-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www.ggnra.org/cramer/amcoup.html
<A HREF="http://www.ggnra.org/cramer/amcoup.html">Untitled</A>
-----
This appears pretty much the way it did in the November, 1995 History
Today.
An American Coup d'�tat?
Some Americans regard our country as superior to other nations because
we don't change governments by coup d'�tat - and we never have. Perhaps
because of our long tradition of power changing hands by election, we
regard our nation as immune to the use of force for political purposes.
True, assassins have killed four of our Presidents, but these deaths did
not lead to turmoil and chaos; the government followed well-established
procedures for transferring control to the men previously elected Vice
President. Unlike other nations where assassination often leads to civil
war, the United States has avoided this.
How different is America from nations where political power comes quite
directly "from the barrel of a gun"? A curious footnote to American
history suggests that, except for the personal integrity of a remarkable
American general, a coup d'�tat intended to remove President Franklin D.
Roosevelt from office in 1934 might have plunged America into civil war.
The General
This remarkable man was Smedley Darlington Butler, retired U.S. Marine
Corps Major General. Butler is the sort of person for whom the word
"colorful" is woefully inadequate. Butler won America's highest military
award for bravery (the Congressional Medal of Honor) twice. His style of
warfare was unusual not only for his personal courage, but for the
energy he put into avoiding bloodshed when it was possible to achieve
his aims in other ways. Not surprisingly, this engendered a remarkable
loyalty among the men who served under him - and that loyalty was why
certain men asked Butler to lead a military attack on Washington, D.C.,
with the goal of capturing President Roosevelt.
Butler was more than a remarkable soldier. He served as police
commissioner of Philadelphia during 1924-25 (on loan from the Marines),
in an attempt to enforce Prohibition. While the effort was a failure,
his insistence on enforcing the law against wealthy partygoers as well
as poor immigrants established his reputation as a man of high
integrity. He was not universally loved, but he was widely respected.
Butler is best remembered today for his oft-quoted statement in the
socialist newspaper Common Sense in 1935:
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua
for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I
brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in
1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in
1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested.... Looking back on it, I felt I might have given Al Capone a
few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city
districts. We Marines operated on three continents.
In War Is A Racket, Butler argued for a powerful navy, but one
prohibited from traveling more than 200 miles from the U.S. coastline.
Military aircraft could travel no more than 500 miles from the U.S.
coast, and the army would be prohibited from leaving the United States.
Butler also proposed that all workers in defense industries, from the
lowest laborer to the highest executive, be limited to "$30 a month, the
same wage as the lads in the trenches get." He also proposed that a
declaration of war should be passed by a plebiscite in which only those
subject to conscription would be eligible to vote.
>From 1935 through 1937, Butler was a spokesman for the League Against
War and Fascism, a Communist-dominated organization of the time. He also
participated in the Third U.S. Congress Against War and Fascism, sharing
the platform with well-known leftists of the era, including Langston
Hughes, Heywood Broun, and Roger Baldwin. When the Spanish Civil War
(1936-39) threatened the collapse of the Soviet-supported Spanish
government, the League's pacifism evaporated, and they supported
intervention. Butler, however, remained true to his belief in
non-interventionism: "What the hell is it our business what's going on
in Spain?" But before Butler became involved in these causes, he had
already exposed a fascist plot against his own government.
The Plot
Butler had friends in the press and Congress, so he could not be ignored
when he came forward in late 1934 with a tale of conspiracy against
President Roosevelt, in which he had been asked to take a leading role.
At first glance, Butler seems an unlikely candidate for such a position.
While Butler was a Republican, in 1932 he campaigned for Roosevelt,
calling himself a "Republican-for-Ex-President Hoover." (Butler had a
poor relationship with Hoover going back to their time together during
the Boxer Rebellion.)
But there were good reasons why someone seeking to overthrow the U.S.
government would have wanted Butler involved. Butler was a powerful
symbol to many American soldiers and veterans - an enlisted man's
general, one that spoke out for their interests while on active duty,
and after retirement. Butler would have attracted men to his cause that
would not otherwise have participated in a march on Washington.
Butler would have been a good choice also because of his military
skills. His personal courage and tactical skill would have made him a
powerful commander of an irregular army. Finally, his ties of friendship
to many officers still on active duty might have undermined military
opposition to his force, as friends and colleagues sought to avoid a
direct confrontation with him.
Another reason that the plotters might have approached such an unlikely
candidate was that Butler was not regarded as a great intellect. After
World War I, the Marine Corps had began to emphasize a new
college-educated professionalism. Butler, one of the less educated
"bushwhacker" generals, might have seemed easy to manipulate.
Butler testified that bond trader Gerald MacGuire had approached him in
the summer of 1933. MacGuire claimed to represent wealthy Wall Street
broker Grayson Murphy, Singer sewing machine heir Robert Sterling Clark,
and other unnamed men of wealth. They asked Butler to speak publicly on
behalf of the gold standard, recently abandoned by President Roosevelt.
MacGuire's rationale for why Butler should ally himself with the gold
standard cause was that the veterans of World War I were due a bonus in
1945. As MacGuire told Butler, "We want to see the soldiers' bonus paid
in gold. We do not want the soldier to have rubber money or paper
money."
It appears that the plotters underestimated Butler's intelligence and
character. When this explanation failed to persuade Butler, MacGuire and
Clark offered him money, abandoning any pretense of civic-mindness.
Butler's sense of honor prevented him from speaking in favor of any
policy for mercenary reasons.
MacGuire eventually told Butler their real goal. MacGuire asked Butler
to lead an army of 500,000 veterans in a march on Washington, D.C. The
stated mission was to protect Roosevelt from other plotters, and install
a "secretary of general welfare" to "take all the worries and details
off of his shoulders�" But Butler saw through their supposed concern for
Roosevelt. He testified before Congress that he told MacGuire:
[M]y interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get
these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, I am
going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have
a real war right at home.�
Yes; and then you will put somebody in there you can run; is that the
idea? The President will go around and christen babies and dedicate
bridges, and kiss children. Mr. Roosevelt will never agree to that
himself.
Butler eventually deduced that the real goal was a coup d'�tat to take
Roosevelt captive, and force reinstatement of the gold standard, the
loss of which many wealthy Americans feared would lead to rapid
inflation. The plotters would keep Roosevelt as a figurehead until he
could be "encouraged" to retire.
That MacGuire had significant financial backing behind him seems clear,
considering the substantial bank savings books he showed to Butler. What
remains unclear is whether the names MacGuire dropped (other than Robert
Sterling Clark) were really involved, or whether MacGuire was a con man.
MacGuire's claims and financial resources alone did not convince Butler
that such a conspiracy actually existed. The fulfillment of a series of
startling predictions by MacGuire did finally persuade Butler that there
was more than just hot air involved. MacGuire knew in advance of
significant personnel changes in the White House. He correctly predicted
the formation of the American Liberty League (the major conservative
opposition to Roosevelt), and the principal players in it. Especially
disturbing was that many of the supposed backers of the plot were also
members of the League. MacGuire's claim that the League ("villagers in
the opera" of the scheme, in MacGuire's words) was part of the plot
could not be easily dismissed.
The American Liberty League was a successor to the highly successful
Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the lobbying organization
responsible for the repeal of the "Noble Experiment." From its formation
in 1918 until 1926, the AAPA made little progress, at least partly
because it had little money. But in 1926, money poured into the AAPA
from some of America's wealthiest men, including Pierre, Irenee, and
Lammot du Pont, John J. Raskob, and Charles H. Sabin. The AAPA spent its
new found wealth on distribution of literature, and on the formation of
a bewildering number of associated organizations. These associated
organizations gave the impression of a grassroots movement, rather than
a collection of millionaires feeding press releases to friendly new
spapers. The AAPA also rapidly took control of the Democratic Party,
with one of their supporters, Al Smith, receiving the 1928 Democratic
Presidential nomination. While AAPA had powerful friends within the
Republican Party, they never achieved control of it.
The AAPA's motivations were a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. The
stated concern was that Prohibition had done serious damage to the
principle of federalism - that the federal government's authority did
not include the police powers used to enforce Prohibition. But it
appears that this was not the only motivation, or even the reason most
important to the men who funded the AAPA. Like many other Americans,
these business leaders "found themselves unable to gratify what seemed a
natural, more or less innocent, desire without breaking a law" (i.e.,
the consumption of alcoholic beverages). To suddenly find themselves
among the criminal classes was not pleasant to a group who had always
thought of themselves as law-abiding and respectable members of American
society. There is also strong evidence that the backers of the AAPA saw
Repeal as a method of reducing income and corporate taxes, by taxing
alcoholic beverages instead.
The AAPA went out of business at the end of 1933, with the end of
Prohibition. But within a year, from the same offices, with most of the
same backers, many of the same employees, and much of the same style, it
reappeared as the American Liberty League. Throughout the next six
years, it led the fight against the New Deal, arguing that much of
Roosevelt's program was contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Constitution. In an age when Hitler and Mussolini had commandeered
extraordinary economic powers, the fears that the American Liberty
League expressed about Roosevelt's vaguely similar gathering of economic
power could not be summarily dismissed.
The League, in spite of its impressive resources, was rapidly made to
appear "ridiculous or dangerous" or both by the Roosevelt
Administration. Most importantly, the leadership of the League was
largely rich men. The Depression-era gap between rich and poor had
become too wide, too obvious, and too painful for the League to be
credible to the majority of Americans. Butler's testimony before
Congress claimed that some of the people associated with the League were
the very ones that had approached him - including Grayson Murphy, the
League's treasurer.
In the depths of the Great Depression, in that nadir of despair before
Roosevelt gave his stirring first inaugural address in 1933, America was
awash in political groups identifying in greater or lesser degrees with
communism or fascism. Rep. Samuel Dickstein (D-NY), concerned about the
threat of such groups, persuaded the House of Representatives to create
the Special Committee to Investigate Nazi Propaganda Activities in the
United States. This committee investigated Butler's charges in late
1934.
MacGuire, not surprisingly, denied that such a plot existed. Instead, he
claimed his activities had been political lobbying to preserve the gold
standard, but he quickly destroyed his credibility as a witness by
giving contradictory testimony. While the final report agreed with
Butler that there was evidence of a coup d'�tat plot against Roosevelt,
no further action was taken on it. The Committee's authority to subpoena
witnesses expired at the end of 1934, and the Justice Department started
no criminal investigation.
Part of the reason for the lack of prosecution of the alleged plotters
may have been the untimely death of the only man who could have
testified against the rest: Gerald MacGuire. He died at age 37 from
complications of pneumonia, less than a month after the Committee
released its report. MacGuire's physician claimed that his death was
partly the result of the stress of the charges made by Butler, but there
is no reason to assume that MacGuire's death was in any way suspicious.
The Committee's report excluded many of the most embarrassing names
given by MacGuire, and repeated by Butler. MacGuire had claimed that
1928 Democratic President candidate Al Smith, General Hugh Johnson (head
of Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration), General Douglas
MacArthur, and a number of other generals and admirals were privy to the
plot. Since Butler had no evidence of their involvement, other than
MacGuire's claims, it was certainly reasonable for the Committee to
exclude these details from the final report as "certain immaterial and
incompetent evidence." But in conjunction with MacGuire's apparent
advance knowledge of the details of internal White House staff
activities, it certainly suggests that if a coup was planned, it had
significant support within the Roosevelt Administration.
The News Media Downplays The Plot
The news media gave an inappropriately small amount of attention to the
report. Time magazine ridiculed Butler's claims. The week following
Butler's testimony, Time described it as a "Plot Without Plotters,"
simply because the alleged plotters claimed innocence. But Time admitted
that Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt confirmed that
he, too, had been approached to lead such a march on Washington.
The leftist magazine New Masses carried an article by John Spivak that
included wild claims of "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups."
Spivak's article spun an elaborate web involving the American Jewish
Congress, the Warburg family, "which originally financed Hitler," the
Hearst newspaper chain, the Morgan banking firm, the du Ponts, a truly
impressive list of prominent American Jewish businessmen, and Nazi
spies! Spivak's article raised some disturbing and legitimate questions
about why much of Butler's testimony was left out of the final committee
report. But these important concerns were seriously undermined by
Spivak's paranoid ravings. The left-of-center magazines Nation and New
Republic were unconcerned about it, since in their view "fascism
originated in pseudoradical mass movements," and therefore could not
come from a wealthy cabal.
Newspaper descriptions of the final report are also astonishing for how
lightly most treated it. A New York Times article about subversion and
foreign agitators started on the front page, but gave only two
paragraphs to the coup plot inside the paper. "It also alleged that
definite proof has been found that the much publicized Fascist march on
Washington... was actually contemplated." It was not a major story.
The San Francisco Chronicle took the story more seriously. The only
headline with a larger type size that day concerned the recent fatal
crash of the airship Macon. The Chronicle carried an Associated Press
story headlined, "Justice Aids Probe Butler Fascist Story." The first
five paragraphs were devoted to Butler's allegations. The Chronicle
quoted the Committee report that it "was able to verify all the
pertinent statements by General Butler, with the exception of the direct
statement suggesting creation of the organization."
A third newspaper sampled showed an even more astonishing lack of
interest than the New York Times: the Sacramento Bee used a
substantially different Associated Press wire story that emphasized
propaganda efforts by foreign agents. Another AP wire story, at the
bottom of page five, described Butler's allegations, taking the
Committee's report at face value. This wire story includes the
comforting knowledge that the committee found "no evidence to show a
connection between this effort" and any foreign government.
An apparently serious effort to overthrow the government, perhaps with
the support of some of America's wealthiest men, largely substantiated
by a Congressional committee, was mostly ignored. Why? Roosevelt's
Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, wrote a book in 1939 about the
concentration of American journalism. He claimed that, "In 1934, 82 per
cent of all dailies had a complete monopoly in their communities."
Newspaper chains, in Ickes' view, "control a dangerously large share of
the national daily circulation and in many cities have no competition."
Ickes' book was largely devoted to proving that the major newspapers of
the United States were intentionally distorting the news, and in some
cases, directly lying. Ickes argued that newspaper editors did so in the
interests of both their advertisers and in defense of the capitalist
class. Ickes mentioned the Liberty League as one of the "propaganda
outfits" who were allied with the major newspapers. Indeed,the New York
Times, one of the papers that had downplayed the Committee's report, had
editorialized in favor of the Liberty League's formation.
Did newspapers and magazines onsciously play down the plot, because it
represented an embarrassment to people of influence? Or did editors
simply give it low visibility because they regarded it as an absurd
story?
We must consider another disturbing possibility. Butler was associated
with the loose alliance of progressive and populist forces that were
dragging Roosevelt towards the left. It is easy to forget that for much
of Roosevelt's first term as President from 1932-36, he was the rope in
a tug of war between conservative and progressive forces in America. The
popularity of men such as Senator Huey Long (D-Louisiana) and the
nationally known radio priest Father Coughlin-and the need to
short-circuit their rising political power-appears to have caused
Roosevelt's increasingly leftward movement in 1935-36.
Is it possible that Butler concocted this story as a way of creating
animosity towards conservatives by Roosevelt? If Butler had lied to the
Committee, and no such conspiracy was ever planned, why did MacGuire
apparently perjure himself before the Committee? Or, alternatively,
could leftward leaning members of the Roosevelt Administration have
manipulated Butler into believing that such a plot actually existed as a
way of creating animosity towards conservatives, thus dragging Roosevelt
to the left? Either theory could explain why MacGuire, Murphy, Clark, or
the other supposed plotters were never prosecuted.
Yet another possibility (though less likely) is that there was no
prosecution because Roosevelt's own advisors had taken part in the plot,
as MacGuire claimed. A criminal prosecution would have washed the
Roosevelt Administration's dirty laundry in public.
Why Is The Plot So Poorly Known?
Butler's account of the MacGuire plot was a very serious accusation. If
MacGuire had told Butler the truth, a large number of wealthy men had
made serious plans to overthrow representative government in the United
States - though their concern that Roosevelt was creating a government
in the style of Mussolini or Hitler, might provide some legitimate
reason for their actions. Why doesn't this plot appear in history books?
That conservatives might discount the plot is not unexpected; that
liberals have tended to ignore the plot is a little more surprising.
It is hard to imagine how different American politics was in the 1930s.
The collapse of the world economy had shaken the faith of many Americans
in individualism and free market capitalism. Many traditionalists, here
and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism;
many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism. Prominent populists
such as Huey Long and Father Coughlin sided with progressives in support
of isolationism, redistribution of wealth, and a federal government that
would play a more active role in the American economy.
In hindsight, the moral and economic deficiencies of these various
collectivized systems are now clear. In 1934, however, people of good
will persuaded themselves that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were doing
good, and ignored the great evils that were already underway. To turn
over the rock exposing MacGuire's plot raises unpleasant questions about
the political sensibilities of both right and left in 1930s America.
How Secure Are The Institutions of Legal Government In America?
How secure, indeed? It would be tempting to write off this entire matter
as a group of con men separating wealthy conservatives from their money
by pretending to hatch a plot against the Roosevelt Administration. But
there are too many disturbing pieces of evidence in this tale that
suggest that the Zeitgeist of the 1930s was not limited to Europe.
If MacGuire's claims to Butler were true, some U.S. military commanders
were prepared to stand aside while 500,000 veterans marched on
Washington and took Roosevelt captive. (Between the World Wars, the
United States Army was so small that 500,000 veterans might have given
them a serious fight - even if every officer remained loyal to
Roosevelt.)
But unlike many European countries, American government was highly
decentralized in 1934, and this would have worked against any serious
military action against the legitimate government. Every state governor
had control of state militia units, armed with out of date, but still
serviceable military weapons.
In addition to the regularly organized state militias, the population of
the United States, then as now, was heavily armed with the sort of
weapons well suited to military operations. Whatever the advantages of
the plotters' army of 500,000 veterans, they would have been far
outnumbered by the unorganized militia of the United States - then as
now, consisting of every U.S. citizen between 18 and 45, and legally
obligated by state laws to fight at the order of the governor in the
event of insurrection, invasion, or war.
But in a nation that was suffering from the ravages of the Great
Depression, another model exists for what might have happened: the
Spanish Civil War. The divisions over religion in America were not as
dramatic as those that ripped apart Spanish society. But many Americans
were beginning to lose their faith in American institutions - as
evidenced by the growth of American Nazi and Communist movements during
the 1930s. It is frightening to think of what might have happened if a
general as capable as Butler had become the man on a white horse.
In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, delivered at New
York University in 1960 concerning the protections of the U.S. Bill of
Rights:
I cannot agree with those who think of the Bill of Rights as an 18th
century straitjacket, unsuited for this age�. The evils it guards
against are not only old, they are with us now, they exist today�.
Experience all over the world has demonstrated, I fear, that the
distance between stable, orderly government and one that has been taken
over by force is not so great as we have assumed.
Indeed, the plot that Butler exposed - if what MacGuire claimed was true
- is a sobering reminder to Americans. We were not immune to the
sentiments that gave rise to totalitarian governments throughout the
world in the 1930s. We make a serious mistake when we assume, "It can't
happen here!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a Northern California
manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. His first book, By The Dim
And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine, was
published by Library Research Associates (Monroe, NY) in 1990. Mr.
Cramer's second book, For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The
Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right To Keep And
Bear Arms was published by Praeger Publishers (Westport, Conn.) in 1994.
Mr. Cramer recently completed his B.A. in History at Sonoma State
University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Archer, Jules, The Plot To Seize The White House, (New York: Hawthorn
Books, 1973).
Brinkley, Alan, Voices of Protest, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,
1982).
Butler, Smedley D., War Is A Racket, (New York: Round Table Press,
1935).
Cahn, Edmond, The Great Rights, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1963).
Ickes, Harold L., America's House of Lords: An Inquiry into the Freedom
of the Press, (Rahway, N.J.: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1939).
New York Times, February 16, 1935; March 26, 1935.
Schmidt, Hans, Maverick Marine, (Lexington, Ky.: University Press of
Kentucky, 1987).
Sevareid, Eric, Not So Wild A Dream, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946).
Spivak, John L., "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy", New Masses, January
29, 1935, 9-15; February 5, 1935, (page numbers missing on the
microfilm)..
Sacramento Bee, February 15, 1935.
San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 1935.
Time, 24:23 [December 3, 1934].
U.S. House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American
Activities, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and
Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities, Hearings
73-D.C.-6, Part 1, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1935).
U.S. House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American
Activities, Public Statement, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1934).
Wolfskill, George, The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the
American Liberty League, 1934-1940, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1962).
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
