The icon indicates free access to the linked research on JSTOR.

On the first day of June 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican from Maine, gave a speech on the floor of the Senate that sounded the first shot in the fight against McCarthyism. Entitled “Declaration of Conscience,” the address was a response to the growing assault on individuals and freedoms led by Senator Joseph McCarthy and cloaked in the paranoia of the “Red Scare.”

JSTOR Daily Membership AdJSTOR Daily Membership Ad

Smith was the first woman elected to serve in both the House and Senate, and the first woman to represent Maine in either. As a self-described conservative Republican, she may not have seemed the most likely candidate to take on the senator from Wisconsin. But when reading the speech, the urgency and depth of her concerns about the erosion of American civil liberties becomes clear in its first paragraph.

Below is an annotation of the speech, with relevant scholarship covering the historical, social, and political history relevant to the time of McCarthyism, as well as how those issues have continued relevance today. As always, the supporting research is free to read and download.

Free JSTOR Citation

The red J indicates free access to the linked research on JSTOR.


Mr. President,

I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the legislative branch or the executive branch of our government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

Mr. President, I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we senators can in debate in the Senate, directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American—and without that non-senator American having any legal redress against us—yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection, and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we “dish out” to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul searching and to weigh our consciences as to the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America and the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to criticize.

The right to hold unpopular beliefs.

The right to protest.

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation—in addition to being a party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes. Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs. History is repeating itself—and the Republican party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence. The record of the present Democratic administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears. America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, which show the people that our Democratic administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to the nation. The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican party could do so, simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans are not that desperate for victory.

I do not want to see the Republican party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.

As members of the minority party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate—and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges which have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I do not like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide, and conquer.”  As an American, I do not want a Democratic administration “whitewash” or “coverup” any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican Fascist just as much I condemn a Democratic Communist. I condemn a Democrat Fascist just as much as I condemn a Republican Communist. They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts that I have drafted what I call a “Declaration of Conscience.”  I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye, and Senator Hendrickson have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

The declaration reads as follows:


  1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion.
  2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics.
  3. Certain elements of the Republican party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears.
  4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide, and conquer.”
  5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Margaret Chase Smith, Maine
Charles W. Tobey, New Hampshire
George D. Aiken, Vermont
Wayne L. Morse, Oregon
Irving M. Ives, New York
Edward J. Thye, Minnesota
Robert C. Hendrickson, New Jersey

[Text of speech taken from]

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.


JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

The American Scholar, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn 1950), pp. 398–408
The Phi Beta Kappa Society
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Spring 2004), pp. 21–27
American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace: Conservative Women and the Crusade against Communism, 2008, pp. 31–58
University Press of Colorado
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 7 (May 1951), pp. 960–977
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Australasian Journal of American Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1 (July 2019), pp. 79–96
Australia New Zealand American Studies Association
American Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 4 (December 2005), pp. 1105–1129
The Johns Hopkins University Press
PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (July 2012), pp. 405–411
American Political Science Association
Social Research, Vol. 71, No. 4, Fear: Its Political Uses & Abuses (Winter 2004), pp. 1041–1086
The Johns Hopkins University Press
Social Science, Vol. 27, No. 1 (January 1952), pp. 8–11
Pi Gamma Mu, International Honor Society in Social Sciences
Counterpoints, Vol. 87, Red Alert! Educators Confront the Red Scare in American Public Schools, 1947–1954 (2000), pp. 1–10
Peter Lang AG
Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1, Politicizing the Presidency, 1789–1980 (Winter 1980), pp. 90–98
Wiley on behalf of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress
Ethics, Vol. 69, No. 4 (July 1959), pp. 233–254
The University of Chicago Press
The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Summer 2014), pp. 369–391
Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research
Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace: Conservative Women and the Crusade against Communism, 2008
University Press of Colorado
California Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (October 2005), pp. 1387–1412
California Law Review, Inc.
Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 341–368
University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 1 (January 2008), pp. 96–108
Midwest Political Science Association