# Conspiracy theory in "A People's History of the United States"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 28, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974 "2003-05-28T07:02:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/1 "2003-05-28T07:02:23Z")
On the advice of another Doper whose name I no longer remember, I recently picked up a copy of Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”. While Zinn is unabashedly critical of almost everything the US has done from Colombus on in, the book is well-researched, well-documented, and seems credible enough. However, I found something while reading today that seemed to stretch the limits of credibility. In Chapter 14, “War is the Health of the State”, Zinn discusses the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it illegal to speak against the war or publish anti-war articles or texts. A few paragraphs into this discussion (Page 366 in the Perennial Classics paperback 2003 edition), Zinn makes the following statement: > [@](#): > > The Espionage Act… has remained on the books all these years since World War I, and although it is supposed to apply only in wartime, it has been constantly in force since 1950, because the United States has legally been in a “state of emergency” since the Korean War. I’ve seen claims of this nature before from conspiracy types, but never from a source as ostensibly reputable as Zinn. Can anyone confirm or deny the gist of this claim - that the US has been in a “state of emergency” for the last half century, and that the government is thus empowered to arrest anti-war activists? If so, when was the last time the Espionage Act was invoked, and could it theoretically be invoked by the Bush administration to arrest people for speaking out against the war on terror? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/2 "2003-05-28T09:55:46Z")
Damn, that’s a good question. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/3 "2003-05-28T11:04:23Z")
If the government had been empowered to massively crack down on activists since 1950, what the hell happened during the 1960s-1970s? Massive governmental amnesia? I posit that if anything remotely like that law was on the books (or even off the books) during the timeframe specified (1950-present), there wouldn’t have been anything approaching the Peace Movement or Civil Rights Movement in this country, in either size or influence. They would all have been shipped off to bases unknown for the duration. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/4 "2003-05-28T12:38:43Z")
My guess would be that we may be technically in the state of emergency, but the authorities have either forgotten about it or know there’s no point in enforcing it, since it’ll be overturned on constitutional grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/5 "2003-05-28T14:27:41Z")
Are all our memories so short that we don’t remember the state of martial law that was declared over the Y2K chaos? Come on, all the road closing signs were stored behind Wal-Marts all over the country. Remember? Remember? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/6 "2003-05-28T15:18:09Z")
The 1917 Espionage Act may still be on the books, but it is not quite the terror of freedom that its is sometimes portrayed. (The Sedition Act of 1918 that Wilson rammed through because he did not get everything he wanted in the Espionage Act was much more anti-Constitutional.) What happened under the Espionage Act was that the Wilson Justice Department expanded the meaning of the language in the bill to cover a wide range of clearly protected speech and were helped along by judges and juries caught up in the war hysteria. A great many of the convictions garnered under that act were reversed (usually after 1920 when it was politically safe for the appellate courts to do so without the justices jeopardizing their potential elevation to the Supreme Court). Geoffrey Stone, writing for the University of Chicago Law Review, has provided an interesting commentary on what the law intended (and on how it was used): [Judge Learned Hand and the Espionage Act of 1917: A Mystery Unraveled](http://www.law.nyu.edu/faculty/workshop/fall2002/stone.pdf) (Adobe Acrobat required). Following the reversals of the 1920s, the law (if it has not been repealed–a point I haven’t discovered) is probably not as much of a threat as Zinn would like to believe. (Witness the fact that neither John Mitchell nor John Ashcroft invoked it (yet).) [(Google cached HTML version of Stone’s article)](http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:Zd0QpmW_RsUJ:www.law.nyu.edu/faculty/workshop/fall2002/stone.pdf+espionage+act+1917+history&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/7 "2003-05-28T17:00:22Z")
Well, I’ll be… I find that in [this Acrobat file](http://1stam.umn.edu/archive/historic/pdf/Espionage%20Act%20of%201917%20and%20current%20version.pdf) it gives the citations for the Act: > [@](#): > > Act of June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, §3, 40 Stat. 219, > amended by Act of May 16, 1918, ch. 75, 40 Stat. 553–54, > reenacted by Act of Mar. 3, 1921, ch. 136, 41 Stat. 1359, > current version codified at 18 U.S.C. §2388 So, let’s just see what 18 USC 2388 says, over at [GPO Access](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html). This is public domain and may be quoted in full: > [@](#): > > TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > > ``` > PART I--CRIMES > > CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES > > ``` > > Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war > > ``` > (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or > Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so-- > Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. > > (b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a). > > (c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. > > (d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States. > > ``` > > (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) > Historical and Revision Notes > > ``` > Based on sections 33, 34, 35, 37 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, Secs. 3, 4, 5, 8, 40 Stat. 219; Mar. 3, 1921, ch. 136, 41 Stat. 1359; Mar. 28, 1940, ch. 72, Sec. 2, 54 Stat. 79). > Sections 33, 34, 35, and 37 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, were consolidated. Sections 34, 35, and 37 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense, are also incorporated in sections 791, 792, and 794 of this title, to which they relate. > Minor changes were made in phraseology. > Amendments > > 1994--Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ``fined under this title'' for ``fined not more than $10,000'' in last par. of subsec. (a) and in subsec. (c). > Repeals > > Section 7 of act June 30, 1953, ch. 175, 67 Stat. 134, **repealed** Joint Res. July 3, 1952, ch. 570, Sec. 1(a)(29), 66 Stat. 333; Joint Res. Mar. 31, 1953, ch. 13, Sec. 1, 67 Stat. 18, **which had provided that this section should continue in force until six months after the termination of the National emergency proclaimed by 1950 Proc. No. 2914** which is set out as a note preceding section 1 of Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense. > Repeal of Extensions of War-time Provisions > > Section 6 of Joint Res. July 3, 1952, repealed Joint Res. Apr. 14, 1952, ch. 204, 66 Stat. 54, as amended by Joint Res. May 28, 1952, ch. 339, 66 Stat. 96. Intermediate extensions by Joint Res. June 14, 1952, ch. 437, 66 Stat. 137, and Joint Res. June 30, 1952, ch. 526, 66 Stat. 296, which **continued provisions until July 3, 1952, expired by their own terms.** > > Section Referred to in Other Sections > > This section is referred to in sections 14, 1717 of this title; title 5 section 8312; title 38 section 6105; title 50 App. sections 19, 34. > > ``` > > _edited for format and bolded by me–SK_ I don’t have the time to review this in full, but I think that the bolded parts indicate that the extension was repealed in the 1950s by Congressional resolution. Here is the text of National Emergency Proclamation 2914: > [@](#): > > PROC. NO. 2914. NATIONAL EMERGENCY, 1950 > > Proc. No. 2914, Dec. 16, 1950, 15 F.R. 9029, 64 Stat. a454 provided: > > WHEREAS recent events in Korea and elsewhere constitute a grave threat to the peace of the world and imperil the efforts of this country and those of the United Nations to prevent aggression and armed conflict; and > > WHEREAS world conquest by communist imperialism is the goal of the forces of aggression that have been loosed upon the world; and > > WHEREAS, if the goal of communist imperialism were to be achieved, the people of this country would no longer enjoy the full and rich life they have with God’s help built for themselves and their children; they would no longer enjoy the blessings of the freedom of worshipping as they severally choose, the freedom of reading and listening to what they choose, the right of free speech including the right to criticize their Government, the right to choose those who conduct their Government, the right to engage freely in collective bargaining, the right to engage freely in their own business enterprises, and the many other freedoms and rights which are a part of our way of life; and > > Whereas the increasing menace of the forces of communist aggression requires that the national defense of the United States be strengthened as speedily as possible: > > NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY S. TRUMAN, President of the United States of America, do proclaim the existence of a national emergency, which requires that the military, naval, air, and civilian defenses of this country be strengthened as speedily as possible to the end that we may be able to repeal any and all threats against our national security and to fulfill our responsibilities in the efforts being made through the United Nations and otherwise to bring about lasting peace. > > I summon all citizens to make a united effort for the security and well-being of our beloved country and to place its needs foremost in thought and action that the full moral and material strength of the Nation may be readied for the dangers which threaten us. > > I summon our farmers, our workers in industry, and our businessmen to make a mighty production effort to meet the defense requirements of the Nation and to this end to eliminate all waste and inefficiency and to subordinate all lesser interests to the common good. > > I summon every person and every community to make, with a spirit of neighborliness, whatever sacrifices are necessary for the welfare of the Nation. > > I summon all State and local leaders and officials to cooperate fully with the military and civilian defense agencies of the United States in the national defense program. > > I summon all citizens to be loyal to the principles upon which our Nation is founded, to keep faith with our friends and allies, and to be firm in our devotion to the peaceful purposes for which the United Nations was founded. > > I am confident that we will meet the dangers that confront us with courage and determination, strong in the faith that we can thereby “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” > > Harry S. Truman. However, right behind that is Proclamation No. 2974. It terminates the emergency proclaimed on September 8, 1939, just after hostilities broke out in Europe. It has this intriguing line: > [@](#): > > Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect Proclamation No. 2914 [set out above], issued by the President on December 16, 1950, declaring that world conquest by communist imperialism is the goal of the forces of aggression that have been loosed upon the world, and proclaiming the existence of a national emergency… I dunno. Hope that’s enough for you guys to work with. I have to disappear now. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/8 "2003-05-28T17:10:55Z")
Like I said above, it _appears_ to me as if the language was repealed, but I find that [in an excerpt from the book](http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/WarHealth_PeoplesHx.html) in question it goes on to say, > [@](#): > > In 1963, the Kennedy administration pushed a bill [unsuccessfully] to apply the Espionage Act to statements uttered by Americans abroad, it was concerned in the words of a cable from Secretary of State Rusk to Ambassador Lodge in Vietnam, about journalists in Vietnam writing “critical articles … on Diem and his government” that were “likely to impede the war effort.” Perhaps the state of emergency was re-invoked somehow? ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/9 "2003-05-29T05:19:20Z")
I think a definitive answer to this interesting question is still waiting. Any of our resident wonks want to take a non-denominational crack at it? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/10 "2003-05-29T10:57:46Z")
I just have to wonder if our nation had learned anything from its experience with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. One thing we might have learned from the experience is that such legislation does not belong in our way of government. But I wonder if some have taken the lesson from it that to get such legislation to stick they must find subtler, cleverer ways of duping the public. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/11 "2003-05-29T13:11:51Z")
So if I’m reading the two quotes in Sofa King’s post correctly, there’s a law stating Americans cannot criticize any military actions taken by the United States. And this was invoked because the Communists were threatening American rights such as “the right of free speech including the right to criticize their Government”. Sort of a “we had to burn the village in order to save it” mentality at work. ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/12 "2003-05-29T13:12:49Z")
This is approaching GD territory, but if I’m reading the USC as provided by **Sofa King** correctly, section 2388 makes it a crime to: [ul][li]knowingly lie in an attempt to interfere with military operations[/li][li]attempt to incite mutiny[/li][li]obstruct recruitment and enlistment in such as way as to injure the U.S.[/ul][/li]I have to agree with **tomndeb** that it’s “not quite the terror of freedom”. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/13 "2003-05-29T17:29:51Z")
Look at the key words: “at war”. The USA has not been “at war” since 1945. Thus, laws in force while we are “at war” have no bearing. Only the congress has the right to declare “war” in the USA. There has been no declaration of war since 1941. There have been “authorizations for use of force” but no declaration of a state of war. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/14 "2003-05-29T21:23:58Z")
Here’s [an editorial](http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/6505719p-7449253c.html) which appears to contradict my above extension of Zinn’s quote: > [@](#): > > In 1963, then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy proposed a broadening of the Sedition Act of 1918 to include socialist organizations and this more recent amendment also passed and was upheld by then Chief Justice Earl Warren. And I’m not sure I can agree with **Dogface** ’s observation because I’ve found some evidence that the Espionage Act has been invoked since WWII against American citizens who leaked documents to non-foreign or allied sources. For example, [Daniel Ellsberg](http://newark.rutgers.edu/~hbf/ELLSBERG.htm) was tried under the Espionage Act for releasing the “Pentagon Papers” to the New York Times and the Washington Post, but the case was dismissed because of illegal wiretapping. [Samuel Loring Morrison](http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/04/moynihan.html), grandson of the naval historian, was [successfully convicted](http://rf-web.tamu.edu/security/SECGUIDE/Spystory/Morison.htm) for releasing classified photographs to _Jane’s Fighting Ships_ in a time of definite peace, the mid-1980s. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/15 "2003-05-29T21:46:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo \* > **I just have to wonder if our nation had learned anything from its experience with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.** Not to turn this into a GD, but how were the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/16 "2003-05-29T22:15:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Not to turn this into a GD, but how were the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional? They are considered to have been stricken down as such by the Supreme Court in [New York Times v. Sullivan](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/376us254.htm). Or at least, Justice Brennan implied that they [_should_ have been stricken](http://www.thisnation.com/library/nytimes.html): > [@](#): > > Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. Fines levied in its prosecution were repaid by Act of Congress on the ground that it was unconstitutional. See, e. g., Act of July 4, 1840, c. 45, 6 Stat. 802, accompanied by H. R. Rep. No. 86, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. (1840). Calhoun, reporting to the Senate on February 4, 1836, assumed that its invalidity was a matter “which no one now doubts.” Report with Senate bill No. 122, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. Jefferson, as President, pardoned those who had been convicted and sentenced under the Act and remitted their fines, stating: “I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.” Letter to Mrs. Adams, July 22, 1804, 4 Jefferson’s Works (Washington ed.), pp. 555, 556. The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288-289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment. But not until 1964! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/17 "2003-05-30T12:12:17Z")
Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conspiracy-theory-in-a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/177974/18 "2003-05-30T12:36:23Z")
I have little to add to the posts above, but i would like to make a point about the OP’s wording. Zinn’s claim is NOT a “conspiracy theory.” It is a conclusion based on political and historical analysis. Like many such conclusions, it is open to debate, but whether you agree with his conclusion or not is beside the point. He makes no claim that the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, or the National Emergency of 1950 emerged out of a conspiracy or in secret. I only point this out because too often critiques of government policies or corporate actions or social trends are labelled “conspiracy theories,” and it seems to me that such a label is generally designed to discredit the argument without actually addressing its substance. An institutional analysis is NOT a conspiracy theory.