To the Editor:
I wish to commend James Rorty and Winifred Raushenbush for their most accurate, authentic, and painstaking account of the Robeson “concerts” in Peekskill [“The Lessons of the Peekskill Riots,” in the October COMMENTARY]. Particularly interesting to me is their criticism of the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization which I have had occasion to challenge several times. The ACLU is still inclined to condone the behavior of Communists in the belief that they are ordinary dissenters; one suspects that the contented members of the ACLU have never themselves been touched by the immoral standards of conduct that characterize the native Communist movement. . . .
I have been a resident of Croton for eighteen years (perhaps I should add: I am Jewish and was born in Russia) and have had the opportunity to observe the degrading methods used by Communists in spreading their seeds of dissension from door to door. . . . For many years the Communists in Croton have employed a give-em-the-works program against any neighbors who oppose their way of thinking; this is one of their chief weapons for demoralizing a community, and it also engenders the bitterness and hatred that erupts when Communists are allowed to pursue their lawless ways. . . .
I wish it were possible to reprint the Rortys’ article in every newspaper in the country.
Mary Plager
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
_____________
To the Editor:
Though James Rorty and Winifred Raushenbush say in the closing paragraph of “The Lessons of the Peekskill Riots” that these riots “provide us with a shocking example of how not to deal with Communist fomentation of racial and religious tension and conflict,” the over-all attitude of their article, it seems to me, is to “understand,” accept, and condone the Legionnaires’ behavior. I feel that Mr. Rorty and Miss Raushenbush, as well as a great many other Americans, have somehow failed to learn some very important lessons in American democracy that I’d like to set forth here.
I thought the article dealt mainly with the reception accorded the invaders by the home communities and I’d like to confine my remarks to this aspect of the situation.
The central character in Mr. Rorty’s and Miss Raushenbush’s Peekskill story is Vincent Boyle, who is presented as a refreshing young American, “earnest,” “still trying to understand,” “of more than average intelligence,” free of deviousness and free of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately Mr. Boyle has not only personal charm, earnestness, and intelligence, but also some distinctly anti-democratic attitudes which are clearly evident in his letter to the Peekskill Evening Star, quoted in part in the article. . . .
The call to “vehemently oppose” the appearance of the Robesonites and the reference to the Verplanck handling of the Klan are nothing short of calls to violence and extra-legal vigilantism. The American tradition I was brought up on was protest through the written and spoken word; more forceful intervention was to be left to the courts of law and the police. I must say I’m disheartened by our authors’ lack of faith in this principle.
Similarly, Boyle’s request for cooperation with the American Legion in this matter suggests that the Legion has taken over the administration of justice from our courts and police. I readily grant the Legion’s right to express itself—in words, please—but I consider its assumption of power through violence or threat of violence as dangerous as the Bund’s activities in behalf of Hitler Germany.
And while discussing the Legion let me say I challenge its notion that veterans are super-citizens with greater rights and privileges than others. I was brought up to believe in the equality of man and to despise hierarchies. I don’t believe a wounded veteran necessarily understands society and citizenship better than others. Similarly, I’m truly sorry Vincent Boyle lost a brother and father in World War II, but I don’t see that that entitles him to any greater say in the running of our democracy, as Mr. Rorty and Miss Raushenbush seem to think. Briefly, I believe in an equal vote for every citizen and ample opportunity for everyone to speak his piece. . . .
Mr. Boyle’s idea of leaving “no doubt in [the Robesonites’] minds that they are unwelcome around here now or in the future” and of striving “to find a remedy that will cope with the situation the same way as Verplanck and with the same result that they will never reappear in this area” sounds to me like a call for a reign of terror. . . .
His statement that the Communists are coming “to induce others to join their ranks and it is unfortunate that some of the weaker minded are susceptible to their fallacious teachings unless something is done by the loyal Americans of this area” expresses the arrogance common to all anti-democratic elements: we are superior and must “take care of” our weak-minded brethren who can’t be trusted to think right. I got the impression that the authors shared Mr. Boyle’s fear that the Communists would gain 100,000 new adherents in the Peekskill area and I wonder what made them think the Peekskill populace would be less discerning than they themselves.
To Mr. Rorty and Miss Raushenbush, how we defend ourselves against the Communist threat is only a matter of tactics. I’ve tried to convey that it is also a matter of some very important principles.
Joseph S. Miller
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
The Rortys’ piece on the Peekskill riots is by far the best on the subject. It won’t please everybody: it shouldn’t. It is heartening, though, to see, set up in type, something that gives off the exotic aroma of honesty.
A number of us up here are grateful to the Rortys.
Bernard Seaman
Croton-on-Hudson, New York
_____________
To the Editor:
You have rendered a public service of lasting importance in publishing “The Lessons of Peekskill.” As a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I am particularly grateful for your report. . . .
Harold E. Fey
Managing Editor
The Christian Century
Chicago, Illinois
_____________
To the Editor:
Having just read (with the utmost self-control) “The Lessons of the Peekskill Riots” by James Rorty and Winifred Raushenbush, I must write that it is a heartbreaking whitewash of the entire issue, clothed in double-talk and contradiction which could perhaps be matched only by the Daily Worker itself.
That the attitudes and role of anti-Semitic and anti-Negro Peekskill residents should be so lightly touched upon is sad and frightening. The writers seem sorry that they cannot completely absolve these incipient fascists of guilt; and they almost do so, their hatred of Communism is so great and so misdirected. . . .
Marvin Sicherman
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
“The Lessons of the Peekskill Riots” struck me as being one of the finest jobs of objective reporting in the field of social sciences that has come to my attention.
J. Frederic Dewhurst
Economist
The Twentieth Century Fund
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
Congratulations on the fine piece by James Rorty and Winifred Raushenbush. . . . There is great strength in the authors’ restraint. It is packed full of facts showing the authors have done a great deal of research. And may I add that the entire October issue of COMMENTARY is excellent.
Louis Waldman
New York City
_____________