4 Discussion Board

User Generated

yrrvfnyytbbq

Humanities

Description

Discussion 1-Hawaii Annexation

Read the article "Hawaii Annexation, Vital to U.S. Interests or Imperialist Action?"

" The article is available by clicking on "Discussion Articles" on the navigation tree on the left side of the screen. The article will present two sides of the argument.

After you have read the article, create a new thread on this forum in which you state which of the arguments you believe is most convincing. Use specific examples from the article. Your post should be a minimum of 3-4 sentences. Greater detail will earn more points. Your original thread is worth 25 points .

Next, post a reply to one of your classmates and comment about what they have written. Be sure to do more than simply agree with your classmate. Again, greater detail will earn more points. Your reply is worth 20 points.

Your writing mechanics are worth 5 points. Be sure to use proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization.

I will assign your grade after you post both your original thread and your reply.


Discussion 2-Prohibition, Is Banning Alcohol a Social Necessity or Restriction of Freedom?

Read the article "Prohibition, Is the Banning Alcohol a Social Necessity or Restriction of Freedom?" The article is available by clicking on "Discussion Articles" on the navigation tree on the left side of the screen. The article will present two sides of the argument.

After you have read the article, create a new thread on this forum in which you state which of the arguments you believe is most convincing. Use specific examples from the article. Your post should be minimum of 304 sentences. Greater detail will darn more ponts. Your original thread is worth 25 points .

Next, post a reply to one of your classmates and comment about what they have written. Be sure to do more tahn simply agree with your classmate. Again, greater decal will earn more ponts. Your reply is worth 20 points. Your writing mechanics are worth 5 points. Be sure to use proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization.

I will assign your grade after you post both your original thread and your reply.

Discussion 3-McCarthyism, Response to Communist Threat or Political Witch Hunt?

Read the article "McCarthyism, Response to Communist Threat or Political Witch Hunt?" The article is available by clicking on "Discussion Articles" on the navigation tree on the left side of the screen. The article will present two sides of the argument.

After you have read the article, create a new thread on this forum in which you state which of the arguments you believe is most convincing. Use specific examples from the article. Your post should be a minimum of 3-4 sentences. Greater detail will earn more ponts. Your original thread is worth 25 points .

Next, post a reply to one of your classmates and comment about what they have written. Be sure to do more than simply agree with your classmate. Again, greater detail will earn more points. Your reply is worth 20 points. Your writing mechanics are worth 5 points. Be sure to use proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization.

I will assign your grade after you post both your original thread and your reply

Discussion 4-Clinton Impeachment, High Crimes and Misdemeanors or Political Witch Hunt?

Read the article "Clinton Impeachment, High Crimes and Misdemeanors or Political Witch Hunt?" The article is available by clicking on "Discussion Articles" on the navigation tree on the left side of the screen. The article will present two sides of the argument.

After you have read the article, create a new thread on this forum in which you state which of the arguments you believe is most convincing. Use specific examples from the article. Your post should be minimum of 3-4 sentences. Greater detail with earn more points. Your original thread is worth 25 points .

Next, post a reply to one of your classmates and comment about what they have written. Be sure to do more than simply agree with your classmate. Again, greater detail with earn more points. Your reply is worth 20 points. Your writing mechanics are worth 5 points. Be sure to use proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization.

I will assign your grade after you post both your original thread and your reply.

.



for the replying to the classmate i will need ur assistance so please be communicative with me . Thank you!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Hawaii Annexation Vital to U.S. Interests or Imperialist Action? By Jill Kauffman The Issue Library of Congress The issue: In 1893, a group of white businessmen in Hawaii overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy, aided by U.S. troops and the U.S. ambassador in Hawaii. The group installed a provisional government and then requested that the U.S. annex Hawaii. After a debate that lasted several years, the U.S. annexed Hawaii in 1898. Was annexation vital to preserving U.S. interests? Or was it an imperialist act? • Arguments in favor of annexing Hawaii: The Hawaiian Islands were economically and militarily important to the U.S. The native Hawaiians could not govern the islands effectively, so the U.S. needed to take control of Hawaii to preserve American interests. If the U.S. did not take the islands, which were just 2,000 miles from the U.S. West Coast, another nation would. The majority of people in Hawaii favored annexation, which would benefit the island overall by making it more civilized and secure. • Arguments against annexing Hawaii: Annexation was an imperialist action that violated cherished U.S. principles. The majority of Hawaiians did not want to be annexed; the movement was led by a small group of white businessmen who were seeking to protect their own interests, not those of the U.S. Furthermore, because the islands were 2,000 miles from the U.S., the U.S. would have to expend valuable resources to protect them militarily. 1 Background The U.S. became a world power with the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War in August 1898, which resulted in the U.S. acquisition of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. However, those were not the first overseas territories the U.S. had acquired that year. After an intense five-year debate, the U.S. had annexed Hawaii in July. The Spanish-American War helped remove objections to Hawaii's annexation, as many Americans came to believe that Hawaii was crucial to helping the U.S. fight Spain in the Pacific. Hawaii is a 1,600-mile-long island chain located in the Pacific Ocean, some 2,400 miles southwest of California. Most of Hawaii's islands are uninhabited atolls (islands made of coral) and almost all of Hawaii's population is located on eight main islands. Hawaii has a multicultural population, consisting mainly of native Hawaiians (who are of Polynesian descent), Asians and whites. That population mix resulted in tension in the 19th century, as both the native Hawaiians and white businessmen on the islands sought to protect their rights and interests. The U.S. become interested in Hawaii in the 1820s after whalers and Protestant missionaries began traveling to the islands. The missionaries later acquired land, and they and their descendants established sugar plantations and came to control Hawaii's sugar industry. The U.S. was not the only Western nation interested in Hawaii; Great Britain and France also had a presence on the islands. Worried that another nation would take control of Hawaii, and claiming that the U.S. would govern the islands better than the native Hawaiians, Americans there urged the U.S. to annex Hawaii, making it a U.S. territory. At the time, however, there was a strong isolationist sentiment in the U.S. Many people did not want the U.S. to become involved overseas, and they accused supporters of annexation of being imperialists. 2 Queen Liliuokalani Hawaii State Archives The drive for annexation peaked in the 1890s. In 1893, Hawaii's queen, Liliuokalani, was overthrown. The U.S. government quickly concluded that U.S. officials and troops had helped white businessmen in Hawaii to depose her. The U.S. ambassador in Hawaii officially recognized the new provisional government, made up of white businessmen, that replaced the monarchy. The provisional government requested that the U.S. annex Hawaii but, as in the past, there were strong objections. Those objections became particularly fervent after Americans learned of the U.S. role in the queen's overthrow. The provisional government and the U.S. signed a treaty of annexation, but it failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate required for passage. The treaty's failure did not end the annexation movement. Americans in Hawaii continued to call for annexation, and another treaty was considered later in the decade. 3 However, strong opposition once again blocked its passage in the Senate. That changed after the U.S. went to war with Spain in April 1898. Although the war erupted over the Spanish colony of Cuba in the Caribbean, the conflict was also fought in the colony of the Philippines in the Pacific. Annexationists argued that Hawaii was an important base and refueling station for the U.S. Navy in the Pacific, and many Americans previously opposed to annexation agreed. However, other opponents remained steadfast in their view, and the treaty continued to be voted down by the Senate. Annexationists then tried a new tact. They introduced a joint resolution in Congress, which required only a simple majority for passage. Two months after the outbreak of the war, Congress approved the annexation resolution, and President William McKinley (R, 1897-1901) signed it in July. Nearly two years later, Hawaii formally became a U.S. territory. The debate over annexation was fierce. Was annexation vital to U.S. interests? Or was it part of an imperialist policy at odds with American ideals? Supporters of annexing Hawaii argued that the islands were strategically important to the U.S., both economically and militarily. Annexation would protect U.S. business interests in Hawaii by ensuring a stable government there, they said, and it would also give the U.S. a foothold for expanding trade in the Pacific. Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands gained added importance with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, supporters said. They asserted that the islands were vital as a fueling station to carry out U.S. operations in the Pacific. Furthermore, they warned that if the U.S. did not take the islands, some other nation would, establishing a foreign power just 2,000 miles from the U.S. coast. Supporters insisted that the majority of people in Hawaii favored annexation, which they said would benefit the island overall by making it more civilized and secure. Critics of annexation, on the other hand, claimed it was an imperialist action that went against cherished U.S. principles. The U.S. simply did not take control of other nations, they insisted. Critics particularly objected that the U.S. did not try to determine whether Hawaiians supported annexation, and claimed that the majority of Hawaiians did not want to be annexed. The annexation movement was led by a small group of white businessmen in Hawaii pursuing their own selfish interests, critics charged. The acquisition of Hawaii would also bring a host of other problems to the U.S., critics warned. For example, because the islands were 2,000 miles from the U.S., they said, the U.S. would have to build up its navy to defend them. In addition, they pointed out that most of the population consisted of natives and Asian laborers who worked on the sugar plantations. The annexation of Hawaii would eventually lead to statehood for the islands, they said, which would turn many undesirables into U.S. citizens. 4 A sugarcane plantation in Hawaii. Library of Congress Early History of Hawaii The Hawaiian Islands were settled by Polynesians beginning in the 4th century. The first European contact occurred in January 1778, when British captain James Cook discovered the islands while searching for a "Northwest Passage" between Alaska and Asia. Cook named Hawaii the Sandwich Islands after the Earl of Sandwich, who had financed his voyage. (Some claim that Spaniard Juan Gaetano first discovered the islands in the mid16th century, but according to many historians, Gaetano more likely reached the Caroline Islands or the Marshall Islands.) The Hawaiian Islands were initially ruled by individual chieftains, but in 1810, King Kamehameha I completed a decades-long conquest of the islands, uniting them into the Kingdom of Hawaii. The united islands were governed as a monarchy, which was later reshaped into a constitutional monarchy (after Hawaii adopted its first constitution in 1840). The U.S. became interested in the islands in the 1820s. With the introduction of whaling in the North Pacific, whalers began using Hawaii as a stop to resupply, and missionaries also began traveling to the islands. In 1820, Protestant missionaries from New England traveled to Hawaii, where in addition to converting Hawaiians to Christianity they built 5 churches and schools and helped to create a written form of the Hawaiian language. However, the U.S. was not the only nation interested in Hawaii. In the 1830s, Hawaii signed commerce agreements with Britain and France. As Europe became interested in Hawaii, Americans in Hawaii began warning that the U.S. should annex the islands before another nation took control of them. In 1842, the U.S. officially recognized Hawaii as an independent nation. Although President John Tyler (Whig, 1841-45) warned other nations against trying to take over Hawaii, he did not seek to annex Hawaii for the U.S. Foreigners became more involved in Hawaii's economy after 1850, when the Hawaiian government signed a bill that for the first time allowed foreigners to buy land. Over the following decades, the missionaries' offspring purchased land and established sugarcane plantations, and sugar became one of Hawaii's leading exports. Several missionary families controlled all aspects of the sugar business, from production to exporting. Along with Europeans on the island, they constituted a powerful white business class referred to as haole. Demand for sugar was fueled in the early 1850s by the California gold rush, when people from all over the world traveled to California to search for gold. As its population skyrocketed, California began importing Hawaiian sugar. Demand fell after the gold rush ended but increased again in the 1860s with the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War (186165). The Union in the North was cut off from sugar grown in the Confederate South, and the North turned to Hawaii for its sugar. 6 Workers gather sugarcane on a Hawaiian plantation. Library of Congress The increased demand for sugar created an increased demand for labor. However, the native Hawaiian population had been decreasing over several decades, as Hawaiians died of diseases carried to Hawaii by Americans and Europeans, so the plantation owners had to look elsewhere for labor. Chinese laborers initially filled the gap, followed by Japanese and Koreans, creating a diverse population of native Hawaiians, Americans, Europeans and Asians. Sugarcane production expanded further after Hawaii and the U.S. agreed to a reciprocity treaty in 1875. Under the agreement, Hawaiian sugar imported by the U.S. would not be subject to a tariff; in return, Hawaii agreed to purchase certain items only from the U.S. When the reciprocity agreement was renewed in 1887, it also gave the U.S. the right to establish a naval base at Pearl Harbor, on the island of Oahu. The white businessmen did not believe that the Hawaiians could effectively govern the island or protect their business interests, and they increasingly called for annexation by the U.S. In 1887, several American and European businessmen formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League, seeking the end of the monarchy. The same year, white cabinet officials and members of the militia—many of whom were members of the Hawaiian League—threatened to depose King Kalakaua if he did not 7 approve a new constitution limiting monarchical power. The constitution, which the king signed on July 6, also greatly increased the minimum income and property ownership requirements for voting, effectively taking away the right to vote from everybody except Hawaiian nobles and white businessmen. The native Hawaiians referred to the document as the "Bayonet Constitution" because the king was forced to sign it. Kalakaua died in 1891 after suffering a stroke, and was replaced by Queen Liliuokalani. Native Hawaiians requested that the queen introduce a new constitution that overturned the 1887 constitution. They sought to restore the monarchy's power and eliminate the income and property restrictions for voting, while at the same time restricting voting rights to naturalized Hawaiian citizens or residents married to Hawaiians. Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown On January 14, 1893, Liliuokalani announced her intention to promulgate a new constitution giving greater rights to native Hawaiians and greater power to the monarchy. "I have listened to thousands of the voices of my people that have come to me, and I am prepared to grant their request," she declared. However, some of her counselors opposed the new constitution, warning that it would incite the annexationists. That same day, the Hawaiian League created a 13-member "Committee of Safety," which condemned Liliuokalani's efforts to draft a new constitution. The Committee of Safety requested the presence of U.S. troops in the capital, Honolulu, warning of an "imminent threat to American lives and property." At the request of the U.S. minister, or ambassador, to Hawaii, John Stevens, more than 150 armed marines and sailors from the warship USS Boston went ashore in Honolulu on January 16 and occupied positions throughout the city. On January 17, the Committee of Safety occupied several government buildings throughout the city and established a provisional government. In a manifesto issued that day, the committee declared that the "Hawaiian monarchical system of government is hereby abrogated," claiming that its abrogation would be "for the best personal, political, and property interests of every citizen of the land." Liliuokalani requested help from Stevens, but the ambassador supported the new provisional government. Faced with the threat of force, Liliuokalani yielded the throne under protest on January 17. The Committee of Safety appointed American lawyer Sanford Dole (the cousin of James Dole, who later founded the Hawaiian Pineapple Company) as the leader of the provisional government. Stevens recognized the provisional government as "the de facto government of the Hawaiian Islands" without the authority of the U.S. State Department, and the U.S. flag was raised over Iolani Palace in Honolulu. 8 President Grover Cleveland (D, 1885-89, 1893-97) Library of Congress In the final weeks of his term, outgoing president Benjamin Harrison (R, 1889-93), who had lost the election to Democrat Grover Cleveland the previous November, introduced an annexation treaty to the Senate. However, Cleveland did not support annexation. Upon taking office in March, he withdrew the treaty from consideration and established an investigation, led by former Representative James Blount (D, Georgia), into the U.S. role in the overthrow. Upon arriving in Honolulu on March 29, Blount ordered that the American flag be lowered. Several months later he released his report, concluding that the U.S. had played a role in the overthrow of the monarchy. Stevens was directly involved in the revolt, Blount said, and had been too quick to recognize the new government without instructions from the State Department. After receiving Blount's report, Secretary of State Walter Gresham reported to the president, "The troops were landed, not to protect American life and property, but to aid in overthrowing the existing Government. Their very presence implied coercive measures against it." In light of the Blount report, Cleveland ordered the monarchy restored. He expressed his opposition to annexation in his annual message in December 1893: After a thorough and exhaustive examination Mr. Blount submitted to me his report, 9 showing beyond all question that the constitutional Government of Hawaii had been subverted with the active aid of our representative to that Government and through the intimidation caused by the presence of an armed naval force of the United States, which was landed for that purpose at the instance of our minister. Upon the facts developed it seemed to me the only honorable course for our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention. However, several months after the Blount report was released, a congressional investigation by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations refuted Blount's findings. Submitted to the committee on February 26, 1894, the report concluded that it was Liliuokalani who had been in rebellion when she tried to promulgate a new constitution. The report also claimed that most Hawaiians supported annexation. Dole and the provisional government refused to relinquish power, claiming that the U.S. had no right to interfere in Hawaiian affairs. On July 4, 1894, the provisional government proclaimed Hawaii a republic and appointed Dole as president. Rather than resorting to the use of force to restore the queen, Cleveland officially recognized the Hawaiian republic. Native Hawaiians staged their own revolt the following year, seeking to take power and return Liliuokalani to the throne. The revolt was easily put down, and its leaders and Liliuokalani were imprisoned, although Liliuokalani was eventually freed. In return for the pardon of those involved in the revolt, Liliuokalani officially renounced her claim to the throne. Fight over Annexation 10 William McKinley (R, 1897-1901) Library of Congress Although the U.S. recognized Hawaii as a republic, the Hawaiian businessmen continued their calls for annexation. They received a boost in 1897 when the anti-annexationist Cleveland was replaced by William McKinley (R, 1897-1901), who supported annexation. On June 16, three months after McKinley took office, the U.S. and the provisional government signed another treaty of annexation. Liliuokalani filed a formal protest of the treaty with the State Department the following day. More than a third of the senators were Democrats, most of whom opposed annexation, and once again the Republicans failed to get enough votes in the Senate to approve the treaty. However, the fight for annexation was given added importance with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in April 1898. In May, U.S. Commodore George Dewey attacked the Philippines, and many annexationists began to argue that annexation was necessary to give the U.S. a Pacific base. Still lacking the required support in the Senate in 1898, supporters decided to pursue annexation through a joint resolution instead of a treaty. The resolution, written by Representative Francis Newlands (D, Nevada), would be easier to pass than a treaty, because it required a simple majority in the House and Senate, rather than the two-thirds 11 vote in the Senate needed to approve a treaty. The House approved the Newlands resolution on June 15, in a 209-91 vote that was largely partisan: 179 Republicans and just 18 Democrats approved it (as well as eight populists and four Fusionists). Likewise, just three Republicans opposed annexation, compared with 77 Democrats. The Senate approved the bill on July 6, and McKinley signed it the following day. The Case in Favor of Annexation The acquisition of Hawaii was economically important for the U.S., supporters insisted, pointing out that Americans had a large investment in the islands. Senator James Kyle (Populist, South Dakota) noted during an 1895 debate that, out of a total of $36 million invested in Hawaiian plantations and businesses, Americans had invested $21 million. The Hawaiians could not govern effectively enough to protect U.S. interests, annexation supporters insisted. Therefore, they said, the U.S. government needed to take control of the islands. According to the January 1893 manifesto issued by the Committee of Safety, continued misrule by the Hawaiian monarchy would "wreck our already damaged credit abroad and precipitate to final ruin our already overstrained financial condition, and guarantees of protection to life, liberty, and property will steadily decrease." The annexation of Hawaii would also benefit the U.S. overall by providing a new market for American goods, supporters asserted. They also contended that Hawaii would give the U.S. a base for conducting trade in the Pacific. Representative James Davidson (R, Wisconsin) pointed out in a June 1898 debate that "every vessel passing in either direction across the Pacific must touch at this point before reaching its destination." He continued, "With these islands under our control, our trade relations will be established and our commercial interests in the East forever protected." Supporters of annexation also maintained that Hawaii would serve as a vital fueling station and a base for any military operations in the Pacific. The Spanish-American War proved the necessity of such a base, they said. In 1851, long before the heyday of the debate over annexation, navy admiral Samuel Du Pont had emphasized the strategic importance of Hawaii in a report, in which he wrote: It is impossible to estimate too highly the value and importance of the Sandwich Islands, whether in a commercial or military point of view. Should circumstances ever place them in our hands, they would prove the most important acquisition we could make in the whole Pacific Ocean, an acquisition intimately connected with our commercial and naval supremacy in those areas. If the U.S. did not annex Hawaii, supporters warned, another nation would. Hawaii was too small and weak to prevent that from happening, they said. "Standing alone, without wealth, without population, [Hawaii] can hardly hold its own against more powerful nations, and should we fail to control or protect it, it will undoubtedly soon be acquired, peacefully or otherwise, by some of the great powers," Davidson said. That would place a foreign nation just 2,000 miles from the U.S. coast, annexation supporters warned, putting the U.S. at risk. Senator John Morgan (D, Alabama) warned of the following scenario during a Senate debate in 1897: Without imputing to Great Britain any other motive than to extend her national policy of commercial conquest, it seems very obvious that if she should acquire dominion of Hawaii and open and fortify Pearl Harbor, her military fortress at Esquimault, on the 12 island of Vancouver, cooperating, would cut our coast line in two, and would leave us incumbered with a mass of territory in Alaska, whose defense would be almost impossible, and the advantage of which would be lost to us. Other supporters insisted that the U.S. must annex Hawaii because it had already raised the U.S. flag over the capital. If America were forced to lower the flag and withdraw from Hawaii, it would appear weak, they said. "The only motive I have in this matter is because I dislike to see American interests sacrificed. It may be only a sentimental feeling, but it is one which I cherish very strongly," declared Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R, Massachusetts). "I dislike to see the American flag pulled down where it has been once run up. I dislike to see the American foot go back where it has been once advanced." Supporters denied that the annexation was motivated by imperialism. Rather, they argued, the annexation of Hawaii would simply continue the U.S. policy of westward expansion, which had strengthened the nation. The U.S. would obtain Hawaii just as it had obtained the Louisiana Territory in 1803, Texas in 1845, California in 1850 and Alaska in 1867, they asserted. Besides, supporters insisted, most Hawaiians favored U.S. annexation to ensure peace and prosperity on the islands. In fact, the U.S. owed it to Hawaii to take care of it, since it would not permit any other nation to take control of Hawaii, they said. "When we warn off other nations we assume some responsibility," Lodge asserted. He continued, "We say to the people of these islands that nobody else shall come there. And I think we owe it to them to assist them in the maintenance of peace and order. I think that the only way to deal with them is to annex these islands." Even if Hawaiians did not want to be annexed, the decision was not up to them, some supporters asserted. They argued that the native population was not fit to make such an important decision for itself. In the North American Review, Arthur James, an American who came to support annexation after visiting Hawaii, acknowledged that the U.S. had not consulted the native Hawaiians about the issue. However, he asked, "were the American Indians consulted in the early days here, or the natives of Alaska in later times?" He continued: The natives have proved themselves to be incapable of governing and unfitted for the condition of civilization, as is shown by their rapid decline in numbers and their inability to adapt themselves to changed conditions; and the importance of their supposed opinions on annexation has been greatly exaggerated.... Indolent and easy-going, they are perfectly content with any form of government which allows them to sun themselves, bedecked with flowers. The Case Against Annexation Opponents of annexation pointed out that the U.S. government had admitted to playing a role in overthrowing the monarchy. The U.S. had no right to benefit from that unjust action by annexing the islands, they argued. The U.S. government should instead seek to restore the monarchy it helped overthrow, critics said. "Our Government was the first to recognize the independence of the Islands, and it should be the last to acquire sovereignty over them by force and fraud," Secretary of State Gresham declared in his 1893 letter to the president. Critics claimed that annexation was an imperialist act, which violated everything the U.S. had stood for in the past. It also violated the ideals of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, in 13 which the U.S. closed the Western Hemisphere to European involvement, they said. In annexing the Pacific islands, critics argued, the U.S. was interfering beyond its hemisphere, essentially doing what it had told Europe not to do in the Monroe Doctrine. If the U.S. annexed Hawaii, it would have no moral force to insist that Europe remain out of the Western Hemisphere, they maintained. The U.S. government had not even tried to determine whether Hawaiians wanted their islands to be annexed, critics complained. In fact, they said, most Hawaiians opposed annexation. As evidence, they pointed to a petition to Congress opposing annexation signed by more than 30,000 Hawaiians. The petition stated: "We particularly resent the presumption of being transferred to the United States like a flock of sheep, or bartered like a horde of savages,...and we cannot believe our friends of the great and just American nation could tolerate annexation by force against the wishes of the majority of a population." It was mainly Americans who supported annexation, critics said, but they made up just a small fraction of Hawaii's population. Annexation critic Thomas Shearman, speaking at Plymouth Church in New York City on February 9, 1898, claimed there were 34,000 native Hawaiians and just 4,000 Americans. "The 4,000 propose to ignore all rights of the 34,000. Petitions are being presented by more than 10,000 native Hawaiians remonstrating against annexation, but President Dole has been quite unable to hear of them, and says there are no means of ascertaining the feeling of the native Hawaiians. I can see nothing in this except highly respectable, smug, religious highway robbery," Shearman declared. The minority who supported annexation did so out of their own selfish desire to protect their business interests, critics insisted. The U.S. could not be allowed to violate its principles to help a small group of businessmen become wealthier, they argued. In additional to violating the nation's principles, critics said, annexation would cause several practical problems for the U.S. For instance, they said, the U.S. would have to build up its navy and expend more resources to help defend Hawaii, located 2,000 miles from the U.S. Carl Schurz, a journalist and former secretary of the interior, elaborated: If we acquire them we cannot let them go again without great humiliation, for, after all that has happened, they will appear as an especial object of our desire, to be held at any cost. In their present unfortified condition they would be an easy prey to any hostile power superior to us in naval force. But even if well fortified, their defense would oblige us to fight on a field of operations where the superiority of our land forces would be of no avail, unless we had a navy strong enough to protect the communication between our western coast and Hawaii against Interruption.... In fact, Schurz said, extending its territory in the Pacific would likely bring the U.S. into conflict with other nations seeking to take advantage of the fact that a part of the U.S. was located so far from the mainland. According to Schurz: [T]he possession of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States would not serve to deter a foreign power from attacking us, but rather be calculated to invite attack, for it would offer to a foreign enemy the possibility, not now existing, of forcing us to a fight on ground on which we cannot bring the superiority of our resources into play, and of gaining by a rapid stroke at the beginning of a war an advantage extremely embarrassing to us. In this respect, we shall by annexing Hawaii simply acquire a vulnerable point. Other critics asserted that Hawaii's population was made up largely of uncivilized natives 14 and Asians. They were not fit to be American citizens, critics argued, which is exactly what would happen if Hawaii became a U.S. territory and eventually a U.S. state. "Annexation...raises the American flag over a people who do not ask for its protection and who are unworthy of its shelter," the New York Times declared in a December 9, 1897, editorial. The addition of Hawaii would lead to the acquisition of other undesirable territories as well, opponents insisted. Representative James Clark (D, Missouri) warned during a June 1898 House debate: Mr. Speaker, if this policy is pursued as the jingoes want it, and you are here presiding over the House twenty years hence, you will be called upon to recognize the 'gentleman from Patagonia,' 'the gentleman from Cuba,' 'the gentleman from Puerto Rico,' 'the gentleman from Greenland,' 'the gentleman from Hongkong,' 'the gentleman from Fiji,' and, with fear and trembling, 'the gentleman from the Cannibal Islands,' as he gazes with gleaming eyes and glistening teeth upon your imposing and tempting self. The annexation of Hawaii would also take jobs away from Americans on the mainland, critics contended, and pose added problems for the U.S. without bringing equal benefits. "[O]ur country has quite enough problems to take care of. It is not wise to increase them. Our work is not to make a bigger Nation, but to make a greater one, a purer, stronger, and nobler one. Until we can drive corruption out of municipalities and Legislatures and National Administrations we do not want to widen our borders," Reverend Lyman Abbot declared during a speech at Plymouth Church in February 1898. Finally, some critics asserted that it was illegal to annex a territory through a congressional resolution. Annexation must be carried out through a treaty, they insisted. Debate over Hawaii's Status Continues In January 1893, the U.S. ambassador in Hawaii helped to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani, beginning an impassioned debate over the fate of Hawaii. The American businessmen in Hawaii called for annexation, bringing the islands under the governance of the U.S. However, many Americans opposed annexation, claiming that it amounted to imperialism. In July 1898, five years after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, the U.S. government approved an annexation treaty in July 1898. A month later, on August 12, the Hawaiian flag over the capital was lowered and the U.S. flag was raised in its place. Hawaii formally became a U.S. territory with the signing of the Organic Act on April 30, 1900, providing a government for the new territory. Dole, the president of the Hawaiian republic, was appointed territorial governor. Although it was widely assumed that annexation was the first step toward U.S. statehood, Hawaii was not admitted as a state until nearly six decades later. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R, 1953-61) signed the Hawaiian statehood bill on August 21, 1959, making Hawaii the nation's 50th state. Hawaii's admission as a state did not end the debate over Hawaii, however. In 1993, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of Liliuokalani, Congress approved an "Apology Bill," officially apologizing for the "suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people" in 1893. While supporters had claimed the bill was necessary for reconciliation between Hawaiians and the U.S., critics warned that it was a first step toward Hawaiian independence. Since the 1970s, a handful of Hawaiians had called for a return of the island's sovereignty 15 to native Hawaiians. The movement remained small through the 1970s and 1980s, but gained ground in the 1990s, particularly with the passage of the Apology Bill. In 2000, the House approved a bill that would establish limited self-rule for native Hawaiians, similar to the relationship between Native Americans and the U.S. government. However, the Senate refused to vote on the bill. Since 2000, Congress has unsuccessfully considered several versions of the bill. Some Hawaiians have urged the U.S. to go even further. They are calling for complete independence from the U.S., claiming that U.S. ownership has destroyed their culture and resulted in a lower standard of living for native Hawaiians. However, at least for the short term, Hawaii remains the nation's 50th state. Bibliography "Gov. Smith on Annexation." New York Times, June 3, 1898, 6. "The Hawaiian Disgrace." New York Times, November 21, 1897, 12. James, Arthur. "Advantages of Hawaiian Annexation." North American Review, December 1897, 758. Mellen, Kathleen Dickinson. The Gods Depart: A Saga of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 18321873. New York: Hastings House, 1956. ———. An Island Kingdom Passes: Hawaii Becomes American. New York: Hastings House, 1958. Mullins, Joseph. Hawaii: 1776-1976. Honolulu, Hawaii: Mutual Publishing Company, 1976. Okihiro, Gary. Island World: A History of Hawai'i and the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. "Protest of Liliuokalani." New York Times, June 18, 1897, 1. "A Revolution in Hawaii." New York Times, January 29, 1893, 1. "Secretary Gresham's Report." New York Times, November 11, 1883, 1. Tabrah, Ruth. Hawaii: A Bicentennial History. New York: Norton, 1980. "Want Hawaii Kept Out." New York Times, February 10, 1898, 3. Webb, Nancy, and Jean Webb. The Hawaiian Islands: From Monarchy to Democracy. New York: Viking, 1958. Wyndette, Olive. Islands of Destiny: A History of Hawaii. Rutland, Vt.: Charles E. Tuttle, 1968. 16 Prohibition Is Banning Alcohol a Social Necessity or Restriction of Freedom? By Heather Kauffman The Issue Robert Runyon/Library of Congress The issue: Should the sale of alcohol be banned nationwide with the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution? Or is the prohibition of alcohol outside the realm of the federal government's duties? • Arguments for Prohibition: Drinking is a social problem; overindulgence in alcohol tears apart families, hurts job productivity and causes serious health problems. Furthermore, alcohol leads to increased crime, both by causing drunken behavior and because saloons encourage gambling and prostitution. The only way to adequately deal with those problems is to ban the sale of alcohol nationwide, through a constitutional amendment. And because such an amendment would ban only the sale of alcohol—not the drinking of it—it will have no ill effects on personal liberties. • Arguments against Prohibition: Regulating alcohol is an unacceptable infringement on the rights of individuals and of states, to whom the regulation of food and drink belongs. Prohibition actually causes more crime than does overindulgence in alcohol, because it gives rise to criminal organizations that produce, smuggle and sell liquor. Furthermore, saloons provide entertainment and inexpensive meals; banning alcohol and closing saloons, which are regulated, will only lead to the creation of unregulated speakeasies to replace them. Saloons, vineyards and breweries are also an important source of employment. Background "Your ballot is your hatchet, to build up the good, to cut out the evil. The Home 1 Defender. The Home Builder." Those words appeared on an election poster produced by advocates for "prohibition," or a legal ban on the manufacture, sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages in the early 20th century. The Prohibition movement sprung from the formation of temperance societies in the mid1800s, fueled by concerns over increasing consumption of alcohol in the U.S. Members of those groups signed pledges to practice "temperance," or moderation, in their drinking, if not to entirely abstain from alcohol. Largely due to the efforts of a Maine public figure named Neal Dow, Maine in 1851 became the first state to prohibit the sale of alcohol. In succeeding decades, organizations favoring prohibition measures sprang up nationwide. In the eyes of supporters, the fight for prohibition laws was indeed a struggle to protect the home—from husbands and fathers squandering their wages in saloons, from domestic violence and from saloons' attempts to entice young sons to drink. Many prohibition advocates were women. In 1873, Eliza Daniel Stewart led women in Ohio from churches and meetinghouses to saloons, where they prayed and urged saloon owners to close down their businesses. The following year, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was formed, and became a major force in the fight against the liquor industry. With the formation of the Anti-Saloon League, prominent leaders made their voices heard on the subject of alcohol consumption and the social ills they believed it caused. Religious groups such as the Federal Council of Churches (an organization of Protestant churches, later absorbed by the National Council of Churches) also actively supported state and federal prohibition measures. Those early efforts led to the ratification of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in January 1919, instituting what had come to be known simply as Prohibition. Prohibition, which made it illegal to manufacture, sell or transport alcohol anywhere in the U.S., went into force a year later, after Congress passed the necessary enabling legislation. Prohibition was initially popular but eventually lost favor. A key concern was the rising involvement of organized crime. Supplying illegal alcohol had become a lucrative black market business for mobsters. That problem motivated the formation of the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, which favored repeal of Prohibition. Public opposition to Prohibition was also influenced by the Great Depression that began in 1929. As economic hard times hit the country, advocates for repeal argued that the return of the liquor industry would stimulate the economy. Up to that point, no amendment to the U.S. Constitution had ever been repealed. But in 1933, amid growing anti-Prohibition sentiment, the 21st Amendment was ratified, repealing the 18th Amendment. The task of regulating alcohol returned to the states. Supporters of prohibition laws were motivated especially by concerns for the safety and welfare of the family. Drunkenness resulted in domestic violence, poverty and crime, Prohibition supporters asserted. With the liquor industry out of business, they argued, individuals would escape early death from alcoholism and violence, and families would be safer and more prosperous. Furthermore, they argued, if the saloons were shut down, workers would find jobs in factories that produced items beneficial to the U.S. economy. And without the problem of drunkenness, there would be less absenteeism and workers would perform better, supporters reasoned. Those opposed to prohibition laws argued that saloons and the liquor industry provided vital jobs in communities; closing down those institutions would therefore harm the 2 national economy, they asserted. Furthermore, laws making the sale of alcohol illegal reached too far into citizens' lives, restricting fundamental liberties, critics said. With the enactment of Prohibition, arguments against it became more pragmatic. Prohibition should be repealed, they reasoned, because of its ineffective enforcement, widespread disregard for the law and fostering of organized crime, which profited from bootlegging (the illegal manufacture and transport of alcohol). From Temperance to National Prohibition in the U.S. As early as 1750, people expressed concern over the increase in consumption and availability of alcoholic beverages. That concern would take concrete form a century later with Temperance Societies, as many people came to believe that drunkenness caused an increase in violence, crime and poverty. Temperance advocates initially urged personal restraint, the moderate use of wine and beer, and abstention from hard liquor (gin, rum or whiskey). The American Temperance Society, founded in 1826, started out with those goals. But after several years it merged with the American Temperance Union and called for individuals to pledge to abstain entirely from drinking any alcoholic beverage. The concern over alcohol consumption arose out of the publication of statistics indicating heavy consumption. The alcoholic content of drinks is measured by "proof," which is a figure equal to twice the percentage of alcohol. In the 1830s, the per capita consumption of "absolute alcohol" (200 proof alcohol) from all types of alcoholic beverages rose to the equivalent of about 15 liters, or about four gallons. That would come to around 37.5 liters, or 10 gallons, of the typical 80 proof gin, whiskey or rum that people might drink. In the 1840s, Dow, a Maine businessman drew attention to the social problems he believed were being caused by alcohol abuse in his state. He studied family violence, crime, poverty and poor work performance, and connected those problems with drunkenness. He and other activists backed statewide prohibition, and in 1851, Maine passed the first state prohibition law in the U.S. By 1855, 13 states had passed laws similar to Maine's. Annual per capita consumption of absolute alcohol had fallen to about four liters, or about 2.6 gallons of 80 proof liquor. But the Civil War (1861-65) resulted in a drop in support for the temperance movement, as individuals grappled with political dissent and the hardships of war. Many existing state prohibition laws were repealed around that time. After the Civil War, the country again turned its attention to the issue of heavy alcohol consumption. In 1869, the Prohibition Party was formed. It ran "dry" candidates— supporters of prohibition laws—for state and federal office. The increase in the number of saloons further alarmed opponents of heavy drinking in the years following the Civil War. By the 1870s, there were more than 100,000 saloons in the country, about one for every 400 people. As saloons turned to gambling, prostitution and selling alcohol to minors, people came to associate them with vice and violence. The low opinion many Americans held of saloons led to the creation, in 1873-74, of the Women's Crusade in Ohio. Led by temperance advocate Stewart, thousands of women marched from churches to saloons. There they prayed, sang and urged proprietors to close down. Soon, the movement inspired similar actions in other states. Another force in the prohibition movement, the WCTU, helped enact local prohibition laws. While Maine was the first state to legislate prohibition, Kansas in 1879 became the first to pass a constitutional amendment instituting it. In 1893 the Anti-Saloon League (ASL) 3 was formed in Ohio to support prohibition at both the state and federal level. The ASL held its first national convention in 1895, and as the organization became more powerful, it published periodicals devoted to the cause. By 1900, the main political question in the U.S. had become whether states should prohibit saloons. That year, Carry A. Nation, a leader in the temperance movement, began destroying saloons in Kansas. Though Kansas had banned alcohol for two decades, the law was often disregarded. Using hatchets to damage and destroy saloons, Nation led raids on 12 illegal saloons in 1900 and 1901. Several states passed antisaloon laws, which closed those establishments and prohibited the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. By 1912, a dozen states had prohibition laws in place, close to pre-Civil War levels. At its 20th anniversary convention in 1913, the ASL announced its campaign to achieve national prohibition through an amendment to the Constitution. Joining forces with the WCTU, in 1916 the ASL helped elect enough "dry" candidates to secure the two-thirds majority necessary in Congress to support a constitutional amendment backing prohibition. World War I (1914-18) played a major role in increasing support for prohibition. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, Wayne Wheeler, legal adviser to the ASL, wrote to President Woodrow Wilson's secretary of war: "I hope you will use the weight of your influence to protect the boys in the army from the ruinous effect of liquor during the war." He concluded, "I am sure the people of the nation would sustain you in any effort you may make along the lines of protecting the soldiers and the resources of our nation in this hour of peril." In 1917, the ASL won enough support to pass laws to "protect the morals of servicemen" by limiting their access to alcohol, and to conserve grain for food. The general feeling of self sacrifice that was evident during the war increased public support for prohibition. That public supported helped carry through the passage of the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors." Congress approved the 18th Amendment on December 22, 1917. It was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of all states a year later, on January 16, 1919. The enabling legislation for the 18th Amendment was the National Prohibition Enforcement Act, called the Volstead Act after the Representative Andrew Volstead (R, Minnesota), who had introduced it. It became law on October 28, 1919, after Congress overrode a veto by Wilson. The Volstead Act forbade the manufacture, transport, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages in the U.S. The law defined "intoxicating liquors" as those with an alcoholic content of 0.5% or more. However, it also made exceptions for medicinal, religious, or industrial use and for personal use at home. January 16, 1920, marked the beginning of the Prohibition era, as the Volstead Act went into effect, eliminating businesses that manufactured alcohol and shutting down brewers, vintners and distillers. However, while the law empowered federal agents to investigate and prosecute violators, enforcement was spotty because Congress and state legislatures were unwilling to allocate funds for that purpose. 4 Illegal liquor production and speakeasies flourished during Prohibition, making enforcement difficult. Here, agents pour liquor into a sewer following a raid during the height of Prohibition in New York City. Library of Congress Prohibition Era Problems and the Movement for Repeal According to most historians, during the early years of Prohibition the public attitude was one of support, and most people obeyed the law. But as time went on and crime rates increased rather than decreased, sentiment began to turn against Prohibition, and more and more people backed its repeal. The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) supported "wet" candidates starting in 1922, and as early as 1923 there were public calls for repeal. By the mid-1920s, the term "Volsteadism" surfaced to refer to the problems caused by Prohibition. Some citizens were concerned that the government enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing the law were trampling on individual liberties. Many became disillusioned when the government failed to control bootlegging, speakeasies 5 (establishments where alcohol was sold illegally), private stills and organized crime. The Treasury Department was in charge of Prohibition enforcement, and from the start the program was underfunded. Prohibition officers were underpaid and received little training. By 1925, it was estimated that there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasies in New York City. Because alcohol production was not regulated, dangerous substances sometimes tainted bootlegged beverages. Some people were left blind after drinking "bathtub gin," made with industrial alcohol and other dangerous chemicals. Others were injured or killed when home stills exploded. In 1929, President Herbert Hoover (R, 1929-33), who had called Prohibition an "experiment noble in purpose," ordered an investigation into how effectively the 18th Amendment was being enforced. It concluded that Prohibition remained largely unenforced. That year, activist Pauline Sabin founded the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR). The organization believed that repeal would protect families from crime, corruption and the effects of underground drinking. Concern about problems with organized crime was so great that some former prohibition supporters joined the organization, and by 1931 it had 1.5 million members. Jeremy Eagle But many historians have cited the Great Depression that began in 1929 as the greatest factor in increasing opposition to Prohibition. The dire economic situation in the U.S. lent force to arguments that Prohibition resulted in fewer jobs and a significant loss of revenue for the government, worsening the stagnant economy. The AAPA stepped up its efforts in 1929, arguing that repeal would benefit the economy. In 1932, the AAPA and supporters worked toward electing a Congress favoring repeal. Before then, no amendment to the Constitution had ever been repealed. The Democratic Party, which backed repeal, had a huge number of successful candidates that year; enough to ensure passage of the 21st Amendment. On February 5, 1933, Congress passed the 21st Amendment. Instead of leaving it to state legislatures to vote on ratifying the repeal amendment, Congress had called for ratifying conventions in each state, for the first time since the Constitution itself had been ratified. Those ratifying conventions were held because of fears that dry legislators from rural districts might interfere with the ratification process. Congress also passed the Blaine Act, amending the Volstead Act. It allowed the manufacture and sale of beer that was 3.2% alcohol by volume, as of April 1933. The 21st Amendment itself was ratified in short order, by December 1933, and control of alcoholic beverages again became a state, rather than federal, issue. The Case for Prohibition Prohibition supporters based their arguments mainly on the impact of overindulgence in alcohol on society, warning that alcohol consumption threatened the safety and wellbeing of the American family. It was imperative to shut down saloons in order to protect American homes from the evils associated with drunkenness, crime, poverty and the lack of education, they declared. Saloons were threats to the "purity of the American home," Frances Willard, president of the WCTU, asserted. He urged women, as "home protectors," to carry the message of prohibition to the streets and to state and federal 6 legislatures. Overindulgence in alcohol was directly responsible abusive family situations, Prohibition advocates asserted. Women—who did not often drink much alcohol themselves—were "the greatest sufferers from drunkenness," woman suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony said at a meeting in support of the vote for women in 1875. And as early as the late 1800s, social scientists and writers made connections between the consumption of alcohol by parents and harm to their children, Prohibition supporters noted. In How the Poor Live (1889), British temperance writer George Sims wrote, "The offspring of drunken fathers and mothers inherit not only a tendency to vice, but they come into the world physically and mentally unfit to conquer life's battle." Alcohol was also responsible for causing poverty, supporters of Prohibition claimed. Nation, who used force to shut down saloons in Kansas, asserted that in 1905, of the 73,045 paupers in the country's alms-houses for the poor, 37,254 had gotten there "through drink." The American Issue, an Anti-Saloon League publication, criticized the practice of locating saloons where they would have "the first crack at the workingman's pay check." Advocates pointed to a study in Joliet, Illinois, which found that on a given payday, all but one of 3,600 checks cashed were endorsed by a saloon. Prohibition supporters also expressed concern about the connection between saloons and vice; gambling and prostitution were common in saloons, they contended. "The chief cause of the downfall of women and girls is the close connection between alcoholic drinks and commercialized vice," the Wisconsin State Vice Committee stated in 1914. Drinking was also related to more serious crime, they stated. Nation in 1905 surveyed 1,000 prison wardens in the U.S. According to their replies, she said, 72% of the crimes in states were alcohol was sold legally were "due to drink." Therefore, proponents said, ending drinking would greatly reduce crime. In addition to the dangers alcohol consumption posed to the family and society in general, proponents of Prohibition said, alcohol also posed a health risk to those who consumed it. Alcohol was a habit-forming drug, they warned, able to physically and mentally harm those who drank too much; heavy drinkers often suffered early deaths due to disease or violence, they said. In 1842, future president Abraham Lincoln compared the effect of alcohol on society to that of "the Egyptian angel of death, commissioned to slay if not the first, the fairest born in every family." Overall, supporters of prohibition said, overindulgence in alcohol was a social evil, a failure of public morals and a sin. "The use of intoxicating liquor...is not only needless, but hurtful to social, civil, and religious interest of man," declared the American Temperance Union Pledge to abstain from drinking. Prohibition was the best way to protect the family, society and the individual, supporters said. But there were other benefits to Prohibition, as well, supporters said. It would have economic benefits for workers, states and the nation, they said. A sober workforce, they argued, would bolster productivity, and sober workers would earn more money. Tax dollars, they argued, could be spent on education and development rather than on jails and poorhouses. In 1915, Irving Fisher, a leader in the prohibition movement, wrote that prohibition would benefit the economy because workers would live longer, healthier lives, grapes and grain would be used for food rather than being "worse than wasted," and workers in the liquor industry would turn their efforts to more "beneficial directions." Those in favor of Prohibition turned to dry states for success stories. After critics claimed 7 that Prohibition had failed in Kansas, the state legislature responded with a Senate resolution asserting that Kansas had benefited from prohibition. According to the resolution, as a result of Prohibition, "the state of Kansas is cleaner, better, more advanced in mental culture,, and stronger in moral fiber and conviction...her homes are happier and more comfortable, her children better educated than ever before in her history...crime is less prevalent and poverty less general." Prohibition would have a similar impact in other stated, opponents declared. In response to criticism that Prohibition trampled on personal liberties, some supporters countered that they sought to ban only the sale, not the consumption, of alcohol. That limitation, they maintained, was enough to protect individual freedoms. "We only touch the sale," Representative Richmond Hobson (D, Alabama) claimed when he introduced a prohibition amendment in the House in 1914. "A man may feel he has a right to drink, but he certainly has no inherent right to sell liquor." In response to arguments that a national prohibition amendment would infringe on states' rights, backers pointed to the ratification process. Since three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendment for it to become law, state interests were protected, they claimed. "We believe," Hobson said "that three-quarters of all the States have the wisdom as well as the right to settle the national prohibition question for this country." Finally, Prohibition backers argued that it would be wrong to modify or repeal Prohibition just because some people were violating the law. The Federal Council of Churches decried any such move: "Least of all should our prohibition law be changed in response to the cry of those who by their own disrespect for the law are preventing it from receiving a fair trial or who, because of their special interest in the return of the liquor traffic, are artificially stimulating an agitation for changing our present law." Opposition, supporters asserted, should be met with strict enforcement, not capitulation. The Case Against Prohibition In the early years of the prohibition movement, those who opposed restrictions on the sale of alcohol leapt to the defense of saloons as institutions. Saloons were valuable social institutions, often the only source of entertainment available to the poor and a source of inexpensive, hearty meals, opponents of prohibition stated. Furthermore, they argued, a legal saloon was preferable to unregulated drinking that became problematic in dry states. Based on experiences in dry states, "for every decent, well-ordered saloon they destroy, there springs up a dive, or speak-easy," Percy Andreae, who led Ohio brewers against Prohibition, stated. Prohibition opponents also disputed the economic and social benefits claimed for prohibition. Arguing that license states were generally more affluent than prohibition states, critics pointed out that family savings averaged $238.98 in dry states, and $510.70 in wet states. Furthermore, they said, in Maine, a prohibition state, there were 945 paupers, whereas Rhode Island, a more densely populated state where liquor was sold legally, had 768. Some opponents also claimed that prohibitionists had exaggerated the health risks of alcohol. According to Andreae, the problem of "drinking to excess" was hardly a new issue, and "if it were as general and as contagious as is claimed, and its results as far reaching as they are painted, the human race would have been destroyed by it long ago." If Prohibition did become law, critics warned, it would have a negative economic impact. 8 They argued that the liquor industry was beneficial to towns, states and the federal government. Saloons, vineyards and breweries provided a vital source of employment, their defenders argued, and the liquor industry provided a vital source of revenue. Democratic Senator Oscar Underwood (Alabama), speaking against a proposed federal prohibition amendment in 1914, described how he believed revenue would be lost under prohibition: Of the taxes levied on liquors $226,200,000 were received from internal revenue and $19,200,000 from customs, making the total of $245,400,000. Aside from the federal revenue, I find that the revenue derived from the states from licenses amounted to...$79,600,000. This makes the total in the United States from all sources $325,000,000. Prohibition would also unfairly restrict personal freedoms, opponents stated. They saw it as an abuse of freedom and a threat to democratic ideals. "In an idle hour, cloaked in the robe of Temperance," Underwood said, "a faction has arisen in this republic that would tear down the very fabric of the government itself and destroy the foundation stones on which it rests." In particular, critics asserted, Prohibition would infringe on states' rights. The regulation of the consumption of food and drink, including alcoholic beverages, was an issue for the states—not the federal government—to decide, they said. If the government stepped in here, they asked, who was to say what else would come under regulation? "Extremists will continue to agitate absolute Prohibition, and they will not be contented until our statute books contain...laws and have taken away effectively every personal liberty of the individual, and then governments will absolutely control and regulate our eating, drinking, and the expenditure of our private funds," warned Herman Goebel, a vocal critic of prohibition, warned . With the beginning of the Prohibition era, critics shifted their arguments to focus on the abuses that arose under Prohibition, as they raised a cry for repeal of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. Prohibition had created a black market for alcohol, and given rise to criminal organizations that took advantage of Prohibition to produce, smuggle and sell liquor, they stated. Because the black market for alcohol fostered organized crime, critics asserted, that the public was less safe under Prohibition than when alcohol had been sold legally. Reports of violence by organized crime gangs were highly publicized, and critics argued that those problems were worse than the problems formerly posed by regulated saloons. for instance, they pointed to reports such as one by the St. Louis Department of Justice described the activity of the well-known Traum gang: This combine owned a number of Thompson machine guns and terrorized the community, in some instances, by going to the homes of farmers, placing guns in their backs, and forcing them to put stills on their farms.... The deputy administrator at Indianapolis raided one of these stills, and secured a confession from the farmer.... On the following day the farmer was killed by machine-gun fire.... More generally, critics argued that Prohibition did not work and that the efforts made to enforce it were counterproductive. For instance, they noted that in an attempt to curtail the smuggling of alcohol, Congress appropriated $13 million in 1924 to recondition Navy destroyers for Coast Guard use, and increased personnel to 11,000 officers and enlisted men by 1928. Those efforts were not only unnecessarily expensive, critics asserted, but they were also ineffectual; the battle against bootleggers (who provided alcohol to 9 speakeasies) was a lost cause. In fact, opponents asserted, Prohibition fostered a widespread disregard for the law, even on the part of formerly law-abiding citizens. Critics argued that the success of bootleggers and others who got around the law, or took bribes to look the other way, was encouraging a cynical attitude toward government and law enforcement officials. "The fruitless efforts at enforcement are creating public disregard not only for this law but for all laws. Public corruption through the purchase of official protection for this illegal traffic is widespread and notorious," Henry Anderson, the Commissioner of Prohibition, wrote in 1931. That decay of public morality was an unacceptable consequence of Prohibition, critics claimed. The undue emphasis placed on alcohol also resulted in a host of other problems, critics of Prohibition maintained. Many critics claimed that there was actually more, not less, drinking going on under Prohibition, as bootleggers like Al Capone became folk heroes, and speakeasies were romanticized in popular culture. Many young people and women who previously did not drink had been lured by the forbidden and were drinking during Prohibition, critics asserted. "Drinking in 1910 was a man's game, stated Earl Douglass, a minister and influential opponent of Prohibition. " Drinking today is a man-and-woman's game." What people were drinking during Prohibition also concerned many critics. They noted that hard liquor gained popularity because of its higher potency. Not only were people favoring the more easily smuggled hard liquors, they said, but the alcohol they drank often contained dangerous contaminants. Opponents cited statistics showing that in 1925 the national death toll from poisoned liquor was 4,154, whereas it had been 1,064 in 1920. The Aftermath of Prohibition and Repeal Prohibition continued in several states after the end of national Prohibition in 1933. Oklahoma did not repeal its prohibition laws until 1948, Kansas not until 1957, and in 1966, Mississippi became the last state to repeal its prohibition laws. Although there are no dry states today, there still are some dry counties and towns, mostly in the South. Historians generally agree that Prohibition resulted in a drop in consumption of alcohol. The per capita consumption of absolute (200 proof) alcohol in 1906-10 is estimated at about 2.60 gallons, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In 1934, when drinking became legal and accurate statistics were again available (accurate measurements were impossible during the Prohibition era because drinking went underground), the consumption of absolute alcohol was said to be down to less than one gallon. According to many estimates, alcohol consumption did not return to preProhibition levels until the mid-1970s. With the end of Prohibition, social activists turned their attention to helping individuals. In the mid-1930s, medical researchers introduced the idea that alcoholism was a disease, and efforts turned to education, research and treatment. Alcoholics Anonymous was founded in 1935, and that self-help program has enabled many people to conquer alcoholism. In 1984, the minimum drinking age in the U.S. was raised to 21 in an attempt to reduce the number of alcohol-related highway deaths. And the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 required warning labels about potential health problems on 10 alcoholic beverages. Most people today would probably concede that Prohibition was a social experiment that failed, and its failure may be instructive. But at any rate, more than 70 years after the end of Prohibition, the destructive effects of drinking, and other addictive behaviors, raise some of the same issues as before. To what extent can coercive measures be effective in curbing those behaviors? And what is the balance between people's rights and the aim of protecting individuals, families and society? Bibliography Andreae, Percy. A Glimpse Behind the Mask of Prohibition: in the Prohibition Movement in its Broader Bearings Upon Our Social, Commercial, and Religious Liberties. Chicago: Felix Mendelsohn, 1915. Asbury, Herbert. The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. Behr, Edward. Prohibition: Thirteen Years That Changed America. New York: Arcade Publishing, 1996. Burns, Eric. A Social History of Alcohol. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 2003. Chidsey, Donald B. On and Off the Wagon. New York: Cowles Book Company Inc., 1969. Darrow, Clarence, and V. S. Yarros. The Prohibition Mania. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1927. Dobyns, Fletcher. The Amazing Story of Repeal. Chicago, New York: Willett, Clark & Company, 1940. Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: Da Capo Press., 1993. Mason, Philip. Rumrunning and the Roaring Twenties: Prohibition on the MichiganOntario Waterway. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1996. Nation, Carry. Legal Status of Prohibition and Joint Smashing. Guthrie, Okla.: Carry Nation, 1905. Thornton, Mark. "Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure." Cato Institute Policy Analysis, November 27, 2005, http://www.cato.org 11 McCarthyism Response to Communist Threat or Political Witch Hunt? By Elbert Ventura The Issue Time-Life Pictures/Getty Images The issue: Is Senator Joseph McCarthy's effort to root out communists from government and entertainment institutions a legitimate response to a communist threat? Or is his campaign a baseless political witch hunt? • Arguments against McCarthy's anticommunist efforts: McCarthy is exaggerating the communist threat to the U.S., and his accusations of communist ties are baseless. Rather than protecting the U.S., he is merely ruining the lives of innocent people in order to garner attention and political power for himself. Worse, McCarthy's accusations of communists in the State Department are ruining the image of the U.S. worldwide and hurting its foreign policy efforts. • Arguments in favor of McCarthy's anticommunist efforts: Communism poses a very real threat to the U.S.; it has spread throughout the world since the end of World War II (1939-45) and the U.S. is at risk of being overtaken. Communist subversives have infiltrated the State Department, Defense Department and entertainment industry, and must be rooted out to protect the U.S. Some innocent people might be accused of being communists but that should not deter such an important task. Background The years after World War II (1939-45) were particularly anxious ones for the U.S. Although the U.S. was on the winning side in that war and emerged as a superpower, the end of the war ushered in a new "Cold War" that lasted much longer. The decades-long 1 rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union would define the American experience in the second half of the 20th century. In the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, the U.S. was stunned by the rise of communism in Eastern Europe and Asia. The U.S. and the Soviets had fought as allies in World War II, but after the war their uneasy alliance fractured over the nations' competing ideological systems. As the U.S. and the Soviet Union jockeyed for power, the U.S. experienced a revival of an old phenomenon: anticommunism. Many Americans worried that communism was infiltrating the country, with some arguing that communist sympathizers in the U.S. posed a serious national security threat. In the years after World War II, few issues topped communism on the public agenda. The widespread fear of communism led to the rise of an obscure U.S. senator, Joseph McCarthy (R, Wisconsin), who would lead the charge in the crusade to find and expose American communists. His controversial campaign and tactics have since come to be known as McCarthyism. The period during which he waged his campaign, from 1950 to 1954, has become one of the most hotly debated and controversial periods in U.S. history. The rise of McCarthyism came at a unique point in American history. While communism had always been viewed with suspicion by Americans—a suspicion that had given rise to "Red scares" in previous decades—the antipathy toward communism had abated somewhat in the 1930s and early 1940s. The Great Depression and the U.S. alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II had taken much of the sting out of communist ideas for many Americans. But American tolerance of communist ideas withered after World War II as the struggle with the Soviet Union gathered momentum. As the hostilities between the two countries intensified, suspicion of people with links to communism increased. By 1950, the groundwork had been set for the emergence of an anticommunist crusade. McCarthy was then the junior senator from Wisconsin with no national reputation. But he quickly seized on a cause that would catapult his name into the headlines. In February 1950, McCarthy made a speech in the Senate accusing 81 individuals in the State Department of affiliating with communists. In June, he alleged that there were more than 150 individuals in Hollywood who were communists. In the following years, McCarthy carried out a war against communism, portraying it as "a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity." He would become America's leading anticommunist crusader. In speeches and hearings, he accused more and more Americans of having communist ties. While many Americans hailed his efforts, others deplored them, calling his campaign an irresponsible and dangerous crusade that wrecked the careers and sullied the reputations of Americans who were, in fact, not a threat to the country. McCarthy rose to such great power during his crusade that just being accused by the senator of having communist ties was enough to ruin a person's career. Many congressmen were reluctant to challenge him for fear that McCarthy would turn his anticommunist efforts against them. But 1954 would see the decline of the senator's career. In April of that year, the so-called Army-McCarthy hearings were convened by the Senate after the Army alleged that McCarthy had threatened and pressured Army officials to give preferential treatment to an associate of his. The Army had brought that claim against McCarthy after he turned his sights on the service, claiming that there were people with communist affiliations in 2 its ranks. Broadcast to a national television audience, the hearings would prove McCarthy's downfall. During one fateful exchange, the senator was confronted by Army attorney Joseph Welch, who famously asked the aggressive McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" From there, the fall was swift. Public opinion of McCarthy dropped precipitously. With the decline in McCarthy's reputation, it was no longer considered political suicide to speak out against him. In December of that year, the Senate passed a resolution of condemnation against him. McCarthy died in 1957, his reputation in tatters except for a core of supporters who backed him and his crusade to the very end. Critics of McCarthy's anticommunist crusade painted it as a witch hunt that ruined lives. They argued that McCarthy's claims of a communist conspiracy, particularly within government and in the entertainment industry, were exaggerated and largely false. Opponents of McCarthyism portrayed the episode as nothing more than a baseless assault by the right against liberals. While some detractors conceded that espionage was a real danger, they argued that McCarthy's tactics were excessive and cruel, and seriously harmed many innocent people. Some skeptics contended that McCarthyism was nothing more than a cynical political maneuver by a senator hungry for power and attention. Supporters of the anticommunist crusade, on the other hand, asserted that communism— and communist subversion in both government and culture—posed a very real threat to the U.S. While some backers admitted that McCarthy might have gone too far at times, they said that McCarthyism, on balance, was good for the nation because it helped beat back the advance of communism in the U.S. Indeed, some defenders of McCarthyism went so far as to suggest that McCarthy's critics were communist sympathizers themselves who feared being exposed as such if McCarthy was not brought down. The Communist Threat For much of the 20th century, the U.S. was preoccupied with the threat of communism. The communist takeover of Russia in 1917, along with a wave of labor unrest and social agitation, fed fears of communist infiltration into the U.S. and laid the foundation for the "Red Scare" of 1919-20. During that time, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who believed that communism was "eating its way into the homes of the American workman," launched the so-called Palmer Raids. He rounded up thousands of members of the Communist Party, which had established in the U.S. earlier in the year. Those who were arrested—mainly foreigners, radicals and striking laborers—were often beaten, and foreigners were sometimes deported. Anticommunist fervor ebbed in succeeding years, and in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, even gave way to toleration of leftist ideas. However, anticommunism gained momentum again by the end of the decade. In 1938, Congress created the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC). Initially the HUAC focused on extremist groups, both right-wing pro-Fascist groups and leftist communist groups. But after World War II, attention turned mainly to the danger of communist infiltration of American government and society Although U.S. participation in World War II, and its alliance with the Soviet Union, somewhat diminished anticommunist fervor, it returned with renewed intensity after the war. Past and present members of the Communist Party in the U.S. were singled out as 3 potentially dangerous and were accused of working to undermine the U.S. on behalf of the communist cause. In the late 1940s, several incidents focused attention on the problem of communist infiltration of the U.S. In 1945, Elizabeth Bentley, a member of the Communist Party, told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that she had been spying for the Soviets. She said that her contacts included several officials in the federal government. Bentley in 1948 went public with her story, testifying in front of the Senate Investigating Committee and the HUAC, sparking fears of a communist spy network in the government. The HUAC at the time was also busy rooting out the communist threat in another realm of American life. In 1947, the committee turned its attention to mass culture, charging that communists had established a base for themselves in Hollywood and were spreading propaganda through their films. While several film industry professionals called to testify cooperated with the committee, 10 refused to answer questions, citing their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. Known as the Hollywood Ten, they were all found guilty of contempt of Congress and sentenced to between six and 12 months in prison. Following the citations for contempt, the Association of Motion Picture Producers issued a statement declaring that it would not hire communists. That statement laid the groundwork for the creation of a "blacklist" among Hollywood studios; those with suspected of communist ties would not be allowed to work in the industry. The blacklist ended up tarnishing many careers, most of them permanently. The list grew to include more than 300 industry professionals. Another significant case during the period was that of Alger Hiss. In 1948, Whittaker Chambers, an editor at Time magazine and an ex-communist, accused Hiss, a highranking State Department official, of being a communist and, later, of conducting espionage for the Soviet Union. Hiss denied the charges and sued Chambers for libel, but evidence was eventually brought forward that seemed to prove Chambers's charges. Hiss was eventually imprisoned for perjury, but not espionage, and continued to maintain his innocence for the rest of his life. In the 1990s, newly declassified documents were released that seemed to prove his guilt. Nonetheless, there is still debate over whether he was a spy for the Soviet Union. Perhaps the most notorious anticommunist trial of the period was that of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Rosenbergs were American communists accused of passing atomic secrets to the Soviets. As with the Hiss case, the Rosenberg trial was highly polarizing, with some convinced of the couple's guilt while others were equally assured of their innocence. The Rosenbergs were convicted in March 1951, a verdict that helped fuel McCarthy's crusade, which by then was already under way. They were executed in June 1953. McCarthy Emerges McCarthy was elected to the Senate in 1946. The Republican junior senator from Wisconsin spent his first three years in the Senate cloaked in obscurity. However, in 1950, McCarthy staked his name on an issue that would thrust him into the national spotlight and lay the groundwork for his reelection run in 1952. That issue was anticommunism. Exploiting the communist hysteria sparked by the Hiss case, McCarthy embarked on his 4 crusade with gusto. On February 9, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, that contained the line that came to be associated with the dawn of McCarthyism: "I have here in my hand a list of 205 [names] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." Two days later, McCarthy sent a telegram to President Harry S. Truman (D, 1945-53), repeating his allegations but lowering the number of alleged State Department communists to 57. On February 20, he made a six-hour speech in Congress referring to 81 people who were allegedly members of the Communist Party or loyal to it. A month after the Wheeling speech, the term "McCarthyism" was coined by the cartoonist Herbert Block; it is defined by historian Richard Rovere as "a synonym for the hatefulness of baseless defamation, or mudslinging." In the weeks following McCarthy's Wheeling speech, a Senate committee was appointed to look into his assertions, the first of five investigations to focus exclusively on McCarthy's accusations. While a committee later that year said it had found no grounds for McCarthy's allegations of communists in the State Department, McCarthy continued his crusade. Although the HUAC was the most prominent committee during that period, there were dozens of similar bodies at every level of government that sought to address the issue of communist infiltration. McCarthy's own Government Operations permanent investigating subcommittee was one of the most important, carrying out the same kinds of investigations as the HUAC. Such panels publicized the alleged seriousness of the communist danger, proving a useful vehicle for inflaming anticommunist hysteria. Through their hearings, which were not bound by the requirements of a court of law, the panels attacked and denounced witnesses and defendants. Witnesses who appeared before the HUAC were not allowed to bring lawyers or cross-examine other witnesses. Meanwhile, accusers were not required to present evidence for their accusations. McCarthyism's power was such that being subpoenaed to appear before the HUAC or one of the other committees was often grounds for a person to lose his or her job. McCarthy also exerted a profound influence on government policy. President Dwight Eisenhower (R, 1953-61), in an effort to appear tough on communism, backed legislation that broadened the reach of espionage and sabotage laws. He also refused to grant clemency to the Rosenbergs, a decision that Time magazine depicted as "appeasement" of McCarthy and his campaign. Despite reportedly privately despising McCarthy and his bullying tactics, Eisenhower never publicly confronted him. Then at the height of his influence in 1954, McCarthy was given a seat on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. The year, however, would also see the senator's precipitous fall. In March, revered television newsman Edward R. Murrow aired an episode of his show, "See It Now," that was critical of McCarthy and his tactics. "[T]he line between investigation and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly," Murrow declared. In April, the Army-McCarthy hearings began. In 1953, McCarthy had trained his sights on the Army, claiming that it had been infiltrated by communists. In March 1954, the Army released a report revealing that McCarthy and his lawyer, Roy Cohn, had sought to gain special privileges from the Army for David Schine, Cohn's associate, who had been drafted into the military. The report also accused McCarthy of threatening Army officials. 5 McCarthy fired back that the Army was using the Schine matter to deter his investigation. The Senate Rules and Administration subcommittee on privileges and elections convened the hearings to unravel the thicket of claims and counterclaims. (McCarthy temporarily stepped down as chairman during the proceedings, and was replaced by Republican Senator Karl Mundt.) Broadcast live to a national television audience, the hearings would prove to be the downfall of McCarthy. He was widely perceived as using bullying tactics on witnesses, and his claims were perceived as being backed by hearsay and innuendo only. Under the harsh glare of television lights, McCarthy's authority quickly crumbled. As the American public saw a daily dose of McCarthy and his boorish tactics, popular opinion began to shift. In a June 17 opinion poll, just 25% of respondents expressed their support for McCarthy, down from 50% just six months earlier. The pivotal moment came on June 9, 1954, when McCarthy made accusations about Fred Fisher, an associate of Welsh, the Army lawyer. Welch, responding to the senator's accusations, spoke up: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?" Welch's response was greeted by applause from the chamber. With those words, McCarthy's crusade finally ground to a halt. McCarthy was cleared of the charges against him. However, on December 2, 1954, the Senate voted, 67-22, to approve a resolution of condemnation for his abuse of the subcommittee that had investigated him, and for attacks on the committee convened to consider his censure. McCarthy was stripped of the chairmanship of his committee on government, which effectively took away his power to continue investigating alleged communists. A mere shadow of his former self, McCarthy began to drink heavily. He died on May 2, 1957 of acute hepatitic failure (although it was widely believed that he had actually died of alcohol-induced cirrhosis). The Case for McCarthy's Anticommunist Crusade Supporters of the crusade against communism defended it as a vital bulwark against the communist threat in the U.S. Contrary to critics' claims, supporters said that the communist danger was clear and present. "Unless we make sure that there is no infiltration of our Government, then just as certain as you sit there, in the period of our lives you will see a red world," McCarthy warned in testimony during the ArmyMcCarthy hearings. In a 1949 trial of 11 American Communist Party leaders charged with advocating the overthrow of state or national governments, prosecutors had focused on the risk that communism posed. John McGohey, in his opening statement on behalf of the government, discussed the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and the danger they posed to the U.S. government. According to McGohey: Marxism, they are taught, is not merely dogma, it is a guide to action.... At the proper time, they are taught—the proper time being a time of national crisis, unrest, disorder brought about by a severe depression or war—at such a time the Party members will be in positions of influence in the key trades and in the basic industries, and when the National Board decides that the revolutionary situation is at hand, the Party will lead the proletariat in violent revolution. They teach that this revolution cannot be without 6 violence, for to be successful the entire apparatus of the Government must be smashed. McCarthy discussed the communist threat in his Wheeling speech. According to McCarthy, communism was rapidly expanding worldwide, putting the U.S. at risk. He stated: Six years ago...there was within the Soviet orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today...there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia— an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. In an attempt to spread communist influence to the U.S., McCarthy and—his supporters warned, many communist subversives had infiltrated U.S. political and cultural institutions, placing themselves in positions of influence. "In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with Communists," McCarthy declared in his Wheeling speech. But it was not just the State Department that had been infiltrated, McCarthy supporters said. During the McCarthy-Army hearings, McCarthy's lawyer Cohn testified that there were roughly 130 communist subversives working in some 16 Defense Department plants. In view of communist infiltration in the government and the entertainment industry, supporters argued, McCarthy's efforts were vital to rooting out those subversives. In 1953, writer Max Eastman, who had been a communist before becoming disillusioned with the party, explained the importance of anticommunist efforts. "Red Baiting—in the sense of reasoned, documented exposure of Communist and proCommunist infiltration of government departments and private agencies of information and communication—is absolutely necessary," Eastman argued. "We are not dealing with honest fanatics of a new idea, willing to give testimony for their faith straightforwardly, regardless of the cost. We are dealing with conspirators who try to sneak in the Moscowinspired propaganda by stealth and double talk." Furthermore, McCarthy warned that the government's lax efforts against communism would help the communist cause. Following the release of the Tydings Committee report, McCarthy criticized it as "a green light to the Red 5th column in the U.S....a signal to the traitors, Communists and fellow travelers in our government that they need have no fear of exposure from this administration." Several Republicans also criticized the Democratled committee; they claimed that Tydings has mishandled the investigation, and blocked the introduction of evidence to the committee. Supporters acknowledged that McCarthy had accused some innocent people of being communists. But by focusing exclusively on the few innocent people who were harmed by McCarthy, critics omitted the fact that McCarthy was targeting a genuine threat, proponents of McCarthyism said. While defenders also conceded that some of McCarthy's methods were questionable, they argued that he was fundamentally right about the issue of communist subversion. In view of the threat facing the U.S., defenders of McCarthyism said, the senator's actions were nothing less than a manifestation of his profound patriotism. They saw his hardcharging campaign against communists as an expression of his love for his country. "To many Americans, McCarthyism is Americanism," said Fulton Lewis Jr., a radio 7 commentator and a pro-McCarthy commentator, at the height of McCarthyism. The Case Against McCarthy's Anticommunist Crusade Critics of McCarthyism said that the senator's crusade against communism was a witch hunt that trampled on people's rights without appreciably advancing the anticommunist cause. They contended that McCarthy's bullying tactics and fear-mongering ruined innocent lives and harmed American society. "We lived with the constant sense of being hunted," said Sylvia Jarrico, who at the time was married to blacklisted screenwriter Paul Jarrico. Sylvia Jarrico was fired from her job as an editor with Hollywood Quarterly because she refused to sign a loyalty oath that her employer, the University of California, was compelling employees to sign. Detractors claimed that McCarthy exaggerated the extent of the communist threat to the country, making it appear as if the country was in greater danger of communist infiltration than it really was. Critics' belief that McCarthy's charges were exaggerated was upheld by the final report of a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations investigation into McCarthy's charges. According to the 1950 report by the so-called Tydings Committee—named for Sen. Millard Tydings (D, Maryland), who had headed the committee—not one of the people named by McCarthy was "'a card-carrying Communist,' a member of the Communist Party or 'loyal to the Communist Party.'" The Tydings Committee was harshly critical of McCarthy's anticommunist crusade. According to the report: [W]e are constrained fearlessly and frankly to all the charges, and the methods employed to give them ostensible validity, what they truly are: A fraud and a hoax perpetrated on the Senate of the United States and the American people. They represent perhaps the most nefarious campaign of half-truths and untruths in the history of this Republic. For the first time in our history, we have seen the totalitarian technique of the 'big lie' employed on a sustained basis. The Tydings report further discussed the impact of McCarthy's allegations. The committee stated: We have seen the character of private citizens and of Government employees virtually destroyed by public condemnation on the basis of gossip, distortion, hearsay, and deliberate untruths. By the mere fact of their associations with a few persons of alleged questionable proclivities an effort has been made to place the stigma of disloyalty upon individuals, some of whom are little people whose only asset is their character and devotion to duty and country. Rather than seeking to defeat communism, McCarthyism actually had a deeper motive, critics contended. They said that McCarthy was more interested in tarring liberals with the same brush with which he tarred communists. Politics, rather than national security, was the real impetus behind McCarthyism, they said. Other opponents portrayed McCarthyism as a nakedly political move by a ruthless demagogue. They interpreted his crusade as nothing more than a cynical ploy by the senator to gain power for himself. "People in high and low places see in him a potential Hitler, seeking the presidency of the United States," General Electric Co. head Philip Reed warned President Eisenhower in a letter dated June 8, 1953. Eisenhower in a diary entry just two months earlier (April 1, 1953) had written that McCarthy was "so anxious for the headlines that he is prepared to go to any extremes in order to secure some 8 mention of his name in the public press." McCarthyism's assault on liberalism also proved disastrous for American politics, critics asserted. Having labeled all dissent as potentially un-American and communist, skeptics argued, McCarthy corrupted a genuine and necessary debate on American policymaking. "The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as 'Communists' or 'Fascists' by their opponents," Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R, Maine) declared in June 1950. "Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others." But McCarthyism had an even wider impact, critics argued. His crusade tainted the view of the U.S. worldwide, they said. "The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies," Murrow said. Truman in particular accused McCarthy—who was a vocal critic of the administration's foreign policy—of sabotaging U.S. foreign policy. "I think the greatest asset that the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy," Truman stated in response to a question at a press conference in March 1950. Even some who did believe in a communist threat were critical of McCarthy. Some said his claims were overblown, while others who would have been supportive of McCarthy's cause were put off by his tactics. Such anticommunists asserted that McCarthyism actually hurt the cause more than it helped it. "[E]xtravagant allegations, which cannot be proved and are not subject to proof, have the inevitable effect of dulling the awareness of all Americans to the true menace of Communism," the Tydings report warned. Furthermore, Chambers, who had accused Hiss, stated, "It is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come." McCarthy's Legacy McCarthyism left an indelible imprint on American history. The period of the senator's campaign from 1950 to 1954 is generally regarded as an era of fear and suspicion in American society. Today, the word McCarthyism has certain negative connotations. In the contemporary political context, McCarthyism refers usually to the use of personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations to intimidate or smear certain individuals. As that definition suggests, McCarthy's legacy is commonly viewed as a negative one. But while McCarthyism has become enshrined as a dark chapter in American history, a new generation of revisionists has emerged to challenge that prevailing interpretation. The debate has been refueled by the government's release in 1995 of a batch of decoded Soviet intercepts from the 1940s, part of the so-called Venona project, which was a secret U.S. intelligence program to decode thousands of such intercepts. Many historians on both the left and the right argue that the release of the Venona documents heavily damaged the anti-McCarthy side by proving that some of those accused, like Hiss and Julius Rosenberg, were in fact guilty of their crimes, contrary to the insistent claims of innocence made by their supporters. McCarthy's new supporters have sought to redeem his name, claiming that he was, in fact, right all along about the dangers posed by communists in the U.S. But opponents of McCarthy still claim that they were right to challenge McCarthyism and continue to be. They say that it was McCarthy's tactics that were primarily in dispute, 9 and in that regard their objections still stand the test of time. While the debate over McCarthyism seems a throwback to the past, the revival of the debate shows that the nation is still gripped by the disputes of the period. As long as the U.S. has to deal with questions regarding patriotism, identity and national security, it is unlikely that the central issues of the argument over McCarthyism will ever go away. Bibliography Buckley, William, Jr., and L. Brent Bozell. McCarthy and His Enemies. Chicago: Regnery, 1995 (reissued). "Communism in the U.S.: State Department Under Fire." Facts On File World News Digest, February 23, 1950, www.2facts.com http://www.2facts.com/Archive/temp/63977temp1950003610.asp Coulter, Ann. Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. New York: Crown Forum, 2003. Fried, Arthur. McCarthyism, The Great American Red Scare: A Documentary History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Herman, Arthur. Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator. New York: Free Press, 2000. McCarthy, Joseph. McCarthyism: The Fight for America: Documented Answers to Questions Asked by Friend or Foe. New York: Devin-Adair, 1952. "McCarthy: Senate Condemns McCarthy." Facts On File World News Digest, December 2, 1954, www.2facts.com http://www.2facts.com/Archive/temp/65439temp1954018820.asp. Morgan, Ted. Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Random House, 2003. Navasky, Victor. Naming Names. New York: Penguin, 1991 ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello, I have submitted your answer. Kindly take a look and propose possible changes. Remember to invite me alone when you post your so that I become your regular tutor, a decision which increases your progress quality.😀

Surname 1
Name
Subject
Professor
Date

Discussion 1
Hawaii Annexation, Vital to U.S. Interests or Imperialist Action
The most convincing about the Hawaii annexation is that it was an imperialist act. As
indicated, most of the democratic opposed the annexation, and in most times they refused to vote
for annexation in the senate-house. Additionally, it is the rule by the Queen Liliuokalani to
protect the Hawaiians that the white business community started protesting claiming the power
of the monarchy could not give them financial protection over their business and properties. It
was believed that failure to approve the annexation would lead to other nations overthrowing the
leadership in Hawaii and they would lose the control of the Pacific. Therefore, it is so convincing
that it was not for the will of the people of Hawaii to be annexed. At some point in the Senate
meeting, it was discussed that it would breach the agreement that U.S had with the Europe to
safeguard the islands. The Hawaiians still push for being fully independent from the US after
forcefully being made one of the US states.

Discussion 2
Prohibition, Is the Banning Alcohol a Social Necessity or Restric...


Anonymous
Great content here. Definitely a returning customer.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags