It is obvious that the Holy spirit was guiding Rutherford, as Jesus was choosing them at this time to be his FDS, evidently.
You can tell this is true because they did not put a foot wrong.
Why was Rutherford sent to prison?
by Alfred 29 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
lil princess
send them all to prison. lets see how smug you are when you drop the soap. oh your better than me? where is your invisible friend now?
-
kurtbethel
His forehead has the shape of someone who is deceptive, with brows of one who desires to bully others, and a weak jaw of a sexual deviant.
Oh, sorry. Phrenology is old light now.
-
kurtbethel
His forehead has the shape of someone who is deceptive, with brows of one who desires to bully others, and a weak jaw of a sexual deviant.
Oh, sorry. Phrenology is old light now.
-
Band on the Run
Does anyone know if a First Amendment lawyer has reviewed these cases? I find it sad that hardly one here mentions that we have a First Amendment, guaranteeing free exercise of religion. WWI spwaned many charges of sedition. It seemed to have more Red Scare events than comparable conditions during WWII. Of course, Stalin was our ally during WWII. I assumed their lawyers screamed First Amendment. Without reading the specific charges and law review articles ( law profs had to write about it), I can only assume that they committed overt acts that reached beyond conscientious objector status.
Were the Quakers, Mennonites, and Amish jailed for sedition? The Witnesses are just about "Germanic" with their deep reverence for authority and blind obedience. How are they different from Hitler, Mao or Stalin? I can just imagine the crimes against humanity if their "theocracY" came to pass.
Did they do anything overtly to comfort Germany, et al.? I am certain these prosecutions would be condemned today.
I believe Lady Lee had a profound point that their rabid antigovernment stance is politics. In many ways, it much more political than people who are committeepersons, state chairs, delegates in party politics. I believe it is important to view the times then to understand how good people can spit on the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln, of all people, destroyed the const'n. Of course, without his actions, there would be const'n to protect. The const'n is not a law. Enduring values that last for generations are envisaged. Lines will blur b/c of historical circumstance.
It is striking that Lincoln's military actions during the Civil War occurred when we fought a war on our homeland. Chaos and dissolution of all government was a real, imminent threat. I don't see how even if Rutherford pushed for more than neutrality, Rutherford could have had an impact on the war/s. It was a message to all to behave or else. A short while later, our government herded Japanese-Americans into concentratoins camps. When the legislative and military action reached the U.S. Supreme Court for arguments (years later), the Army admitted that there no evidence of any real threat. Hoover said on the record that Japan had spies. The FBI tailed them. The Japanese-Americans were not spies. The Court upheld the legaltiy of the concentration camps in Korematsu. Ironically, the Court used sweeping language affirming civl rights before crippling the Japanese Americans. It is the most frequently cited case about race being impermissible as a classification. Dred Scott, upholding slavery, and Korematsu, upholding unnecessary detentions, are always cited as despicable cases. Germany was not on US soil.
My father was a CO during WWII b/c he was at Bethel. An uncle by marriage went to prison. My mom's close friend was very young. Some older Bethelites stirred him up the night before his trial. Rather than sit and just respond the way his lawyer advised, he stood up like St. Paul and preached. He received 3 additional years.
May I ask for a primary source for materials and any good secondary sources?
-
Terry
Lutherns were the most suspect! Simply because of their German ancestry.
No Lutherns were ever listed as non-combatants or pacificts ironically enough.
Mennonites were the most consistently cited religious group, but, they lived in such rural regions the
majority of the blowback ocurred in the cities against International Bible Students.
President Dwight David Eisenhower's mother joined the International Bible Students around 1915 (if my memory is working) and she
discouraged her son from going to West Point military academy.
interestingly, when he insisted it was his patriotic duty to serve his country, his mom relented.
A modern day JW mom would have disowned her son in a heartbeat!
In spite of errors written about Eisenhower's religion, he was never a bible student or Jehovah's Witness, but, he considered himself the most devout man in the military.
-
Band on the Run
I was a child when Eisenhower was president. Of course, I know nothing about his presidency. JFK was so full of life and vigor! The Witnesses would be so proud that Eisenhower's mother was a Witness and, then, condemn Eisenhower for being a major reason why we weren't in concentration camps. There was hope that he would return to the fold. Was he a born-in like me? If she were a true Witness, he would not have attended West Point with her blessing.
International Bible Students. My impression was that they were small, much fewer than Black Muslims, etc. I suppose I had the wrong impression.
-
Calebs Airplane
Just thought I'd resurface this thread in light of the Nu-lite that's been brought to light in this week's rag (which contains more even more shameless re-writing of history).
-
darkspilver
This is the Yearbook 1975 version, pages 104 to 108:
On May 7, 1918, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for the arrest of certain principal servants of the Watch Tower Society. Involved were President J. F. Rutherford, Secretary-Treasurer W. E. Van Amburgh, Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher (the two compilers of The Finished Mystery), F. H. Robison (a member of the Watch Tower editorial committee), A. H. Macmillan, R. J. Martin and Giovanni DeCecca.
On the very next day, May 8, 1918, those of this group who were at Brooklyn Bethel were placed under arrest. Eventually all were in custody. Shortly thereafter they were arraigned in Federal Court, Judge Garvin presiding. All of them were met with an indictment previously returned by the Grand Jury, charging them with
“(1, 3) The offense of unlawfully, feloniously and willfully causing and attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States of America, in, through and by personal solicitations, letters, public speeches, distribution and public circulation throughout the United States of America of a certain book called ‘Volume Seven—SCRIPTURES STUDIES—The Finished Mystery’; and distributing and publicly circulating throughout the United States certain articles presented in pamphlets called, ‘BIBLE STUDENTS MONTHLY,’ ‘THE WATCH TOWER,’ ‘KINGDOM NEWS’ and other pamphlets not named, et cetera;
“(2, 4) The offense of unlawfully, feloniously, and willfully obstructing the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States when the United States was at war.”
Principally, the indictment was based on one paragraph in The Finished Mystery. It read: Nowhere in the New Testament is Patriotism (a narrow-minded hatred of other peoples) encouraged. Everywhere and always murder in its every form is forbidden; and yet, under the guise of Patriotism the civil governments of earth demand of peace-loving men the sacrifice of themselves and their loved ones and the butchery of their fellows, and hail it as a duty demanded by the laws of heaven.”
Brothers Rutherford, Van Amburgh, Macmillan and Martin faced a second indictment of trading with the enemy, based on a claim that the Society’s officers sent $500 to the manager of the Swiss branch of the Society at Zurich. Each brother arraigned was held over on bail of $2,500 for each of the indictments. They were released on bail and appeared in court on May 15, 1918. The trial was set for June 3, 1918, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The brothers pleaded “not guilty” to both indictments and considered themselves completely innocent of all the charges.
Owing to the feeling manifested in preliminary hearings, the defendants filed affidavits showing why they felt Judge Garvin was biased against them. In time, United States District Judge Harland B. Howe was brought in to preside at the trial. According to A. H. Macmillan, although the defendants were unaware of Howe’s views, the government knew that he “had special prejudice in favor of the prosecution of the law and against the defendants charged with violating it.” Macmillan also stated: “But we were not left long in the dark. From the first conference of the attorneys in the judge’s chambers before the trial began his animosity was manifested, and he indicated, ‘I’m going to give these defendants all that is coming to them.’ However, it was now too late for our attorneys to file an affidavit of prejudice on the part of the judge.”
Macmillan said that the indictment as originally returned charged that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy sometime between April 6, 1917, when the United States declared war, and May 6, 1918. Upon motion the government specified that the date of the alleged offense was between June 15, 1917, and May 6, 1918.
SCENES IN THE COURTROOM
The United States was at war. A court trial of Bible Students on a sedition charge thus attracted great attention. What about public sentiment? It favored anything that would further the war effort. Outside the courtroom bands played and soldiers marched around nearby Brooklyn Borough Hall. Inside the courtroom the fifteen-day trial wore on, piling up a veritable mountain of testimony. Why not step inside and witness the proceedings.
A. H. Macmillan, one of the defendants, helps us to sense the atmosphere, for he later wrote: “During the trial the government said that if a person stood on the street corner and repeated the Lord’s prayer with the intent of discouraging men from joining the army, he could be sent to the penitentiary. So you can see how easy it was for them to interpret intent. They thought they could tell what another person was thinking, and so they acted against us on that basis even though we testified that we never at any time conspired to do anything whatsoever to affect the draft and never encouraged anyone to resist it. It was all to no avail. Certain religious leaders of Christendom and their political allies were determined to get us. The prosecution, with consent of Judge Howe, aimed for conviction, insisting that our motive was irrelevant and that intent should be inferred from our acts. I was found guilty solely on the basis that I countersigned a check, the purpose of which could not be determined, and that I signed a statement of fact that was read by Brother Rutherford at a board meeting. Even then they could not prove that it was my signature. The injustice of this helped us later in our appeal.”
At one point, a former officer of the Society was sworn in. After looking at an exhibit bearing two signatures, he said he recognized one as that of W. E. Van Amburgh. Here the Transcript of Record reads:
“Q. I hand you Exhibit 31 for identification, and ask you to look at the two signatures or purported signatures, of Macmillan and Va[n] Amburgh, and ask you first as to Van Amburgh, if in your opinion that is a mimeograph copy of his signature? A. I think it is. I recognize it as such.
“Q. Mr. MacMillan’s? A. Mr. MacMillan’s is not so recognizable, but I think it is his signature.”
Concerning the defense presented by those on trial, Brother Macmillan later wrote:
“After the Government had completed its case we presented our defense. In essence we showed that the Society is wholly a religious organization; that the members accept as their principles of belief the holy Bible as expounded by Charles T. Russell; that C. T. Russell in his lifetime wrote and published six volumes, Studies in the Scriptures, and as early as 1896 promised the seventh volume which would treat Ezekiel and Revelation; that on his deathbed he stated that someone else would write the seventh volume; that shortly after his death the executive committee of the Society authorized C. J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher to write and submit manuscript for consideration without any promise made concerning publication; that the manuscript on Revelation was completed before the United States got into the war and all the manuscript of the entire book (except a chapter on the Temple) was in the hands of the printer before the enactment of the Espionage Law; hence, it was impossible for any such conspiracy as charged to have been entered into to violate the law.
“We testified that we never at any time combined, agreed or conspired to do anything whatsoever to affect the draft or interfere with the Government in the prosecution of the war, nor did we have any thought of so doing; that we never had any intention of interfering in any manner with the war; that our work was wholly religious and not at all political; that we did not solicit members and never advised or encouraged anyone to resist the draft; that the letters written were to those whom we knew to be dedicated Christians who were entitled under the law to advice; that we were not opposed to the nation going to war, but as dedicated Christians could not engage in mortal combat.”
But not everything said and done at that trial was open and aboveboard. Macmillan later reported: “Some of our people who were attending the trial later told me that one of the attorneys for the Government had gone out into the hallway, where he talked in low tones to some of those who had led the opposition within the Society. They said, ‘Don’t let that fellow [Macmillan] go; he’s the worst of the bunch. He’ll keep things going if you don’t get him with the others.’” Remember that at this time ambitious men had been trying to get control of the Watch Tower Society. No wonder Rutherford later warned brothers left in charge at Bethel: ‘We are advised that seven who opposed the Society and its work during the past year attended upon the trial and lent aid to our prosecutors. We warn you, beloved, against the subtle efforts of some of them to fawn upon you now in an attempt to get hold of the Society.”
Finally, after the lengthy trial, the awaited day of decision arrived. June 20, 1918, at about 5:00 p.m., the case went to the jury. J. F. Rutherford later recalled: “The jury hesitated a long while before rendering a verdict. Finally Judge Howe sent word in to them that they must bring in a verdict of ‘Guilty,’ as one of the jurors afterwards stated to us.” After some four and a half hours of deliberation, at 9:40 p.m., the jury returned with their verdict—“Guilty.”
Sentencing took place on June 21. The courtroom was full. When asked if they had anything to say, the defendants did not respond. Then came the sentence by Judge Howe. Angrily he said: “The religious propaganda in which these men are engaged is more harmful than a division of German soldiers. They have not only called in question the law officers of the Government and the army intelligence bureau but have denounced all the ministers of all the churches. Their punishment should be severe.”
It was. Seven of the defendants were sentenced to eighty years in the penitentiary (twenty years each on four counts, to run concurrently). The sentence for Giovanni DeCecca was delayed, but he ultimately received forty years, or ten years on each of the same four counts. The defendants were to serve their sentences at the United States penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia.
The trial had lasted for fifteen days. Testimony recorded had been voluminous and the proceedings often unfair. In fact, it was demonstrated later that the trial contained over 125 errors. Only a few of these were needed by the Appellate Court eventually to condemn the whole procedure as unfair.
“I went and suffered through it all with the brothers as they were subjected to this unfair ordeal,” comments James Gwin Zea, who was present as an observer. He continues: “I can still see the judge refusing Brother Rutherford an opportunity to make a defense. ‘The Bible doesn’t go in this court’ was his comment. I stayed with Brother M. A. Howlett in Bethel that night and about ten o’clock word came that they had been convicted. They were sentenced the next day.”
-
darkspilver
A. H. Macmillan in his book Faith on the March provides more information on the actual charges on pages 92 and 93
Our indictment was in four counts, each count charging a separate and distinct offense under different parts of the statute. This statute, known as the Espionage Law, was enacted June 15, 1917, and was strictly a war measure. It would be impossible to violate it when the country is at peace. The indictment as originally returned charged that a conspiracy was entered into some time between April 6, 1917, the date the United States declared war, and the sixth day of May, 1918. Upon motion the Government specified the date of the alleged offense as between June 15, 1917, and May 6, 1918. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. At the trial the Government contended that The Finished Mystery was written and published designedly to hinder the United States in raising an army and prosecuting the war and that the defendants had written letters to members of the Society within draft age that interfered with the raising of an army. The Finished Mystery was offered in evidence by the Government and portions of it read, particularly the preface, pages 247-252, 406, 407 and 469. The Government counsel contended that these pages were designedly hidden in different parts of the book for the purpose of getting a person interested in some other part of the book and then influencing him by the statements concerning war; that publishing the book, The Bible Students Monthly and The Watch Tower, as well as writing letters to conscientious objectors, all were overt acts in carrying out the conspiracy.