In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Memories of the Red Decade HUAC Investigations in Maryland  Vernon L. Pedersen The fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of international Communism have prompted historians to reevaluate many aspects of Cold War America. Some of the recently published works, such as theYale University Press series The Annals of Communism, or Allen Weinstein’s The Haunted Wood, are based upon newly released documents and focus on resolving old controversies. Weinstein’s book deals with Soviet spies in the United States and offers convincing evidence of the guilt of both Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg. John Haynes and Harvey Klehr have published two volumes of documents, The Secret World of American Communism and The Soviet World of American Communism , drawn from the files of the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History (RGASPI). The two collections detail the close relationship of the American party with the Soviet Union, reveal the organization of the party’s underground apparatus and establish the party membership of such controversial figures as the West Coast longshoremen’s union leader, Harry Bridges. Other authors, however, have reconsidered the domestic aspects of the Cold War by looking at previously available sources with an eye informed by the recent revelations. Two of the most important efforts are Richard Gid Powers’ 1994 book, Not Without Honor: The History of American Anticommunism, and Ellen Schrecker’s Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Both books agree that, although opposition to Communism was often unjustifiably extreme, most of the individuals and organizations targeted by anticommunists were, in fact, tied to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Powers, as his title implies, finds some anticommunism to have been legitimate and responsible. Schrecker, however, concludes that, even acknowledging the many shortcomings of the Communist Party, and despite the new proof of a solid basis for American fears of subversion, McCarthyism was a “disgrace.”1 If Schrecker refers only to the antics of the junior senator from Wisconsin and the group of extremists and opportunists that surrounded him, then there is little to argue about. However, anticommunism cannot be exclusively identified with 177 Joseph McCarthy. Indeed the best aspect of Powers’ book is that it portrays anticommunism as a complex, pluralistic movement with elements ranging from responsible, principled anticommunists to conspiracy-obsessed extremists. Schrecker is less interested in the make-up of anticommunism than in exploring the wider impact of McCarthyism, which she concludes resulted in setbacks for labor , restriction of debate on social issues, and severe personal consequences for many individuals identified with leftist causes. Powers looks at anticommunism over a seventy-year span and locates the beginning of the movement in the nation’s reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution. Schrecker focuses most of her study on the height of anticommunism in the 1950s and roots the movement in domestic opposition to the New Deal, rather than reaction to events abroad. Powers draws on sources written from the anticommunist perspective, while Schrecker takes her information primarily from sources hostile to anticommunism. This essay combines the two perspectives and seeks to evaluate both the consequences of anticommunism and the mix of responsible and extremist elements within the movement by examining the investigations of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) into the Communist Party of Maryland. HUAC specifically targeted the Maryland party on five occasions, in 1940, 1944, 1951, 1954 and 1957. The 1940 hearings established a pattern followed, to varying degrees, by all the rest. Although ostensibly concerned with the general issue of un-American propaganda, the hearings in fact exclusively targeted the Communist Party and took place within a year of an international event, the NaziSoviet pact, which highlighted fears of the Soviet Union as a potential threat to American security. Most importantly, they were followed by a combination of of- ficial and informal reprisals against the Communist Party. The 1944 and 1954 hearings depart from this pattern in several ways but conform to a fourth aspect that all the hearings share: the close involvement of organizations and individuals with long histories of firmly held anticommunist beliefs. In 1940 J.B. Matthews, whom Powers describes as the archetype of a 1920sera fellow traveler, ably filled this role. Matthews began his career as a pacifist Methodist missionary in Burma. Upon his return to the United States he became involved in the 1924 La Follette presidential campaign. Convinced that the Communist Party was the only organization capable of uniting the various left-wing groups in America, Matthews joined...

Share