Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
When the political scientist attempts to assess the state of civil liberties in America following World War II, he confronts a voluminous record of episodes and events. Most of the books, articles, and other documents so far available suggest that the fear of communist subversion carried Americans very far from the spirit, if not the letter, of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is possible to conclude that the hysteria associated with the name of Joseph R. McCarthy permeated almost every state, city and hamlet in America, and that McCarthy himself, in the words of Richard H. Rovere, “held two Presidents captive, or as nearly captive as any Presidents of the United States have ever been held …” The political scientist may therefore be persuaded that the label McCarthy Era better fits the Nineteen Fifties than the alternative designation, Eisenhower Era.
It may be hoped, however, that his research will not overlook those incidents, however rare, which suggest that fear and suspicion did not entirely dominate the national scene. One such incident, of more than ordinary interest, occurred in Iowa during the early months of 1951. By April, 1951, more than one year had elapsed since the late junior Senator from Wisconsin had produced his famous if elusive “list” of card-carrying communists in the State Department. The Korean War, moving toward the end of its first winter, promoted a mood which was, on the whole, favorable to the Senator's activities. Nevertheless, in April, 1951, the Iowa Senate overwhelmingly rejected a loyalty oath measure which was much less stringent than those that had previously been approved in almost half the states. The action of the Iowa Senate, moreover, was not merely unusual or exceptional in 1951; it appears to be without precedent in recent history. So far as is known, Iowa was the only state in which a loyalty oath measure was defeated by vote in the legislature.
This study was made possible by a grant from The Fund for the Republic, Inc. I wish to thank the twenty-four members of the 1951 Iowa Senate who consented to be interviewed or who filled out questionnaires. I am also grateful for the cooperation of individuals associated with the State University of Iowa, Iowa State College, Iowa State Teachers College, American Association of University Professors, and the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. No statement can adequately express my gratitude to Sidney Jones and Kenneth McLean, who rendered indispensable research assistance.
1 The number of states without loyalty oaths is differently reported in two sources. According to a compilation by The Fund for the Republic, loyalty oaths and pledges are required of teachers in twenty-one states: California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. In all but three of these (Colorado, South Dakota, and Tennessee), loyalty oath or pledge requirements were instituted during or after World War II. Loyalty oath provisions have made their appearance in eight states since 1950. The Fund for the Republic, Digest of the Public Record of Communism in the United States, (New York, 1955)Google Scholar. But in Gellhorn, Walter, The States and Subversion (Cornell, 1952)Google Scholar, it is stated that twenty-seven states have “prescribed teacher's oaths of various types.” (p. 410).
2 In a number of states, bills incorporating loyalty oaths for teachers have “died” in legislative committees or been vetoed by governors. The most recent instance of such action—and one of particular interest considering the governor involved—occurred in Arkansas in early 1957. Governor Orval E. Faubus, vetoing a loyalty oath bill which had passed the Arkansas Senate 32–0 and House 81–6, declared that the bill was “unnecessary” and would pose a possible threat to the innocent in its provisions. American Civil Liberties Union, Weekly Bulletin 1906, June 10, 1957 Google Scholar.
3 Wahlke, John C. and Eulau, Heinz, eds., Legislative Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research (Glencoe, Illinois, 1959), p. 3 Google Scholar.
4 Although there was no roll-call of votes, the Des Moines Register reported that forty-seven of the full Senate membership of fifty were present and voted when the loyalty oath measure was defeated. But one Senator who participated in the study insisted that the loyalty oath issue had never been voted upon, and another was certain that the measure had passed the Senate.
5 Most of the newspapers published in college communities avoided editorial discussion. In at least one case, involving a newspaper published in the locale of a major state educational institution, the “silent treatment” was a compromise between the views of the newspaper publisher, who favored the bill, and the views of the university community which the newspaper serves.
6 Apparently Governor Beardsley, who died in office, did not reveal his intention to more than one or two sponsors of the bill.
7 Debates in the Iowa Senate are not recorded in the official record, the Senate Journal. Quotations and other references to the loyalty oath debate are based on newspaper accounts.
8 In an editorial titled REFLECTION ON IOWA'S COMMUNITY LEADERS, the Des Moines Register of April 9 castigated Doud for what it termed “the inference that there are ‘Alger Hisses’ and ‘Rosenbergs’ stacked a mile deep around Iowa.” Referring to Doud's remarks as a “bogey story calculated to frighten legislators and induce them to vote in hysteria,” the Register editorial held that “county officers and school teachers in Iowa are not the possessors of State department secrets, as Alger Hiss was, and … the Rosenbergs got their secrets from a United States army sergeant who had taken the most profound oath that an American can take.”
9 Interviewed in Iowa City, Baum was sharply critical of Lord's interpretation of the S.U.I, meeting. “Mr. Lord's statement,” he told a reporter, “is a good example of a non-sequitur—it does not follow that a person who introduces a speaker affiliated with the Communist party is himself a Communist or disloyal. I happen to believe in democracy, which means that everyone should have the right to express his opinion. I would as readily introduce an opponent of communism as I would a proponent of communism.” The Daily Iowan, April 10, 1951. Baum ceased to be associated with the State University of Iowa sometime after 1951, but his departure, apparently, was not connected with the Phillips episode or its use by supporters of the oath.
10 Doud himself is no longer a member of the Senate. In 1952 he failed in a bid for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor. At the present time he practices law in Douds, Iowa.
11 These circles also believe that the Doud-Dailey exchange, in particular, “hurt Doud's standing all over the state.”
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.