Sources and Nature of Intolerance in the 1920s
Author(s): Paul L. Murphy
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of American History, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jun., 1964), pp. 60-76
Published by: Organization of American Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1917934 .
Accessed: 27/04/2012 20:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Organization of American Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of American History.
http://www.jstor.org
Sourcesand Nature of Intolerance
in the1920s
PAUL
L.
MURPHY
IN
approaching
thatseamyside of the nationalcharacter
whichperiodicallydisplaysbroad-scaleintolerance,
prejudice,nativism,
and xenophobia,manyAmericanhistorians
have soughtin recentyearsto draw
upon the findings
of scholarsin relateddisciplinesin theirattempts
at
meaningful
analysis.
Especially
in thisareahasbeenrecent
suggestive
work
in sociology,
socialpsychology,
culturalanthropology,
and American
studies.-Differences
exist,however,as to how suchfindings
can actuallyaid
thehistorian
andthedegreeof reliancehe canconfidently
placeuponthem.
Giventhefactthattheaveragehistorian
mustworkin a pastcontextin
whichpreciseempirical
research
is impossible,
particularly
as it appliesto
a broadspectrum
ofpublicattitudes,
andgiventhefactthatmodernsocial
sciencestudiesdrawthegreatbodyof theirevidencefromcurrent
materials,a questionof relevanceis raised.How safeis it forthehistorian
to projectsuchmodernfindings
in an attempt
backwards
betterto understandand graspthetensions
and pressures
of a priorera?Aremodernsocial sciencetechniques
reliablein theanalysisof imprecise
historical
materials?
of thehistorical
Somemembers
guildfeelthatsuchborrowing
of either
materials
or techniques
is too dangerous
to be acceptable.
Othersat times
havereliedtooheavilyuponsuchinterdisciplinary
aidsin ordertovalidate
generalpresumptions
otherwisedifficult
of documentation.
Still others
haveusedsuchmaterials
and
cautiously carefully,
so cautiously
andso carefullythattheyhavecometo differ
amongthemselves
theirapconcerning
In thestudyof pastintolerance,
plicability.
forexample,therehavebeen
Mr. Murphy is associate professorof historyand American studies in the University
of Minnesota,Minneapolis.
Particularlysuggestive in this regard are the works of Gordon Allport, Bruno
Bettelheim,Kenneth B. Clark, Allison Davis, E. Franklin Frazier,Marie Jahoda, Morris
Janowitz,Clyde Kluckhohn,Kurt Lewin, Herbert Muller, Gunnar Myrdal, Arnold Rose,
GerhartSaenger,Edward A. Shils, JamesVander Zanden, Robin Williams, and J. Milton
Yinger.
60 *
and Natureof Intolerance
Sources
61
emphasison status
oriented
thosewho drewheavilyupona sociologically
and who have emphasizedongoingtensionseverpresentin the
rivalries
Yet suchpersociety.2
in our dynamic
slowprocessof ethnicintegration
of the
beenchallengedto explaintheplausibility
sonshavesubsequently
characdiffering
and itsfrequently
cyclicalnatureof wavesof intolerance
gearedto imhave produceduniqueexpressions
teras uniquesituations
or who
of
stereotyping
use
careful
made
have
who
needs.
Others
mediate
So too
questioned.
havebeen
haveplacedrelianceuponideologicalfactors
have thosewho have focusedupon the concretefactsof the immediate
of menof passionwithabilityto
upon theinfluence
especially
situation,
This has
myths.
irrational
moodsof alarmbyexploiting
createor nurture
the constantfactorof humanirraforcedsuchpersonsto de-emphasize
causain normaltimeseventhoughit is alwaysbasicin assessing
tionality
events.3
tioninall historical
in the1920sraisesin exaggerated
In manywaysthestudyof intolerance
andofproper
of relatedmaterials
formbotha questionof theapplicability
prosperThatdecade,despiteitssurface
use of suchmaterials.
permissible
by waves of
was characterized
ityand supposedgaietyand exuberance,
Much of this
seldomfeltin theAmericanexperience.
publicintolerance
with
prejudices
subsurface
of familiar
was merelyan outbreak
intolerance
Catholics,
towardradicals,
in earlierexpressedantipathies
antecedents
groups.Yet suchintolerance
and otherminority
Jews,Negroes,Orientals,
by
althoughseldomled directly
Fosteredfrequently,
was nottraditional.
bymenseekinggratuor aggravated
businesscommunity
an apprehensive
it
or as brokersformenof property,
itiesas brokersforthatcommunity
clumsily
quicklygained its sanctionsfromthatnationalconsensusso
immuneto
and involvedmanyAmericans
previously
branded"normalcy"
in
partof the 1920s,participated
As suchit was an integral
its toxicity.
That it
of Americans.
by thegreatmajority
or unconsciously
consciously
to its
as thedecadeadvancedis apttestimony
character
tookon a changing
formswiththe
or tookon different
That it eitherdisappeared
virulence.
seemsto revealthatit was speciallysuitedto thepeculiarculdepression
ofthejazz age.
tureandsociety
and
if bymerely
addingthematerials
The historian
wouldbe delighted
he couldsaypreciseand sciof thesocialscientists
thetechniques
utilizing
2 For example, John Higham, "AnotherLook at Nativism," Catholic Historical Review,
XLIV (July 1958), 150, in denigratingan ideological approach,argues: "Except on the
subject of race (and in related forms anti-Semitism),the kind of accusations which
nativistsleveled against foreignelementsremainedrelativelyconstant.. . . For the history
of nativism,therefore,emotional intensityprovided the significantmeasure of change."
in "Some Themes
'David B. Davis confrontsthisdilemmawith healthyopen-mindedness
of Counter-Subversion:An Analysis of Anti-Masonic,Anti-Catholic,and Anti-Mormon
Literature,"Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (Sept. 1960), 205-24.
62
The Journalof AmericanHistory
of intolerentificthingsboth about the roots,nature,and manifestations
ance at thistime.Yet, despitethe siren'scall of being able throughempirical social researchto reach quantitativeanswers,he is temptedto concentrateon the impreciseapproachesof history,relyingupon interdisciplinary
tools as analyticaldevicesonlywhen theyseem to have an obvious relation
to knownand documentablereality.
Clearlythe sourcesof the intoleranceof the 1920s can be tracedto at
least the late Progressiveperiod, with obvious roots in the immediately
precedingyears.Clearlysuch intolerancehad a relationto growingProgressive apprehensionsover alarmingdevelopmentswhich did not seem to be
organized
respondingto normalcontrols.The IWW, the firsteffectively
movementof militantworkingmento challengethe whole Americaneconomicsystem,sentchillsthroughthe heartsand outragethroughthe souls
of upper and middle class Americans.Here in the earlyyearsof the cento make demandsno decentcitizen
turywas a group with the effrontery
could honorand employtechniquesno moralAmericancould tolerate.But
worse than this, these people and their Socialist "cousins" rejected the
premisesupon which the Americansystemrested,namelythat rightsand
privilegeswere open in a freesocietyto anyonewho was willing to work
up patientlywithin the system.Or if the individual was incapable of
utilizingthis techniquehe would eventuallybe takencare of in a spiritof
class, as long as he stood with his hat in his
paternalismby the affluent
hand and patientlywaited. The alarming fact was that the IWWs and
Socialistswereno longerwillingto wait. They wereunwillingto acceptthe
factthatonly afterone had gained a stake in societywas he warrantedin
becominga criticor a reformer.As one Progressiveeditorwrote during
the Lawrencetextilestrikeof 1912 (at the point which Paul Brissenden
called "the high tide of the I.W.W. activity"):
On all sides people are asking,Is thisa new thingin the industrial
world?
attempt
to organizelabor
... Are we to see anotherserious,perhapssuccessful,
groupsinsteadof bytrades?Arewe to expectthatinsteadof
bywholeindustrial
or else franklybreakingout into lawlessriot
playingthe game respectably,
whichwe knowwell enoughhow to deal with,the laborersare to listento a
ideas of law
subtleanarchistic
philosophywhichchallengesthe fundamental
suchstrangedoctrines
as thoseof "directaction,""saboand order,inculcating
"thegeneralstrike,"and "violence"?. . . We thinkthat
tage," "syndicalism,"
ourwholecurrent
of property
and evenof lifeis inmorality
as to thesacredness
volvedin it.4
""After the Battle," Survey,XXVIII (April 6, 1912), 1-2. Such attitudesare explored
in provocativedetail in ReinhardBendix, Work and Authorityin Industry:Ideologies of
Managementin the Course of Industrialization(New York, 1956), 254-340.
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
63
of
Also involvedin it was theIWW practiceof utilizingtherhetoric
theirends.The "free-speech
as a deviceforobtaining
democracy
American
fight"whichassumednationalproportions
after1910 was distressingly
Forwhilemany
to counteract.
at timesandwaspainfully
difficult
successful
freespeechto gainpersonaleconomic
couldarguethatutilizing
Americans
suppresof arbitrary
ideals,thealternative
endswas an abuseof American
them.
preserved
sionhardly
rationalizaa satisfying
Forthosein thisdilemmaWorldWar I afforded
"onceleadthispeople
WoodrowWilson'sprediction,
tionforsuppression.
was
intowarand they'llforgetthereeverwas sucha thingas tolerance,"5
words
quicklysetouttoturnthePresident's
as thegovernment
clairvoyant,
ofAmerwell.Everyelement
frighteningly
policythatsucceeded
intoofficial
rightorwrong,"disbehind"mycountry,
icanpublicopinionwasmobilized
so
curtailed
at homewasdrastically
democracy
forbidden,
sentwasvirtually
children
wereeither
thatitcouldbe madesafeabroad,whileimpressionable
loan,
in liberty
or theirtimewas employed
"educated"in Hun atrocities,
It was not difficult
Red Cross,war savingstamp,or YMCA campaigns.
thento channelan arousednation'swrathagainstearlierboatrockers-a
stood
madeeasierbythefactthatmanyIWWs and Socialists
development
out boldlyagainstthe war fromthe start.The EspionageAct of 1917,
withthewar
a measureto strikeat illegalinterference
whileostensibly
was so wordedthatit couldbe, and was,usedto stampoutradical
effort,
the SeditionAct,
criticism
of thewar. Its subsequent1918 amendment,
and
of westernsenators,
was a less subtledevice.Passedby thepressure
both
itspurposewas to undercut
modeledaftera MontanaIWW statute,
Therewas a clear
activity.
theperformance
and advocacyof undesirable
thatpeople who utilizedspeechas a meansof gainingimimplication
federalprosecuAndwiththesubsequent
properendshad to be restricted."
tion of 184 membersof the IWW in 1918 and 1919,7to say nothingof a
and
conscientious
objectors,
German-Americans,
crackdown
on Socialists,
and adminisNon-Partisan
Leaguers,the intentof thefederallegislative
clear.
trative
becamecrystal
program
labor'swartimehoneymoon,
With peace and the end of conservative
'Ray StannardBaker, Woodrow Wilson, Life and Letters (8 vols., New York, 19271939), VI, 506-07. On the persecutionof anti-wargroups generally,see H. C. Peterson
and Gilbert C. Fite, Opponents of War: 1917-18 (Madison, 1957), and 0. A. Hilton,
"The Minnesota Commissionof Public Safetyin World War I, 1917-1919," Bulletin of
the Oklahoma Agriculturaland Mechanical College, LXVIII (May 15, 1951).
'Zechariah Chafee,Jr.,Free Speech in the United States (Cambridge, 1941), 39-41.
'Philip Taft, "The Federal Trials of the IWW," Labor History,III (Winter 1962),
57-91.
64
The Journal
of American
History
businesscomtherewas renewedfearon the partof the reinvigorated
and elementsof
munitythatan unholyunionof dissidentmalcontents
was notonlypossible
betrayed,
moreorthodox
labor,nowfeelingcallously
postwarperiodcouldonlybe
butprobable.The strikesof theimmediate
alarm,not
rationalized
by businessin theseterms.And to createfurther
workers
and even
a realityin Russia,butAmerican
onlywas Bolshevism
leaderswerestudying
itseconomicand politicalimplicasomeinfluential
whenunderfirein the
if notwithadmiration.
Catholics,
tionswithinterest
deniedtheirallegianceto theVatican,butsomeof
past,had consistently
evenproclaimed
proudlyand openlytheiralletheseBolshevikadmirers
fromtheKremlin.8
gianceto a neworderfunctioning
to analyzethe
and businessfoundit impossible
Fearled to irrationality
or to understand
what
of thesedevelopments
meaningand implications
GutzonBorglumcalled in 1919 the "real laborproblem,"whichwas
condition.
In responseto a speechbyNicholasMurray
labor'sdependent
laborforits lackof "reasonableness,"9
Borglumwrote:
Butler,rebuking
of thenecessity
activity
is due to a deepconsciousness
Labor'srecent
political
of self-reliance
in itscondition.
Andfurther,
anyandall improvement
to secure
because
thepolitical
is forced
appeared
in itsmethods,
colorthathas recently
of theutterfaithlessness
government
to giveit relief.'0
and failure
of partisan
thanunderleaders,protection
was moreimportant
But to conservative
they
standing.With the wartimelegislationnow generallyinapplicable,
soughtto get ontothestatutebookspeacetimeseditionand criminalsyndicalismlawsto takeitsplace.To accomplish
this,businesswas frequently
bothto a broaderpublicand
able to transfer
itsown fearsof Bolshevism
to statelegislators
whoservedthatpublic.The resultwas thatsuchpropaspecious
triggeredby frequently
gandizing,plus added apprehensions
Thus,althoughmuch
bombscares,producedwidedemandforrestriction.
was enactedin a sinceredesireto controlagitators
of thenewlegislation
othermoreresponsive
tookcareto
and dangerous
legislators
seditionists,
wordedand did notappearto be
lawswerecarefully
be surethatresultant
'Roger N. Baldwin, "The Myth of Law and Order," in Samuel D. Schmalhausen,ed.,
Behold America! (New York, 1931), 660-61. The appeal of the Soviet experimentin its
early years stands out in various liberal organs. See, for example, The Advance (New
York), 1919-1923. See also Matthew Josephson,Sidney Hillman: Statesmanof American
Labor (Garden City, 1952), 274 ff.,and ChristopherLasch, The AmericanLiberals and
the RussianRevolution(New York, 1962).
'Nicholas MurrayButler,The Real Labor Problem (n.p., [19191), an addressdelivered
before the Instituteof Arts and Sciences, Columbia University,October 13, 1919, and
publishedas a pamphlet.
'0Gutzon Borglum, The Real Labor Problem (n.p., [19191), a confidentialpamphlet,
privatelyprinted.
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
65
stateshad enactedsomeformof reBy 1920 thirty-five
classlegislation.
on speech
enablingtherapidcrackdown
legislation
strictive,
precautionary
actionsgearedtowardstimuproduceunlawful
thatmightbyitsexpression
was couched
change.Suchlegislation
politicalor economic
latingimproper
of "disloyal,scurpunishment
permitted
in termswhichin Connecticut
of theUnited
rilous,or abusivelanguageabouttheformof government
States,"and in Colorado,"advocacyby wordor in printof forciblereor in pareitheras a generalprinciple,
government
sistanceto constituted
socialor
industrial,
governmental,
as a meansof affecting
ticularinstances
economic
conditions."''
forsuchlegislation(the
That therewas no legal need or justification
and libel)12furcoveredconspiracy
criminal
codesof thestatesadequately
intherunderlined
the factthatits purposewas devious.It constituted
timidating
legislationby whichbusinesssubtlysoughtto institutionalize
of
freeitselffromthe necessity
and thereby
formsof priorcurtailment
the
existing
a threatto
to restrict
thoseit considered
havingpersonally
couldbe left
and subtleregimentation
suchrestriction
order.Henceforth
to
whocoulddevelopstandards
officials
to thediscretion
of administrative
were
and local needs,'3and who,as thedecadeprogressed,
fitimmediate
weapon.
as a further
precautionary
to add theinjunction
in 1919 in a number
was quicklyimplemented
thislegislation
Although
of
bya multiplication
Prompted
of states,it did notquietall malcontents.
beganto fearthatlocal
the morehysterical
strikesand labordiscontent,
werenot enoughand proceededto advocatea formof federal
sanctions
such as the Palmerraids,the
"directaction."Powerfulfederalactivity
Reds" aboardthe "Soviet
of 249 "dangerous
deportation
army-conducted
and senators
of representatives
effort
Ark" Buford,thecontemporaneous
to rushthrougha federalpeacetimeseditionact,whilea productof and
as the
shouldalso be understood
responseto excessivepublichysteria
more
pressingapprehensiveness
of an increasingly
partialculmination
" See Fund for the Republic,Digest of the Public Record of Communismin the United
States (New York, 1955), 266 if. For a detailed historyof this legislationand a careful
record of its framingsee Eldridge F. Dowell, "A Historyof the Enactment
state-by-state
of Criminal SyndicalismLegislation in the United States" (2 vols., doctoral dissertation,
JohnsHopkins University,1936).
' "Criminal Syndicalism,"Columbia UniversityLaw Review, XX (Feb. 1920), 232.
The point was made regularlyby liberals in the 1920s. See, for example,Brandeis' famous
concurringopinion in theWhitneycase (1927), 274 U.S. 357, 372 ff.
13 AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion, The Police and Radicals: What 88 Police ChiefsThink
and Do About Radical Meetings (New York, 1921). See also Investigationof Communist
Propaganda. Hearings beforea Special Committeeto InvestigateCommunistActivitiesin
the United States. House Exec. Docs., 71 Cong., 2 Sess., Pt. IV, Vol. I, 3; Vol. II, 574 ff.
(1930).
66
The Journalof AmericanHistory
whichhad obsessedconservatives
forwell over a decade. And the factthat
manyAmericanswere at the timeable to rationalizeand condonethemost
disgraceful,wholesale departurefrom fundamentalguaranteesof basic
libertyand due processof law in Americanhistoryfurtherunderscoresthe
extentof theirfears.'4
Yet the Red scare of the 1920s introduceda new permanentdimension
of intolerance.This was the aspiring,self-seekingindividual or special
interestgroup which soughtto exploitthe hysteriaand intoleranceof the
momentfor personal advantage. Such individualsand groups were not
new in Americanhistory."5But the breadthof theiroperationswas more
sweeping in the 1920s, and the ambitiousnessof theircalculationswas
greater,as was the numberof Americanstheysoughtto affect.For aggressive politicianslike A. Mitchell Palmer, Leonard Wood, or Albert S.
Burleson,the abilityto projectthemselvesintothe role of masterdefender
of the endangeredordercould mean nominationto high office,hopefully
thepresidency.To an AnthonyCaminetti,thefirstpersonof Italian extraction to be electedto Congressand by then Commissionerof Immigration,
this was an opportunityto demonstratethat he, as well as othersof his
nationalorigin,were fully100 percentAmerican.To an aggressivebureaucrat like William J.Flynn,head of the Bureau of Investigation,or J.
Edgar Hoover, head of the Bureau's newly createdGeneral Intelligence
(antiradical) Division, here was a chance to enhance the power of the
Bureau, and his own power and domain simultaneously."'
To Flynn'ssuccessor,William J.Burns,the abilityto guide public fearsand even create
fears where only apprehensionshad existed was also an opportunityto
stimulatea brisk private business for the Burns InternationalDetective
Agencyuntil an increasingly
more hostilepublic forceda curtailment
and
a housecleaningin theDepartmentof Justice.'7
At the group level motivationswere equally divergent.The American
Legion epitomizedthe service-oriented
organizations,obligatedto deliver
14 National Popular GovernmentLeague, To the American People: Report upon the
Illegal Practicesof the United States Departmentof Justice(Washington, 1920). On the
impact of the report see Robert K. Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria
(Minneapolis, 1955), 255.
15 One is immediately
remindedof the carefulattemptof the Adams Federaliststo exploit
the half-warwith France in 1798, Know-Nothingismin various periods of American
History,bloody-shirtwaving in the post-CivilWar years,among other things.See James
M. Smith,Freedom's Fetters.The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties
(Ithaca, 1956).
"Max Lowenthal,The Federal Bureau of Investigation(New York, 1950), 71-72, 90,
298 ff.
1 Don Whitehead, The F.B.I. Story (New York, 1956), 55-59; Alpheus T. Mason,
Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (New York, 1956), 149-50; MethodistFederation
for Social Service,The Social Service Bulletin (Feb. 1920), 1-4; ibid. (Sept. 1924), 1-4;
Dowell, CriminalSvndicalismLezislation, 1026, 1129.
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
67
a varietyof specificbenefitsto its wide membership.To do this entailed
sufficient
flattering
and assistingof those in power to convincethemthat
the organizationdeservedfavors.But to writethe Legion offas "applepolishing,flag-waversof patriotism"is to miss the factthatmost legionnaires receivedgreatsatisfactionfromousting"Reds" and Americanizing
formemeveryonecompletely.Such patrioteering
affordedan opportunity
bers to demonstrate
and articulatetheirfaithand allegianceto basic ideals
and institutions
and therebyto gain acceptanceand statuswith thosewho
felt a similarneed.18Thus in this and similarorganizationstherewas a
natural tie between aiding the "establishment"and crusading to save
America. The professionalpatriots,on the otherhand, had simplerand
even less commendablemotives.Primarilypropaganda organizations,and
the mouthpiecesof single leaders or small cabals, theirpurpose was to
ingratiatethemselveswith large privateor corporatedonors and thereby
insuretheircontinuation.This meant showing results,not only in broad
distribution
of literaturebut in providingspeakersto help in mobilizing
large elementsof the generalpublic againstall mannerof enemiesof "the
Americanway." Thus HarryA. Jungof thepowerfulNational Clay Products IndustriesAssociationand later the AmericanVigilant Intelligence
Federationcould writeto a potentialsubscriber:
. . . It
We cooperatewithover 30 distinctly
civicand patrioticorganizations.
would takeme too long to relatehow I "put over"thispartof our activities,
namely,"trailingthe Reds." Shouldyou everbe in Chicago,drop in and see
me and I will explain.That it has been a payingproposition
forour organizationgoeswithout
saying....19
And again, Fred R. Marvin,head of theKeymenof America,could forsix
dollars per annum supplypotentialprivateradical hunterswithhis Daily
Data Sheetswhichconveyedthe doingsof the Bolsheviksand parlorpinks
to nervousand apprehensiveindividuals.20
It was Marvin's aim to inspire
the leadershipof such a group as the DAR to draw up and enforcea national "black-list"of undesirablespeakersthat included such public disturbersof the peace as Jane Addams, Sherwood Eddy, James Harvey
Robinson, and William Allen White.21In all, over thirtysuch ultra' RodneyG. Minott,PeerlessPatriots:OrganizedVeteransand the Spiritof Americanism
(Washington,1963), 112 ff.
"
Jung to Henry E. Niles, March 23, 1926, AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion Collection,
MicrofilmReel 333 (New York Public Library). The ACLU files are filledwith material
concerningthe variousprofessionalpatriotgroups.
2' There is a completerun of the Daily Data Sheets in the ACLU Collection,Microfilm
Reel 332.
The D.A.R., An InformalHistory (Washington,
21 On the blacklistsee Martha Strayer,
1958), 133 ff., and Walter Johnson, ed., Selected Letters of William Allen White,
1899-1943 (New York, 1947), 278-83.
68
The Journalof AmericanHistory
patrioticorganizationscame and went in the 1920s, all to a greateror
lesser degree dependentupon the successwith which theycould mobilize
and directpublicintoleranceand intemperance.22
In this contextthe Ku Klux Klan played a unique role. Although it
was geared to financialgain, especiallyas the decade progressedand its
leadershipfell more and more into the hands of thosewho soughtto utilize it solelyforpersonalprofit,it was contentto draw its moneyand supa
portlargelyfromprivatecitizensin small townsand ruralcommunities,
factwhichset it apartfrommostotherintolerancepurveyorsin the 1920s.
This also meant, however, that it operated upon poorly underpinned
grounds,a factgraphicallyillustratedby its rapid collapse well beforethe
onsetof theeconomiccrisisof thedepressionyears.
The successwhich all theseindividualsand groupsachievedwould still
not have been possible if great segmentsof the Americanpublic had not
been highlysusceptibleto the various typesof appeal which theymade.
was neithersimple,nor alwaysrational.It
The sourceof this susceptibility
stemmedfromthe turbulenceof the decade as value patternsunderwent
modificationfromthe impactboth of externalpressuresand internalconflict.When the German sociologistFerdinandT6nnies delineatedin his
social
1926 volume23 betweenwhat he called Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft
suggestedthe root of one of the sourcesof the
he inadvertently
structure,
chronicdistressof the American middle class mind. Tonnies' Gemeinschaftstructurewell describedthat segmentof Americansocietywhich
was basicallyrural or rural oriented,homogeneousin its ethnicand reliand values, a societywhich functionedthroughtraditional
gious structure
status arrangementsand which was characterizedby low mobility.The
membersof such a societyhad always in America foughtoffwhat they
consideredthe deleteriouseffectof foreignvalues endemic in a Gesellschaftstructurewith its urban orientation,secular focus, heterogeneous
ethnicmakeup, its preferencefor orderingsocial and economicrelations
throughcontract,and itstraditionof high mobilitywhichtoo oftenseemed
22 Norman Hapgood, ed., Professional Patriots (New
York, 1927), concentrateson
or so of the major ones, although Fred R. Marvin, Our Governmentand Its
twenty-five
Enemies (New York, 1932), by adding a variety of local auxiliaries, lists fifty-four
organizationsas making up the AmericanCoalition of PatrioticSocieties at the heightof
the movement.
2 Ferdinand Tonnies, Gemeinschaft
und Gesellschaft,translatedand edited by Charles
P. Loomis (East Lansing, 1957). The danger for the historianin utilizingsuch a concept
is well delineatedby Robin M. Williams, Jr.,AmericanSociety (2nd rev. ed., New York,
1960), 482-83. Highly provocativein this contextis the assessmentof value orientation
within a culture in Florence R. Kluckhohn and Fred L. Strodtbeck,Variationsin Value
Orientation(Evanston,1961), 24 ff.,340-44.
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
69
to operate on questionablestandards.In fact,the decade had opened on
values
of superimposedGemeinschaft
thecrestof a successfulcounterattack
in the "noble experiment,"prohibition.But such a victorywas a nervous
one as open defianceand hostilitygrew and as erosionseemedto be occurring elsewherewith the nation succumbingto the excitementand immediacyof a new, generallyurban dispersedpopular culture.Formerly
insulatedvalue orientationsnow were subjected to the lure of new behavioralpatternssuggestedby the radio, the movies,romancemagazines,
and nationalserviceclubs. Moreover,the automobile,and in timethe airplane, were affordingthe physicalmobilitywhich inevitablyspeeded up
actual social contactwith those whose values may earlierhave only been
slightlyknown.24This does not suggestthateitherformof social organization was bound to prevail.What it does suggestis thatwith the pressures
isolatedgroupswere being subjected
to standardize,elementsof formerly
to a new challengeto modifythe intensitywith which theyheld to their
own uniquewaysas theonlyacceptableones.
Those who were thus disturbedaccepted dominantAmerican values.
of thesevalues or the techHowever, theyfound that theirinterpretation
had to unniques thattheyfound acceptablein attainingthemfrequently
dergo more modificationthan they found comfortable.Yet "normalcy,"
as it did a multitudeof simple virtuesalong with carefully
incorporating
contrivedselfishends,provedan acceptablehome formostruralVictorians
and Babbittsalike. Their concern,and oftenit was held with equal intensityby each,was not the system,but thedeviator,who forone reasonor
anotherwas unwillingto acceptthe systemwithits fairlyrigidformulaeas
to how to succeedand who mightsucceed.Here two typesof troublemakers
invariablystood out. The one was made up of those who soughtunjustiof the successsymbolswhich
fiablyto reachthe pinnacleof full attainment
of values
the systemheld out. The otherconsistedof thosewhose hierarchy
methodsforattainingthemwere totallyat odds withthe
and, of necessity,
standardsof the day. In the formergroup one inevitablyfoundthe targets
of Klan antipathy,for example: the ambitiousimmigrant,non-Anglowhose frequenttendencyto "overachieve"led to
Saxon, non-Protestant,
actionsto "keep him in his place." But the quiet "consensus"of the 1920s
backed up the Klan's overtcensuringwith a typeof silentcoercionwhich
was oftenfar more effective,
especiallyif a Jew wanted admissionto the
local countryclub, or a Catholic wantedthe presidencyof the nation.Alunderstandingof this developmentwas given by Judge
24A perceptivecontemporary
Learned Hand in 1930; see Irving Dilliard, Th-eSpirit of Liberty:Papers and Addresses
of LearnedHand (New York, 1960), 66-83.
70
The Journalof AmericanHistory
thoughAmericansmay neverbe fullyreadyfor "the functionally
strategic
convergenceof the standardsby whichconductis evaluated,"to use Robin
Williams' phrase,25
theywere not readyin the 1920s even to considersuch
a possibilityas a desirablenationalobjective.The deviators,althoughsmall
in number,were even more of a threat.Radicals, militantlabor leaders,
otherloud and unreasonablecriticsof the system,and the honestand misguided average citizenswhom theyseemed to be perverting,had to be
clamped into place even more quicklyand thoroughly
and by virtuallyany
means possible. In this many welcomed the aid of any and all selfproclaimedchampionsof 100 percentAmericanism.26
This position constitutedan interestingmodificationof an earlierconfidencein progressthroughbroad public participationand discussion,a
processlong boasted as inherentin Americaninstitutions.
In 1931 Roger
thisto themanifestly
Baldwin attributed
decliningpostwarfaithin democracy.27Others attributedit to the general insecurity
of all Americansand
especiallythe chronicdissatisfaction
with what manyhad been led to believe would be the glorious life of a postwarworld.28Regardlessof the
cause, the effectwas to undercutone of the potentiallyimportantsources
whichmighthave broughtsignificant
relief.Having convincedthemselves
thatdeviatorsfromthe statusquo were potentialBolsheviks,manyAmericans found it a simple step to renouncethe mildesttypeof reformeror
reformprogram,a view in which theyhad the mostthoroughencouragementfromthe self-seeking
patriotsof the decade. An organizationlike the
AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion, the Federal Council of Churches,various
social justice elementswithinspecificreligiousgroups,29explicitsocial reform organizationslike the American Birth Control League, the Consumer'sLeague, the National Child Labor Committee,althoughin reality
'Williams, AmericanSociety,557. In this regardsee JohnP. Roche, The Quest for the
Dream (New York, 1963), 261 ff.
' Such champions sometimesused aggressive campaigns of "Americanization"geared
especiallytowardeducation.See "Programfor PromotingAmericanIdeals," AmericanBar
Association Journal,VIII (Sept. 1922), 587. See also Bessie L. Pierce, Public Opinion
and the Teaching of History in the United States (New York, 1926), and the
same author's Citizens' Organizations and the Civic Training of Youth (New York,
1933).
27 Baldwin, "Mythof Law and Order," 658-59.
2 Walter Lippmann, whose own writings had reflectedintense disillusionmentwith
the "phantompublic," attemptedto analyze the general disillusionmentof the decade in
his volume,A Prefaceto Morals (New York, 1929). Revealing in this regardis the broad
study of Joseph E. Clark, "The American Critique of the Democratic Idea, 1919-1929"
(doctoral dissertation,StanfordUniversity,1958).
29 The MethodistFederationfor Social Service,Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice,
ChurchLeague for IndustrialDemocracy (Episcopal), National Catholic Welfare Council,
and Central Conferenceof AmericanRabbis are leading examples.
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
71
seeking to strengthenthe systemby eliminatingits many defects,found
basic communication
difficult
with a public conditionedto look askanceat
anybutpractitioners
of normalcy.30
Despite thegeneralsimilarity
throughthedecade of the sourcesof broad
scale intolerance,its public manifestationstook a varietyof changing
forms.The early fearsof Bolshevismcould not be exploitedindefinitely
especiallywhen the sins committedin the name of its suppressionwere
revealedand its purveyorswere shown to be using it as a device for unscrupulouspersonal gain. Public indignationtoward the excesses of the
Palmer raids, for example, came quickly following the issuance by the
National Popular GovernmentLeague of the devastatingreporton the
Illegal Practicesof the United States Departmentof Justicein late May
1920.31 Such indignationwas sufficient
to drive those who might have
sought to extend similar techniquesto adopt far more subtle and clandestinemodes of approach,and also to turnhysteria-making
over to the
private professionalpatriot organizations.Thus, William J. Burns, for
example, aftercarefullyinstitutingthe Bridgemanraids of August 1922
turned to Ralph Easley of the National Civic Federation,Richard M.
Whitneyof the AmericanDefense Society,and JosephT. Cashmanof the
National SecurityLeague to arouse the public to a feverpitch over their
implications.32
Yet even Burns's stringran out in 1923-1924 as the misrule of the
Departmentof Justicecould no longerbe ignored33and as antiradicalism
(labor by this timehavingbeen quite thoroughlytamed) was becominga
tiresomebrokenrecord.This is not to say, as SidneyHoward wrote bitterlyat the time,thatcertainbusinessinterestsmightnot findit usefulto
tar theircriticsby turningto the "servicesof radicalismin almostany one
of theirpatrioticclasheswith social liberalismor rambunctious
unions,or,
But for the momentdifferent
even, child labor reformers."34
targetswere
needed.
" Clarke A. Chambers,"Creative Effortin an Age of Normalcy,1913-1933," The Social
WelfareForum (1961), 252-71.
3 See National Popular Government
League, To the AmericanPeople.
32Burns's dealings with Easley are revealed in some detail in the files of the National
Civic Federation. See Easley to Howard E. Coffin,Oct. 9 and 19, 1922, National Civic
Federation Collection (New York Public Library). See also Richard M. Whitney,The
Reds in America (New York, 1923), and Joseph T. Cashman, America Asleep: The
Menace of Radicalism (New York, 1923).
3 American Civil Liberties Union, The Nation-Wide Spy System Centering in the
Department of Justice (New York, 1924); Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone; Whitehead,
F.B.I. Story.
" Sidney Howard, "Our ProfessionalPatriots: V, The New Crusade," New Republic,
XL (Sept. 24, 1924), 93.
72
The Journalof AmericanHistory
For those distressedwith the growingdisruptionof theirGemeinschaft
society,the Ku Klux Klan offeredavenuesforassaultingthosemostsurely
responsible.And while all Americansmightnot have agreedwithC. Lewis
Fowler, editor of the AmericanStandard,that a heinous conspiracyto
destroyAmericawas afoot betweenRoman Catholicismand anti-Christian
surroundingthese groups
the irrationalmythsand stereotyping
Jewry,35
to convincemany theyneeded surveillance,if not represwere sufficient
sion. The Klan also impressedmanywith its pious objectivesof uplifting
the nation'smoralitythroughattackingits immoraldesecrators.Atypicalof
orientedorganizations,or the proservice-and-fellowship
the conservative,
fessionalpatriotgroups,stemmingprimarilyfromoutsidethe urban busithe Klan, nonetheless,for threeor fouryearsin the midness community,
1920s successfullyattackedand insidiouslyexploitedthe shatteringof old
moral standards.Therebythe Klan could resortto directaction against
as it did in the case of JudgeBen "Comprogenitorsof public immorality,
panionateMarriage" Lindseyin Denver.6 Indirectly,it could also inspire
othersto heed the clarion call to expose the evil forceswhich had to be
behind the callous disregardof traditionalways,a call answeredby Calvin
Coolidge, for example, in his public expose of "Reds" in our women's
Thomas L. Blanton's public assault
colleges,87or by Texas representative
on the ACLU whichhe brandedthe "UnAmericanCriminalLicense Union."'38
For thosepatriotsseekingessentiallyto play a broker'srole forpowerful
interests,intriguingnew opportunitieswere opening up in antipacifism
The officialdemise of Burns left the
and the baiting of antimilitarists.
traditionof his officeto the War Department.By thattimethe department
was growingmore apprehensiveover the potentialthreatto its authority
from antiwar sentimentsthat were increasinglyprevalent as disillusion
As earlyas 1923, General Amos Fries,
withthe war experienceintensified.
head of the ChemicalWarfareService,had publiclycommittedthegovernof an
mentto supportPreparednessDay, and by inferencethe continuation
85A typicalAmericanStandard storycaption read: "Ochs (Jew) wants Smith (R.C.):
Owner of 'New York Times' Would Give Wet Papist Life Tenure of New York
Governorship,"Sept. 1, 1925. On the modern Klan and southernracism generallysee:
James W. Vander Zanden, "The SouthernWhite ResistanceMovement to Integration"
Universityof NorthCarolina, 1958).
(doctoral dissertation,
'Ben B. Lindsey and Rube Borough, The Dangerous Life (New York, 1931), 388 ff.
7 Calvin Coolidge, "Enemies of the Republic: Are the 'Reds' Stalking Our College
Women?" The Delineator,XCVIII (June 1921), 4 ff.
' Cong. Record, LXVII, Pt. 2, 1217 if. (Dec. 19, 1925). The storyof the assault was
widely reprinted.HarryA. Jungwrote to 600 trade secretariesurgingsupportfor Blanton
in his fightagainst the ACLU. ACLU Collection,MicrofilmReel 333.
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
73
Mrs.Lucia R.
Frieshad also encouraged
establishment.
expandedmilitary
Maxwell,librarianof the Service,to prepareand circulatethe famed
to studywomen'speace organiza"SpiderWeb Chart,"whichpurported
that
and association,
tionsin theUnitedStatesand show,byramification
theWar
Although
or at leastdeeppink.89
theywereall Bolshevikinspired
and directedFries to inform
orderedretraction,
eventually
Department
was
thatits information
circulated
chart
had
been
personsto whomthe
fellon fewcarefulears.The chartwas stillbeing
theretraction
erroneous,
expose
usedbytheLegionand theDAR in theearly1930sas an authentic
bysucha
werealso purveyed
of theenemiesof America.Suchsentiments
whoin a seriesof lecas GeneralJohnJ.Pershing,
militarist
professional
is seriDefenseSocietywarnedthat"oursituation
turesfortheAmerican
ofnumerous
pacifist
organizations...."40
bytheteachings
ouslycomplicated
withpacifism
doesnotimply,however,
thatearlierhostility
The concern
and otherpublicdisrupters
had ended.
towardradicals,socialreformers,
the development
of pacifismas a termof opprobrium
On the contrary,
to thelargeseriesof undesirable
perwas merelyaddinganotherliability
traitsthattheseenemiesof Americaweresupposedto possess,one
sonality
when public apprehensions
of
whichcould be stressedmore strongly
as
public
episodes
deflated.
Certainly explosive
wererelatively
radicalism
the furoroverNew York City's
developed-thePassaicTextileStrike,41
theuse of anypublicbuilding
High School,and byimplication
Stuyvesant
the ColoradoMine War of late
as a publicforumeven for liberals,42
of Saccoand Vanzetti,44
-the "Reds"
1927,43and aboveall theexecution
for
the
episodesand for
and theirdupeswereheldlargelyto blame,both
"Howard, "Our ProfessionalPatriots," 94. Howard quotes Fries as referringto "the
insidious pacifist,who is more to be fearedthan the man with the torch,gun or sword."
"0ACLU Collection, MicrofilmReel 331, contains pamphlet reprintsof a number of
Pershing'spublic addresses.
4' The material on Passaic is voluminous. See especially Albert Weisbord, Passaic
(Chicago, 1926); Mary Heaton Vorse, The Passaic Textile Strike (New York, 1927);
Joseph Freeman,An American Testament (New York, 1936), 392 ff.; AmericanLabor
Year Book, 1927 (New York, 1927), 105 ff.,156.
4'The Annual Report of the American Civil Liberties Union for 1927, Free Speech,
1926 (New York, 1927), referredto the ACLU's strugglewith the New York City School
Board in the Stuyvesantcase as the "most important'free speech fight'of the year." This
strugglerevealed the existenceof a "blacklist" against individualswhose opinions did not
conformto thoseof board members.
"American Civil LibertiesUnion, The War on Colorado Miners (New York, 1928);
Donald J. McClurg, "The Colorado Coal Strikeof 1927: Tactical Leadershipof the IfW,"
Labor History, IV (Winter 1963), 68-92; Dowell, "Criminal SyndicalismLegislation,"
806 if.; The Advance (New York), Dec. 2, 16, 27, 1929.
4 See especially G. Louis Joughinand Edmund M. Morgan, The Legacy of Sacco and
Vanzetti (New York, 1948), and FrancisRussell, Tragedyin Dedham (New York, 1962).
74
of American
The Journal
History
they
anynumberof peopletakinga remotely
liberalviewon thequestions
hometo a
raised.However,thedangersof suchpeoplecouldbe brought
farmorediversified
audienceif one talkedof the"wholePacifist-Radicalin America[which]is foreign
in itsconception,
movement
if
Communist
to
notactually
underforeign
influence,
direction
andcontrol,"45
orreferred
sucha leaderas RogerBaldwinas a "slacker,radical,draftevader,and
ex-convict."46
Leavenworth
And the mosteffective
agentsof intolerance
camemoreand moreto
of theKlan was over.The enactment
havethisfocus.By 1925,theheyday
strife(endemicin theorder
of theNationalOriginsActin 1924,internal
all undercutprior
fromits beginnings),and burgeoningprosperity,
for1927,theAmerican
CivilLiberties
In itsannualreport
Union
strength.
of intolerance
in thecountry
thattheprincipalpurveyors
were
announced
the AmericanLegion,and professional
theWar Department,
patriotsocieties.It declaredthattheAmericanLegionhad by then"replacedthe
and repression
in thecounKlan as themostactiveagencyof intolerance
criticized
was editorially
try."47
The report
byJosephPulitzer's
liberalNew
YorkWorldforsucha valuejudgment,
stating:"Withscoresof different
in scoresof different
ways,it is a
organizations
seekingto curtailliberty
To
wisemanwhocan saythatone is moreactivethananyof theothers."48
whichForrest
pointBailey,Directorof theACLU, responded
bymerely
of all thestateunitsreporting
to naing out thatthiswas theconsensus
fortheyear.49
tionalheadquarters
to explaintheeffect
It is notthepurposeof thispaperto attempt
of the
depression
upon whathad becomefairlystandard
patterns
of intolerance
certaincleardevelopments
can be
and intolerance-making.
Nonetheless,
On one hand,the professional
recognized.
patriotsquicklyfoundtheir
traditional
sourcesofincomedrying
for
up.The NationalCivicFederation,
of suchgroups,was reducedto
one of thebellwethers
example,previously
thatitsactivities
suchbelt-tightening
had
by 1930 and theyearsfollowing
Othercomparable
to be cutto virtualineffectiveness.50
groupscollapsed
Fred R. Marvin,quoted in Marcus Duffield,King Legion (New York, 1931), 177-78.
'This was the standardindictmentof Baldwin by his enemies throughoutthe decade.
The quote here is by Col. Leroy F. Smithof the BetterAmericaFederationof Los Angeles
in an "expose" entitled: The American Civil Liherties Union: Its Mental Processes,Its
Chums, Its Program and Purpose (Los Angeles, 1930), 1. On the early activitiesof the
Federation see Edwin Layton, "The Better America Federation: A Case Study of Superpatriotism,"PacificHistoricalReview,XXX (May 1961), 137-47.
Free Speech, 1926, p. 2.
4 Editorial, "The American Civil LibertiesUnion," New York World, May 17, 1927,
p. 12.
49 Letterscolumn,ihid.,May 18, 1927, p. 12.
60 Prior to 1929 the organization'ssubversiveactivitiesprogramwas lavishlysupported.
45
Sourcesand Natureof Intolerance
75
Faced withsimilarproblemsthe AmericanLegion and the
completely.
backin theareaof
to do someof theircutting
DAR foundit expedient
no longerseemeda highlymeaningful
Pacifist-baiting
activity.
antiradical
topublicproblems.
response
orrelevant
stepped
thatmanybusinesses
On theotherhand,vastevidencesuggests
who had
purveyors
Desertingtheintolerance
activity.
up theirantiradical
and discrediting
of subtlyundermining
thefunction
performed
formerly
to spendtheirmoneyfordirectactionin
theynowpreferred
theircritics,
and arms.Thus
guards,laborspies,strikebreakers,
theformof company
the AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion could reporta vast increasein the
the
yearsandgenerally
of casesit receivedin theearlydepression
number
sincethedaysof
in thecountry
of individualliberties
suppression
greatest
and
of policebrutality
thenumberof instances
theRed scare.Similarly,
powerwerewellknown.51
abuseof localgovernmental
flagrant
consistent
cycles
and internally
If one is to talkin termsof meaningful
an era endsin 1929-1930.By thistime,to defend
of publicintolerance,
sincea casual
was to makeoneselfludicrous,
thestatusquo as unassailable
whenRepresentaSignificantly,
ofitsdefects.
glancerevealedthemagnitude
inlauncheda seriesof congressional
tive HamiltonFish auspiciously
to throwtheblameforthedepression
in 1930 in an attempt
vestigations
on domestic"Reds,"52the resultsof his crusadewereto produceeither
publicantipathy.
orlarge-scale
publicapathy
large-scale
publicrecordof the 1920s thenwould seemto reveal
The imperfect
of syndromes
factorsproduceda concatenation
that manyinterwoven
fertileseedbedbothforintolerance
a peculiarly
whichmadethecountry
includedthetensions
of
Theseundoubtedly
and itsshrewdmanipulation.
of wealth,enhanced
grosslyunequal distribution
economicdynamism,
it producedbothin theurbanareaand
withthedislocation
urbanization
withdemocracy,
virulent
disillusionment
grounds,
in its ruralrecruitment
theincreasingly
andcontradictory
concerning
assumptions
andtheconfusing
warexperience.
unpopular
In that year the only contributionso earmarkedwas $1,000 fromJohn Hays Hammond.
In 1930 the only contributionwas $5,000 fromSamuel Insull. By 1931 the amounthad
been reduced to $138, and in 1932, 1933, and 1934 there were no entries of money
receivedfor that purpose. National Civic FederationReceiptBook, National Civic Federation Collection.
of the findingsof the WickershamCommission,Ernest
51 See the popular summarization
of the Law (New
J. Hopkins, Our Lawless Police: A Study of the UnlawfulEnforcement
York, 1931).
52See footnote 13. The Hearings of the so-called Fish committeewere published in
nineteenvolumes. The hearingswere responsiblefor a large "Deport the Reds," rally in
Carnegie Hall on Jan. 10, 1931. A good cross section of national newspaperopinion on
the rally (which was primarilyhostile) is in the ACLU Collection,MicrofilmReel 464.
76
of American
History
The Journal
A mootquestionstillexistsas to whethermorepreciseresultscould
not have beenreachedbyplacingheavierrelianceon socialscience.Unatwereavailableorifscientific
ifpublicopinionpollinformation
doubtedly
the
ofpublicattitudes,
a variety
hadbeenmadeatthetimetoquantify
tempts
in a more
ourselves
steeping
Certainly
recordwouldbe moreapproachable.
analysisof presentand futureeventsenhancesthe undersophisticated
a more
standingof social and humanprocessesin generaland affords
the
of humanbehaviorin a past context.Certainly
preciseappreciation
asking
is currently
socialresearcher
whichtheempirical
typesof questions
if he failsto ask
is derelict
can be askedof thatdecadeand thehistorian
information
essential
them.Yet the basic problemis stillhow to gain
to obtain.The social sciencereor impossible
now lackingand difficult
that
is notmuchhelphere.In fact,he operateson theassumption
searcher
in availableto permitarrivalat quantitative
information
unlesssufficient
answers,littleof valuecan be producedand one's energiesare wastedin
theeffort.
thatalmostall important
on the assumption
proceeding
The historian,
and
becauseof theirsubtleimplications
precisely
questionsare important
in
and ambivalences-because
ambiguities,
theircomplexities,
overtones,
must
to quantitative
answers-then
otherwords,theyare notsusceptible
way. He mustapproachincomplete
plod on his doggedand imperfect
butimpressionistically
andeclectically,
notonlysemi-analytically,
materials
to devisehisownwaysto evaluatea greatdiverevenat timesattempting
due
feelsworthconsidering
scarcely
gencyof datawhichthesocialscientist
analysis.But the
to quantitative
and unsuitability
to its impreciseness
is madeto assessall the
likesto feelthatonlyif seriousattempt
historian
can anything
redata, regardlessof its natureor its incompleteness,
semblingpast realitypossiblybe attained.And as a humanistviewing
humanphenomena,even if in so imprecisea fashion,the
essentially
Jr.,has
M. Schlesinger,
also likesto feelthathe may,as Arthur
historian
which
aboutbothindividualand socialexperience
"yieldtruths
suggested,
socialresearch
byitselfcouldneverreach."53
quantitative
5 Arthur M. Schlesinger,Jr., "The Humanist Looks at Empirical Social Research,"
AmericanSociological Review,XXVII (Dec. 1962), 771.