sign in sign up
<<
Home , Immigration Act of 1918, Lusk Committee, Overman Committee, Palmer Raids, Union of Russian Workers

, MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Department of English Language and Literature

The : The Fear of in American

Society of 1919-1920

Diploma Thesis

Brno 2021

Supervisor: Author:

Michael George, M.A. Bc. Michaela Klosová

Declaration

I proclaim that I have assembled this diploma thesis by myself and that I used only sources cited in the bibliography.

Prohlášení

Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.

V Brně 19.4. 2021 Bc. Michaela Klosová

......

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank to my supervisor Michael George, M. A. for his kind guidance, encouragement, valuable advice, time and helpful remarks.

Annotation

The aim of this diploma thesis is to present the period of the of 1919-

1920 to the reader and provide a deeper insight into the selected events that triggered the fears of

Bolshevism within the United States, as well as, to present the fight against these fears and a subsequent development of the Red Scare. The first chapter deals with the historical background that generated the fears of within the United States. The second chapter deals with three sets of revolutionary threats that formed and supported fears of Bolshevism, such as the wave of strikes, racial rioting; and impact of the radical movement. The third chapter concentrates on the fight against the alien radicals by governmental representatives. The fourth chapter focuses on the causes that led to the fall of the Red Scare.

Key Words Bolshevism, Fear, Communism, , Red Scare

Anotace

Cílem této diplomové práce je představit čtenáři období Red Scare – „Obav z komunismu“, které probíhalo v roce 1919-1920 na území Spojených států amerických. Práce si klade za cíl představit toto období a poskytnout ucelený vhled na vybrané události, které vedly k obavám ze šíření komunismu. Tato práce si také klade za cíl přestavit boj vládních činitelů proti vlivu komunismu a jeho následný vývoj. První kapitola se zabývá historickými souvislostmi, které vedly k obavám z komunismu. Druhá kapitola se zaměřuje na tři druhy revolučních hrozeb, které vedly k obavám z komunistického spiknutí – tedy k období stávek, rasových nepokojů a vlivu radikálního hnutí.

Třetí kapitola se soustředí na boj vládních činitelů s radikály. Poslední kapitola se soustředí na příčiny, které vedly k útlumu obav z komunismu, stejně jako se soustředí na kritiku.

Klíčová slova Bolševismus, obavy, Komunismus, Palmer Raids, Red Scare

The List of Content

Introduction ...... 7

1. The Path to the First Red Scare ...... 9

1.1. The Great War patriotism ...... 9 1.2. The Russian – Fighting the ...... 13 1.3. The Post War Crisis ...... 15 2. The Revolutionary Threats in the United States ...... 18

2.1. The Post-war Strikes Wave ...... 18 2.1.1. The Revolutionary Threat of the Seattle ...... 20

2.2. The Fear of the Racial Rioting of 1919 ...... 23 2.2.1. The Racial Riots and the impact of Bolshevism ...... 23

2.3. The Fear of Radical Movement ...... 25 2.3.1. The Industrial Workers of the World ...... 26

2.3.2. The Socialist Party of America ...... 28

2.3.3. The ...... 29

3. Fighting the Bolshevism in the USA ...... 34

3.1. The ...... 36 3.2. The of ...... 38 3.2.1. The Soviet Bureau Raid ...... 40

3.2.2. The Rand School Raid ...... 41

3.2.3. The November Raids ...... 44

3.3. The Radical Division of Justice Department ...... 45 3.3.1. Palmer Raids ...... 46

4. Evaluating the First Red Scare ...... 56

4.1. The Fall of the Red Scare ...... 56 4.1.1. The Exclusion of the Socialists ...... 56

4.1.2. The Criticism of the Palmer Raids ...... 58

4.2. Downsizing the radical threats after the Red Scare ...... 65 4.2.1. The Decline of Strikes ...... 65 4.2.2. The Racial Riots of 1919 and its aftermath ...... 67

4.2.3. The Downfall of the Radical Movement ...... 69

4.3. Outcomes of the Red Scare ...... 70 4.3.1 The Call for the Peace-time Laws ...... 70

4.3.2. The Lusk Laws ...... 73

4.3.3. The Civil liberties movement ...... 76

Conclusion ...... 77

Bibliography ...... 79

Introduction

The phenomenon of the Red Scare emerged out of two main events; the Great War and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. It was an unparalleled period of time that experienced an enormous wave of strikes, high inflation, a set of racial riots targeting

Afro-Americans, emergence of the New Negro who resisted a white mob oppression, a series of bomb attacks that targeted Governmental representatives and business leaders.

The existing social order seemed to be collapsing. The American establishment seemed to be threatened by Bolshevik agitators. As a result, the fears of Bolshevism emerged and transformed into the resistance against immigrants, radicals, Bolsheviks and another non-conformist. The Red Scare was put on political agenda. Since the topic of the First Red Scare is not often the part of the school curriculum, it deserves further research; and may serve as a supplementary material for teachers or students. Therefore, this diploma thesis aims to present the period of the First Red Scare of 1919-1920 to the reader and provide a deeper insight into the selected events that triggered the fears of

Bolshevism within the United States, as well as, to present the fight of governmental representatives against these fears and a subsequent development of the Red Scare. The methodology used to compile the thesis was to study of the primary and secondary sources related with the radicalism, anarchism and threat of Bolshevism.

This diploma theses consists of four chapters. The first chapter deals with the historical background and identifies the roots that generated the fears of Bolshevism within the United States.

The second chapter deals with the revolutionary threats that formed and supported fears of Bolshevism; such as the wave of strikes, racial rioting; or an impact of the radical movement. The third chapter concentrates on the fight against the alien radicals that were considered as conveyors of Bolshevism within the United States. It provides the steps taken by authorities against alleged Bolsheviks. It also provides the narratives of investigation of seditious activities and consequent raids that targeted alien radicals.

The fourth chapter focuses on the causes that led to the fall of the Red Scare, as well as, on the causes of resistance against raiding, illegal practices and a wave of criticism. It also discusses the necessity for legislation that would prevent the radical activity, such as the immigration law, or peace-time sedition laws.

1. The Path to the First Red Scare

The phenomenon of the Red Scare of 1919-1920 in the United States of America was a period of political repression and intolerance directed against radicals, Bolsheviks, immigrants and any "anti-American" individuals that might have threatened the existing order of American democracy, followed by a nation-wide fear of possible Bolshevik revolution within the United States (Schmidt 24). The Red Scare did not appear suddenly, but was the result of two major events. The first being the second phase of the Russian

Revolution of 1917 and its revolutionary calling for a universal communist upheaval. The second was the Great War with the subsequent post-war crisis of American society, ranging from nation-wide racial riots, labor unrest, growing radicalization, to bombing (Mandelbaum 62).

1.1. The Great War patriotism

With the outbreak of the Great War, the United States declared its neutrality in the conflict. In 1916 won the presidential election for the second time with the slogan: “He kept us out of war” (qtd. in Englund 33). Nevertheless, in April 1917, the

United States declared the war on Germany.

Before American intervention, President Wilson expressed his doubts about loyalty of foreign-born Americans, mainly Americans of German descent, toward the war participation. In 1910 census there were more than 13,5 million foreign-born immigrants in the United States, and nearly 19 million in the second generation, which was nearly the one third of the whole American population. It was feared that plenty of them might have patriotic sentiments towards their birth-place (Mandelbaum 112). National security was crucial, therefore it was necessary to prevent any possible threat, both coming from abroad, as well as, from the US homeland. The war effort was supported also legislatively by several new laws to raise troops and eliminate possible resistance. The Selective Service Act of 1917 criminalized the obstruction of conscription and the Act of 1917 outlawed the criticism and obstruction of the war. It made it a crime to encourage mutiny, disloyalty, promote the success of its enemies, as well as allowing the censorship of press and mails of unpatriotic organizations that might have expressed the disloyalty to the American flag (Hagedorn

28). The , which amended the , prohibited, under the penalty up to 10,000 USD or 20 years of imprisonment, to “... utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous language about the form of government of the

United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or

Navy of the United states or any language intended to...encourage resistance to the United states...” (qtd. in Murray 14).

Furthermore, the Alien Act of 1918, was ratified and enabled to the authorities to deport aliens who supported overthrowing the American Government or who were considered anarchist (Hagedorn 29).

According to Englund the United States was, shortly after it entered the war, as close to principles of as it had never been before. To support the war effort the

War Industries Board was established in order to organize its industries for war purposes, so was established the governmental agency – the Committee on Public Information

(CPI). The American Railroads were taken under the governmental control, too (314).

The mobilization of public opinion was a task of the Committee on Public Information

(CPI), so-called the Creel Committee, formed by President Wilson in April, 1917. Its leader was a politician and journalist George Creel (Herman 236). The CPI consisted of seven divisions that cooperated with scholars, media, advertising agencies, private businesses, or movie studios. Creel’s introduced the positive propaganda, i.e., spreading the positive news and intentions, and eliminating the negative ones, in other words, war propaganda and censorship (Herman 238). The CPI introduced a very successful tool to promote the U.S. war effort, so-called Four Minute Men. There was a four-minute gap in the movie-theaters, when the reels were changed, and this time was filled with the patriotic lectures, performed mostly by the un-paid volunteers, on the subject of the war.

The Four Minute Men talks spread to other institutions such schools, churches etc. There were Four Minute Singing interludes, Yiddish Four Minute Men, etc., (Englund 268-69).

The support was also expected from labor. There was a long-standing tradition of strikebreaking in the United States, and any labor unrest or strike, could threaten the smooth supply of material for war purposes, therefore the National War Labor Board

(NWLB) was established aiming to improve the position of organized labor. As a result, eight-hour day was introduced, so was the collective bargaining (Schmidt 70).

The demand for loyalty of American citizens was also supported and sometimes even greatly exaggerated by independent agencies. Among these agencies were, for example, the American Defense Society, the National Security League and the prominent and government-funded, the American Protective League (APL). The purpose of these agencies was to protect against any kind of sedition and distribute the wartime patriotic propaganda. In fact, these agencies consisted of “responsible” citizens, who spied on anyone and anything suspicious (Murray 12). For instance, the duty of the APL agents was very often to check any individual for their draft cards, as in , where this Slacker Raids turned into a three-day operation searching anyone who could not produce the draft card. As a result, over 75 thousand individuals were arrested, mainly the boys below the draft age (Ackerman 18). Within the 1917, the mob activism grew significantly targeting possible troublemakers, sympathizers with Germany, and other non-conformists. According to

Goodall, the mob violence mostly turned against four categories of individuals; those who had the German ethnics roots; those that publicly demonstrated their opinions against the war; or those had been accused of any violation against the “loyalty laws” such as obstruction of the draft and had not been prosecuted by authorities yet, or those who were members of the pro-German radical groups that had been officially labeled as disloyal by the US authorities. The mob usually consisted of 5-30 men and very often their targets were kidnapped and taken to secluded location where they were exposed to assaults and threatening, or alternatively, the targets were publicly humiliated (21). Not only were pro-

German individuals targeted, but also German institutions, schools and churches. There were campaigns to change German names of streets, towns, or even food. For instance,

Berlin in Iowa became Lincoln, hamburger changed its name for "Liberty steak". The members of loyal agencies, such the APL, supported the public burning of books written in German. Furthermore, some states even outlawed teaching German language in public and private schools (Herman 246).

At this period of the war patriotism, anyone who indicated the opposition to the war, was suspicious and possible target of the mob activism, as well as, loyalty agencies.

African-American, foreigners, pacifists, labor activist, were very often assaulted. After the , the attention of these agencies turned also to Russian immigrants and Russian Americans. These were considered the German allies due to their immediate calls for the war withdrawal as the new Bolshevik Government agreed on the separate peace with Germany (Hagedorn 30).

1.2. The Russian Revolution – Fighting the Bolsheviks

The Russian Revolution consisted of two stages. The March1 Revolution of 1917, in which the czarist autocratic regime was overthrown and replaced with the liberal

Provisional Government. However, the Provisional Government lacked support and was not capable to make a promised set of reforms to the peasants and workers, which in contrast; the Bolsheviks, a fraction with extreme socialist program, insisted on. The

Bolsheviks also requested the secret war treaties with Allies be uncovered and withdraw the country from the war. Thus, the Bolsheviks toppled the Provisional Government on

November 7, 1917. After this coup d'état – the Bolshevik Revolution – communism was no longer a theory. A series of decrees was issued immediately on , in order to form the Soviet society, such as the legalization of the land seizure. Consequently, the

Bolsheviks, with its leader Vladimir I. Lenin, called for immediate withdrawal from the

Great War in order to defend the Bolshevik Revolution which threatened the war effort of Allied powers. The Russian Civil War began (Nearing 150-152).

The only Russian Revolution the U.S. President Wilson recognized, was the

March Revolution against tsarism. After the November coup, the U.S. Administration suspended all financial funding and military supplies contracts to New Russian

Government, the Government which Wilson denied to recognize and which he had never opened any diplomatic relations with (Foglesong 2. 22).

1 The March Revolution is also referred as the February Revolution due to the Julian Calendar used in Russia in 1917, which is 11 days different from Gregorian Calendar. 2 Some versions of Kindle E-book in Mobi format do not provide the pages but locations only. These are difficult to locate for citation, therefore in order to track the citation, following pattern is used. First, a number of the chapter, followed by the number of the paragraph.

Furthermore, the only Russian ambassador recognized and reconfirmed by Wilson, was

Boris Bakhmeteff who was appointed as an ambassador to the United States by the former

Provisional Government (Foglesong 3.3).

On March 1918, Russia signed a separate peace with Germany, the Brest-Litovsk

Treaty. For Allies, the separate peace was considered as an act of betrayal and it was believed that the Bolshevik Coup was German controlled (Murray 15). This belief was confirmed by so-called Sisson’s documents. Edgar Sisson, a representative of the U.S.

Administration in Russia, provided a set of official documents proving that Bolsheviks were, in fact, German agents and their aim was the world-wide revolution and anarchism.

The documents were forgeries, nevertheless, their press coverage shaped the perception of Bolshevism in the United States (Goodall 38-39).

Fears about the influence of Bolshevism in the United States pushed for the support of U.S military intervention in order to make world safe for democracy

(Foglesong 2.36). However, President Wilson argued that aggressive intervention against

Bolsheviks would strengthen the Bolshevik position among the Russian nationalist, therefore the Wilson administration concentrated on positive propaganda campaigns toward the Allied war efforts, as well as food aid (Goodall 37).

From the end of 1917, until the end of Russian Civil War in 1920, the US administration secretly supported the opponents of Bolsheviks by providing the covert financial aids, covert shipments of war supplies, material etc. In summer of 1918,

President Wilson approved of military expeditions to Siberia and Northern Russia in order to support Anti-Bolsheviks to restore the self-government (Foglesong Introduction.13). These cover or semi-covert actions were later used as an important tool within the Red

Scare and the Cold War era.

With the war over, the Bolshevism was spreading across the Europe and there were rumors it might spread to the United States, as well. The fears about the possible revolution were strengthened with the formation of the Third International in , which aimed to coordinate the worldwide communist revolution (Goodall 40).

As President Wilson warned while touring across America for the peace conference: “That sort of revolution means government by terror, government by force, not government by vote. It is the negation of everything that is American” (qtd. in

Foglesong 2.2).

1.3. The Post War Crisis

On November 11, 1918, the Armistice was signed and American society had to face another challenge, the post-war crisis (Englund 316). The US economy had to transfer its war production to a peace time production. When the Armistice was signed, the War Department had more than 4 billion dollars in outstanding orders, some fifty percent of them were cancelled immediately or within a month. Also, the returning soldiers were being released of their service. By mid-1919 over two million troops were demobilized, and placed on the job market, and by the end of the year the US army was down to the pre-war size of military forces (Shannon 21-23). The American society also faced a racial tension, mob rioting and lynching. Striking became a daily occurrence

(McWhirter 12).

According to David Shannon the most significant strikes were held in the steel and coal industry, however, striking was not limited to any profession or industry. Even the Broadway actors were striking for better wages in 1919. As a result, the trade unions had been very often suspected of conveying the revolutionary radicalism to the United

States. Nevertheless, the most of the strikes were, in fact, a reaction to the rising prices, inflation and better working conditions demands (28).

Economically speaking, the prices had increased significantly. The inflation rate in 1919 reached up to 15 per cent (Schmidt 25). The food prices had risen more than 80 per cent, clothing more than 100 per cent, the cost of living was nearly 100 per cent higher in 1919 compared to 1914 figures (Hagedorn 277).

On the other hand, the war also brought new possibilities. Women entered new professions due to the war manpower shortage. The women suffrage was about to be amended to the U.S. Constitution. Also, Afro-Americans fought for their rights.

Afro-Americans actively participated in the Great War. Their war contributions on the battlefields brought them a new ray of hope for improving their subordinate position, in other words, the equal rights with the white Americans. Nevertheless, their war participation was not recognized and instead the period of racial riots, lynching and mob activism targeting the Afro-Americans emerged. It was the violent period of the Red

Summer that comprised of more than twenty-five race riots nation-wide (McWhirter 12).

Afro-Americans responded to the racial rioting with increasing militant self-defense which many Americans considered as being directed by Bolsheviks (McWhirter 56).

Soon after the armistice, President Wilson travelled to Europe to take part at the

Paris Peace Conference in order to negotiate the peace terms for the defeated Central

Powers. It was for the first time in the U.S. history when the president himself left the country while still in office. This voyage to Paris was opposed by some politicians, such as the senator Lawrence Sherman. He insisted President Wilson be declared “out of office” and such a resolution was introduced to the senate. Others objected that the US president would not be able to handle the domestic affairs while abroad (Hagedorn 20-

21). Within 1919 Wilson was touring across the United States to gain support for the

League of Nations and thus making the world safe for democracy (Goodall 33).

Nevertheless, making the world safe for democracy seemed a difficult task. As

McWhirter points out the old social order was breaking down in 1919. The communism started to spread across the Europe. For instance, there were communist uprisings across

Germany, or the unsuccessful communist uprising in Hungary led by Bela Kun.

Meanwhile in Russia, the counter-revolution against the Bolshevik’s was at its height (McWhirter 16). There were also rumors of the possible red uprisings ranging from Romania to Finland (Goodall 40).

Thus, the series of events both in Europe and in the United States might have convinced the public that the social system as such was being attacked and the fears of possible revolution were intensified (Mandelbaum 77).

2. The Revolutionary Threats in the United States

Within the post-war years of 1919-1920 the hatred and fears against all-German transformed toward the fears of all-Russian. Such transformation did not happen all of sudden. The war hyper-nationalism, so-called 100 percent Americanism, exaggerated by the war propaganda and the loyalty agencies did not cease with the end of the war, but prevailed and turned against possible threats of the U.S. democracy, such as immigrants,

Bolsheviks, radicals, laborers and another non-conformist (Englund 317, Zimmer,

Immigrants 5.1). These threats of Bolshevism and the possible revolution were supported by the press releases that often circulated the sensational stories covering the possible red plots both abroad as well as in the United States. The daily press was filled with the reports of the radical and anarchist activities as well as the organized labor uprisings, feeding the Red Scare (Abramowitz 62). In 1919, an enormous wave of strikes as well as the activity of radical groups and the progress of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia might have convinced the public that the revolution was inevitable.

2.1. The Post-war Strikes Wave

During the Great War the organized labor, such as the American Federation of

Labor (AFL) supported the war effort in exchange for the governmental recognition, collective bargaining and eight-hour working day. With the war over, the organized labor wanted to strengthen their position and extended its wartime gains. On the other hand, the unorganized labor did not receive such advances. With the rising prices, long working hours and poor working conditions, as well as with demands for the improvement of those conditions, a set of strikes emerged (Shannon 28-29). As a result, there were more than four million workers involved in striking and it is estimated that there were more than

3600 strikes within 1919 (Schmidt 25). Only four days after the armistice was signed, approximately sixty thousand of clothing workers went on strike. They requested better working conditions, as well as, the

15 per cent increase on their wages. In February, it was the that paralyzed the whole city. Trade unionists, supported by the radicals, i.e., the Industrial

Workers of the World (IWW), as well as, the Socialist, walked out to support the

Shipyards workers who walk-off in order to increase the wage conditions (Lens 258).

Despite the fact the better payment conditions were demanded headlines read: “Strike led by Bolsheviks” or “Seattle believed a Bolshevik effort start a revolution” (qtd. in Abramowitz 73). Such perception of labor that might have been

“Bolshevik inspired” followed within the 1919-1920.

In September 1919, the police strike emerged. Out of 1,544 Boston police officers, 1,117 went on strike. Consequently, Boston’s public safety went out of control for four days which resulted into violence, robberies and overall disorder. The authorities had to hire volunteers to protect the city as a back-up for the striking policemen. Boston’s

Central Labor Union that represented the organized labor in Boston called for the general strike which struck fear among the authorities of possible plot of Reds (Ackerman 79-

80). The reason of the Boston strike was the demand to affiliate with the labor union – the AFL and the recognition by the city officials. The city officials refused such demands.

The police officers were perceived as the traitors since public service requires a loyalty to the city and the state (Hagedorn 351). It was the governor Calvin Coolidge who decided to intervene and refused any negotiation. Coolidge insisted the Boston police strikers were enemies to the public safety and that there is no right “to strike against public safety by anybody, anywhere and anytime” (qtd. in Mandelbaum 77). Furthermore, President

Wilson called the police strike “a crime against the civilization” (qtd. in Hagedorn 351). One of the largest strikes in U.S. history was the steel workers strike in late

September 1919. More than 365,000 workers joined the walk-off. It ceased in January

1920 with the unionist being defeated (Hagedorn 353; Mandelbaum 77).

The impact of these walk-offs was the further association that striking labor movement equals the possible revolutionary threat. The very first such threat that alarmed the whole nation was the Seattle general strike.

2.1.1. The Revolutionary Threat of the Seattle General Strike

The Seattle general strike paralyzed the whole city for five days and received a broad press coverage across the United States (Lens 258).

Seattle and the whole Pacific Northwest was an area with a strong labor and radical movement. The shipyard industry was strategic for the Great War effort. In

September 1916, the United States Shipping Board was formed by the government in order to control and fund the shipyard industry. The promotion of vessels construction was managed by its subsidiary the Emergency Fleet Corporation. The government funds reached up to 2,9 billion which boomed the industry in Seattle and attracted labor from the whole Pacific Northwest region. Furthermore, the shipyards had been nearly one hundred percent unionized (Friedheim 58-61).

Within the end of the war, the Metal Trades Council of Seattle, negotiating for all of the shipyard unions, unsuccessfully demanded the increase on workers’ wages. As a result, the Seattle shipyard workers announced the strike alert, and finally on January 21,

1919, more than thirty-five thousand shipyard workers walked off the job. Due to the unions solidarity, more than one hundred unions of various industries operating in the

Seattle region joined the strike in early February (Murray 59; Friedheim 65). In the days preceding the general strike the press warned against the radical conspiracy, others warned to stop the strike before it is too late, or for example, the Seattle

Times predicted a mass starvation after forty-eight hours due to the general strike

(Abramowitz 72). The Seattle Star suggested the Bolshevik inspired revolution in the editorial with a headline: “Under which Flag?” and commented on the strike as an acid test of Americanism (The Seattle Star, Under Which Flag, 1).

There were also many rumors that exaggerated fears. It was rumored that the electricity would be shut down or the water-supply dam be detonated by the strikers and so on. As a reaction, the Seattle residents gathered the food supplies, others left the city.

The demand for guns had risen significantly prior the strike, too (Goodall 65). In addition, one of the radical activists created a pamphlet entitled “Russia Did It”, celebrating the

Bolshevik victory in Seattle (Abramowitz 73).

The Shipyard employers and some state officials – including , the mayor of Seattle, considered the strike a revolution (Friedheim 4). Hanson considered the strike an effort to establish bolshevism (Hanson 39). He stated in his monography

Americanism vs. Bolshevism that:

... it was not the wages or conditions that caused the leaders to agitate for the

strike. It was because of their desire to foment hatred, suspicion, and

discontent to such degree, that the workers would first make impossible

demand, then call a general strike, establishing a soviet, and start the flame

of revolution in this country, with the hope and plan to destroy the

Government and the establishment of bolshevism...... with its consequent

red terror and tyranny. (24)

On contrary, there is a degree for justification for such assumption – a radical threat. The unionists in Seattle consisted of a broad range of radicals. There were plenty of supporters of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), known as Wobblies and other radicals. The Wobblies, the radical labor union and the opponent of the war effort, were known for their support to the revolutionary actions, demonstrations, including sabotages when necessary to achieve their goals (Mandelbaum 64). Therefore, the IWW participation in the general strike generated such revolutionary fears.

The general strike itself started on February 6, 1919, and was directed by the

General Strike Committee. From 10 of clock, over sixty thousand organized workers walked off their jobs. The city was paralyzed. The busses and trolleys stayed in the depot.

Public transportation was not operating. Factories were closed, most of the shops, as well.

On the other hand, the crucial public services were maintained such as the hospital, food markets etc. Despite the general fear of the strike and possible revolution and violence, the strike itself was orderly. No single arrest concerning the strike issues was done, no shooting or mob violence occurred. Even the group of 3,500 of radical Wobblies that supported the shipyard workers promised the peaceful participation, no demonstrations or vigilante actions. In fact, the criminality dropped by seventy percent at the very first day of the strike (Friedheim 130-131).

Nevertheless, Mayor Hanson requested the federal troops from Camp Lewis to supervise the situation in Seattle. For city protection, there were more than 1,500 policemen in duty and more than 1,500 federal troops. Hanson expressed his firm and non-compromise attitude toward any labor or revolutionary conspiracy and requested the people of Seattle to show their true one hundred Americanism. Further, Hanson requested the General Strike Committee to call off the strike until the other day (Murray 63). Eventually, after the strong negotiations, the General Strike Committee realized their action could not succeed. The pressure to call the strike off was enormous both from the authorities, as well as, from the unions themselves. As Murray points out the way the strike was held resembled the radical importation, not a traditional American labor tactic for collective bargaining, and this implication had been strongly supported by press releases. As a result, the local American Federation of Labor (AFL) pressured to cease the strike (64). Finally, the General strike was called off after five days, on February 11,

1919 (Schmidt 134). The Seattle Star editorial “Strike Called Off” celebrated the end of the strike with a report that it was the Americanism that won in Seattle (The Seattle Star

Strike Called Off).

2.2. The Fear of the Racial Rioting of 1919

Not only were the labor strikes and growing fear of Bolshevism social issues of

1919, but also a set of racial riots that is referred to as the . The Afro-

Americans had been segregated for a long time under the so-called Jim Crow laws. The pattern of white supremacy and black inferiority had been widely accepted in America.

However, in 1919, the Red Summer – a period of twenty-five major racial riots spread across the United States and for the first time, segregated Afro-Americans fought back.

The self-defense was suspicious and the emergence of a New Negro was sometimes incorrectly referred to, by media and some individuals, as an impact of Bolshevik agitation (McWhirter 13-14).

2.2.1. The Racial Riots and the impact of Bolshevism

The racial riots of the Red Summer have its roots in the Great War. For the first time the segregated Afro-Americans had been allowed for the draft and with their military service they proved well. After the armistice, some four hundred thousand Afro-

American soldiers were demobilizing and hoping their service to the American flag would improve their second-class position in American society (Russell 22; McWhirter 13). As historian David Krugler points out Afro-Americans saw the opportunity to make the world safe for democracy as proclaimed by President Wilson and by doing so, they expected the improvement of their rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; such as the restoration of voting rights in the South, or making the practice of lynching, mob violence and the racial segregation illegal (15).

These expectations had not been fulfilled. Instead, the period of racial riots swept from April to November, 1919. In most cases, these riots were initiated by white mobs for various reasons but mainly due to racism (McWhirter 13).

By mid-July of 1919, there had been three serious race riots at Southern towns of

Charleston, South Carolina, Bisbee, Arizona, and Longview, Texas, which were considered by authorities, mainly by the Justice Department and the War Department, as the common Southern racial violence with no links to the radical agitation (Ellis 42).

However, this was not the case of the riots in Washington and which had been considered as the most brutal riots of the Red Summer period. For instance, in Chicago, the riot paralyzed the city for more than five days, leaving some 500 injured and 38 dead

(Schmidt 186). Furthermore, the Afro-Americans fought back. They armed themselves in order to protect their lives and properties against the white mob oppressors and they were ready to defend themselves if necessary. The so-called New Negro emerged, which was the ideology of the strengthened Afro-American with his war experience who stands and fights for his rights (Whitaker 48-49).

Such acts of self-defense and the emergence of the New Negro were both suspicious and sometimes linked with the wave of strikes and to the anarchist war resistance. The Army Military Intelligence Division (MID) reported that it was the radical movement that had been behind the resistance of Afro-Americans in Chicago and

Washington riots (Cornell 68).

McWhirter adds that media was often spreading the idea that the left agitators caused the race rioting and lynching, despite the fact that majority of the riots were initiated by the white mobs (160). For instance, the Boston Herald claimed the aggression and resistance of Afro-Americans in Washington and Chicago was a product of influence of the IWW and of Bolshevism (Ellis 46). Also New York Times printed such accusation with the headline: “Reds Try to Stir Negroes to Revolt”, claiming that it was Russia that financially supported Afro-Americans in order to revolt. Furthermore, the U. S. Post

Office submitted a report titled: “Radicalism and Sedition Among the Negroes as

Reflected in Their Publications,” (Quoted in Whitaker 50). According to Whitaker such accusation encouraged the public to view Afro-Americans as subversives and traitors. As a result, the U.S. Department of Justice began treating Afro-Americans as possible enemies of the state and their activities were further closely monitored (50). On contrary,

Afro-Americans showed only little interest in joining any of the white radical leftist groups. Indeed, some Afro-Americans joined radical groups, few others favored anarchism, anarcho- or even the ideas of communism, but within 1919, the majority of Afro-Americans did not intend to join any of these movements (McWhirter

57-58).

2.3. The Fear of Radical Movement

The radical movement had not been unified before the Red Scare emerged. Prior the Red Scare, the radicals differentiated in their radical philosophies ranging from pacifists, anarchists, syndicalists, communists to Marxists etc., (Murray 18-19). With the outbreak of the US participation in the Great War, as well as with the development of the

Red Scare, two unifying features emerged. First, it was the opposition to the Great war participation. As a result, radicals, were often targeted, controlled and raided by the governmental institutions, patriotic groups, as well as by the vigilante groups or mobs that often broke into the meetings or premises of radical organizations (Shannon 33).

Another unifying feature of the radical movement was the Russian Revolution. As

Sydney Lens points out the Russian Revolution might have been considered as “a vigor injection” for the American radical movement, mainly for the Industrial Workers of the

World (IWW) and the Socialist (262). For instance, the secretary of the IWW, Harold L.

Varney, stated that “Bolshevism was but the Russian name for the Industrial Workers of the World” (qtd. in Lens 262). Both of these organizations celebrated the idea of

Bolshevism and therefore had been considered as possible threat to the United States democratic establishment. Another threat was the anarchist movement. As Paul Avrich points out it was also the anarchist movement that was another target of the governmental institutions in order to suppress the radicalism (94). On the other hand, it is also important to highlight that in 1919 a radical was considered anyone who opposed the one hundred per cent Americanism (Zimmer, Immigrants 5.1).

2.3.1. The Industrial Workers of the World

The Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW), often referred to as the Wobblies, was a radical labor union founded in 1905. The Wobblies were known for their radical program, revolutionary actions including violence and sabotage when achieving their ultimate goals (Mandelbaum 64). As Cole at al point out the members of the IWW believed in class struggle and the necessity of the socialism, however, they rejected the electoral politics. Instead, in order to achieve the revolutionary change, the direct actions were preferred, such as general strikes, solidarity strikes etc. More importantly, the IWW organized the workers often neglected by other unions, mainly by the American Federal of Labor (the AFL); such immigrants, Afro-Americans, minorities, unskilled laborers, or women (4). The preamble of the IWW constitution reads:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can

be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working

people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things

of life. (Preamble of the IWW Constitution, 2)

The Wobblies were a strong opponent to the Great War and therefore considered as a national threat which resulted in severe resistance. They were frequently jailed, their meetings crashed into, or they were often beaten when they tried to organize. Unlike the

American Federation of Labor, the IWW led plenty of strikes in the industries necessary for the war effort. In May 1917, the IWW headquarters throughout the country were raided by the federal as well as local authorities in order to diminish their impact and radical activity. Many IWW leaders were arrested. The most notorious case was the

Chicago trial against 101 Wobblies, all of whom were found guilty with violating the

Espionage and Sedition Acts. These provisions of the Espionage and Sedition Acts of

1917–18 had been often used which in fact drastically weakened the Wobblies nationwide

(Cole et al. 8-9; Zimmer, Immigrants 5.17). For instance, William Haywood, a leader of the IWW, was sentenced twenty years in prison in 1918 for violating the Espionage Act

(Mandelbaum 65). Furthermore, it was in Idaho where the Criminal Syndicalism Law was enacted in 1917 to outlaw the radical labor unions, mainly the IWW. By 1920, the

Criminal Syndicalism Law was adopted by eighteen states across the US in order to fight against radicalism (Zimmer, Immigrants 5.36). It was also the daily press that supported fears of the Red revolutionary radicalism. As Schmidt points out some media exaggerated isolated events of radical organizations and thus exaggerated the radical danger (37). For instance, within 1919 the New York Times repeatedly circulated the headlines labeling the

Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and their actions as a threat to the democratic principles and the articles framed them as conveyors of , chaos and terror

(Abramowitz 69).

2.3.2. The Socialist Party of America

The Socialist Party of America (SPA) was formed in 1901 and its members believed that the social changes could be obtained via democratic means. Its program was based on class struggle and socialism, but their moderate members, such Victor Berger or Morris Hillquit, claimed that the values of working class could be preserved only if the law and order were respected, however, more radical socialist favored direct even revolutionary changes that consequently led to an ideological split within the party.

Nevertheless, at its height, Socialist party candidates held plenty of offices within the

United States, as mayors, legislators, council men etc., (Mandelbaum 65). The leader of the Socialist Party was Eugene V. Debs, who himself was five times a Socialist’s presidential candidate, and in 1912 he received approximately 900,000 votes (Ackerman

72). Furthermore, in 1917, the Socialist party officially declared its opposition to the

Great War and thus was often raided by the state and local authorities (Lens 267). For instance, in May 1919, a mob physically attacked employees of the Social Party newspaper – the Call. The mob broke into the Call’s office, destroyed the equipment etc.,

(Shannon 33). In 1919, the majority of the Socialist Party members were immigrants. The party had many language federations, mainly the Latvian, Finnish, Russian, Italian and Jewish etc., (Lens 270). From the beginning of the Russian Revolution the Right and Left Wing of American Socialists kept arguing about the significance of the coup. As a result, the

Left Wing kept criticizing the Right Wing for moderate “democratic” program and called them “counter-revolutionaries” and planned to take over the party control (Murray 48).

In Spring of 1919, the moderate leaders of the party decided to suspend the radical members who rejected the party plan for democratic actions to fulfill their goals. These radicals were Benjamin Gitlow, W.B. Lloyd, , and Louis Fraina and others who formed the Left-Wing Section. They opened an office in New York, formed their own political program, the so-called Left-Wing Manifesto – a call for revolutionary actions by the working class (Ackerman 72-73). By May 1919 they had nearly 30,000 Socialists following the Left-Wing program, by summer of 1919, they had circa 60,000 followers.

As a result, at the end of August, 1919, two new communists’ parties emerged out of the

Left-Wing Section – the Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party (Murray 49-

50). The Communist Labor Party was led by Americans, such Gitlow, whereas the

Communist Party of America was led by the Louis Fraina and the Russian language federations which vowed loyalty to Moscow and the Third International (Ackerman 74).

Both communists’ parties united in 1921 (Mandelbaum 65). The fears of revolutionary actions were further intensified.

2.3.3. The Anarchism

The American anarchist movement was formed mainly by European immigrants, who would most likely be from Eastern Europe, Italy, Russia (Cornell 22). In the first decade of twentieth century, Italian and Eastern European Jewish immigrants were the largest groups of foreign-born workers in the United States, as well as, the largest two followers of American anarchist movement (Zimmer, Immigrants Introduction.3). The anarchists did not form any united political platform, but instead, they belonged to a variety of overlapping organizations. In general, they opposed capitalism and rejected the political system of the United States as well as the system of a country of their origin as they viewed these institutions incompatible with the well-being of all people (Cornell 25,

27).

The Alien , also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act was enacted. It enabled for anyone who was opposed to all organized government, or who taught or advocated the anarchism, however, within 1904-1914, only 20 anarchists were due for deportation under this act (Kraut 180-181). This act was revised by Congress in 1918, in order to prohibit the entrance to the United States to anyone who believed in overthrowing of the government, or who opposed organized government etc., (Tejada

107). Also, within the Red Scare groups of anarchists were monitored by the authorities.

Their periodicals were closely watched, their meetings were raided and participants beaten, a common practice performed also against the Socialist, the IWW and other radical groups (Avrich 94). Nonetheless, the fear of radicalism, bolshevism and anarchism reached its peak with the series of mail bombs in late April and later in June of 1919 and started the enormous anti-radical campaign within the United States.

2.3.3.1. The Revolutionary Threat of Anarchist bombing

At the end of April of 1919, the nation was shocked by the series of bomb attacks, targeting twenty-nine politicians and business men, all affiliated to some extend with the fight against radicalism (Zimmer, Immigrants 5.38). Among the intended bomb targets were businessmen and politicians such as Ole Hanson, the Mayor of Seattle, Frederic C. Howe, the commissioner of immigration at Ellis Island, Senator Lee S. Overman, the chairman of the Senate Bolshevik Propaganda Committee, businessmen J.D. Rockefeller,

J.P. Morgan, or Attorney General A. Mitchel Palmer etc., and the revolution might seem inevitable (Murray 71; Pfannestiel 28).

On April 28, first parcel including a bomb was delivered to the office of a mayor of Seattle, Ole Hanson, known for his firm attitude toward radicals and as a suppressor of the Seattle General Strike. The parcel was received by his clerk, however, due to the circumstances the bomb did not detonate. The following day, on April 29, another mail bomb was delivered to the home of former Senator Thomas Hardwick of Georgia who was co-sponsor of the 1918 Immigration Act. In this case, the bomb did not reach

Hardwick himself, however, exploded at hands of his maid who suffered a severe injury as her hands were blown off. Hardwicks’ wife who was close to detonation suffered a minor injury (Goodall 56-57).

The radical bombings immediately alarmed the authorities. Press covered a possible conspiracy, some of the headlines were accusing the Bolsheviks as in “Reds Plan Murders” and the left organizations, such as the IWW, were immediately suspected (qtd. in Russell 20).

On the other hand, the press also detailly covered this event, including the detailed description of the parcel including the bomb, which in fact, led to the discovery of another sixteen similar parcels. It was assumed and later confirmed that the bomb attacks were planned on the international working day – the May Day (Ackerman 20). The immediate investigation started leading to discovery of another eighteen packages. Finally, there were in total thirty-six bomb parcels, however, only one bomb had exploded (Murray 71).

As Ackerman points out the April mail bombing campaign revitalize the revolutionary fears which led to the reactional violence across the United States on the following day – the May Day. The major disturbances occurred in Boston, New York and

Cleveland. In , a socialist Red Flag parade celebrating the international working day was attacked by a group of veterans carrying the riffles with ammunition. A provocation turned into violence and ended up with one casualty and injuring forty. None of the attackers was arrested, however, police put in jail more than 120 socialists (21). In

Boston, local socialists of Roxbury were not granted the permission to parade on the May

Day. Nevertheless, the socialists, led by Fraina, marched the parade with the red flags toward Boston. They clashed with the police squad who order them to dismiss. When the further police reinforcement arrived, the angry Roxbury Letts (as this group of Socialist was called) attacked them with blackjacks, fists, short lengths of pipe etc. The Bostonian patriots reacted to such Red violence with counter-violence. They attacked anyone in

Roxbury who they considered suspicious enough to be one of the “Reds”. Consequently,

116 of the parading socialists were arrested (Russel 21).

On June 2, 1919, another series of coordinated bombs attack followed. Explosions occurred in Philadelphia, Paterson, New York, Boston, Cleveland, Pittsburg and

Washington, D.C., and for the second time Attorney General Palmer was targeted. Again, the suppressors of radicalism were aimed by the perpetrators (Zimmer, Immigrants 5.39).

The private homes of state legislators and businessmen were targeted, for example: Harry

E. Davis, the mayor of Cleveland; Massachusetts state representative Leland W. Powers; or federal judge William P. Thompson etc., in total nine targets were aimed

(Ackerman 14). All bombs caused extensive damages, and all of them exploded by midnight in order to have the maximum impact on the targeted home owners. Despite the fact, the second wave of bomb attacks was planned to surprise the targets for assassination while sleeping, but no one of them was seriously injured. Nevertheless, there were two victims. In New York it was a passer-by who was close to the bomb blast. The second bomb’s victim was the perpetrator himself who was blown apart in front of the A. Mitchel

Palmer’s house (Tejada 110-1).

The entire front of the four-story house of Attorney General A. Mitchel Palmer was blown up. Furthermore, some fifty copies of the circular “Plain Words” that were signed by the Anarchist Fighters were found nearby Palmer’s house, and the circular was distributed to all bomb’s destinations, too (Hagedorn 220). The flyer read:

The powers that be make no secret of their will to stop, here in America, the world-

wide spread of revolution. ... class war is on and cannot cease... There will have to be

bloodshed; we will not dodge, there will have to be murder, we will kill, because it is

necessary; there will have to be destruction; we will destroy to rid the world of your

tyrannical institutions, … (Avrich 81)

The immediate investigation started. All parts of government intelligence communities cooperated with the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Investigation. All clues were followed, the text of the flyer was analyzed, however, no evidence leading to a discovery of the perpetrators was found. The media blamed radicals, anarchists and Bolsheviks so did Palmer (Hagedorn 222). As a result, Palmer started his plan to stop radicals and defend the American democracy. The fight against Bolshevism had just started.

3. Fighting the Bolshevism in the USA

By mid-1919, revolutionary radicalism reached its peak so did the Red Scare. The

April and June bombings might have convinced the public that the revolution was inevitable. Also, general press kept providing sensational stories feeding the Red Scare

(Schmidt 27). It was A. Mitchell Palmer, the target of anarchist bombers and the country’s

Attorney General, who initiated the national mass arrests of alien radicals. Palmer, who once rejected a cabinet position of a secretary of war due to his Quaker pacifist belief would be known as the “Fighting Quaker” during his crusade against Reds (McWhirter

57).

In particular, within 1919, the fight against radicalism as such had been evident across all levels of the state hierarchy. First, in February 1919, the governmental investigative body – the Overman Committee, initially designed to investigate on German propaganda, shifted its objectives to Bolshevik propaganda within the United States

(Schmidt 144). Furthermore, on the state level there was established the Lusk Committee that operated in New York State and performed a massive investigation on various entities, suspected as radicals plotting the revolution as performed in 1917 in Russia. This, in fact, intensified fears of Bolshevik conspiracy within the United States (Donner 39-

40). It was Mayor John Hylan of New York who banned public display of red flags in

November of 1919, a regulation that could hardly stop anyone of plotting the revolution, however, it represented the overall fears of 1919; fears of Bolshevism (Donner 40). This regulation forbidding the display of the red flags was enacted in twenty-eight states

(Shannon 33). The leftist’s organizations had been observed nationwide, so were the radical meetings, rallies etc. Suspected leftist organizations had been regularly raided within 1919. For instance, in March 1919, the New York’s headquarters of the Union of

Russian Workers was raided by New York Bomb Squad, the radical literature was confiscated, and 162 aliens had been arrested and aimed for deportation. In fact, 158 aliens were soon released (Donner 40). The criminal syndicalism laws forbidding membership in any organization that approved any sort of revolution against existing government was adopted in more than thirty-two states (Shannon 33).

The federal repressions against alien radicals, later known as Palmer Raids, were orchestrated by A. Mitchell Palmer. He also initiated an establishment of the Radical

Division, which was a part of the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation (BI)

(Shannon 34; Ackerman 64). According to the research of the historian Regin Schmidt the Bureau of Investigation actively participated in the fight against the Red Scare since the Russian Revolution emerged, however, its prominence started with the formation of the Radical Division under the supervision of J. Edgar Hoover (Schmidt 127). The enthusiasm for the red-hunting of 1919-1920 led to a series of directed raiding and of suspected alien radicals. Most of the raids, performed by the state authorities, were in fact, connected with brutality, misusages of search warrants and arrest warrants, illegal seizure of literature, books, private correspondence and equipment.

Instead of delivering justice, it turned in some instances into “committing continual illegal acts” (qtd. in Shannon 35).

The fears of possible communist coup were intensified with the continuing labor disturbances. In September, the resembled revolution as nearly three thirds of its staff went on strike. The sensational newspaper headlines supported such fears (Abramowitz 74-75). The threat of impact of communism had become the main theme.

3.1. The Overman Committee

The governmental response to the growing wave of radicalism and possible revolutionary threats in early 1919 led to the official investigation on Bolshevik propaganda within the United States. This was a task of the governmental body – the

Subcommittee of the Committee of Judiciary that was referred to as the Overman

Committee. It was named after its chairman , Senator of North

Carolina (Schmidt 136). As Goodall points out it was the first investigative committee in the U.S. history. In fact, it was the predecessor of the later House Committee on Un-

American Activities (HCUA), formed in the McCarthy Era (45).

However, the initial task of the committee was not the Bolshevik propaganda but the investigation on the pro-German activities of the U.S. Brewers Association.

According to the A. Mitchell Palmer, serving as the Alien Property Custodian, there was approximately dozen German brewers that had been gathering financial reserves. Palmer in his resolution to the senate in September 1918, expressed his fears that those financial reserves were being used to support the pro-German propaganda. The propaganda consisted of influencing the public opinion, manipulation of foreign language press, violation of the laws, or contribution to the political campaigns etc., (US Cong. Sen.

Resolution 307).

With the armistice and the progress of social unrest, the wave of strikes and growing fear of possible Bolshevik conspiracy, the Senate mandated the committee to extend the investigation on the Bolshevik propaganda, as well. The justification for the necessity of governmental investigation is listed in the final report of the Committee’s findings that stated: Bolsheviki has inaugurated the reign of terror unparalleled in the history of

modern civilization, in many of its aspects rivaling even the inhuman savagery

of the Turk and the terrors of the French Revolution. (US Cong. Sen. Report of

the Subcommittee, 29-30)

The investigation consisted of the set of public hearings on Bolshevik propaganda held form February 10 to March 11, 1919. The hearings consisted of testimonies of more than 30 witnesses, most of them anti-Bolsheviks (Murray 95; Schmidt 144).

The witnesses presented their experience with Bolshevism gained mostly while being in Russia during the Russian Revolution. Some of them presented the stories of communist horror, others claimed that the Bolshevism was the anti-Christ, or that the Red

Army was, in fact, formed by vigilante criminals only. There were also narratives of nationalization of women and agencies of . The land confiscation, or the abolition of private ownership was also discussed. Jews were accused of being behind the

Bolshevik revolution etc. Unfortunately, the evidence on the Bolshevik propaganda was often based on undocumented rumors and allegations (Murray 95,97).

In June, 1919, after three months of the investigation, the committee issued the official report summarizing the findings on the Bolshevik propaganda. It also drafted a possible scenario of Bolshevik coup performed within the United States and its impact on the American democracy; such as the violence, destruction of life and property, nationalization of the land, seizure and confiscation of press, the dictatorship and repudiation of democracy as such (US Cong. Sen. Report of the Subcommittee, 31-34).

On the other hand, no particular proof of Bolshevik propaganda was presented, only a list of recommendations such as the regulation of the foreign-language press, registration of all private organizations, and as a response to the April and June bomb attacks it was recommended passing a federal law against the use of bombs and indeed the governmental control of seditious activities (Schmidt 146). As Ann Hagedorn points out, the investigation of the committee did not provide any significant evidence on Bolshevik propaganda, but instead, it intensified fears of Bolshevism (89).

3.2. The Lusk Committee of New York

With the growing fears of radical activities within the early 1919, Archibald

Stevenson, a prominent New York lawyer, initiated an investigation on Bolshevism in

New York State. Stevenson contacted the Union League Club in New York, convincing them that there was a real Bolshevik revolutionary threat as there was supposed to be a cash flow from Russia supporting the radical movement (Hagedorn 152-153). As a result, the state legislature approved on investigation of seditious activities and the Joint

Legislative Committee to Investigate Seditious Activities was formed on March 26, 1919

(Schmidt 123). It consisted of nine members and was headed by Senator Clayton R. Lusk of Cortland County; therefore, the committee was called the Lusk Committee. Archibald

Stevenson was appointed an Assistant Counsel (Murray 98). The committee received a fund of $30,000 for its investigation (Coleman 7).

There was a certain degree of justification for such revolutionary fears within

New York State. New York was a base for immigrants who had to pass via the Ellis

Island. Since 1903-1914 there was an influx of 600,000 immigrants each year, even though within the Great War, the immigration into the United States had dropped significantly (Ackerman 52). Nevertheless, by 1919, there was, for instance, approximately one million Eastern European Jews living in New York, where socialist movements and Yiddish-speaking anarchist groups emerged. New York as such had a considerably broad base of anarchists and socialists (Zimmer, Immigrants 1.1). Therefore, the aims of the committee were to examine the extent of radical activities, report its findings to the New York Senate and, finally, to draft appropriate anti-radical legislation

(Pfannestiel 19).

The Lusk Committee used various strategies to fulfill its goals. First, they had their own agents. Second, they conducted the raids targeting radical organizations and possible Bolsheviks within New York. Third, they cooperated with patriotic groups, such as the American Protective League (APL) and their members who served as both their informants and agents. More importantly, the Lusk Committee started to exchange information with the Bureau of Investigation (BI) and in fact, the Lusk Committee had become the BI’s intelligence gathering branch within New York (Hagedorn 152-153;

Schmidt 123).

The committee conducted raids against suspected individuals and organizations to maintain evidence of radicals. The Lusk agents used search warrants and then confiscated materials such as a variety of records, literature, books and everything that might have been considered of seditious character. The most notable were two large sets of raids of June and November of 1919. The June raids targeted the Soviet Bureau and its representative Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, as well as, the radical organizations; the Socialist oriented Rand School, the New York’s headquarter of the International Workers of the

World and the headquarter of the Left-Wing section of the Socialist Party. The November raids targeted seventy-three branches of the Communist Party and Communist Labor

Party within New York (Cornell 72; Donner 40).

3.2.1. The Soviet Bureau Raid

The Soviet Bureau was established by Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, an unofficial representative of the Soviet Government, who opened its office in New York in January,

1919. The official aims of the Bureau were to established economic connections with

American businessmen and narrow the diplomatic relations between Russia and the

United States due to President Wilson’s non-recognition policy with the new Soviet

Government, which in fact, prevailed until 1933 (Pfannestiel 35; Foglesong 2.2).

Nevertheless, the American businessmen welcomed the Soviet Bureau’s intention of developing commercial ties, as they could access the Russian market which would generate high profits for their businesses. As Pfannestiel highlights there were over one thousand U.S. firms willing to cooperate and offer their goods and services to Bolshevik regime by mid-1919, despite the governmental restrictions imposed on trading with

Soviet Russia. Therefore, the Soviet Bureau was selected as the very first target of the

Lusk Committee (55).

The raid against the Soviet Bureau was scheduled on June 12, 1919. The committee’s agents accompanied with the state police searched the Bureau’s offices and obtained loads of possible seditious literature and publications. After the raid, this red hunting campaign was presented to general press. It was Senator Lusk who informed media that materials confiscated in the Bureau revealed that Martens was the “American

Lenin”, however, no further evidence was published to support this claim (Murray 99-

100). Furthermore, within the raid a search warrant was misused, personal belongings were confiscated as well. In addition, Martens and the bureau’s staff had been taken down during the raid for an interrogation in front of the committee. Martens was not allowed having his attorney presented during this hearing (Coleman 13-14). Also, the validity of the search warrant was questioned after the raid. Prior the raid, a warrant was issued on the request of a special agent of the Lusk Committee, Clarence Converse, who made an oath, stating that he had found a document called "Groans from Omsk" lying on the floor in the Soviet Bureau and staying the document was of sedition character (Coleman 10).

As a result, the search warrant necessary to conduct the raid was granted and ordered to make “immediate search of the premises” and seize “all documents, circulars and papers printed or typewritten having to do with Socialist, Labor, Revolutionary or Bolshevik activities” however provided no authorization of making arrests or seizing any personal belongings (Qtd. in Pfannestiel 65). Nevertheless, Martens and other employees of the

Bureau were detained and subsequently all documents and material confiscated by the

Lusk’s agents were used to construct the case against Martens and gain proofs that

Martens’ mission was to support the illegal activity against the US Government, such as the distribution of radical propaganda throughout the country in order to orchestrate the overthrow of the Government (Pfannestiel 71).

After the raid, most of the businessmen who hailed the Soviet Bureau’s intention of developing the dual economical relationships, distanced themselves from Martens and his organization (Pfannestiel 52). Attorney General Palmer requested a deportation of

Martens and his request was supported by the Congress (Pfannestiel 72).

3.2.2. The Rand School Raid

The second series of the large raids occurred on June 21, 1919. These raids were directed against the Rand School, as well as, against the New York headquarters of the

IWW organization and the headquarter of the Left-Wing sector of the Socialist Party. The

Lusk’s agents seized several truckloads of literature and organizational records (Donner

40). All of these raids were orderly with no arrests or any sign of violence. Again, search warrants were used to confiscate possible seditious publications, documents, books or letters etc., (Murray 101).

The Rand School of Social Science was selected due to its study program as a possible conveyor of the radicalism. It was established in 1906 to serve the needs of the

Socialist Party. The school provided the opportunity for general public to receive education on Socialism and related subjects aiming to prepare its students for positions within the Socialist Party, labor unions etc. The school also offered the courses in history, literature, economics, political science or arts (Chaffe 308, Pfannestiel 78).

The raid was conducted by the Lusk agents cooperating with dozen state officers, and more than forty members of the American Protective League. The raiders had the blank warrants and some of them even carried arms. All sort of seized material was loaded into trucks and drove into the headquarter of the Lusk Committee for further investigation

(Chaffe 309).

The Rand School raid was followed by the raids of the headquarters of the Left

Wing Socialist and the IWW, again in an orderly way, however, no evidence of Red conspiration had been found. Premises of both institutions were searched upon and all radical material was confiscated (Murray 100-101). Following all these raids of the day,

Senator Lusk informed the general press with their revelations. These revelations were rather exaggerated. He claimed seized material, gathered in the Rand School and the headquarters of the IWW and the Left-Wing Section, revealed that radicals controlled more than one hundred of labor unions and that there was an evidence proving cooperation between the Rand School and the Soviet Bureau and their intention of bolshevizing the American labor (Murray 102; Pfannestiel 87).

What is more, Stevenson claimed the Rand School was the main point of the

Bolshevik radicals who might foment the revolution within the Unites States and these statements had been greatly exaggerated by media (Murray 102). As Zechariah Chaffe points out the committee supported the negative perception of the Rand School by providing the media with all kinds of prejudicial statements (309). For instance, The New

York Times front page article stated: “Revolution openly urged. Socialists offer Bolshevik

Platform. Bloodshed is predicted in change of Government” (“Raid Rand School, Left

Wing and I.W.W. Offices”). As a result, Stevenson requested to have the school charter revoked under the evidence of their raid, however, no evidence was provided. The

Committee had not been able to submit the evidence in front of the court and finally the

Supreme Court Justice John V. McAvoy stopped the proceedings against annulment of the Rand School charter in late July of 1919 (Murray 102). Stevenson also connected ties between the Rand School and growing radicalism of Afro-Americans. At the public hearings following the raid, Lusk accused the Rand School of planning to support a revolution among Afro-Americans who would consequently attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. As an evidence of this claim served the confiscated article by William A. Domingo called “Socialism Imperiled, or the Negro – a Potential

Menace to American Radicalism” (Pfannestiel 88). Domingo, a black socialist, who sent this article to the Rand School hoping for its possible publication, described in this article common grievances of Afro-Americans. Furthermore, the publication of the article had been rejected before the raid by the school officials (Pfannestiel 88).

After this raid, the public view on the red hunting and raid had changed. The raid of Rand School and subsequent public hearings was followed by the objections from the civil liberty groups such as the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB) whose director

Albert DeSilver pointed out that such investigation of the Lusk Committee is unacceptable (Pfannestiel 87). As the counsel of the Rand School John Block stated on the basis of the accusations by the Committee: “If these people don’t want Bolshevism in

America, they had better stop trying to create it” (qtd. in Pfannestiel 85).

3.2.3. The November Raids

The Lusk Committee also served as an important data gathering partner of the

Radical Division of Justice Department. In , started a planned fight against radicalism in the United States led by A. Mitchell Palmer (Schmidt 123). The first national Palmer Raid occurred in November 7, 1919, targeting the Union of Russian

Workers. This federal raiding directed by Palmer served as the justification for the local agencies such as the Lusk Committee, the Red Squads, of the Bomb Squads, to conduct their own raids and arrests of alleged radicals, targeting mostly immigrants. This was also a case of the raids conducted by the Lusk Committee agents on November, 8, 1919. More than seven hundred state policemen were directed by the Lusk Committee to raid simultaneously seventy-three headquarters of the radical organizations within all five boroughs of the New York City in order to search for evidence of revolutionary propaganda. All organizations (such as publishing houses, meeting rooms etc.) were related to both of the newly formed Communists Parties. More than 500 individuals were arrested and subsequently some 100 of them had been kept detained for trial under the

Criminal Anarchy Act (“73 Red Centers Raided”; Cornell 72).

Again, the truckloads of publications and documents were confiscated for further investigation. However, there were only 12 convictions made against radicals after these raids (Donner 40).

3.3. The Radical Division of Justice Department

The formation of the Radical Division of the Justice Department on August 1,

1919, was a response to the June anarchist bombing and overall growing wave of radicalism. Its initial aim was to prepare deportation cases against radical aliens (Schmidt

126, Ackerman 40). The preparations for forming this division began immediately after the bombings of when the US General Attorney A. Mitchell Palmer began the reorganization of the Department of Justice (Tejada 112). Within two weeks after the bombings Palmer asked Congress for the financial support for his Red Hunting team. The amount of 500,000 USD was requested. Palmer claimed there were indications that radicals had been preparing revolutionary actions within the United States, most likely planned on early July, 1919. Congress granted him the requested amount and preparations for the red hunting had started (Ackerman 35-36). As a result, the Radical Division was formed in August, as a part of the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation (BI). In fact, the Bureau of Investigation, an intelligence agency founded in 1908 (later FBI), had only three hundred agents in 1919 and out of this figure 61 special agents worked full- time on radical activities (Ackerman 64; Schmidt 159). However, due to the Red Scare hunt, the Bureau doubled in size by mid-1920 to nearly six hundred agents (Ackerman

27).

As a head of the Radical Division was recommended and subsequently appointed twenty-four years old official of the Justice Department, J. Edgar Hoover, who would directly report to Palmer as his Special Assistant (Ackerman 36).

Hoover’s first project in Palmer’s antiradical campaign was an establishment of a record gathering card index system enabling to track all available information about the radical organizations, their leaders, meetings or radical publications. Hoover was able to collect and categorize more than 150,000 names of alleged radicals or their supporters no longer then within three months. In order to monitor the radical threat, the foreign- languages periodicals were searched in detail to obtain names of radicals. Secret agents spied on the public meetings in order to gain the content of the speeches which were further analyzed by the division’s agents. The informers were supposed to report everything of “radical” nature. As a result, by 1921 the Hoover’s card index contained more than 450,000 names of potential radicals and their organizations (Gentry 6.25-6.28).

Furthermore, under Hoover’s supervision, the Radical Division had become a leading agency nationwide on all matters related to the radical movement activities. The data obtained by the Division were further used to assess the most dangerous radicals and organizations (Schmidt 161). Hoover and Palmer had become the main authorities in the fight against radicalism in late 1919.

3.3.1. Palmer Raids

Since the formation of the Radical Division, Attorney General Palmer began preparing the raids and deportation cases of the radicals, also referred to as the Palmer

Raids. The raids aimed against immigrant radicals who might have approved of overthrowing of the government or who had been simply identified as a possible national threat (Cornell 71). In the extracts from the confidential instructions sent to all special agents and employees in August, 1919, it was highlighted that the investigation was to be directed against non-citizens of the United States with a view of obtaining deportations against these individuals (National Popular Government League 37). As a result, two massive, nationwide round-ups of radicals were conducted in November 1919 and early

January of 1920 (Cornell 71).

By fall 1919, J. Edgar Hoover estimated the possible targets for Palmer’s red hunting plan. These were the members of below listed radical organizations: 1. the El Ariete Society

2. the Communist Party of America

3. the Communist Labor Party

4. the

5. the IWW

6. the L’era Nuovo Group (Ackerman 78).

The very first raid was planned against the Union of Russian Workers. As A.

Mitchell Palmer stated in the Case Against the “Reds” giving the legacy and explanation of the raids:

The Department of Justice will pursue the attack of these “Reds” upon the Government

of the United States with vigilance, and no alien advocating the overthrow of existing law

and order in this country shall escape arrest and prompt deportation. (6)

The planned deportations of radicals could have been legally conducted only under the , which enabled to deport any member of revolutionary organizations if they were not citizens of the United States (Goodall 74). However, prior the raids, Attorney General had to solve a legal problem. The Justice Department had no legal authorization to conduct any deportations under this Immigrations Act of 1918. This right had only the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, Palmer had to cooperate with the

Immigration Bureau of the Labor Department and its chief William B. Wilson (Ackerman

51, Gentry 6.32) who was not willing to take part in these proceedings. Nevertheless, after tough negotiation it was agreed that the Justice Department would provide their agents, funding and conduct the whole investigation, while the Department of Labor would issue arrest warrants upon information received from the Justice Department and then handle the deportations cases (Gentry 6.34). In October, 1919, the Palmer’s critics passed a resolution urging Palmer to report on his actions against radicals. As a response, Palmer submitted a 187-page report stating that both Bolsheviks and anarchist were plotting the revolution. In this report, Palmer claimed his team gathered more than 60,000 names of dangerous radicals, most of them

European immigrants. Among these were also a prominent anarchist , known as Red Emma, and . The report also discussed the radicalization of Afro-Americans and their self-defense that emerged out of the racial rioting of the Red Summer. The report linked black self-defense to anarchistic plots against Government, however, this claim was not supported by any evidence. The association between the Afro-Americans and Red anarchists had been strongly opposed by W.E.B. DuBois (McWhirter 239). Following the report, the first set of raids directed by General Attorney Palmer started in November, 1919.

3.3.1.1. The Raids against the Union of Russian Workers

On November 7, 1919, the date of the second anniversary of Bolshevik

Revolution, Palmer directed the first set of raids against the Union of Russian Workers

(UWR). Agents simultaneously raided the Union of Russian Workers halls in twelve cities throughout the country, such in New York, Baltimore, Maryland, or ,

Michigan. The raiders arrested more than a thousand of individuals (Finan 1.5, Cornell

71). It was Hoover who estimated the UWR as a convenient target of upcoming raids.

The union’s membership comprised almost only of the Russian immigrants which would enable immediate deportations. In addition, the union was formed in 1907 as an anarchist organization seeking to unite in fight against capitalist society. There was a slight transformation in the UWR membership due to the Russian Revolution of 1917, since most of its radical leaders migrated back to Russia. Many of these returnees played an important role in the Bolshevik coup against the Kerensky’s Government. Nonetheless, in 1919, the organization’s membership was estimated between 10,000 to 15,000 (Speer

6-7). As Ann Hagedorn points out, by 1919 the UWR was rather a social club than a revolution seeking organization, where Russian immigrants could meet, attend classes of

English, socialize or network for jobs (Hagedorn 150). On contrary, as Mark Grueter claims on basis of the analysis of the URW articles published in radical newspapers, memoirs, and other sources, it could be concluded that the URW was primarily a revolutionary anarchist organization in 1919 (54). Furthermore, the valid preamble of union’s constitution approved and amended in 1914 stated:

...we consider as of primary importance the necessity of building up a wide

Revolutionary Organization of Toilers which, by conducting a direct struggle with

all the Institutions of Capitalism and Government, must train the Working Class

to initiative and independent action in all its acts, thus educating it in the

consciousness of the absolute necessity of a General Strike — of the Social

Revolution. (Speer 5)

On November 7, 1919, the mass arrests of the members of the URW started simultaneously at 8:00 PM. The raids were conducted in twelve cities throughout the nation, by both the federal and local agents. The most brutal raid occurred in New York

City. The BI agents accompanied with the New York Bomb Squad raided the Russian

People’s House at 133 East Fifteenth Street. In this building the URW occupied only one room as its office, however, there was also the union’s library, several classrooms where members could study English, cafeteria and meeting rooms. Agents of the Department of

Justice broke up into the building with few blank warrants and destroyed everything standing in their way when searching for the Reds. As a result, nearly all furniture, including desks, was destroyed. Furthermore, agents approached the possible Reds in similar manner (Zimmer, The Voyage 139; National Popular Government League 16). As

Cornell points out the New York raid was very brutal. All people presented in this building were seriously maltreated by the raiders. Plenty of them were badly beaten, some of them even thrown down the staircases. Any potential resistance of the URW members resulted into more beating performed by the Department of Justice agents. The evening classes were also disrupted, both students and teachers were arrested, some of them seriously beaten with clubs and blackjacks. After the raid, more than two hundred suspects were transported to Department of Justice offices for further interrogation.

Consequently, 33 people were due for deportation and sent to Ellis Island. The rest was released with no charges, however, many of them had visible signs of the police violence

(Cornell 71; Gentry 6.43-6.47).

According to Mitchel Lavrowsky, fifty years old teacher, who conducted a class in algebra and Russian in the Russian People’s House, his class was interrupted by the agents with revolvers. As Lavrowsky wore glasses, he was asked by the agent of

Department of Justice to take them off and then was struck to his head and consequently brutally beaten. After the beating, he was tossed out of the staircase and beaten again by another agents. Then Lavrowsky was ordered to wash himself and was transported for further interrogation. He was released the same day at midnight, having a fracture on his head, and some other serious injuries. The similar narratives were provided by other participants of the classes taken on November 7, 1919. Semeon E. Kravchuck was attacked by agents and brutally beaten, having bruises all over the body. Kravchuck suffered a head injury. Afterwards he was taken to Department of Justice for the interrogation and subsequently released with no charges (National Popular Government League 18-20). Following the brutality of the New York raid a mass meeting was held on

November 8, 1919, at the Madison Square Garden protesting about the governmental brutality. In addition, Isaac Shorr, of the New York bar, submitted an official complaint letter on behalf of the detained individuals requesting the explanation of brutality.

Nonetheless, no explanation was provided (National Popular Government League 18).

Similar pattern of violent treatment against the alleged Reds was followed during the raids in others cities. For instance, in Detroit, the URW consisted of five branches.

All of them were simultaneously raided, furniture and equipment were smashed and more than one thousand individuals were arrested. On the other hand, the Detroit’s raid was less brutal. Due to the high number of people arrested, the Post Office building was provisionally transformed into a prison that kept few hundred radicals, who were later transported to the Fort Wayne prison. Furthermore, the treatment of the governmental authorities resulted into a hunger strike, protesting against these inhuman conditions and maltreatment (Zimmer, The Voyage 140).

After the raids, 1,182 individuals were arrested nationwide as suspected of being radical members of the URW. In fact, approximately one third of the persons arrested during these raids was held for deportation hearings and only 249 aliens were repatriated in late December 1920. The deportees were boarded on an old army transport ship the

USS Buford, heading the Soviet Russia. The USS Buford was labelled by media as the

Soviet Arc (Grueter 53-54).

3.3.1.2. The Soviet Arc - Deportations

With the raids over, the deportation cases were being prepared against the members of the Union of Russian Workers and other anarchists and communists. In fact, there were 249 aliens due for deportation in December 1919, out of which 184 belonged to the Union of Russian Workers, some 51 were deported for being anarchists and other due to breaching immigration laws (Hagedorn 412; Post 27). The ship with sealed order was about to transport all 249 alien radicals to Finland, from where they were escorted to

Russian boarder and transferred to Red Army (Ackerman 153).

On December 21, 1919 the USS Buford left the harbor in New York, and after just after its departure information about deportations went public. On December 22, 1919 angered family members and relatives travelled to Ellis Island seeking information about those on board. However, being denied an access to any information about the deportees, a minor riot emerged against the state officers at Ellis Island (Zimmer, The Voyage 146).

A twenty-four-year-old Russian Clara Brooks proclaimed herself an anarchist, and shouted, “Down with this dirty, rotten government! They have taken my husband, and are taking the husbands, fathers, and brothers of us all!” (qtd. in Cornell 74). In fact, the male radicals were preferred as deportees. It was also believed that single men would more likely incline towards being radical socialist than the married ones. As Zimmer points out during the Red Scare more than ninety-five per cent of deportees were male radicals, however, the immigration officers tried to avoid separation of men from their wives and families (The Voyage 145).

As Susan Tejada highlights the November raids were the preparatory stages for another massive wave of Red hunting that would mainly target members of the

Communist Party of America and Communist Labor Party (115). Palmer informed public that there would be more Soviet Arcs in his red-hunting campaign (Hagedorn 422).

3.3.1.3. The January Raids of 1920

As the main objectives of the January raids were two newly formed Communist

Parties and organizations related to these parties. Local chapters of the Communist Party of America and Communist Labor Party had been infiltrated by the federal agents provocateurs who had been supposed to set up meetings precisely on January 2, 1920, to maximize the number of potential arrests. The mass roundups occurred in thirty-three cities and plenty of small towns across the United States (Tejada 115). The raids started on Friday, January 2, precisely at the same time in each time zone across the nation. These raids were again conducted by federal agents, in cooperation with state and local police or dedicated Red Squad teams. These forces raided meeting rooms, night classrooms, dance halls, political meetings, even the private residences and homes of individuals who were supposed to be radicals. By the end of the day there were arrested more than 2,500 suspects. Within 48 hours approximately 5,000 individuals were arrested nationwide. The local follow up raids continued within January of 1920 (Ackerman 174-175). In addition, nearly 1,500 individuals were released shortly after the raids due to either lack of evidence or due to the fact they were of American citizenship. The remaining 3,500 individuals remained in custody (Johnson 360).

For instance, in New York, there were more than 500 suspects arrested. In Boston, all eighteen branches of Communist Parties were raided. In Detroit, a New Year’ s party was being held at Shore Hall, which was a restaurant popular among the Socialist Party members, therefore targeted for a roundup. All presented there, including the musicians, waiters, cooks, were arrested. Similar narratives were provided all over the country

(Ackerman 176). As Ann Hagedorn notes the high numbers of the persons arrested had not been sympathizers of Bolshevism nor they were members of any radical organization.

For instance, in Newark, Ney Jersey, a man was arrested on foundations of “looking like a radical” (420).

Despite the fact the raids were detailly planned, the high number of arrests resulted into the shortage of detaining capacities. In Detroit, there were more than eight hundred individuals imprisoned during these raids, both aliens and American citizens. Due to the shortage of cells, they were all kept in windowless, dark, narrow corridor of the Federal

Building which was used as a provisional detaining center. All people arrested had to sleep on the stone floor, and there was only one toilet to their disposal. Also, only one drinking fountain was available as a source of water, food was not provided for over a day after their arrest. They were all deprived of the right of counsellor and they were kept incommunicado (National Popular Government League 22). Many prisoners nationwide complained of being beaten with clubs, blackjacks or even threatened with revolvers while being arrested (Ackerman 177). Since the prosecutions were considered the immigration investigations, individuals were arrested without evidence, and very often with no warrants. The common practice was to keep prisoners incommunicado with no access to legal counselling, and if no evidence of not being a member of any of

Communist Parties was delivered, they faced the deportation. The common practice was also often an absence of either search warrants or arrest warrants (Goodall 76). For instance, Frank Mack of British citizenship was arrested at his house. When Mack demanded to be shown a warrant, he was provided with blank warrant that did not even include his name. As a suspected radical, he was transported to Deer Island prison. The conditions there were rather unhuman. Prisoners were forced to be in unheated cells, with no bedding and mattresses etc. The similar narrative was provided by Annie Valinskas, mother of three, who was arrested at St. John the Baptist Hall, in Nassau, New Hampshire.

Everybody presented at St. John the Baptist Hall was arrested that was approximately 150 persons. They were put under arrest, searched and all men handcuffed. Despite the fact

Valinskas was not provided with any warrant of arrest, she was arrested and detained in a cell with another four women. The cell was unfurnished having the dimensions of 9 feet by 6. Then, the following day she was released with no charges (National Popular

Government League 55).

The second wave of Palmer Raids was very productive in terms of downsizing the number of dues-paying members of Communist parties who might have faced deportation due to their membership. As Regin Schmidt points out the communist movement was forced underground until 1923 (293). Furthermore, in the crusade against Reds, Palmer promised another Soviets Arcs and he estimated that more than 2,600 radicals would be deported within 1920 (Hagedorn 422). In reality, in March 1920, under the direction of the Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis F. Post, who became an acting head of the

Department of Labor, all deportation cases submitted by agents of the Department of

Justice had been carefully reviewed. Most cases which were lacking necessary evidence were dismissed (Zimmer, Immigrants 5.54). As a justification for deportation was often supposed to be only the membership of any of the Communist Parties of America, therefore in many instances such cases were cancelled (Tejada 115). Out of 2,453 deportation cases, 1,486 were subsequently dismissed by end of March, 1920. More than

400 cases were pending, and in fact, only 481 deportations were approved by Louis F.

Post (Schmidt 303).

Among the general public, responses to Palmer raids were rather positive and welcomed. However, as the details about the treatment against arrested radicals spread out, the public opinion started to change and illegal practices, arresting without warrants, beating and mistreatment of protentional alien radicals were criticized. Such treatment was objected by the Socialist Party, and even by some labor unions (Johnson 361). Some magazines protested against the brutality of state forces during these raids. For instance, on January 17, 1920, the Nation issued a mild protest about the brutality as performed by raiders and called these in their articles as “Palmerism” (Johnson 361). In fact, the illegal practices and mistreatment of the prisoners led to the formation of a new civil liberty movement – the America Civil Liberties Union (Mandelbaum 108).

4. Evaluating the First Red Scare

4.1. The Fall of the Red Scare

The fall of the Red Scare was caused by a variety of factors. Since the Russian revolution of 1917, possible impact of Bolshevism within the United States resulted into sensational investigation and fight against anyone who might have perceived as a radical, or who approved of the overthrow of the government (Cornell 77). The unparalleled wave of strikes, anarchist bombings of April and June, race rioting of the Red Summer and the subsequent resistance of Afro-Americans, emergence of the New Negro, and also the economical struggle – a high inflation and post-war economic transformation etc., strengthened such fears of 1919. The revolution might seem to be approaching (Walker

42). Nevertheless, by January 1920 the Red Scare started to abate, mainly due to injustices and abuse of power by state representatives that followed the Red Hunt of the Palmer

Raids. A starting wave of criticism would open the subsequent fight for a civil liberties movement. However, the initial step to the fall of the Red Scare was a suspension of five duly-elected members of the Socialist Party from New York legislative body. As Murray points out no event provoked such opposition and indignation within the period of the

Red Scare and, in fact, opened a question of civil liberties (Murray 239, 242).

4.1.1. The Exclusion of the Socialists

The January incident of the New York Assembly could be considered as a starting point of changing mood of public opinion regarding the Red Scare fears. It was the New

York Assembly’s Speaker Thaddeus Sweet who initiated a suspension of five duly- elected Socialists from the New York legislative body on January, 12, 1920. The

Assembly representatives no longer considered the Socialists doctrine as in accordance with the interests of the State of New York. The Socialists were seen as subversive and unpatriotic and they were accused of being disloyal to the state and nation and were accused of being sympathizers with Bolshevik Russia. As a result, the Socialists had no longer been eligible for their service withing the State legislative body. The suspension was approved by 140 Assemblymen who voted for their exclusion. Only six members voted in favor of the Socialists (Colburn 430-431; Finan 1.76). This incident raised a huge wave of reactions across public and political specter. Some reactions praised the suspension; however, severe criticism emerged. For instance, it was Charles Evans

Hughes, the leader of Republican party and a former Governor of New York State, who objected the suspension as “absolutely opposed to the fundamental principles of our government” (qtd. in Walker 44). The strong opponent of the Socialists’ expulsion was also the New York’s Governor Alfred E. Smith who condemned the action against the legally organized political party (Colburn 433-434). As a historian Andrew Cornell points out the disbarment of assemblymen due to their political agenda was seen even by the opponents of the Socialist Party as a “dangerous precedent” (77). As the editorial in

Springfield Republican asked:

Shall we sometime see Republicans excluding Democrats and Democrats

excluding Republicans from our lawmaking bodies, on the ground that the other

party’s principles are inimical to the best interests of the United States?

(Mandelbaum 108)

Despite the broad criticism, the New York Assembly confirmed the expulsion of the Socialists by April 1919 (Finan 1.79). Another factor that caused the changing public perception toward the Red Scare fears was an opened criticism of the second wave of the

Palmer Raids (Mandelbaum 108).

4.1.2. The Criticism of the Palmer Raids

Public perceptions toward the massive roundups began to change in early January of 1920. Even though the November Raids against the Union of Russian Workers received favorable reactions from public and general press; the January Raids were different. They brought a wave of criticism which in fact opened the debate over the civil liberties (Mandelbaum 108). The criticism emerged out of two main reasons. First, it was the ineffectiveness of the Palmer Raids. Second, it was the lawlessness – the unjust treatment, as well as the abuse of power by state representatives (Tejada 115).

First, the Palmer Raids were considered rather ineffective. The November raids resulted into seizure of 1,182 individuals, and out of this number only 249 individuals were due for repatriation, whereas more than 900 arrested individuals were set free

(Grueter 53-54). As Kenyon Zimmer points out nearly one third of arrested radicals was of American citizenship thus not suitable for deportations. In many instances, the Justice

Department was not capable to prove the membership of any radical organization.

Furthermore, many of arrested radicals had already been investigated by state authorities or others had already undergone the proceedings for deportation (The Voyage 140).

In contrast, the January Raids were designed as a “big raid” to arrest as much members of the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party, as possible. Provocative agents were implemented to summon the meetings of Communists at the same time in order to enlarge the number of arrests (Post 300). After massive raiding across the nation on January 2, 1920, and subsequent days; more than 5,000 communists were detained. It is estimated that more than one third of arrested individuals was soon released either due to the missing evidence; or due to American citizenships. The search or arrest warrants had been often misused or missing (Ackerman 174-175). As a matter of fact, only 481 deportations had been ordered by April of 1920 by Louis Post upon the evidence provided; but only 19 alien radicals were deported by May 1920 (Schmidt 303;

National Popular Government League 8).

4.1.2.2 The resistance of Louis F. Post

The wave of resistance against malpractice of the Department of Justice came from Louis F. Post, the Assistant Secretary of Labor, who became an acting head of

Department of Labor in March, 1920. Post was assigned to handle the deportation cases and served as the last arbiter whose task was to review the evidence that was provided by the district immigration inspectors and upon his review approve or cancel the deportation

(Zimmer, Immigrants 5.56; Post 148).

Strictly speaking, the Department of Justice had no legal right to conduct any deportation on the radical aliens. Legally, deportations of alien radicals might have been conducted under the Immigration Act of 1918, which enabled deportations of the non- citizens of the United States if members of any revolutionary organization. Thus, the final approval of the deportations was in charge of the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the

Department of Labor, in this case, 71-year-old, Louis F. Post (Goodall 74; Ackerman 51).

Post revised all submitted cases carefully. Within no more than six weeks he revied more than 1,600 cases, that is approximately nearly hundred cases per day. If the cases were lacking necessary evidence, he rejected them (Zimmer, Immigrants 5.56). In his monograph; The Deportations Delirium of Nineteen-Twenty: A Personal Narrative of an Historic Official Experience, he criticized the illegal practices of the Department of

Justice and highlighted that no one arrested within the raids should have been kept incommunicado, or arrested without necessary evidence. Simultaneously, no one should have been deprived of the right of counsel. Arrested individuals should have had the right to be confronted with the evidence against them, as well as, the warrants should have been used (Post 276). Any such malpractice resulted into case cancelation. When two

Communist Parties were formed out of the Socialist Party in 1919 – both of these organization competed for members and sometimes they just transferred whole chapters of the Socialist Party to any of the Communist Parties without even informing them what the differences between these organization had been. Therefore, Post considered such situation and if an alien had become a Communist Party member by accident, or without knowledge of its revolutionary aims, such case was dismissed (Johnson 364; Ackerman

195).

Louis Post’s criticism of the Palmer Raids and the whole bureaucratic machinery of the Department of Justice is described in his monograph the Deportations delirium of nineteen-twenty:

Upon plunging into the cluster, which had embarrassed the Solicitor to the verge

of resigning, I was amazed at the facts disclosed. The whole “red” crusade stood

revealed as a stupendous and cruel fake. Had the facts as they were then thrust

upon my attention been generally known, public condemnation of the

Department of Justice and its co-operating agencies would have been sure and

swift. (158)

Nonetheless, a majority of the cases were based solely on the membership in the

Communist Party of America which was considered as an unlawful organization and as such it was a deportable offence since its doctrine approved of overthrowing of government (Post 150,151). However, this situation changed when on May, 1920,

Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson ordered a new rule based on the case of Carl Miller. The rule ordered that mere membership in the Communist Labor Party was no longer a subject for deportation therefore another 300 individuals’ cases were put on hold

However, this rule did not apply for the Communist Party of America whose members remained subjects for deportation (Tejada 115; Murray 249). Furthermore, in the case of the Colyer et al vs. Skeffington the Judge George V. Anderson of the Massachusetts

District Court decided that the mere membership in the Communist Parties did not qualify as a deportable offence (Murray 250).

Consequently, dismissing the deportation cases led to the clash between the two departments. The Department of Labor, and its Immigration branch were seen as shielding the communists. Palmer insisted Post be dismissed, nevertheless, William B.

Wilson did strongly oppose it. Wilson highlighted that Post was following the laws and constitution of the United States (Ackerman 258). Furthermore, Louis Post was accused of being too lenient to alien radicals. As a result, the BI opened a file on him and investigated on his possible connections within radical movement. The BI collected over

350 pages of material against Post, thus no link to the radical movement was found

(Schmidt 309). Therefore, Palmer and his followers in Congress urges for the impeachment of Louis Post. It was Homer Hock of Kansas who introduced a resolution requesting the impeachment of Post accusing him of abusing his power when cancelling so many deportation cases, as well as intentionally delaying the deportations (Post 232;

Schmidt 309). As a result, Palmer’s allies in the Congress arranged the investigation on

Louis Post was held before the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives. The hearing took place on May 7 and 8, 1920. Post testified and successfully defended himself in front of the Rules Committee explaining his attitudes during the decision making explaining detailly what was his reasoning for cancelling deportation cases with accordance to the law (Gentry 8.69). Finally, the committee findings proved that Louis Post followed the law in his decision making, whereas, the discrepancies were found on the Department of Justice side. It was acknowledged that the Department of Justice abused its power during the raids and deprived the alien radicals from their fundamental rights (Guariglia 73).

The abuse of power resulted into an investigation against Palmer and the

Department of Justice. The investigation in front of the Rules Committee of started in early June 1920 on behalf of the Charges Made Against Department of Justice by Louis

F. Post and Others. Palmer responded with 209-pages long testimony on the charges, and during his hearing he was backed with J. Edgar Hoover (Ackerman 304, Gentry 8.69).

As Louis Post described in his book the Deportation Delirium of nineteen-twenty

“the red” crusade began to look like a gigantic and cruel hoax and that is what if finally proved to be” (Post 79). Nevertheless, after the fall of the Red Scare Post was considered a defender of civil liberties (Guariglia 74).

4.1.2.1. The National Popular Governmental League Resistance

The political repression against radicals and communists opened the debate of the civil rights and the Department of Justice was facing growing criticism for their strategies used during the January Raids (Hagedorn 429). Even before the January raids, Francis

Fisher Kane, the Philadelphia federal prosecutor, and Palmer’s assistant, stood against upcoming raids and questioned its legality. Consequently, on January 12, 1920, Kane resigned on his position as a federal prosecutor in protest against injustices made by the

Department of Justice. Few days afterward, Kane orchestrated a speaking tour against the

Department of Justice and its policy against the alleged Reds. In May 1920, he became the co-editor of the report against the illegal practices of the Department of Justice (Johnson 361-362, Ackerman 252). This report was shielded by the civic liberty organization – the National Popular Governmental League (Ackerman 301).

In May, 1920, the National Popular Governmental League (NPGL), introduced the 67-page report on the raids called: To American People. Report Upon the Illegal

Practices of the United States Department of Justice. In this report twelve most prominent attorneys accused the Department of Justice of breaking the constitutional rights of the persons detained during the raids (Gentry 8.71). Among the attorneys were for instance

Roscoe Pound, the dean of Harvard Law School, and his colleagues: Zechariah Chaffee jr., and , both professors at Harvard Law School, and others (Ackerman

301). According the Jennifer Luff the report resulted into a coherent doctrine of free speech (63). In this report those twelve attorneys explained the necessity to oppose the unconstitutional acts of Palmer Raids as performed by the Department of Justice. The report reads:

For more than six months we, the undersigned lawyers, whose sworn duty it is to

uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States, have seen with growing

apprehension the continued violation of that Constitution and breaking of those Laws

by the Department of Justice of the United States government (National Popular

Government League 3).

In this report they expressed their discontent with the illegal practices of the

Palmer Raids. According to them several Amendments of the U.S. Constitution were neglected. They divided the illegal practices of the Department of Justice into six categories. The first category was the cruelty and unusual punishment that violated the

Eight Amendment to the Constitution. Then, they highlighted the practice of arresting individuals without appropriate warrants, violating the Fourth Amendment. Further, the unreasonable searches and seizures were used which violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, as well. Forcing individuals as witnesses against themselves was seen as a violation of the text of the Fifth Amendment. Other issues addressed in the report as unacceptable were the usage of the provocative agents in order to perform as many arrests as possible. Finally, the press campaign of the Department of Justice which shared most of their findings, often exaggerated, with the general press was considered unacceptable, as well (National Popular Government League 4-6). The report contains a broad set of affidavits and evidence supporting their claims, including photographs. The National

Popular Government League distributed hundreds of copies nation-wide to reach the general public (Ackerman 301).

Public support started to transform into resistance against the Department of

Justice practices. Not only was Palmer criticized for illegal practices but also for fulfilling his political aspirations via the “Red” crusade. In fact, Palmer had announced the

Democratic presidential nomination in early March of 1920. Despite the criticism his presidential campaign received a broad support in early 1920 (Johnson 361,363,

Pfannestiel 129). The Red crusade was a powerful tool as it portrayed Palmer as a national hero and suppressor of radicalism. Therefore, Palmer’s intention was to keep the Red

Scare alive. As a result, with the upcoming international worker’s day – the May Day of

1920, Palmer warned the nation and predicted the mass disturbances and Bolshevik raiding. Both state and local authorities prepared for another wave of radicalism, but no disturbances occurred (Murray 260). Such proclamation revitalized the Red Scare fears.

For instance, in New York the whole police force was in service in order to prevent possible Bolshevik raiding on May 1, 1920. The similar precautions were held in cities such Washington, D.C., Chicago, or Philadelphia. Since the May Day passed with no serious clash, the Red Scare seemed to be vanishing and Palmer’s credibility was weakened by providing such statements (Ackerman 273-274). Furthermore, the work of the NPGL provoked another investigation on activities of the Department of Justice based on the Senate resolution of Senator Thomas J. Walsh of Montana. After reading the report To American People..., compiled by the twelve attorneys, Walsh decided to secure an investigation on charges made in the report. The investigation was in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearings were held from January 19 to March 1921; however, the Committee did not provide any recommendation based on investigation findings and the Senate took no action toward

Palmer or the Department of Justice (Goodall 90; Murray 256).

4.2. Downsizing the radical threats after the Red Scare

The Bolshevik threats emerged out of the Great War experience, as well as the reaction to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and its aftermath. The Bolshevism started to spread across to Europe and to a certain degree it might have been plausible it would reach the United States, too. Nevertheless, the fears that Bolshevism might spread within the United States ceased as it was certain by 1920 that the Bolsheviks had not managed to overthrow governments in Europe. Therefore, it was less probable Bolshevism would spread across the United States (McWhirter 13-14; Cornell 77). Nevertheless, the fear of bolshevism served as a tool to attack the minority groups, Afro-Americans and organized labor and radicals as subversive and threats to democratic establishment (McWhirter 13-

14; Cornell 77).

4.2.1. The Decline of Strikes

The year of 1919 experienced an enormous wave of strikes. Since late 1918 to early 1919 sudden cancellations of war orders caused an economic depression. Due to high inflation, prices grew rapidly. Over 25 per cent of working families had not earned enough for decent life. Workers were afraid of a sudden laid-off. They requested better working conditions, shorter working hours, higher income, or a right to unionize etc.,

(Coben 67; Finan 2.5). As a result, more than 4 million workers struck within 1919, and the number of strikes reached up to 3,600 strikes in total (Schmidt 25). By , there was 373 strikes nationwide, but by December 1919, the number declined to 45.

Finally, in 1920 the number of strikes was decreasing significantly (Hagedorn 428).

Among the largest strikes in the U.S. history was the steel strike which started in

September, 1919. More the 365,000 workers were involved; however, the unionists were defeated in January 1920 (Hagedorn 353; Mandelbaum 77). In fact, the unionists lost most of its strikes within 1919. However, a Senate investigating committee attributed the

Steel strike to some extend with radical activity of the IWW and to anarchist radicals that had ties to Bolshevism (Coben 67). As Goodall emphasizes such significant wave of strikes was linked to revolutionary radicalism; however, there was either no or little radical activity of the anarchist groups or communists behind the strikes (71). However, it was J. Edgar Hoover who insisted that at least fifty per cent of the radical influence was behind the strikes and thus feeding the Red Scare (Colburn 425). The Seattle General

Strike, the Boston Police Strike where the patrolmen wanted to unionize with the

American Federation of Labor, or the Coal Strike of November 1919, which was banned by federal injection, might support such assumptions. Also, the “connection with

Bolshevism” was a good tool to fight against organized labor, therefore, the Employers’ groups linked the Americanism with anti-unionism (Goodall 71). The Red Scare campaign against organized labor resulted into the public criticism and connection to the radical movement, which consequently resulted into decrease of the labor union membership. By 1920 the organized movement membership reached nearly to five million, whereas, by 1923 it dropped to 3,6 million as a result of the association with the radicalism (Walker 54). Instead, the Employers’ groups supported the open-shop principle, often referred to as the “American plan”. The concept of the open-shop workplaces was supported by the Employers’ groups the opposition to the “revolutionary labor unionism” as such was supported via press campaign associating the organized labor as un-patriotic. On the other hand, leaders of organized labor, such the American

Federation of Labor (AFL), tried to remove the label of being seen as radicals, therefore they led their own fight against it. For instance, by 1928, the AFL passed the resolution denouncing tactics of Bolshevism (Murray 164, 268; Renshaw 70). As Jennifer Luff points out the Red Scare was a “bitter lesson” for the organized labor, mainly the AFL, that expressed its war-time loyalty to the American Government in order to receive the recognition (63). Instead, the unionist lost most of the strikes of 1919 and were associated with the Bolshevism (Walker 47).

4.2.2. The Racial Riots of 1919 and its aftermath

The Racial riots also known as the period of the Red Summer came in tandem with the Red Scare. More then twenty-five major riots targeting Afro-Americans swept the nation from April to November of 1919. However, despite their subordinate position, they formed resistance towards the white mob oppression. The resistance was considered as radicalization which strengthened fears of the impact of communist agitation towards

Afro-Americans (Schmidt 184). Therefore, Afro-Americans were considered as subversives and susceptible to Communism which led to the governmental investigation on their activities, performed by the Department of Justice (Whitaker 50).

It was Edgar Hoover who considered the rioting of Red Summer as an upcoming revolutionary threat and therefore he concentrated on finding connections between the left-wing agitation and the racial rioting. Although his own agents had not found any such revolutionary link, Hoover insisted that it was a Bolshevik subversive propaganda among

Afro-Americans behind their resistance. As such, Afro-American leaders and the black press had been closely monitored. For instance, in Harlem, the undercover agents spied on black organizations to obtain any evidence of subversion and potential black disloyalty

(Ellis 40; McWhirter 159). Also, Palmer linked the impact of Red anarchists on Afro-

Americans in his report on Bolshevism, published in October, 1919. He warned that radical organizations considered Afro-Americans as “fertile ground” where they could spread their revolutionary platform. Nevertheless, no evidence was provided to support such claims (McWhirter 239; Palmer the Report 7). Among the scopes of the Department of Justice was the investigation on the causes of racial riots. They publicized two reports on this issue, First, in 1919 it was the Radicalism and Sedition Among the Negroes as

Reflected in Their Publications, prepared by Robert A. Bowen. Second, it was the

Agitation Among the Negroes that was compiled by Radical Division. The later report was submitted to Congress on June, 1920. Both reports concluded that it was not a radical agitation that was behind the rioting of Red Summer, but that radical movement helped to aggravate the racial conflict (Schmidt 192).

As McWhirter points out Afro-Americans were not interested in joining the

Communist Parties (161). The reason may be explained by Claude McKay’s article on the Racial Question published in the communist journal The International Press

Correspondence where he summarized the Afro-Americans’ attitude towards communism as:

The blacks are hostile to Communism because they regard it as a “white”

working-class movement and they consider the white workers their greatest

enemy, who draw the color line against them in factory and office and lynch and

burn them at the stake for being colored. (817) Despite the fact, no links indicated connections between radical agitators and

Afro-Americans behind the racial rioting, the BI continued monitoring Afro-American leaders and organization, such the National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP) and kept informing the government about its findings. The surveillance of Afro-Americans continued within the 1930s and World War II. The BI’s monitoring of possible Afro-American radicalism prevailed until mid-1970 (Schmidt 195; Ellis 56).

4.2.3. The Downfall of the Radical Movement

The Red Scare had an enormous impact on suppressing the radical movement.

First, it was the Communist movement that was forced underground after the January

Palmer Raids. Despite being underground, the communist movement provided lectures, but only few radical communist publications were secretly printed and their gatherings were closely monitored (Murray 276; Gage 265). Furthermore, the membership of the

Communist Parties dropped significantly. The membership of both of the Communist

Parties was claimed to be nearly 70,000 in 1919. By 1920 this figure dropped to 10,000.

The Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party of America united in 1921 into one organization – the Communist Party. The newly formed organization preferred the immediate goals, and its agenda shifted to common demands of working class that is the appropriate wages, working hours, labor organizations, instead of emphasizing revolutionary aspirations (Murray 277; Mandelbaum 65). As Robert Murray points out in upcoming years the word Communism repelled most of the American citizens. By 1927, the membership dropped even to 8,000 members (277).

Also, the radical labor union – the Industrial Workers of the World was seriously weakened. Since the United States declared the war on Germany, the Wilsonian administration targeted the IWW for destruction. Most of its leadership was jailed, and the members of the IWW had been often a target by vigilante groups. The Syndicalist laws were enacted to make the IWW membership a criminal offence. Nevertheless, after the war the IWW remained active particularly in the Pacific Northwest. In 1920, the IWW staged their largest strike in Philadelphia, supporting the eight-hour day

(Cole et al. 8-9).

4.3. Outcomes of the Red Scare

Within the First Red Scare emerged the necessity to strengthen the legislative provisions to prevent any act of radicalism. As a result, there had been continuous attempts for passing such legislation. There were also calls for limitation quotas that would reduce the influx of immigrants (Ackerman 34).

4.3.1 The Call for the Peace-time Sedition Laws

During the Great War the Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 that criminalized any individual who advocated a violent overthrow of the United States

Government. Nevertheless, the Espionage Act enacted as a war-time measure was about to expire in 1921. Therefore, within the Red Scare, Palmer and some other members of the Congress repeatedly called for the peace-time legislation protecting the governmental establishment (Goldstein 3; Ackerman 34). First such a call for a sedition measure appeared soon after Palmer was appointed Attorney General in March 1919, as he warned that without a peace-time measure the streets of America would be filled with

“radical aliens” (Goodall 60). In mid-November, 1919, Palmer answered the Poindexter

Resolution informing the Congress that the radical movement was capable of spreading their influences via radical publications and newspapers and propagate the race prejudice and class hatred in American society. Palmer claimed that radical publications even endorsed the opposition to the democratic government and even urged to the overthrow the government. In fact, Palmer highlighted there were 222 radical newspapers published in 6 languages within 1919, another 105 radical newspapers published in English, and over 140 radical newspapers are published abroad and distributed into the United States.

Since there was no such law preventing the radical propaganda similar to the war-time measure of the Espionage Act enabling the Post Office Department a censorship of radical or antiwar propaganda, Palmer urged Congress for such a law (Palmer, “A Report”, 5-6;

Hagedorn 382).

As Johnson points out Palmer requested a law that would prohibit:

... any act of terrorism, hate, revenge, or injury against the person or property of

any officer, agent, or employee of the United States..." or any attempt by “...sign,

word, speech, picture, design, argument, or teaching" to overthrow the

government of the United States. (357)

Enacting a federal peace-time sedition law would provide more powerful tool for investigation of radicals and would enlarge the scope against radical American citizens and strengthen Palmer’s fight against Bolshevism (Hagedorn 382). Journalists and editors opposed that as it would enable a permanent right to censorship and would stand against the principles of freedom of expressions. Similar opposition emerged from the labor movement that opposed the possibility of being silenced (Goldstein 3).

Nonetheless, no such a bill was passed on federal level, despite the fact approximately 70 sedition bills were introduced to the Senate and to the House of

Representatives (Schmidt 277). On the state level, by 1921, there were thirty-seven states that had already enacted peace-time sedition laws into their state legislature, for instance New York or Illinois

(Ackerman 37). Some states adopted the sedition laws during the peak of the Red Scare, as Palmer spoke in front of some state assemblies calling for the state syndicalism laws or restrictive laws as the best tool to fight against growing radicalism. Other types of restrictive laws were for instance banning the display of Red flags, or the Syndicalist laws. The Oklahoma law, for example, ban a display of banners that would support or indicate disloyalty to government, or hail to communist, anarchist or radical platforms. It was estimated that under these state restriction laws toward radicalism some 1,400 individuals were arrested within the years of 1919-1921, and ultimately, nearly 300 of them were sent to prison (Murray 233-234).

4.3.1.1. The Immigration Laws

The fears of the Red Scare also contributed to calls for limiting immigration that would prevent communists, anarchists and other non-conformist from entering the United

States (Goodall 81). In 1921 the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 was passed by

Congress. It established quotas that would limit immigration from Eastern Europe, Russia and Italy. The quota allowed entrance only to 3 percent of the number of people from each country living in the United States in 1910. The Johnson Reed Immigration Act of

1924 reduced the quotas even further and the immigration fell to 300,000 per year which was approximately one third of the prewar average. For instance, this measure reduced the immigration from Italy by 90 percent. By 1927 the quota was limited to some 150,000 immigrants per year (Ackerman 385; Cornell 78). As Keynon Zimmer highlights the immigration quota measures had also a huge impact on the radical and anarchist movement since these had been constituted mostly by immigrants (Zimmer, Immigrants

5.77).

4.3.2. The Lusk Laws

On March 26, 1919, the Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate Seditious

Activities, so-called the Lusk Committee, was formed in New York as a response to a growing fear of Bolshevism. Its task was to investigate on radicalism within the New

York State and report its findings to New York Senate, as well as, to draft an anti-radical legislation on behalf of its findings (Schmidt 123; Pfannestiel 19). The investigation of the Committee targeted mainly the Soviet Bureau, the Socialist’s Rand School and the

Lusk’s agents also staged their own raiding of the radical organizations, such the IWW and the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party. Nearly one-year long investigation ended in April 1920 and resulted into formulation of anti-radical measures known as the Lusk laws (Finan 1.75).

As David Colburn points out the Lusk laws were design in order to suppress all kinds of radicalism (434). Public hearings were held in January 1920 in order to gain support for these proposed bills, mainly for the educational reform in New York State.

The Lusk Committee suggested the Americanization program in the public schools.

According to Senator Lusk and his supporters, patriotism of teachers was seen as an important characteristic of all teachers which would lead to proper kind of

Americanization within their classes therefore such legislation was necessary to ensure that un-American teachers were dismissed (Pfannestiel 103-104). Therefore, one of the bills required public school teachers to obtain a license for their teaching the so-called teacher’s oath proving their loyalty to the state and its government. The license would be granted by the state commissioner of education (Finan 1.80). Furthermore, the Committee recommended the compulsory Americanization classes for immigrants that would be held at factories and community centers. The committee highlighted that immigrants were most susceptible to the radical propaganda and therefore the Americanization classes were necessary (Pfannestiel 103-104). In response to the investigation of the Rand School of Social Sciences, a bill requiring a state license for all private and secular schools within New York was proposed. Schools would be directed to apply for a license from the State Board of Regents otherwise they would not be allowed to operate. This bill was designed to finally enable closing the Rand

School (Pfannestiel 104; Colburn 434). The school-licensing bill enabled to ban the teaching of any controversial opinion and as Christopher Finan highlights it would deprive schools and its employees of their right of free speech (Finan 5.76-5.80).

The Lusk laws also aimed to ban the Socialist Party as a legitime political body and also, they would authorize the courts banning any political party from the ballot if its political platform supported an overthrowing of government. Another anti-radical measure was an establishment of a special bureau within New York which would monitor any radical organization (Colburn 434). Despite the fact the bills received a broad support within New York due to the Red Scare fears, they were also criticized. For instance, the

Teacher’s Union of New York objected the loyalty oath was a serious threat to and thought. Algernon Lee, who was representing the Socialist Party, as well as the Rand School of Social Science, objected the legislation and accused the Lusk

Committee of creating the radicalism within New York (Pfannestiel 106, 109).

Nevertheless, three out of five Lusk bills passed overwhelmingly in April 1920 that was the school licensing measure, the teacher loyalty oath and the bill to establish a special investigative bureau to monitor radicalism within New York (Ibid. 106-107). However,

New York’s Governor Alfred E. Smith vetoed all of the Lusk Laws in May, 1920 (Colburn 423). Subsequently, Smith ordered all five suspended Socialist be retuned into their office. In fact, Smith was an opponent of the Lusk laws and the hunt against

Bolsheviks mainly for two reasons. First, as a Governor he introduced a reform program aiming to protect for instance women and children in industry, or to establish a minimum- wage commission etc., and his effort in this reform program might have been weakened with the Red Scare sentiments. Second, he was also a descendant of Italian, Irish and

German immigrants so he opposed the negative perception against the immigrants as they had been often suspected as conveyors of Bolshevism (Goodall 93; Colburn 425).

Nonetheless, on January, 1, 1921, a new Governor of New York was inaugurated

– a Republican Nathan L. Miller and soon after Lusk re-introduced two of his bills – the teacher’s oath and the school license bill. Both were approved into law in May, 1921

(Pfannestiel 110, 114). Again, a wave of reactions followed the passage of the Lusk laws which were by some academics seen as inconsistent with American principles, whereas others questioned its legality and found them unconstitutional as for instance the representatives of the Rand School who objected their right for free expression (Ibid. 114,

118). However, by 1921 another four states enacted the teacher’s oath legislation, as well, and within 1920s approximately twenty states had such legislation enacted (Murray 270).

Nevertheless, the laws were soon repealed as Alfred E. Smith was re-elected as

Governor of New York in 1923 (Goodall 93). Smith saw the Lusk Laws as “interference with personal liberty, censorship of thought, word, act or teaching, encourages intolerance and bigotry in the minds of the few directed against the many” (qtd. in Pfannestiel 123).

According to the Christopher Finan the right of free expression is crucial in democratic establishment and the free speech played an important role when criticizing the Lusk

Laws and when staging an opposition in case of the suspended Socialists (Finan 1.80). As Zechariah Chaffe discuses in his book Free Speech, he claims that “If Americanism means anything, it means free speech, right from the start” (372).

4.3.3. The Civil liberties movement

The civil liberties movement emerged at two fronts. First, it was the American

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) formed by Rodger Baldwin on January, 19, 1920 as a direct response to injustices of the Palmer Raids (Walker 54). Second, it was the National

Popular Governmental League (NPGL) and twelve respectable attorneys who prepared a report called; To American People; Report Upon the Illegal Practices of the United States

Department of Justice that initiated an official investigation against Attorney General

(Gentry 8.71).

It was Rodger Baldwin who formed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on January, 1920. This organization was unique compared to other organizations. Unlike the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that was formed in 1909 in order to defend rights and recognition of Afro-Americans, the ACLU was established to defend civil liberties, mainly the free speech with no regards who the orator might be and regardless the content of the speech. Due to the fact, the ACLU was defending the IWW members, Communists and other non-conformist, it was considered as an un-patriotic organization, and was closely monitored by the BI. The intense investigation on the ACLU activities lasted at least until 1970s (Gentry 10.124, Walker

51). The ACLU also promoted and publicized the National Popular Governmental

League’s report To American People; Report Upon the Illegal Practices of the United

States Department of Justice. As Gentry points out the ACLU provided the back-ground investigation on the matter (Gentry 10.126).

Conclusion

The aim of this diploma thesis was to present the period of the First Red Scare of

1919-1920 to the reader and provide a deeper insight into selected events that triggered the fears of Bolshevism within the United States, as well as, to present the fight of governmental representatives against these fears and a subsequent development of the

Red Scare.

The Great War experience and the impact of the Russia Revolution, supplemented with the super-patriotism which initiated the hunt for 100% percent Americanisms, resulted into fears of change of the traditional social and governmental establishment.

Furthermore, these fears were also generated by the organized labor that was striking for better working condition, wages and recognition. Simultaneously, the set of racial riots targeting Afro-Americans emerged. However, despite their subordinate position, they fought back against white oppressors. Such resistance was again attributed to impact of radicalization and Bolshevik agitators. The American democracy seemed to be threatened after the April and June Anarchist Bombing. These events all together resulted into the period of the First Red Scare. The governmental resistance against Bolshevism emerged to protect the values of American democracy, with its leader Attorney General A. Mitchell

Palmer who staged the set of raids, referred to as the Palmer Raids.

Palmer became a national hero who was fighting to save America from

Bolshevism. With his Radical Organization he staged many raids across the nation targeting alien radicals and members of Communist Parties. The majority of raids against alien radicals were connected with injustices, beatings and maltreatment, the constitutional rights of alleged alien radicals were neglected. Nevertheless, a plan to deport them all, was staged. However, the resistance emerged. The justice was safeguard by the acting head of

Department of Labor Louis F. Post and by the twelve respectable attorneys who used their civil liberty of free speech and dared to criticized the illegal practices of governmental representatives. Thus, the period of Red Scare resulted into the “Red Hunt” that was full of illegal practices which subsequently opened the debate about the civil liberties. As

Christopher Finan highlighted, the injustices of Palmer Raids led to redefinition of what freedoms were guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1.8).

Furthermore, the Red Scare strengthened the negative perception against immigrants, Afro-Americans, organized labor and other-nonconformist by framing them pro-Bolsheviks.

Bibliography

Primary sources:

Coleman McAllister ed., The Truth about the Lusk Committee. A Report Prepared by the

Legislative Committee of the People's Freedom Union. The National Press, 1920.

archive.org/details/20Truthaboutluskcommittee

National Popular Government League. To the American People: Report Upon the

Illegal Practices of the United States Department of Justice. American Freedom

Foundation, 1920. https://archive.org/details/toamericanpeople00natiuoft

Palmer, Mitchell A. The Case Against the “Reds.” Published in The Forum, Feb 1920.

V.63, pp.173-180. Edited by Tim Davenport. 1000 Flowers Publishing, 2004.

www.marxists.org/history/usa/government/fbi/1920/0200-palmer- redscase.pdf

Palmer, Mitchell A. Report to the United State Senate in Response to Senate Res. No.

213 from Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, November, 14, 1919. Edited by

Tim Davenport, 1000 Flowers Publishing, 2011.

www.marxists.org/history/usa/government/ussenate/1114-palmer-

reporttosenate.pdf

Post, Louis F. The Deportations Delirium of Nineteen-twenty; a Personal Narrative of an

Historic Official Experience. Charles H. Kerr, 1923.

Preamble, Constitution, & General Bylaws of The Industrial Workers of the World.

iww.org/assets/iww-constitution.pdf

Speer, Edgar B. The Russian Workingmen’s Association, sometimes called the Union of

Russian Workers (What It Is and How It Operates). A Bureau of Investigation

Internal Report. April 8, 1919. Edited by Tim Davenport. Published by 1000

Flowers Publishing, Corvallis, 2007.

www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/urw/1919/0408-speer-

unionrusworkers.pdf

United States, Congress, Senate, Report of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United

States Senate, pursuant to S. res. 307 and 436, relating to charges made against

the United States Brewers' Association and allied interests, Government Printing

Office, 1919. 65th Congress, 1st session.

archive.org/details/brewingliquorint00unit/page/n3/mode/2up

United States, Congress, Senate. Resolution 307 establishing the Overman Committee,

1918, Washington Government Print Office, 1919. 65th Congress, 2nd session.

www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/s-res-307-senate-resolution-

establishing-overman-committee-september-19-1918

Printed books:

Ackerman, Kenneth D. Young J. Edgar: Hoover, the Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil

Liberties, eBook, Viral History Press LLC, 2016.

Avrich, Paul. : The Anarchist Background. Princeton University Press,

1991. Chaffe, Zechariah Jr. Freedom of Speech. Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920.

Cornell, Andrew. Unruly Equality: U.S. Anarchism in the Twentieth Century. University

of California Press, 2016.

Donner, Frank. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban

America. University of California Press, 1990.

Englund, Will. March 1917: On the Brink of War and Revolution, eBook, W. W. Norton

& Company, 2017.

Finan, Christopher M. From the Palmer Raids to the Patriotic Act: A History of the Fight

for Free Speech in America, eBook, Beacon Press, 2007.

Foglesong, David S. America's Secret War against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the

Russian Civil War, 1917-1920, 2nd ed., eBook, University of

Press, 2001.

Friedheim, Robert L., and James N. Gregory. The Seattle General Strike. Vol. Centennial

edition, University of Washington Press, 2018.

Gage, Beverly. The Day Wall Street Exploded: A Story of America in Its First Age of

Terror, eBook, , 2009.

Gentry, Curt. J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets, eBook, W. W. Norton &

Company, 2001.

Goodall, Alex. Loyalty and Liberty: American Countersubversion from to

the McCarthy Era, eBook, University of Illinois Press, 2013. Goldstein, Robert J. Little 'Red Scares': Anti-Communism and Political Repression in the

United States, 1921-1946. Routledge, 2014.

Hagedorn, Ann. Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919, eBook, Simon &

Schuster, 2007.

Hanson, Ole, Americanism Versus Bolshevism, Garden City Doubleday, Page &

Company, 1920.

Herman, Arthur. 1917, Lenin, Wilson and the Birth of the New World Disorder, eBook,

Harper, 2017.

Krugler, David F. 1919, The Year of Racial Violence: How African Americans Fought

Back. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Lens, Sidney. Radicalism in America. Thomas Crowell Company, 1969.

Luff, Jennifer. Commonsense Anticommunism: Labor and Civil Liberties Between the

World Wars, eBook. The University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

Mandelbaum, Seymour J. The Social Setting of Intolerance: The Know-Nothings, the Red

Scare, and McCarthyism. Scott, Foresman and Company, 1964.

McWhirter, Cameron. Red Summer: The Summer of 1919 and the Awakening of Black

America, eBook, St. Martin's Griffin, 2012.

Murray, Robert K. Red scare; a study in national hysteria, 1919-1920, eBook,

Minneapolis, U of Press, 1955. Nearing, Scott. The Law of Social Revolution. A co-operative study by the Labor Research

Study Group. Social Science Publishers, 1926.

Pfannestiel. Todd J. Rethinking the Red Scare: The Lusk Committee and New York’s

Crusade Against Radicalism, 1919-1923. Routledge,2003.

Russell, Francis. A City in Terror: Calvin Coolidge and the 1919 Boston Police Strike,

eBook, Beacon Press, 2005.

Schmidt, Regin. Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States,

1919-1943. Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen, 2004.

Shannon, David A. Between the Wars: America, 1919-1941. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1979.

Tejada, Susan M. In Search of Sacco and Vanzetti: Double Lives, Troubled Times, and

the Massachusetts Murder Case That Shook the World. Northeastern University

Press, 2012.

Walker, Samuel. In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU. Southern

Illinois University Press, 2nd Ed, 1990.

Whitaker, Robert. On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for

Justice that Remade a Nation, eBook, Crown Publishers, 2009.

Zimmer, Kenyon. Immigrants against the State: Yiddish and Italian Anarchism in

America, eBook, University of Illinois Press, 2015.

Edited Books:

Abramowitz, Howard. “The Press and the Red Scare, 1919-1921.” Popular Culture and

Political Change in Modern America, Edited by R. Edsforth, L. Bennett, State

University of New York Press, 1991, pp. 61-80.

Cole Peter, et al. “Introduction.” Wobblies of the World: A Global History of the IWW.”

Edited by P. Cole, D. Struthers, K. Zimmer. Pluto Press, 2017, pp.1-26.

Zimmer Kenyon. “The Voyage of the Buford: Political Deportations and the making and

unmaking of America’s first Red Scare.” Deportation in the Americas: Histories

of Exclusion and Resistance. Edited by Zimmer Kenyon and Cristina Salinas.

Texas A&M University Press, 2018, pp. 132-163.

Journals JSTOR:

Coben, Stanley. “A Study in Nativism: The American Red Scare of 1919-20.” Political

Science Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, 1964, pp. 52-75. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2146574.

Colburn, David, R. “Governor Alfred E. Smith and the Red Scare, 1919-20.” Political

Science Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 3, 1973, pp. 423-444. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/2148992.

Ellis, Mark. “J. Edgar Hoover and the “Red Summer” of 1919.” Journal of American

Studies, Vol. 28, No.1, 1994, pp. 39-59. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27555783.

Grueter, Mark. “Red Scare Scholarship, , and the Case of the Anarchist

Union of Russian Workers, 1919.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, Vol. 11,

No. 1, 2017, pp. 53–82. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/jstudradi.11.1.0053.

Guariglia, Matthew. “Wrench in the Deportation Machine: Louis F. Post's Objection to

Mechanized Red Scare Bureaucracy.” Journal of American Ethnic History, Vol.

38, No. 1, 2018, pp. 62-77. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jamerethnhist.38.1.0062.

Johnson, Donald. “The Political Career of A. Mitchell Palmer.” History: A

Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1958, pp. 345-370. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/27769836.

Kraut, Julia R. “Global Anti-Anarchism: The Origins of Ideological Deportation and the

Suppression of Expression.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol 19. No.

1 2012, pp. 169-193. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/indjglolegstu.19.1.169.

Renshaw, Patrick. “The IWW and the Red Scare 1917-24.” Journal of Contemporary

History, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1968, pp. 63-72. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/259851.

Other Journals

McKay, Claude. The Racial Question. The Racial Issue in the USA. The International

Press Correspondence, Vol. 2, No. 101, Published 21 Nov, 1922. English Edition.

www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1922/v02n101-

[plusWC-Supp] -nov-21-1922-Inprecor.pdf

Newspaper Articles:

“Under Which Flag”, The Seattle Star, 5 Feb, 1919.

depts.washington.edu/labhist/strike/images/news/P-I/PI_19190206_P11.jpg

Accessed 8 June 2020.

“Strike Called Off”, The Seattle Star, 10 Feb, 1919,

depts.washington.edu/labhist/strike/images/news/Star/STAR_19190210_P1.jpg

Accessed 8 June 2020.

“Raid Rand School, Left Wing and I.W.W. Offices” The New Work Times, June 22,

1919. CD container. Accessed 26 Dec. 2020.

“73 Red Centers Raided Here by Lusk Committee.” The New York Times, Nov 9, 1919.

Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.