ROBERT K. MURRAY. Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920. Pp. xii, 337. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955. $4.75

• Author: Arthur S. Link
• Published date: 01 July 1955
• Date: 01 July 1955
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625530000133
• Subject Matter: Articles

142

teresting

story

and

one

well

worth

telling.

Dr.

Vinson’s

search

for

materials

has

been

broad

and

imaginative.

He

has

ex-

amined

many

manuscript

sources

not

used

by

the

Sprouts

in

their

broader

treatment,

which

appeared

while

Dr.

Vinson

was

work-

ing

on

the

present

study

as

a

doctoral

dis-

sertation.

While

this

wide

research

did

not

result

in

startling

new

revelations,

it

does

somewhat

broaden

our

picture

and

goes

far

to

confirm

that

the

major

out-

lines

of

this

subject

are

now

established.

On

only

one

substantive

point

of

impor-

tance

does

Vinson

seem

open

to

challenge;

he

virtually

ignores

the

part

played

by

Arthur

Meighen

of

Canada

in

the

Com-

monwealth

decision

to

seek

abrogation

of

the

Japanese

alliance

and

wrongly

men-

tions

instead

W.

R.

Hughes

of

Australia.

The

verdicts

which

Dr.

Vinson

passes

are

interesting

and

often

provocative.

Some

may

feel

that

his

critical-even

sarcastic-

treatment

of

the

Senate

and

its

sincerity

is

overdone.

Others

may

feel

that

a

deeper

analysis

of

party

factions

and

motivation

is

required;

there

is

here,

for

example,

no

indication

that

it

was

the

staunchest

Wil-

sonians,

those

who

stuck

with

their

chief

in

the

vote

of

March

1920,

who

provided

the

bulk

of

the

voices

against

the

Four

Power

Treaty.

More

fundamentally,

while

recognizing

that

the

Senate,

like

the

peo-

ple,

was

&dquo;chiefly

concerned

in

defeating,

as

easily

as

possible,

two

old

enemies,

war

and

taxes,&dquo;

readers

may

challenge

Dr.

Vin-

son’s

further

assertion

that

the

Washing-

ton

treaties

reflected

untrammeled

Sena-

torial

isolationism

and

were

therefore

un-

realistic,

unwise,

and

basically

hypocritical.

In

short,

was

the

Washington

system

a

&dquo;Parchment

Peace&dquo;

or

(to

borrow

the

Sprouts’

title)

a

move

&dquo;Toward

a

New

Order

of

Sea

Power&dquo;?

Was

it

the

struc-

ture

itself,

or

the

failure

to

develop

and

execute

it,

that

was

responsible

for

later

tragedy?

Dr.

Vinson’s

book

is

a

concise

and

ad-

mirably

written

study.

As

such,

it

is

a

positive

contribution

to

the

literature

on

the

Washington

Conference.

BRADFORD

PERKINS

University

of

California

Los

Angeles

ROBERT

K.

MURRAY.

Red

Scare:

A

Study

in

National

Hysteria,

1919-1920.

Pp.

xii,

337.

Minneapolis:

University

of

Minnesota

Press,

1955.

$4.75.

Mr.

Murray,

assistant

professor

of

his-

tory

at

the

Pennsylvania

State

University,

has

written

an

absorbing

account,

as

far

as

it

goes,

of

one

of

the

most

important

episodes

in

recent

American

history-the

Red

scare

that

convulsed

the

American

government

and

people

during

1919

and

1920

and

survived

in

various

violent

mani-

festations

into

the

1920’s.

Altogether,

it

is

an

astounding

story

of

the

way

in

which

fear of

a

largely

mythical

Bolshevik

danger

stimulated

wholesale

federal,

state,

and

private

assaults

against

civil

liberty

and

free

thought

and

expression.

Mr.

Murray

analyzes

the

whole

phenomenon

with

con-

siderable

precision

and

understanding.

Having

said

this,

however,

the

reviewer

must

also

say

that

the

book

has

certain

defects

that

should

not

be

ignored.

To

begin

with-and

the

following

observation

obviously

reflects

the

reviewer’s

personal

judgment-Mr.

Murray

was

so

impressed

by

certain

similarities

between

the

Red

scare

of

1919-20

and

the

one

that

followed

World

War

II

and

so

determined

to

expose

the

folly

and

disastrous

consequences

of

unreasoned

fear that

he

often

wrote

more

like

a

prophet

than

a

scholar.

He

frankly

tells

us

in

his

Preface

that

his

approach

to

history

is

&dquo;mainly

moral&dquo;

and

that

he

makes

&dquo;no

pretense

of

having

completely

achieved

historical

detachment.&dquo;

This

re-

viewer

does

not

object

to

morality;

nor

would

he

argue

that

it

is

possible

to

achieve

complete

historical

detachment.

It

is

all

a

matter

of

degree,

and

there

is

a

dif-

ference

between

a

&dquo;moral&dquo;

approach

and

a

didacticism

that

becomes

in

this

book

at

times

a

little

wearing.

The

second

and

by

far

the

gravest

de-

fect

of

this

study,

however,

stems

not

from

the

author’s

point

of

view,

to

which

he

has

a

clear

right,

but

from

the

way

in

which

he

limited

his

research

in

the

main

to

pub-

lished

sources.

He

simply

overlooked,

or

concluded

that

it

was

not

wort:iwhile

to

work

through,

the

great

manuscript

collec-

tions

bearing

on

his

subject-the

Wilson

Papers,

the

Justice

Department

Papers

in