Was There a "Business Plot" in 1933?

Was The "Business Plot" in 1933?

  • Yes, the Business Plot was a serious plan aimed at overthrowing the government

    Votes: 55 31.4%
  • Not really. Some rich idiots might have thought about it over cocktails, but nothing more than that

    Votes: 104 59.4%
  • No, the Business Plot was not real at all

    Votes: 16 9.1%

  • Total voters
    175
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking back on the thirties from the today's perspective that era, it strikes me that the wild talk among a subset of American society reached the point where actions were starting to be made. Someone approached Butler because they thought he would play ball, his politics were not as well known at that point, "War is a Racket" was not published until 1935 and I'm not sure he had begun speaking publicly by then either.

It seems strange that many in America were afraid that FDR was ushering in communism when looked at objectively a different picture emerges. When FDR was sworn into office the Great Depression was well into its third year, by then Marxists were growing in power throughout the US. It was the policies of FDR that checked them. So as historians have noted FDR saved capitalism from itself. If there had been an attempt to push FDR out of office in 1933 it would have played right into the hands of the very leftists that they were were so afraid of.

The revisionism of trying to cast the fascists as being left wing is particularly strange considering that American conservatives were arguing that communism was the real threat and the US was on the wrong side of WW2, at least in Europe. Some of them as late as 1943.
 
VFW commander James Van Zandt later claimed to have been approached after Butler. I didn't know that before.
 
Peabody-Martini, he certainly had been speaking out publicly for years prior to the alleged plot, including a national tour calling for veterans to organize politically and condemning FDR's administration for excessive ties to big business. Ironic, that last bit. Indeed, he had been on a national tour with the very same James Van Zandt, both heavily involved in the VFW, that Craigo mentions.

Craigo, evidence or link?
 
Peabody-Martini, he certainly had been speaking out publicly for years prior to the alleged plot, including a national tour calling for veterans to organize politically and condemning FDR's administration for excessive ties to big business. Ironic, that last bit. Indeed, he had been on a national tour with the very same James Van Zandt, both heavily involved in the VFW, that Craigo mentions.

Craigo, evidence or link?

Weinstein's Russian co-author was the only one permitted to see and transcribe the documents, and his notebooks are now online courtesy of the Wilson Center. The intro by Haynes and Klehr mentions the deal by Crown, and Vassiliev himself discusses it in a book by those two authors, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (which I have yet to read).

See also "Verona and Alger Hiss," by John Lowenthal, Intelligence and National Security, note 78. I don't necessarily agree with Lowenthal regarding Hiss, but he makes som good points.

Neither Weinstein nor Vassiliev has ever disputed that Crown (RandomHouse) paid for access, and to anyone's knowledge no other researcher has seen the files Vassiliev viewed (the SVR got cold feet during the project).
 
Last edited:
Seems the entirety of the thread so far has focused on questions of Butler's and the Committee's reliability and of their claim's plausibility -- but I haven't seen anyone really engage the question I've posed a couple of times now:

What evidence, aside from Butler's testimony, is there that a Business Plot existed? I know the Committee hearing his testimony said they found it credible, and, UIAM, that it was corroborated -- but what exactly was that corroboration? What else do historians have to go on to verify the plot?
 
It has been suggested that a deal was struck between the congressional committee and the alleged plotters. That they would drop their resistance to the new deal in return they would not be called to testify, their names were redacted from the official transcript. There was some sort of corroborative evidence beyond Butler's testimony, just what that was remains unclear. Considering that the plotters seemed to be talking to a lot of people looking for certain key individuals, its very possible Butler wasn't the only potential whistle blower.
 
Is there the slightest evidence that any of the figures alleged to have been involved, let alone all of them, actually ceased or reduced their opposition to the New Deal?
 
It has been suggested that a deal was struck between the congressional committee and the alleged plotters. That they would drop their resistance to the new deal in return they would not be called to testify, their names were redacted from the official transcript. There was some sort of corroborative evidence beyond Butler's testimony, just what that was remains unclear. Considering that the plotters seemed to be talking to a lot of people looking for certain key individuals, its very possible Butler wasn't the only potential whistle blower.

So, as far as the public is concerned, the answer then is "none". Do I have that right?
 
So, as far as the public is concerned, the answer then is "none". Do I have that right?


Basically, yes.

Something of some sort went on, just what went on and to what extent it went on was, still is, and will remain unclear, most likely because the plot never advanced past an exploration stage. One thing is certain, various people involved with the plot in various manners had various ulterior motives to both down play and/or over sell both the extent and maturation level of the "plot". That much is certain from the murky activities of various members of the investigating House committee.

In many aspects, the Business Plot resembles the Burr Plot. While Burr hadn't settled on any concrete plan or plans, he certainly was considering a number of options of varying levels of legality. Just as importantly, those people fingered for or suspected of "conspiring" with Burr, like that rat bastard Wilkinson, were part of Burr's vague plans only to advance their own equally vague agendas.

All that means there wasn't a specific Burr-directed "plot" or "conspiracy" as much as there was a disjointed Burr & Company "exploration" of "options" and, in it's almost "Keystone Kops" nature, multiple differing stories, and lack of concrete details, the Business Plot eerily echoes this "very early exploration stage" aspect of the Burr Plot.
 
John Fredrick Parker I don't understand you. You ask for evidence, and when I provide it you cry tl;dr :p

Paul Comley French, a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post, followed the general on the witness stand, testified that General Butler had spoken to him about this matter, and that they agreed that French should go to New York to get the story.

French testified that he came to New York, September 13, 1934, and went to the offices of Grayson M.-P. Murphy & Co. on the twelfth floor of 52 Broadway and that MacGuire received him shortly after 1 o'clock in the afternoon and that they conducted their entire conversation in a small private office.

French testified under oath, that as soon as he left MacGuire's office, he made a careful memorandum of everything that MacGuire had told him.

French testified that MacGuire stated, “We need a fascist government in this country to save the Nation from the Communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have patriotism to do it are the soldiers and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize one million men over night."

Continuing, French stated that during the conversation MacGuire told him about his trip to Europe and of the studies that he had made of the Fascist, Nazi, and French movements and the parts that the veterans had played in them.

French further testified that MacGuire considered the movement entirely and tremendously patriotic and that any number of people with big names would be willing to help finance it. French stated that during the course of the conversation, MacGuire continually discussed "the need of a man on a white horse" and quoted MacGuire as having said "We might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him "what Mussolini did with the King of Italy."

MacGuire, according to French, expressed the belief that half of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars would follow General Butler if he would announce the plan that MacGuire had in mind.

If you read through MacGuire's testimony he basically plays an earlier version of the 'I don't recall' game that several politicians and government officials of the Bush admin. have used when testifying before Congressional committees. Although MacGuire either denies or 'doesn't recall' several questions put before him by the committee, the physical evidence the committee surveyed largely corresponds with Butler's testimony.

Unfortunately pages 2-7 of the hearings on Nov. 20, 1934 are missing (;)); however page eight picks up in mid-testimony, with a 'Captain GLAZIER' affirming that a 'he' in question, a publisher of a newsletter in Cincinnati, was involved in the plot and quite frank with Cpt. Glazier that a dictatorship was to be imposed on the country.

Later in the Nov. 20 hearing French testifies again;
I have here some direct quotes from him. As soon as I left his office I got to a typewriter and made a memorandum of everything that he told me.

We need a Fascist government in this country, he insisted, to save the Nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men over night. During the conversation he told me he had been in Italy and Germany during the summer of 1934 and the spring of 1934 and had made an intensive study of the background of the Nazi and Fascist movements and how the veterans had played a part in them. He said he had obtained enough information on the Fascist and Nazi movements and of the part played by the veterans, to properly set up one in this country.

He emphasized throughout his conversation with me that the whole thing was tremendously patriotic, that it was saving the Nation from communists, and that the men they deal with have that crackbrained idea that the Communists are going to take it apart. He said the only safeguard would be the soldiers. At first he suggested that the General organize this outfit himself and ask a dollar a year dues from everybody. We discussed that, and then he came around to the point of getting outside financial funds, and he said that it would not be any trouble to raise a million dollars. He said he could go to John W. Davis [attorney for J.P. Morgan & Co.] or Perkins of the National City Bank, and any number of persons to get it. Of course, that may or may not mean anything. That is, his reference to John W. Davis and Perkins of the National City Bank. During my conversation with him I did not of course commit the General to anything. I was just feeling him along. Later, we discussed the question of arms and equipment, and he suggested that they could be obtained from the Remington Arms Co., on credit through the Du Ponts.

I do not think at that time he mentioned the connections of Du Pont with the American Liberty League, but he skirted all around it. That is, I do not think he mentioned the Liberty League, but he skirted all around the idea that that was the back door; one of the Du Ponts is on the board of directors of the American Liberty League and they own a controlling interest in the Remington Arms Co ... He said the General would not have any trouble enlisting 500,000 men.

During the course of the conversation he continually discussed the need of a man on a white horse, as he called it, a dictator who would come galloping in on his white horse. He said that was the only way; either through the threat of armed force or the delegation of power, and the use of a group of organized veterans, to save the capitalistic system.

He warmed up considerably after we got under way and he said, “We might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him what Mussolini did with the King of Italy."

It fits in with what he told the general, that we would have a Secretary of General Affairs, and if Roosevelt played ball, swell; and if he did not, they would push him out.

He expressed the belief that at least half of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars would follow the general if he would announce such a plan.

He then pushed a letter across the desk and said that it was from Louis Johnson, a former national commander of the American legion.

The CHAIRMAN, Did he show you the letter?

Mr. French. I did not read it. He just passed it over so I could see it, but he did not show it to me. He said that he had discussed the matter with him along the lines of what we were now discussing, and I took it to mean that he had talked of this Fascist proposition with Johnson, and Johnson was in sympathy with it.

During the conversation he also mentioned Henry Stephens, of Wuryaw, N. C, a former national commander of the AmericanLegion, and said that he was interested in the program. Several times he brought in the names of various former national commanders of the American Legion, to give me the impression that, whether justly or unjustly, a group in the American Legion were actively interested in this proposition.

The Chairman. In other words, he mentioned a lot of prominent names; and whether they are interested or not, you do not know, except that he seemed to try to convey to you that they were, to impress on you the significance of this movement?

Mr. FRENCH. That is precisely the impression I gained from him. He had a very brilliant solution of the unemployment situation. He said that Roosevelt had muffed it terrifically, but that he had the plan. He had seen it in Europe. It was a plan that Hitler had used in putting all of the unemployed in labor camps- or barracks—enforced labor. That would solve it overnight, and he said that when they got into power, that is what they would do; that that was the ideal plan.

He had another suggestion to register all persons all over the country, like they do in Europe, he said that would stop a lot of these Communist agitators who were running around the country.

He said that a crash was inevitable and was due to come when bonds reach 5 percent. He said that the soldiers must prepare to save the Nation.

Now, that is the substance of the conversation. It lasted, I should say about an hour and a half or 2 hours. When I left him he said that he planned to get in touch with the general and again try to persuade him to accept the leadership of this organization; that he was going to Miami in a couple of weeks for the national convention, to do a little work.

The CHAIRMAN. TO beat the bonus?

Mr. FRENCH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought he was for the bonus.

Mr. FRENCH. He was at first.

General BUTLER (interposing). He wants it paid in gold. Clark told me that he had been for the bonus or that he would be for the bonus if we could get the gold standard restored.

Mr. FRENCH. Then he said he would be in Miami. I told him that the general was going out on a rather lengthy speaking tour and did not know how to get to him. He said that he would either see him before he went to Miami or, if he could not, after he came back from Miami. But he did not see him and in a couple of days the general went out West.

Then I went back to see MacGuire on the 27th of September and talked to him for only a few minutes this time. In the meantime I had tried to get in touch with him once when I was in New York but he was then in Miami and could not. At this time he said that he was extremely sorry that he could not get to Newton Square, but hoped to do so soon, that things were moving nicely. Everything is coining our way, is the way he expressed it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

There's also quite a bit of physical evidence that was offered as exhibits to the committee, and interestingly, much of what Butler, French and MacGuire testified to was stricken from the official published records of 1934, most of which is corroborated by several sources, leading among them by John L. Spivak.
 
I want to thank everyone who answered my persistent queries, but especially Wolf in his last post -- it was exactly the sort of detailed, expanded on answer that I was looking for from non-deniers.

John Fredrick Parker I don't understand you. You ask for evidence, and when I provide it you cry tl;dr :p

tl;dr? Technically, you were providing me the link to the hearings, and I said I didn't necessarily have time to go through them, and later that the conversation was becoming fixed on questions of plausibility and Butler's reliability, which I thought was a little narrow.

There's also quite a bit of physical evidence that was offered as exhibits to the committee, and interestingly, much of what Butler, French and MacGuire testified... is corroborated by several sources, leading among them by John L. Spivak.

So, unless I am missing anything, the exhibits for the existence of a business plot -- in summary -- the testimony of Smedley Butler, Paul Comely French, and John J Spivak; the holes in the testimony of alleged conspirators; and "quite a bit of physical evidence".

That is certainly a well founded case -- though I'd appreciate if anyone could elaborate on what the "physical evidence" noted entails...

PS: Am I the only one here who finds it a little humorous that the man most directly implicated by the testimony here was named "Jerry Macguire"? :p
 
So, unless I am missing anything, the exhibits for the existence of a business plot -- in summary -- the testimony of Smedley Butler, Paul Comely French, and John J Spivak; the holes in the testimony of alleged conspirators; and "quite a bit of physical evidence".

John J Spivak did not testify before the committee, but he was present throughout the hearings as an observer and took notes for his own publication, New Masses. On the final day of the committee (January 29, 1935) he published the first of two articles revealing portions of the Congressional committee testimony that had been redacted.

The committee's evidence that is shown in the public record and Spivak et. al. notes show that the evidence seen by the committee are the testimonies of Smedley Butler, Paul Comely French, 'Captain GLAZIER', Gerald C. Macguire, James Hagget, Francis A. Rempe, Albert G. Christmas, Henry Miller and Claude M. Adamson, as well as the physical evidence enter into the record.

I'd appreciate if anyone could elaborate on what the "physical evidence" noted entails

Basically several letters of credit, bank notes, receipts, etc. from MacGuire's accounts that collaborated Butler's testimony of attempts to pay him off, to pay for transport and lodging of 'several hundred' people to stage a 'coup' at the American Legion convention in Chicago to have him elected the new Commander of the Legion, at which point he would initiate the march on Washington.

There are also several letters and telegrams written by MacGuire addressed to 'Gentlemen' which outline the basic details of his and his associates thoughts on the matter, the rise of fascism in Europe to counter communist, the early Presidency of FDR and the threat he posed to America, etc.

When asked about these various pieces of evidence MacGuire testified that he could not explain why he had withdrawn the money or this person or that so much money, or he 'could not recall' the purpose or details of several of these financial transactions.

MacGuire claimed that the letters were intended for Robert S. Clark addressed as 'Gentlemen' however there are several letters also entered into the record for Mr. Clark that were addressed simply as 'Mr. Clark;' MacGuire could not give a reasonable answer for why some were addressed one way and some another, nor could he 'recall' whom else he 'might' have written on the same subject to.

There are also several copies of bank notes, receipts, etc of Robert Clark paid to various people and organizations linked to the plot; however Clark was never called before the hearing committee because he was outside of the United States at the time of the hearings. Therefore Albert Christmas, his attorney, testified before the committee 'on his behalf;' however Christmas played the same political theater that the other alleged coup members had done so previously; he could not 'recall' to whom several checks pulled from Clark's account were paid to, nor why, that related to the various members and organizations alleged by Butler to have been apart of the plot.
 
Magniac, at no point did I say the book was obscure, I simply noted that unlike many materials these days it is apparently not availble to be read on line so someone wishing to see it would have to find a physical copy.

Yes. It's precisely because of this that I really shouldn't cast any aspersions on the research methods, or conclusions, of the writers of this book--if this work isn't available at my local library I'm not going to buy it online, and even if I buy it online I'm still won't have access to any pro- or con- academic journal articles written about it.

I'm not a uni student, so I can't easily do any reading of or about Weintein's work. Though I have to admit my scepticism about the whole thing is because it was published before I studied midcentury American history (albeit an Australian curriculum version thereof), and as far as I remember it never appeared on any reading list.

As for Oppenheimer, I don't have any reason to believe he was a communist but I'm puzzled that you can't see how someone might(or might not) belong to one of the several communist parties in the US, Trotskyite versions included, without being a Soviet spy.

This actually depends on what timeframe 'The Haunted Wood' is referencing, but if the allegation is that he was a secret member during the time he was with Manhattan then I really don't believe it's possible for Oppenheimer to have been such a thing without having been 'pumped' for information by his handlers/comrades. That was their whole modus operandi. I take it for granted that all Communists held that their primary allegiance was to the party, not their country. (Am I therefore more anti-communist than you are?:rolleyes:)

If Weinstein is saying Oppenheimer was a secret member during the war yet wasn't an active security risk (the blanket definition of 'spy' or 'spying') then I think that's an impossibility. It's like being half-pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

Where did you even get the idea that the Soviet files were resealed after these researchers were finished?:confused:

From that old NY Times review you link to: "During a two-year window of opportunity (or of lowered guard), Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, the successor to the Soviet Union's K.G.B., allowed the authors access to thousands of secret documents from the Stalin era."

I took that quite literally to mean the records are no longer open, though once again I have to say I have no reason to believe the limited Internet material on the book (such as this MSM piece) is the be all and end all of the subject.

Though Russia is now less liberal than it was during the Yeltsin era, natch. Who knows.


LATE EDIT: Craigo's posts above raises even more questions. A commercial deal between a Western publisher and the Russian secret police?

If I were a conspiracy theorist (which of course is totally against the board's rules) I might speculate that contrary to what the NYTimes reviewer wrote, there might have been a strong, nationalistic motivation for the nineties Russian FIS to retroactively induct Robert J Oppenheimer, aka The Father Of The Bomb, into pro-Soviet communism.

We take it for granted that Russian secret policemen invented the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so there's a tradition of fraud.
 
Last edited:
You shouldn't take my previous post as a personal attack on you.

Okay, sorry, I just wish you'd quoted some other posters here, most of us are indulging in the same thing.

With the internet more wild schemes than ever are being dreamed of, discussed, and bullshitted about. (though I wonder. With all the conspiracy theories that we can run across in today's world, do they effect how we judge the conspiracies of the past?)

I don't doubt that a bunch of young soldiers on a drunken night were talking of what if scenarios like that. It is human nature.

The thing with Gore Vidal's recollections is they're first hand, he claims to have seen these drunken conversations between his old man and military officers first hand.

Though was it more than one conversation? Was it said jokingly or not? Vidal never clarified exactly what it was he heard when he was a boy (when he was 8 or 13?) and now he's too old & frail to do so. We'll never know the truth.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The thing with Gore Vidal's recollections is they're first hand, he claims to have seen these drunken conversations between his old man and military officers first hand.

Though was it more than one conversation? Was it said jokingly or not? Vidal never clarified exactly what it was he heard when he was a boy (when he was 8 or 13?) and now he's too old & frail to do so. We'll never know the truth.
Been on a bit of a Vidal kick recently, and he seems to believe there was definitely something to the Business Plot, and he seemed to have a good opinion of Butler for his whistle-blowing. Otherwise, Mr. Vidal was cryptic. Perhaps he's covered it in one of his essays?

I can only assume Hearst was somehow either involved at inception of this rather vague and nebulous "plot," or he would have quickly got on board with it, especially given his rather trippy propaganda venture OTL with "Gabriel Over the White House."
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why, oh why do people violate the dead?

All it does is leave a mess and a locked thread.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top