COMMUNISM and CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT --More Birch Society Myths

Re: * Alan Stang's It's Very Simple book -and- * Highlander Folk School controversy, Martin Luther King Jr photo

Control and domination of the civil rights movement by subversive elements is a constant theme in JBS literature during the 1960's. In the June 1965 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch observed:

"Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as 'civil rights' is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes."

In the November 1965 JBS Bulletin, Mr. Welch strongly recommends Alan Stang's book entitled It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, because, in Welch's words...

"It gives the whole picture of the 'civil rights' development, as a part of Communist strategy, more completely and convincingly than anything else available."

"This book, because of its thoroughness, its comprehensive coverage of the whole 'civil rights' story, and its meticulous documentation, is the best single searchlight we have for exposing the 'civil rights' fraud."

In May 1965, the Special Agent in Charge of the Boston FBI Field Office forwarded proof sheets of the Stang book to FBI Headquarters, two months before scheduled publication. An evaluation of the book was prepared for Assistant Director W.C. Sullivan by F.J. Baumgardner:

"It's Very Simple is an attempt to rationalize today's civil rights movement in this country as primarily a communist operation...Practically all his documentation is to public source material and there is no significant information in the book which appears to be new and previously unknown to the Bureau. Stang makes frequent use of literary license and importantly fails to include documentation for key passages (examples appear on pages 101 and 185). An entire chapter (14) is devoted to an attack on civil rights legislation and the book, in general, is critical of all Administration and other efforts aimed at improving the lot of the Negro." [100-106670-1412, May 28, 1965, and 100-106670-1525, June 24, 1965, both F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].

"The details of the book do not support the strong conclusions reached by the author. We have had available to us all the material which Stang has plus considerable additional data from our investigations and we could not arrive at such conclusions. The impression is received that Stang may have well started with his conclusions and then developed the information and manner of presentation which he hoped would prove his point. This work must be viewed in the light of the author's apparent close connections with Robert Welch and the John Birch Society." [Ibid]

NOTE: At this point it is appropriate to introduce some context about Alan Stang's research habits to supplement the FBI's evaluation:

Alan Stang authored the article appearing in the Birch Society magazine, American Opinion, that resulted in the historic libel lawsuit by Elmer Gertz against Robert Welch, Inc.

After 14 years of litigation and appeals, the JBS paid Mr. Gertz $400,000. However, the JBS (which describes itself as an "educational" organization, "whose only weapon is the truth") didn't consider the litigation result to be of significant "educational" value to share with its members nor did they retract their defamatory comments about Gertz---even though, during the trial, they admitted "falsehoods" were contained in their article.

The trial court judge in that case (Robert A. Sprecher) described Alan Stang as...

"a writer with a known and unreasonable propensity to label persons or organizations as Communist...There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz." [Elmer Gertz: Gertz vs. Robert Welch, Inc.: The Story of a Landmark Libel Case; Southern Illinois University Press, 1992, page 206]

In 1965, J. Edgar Hoover described the civil rights movement as "a great and too long neglected cause of human rights" in our country. [FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Introduction, April 1965].

After warning about radicals who had no genuine interest in advancing civil rights, Hoover observed in a December 1964 speech, that:

"Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists--because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all." [J. Edgar Hoover, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; emphasis in original].

The Birch Society and its front-organization TACT (Truth About Civil Turmoil) were responsible for widespread distribution of a postcard showing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "attending a Communist training school." The school was identified as Highlander Folk School (HFS) in Monteagle, TN.

Alan Stang discusses HFS and the photograph in his book and he describes Highlander as "this Communist school". [It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights; Western Islands Publishers, 1965, page 114)

The famous photograph of Dr. King at Highlander was taken by Ed Friend. Mr. Friend described himself as "an undercover agent" for the Georgia Commission on Education (GCE).

Ed Friend was hired by the Chairman of the GCE, Governor Marvin Griffin of Georgia. Mr. Griffin was a life-long segregationist and co-founder of the States Rights Council of GA, an organization, like the GCE itself that was devoted to preventing integration in Georgia. Given that background, is it any surprise that Governor Griffin was a welcomed speaker at White Citizens Councils and States Rights Council functions?

Mr. Friend attended a 1957 Labor Day weekend seminar at HFS and took a picture of a group of individuals seated in an auditorium, one of whom was Dr. King.

When the GCE published its pamphlet on Highlander, it described the HFS seminar as being "held to discuss methods and tactics for precipitating racial strife and disturbances."

Subsequently, Ed Friend testified before a Tennessee legislative hearing concerning what he "learned" during his "investigation" of Highlander. The excerpt appearing below, reveals his underlying motivation:

"Q: Mr. Friend, was that a subversive meeting there at that time? A: It was subversive, sir, to the way that I have been taught to live in America. Q: Explain that to the committee. A: I have been taught by southern tradition to keep the races separate. I was taught to go to Sunday school and Church. I was taught to respect the other fellow's habitat...Up here it seems like all of those things weren't even considered. It is the primary motive of this group to tear down the forces that were trying to keep the races separate."

"Due to the interracial character of the School, it has been the subject of numerous allegations that it represented the headquarters of communism in east Tennessee. An extensive investigation was conducted in 1941 and 1942 as a result of the allegations. These allegations have never been substantiated and much of the information of a subversive derogatory nature concerning this School was later repudiated by the individuals who previously furnished the information...This organization has continuously been involved in the integration movement and as a result charges are being continuously made that it is 'communist'. These charges are based mainly on the opinion of the individuals making the charges that being pro-integration is being pro-communist." [64-7511-286, July 26, 1963, F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].

In 1963, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett testified before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee against a proposed public accommodations bill. Governor Barnett raised the issue of Dr. King's attendance at HFS. An FBI memo on the controversy concludes:

"FBI files concerning the HFS show that this school was the subject of a security investigation which was closed in 1943...No information was developed that the school offered courses of instruction on communism nor that the Communist Party ever succeeded in gaining control of the school. Due to its interracial character, however, the HFS has been the subject of numerous past allegations that it represents the headquarters for communism in eastern Tennessee." [July 13, 1963 FBI memo from J.F. Bland to W.C. Sullivan].

The ACLU Communists - "Those of us who champion civil liberties in the United States and who at the same time support the proletarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union are charged with inconsistency and insincerity. … If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle … it is only because those liberties help create a more hospitable atmosphere for working-class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world. … When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. … We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, to talk a great deal about the Constitution" - ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin

The Communist Background of the American Civil Liberties Union - Anarchist Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1919, after his release from prison where he served a sentence for draft evasion, at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley. In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the Red Dean of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity. Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of “Toward Soviet America,” Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey.

The ACLU: Bill of Rights' Implausible Defenders - In 1931, a congressional report of the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated: "The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each state by the federal Constitution."

I think the difference between your perception and mine is not that I am ill-informed but that you don't understand what I'm saying.

You seem to think that unless people who are official, card-carrying, dues-paying Communists are also official, card-carrying, dues-paying NAACP members, the penetration has not occurred. That if one cannot find documentation showing checks made out to the CPUSA, penetration has not occurred.

Ideas don't work that way. Penetration and subsequent influence is revealed not in membership lists and money trails alone. It's revealed in attitudes. It's revealed in how an entire culture has been altered, radically altered. What do you suppose the objective you mentioned WAS? I'll tell you: it was to weaken the American ethic of work, individualism, and self-reliance, something that was just as much a part of black culture as white.... until recently. Blacks built entire towns before the Marxist influence crippled them and turned them into wards of the state.

Another goal was to foment class warfare. Since even the poor in America are well-fed and have a lot of the luxuries that would amaze a family in Vietnam, Communists replaced class warfare with race warfare, and have been doing their best to encourage racial hatred. Black separatism is very much a result of Marxist influence.

And notice how the word "minorities" now refers to Latinos and African-Americans, and that's pretty much it? Why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you why: most Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Arab-Americans have escaped or emigrated from oppressive Marxist or theocratic regimes... they embrace the American ethic (unless they're Islamist infiltrators, another topic altogether, yet not so very different.)

But Latinos are the second tier of Communist influence, and have not yet suffered enough Killing Fields to learn to hate Marxism. Thus you have African-Americans and Latinos united under pictures of Che Guevara. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

Wizard:

My questions to you are:

1. What, in your judgment, constitutes "influence"
that can be attributed exclusively to
"Communist" efforts?

2. You use the word "attitudes" -- but whom do you
propose as the arbiter of a "correct" or "patriotic"
attitude versus a "subversive" or noxious "attitude"?
You seem to be saying that YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL
PREFERENCES should become the standard by which all
matters should be judged.

3. Virtually ALL "evidence" of alleged "Communist
influence" within Highlander originated with
segregationists. Do you consider those persons
as impartial, fair analysts? (Please re-read
the testimony of Ed Friend to refresh yourself on
how he defined "subversive").

4. Your insinuations about the NAACP are completely
false and, of course, not based upon any empirical
evidence. Once again, you confuse Communist attempts
to infiltrate organizations with actual success at
influencing policies or activities.

5. Suppose that Highlander staff engaged in voter
registration efforts due to the "influence"
of secret Communists involved with the school.
Local segregationists opposed all such activities.
Are you proposing that our country would now be
better if the segregationists had triumphed over
the alleged "Communists" and the persons whose
"attitudes" they "influenced"?

Ernie

Wizard:

One more thing I forgot to include in my previous response to your comments.

When black Americans look back in time and ask the question "who stood with us during our civil rights battles?" -- obviously, the persons and groups that share your viewpoint (such as the Birch Society) are totally invisible.

However, the Birch Society did make it clear whose side THEY were on! Numerous Birch Society officials, including National Council members, chapter and section leaders, and prominent authors they recommended were often racists, segregationists, or otherwise connected to White Citizens Councils or even more noxious white-supremacy organizations.

Why is that?

Ernie

One more thing I forgot to include in my previous response to your comments.

I'll just answer this since I answered your other comments in private e-mail (why do you send them both public and private, by the way? Could we just pick one?)

When black Americans look back in time and ask the question "who stood with us during our civil rights battles?" -- obviously, the persons and groups that share your viewpoint (such as the Birch Society) are totally invisible.

Sure.

However, the Birch Society did make it clear whose side THEY were on! Numerous Birch Society officials, including National Council members, chapter and section leaders, and prominent authors they recommended were often racists, segregationists, or otherwise connected to White Citizens Councils or even more noxious white-supremacy organizations. Why is that?

Because they were supporting States' Rights, I suspect. My caveat to you would be that the Communists were using Black Americans, simple as that. They used them the way a pimp uses his girls. And those girls will look back at the mean cops who arrested them, and then at the pimp who bailed them out, and spoke nicely to them... (and then put them back on the front lines,) and they'll make the wrong decision, again and again.

It's difficult to ultimately decide that the principles of those unsympathetic to you are better than the goals of those who were nice, and stroked you, and smiled at you. But I'd advise black Americans to think it over. Look at Cuba, whose prisons are 85% black. Look at North Korea and China, and ask how many people they murdered. Look at what Communists did to Angola, slaughtering thousands of Angolans because to the Communists, they were utterly expendable.

Everything good to you isn't good for you.

Well, Wizard, I admire your candor but you are simply on the wrong side of history.

No thinking person allies himself with anyone or any group that is morally defective just because that person or group might have some political ideas that resonate.

That's why even IF one could make a case for seductive conclusions and proposals offered by the KKK, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, etc. -- no honorable, decent person would find it acceptable to become an adherent or promoter of their viewpoints.

There is something particularly noxious and specious about using "State's Rights" as a device for denying basic human rights to your fellow citizens because of one's self-perceived racial superiority --- in much the same way that Communists used their theories of "inevitable" historical development to justify mass murder to advance "social progress".

Finally, with respect to Don West and Highlander Folk School: I haven't seen the evidence yet to confirm that he was a Communist Party member. I have about 70% of the FBI files on Highlander Folk School and his name wasn't even mentioned in the documents I have. However, as I pointed out in my original posting, Don West and Myles Horton were associated for a very brief period of time (about 6 months) before their relationship soured and a parting-of-the-ways occurred. So--what, one wonders, did Don West actually contribute in the context of his alleged "Communist" motivation?

Also--since I was asked, rhetorically, "where did the money come from?" to start Highlander....there is nothing mysterious about it.

Several books and doctoral dissertations have discussed Highlander Folk School (HFS) history in exhaustive detail and a major portion of Highlander's papers are archived at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin in Madison WI as well as the Tennessee State Library Manuscripts Division in Nashville.

Lilian W. Johnson donated her farm for the creation of HFS and Myles Horton sought (and received) modest financial assistance from acquaintances he met during his education at Union Theological Seminary (and elsewhere) plus within the labor movement. During the winter of 1932-1933, Highlander cash on-hand dwindled to $250. By April 1933, the school had 8 students---hardly an inspiring financial success!

History is often the story of determined individuals working against established authority or orthodoxy. Even Birchers should be able to appreciate how difficult it is to "go against the flow" of prevailing wisdom or customs.

Highlander Folk School did nothing in its long history to deserve the venomous attacks it received from racists and non-racists fearful of a society undergoing change. Unfortunately, as was so often the case, the John Birch Society chose to ally themselves with mean-spirited attacks that seldom were based upon facts---as even the FBI recognized over time.

No thinking person allies himself with anyone or any group that is morally defective just because that person or group might have some political ideas that resonate.

Well, you'd better abandon all political individual rights, then, because the men who enumerated them were slaveholders.

You'll also have to abandon all religion.

As for Highlander, it is obvious that you are determined to defend them. Go ahead. I can't stop you. I just think you are deep in denial.

Wizard -- Sorry to report that you totally lost me in your reply.

For the record, I am not determined to defend Highlander. I merely think that (a) facts matter --and-- (b) mistaken ideas have consequences. If, for example, it were true that Highlander engaged in illegal activities or served as a cover for subversives to accomplish their ends, I would have no problem acknowledging that because I have no vested interest in Highlander.

Similarly, for example, if it turns out that Don West was actually a member of the Communist Party -- I will have no problem acknowledging that either. What is still left open to question, however, is precisely what effect he had on HFS policies and programs.

This may come as a shock to you, but for many years I defended the Birch Society against some of its more irrational and mean-spirited critics. In fact, there are several issues about which the Birch Society and I are in agreement (although perhaps for different reasons).

However, I still think that truth should matter -- and while I do not pretend to be the repository of all knowledge and wisdom --- I think a reasonable, compelling case can be made that the JBS injured American society and specific individuals and organizations with FALSEHOODS that go beyond mere differences in political philosophy. (For one example, see my previous posting concerning Harry Overstreet).

I also would recommend that interested parties take a look at J.R. Nyquist's pertinent August 2001 article entitled "Not All Conspiracies Are Created Equal" at:
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/28/nyquist.htm

Ernie

Wizard - Now you are inventing straw-man arguments!

I never said anything about "abandoning" States rights arguments because racists hijacked that philosophical viewpoint. My point is that we should reject the RACISTS -- not States rights!

One might want to peruse the FBI file entitled "KKK Infiltration of Law Enforcement" for some background into how prominent southern community leaders (judges, sheriffs, police departments, clergymen, newspapers, businessmen, etc.) were using "States rights" to hide their true agenda.

You and I may disagree over what takes priority when a decision must be made about egregious violations by State or local governments controlled by segregationists whose phony fights against "subversion" or "un-American" activities were usually nothing more than window-dressing for their white supremacist point of view.

There are many honorable, decent, and thoughtful Americans who championed the States' rights position (Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater come immediately into mind) -- but they did so WITHOUT appealing to the WORST qualities in our countrymen or allying themselves with bigots.

Regretably, such figures as Sen. James Eastland (MS), Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Gov. Marvin Griffin (GA), General Edwin A. Walker, and the John Birch Society (to name just a few) fall into the latter category.

A good idea does not become a bad one just because bad people attach themselves to it. That applies to left-wing ideas also---something which Birchers need to consider when they attempt to conflate Communism with anything left-of-center that they don't like.

And, yes, I HAVE read all of your posts (usually 2 or more times). Not sure what you think I overlooked.

Ernie

Wizard: I'll try to be more clear.

Honorable men and women can argue and disagree about all sorts of public policy questions.

However, when we consider whom or what is deserving of our political or financial support, it seems to me that an honorable, decent person understands that certain options are unacceptable---EVEN IF those options might propose ideas, policies, and programs that otherwise might seem attractive.

I previously used Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and KKK as examples of options that would be unacceptable under any circumstances, because they are morally defective, i.e. the spirit underlying their premises, conclusions, and proposals are manifestly hateful and designed to capitalize upon fear and suspicion, and can only lead (if successful) to oppression.

In a free society, no honorable decent person should ally themselves with "States' rights" (SR) proponents if SR is being used as a device to impose and sustain second-class citizenship on a segment of Americans whom SR proponents consider inferior beings undeserving of equal protection of the law.

Consequently, the well-known systematic disenfranchisement and intimidation of black Americans as a matter of public policy in States like Alabama and Mississippi would render void any claims to SR used by racists who were prominent citizens and civil authorities within those States.

Finally, I would very much like to give the benefit of the doubt to organizations like the John Birch Society when it comes to whether or not their alliance with racists was nothing more than incidental to their main focus on SR. Obviously, the JBS had many fine and decent folks as members. But, regretably, official JBS spokespersons and literature never seemed willing to make the distinctions I have discussed above. The JBS was a magnet for all sorts of characters whose beliefs were (at a minimum) racially insensitive and mean-spirited and, in some instances, outright bigots.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.