Liberals, Labor, and the Left: Henry Wallace and the 1948 Progressive Party Campaign in Utah
2022; University of Illinois Press; Volume: 90; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5406/26428652.90.1.02
ISSN2642-8652
Autores Tópico(s)Canadian Identity and History
ResumoOn December 29, 1947, former vice president Henry A. Wallace announced that he would enter the coming presidential race as an independent—the culmination of a series of events that began when Wallace was denied re-nomination in 1944. After that defeat, FDR had appointed him secretary of commerce as a consolation, and after Roosevelt's death many liberals—but not all—considered him the leader of the New Deal legacy. Over the next three years, Wallace became increasingly critical of the foreign policy of Roosevelt's successor Harry Truman, leading to Wallace's eventual dismissal from the cabinet. Many then encouraged him to challenge Truman in the Democratic primaries; others suggested that he take advantage of the independent route. Among them, two groups, both nationally and in Utah, played a central role promoting Wallace's independent candidacy—the Progressive Citizens of America (PCA) and the International Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union (IMMSWU).1 PCA was organized in December 1946 with ties to organized labor. It became a counteracting force to the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) founded a month later, and the major organization of anti-communist liberals. While these two groups generally agreed on domestic issues, they were at odds over the Truman Doctrine, Communist influence in politics and unions, and Wallace's candidacy. The Communist Party was a third group instrumental in promoting Wallace and, ultimately, in creating a new party. In the last effort of their “popular front” approach tracing back to the New Deal, Communists and their allies provided grassroots organizational support for Wallace. Ultimately, the decision proved to be disastrous to the Communists and their labor allies, while also weakening the broad appeal of Wallace and the Progressive campaign.2Wallace proclaimed that “a new political alignment” was necessary because “everywhere . . . today I find confusion, uncertainty and fear. The people do not ask ‘Will there be another war? – but when will the war come? They do not ask ‘Will there be another depression? – but ‘When will the depression start?’”3 He invited those who agreed with him to join with “the forces of peace, progress and prosperity” as part of a “Gideon's Army, small in number, powerful in conviction, ready for action.” Wallace concluded his remarks: “We face the future unfettered by any principle but the general welfare. We owe no allegiance to any group which does not serve that welfare. By God's grace, the people's peace will usher in the century of the common man.”4 A month later, Idaho Democratic Senator Glen Taylor agreed to be his vice-presidential nominee. Support for Wallace was at its highest at this point. Thousands of Americans—in union halls, on college campuses, and among critics of Truman's foreign policy—flocked to his banner, and Democrats, who doubted he could win, were worried about his impact in the election. Wallace campaigned for civil rights, desegregation, social justice, and economic security, all under the cloud of nuclear war.Much of the scholarly scrutiny over Henry Wallace's candidacy for president has focused on the extent of communist influence in the campaign.5 This article examines the efforts for Henry Wallace and the Progressive party in Utah. The activity of and issues facing the campaign in Utah were the same as they were elsewhere in the country, including communist involvement, even as certain uniquely Utah factors were at play. In that sense, Utah serves as a microcosm of what happened nationally. I also focus on the Utah Progressive Party's leadership and supporters: what drew them to the Progressive cause, how they fared at the polls, and what happened to the Utah party and its key figures after the 1948 election. I follow Richard Hofstadter's suggestion that political historians should “try to tell what people thought they were doing in their political activity—that is what they thought they were either conserving or reforming or constructing.”6The immediate reaction in Utah to Wallace's decision to run was mixed. As was true nationally, some Utah liberals were unsure how to proceed. Former Utah PCA chair George S. Ballif said that while Wallace was a “great guy,” he would not “follow him into a third party” and “lessen the liberal movement in the Democratic party.”7 Republicans “professed glee” at Wallace's decision, and state chair Vernon Romney said the move enhanced an “already assured” Republican victory. At the same time, Democratic chair Clinton Vernon told the press that while the former vice president had “a following in Utah,” he doubted that the Wallace candidacy would gain much support, because “there are quite a few Democrats friendly to Wallace who will not indorse the third party movement.” Still, he admitted that the new party might threaten the Democrats in 1948.8Indeed, Wallace's potential to hurt the Democrats was a factor in Utah as it was elsewhere. Utah Representative Walter K. Granger commented that Wallace was “a sincere man living in the clouds,” and that his potential candidacy was being used “by some groups who seek to promote confusion and chaos rather than the public welfare.” Yet Granger admitted that “some fine and sincere people will support him,” especially on issues like the draft and peace. Granger's views received editorial support from the Salt Lake Tribune, which claimed that many Wallace backers consisted of “misty eyed persons who have a weakness for admiring anyone who proclaims himself a liberal fighting for the masses,” while other more “responsible” liberals were “already beginning to wonder” about the wisdom of such an effort.9Louise Douglas, Utah Progressive Citizens of America secretary, responded that she was shocked the Tribune would “authorize publication of a statement losing sight of current political . . . life and imputing to Mr. Wallace a political narrative that is alien to his thought and action,” inferring that Wallace had become “a pawn or a dupe of unworthy elements.” Such an argument, Douglas asserted, was a “poisoned arrow borrowed from the propaganda arsenal of the enemies of the people.” She also offered the widely-held view of many liberals on the nature of the Democratic Party at the time, noting that because on several issues, it was just a “carbon copy” of the Republicans, “the third-party movement will bring to the polls the decisive liberal vote and therefore it will help rather than hurt ‘progressive’ candidates regardless of party.” Implicit in this view was a belief that under Truman the Democrats had abandoned the liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt.10The roots of the PCA in Utah stretch back to July 1945, when former Minnesota governor and senator Elmer A. Benson visited Utah on behalf of the National Citizens Political Action Committee. Benson, chair of the NCPAC executive council, was accompanied on the two-day visit by vice chair C. B. “Beanie” Baldwin—a close aide to Wallace—and chief field officer Orville E. Olson. Their focus was building support within Utah labor for the Democratic Party generally, and Truman specifically. After meeting with Utah governor Herbert B. Maw and Utah Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) president Clarence Palmer, the group attended a banquet with a large group of Democratic Party and labor officials, at which Benson lauded Utah's congressional delegation, telling the press he was seeking to gain an understanding of Utah's “reconversion problems and postwar plans.” Benson focused on building support within Utah labor for the Democratic Party generally and Truman specifically. A month later, Baldwin suggested to Palmer that they were “very anxious to have a State Citizens PAC formed in Utah as soon as possible” to strengthen labor and progressive forces in the state. Baldwin believed “from a public relations standpoint it will be better to have this committee sponsored by other than the CIO leadership,” while recognizing that labor would “participate actively” in the effort.11Another important step involved the Utah Independent Citizens Committee (UICC), formed in 1946 and chaired by Salt Lake City lawyer Gordon Hoxsie. The UICC favored national “legislation forbidding discrimination against minority groups, guaranteeing labor's right to bargain collectively, and developing atomic energy under the direction of the United Nations.” On the state level, it advocated for rent control and repealing Utah's sales tax. Over the next few months UICC sponsored several public forums and endorsed a number of candidates. Ultimately, they allied with the National Citizens Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and became the nucleus for a Utah PCA chapter, which was organized in April 1947, with M. I. Thompson as temporary chair.12 Utah PCA sought to “fight inflation, discriminatory labor practices, the impoverishment of the farm, and for a lasting peace throughout the world.” Within a few days, Utah PCA made plans for Wallace to speak in Utah in May under their auspices, but ultimately the speech was cancelled.13 Wallace did visit Utah in May 1947, when he appeared at a brief stopover at the Salt Lake City airport. Wallace told reporters he feared the world was being divided into hostile camps by Truman's policies. He also addressed his political future, noting he had found “many evidences of growing liberalism” among the large audiences that he had encountered on his speaking tour in California and the Pacific Northwest. When asked if there would be a third party in 1948, he replied though “impossible to answer,” he believed if “the Democratic party clearly becomes a war party” then “a third . . . liberal party next year” was likely. That same day, the Salt Lake Tribune editorialized that if Wallace became “the nominee of a third party,” it would be supported by “the undemocratic element” in the United States and the Soviets.14In July George S. Ballif, judge of Utah's Fourth Judicial District, became chair of the Utah PCA chapter. Other officers were F. E. Shippe, vice chair; M. I. Thompson, treasurer; and, Louise Douglas, secretary. They urged Utahns to join PCA because it was “a force resisting fascist tendencies, [and] the drift toward war and in to depression.” Later, after Ballif stepped down, Dr. James E. P. Toman, assistant professor of physiology at the University of Utah, assumed the post. In January 1948, Utah's PCA endorsed Wallace and selected Betty Nickerson to attend the national PCA conference in Chicago that month. Nickerson was among some five hundred delegates from twenty-six states to participate and hear from Wallace. At the conclusion PCA voted to join with other “like-minded groups” to support Wallace, which allowed state PCA affiliates to join Wallace for President groups.15From the beginning Wallace and his new party were widely accused of being influenced—even controlled—by Communists, primarily because the party endorsed him and did not field its own ticket. On December 30, 1947, the Deseret News ran a cartoon titled “The Papers Are Full of What Happens to People Who Pick Up Hitchhikers.” It pictured a buck-toothed Wallace in a jalopy labeled “Henry's Third Party” saying, “Sure! Hop in!” to a long-haired figure resembling a wolf, signifying American Communists. Similar images and sentiments would mark the Utah press in subsequent months.16Despite these caricatures, both Wallace and Taylor were well known in Utah and occasionally visited the state. Utah Democrats had supported Wallace's winning bid for vice president in 1940 and his losing effort at the 1944 convention.17 While divided between a conservative and a liberal wing, most Utah Democrats fell into the latter. They had been strongly supportive of Roosevelt and remained closely tied to the state's labor movement. These factors drew them to Wallace, though, increasingly, the charges of Communist influence on him and his candidacy resonated with some.18Glen Taylor was even better known to Utahns. He had visited the state before his political career as leader of the “Glendora Players,” a traveling theatrical company popular in Ogden and Salt Lake City that included his wife, Dora, and son, Arod (Dora spelled backwards). As the Salt Lake Telegram noted, he was a “colorful Democrat who has successfully roped cows, sung on the radio, and worked sheet metal for a living.”19 After losing Idaho races for US Congress in 1938 and the US Senate in 1940 and 1942, while campaigning in cowboy garb, Taylor ran a successful Senate run in 1944 that was covered in the Utah press.20 By then he had dropped the western attire for a business suit.During the 1946 midterm elections, Taylor keynoted the Utah Democratic convention held at Saltair, delivering a “stemwinder” directed against “big business, the ‘reactionary majority’ in congress, the ‘controlled press,’ and demagogues who seek to divide labor, farmers, and small businessmen.’” The Democratic Party, he stated, “must remain true to the liberal ideals” of Roosevelt, because there was a “fundamental difference” in the economic philosophy of the two parties. The Republicans, he said, “pour in at the top on the theory that the crumbs will fall below. The Democratic approach is to support the bottom and this in turn starts the wheels throughout the economic structure.” Taylor concluded with his belief “that the prosperity of the nation is founded on those who work for wages and the fate of all the little people—laborers, farmers, and business—are tied up in the same bundle.”21Later that year, Taylor, dubbed “Idaho's Dynamic Democrat,” appeared at campaign rallies in Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Price. At the Ogden event, broadcast on local radio station KLO, Taylor pushed back on the Republicans’ insistence “that the issue of the day is Americanism vs. Communism” and that everyone who worked for a “square deal” for workers and farmers was a Communist. As he noted, “To hear the Republicans talk everybody in this room tonight is a Communist, and yet we know that we are just good American citizens who insist that the breaks in life should be shared.”22Some early support existed for Wallace among University of Utah students. Roy E. Tremayne, a liberal political science senior, wrote in the Utah Daily Chronicle that Wallace's entry into the race was the “most significant political development of 1947.” Tremayne suggested the formation of a Wallace For President club at the school, declaring that Wallace: has “become the great standard bearer of the FDR brand of liberalism. To cast a vote for Wallace is same as casting a vote for Roosevelt.” Wallace, Tremayne predicted, would keep America “on an even keel.”23A move to organize Students for Wallace began in January, part of similar efforts in other states and colleges.24 The organizers, including the temporary chair of Students for Wallace, Adele Ernstrom, were members of the campus Young PCA (YPCA) chapter. Writing in the Daily Utah Chronicle, Don Wahlquist reported that it had been asserted that the “use of the name PCA would not be associated with the movement to support Wallace,” because PCA had been labeled in some press reports as a “Communist-supported organization.” The next day, Ernstrom refuted the account, noting that “YPCA members . . . did not feel there was a stigma to PCA sponsorship.” While the issue of Communist influence was troubling to some, many on the left saw it as red-baiting. As Ernstrom reflected “the Communists supported the New Deal with which Wallace was of course associated. I think there was an understanding that red-baiting was an attack on what the New Deal had stood for. In other words, the Wallace candidacy represented a tradition that was coming under attack.”25Students for Wallace became a formal organization at a February meeting held off campus at the Campus Christian Center. The group encouraged students to affiliate saying, “If you don't want to be an apple seller with a Ph.D. / If you don't want to be a veteran of World War III,” you should be for Wallace.26 Led by Tremayne, Ernstrom, Leone Paradise, Bettye Berliner, and Jean Langdorf, the group filed the necessary paperwork with the school's Committee on Student Organizations. A copy of the organization's constitution, by-laws, and proposed officers was required, as was a list of affiliated students. The goals of Students for Wallace were twofold: to “promote discussion and encourage participation in political activity among students,” while establishing “a third party in Utah for supporting Henry Wallace,” whose policies “represent the clearest approach to world peace and security.” Of the nineteen students endorsing the document, eleven were female. Also included were five African Americans and two Asian Americans—from Ogden High School and West High School in Salt Lake City, respectively—reflecting the patterns of ethnicity in northern Utah. While the preponderance of the members were native Utahns, a large number were from outside the state. The proposed faculty adviser was Dr. James E. P. Toman.27Students for Wallace became a central part of the Utah Wallace effort. Ernstrom, a New Yorker with Utah roots, recalls that the group was a mixture of native Utahns and outsiders, Mormons and non-Mormons. Despite political differences within the university student body, she does not recall “division or hostility from other students.”28 Notwithstanding occasional condescension from some older party officials, Ernstrom believes that the state party took Students for Wallace seriously.29 Similarly, Martin Tolchin, also a New Yorker, recalled that after arriving at the University of Utah, he “soon discovered a group of left-wing easterners” who all supported Wallace because “President Truman seemed too establishment for us, and Thomas Dewey, the Republican was out of the question.”30 Not surprisingly, students attracted to Wallace were also committed to a wide range of causes, including social welfare, religious freedom, and world understanding, both on campus and in the community.While this was happening, however, the university administration was focused—with the cloud of communism hanging over their heads and a paternalistic sensibility guiding their actions—on the larger issue of student political activity itself. On January 26, Dean of Students George A. Pierson wrote to President A. Ray Olpin that in “the past few weeks” members of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) had been approached about the possibility of organizing campus political clubs. While these had included Republicans and Democrats, he felt sure that the “‘Wallace for President’ club is also planning to apply.” Because of the “many problems” associated with political organizations, Pierson said he would “appreciate receiving from the Dean's Council clarification of University policy in this regard.”31Clarification came the next day when Sydney Angleman, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, informed Olpin that he had “moved that it is in the interest of society that its educated citizens actively engage in politics, but that the university student can learn of politics more profitably and influence his government more surely if he associates himself with the regular political organizations.” Because there was a “real opportunity” to do this in Salt Lake City, the Dean's Council encouraged students to engage in “regular party membership” as the council did not “recognize campus organization of any political party.” In February, the Dean's Council also recommended that any partisan political activity should proceed under the auspices of the Institute of Government, which, according to its director G. Homer Durham, was modeled “somewhat after the Oxford Union.” Durham called on Cal Nelson of the Young Democrats, Richard Cottam of the Young Republicans, and Tremayne to serve as a temporary committee, to assist him. The Dean's Council reasserted their commitment in their March 4 meeting, in part to “relieve some of the criticism now being aimed at the University” over its policy. At the same time, all three groups again unsuccessfully petitioned the SAC “to be recognized as official campus organizations.”32As might be expected, the leaders of the three groups did not necessarily concur with the views of the Dean's Council. At an early March presidential open house, Tremayne “engaged [Olpin] in a warm conversation on the advisability of admitting national political figures on campus,” but Olpin said that since the open house was primarily social, “problems as this should be taken up through proper channels.”33 Tremayne and the others took him at his word. In a document to the SAC, they sought “reconsideration of the present policy” through “official recognition as University organizations.” The group leaders said it was their “common objective” to promote “discussion of and . . . participation in political activity.” They argued that encouraging students to work through off-campus groups did not take into account the “unique problems” facing students or offer them a real voice in “political machines,” since they would not have the support and guidance of the university community.34 Pierson said the SAC had considered this request but instead voted to reinforce that the three groups work jointly with the Institute of Government and to encourage the Dean's Council to reaffirm its earlier decision on student political organizations. Moreover, SAC favored establishing a “joint action political club . . . designed to foster political unity” campus wide. Ultimately, the administration agreed to allow the three groups to operate on campus under the guidance of the Institute for Politics. The groups operated openly, but there was still the issue of inviting political candidates to campus.Over the next few weeks, Students for Wallace conducted a campus poll of student attitudes, distributed handbills, arranged joint meetings with other campus political groups, and sponsored regional Wallace supporters like Verda Barnes of Idaho Falls.35 Eventually, the officers included Tremayne as chair, Leone Paradise as vice chair, Dorothy E. Ellis as secretary, and Bettye Berliner as treasurer.36 Representatives at the University of Utah were especially active, publishing a newsletter and selecting a delegate to attend the national Students for Wallace convention in Chicago, and organizing forums. Paradise said their goal was to support Wallace, while also encouraging “political interest, discussion and activity” at the university.37 In March, for example, they sponsored a debate on universal military training as part of similar rallies throughout the country.38Later they held a statewide Utah Students for Wallace convention, which featured remarks from IMMSWU's national president Reed Robinson and a keynote address from Betty Nickerson of Utah PCA.39 Martin Tolchin argued that because of their various outreach activities, the organization was the “backbone” of progressive forces at the university, much like “Henry Wallace is the leader of American progressive forces.” As historian Thomas W. Devine argues, the Wallace campaign “demonstrated a special appeal to young people,” and campuses “provided fertile ground for recruiting supporters and often served as the launching pad for establishing new local Wallace organizations.”40 However, not every college campus—nationally or in Utah—provided “fertile ground” for Wallace. For example, students attempted to organize a “Youth for Wallace and Taylor” group at Weber College, but they had little success.41At a January 27 public meeting, jointly sponsored by Utah PCA and Students for Wallace, attracting some twenty-five students, plans were made to place Wallace on the Utah ballot.42 About that same time, a Utah Wallace for President Committee emerged, led by Salt Lake City attorney Gordon Hoxsie. From that point forward, Hoxsie was probably the best-known representative for Wallace in the state. The next month, a petition campaign for ballot access, launched at a public meeting featuring Dr. James E. P. Toman43 and Albert Skinner, IMMSWU's local political action director, had gathered over fifteen hundred signatures within only a few days.44 PCA secretary Louise Douglas stated that the goal was to reach two thousand signatures, and that the “tremendous” request for petitions from around the state “makes us feel encouraged.” Douglas said their goal for completing the petition drive was April 15.45 Utah Progressives received further support when the executive board of the regional IUMMSW, based on widespread support among its members, endorsed Wallace's candidacy. The board said Wallace had inherited the “mantle” of Franklin Roosevelt, noting that they felt a “strong allegiance to this humble champion of America's common man.”46 Despite this endorsement, organized labor in Utah solidly supported Truman and the Democrats.On the other side of the political spectrum, some saw the new party as simply a tool of the Soviet Union. An unsigned column in the Milford News suggested that a list of Wallace activists “be preserved . . . in case at some time in the future, when the citizenry may have forgotten the crowd these folks ran with in 1948, they should be candidates under some other banner.” Because Wallace supporters “tie themselves to . . . the most prominent of America's communist minds is . . . all the reason that's needed to black list them from becoming leeches on the public purse.” The author concluded that Wallace was “making his strongest bid for support from radicals, negroes and the guy who never tries to think for himself.”47Progressive activity increased in May when Lee Pressman, former general counsel for the IUMMSW, spoke at the University of Utah under the auspices of Students for Wallace.48 That evening he addressed three hundred people at a public meeting, telling his listeners that large corporations and the military, working with Republicans and Democrats, were diverting attention from the real issues of the day by scaring people with the possibility of war with the Soviet Union. The only way to oppose this “War Hysteria,” Pressman argued, was to support Wallace and the new party. Pressman praised Wallace and Taylor for their “forthright support for civil rights for all people.”49 Other speakers included Gordon Hoxsie, while “University of Utah coed members of the Students for Wallace club assisted in gathering contributions.”50Two weeks later, Utah Progressives felt assured of ballot status for Wallace when petitions bearing 1688 signatures, some three times the necessary five hundred, were presented to the Secretary of State.51 The majority came from Salt Lake County, and one fourth from the coal mining areas of Carbon County. Gordon Hoxsie led a delegation to the capitol to file them that included Arvilla Greatorex, Reverend O. David Slacum of Salt Lake City's Trinity AME Church, James E. P. Toman, and June Isenberg representing Utah PCA. Hoxsie noted that “a large percentage of the signers were members of organized labor” representing the railroad brotherhoods and IUMMSW, and indicated that a founding convention would be held in June.52On May 28, the Wallace effort got a shot in the arm with a two-day visit from Glen Taylor. He was met at the airport by Hoxsie and party officials, attended a hurried press conference, then addressed a group of two hundred University of Utah students at an event organized by Students for Wallace.53 Speaking from the top of a car in front of the Campus Christian Center, because the meeting could not be held on campus, Taylor told the crowd that he opposed the Marshall Plan, believing it constituted a scheme whereby big business was attempting to control Europe.54Tribune political reporter O. N. Malmquist noted that “the senator's favorite target . . . was ‘the corporate controlled press,’ which he accused of exaggerating conflicts between this country and Russia and ‘playing down’ areas of agreement.” Taylor told students that the “first aim” of the Wallace–Taylor ticket and the new party was peace. He jokingly congratulated the students on their courage in attending the rally, because he understood that “lists” were “being kept for future use.” The remark was “greeted by a mixture of applause and derisive shouts.” Appropriately, students at the rally circulated a petition calling for the removal of a campus ban on political speeches, which they said denied them “an integral part of our academic development, and are depriving us of one of our most cherished constitutional rights.” The petition, addressed to university president Olpin, had already been signed by “about 1000 students including Republicans, Democrats and third party supporters.”55 Prior to Taylor's arrival, the Salt Lake City Commission had denied the organizers “permission to publicize the meeting by using a sound truck on downtown streets.”56Later that same day, Taylor appeared at Ogden's Lester Park, speaking before a crowd of two hundred, many of whom were Weber College students. Also on hand were Marie Berlin, chair of the Ogden Wallace Committee, and vice chair Bill Dawson. In remarks “both booed and cheered,” Taylor continued his assault upon big business and the military, which he said not only controlled the economy but the media as well, accusing both the Republican and Democratic parties of being corrupt.57 From Ogden, Taylor attended an evening event at Helper, in Utah's coal country.58 An ad in the Helper Journal urged residents to “hear all sides” in the campaign “before you make up your mind.”59Taylor capped his visit with a Saturday evening rally at the Utah State Fairgrounds. Over 750 people attended, paying the $1 admission charge, which, along with additional pledges, brought the total raised to some $850. Taylor said he was confident that “an honorable peace can be had with Russia without appeasement,” and after that was accomplished, “we would take some of the billions n
Referência(s)