter's name to a long list of individuals and institutions he has accused of serving the Communist cause. His proposition is very simple: Anyone who criticizes or opposes McCarthy's methods must be a Communist. And if that be true, there are an awful lot of Communists in this country.

For the record, let's consider briefly some of the Senator's charges. He claimed, but offered no proof, that I had been a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. That is false. I was never a member of the IWW, never applied for membership. Men that I worked with in the Pacific Northwest in western Washington in logging camps will attest that I never had any affiliation or affinity with that organization.

The Senator charged that Professor Harold Laski, a British scholar and politician, dedicated the book to me. That's true. He is dead. He was a socialist -- I am not. He was one of those civilized individuals who did not insist upon agreement with his political principles as a pre-condition for conversation or friendship. I do not agree with his political ideas. Laski, as he makes clear in the introduction, dedicated the book to me not because of political agreement but because he held my wartime broadcast from London in high regard -- and the dedication so reads.

Senator McCarthy's principal attack on me was an attack on the Institute of International Education, of which I was Assistant Director and am now a trustee, together with such people as John Foster Dulles, Milton Eisenhower, Ralph J. Dunce [phonetic], Virginia  Gildersleeve, Philip Reed, to name just a few. That Institute sponsored, acted as the registering agent for summer schools in foreign countries, including England, France, and Germany, and one in the Soviet Union in 1934. It has arranged in all some 30,000 exchanges of students and professors between the United States and over 50 foreign countries.

The man primarily responsible for starting this Institute was Nicholas Murray Butler in 1919. Its work has been praised as recently as 1948 by President Eisenhower. It has been denounced by the Soviet Press and radio as a center of international propaganda for American reaction, and I have been labeled by them as a "reactionary radio commentator."

The Senator alleged that we were doing the work of the Russian Secret Police, training spies. We were in fact conducting normal cultural and educational relations with foreign nations. The Moscow summer session was canceled in 1935 by the Russian authorities.

I believed 20 years ago and I believe today that mature Americans can engage in conversation and controversy, the clash of ideas, with Communists anywhere in the world without becoming contaminated or converted. I believe that our faith, our conviction, our determination are stronger than theirs, and that we can compete and successfully, not only in the area of bombs but in the area of ideas.

Senator McCarthy couldn't even get my relationship with CBS straight. He repeatedly referred to me as the Educational Director, a position I have not held for 17 years.

The Senator waved a copy of the Daily Worker saying an article in it has praised me. Here is an example for what Senator McCarthy calls "praise" by William Z. Foster in the March 17 issue of The Daily Worker. Quote: "During the past 10 days, Senator McCarthy has received a number of resounding belts in the jaw. These came from Adlai Stevenson, E.R. Murrow, Senator Flanders, the Army leadership, broadcasting companies; even Eisenhower himself had to give McCarthy a slap on the wrist." That was the sole reference to me in Mr. Foster's article.

Another charge by Senator McCarthy was that Owen Lattimore mentioned me in a book. What Lattimore said in substance was that he had never met me, but that I had done a fair job of reporting his testimony; in short, that I had not presumed his guilt. Everything I said on that case is a matter of record and can be examined by anyone who is interested.

I hope to continue to present evidence developed before Congressional committees as impartially as I am able. And that specifically includes the hearings before which Senator McCarthy is shortly scheduled to appear.

I have worked for CBS for more than 19 years. The company has subscribed fully to my integrity and responsibility as a broadcaster and as a loyal American. I require no lectures from the junior Senator from Wisconsin as to the dangers or terrors of Communism. Having watched the aggressive forces at work in Western Europe, having had friends in Eastern Europe butchered and driven into exile, having broad cast from London in 1943 that the Russians were responsible for the Katyn massacre, having told the story of the Russian refusal to let allied aircraft to land on Russian fields after dropping supplies to those who rose in Warsaw and then were betrayed by the Russians, and having been denounced by the Russian radio for these reports, I cannot feel that I require instruction from the Senator on the evils of Communism.

Having searched my conscience and my files, I cannot contend that I have always been right or wise. But I have attempted to pursue the truth with some diligence and to report it, even though, as in this case, I had been warned in advance that I would be subjected to the attentions of Senator McCarthy.

We shall hope to deal with matters of more -- more vital interest for the country next week.

Good night, and good luck.

Source: In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow- 1938 - 1961 Edited by Edward Bliss (Discus, New York, Avon, 1967)


Mr. Welch. Did you think this came from a pixie? Where did you think this picture that I hold in my hand came from?

Senator McCarthy. Will counsel for my benefit define--I think he might be an expert on that--what a pixie is?

Mr. Welch. Yes. I should say, Mr. Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?

Senator McCarthy. As I said, I think you may be an authority on what a pixie is.

15. Army & McCarthy Hearings (22 April - 17 June 1954)- Excerpts

Secretary Stevens- Gentlemen of the committee, I am here today at the request of this committee. You have my assurance of the fullest cooperation.

In order that we may all be quite clear as to just why this hearing has come about, it is necessary for me to refer at the outset to Pvt. G. David Schine, a former consultant of this committee. David Schine was eligible for the draft. Efforts were made by the chairman of this committee, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, and the subcommittee’s chief counsel, Mr. Roy M. Cohn, to secure a commission for him. Mr. Schine was not qualified, and he was not commissioned. Selective service then drafted him. Subsequent efforts were made to seek preferential treatment for him after he was inducted.

Before getting into the Schine story I want to make two general comments.

First, it is my responsibility to speak for the Army. The Army is about a million and a half men and women, in posts across this country and around the world, on active duty and in the National Guard and Organized Reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of loyal and faithful civil servants.

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

Senator Mundt- Senator McCarthy has a point of order.

Senator McCarthy- 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.

I think it should be made clear at the outset, so we need not waste time on it, hour after hour, that Mr. Stevens is speaking for Mr. Stevens and those who are speaking through him; when Mr. Adams speaks, he is speaking for Mr. Adams and those who are speaking through him, and likewise Mr. Hensel.

I may say I resent very, very much this attempt to connect the great American Army with this attempt to sabotage the efforts of this committee’s investigation into communism. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mr. Adams- About that time these two friends left, and because I wanted Senator McCarthy to restate before Mr. Cohn what he had told me on the courthouse steps, I said, “Let’s talk about Schine.”

That started a chain of events, an experience similar to none which I have had in my life.

Mr. Cohn became extremely agitated, became extremely abusive. He cursed me and then Senator McCarthy. The abuse went in waves. He would be very abusive and then it would kind of abate and things would be friendly for a few moments. Everybody would eat a little bit more, and then it would start in again. It just kept on.

I was trying to catch a 1:30 train, but Mr. Cohn was so violent by then that I felt I had better not do it and leave him that angry with me and that angry with Senator McCarthy because of a remark I had made. So I stayed and missed my 1:30 train. I thought surely I would be able to get out of there by 2:30. The luncheon concluded.

Mr. Jenkins You say you were afraid to leave Senator McCarthy alone there with him? Mr. Adams, what did he say? You say he was very abusive.

Mr. Adams- He was extremely abusive.

Mr. Jenkins Was or not any obscene language used?

Mr. Adams- Yes.

Mr. Jenkins Just omit that and tell what he did say which constituted abuse, in your opinion.

Mr. Adams- I have stated before, sir, the tone of voice has as much to do with abuse as words. I do not remember the phrases, I do not remember the sentences, but I do remember the violence.

Mr. Jenkins- Do you remember the subject?

Mr. Adams- The subject was Schine. The subject was the fact—the thing that Cohn was angry about, the thing that he was so violent about, was the fact that, (1), the Army was not agreeing to an assignment for Schine and, (2), that Senator McCarthy was not supporting his staff in its efforts to get Schine assigned to New York. So his abuse was directed partly to me and partly to Senator McCarthy.

As I say, it kind of came in waves. There would be a period of extreme abuse, and then there would be a period where it would get almost back to normal, and ice cream would be ordered, and then about halfway through that a little more of the same. I missed the 2:30 train, also.

This violence continued. It was a remarkable thing. At first Senator McCarthy seemed to be trying to conciliate. He seemed to be trying to conciliate Cohn and not to state anything contrary to what he had stated to me in the morning. But then he more or less lapsed into silence. . . .

So I went down to room 101. Mr. Cohn was there and Mr. Carr was there. As I remember, we lunched together in the Senate cafeteria, and everything was peaceful. When we returned to room 101, toward the latter part of the conversation I asked Cohn—I knew that 90 percent of all inductees ultimately face overseas duty and I knew that one day we were going to face that problem with Mr. Cohn as to Schine.

So I thought I would lay a little groundwork for future trouble I guess. I asked him what would happen if Schine got overseas duty.

Mr. Jenkins. You mean you were breaking the news gently, Mr. Adams?

Mr. Adams- Yes, sir; that is right. I asked him what would happen if Schine got overseas duty. He responded with vigor and force, “Stevens is through as Secretary of the Army.”

I said, “Oh, Roy,” something to this effect, “Oh, Roy, don’t say that. Come on. Really, what is going to happen if Schine gets overseas duty?”

He responded with even more force, “We will wreck the Army.”

Then he said, “The first thing we are going to do is get General Ryan for the way he has treated Dave at Fort Dix. Dave gets through at Fort Dix tomorrow or this week, and as soon as he is gone we are going to get General Ryan for the obscene way in which he has permitted Schine to be treated up there.”

He said, “We are not going to do it ourselves. We have another committee of the Congress interested in it.”

Then he said, “I wouldn’t put it past you to do this. We will start investigations. We have enough stuff on the Army to keep investigations going indefinitely, and if anything like such-and-such double cross occurs, that is what we will do.”

This remark was not to be taken lightly in the context in which it was given to me. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mr. Jenkins- You will recall, Mr. Cohn, that he testified that you said that if Schine went overseas, Stevens was through as Secretary of the Army?

Mr. Cohn- I heard him say that, sir.

Mr. Jenkins Did you or not?

Mr. Cohn- No, sir.

Mr. Jenkins Did you say anything like that, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn- No, sir, and my recollection is that I did not. I have talked to Mr. Carr who was sitting there the whole time, and he says I did not. . . .

Mr. Jenkins- All right, now you are saying you did not say it, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir. I am saying I am sure I did not make that statement, and I am sure that Mr. Adams and anybody else with any sense, and Mr. Adams has a lot of sense, could ever believe that I was threatening to wreck the Army or that I could wreck the Army. I say, sir, that the statement is ridiculous.

Mr. Jenkins I am talking about Stevens being through as Secretary of the Army.

Mr. Cohn- That is equally ridiculous, sir.

Mr. Jenkins And untrue?

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir, equally ridiculous and untrue, I could not cause the President of the United States to remove Stevens as Secretary of the Army. . . .

Mr. Welch- Mr. Cohn, what is the exact number of Communists or subversives that are loose today in these defense plants?

Mr. Cohn- The exact number that is loose, sir?

Mr. Welch- Yes, sir.

Mr. Cohn- I don’t know.

Mr. Welch- Roughly how many?

Mr. Cohn- I can only tell you, sir, what we know about it.

Mr. Welch- That is 130, is that right?

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir. I am going to try to particularize for you, if I can.

Mr.Welch- I am in a hurry. I don’t want the sun to go down while they are still in there, if we can get them out.

Mr. Cohn- I am afraid we won’t be able to work that fast, sir.

Mr. Welch- I have a suggestion about it, sir. How many are there?

Mr. Cohn- I believe the figure is approximately 130.

Mr. Welch- Approximately one-two-three?

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir. Those are people, Mr. Welch—

Mr. Welch- I don’t care. You told us who they are. In how many plants are they?

Mr. Cohn- How many plants?

Mr. Welch- How many plants.

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir; just I minute, sir. I see 16 offhand, sir.

Mr. Welch- Sixteen plants?

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch- Where are they, sir?

Mr. Cohn- Senator McCarthy

Mr. Welch- Reel off the cities.

Mr. Cohn- Would you stop me if I am going too far?

Mr. Welch- You can’t go too far revealing Communists, Mr. Cohn. Reel off the cities for us.

Mr. Cohn- Schenectady, N.Y.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Rome, N.Y.; Quincy, Mass.; Fitchburg, Mass.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Dunkirk, N.Y.; another at Buffalo, N.Y.; Cambridge, Mass.; New Bedford, Mass.; Boston, Mass.; Quincy, Mass.; Lynn, Mass.; Pittsfield Mass.; Boston, Mass.

Mr. Welch- Mr. Cohn, you not only frighten me, you make me ashamed when there are so many in Massachusetts. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter, believe me. Are you alarmed at that situation, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn- Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. Welch- Nothing could be more alarming, could it?

Mr. Cohn- It certainly is a very alarming thing.

Mr. Welch- Will you not, before the sun goes down, give those names to the FBI and at least have those men put under surveillance.

Mr. Cohn- Mr. Welch, the FBI—

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Welch- That is a fair question.

Senator McCarthy-  Mr. Chairman, let’s not be ridiculous. Mr. Welch knows, as I have told him a dozen times, that the FBI has all of this information. The defense plants have the information. The only thing we can do is to try and publicly expose these individuals and hope that they will be gotten rid of. And you know that, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch- I do not know that. . . .

Cannot the FBI put these 130 men under surveillance before sundown tomorrow?

Mr. Cohn- Sir, if there is need for surveillance in the case of espionage or anything like that, I can well assure you that Mr. John Edgar Hoover and his men know a lot better than I, and I quite respectfully suggest, sir, than probably a lot of us, just who should be put under surveillance. I do not propose to tell the FBI how to run its shop. It does it very well.

Mr. Welch- And they do it, don’t they, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn- When the need arises, of course.

Mr. Welch- And will you tell them tonight, Mr. Cohn, that here is a case where the need has arisen, so that it can be done by sundown tomorrow night?

Mr. Cohn- No, sir; there is no need for my telling the FBI what to do about this or anything else. . . .

Mr. Welch- Mr. Cohn, tell me once more: Every time you learn of a Communist or a spy anywhere, is it your policy to get them out as fast as possible?

Mr. Cohn- Surely, we want them out as fast as possible, sir.

Mr. Welch- And whenever you learn of one from now on, Mr. Cohn, I beg of you, will you tell somebody about them quick?

Mr. Cohn- Mr. Welch, with great respect, I work for the committee here. They know how we go about handling situations of Communist infiltration and failure to act on FBI information about Communist infiltration. If they are displeased with the speed with which I and the group of men who work with me proceed, if they are displeased with the order in which we move, I am sure they will give me appropriate instructions along those lines, and I will follow any which they give me.

Mr. Welch- May I add my small voice, sir, and say whenever you know about a subversive or a Communist spy, please hurry. Will you remember those words?

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cohn- Mr. Welch, I can assure you, sir, as far as I am concerned, and certainly as far as the chairman of this committee and the members, and the members of the staff, are concerned, we are a small group, but we proceed as expeditiously as is humanly possible to get out Communists and traitors and to bring to light the mechanism by which they have been permitted to remain where they were for so long a period of time.

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Chairman, in view of that request by Mr.-

Senator Mundt- Point of Order?

Senator McCarthy- Not exactly, Mr. Chairman. But in view of Mr. Welch's request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do the work on this Committee, who has been, for a number of years, a member of an organization which is named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party, an organization which always springs to the defense of anyone who dares to expose Communists.

Knowing that, Mr. Welch, I just felt that I had a duty to respond to your urgent request that "before sundown," when we know of anyone serving the Communist cause we let the agency know. Now, we're now letting you know that your man did belong to this organization for either three or four years, belonged to it long after he was out of law school. And I have hesitated bringing that up, but I have been rather bored with your phony requests to Mr. Cohn here, that he, personally, get every Communist out of Government before sundown. Whether you knew that he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don't know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don't think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist Party. I don't think you, yourself, would ever knowingly aid the Communist cause. I think you're unknowingly aiding it when you try to burlesque this hearing in which we're attempting to bring out the facts.

Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman....

Senator Mundt- The Chair may say that he has no recognition or no memory of Mr. Welch recommending either Mr. Fisher or anybody else as counsel for this Committee.

Senator McCarthy- I refer to the record, Mr. Chairman...to the news story on that.

Mr. Welch- Mr. Chairman. Under these circumstances, I must myself have something approaching a personal privilege.

Senator Mundt: You may have, sir --

Mr. Welch- Senator McCarthy, I did not know, Senator -- Senator, sometimes you say may I have your attention --

Senator McCarthy- I'm listening....

Mr. Welch: May I have your attention?

Senator McCarthy- I can listen with one ear and talk with --

Mr. Welch- No, this time, sir, I want you to listen with both.  Senator McCarthy, I think until this moment --

Senator McCarthy- Good.  Just a minute.  Jim, Jim, will you get the news story to the effect that this man belongs to the -- to this Communist front organization....

Mr. Welch- I will tell you that he belonged to it.

Senator McCarthy- Jim, will you get the citation, one of the citations showing that this was the legal arm of the Communist Party, and the length of time that he belonged, and the fact that he was recommended by Mr. Welch. I think that should be in the record....

Mr. Welch- Senator, you won't need anything in the record when I finish telling you this. Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. When I decided to work for this Committee, I asked Jim St. Clair, who sits on my right, to be my first assistant. I said to Jim, "Pick somebody in the firm to work under you that you would like." He chose Fred Fisher, and they came down on an afternoon plane. That night, when we had taken a little stab at trying to see what the case is about, Fred Fisher and Jim St. Clair and I went to dinner together. I then said to these two young men, "Boys, I don't know anything about you, except I've always liked you, but if there's anything funny in the life of either one of you that would hurt anybody in this case, you speak up quick."

And Fred Fisher said, "Mr. Welch, when I was in the law school, and for a period of months after, I belonged to the Lawyers' Guild" as you have suggested, Senator. He went on to say, "I am Secretary of the Young Republican's League in Newton with the son of [the] Massachusetts governor, and I have the respect and admiration of my community, and I'm sure I have the respect and admiration of the twenty-five lawyers or so in Hale & Dorr." And I said, "Fred, I just don't think I'm going to ask you to work on the case. If I do, one of these days that will come out, and go over national television, and it will just hurt like the dickens." And so, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Chairman, may I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being cruel and reckless. He was just baiting. He has been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn before sundown get out of any department of the government anyone who is serving the Communist cause. Now, I just give this man's record and I want to say, Mr. Welch, that it had been labeled long before he became a member, as early as 1944 --

Mr. Welch- Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers' Guild. 

Senator McCarthy- Let me finish....

Mr. Welch- And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no personal injury, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn- No, sir.

Mr. Welch- I meant to do you no personal injury.

Mr. Cohn- No, sir.

Mr. Welch- And if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.

Senator McCarthy- Let's, let's --

Mr. Welch- You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Senator McCarthy- I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch- I'll say it hurts!

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Chairman, as point of personal privilege, I'd like to finish this.

Mr. Welch: Senator, I think it hurts you, too, sir.

Senator McCarthy- I'd like to finish this. I know Mr. Cohn would rather not have me go into this. I intend to, however, and Mr. Welch talks about any "sense of decency." I have heard you and everyone else talk so much about laying the truth upon the table. But when I heard the completely phony Mr. Welch, I've been listening now for a long time, he's saying, now "before sundown" you must get these people "out of government." So I just want you to have it very clear, very clear that you were not so serious about that when you tried to recommend this man for this Committee.

Mr. Welch- Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could ask -- could have asked me about Fred Fisher.* You have seen fit to bring it out, and if there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask, Mr. Cohn, any more witnesses. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness.

(Those attending the hearing applauds while the chairman uses his gavel to call the gallery to order.)

Senator Mundt- Are there any questions?

Mr. Jenkins- No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jenkins- Senator McCarthy, how do you regard the communistic threat to our Government as compared with other threats with which it is confronted?

Senator McCarthy- Mr. Jenkins, the thing that I think we must remember is that this is a war which a brutalitarian force has won to a greater extent than any brutalitarian force has won a war in the history of the world before.

For example, Christianity, which has been in existence for 2,000 years, has not converted, convinced nearly as many people as this Communist brutalitarianism has enslaved in 106 years, and they are not going to stop.

I know that many of my good friends seem to feel that this is a sort of a game you can play, that you can talk about communism as though it is something 10,000 miles away.

Mr. Jenkins, in answer to your question, let me say it is right here with us now. Unless we make sure that there is no infiltration of our Government, then just as certain as you sit there, in the period of our lives you will see a red world. There is no question about that, Mr. Jenkins. 

*Mr. Welch had released the story on Fred Fisher to the media and had subsequently made a deal with Senator McCarthy that if he, McCarthy, would refrain from bringing up the matter of Fisher, Welch would not probe into the matter of Roy Cohn's lack of military service during World War II. Welch kept his side of the bargain, whereas McCarthy failed to do likewise.

Source: "The Army-McCarthy Hearings, 1954," in Robert D. Marcus and Anthony Marcus, eds., On Trail: American History Through Court Proceedings and Hearings, vol. II, (St. James, New York: Brandywine Press, 1998), 136–51.

16. See It Now- (10 June 1954)-

"Have you no sense of decency?"

Yesterday, after Senator McCarthy had named Fred Fisher as a member of a organization which he termed "the legal arm of the Communist Party," Army Counsel Welch, of whose law firm Fisher was a member, became highly emotional. He said, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness." He begged that "that this lad not be assassinated further." He asked if the Senator had "no sense of decency?"

Mr. Welch, a veteran of the courtroom, was near tears because a young man whom he liked, knew, trusted and worked with had been attacked. It is safe to assume, I think, that had Mr. Welch never heard of Mr. Fisher, his emotion- his anger- would have been considerably less. It seems to this reporter that there is a widespread tendency on the part of all human beings that because a thing happens to a stranger, or to someone far away, it doesn't happen at all. Someone once said something to the effect, "Do you consider it strange that I regard a cut upon my finger more important than the death of thousands, if I be separated from those thousands by oceans and continents?"... Despite modern communications it is difficult to communicate over any considerable distance, unless there is some common denominator of experience. You cannot describe the destruction of a city or a reputation to those who have never witnessed either.

...It must be presumed, I think, that Counsel Welch is familiar, very familiar, with Senator McCarthy's record and tactics. He had, up to yesterday, maintained an almost affable, avuncular relationship with the Senator. He was pressing Mr. Cohn- but by Mr. Cohn's own admission doing him no personal injury- when Senator McCarthy delivered his attack upon Mr. Fisher, at which point Counsel Welch reacted like a human being.

Source: In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow 1938 - 1961 Edited by Edward Bliss (Discus, New York, Avon, 1967) 278-279


17. Resolution Censoring Joseph McCarthy

Source: Joseph R. McCarthy Edited by Allen J. Matusow (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970) 103-4
 

18. See It Now (9 March 1954)

"The fault, Dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

No one familiar with the history of the this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary investigate before legislating. But the same line investigation and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind as between the internal and external threat of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."* Good night and good luck.

*Quote from Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

Source: In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow- 1938 - 1961 Edited by Edward Bliss (Discus, New York, Avon, 1967) 265-6

                                                                                         GLYNN BRAMAN

Make a Free Website with Yola.