Walking "Hand in Hand": Business, Labor, and Religion 3 страница

Finally, in April 1951, the General Board reached a compromise on the Lay Committee's status. The Lay Committee was invited to continue in a planning capacity with a role more limited than Pew had desired. As a concession, however, ten members of Pew's com­mittee were appointed to the General Board. These Lay Committee representatives, like other Board members, now had the opportuni­ty to review all proposed pronouncements before they came up for approval by the General Board. Members of the Lay Committee moved rapidly into the Council's structure; Jasper Crane, for exam­ple, was elected vice president of the National Council and served on eighteen different committees.75

Pew viewed the purse strings as the key to business influence. The National Council turned over to the Lay Committee the task of rais­ing money for the organization's first year of operations, and busi­ness leaders wielded their clout. Charles R. Hook, chairman of the board of Armco Steel and a former NAM president, headed the fund-raising activities. Pew worked closely with Hook, personally pledg­ing $100,000 towards meeting the first year's budget deficit. Between 1951 and 1952, Pew sent out over twenty-five hundred letters to busi­ness leaders, increasing corporate donations by almost 60 percent. In these letters to donors, Pew emphasized that the National Coun­cil was in a formative stage with a more pragmatic leadership than the old FCC but that fund-raising was critical to the Lay Commit­tee's success in "influencing the Council to declare for sound princi­ples." He advised Donaldson Brown, former head of General Motors, that "if our Committee, working with the Finance Committee, will raise this money, take an interest in the work of the Council and de­velop their budgets," then "the clerics will think twice before they would allow to go out any such pronouncements as formerly were released by the Federal Council." Pew deflected criticism of corpo­rate fund-raising, arguing that private property was in jeopardy unless they succeeded in teaching "economically illiterate ministers" what is good for our country.76

Pew followed through with his promise to use money as a weap­on. When disagreements arose over policy, he regularly threatened to withdraw his personal donations. Similarly, Hook threatened loss of corporate donations if the NCC failed to follow business leader­ship.77 With money as its bludgeon, between 1951 and 1955 the Lay Committee worked to prevent the National Council from making pronouncements that it considered subversive. The increasingly con­servative political atmosphere created by the rising tide of McCar-thyism made it more difficult for the liberals to contest business's efforts. In this atmosphere, anything not "decidedly in favor of cap­italism" was potentially suspect and could be defined as a brand of communism.78

Asserting that the church's primary role was evangelical, the Lay Committee successfully blocked passage of pronouncements dealing with political and international issues, race relations, and the econ­omy. As a result of the Lay Committee's pressure, even the policy of issuing pronouncements, formerly considered one of the main tasks of an ecumenical body, came under scrutiny. In March 1952, attempt­ing to placate Pew, the General Board voted to reduce the number of pronouncements passed and limit them to matters in which there was "an unmistakable ethical or religious concern," greatly reducing their number. Moreover, the General Board created a "screening com­mittee" to ensure that department studies contained a balance of viewpoints. In June 1952, pleased with the Lay Committee's impact, Pew boasted that since his committee's organization "there hasn't been a single subversive pronouncement that has come out of the National Council."79

Pew focused most of his attention on controlling the source of most of the pronouncements on social and economic issues, the Department of Church and Economic Life. The National Council had incorporat­ed the department intact, with Taft continuing as chairman and Hall as secretary. In early 1952, the Christian Century noted that of all parts of the NCC it was "most suspect by the more conservative denomina­tions and by the conservative lay group newly interested in coopera­tive endeavors." Pew considered the department a hotbed of radical activity. While no friend of Taft, it was Hall and his supporters that Pew held responsible for propagating the "philosophy of the Welfare State" against what he felt were the wishes of most Americans. In par­ticular, Pew rejected the department's perception that it should use the power of the church to get laws "to force taxpayers to alleviate social ills through governmental agencies."80

Pew's program to limit the department's influence had several strat­egies. First, through the Lay Committee's ability to review and edit proposals, Pew blocked or impeded the NCC's endorsement of a se­ries of studies financed by the grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. These studies suggested that at times the profit motive might be in­compatible with Christian ethics.81 A second strategy was to under­mine the department's relationship with organized labor. In early 1953, under pressure from Pew, NCC Secretary Samuel Cavert cen­sured Cameron Hall for soliciting funds using union endorsement. When the Philip Murray Memorial Foundation offered to donate $200,000, Pew threatened that it would "open the Council to severe criticism and definitely close the door to all gifts from business and industrial sources." This enraged Oxnam, however, who vowed, "We are not going to take money from big business and turn it down from labor." Eventually the Council accepted the gift but with promises to Pew that it came with no strings attached.82

Finally, the Lay Committee forced the rewriting of the department's statement on the application of Christian principles to economic life. Originally drafted in 1948 by liberal theologian John Bennett, it was revised during 1952 and sent to the General Board for approval in early 1953. Based on the Social Gospel, it read like a liberal mani­festo, consistently challenging the rhetoric of free enterprise. Revis­ing the statement monopolized Pew and his supporters for months. Representatives of the Lay Committee met with moderate members of the department, including Taft and Wesley F. Rennie, executive director of the CED.83 Supported by the business moderates, Taft in­corporated many of the Lay Committee's suggestions but balked at the most extreme statements, such as Pew's contention that any crit­icism, even "intelligent criticism" of capitalism could be equated to promoting communism. After a year of revision, the Lay Committee was still unhappy with the revised document, but Jasper Crane ad­mitted that as a result of their objections and suggestions "it had been very considerably altered and toned down." The document carefully skirted the government's involvement in the economy, eliminated the earlier version's interpretation of organized labor as a "great move­ment of protest," and observed that "uncritical recourse to the state to remedy every evil creates its own evils."84

The Lay Committee's growing influence on the National Council alarmed the liberal community. As early as 1952, liberal theologian John C. Bennett warned of the danger of appeasing "powerful indi­viduals who are known to be aggressively conservative on economic issues and who represent a spirit that is opposed to the prophetic tra­dition of the Federal Council." Bennett ominously predicted that if these men succeeded in controlling NCC policy it would be "a ca­tastrophe for American Christianity." Reverend Emerson G. Hangen of the First Congregational Church of Long Beach agreed with Ben­nett and linked Pew's involvement in the Council to "part of the wave of reaction which has been afflicting laymen across the country." Labor leaders with an interest in the Church were also concerned. By late 1951, David Burgess of the Georgia Industrial Union Council and John Ramsay were worried that Pew's financial clout was buy­ing him undue influence over the Council. Burgess advised Cameron Hall that he was "greatly alarmed by the trend toward the right in the organization which supposively [sic] will speak for the Protestant churches of America." A year later, it was clear to George Crago of the Chemical Workers that the National Council was "under the thumb of Big Business to a considerable extent."85

Suspicious from the start, Oxnam fought back against the "very dangerous" existence of an autonomous group within the Council's ranks. Supported by liberal clergy, he led several unsuccessful efforts to eliminate the Lay Committee, but was rebuffed by moderate cler­gy who decided that the Lay Committee represented "too great a present and potential resource to risk alienating."86 Failing to rid the NCC of Pew's committee, Oxnam and the Council's liberal staff sim­ply chose to ignore the General Board where the business influence was most apparent. The Lay Committee had blocked several "highly controversial" pronouncements, one on inflation and another plac­ing the Church in opposition to the Bricker Amendment, which would have restricted the president's authority to make treaties. But, in both cases, liberals in National Council departments circulated and publicized their positions in other forms, much to the Lay Commit­tee's dismay.87 Later, in 1953, Oxnam, Episcopal Bishop Henry Knox Sherrill, and Charles Taft ignored General Board procedures giving the Lay Committee time to review pronouncements and issued a statement urging Congress to stop the House Committee on Un-American Activities' procedural abuses. In particular, the NCC pro­tested the Committee's "vicious" practices and the "forcing of citi­zens, under pretext of investigation of subversive activities, to testify concerning their personal economic and political beliefs." Furious at these actions, Lay Committee supporter columnist David Lawrence blasted the National Council's lax attitude toward Communism and asked what gave the NCC the right to use "the dignity and spiritual power of the church" to meddle in politics.88

The following year was even worse for the Lay Committee. The Board failed to halt an increasingly large number of pronouncements that supported "Federal Government intervention in the work and life of the American people in ways not countenanced by the Con­stitution nor by the American principles of freedom." The NCC also began asking Congress to support federal aid to education and pub­lic housing. Lay Committee members began complaining of their impotence in Council affairs. According to Crane, "lay people are hardly being called upon for service except in financial and business matters." Pew became convinced that a "hard core of Socialists who really dominate the policy of the National Council" were out to "de­stroy" the Lay Committee.89

The Lay Committee attempted to wield its financial stick. Threat­ening mass resignation to enforce its view, it demanded that the NCC stick to spiritual issues and refrain altogether from speaking out on any controversial political, economic or sociological questions. A coa­lition of liberal clergy and moderate business leaders united in oppo­sition to the threat. Even several Lay Committee members, including Noel Sargent and Edwin Lindsay, refused to follow Pew's lead. They endorsed Taft's argument that "what we laymen really want is not to muzzle our Churches so that they cannot speak on economic and po­litical issues which often do involve moral and spiritual values," but rather we want to "try to have the Churches speak on the right side of issues." At the September 1954 General Board meeting, Oxnam warned that the Lay Committee's threat was "an attempt to silence the Church at the very moment when the Church ought to be vocal." In the end, the liberals rallied even the evangelically oriented clergy against limiting the National Council's freedom of action.90

Ever hopeful of the power of forgiveness, NCC officers initiated a flurry of meetings with the Lay Committee in a final futile effort to bring about a rapprochement. The two groups resolved nothing, and in June 1955 the committee quietly went out of existence. With little tolerance for rejection, Pew refused the Council's invitation to join another committee or department in the organization. He concluded that he had not only failed in redirecting the NCC but that even put­ting together the Lay Committee was the "most unfortunate decision of my life." Pew's close associate, Jasper Crane, however, dismissed his histrionics. Crane noted that "some bad practices have been stopped, some most undesirable pronouncements have not been made, and protest has been entered against some things which we have not been able to prevent." Undaunted, Pew turned his attention to combatting liberalism within his own church and increased his support to con­servative groups like Spiritual Mobilization, the Christian Freedom Foundation, and the Foundation for Economic Education.91

While many Lay members followed Pew out of the National Coun­cil, others, including Robert E. Wilson, Charles E. Wilson, Harvey S. Firestone, and Charles Hook, decided to maintain a presence within its ranks. Chrysler executive B. E. Hutchinson, one of the most ac­tive of the Lay members, was unconvinced that the struggle was over. He stayed on the NCC's General Board to at least "'keep our seats warm.'" L. J. Fletcher, vice president of Caterpillar Tractor Compa­ny, asserted that "we who know the ideals and practices of Ameri­can business, and have also spent our lives in the Church," must not "abandon this field to those who sincerely—or otherwise—would misbrand the actions and idealism of American business."92

In the years to come, the presence of these business conservatives as well as the continuing important role played by moderates would have an affect on how the NCC responded to issues of importance to business. With the disbandment of the Lay Committee in 1955, business leaders may have lost the battle, but in many respects they won the war. Despite the hopes of the clerical liberals, the end of the Lay Committee failed to immediately change the Council's cau­tious social policy. For the balance of the decade, it remained hesi­tant to become entangled in controversial issues. In 1960, it elected businessman J. Irwin Miller, who promised fewer pronouncements on "hot subjects" to its leadership.93

While the attention of many business leaders remained focused on the National Council, others were equally concerned with the implications of Catholic social action. In the late forties, like their Protestant counterparts, business conservatives began attacking the National Catholic Welfare Conference's Social Action Department, the equivalent of the Department of Church and Economic Life, for sup­porting organized labor. In 1953, they founded the Council of Busi­ness and Professional Men of the Catholic Faith, which became the "center of the ideological right in the Church." Although at a disad­vantage because they opposed much of the Church's traditional so­cial teaching, they found allies among some of the more conserva­tive bishops. Although this movement has yet to be closely studied, historian Steve Rosswurm observes that these business leaders helped narrow "the ideological limits of Catholic social theory and practice in the 1950s."94

* * *

Admittedly, conservative business leaders failed to turn the church­es into advocates of free enterprise ideology. But the broad impact of the business community—both its moderate and conservative wings—on religion during the years after World War II cannot be eas­ily dismissed. Within Catholicism, business leaders played an impor­tant role in making the Catholic church's traditional commitment to organized labor a much more contentious issue. The business com­munity's impact on Protestantism was perhaps even more significant. Business leaders could easily find tangible evidence of their achieve­ment. By middle of the fifties, NAM Secretary Noel Sargent reported with satisfaction "a substantial change in the utterances and philos­ophy of church pronouncements" since the end of the war. He point­ed as an example to the "distinct change in the entire philosophy of the economics statements" between the first and second meetings of the World Council of Churches. Where the 1948 Amsterdam meet­ing criticized the "prevailing (capitalist) economic system," the 1954 assembly in Evanston, Illinois refused to condemn capitalism, while praising private property and criticizing centralized government con­trol of economic activities.95

Similarly, in sharp contrast to the mid-forties when the Federal Council "was passing bristling resolutions and going far out on haz­ardous limbs" in an effort to promote a more equitable distribution of the fruits of society, the 1956 Department of Church and Economic Life's study conference had little of the "old fire and flash of Chris­tian economic debate." Emphasizing a consensus created by an econo­my of abundance, caution was the password as statements "even mildly critical of corporations or capital... were challenged with vig­or." Although, the conference report did speak of the church's tradi­tional concern for redressing issues like racial discrimination and eco­nomic injustice, business's moderating influence was apparent as even these issues were treated in a "careful, cautionary" manner.96 All this suggests that in the years after World War II, aided by increasing af­fluence and a cold war atmosphere that made advocacy of collective solutions to social problems suspect, business leaders played an im­portant role in helping to silence an important segment of the reli­gious community and to prod the institutions of the church in more moderate directions.

 

 

Notes

1. Two accounts provide a basic summary of the history of the Lay Com­mittee. Henry J. Pratt, The Liberalization of American Protestantism: A Case Study in Complex Organizations (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1972), pp. 84_104, relies heavily on J. Howard Pew's The Chairman's Final Report to the

National Lay Committee, 1955. Eckard Vance Toy, Jr., "The National Lay Com­mittee and the National Council of Churches: A Case Study of Protestants in Conflict," American Quarterly 21 (Summer 1969): 190-209, uses the papers of James W. Clise, a conservative West Coast businessman and member of the Lay Committee. Both accounts place the Lay Committee in the context of the ideological struggle within the Protestant church between evangelical­ism and the Social Gospel; J. Howard Pew to H. P. Eells, Aug. 16, 1950, Box 168, J. Howard Pew Papers, HML.

2. John Ramsay to Mrs. Alex Kerchman, July 8, 1946, Box 1, John Ram­say Papers, OHS.

3. George M. Marsden, Religion and American Culture (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990), pp. 106-30; Rolf Luden, Business and Religion in the American 1920s (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), passim.

4. Luden, Business and Religion, pp. 181-83; Robert Moats Miller, Ameri­can Protestantism and Social Issues, 1919-1939 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1958), pp. 66, 89; Paul A. Carter, The Decline and Revival of the Social Gospel: Social and Political Liberalism in American Protestant Church-es, 1920-1940 (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1971), p. 175.

5. William McGuire King, "The Reform Establishment and the Ambigu­ities of Influence/' in Between the Times: The Travail of the Protestant Estab­lishment in America, 1900-1960, ed. William R. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Cam­bridge University Press, 1989), pp. 123-27, esp. 126.

6. George W. Robnett to Charles P. Taft, Mar. 31, 1947, Box 88, Charles P. Taft Papers, LC; David Lawrence, "Mixing Religion and Politics," United States News, Mar. 28, 1947, pp. 26-27; "The Churches Speak to Business," Fortune, Dec. 1948, pp. 122-23.

7. Aaron I. Abell, American Catholicism and Social Action: A Search for So-cial Justice, 1865-1950 (Garden City, N.Y.: Hanover House, 1960); Neil Betten, Catholic Activism and the Industrial Worker (Gainesville: University Press of Flor­ida, 1976).

8. "Merchandising the Business Story to Opinion Moulders in Education and the Churches," 1945, Accession 1411, NAM, Series I, Box 270, (hereafter Ace. 1411, NAM 1/270); "Influencing the 'Balance of Power' Groups through Opinion-Makers," July 1, 1946, Ace. 1411, NAM 1/109; Understanding: A Quar­terly Devoted to Cooperation Between Clergymen and Business, Sept. 1946, p. 1.

9. "Merchandising the Business Story to Opinion Moulders," NAM, Report and Recommendations to Industry of the N.AM. Committee on Cooperation on Churches, 1943, Ace. 1411, NAM 1/246.

10. Folder entitled "Material and Information on Churchman's Business­man's Conference, Robert E. Lee Hotel, Jackson, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 1943," Ace. 1411, NAM 1/246; Report and Recommendations to Industry of the N.AM. Com­mittee on Cooperation on Churches, NAM, Series I, Boxes, 163, 246, 270, and Series III, Box 843 contain transcripts of various Church and Industry Con­ferences.

11. List of "Expected Attendance, Organization Dinner, Philadelphia Busi­nessmen's Committee on Cooperation with Churches, Nov. 27, 1944, Ace.

1411, NAM 1/270; "Survey of Church and Industry Activity," c. 1952, Ace. 1411, NAM III/852.1.

12. Committee on Cooperation with Community Leaders of the Nation­al Association of Manufacturers, "Proceedings," transcripts, May 17, 1950, Chicago, 111., Ace. 1411, NAM 1/109.

13. Edwin McNeill Poteat to Samuel McCrea Cavert, Nov. 11, 1940, Box 18, RG18, NCC; J. J. Biackwelder to George T. Mascott, Nov. 30, 1944, "Brook­lyn Church and Industry Conference Summation Session," transcripts of pro­ceedings, Jan. 14, 1943, Brooklyn, New York, both in Ace. 1411, NAM 1/246.

14. Noel Sargent and Chris Gilson to All Division and Regional Managers and Church and Industry Relations Directors, Mar. 19, 1954, Noel Sargent to Church and Industry Directors, Jan. 17, 1955, Warren J. Taussig to Ransom P. Rathbun, May 3, 31, 1955, Jan. 23, 1956; NAM Public Relations Division, "Review of NAM'S Clergy-Industry Program and Suggestions for Strengthen­ing the Association's Activities in This Area," June 1, 1956, all in Ace. 1411, NAM 1/163.

15. William Eugene Carroll, "The Clergy in Our Plant Communities," MRev 41 (Mar. 1952): 145-47; PRN, Nov. 14, 1949, Jan. 23, 1950, Dec. 29, 1952, Jan. 3, 1955; "Eli Lilly," Trends, Dec. 1949, pp. 4-5.

16. For history of Spiritual Mobilization, see Eckard Vance Toy, "Ideology and Conflict in American Ultra Conservatism, 1945-1960" (Ph.D. diss, Uni­versity of Oregon, 1965), esp. 157; Spiritual Mobilization Contributors List, enclosed in James W. Fifield to J. Howard Pew, May 18, 1948, J. Howard Pew to Ira Mosher, June 21, 1948, Box 19, Pew Papers; "Forming the Shape of Things to Come," Memorandum to Corporate Contributors from Spiritual Mobilization, June 15, 1956, Box 51, Pew Papers.

17. Robert McAffe Brown, "Is It 'Christian Economies'?" Christianity and Crisis, Nov. 27, 1950, pp. 155-58; Clipping entitled "Kiwanis Club Fetes Pas­tors," n.d., Box 30, Pew Papers; "Report on the Organization Meeting of the Christian Freedom Foundation," Apr. 17, 1950, Box 180, Pew Papers.

18. Eisenhower quoted in Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 66-67; Samuel Mc­Crea Cavert, The American Churches in the Ecumenical Movement, 1900-1968 (New York: Association Press, 1968), pp. 189-90.

19. Advertising Council, How Business Helps Solve Public Problems: A Re­port on the Eighth Year of the Advertising Council, March 1949-March 1950, 1950; 10th Annual Report of the Advertising Council, 1951-52, the Harry S. Truman Library Book Collection, HST; "Ad Council Gives Good Advice," CC 75 (Nov. 12, 1958): 1294-95.

20. On religion and business in the early twentieth century, see Ken Fones-Wolf, Trade Union Gospel: Christianity and Labor in Industrial Philadelphia, 1865-1915 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989); Duncan Norton-Taylor, "Businessmen on Their Knees," Fortune, Oct. 1953, p. 254; "Plant Religious Program," Trends, Sept. 1950, pp. 4-5; Clarence Woodbury, "Religion in In­dustry: 'Not Only to Make a Living'. . . but a Life," NB, June 1954, p. 30.

21. John C. Harmon, "Industrial People Explore New Pathways to God,"

Nov. 23, 1954, Ace 1411, NAM 111/852.1; "Religion in Industry," FMM 110 (Jan. 1952): 127.

22. Woodbury, "Religion in Industry," pp. 30-31, 74-75; Rev. Edgar M. Wahlberg, "The Industrial Chaplaincy," Feb. 1, 1954, Box 1, Edward Coffey Files, UAW Education Department Records, ALUA.

23. Norton-Taylor, "Businessmen on Their Knees," pp. 140-41.

24. Clair M. Cook, "The Industrial Chaplains," CC, Aug. 31, 1955, p. 993; "Employee Profanity Cut by In-Plant Worship," AB, Feb. 1952, p. 57; Wood­bury, "Religion in Industry," p. 74.

25. John G. Ramsay to David J. McDonald, May 26, 1953, Box 132, Dav­id McDonald Papers, HCLA.

26. Among the literature on labor and Catholicism, see Michael Har­rington, "Catholics in the Labor Movement: A Case History," labor History 1 (Fall 1960): 231-63; Piehl, Breaking Bread; Ronald W. Schatz, "American La­bor and the Catholic Church, 1919-1950," International labor and Working-Class History 20 (Fall 1981): 46-53.

27. Mildred Jeffrey to Leonard Woodcock, attached memo on church and unions, Apr. 6, 1956, Box 35, Mildred Jeffrey Papers, ALUA; John G. Ramsay to George E. Sweazey, Feb. 13, 1948, Box 1566; Untitled Report by James A. Crain, Executive Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, The United Chris­tian Missionary Society, c. 1946, Box 1561, John G. Ramsay Papers, SLA.

28. CIO News, Oct. 27, 1947.

29. "Labor Executives Speak on 'What Religion Means to Me/" Economic Justice, Jan. 1948, pp. 4, 6.

30. Brian Abrams, "John Ramsay and the Evolution of Church Labor Re­lations in the CIO" (M.A. thesis, Georgia State University, 1985), pp. 28-29. Abrams' fine thesis focuses on the CIO's efforts to woo Southern clergy during Operation Dixie.

31. John G. Ramsay to Cornelius A. Wood, May 12, 1947, Box 1561, Ram­say Papers; John G. Ramsay, "The Reconciliation of Religion and Labor," in labor's Relation to Church and Community, ed. Liston Pope (reprint; Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1972), pp. 107-11, esp. 109; John Ramsay, Oral History Transcript, p. 13, HCLA.

32. "From C.E. to Organized Labor: The Story of John G. Ramsay," Chris­tian Endeavor World, July 1945, p. 5; John A. Salmond, Miss Lucy of the CIO: The life and Times of lucy Randolph Mason, 1882-1959 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988); David Burgess to John Ramsay, Feb. 11, 1947, Box 1579, Ramsay Papers.

33. Among Ramsay's many articles in religious press, see John G. Ram­say, "How Can the Church Win the Laboring Man," Michigan Christian Ad­vocate, Feb. 28, 1946, pp. 16-17; John Ramsay, "The Methodist Church and Labor Unions," Christian Advocate, Sept. 3, 1953, pp. 6-7, 29.

34. On Ramsay's early efforts to establish fellowships, see correspondence in Box 1558 such as John G. Ramsay to Vin Sweeney, Oct. 23, 1944, Mar. 19, Apr. 11, 1945, John Ramsay to Reverend Celestin J. Steiner, Oct. 30, 1944, Box 1, John G. Ramsay Papers, OHS; Steel Labor (Southern Edition), Feb. 1950.

35. On religion and Operation Dixie, see Abrams, "John Ramsay and the Evolution of Church Labor Relations"; Barbara Griffith, The Crisis of Ameri­can Labor: Operation Dixie and the Defeat of the CIO (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988), pp. 106-22; David S. Burgess, "The Captured Churches of Milltown," Economic Justice, Sept. 1953, p. 3; Script of Textile Workers Union of America, CIO Organizing Committee, Station WDOD, Chattanoo­ga, Tennessee, Oct. 30, 1950, Box 1560, Ramsay Papers.

36. Script of Textile Workers Union of America, CIO Organizing Commit­tee, Station WHIN, Gallatin, Tennessee, Oct. 2, 1949, Box 1568, Ramsay Pa­pers; "The Bible and the Workingman," n.d. c. 1946, Box 163, Michigan AFL-CIO Records, ALUA.