On Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
In late 1952, defenders of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg-- a couple with ties to the Communist Party whom the United States government sentenced to death the year prior for allegedly leaking atomic secrets to Soviet intelligence agents-- began a letter-writing campaign directed at celebrities and politicians in an attempt to grant the couple some form of clemency. Members of the Communist Party maintained that the Rosenbergs were innocent and framed because of their political association. Many liberal Americans believed that the federal government conducted the couple's trial unfairly and that executing them for treason during a general time of peace was legally unprecedented. Some thought the Rosenbergs were victims of American anti-Semitism.[1]
ER was a frequent recipient of these requests for leniency. Each time, she flatly refused to defend the Rosenbergs. As she wrote in a December My Day column:
I am getting a considerable number of letters, all Communist-inspired so far as I can see, from people urging me to do something to prevent the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who are slated to die around January 12. . . I don't believe in capital punishment, but we do have capital punishment in our country. I don't know if putting the Rosenbergs to death will do us more good than if they were under a sentence of life imprisonment, but this country operates under law and as long as we have laws we must live up to them, making sure that the law is fairly administrated.[2]
ER believed that the American justice system was more than capable of determining justice for the Rosenbergs. When a Mr. John Dooley wrote her a letter expressing "grave doubt" as to the "Rosenbergs's guilt," she replied: "They are in touch with a good lawyer and if there is any question that the trial was unfair an appeal could be made. I do not think it is up to us as laymen to interfere in this case."[3]
When Terry Duxler, Secretary of the Citizens' Committee for Clemency for the Rosenbergs, published a letter claiming that Mrs. Roosevelt was one of the "world personalities" who supported clemency, ER drafted a reply.[4]
1
Eleanor Roosevelt to Terry Duxler
January 1953
Duxler:
a copy of your form letter was sent me & I am very much surprised to find my name included with others[.] I never authorized the use of my name & I do not approve of asking for clemency.
Please remove my name & publish this denial[.]
send registered mail
return card requested
HLd AERP, FDRL
Robert Morss Lovett, a progressive former professor of English at the University of Chicago, a longtime editor of the New Republic, a Government Secretary of the Virgin Islands during the New Deal, and a participant in many Popular Front organizations, questioned ER's faith in the court system and her unwillingness to join in calls for clemency.[5] As evidence, he pointed to the prosecution's use of unreliable witnesses and vitriolic language:
That the trial was not entirely fair is shown by the fact that one witness for the prosecution has admitted that he committed perjury under the coaching of the F.B.I.[6] That there was prejudice beyond the ability of a jury to withstand is shown by the attitude of the judge who in sentencing the victims resorted to violent accusation, holding them responsible for the thousands of deaths of American soldiers in Korea, and imposing the sentence of death for the first time as punishment for espionage.[7]
ER repeated her claim that while capital punishment was wrong, judges and juries were required to uphold the law.
2
Eleanor Roosevelt to Robert Lovett
January 1953
I do not believe in capital punishment but as long as we have it on the statute books I suppose a judge has to impose it.
Several eminent lawyers[8] are watching this case, I know, & I do not feel as a layman I should interfere directly[.]
HLd AERP, FDRL
Later in January, ER again discussed the Rosenberg case, this time at a news conference in Northfield, Minnesota, where she had traveled to speak about the United Nations at St. Olaf College. While touring the campus there, ER told reporters, "I think there is a great deal of hope" that the Rosenbergs would be spared execution, and reminded them that "never before have we executed anyone for treason in this country in time of peace."[9] She also noted that the president could commute the Rosenbergs’ pending execution into a life sentence on "humanitarian grounds alone," and reiterated that "I think there is a great deal of hope that this will be done."[10]
Prompted by these comments--and inferring from them that ER had endorsed the Rosenbergs’ clemency petition--Carl Clarke of Detroit, Michigan wrote to her: “It is not surprising that you hope for clemency for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg,” he complained, “your coddling of Communists and such as Harry Bridges has been a stench in the nostrils of patriotic people for a long time.”[11]
3
Eleanor Roosevelt to Carl Clarke
January 1953
In ans[wer] to your letter I do not hope for clemency for the Rosenbergs. I said that because we never before have executed anyone for treason in time of peace that because of this they might receive clemency but I did not + do not advocate[12] anything. That should be left to informed people[.]
HLd AERP, FDRL
In late, December, 1952, Samuel Freedman of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who supported clemency, wrote ER to critique her assertion that the campaign to commute the Rosenbergs' sentence was "Communist-inspired:"[13]
I wrote to the President asking him to show mercy to the Rosenbergs, and in so doing was I "communistically inspired"?
Does one have to be a Communist to be kind and decent? That's what I have been led to believe from your article…
I don’t think the Rosenbergs had a fair trial because the Communist line brought about intense hysteria throughout the land and affected the Judge, District Attorney and the Jury.
What are the lawmakers trying to do; save democracy by destroying it?[14]
ER replied to Freedman just after the new year.
4
Eleanor Roosevelt to Samuel Freedman
4 January 1953 [Hyde Park]
Dear Mr. Freedman:
I do not think I ever said that everyone who felt the Rosenberg sentence was too harsh was a communist. I simply said the communist inspired campaign of letters with which many of us have been deluged, did no good for their cause. It is quite easy to tell when a letter is written under communist inspiration.
Of course, it is not necessary to be a communist in order to be kind and decent and I do not think my article suggested that.
You do not happen to think that the Rosenbergs had a fair trial but several very eminent lawyers with [w]hom I have talked do not agree with you.[15] You and I are lay people and we are not responsible for what has been decided in this particular case. Whatever the President decides to do I am sure it will be on the best possible advice which he can get.
Very sincerely yours,
TL AERP, FDRL
[1] Clune, 5-9. Milton and Radosh, 352-57.
[2] MD 11 December 1953.
[3] John Dooley to ER, 18 December 1952, AERP, FDRL; ER to John Dooley, 2 January 1953, AERP, FDRL.
[4] Terry Duxler to ER, 31 January 1953, AERP, FDRL.
[5] Robert Morss Lovett (1870-1956) considered himself a liberal, albeit one willing to work with leftists, including members of the Communist Party, to bring about social reform. He participated in Communist Party-led groups like the International Labor Defense, the League of American Writers, and American Peace Mobilization. The House Un-American Committee investigated Lovett for subversion in 1943, ending his career as secretary of the Virgin Islands and in politics, more generally. (ANBO).
[6] At trial, lawyers for the Rosenbergs maintained that the testimony of Max Elitcher, a witness for the prosecution, lacked credibility because Elitcher had previously lied about his communist activities on a security questionnaire for the Navy--a crime that qualified as perjury under federal law. These same lawyers also pressed Elitcher into admitting that he had felt "scared to death" at the prospect of being prosecuted for this crime, and that his fear had spurred him to cooperate with the FBI's investigation of the Rosenbergs. Elitcher, however, never testified that he had perjured himself (Radosh and Milton, 176-78).
[7] Before sentencing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to death, Judge Kaufman noted that:
“putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but what that millions more innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal, you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country”
(“Text of Judge Kaufman’s Statement on Sentencing Bomb Spies,” NYT, 6 April 1951, 10).
[8] ER did not clarify whose legal opinion had given her this reassurance, but lawyers from organizations with which she corresponded--including the American Jewish Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union--observed the trial closely, and publicly endorsed the fairness of its outcome (Radosh and Milton, 352-57).
[9] ER oscillated on whether she considered the United States to be in a general time of peace. Many, including the Truman administration, believed that the Rosenbergs were partially responsible for increasing Soviet aggression. The thinking was that the Rosenbergs gave the "secret" of the bomb to the Soviets, which allowed Communist North Korea to invade its neighbor to the south. Even ER associated the Rosenbergs with inciting war abroad:
It is true that we never executed anyone in time of peace on the charge of treason. Some, however, feel that we are not enjoying peace at present and I am not sure that there is not something to be said for that point of view. While we may not be fighting World War III, we certainly have plenty of small wars going on in different parts of the world, including the war in Korea in which we are a major partner. All these things should be taken into consideration by the proper authorities. There is no reason for meetings to be held or for petitions to be signed. The case is being given complete and careful consideration and I feel quite sure there is no need for concern on the part of people who can know very little about the details.
(Clune, 10; MD, 31 January 1953; and see above, n.7).
[10] “Rosenbergs Not To Be Executed Eleanor Believes,” Cedar Rapids Gazette, 20 January 1953, 3.
[11] Next to the final line of this letter, in which Clarke criticized ER’s “coddling of Communists and such as Harry Bridges,” ER wrote in the margin, “I do not know Mr. Bridges” (Carl Clarke to ER, 21 January 1953, AERP, FDRL).
Harry Bridges (1901-1990) was an Australian-American labor leader who first came to prominence for his role in organizing the West Coast Longshoreman’s Strike of 1934, which lasted eighty-three days and resulted in the unionization of all port facilities on the West coast of the United States. In planning the strike, Bridges had worked closely with members of the Communist Party, and his activities subsequently became the target of a long-running federal loyalty investigation. Congress twice held hearings to ascertain the legality of his political work, and once ordered Bridges deported to his native Australia, though the Supreme Court overturned this order on appeal and Bridges subsequently became a naturalized American citizen in 1945. Reviled by many anti-communists for the support that he gave to a number of communist positions throughout his career, Bridges also gained the respect of many of his colleagues in the labor movement, as well as its supporters. He remained president of the union he helped to found, the International Longshoreman’s and Warehousemen’s Union, until 1977 (EAL).
[12] “+ do not” is a handwritten interlineation.
[13] See above, n.2.
[14] Freedman to ER, 20 December 1952, AERP, FDRL.
[15] See above, n.8.