Joe McCarthy speech and letter to President Truman

“Enemies from Within" rel="nofollow">in”: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s Accusations of Disloyalty Wisconsin" rel="nofollow">in Republican Joseph R. McCarthy first won election to the Senate in" rel="nofollow">in 1946 durin" rel="nofollow">ing a campaign marked by much anticommunist Red-baitin" rel="nofollow">ing. Partially in" rel="nofollow">in response to Republican Party victories, President Harry S. Truman tried to demonstrate his own concern about the threat of Communism by settin" rel="nofollow">ing up a loyalty program for federal employees. He also asked the Justice Department to compile an official list of 78 subversive organizations. As the midterm election year got underway, former State Department official Alger Hiss, suspected of espionage, was convicted of perjury. McCarthy, in" rel="nofollow">in a speech at Wheelin" rel="nofollow">ing, West Virgin" rel="nofollow">inia, mounted an attack on Truman’s foreign policy agenda by chargin" rel="nofollow">ing that the State Department and its Secretary, Dean Acheson, harbored “traitorous” Communists. There is some dispute about the number of Communists McCarthy claimed to have known about. Though advance copies of this speech distributed to the press record the number as 205, McCarthy quickly revised this claim. Both in" rel="nofollow">in a letter he wrote to President Truman the next day and in" rel="nofollow">in an “official” transcript of the speech that McCarthy submitted to the Congressional Record ten days later he uses the number 57. Although McCarthy displayed this list of names both in" rel="nofollow">in Wheelin" rel="nofollow">ing and then later on the Senate floor, he never made the list public. Speech of Joseph McCarthy, Wheelin" rel="nofollow">ing, West Virgin" rel="nofollow">inia, February 9, 1950 Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the one hundred forty-first birthday of one of the greatest men in" rel="nofollow">in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in" rel="nofollow">in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in" rel="nofollow">in our time—of war bein" rel="nofollow">ing outlawed—and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate thin" rel="nofollow">ings to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lin" rel="nofollow">incoln. Five years after a world war has been won, men’s hearts should anticipate a long peace—and men’s min" rel="nofollow">inds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of “the cold war.” This is a time when all the world is split in" rel="nofollow">into two vast, in" rel="nofollow">increasin" rel="nofollow">ingly hostile armed camps—a time of a great armament race. Today we can almost physically hear the mutterin" rel="nofollow">ings and rumblin" rel="nofollow">ings of an in" rel="nofollow">invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the Indochin" rel="nofollow">ina hills, from the shores of Formosa, right over in" rel="nofollow">into the very heart of Europe itself. The one encouragin" rel="nofollow">ing thin" rel="nofollow">ing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for the firin" rel="nofollow">ing of the gun or the explodin" rel="nofollow">ing of the bomb which will set civilization about the fin" rel="nofollow">inal task of destroyin" rel="nofollow">ing itself. There is still a hope for peace if we fin" rel="nofollow">inally decide that no longer can we safely blin" rel="nofollow">ind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shapin" rel="nofollow">ing up more and more clearly . . . and that is that we are now engaged in" rel="nofollow">in a show-down fight . . . not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gain" rel="nofollow">ins, but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies. The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For in" rel="nofollow">instance, the Marxian idea of confiscatin" rel="nofollow">ing the land and factories and runnin" rel="nofollow">ing the entire economy as a sin" rel="nofollow">ingle enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin" rel="nofollow">in’s in" rel="nofollow">invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous. Stalin" rel="nofollow">in’s resolute puttin" rel="nofollow">ing across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only these differences, however, the east and the west could most certain" rel="nofollow">inly still live in" rel="nofollow">in peace. The real, basic difference, however, lies in" rel="nofollow">in the religion of immoralism . . . in" rel="nofollow">invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin" rel="nofollow">in, and carried to unimagin" rel="nofollow">inable extremes by Stalin" rel="nofollow">in. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankin" rel="nofollow">ind than any conceivable economic or political system. Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin" rel="nofollow">in and Stalin" rel="nofollow">in have added in" rel="nofollow">in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in" rel="nofollow">in a god, can exist side by side with their communistic state. Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentionin" rel="nofollow">ing such thin" rel="nofollow">ings as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this “soulful ravin" rel="nofollow">ings” and “sloppy sentimentality.” . . . Today we are engaged in" rel="nofollow">in a fin" rel="nofollow">inal, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down. Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin" rel="nofollow">in. Here is what he said—not back in" rel="nofollow">in 1928, not before the war, not durin" rel="nofollow">ing the war—but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To thin" rel="nofollow">ink that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within" rel="nofollow">in the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one’s min" rel="nofollow">ind and lost all normal understandin" rel="nofollow">ing, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution.” . . . Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blin" rel="nofollow">ind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long. Six years ago, . . . there was within" rel="nofollow">in the Soviet orbit, 180,000,000 people. Lin" rel="nofollow">ined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in" rel="nofollow">in the world at that time, roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only six years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domin" rel="nofollow">ination of Soviet Russia—an in" rel="nofollow">increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in" rel="nofollow">in less than six years, the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in" rel="nofollow">in our favor to 8 to 5 again" rel="nofollow">inst us. This in" rel="nofollow">indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in" rel="nofollow">in the cold war. As one of our outstandin" rel="nofollow">ing historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within" rel="nofollow">in.” . . . The reason why we fin" rel="nofollow">ind ourselves in" rel="nofollow">in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to in" rel="nofollow">invade our shores . . . but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of min" rel="nofollow">inority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to offer . . . the fin" rel="nofollow">inest homes, the fin" rel="nofollow">inest college education and the fin" rel="nofollow">inest jobs in" rel="nofollow">in government we can give. This is glarin" rel="nofollow">ingly true in" rel="nofollow">in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in" rel="nofollow">in their mouths are the ones who have been most traitorous. . . . I have here in" rel="nofollow">in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as bein" rel="nofollow">ing members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still workin" rel="nofollow">ing and shapin" rel="nofollow">ing policy in" rel="nofollow">in the State Department. . . . As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abomin" rel="nofollow">inable of all crimes—bein" rel="nofollow">ing a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust—high treason. . . . He has lighted the spark which is resultin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in a moral uprisin" rel="nofollow">ing and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thin" rel="nofollow">inkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of honesty and decency in" rel="nofollow">in government. Joseph McCarthy to President Harry Truman, February 11, 1950 In the Lin" rel="nofollow">incoln Day speech at Wheelin" rel="nofollow">ing Thursday night I stated that the State Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helpin" rel="nofollow">ing to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in" rel="nofollow">in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in" rel="nofollow">in the State Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claimin" rel="nofollow">ing that there is not a sin" rel="nofollow">ingle Communist in" rel="nofollow">in the Department. You can convin" rel="nofollow">ince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you personally appoin" rel="nofollow">inted a board to screen State Department employees for the purpose of weedin" rel="nofollow">ing out fellow travelers—men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a pain" rel="nofollow">instakin" rel="nofollow">ing job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic connections. While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an important lin" rel="nofollow">ink in" rel="nofollow">in an in" rel="nofollow">international Communist spy rin" rel="nofollow">ing you signed an order forbiddin" rel="nofollow">ing the State Department’s givin" rel="nofollow">ing any in" rel="nofollow">information in" rel="nofollow">in regard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in" rel="nofollow">in that Department to the Congress. Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list of 57 Communists in" rel="nofollow">in the State Department. This list is available to you but you can get a much longer list by orderin" rel="nofollow">ing Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as bein" rel="nofollow">ing disloyal and who are still workin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the State Department. I believe the followin" rel="nofollow">ing is the min" rel="nofollow">inimum which can be expected of you in" rel="nofollow">in this case. 1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in" rel="nofollow">in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still workin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections. 2. That you promptly revoke the order in" rel="nofollow">in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain" rel="nofollow">in any in" rel="nofollow">information or help in" rel="nofollow">in exposin" rel="nofollow">ing Communists. Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of bein" rel="nofollow">ing the bedfellow of in" rel="nofollow">international communism. Certain" rel="nofollow">inly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in" rel="nofollow">in both the Senate and the House. In a 1-2 pages response, respond to the followin" rel="nofollow">ing questions based on these readin" rel="nofollow">ings. 1. What tactics/references did McCarthy employ to in" rel="nofollow">increase his audience's fear of the potential Communist threat? 2. What evidence does he supply to support the assertions he makes in" rel="nofollow">in regards to Communism? 3. Is it possible to balance free speech and the need for security in" rel="nofollow">in a time of crisis such as the early Cold War?