The Red Scare

The Red Scare

The First Red scare in America occurred between 1918 and 1921, right after World War I and it was this idea that Communism was inside of America.

The second Red Scare took place in the 1950s after World War II and is the one most discussed about when discussing the Red Scare.

However, the first Red Scare tends to be overshadowed by the beginning of the Roaring 20s.

But was their justification for this?

Perhaps and it was possibly used for selfish purposes.

There was a lot going on overseas that definitely affected the growth of the Red Scare in America.

The Bolshevik Revolution occurred between October and November 1917 and then the Russian Civil War occurred between 1918 and 1920.

Vladmir Lenin is calling for revolution throughout the world and there is attempted revolution throughout the world.

The Red Scare contributes to the growth of the Ku Klux Klan and at it's height has about 2 million members.

There was a lot of intolerance throughout the country and it became kind of like a witch-hunt. People were searching for those who were Communist and there was a lot of paranoia throughout the nation.

The FBI emerged out of this period and American Civil liberties Union really took hold in America during this time as well.

The accepted Historical narrative about this Red Scare is that there is no accepted Historical narrative for this time period.  It's not something is taught and the fact is that is overshadowed by other events of the roaring 20s.


I truly believe after a time of great triumph, there comes a period of hardship. During this time, America had just gotten out of World War I victorious and then afterward there was a lot of problems that began emerging. I feel like during those periods of high nationlism and then a low point is where people start looking for someone to blame or point the finger to. I believe that during this time, Communists unfortunately were the ones that people were pointing the finger to. They were blaming the Communists for the hardships that America was entering during this time and it was due to this that I believe began the Red Scare in America for the first time.

Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles 

What was the Treaty of Versailles? 

The Treaty of Versailles was a document in which Germany was forced to sign to end the war. Germany in the end took all the guilt for the war and was forced to pay debt to the various countries.

However, the actual treaty was a result of the US congress shooting it down once and then once revisions were made, it was brought back into play. 

It was after this that the Soviet Union was being looked upon as a threat.

But what is the accepted historical narrative? Better yet, what is a historical narrative? 

A historical narrative is the story in which we as a society are taught about a particular event. 

Using the above example about the Treaty of Versailles, the accepted historical narrative is that the Treaty of Versailles was a failure in which the outcome lead into World War II.

The criticism of the Treaty was almost immediately after it was signed. People began to criticize it around 1922 and President Woodrow Wilson was depicted as the Good Guy.

The book mentions that on November 11th, 1918, the war had finally ended and that President Wilson was intent on peace of reconciliation rather than peace of hate.

The war had technically ended on November 7th, 1918 but the government waited until November 11th, 1918 to formally end the war and in those four days, more men died.

During class, we discussed psychohistory.  

Psychohistory is getting into the mind of someone and in this case, it'd be the mind of President Woodrow Wilson.

He was the first President with a History degree and he was the son of a minister.  He was brought up on strong right and wrong idealism and he was a southerner.

He was the first sitting President to go overseas and he went overseas for six months to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations.

He was kind of egotistical. Instead of sending a representative from the United States, he went instead because he felt like no one else was fit for the job. While he negotiated in Europe, there were millions of troops returning back to the United States.

Those troops were looking for jobs, price controls were removed, restrictions were removed and there were millions of people striking companies.


In Europe, there are negotiations being made.  France wants land and restrictions on Germany's army while Great Britain wants restrictions on Germany's navy and Italy wants money and landed rewarded to them but Italy walks out unable to get what they wanted.

Wilson at first stated that Germany would take no guilt for the war but then Wilson is unable to give Germany what he had promised.

Henry Cabot Lodge (above photo) was Wilson's rival and and he was powerful at the time enough to become chairman of foreign relations committee.

He had no issues with the Treaty of Versailles as long as the United States had no participation in the League of Nations.

To gain support, Wilson went on speaking tours by train and they were very successful in gaining momentum for the Treaty.

Wilson was going to get what he wanted, no matter what anyone else said or did.

However in June of 1919, he suffered his first stroke and returned from his speaking tours to Washington D.C.

Personally, I believe that Wilson was very egotistical. I think he was a man who was very firm in his decisions and in getting what he wanted.  He wasn't going to take no for an answer, despite his ailments, he pushed through until March of 1921.

I do believe that Wilson was a dreamer, that he was far ahead of his time for his ideas. If he had done what he had done today, he wouldn't have been as successful and the Senate would have never allowed to do it.

Never in History before this time did a sitting President leave the country for months at a time, leaving America without it's leader.

Historical Fact?

What is considered to be a Historical Fact?

In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue on three ships, the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria and discovered America.

This statement is widely considered to be a Historical Fact.

We would not cite this in a document because there is an implication that there is a source and that it is widely known and accepted as a fact by the public.

However, new evidence states that this is not a historical fact due to the fact that he did not "discover" anything. America was already here when he arrived.

In order for something to be considered a Historical Fact, it must contain the following.

Action:
Something  taking place or happening.

 An example would be.

Queen Elizabeth I was crowned queen on January 15th, 1559 at Westminster Abbey.  The action of this statement would be crowned.

Location:

Where did it take place?

Using the example from above, the location would be Westminster Abbey.

Date/Time:

What was the day and what time did the event take place?

 The date would be January 15th, 1559.

Finally, historical facts must contain the individual involved, in the example above, the individual would be Queen Elizabeth I.



I believe there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to what is a historical fact as History itself is based upon theory.

 Take using the example above, some may argue that Elizabeth I was crowned queen the moment Queen Mary I died while others may use the above date.

There is always new evidence that comes forward and thus changing what is Historical fact.  An example of this would be that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776. Delegates from the colonies signed it on that particular date.  However, new evidence shows that it was signed over a period of time. This new evidence has not been brought to the general public because the date July 4th, 1776 has been accepted by the public as a Historical fact.

I personally believe that for something to be accepted as a Historical fact, it needs to be accepted by the general population as one. So while it's well and good to have the above criteria for the base, the outcome ultimately needs to be that the general public accepts it as such. If it is not, then in my opinion it cannot be accepted as a Historical fact.