Talk:Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders

Eradication, Decimation, Depletion

User:DOSGuy and I are having a gentlemanly disagreement about the meaning of some words. He objected here to the use of "decimate" because, as he said, Decimate means "to kill 1 in 10" (a Roman punishment) -- "deci" means 1/10th. It appears that most of the leadership was prosecuted, and membership dropped from 60k to 5k, so this was much worse than decimation. Eradicate means "to tear up by the roots". The problem with his point is that he is using the origins of both terms to make his point. Both words mean something very different in contemporary English. For example, the current #1 definition of "eradicate" on Dictionary.com is "to remove or destroy utterly",[1] and it uses smallpox as an example. "Eradicate" was simply wrong to use in this context, as the entirety of the CPUSA's leadership was not destroyed; eradication would be used if, after the trials, there were zero remaining members of the leadership.

His objection to "decimate" is similarly based upon classical, not contemporary usage. While we all recognize the origins of decimate, the word today does not require nor even imply a 1/10 destruction. Indeed, it almost always means something more severe. Note the dictionary.com definition #1 definition: to destroy a great number or proportion of,[2] and it gives as an example The population was decimated by a plague.

So, to my mind, while his intentions are quite honorable, DOSGuy's understanding of the connotations of these words is simply lacking.

His current edit,[3] while clearly an improvement on "eradicate", is also, in my opinion, missing a subtle nuance in meaning. He now wishes to use "deplete". The definitions on Dictionary.com would appear to support this usage. However, feeling that something is missing from my regular go-to source, I looked elsewhere. While its definition of deplete was similar to Dictionary.com's Merriam Webster's examples go more to the point I was looking for. Look here:

• Activities such as logging and mining deplete our natural resources.
• We completely depleted our life savings when we bought our new house.

What we see here is closer to what I think most people think of when they use "deplete". What makes "deplete" different is that there is (I believe) usually a recognition that the process that is causing the depletion is either natural or at least not malicious. Depletion is something that just happens naturally, unless "replenishment" occurs. I deplete the gas in my car every time I drive, but if I am wise, I will fill it up. Depletion has an entirely different feel, at least to me and MW, than what happened with the Smith Act trials, which were an attempt at eradication. No one attempts to "eradicate" that which they deplete; it is understood that the resource being depleted should be husbanded wisely and made available for future use. That was not what was happening in these trials.

I'll not revert DOSGuy now, but I would really, really, appreciate some input from other editors on this one. 98.82.179.85 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've decided that, for purposes of this discussion, it might be easier if I have a username, instead of just being 98.82.179.85, so here it is: CruncherMon (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that decimate originally meant to remove 1 out of 10, particularly as a manner of punishing a large group (e.g. a group of soldiers that did not behave honorably). However, in modern English, the word has come to mean to remove a large portion of. Decimate is probably better in this context than deplete, since the later connotes a gradual, intentional reduction. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well stated. I would say further that, just as deplete connotes something gradual and predictable, decimate connotes something harsh or severe. CruncherMon (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Noleander edit

I strongly endorse this edit. Not just for the reasons stated above, but even more importantly, for the way Noleander has constructed the opening sentence. Very fine work. CruncherMon (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Start of the trial" Section Quibble

Under "Earth calling" in Talk, Noleander asked for proposed improvements to the "Start of trial" section.

I noticed inaccuracies in ¶2 of that section:

The trial opened on November 1, 1948, and preliminary proceedings and jury selection lasted until January 17, 1949; the defendants first appeared in court on March 7, and the case concluded on October 14, 1949.

I would revise that sentence thus, based on the documentation below (sorry, I don't know how to do references properly):

The trial opened on January 17, 1949 after several postponements. [Refs under Postponement #3, Postponement #4, and Trial Opening] The defense team then began an unsuccessful seven-week challenge to the jury system in the Southern District. [Ref under Defense Challenges] The defendants first appeared in court on March 7, and the case concluded on October 14, 1949. [Existing refs]

References

The trial opening appears to have been 17 Jan 1949, after several postponements having been granted the defense. Jury selection was delayed until early March after seven weeks of unsuccessful defense challenges. The prosecution's opening statement was delivered 21 Mar 1949.

Trial Opening. According to The Christian Science Monitor, 21 Jan 1949, p. 12:

Preliminaries for the main trial began on Jan. 17 and may go on for many days before there is even a jury picked to begin weighing the question whether top members of the Communist Party have violated the Smith Act…

Postponements.

Postponement #1. According to The Hartford Courant, 17 Aug 1948, p. 1:

New York, Aug. 16. — (UP.)— Federal Judge Harold Medina refused today to extend until after the November elections the case of 12 key Communists indicted for plotting to overthrow the government.

The Communists had asked [sic] an extension from August 23 to November 23 to file motions questioning the constitutionality of the Smith Act, under which they were indicted. Medina granted an extension until September 27, but refused to postpone the case until after the elections.

Postponement #2. I could not find documentation of this, but it is mentioned in Postponement #3 below.

Postponement #3. According to the Daily Boston Globe, 02 Nov 1948, p. 7:

New York, Nov. 1 — Judge Harold R. Medina, of United States District Court, assigned himself today to preside at the trial of the 12-man national board of the Communist party, and set Nov. 15 as "the actual date of commencement."

It was the third postponement granted to the leaders of the Communist party…

Postponement #4. According to The Hartford Courant, 18 Nov 1948, p. 1:

New York, Nov. 17.—(UP.)— Federal Judge Harold Medina today set January 17 as the date for the trial of 12 top American Communist leaders.

Jury Selection Delayed Due to Defense Challenges. According to Daily Boston Globe, 18 Jan 1949, p. 3, jury selection had not yet taken place when the trial opened on 17 Jan:

While 500 prospective jurors waited impatiently to be called and examined, the eight-man defense battery urged Judge Harold R. Medina to grant a stay of 90 days or longer and advanced at least 10 different grounds for delay. All were denied.

Jury instructions were given by Judge Medina on 18 Mar 1949, according to the New York Times, 19 Mar 1949, p. 8. The story also states that the defendants

have been technically on trial for nine weeks, but the first seven weeks were taken up by a futile defense challenge to the whole jury system in this Federal District. The last two weeks have been devoted to a careful selection of jurors to guarantee a fair trial by an impartial jury. The actual trial is now about to begin.

Opening Statement. The prosecution's U.S. Atty. John F. X. McGohey delivered the government's opening statement on 21 Mar 1949 according to the New York Times, 22 Mar 1949, p. 1.

--M. David Hughes (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)