Gun Owners and the McCarthy Era.


PDA






Rachen
April 15, 2008, 07:45 PM
I know that the McCarthy era was a tough time on many people. I just watched a film called "Atomic Cafe", and it showed actual newsreels of the hysteria and fear that gripped people during that time, so much hysteria that many truths were distorted, and facts were bloated to hideous proportions by a media that fed on people's fears.

I wish to know how the gun owning population fared during this time. Did they suffer any persecution?
The era was a tough time for many different groups. Was the gun owning population also mislabeled as dangerous or deviant?

Please enlighten me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Owners and the McCarthy Era." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CBS220
April 15, 2008, 07:47 PM
While not a particularly great facet of the period insofar as personal freedoms are concerned, McCarthyism was way overblown.

Although I have to say I like the idea of rounding up the Commies...

Markbo
April 15, 2008, 07:47 PM
it showed actual newsreels of the hysteria and fear that gripped people during that time, so much hysteria that many truths were distorted, and facts were bloated to hideous proportions by a media that fed on people's fears

Hmmmm... I don't see the big difference between then and now.

slowworm
April 15, 2008, 08:07 PM
Although I have to say I like the idea of rounding up the Gun Owners...


Doesn't read quite so well now does it?

Until they actually commit treason then they can hold whatever beliefs they want. Wanting to get elected is not a treason last time I looked at the law.

If the communists gained enough power at the state and federal level and with enough popular support they could re-write the constitution at a constitutional convention and have it ratified using the very mechanisms the founding fathers put in place.

All following the constitution to the very letter.

The first amendment means what it says, just like the second. You can't pick and choose.

CBS220
April 15, 2008, 08:14 PM
Not one to pick up a joke, are you?

Car Knocker
April 15, 2008, 08:19 PM
Not one to pick up a joke, are you?
That's why we have smilies.

bogie
April 15, 2008, 08:25 PM
That was really before gun ownership was as politicized as it is today. You didn't see a lot of "gun" politics prior to the mid-sixties.

slowworm
April 15, 2008, 09:38 PM
A smiley would have helped.

I've heard it said too many times by folks who meant it.

fearless leader
April 15, 2008, 10:12 PM
Don't even get me started. Joe McCarthy, IMHO was on the right track. I won't argue the point, that's just my opinion. I believe the people he mentioned were communists, he just couldn't prove it.

mgregg85
April 18, 2008, 12:53 AM
It doesn't matter in the least if they were communists or not.

Being American citizens gives them the right to have whatever political beliefs they want.

If Joe McCarthy could have proven that they were working with the soviets, that would be a different case. In reality he just wagged the dog for political attention.

Diamondback6
April 18, 2008, 03:16 AM
Three suggested references here: The Sword and the Shield, The Mitrokhin Archive and The World Was Going Our Way. These three volumes together shed a disturbing light on the KGB's operations to subvert us, including infiltrating State Dept., academia and the media...

McCarthy's tactics weren't the best, but things should've been at least seriously but quietly investigated, rather than fomenting the Red Scare.
"There's always ... something, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not know about it!"--Agent K, MIB

Cosmoline
April 18, 2008, 04:26 AM
The whole "red scare" business gets played up more in hindsight. There was a lot of propaganda, but apart from some spies nobody got "rounded up." There's a great deal of complaining about the black listing of communist writers, but then again there were a lot of communist writers. Though it's hard to believe now, some on the radical left were LITERALLY getting their orders from Moscow.

Remember all the kvetching about the Rosenberg execution? After the wall came down the other side released documents showing Julius at least was in it up to his eyeballs.

Until they actually commit treason then they can hold whatever beliefs they want. Wanting to get elected is not a treason last time I looked at the law.

Indeed, but nobody was getting executed because they were Communist. The whole point of the HUAC investigations at that point was to get the communists exposed AS COMMUNISTS. People got into trouble by perjuring themselves or "contempt of Congress", which basically means they refused to answer but asserted no valid Constitutional privilege.

What irks me is how many on the left still view the naming of names as a great Betrayal. These were Stalin's paid hacks, operating IN SECRET. Is it all that surprising folks would want them off the payroll? Nobody was forcing them to stop being communist, or even to stop making movies. They were stopped from making movies on the dime of the studios while operating as a communist in secret.

ozarkhillbilly
April 18, 2008, 11:45 PM
Joe McCarthy, gets blamed for a lot of stuff that he did not do, how many people realize he was the godfather of one of JFKs kids. McCarthy has been demonized but never been proven wrong. For the most part his claims have all been proved correct.

But why on earth would someone think that just because you go after communist that you would also go after gun owners, maybe you have drank to much of Hollywood’s cool aid.

By the way it was the House that went after Hollywood not the Senate.

mp510
April 19, 2008, 12:12 AM
I wish to know how the gun owning population fared during this time. Did they suffer any persecution?
The era was a tough time for many different groups. Was the gun owning population also mislabeled as dangerous or deviant?
While not associated with McCarthy, the book Negroes With Guns describes the use of Soviet made rifles as a means of proving that the blacks seeking were Communists. Of course, those folks missed the fact that the same folks had a lot of foreign guns- including NAZI surplus guns, yet they made no attempt to brand them as National Socialist sympathisers. However, the real qualm would have been that there is a bunch of armed blacks trying to breack from their race role in the Jim Crow south.

A lot of the 1950's era "with hunts" (as many like to call them) are what many historians believe to be an effort to reestablish stability in the post-war era. Those historians note the targeting of gays and sexual deviants, and overmothering, as arguments in their favor.

While there was some polls that suggest there would have been support for handgun bans in the
1950s, guns were not really seen as deviant in US society- especially in terms of sporting arms and military collectibles (think about all the DEWAT war surplus machine guns that were put on the market then).

Nate C.
April 19, 2008, 12:54 AM
Isn't this just about the point in the thread where somebody starts ranting about jack-booted government thugs and legalizing drugs?

Old Fuff
April 19, 2008, 01:13 AM
Was the gun owning population also mislabeled as dangerous or deviant?

No, because at the time gun ownership and use wasn't seen in any political context, and especially a threatening one. Street crime wasn't particularly serious, there was no war on drugs or any other vice, and the gun-grabber movement lay in the future. For gun owners it was one of the best of all times.

WayneConrad
April 19, 2008, 06:51 AM
What irks me is how many on the left still view the naming of names as a great Betrayal. These were Stalin's paid hacks, operating IN SECRET. Is it all that surprising folks would want them off the payroll? Nobody was forcing them to stop being communist, or even to stop making movies. They were stopped from making movies on the dime of the studios while operating as a communist in secret.
Do you see it as a good thing that the country got so wound up that private industry was afraid to employ these folks merely because congress was pissed at 'em?

You should be more afraid of the power of of your own federal government. It is closer, and more dangerous to you than communism, or any other ism, both then and now.

Robert Hairless
April 19, 2008, 07:28 AM
I lived through that dreadful time. It isn't something I've read about. A great many ordinary people were afraid, and with good reason.

So-called "loyalty oaths" proliferated. There was no choice but to sign them or lose your job. Vendors often were required to sign them before businesses or public institutions would buy from them. The most tenuous link with a so-called "subversive organization" brought accusations of disloyalty, firing, and blacklisting so that the person was not able to work in that industry.

Think about those online petitions people here get fired up to sign, or the "empty holsters" demonstrations, or protests about some online anti-gun article, or joining a forum such as this one. During the McCarthy era the equivalents of doing such things could make you a subversive.

All that was just part of the look and feel of McCarthyism and witch hunting. Ordinary people lived afraid. Anything they might do could destroy them. Any neighbor, acquaintance, or college classmate could be an informant. So could someone sitting near you at a restaurant or another member of a club you joined. Your mail could be monitored, your magazine subscriptions tracked, your phone tapped. None of this is fiction. It happened to real people living ordinary lives, and although it didn't happen to most people it did happen to enough of them so that many people kept check on what they said, where they went, what they read, and what they did. It was madness.

McCarthy certainly was the major carrier of that insanity but he quickly spread it. Madness spreads quickly and runs rampant through societies. Congress was not the only source of it. Otherwise ordinary people became "super patriots" and were thrilled to hurt as many other people as they could reach so as to demonstrate their own Americanism. Truth didn't matter. Spin did.

If you see nothing wrong with what happened then, don't protest if it happens now.

buck00
April 19, 2008, 07:37 AM
I wish to know how the gun owning population fared during this time. Did they suffer any persecution?
The era was a tough time for many different groups. Was the gun owning population also mislabeled as dangerous or deviant?

No, gun owners were not targeted simply for owning guns during McCarthyism. McCarthyism was a reaction to the postwar political atmosphere; the start of the Cold War, the Soviets getting the bomb (courtesy of spies), the shock of the Korean War, and a backlash against liberals and FDR's lingering effects (socialism). Homosexuals and liberal actors were targeted too. There was an obsession with who was "loyal" and who wasn't.

I know it's fun to look back and say "yeah we didn't take any sh-- from commies then!" but a lot of regular people had their liberty compromised during this era. Watch "Manchurian Candidate" or "Dr. Strangelove" sometime, each is critical of McCarthy. The 1954 hearings (after he tried to go after the Army) exposed McCarthy for what he was: a liar, a bully, and an opportunist who had reckless disregard for the constitution.

During this time, if you were targeted or accused and you owned guns, I'm sure that would be a reason for you to be all the more harassed, etc, as the idea was you could possibly be a Soviet agent. But no- if you were a right-wing, God fearing citizen back then, they DID NOT come down on you for owning guns. Remember, that was the good old days when you could buy rifles or pistols from a hardware store and rural kids could still bring .22s to school to hunt rabbits on their walk home. :)

El Tejon
April 19, 2008, 10:08 AM
I know that the McCarthy era was a tough time on many people

Ummm, no, it wasn't. It was only tough on those who committed treason.

McCarthy was right, there were Communists working for the State Department. McCarthy did not want to "round anyone up", he merely wanted those in the federal government to be sent to private practice.

The 1954 hearings (after he tried to go after the Army) exposed McCarthy for what he was: a liar, a bully, and an opportunist who had reckless disregard for the constitution.

Again, no, that is completely off base. The Army hearings were about McCarthy, not about the Army. The hearings were about whether McCarthy's staff, specifically Roy Cohn (the Rosenberg prosecutor who had a homosexual crush on another of McCarthy's staffers), tried to give another McCarthy staffer, who was drafted, a fur-lined cap and to have him ride in a truck rather than march.

McCarthy did not lie. There were Soviet agents in the State Department as the Venona Project revealed (which a lot has been translated into English now, go and read and see that McCarthy was right).

McCarthy did not bully. It was he who was bullied by the Treason Lobby in the U.S. Government and a Traitorous Media.

McCarty was not an opportunist but a patriot who was concerned about Soviet infilitration into the government. Above all, he was right--there were Soviet agents working for the USSR inside our government.

What "reckless disregard" of the Constitution could you be citing?:confused:

I know it's fun to look back and say "yeah we didn't take any sh-- from commies then!" but a lot of regular people had their liberty compromised during this era.

Who?:confused: The Soviet agents inside the federal government? Who? Who other than Alger Hiss, who McCarthy was not involved in, had his liberty curtailed by being convicted for Perjury. Heck, even Hiss become a darling at NYC cocktail parties and was reinstated to the Massachusetts bar after his felony conviction. Who had his liberty curtailed/compromised?

Watch "Manchurian Candidate" or "Dr. Strangelove" sometime, each is critical of McCarthy.

History from the hollow-headed in Hollywood? No thank you. Whether because of radical chic or actual treason, Hollywood has long had it in for the USA.

You do know that McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC, right? You know what HUAC stands for, right? Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC.

Being American citizens gives them the right to have whatever political beliefs they want.

Maybe so, but if you are a Soviet agent you should not be working for the federal government. Even if you are a private citizen, you cannot be committing treason against the USA.

The Media hates McCarthy because he was right. He showed that loyal Democrats no longer had a party and the Media will never forgive him.

slowworm
April 19, 2008, 10:28 AM
Maybe so, but if you are a Soviet agent you should not be working for the federal government. Even if you are a private citizen, you cannot be committing treason against the USA.

It is a very specific and chargable offense to act for a foreign power. So how many people blacklisted or investigated were found guilty of treason?

We complain when the mental health laws in California are used to deprive gun owners their rights. What's the difference? In both cases rights are abrogated by a powerful state entity.

I happen to agree McCarthy had a number of legitmate concerns. But ultimately he did far more harm than good by the methods he took to persue his ends.

El Tejon
April 19, 2008, 10:33 AM
So how many people blacklisted or investigated were found guilty of treason?

Lots. Heck, Cohn nailed a dozen of them in his first few years as a AUSA in NYC (IIRC it was Smith Act) and he even nailed William Remington for Perjury for Remington's lying about not being a Communist. As I've stated before, Venona showed that there were many Soviety agents working for the federal government and that McCarthy was right.

What rights did McCarthy abrogate?:confused: He wanted hearings into the employees of the federal government. A Soviet agent does not have a right to work for the federal government.

About what "methods" are you complaining?:confused:

Aguila Blanca
April 19, 2008, 12:38 PM
I wish to know how the gun owning population fared during this time. Did they suffer any persecution?
The era was a tough time for many different groups. Was the gun owning population also mislabeled as dangerous or deviant?
Joe McCarthy was chasing communists, not Americans. I don't recall any mention of guns at all. My grandparents hated McCarthy and owned guns. Never any mention of the guns.

Ummm, no, it wasn't. It was only tough on those who committed treason.
I disagree. I lived through it. As Robert Hairless already posted, a LOT of ordinary people were VERY afraid during that time. Joe McCarthy was a zealot and a lunatic. He made things tough on a lot of people who never even thought about committing treason. If you weren't alive during the period when he was conducting his televised hearings, if you didn't watch them on that new-fangled "television" thingie -- with all respect, you cannot possibly understand just how dangerous he was. Truth to him was merely an inconvenience, to be gotten around or covered up however expedient once he decided to "get" someone.

searcher451
April 19, 2008, 04:31 PM
The rantings about Crazy Joe here have precious little to do with guns, despite the premise of the thread, and surely seem out of place on a forum that touts taking the high road.

El Tejon
April 19, 2008, 05:26 PM
Joe McCarthy was a zealot and a lunatic. He made things tough on a lot of people who never even thought about committing treason.

Who?

Truth to him was merely an inconvenience, to be gotten around or covered up however expedient once he decided to "get" someone.

Please cite an example.

Crazy Joe

McCarthy was not crazy. As the Venona Project confirmed, there were Soviet agents working inside the federal government, not including the media, driving U.S. policy to the Communists favor.

a forum that touts taking the high road

What can be more high road than correcting an incorrect assumption by the original poster?

ozarkhillbilly
April 19, 2008, 11:35 PM
El Tejon

Thanks, for posting in more detail then I did last night.

Neo-Luddite
April 20, 2008, 12:24 AM
"Atomic Cafe" is a fantastic film. At one point a Priest is describing how it might be morally correct for a man to have 'protective devices' in his shelter to defend his family.

benEzra
April 20, 2008, 12:44 AM
"McCarthyism" went far beyond McCarthy, and it actually predated him. He and his methods are certainly a symbol of it, and his fall helped end it, but there is far more to McCarthyism than what McCarthy did, and there were bigger players in the movement than he.

As former President Harry S Truman observed in 1953,

“It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism. I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.

Post-9/11, a lot of us rightly complain about warrantless searches and wiretapping, convictions in the media without regard to the truth, lack of due process, secret paid informants making anonymous allegations, secret evidence at trials, and secret watchlists created at bureaucratic whim. Those practices were no less wrong then than they are now.

To the question in the OP, I doubt gun owners were targeted; academics, union organizers, port workers, artists and entertainers, and government employees were the main targets.

BUT, I dare say that McCarthy and Hoover would have given the hairy eyebrow (and a spot on the watchlist) to anyone who hung out at a meetingplace owned by a Russian immigrant, staffed by a Muslim, welcoming of GLBT's, and attended by people who believe they have the right to resist hypothetical government oppression with force. I am, of course, describing THR itself. In short, what every single one of us is doing right at this moment, on this forum, would have been widely considered "subversive" in 1950. Personally, that's not the kind of America I would want to live in, and I'm not particularly thrilled about Homeland Security types trying to resurrect that mentality today.

lathedog
April 20, 2008, 01:41 AM
A search on Amazon will result is several good books detailing the issue. Try a search using keyword "Venona".

There doesn't seem to be much RKBA relevance in general. I think that should close the issue as far as THR is concerned.

Robert Hairless
April 20, 2008, 02:19 AM
The standard question asked of people testifying at loyalty inquiries was "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?" There are just a few reasonable answers to that question.

One possible answer would have been "Yes," in which case you would have been judged subversive and your career would have been at an end. The trouble is that a great many Americans had joined the Communist Party in the Great Depression during the 1930s because it promised hope for hungry people. A great many other Americans had joined other organizations then that turned out to have been funded or controlled by the party. It would take a hard man indeed to claim that all the many thousands of these people were traitors or subversives. But that's exactly what many hard men--including Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover--did during the years following the end of World War II. Looking backwards from the 1950s to the 1930s they saw history in ways that distorted people and events through the filter of the Cold War. So writers and actors whose World War II movies acknowledged the Soviet Union as allies and its military as courageous, hard fighting men and women, were transformed into subversives retroactively. That the U.S. government encouraged such propaganda was no defense. In fact it contributed to the indictment because the government itself was indicted as riddled with subversives and disloyal. If you weren't a "Commie" you might be a "fellow traveler" or a "ComSymp."

Of course another possible answer to the question was "No." But if you had once belonged to a group that you didn't know was funded by the Communist Party or had officers that were members, you could be--and often people were--indicted for perjury. And your career was ended that way too.

Yet a third possible answer--the one any American lawyer would have advised for his client--would have invoked the Fifth Amendment. In which case you subjected yourself to contempt proceedings and your career was ended that way too.

Now back up, right to the beginning of this message. That question should never have been asked. Never. This is not that kind of country. But it was.

It troubles me that someone in an earlier message in this thread said something like "At least Julius Rosenberg turned out to be a Soviet spy." He does indeed seem to have been one. But there's no evidence that his wife was, and she also was executed after having been convicted of espionage. That's a big part of the trouble with McCarthyism and its defenders. Cast a wide enough net for whatever you want to punish and you're bound to catch at least some people who probably have earned punishment. But if you catch offenders that way you're also bound to get at least some who haven't done anything wrong. And if that doesn't bother you, it should.

Sen. McCarthy's apologists never seem to mention that in 1954 he was censured for his conduct by his colleagues in the Senate on a 67 to 22 vote: 75% of the Senate condemning him. Or that McCarthy made wild claims that were demonstrably inconsistent or obviously false: his initial list of 205 subversives in government varied in number from time to time, and he never produced such a list anyway. MCarthy lived and died a reckless drunk after harming a great many people and his country.

Gun owners need not glorify such a man.

campbell
April 20, 2008, 02:31 AM
McCarthy did not lie. There were Soviet agents in the State Department as the Venona Project revealed (which a lot has been translated into English now, go and read and see that McCarthy was right).

And somehow, I find myself refuting this for the second time today. Sheesh. Listen to Robert Hairless, he's dead on.

John Haynes compared McCarthy's lists to Venona (http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html).

McCarthy was a dangerous nut.

Draven32
April 20, 2008, 02:46 AM
I just graduated from film school.

A certain instructor, in a certain class, while discussing the history of Hollywood, and the "Red Scare" in particular, talked with obvious distaste for Ronald Reagan because he named names for people whom he knew were attending CPUSA meetings. Just the way he was talking about it, like communism never hurt a fly, wanted me to ask him that question.

Robert Hairless
April 20, 2008, 04:43 AM
Just the way he was talking about it, like communism never hurt a fly, wanted me to ask him that question.

There's no special reason why you should have read anything I posted above, Draven32, but if you did read it you came away with a poor synopsis. Neither I nor anyone else defended Communism, and I never even addressed it. I was talking about people.

I've especially been talking about people who have no concern for other people and don't care what havoc they wreak on other lives while they singlemindedly pursue their own self-interest and self-aggrandisement. I was talking about Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Martin Dies, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, and the kind of people who will chew you up and spit you out later in your life for what you do in these experimental, younger stages of life.

The winds are never constant. They always shift. When they shift against you, expect no more of mercy than you've shown other people when the winds blew in your favor. That's not a defense of treason. It's humanity.

El Tejon
April 20, 2008, 12:37 PM
"McCarthyism" went far beyond McCarthy, and it actually predated him.

Quite correct. I find it amusing that McCarthyism is blamed for HUAC investigations. I've even heard "McCarthyism" blamed during HUAC's investigation of the Ku Klux Klan.

Post-9/11, a lot of us rightly complain about warrantless searches and wiretapping, convictions in the media without regard to the truth, lack of due process, secret paid informants making anonymous allegations, secret evidence at trials, and secret watchlists created at bureaucratic whim. Those practices were no less wrong then than they are now.


But McCarthy did not do any of that. He had a list of 57 people that he wanted investigated. He did not know whether they were Soviet agents or not, but since they worked for the federal government he wanted them checked out.

So writers and actors whose World War II movies acknowledged the Soviet Union as allies and its military as courageous, hard fighting men and women, were transformed into subversives retroactively.

This was HUAC, not McCarthy! He was Senator McCarthy, not Congressman McCarthy. McCarthy was never in the House of Representatives. McCarthy's committee was to investigate the government, not Hollywood.

Now back up, right to the beginning of this message. That question should never have been asked. Never. This is not that kind of country. But it was.

This question should have been asked repeatedly before any of those Soviet agents were allowed by Democrats to serve in the federal government. This country cannot allow people who wish our defeat to serve in its government.

What happened during the FDR and Truman administration would be analogous to allowing Al-Qaida operatives to serve the federal govenment today and then not investigating once allegations of their Al-Qaida service came to light.

The Soviets had agents surrounding the White House and could have gained control of our government if things had gone their way.

Sen. McCarthy's apologists never seem to mention that in 1954 he was censured for his conduct by his colleagues in the Senate on a 67 to 22 vote: 75% of the Senate condemning him.

This aplogist believes that McCarthy's condemnation (or, if you prefer, censure) is a mark of pride. The Senate is nothing more than a cesspool of depravity. This is the same body that would not remove a President that committed Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.

McCarthy was condemned for actions that took years before the censure vote. All the while the Senate mocked him as a homosexual and a Nazi. When McCarthy said they were crazy for saying this, the Democrats cried like girls and threatened to censure him for lowering the standards of the Senate.

McCarthy's problem was that he did not understand just how bitterly the Democrats would fight to stop him. He should have hit back harder.

John Haynes compared McCarthy's lists to Venona. McCarthy was a dangerous nut.

McCarthy said, over and over, that the people on his "list" were merely under investigation. He admitted right off the bat that he did not know if they were Soviet agents or not. However, he wanted them check out in private as that was the purpose of the committee on which he served.

It was the Democrats who compelled McCarthy to "name names". McCarthy was a patriot who was right and the East Coast elites and media hated him for it.

I've especially been talking about people who have no concern for other people and don't care what havoc they wreak on other lives while they singlemindedly pursue their own self-interest and self-aggrandisement.

That's why McCarthy wanted to do his work in private (because his concern that these were mere allegations), but the Democrats would not let him.

As all of this was transpiring, Stalin was slaughtering people left and right. Rivers of blood ran in China as Communists brought about the brave, new socialist utopia. Meanwhile in America, the Elites were upset that a hick Senator had the temerity to question one of them and potentially send them back to private practice.

In the end, as Jack Anderson later wrote, the media used every trick in the book to kill McCarthy. They turned his named into a boogie man and insult. However, McCarthy gave the USA breathing space and time to elect Ronald Reagan who defeated Communism. The Elite knows McCarthy's role in destroying the bloody totalitarian ideal of Communism and they hate him for it; and that is why I shall always love him.

Draven32
April 20, 2008, 12:40 PM
I guess you had to have been there. The entire class had a political flavor.

TEDDY
April 20, 2008, 02:58 PM
I lived at that time and was never scared of him.does that mean I was dumb.
I bought a dewat and never worried.there were alot of people in Mass that had problems.especialy in the mill towns as the socialists recruted workers by means of women and parties.and the people that joined really did not know what they got into.but they should have.most dropped out.also the communist party was supported by the government.at that time.NO well there were more FBI agents that belonged than actual communists.without the dues from the agents the party would have folded.and many gov leaders
were found guilty later as cooperating with the soviets.I used to get "the soviet news"(?)printed in Vermont and when the soviet collapsed a professor wrote that he didnot understand why as it was the best system and it must have been corrupted.there are still a few of us who remember exactly what happened.he was wrong in the way he was portrayed,but he had good intentions,probley did not know how many more communists were acually in gov.mrs.roosevelt was a friend of the communists during WW2 but was later disavowed them.:uhoh::rolleyes::D

Markbo
April 21, 2008, 01:04 PM
Whut reely urchs mi ubout thes hole thred is th fack thet sume fuolks caint uss spel chek. :neener:

Rugerlvr
April 21, 2008, 01:07 PM
Gun ownership became demonized after JFK, MLK, and RFK were killed. It culminated with the 1968 GCA. Things have never quite been the same. :(

Draven32
April 21, 2008, 01:15 PM
Some browsers don't have spell check, markbo.

serrano
April 21, 2008, 01:21 PM
McCarthy's tactics weren't the best, but things should've been at least seriously but quietly investigated, rather than fomenting the Red Scare.

Isn't that what the CIA and FBI are for?

El Tejon
April 21, 2008, 01:39 PM
Isn't that what the CIA and FBI are for?

Yes, for counterintelligence and for criminal prosecutions. McCarthy's role on the Tydings Committee was administrative--to investigate the government and ask to remove the Communists from employment (not prosecute, not cap) that had infilitrated the federal government during FDR and Truman administrations.

In fact, McCarthy's information came from the "Lee List" compiled by the FBI. The problem was that the FBI investigations were not taken seriously by the FDR and Truman administrations and identified Communists were given promotions in the government such as being made head of the IMF.

McCarthy's tactics weren't the best, but things should've been at least seriously but quietly investigated, rather than fomenting the Red Scare

Yet again, it was the Democrats blocking for the Communists that took it public, not McCarthy. McCarthy preferred to keep it anonymous as he admitted that the potential loyalty risk could be innocent. It was the Democrats, not McCarthy, that demanded to "name names".

McCarthy did not forment the Red Scare. Communists were doing that by committing treason against the USA and slaughtering tens of millions around the world.

haybaler
April 21, 2008, 01:49 PM
I can't believe so many gun owners would support McCarthy. 50 years ago there was a witch hunt against anyone associated to or sympathetic with Communism. Today there is a witch hunt against gun ownership. The Constitution gives us the right to free speech and thought. If there are traitors in our government they should be weeded out and investigated but people should not be harrassed for controversial beliefs. The "promises" of Communism appealed to a lot of people at that time. We outgrew it. We can't be cafeteria constitutionists. As one poster stated, we can't choose one part of the Constitution and try to denie another.

Markbo
April 21, 2008, 01:55 PM
Some browsers don't have spell check, markbo

Well by all means let's take the personal responsibility of learning how to spell out of the equation. We are, after all doing what? Presenting the written word to the whole danged WWW. No need to learn how to spell.


uuuhhhh... just in case... I am trying to be humorous before anyone lights me afire. ;)

RDak
April 21, 2008, 04:58 PM
I don't remember anyone having problems getting firearms. Far less restrictive, but I was pretty young then.

I do remember Eisenhower talking to a TV newsman in the early 1960's after he was President and he said, in no uncertain terms, that Communism was a real threat to America after WWII in his opinion.

Rachen
April 21, 2008, 05:15 PM
I can't believe so many gun owners would support McCarthy. 50 years ago there was a witch hunt against anyone associated to or sympathetic with Communism. Today there is a witch hunt against gun ownership. The Constitution gives us the right to free speech and thought. If there are traitors in our government they should be weeded out and investigated but people should not be harrassed for controversial beliefs. The "promises" of Communism appealed to a lot of people at that time. We outgrew it. We can't be cafeteria constitutionists. As one poster stated, we can't choose one part of the Constitution and try to denie another.

That is so true. Well said, Haybaler.

McCarthism was just one form of hatred. What if it mutated?, what if suddenly McCarthy came down with the Obama disease and said that gun owners are more dangerous than communists. Then, we would be in deep sh*t.
"Atomic Cafe" is a fantastic film. At one point a Priest is describing how it might be morally correct for a man to have 'protective devices' in his shelter to defend his family.
I saw that part too. My class was laughing when they heard what the priest said. However, I support what he said too. If I had a atomic shelter, I would defintely keep a handgun or two inside to keep out those I would not want around my family, of course not against everybody. I would try helping out those who need help, but you just got to be careful about opportunists, those who seek the opportunity during social crisis to victimize innocents.

Thank you all for clarifying about gun owners during that era. "Atomic Cafe" was so mesmerizing and crazy that I was thinking that almost everyone was affected by that era. Many famous works of literature during that time was influenced by the goings on. Such as "the Crucible" by Athur Miller and "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury.
I am aware that gun laws were very relaxed during that time and there were very few of those who misused guns. However, many in our society has come down with the liberal disease today, including the "media".

Hkmp5sd
April 21, 2008, 05:50 PM
I can't believe so many gun owners would support McCarthy. 50 years ago there was a witch hunt against anyone associated to or sympathetic with Communism.

Believe it. As previously stated, McCarthy didn't cause any "witch hunt against anyone associated" with communism. McCarthy sought the invistigation of exactly 57 federal employees suspected of being communists. No average civilians. No movie stars. No military officers. Today we think nothing of tearing into someones background before giving them a federal job (or even a local teaching job).

The current political/media propaganda against firearms relates more to the political/media hype against McCarthy than against anything he ever did.

El Tejon
April 21, 2008, 05:53 PM
50 years ago there was a witch hunt against anyone associated to or sympathetic with Communism.

McCarthy's job was to hunt for disloyal persons inside the government. There were Communists and people sympathetic to Communism inside the federal government. Those people should have been fired.

As I stated, there should be a hunt against anyone associate to or sympathetic to Communism just as today there should be a hunt for anyone associated or sympathetic to Al-Qiada. Al-Qiada members should not be allowed to serve in the federal government as Soviet agents were doing during the FDR and Truman administrations.

The Constitution gives us the right to free speech and thought.

The Constitution does not allow us to work for the enemies of our country which is what Soviet agents were doing inside the federal government. That the problem with the whole insidous "Free Speech" movement, it is merely a one way lever for treason. Treason/working against your country is not "free speech".

If there are traitors in our government they should be weeded out and investigated but people should not be harrassed for controversial beliefs

That's what McCarthy was trying to do, but the Democrats and the Media ran interference for the Communists. People were not harrassed for controversial beliefs. They were being investigated for traitorous act which is why they fled to Communist countries, committed suicide, or had the Media and Democrats cover them.

The "promises" of Communism appealed to a lot of people at that time. We outgrew it.

Communism appealed to totalitarians outside and inside the USA. Some of these totalitarians worked for the federal government. Senator McCarty wanted them investigated and then fired.

We did not "outgrow" Communism, we smashed it. Communism was defeated on the anvil of Ronald Reagon and Joe McCarthy gave him time to do so.

McCarthism was just one form of hatred. What if it mutated?, what if suddenly McCarthy came down with the Obama disease and said that gun owners are more dangerous than communists. Then, we would be in deep sh*t.

The only hatred on display during McCarthy was the hatred of the East Coast Elite, Media and Democrats toward Senator McCarthy. They used every trick in the book to destroy him for having the temerity of questioning the Elite and their fondness for harboring traitors.

McCarthy was a sitting judge who volunteered for the Marine Corps. While too old to be a fighter pilot, he did become an intelligence officer. After WWII he was elected the as the youngest member of the Senate and its first WWII veteran.

To play the "what if" game with McCarthy is inane. Your concerns are being played out in New York City, Chicago, California, etc. No one is trying to fire people inside the federal government for owning guns; those people are attempting to imprison us. Your concerns are more than concerns of the Communist totalitarians rather than a concern about a Joseph McCarthy.

El Tejon
April 21, 2008, 06:02 PM
Today we think nothing of tearing into someones background before giving them a federal job (or even a local teaching job).

The problem was that the loyalty boards and people in charge at the FDR and Truman Administrations were having cocktails at the Harvard Club with the Communists rather than screening for them. The East Coast Elite, chock full of 3 and 4 namers, were shuffling their pro-Communists grads directly into the FDR and Truman Administrations and no one was checking for red cards at the door.

After November '46, the "Had Enough?" Congress had finally had enough and began to expand on earlier investigations. McCarthy did not start anything, but he did make the Democrats give an accounting of themselvs and force them in front of the American people to declare which side they were on--the USA or the USSR.

In response the Democrats kicked and screamed and made McCarthy the issue. While they won the battle, they lost the war and Communism went into the dustbin of history. However, it seems we are always in the Middle of Our Journey and new vehicles for the termite mound continue to attack us.

Rachen
April 21, 2008, 06:05 PM
Your concerns are being played out in New York City, Chicago, California, etc. No one is trying to fire people inside the federal government for owning guns; those people are attempting to imprison us.

And they are using the media and the ignorant masses' irrational fear to spread their vile and putrid agenda. In "Atomic Cafe", the media is also used to spread irrational fear. McCarthy was only a tiny fraction of the many forces playing a role in magnifying the hysteria of the Red Scare. While McCarthy just investigated federal employees, the regular politicians of that era, and the Red Scare before it (the time period of the trials of Sacco and Vanzetti) used people's fear for their personal gain. This is the exact same way we gun owners are being persecuted nowadays. There is a high population of the ignorant in the regular population, and all it takes is a politician with a twisted agenda to rile up these people and make them believe what these politicans want them to believe. Like Sarah Brady, famous for exploiting the suffering of crime victims into her personal gain of fame and money.

Markbo
April 21, 2008, 06:08 PM
I gotta find this movie!

Do you think one day we will look back on this as the era of Bloombergism? Hillaryism? Barackism?

El Tejon
April 21, 2008, 06:14 PM
While McCarthy just investigated federal employees, the regular politicians of that era, and the Red Scare before it (the time period of the trials of Sacco and Vanzetti) used people's fear for their personal gain

No argument with this. Whether fear of Soviets, Nazis or Al-Qiada politicians must be met with a heavy burden of doubt. Necessity is the plea of all tyrants.

the time period of the trials of Sacco and Vanzetti

You do know they were guilty, right? That Upton Sinclair was told by the defense attorney that their defense was a complete fabrication and yet he wrote that groaning scold of a book anywho because they "should" have been innocent so Progressives could lecture us more?

Rachen
April 21, 2008, 06:26 PM
You do know they were guilty, right?

The book I am reading now says that there is only loose evidence about the guilt of the two defendants. Which only makes things more confusing to the reader.

El Tejon
April 21, 2008, 06:34 PM
Rachen, which book? How does the author address Upton Sinclair's confession?

Next time they catch one of my guys red-handed with a smoking gun, I'm going to tell the PA that he only has "loose evidence.":D

Sage of Seattle
April 21, 2008, 06:39 PM
Believe it. As previously stated, McCarthy didn't cause any "witch hunt against anyone associated" with communism. McCarthy sought the invistigation of exactly 57 federal employees suspected of being communists. No average civilians. No movie stars. No military officers. Today we think nothing of tearing into someones background before giving them a federal job (or even a local teaching job).


Oh. Then who are all of these people on McCarthy's list?

Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona



by John Earl Haynes

April 2007



Journalists and historians have often referred to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “list” as if it were a precisely defined entity. It was not, however. Certainly one would put his “numbered” list of eighty-one cases, given in a Senate speech of February 20, 1950, as the prime candidate for being McCarthy’s “list.” But McCarthy himself quickly added several dozen more names to this list in communications to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (commonly referred to in the press as the “Tydings Committee” from its chairman, Senator Millard Tydings). The Tydings subcommittee in its “State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation” inquired into Senator McCarthy’s charges.



Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved DOS security cases compiled by the investigators for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee.[1]



Senator McCarthy furnished the Tydings Committee the real names attached to his numbered cases, and the Tydings Committee received the real names attached to the Lee list as well.[2] Over the years that followed all of the names became public one way or another.



Additionally, in a series of speeches McCarthy named others as secret Communists, spies, security risks, or participants in the Communist conspiracy. Below these various lists are recapitulated. Only those he named from 1950 through 1952 (prior to become chairman of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee) will be considered here. (All lists will be alphabetical.)




McCarthy’s List (1)

McCarthy’s 20 February Numbered List[3]



Real Name: McCarthy list #; Lee list #; Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

*****************************************************************************



Arndt, Ernest Theodore: McCarthy list # 14; Lee list # 10; Not identified in Venona



Barnett, Mrs. Robert Warren: McCarthy list # 49; Lee list # 59; Not identified in Venona



Barnett, Robert Warren: McCarthy list # 48; Lee list # 59; Not identified in Venona



Berman, Harold: McCarthy list # 70; Lee list # 85; Not identified in Venona



Brunauer, Esther Caukin: McCarthy list # 47; Lee list # 55; Not identified in Venona



Cameron, Gertrude: McCarthy list # 55; Lee list # 65; Not identified in Venona



Carlisle, Lois: McCarthy list # 58; Lee list # 68; Not identified in Venona



Carter, William D.: McCarthy list # 44; Lee list # 50; Not identified in Venona



Chipchin, Nelson: McCarthy list # 23; No on Lee List: Benign identification in Venona[4]



Clucas, Lowell M., Jr.: McCarthy list # 26; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Delgado, Mucio: McCarthy list # 21; Lee list # 28; Not identified in Venona



Demerjian, Alice: McCarthy list # 61; Lee list # 72; Not identified in Venona



Dubois, Cora: McCarthy list # 60; Lee list # 70; Not identified in Venona



Ferry, Frances: McCarthy list # 11; Lee list # 8; Not identified in Venona



Fierst, Herbert: McCarthy list # 1; Lee list # 51; Not identified in Venona



Fishback, Sam: McCarthy list # 43; Lee list # 49; Not identified in Venona



Ford, James T.: McCarthy list # 76; Lee list # 96; Not identified in Venona



Gordon, Stella: McCarthy list # 40; Lee list # 45; Not identified in Venona



Graze, Gerald: McCarthy list # 29; Lee list # 25; Not identified in Venona;[5] Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in the Gorsky Memo[6]



Graze, Stanley: McCarthy list # 8; Lee list # 8; Not identified in Venona; Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in the Gorsky Memo[7]



Grondahl, Tegnel Conrad: McCarthy list # 25; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Gross, Aaron Jack: McCarthy list # 68; Lee list # 83; Not identified in Venona



Harrison, Marcia Ruth: McCarthy list # 7; Lee list # 4; Not identified in Venona



Horwin, Leonard: McCarthy list # 73; Lee list # 91; Not identified in Venona



Hunt, Victor: McCarthy list # 65; Lee list # 79; Not identified in Venona



Ilyefalvi-Vites, Gizella: McCarthy list # 4; Lee list # 3; Not identified in Venona



Jankowski, Joseph T.: McCarthy list # 74; Lee list # 92; Not identified in Venona



Jessup, Philip: McCarthy list # 15; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Josephson, Joseph: McCarthy list # 30; Lee list # 28; Not identified in Venona



Kamarck, Andrew W.: McCarthy list # 78; Lee list # 100; Not identified in Venona



Katusich, Ivan: McCarthy list # 27; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Kaufman, Arthur Milton: McCarthy list # 38; Lee list # 43; Not identified in Venona



Kopelewish, Esther Less aka Mrs. Less: McCarthy list # 24; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Lansberg, Hans:[8] McCarthy list # 28; Lee list # 21; Not identified in Venona



Lemon, Edythe J.: McCarthy list # 18; Lee list # 16; Not identified in Venona



Lewis, Mrs. Preston Keesling: McCarthy list # 75; Lee list # 93; Not identified in Venona



Lifantieff-Lee, Paul A.: McCarthy list # 56; Lee list # 66; Not identified in Venona



Lindsey, John Richard: McCarthy list # 67; Lee list # 81; Not identified in Venona



Lloyd, David Demarest: McCarthy list # 9; Lee list # 99; Not identified in Venona



Lorwin, Val R.: McCarthy list # 54; Lee list # 64; Not identified in Venona



Maguite, Sylvia: McCarthy list # 69; Lee list # 84; Not identified in Venona



Mann, Gottfried Thomas: McCarthy list # 42; Lee list # 47; Not identified in Venona



Margolies, Daniel F.: McCarthy list # 41; Lee list # 46; Not identified in Venona



Margolin, Arnold D.: McCarthy list # 72; Lee list # 90;[9] Not identified in Venona



Meigs, Peveril: McCarthy list # 3; Lee list # 2; Not identified in Venona



Miller, Robert T.: McCarthy list # 16; Lee list # 12; Not identified in Venona;[10] First Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[11]



Montague, Ella M.: McCarthy list # 34; Lee list # 32; Not identified in Venona



Neal, Fred Warner: McCarthy list # 57; Lee list # 67; Not identified in Venona



Ness, Norman T.: McCarthy list # 45; Lee list # 53; Not identified in Venona



Neumann, Franz Leopold: McCarthy list # 59; Lee list # 69; Not identified in Venona[12] Identified as a Soviet Espionage Source in Weinstein and Vassiliev’s The Haunted Wood.[13]



Osnatch, Olga F.: McCarthy list # 37; Lee list # 42; Not identified in Venona



Parsons, Ruby A.: McCarthy list # 81; Lee list # 78; Not identified in Venona



Perkins, Isham W.: McCarthy list # 62; Lee list # 73; Not identified in Venona



Peter, Hollis W.: McCarthy list # 64; Lee list # 76; Not identified in Venona



Polyzoides, T. Achilles: McCarthy list # 79; Lee list # 105; Not identified in Venona



Posner, Marjorie S.: McCarthy list # 10; Lee list # 7; Not identified in Venona



Posniak, Edward G.: McCarthy list # 77; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Post, Richard: McCarthy list # 53; Lee list # 63; Not identified in Venona



Raine, Philip: McCarthy list # 52; Lee list # 62; Not identified in Venona



Randolph, David (aka Rosenberg): McCarthy list # 66; Lee list # 80; Not identified in Venona



Rapoport, Alexander: McCarthy list # 22; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona



Remington, William: McCarthy list # 19; Not on Lee List; Not identified in Venona. First Identified as a Soviet Source by Elizabeth Bentley in her 1945 FBI statement.[14]



Robinson, Jay: McCarthy list # 5; Lee list # 5; Not identified in Venona



Rommel, Rowena: McCarthy list # 51; Lee list # 61; Not identified in Venona



Ross, Lewis: McCarthy list # 31; Lee list # 29; Not identified in Venona



Ross, Robert: McCarthy list # 32; Lee list # 30; Not identified in Venona



Schimmel, Sylvia: McCarthy list # 50; Lee list # 60; Not identified in Venona



Shell, Melville: McCarthy list # 35; Lee list # 34; Not identified in Venona



Siegel, Herman: McCarthy list # 33; Lee list # 31; Not identified in Venona



Smith, S. Stevenson: McCarthy list # 20; Lee list # 20; Not identified in Venona



Smith (Schmidt), Frederick W.: McCarthy list # 36; Lee list # 40; Not identified in Venona



Stoinaoff, Stoian: McCarthy list # 71; Lee list # 87; Not identified in Venona



Stone, William T.: McCarthy list # 46; Lee list # 54; Not identified in Venona



Taylor, Jeanne E.: McCarthy list # 17; Lee list # 14; Not identified in Venona



Tuchscher, Frances M.: McCarthy list # 6; Lee list # 6; Not identified in Venona



Vincent, John Carter: McCarthy list # 2; Lee list # 52; Not identified in Venona



Volin, Maz A.: McCarthy list # 39; Lee list # 44; Not identified in Venona



Washburn [clerical error for Fishburn], John T.[15]: McCarthy list # 80; Lee list # 106; Not identified in Venona



Washburne, Carleton: McCarthy list # 13; Lee list # 9; Not identified in Venona



Wilcox, Stanley: McCarthy list # 63; Lee list # 75; Not identified in Venona



Yuhas, Helen: McCarthy list # 12; Lee list # 107; Not identified in Venona

*****************************************************************************


From the page linked above. (http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html)

Rachen
April 21, 2008, 06:42 PM
A book that I have little respect for because it is very biased and liberal leaning. However, I had to read it for class, so I have to go along with it, at least for a semester.

It is called: Voices of Freedom, by Eric Foner.

I love reading ahead of the class, and in the last part, about the 'triumph of conservatism' in the 80s, the author calls Republicans and gun owners right wing extremists.

There are many good books out there, I don't know what made THAT one so appealing so to be as used in a history course.

Sage of Seattle
April 21, 2008, 06:48 PM
Besides, my belief is that there are amazing and strong parallels between then and now; using fear and the demonization of a group, shadowy and insubstantial, that could bring down our Great Country As We Know It, so we'd all better start lining up on which side we belong.

Give up your rights, give up your guns, give up your privacies, all in the name of stopping the Global (fill in the blank)...drugs/terror/whatever.

The thing is, we don't NEED open meetings of congress or the house to do what happened then; your information is tapped all the time without anyone really knowing it. Take steps to prevent it (Pretty Good Privacy, use of proxies, etc.) and you're automatically accused of "having something to hide."

"Sure, I'll fill out that 4473 -- after all, I'VE got nothing to hide! And looky at this dude who wants to buy a gun from me face to face. What does he have to hide?"

Markbo
April 21, 2008, 07:01 PM
Wow. "Right Wing Extremist". I didn't even know I was part of the fringe! :D

Rachen
April 21, 2008, 07:08 PM
See what they teach people in NYC???

They even try that on college students, even though some of them are grown, mature, can think for themselves, and do not trust everything they see or hear. But of course, they still spread their propanganda, hoping some uneducated individual would pick it up and spread it further.

The author of that book also says: "There are certain right wing extremist groups who use the American Revolution as a basis to spread their political agenda................" So I think he is implying that anyone who believes in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights is a terrorist.:fire:

Hkmp5sd
April 21, 2008, 07:23 PM
Oh. Then who are all of these people on McCarthy's list?


Amusing list. I wonder who generated it. McCarthy states his list contained 57 names. The democrats actually wanted to charge him with perjury because they claim he said he had a list of 205 names. He stuck with his 57 names list and the democrats had to give up because they could find no proof of a list exceeding that number.

Plus, McCarthy wanted to keep his list secret and hold the hearings in clossed session. That way, if you check out, no problem. The democrats not only wanted the hearings held in front of the media, they voted to compel McCarthy to release the names on his list.

Even if that is a true list from McCarthy, he was right. The government at the time was loaded with communists. An interesting side note to Verona was that the project began in 1943 and there were so many suspected communists in the government at that time, neither FDR nor Truman were informed about the project.

Of course, some people still think Alger Hiss was innocent.

Khornet
April 21, 2008, 07:26 PM
El Tejon just gave you a history lesson. He clearly knows more about what actually happened--not the popular myth, but what really happened--than most.

If you are serious about the truth, you will read 'Venona', 'Blacklisted by History',
'The Haunted Wood', and others.

We have been hearing only one side of the story for 50 years. There really is another side, and that side was right as it happens.

Joe McCarthy was despised, but that doesn't tell us a thing about whether he was right.

Do some reading.

Sage of Seattle
April 21, 2008, 07:42 PM
Amusing list. I wonder who generated it.

Well, I was born in 1971, so all of this was quite out of my realm of experience. However, did you even bother to read what I posted from the link, or even read the link itself?

He stuck with his 57 names list and the democrats had to give up because they could find no proof of a list exceeding that number.

Certainly one would put his “numbered” list of eighty-one cases, given in a Senate speech of February 20, 1950, as the prime candidate for being McCarthy’s “list.”

This sounds reasonable to me. Do you have any link or book regarding the 57 people and their names and why he stuck with only those?

If Sen. McCarthy was a man to be highly respected, please, show me some more evidence and some things I can read to better form my opinion. I have changed my mind on many things I was ignorant of or was given false or misleading information about. I am open to hearing more about his methods which, according to what I've read and heard about, weren't really aimed at upholding the Constitution.

Hkmp5sd
April 21, 2008, 07:57 PM
This sounds reasonable to me. Do you have any link or book regarding the 57 people and their names and why he stuck with only those?


I wish I did. Like the list you linked to, there isn't a specific list. If you read the footnotes at the bottom of your link, you will see the author attempted to compile his list from dozens of sources. Of those sources, some are highly unreliable. The author also points out that he agrees that the majority of those on his list should be considered "security risks" and the only way to be sure would be to do an extensive background check on every name on that list. Essentially what McCarthy was trying to do in the first place.

Other than the books listed throughout this discussion, I cannot point you toward any good books on the subject. I base my views on books I have read over the last 40+ years.

Bet El Tejon could supply you with an excellent reading list.

rickomatic
April 21, 2008, 08:28 PM
I believe the people he mentioned were communists, he just couldn't prove it.

Joe McCarthy was an arrogant blowhard. However, he was right about the Commies. History has proven him correct about Communist infiltration in both the Hollywood scene, as well as the government.
Just think what might have happened had he not been the ass he was.
That was in the days before political correctness. I firmly believe that political correctness is hiding a lot of nefarious activity in our country today.
I fear what could happen should people be afraid to point out unAmerican activity simply because someone might call them "mean".

Robert Hairless
April 21, 2008, 09:44 PM
Some messages posted in this discussion by people who were not even born then have almost persuaded me to mistrust my own eyes and ears, and the experience of having lived through and participated in those times as an adult. Had I only known then some of what I've seen here, I could have skipped the whole thing and read a book or the Internet.

One thing I've learned here is that attitudes haven't changed much in all that time: if asked to incriminate yourself or defend your thoughts and behavior--by the Congress, employers or potential employers, or the police or prosecutors--those questions are right and proper and you must answer them if you are a loyal American.

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?" or "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Gun Owners of America?" or "Are you now or have you ever been a Jew?" or "Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of the war in Iraq?" or "Are you now or have you ever cheated on your wife ... spanked your child ... had too much to drink ... read a subversive book ... passed a red light ... carried a concealed firearm in a prohibited place ...." We need to know these things and more for the safety of society, the protection of our country, and the security of the American way of life.

ozarkhillbilly
April 21, 2008, 11:33 PM
Robert Hairless

The questions you referenced, which body of the Congress did they take place in the House or the Senate, and could you please reference a year so I could look them up.

El Tejon
April 22, 2008, 08:41 AM
Sage, first, try Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans. I read it when it first came out.

If you are not a history geek, it can get a bit ponderous but I think it is well worth it.:)

Robert, most of those questions (no one asked me if I was Jewish or owned guns) were asked of certain members of this board when we worked for the federal government. What was wrong with asking federal employees if they were Communists?

Clearly people who denied being Communists (e.g., William Remington) had something to hide as their loyalty was to Moscow, not the USA.

El Tejon
April 22, 2008, 08:52 AM
Rachen, yes, Foner is not my favorite professor, but I did enjoy his Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (the formation of the antebellum Republican Party).

ranger335v
April 22, 2008, 10:07 AM
"...facts were bloated to hideous proportions by a media that fed on people's fears."

Nothing's changed.

"I wish to know how the gun owning population fared during this time. Did they suffer any persecution?"

NO. During that period our "intellectual" loonies, the now dominate social/political liberals, had not yet been allowd to take the reins of either the media, government or schools. Political Correctness foolishness was still far into the future and common sense was still common. There was no organised persecution of gun owners.

In the late 40s and early 50s McCarthy was right in most ways but he, like many politicians, learned to love to strut in front of the cameras. He over-reached in some ludacrous ways, again like most politicians today, and then, having lost his credibilty in the meda, he was pilloried by the "left" and made into a silly caracature. But Joe Mc was right in >90% of what he said and who he accused, as history has proven, but neither our media or education systems will allow that side of him to become known. Their attacks on him at the time were partly right, but the effect was like throwing the baby out with the bath water, Joe's truth was tossed along with the dirty water and our country has suffered great harm because of it. But, organised and focused political demonising of gun owners didn't began until about 10 years later.

By the early 60s, social liberals had gained near total dominance of education and the media so when JFK was shot they were in positions that allowed them to control much of the public debate. Demonising guns and their owners became common within a couple of years. Political liberals soon gained almost total dominance of the Democrat party and nothing has changed since.

We honest shooters remain under attack without justification, just as did some of McCarthy's victims, but McCarthy himself had no part in it. For all his many failings, Joe was no silly liberal.

Khornet
April 22, 2008, 10:35 AM
Mr. Evans decided to take an unusual approach: instead of summarizing what other people have written or thought, he went back to primary documents such as the transcripts of the hearings, and interviewed witnesses, although there were not many left.

Instead of just accepting what we all "know" from what the newspapers have always told us, he investigated the story of the famous 57 names.

It turns out that the number was present in a rough draft of McCarthy's Wheeling, West Virginia speech. that draft was seen by a local reporter, and although he was told it was a rough draft, he went ahead and published it as a transcript of the actual speech. Everyone who has since written on the subject has accepted as fact that he made the claim of 57 names. Witnesses, however, tell a different story, and say that there was no specific number of names mentioned. One witness actually took notes of the meeting and was able to refer to them during the interview, verifying that no specific number was mentioned. So one person got the story wrong at the start, and that wrong version has become universally accepted as truth.

There are many similar McCarthy myths which are just that. Overall, it appears that McCarthy did identify a real threat, and the response of the administration immediately was to cover it up and demonize McCarthy. In this they were successful.

benEzra
April 22, 2008, 12:14 PM
Keep in mind that we are discussing more than Sen. McCarthy here; we are discussing what is often called, rightly or wrongly, the McCarthy era.

Warrantless searches and wiretapping did occur, as did convictions in the media without regard to the truth, lack of due process, secret paid informants making anonymous allegations, secret evidence at trials and hearings, and secret watchlists created at bureaucratic whim.

Perhaps all of McCarthy's defenders here are right, and, hypothetically, he had nothing to do with those things and would have been appalled had he known about them. Maybe we should call it "J-Edgar-Hooverism" rather than McCarthyism. Fine. But those egregious abuses did occur, on a large scale, and they were wrong and un-American in the truest sense.

El Tejon
April 22, 2008, 01:57 PM
The problem is that McCarthy has become political defense, see Islamaphobia.

McCarthy wanted to know why Democratic Administrations were turning a blind eye to Communists in the federal government. The Democrats attacked McCarthy giving cover fire to traitors in the federal government.

Legitimate questions are pushed aside to make politicial points. This is the danger of "McCarthyism".

Citroen
April 22, 2008, 02:31 PM
Although I did not read all of the posts but I DID watch a good bit of the McCarthy Hearings. I may have been the only high school student that hurried home to sit with his grandmother and watch the black and white TV!

Unless I have lost them in moving, I also have the Congressional Record for the Hearings.

McCarthy was right - the left hated him and mounted a vicious attack of lies and slander to discredit him.

Believe what you want but I believe he was a hero!

As to the original question - the 1950s did not see anything you might call "gun control". You could mail order guns from Herter's (remember them?) or from Klein's. You could even buy anti-tank guns if you wanted them and could pay the shipping.

Gun owners were not persecuted nor were they afraid of being persecuted. I frequently took a gun to school (hunted early in the morning - then straight to school) - There were NO school massacres.

As far as I know, Senator Joe McCarthy never mentioned guns or gun owners.

Revisionist versions of history not withstanding, it was Senator McCarthy that was attacked without mercy or cause.

John
Charlotte, NC

Hawk
April 22, 2008, 03:03 PM
I'm going to have to go along with Robert Hairless and Ben Ezra.

First, M. Stanton Evan (http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/speakers/evans.asp) isn't an historian. Neither is his cheerleader, so far as I've been able to determine.

Second, distinguishing McCarthy from McCarthy-ISM and / or the McCarthy ERA isn't as clear cut a task as may have been in the past. Nevertheless, not all the obfuscation is working against the former Wisconsin Senator.

To those that think he has been maligned by an unsympathetic liberal press, I would propose the following experiment:

There is no shortage of primary documentation. As Khornet suggested: "Do some reading". BUT (and here's Hawk's .02) don't, for cryin' out loud, base your reading only on those associated with groups with a stated agenda. Read both sides, hang out in the archives, try talking to those that were there.

Revisionist history blows - I don't care if the revision appeals to my prejudices or not. A little skepticism, please?

Really, what would you expect someone affiliated with the American Conservative Union to write for Pete's sake? Mix it with a little opposition view or at least make an attempt at finding unspun sources. If you still think Coulter's synopsis is spot on, I'll at least respect your view - won't agree with it, but I'll respect it.

Cosmoline
April 22, 2008, 03:24 PM
Another thing that burns me is this outrageous over the blacklist. Hollywood blacklists people on a DAILY BASIS and has always done so. An actor will anger a powerful producer and that's it for them. They go from golden child to persona non grata. Sometimes it's over politics, sometimes money often just personality. But smart actors have always known who butters their bread, and behave accordingly. Otherwise they're finished.

For example, if an actor were to argue that the 50's blacklist was not such a bad idea, he would in fact be blacklisted for it.

Hkmp5sd
April 22, 2008, 05:29 PM
Read both sides, hang out in the archives,

Always! Gotta read the good and the bad.

I have copies of My Life ala Bill Clinton, Living History ala Hillary Clinton and one of the worst books ever written, A People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn.

Khornet
April 22, 2008, 11:07 PM
I love it. We've been hearing only one side for over 50 years. Good advice, but keep in mind that we generally only hear one side unless we do some digging. I would say that if you haven't read the above mentioned books, you haven't "read both sides".

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Owners and the McCarthy Era." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!