Disparity of Race: A Closer Look at the Brigham Young Monument

Mormon pioneers began traveling west in 1846. They were looking for a place where they could worship without the conflicts that they were enduring in Illinois, Missouri and previously Ohio and New York. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had been persecuted for their beliefs since Joseph Smith had started the religion April 6, 1830. After the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young led a group of pioneers to Winter Quarters Nebraska, and eventually to the Utah Territory. The thousand-mile trek from the Midwest to Utah was a hard journey for the group and there were many hardships along the way. The party reached the Great Basin July 24, 1847 consisting of: one hundred and forty three men, three women, two children, seventy wagons, one boat, one cannon, ninety three horses, fifty two mules, sixty six oxen, and nineteen cows.[1] However, on July 22, just two days earlier, an advance party entered Utah carrying Brigham Young and three African American Slaves that had been given to Brigham Young in Winter Quarters Nebraska. These three slaves were Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby who are referred as “Colored Servants” on the Brigham Young Monument in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Brigham Young Monument was commissioned in 1891 by the Brigham Young Memorial Association which had been created by the president of the church Wilford Woodruff.[2] Cyrus Edwin Dallin was a Utah born sculptor who had studied in Paris and was asked to design the bronze sculpture of Brigham Young. Dallin was asked to include a trapper, Indian, and a pioneer family in addition to the statue of Brigham Young to represent those who preceded the pioneers in the Great Basin.[3] He was also commissioned to sculpt the angel Moroni that sits atop the Salt Lake Temple. Dallin finished the sculpture in 1893, just in time for it to be displayed at the World’s Fair in Chicago that same year. The LDS church had a problem coming up with the $25,000 that was agreed upon to pay for the sculpture. So on July 20, 1897 the monument was finally unveiled during a celebration of the 50^th anniversary of the pioneers’ arrival in the Salt Lake Valley.[4]

The Brigham Young Monument in Salt Lake City Utah was commissioned twenty eight years after the Emancipation Proclamation and twenty six years after the thirteenth amendment. It had been on display at the World’s Fair in Chicago for all to see. It had been designed by a sculptor that had spent time in Boston and Paris. Why then does the plaque on the north side of the monument distinguish between white pioneers and “colored servants”? Was the phrase “colored servants” specifically referred to by the Brigham Young Memorial Association when they gave the plans of the monument to C. E. Dallin? Did this distinguishing feature reflect the views of the sculptor or the person who the monument was created to celebrate?

Brigham Young was born in Vermont and spent all of his life in the northern United States before making the journey to the Salt Lake Valley.[5] His family owned a very small farm which did not employ slave labor. Young was a carpenter and painter, and also did not own any slaves.[6] If Brigham Young did not own slaves why did his views reflect a pro-slavery sentiment? Why was it important to use the phrase “colored servants” on a memorial commemorating his passage to the Great Basin? Does this phrase reflect the general ideology of the time or does it reflect a religious view that coincides with the Southern slave owner?

Brigham Young preached that slavery was ordained of God even though Utah was not suited for slavery.[7] Slavery was legal in the Utah territory because of the Compromise of 1850 which allowed “Popular Sovereignty” (consent of the people).[8] The Mormon Church did not have an official stance on owning slaves. In 1836 Joseph Smith addressed the humane treatment of slaves by their masters, and that slaves should be obedient to the slave owner.[9] An address given by an apostle of the Mormon Church Orson Hyde in 1851 stated that the church would not get involved in relations between a master and his slave.[10] In 1852 Brigham Young urged the first Utah Territorial Legislature to pass the “Act in Relation to Service” which formally sanctioned slavery and indentured servitude.[11] Slavery and the sale of slaves would persist in the Great Basin until the Emancipation Proclamation.

African American slavery was not a new concept in the United States. The American South had been built on the backs of African American slaves. Nat Turner’s Rebellion was happening during the same time that Joseph Smith was establishing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Southerners feared a slave rebellion as well as the abolitionist movement because it meant freedom for their slaves which the southerners regarded as property. Slaveholders would have to work their own fields, or pay someone to work them, if African American slaves were freed. The Abolitionist movement threatened to divide the North and South from the nation.

Southern plantation owners believed that slavery was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks, Romans, and until recently the English had owned slaves. Slaveholders believed that freeing slaves would cause economic ruin for the southern states. Abolition meant the killing of the tobacco, cotton, and rice industries in the South. Flooding the economy with freed slaves would also cause chaos in the southern states with widespread unemployment which would lead to uprising and revolution. Plantation owners defended slavery stating that slaves were better cared for than the working class of the north.[12]

Southern slaveholders also believed that slavery was divinely sanctioned. They assumed that slavery introduced Christianity to “the heathens from across the ocean.”[13] Many Southerners argued that slavery was accepted by God because Abraham had owned slaves and because of the wording in the Ten Commandments which states, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant."[14] Slave owners agreed with Paul’s action in the New Testament when he returned a runaway slave to his master. Slaveholders pointed to Paul’s act as an act of pro-slavery.

Northerners were not all anti-slavery, although the Abolitionist movement was predominantly concentrated in the north. Northern citizens wanted slaves to be free but to stay in the south. Northern states outlawed slavery but some proceeded gradually, first outlawing the sale of slaves and then later outlawing the ownership.[15] Northerners feared that outlawing slavery would cause an increase in African Americans migrating to the northern states.

The phrase on the Brigham Young memorial is important to historians because it shows a pro-slavery bias in the territories after the Emancipation Proclamation. It could mean that a pro-slavery bias continued long after the conclusion of the Civil War. It also could mean that Brigham Young felt strongly enough about whites being superior to African Americans that the Brigham Young Memorial Association had to add the distinguishing phrase. This question is significant because of the disparity between Brigham Young’s lack of experience with slavery and his pro-slavery position.

Why does the Brigham Young Monument distinguish between white pioneers and “colored servants”? I intend to answer this question through the research methods that I have designed. I plan to work directly with the library of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City Utah to gain the necessary primary sources to do a project like the seminar paper including Brigham Young’s journals and discourses. I will have to travel to the LDS Church library to complete my research. I am planning on spending two different days there which should give me time to research the journals of Brigham Young and the letters of Wilford Woodruff as well as papers from the Brigham Young Memorial Association. After seeing how long my research takes on day one I will be able to accurately calculate subsequent visits. Next I plan on using the America: History and Life database to get more in depth information and more primary sources that I may not be able to get through the LDS Church library. An example is the journal of Cyrus E. Dallin that was written during the making of the statues for the Brigham Young Monument. After checking for primary sources I plan to read through secondary sources that will present context of the time period and the issue of slavery.

Using the methods that I have outlined I anticipate to discover the reason for adding the heading of “colored servants” and the motive for making the distinction between whites and African Americans. I hope to discover who decided to add the phrase to the memorial and why it was important. The monument was erected in 1893 and because of that I assume that I will find that the Brigham Young Memorial Association used the same wording that Brigham Young used when documenting who arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. If that is the case I hope to find out why Brigham Young had views of superiority over blacks. If the association chose to distinguish between the two races on its own I would like to find out why it did so in a free nation.

The primary sources that I have found all relate to the time period of the 1840’s to the 1900’s. These sources will give me a basis of research from the time period. Sources such as The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants will allow me to see the doctrine that Mormons are supposed to adhere to and the differences between Mormon doctrine and slaveholder views. These sources will also give me historical context to be able to evaluate my questions.

In the LDS Church Library there is a collection of papers from Brigham Young’s desk. This collection includes correspondence, government documents, and rough drafts of letters. I intended to gain a better comprehension of Brigham Young and his stance on African Americans through this collection of documents. This collection could hold the reason for adding the phrase and its importance.

The collection of newspapers from the time period will give me the information that was being reported at the time. An open letter from Wilford Woodruff to the citizens of Utah will allow me to see what he thought of the building of the memorial and why it was important. The Messenger and Advocate articles give insight into Brigham Young’s views on slavery as there are multiple columns that he wrote regarding the subject. In the Times and Seasons article Brigham Young relays a message that states that blacks do not have the wisdom or the capability to be leaders.

An exciting primary source is the Brigham Young Memorial Association papers that are located in the LDS Church Library. This source should yield evidence of the importance of building the monument as well as reasoning behind inserting “colored servants” on the plaque. Through this collection of papers I expect to find other primary sources that I may be able to research to broaden my knowledge of the theme and build my thesis.

My collection of secondary works has been a great resource already as I have read through the bibliography in most of the secondary sources to find my primary sources. Sources like the dissertations have been great resources because I have been able to find their sources easily by using the Internet. A couple of the other works have pointed me in the right direction as I have been looking for more primary sources.

Works such as “Negro Slavery in the Utah Territory” and “Mormons and Slavery - A Closer Look” have given me direction. I expect to get some information that can be disputed since they are older than fifteen years old. I hope to find arguments for and against slavery in Utah within these two works that will help build my thesis and support my argument. Other works that I anticipate using are Conflict and Compromise and Saints, Slaves, and Blacks that will give me an idea of the historical arguments that arise from the issue of slavery and answer why Brigham Young held a pro-slavery position.

Books such as Captives and Cousins and Slavery in the American West will provide context in the broader historical sense. I expect to find the views of pioneers regarding slavery in these books. These views will help to place Brigham Young’s views in the broader context and see if his views were different from the time period or coincided with it. In these books I hope to find what the general view of slavery was and what western settlers thought about African Americans. Having this knowledge will further my research in the broader sense.

Brigham Young is regarded as a great spiritual leader by the Latter Day Saints which is why the church built a memorial honoring his arrival in the Great Basin. If this memorial is to honor his arrival, and the arrival of many pioneers, what is the importance of having “colored servants” as a distinction on the plaque? Is this a view of the artist, the memorial association, or of the leader himself? Through my research I expect to find the answer and uncover the reasoning behind placing the phrase on the plate after slavery was eradicated. Through my research I expect to gain knowledge of the general view of slavery in antebellum and post antebellum Utah and use that to compare and contrast Brigham Young’s views with other Mormons, western settlers, and pro-slavery northerners. I expect the research to yield the reason for the peculiarity of “colored servants” inscribed on the Brigham Young Monument.

---

[1] Brigham Young Statue in Salt Lake City Utah.

[2] Greg Hill, “Brigham Young Statue is Relocated: for 96 years, monument was in Main intersection,” Church News. November 20, 1993, accessed December 9, 2011, http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/23623/Brigham-Young-statue-is-relocated-for-96-years-monument-was-in-Main-intersection.html

[3] Hill, “Brigham Young Statue is Relocated.”

[4] Hill, “Brigham Young Statue is Relocated.”

[5] “Young Brigham” Brigham Young University, Accessed December 9, 2011, http://unicomm.byu.edu/about/brigham.aspx.

[6] “Young Brigham”

[7] Jeffery D. Nichols, “Slavery in Utah.” History Blazer. April 1995, Accessed December 9, 2011, http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/slaveryinutah.html

[8] Nichols, “Slavery in Utah.”

[9] Nichols, “Slavery in Utah.”

[10] Nichols, “Slavery in Utah.”

[11] Nichols, “Slavery in Utah.”

[12] “The Southern Argument for Slavery.” U.S. History Online Textbook (2011). Accessed December 9, 2011. http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp.

[13] “The Southern Argument for Slavery”

[14] “The Southern Argument for Slavery”

[15] Ira Berlin, Generations of Captivity: A History of African American Slaves. (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 104.

The U.S. Government’s War on Communism

The 1950’s were a fearful time in American history. Communism was running rampant through the world and leaders of the United States feared that Communism would find its way to American soil. Fearful of the spread of Communism, the U.S. government set out to find any Communist groups or anyone associated with the Communist Party. In so doing, the government found many citizens who were associated in some form with the Communist Party. Joseph McCarthy became the hero of the anti-communist movement in 1950 when he proclaimed: “I have in my hand fifty-seven cases of individuals who appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party.”[1] Senator McCarthy would go on to accuse many more citizens of being part of the Communist Party.

The attack on Communism in America was warranted because of the fear that it was producing. Although some innocent people were held in jail, lost their jobs, or were blacklisted, there were many people with real ties to the Communist Party. With people like William Z. Foster, Alger Hiss, and the Rosenbergs, the United States government was warranted in its attack on the Communist Party and in driving fear into the hearts of American citizens to root out the problem at the very core of society. The actions of the U.S. government were not a “witch-hunt”, but a continuation of the Truman Doctrine to contain the spread of Communism.

Fear of a Country

During the early 50’s the United States government felt a legitimate fear of Communism. American officials were aware of the spread of Communism in Europe and Asia and these officials wanted to contain the spread of this ideology. This was not their only concern though. There were concerns and fears that the Soviet Union wanted to use Communism to destroy the American government and the American way of life.

In March of 1947 President Truman gave a speech which laid out his idea of the containment of Communism. That same year J. Edgar Hoover testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee about the intentions he felt the Communist party had saying: “[I]t stands for the destruction of our American form of government; it stands for the destruction of American democracy; it stands for the destruction of free enterprise; and it stands for the creation of a ‘Soviet of the United States’ and ultimate world revolution.”[2] Hoover’s idea was that the Communist party would take over the United States government if left to its own devices. Hoover’s sentiments revealed a true fear of the spread of Communism and what it might mean if the United States allowed a group like this to establish a presence within its borders.

J. Edgar Hoover also testified of the Communist tactics as explained in “Their chief textbook” The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Hoover explained that for the Communists to be successful in their revolution they would need:

1. The will and sympathy of the people.

2. Military aid and assistance.

3. Plenty of guns and ammunition.

4. A program for extermination of the police as they are the most important enemy and are termed “trained Fascists.”

5. Seizure of all communications, buses, railroads, radio stations, and other forms of communications and transportations.[3]

Giving this type of information made the threat of the Communist Party much more real in its endeavor. This was not just a list that someone had pulled off the top of his head; this was written in the Communist handbook.

In 1947 the United States government implemented the Federal Loyalty-Security Program to contain the spread of Communism which could be seen as a continuation of the Truman Doctrine. The U.S. government started the Federal Loyalty-Security Program which tested federal employees on their loyalty and disqualified anyone with ties “to the Communist Party or had a ‘sympathetic association’ with it.”[4] Schrecker states that “what constituted a ‘sympathetic association’ with such an organization was left deliberately vague.”[5] Leaving the term “sympathetic association” vague gave anyone searching for those associations the opportunity to keep members of the Communist Party out of the State Department. The loyalty oath would serve as a stop gap to keep any Communist sympathizer from getting into the government and destroying democracy from the inside.

The government was telling Americans what to fear but not who to fear. American citizens knew that a Communist takeover would not be in their best interest. In August of 1948 James F. O’Neil said in his anti-Communist document that Communists were everywhere and in every facet of our lives. They were progressives, liberals, and union leaders.[6] With this kind of thinking, a Communist could be anybody. Your dry cleaner, your gas station attendant, even your neighbor could be a Communist. Citizens became watchful for any suspicious activity from those around them.

Senator Joseph McCarthy gave a speech in 1950 in Wheeling West Virginia, to the Women’s Republican Club. In this speech McCarthy said that citizens didn’t need to worry about Communists outside their borders but rather “enemies from within.”[7] The Senator made accusations that there were Communist Party members working within the walls of the White House. McCarthy then proclaimed that he had a list of people who he believed to be members of the Communist Party. As Historian Ellen Schrecker concludes it is the idea that he had a list of officials who were running the American government.[8] The very idea of Communists working in the government was frightening for most. How could someone connected with such a horrible organization infiltrate the very government that was trying to contain it? Many questions were brought up about the list that Senator McCarthy possessed, but none more important than who was on it.

A Perceived Threat

With fear running rampant, some citizens were falsely accused of having ties to the Communist Party or organizations that were loosely tied to Communism. Some individuals lost their jobs, some were blacklisted and a few were jailed for their ties with the Communist Party. Although not a serious threat, these citizens did have ties, granted some were very minor. This group of individuals was considered a supposed threat to the government, one that could cause problems. The idea of a “witch-hunt” came from accusing individuals with weak ties to the Communist Party.

In November of 1947 a list was made public of organizations that were sympathetic to the Communist Party. On that list were ninety-three organizations that were thought to be connected to the Communist Party. As historian Ellen Schrecker indicates, “The list was out of date from the beginning. Many of the organizations on it were already defunct.”[9] Groups like the Communist Party, U.S.A., and Communist Political Association were organizations that needed to be watched. Organizations like the Connecticut State Youth Conference, Detroit Youth Assembly, or the American Peace Mobilization were where this list went too far in targeting Communist groups. These factions were a supposed threat and not a real threat to democracy or the American government. Claiming these groups (State Youth Conference, Detroit Youth Assembly, and the American Peace Mobilization) were connected with the Soviet Union is what made people think that there could be a “witch-hunt” going on.

Ellen Schrecker states that it was clear that those who used the Fifth Amendment would not go to jail, but they would lose their jobs.[10] In 1952 Lillian Hellman wrote a letter to the HUAC explaining her situation. She was a playwright who was subpoenaed to testify in front of the HUAC. Lillian writes, “I am not willing, now or in the future, to bring bad trouble to people who, in my past association with them, were completely innocent of any talk or any action that was disloyal or subversive.”[11] Lillian did not want to plead the “Fifth” because it would surely mean losing her employment, but she did not want to testify about other entertainers actions either. She was willing to answer any questions that were about her, but by answering any questions she would have to answer all questions. This letter asked the HUAC if they could leave the questioning to her and nothing else. By doing this she would be able to answer the questions and not plead the “Fifth”, thereby insuring that she would not be a, as Schrecker calls them, “Fifth Amendment Communist”[12].

Many of these “Fifth Amendment Communists” lost their jobs because their employers did not want to be associated with the stigma, and they feared that it would lead to them testifying in front of the HUAC. Lillian Hellman ended her letter with, “I am prepared to waive the privilege against self-incrimination and to tell you everything you wish to know about my views or actions if your committee will agree to refrain from asking me to name other people. If the committee is unwilling to give me this assurance, I will be forced to plead the privilege of the Fifth Amendment at the hearing.”[13] She was willing to testify on her own actions. She did not want to lose her job or be blacklisted by pleading the Fifth Amendment.

John Henry Faulk was another person accused of having Communist ties. Faulk was blacklisted for his supposed ties, but as Schrecker explains Faulk was blacklisted for taking a stand against the blacklisting because it could ruin someone’s career[14]. Faulk’s trial brought up some questions regarding how AWARE Inc. (an anti-Communist organization) gained its information and how it classified that info. Mark Goodson, a producer, testified that if a performer was not cleared by AWARE then that performer would be virtually unemployable.[15] Goodson went on to testify, “All I can say is there were no differentiations made between Communists, Communist sympathizers, those who had lunch with communist sympathizers, those who knew somebody who had lunch with Communist sympathizers, and so forth”[16]. AWARE Inc. was not differentiating between members of the Communist Party and people who might have had lunch with someone who was a member of the Communist Party. Goodson claimed that the blacklist “included general controversy of any kind and in certain cases it even – I’m ashamed to say – included the elimination of people from shows because they had the same name as members of the Communist Party.”[17] Goodson had admitted to eliminating performers because their names were the same as names of supposed Communists.

Blacklisting performers, compiling a list of supposed Communist organizations, and making performers testify about the action of other performers caused unemployment for many musicians, broadcast personalities, actors, and actresses. The actions of groups like AWARE Inc. were good in nature but attacked a group of performers that were a supposed threat and not one that actually had major ties to the Communist Party. This debacle created a conflict throughout Hollywood and spurred along the idea of a “witch-hunt”.

A Real Threat

Hoover’s testimony before the un-American Activities Committee had brought to light what the Communist Party was trying to do. Senator McCarthy’s speech in Wheeling West Virginia had instilled fear that the Communist were trying to infiltrate the U.S. government. Although the actions of AWARE Inc. and similar groups were largely fear tactics, there was a perceived threat of Communism in the entertainment industry.

In 1947 William Z. Foster published his book The New Europe. Schrecker explains that Foster was a leader of the American Communist Party and was becoming hostile to the American government.[18] Foster’s book, although Communist propaganda, argued that American capitalism was destroying society. Foster wrote, “There is a growing understanding among the peoples all over Europe of these elementary facts: (a) that the private profit interests of the big capitalists conflict basically with the interests of the nation; (b) that the big capitalists are the source of the major economic and political evils that modern society is a prey to… and (c) that to abolish these evils the power of the monopolist capitalist must be broken and the people take full command of society’s industrial and governmental machine.” [19]

William Foster disliked capitalism and wrote that it was ruining America’s society. Foster also stated that the Iron Curtain (a physical boundary dividing Communist Europe from non-Communist Europe) was American propaganda against communism. Foster said that “the only ‘iron curtain’ in reality has been created by the Anglo-American press and diplomatic circles.”[20] Foster’s idea was that the American government and media was inventing the Iron Curtain. He also thought that the Truman Doctrine was a way for the U.S. to fund “European reactionary minorities” in revolution to destroy Communism[21]. By using this rhetoric and propaganda William Z. Foster became a real threat to the American way of thinking.

Klaus Fuchs said in his confession to William Skardon, “I had already joined the Communist Party because I felt I had to be in some organization.”[22] Fuchs was approached by a professor to do some work on a project and Fuchs accepted without knowing what the work would be. Klaus Fuchs thought that “the Western Allies deliberately allowed Russia and Germany to fight each other to the death.”[23] Because of this idea, Fuchs was not opposed to giving information to the Russians about his scientific work on the plutonium bomb. Fuchs had become a real threat to the Americans because he was supplying the Russians with the information to create their own atom bomb. He was not deliberately a serious threat to begin with but became a serious threat as he worked with the Russians supplying them with more and more information.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg paid the “heaviest price,”[24] according to Ellen Schrecker because the Rosenbergs were the only Communists executed during the Red Scare. Schrecker explains that Ethel was not a spy, and the FBI knew it, but it brought up a case against her in hopes that her husband Julius would confess to obtaining secrets to give to the Russians[25]. According to the FBI files, officials were hoping that the thought of the electric chair would make Julius Rosenberg confess. A memo from A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd states, “Mr. McInerney advised that there is insufficient evidence to issue process against her [Ethel Rosenberg] at this time. He was of the opinion that it might be possible to utilize her as a lever against her husband [Julius Rosenberg].”[26]

According to telegrams sent from the KGB that were intercepted by the FBI, Julius Rosenberg was recruiting his friends to collect intelligence and military secrets that he was giving to the Soviets. Judge Irving Kaufman said in his sentencing, “I consider your crime worse than murder.”[27] Judge Kaufman went on to say that because of Mr. Rosenberg’s actions the Russians had received information about the atom bomb years earlier than anyone had anticipated and that this “had, in his opinion, caused the Communism aggression in Korea.”[28] The Rosenbergs continued to insist that they were innocent, but on June 19, 1953 they were put to death.

Ellen Schrecker emphatically states, “Significantly, all these people [Klaus Fuchs, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg] were Communist.”[29] These three were a major reason that the U.S. government was fighting the war on Communism in the United States. Schrecker says, “It is hard to have a witch-hunt without witches.”[30] The Rosenbergs and Klaus Fuchs are a few of the” witches” that the government was finding. The “witches” were not playing around, they were giving secrets to the Soviets, and that moved Communism down the path of destruction for the United States.

Conclusion

In the past 50 years many Americans have characterized McCarthyism as a “witch-hunt” similar to the Salem Witch Trials. American citizens see Senator McCarthy as the villain pulling Communists out of his hat to further his career, but that is not so. There were real fears behind the red scare, including revolution, covert operations, and nuclear bombs. As J. Edgar Hoover expressed, there was a real threat from the Communist Party and the ideology it adhered to. There were some members of society that were persecuted for associating with organizations or people who were questionable. At the same time, there were individuals who were doing the very things that Hoover talked about. The Communist Party was real and trying to survive in America. Some Communists were trying to start a revolution, and ultimately it cost two people their lives. The U.S. Government had a right to be afraid of what the Communist Party stood for and what the Soviets were doing to create change in the world. The attack on Communism was warranted in preserving the American way of life and continuing the policy set forth by President Truman in containing Communism.

Bibliography

Schrecker, Ellen. ""I have in My Hand...": Senator Joseph McCarthy Charges That There Are Communist in the State Department." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 237-241. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "Atomic Espionage and the Rosenberg Case." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 155-170. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "From the Communist Party's Perspective: William Z. Foster Looks at the World in 1947." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 119-121. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "Guilt by Designation: The Attorney General's List." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 190-196. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

—. The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief Histroy with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "The American Communist Party." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 5-11. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "The Blacklist in Operation: Testimony from the John Henry Faulk Trial." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 250-257. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "The Dilemma of an Unfriendly Witness: Lillian Hellman Takes the Fifth Amendment." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 226-228. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

Schrecker, Ellen. "The Truman Administration Deals with the Communist Menace: The 1947 Loyalty-Security Program." In The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, by Ellen Schrecker, 171-176. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002.

---

[1] Quoted in Ellen Schrecker, The age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 240.

[2] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 127.

[3] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 128.

[4] Ellen Schrecker, “The Truman Administration Deals with the Communist Menace” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2002), 171.

[5] Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 171.

[6] In Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 123.

[7] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 238.

[8] Ellen Schrecker, “’I Have in My Hand…’” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 237.

[9] Ellen Schrecker, “Guilt by Designation” in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 190.

[10] Ellen Schrecker, “The Dilemma of an Unfriendly Witness: Lillian Hellman Takes the Fifth Amendment” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 226.

[11] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 227.

[12] Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 226.

[13] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 228.

[14]Ellen Schrecker, “The Blacklist in Operation: Testimony from the John Henry Faulk Trial” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 250.

[15] In Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 253.

[16] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 254.

[17] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 254.

[18] Ellen Schrecker, “From the Communist Party’s Perspective: William Z. Foster Looks at the World in 1947” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 119.

[19] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 120.

[20] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 120.

[21] In Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 121.

[22] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 157.

[23] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 158.

[24] Ellen Schrecker, “Atomic Espionage and the Rosenberg Case” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 155.

[25] Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 156.

[26] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 164.

[27] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 167.

[28] Quoted in Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 167.

[29] Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism, 155.

[30] Ellen Schrecker, “The American Communist Party” in Ellen Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002), 5.