Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Harry Hopkins: Enabling Stalin’s Terror

During the 1930s and 1940s, Harry Hopkins held posts at high levels within the United States government, mainly as an advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt. During these years, he pursued his own troubling agenda: to promote the power-hungry and ruthless expansion of Stalin’s USSR.

During the last months of World War II, it had become clear that the aggression of Soviet Socialism entailed the domination of various nations in eastern Europe. Instead of liberating these countries from Nazi oppression, the communists merely substituted their own dictatorial regimes for Hitler’s.

Harry Hopkins worked to shape U.S. foreign policy in such a way that it benefitted Josef Stalin. His actions ultimately worked against the well-being of England, France, the United States, and the nations of eastern Europe.

Historians can only guess at his motives: Why did Hopkins want to help the USSR? Why was he willing to compromise the freedom and human rights of people in other countries? This was known only to himself.

The influence of Hopkins can be seen in his communication with Stalin in early 1945, around the time of the final collapse of the Nazi government. President Roosevelt had died, and President Truman had sent Hopkins as a special envoy to Stalin.

Stalin and Hopkins discussed various topics related to postwar Europe, as historians Stan Evans and Herbert Romerstein write:

When Stalin in his usual aggressive manner said the British did not want a “Poland friendly to the Soviet Union,” Hopkins responded, also as usual, that the view of the American government was different: “that the United States would desire a Poland friendly to the Soviet Union, and in fact desired to see friendly countries all along the Soviet borders” (a formula that included, for example, Finland, the Baltic states, Rumania, and China). To which Stalin replied, “if this be so we can easily come to terms regarding Poland.” Indeed they could, as the Soviets imposed a brutal Red regime in Poland and the United States stood back and let it happen.

Acting as an official representative of the United States, Hopkins consigned millions of people in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and other countries to decades of horror. The Soviet Socialists would institute military occupational governments which imprisoned, tortured, beat, and murdered millions of citizens in these countries.

Communism in eastern Europe during the second half of the twentieth century was a human rights nightmare. Although Harry Hopkins did not cause this misery by himself, he was certainly a factor in the suffering and death.

While being partly responsible for terror imposed on eastern Europe, he was also partly responsible for causing the United States to betray its friends and faithful allies. Hopkins redirected military supplies away from England and toward the USSR. When President Roosevelt was forming foreign policy, Hopkins influenced him to distance himself from Winston Churchill’s views. Hopkins urged FDR not to resist Stalin’s aggression.

In a breath-taking act of betrayal, Hopkins shipped quantities of uranium to the Soviet Socialists. In addition, he had access to secret scientific and technological documents related to the development of the atomic bomb. He sent copies of these documents to the Soviet Socialists.

Harry Hopkins contributed materially to the USSR’s ability to develop and manufacture atomic weapons. Emboldened by the possession of these weapons, Stalin instituted the communist dictatorship in North Korea, supported communist guerillas in China, and sent subversive agents into various countries in Africa, Asia, and South America. Hopkins directly and indirectly contributed to terrorism and suffering around the globe.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Eisenhower Resists FDR’s Segregation: Ike Opposes ‘New Deal’ Racism

Although Franklin Roosevelt was happy to receive the votes cast for him by Black citizens, his presidency was singularly inactive in terms of advancing civil rights. His time in office, from March 1933 to April 1945, yielded little fruit for African-Americans.

FDR’s Department of War, and the individuals he appointed to lead it, were committed to segregation. He relegated Black soldiers to inferior roles. FDR denied them opportunities for advancement and for combat duty.

General Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower thought differently.

In December 1943, Eisenhower became the Supreme Allied Commander, overseeing the European and African theaters of combat during World War II. In this position, he had an opportunity to oppose FDR’s segregationist policies.

Ike not only believed that African-American fighting men should receive the same treatment and options as every other soldier, but he also acted on this belief, as historian David Nichols writes:

In 1944, leaders at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) obtained a confidential directive issued by Eisenhower on March 1 that made officers responsible for “scrupulous enforcement” of the principle, “Equal opportunities of service and of recreation are the right of every American soldier regardless of branch, race, color, or creed.” Eisenhower particularly pushed for authority to allow Negro soldiers, normally restricted to logical support, to volunteer for combat.

Taking these steps, Ike knew that he was contradicting FDR’s official War Department policy.

To explain his actions, Eisenhower used the phrase, “a matter of justice.” He was willing to enter into direct policy conflict with the president, as David Nichols reports:

In December 1944, at the time of the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, Ike needed all the troops he could get. General John C.H. Lee issued a directive, approved by Eisenhower, proclaiming: “The opportunity to volunteer will be extended to all soldiers without regard to color or race but preference will normally be given to individuals who have had some basic training in infantry.” The War Department declared the order contrary to policy and forced Eisenhower to withdraw it, destroy the original message, and substitute a more innocuous message.

Yet Ike persisted, and won: by January 1945, he finally overrode the War Department’s regulations, and more than 4,000 Black soldiers had volunteered for combat duty, served with distinction, and earned recognition.

Eisenhower’s perseverance opened the door for African-Americans to advance within the United State military.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Woodrow Wilson’s Racism: Progressive Hate Unleashed

The presidency of Woodrow Wilson dealt a severe blow to African-Americans and to the struggle for civil rights. Wilson was an unrepentant racist.

As president of Princeton University, he worked to keep Black students out, denying them admission. He also wrote a history textbook which defended the KKK and argued that African-Americans should not be allowed to vote.

Leaving the university and entering the field of electoral politics, Wilson mocked President Theodore Roosevelt, who had invited Booker T. Washington to dinner in the White House. Roosevelt’s meal was the first official invitation to a Black American to dine with a president.

After the meal, Woodrow Wilson used a hateful and inappropriate epithet to describe Roosevelt’s honored guest, even though Booker T. Washington was a leading Republican at the time.

Once elected president, Wilson set to work segregating federal workers. After the Civil War, federal employees had been desegregated and integrated: African-Americans and Whites working side-by-side as equals.

While Wilson was in the White House, a film titled The Birth of a Nation was released. Audiences in theaters saw, at the very beginning of the film, a quote in which Woodrow Wilson praised the KKK. The damage done by Wilson is described by historian Dinesh D’Souza:

Wilson also helped revive the Ku Klux Klan. Oddly enough this was the result of a single screening of a movie, David W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, which portrays the Ku Klux Klan as the savior of the South. Despite the crude technology of the time, the film is now recognized as a cinematic masterpiece. I regard it as one of the most powerful propaganda films ever made.

Wilson’s endorsement of the KKK, and of the movie, brought about a wave of intensified racist violence. Wilson’s Democrat Party, and his ‘progressive’ movement, did great damage to race relations in the United States.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Liberty at a Painful Price: Conscription is a Form of Taxation

Throughout the Revolutionary War (1775 to 1783), the Continental Army was chronically short of money, men, and materiel. Both the will and the ability of the Continental Congress impose taxes were limited.

The army was obliged to resort to impressment: the commandeering of private property. It was a bitter irony that the revolution against the British was triggered, in part, by England’s practice of impressment. To throw off the yoke of British tyranny, the Americans were forced to use the very practice of the tyrants.

The Continental Army also needed to fill its ranks with conscripts. ‘Conscription’ refers to what became known as the ‘draft’ in later American history.

Historians John Maass writes:

Although North Carolina officials resorted to impressment early in the struggle for independence, the practice became more widespread once the British campaigned actively in the South beginning in December 1778. Seizure of supplies by civilian and military officials both angered and impoverished the citizenry. The practice did nothing to engender affection for the Revolutionary cause among enraged inhabitants, many of whom resisted impressment by hiding their produce, livestock, or goods. They often complained when, as was commonly the case, they were given depreciated currency or certificates of dubious worth for their property, which was frequently valued below the market price. Property owners were often given no certificates or payment at all, and had to strive for years to get redress from the state. Few things were exempt from confiscation during the war: authorities seized not only guns, wagons, and horses, but rum, sugar, coffee, paper, canvas, and salt as well. Moreover, many times impressment was used by men of all ranks as a cover for plundering local inhabitants, which could hardly have endeared the North Carolina government to its citizens.

Leaders in the Continental Army were well aware that the practice of impressment could undermine the much-needed popular support for the war.

Officers like General Nathanael Greene undertook efforts to eliminate the corruption and private profiteering which occurred among the men assigned by the army to impress property.

When private property was impressed, records were supposed to be kept, with the objective of postwar repayment to the owners. In many cases, however, either the records weren’t kept, or the postwar reimbursement never took place.

But the sincerity of the army’s efforts to eliminate corruption and the attachment of the populace to the cause of liberty were, if occasionally wavering, nonetheless sufficient to bring about the final victory.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

North Carolina: A Microcosm of Revolutionary Military Economics

It is probably incorrect to say that all wars are wars of attrition, but it is clear that materiel and personnel are decisive factors in any conflict. The American Revolutionary War, from 1775 to 1781, is no exception.

The Continental Army was continually plagued by a shortage of money, which meant a shortage of men and supplies. To combat this deficiency, the Continental Congress was generally unable to levy taxes; that power was left to each of the thirteen states individually.

The Continental Congress was able to borrow some money, but the army was still underfunded. This led inevitably to conscription and impressment.

Conscription, later known as ‘the draft,’ is involuntary military service. Impressment is the appropriation of supplies from the civilian population.

The exact implementation of these practices varied from time to time, and from place to place, during the war. The earlier phases of the war saw more combat in the North; the latter years of the war featured more combat in the South.

Historian John Maass writes:

North Carolina was not the only American province to adopt these taxing expedients. Impressment of supplies and wartime necessities occurred on the Continental and state levels throughout the war, beginning during the siege of Boston in 1775. Likewise, the use of conscription was widespread during the American Revolution from the opening months of the conflict to the end of the war. By focusing on wartime North Carolina, these two onerous practices and their consequences can be examined in detail.

The earliest documented impressment in North Carolina is dated to May 1776, according to Maass, which would be a year after the war began at Lexington and Concord.

But impressment in significant quantities didn’t begin until December 1778, as more fighting began to happen in the South.

The two main problems with impressment were that, first, it presented an almost insurmountable temptation to corruption, and that, second, it undermined popular opinion in support of the war.

Leaders in the Continental Army, like General Nathanael Greene, worked diligently to reduce corruption: to see to it that only necessary items were impressed, and that the impressed items served the army and not the personal enrichment of the officers tasked with impressing those items.

Greene’s efforts produced at least of modicum of acceptance among the civilian public.

Despite the difficulties of impressment and conscription, an American victory would almost certainly have been impossible without them. They represented a temporary sacrifice necessary to permanently abolish a bitter tyranny.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Examining the Narrative: Women’s Suffrage

A survey of textbooks and history courses reveals the standard narrative given to students about how women obtained the vote in the United States: After nearly 80 years of agitation, suffragettes finally succeeded in gaining passage for the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, and suddenly, women across the nation could begin voting.

That’s the conventional version of the history, and it’s wrong.

The first clue that there’s something inaccurate about this story is that Jeannette Rankin, the first woman to be elected to the United States Congress, was elected in 1916.

It would indeed be odd if women were being elected to Congress at a time when women were not allowed to vote.

In fact, in Jeannette Rankin’s home state of Montana, women had been voting since 1914. Women in Montana had full voting rights, in every way equal to men, more than six years prior to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

But Montana was late to the party. Women had obtained full suffrage in Wyoming in 1869, and in Colorado in 1893. Utah and Idaho recognized full suffrage for women in 1896.

In fact, prior to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, approximately 85% of the women in the United States were enfranchised. There were only seven of the 48 states in which women did not vote (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Alabama).

Women were already voting from New Jersey and Delaware to Oregon and California, from Minnesota and North Dakota to Texas and New Mexico - long before the Nineteenth Amendment.

While responsible historians do not speculate about counterfactual situations, it is clear that in those seven states which had not yet enfranchised women, legislative movements were underway to do just that. Even without the Nineteenth Amendment, the franchise would probably have expanded to the last 15% of women in the United States.

To say that 85% of the women had the vote prior to the Nineteenth Amendment may even be too low, because the seven states in which they didn’t vote had an average population lower than the 41 states in which they did vote. It was possibly closer to 90% than to 85%.

In some regions, more women were voting than men! Especially during wartime, when many men were away from home.

Women’s ability to vote, then, is not due to actions at the federal level in the early 1900s, but is rather due to actions at the state level in the late 1800s.

The United States led the way. Other nations around the globe didn’t give women the right to vote until much later: Women in the U.S. had been voting for 24 years before women in New Zealand got the right to vote in 1893. Other nations - Austria, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Sweden, etc. - waited until the early 1900s.

The political party which had been formed to abolish slavery in the United States, having accomplished that objective by 1863, made women’s suffrage its next major goal: the states which led the way - Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, and Utah - were largely populated by voters of that party.

While generations of schoolchildren have memorized the year 1920, it would be more accurate to cite 1869 as the year when women began to vote in the United States.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Thomas Paine on the Injustice of Monarchy

One major segment of Thomas Paine’s career was devoted to exposing the concept of monarchy as an institutionalized injustice. Paine’s earliest publications were newspaper articles starting in 1774, but he attained sudden fame in 1776 with the publication of Common Sense.

He went on to publish The American Crisis, a series of articles starting 1776 and ending in 1783. He subsequently published other books and articles.

The following passage is from a text in which he defends himself against the charge of libel - a charge directed against him by some who supported the British monarchy.

Notice how Paine unpacks his reasons for opposing hereditary government: monarchy leads to taxation, and taxation is oppression. Paine discovered an axiom of political economics: taxation does not lead to oppression, it does not enable oppression: it is oppression.

Monarchy also leads to poor education, to the neglect of the elderly and disabled, to a breakdown of diplomacy, and to more frequent and more vicious wars. Monarchy is an obstacle, Paine claims, to “peace, civilization, and commerce.” Monarchy is a “political superstition” which degrades humanity.

Monarchy leads to all these things, and monarchy is so closely associated with taxation that one might plausibly argue that taxation leads to all these things - indeed, that taxation is all these things. Paine writes:

If to expose the fraud and imposition of monarchy, and every species of hereditary government to lessen the oppression of taxes - to propose plans for the education of helpless infancy, and the comfortable support of the aged and distressed - to endeavor to conciliate nations to each other - to extirpate the horrid practice of war - to promote universal peace, civilization, and commerce - and to break the chains of political superstition, and raise degraded man to his proper rank; if these things be libellous, let me live the life of a libeller, and let the name of libeller be engraved on my tomb.

Paine’s attack on monarchy is so closely linked with his attack on taxation that it may well be impossible to separate them - both conceptually and in matters of concrete historical circumstance. Recall that it was taxation which sparked the hostilities in North America in 1775.

His later writings grew more diffuse as he wrestled intellectually with the machinations of the French Revolution, but even when he flirted with socialist or redistributionist economic schemes, Paine retained a healthy skepticism about taxation.

Note his use of the word ‘commerce’ in the text above: when the private sector is not fettered by taxation, prosperity and political liberty are the natural results.