Misplaced Pages

Business Plot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:18, 21 November 2005 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 22:26, 21 November 2005 edit undoRjensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers227,010 edits →The Butler AffairNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:
Given a successful coup, Butler would have held near-absolute power in the newly created position of "Secretary of General Affairs," while Roosevelt would have assumed a figurehead role. Butler would then have implemented fascist measures to combat the Depression, as some ] at the time felt that such steps were necessary to ward off ] influence while preventing drastic changes in the economic structure. Given a successful coup, Butler would have held near-absolute power in the newly created position of "Secretary of General Affairs," while Roosevelt would have assumed a figurehead role. Butler would then have implemented fascist measures to combat the Depression, as some ] at the time felt that such steps were necessary to ward off ] influence while preventing drastic changes in the economic structure.


Butler testified to the existence of such a plot before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in ]. Reaction to Butler's testimony by the public was lukewarm. The majority of media outlets, including The New York Times, Philadelphia Record, and Time Magazine ridiculed or downplayed his claims, saying they lacked evidence. After the committee concluded the New York Times and Time Magazine downplayed the conclusions of the committee.{{ref|journalism}} Those accused of the plotting by Butler all professed innocence. However, MacGuire was the only figure identified by Butler who testified before the committee. Butler testified to the existence of such a plot before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in ]. Reaction to Butler's testimony by the public was lukewarm. The majority of media outlets, including The New York Times, Philadelphia Record, and Time Magazine ridiculed or downplayed his claims, saying they lacked evidence. After the committee concluded the New York Times and Time Magazine downplayed the conclusions of the committee.{{ref|journalism}} Those accused of the plotting by Butler all professed innocence. However, MacGuire was the only figure identified by Butler who testified before the committee. The Committee said it believed MacGuire had talked to Butler about a coup attempt, but the Committee could find no evidence that MacGuire was in league with anyone else. The Committee said it would not call any further witnesses because it had no evidence for a plot beyond MacGuire's disputed conversation with Butler. The Committee investigated MacGuire's finances in depth and found nothing amiss and no evidence of secret payments from conspirators. The multi-million dollar fund for the plot was never located and historians conclude it never existed. Whether Butler exaggerated or MacGuire invented everything is a puzzle, but historians agree with Arthur Schlesinger's conclusion that "it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in much danger." (''Politics of Upheaval'', p 83).


Butler's story was corroborated by Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt, who testified that he had been approached to lead the 500,000-man march on Washington. Butler told Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt that he, Van Zandt, had been suggested as a leader of the march on Washington. Van Zandt told reporters he had no contact whatever with any plotter, and that all he knew came from Butler.


==Historical Treatment== ==Historical Treatment==

Revision as of 22:26, 21 November 2005

The Business Plot or The Plot Against FDR or The White House Putsch was a conspiracy of moneyed interests intended to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the early years of the Great Depression. The allegations of the plot came to light when Marine Corps General Smedley Butler testified to the existence of the plot before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in 1933. In this testimony, Butler claimed that a group of several men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a fascist military coup. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

Alleged Conspirators

The allegations center on a group of wealthy business interests, led by the Du Pont and J. P. Morgan industrial empires. Among the individuals cited as conspirators:

The Butler Affair

The conspirators are alleged to have attempted to recruit Marine Corps General Smedley Butler to lead the coup, promising him an army of 500,000 men for a march on Washington, D.C., unlimited financial backing, and generous media spin control. Despite Butler's sworn loyalty to Roosevelt, the plotters felt his good reputation and popularity were vital in attracting support amongst the general public, and saw him as easier to manipulate than others.

In attempting to recruit Butler, MacGuire is said to have played on the general's passionate loyalty toward his fellow veterans and soldiers. Knowing of an upcoming bonus in 1945 for World War I Veterans, MacGuire allegedly told Butler, "We want to see the soldiers' bonus paid in gold. We do not want the soldier to have rubber money or paper money." Butler stated that once the conspirators were in power, they would protect Roosevelt from other plotters.

Given a successful coup, Butler would have held near-absolute power in the newly created position of "Secretary of General Affairs," while Roosevelt would have assumed a figurehead role. Butler would then have implemented fascist measures to combat the Depression, as some conservatives at the time felt that such steps were necessary to ward off communist influence while preventing drastic changes in the economic structure.

Butler testified to the existence of such a plot before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in 1933. Reaction to Butler's testimony by the public was lukewarm. The majority of media outlets, including The New York Times, Philadelphia Record, and Time Magazine ridiculed or downplayed his claims, saying they lacked evidence. After the committee concluded the New York Times and Time Magazine downplayed the conclusions of the committee. Those accused of the plotting by Butler all professed innocence. However, MacGuire was the only figure identified by Butler who testified before the committee. The Committee said it believed MacGuire had talked to Butler about a coup attempt, but the Committee could find no evidence that MacGuire was in league with anyone else. The Committee said it would not call any further witnesses because it had no evidence for a plot beyond MacGuire's disputed conversation with Butler. The Committee investigated MacGuire's finances in depth and found nothing amiss and no evidence of secret payments from conspirators. The multi-million dollar fund for the plot was never located and historians conclude it never existed. Whether Butler exaggerated or MacGuire invented everything is a puzzle, but historians agree with Arthur Schlesinger's conclusion that "it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in much danger." (Politics of Upheaval, p 83).

Butler told Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt that he, Van Zandt, had been suggested as a leader of the march on Washington. Van Zandt told reporters he had no contact whatever with any plotter, and that all he knew came from Butler.

Historical Treatment

Those who hold with the existence of the conspiracy propose several scenarios in explaining why the affair did not become a cause celebre, among which are:

  • The story was an embarrassment to people of influence, and it was best to sweep it under the rug as quickly as possible.
  • In 1934, newspapers were controlled by a relatively small elite — according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82% of all dailies had monopolies in their communities. Proponents of the theory thus suggest that the media downplayed Butler's testimony based on the interests of their advertisers and owners.
  • Some of Roosevelt's advisors were in on the plot, and downplayed it when it was exposed to prevent their dirty laundry from being aired in public.

Those who doubt Butler's testimony claim that it simply lacked evidence.

Historian Clayton Cramer in a 1995 History Today article, reminds readers that Roosevelt's first term was characterized by fierce political fighting between conservatives and liberal proponents of the New Deal; FDR's advisors could have fabricated the plot in order to discredit conservatives opposed to his program.

Cramer also recalls that the devastation of the Great Depression had caused many Americans to question the foundations of liberal democracy. Several liberals flirted with socialism and communism, while several conservatives viewed countries such as Mussolini's Italy as examples of how fascism could return stability and prosperity to countries ravaged by the Depression. Thus, it is not inconceivable that American business leaders could have viewed fascism as a viable system to both preserve their interests and end the economic woes of the Depression.

Historian Robert F. Burk: "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 the enemies of his pacifist and populist causes."

Historian Hans Schmidt: "...Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt..."

Denouement

The Congressional committee report confirmed Butler's testimony. This report was published in the 1973 book The Plot to Seize the White House, by Jules Archer:

In the last few weeks of the committee's life it received evidence showing that certain persons had attempted to establish a fascist organization in this country...

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution if the financial backers deemed it expedient...

MacGuire denied allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made to 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 form of veterans' organizations of Fascist character.(Excerpt from "The Plot to Seize the White House.")

Links

Notes

  1. Template:Journal reference; Template:Journal reference; Template:Journal reference; Philadelphia Record, November 21 and 22, 1934;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."; 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 tired to persuade him to accept the leadership of a Fascist army."
  2. . ISBN 0674172728. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)
  3. . ISBN 0813109574. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)
  4. For a very critical review of this book see, Template:Journal reference

Futher Reading

Categories: