Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Providing for the common defense: internal security and the Cold War, 1945-1975 Marc A. Patenaude Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Patenaude, Marc A., "Providing for the common defense: internal security and the Cold War, 1945-1975" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2152. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2152 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. PROVIDING FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE: INTERNAL SECURITY AND THE COLD WAR, 1945-1975 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of History by Marc Patenaude B.A., University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2003 M.A., Louisiana State University, 2006 May 2011 Acknowledgments It is never an easy task to write a dissertation and I owe a great number of people my thanks and gratitude. First and foremost, I thank my advisor, Dr. David Culbert, for his keen editing eye, his insights and suggestions, and seeming unlimited patience. Dr. Paul Paskoff always had an open door and open ear, willing to share both ideas and a good burger. Sarah Hyde, Heather Thornton, and I entered the history graduate program at LSU at the same time, starting at the Master’s level, and, although we all finished at different times, going through Graduate school with good friends makes the experience more enjoyable and bearable. Although a mathematician, Britney Hopkins provided good-natured support and incentive to keep me on task. Matthew Hernando was a good enough friend to open his home up to this Canadian in need and survived having one as a roommate as we both finished our dissertations. Casey Smart is one of the most supportive and caring people I know. Josh Marr and Jessica DeHart helped keep me sane by ensuring that I got out of the house and had human contact and saw sunshine on a regular basis. Most importantly, I need to thank my family. My sister and brother-in-law, Michelle and Tony Stroppa, provided invaluable support as I went through this process. My parents, Al and Darlene Patenaude, were there every step and stumble of the way and I thank them for their love and support, both emotional and financial. They knew when to back off and when to get another trophy for the wall, but always remained supportive. ii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTERNAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AND THE SECOND RED SCARE ........... 9 2 THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ANTI-COMMUNIST PROSECUTIONS .......... 59 3 ANTI-COMMUNISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE 1950s ........................................ 84 4 RIOTS OF THE 1960s AS AN INTERNAL SECURITY CRISIS .................................120 5 CONGRESS AND SURVEILLANCE AS AN INTERNAL SECURITY TOOL ..........156 EPILOGUE: THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE FUTURE OF INTERNAL SECURITY LEGISLATION ..........................................................................................................197 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................222 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................................232 APPENDIX: REGISTRATION FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS .......................................................254 VITA ..................................................................................................................................................257 iii List of Figures 1. Senator Patrick McCarran ............................................................................................15 2. “McCarthyism” .............................................................................................................49 3. “Here he comes now” ...................................................................................................50 4. “Have a care, sir” ..........................................................................................................50 5. “Drop in any time” .......................................................................................................50 6. “Can’t take any chances” ..............................................................................................51 7. “Scales of Justice” ........................................................................................................52 8. “Always happy to take the word of a lady” ..................................................................53 9. “You say you want to be heard?” .................................................................................54 iv Abstract While the historiography of the Red Scare has often discussed the major internal security legislation passed during the period, the legislation in question is often given short shrift and characterized as a misguided response by Congress. It is important to examine this legislation not only for what it did for the internal security of the nation, but also for what it meant symbolically. Implementation of governmental policy, including internal security policy, through legislation often also serves as a window to the beliefs and values of those crafting the legislation. By examining the internal security legislation passed during the Red Scare, we can determine some of the beliefs and values that underlay the legislation. This dissertation argues three points. First, Congressional politics and legislation during the Second Red Scare created a pattern for dealing with internal security crises both during and after the Cold War. As part of this pattern, the values and beliefs that underlay the initial internal security legislation are present in internal security legislation of the 1960s and the early 2000s. The judicial response to this legislation created necessary limits to Congressional action. Second, while the race riots of many major urban centers in the 1960s have been explained as social crises, it’s important that they be studied as internal security crises as well. Particularly within Congress, some viewed these riots as an insurgency and an insurrection and framed their responses and legislation towards combating them. Finally, while attempts have been made to create a post-Cold War policy towards combating terrorism, the initial post-September 11, 2001, attempts at anti-terror legislation (such as the USA PATRIOT Act) continued to follow much of the same pattern established for internal security crises during the Cold War. v Introduction During the Cold War, the United States experienced two major internal security crises: the second Red Scare, the anticommunist crusade that occurred from 1947 to 1954; and the period of racial unrest and violence in America’s urban centers that occurred from 1964 to 1968.1 In each of these internal security crises, Congress passed legislation that abridged the civil rights of citizens in the name of protecting national security. During the period of the second Red Scare, Congress, believing that exposing the threat of Communists to the nation as a whole would diffuse the threat, passed the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the Communist Control Act of 1954 that required perceived potential threats to register with the government. This registration requirement was later found by the Supreme Court to violate First Amendment protections of freedom of association and Fifth Amendment protections against self- incrimination. The legislation inspired by the racial violence and unrest in American cities during the mid-to-late 1960s required stronger, more direct government involvement to address the perceived root cause: incitement to violence from alleged Communists and radical sources. To this end, Congress passed the Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968, part of which authorized legal wiretapping and electronic surveillance of citizens. However, concerns over issues of privacy and government overuse and abuse of surveillance legislation led to Congress placing limitations on government surveillance of citizens, in particular the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. Since 1995, historians studying the second Red Scare have been aided by the revelations of the Venona intercepts. The intercepts, providing evidence that concerns over Communist espionage within the government itself were not without merit, have led to a re-examination of 1 I have chosen to use the term