What do you think?
Rate this book
Red Scare in Court: New York versus the International Workers Order
A meticulously detailed historical account of one of the casualties of the Cold War politics of the 1950s. Arthur J. Sabin has had unprecedented access to the files of both sides, thus providing a rare "behind the scenes" portrait of the case.
Hardcover
First published March 1, 1993
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 26, 2022
An exhaustive account of an administrative review case with no legal basis.
March 8, 2011
This book is a fascinating history of New York’s successful legal battle to destroy the International Workers Order, a Communist-controlled fraternal insurance company. The order, which was financially healthy, was liquidated because of its politics at the height of the Korean War and fears of domestic Communism. Arthur Sabin’s account is fair and the author does a great job of explaining the steps of the legal proceedings and pleadings.
When the New York insurance department decided to try to close the IWO, it was a unique insurer that offered equal rates to blacks, appealed to new immigrants, and covered working-class industries that more traditional insurers wouldn’t. But its board was heavily Communist at a time when that mere belief could land you in jail.
Some context I underlined from the book:
“It must be remembered that these were decades of open and blatant racism, anti-Semitism, isolationism, and xenophobia despite the liberal position of the New Deal and the unity engendered by the Second World War. Members of Congress openly harangued against immigrants, blacks, and other minorities with relative impunity in racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic pronouncements. There was a great deal of pressure on citizens to homogenize into white Protestant America.”
Another passage, about the era of loyalty oaths and Smith Act prosecutions:
“In a similar vein, in another case involving an employee facing loyalty charges, the chairman of the loyalty board remarked, ‘Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn’t prove that he’s a Communist, but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn’t it.’ A further case involved seventy FBI interviews, found necessary before clearing a bootblack working in the Pentagon of charges that he had contributed ten dollars to the Scottsboro defense fund; the allegation was shown to be false since it was supposed to have been contributed ten years before he was born. With this proof, he was cleared as safe to shine shoes. Such were the times.”
Here’s what I would say is the author’s basic conclusion:
“None of the courts, and none of the twelve judges who heard or reviewed the case, were willing to ‘swim against the tide’ of the political seas, either by dissenting or by bringing to the level of open discussion in any opinion some of the more obvious factors. Was this a political prosecution? Were the State’s witnesses tainted by their paid, professional informer status? Were constitutional guarantees of speech, press, political rights being violated? In order to save the insurance benefits of its members, should the court direct some form of ‘rehabilitation’ in lieu of liquidation? The unwillingness of any of these judges to even enter the arena of these troublesome but obvious questions exemplifies the sheer power of the Red Scare in these courts.”
When the New York insurance department decided to try to close the IWO, it was a unique insurer that offered equal rates to blacks, appealed to new immigrants, and covered working-class industries that more traditional insurers wouldn’t. But its board was heavily Communist at a time when that mere belief could land you in jail.
Some context I underlined from the book:
“It must be remembered that these were decades of open and blatant racism, anti-Semitism, isolationism, and xenophobia despite the liberal position of the New Deal and the unity engendered by the Second World War. Members of Congress openly harangued against immigrants, blacks, and other minorities with relative impunity in racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic pronouncements. There was a great deal of pressure on citizens to homogenize into white Protestant America.”
Another passage, about the era of loyalty oaths and Smith Act prosecutions:
“In a similar vein, in another case involving an employee facing loyalty charges, the chairman of the loyalty board remarked, ‘Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn’t prove that he’s a Communist, but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn’t it.’ A further case involved seventy FBI interviews, found necessary before clearing a bootblack working in the Pentagon of charges that he had contributed ten dollars to the Scottsboro defense fund; the allegation was shown to be false since it was supposed to have been contributed ten years before he was born. With this proof, he was cleared as safe to shine shoes. Such were the times.”
Here’s what I would say is the author’s basic conclusion:
“None of the courts, and none of the twelve judges who heard or reviewed the case, were willing to ‘swim against the tide’ of the political seas, either by dissenting or by bringing to the level of open discussion in any opinion some of the more obvious factors. Was this a political prosecution? Were the State’s witnesses tainted by their paid, professional informer status? Were constitutional guarantees of speech, press, political rights being violated? In order to save the insurance benefits of its members, should the court direct some form of ‘rehabilitation’ in lieu of liquidation? The unwillingness of any of these judges to even enter the arena of these troublesome but obvious questions exemplifies the sheer power of the Red Scare in these courts.”
July 12, 2007
In the 1950s, the country's largest mutual benefit insurance plan was dismantled by the State of New York because of its ties to the Communist Party. This book is a detailed account of that historic case. The focus is on the legal arguments, but he does a great job of painting the bigger picture. Its worth reading if you are interested in how McCarthyism affected common working people. I checked it out just because my great-grandparents lost significant retirement savings as a result of the case, but probably would have found it much less interesting otherwise.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews