Here are some notes on two books from the Americanist library, published by the John Birch Society.
A. Robert H. Montgomery. Sacco-Vanzetti: The Murder and the Myth. Western Islands, 1965.
Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants and anarchists, who were convicted of murder in the 1920’s and executed by the state of Massachusetts. Governor Michael Dukakis later pardoned them to clear their name.
I first learned about Sacco and Vanzetti as a junior in high school. We were learning about modern American history, and the spiel that we got was that Sacco and Vanzetti were wrongly convicted and were the victims of anti-immigrant and anti-radical prejudice.
I first learned of this book when I was browsing at my local public library. I noticed that this book was published by Devin-Adair, which published conservative books, including a compilation of Ronald Reagan’s speeches that I read in elementary school. I put this book on my mental shelf, recognizing it as a different perspective from the spiel that I got in my high school history class. This book would argue that Sacco and Vanzetti indeed were guilty of murder.
Over two decades later, I finally read this book! I doubt I would have stuck with it as a teenager, but, as an adult, I can read with more discipline and understanding.
The book’s author, Robert Montgomery, was an attorney. His book attempts to accomplish four tasks. First, Montgomery presents evidence that, in his mind, points to the guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti. There is the ballistics evidence: that the bullet was rare and matched the bullet in the gun. There were also witnesses, who saw Sacco and Vanzetti in the area of the murder, contrary to their stated alibi. And, according to Montgomery, Sacco and Vanzetti simply acted guilty, as if they were trying to cover up the murder. There is also evidence that they sought to return to Italy shortly after the murder occurred.
Second, Montgomery seeks to refute the criticisms of the trial. As far as Montgomery is concerned, the trial was fair and above board. The judge allowed considerations in the trial that would help Sacco and Vanzetti. The jurors, contrary to allegations, were not anti-immigrant bigots. Some were rather cosmopolitan and had even been to Italy, appreciating Italian customs and people. The allegations of salient impropriety and prejudice at the trial are false. They contradict what occurred in the case, according to records; they were impossible in Massachusetts, according to established legal protocol. The radicalism of Sacco and Vanzetti was not mentioned by the prosecution at the trial. And, if the people making the allegations of impropriety indeed saw what they did, why did they not report that to the authorities soon after it occurred, rather than waiting decades? Far from criticizing the conduct of the trial’s prosecutors and judge, Montgomery points to the flaws of the defense and the devotees of Sacco and Vanzetti. They intimidated witnesses, promised favors to influence testimony, and bullied and physically threatened those conducting the trial.
Third, Montgomery attempts to refute the argument that somebody else, particularly members of a prominent gang, committed the murder. The gangsters appeared to know nothing about it, and the gang itself was not murderous, in a mafia sense. And, fourth, on a lesser note, Montgomery comments on the attempts to manipulate the trial for political purposes. Montgomery sees this as part of a Communist plot, designed to treat Sacco and Vanzetti as poster-children for revolution.
Montgomery is somewhat nebulous about the motive behind the murder. He is open to the possibility that they committed the robbery to raise money for the revolution, but he is uncertain.
Just sharing with my impressions right now, I will say four things. First, just going with what Montgomery presents, there were aspects of the trial that strike me as fishy. When there finally was a line-up, the other people in the line did not remotely resemble Sacco and Vanzetti. Witnesses would pick the only one with a mustache, since the person they saw at the murder scene had a mustache. Second, Montgomery seems to downplay or massage details that run contrary to his position. For example, against the charge that there was massive anti-red hysteria, Montgomery notes that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists, not communists. Does that really matter, though? They were revolutionaries, and that would have been controversial in the 1920’s. Montgomery seeks to refute the idea that Sacco and Vanzetti appeared evasive because they were trying to conceal their radicalism from the police, as opposed to covering up a murder. Montgomery denies that the police asked them about their radicalism, even though, in the interview that he quotes, they briefly did. Third, I question whether Sacco and Vanzetti should have been executed, based on the evidence that was presented at the trial. The evidence strikes me as circumstantial. Some of Montgomery’s ballistics arguments are based on findings after the conviction. And, in critiquing witnesses who placed Sacco and Vanzetti away from the scene of the crime, Montgomery questions whether they would have remembered such details so long after the event. Why not, though, since the days they recalled were close to the holidays, meaning they could have stood out more in their memories? Fourth, on a positive note, Montgomery is effective in refuting the accusation that the jurors and the judge were irrational bigots.
The above are merely my impressions, and my summary above is far from comprehensive. Were I to reread the book, Montgomery’s arguments might make more sense to me, and I might remember details that are currently vague in my mind. The book, overall, is an engaging read. Montgomery is judicious in his presentation of considerations. Of particular interest were the political beliefs of Sacco and Vanzetti: they were anarchists—-like libertarians—-and they explained why they liked Italy more than the United States.
B. Blair Coan. The Red Web. Western Islands, 1969.
This book was originally published in 1925. Primarily, it is a defense of Harry Daugherty, who served as Attorney General under Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Daugherty left the post due to accusations of corruption. For Coan, Daugherty was framed. The Communists wanted to take Daugherty down because Daugherty went after them and their web. The Senators who conducted the investigation, particularly Burton Wheeler, had ties to radicals, along with corruption problems of their own. One of the key witnesses to Daugherty’s corruption, the wife of someone Daugherty mentored, had personal animus towards Daugherty, since Daugherty sought to deny her the money of her husband after the husband’s death. And there were people who claimed that they were approached by people who wanted to take down Daugherty.
Coan goes into the Red Web. The red web, according to Coan, was making advancements in Mexico, close to setting up a Communist dictatorship in America’s backyard. Communists and socialists are more allied with each other than is commonly thought. Their divisions are largely rooted in conflicts over power and prestige within the movement, not overall goals. The Red Web also sought to instigate a strike against the railroads so as to make the railroad into a paragon of collectivism, bringing America closer to Communism. In Coan’s telling, Woodrow Wilson was naive about Communism, trying to play nice with them and to win them over with kindness. By contrast, his Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, was effective in combating the Communists, as was Harry Daugherty.
As a child, I read a book by James Draper and Forrest Watson, entitled If the Foundations Be Destroyed. The book was essentially a conservative revisionist history. It defended Cortez and the Puritans, while criticizing FDR. In criticizing Wilson, Draper and Watson depicted Wilson as an authoritarian, who undermined the First Amendment by putting socialist Eugene Debs in jail. Warren Harding, by contrast, released Debs from prison. That was a surprising aspect of the book: criticizing Wilson for being too tough on leftism. Coan defends Harding on this this by saying that the Red Web actually preferred for Debs to remain in jail, since that made Debs a martyr for the cause.
I’ll stop here.
A. Robert H. Montgomery. Sacco-Vanzetti: The Murder and the Myth. Western Islands, 1965.
Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants and anarchists, who were convicted of murder in the 1920’s and executed by the state of Massachusetts. Governor Michael Dukakis later pardoned them to clear their name.
I first learned about Sacco and Vanzetti as a junior in high school. We were learning about modern American history, and the spiel that we got was that Sacco and Vanzetti were wrongly convicted and were the victims of anti-immigrant and anti-radical prejudice.
I first learned of this book when I was browsing at my local public library. I noticed that this book was published by Devin-Adair, which published conservative books, including a compilation of Ronald Reagan’s speeches that I read in elementary school. I put this book on my mental shelf, recognizing it as a different perspective from the spiel that I got in my high school history class. This book would argue that Sacco and Vanzetti indeed were guilty of murder.
Over two decades later, I finally read this book! I doubt I would have stuck with it as a teenager, but, as an adult, I can read with more discipline and understanding.
The book’s author, Robert Montgomery, was an attorney. His book attempts to accomplish four tasks. First, Montgomery presents evidence that, in his mind, points to the guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti. There is the ballistics evidence: that the bullet was rare and matched the bullet in the gun. There were also witnesses, who saw Sacco and Vanzetti in the area of the murder, contrary to their stated alibi. And, according to Montgomery, Sacco and Vanzetti simply acted guilty, as if they were trying to cover up the murder. There is also evidence that they sought to return to Italy shortly after the murder occurred.
Second, Montgomery seeks to refute the criticisms of the trial. As far as Montgomery is concerned, the trial was fair and above board. The judge allowed considerations in the trial that would help Sacco and Vanzetti. The jurors, contrary to allegations, were not anti-immigrant bigots. Some were rather cosmopolitan and had even been to Italy, appreciating Italian customs and people. The allegations of salient impropriety and prejudice at the trial are false. They contradict what occurred in the case, according to records; they were impossible in Massachusetts, according to established legal protocol. The radicalism of Sacco and Vanzetti was not mentioned by the prosecution at the trial. And, if the people making the allegations of impropriety indeed saw what they did, why did they not report that to the authorities soon after it occurred, rather than waiting decades? Far from criticizing the conduct of the trial’s prosecutors and judge, Montgomery points to the flaws of the defense and the devotees of Sacco and Vanzetti. They intimidated witnesses, promised favors to influence testimony, and bullied and physically threatened those conducting the trial.
Third, Montgomery attempts to refute the argument that somebody else, particularly members of a prominent gang, committed the murder. The gangsters appeared to know nothing about it, and the gang itself was not murderous, in a mafia sense. And, fourth, on a lesser note, Montgomery comments on the attempts to manipulate the trial for political purposes. Montgomery sees this as part of a Communist plot, designed to treat Sacco and Vanzetti as poster-children for revolution.
Montgomery is somewhat nebulous about the motive behind the murder. He is open to the possibility that they committed the robbery to raise money for the revolution, but he is uncertain.
Just sharing with my impressions right now, I will say four things. First, just going with what Montgomery presents, there were aspects of the trial that strike me as fishy. When there finally was a line-up, the other people in the line did not remotely resemble Sacco and Vanzetti. Witnesses would pick the only one with a mustache, since the person they saw at the murder scene had a mustache. Second, Montgomery seems to downplay or massage details that run contrary to his position. For example, against the charge that there was massive anti-red hysteria, Montgomery notes that Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists, not communists. Does that really matter, though? They were revolutionaries, and that would have been controversial in the 1920’s. Montgomery seeks to refute the idea that Sacco and Vanzetti appeared evasive because they were trying to conceal their radicalism from the police, as opposed to covering up a murder. Montgomery denies that the police asked them about their radicalism, even though, in the interview that he quotes, they briefly did. Third, I question whether Sacco and Vanzetti should have been executed, based on the evidence that was presented at the trial. The evidence strikes me as circumstantial. Some of Montgomery’s ballistics arguments are based on findings after the conviction. And, in critiquing witnesses who placed Sacco and Vanzetti away from the scene of the crime, Montgomery questions whether they would have remembered such details so long after the event. Why not, though, since the days they recalled were close to the holidays, meaning they could have stood out more in their memories? Fourth, on a positive note, Montgomery is effective in refuting the accusation that the jurors and the judge were irrational bigots.
The above are merely my impressions, and my summary above is far from comprehensive. Were I to reread the book, Montgomery’s arguments might make more sense to me, and I might remember details that are currently vague in my mind. The book, overall, is an engaging read. Montgomery is judicious in his presentation of considerations. Of particular interest were the political beliefs of Sacco and Vanzetti: they were anarchists—-like libertarians—-and they explained why they liked Italy more than the United States.
B. Blair Coan. The Red Web. Western Islands, 1969.
This book was originally published in 1925. Primarily, it is a defense of Harry Daugherty, who served as Attorney General under Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Daugherty left the post due to accusations of corruption. For Coan, Daugherty was framed. The Communists wanted to take Daugherty down because Daugherty went after them and their web. The Senators who conducted the investigation, particularly Burton Wheeler, had ties to radicals, along with corruption problems of their own. One of the key witnesses to Daugherty’s corruption, the wife of someone Daugherty mentored, had personal animus towards Daugherty, since Daugherty sought to deny her the money of her husband after the husband’s death. And there were people who claimed that they were approached by people who wanted to take down Daugherty.
Coan goes into the Red Web. The red web, according to Coan, was making advancements in Mexico, close to setting up a Communist dictatorship in America’s backyard. Communists and socialists are more allied with each other than is commonly thought. Their divisions are largely rooted in conflicts over power and prestige within the movement, not overall goals. The Red Web also sought to instigate a strike against the railroads so as to make the railroad into a paragon of collectivism, bringing America closer to Communism. In Coan’s telling, Woodrow Wilson was naive about Communism, trying to play nice with them and to win them over with kindness. By contrast, his Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, was effective in combating the Communists, as was Harry Daugherty.
As a child, I read a book by James Draper and Forrest Watson, entitled If the Foundations Be Destroyed. The book was essentially a conservative revisionist history. It defended Cortez and the Puritans, while criticizing FDR. In criticizing Wilson, Draper and Watson depicted Wilson as an authoritarian, who undermined the First Amendment by putting socialist Eugene Debs in jail. Warren Harding, by contrast, released Debs from prison. That was a surprising aspect of the book: criticizing Wilson for being too tough on leftism. Coan defends Harding on this this by saying that the Red Web actually preferred for Debs to remain in jail, since that made Debs a martyr for the cause.
I’ll stop here.