HUAC 1
!
HUAC 3
Dear Delegates, Greetings and welcome to YMUN XL! I am so excited that you have chosen to participate in such an exciting committee, and I look forward to a weekend of intrigue, excitement, and a healthy dose of Red Scare. My name is Helen Caldwell, and I am a sophomore at Yale University. I am originally from Birmingham, Alabama, which made the 34 inches of snow we received in 24 hours this past year quite an experience. I am planning on majoring in Global Affairs here at Yale, though I am interested in too many regions of the world to say in which one I would like to concentrate yet. Outside of the classroom, I pursue my interest in international relations through involvement with YIRA, the Yale International Relations Association. I first got involved with YIRA through junior staffing YMUN, Yale’s high school Model UN conference, on the French Revolution Crisis Committee (my reenactment of Marie Antoinette’s trial was widely regarded by my delegates as the theatrical performance of the year to beat). This past summer, I traveled to China to staff Yale’s UNDP committee at WEMUN EXPO, and in the upcoming year will be directing the UN Security Council at SCSY, Yale’s college Model UN conference on our own campus and the French cabinet at YMGE, Yale Model Government in Europe, held in Budapest. In addition to YIRA, on campus I am involved in several musical ensembles. I play the flute for the Yale Symphony Orchestra and the Yale Concert Band. In a few weeks, I will be flying with the Concert Band to the Baltic States to tour in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. I also sing in one of Yale’s fifteen A Capella groups called “Proof of the Pudding,” an all-female group specializing in jazz and swing. I am thrilled to be running this committee with such a motivated group of delegates. We at YIRA are lovers of history; it breathes through us, every moment of our lives, our politics, our current events, our governance. The HUAC committee is one of the ugly memories of the Cold War in that it symbolizes the paranoia and fear permeating its era. But what an exciting thing, to relive and play with this history as if it were our own, in the safety of a classroom and the synergy of our peers! Once again, I welcome you all to YMUN XL, and I hope you enjoy the events to come.
Best, Helen Caldwell helen.caldwell@yale.edu
!
UNCSW 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
!
History of the Committee Hollywood Trials Topic History Government Investigations Topic History Current Situation ! "#$%&'()%!&(!*()%'+$,! ! Suggestions Further Research /((&)(&$%! ! ! ! !
!
5 12
!
!
!
!
18 21 -.!! 28 -0!
HUAC 5
History of the Committee !
An Introduction to Fear: George Kennan’s Long Telegram Before we delve into the history of the Cold War, from its beginnings to the birth of the HUAC committee, we find it essential that you read one of the most defining messages ever sent in the history of international relations. It was written in the form of a telegram, a drawn out, tapped-out text, by an American ambassador named George Kennan. Though American, Kennan was in love with Russia. He spent much time visiting as an ambassador i and was enlightened by its culture, language, and people. After time in the Soviet embassy, he grew an understanding of the Soviet regime, which he believed was unrepresentative of the real Russian people. Kennan resented Sovietism and Stalin’s entire political system. His telegram delineated (in language surprisingly eloquent to be tapped out my a telegram-operator) his understanding of Soviet policy and beliefs in relation to the whole of the western world, most specifically the United States. In five sections, the telegram described the Soviet leaders as a paranoid bunch, terrified of western influences in their closed-off polity, savage in their outlook on governance and dangerous to the international community. Here’s a little section from Section 5 of the telegram: “In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary... that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure…
!
World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue.
Figure 1: George Kennan, American diplomat and author of the Long Telegram
Kennan’s telegram is beautifully written, and in the context of Cold War history, fascinating to read and reread to really get an understanding of that era’s zeitgeist. The purpose of this introduction is to paint a picture for you of America’s Cold War views of what communism really was. The Soviet Union wasn’t just a political threat, or a military one. Communism, the very ideology that Kennan claimed to seam together the fabric of the Soviet Union, was antithetical to the very existence of the United States. “A malignant parasite,” Kennan said, “which feeds on diseased tissue.” Communism becomes something viral. The very same ideology that aims to destroy America spreads among the weak links of society, the diseased tissue. Though it
UNCSW 6 ! is only a simple thought, we’d like you to see a little idea could serve to dictate a large portion of U.S. policy in regards to the USSR, including containment, espionage, and the development of the HUAC committee. Soviet-American relations, 1917-1946 Never since the birth of the USSR have Soviet-American relations been positive, even during their brief alliance during WWII. History tells us that for the most part, American leaders have viewed the communist movement and its origins as anathema to U.S. national values. The image of the Communist Party and its predecessors, the Bolsheviks, as viral, savage, and cruel, began at the outset as a reaction to the bloodshed of the Bolshevik Revolution, which took place in 1917. After the Russian royal family was massacred and class struggle set in motion, American leaders such as Woodrow Wilson largely saw the Bolshevik movement as utter savagery, like a poison that had infected the veins of the Russian people.ii Additionally, views of Bolshevism and the emerging communist state centered on their hostility and belligerence towards outside nations. Newspapers like The New York Times begged the question of whether or not the revolution would spread to Europe nextiii. You can see now that
!
Kennan’s remarks in his Long Telegram were part of a long evolution of paranoia against Soviet ideology, communism. America felt threatened by the Bolsheviks by the ideology that they stood for, one advocating the revolution of the masses and the destruction of private ownership. Such an ideology needed to be contained. Since 1917, the United States was hostile to the Bolsheviks, setting an embargo on Russia and secretly offering money and supplies to the countering Russian force, the white army. An early policy of containment was formed, though this one was unofficial and nothing close to the grandeur of Truman’s later doctrine. Even as allies, Soviet-American relations were tense. Though in WWII, the U.S. supplied the USSR with countless military supplies to fight the Germans through the Lend-Lease Act, U.S. leaders perceived the Soviet Union as not an ally, but the enemy of its enemy, Nazi Germany. In this sense, the United States would have preferred that the Soviet Union and Germany kill each other off rather than one face decisive victory, even if the victors were the Soviets. Then-senator Harry Truman made this point abundantly clear after Germany broke its neutrality act with the USSR and invaded Soviet territory in 1941: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many [of both of them] as
HUAC 7 !
possible…”iv Such a statement illuminates the view that the Soviet Union during the second World War was only a temporary ally of the United States; as a growing power on the world stage, it would serve as a major threat to the ideal of a peaceful and democratic world order which Franklin Roosevelt envisioned. Roosevelt’s world order could not be reconciled with the Soviet Communists, for the ideal state was an American one, run by democracy and the invisible hand of capitalism. The enemy of America’s enemy was her friend… until the war ended and there was no longer a common cause to fight for between the two world superpowers. Dealings were made before war’s end regarding the future of Europe, but neither the Yalta Conference nor the Potsdam Conference definitely achieved a permanent resolution to the problem of Eastern Europe. Desiring an amalgam of buffer states to safeguard the motherland from any further European invasions, Stalin virtually annexed Eastern Europe as a self-made, unapproved, unilateral condition for all the sufferings the Soviet Union faced in wartime. The Eastern Bloc was formed, consisting of Eastern Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and pieces of Finland and Romania. These new Soviet satellite states would be governed under the same tyranny and oppression with which the Russian people were controlled by Stalin. They turned into communist puppets of the Soviet Union. Such an action prompted Winston Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech, which spelled the tale of a divided Europe, between a communist side ruled by an iron fist and a democratically elected side governing a free people. NATO was soon formed; the Warsaw Pact after. The two worldly alliances
!
were poised for war; one soon came in the form of a protracted struggle for plenary global influence. America’s first step and long-term mission was its policy of containment. Containment and the beginning of the Cold War: a short history The policy of containment was issued by the Truman administration after Harry Truman’s 1947 speech classically entitled “The Truman Doctrine.” His speech was given at a time when Greece and Turkey faced an immediate political threat by communist forces. Greece was engaged in a civil war between the Greek government army (aided by Britain and the United States) and the military branch of the Greek Communist Party. The USSR was wont to annex some of Turkey’s strategic naval passages. In his speech, Truman outlined the differences between two distinct and opposing ways of life and governance: one ruled under fear and coercion, the prevailing tools of the Soviet leadership, and one governed under the principles of freedom and liberty. He used a myriad of highly charged rhetoric-- “freedom,” “liberty,” “independence,” “destiny”-- words reminiscent of America’s own struggles for independence nearly two centuries before, tying Greece and Turkey’s specific conflicts to America’s founding one. “I believe that we must assist free people to work out their own destinies in their own way,” said Truman to Congress, “I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.” These solicitations to Congress initiated the U.S. policy of containment. Stop the spread of communism through all channels short of
UNCSW 8 ! war. Truman’s speech to Congress is regarded by many historians to signal the official beginning of the Cold War. Heavily influenced by George Kennan’s image of communism in his Long Telegram, containment permeated U.S. thinking for years to come. As containment was about stopping the advancement of an ideology as opposed to an army, the bounds of the war were limitless; wherever there was the possibility of Soviet influence, be it Europe, Asia, Africa, South or North America, the U.S. had pledged its resources to squashing the threat. Economic weakness was a calling card for potential communist takeover. The Truman Doctrine stipulated that economic instability was the first ingredient for a population to turn to communism. When people are hungry and the disparity between rich and poor is high, the 99% are more desirous to issue a proletarian revolution to even the odds. This could not happen. Economic aid to Greece and Turkey was just the beginning. The Marshall Plan of 1948 would aid the entire body of western Europe to get back on its feet after WWII. The United States spent millions reconstructing Europe in financial aid packages designed just as much to shield Europe from the “communist parasite” as for humanitarian aid. Wars began to prevent the toppling of American-backed governments by communists forces. Vietnam, Korea, African
!
independence movements. America sent weapons to anti-Soviet militants. Afghanistan. The war raged on, and for America’s part, in a seemingly endless attempt to curtail the spread of its ideological enemy.
Figure 2: This map demonstrates the polarizing effects of the Cold War.
We don’t expect you to know every facet of the Cold War, nor is that knowledge entirely essential for the sake of this committee. What is important is a thorough understanding of the United States’ thinking regarding containment and the spread of communism. Containment required U.S. statesmen to not only look outward to weaknesses abroad, but inward, to ideological weaknesses at home. There were men like Joseph McCarthy to do this for us. Then there was HUAC. History of Espionage Much of the paranoia that students and teachers of history associate with the Cold War comes from the growing fear of Soviet espionage in United States intelligence. Indeed, this was a
HUAC 9 !
tangible threat: U.S. Army investigations early on in WWII and even before revealed secret plans to recover American military intelligence by the Soviets to gain perspective on America’s standing in the war, new technologies, possible alliances or betrayals, etc. etc.v America had dealt with the threat of espionage before: for example, Nazi Germany made many attempts to infiltrate the United States and steal secrets during the course of the war. Unfortunately for them, the Germans were not nearly as successful as the Soviets in capturing American intelligence.vi Perhaps the most well known example of successful Soviet spying is Project ENORMOUS. Through a collection of couriers and cover agents playing nuclear engineers, project ENORMOUS delivered Moscow the top-secret knowledge of the United States’ plans to build the bomb.
!
Figure 3: Leonid Kvasnikov was a Russian chemical engineer and KGB scientific intelligence officer responsible for many of the topsecret Manhattan Project intelligence leaks to Moscow. This is the image of Kvasnikov’s face on a Soviet postage stamp.
This was huge. Not only did the U.S. really want to avoid people knowing about the bomb-even J. Edgar Hoover was reportedly unaware of the Manhattan Project’s existence until later in the gamevii-- the U.S. really didn’t want the Soviet Union from knowing about it, especially once the USSR became a threat to U.S. sovereignty. As the ultimate weapon in the world at the time (the Hbomb would soon prove itself 1,000 times more powerful than its predecessor), the atom bomb would give the United States the upper hand in the impending arms race, and perhaps scare the USSR into capitulating to the U.S.’s demands regarding Soviet military policy.viii The element of surprise was key to this new technology’s greatest psychological threat. Yet upon being informed by President Harry Truman during the Potsdam Conference of a “powerful new weapon,” and upon the eventual atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Stalin was relatively unimpressed. The Soviet Union knew about the Manhattan Project all along, and they were already formulating plans to build their own bomb.ix Eventually, soon after WWII, the U.S. Army Security Agency discovered a massive collection of evidence that proved the existence of a complex system of Soviet espionage in the United Statesx. Unsurprisingly, when the American public learned of this, public tolerance for the Communist Party plummeted. President Truman, considering the potential risk of Communist infiltrators in his administration, issued Executive Order 9835 in 1947, which instituted for the first time ever a general federal loyalty program designed to weed out weak links in all levels of federal government. The order mandated loyalty boards in all federal
UNCSW 10 ! agencies and defined employee disloyalty to include membership in groups judged subversive by the Attorney General.xi The loyalty program investigated over 3 million government employees. Around 300 were fired as alleged security risks (keep in mind, the definition of security risk is an arbitrary line drawn in Cold War history. “Reasonable doubt” was all that was needed by some of these loyalty boards to fire an employee. How would you go about defining a security risk? Can someone be a risk even if they themselves don’t know it?). The Rise of HUAC in America HUAC did not emerge overnight; rather, it was the end result of a series of committees developed to investigate suspicious activities in a nation that felt increasingly more insecure following the First World War. The first of these was the Overman Committee, a subcommittee headed by Lee Slater Overman and assigned in 1918 to investigate charges made against the liquor industry and the United States Brewers’ Association. They were accused of exhibiting proGerman sentiments and for trying to influence public opinion and politicians through bribery and control of the press. The Committee interpreted its mandate very broadly, extending it to include investigations of activities and political opinions of
!
the brewing and liquor interests, marking the first Congressional investigation of political leanings. The Committee’s mandate was further expanded in early 1919 to include investigation of Bolshevik propaganda in the United States; this move was significantly prompted by existing anti-radical opinions in America and served to further fuel fears of German and Bolshevik influences. The Overman Committee was one of the first sparks in the conflagration that would become the blaze of the Red Scare.xii The investigative committees continued in the 1931 with the House Special Committee to Investigate Communist Activities, headed by Congressman Hamilton Fish III and accordingly named the “Fish Committee.” The Fish Committee was proposed to help halt the spread of Communism during the depression by granting the committee the power of surveillance over “the revolutionary propaganda and activities of the Communists in the United States. However, granting this power would legalize political surveillance while doing nothing to outlaw Communist activities and would also put the Committee at risk of accusations of engaging in secretive and illegal activity. President Herbert Hoover instead urged the Committee to outlaw Communist propaganda, and with the passage of the antisedition Smith Act in 1940, he got his wish.xiii
HUAC 11 !
The Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized To Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities, headed by John W. McCormick and Samuel Dickstein and creatively called the “McCormick-Dickstein Committee,” was created in 1934. This predecessor to the HUAC committee was formed in reaction to a number of Communist or fascist revolutions occurring around the world in previously well established governments. The Committee’s assignment was to gather information on how foreign anti-government propaganda was entering the United States and to propose legislation to remedy the situation. Its method of achieving this was to conduct public and executive hearings examining hundreds of witnesses and gathering evidence concerning those who had worked to establish subversive policies in the US, especially Friends of New Germany and Silver Shirts in America. Their policies would be extremely influential in the policies and procedures of the imminent HUAC committee.xiv The final step before the creation of the HUAC committee was the Dies committee, which lasted from 1938 until 1944. The House Special Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities and Propaganda, chaired by Texas Representative Martin Dies, shared essentially the same mission as its predecessors: to investigate suspicious “unAmerican” actions perpetrated throughout the country. This country took on a significantly political lean, as it was largely a tool used by conservatives in the government to attempt to discredit President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration, especially his New Deal. The
!
committee frequently accused the administration of Communist infiltration and influences, but President Roosevelt generally tried to avoid undue confrontation, believing the committee would be short-lived. In the world of espionage, the FBI was backing President Roosevelt’s administration, fearing that the accusations being flung wildly around would tarnish the bureau’s reputation as well. The administration and the FBI worked together to contain the committee’s actions, granting the FBI a great deal more power and influence in the government. But despite the attempts to contain the committee’s power, it continued to grow in influence in tandem with increasing hysteria about Communist influences in America until 1945, when the House Committee on Un-American Activities was voted to become a standing committee. And thus HUAC was born.xv
UNCSW 12 !
TOPIC 2.
Hollywood Trials Topic History The Hollywood Blacklist Before we get into the nitty-gritty history of the Cold War-era Hollywood Trials (the second Red Scare to many historians, or for writers such as Arthur Miller, a veritable witch-hunt), we’re going to set you up with a brief image of the major players of the scene. First, let’s talk about the movies. The “Golden Age” of Hollywood has been dated back to before the beginning of the Cold War, before the HUAC trials and name-calling, to a time of kings and kingdoms of entertainment. Ah, the good ol’ days. By the 30’s Hollywood had become a billion-dollar industry,xvi the very core of the world’s motion picture entertainment, exporting hundreds and hundreds of black-andwhite films across America and the rest of the world. The business was dominated by a select few major studios, run by the so-called “movie moguls” like Louis B. Mayer and the Warner brothers (who, as it turns out, actually despised each other). Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount, Twentieth Century-Fox, Warner Brothers, Radio-KeithOrpheum, Columbia, Universal, and United
!
Artists, though competitors in such a lucrative industry, were really quite similar: financed by common banks, taking the same risks, making the same product (many being shoddy at best), having the same conventions, sharing common enemies, and trading around the same corps of actors and screenwriters, these studios lived in relative harmony at the top of their cinematic pedestals.xvii They owned most means of production, input and output, meaning producers were in control of the means of production (crew members, talent, sets, etc.), but also the means of output (like the theaters themselves, which is no longer the case in American cinema). So rich and centralized, the movie industry magnetized hundreds of screenwriters and actors to emigrate to Hollywood to make a real living beyond the petty pittance of theater work or novel writing. Money was one of the big biggest, if not the only, lure for many serious writers of America-- Robert Sherwood, Elmer Rice, William Faulkner—to come to Hollywood to bring a little bread to the table.xviii The bread bought was by no means little, however, because writers got paid more money working in Hollywood than they had
HUAC 13 !
ever seen in their discouragingly lowlycompensated lives. Working in Hollywood was the high life for artists and entertainers. The “Golden Age” of Hollywood saw a widespread and constant influx of new talent. Everyone wanted in.
Figure 4: The iconic Hollywoodland sign, as it appeared in the Hollywood Hills before its renovation in 1949 to remove the "land." It was built just around the start of Hollywood’s Golden Age.
This is not to say, though, that the writer’s life was perfect. As it has been throughout all of entertainment history, the writer is never respected as much as he or she deserves (or thinks to deserve). A dearth of due appreciation was the matter. Though the writers truly plant the seeds of films, the writers are most often underappreciated and lost in the evanescence of a screen credit, so to speak. Screenwriters were disillusioned by the anonymity and lack of control of their work.xix Once a script was sold, studios could do whatever they wanted with. They could mark it up, cut out the best scenes, give it to another writer to tamper with, sneeze in it and toss it into the garbage for all they cared, and the original author had no say in the matter whatsoever. “The producers owned you;
!
you were a commodity,” said one of Hollywood’s most successful screenwriters, Donald Ogden Stewart, “they were paying you so much a week, and you belonged to them.” Though no other type of writer was ever so highly paid, no other writing profession also required that its professionals sacrifice the creativity and independence of the page that the producers demanded in Hollywood. Yet few artists were dissatisfied enough with their thankless positions to let go of it entirely; so they banded together, in Los Angeles bars and diners like Musso’s, and complained in their witty way about the tyranny of their Hollywood mogul jailers. Eventually, these casual dinner conversations evolved into legitimate groups of like-minded thinkers. Writers formed a community of their own, sowing the seeds of unions and parties like the Screen Writers Guild and the Hollywood communist contingent. The Screen Writers Guild formed in 1933 and was the first of its kind in terms of unionized film labor. Organized as a protective shield against the “unjust” practices of the big studio producers, the Guild served as an excellent symbol for the classism found in the Hollywood creative studio system. The producers kept all the wealth and used it to keep influence and iron-grip control over the “proletariat masses” of writers. The writers, notorious for losing all control of their art, fought back. Sound familiar? With unions, a war of the classes is bound to ensue, with the poorer and more numerous of the parties fighting with whatever means they have; in the SWG’s case, strength in unity. And the Screen Writers Guild fulfilled many of its goals in lowering maximum work hours for commissioned writers and increasing wages some.
UNCSW 14 ! The important thing to know is that the Guild harbored many politically active members of Hollywood, some being communists. The Communist Party was not as tabooed in the midthirties as it came to be around a decade later. Some affluent members of the Party held much esteem in the movie business. The ideology could serve as a glue to hold these writers’ causes together. Not every writer in Hollywood subscribed to the ideology, but there were enough to form a contingent of the Communist Party of America (which, as HUAC began its trials, became one of the most infamous groups of them all). Whether or not a Guild member was active in the Party, many producers (especially as WWII came to a close and the Cold War booted up) saw the union to be an egregious representation of communist infiltration in Hollywood and America. Unions truly were tools of the common man, the proletariat, and as such, many ideals were shared with those of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels concerning the rise and strength of the common man. Before we get into the birth of the Hollywood blacklist, let’s talk politics. The election of 1944 was a watershed year for the United States. Once again, Republicans (represented by the candidate Thomas E. Dewey) were pitted against Democrats (represented by incumbent Franklin Delano Roosevelt), only this time, the winner would be the man (and party) who decided the fate
!
of the world at the end of the second World War. The politics were fierce and FDR eventually won. He wouldn’t live to carry out his full fourth term, and the rest is history. But there was one side-effect of the election besides the obvious. The Republicans used a specific form of mudslinging during the campaign season to try to turn the electorate away from Roosevelt. Their angle: the liberals were too soft on the Communists.xx Though the Soviet Union was still an extraordinarily useful ally to the United States, and the CPUSA was never actually legal, communist sympathizers were still commonly viewed as being too loyal to foreign governments. However, only once WWII ended was it easy to link communism with vile un-Americanism and thus make an enemy of the CPUSA and many union movements. Republicans had the support of industry leaders in linking liberalism and any criticism of American values to communism. They upheld the traditional American values of organized religion, private property, and nationalism. Many of these industry leaders rose up from the lights of Hollywood, which is where the story of the blacklist begins. As far as some GOP Hollywood producers were concerned, the film industry was rife with a communist infestation. Home to thousands of artists who challenged American conventions and the most powerful entertainment trade union of the era, all one would need to do to weed out the Reds was to look through the screen credits at the local
HUAC 15 !
theater. In 1944 (the same year of the watershed election), passionate and powerful anticommunists in the film community formed the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPA for short). The MPA was the driving force behind the blacklist, inviting HUAC for its Hollywood investigations and providing most of the House committee’s “friendly witnesses.”
You can read a full transcript of the MPA mission statement by following this link: http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/huac_alli ance.htm. As you can see by the statement, the MPA believed in the extreme gravity of the situation. Motion pictures were “inescapably one of the world's greatest forces for influencing public thought and opinion, both at home and abroad.” In this lay an obligation to clean out such a force of ideological corruption. How to go about doing this? The MPA welcomed HUAC, a committee designed for the investigation of un-American activities in government, to come to Hollywood and flush out the source of subversive collectivist propaganda allegedly found in U.S. films. When HUAC came, many members of the MPA (including Walt Disney and Ronald Reagan) happily testified that the threat of communist subversion in Hollywood was imminent. And so, the hearings had begun.
Figure 6: newspaper clipping describing the testimony of Lela Rogers before the HUAC committee.
Figure 5: Renowned writers Bo Goldman, Richard Brooks, Billy Wilder, and Gore Vidal striking at the 20th Century-Fox Studios.
!
The blacklist began after a cascade of events beginning in 1947. HUAC had summoned to its investigative hearings a group of top-dog industry professionals to begin the research. Many of these men were part of the notoriously anti-communist
UNCSW 16 ! Motion Picture Alliance; actor Ronald Reagan, President of the Screen Actors Guild, and Walt Disney were some of the first to testify. These “friendly witnesses” claimed that there was a serious threat of communist subversion in Hollywood; some named alleged members of the American Communist Party within the ranks of the Screen Writers Guild (keep in mind, membership in the Party was never illegal; but the professional implications of such a fact were a career’s death warrant!). Forty-three film industry professionals were put on the witness list, largely based on allegations made by various conservative Los Angeles publications. Nineteen of them refused to give testimony and evidence, or to help the House Committee in any way. Of the nineteen, HUAC summoned eleven to stand before the committee. One of the eleven, Bertolt Brecht, renounced his pledge of silence and answered HUAC’s questions. The other ten-- almost all screenwriters, two directors, and one producer thrown in-- remained silent before the committee, refusing to answer the committee’s question. “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” The Hollywood Ten cited their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly in refusing to answer HUAC’s aggressive line of questioning. For this, the Ten were held in contempt of Congress. The House soon voted in favor of this citation, and soon after, in reaction to the apparent victory of anti-
!
communists across America, the Motion Picture Alliance issued the Waldorf Statement, which denied the Hollywood Ten of any possibility of continuing their careers in entertainment, unless they revoke their relationship with the Communist Party. These ten filmmakers constituted the first Hollywood blacklist.
Figure 7: The Hollywood 10 in 1947 waiting to be fingerprinted in front of the U.S. Marshal's office for being cited for contempt of Congress.
So far, we’ve covered the basics of the topic. During the years after the 1947 Waldorf Statement, the blacklist doubled in length many times over, becoming so symbolic of the paranoia of the time that even well known communist criticizers found themselves on it. Some artists
HUAC 17 !
pointed fingers to save themselves from HUAC persecution, while others named names to get the rest of Hollywood off their backs. When a name was even mentioned during a HUAC testimony, that same person was likely to appear on the Hollywood blacklist (in fact, this happened many times). What did the blacklist mean? Few governmental punishments were given during this widespread Red Scare; there was nothing illegal about being a communist. To be identified as one, however, meant the sudden and imminent death of one’s career. The alliance of the Producers’ Association with HUAC enabled this, for the producers held all of the hiring power. Famous writers and actors wouldn’t work in Hollywood for over a dozen years, if ever, after being on the list. Livelihoods were destroyed, and blacklisted artists had to bear the humiliation of such a wretched title. This was the true punishment of the list. The exact specificities of the history are less important for you to know. You can look those dates and characters up on your own time. What matters is that you understand the big picture of the years-long event. The Hollywood trials caused an entertainment industry to eat itself from the inside. Artists turned on fellow artists in fits of aggressive self-defense. Filmmakers were trapped between HUAC and their own producers, and no one was safe from pointed fingers.
!
UNCSW 18 !
TOPIC 3.
Government Investigations Topic History HUAC Investigations of the American Government In 1945, HUAC was made an official standing committee in Congress. Intended to be a continuation of the Dies Committee, its stated purpose was to investigate “(1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and unAmerican propaganda that . . . attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.” Inquiry into these “unAmerican propaganda activities” often took place within the government itself, a somewhat ironic measure for a non-judiciary governmental organization. The original intent of HUAC was to investigate members of both right and left wing political parties, in order to rout Communists from all facets of American life. Some requested investigations of leaders of the Ku Klux Klan; however, several prominent members of HUAC
!
including Martin Dies, John Rankin, and John S. Wood were supporters of the Ku Klux Klan and made excuses for excluding it from the investigations, citing it as “an old American institution” and thus beyond reproach.xxi This same leniency was not extended to left wing political parties, and HUAC largely became a tool of right-wing politicians to target their leftwing opponents. As mentioned in the section detailing “The Rise of HUAC in America,” the Dies Committee had made a significant effort to investigate President Roosevelt’s administration in an attempt to discredit his New Deal policies.xxii HUAC continued with these internal investigations, viewing itself as a “grand jury” of sorts whose job was to detect and expose private and government employees who engaged in any kind of “subversive” activity, vaguely defining “subversive” as anyone “who advocate[d] the overthrow of [the United States] government.”xxiii In other words, even HUAC itself was uncertain about its exact mandate and the kinds of people it was supposed to be weeding from the government.
HUAC 19 !
However, this uncertainty did not stop the committee from enthusiastically pursuing any and all leads of suspected “un-American” government officials, especially those who showed even the slightest sign of left-leaning political opinions. The difficulty with targeting left-wing political groups in general was the nebulous distinction between suspected Communists and liberal proponents of President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
On August 3, 1948, a man named David Whittaker Chambers appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee in order to present to the Committee his knowledge of an alleged Communist ring operating within the American government. A few days earlier, another witness named Elizabeth Bentley, a former
!
Communistcourier, had recounted a tale of Communist intrigue and betrayal seething under the surface of the American government. The Committee subpoenaed Chambers with the hope that he could corroborate or deny her story, and he did not disappoint. Chambers reported having acted as a vital member of the Communist underground in the 1930s in America and recounted an extensive list of other citizens who had worked with him. Many names were familiar to the committee, and Chambers succeeded at accusing both Roosevelt’s and Truman’s administrations of deep Communist infiltration. However, he also introduced a name as yet unheard by the committee, which rocked the scene of HUAC’s political investigations and suggested that the Communists’ influence might be even more farreaching than the Committee had imagined: Alger Hiss.
A few years prior, Hiss had worked as a senior State Department official and a highly influential figure in the past two presidential (Democratic) administrations. A well-known and
UNCSW 20 ! highly respected New-Deal Democrat, Hiss had acted as President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, advisor to the Secretary of State at the 1945 Yalta Conference, and Secretary General of the San Francisco Conference, where the charter of the United Nations was drafted. Chambers’ words, “Alger Hiss was a Communist and may be now,” further escalated the panic that permeated the nation, which Chambers then exacerbated further by accusing Hiss of not only being a Communist, but also of acting as a Soviet spy.xxiv
!
HUAC 21 !
Current Situation HUAC Function and Structure HUAC’s charter declares the committee’s purpose to be “the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution.”xxv This ambiguous phrase leaves the committee with an incredibly broad and nebulous realm of action, which at times leads to dissent within the committee itself as to its true scope and function. As an investigative committee, HUAC has three primary roles: to seek information that might permit Congress to act more wisely; to monitor administrative agencies, particularly with respect to law enforcement and expenditure of public funds; and to try to influence public opinion of its own actions and of the principles it tries to enforce. For HUAC, the third goal is the most important, as its actions are designed to shape public opinion about the true nature of “unAmerican” activities and to prove its views to be true. HUAC is a unique hybrid of legislative and judicial functions, viewing itself as both an enforcer of public policy and as a final court of justice separating the guilty from the innocent. Though the lines frequently blur, HUAC is not a true court of justice, a fact that even its own members tend to forget at times. The confusion is not aided by the fact that the committee has never had any interest or understanding in mapping out a more systematic method of investigating suspected “un-American” activities or a plan for carrying out these investigations. Rather, it prefers to act on a day-by-
!
day basis, choosing what members perceive to be the most pressing issue at the time. Procedures are largely determined by the situation and vary in terms of an open versus closed committee and a full versus subcommittee meeting, as well as in the method of questioning witnesses and in the rights granted to witnesses. For example, differentiation is made between a “friendly” and a “hostile” witness, and their treatment varies accordingly. Friendly witnesses are allowed much more leeway to tell stories in their own words, are rarely asked embarrassing questions, and are often asked few questions at all. On the other hand, hostile witnesses are frequently denied the right to prepare statements or to testify informally at all and are subjected to strict cross-examination. Generally, when examining a witness, the committee allows a staff member to initiate questioning and to develop the general line of inquiry, while committee members join the examination as the hearing proceeds. However, individual members often become agitated and emotional during questioning, making it difficult to maintain a methodical line of inquiry. As the committee’s Chairman Thomas once said to a witness in the midst of a heated investigation, “The rights you have are the rights given you by this committee.” Another controversial topic among members of the committee is witnesses’ rights to counsel. Judicial procedure generally considers the relationship between a witness and his counsel to be confidential; however, HUAC has no such considerations and, as such, often seeks to know the opinion of the witness’s counsel as well as the witness himself. The giver of counsel yet again blurs the lines between HUAC’s legislative and
UNCSW 22 ! judicial functions, acting somewhere between the more traditionally silent counselor of a legislative committee and the much more active role of the attorney in court. Members of HUAC have often objected to a witness requesting aid frequently from a counselor, especially when it leads to a refusal to respond to a specific line of questioning, even if that line of questioning may be self-incriminating for the witness. Additionally, HUAC has never formally recognized the right to cross-examination or the right of reply, a fact that can at times lead to “character assassination,” in which witnesses simply accuse individuals of “un-American” activities, subjecting them to further investigation and tarnishing their reputations. The general procedure when HUAC identifies a citizen of engaging in suspected “unAmerican” activities is to first send the individual a subpoena to appear before the committee and receive a hearing. During the hearing, the individual is asked questions about his or her political beliefs and about any other citizens who might have engaged in the same suspicious activities. Any other suspects identified by the first individual are often sent subpoenas to appear before the committee and receive their own hearing (thus enabling the “character assassination” process). Refusing to answer a line of questioning was seen as contempt of Congress and could be punished with time in prison. While subjects could
!
invoke their Fifth Amendment right to avoid selfincrimination, this was often seen more as an admission of guilt than anything else and could result in job loss or “blacklisting” from a specific industry.xxvi Current Situation: Members of HUAC Following are the members who will be present during our time in HUAC. Brief biographical information is provided for each member, but you will be expected to do more extensive research into your own character’s history and personality, and it would be helpful to also be familiar with the backgrounds and personalities of other players involved. Representative Richard B. Vail of Illinois: born in Chicago, Cook County, Ill., August 31, 1895; attended the public schools, the School of Commerce, the Chicago Technical College, and the John Marshall Law School; during the First World War served in the United States Army as a lieutenant of Infantry; engaged in the manufacture of steel products; elected as a Republican to the Eightieth Congress (January 3, 1947-January 3, 1949); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1948 to the Eighty-first Congress; elected to the Eightysecond Congress (January 3, 1951-January 3, 1953); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1952 to the Eighty-third Congress and for election in 1954 to the Eighty-fourth Congress; chairman of the board of directors of the Vail Manufacturing Co., Chicago, Ill.xxvii
HUAC 23 !
Chairman John Parnell Thomas of New Jersey: A member of the Republican Party, Thomas was elected to Congress in January 1937. Thomas held right-wing views and claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal policies had "sabotaged the capitalist system". He objected to the idea of the subsidized theatre and led the attack on the Federal Theatre & Writers Project. Thomas claimed that: "Practically every play presented under the auspices of the Project is sheer propaganda for Communism or the New Deal." In 1947 Thomas was appointed chairman of the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).xxviii Representative John McDowell of Pennsylvania: a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in Pitcairn, Allegheny County, Pa., November 6, 1902; attended the public and high schools; was graduated from Randolph-Macon Military Academy, Front Royal, Va., in 1923; employed as a reporter on the Pitcairn Express in 1923 and worked on various newspapers until 1929; magistrate of Pitcairn 1925-1928; became editor of the Wilkinsburg Gazette in 1929 and president of the Wilkinsburg Gazette Publishing Co., in 1933; elected as a Republican to the Seventy-sixth Congress (January 3, 1939-January 3, 1941); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1940 to the Seventy-seventh Congress and for election in 1942 to the Seventy-eighth Congress; elected in 1946 to the Eightieth Congress (January 3, 1947-January 3, 1949); unsuccessful for reelection in 1948 to the Eighty-first Congress.xxix Robert E. Stripling: The chief investigator for HUAC was Robert E. Stripling. Stripling was the primary interviewer for those brought before the committee and, thus, did most of the interacting with accused Communists.
!
Representative Richard M. Nixon of California: Richard M. Nixon, the son of a grocer, was born on 9th January, 1913. His father owned a small lemon farm in Yorba Linda, California. A good student, Nixon graduated from Whittier College in 1934. Nixon joined the United States Navy in August, 1942. Given the rank of lieutenant he was sent to the Pacific as an operations officer with the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command. He left the Navy in January 1946 when the Republican Party in Whittier asked him to run for Congress. During the campaign he attacked the New Deal and accused his Democratic Party opponent as an enemy of free enterprise. Elected to the House of Representative, Nixon was invited to join the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) where he became involved in its campaign against subversion.xxx Representative Martin Dies of Texas: Martin Dies was born in Mitchell County, Texas, on 5th November, 1900. He graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1919. Dies then went on to study law at the National Defense University in Washington before being admitted to the bar in 1920. Dies worked as a lawyer in Marshall and Orange before becoming a member of the faculty of East Texas Law School. A member of the Democratic Party, Dies was first elected to the Senate in 1931. Dies was the first chairman of the HUAC and returns to our committee in 1950 to share his insight from his past experiences on the committee and use his experiences to help with the current investigations.xxxi Gordon H. Scherer: Scherer had been an assistant prosecuting attorney in Cincinnati and had held municipal offices that included a seat on the City
UNCSW 24 ! Council from 1946 to 1949. He became a ranking Republican on the House Committee of UnAmerican Activities and spent four years on the committee. He remained a fervent anti-Communist for all of his life.xxxii Karl Earl Mundt: Karl Mundt was born in Humboldt, South Dakota, on 3rd June, 1900. After graduating from Columbia University he became a high school teacher in Bryant (1923-27) before moving to the General Beadle State Teachers College (1927-36). Mundt was also involved in real estate and the insurance business. A member of the Republican Party, Mundt was elected to Congress in January 1939. Mundt was a member of House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and spoke passionately about the need for anti-Communist legislation in the United States.xxxiii Felix Edward Herbert: a Representative from Louisiana; born in New Orleans, Orleans Parish, La., October 12, 1901; attended public and parochial schools, Jesuit High School, New Orleans, La., and Tulane University, New Orleans, La., 1920-1924; engaged in newspaper and editorial work in New Orleans, La., 1918-1940; colonel on staff of the Governor of Louisiana in 1936; served as personal representative of the Governor in Washington, D.C., in 1940; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-seventh and to the seventeen succeeding Congresses.xxxiv
!
John Elliot Rankin: John Rankin was born in Itawamba County, Mississippi, on 29th March, 1882. After graduating from the University of Mississippi in 1910 he admitted to the bar and worked as a lawyer in Clay County. In 1911 he was appointed prosecuting attorney of Lee County but joined the USA Army during the First World War. A member of the Democratic Party, Rankin was elected to the House of Representatives in 1921. Chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation he was co-sponsor of the bill that created the Tennessee Valley Authority. Rankin was a strong supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Dealpolicies. However, he was a strong opponent of civil rights and his involvement with theKu Klux Klan exposed him as a racist. Rankin was made a member of HUAC, where he continued his support of the KKK.xxxv Donald L. Jackson: Jackson attended the public schools of South Dakota and California. He served as a private in the United States Marine Corps from 1927 to 1931 and again from 1940 until discharged as a major in 1945 with two years' combat service overseas. He engaged in public relations, and worked as a reporter and editor in Santa Monica, California from 1938 to 1940. He served as director of publicity for the city of Santa Monica, in 1939 and 1940. Jackson was a congressional adviser at the ninth conference of American States at Bogotรก, Colombia in 1948 and
HUAC 25 !
was elected as a Republican to the Eightiethand to the six succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1947 – January 3, 1961). His congressional service included the House Un-American Activities Committee, and a notable role in accusing Methodist Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam of engaging in communist activities. He was not a candidate for renomination in 1960. He worked as a radio and television commentator from 1960 to 1968, and was appointed by President Nixon as a commissioner on Interstate Commerce Commission in 1969.xxxvi Jerry Voorhis: Horace Jeremiah "Jerry" Voorhis (April 6, 1901 – September 11, 1984) was a Democratic politician from California. He served five terms in the United States House of Representatives from 1937 to 1947, representing the 12th Congressional district in Los Angeles County. Voorhis was born in Kansas, but the family relocated frequently in his childhood. He earned a bachelor's degree from Yale University (where he was elected to the academic honor society Phi Beta Kappa) and a master's degree in education from Claremont Graduate School. In the House of Representatives, Voorhis was a loyal supporter of the New Deal and compiled a liberal voting record. His major legislative achievement was the Voorhis Act of 1940 requiring registration of certain organizations controlled by foreign powers. Voorhis loathed Communism; he was known well for that resentment. He sponsored the Voorhis Act of 1940, which required political organizations which were controlled by a foreign power or which engaged in military activities to subvert the American government to register with the Justice Department. Voorhis also served as a member of
!
HUAC until 1943, when he resigned from the committee. John Stephens Wood: John Stephen Wood was born in Cherokee County, Georgia, on 8th February, 1885. After graduating from Mercer University in 1910 he was admitted to the bar and worked as a lawyer in Jasper. Wood served as solicitor general of the judicial circuit of Georgia (1921-25) and judge of the superior courts (192531). He was also openly a member of the Ku Klux Klan. A member of the Democratic Party, Wood was elected to Congress in 1931. He lost his seat in 1934 but returned after the Second World War. He was chairman of theUn-American Activities Committee (1945-46 and 1949-52) and played an important role in the investigation of the American Communist Party and the entertainment industry.xxxvii Herman Peter Eberharter (April 29, 1892 – September 9, 1958) was a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. Eberharter was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. During the First World War, he served in the United States Army as a private in the Twentieth Infantry and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He was a member of the Officers’ Reserve Corps with rank of captain. He graduated from Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh in 1925. He became a member of the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives in 1935 and 1936. He was elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-fifth and to the ten succeeding Congresses. He served from January 3, 1937, until his death in Arlington, Virginia. In 1945, Ebeharter introduced the legislation that gave official Congressional approval of the Pledge of
UNCSW 26 ! Allegiance. Beginning with the 78th United States Congress, he sat as a member of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means. Eberharter was a member of the Dies Committee, which received the "Yellow Report" alleging JapaneseAmerican espionage during World War II based on cultural traits such as Buddhist faith and a high proportion of fishermen among the population. Eberharter was the only member of the committee to openly express opposition to wartime internment of Japanese Americans.
!
HUAC 27 !
Questions to Consider We would like you to consider in your discussions these questions: What constitutes an “Un-American” activity? What is the best way to go about characterizing actions as such, and what is the best way to investigate these activities? What are potential consequences of having Communist-leaning employees working for the United States government? How might these consequences be prevented? What are the connections between President Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and the Communist Party’s precepts? What are some indications that a government official might be a Communist sympathizer? A Soviet spy? Are these indications similar, or are there detectable differences? What role does the Ku Klux Klan and other similar groups play in HUAC’s investigations? Should a broad array of political parties and sympathies be investigated, or should HUAC primarily focus on left-wing groups? What does it mean for a film to be subversive? HUAC claimed to base many of its judgments on the movies of that era. It and the MPA believed that most subversion would be found implicitly, in hidden symbols and messages scattered throughout every scene. How do you go about deciding that? Is the 1st Amendment, the constitutional right which the Hollywood 10 used to defend themselves against the committee, a valid defense when discussing national security? This was an extremely relevant question mid-20th century as it is today. America was in the Cold War, and communist subversion was a popularly feared threat. Can this right be ignored when safety is thought to be at stake? For how long can you point fingers before HUAC loses legitimacy in the eyes of the public? What is the threshold of persecution that can be done? Is there a line to be drawn in this witch hunt? Accusing everyone of subverting American values in their films would go too far and decrease the committee’s influence on the national stage. It would simply be less believable. Perhaps not every suspect should be accused.
!
UNCSW 28 !
Suggested Further Readings Complete version of Kennan’s Long Telegram: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode1/kennan.htm Truman’s speech to Congress: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=81&page=transcript The Cold War – John Gaddis Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States – Reagan Schmidt MPA Complete Statement: http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/huac_alliance.htm Gladchuk, John Joseph (2006). Hollywood and Anticommunism: HUAC and the Evolution of the Red Menace, 1935-1950 Goodman, Walter (1968). The Committee: The Extraordinary Career of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Bernstein, Walter (2000). Inside Out: A Memoir of the Blacklist. New York: Da Capo.
Suggested Films Mission to Moscow (1943) Song of Russia (1944)
!
Please also make sure you are registered on the delegate forum, your advisors should provide you with a sign up ink. For the latest information, updates, topic guides and more, visit Yale Model United Nations online at: http://ymun.yira.org For the second year, YMUN will be offering a competitive essay competition. For the rules and guidelines visit: http://ymun.yira.org/essay-contest/ Interested in participating in a challenging new program for highly motivated and exceptional delegates? Apply for the Global Exchange Program at: http://ymun.yira.org/global-exchange/ Get connected and download the new Yale Model United Nations iPhone application: https://itunes.apple.com/tc/app/yale-model-unitednations/id721125366?mt=8 or search for Yale Model UN
Like Yale Model United Nations on Facebook and receive all the latest updates: https://www.facebook.com/yalemun
Stay up to date and follow Yale Model United Nations both before and during the conference: @YaleModelUN Find the latest pictures on Yale Model United Nations’s Instagram: ymun: http://instagram.com/ymun
HUAC 29 !
NOTES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i
Frank Costigliola.”Unceasing Pressure for Penetration: Gender, Pathology, and Emotion in George Kennan’s Cold War. The Journal of American History. ii Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University, 1987. iii Ibid. iv http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,815031,00.html! v
Michael Warner. “Venona: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957.” http://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/carrollt/Site/Optional%20Readings_files/Venona%20%20Soviet%20Espionage%20and%20the%20American%20Response,%201939-1957.pdf vi Ibid. vii Ibid. viii John Gaddis, The Cold War, The Penguin Press, New York, 2005. ix Ibid. x Warner, “Venona; Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957.” xi Warner, “Venona; Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957.” xii Regin Schmidt, Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943, 136-140! xiii
Regin Schmidt, Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943, 329-330 http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-22-select-propaganda.html xv Regin Schmidt, Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943, 349-355. xvi Larry Ceplair, The Inquisition in Hollywood, The Anchor Press, 1980. xvii Ibid. xviii Ibid. xix Ibid. xx Larry Ceplair, The Inquisition in Hollywood, The Anchor Press, 1980. xxi http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhuac.htm xxii Regin Schmidt, Red Scare: FBI and the Origins of Anticommunism in the United States, 1919-1943, 349-355. xxiii Constitutional Limitations on the Un-American Activities Committee, Columbia Law Review, 47:3, 419-420. xxiv Bruce Craig, “Politics in the Pumpkin Patch,” The Public Historian , Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter, 1990), pp. 8-24. xiv
xxv
Robert K. Carr, “The Un-American Activities Committee,” The University of Chicago Law Review, 18:3 (Spring, 1951), 598, accessed August 25, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1597778. xxvi Robert K. Carr, “The Un-American Activities Committee,” The University of Chicago Law Review, 18:3 (Spring, 1951), 598, accessed August 25, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1597778. xxvii http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=V000003 xxviii http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparnell.htm xxix http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M000422 xxx http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnixon.htm xxxi http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdies.htm xxxii http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/17/obituaries/gordon-scherer-81-served-in-the-house-and-united-nations.html xxxiii http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmundt.htm xxxiv http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000437 xxxv http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArankinJ.htm xxxvi http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000008 xxxvii http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwoodJ.htm
!