Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United

391 Pages·2000·1.836 MB·English

by  Regin Schmidt

RED SCARE

Regin Schmidt
RED SCARE
FBI
and the Origins of Anticommunism
in the United States, 1919-1943
MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS
UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
2000
Regin Schmidt: Red Scare
© Museum Tusculanum Press 2000
English revision by Joyce Kling
Composition by Ole Klitgaard
Cover design by Henrik Maribo Pedersen
Printed in Denmark by Narayana Press, Gylling
ISBN 87 7289 581 0
Supervisors:
Inga Floto and Niels Bjerre-Poulsen
Published with the support of
The Danish Research Council for the Humanities
and
Unibank-fonden
Museum Tusculanum Press
University of Copenhagen
Njalsgade 92
DK-2300 Copenhagen S
Denmark
www.mtp.dk
Contents
1. Introduction: FBI and the Politics of Anticommunism ......... 9
The Literature on the FBI 10
Theories on the Development of the FBI’s Political Role 14
The Theses 18
The Sources 20
2. The Origins of the Red Scare .............................. 24
1919: The Revolution That Never Was 24
An Apathetic Opinion 28
The Business Offensive 32
The Patriotic Right 35
The Sensationalist Press 36
The States Crack Down 38
“The Search for Order” 40
The Bureau of Investigation and “the Administrative State” 43
The Federalization of Political Surveillance 50
Controlling the Aliens 55
The Betrayal of the Blacks 59
The War Against Radical Labor 69
The Wilson Administration and the Red Scare 72
3. The Bureau and the Red Scare ............................. 83
The Bureau and the Drive for Bureaucratic Expansion 83
The Personification of Social Unrest 86
The Bureau Network and Political Associationalism 95
The Bureau and the Patriotic Right 96
The Bridgman Affair 102
The Centralia Massacre 105
The Destruction of the World War Veterans 109
Following the Federal Lead: The Bureau and the States 115
The Bureau and the Lusk Committee 123
4. Constructing the Red Scare ............................... 126
Assessing the Revolutionary Danger:
The Seattle General Strike 126
Publicizing the Revolutionary Danger:
The Overman Committee 136
Keeping the Files Up to Date 146
“The Anarchist Fighters”: The Bombscare of 1919 148
Financing the Red Scare: The Bureau and the Congress 152
Organizing the Red Scare 158
5. 1919: Containing the Social Unrest ........................ 167
“The Government is Watching” 167
Defending the Racial Order 179
The Red Summer of 1919 183
The Surveillance of Black Radicals 195
Strikebreaking 204
Protecting the National Economy 212
The Boston Police Strike 216
The Steel Strike 218
The Coal Strike 227
The Surveillance of Organized Labor 234
6. The Palmer Raids: Deporting Political Ideas 236
The Poindexter Resolution 237
The Origins of the Deportation Campaign 244
“A Vigorous and Comprehensive Campaign” 251
The Bureau Crusade: Banishing Emma Goldman
and Alexander Berkman 257
Rounding Up the Usual Suspects: The URW Raids 262
Publicizing the Radical Menace 271
The Sedition Bill 276
“To Protect the Government’s Interests” 278
Destroying Communism in America: The January 1920 Raids 290
7. The Decline and fall of the Red Scare ...................... 300
The Labor Department Insurrection 301
The Bureau Strikes Back 308
In Defense of Civil Liberties 312
Congress Investigates 313
The Bureau Oversteps the Line 317
8. Aftermath: The FBI and Presidential Politics ............... 324
The End of Political Surveillance 324
The Bureau and the Origins of Presidential Intelligence,
1921-33 331
FDR, the New Deal and the FBI: The Threat From the Right 340
The Dies Committee, 1938-43 349
A “Suicide Squad” Against the Fifth Column 355
Conclusion: The FBI and Political Surveillance: From the Red Scare to
the Cold War ............................................. 361
The Question About the Nature of the Communist Threat 361
The FBI and the Federalization of Political Surveillance,
1919-43 362
FBI and the Second Red Scare 365
“The Most Dangerous Agency in the Country” 368
Abbreviations 369
Bibliography 370
Index of Names 389
Acknowledgements
Researching and writing this book was most of the time a lonely
pursuit. Yet, the task was lightened by the kindness and support shown
by numerous individuals and institutions. It is indeed a pleasure to
remember and acknowledge the many who made this reconstruction of
the evolution of the FBI’s political role a possibility and a distinct
pleasure.
I received generous financial assistance from several institutions. A
graduate scholarship at the Department of History, University of
Copenhagen, in 1992 to 1995 enabled me to complete my Ph.D.
dissertation, on which this book is based. A grant from the Fulbright
Society financed a position as Visiting Researcher at Georgetown
University in 1992 to 1993, which enabled me to conduct research
into the FBI records at the National Archives in Washington, DC.
Assistance from the Knud Højgaard Fond made it possible to visit a
number of other archives and universities throughout the United
States. The publication of this book is financed by a grant from the
Danish Research Council for the Humanities.
Visiting the United States, one is always struck by the helpfulness
and aid given by the enthusiastic and efficient archivists and librarians
everywhere. In particular, I would like to thank the following for as-
sisting me during my visits to archives and libraries: John K. Van-
dereedt of the Civil Reference Branch, National Archives, Washington,
DC; James H. Hutson of the Manuscript Division, Library of
Congress, Washington, DC; the staff of the Research Unit, Office of
Public Affairs, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC;
Phillip M. Runkel of the Marquette University Archives, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; Dwight Miller of the Herbert Hoover Library, West
Branch, Iowa; Raymond Teichman of the Franklin D. Roosevelt
Library, Hyde Park, New York; and Gregory A. Johnson of the
Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
I would also like to thank the following archivists and librarians for
answering my inquiries and for locating information: Louise T. Jones
of The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Raymond W. Smock, Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Re-
presentatives, Washington, DC; Ellie Arguimbau, Montana Historical
Society, Helena, Montana; Richard A. Shrader of the Manuscripts
Department, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Michael
7
Kohl of the University Libraries, Clemson University, Clemson, South
Carolina; Ruth Anderson of the Minnesota Historical Society, St.
Paul, Minnesota; Valerie Wingfield of the Rare Books and Manuscripts
Division, The New York Public Library, New York; Gary Lundell of
the Manuscripts and University Archives, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington; James D. Folts of the New York State Archives,
Albany, New York; Karen S. Campbell of the Guy W. Bailey/ David
W. Howe Library, The University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont;
Nancy Bartlett of Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Dana Moffitt of the George E. Allen
Library, Booneville, Mississippi.
In particular, I would like to thank Robert Self of Seattle, Wash-
ington, who not only researched the Poindexter papers at the Uni-
versity of Washington but also wrote a report on his findings.
Georgetown University, Washington, DC, provided the best possible
surroundings and stimulating atmosphere during my nine months there
as a Visiting Scholar, when I did the bulk of my archival research. I
would like to thank Professor Ronald Johnson, College of Arts and
Sciences, for making my stay so rewarding and for generously inviting
me to his family’s Thanksgiving dinner. The International Student
House in Washington, DC, provided a roof over my head, meals on
my table and many good friends. The Department of History, Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, provided an office, a computer and an inspiring
intellectual forum.
Several individuals went above and beyond the call of duty in their
assistance and support. Professor Inga Floto, Department of History,
University of Copenhagen, initially stirred my interest in American
history. She was always available for advice and encouraged me with
her enthusiasm and support. Associate Professor Niels Thorsen, De-
partment of English, University of Copenhagen, initially suggested the
topic of FBI’s political role and never failed to propose new avenues
of inquiry. Associate Professor Niels Bjerre-Poulsen, Department of
English at the Copenhagen Business School, generously agreed to read
the manuscript and made several important comments, all of which
helped to improve it. Joyce Kling of The Language Center, Copen-
hagen Business School, fought heroically to clean the text of gram-
matical errors. Mogens Pelt, Ph. D., recommended the manuscript to
Museum Tusculanum Press, where Marianne Alenius and her merry
crew guided the book toward publication with enthusiasm and pro-
fessionalism. Finally, I want to thank Øyvind Søltoft for his friendship
and for reminding me that there is a world outside the J. Edgar Hoover
FBI Building.
8
Chapter 1
Introduction
The FBI and the Politics of Anticommunism
The subject of the following work is the development and institutional-
ization of the surveillance of political activities by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation during its formative years between 1919 and 1943.
Traditionally, historical research into modern American anticommun-
ism, especially the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s, has tended to
explain the recurrent outbreaks of political intolerance and repression
as the result of an irrational and paranoid mass movement suffering
from “status anxiety,” or as the product of partisan politics or the
activities of demagogues, most notably Senator Joseph McCarthy.
However, as a result of the revelations in the wake of the Watergate
scandals about the systematic abuses by the US intelligence commu-
nity and because of the increased access to government files following
the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act in 1974,
historians have become aware of the institutional and bureaucratic
factors behind the outbreaks of political intolerance.1 Much of this
recent research has emphasized the decisive role played by the FBI in
the formulation of anticommunist politics. As one historian noted
when the FBI files began to become available to scholars as the result
of FOIA requests, “The political activities of FBI officials were
probably much more pervasive than is generally known and ...
historians still have a great deal to examine.” He added that several
aspects of the recent anticommunist movement “need to be re-
written.”2
1Richard M. Fried has noted that “this institutional or sectoral approach to McCarthyism
constitutesanimportanttrendinrecentscholarship”(RichardM.Fried,NightmareinRed.The
McCarthyErainPerspective(NewYork,1990),226).Seealso,M.J.Heale,AmericanAnti-
Communism.CombatingtheEnemyWithin,1830-1970(Baltimore,1990).
2Kenneth O’Reilly, Hoover and the Un-Americans, The FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace
(Philadelphia,1983),xi.EllenSchreckerhassuggested,basedonrecentlyopenedFBIfiles
from the Cold War years, that McCarthyism should properly be renamed “Hooverism”
becauseofthepivotalroleplayedbytheBureauincreatingtheanticommunistconsensus:
“FortheFBIwasthebureaucraticheartoftheMcCarthyera”(EllenSchrecker,ManyArethe
Crimes.McCarthyisminAmerica(Boston,1998),203).
9
The Literature on the FBI
Nevertheless, almost all of this research into the political activities of
the FBI has taken its lead from the Senate Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
popularly known as the Church Committee, which during 1974-76
held hearings and published a number of reports on the federal
intelligence agencies. However, the committee limited its inquiry to
the period following 1936, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt
secretly authorized the FBI to gather political intelligence on Fascist
and Communist activities in the US.3 Most accounts have relied
heavily on the source material published by the committee and have
accordingly focused on the post-1936 era and have generally explained
the FBI’s political surveillance as a result of the tensions brought on
by the Cold War, the centralization of power in the “Imperial Pre-
sidency” and the establishment of the National Security State. For
example, Athan Theoharis began his study of the FBI in 1936 “be-
cause FBI investigations of political activities were only authorized in
August 1936 by Franklin Roosevelt’s verbal order.” He pointed to the
powerful presidency, supported by both Democrats and Republicans,
and the impact of the Cold War and McCarthyism as the decisive
causes for the FBI’s political role.4
Similarily, Morton Halperin’s analysis of the federal intelligence
agencies’ political activities was primarily a popularization of the
Church Committee’s findings and he concluded that political sur-
veillance was a function of international crises: “When confronted by
the specter of war, the executive branch has called on the Bureau to
conduct intelligence and counterintelligence operations in the United
States. FBI intelligence has its roots in war and its authority to engage
in intelligence activity derives not from statutes but from executive
orders and instructions issued during wartime emergency.”5
3USCongress,Senate,SelectCommitteetoStudyGovernmentalOperationswithRespectto
IntelligenceActivities,94th.Cong.,1st.Sess.,Hearings,Vol.6,FederalBureauofInvestigation
(Washington,DC,1976);ibid.,94th.Cong.,2nd.Sess.,SupplementaryDetailedStaffReports
onIntelligenceActivitiesandtheRightsofAmericans,FinalReport,BooksIIIandVI(Washington,
DC,1976).
4AthanTheoharis,SpyingonAmericans.PoliticalSurveillanceFromHoovertotheHustonPlan
(Philadelphia,1978),xi,3-12,229-234.ForasimilaremphasisontheColdWar,see,Athan
Theoharis(ed.),FromtheSecretFilesofJ.EdgarHoover(Chicago,1991);AthanTheoharis
(ed.), Beyond the Hiss Case: The FBI, Congress, and the Cold War (Philadelphia, 1982); Pat
Watters&StephenGillers(eds.),InvestigatingtheFBI(NewYork(1973),1974).
5Morton Halperin (ed.), The Lawless State. The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies
(Harmondsworth,1977),93-94.Forsimilarexplanations,see,NatalieRobins,AlienInk.The
FBI’s War on the Freedom of Expression (New York, 1992), 16-17; William W. Keller, The
Liberals and J. Edgar Hoover. Rise and Fall of a Domestic Intelligence State (Princeton, N.J.,
1989).
10