Talk:Business Plot/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Events

The Events section of the Business Plot is awful. Virtually none of the events actually refer to a "plot". The early events largely refer to American Legion internal club politics. The entire Events section could almost be boiled down to: September 24 MacGuire visits Butler's hotel room in Newark where Butler avers that leadership of a coup was offered to him by MacGuire. MacGuire later testified that there was no such offer. November 20 Paul Comly French pens a story announcing the coup plot in the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post. November 21 – November 22, The New York Times writes its first article on the story and criticizes it as a "gigantic hoax." November 24, 1934 the committee publicly releases its preliminary findings. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia refers to publications such as the New York Times as printing legitimate fact. It is a fact that most if not all major publications have been foundations for propaganda and dis information for many many years. Don't take my word for it, do a little research. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegation and the Committee's "Verification"

Today the lede has been changed. Although it is a fact that General Butler alleged the plot, that key fact has been eliminated. Instead it has been changed to assert that " according to a US Congressional Committee report" there was a political conspiracy. That is untrue. The committee found no such thing. I have now read the entire HUAC report three times. It says nothing of the sort.

Furthermore the assertion that the quote "In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire." is also untrue. I know that this comes from Schlessinger's book where he says on page 85: "As for McCormack's House committee, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."

That quote "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" does not appear (as far as I can tell with three close readings) in the wikisource material nor in the underlying pdf of the original documents. Everyone should feel free to search themselves. I am more than willing to be corrected.

But even if we could find that conclusion by the committee, the line "except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him" cuts the heart out of the whole plot. Butler says only MacGuire propositioned him to lead this supposed plot, without evidence of that direct proposal of that piece the plot is just so much bunk. (Which is what everyone at the time thought.) Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear; I believe that the recent changes should be reverted. I.E. The plot was alleged, the committee did not "report" or verify, and the NY Times called this a gigantic hoax. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalismojo is clearily being disengenous. Here is what the committe concluded:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient. This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.[36] MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.[37]

So how can Capitalismojo say that the committe never claimed there was a plot. The committe clearily found that most of Butlers accusations were true and that there was some sorta plot. How extensive it was and how close it came to being implented is another matter, but theres no question there was some sorta plot.

Capitalismojo claims he's read the entire report. I highly doubt that sense it seems he has completely disregards there central conclusions. annoynmous 05:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Try "no personal attacks" please. The report states that "allegations" were made, including pure hearsay about some parties. And the newspaper reports at the same time are valid reliable sources. Collect (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just flat out false. The committe clearily stated that there was a plot and that it was close to the implentation stage. I don't not wish to engage in personal attacks, but if you continue to deliberately ignore the basic facts than I will continue to question your judgement. The Newspaper articles you refer too are in the article, they just don't belong at the top of the article, especially when they were written before the committe reached it's final conclusion. annoynmous 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And why should the historians, who more or less uniformly agree that there was less of a plot than Butler suggested and who reached that conclusion long after the congressional report, be removed from the lead? Huon (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that'e because the lead said this:

No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians[3][4][5][6] and contemporary journalists[7] largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution, with the New York Times characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax."[8]

Now here is what the historians cited in the article say:

Robert F. Burk said, "At their core, the accusations probably consisted of a mixture of actual attempts at influence peddling by a small core of financiers with ties to veterans organizations and the self-serving accusations of Butler against the enemies of his pacifist and populist causes." [44]

Hans Schmidt said, "Even if Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt, there remains the unfathomable problem of MacGuire's motives and veracity. He may have been working both ends against the middle, as Butler at one point suspected. In any case, MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking. If he was acting as an intermediary in a genuine probe, or as agent provocateur sent to fool Butler, his employers were at least clever enough to keep their distance and see to it that he self-destructed on the witness stand." [45]

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said, "Most people agreed with Mayor La Guardia of New York in dismissing it as a ‘cocktail putsch’ [46] . . . As for the House committee, headed by John McCormack of Massachusetts, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler", except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports. No doubt, MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable, and it can hardly be supposed that the Republic was in much danger". [47]

Now were in any of those statements do they contradict that there was plot that was at least near implentation. They dispute the size and scale of the plot, but they don't doubt that some sorta plan was discussed. No one makes the accusation that Butler made up his testimony.

The problem with the articles in the lead, epecially the "Gigantic Hoax" quote from the New York Times, is that they give the impression that this was all just some wild theory of Butlers when a congressional committe determined that Butlers accusations had merit. annoynmous 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I read that as the historians dismissing the idea that a plot was "near implementation". I mean, "attempts at influence peddling"? "Inconsequential trickster"? "'Cocktail putsch'"? "The gap between contemplation and execution was considerable"? "It can hardly be supposed that the Republic was in much danger"? That's more or less directly claiming that the plot, if any such existed, was far from implementation. Even Schmidt, who seems closest to beleiving that something significant was going on, starts all corresponding sentences with "if" and "may". I dare say that the universal reaction, which was and is one of dismissal, is worth mentioning in the lead.

Concerning Pelley, I'd suggest linking to the committee and removing the details irrelevant to the Business Plot from this article, or at least from the lead. Probably the best link is to House Un-American Activities Committee#Special Committee on Un-American Activities (1934-1937). Note that McCormack-Dickstein Committee redirects back here - maybe that redirect target should be changed as well. Huon (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very odd to me how people ignore what's write in front of there eyes. Burke say's "At their core, the accusations probably consisted of a mixture of actual attempts at influence peddling by a small core of financiers with ties to veterans organizations.." meaning that there was some sorta plot. Schmidt say's clearily ""Even if Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt, there remains the unfathomable problem of MacGuire's motives and veracity" his argument isn't that there wasn't a plot, it's that it was only maquire and a few others and that MacGuire had made Butler think the plot was greater than it was. As for Schlesinger you failed to quote the passage right before the one you sighted where he said "No doubt, MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind..." he doesn't deny there was a plot, just that it wasn't that close to implenetation.

None of this matters as the official position of the committe was that the plot was close to implementation. I think the official word trumps any later historical assessment. They especially trump the word of newspapers of time which reached conclusions before the committe reached theres.

Anyway the articles and historical assessments are in the article. However, by putting them in the lead they give the impression that there is controversy about whether there actually was a plot, which there isn't. An how dow 3 people count as "most Historians"?annoynmous 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot worked. Keywords 'bailout' 'federal reserve' and 'perpetual war'. No other proof is required. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise I have re-added the historians to the top of the article, but changed the sentence from "most historians" to "some historians" because 3 people does not constitute most historians. The newspaper articles I feel are still innapropriate for the lead because there dated and they are contradicted by the committes findings. annoynmous 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Influence peddling" is not a coup d'etat by a long shot, and neither is MacGuire's "wild scheme". Just as an example: If MacGuire made up everything, it would have been one man's delusions of grandeur and not a plot. So yes, there's some doubt whether there was a plot at all, and it's unlikely that there was anything close to a coup d'etat to remove Roosevelt from power, as was alleged. Both the contemporary reaction of ridicule and the historical assessment of dubiousness (reached by most historians we know about, and those in higher academic standing - who but Archer says that the plot Butler alleged was really close to implementation?) give important context, or people might reach the conclusion that the republic was in danger when it really wasn't. Concerning "official position vs. historical assessment": I am impressed by your faith in a congressional committee, which you appartently consider infallible even though the historians who come afterwards doubt its conclusions. I'd say that the historical assessment almost automatically wins because those who assess are aware of the committee's conclusions, will consider them as part of the evidence and will not deviate from them without good reason. By the way, as Capitalismojo said, that committee quote of "able to verify all statements by Butler" is not in the preliminary report we have at WikiSource. Is there a version of the report online which actually contains this quote? Huon (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the a congressional committe is infallible. I'm just saying that it is wrong to say the "alleged" plot when an official body confirmed most of Butlers accusations.

Plus the historians don't doubt the committes conclusions, they simply say that the plan was not as wispread as was thought. Where does anybody say that Macquire made up the plot. Here once again is what Hans Schmidt said:

"Even if Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt, there remains the unfathomable problem of MacGuire's motives and veracity. He may have been working both ends against the middle, as Butler at one point suspected. In any case, MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking. If he was acting as an intermediary in a genuine probe, or as agent provocateur sent to fool Butler, his employers were at least clever enough to keep their distance and see to it that he self-destructed on the witness stand."

Notice he refers to Macquires "employers" implying that this wasn't just some mad scheme he made up to fool Butler. It should be said that Hans Schmidts book is a largely positive view of Butler and I doubt he would like his views being protrayed as saying that the plot was jsut made up to fool Butler.

Anyway I have added back the links to the historians only I made it say "some historians" instead of "most historians" as 3 people don't count as most.annoynmous 04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But the modern historians use "alleged" -- seems you should self-revert on your modifications. Collect (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[1] "On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the alleged Business Plot to overthrow FDR and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings." [2] "He uncovered the alleged Business Plot to overthrow the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a military coup" and so on. Seems that "alleged" is pretty much incontrovertible here. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The contemporary newpapers accounts by reliable sources accounts are vital. They are not disproven by the committee's findings. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Specifically related to the Commttee's findings. The Committee found no evidence of "plotters" beyond MacGuire. In his testimony Butler said MacGuire tried to recruit him into a coup. One man does not make a coup. According to Butler; Robert Clark tried to get Butler to publcly support and speak about the gold standard. He did not (in Butler's own testimony) try to recruit for a coup. Neither did Doyle. So we are left with one young bond salesman who was clearly enamored of fascist or protofascist veterans (specificallyCroix De Feu) organizations. Remember that the Croix De Feu is the one mass veterans organization in Europe that did not participate in or lead coup attempts, so the example our only identified plotter was using as his model wasn't one of coup d'etat. Contemporaries across the political spectrum that this wasn't a serious plot, how can we at Wikipedia advance this from fringe theory to proven coup?Capitalismojo (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay once again here is the final report:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient. This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.[40] MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.[41]

This is an official body of the government saying that "There is no question that these attempts were discusseds, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if financial backers deemed it expedient", that seems like they found proof of a plot to me.

Capitalismojo say's "Contemporaries across the political spectrum that this wasn't a serious plot, how can we at Wikipedia advance this from fringe theory to proven coup?" this is a flat out faleshood. Not one of the historians say there wasn't some sorta plot and not one of them says that Butler was some sorta as you say "fringe" conspiracy theorist. If your going to keep quoting these historians you need to stop distorting what they actually said. Not one of them has said that the committes final conclusion was false.

Now I have made a compromise edit that includes the historians claims that the plot was not close execution at the top. I feel this satifies both our demands and I would like it if it was respected. annoynmous 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable sources is not a "compromise" especially when I have shown "alleged" used in articles about the BBC program. And not 70 years old. Collect (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt for the BBC report you claim proves your point:

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.

Everything can be whitewashed. The use of minor words is very powerful. For example, there is no such thing as American democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic. We have been programmed to think that democracy is good. It isn't... it is the most destructive form of government ever devised. The founders of the United States of America loathed democracy so much, they ensured the word 'democracy' did not make it's way in to either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. It is all disinformation and misinformation. Bottom line where it comes to General Butler, time can provide us with proof. He spoke of a plot, it involved an acute event to change our nation from a Constitutional Republic into a Fascist government. (See definition of fascist) - The proof? Chronic gradual shifts and changes within the laws, codes and worldview held by citizens and representatives have not only destroyed our Constitutional Republic and turned it into a fascist system. But instead of acknowledging fascism, the disinformation is that we are a democracy. The plot worked. Look up Keywords 'federal reserve' 'perpetual war' and 'bailout'. No other proof is required. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does the BBC call it the alleged plot. They clearily state that the plot was real and that there are documents to back it up. If your going to make arguments like this about sources then you need to quote them accurately and stop distorting what the sources actually said.

Once again, 70 year old articles are not reliable when there written before the committe reached it's final conclusion. Those articles are in the contemporary reactions section and are innapropriate for the lead. I have treid to address your needs by making compromise edits to this article and the Smedley Butler article. Either start basing your arguments on what sources actually say or stop adding erroneous POV sentences to the article.

annoynmous 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[3] 2009 is not 70 years ago. " In 1933, a group of wealthy Americans, bank and corporate leaders with ties to Germany allegedly attempted to recruit a Marine general to lead a military coup against FDR. The general later testified before Congress about "The Business Plot," as it became known. Congress hinted to the existence of a political conspiracy but, if so, it never went beyond talk. Everyone denied. No charges." [4] a;so on 2009 "He uncovered the alleged Business Plot to overthrow the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt " and so on. So much for the "70 year old articles" nonsense. These are less than a year old. Collect (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So your basis is Foxnewsbusiness marketwatch article. I thought you were saying the BBC report said it was alleged? Nowhere in either if the articles you sight do they call it a "gigantic hoax" as the New York Times article said.

Plus the idea that "Congress hinted to the existence of a political conspiracy but, if so, it never went beyond talk" is just plain false as the committe said:

"In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."

Your tortured logic is truly a sight to behold. First you claim that the committe never confirmed the plot when they did. Then you claim that newspapers of the time dismissed the plot when they were written before the committe came to it's final conclusion. Then you claim that the BBC called it the "alleged plot" when they didn't.

Now your referencing two articles that you never mentioned before, one of which refers to Butler "uncovering the plot" the other from a highly biased foxnewsbusiness editorial.

You have yet to show a single mainstream historian or newspaper which calls it the "alleged" plot. "According to" is a perfectly reasonable compromise, it avoids stating absolutely that there was a plot and phrases it as the committes opinion. annoynmous 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Daily Local" is a mainstream newspaper, but I can give you about 50 other cites -- do you really want them? BTW, the foxnews article is not a "highly biased editorial" and the Daily Local is not an editorial at all. But let's give you some more ... [5] makes clear that the "Business Plot" was a precursor to finding Communists under the rug. Bunch more as well. Not "70 years old." Collect (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is complete and utter nonsense, the book you cite says the committe was precursor to HUAC, it doesn't call it the alleged plot. In fact it uses the word alleged in regards to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, not The Business Plot.

Between your constant changing of the subject to your outright Lie that I violated to 3rr it's clear to me that you are not engaged with the facts and I not going to waste time with you if you continue to make absurd arguments.annoynmous 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please no personal attacksCapitalismojo (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Again regarding verification of the findings. Where is the source of the quote? Please give us the link. If it is a pdf, what page(s). It is not too much to allow us to read it. I really just like verifiability. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What to mean what were is the source for the quote? It's right there in the article:

^ Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p.8-114 D.C. 6 II Schmidt, p. 245 "HUAC's final report to Congress: "There is no question that these attempts [the plot] were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." The committee had verified "all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization."" ^ Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p. 111 D.C. 6 II.

Just because you can't read it doesn't make it an invalid source. Not everything from the the committes report is in the wikisource article. Are you seriously suggesting that quote was made up? annoynmous 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the original report PDF not just on wikisource. Can't you find a link?Capitalismojo (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The PDF file is not the entire report. As know there are several pages missing. The article already has a link to two reputable sources that say the quote exists. annoynmous 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no pages missing from this copy of the report. Here is the Committee Report pdf. HUAC one HUAC two HUAC three Enjoy, my eyes are getting tired reading it.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the complete report. The exact same pages are missing from the PDF File as they are from the wikisource page. I have given two reliable sources that show that the quote represented the committes findings. annoynmous 03:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed complete. You could hardly have read or even scanned the dozens of pages in 18 minutes. Please.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't just like the wikiesource article pages 2-7 are missing after the second Decemeber 29, 1934 report. Plus there is no final conclusion in any of the PDF files which came in February 1935.

I don't why I continue to argue on this trivial point, there are two reliable sources that verify the quote as the committes final conclusion. Just because the entire report wasn't scanned doesn't mean that the sources are unreliable.

annoynmous 03:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, you believe this quote: " The committee had verified 'all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization'." actually helps your case. One could state that the quote you provide of the committee's final conclusion does not prove there was a coup plot, instead it rather than cuts the legs out from under the whole thing. And you assert that this is trivial, that the committee verified the plot except for the "creation of the organization". The creation of the organization is the plot. Far being trivial, it is the very nub of the matter.

You further assert we shouldn't worry that we can't find the key quote in the primary source material because you have a secondary source (also not online) that you say is excellent. I like to verify things, but fine.

Well my opinion, for what it is worth, is that if your quote is accurate (and I assume it is) then the Committee itself has in this statement publicly announced that nothing of a plot existed beyond MacGuire, and that the New York Times was quite right to call it a gigantic hoax. There isn't an organization without the creation of an organzation. There can't be (as Time magazine described it at the time) "A Plot Without Plotters". Capitalismojo (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I see it has been reverted again even though we are in serious discussion. Sigh.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well when the statement right after that says "This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character" than yes I do consider that proof of my claims.

I might also mention this passage from Schlesinger:

"As for McCormack's House committee, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."

So that seems to say that they considered the organization to be real. I know you may not like Schlesinger, but he is a reputable source.

I have read and like Schlessinger. But read your own quote above. They were able to verify all the pertinent statements made by Butler. Well they deleted all Butler's information about a broader conspiracy from the hearing material, calling it hearsay. All they had is one young man (MacGuire) enthralled with the idea of a politically powerful veterans organization. Even French, the reporter who had once been Butler's private secretary, in his testimony couldn't support Butler's guess that the American Liberty League or other identifiable interests were involved beyond MacGuire. French spent time with MacGuire and ellicited a great deal of information from him. When French pressed on the involvement of the American Liberty League, MacGuire was clear that they weren't involved but said he could get the resources for his ideas. Well the only one he got support from was Clark, and Cark was only interested in the gold standard. According to Butler, Clark in their meeting only wanted Butler to campaign for the gold standard. The committee (and we) are left with only one plotter. One is not an organization, its a pipe dream. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said above pages 2-7 of the report are missing from the PDF files and the report itself is called Part 1, which to me means that there are other parts of the report that have yet to scanned. There would have to be more as part 1 is only 163 pages and the committe itself accumulated more than 4,300 pages of testimony.

I don't understand how you can say that if the final conclusion of the committe proves me wrong. It says categorically that there is no question that the plot was discussed, planned and might have been nearily executed. No amount of subterfuge about New York Times articles or what historians say later is going to get around that. annoynmous 05:25, 10 may 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pages 2-7 of the Public Hearings are missing from Capitalismojo's PDFs. Unfortunately the most interesting paragraph is sourced to:

Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p. 111 D.C. 6 II.

Page 111 is present, and it doesn't say what we claim it says. On the other hand, there's Schmidt's book, which seems to quote part of that paragraph - but only part, and not the part which says that the committee thought Butler's story of the most relevant meeting confirmed. Given that our sources seem to be garbled, can somebody confirm that Schmidt really says what we claim he says? Huon (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

return of Annoynmous

You know both Collect and Capitilismojo obviously have the ability to see things in documents that I don't. Here is the part of French's testimony that deals with the American Liberty League:

"I do not think at that time he mentioned the connections of Du Pont with the American Liberty League, but he skirted all around it. That is, I do not think he mentioned the Liberty League, but he skirted all around the idea that that was the back door; one of the Du Ponts is on the board of directors of the American Liberty League and they own a controlling interest in the Remington Arms Co ... He said the General would not have any trouble enlisting 500,000 men.[deleted2]"

I don't see anything where Macquire is as you say "clear that there not involved". French is implicit in his statements that Macquire was referring to them in a backhanded sort of way.

There's also this part from Frenchs testimony:

"During the conversation he also mentioned Henry Stephens, of Wuryaw, N. C, a former national commander of the American Legion, and said that he was interested in the program. Several times he brought in the names of various former national commanders of the American Legion, to give me the impression that, whether justly or unjustly, a group in the American Legion were actively interested in this proposition.

The Chairman. In other words, he mentioned a lot of prominent names; and whether they are interested or not, you do not know, except that he seemed to try to convey to you that they were, to impress on you the significance of this movement?

Mr. FRENCH. That is precisely the impression I gained from him."

That seems to suggest to me that there many plotters beyond just Macquire. That doesn't even include this:

"But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." "Zandt had been called immediately after the August 22 meeting with MacGuire by Butler and warned that...he was going to be approached by the coup plotters for his support at an upcoming VFW convention. He said that, just as Butler had warned, he had been approached "by agents of Wall Street" who tried to enlist him in their plot."

However let's assume your interpretation is right. What does it matter. The committe determined that there was a plot and that is was close to execution. My edit doesn't say that there definetely was a plot, it says that "According to the Committe" there was a plot. It was the committes opinion. Just as it was other committes opinion that Lee harvey Oswald killed JFK and that Al Qaeda were the perpetrators of 9-11. In both those instances no one used the word "alleged".

As for The New York Times article it should be pointed out that it was an editorial, not a piece of reporting. It should also be pointed out that after the committe reached it's final conclusion The New York Times ran this.

"New York Times February 16, 1935. p. 1, "Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators; Committee In Report To House Attacks Nazis As The Chief Propagandists In Nation. State Department Acts Checks Activities Of An Italian Consul -- Plan For March On Capital Is Held Proved. Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators, "Plan for “March” Recalled. It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated. The committee recalled testimony by General Butler, saying he had testified that Gerald C. MacGuire had tried to persuade him to accept the leadership of a Fascist army."

Also Time Magazine, which had also disputed Butlers story, ran this:

"Time Magazine, 25 February 1935: "Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true."

That's not including that there have been documentaries on the History Channel and the BBC that refer to it as the Business Plot, not the alleged Business Plot. So I don't see how anyone can call this incident a hoax or a concpiracy theory, it's a historical fact.

Now like all historical facts, nothing is set in stone and you can debate the specifics. You can question whether or not companys like Dupont and JG Morgan were actually involved, but the overwhelming historical consensus is that there was some sorta plot.

I made a deal not to edit this article for 2 months, so you don't have about me reverting you edits in the near future. However, at the end of that 2 months I am going to return to this article and we are going to have an honest debate on this in order to reach a consensus. 2 editors do not equal a consensus.

Now depsite my frustations with both Collect and Capitilismojo, I'm sure that deep down there perfectly reasonable people and that when I return to edit this article we will be able to reach a compromise that benefits us all. annoynmous 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Posting the same stuff over and over does not improve it. Meanwhile, as I understand it, you have a year to just stay on the Talk page per Jclemens post. BTW, the other two editors you reverted do not think they are non-existent. You will find short posts convey sufficient information. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I agreed to with Ryan Delaney was 2 months and on that basis the block was lifted early. I don't think I posted any of these things before and it's long because I want to make my point clear. I'll make my posts as long as I want thank you very much.

As for consensus, show me where there was consensus on this issue? I see 3 sentences on it from February and that was after you went back on your agreement with me from January. I made several compromise edits to this article and the Smedley Butler article, but neither of you bothered to address them or offer a counter proposal.

Nevethless I will honor the agreement I submitted to and will return in 2 months and will try to avoid edit warring and will try to reach a reasonable conclusion on the talk page.annoynmous 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Current consensus: Blueboar, Capitalismojo, Huon, Collect, THF. By virtue of edits as well as Talk posts. Collect (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"The committe determined that there was a plot and that is was close to execution." Do we know a source for that assertion? We have the quote from Schmidt, but where did Schmidt get that? And the second of the most interesting sentences cited in the article, "MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.", is not from Schmidt, but sourced to a page of the Public Hearings where it doesn't appear. Note also that the committee in its Public Statement speaks of itself as "the committee" or "this committee", never "your committee" as in those dubious sentences. Can we clean up this mess? If no source is forthcoming, I'll remove the falsely-sourced sentence from the article. Huon (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First off bluboar disagreed with you on the reliable sources board. He never agreed to any consensus. Huon agreed to the New York times article in the lead, but he didn't revert me on the "according to" edit. Further more it was you who agreed to the according to consensus back in January with this:

I have made an edit to the page as a compromise. It says "according to an congressional investigation", how is that. It doesn't imply absolute guilt, but it also doesn't use the word "alleged". annoynmous 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Try "Congressional committee report" as being precisely accurate. Collect (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Then in February when THF suggested it go back to alleged you went back on the consensu we had agreed to. Ikip I doubt would agree to the word "alleged". 3 sentences does not constitute a consensus. Outside of you and Capitilismojo I see no proof of a consensus.

To Huons point, the document of the committes findings was an internal document that was discovered by John Spivak in 1967. I never heard anyone say it was inauthentic or made up. Schlesinger refers to it in his book.

I don't see any reason to that it shouldn't be considered true as there are two newspaper articles that refer to it as true. The History Channel documentary quotes it as the committes final conclusion.

Also keep in mind as I've said before that pages 2-7 are missing from the PDF Files. Also the source that the quotes come from say Part 2 whereas the PDF Files only say part 1 which to my mind means that theres more of the report that has yet to be scanned.

As for schmidts book, well I looked it up on google books and page 245 is ommitted from it, so unless you have the bbok with you, I see no reason to doubt that it's there.annoynmous 01:22, 13 May 13 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I made a mistake, 245 is in the google books scan of Schmidts book. The statement of the committes findings is on page 229 of Schmidts book. It's ommitted in the google books page, but if you look on page 230 you can see the end part of it that says "when the financial backers deemed it expedient".annoynmous 01:44, 13 May 13 2009 (UTC)

Try reading WP:CCC] -- when others arrived who preferred "alleged" the consensus was altered. You will note that I always stated that "alleged" was correct, recall? And it would serve you well to realize that trying to argue with others generally does not sway them to your viewpoint -- it is better to work towards consensus than to berate any editor. Collect (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well others may have preferred "alleged", but you agreed to "according to" and then went back on it when I was away from the article. Your so called consensus "ammounts" to 3 sentences. I know that Ikip who use to be called Travb wouldn't approve of "alleged". Remember I proposed "according to" as a replacement for the article stating as absolute fact that there was a conspiracy. You didn't contact me to see what I thought of it.

Plus isn't arguing what were supposed to do. Where supposed to articulate our viewpoint and then work towards a consensus. Consensus doesn't mean that I just accept your idea of what the article should be.

As you say consensus is a fluid thing. I have left a message on ikips talk page about this matter, although he may be too busy to get involved just yet.

In the next 2 months I will make some compromise suggestions on this talk page and I hope you and others will view them with an open mind and we can have a valuable back forth dialogue about how to make the article better.

I know you and I have had some bitter disputes. I am proposing that we put that behind us and make a pledge to be civil and just debate the merits of the article and leave aside all the personal stuff.annoynmous 02:39, 13 May 13 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we will all work together to improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then on to the Paul French testimony. I am a modest fan of Paul French. I've read a bit of his books on peace and pacifism. I also went to the trouble of creating the wikipedia article on him. He was a principled man and apparently an excellent leader of CARE at the close of WWII. His testimony is interesting in several ways. The first is that he really does confirm that MacGuire was trying to recruit Butler for some sort of fascist veterans organization. The second thing that is interesting is he does not confirm anyone else's participation. French is careful to say that MacGuire threw a lot of names around, implied vast resources but showed no evidence of any of it. He said that many VFW and American Legion leaders were interested in his ideas. Maybe. French seems doubtful.

If French had testified that he believed these men, their related companies, and the Liberty League were truly behind MacGuire's ideas, there is no doubt in my mind that the Congress and the Department of Justice would have been irresistably required to begin serious investigations. French confirmed the efforts and schemes of MacGuire vis a vis Butler, and conveyed the idea that MacGuire was talking big to get Butler involved.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitilismojo, although I disagree with you, I have always found your responses articulate and thoughtful. I'm sure in the future you and I can reach some sorta mutual compromise before I come back to the article in July. If any of my comments towards you have ever sounded insulting I sincerely apologize. When I get into heated arguments I sometimes use uncivil language.

As for French's testimony, while your right that he doesn't confirm that the American Liberty League was involved, I don't see how you can say that his testinmony sounded doubtful when he said this:

"That is, I do not think he mentioned the Liberty League, but he skirted all around the idea that that was the back door; one of the Du Ponts is on the board of directors of the American Liberty League and they own a controlling interest in the Remington Arms Co ... He said the General would not have any trouble enlisting 500,000 men.[deleted2]"

That say's to me that he thinks that macquire was telling the truth, but that's my interpretation. You say your a fan of French, well he never said that he felt Butler was wrong in his accusations and as far as I know was largely supportive of him.

Anyway I would like to know what you think of the 3 compromise proposals I made below. Collect has made his feelings on it clear, I would like to know your opinion and any suggestions you have. annoynmous 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"In the opinion of"

This is my first proposal for compromise. I don't expect it to be accepted, but I'd figure I'd just float it as a possibility. I will make more detailed proposals in the future:

The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was, in the opinion of a committe report of the United States Congress, a political conspiracy in 1933 wherein wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt . In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup.[1] One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire. [2] However, no prosecutions or further investigations followed. Some historians have questioned the size and scope of the plot and whether or not it was actually close to execution.[3][4][5][6]

This clearily states that it was the committes opinion. It doesn't state it as absolute fact. I maintain, at least for now, that the New York Times article is innapropriate for the lead because it was an editorial that was contradicted by the committes report and by the times subsequent report on the matter.annoynmous 03:37, 13 May 13 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just thought of a better idea. How about this:

The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was, in the opinion of a committe report of the United States Congress, a political conspiracy in 1933 to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a coup d’état. In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup.[1] One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire. [2] However, no prosecutions or further investigations followed. Some historians have questioned the size and scope of the plot and whether or not it was actually close to execution.[3][4][5][6]

It occurred to me that it was the "Wealthy Businessmen" and "Corporations" part that was bothering people. While that is what Butler accused, that part was not conclusively proved by the committe. I feel this is perfectly adequate compromise that states what Butlers accusations were and what the committe found.annoynmous 03:54, 13 May 13 2009 (UTC)

Try adding "alleged" as a first step. Change "purported" to "alleged" to reflect the actual reports. Try removing "However" per WP:WTA. Try removing "some" as WTA. Try adding the contemporary cites about it being a "gigantic hoax." Then think of the word "compromise." Collect (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I feel the word "alleged" is innapropriate and I'm making a proposal as and idea of how we an reach a mutual compromise. The article already had the word "However" in it. There are no contemporray sources that call it a gigantic hoax, the article in question is an editorial that came out in 1934, before the committe came to it's final conclusion. Further more the times later wrote a paper after the final report came put in 1935 contradicting that editorial.

I might add this is often a remedy used at wikipedia to deal with controversial issues of guilt or innocence. In that case the compromise is to say "According to the committe" or "this person was convicted of".

The Fact of matter is that the committes final statement was "There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." Now you can debate the specfics of it, but you can't erase that from the historical record. Maybe they were wrong, but this was there official position which makes the term "alleged" innapropriate for the lead.

I'm sorry that Collect didn't like my offer. I wonder what other editors think of my compromise offer above? annoynmous 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So far no one has "liked your offer." Which suggests that you are not trying to seek consensus but to assert your position. By the way, 1934 is "contemporaneous" with events of 1933. Have you read up on how consensus gets established on WP? Collect (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Define no one, the only response I've seen so far is you. I would appreciate if you would let other people read the proposal before you declare that it has been rejected. I am not trying to assert anything, I'm merely test floating ideas and would like to see what the response is form several people. You have made your opinion clear now let other people have a look at it.annoynmous 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have tried to incorporate some of collects suggestions:

The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was, in the opinion of a committe report of the United States Congress, a political conspiracy in 1933 and 1934 to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a coup d’état. In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup.[1] One of the purported plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their report, the Congressional committee stated that it was able to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire. [2] No prosecutions or further investigations followed. Some historians have questioned the size and scope of the plot and whether or not it was actually close to execution.[3][4][5][6]

I added 1934 because collect is right that the plot took place in both years. I also took out However, per collects suggestion. I feel the word "some" is still the proper term. I didn't find the word some in WP:WTA.annoynmous 17:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to say, that although at this time I consider the New York Times editorial to be innapropriate for the lead, I may in the future be open to reaching some sorta compromise on that issue as long as the wording is more neutral.

If the New York Times editorial that has the "gigantic hoax" quote is to be in the lead, than I feel this follow up form February 1935 should be included as a counterpoint:

New York Times February 16, 1935. p. 1, "Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators; Committee In Report To House Attacks Nazis As The Chief Propagandists In Nation. State Department Acts Checks Activities Of An Italian Consul -- Plan For March On Capital Is Held Proved. Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators, "Plan for “March” Recalled. It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated. The committee recalled testimony by General Butler, saying he had testified that Gerald C. MacGuire had tried to persuade him to accept the leadership of a Fascist army."

I also feel this follow up Time Magazine article should be included:

Time Magazine, 25 February 1935: "Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.".annoynmous 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A "march" is not a "coup" last I checked. And with Butler's attitude towards Mussolini, I seriously doubt that he would have led a "Fascist march" of any kind. Amd "purported to report" is about as weasel-worded a claim as one can make -- it certainly does not indicate that the reporter believed a word of it. The history of HUAC is not all that nice, if you wish to get it placed into this article. Lastly, try keeping your posts short. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well when a march overthrows the the president, then yes it is a coup.

"And with Butler's attitude towards Mussolini, I seriously doubt that he would have led a "Fascist march" of any kind"

You know your absolutely right, Butler didn't like Mussolini, that's probably why he didn't want it replicated in America and why he exposed the plot.

You may think the statement is "weasel-worded" but that is what the times reported. Who cares what the reporter believed, the article is simply an expression of what the committe found. You guys keep bringing up this "Gigantic Hoax" article while failing to mention that it was an editorial and that it was contradicted by there later article on the committes findings.

I'm aware on the history of HUAC, but this was before they specifically focused on communists. No serious historian has claimed that there final conclusion was wrong. The only thing that's disputed is how many people were actually involved and how close it was to execution.

Okay it's clear that Collect doesn't like any on of the 3 compromise offers I made. I would like to here from other editors on the matter. annoynmous 22:39, 13 May 2009 *UTC)

Gosh, there is is lot to respond to. Well lets start with "no serious historians" bit. Arthur M Schlessinger in his book Politics of Upheaval talks about the plot. He begins:

"No one knew quite what to make of the Butler story. It seemed as ridiculous as Dr. Wirts fantasies." p 83

He concludes:

"No doubt MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable and it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in danger." p 83

Schlessinger is a serious historian. He completely discounts broader involvement and compares it to one of the biggest politcal fantasies/ absurdities of the 30's the Wirts scare. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Where does he completely discount it. He says it "seemed" that way, but right after the statement you quoted he said this:

"But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street."

And this:

"As for McCormack's House committee, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."

Schlesinger ackowledges that there was some sorta plot, he just questions how close it was to execution. Schlesinger himself doesn't compare it to the Wirts scares, he says that's what some people thought at the time.

Capitilismojo I don't know if you read what I wrote above in response to your Paul French post, but despite our disagreements I have always found you articulate and thoughtful in your posts and I know you and I can reach a mutual compromise.

I would like to know if any of the 3 compromise suggestions above seem acceptable to you and what suggestions you have to how we could reach a consensus.annoynmous 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to say that sense we agree that Schlesinger is a reliable historian than we have to accpet his statement that the committes official position was that the plot was real. Whatever doubts schlesinger may have doesn't discount the fact that the committes official postion was that it existed. That's all I advocate, that we state it as the committes opinion.

One of my compromise offers takes out the words "Wealthy Businessman" and "Corporations" and states it simply as a plot to overthrow FDR which is what the committe determined.annoynmous 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am always willing to work towards a reasonable compromise. I am somewhat busy with family matters, but I'll seriously study the discussions and get back here soon. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "corporate media" mean?

Simple question. I would suggest plain "media" is more than sufficient. In fact, I know of no actual meaning for "corporate media." Collect (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See corporate media. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: corporate media: Nice neutral-point-of-view article.--Paul (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think The New York Times or Time magazine, who we quote as ridiculing the plot, were "corporate media". In the 1930s neither was, as fas as I could ascertain, part of a larger corporation or conglomerate. I couldn't find out anything about the Philadelphia Post, but the Philadelphia Record again seems not to be corporate. Three out of four should suffice not to use the "corporate" label.

On an unrelated note, footnote 46 is used to source that "[...] publications scoffed at the allegations" while giving quotes that state something else, for example reporting the committee's allegation that there indeed was a plot and that according to the committee Butler's story was "alarmingly true". Apparently our coverage of contemporary media responses is a little one-sided. Should we clarify that the just the initial newspaper reaction was highly dubious? Those later quotes seem to me extremely bland, reporting what the committee thought without any commentary on whether it's right or wrong. Huon (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Huon just made the exact point I made above. The contemporary reaction of newspapers is not appropriate for the lead as it was contradicted by the committes final report and by the subsequent reporting of that final report.

That's why I maintain that the word "alleged" is not an accurate term to describe the plot. I suggested above that it be changed to "in the opinion of" which is neutral representation of the facts. It doesn't say absolutely that there was a plot, it just says what the committe found.annoynmous 01:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I still differ about the use of "alleged". The New York Times said about the committee, February 1, 1935, after the committee's report: "It also alleged that definite proof had been found..." Apparently even the committee may allege that there was a plot. Huon (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RS, after report csme out -- using "alleged" seems pretty conclusive. Collect (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times may have used the word "alleged", but the committe determined that there was a plot. The Times reported accurately what the committes findings were and the lead of the article should do the same. The offer I proposed above got rid of the words "corporation" and "wealthy business" and simply stated it as "the opinion of a committe report" that there was a coup attempt against Roosevelt.annoynmous 12:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If they determined there was a plot, the article should say that. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The HUAC determined that most of the claims were hearsay, and declined to give credence to any of them. What they found was that Butler met with two people, and they had Butler's word against the others' words as to what was said. There were no corroborating acts by anyone at all in furtherance of any "plot." Hence "alleged." Collect (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Really! They declined to give any credence to it you say? Then why did they say this in there final conclusion:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient. This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.[41] MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.

I know I've posted this before, but aparrently one more time is necessary in order to answer collect. I't seems to me that Lapsed Pacifist sees "In the opinion of" as an adequate solution.annoynmous 13:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Try something new to cut server load :) ... meanwile the dictionaries all seem to disagree with you. Collect (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What dictionary says that the committe didn't find evidence of a plot. Once again a court of law is not the only official body in the world. A Congressional committes official conclusion shouldn't be dismissed as hearsay.

Anyway you can no longer claim that I'm the only one who disagrees with the term "alleged" in the article.annoynmous 13:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there have been some changes with the lede. They seem largely reasonable to me. It strengthens the view that the committee's final statement is important, and that has become important to annoynmous who is making a credible effort to discuss improving the article. I think we should discuss the committee a bit. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Committee report

Congressional Committees have a special place in American history. This committee, being the beginning of HUAC, should be especially examined. Congressional committee hearings are the ultimate kangaroo court.

"kangaroo court" is used to describe judicial proceedings that, the speaker feels, deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. The outcome of a trial by "kangaroo court" is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

That seems a good working definition of HUAC type hearings to me. Generally speaking committee hearings are tools not to get to justice (that is the province of judges) but to gain good press for the congressmen. Two official actions can come out of an investigative hearing: If activities are found that are troubling or reprehensible, those exposed activities can be made the subject of legislation outlawing it. If the activities are uncovered that are clearly illegal, those activities are referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution. Neither happened in this case. How can this be considered serious when there are no official consequences? The answer (for four plus decades) was: this isn't serious. Read Schlessinger, the master historian of FDR and the Great Depression, this is a sad joke to him. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me go further. The Congressional committee had made a hash of this case. It should have been a block-buster. Here we have a Major General alleging a coup! This is big stuff. Instead, as the hearings rolled the nation's newspapers conclude it is a hoax, a cocktail putsch, a joke. Of course the committee is going to assert in its final report that it was too serious, these men had to justify their existence and defend their Committee's legitimacy lest they continue as a national laughingstock. We, however, don't have to buy into the spin of long dead congressional staff. We can read the transcript, the contemporaneous news accounts, and reliable historians. We can then report what those sources say. They don't support a real coup, no reading of the source documents supports that. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You say it was a kangaroo court, well that's your opinion and I'm not saying your wrong. However, the fact is that the committe found that Butlers accusations had merit and there official conclusion shouldn't be dismissed as mere hearsay.

All the serious historians concede there was a plot. None of the historians cited use the term "hoax" or "cocktail putsch" to descirbe the plot. They say thats what contemporary sources said at the time. This is despite the fact subsequentely the newspapers admited that there was some sorta plot when the committe released it's final report.

I don't understand why because the committe later mutated into Huac in the 40's that we should dismiss what the committe did in the 30's when they didn't just focus on communists. Criticizing and organization because of what it did 10 years later is a logically unsound argument.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that congressional committes are perfect and that all there conclusions should be taken as gospel, but they are official body's and when an official body reaches a conclusion it should be sighted. That's all I'm advocating, I'm not saying that the article should say definitely that there was a plot, it should just state what the committes offcial conclusion was.

I also feel that many people are seriously misenterpreting Schlesingers statement that republic wasn't in any real danger. He nowhere in his book says that the plot didn't exist, he just says that the conspirators plot most likely would have failed.

You say that no reading of the source documents supports a plot, well again that's your own personal opinion. In my opinion theres plenty of information in the source documents that confirms that there was a plot. Multiple witnesses confirm that the conversations that Butler said happen did happen and that Macguire did make the trips abroad that Butler said he did.

Neverthless that's my interpretation which differs from yours and I don't begrudge anybody there own personal views. I simply feel that a neutral compromise is to state that the plot existed according to the committe. I am making no claim to absolute truth, just what the documentary record shows. annoynmous 05:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the committee did investigate communists at the time - I am surprised you did not know rhis. Try reading up on it. Collect (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm suprised your incapable of reading full sentences. Heres what I said:

"I don't understand why because the committe later mutated into Huac in the 40's that we should dismiss what the committe did in the 30's when they didn't just focus on communists."

The keyword here being "just", meaning at the time they investigated other groups besides communists as opposed to later on. I know you don't like long posts, but it would be nice if you actually read them completely before you make erroneous assumptions about what I said.annoynmous 08:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be said that the committe didn't really start investigating communists until 1938. Even then they mostly investigated german american involvement in Nazi activity. With the exeception of things like the Federal Theater Project and American Youth Congress they didn't really focus on supposed communist activity until 1945 when they became a standing committe.annoynmous 08:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also this committe wasn't HUAC. It may have been a precursor to Huac and it had un-american in it's title, but Huac wasn't officially formed until 38. annoynmous 10:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have been misunderstood. I was perhaps unclear. It is not that "this" committee is a kangaroo court, it is that all Congressional committee's are set up like that. The staff pick the witnesses, the evidence, the questions, the timing, the format etc. Those called before such committees have virtually no ordinary legal or procedural responses or defenses to improper attacks. It was only later, after years of abuse, that people like President Truman awoke to the problems of such committees and described the committee itself as "Un-American".

My considered belief is that these are widely acknowledged to be problematic and not designed to get to the justice of a matter. That the committees can in themselves be unjust and as such we can not rely on its conclussions. We would be better off relying on the actual testimony, the news accounts, and the consensus of top historians. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)(sorry, thought i was logged in. signed now)Capitalismojo (talk)

Look up "McCormack-Dickstein Committee" which spent more time on communists than it did on anything else. In 1934. [6] "and called the Communist leaders up for testimony" etc. Yep -- the anti-communist aspect of HUAC was there ab initio. Collect (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain flase. The McCormack-Dickstein committe mainly investigated Nazi and fascist activity. In fact Dickstein set up the committe for that very purpose. Whatever investigating they did of communists during this time was extremely limited. It wasn't until Martin Dies came along in 38 and created HUAC that serious investigation of communists began. Look at Chip Bertlets book on Right Wing populism [7]. Theres nothing in the Schelesinger book that says the committe spent "more time on communists" than anyone else.

As to Capitalismojos point, I think your being a little to broad in your definition of a Kangaroo court. So all congressional committes conclusions should be dismissed as unreliable and the only thing we can rely on are biased newspaper articles that were published before the committe reached it's final conclusion? Witnesses are allowed to bring lawyers to congressional committes and have all the legal rights they would have in a court of law. Historians base there conclusions on what congressional committes say. When a Historian writes about 9-11, I guarantee there that a lot of there research is going to come from the 9-11 commission. They may come to different conclusions on certain issues, but there going to treat it as serious evidence to be contemplated.

Every Historian that is sighted in this article ackowledges the committes final conclusion that there was some sorta plot. None of them says that it was wrong or that the entire plot was a hoax. The only thing they question is the size and scope of the plot and that's what I feel the article should show.annoynmous 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will say that I agree with Collect that the term "Corporate Media" isn't appropriate for the lead. I understand and sympathize with the idea Lapsed pacifist was going for, but I feel it's wrong in this particular context.

However, as Huon pointed out above the reporting after the committes final report in February ackowledged that there was some evidence of a plot. It seems to me that the lead of the article shouldn't focus on just one aspect of the reporting and ignore the others.annoynmous 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the point capitilismojo brought up about why wasn't anyone prosecuted if the committe found evidence of a plot?

First off I don't think that should matter, a congressional committe is an official body of the U.S. Government and there final conclusion deserves to be take seriously. Again I'm not saying that there infallible and that there always right, but there conclusion is the official record of the matter. The official record can be wrong, but that doesn't mean it isn't the official record.

Second, laws dealing with criminal conspiracy were different in the 1930's than they are now and the legal mandate to arrest the conspirators may not have existed then. I'm not an expert on what the laws were then, but if you watch The History Channel documentary on the plot, they make the point that it wasn't until the Smith Act of 1940 that you had laws making foreign subversion illegal. This doesn't even include the fact that the committe wanted to investigate the matter further, but it's term ended and wasn't renewed.annoynmous 06:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As we should be aware, conspiracy was easier to prosecute in the 1930s. At the time conspiracy required only that two or more persons agree to commit illegal acts. That was so flexible and elastic a standard that it could be extremely broadly and easily applied, the legal standard now requires two persons agreeing and committing at least one overt act. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And even that tightened standard has been criticized as being subject to prosecutorial misuse. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith Act? Foreign subversion? What in the world does that have to do with this? A coup is treason and rebellion, that has been illegal since the founding of the Republic. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Elements of Conspiracy

We have evidence of something. We do not have evidence of a conspiracy.

For there to be a conspiracy we need two (2) or more people agreeing to commit a criminal act and also committing one overt crimnal act.

Let us identify those who we have publicly identified as attempting to overthrow the US government.

1. Gerald MacGuire: he denied it, but it looks likely that he did indeed desire to create a fascist organization that could pursue a coup.

2. ...no one else

We need at least one more person for a conspiracy.

It can't be Clark; Butler testified that Clark only asked him (in Butler's words 'bribe' him) to speak against the gold standard.

It can't be Doyle; Butler testified that Doyle only asked him to run for office in an existing veterans organization, that Doyle wanted to unseat the American Legion's 'royal family.

No one else approached Butler. We have, according to the evidence of Butler, a conspiracy of one. So we have something, but not much. Which is what the consensus of the hstorians is as wellCapitalismojo (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

MacGuire sent postcards (no text given -- they may have been souvenir ones). As for a "conspiracy" - the whole claim is laughable in retrospect to be sure. And this was settled three years ago from the history - why it keeps getting brought up is amazing! Collect (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what Collect is referring too when says 3 years ago this was settled, but the consensus among most historians is that there was some sorta plot. Not one source has been provided were a historian says that Butler lied or made up any of his testimony.

Here's what the historians agree on. They agree that Butler was truthful in everything he said. They also agree that Macquire most likely perjured himself when he testified and that his denials were contradicted by the facts.

It seems to me that the notion that you guys are suggesting is much more far fetched than anything Butler ever claimed. Your basically saying that after months of Butler rejecting his offers to advocate for the gold standard Macquire just decided to out of the blue make up a story about a coup hoping that it would bring Butler around. In order to make this ruse stick he did extensive traveling across europe looking at paramilitary groups. Finally the capper he mentions this plot to a journalist Paul Comly French and says Roosevelt is a communist and that he should be reduced to a figurehead.

Let's remeber that Macquire was an employee of a firm and that he was advocating for the Gold Standard at the behest of Robert Sterling Clark. Were supposed to believe that he decided to say to hell with his employers and just go rogue and come up with this little plan all his own?

Were also supposed to believe that it was just a concidence that Macquire mentioned to Butler a new organization being formed a few weeks before the American Liberty League was formed. Despite what capatilismojo says I view Paul Comly French as pretty much confirming that Macquire was referring to the Liberty League in an indirect way.

This seems to me a much more bizarre scenario than the one Butler outlined. In fact it makes his scenario seem downright logical. Basically were saying that Gerald Macquire was the stupidest bond trader that ever lived. Having failed to bring Butler along for his other schemes he thought making up a fantastic tale of a coup plot would be the thing that would really warm Butler over to his position because that's what every military general wants to here, were gonna overthrow the president and install a fascist government.

This doesn't even include the fact that James Zandt also said that he was approached by forces in wall street to overthrow Roosevelt.

As for the Smith Act of 1940, I mentioned it because there simply weren't many laws at the time that made attempts to overthrow the government illegal. The act made it a criminal offense to:

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

That's what I meant that laws to prosecute someone for this type of thing may not have existed during this time. Yes treason has always been illegal, but before the smith act it was really only during war time that anyone was prosecuted for it. As The History Channel documentary says, during peace time it was rare for anyone to be tried for attempting to subvert the government. It wasn't until the 40's that a legal framework existed for prosecutions like this. annoynmous 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Check history of this talk page -- back on 18 Nov 2005, this was mentioned. [8] where it is quite clear no acts occurred, and Butler even "wondered whether MacGuire was using Clark's paranoia about losing his fortune to wheedle cash out of him." [9] "I have to agree with User:Tyrenius. Although I wrote the majority of this article, and believe the plot was real, using the word "alleged" at the beginning of the article does not weaken the article at all. Unfortunatly no one was convicted of these crimes, so throughout history it will always be an "alleged" crime. That is not me "downplaying" the plot, because I have "up-played" the plot more than anyone on wikipedia. That is simply me being realistic. No convictions=alleged. Travb (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)" Three years ago to the day just about. As claimed. As for prosecuting conspiracies -- nope. Such go back into common law times. Collect (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to forget this follow up from Travb who is now known as ikip:

[edit] The word alleged As per Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words:

There are some forms of generalization which are considered unacceptable in standard writing. This category embraces what is termed a semantic cop-out, represented by the term allegedly. This phrase, which became something of a catch-phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.

No more use of the word alleged. I supported it before on this article, but no more. Travb (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that conspiracy itself is not a crime, it's conspiracy to commit something that makes it a criminal offense. So sense muder is a crime than conspiracy to commit it is also a crime.

The point I was making is that subversion of the government wasn't really something you could prosecute someone for at that time. Treason at the time was mostly defined as passing information to the enemy, not trying to overthrow the government.annoynmous 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't find a self-published website that arrogantly claims it knows everything and yet has no sources to back up any of it's claims to be very reliable.annoynmous 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say once again, because there appears to be some confusion, what it is exactly I'm advocating here. I am not saying that the article should state as absolute fact that there was a plot. All I'm advocating is that it should say the plot was "in the opinion of a congressional committe of the United States Congress" a plan to overthrow Roosevelt. There is nothing factually wrong with that statement. That was the committes official position and I feel the article should reflect that. I am making no claim to absolute truth or that article should in no way question the veracity of the plot. I am simply suggesting a compromise that frees the article from a bias one way or the other.

This is a compromise that has had much prior precedent at wikipedia. When the issue is controversial you simply state it as the opinion of the official body. That is the compromise that was reached for the Lee Harvey Oswald article and other articles where the guilt of the suspect was questioned. I am not advocating the deletion of any source material or relevant information, I'm simply suggesting a more neutral type of wording. annoynmous 15:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope it is not. You are asking that we ignore consensus here. A consensus to use "alleged." That contradicts the principles of WP. I would also suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, being charged with a crime, and that at least there is no dount that a crime was committed. Here we have no actual acts indicating that any crime was committed at all. Collect (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well as I showed above there isn't really a consensus. Both Ikip and lapsed pacifist seem to disagree with the use of the word "alleged".

Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of anything, and yet two congressional committes determined that he was the killer. Using the word alleged would be innapropriate for his article and it's also innapropriate for this article. Yes in this case there was no crime committed beacause it was exposed before it could be carried out. That doesn't negate the fact that the committe found that it was planned in nearily executed.

The only true source of documentation for this incident is the congressional report. All the details and information about the plot come from it. If it weren't for the report we wouldn't know anything and theres no getting around what there official position was. I truly don't understand why it is I have to argue for a committe report of the United States Congress. It would seem to me that something like that should be taken as a given. Again, not that the official record should never be questioned, but it should at least be ackowledged as the the official record.

I understand that collect has made up his mind and that theres nothing I can say to convince him. I sense however that editors such as capitilismojo and Huon are more open to a compromise after a bit more discussion.

I'm going to take a break from this article for a while because I need a break from wikipedia in general. In the future I will make some further compromise offers and hopefully we will be able to reach a mutual comprmose that will satisfy everyones demands.annoynmous 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

McCormack Dickstein committee

[10] 1934 "Dickstein had viewed the inquest into Communist activites as mere ballast for his concern with the Nazis, but the committee's 1935 report reflected more of McCormack's deep anti-communism than of Dickstein's views." Specifically the report stated that the USSR was encouraging subversive activities in the United States. Not 1938. Collect (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It never suprises me how collect continues to leave out relevant information. Right after the passage you quote there comes this sentence:

"Until 1938 Red-Hunters operated only sporadically on the floor of congress."

It goes on to say how the McCormack Dickstein committe was restrained compared to what came later. It also says that it was Martin Dees who pioneered much of the infamous persecution tactics that the committe would becomed famous for. annoynmous 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC

IIRC, you had denied that Communists were investigated in 1934 by the M-D committee. Showing that they did, and that it was in their report seems to contradict you. Collect (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said they didn't investigate communists, I said they didn't start seriously investigating them until 1938 when Martin Dees took over. During this time they mostly investigated Nazi activity. McCormack may have been the chairmen, but it was Dickstein who directed the investigations. annoynmous 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus you were the one who claimed the 34-37 committe spent "more time on communists than they did on anything else". No source you have provided makes this claim. In fact most claim the exact opposite, that they mostly investigated Nazi and fascist activity.

Look this isn't productive. Were arguing over petty nonsense and who said what when. I'm not interested in getting into a personal dispute so I'm going to go away for awhile. I'll come back to this article in the future, but for right now I need a wikibreak.

annoynmous 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote above "Whatever investigating they did of communists during this time was extremely limited." [11] , [12], [13], [14] and more. The Communist leaders were all called before the committee. Way before 1938. As stated by me. Collect (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did write that and not one of the sources you provided contradicts me. All your sources say is that they called up the leaders for questioning, not one of them says that the committe "mostly investigated communists" as you claimed. They all ackowledge that the committes main focus was on fascist related groups. The fact of matter is that congress did not start aggresively questioning communists until 1938.

It's interesting you bring up Schlesinger, because he go's on to exclaim how scrupolous the MD committes investigation methods were during this time.

I really am sick of arguing this trivial point that has nothing to do with the relvant issues of the article.annoynmous 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I never said McCormack was not scrupulous, why bring that point up? They took testimony from every Communist leader they could find. And one specifically says the report was heavy on communists. And I hope yo had a nice wikibreak. Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I brought it up because an argument was made that the M-D Committe paved the way for HUAC's unscrupolous methods later on. I made the point that HUAC was not officailly formed until 1938 and it was under the leadership of Martin Dies that they began the infamous red baiting tactics they became famous for.

The fact of matter was that the M-D committe was created specifically to investigate Nazi activity and whatever investigating they did of communist groups was minimal compared to that. I mean for crying out loud the word Nazi was in the title of the committe.

You know what, I'm done responding this nonsense. Believe whatever you want to believe. I should have continued with my wikibreak and not indulged my bad habits by continually responding to this. annoymous 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Other Testimony

We have an entire section with only two sentences. Paul Comly French's testimony should be included in the Committee section. Van Zandt's remarks weren't testimony and so should be more properly lie in the Contemporary Reaction section. Unless there is a problem, I will move them. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Media vs. Reporting

I think using "media" in the lede is odd given that we only have news accounts. Media broadly encompasses print, radio, t.v., and internet. We only have print accounts. We have no radio sources extant, television (and internet)didn't exist. It seems odd to use "media", but I'm fine with the use if it is generally seen as improving the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Media might be used to distinguish newspapers and magazines. All I worry about is "(adjective) media" where the adjective bears no relationship to any source. "Non-labor" seems about as far out as any, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on this point there is agreement. That is correct; inserting these adjectives is unhelpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed, please help. Rather than revert without explanation, please give a rationale. Mainstream? What is your non-mainstream source?Capitalismojo (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem odd that all of the sources that play down the plot are owned by very rich people, exactly the kind who could expect to benefit from such a plot? How do we show this? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that any popular newspaper will make its owner very rich, no, that doesn't seem odd. Besides, given that most fascist regimes tightly controlled the media, I don't see newspaper owners benefiting from a fascist plot. Finally I don't see any evidence of these newspaper owners being related to this plot, and not even Spivak (who saw more of a plot than anybody else) didn't suggest the newspapers' complicity. Any sources? Huon (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)