^{page 1 note 2} “Leo” (Trotsky) to Rose Karsner, 24 January 1936, James P. Cannon Papers. The Papers are in the personal custody of Mr. Cannon and the writer examined them in Mr. Cannon's residence in Los Angeles, California. Letters from Leon Trotsky cited in this article were mostly in German and occasionally in French. Exact English translations of the letters were made by trusted American friends for Mr. Cannon who was not acquainted with those European languages. Trotsky used various pseudonyms in his letters to his American followers.

Cannon is one of the interesting figures in American radical annals. Born in Kansas in 1890, he got his early training in agitation, propaganda and organization in the Socialist Party and the militant Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). A founding member of the Communist Party (USA) Cannon was expelled in 1928 for his open support for Trotsky's ideological views. Along with a few comrades he founded the American Trotskyist movement of which he remains the most outstanding and articulate spokesman even at the present day.

^{page 1 note 3} Deutscher, Isaac, The Prophet Outcast (London, 1963)Google Scholar. This important work reached the present writer' s hands in India when this paper had been completed.

^{page 2 note 1} Trotsky, Leon, Trotsky's Diary in Exile 1935 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958)Google Scholar. The publisher's foreword to this work refers specifically to the paucity of information concerning Trotsky's life after his banishment from the Soviet Union in 1929.

^{page 2 note 2} Diary entry, 14 February 1935; ibid., pp. 16, 20.

^{page 2 note 3} Diary entries, 18 February 1935, 7 March 1935; ibid., pp. 23, 35.

^{page 3 note 1} Diary entries, 2 April 1935, 3 April 1935, 4 April 1935, 1 June 1935; ibid., pp. 58–60, 60–62, 64, 129.

^{page 4 note 1} Text of the letter, ibid., pp. 129–33.

^{page 5 note 1} For an account of these developments, see Venkataramani, M. S., “United Front Tactics of the Communist Party (USA) and Their Impact on the Socialist Party of America, 1932–6”, in: International Studies (New Delhi), I (10, 1959), pp. 154–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} Shachtman was the principal lieutenant of Cannon during the period under review. Highly intelligent and articulate, Shachtman was the general editor of the English edition of Trotsky's works. Cannon and Shachtman fell apart subsequently and the latter, after outgrowing the Bolshevism of his earlier years, has recently returned to the Socialist Party – Social Democratic Federation of the United States. A. J. Muste, a dedicated pacifist and Christian Socialist, is still active in the peace movement.

^{page 6 note 1} Interviews with Sidney Bleifeld (Los Angeles), Hyman Weintraub, Pearl Weiner, Frank Stern, and Esther Levine (Cleveland), and Virginia Vacirca Brown (New York). The names of towns where the persons interviewed lived during the period under review are given in parentheses. Cannon and Shachtman wrote to Trotsky that often members of the Young People's Socialist League told them, “Why don't you comrades come into the S.P.? … With your ability you could become leaders of the movement.” Cannon and Shachtman to Trotsky, 4 January 1936, Cannon Papers.

^{page 6 note 2} For the debate between the “Cannon-Shachtman faction” and A. J. Muste, see Shachtman, Max, “On the ‘Reform’ of a Socialist Party”, in: Workers Party Internal Bulletin, 22 07 1935Google Scholar; A. J. Muste, “How the Cannon-Shachtman Group Builds the Party”, ibid., 10 January 1936. The latter issue of the Bulletin also carried two opposing statements evaluating developments in the Socialist Party.

^{page 7 note 1} Shachtman, and Cannon, to Trotsky, , 4 January 1936Google Scholar; Cannon, to Trotsky, , 10 January 1936, Cannon PapersGoogle Scholar. “The elimination of the rival organizations from our path, by direct attack and by winning sections of their membership to our ideas, is a necessary and constant phase of our drive toward the masses”, Cannon wrote. Workers Party Internal Bulletin, January 1936.

^{page 8 note 1} Trotsky, to Cannon, and Shachtman, , 24 January 1936, Cannon PapersGoogle Scholar. He emphasized that when a tested and stable group like the Trotskyists entered a “centrist” party like the SP, it was in no sense a capitulation. He agreed with Cannon's analysis that the Trotskyists should enter the SP before the centrist leadership of the latter had time to consolidate itself.

^{page 9 note 1} Trotsky, to Cannon, and Shachtman, , 24 January 1936Google Scholar; Trotsky to Cannon, 9 March 1936, ibid.

^{page 9 note 2} The Split in the SP and Our Policy, text of a speech given at a closed meeting of members of the Cannon-Shachtman faction, New York, 4 January 1936; Cannon, to “Dear Comrades”, 4 January 1936, mimeographedGoogle Scholar; “Letter to a Chicago Comrade”, n.d., January 1936, mimeographed, ibid.

^{page 9 note 3} Jay Lovestone, executive secretary of the Communist Party of the United States during 1927–29, had been expelled from the Party in June 1929. He then organized the Communist Party (Opposition) and Zam was a member of this group. Lovestone is at present an important functionary of the American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations. Zam made his exit from radical politics in the early' 40s. When he resigned from the Lovestone group in August 1934 in order to join the SP, Zam declared that he was not departing from communism but striving for a new beginning “in the interests of the international Communist movement”. He wanted a Communist Party in the United States in which democracy for members would be real and which would effectively work for revolutionary working class unity. Zam, Herbert, “To All Members of the Communist Party (Opposition), 13 August 1934Google Scholar, mimeographed, Documentary Collection of the Socialist Workers Party Library, Los Angeles, California. (The SWP is the current name of the Trotskyist group in the United States.)

^{page 9 note 4} Cannon, James P., The History of American Trotskyism: Report of a Participant (New York, 1944), p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} Prof. Hook argued that the Communist Party was going over to “social patriotism” in all countries and that if it captured control of the labour movement in the United States it would lead the drive towards war. Only the entry of the Workers Party with the SP would prevent the latter from being swamped organizationally and ideologically by Stalinism. The SP, said Hook, could also make substantial advances in the cultural field because the Trotskyists would bring to its support such intellectuals as Louis Hacker, Charles Y. Harrison, Max Eastman, John Dos Passos, Lionel Trilling, Lionel Abel and John Chamberlain, along with several well known teachers. Sidney Hook to Norman Thomas and others, n.d., Cannon Papers.

^{page 10 note 2} Cannon, History, op. cit., p. 226.

^{page 11 note 1} Interview with Cannon. For Goldman, 's work in advancing the interests of the Trotskyist group see the following notes in his journal: “Workers' Party Splits”, in: Socialist Appeal (Chicago), II (11–12, 1935), p. 8Google Scholar; “Left Wingers Must be Invited to Join the Party”, ibid., II (January-February, 1936), p. 8. Goldman, a capable labour attorney, served as Trotsky's defence counsel in the course of hearings conducted by the Dewey Commission.

^{page 11 note 2} “Statement of National Committee” [of the American Workers Party], in: New Militant (New York), II (6 June 1936), p. 1Google Scholar; “Workers Party Calls All Revolutionary Workers to Join the Socialist Party”, ibid., pp. 1, 3.

^{page 12 note 1} Cannon, History, op. cit., p. 232.

^{page 12 note 2} For the Stalinist version of the events of this period see: Commission of the C. C. of the CPSU (B), ed., History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Short Course (Moscow, 1949), pp. 400–06, 427–29Google Scholar. For Nikita Khrushchev's version see: History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Moscow, 1960), pp. 512–13Google Scholar. Trotsky's own detailed appraisal of the trials is to be found in his concluding statement before the Commission of Enquiry headed by Prof. Dewey. Text in: Trotsky, Leon, Stalin's Frame-Up System and the Moscow Trials (New York, 1950)Google Scholar. Also useful is the account given by the veteran Russian social democrat, Abramovitch, Raphael R., in: The Soviet Revolution 1917–1939 (London, 1962), pp. 590–425.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 3} People's Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Report of Court Proceedings, The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre (Moscow, 1936)Google Scholar. “I demand that dogs gone mad should be shot – every one of them”, declared A. Y. Vyshinsky, the prosecutor, in his final oration to the court. Ibid., p. 164. On 19 August Pravda carried an article by a rising figure, Lavrenti Beria, asserting that “the enemies of socialism must be crushed into dust”. In a collective letter, Soviet writers declared that the traitors should be “wiped off the face of the earth”. Cited in Abramovitch, op. cit., p. 398.

^{page 13 note 1} Quoted in Heisler, Francis, The First Two Moscow Trials: Why? (Chicago, 1937), p. 7Google Scholar. The volume was published by the Socialist Party of America with a preface by Roy E. Burt, executive secretary.

^{page 13 note 2} Statement by Trotsky, , in: The Case of Leon Trotsky: Report of Hearings on the Charges Made Against Him in the Moscow Trials by the Preliminary Commission of Inquiry (New York, 1937), p. 38Google Scholar. Also Shachtman, Max, Behind the Moscow Trial (New York, 1936). PP, 133–42.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} Thomas, and others to President Cardenas, 3 December 1936Google Scholar, Norman Thomas Papers, New York Public Library.

^{page 14 note 1} New York Times, 19 December 1936, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Ibid., 27 December 1936, p. 3.

^{page 14 note 3} Cannon, History, op. cit., p. 239. In places like New York and Wisconsin where the SP had reasonably well-organized machines and where Socialist office-bearers had first hand knowledge of Trotskyists, the latter were unable to make headway in winning Party offices. For this reason they concentrated their attention on entrenching themselves in organizations in other important states where the Party bureaucracy was not especially strong. In many such state organizations Party work was often in a state of suspended animation. The Trotskyists appeared on the scene and evinced readiness to devote their time unstintingly to even such work as was regarded as drudgery by others. They thus made themselves indispensable and soon were able to get themselves elected to Party positions. Interviews with Hyman Weintraub (Cleveland), Albert M. Glotzer (Chicago).

^{page 15 note 1} Interviews with Cannon and Shachtman. Zam, and Tyler, to Fischer, Ben, 2 October 1936Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party of America, Manuscripts Division, Duke University Library, Durham, North Carolina. Altman subsequently broke with the SP on the question of aiding the Allies: he was an active trade unionist in New York till his death some time ago. Gus Tyler, collaborator of Zam and opponent of Altman, is now educational director of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union.

^{page 16 note 1} “The Left Wing Stands for Its Rights in New York”, in: Socialist Appeal, II (15 December 1936), p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} Against Participation in' the Republican-Fusion-Communist Alliance for La Guardia! Statement of the Minority of the New York Municipal Campaign Committee of the Socialist Party (Max Delson and Herbert Zam), mimeographed. William Goldberg-Hyman Weintraub Collection of Socialist Party Documents. The Collection is in the custody of Dr. Hyman Weintraub, East Los Angeles College, Los Angeles, California. Goldberg and Weintraub were active members of the YPSL during the period under review.

^{page 17 note 1} Zam, to “Dear Comrades,” 15 February 1937, mimeographed, Cannon PapersGoogle Scholar. Trotskyists also opposed any alliance with the ALP on the ground that it was a mere ruse by discredited capitalist politicians and “labor-fakers” to head off the growth of a revolutionary Socialist Party. See, “Prospects for a Labor Party”, in: Socialist Appeal, III (February, 1937), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Should Socialists Build a Farmer-Labor Party? ibid., pp. 17–19.

^{page 17 note 2} The Trotskyists opposed the whole concept of “popular frontism” in Spain as a sinister manoeuvre of Stalinism and loudly expressed their support for the POUM group which was widely regarded as friendly to Trotsky. The SP's line, as formulated by its National Executive Committee, was one of support to the Popular Front and especially to the Left Socialists in it led by Largo Caballero. See Venkataramani, M. S., “American Socialists, the Roosevelt Administration, and the Spanish Civil War”, in: International Studies, III (04, 1962), pp. 395–424.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} Cannon, to Trotsky, , 19 February 1937Google Scholar, Cannon Papers. Early in January 1937 the Trotskyists established the Socialist Appeal Association with headquarters in Chicago “to educate party membership in the principles of revolutionary Socialism.” They then issued a call for an “Appeal Institute” to be conducted in Chicago in the third week of February 1937 “to discuss the situation in the national left wing movement [and] … prepare the forces for the convention.” Over a hundred representatives from 12 states participated in the proceedings of the “Institute” and Zam and Trager were on hand as observers from the Clarity group. The latter made it clear in their speeches that they could not agree with many points in the programme of the Appeal group and that their own caucus would continue to struggle against both left and right elements in the Party. The Trotskyists, in line with their strategy of continuing to placate the Clarity group, secured the adoption of a resolution asserting that the surest way to assure the growth of the SP would be through the unification of the left wing “which means above all unity between the Appeal and Clarity groups.” Minutes of the Socialist Appeal Institute held in Chicago, 20–27 February 1937, mimeographed, Cannon Papers. Interviews with Cannon, Shachtman, and Glotzer. Also Goldman, Albert, “The Appeal Institute”, in: Socialist Appeal, III (03, 1937), pp. 36–39Google Scholar; Resolutions Adopted at Appeal Institute, ibid., p. 40. Cannon, History, op. cit., pp. 245–7.

^{page 18 note 1} Altman, Jack, Baron, Murray, Levenstein, Aaron, Romer, Sam, Sexton, Brendan, and others to “Dear Comrades”, 10 February 1937Google Scholar, Daniel W. Hoan Papers, Milwaukee County Historical Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hoan, major of Milwaukee, was an important leader of the Socialist Party. Porter, Paul, Which Way for the Socialist Party? (Milwaukee, 1937). Pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} See, for instance, report of speech by Browder, Earl, General Secretary of the Communist Party (USA) in Madison Square Garden, New York Times, 21 January 1937, p. 9Google Scholar. Also Browder, Earl, The People's Front (New York, 1938), pp. 27, 128, 210–16.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 1} People' s Commissariat of Justice of the USSR, Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre, Verbatim Report (Moscow, 1937). For Stalin's own slashing attacks on Trotskyist “wreckers, diversionists, spies and murderers” who were “acting on instructions from intelligence service organs of foreign States”, see texts of speeches delivered by him at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 3 and 5 March 1937, reprinted in: Coates, Z. P. and Coates, Zelda K., The Moscow Trial (London, 1937), pp. 249–81.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} For Hallgreen's comments and the reply of Suzanne LaFollette, see New York Times, 5 February 1937, p. 20Google Scholar; 8 February 1937, p. 16Google Scholar. Hallgreen declared that the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky appeared to be aiding the Trotskyists, “perhaps unwittingly”, in their efforts to destroy the present Soviet Government. “That I regard as an attack upon Socialism and upon the Socialist system now being created in the Soviet Union. … I have no intention of becoming a party to any such arrangement.” The Communists and their sympathizers hailed Hallgreen's resignation enthusiastically.

^{page 19 note 3} The Commission was composed of the following members: John Dewey, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Columbia University; John R. Chamberlain, writer and literary critic; Alfred Rosmer, member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International 1920–1 and editor-in-chief of l' Humanité, 1923–24; Ross, Edward Alsworth, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of WisconsinGoogle Scholar; Otto Ruehle, former Social Democratic member of the German Reichstag; Benjamin Stolberg, labour journalist; Carleton Beals, author and educator; Wendelin Thomas, Independent Socialist and later Communist member of the German Reichstag, 1920–24; Carlo Tresca, Anarcho-Syndicalist leader and editor of the Italian newspaper, il Martello of New York; Francisco Zamora, editorial writer on the newspaper El Universal of Mexico City; and Suzanne La-Follette, writer and journalist. John R. Finerty who had served as counsel to the accused in two celebrated American “class war” cases, the Sacco and Vanzetti case and the Tom Mooney case, was named counsel for the Commission. Fuller details concerning the “commissioners” can be found in an appendix in: Trotsky, Stalin's Frame-Up System, op. cit., pp. 133–34. Carleton Beals resigned from the Commission while the inquiry was still in progress and did not sign its final report.

^{page 20 note 1} Cannon, to “New York”, 3 February 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} Trotsky to Cannon, 9 March 1937, ibid.

^{page 21 note 1} The Trotskyists, while undoubtedly remarkably disciplined as a group, were also beset by a tendency to carry on interminable controversies among themselves. Trotsky himself was so perturbed by reports of such differences that he strongly urged that they should be settled by personal discussion. Shachtman, to Cannon, (after an interview with Trotsky), 20 January 1937Google Scholar; Dunne, Vincent to Cannon, , 1 February 1937Google Scholar; Dunne, to Swabeck, Arne, 1 February 1937Google Scholar; Cannon, to Dunne, , 6 February 1937Google Scholar, Cannon Papers. An account of the anti-Cannon manoeuvres of some of the Trotskyists during this whole period is to be found in articles published in the internal organ of the Trotskyist group following its exit from the Socialist Party: Internal Bulletin of the Organizing Committee for the Socialist Party Convention (October, 1937), pp. 11–29, 30–33Google Scholar. So disciplined were the Trotskyists that the controversies that raged in their ranks never came to the attention of other groups in the SP.

^{page 21 note 2} Cannon, History, op. cit., pp. 247–48. Also mimeographed statement issued a few months later by Tyler, Gus: Systematic Falsification – the Trotskyists Contribution to Revolutionary Socialism, July 1937, Goldberg-Weintraub CollectionGoogle Scholar. Cannon's assertion in his History that the special convention was “engineered” by Thomas, Altman, Porter and others for the “special purpose of expelling the Trotskyists” appears to be without basis and is in contradiction with his own description of the episode. After the convention Trotskyist orators began to assert that the SP's right wing, assisted by the Stalinists inside and outside the Party tried to expel their group but failed to do so because the delegates to the convention were against the “splitters”. This too was a rather slanted account.

^{page 22 note 1} For the resolutions adopted at the convention see Socialist Call (New York), III (10 April 1937), pp. 1, 12Google Scholar; (17 April 1937), pp. 1, 6Google Scholar. Cannon asserted many years later in his History that during the pre-convention negotiations Thomas had specifically agreed that no attempt would be made at the convention to suppress “internal opinions”. He charged that Tomas broke his word subsequently – yet another instance to prove, according to cannon, the rottenness of “social democratic morality”.

^{page 22 note 2} Tyler, Gus, “The socialist Convention Lays Basis for Rooting Party in Mass Struggles”, in: American Socialist Monthly (New York), VI (05, 1937), pp. 9–12Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} Shachtman, Max, “Towards a Revolutionary Socialist Party”, in: American Socialist Monthly, VI (05, 1937), pp. 13–18.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Thomas, Norman, “At the Front”, in: Socialist Call, III (3 04 1937), p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} The Case of Leon Trotsky, op. cit., p. 584.

^{page 23 note 4} For the correspondence on this matter see, ibid., pp. 594–603. The CP (USA) did not even acknowledge the invitation but the response of Communists in general to Dewey's move was similar to the reply made by the Communist Party of Mexico. Declining to participate “in this Trotskyist comedy”, Hernan Laborde, Secretary General of the Mexican CP wrote: “The Political Bureau of the Central Committee of our Party has resolved to decline the invitation … of what is evidently a prejudiced group of declared friends or captives of Trotsky who have previously decided to absolve him of his crimes and to offer him an occasion to renew his attacks on the Soviet Union and his campaign against the anti-fascist popular front.”

^{page 24 note 1} Ibid., p. 584.

^{page 24 note 2} Ibid., p. 585. While the hearings were in progress one of the members of the subcommission, Carleton Beals, resigned asserting that he did not “consider the proceedings of the Commission a truly serious investigation of the charges.” Beals had asked whether Trotsky had sent Borodin to Mexico in 1919 as his secret emissary to set up the Communist Party of Mexico. Beals said that the information came from Borodin himself. Trotsky characterized the statement as false and bluntly demanded whether the question was being posed simply to cause embarrassment for him in Mexico. Members of the subcommission were also of the view that Beals' line of questioning was improper. Ibid., pp. 412–17.

^{page 25 note 1} Trotsky, to Cannon, and Shachtman, , 24 January 1936, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 2} In Spain the application of Stalin's line had meant violent Communist attacks on the Anarchists and the POUMists who were characterized by the Communists as traitors and Trotskyists. For the Barcelona uprising and the story of the Communist outrages against the POUM, see Thomas, Hugh, The Spanish Civil War (New York, 1961), pp. 424–29, 452–55.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 3} In the NEC only Alfred Baker Lewis (Massachusetts) and Max Raskin (Wisconsin) supported Altman's plea.

^{page 26 note 1} Minutes of the National Executive Committee Meeting, Philadelphia, 7–9 May 1937Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 26 note 2} Carter, Joseph to Cannon, , 23 May 1937Google Scholar, Cannon Papers, Interview with Shachtman. James Burnham was a new recruit to Trotskyism. He broke with Trotsky and Cannon early in 1940 and gradually evolved into a self-styled “conservative”. He is the author of The Managerial Revolution (1941) and several other works.

^{page 26 note 3} Shachtman to the National Action Committee, 20 May 1937, Cannon PapersGoogle Scholar.

^{page 27 note 1} They could not understand how the military struggle against fascism could be furthered if the socialist parties of all countries were to launch an attack on the Loyalist government as demanded by the Trotskyists. Nor could they see how an uprising against the government in the middle of a war could be justified, even if there was considerable provocation. See Socialist Call, III (29 May 1937), p. 4Google Scholar. Norman Thomas gave expression to similar views in a survey of the European situation written for the Party's official newspaper just before his departure from Europe. Ibid., III (12 June 1937), p. 3; (19 June 1937), p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Burnham, to Trimble, , 17 May 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} Burnham to Cannon, 22 May 1937, ibid.

^{page 28 note 2} “Wolfe” (Trotsky) to Burnham, Cannon, Glotzer and Weber, 15 June 1937, ibid.

^{page 29 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 29 note 2} “Wolfe” (Trotsky) to Burnham, 25 June 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} A few days later a meeting organized by the New York Local to discuss the Spanish issue was marked by heckling and cat calls following which Altman adjourned it. Gus Tyler joined the Trotskyist, Maurice Spector, in criticizing Altman's action as illegal. Each side gave its version of the incident in mineographed “letters” to party members around the country. The incident proved that Altman was ready to use the worst bureaucratic subterfuges to split the Party, wrote Burnham. Altman's friends replied in a joint letter that the Trotskyists had entered the Party only to wreck it and that misguided Socialists of the Clarity group were giving aid and comfort to the disruptors. Burnham, to “Dear Comrade”, 7 June 1937Google Scholar; Spector to “Dear Comrade”, 7 June 1937Google Scholar; Hal Siegel, Brendan Sexton and others to “Dear Comrade”, June 1937, ibid.

^{page 30 note 2} The District Executive Committee of the New York YPSL in which the Clarity group was dominant adopted a resolution condemning Altman's action in strong language. Minutes of the District Executive Committee Meeting, New York YPSL, 18 June 1937, Archives of the Socialist PartyGoogle Scholar.

^{page 31 note 1} Thomas, to Clarence Senior, 19 August 1937, Thomas PapersGoogle Scholar. In weighing all the evidence Thomas found himself increasingly sympathetic to Altman's point of view, though he was opposed to mass expulsions.

^{page 31 note 2} Carter, Joe to “Wolfe” (Trotsky), 22 June 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} The account of the NEC meeting is drawn from the following sources: Symes, Lillian to Kahn, Jack and Clement, Travers, 20 June 1937Google Scholar, Goldberg-Weintraub Collection; Statement by Gus Tyler, Save the Socialist Party from the Wreckers!, June 1937, mimeographed, ibid.; Thomas, to “Dear Comrades”, 22 June 1937Google Scholar; Thomas to members of the NEC, 21 July 1937; Thomas to the St. Louis Local of the SP, 27 July 1937, Thomas Papers.

^{page 33 note 1} Minutes of the National Executive Committee Meeting, New York, 19–20 June 1937, Archives of the Socialist PartyGoogle Scholar. “NEC Decisions Direct Party to Mass Activity”, in: Socialist Call, III (3 July 1937), p. 5, (10 July 1937), p. 2Google Scholar. Lillian Symes, a senior member of the SP from California, wrote to Clarity colleagues in her state immediately after the meeting, that the NEC had proclaimed martial law in order to crack down on all splitters, right as well as left. The resolute action of the NEC had staved off the crisis and had preserved the Socialist Party, she added.

^{page 34 note 1} Cannon, , Shachtman, , and Trimble, to “Dear Comrades”, 29 June 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} Burnham, , Spector and Carter to “Dear Comrade”, 7 July 1937Google Scholar; Carter to Shachtman, 8 July 1937, ibid. Interview with Glotzer. Shachtman told the writer in an interview that he too had been “petrified” when Trotsky advised his adherents to bring about a speedy culmination of the split. But he did not oppose Cannon's vigorous move to implement the line because he was afraid that such a course would split the Trotskyist group right down the middle.

^{page 35 note 1} Though ostensibly offered by a member of the YPSL, the resolution was apparently drafted by the Trotskyist leadership because it closely follows the analysis of Trotsky in his letter to Cannon and Shachtman. The resolution declared: “In the face of the worldshaking events of the Spanish revolution, the Soviet persecutions, the bankruptcy of the Blum regime, the threat of a new war, and the mighty upsurge of American labor, the NEC attempts to establish by decree the regime of a political prison, in order to muzzle the voice of the revolutionists at the bidding of the reactionary Right Wing, who defend the betrayers and assassins of the Spanish workers, the October revolution and the world labor movement.” Minutes of the District Executive Committee Meeting, New York City YPSL, 25 June 1937, Archives of the Socialist PartyGoogle Scholar. Also De Long, Florence, secretary, Local San Francisco, to Roy Burt, executive secretary of the SP, 3 July 1937Google Scholar, Thomas Papers.

^{page 35 note 2} Trimble, to “All Revolutionary Socialists”, 8 July 1937, Thomas Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} A referendum of the entire membership was mandatory if at least five locals in three states having 20 per cent of the total membership of the Party, supported a motion to that effect. Locals in Rochester (New York), Akron (Ohio), St. Paul (Minnesota), and Fresno (California), supported the motion of Local San Francisco.

^{page 36 note 1} Memorandum by Thomas on: The Party Situation, June 1937, Thomas Papers.

^{page 36 note 2} Minutes of the Special Meeting of the City General Committee, Local New York, 6 July 1937, Archives of the Socialist PartyGoogle Scholar. The Clarity representatives voted against taking disciplinary action against Burnham and two other Trotskyites.

^{page 36 note 3} Carter, to “Dear Comrade”, 7 July 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} Tyler, Zam, and their Clarity colleagues felt that Altman, with the support of Thomas, was definitely moving in the direction of collaboration with the ALP and of supporting Fiorello La Guardia for the mayoralty of New York. In the Socialist Call, editor Gus Tyler ran a series of articles “exposing” La Guardia's claim to be a friend of the working man. For the two opposing points of view see, Thomas, Norman, “At the Front”, in: Socialist Call, III (24 07 1937), p. 4Google Scholar; “Is La Guardia Friend of the Workers Or –New York Bankers?”, ed. (10 July 1937), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Gus Tyler, Save the Socialist Party from the Wreckers!, op. cit. A mimeographed Clarity broadside addressed to “Comrades of the YPSL” pointed a sternly accusing finger at Altman for his “splitting role”, “liquidationism”, and “reformist orientation”. “It is Altman who mobilized the campaign against the Trotskyists months prior to their split perspective, impelling them in that direction and provoking them into a counter offensive”, it asserted. “The Die is Cast”, mimeographed, July 1937Google Scholar, Goldberg-Weintraub Collection.

^{page 37 note 3} Minutes of the National Action Committee Meeting, Chicago, 30 July 1937Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 38 note 1} Thomas, to Members of the NEC, 21 July 1937Google Scholar; Thomas, to Senior, 19 July 1937Google Scholar; Thomas, to St.Louis Local, 27 July 1937, Thomas PapersGoogle Scholar. Also Thomas, Norman, “At the Front”, in: Socialist Call, III (31 07 1937), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Burnham, , Shachtman, and Trimble, to “Dear Comrades”, 29 June 1937, Cannon PapersGoogle Scholar. Interview with Shachtman.

^{page 39 note 1} Thomas, to “Dear Comrades”, 5 August 1937Google Scholar; Burt to the City Central Committee, New York, enclosing Minutes of the National Action Committee Meeting, 6 August 1937Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 39 note 2} The position of the Altman group was expounded in a 13-page mimeographed “letter” from Aaron Levenstein to Clarence Senior, former national secretary of the SP. Levenstein asserted that the only enemy that his group recognized was the Trotskyist fifthcolumn in the Party. The Altmanites, he said, did not want a war against the Clarity group because they regarded the latter as fellow Socialists with differences only on minor issues. Levenstein to Senior, n.d., Goldberg-Weintraub Collection.

^{page 39 note 3} Altman brushed aside the opposition of Robert Delson, a leader of the Clarity group, who sought to draw attention to the communication from the SP's executive secretary barring Party locals from initiating disciplinary action against members. Delson, Robert, “Dear Comrade”, August 1937, Archives of the Socialist Party.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Thomas to “Dear Comrade”, 5 August 1937, ibid.; Thomas, to Senior, 19 August 1937, Thomas PapersGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 2} In line with their tactic of using all constitutional devices to intensify the struggle within the Party, Trotskyists who controlled Local San Francisco demanded a referendum of the members of the state organization on the summoning of a state convention to discuss the NEC's directive relating to cessation of factional activity. The Clarity group in California, rightly fearing that the Trotskyist move was aimed at capturing the state organization, felt impelled to appeal to the NEC to suspend its character. See Ward Rodgers, Millie Goldberg and others, Vote ‘No’ on the Referendum for a Special Convention, mimeographed, August 1937, Goldberg-Weintraub Collection.

^{page 41 note 1} “A Manifesto to Members of the Socialist Party”, in: Socialist Appeal (New York), I (14 August 1937), pp. 2–8Google Scholar; “Who is Financing the Right Wing Split Drive?”, ibid., p. 1; Glen Trimble, “NEC Suspends California Charter”, ibid., (21 August 1937), pp. 1, 2; Left Wing Will Not Allow Itself to be Gagged by the Party Bureaucracy, ibid., (28 August 1937) Pp. 10–11.

^{page 41 note 2} Trotsky, to Cannon, , 26 August 1937, Cannon Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} Irving Barshop, secretary of the New York YPSL, and an adherent of the Clarity group became convinced by this time that the youth organization was within an ace of being taken over by the Trotskyists. Independent members of the YPSL appealed to the Clarity leaders to take immediate steps to root out Trotskyism from the Party. An Appeal for the Preservation of the Young Socialist Movement, 10 August 1937, mimeographed, Goldberg-Weintraub CollectionGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 1} Milt Cohen (New York) to Bill Kaufman (Cleveland), 17 August 1937, ibid.

^{page 42 note 2} Ernest Erber, national chairman of the YPSL who had gone over to the Trotskyists, issued a statement accusing New York “centrists” of trying to oust left wingers in a bid to “steal” the forthcoming convention of the YPSL. Erber, Ernest, “To All Circle Secretaries”, in: Socialist Appeal, I (21 08 1937), p. 1Google Scholar. Al Hamilton, national secretary of the YPSL and an adherent of the Clarity group, issued a counter appeal to all members of the organization to repudiate Erber and his supporters. “…we are not going to have anything left in the League unless we act ruthlessly and immediately”, Hamilton wrote to his friends in the Clarity group. Barshop, to Hamilton, , 20 August 1937Google Scholar; Hamilton, to Barshop, , 21 August 1937Google Scholar; Archives of the Socialist Party. Hamilton, to Clement, Travers, 21 August 1937, Goldberg-Weintraub CollectionGoogle Scholar. The final showdown took place at the national convention of the YPSL held in Philadelphia at which Al Hamilton was able to muster a small majority to expel the Trotskyists.

^{page 42 note 3} Roy Burt to All Branch and Local Secretaries, enclosing “Report of Sub-Committee on Question of Appeal Association, National Plenum of Appeal Association, Publication of ‘Socialist Appeal’ and Related Matters”, 8 September 1937, Thomas PapersGoogle Scholar. “The Trotskyist Split”, ed., in: Socialist Call, III (11 September 1957), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} “Summary of Findings,” appended in: Trotsky, Stalin's Frame-Up System, op. cit., pp. 129–31.

^{page 44 note 1} Shachtman told the writer in an interview that the number of “captives” that the Trotskyists were able to take from the SP was not over three hundred.

^{page 44 note 2} Trotsky, to Glotzer, , 18 September 1937Google Scholar, Cannon Papers; Cannon, History, op. cit., p. 241.

^{page 45 note 1} Cannon, James P., Struggle for a Proletarian Party (New York, 1943), p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} Cannon, History, op. cit., pp. 251–4.

^{page 45 note 3} Norman Thomas told the writer in an interview that the decision to admit the Trotskyists in the SP without thorough and adequate consideration was one of the most serious political mistakes that he had ever made.

^{page 46 note 1} Interviews with Cannon and Shachtman.

^{page 46 note 2} The present writer is grateful to his dear friend, Mr. Frits Kool, for many valuable comments ans criticisms relating to this article.