Masses, Messes and Anarchy in the Village

By D. Silverman

“The right to say wise things necessarily implies the right to say foolish things. The answer to foolish speech is wise speech and not force. The Republic is founded upon the faith that if the American people are permitted freely to hear foolish and wise speech, a majority will choose the wise. If that faith is not justified the Republic is based on sand.”
– Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

As January dawns — this, the first month of what may well be the final year of the American democratic experiment — I ponder fondly upon Greenwich Village as the cauldron of the trials of the masses. Not to be confused with Emma Lazarus’s poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free… but, rather, the Trials of The Masses (Masses Publishing v. Patten & United States v. Eastman et al.).

Born in Bohemia

The Masses was a socialist, sexualist, suffragist, pro-union, artistically-innovative and poetic monthly magazine, cooperatively owned by its editors and published in and around the Village from 1911-1917.

The flood of writers, artists, poets and others fleeing the constraints of more-conventional society for free-love and expression within the Village’s low-rent camaraderie proved a fertile source of contributors. From 1913 onward, it had offices at, respectively, 91 and then 87 Greenwich Ave (both buildings later replaced by One Bank Street), 2 West 15th Street, 33 West 14th Street, and ultimately, 34 Union Square East.

The Village was abloom in radical social change. A recent reformer rift in the Gramercy Park-based Liberal Club had caused some older members to resign and the club was relocated to a simple building at 135 MacDougal Street.

In the basement, three self-identified Anarchists started a home-style restaurant (anarchy, then, being not incompatible with a well-run eatery). Apparently unnamed, the dining room, packed with artistic and literary types from the club above, became known as “Polly’s place” — after Polly Holladay, the hostess — and within a few years was a must-see stop on the Village tourist circuit.

Polly’s also served, for years, as a meeting place of the Heterodoxy Club, a somewhat-secretive group of 25 ‘unorthodox’ women, who gathered on alternate Saturdays for presentations, frank discussions and mutual support. The club included women of diverse political views, social status and sexualities, but was unified in a feminist outlook that was radical at the time, and strived for women’s empowerment and rights (including the right to vote).

One Heterodoxist, Henrietta Rodman, a schoolteacher and feminist, had been particularly instrumental in moving the Liberal Club down to the Village. The daughter of an Episcopal clergyman in the Bronx, she graduated from Teachers College and was outspoken in her progressive views.

At the time, NYC’s Board of Education disapproved of women teachers being married or having children of their own and various policies dissuaded their employment. Rodman surreptitiously married a fellow Socialist and Liberal Club member, Herman de Fremery — and then announced it a month later.

A small brouhaha ensued when it was reported in the papers that the couple lived in an apartment at 42 Bank along with his ex-wife, the poet Grace Fallow Norton. While probably not accurate (Rodman disavowed it), the reporting was quite salacious:

“Under the teachings of the Liberal Club, she had married a fellow member with the full knowledge and consent of his common law wife, who had come to the home of the bride and bridegroom to live as a honeymoon guest… ‘So far as my own marriage is concerned, I declined to accept the conventional idea… In the case of [Norton], she is not physically fit to fight her own battles as I am… The young woman is now living with us. We are friends. We have a perfect understanding.’ ”

(For the record, Henrietta was actually the younger of the two.)

Whatever the catalysts, by the end of 1913, the Liberal Club had shed its more-staid roots and the resultingly adventurous association was now ensconced down on MacDougal agitating for change. The Masses was being published (mostly by L.C. members) at the corner of Bank and Greenwich and Polly’s was hosting bi-weekly radical feminist gatherings.

…and the world was on the verge of war.

Outside the Norms

It can’t be overstated how much challenging conventional views was a defining aspect of Village identity in this time. Many people were Marxist, or Socialist (still pre-Stalin & Mao) or Anarchist—and deeply pro-labor and supporting unions over capitalist owners. 

New art and literature was coming out of Europe and NYC was finding its voice. The Gilded Age was over. Women were emboldened and free-love was in the air. 

The Liberal/Socialist view was often pacifist, certainly anti-imperialist, but even where people (men) were willing to serve, there was a distrust of corrupt politicians, mandated government conscription and overt nationalism. (Nobody likes being told what to do — or how to think.)

WWI and the Final Year

As the U.S. prepared to enter the war in Europe, it was clear that a draft would be needed to supplement volunteer troops. While some Socialists were sympathetic to the cause, most were not, and many conscientiously objected to forced service regardless. There was some disagreement at the magazine about the war, but overall it hewed to an anti-conscription editorial stance during the summer of 1917. This would presage the end of publication in its current incarnation.

While attempting to navigate the changing legal landscape and public sentiment, the editors were tripped up with anti-war illustrations in the August 1917 issue. Thomas Patten, NYC’s Postmaster, deemed the material violated the recently enacted Espionage Act, and refused to mail the issue. The publishers sued, in Masses v. Patten, and briefly got a reprieve — before an appeal upheld the Postmaster’s right to deny postage.

The prospects for an unmailable periodical were dim — even one not seeking to make a profit — though the publishers nonetheless managed to finish out the year with a September, October, and, finally, November/December double-issue.

The Masses’ run was over.

It Ain’t Over Yet

Though publication had ceased, in 1918, a group of former editors were charged with having conspired to obstruct military recruitment in United States v. Eastman et al. Ultimately, the charges went nowhere. But Judge Augustus Noble Hand’s instructions to the jury demonstrated compassion and the democratic ideal:

“I do not have to remind you that every man has the right to have such economic, philosophic, or religious opinions as seem to him best, whether they be socialistic, anarchistic, or atheistic, and that you should divorce yourselves from any prejudice you may have against any defendant by reason of proof of any such opinions on his part.”

“Each defendant has the constitutional right of freedom of speech also, unless he violates the express law which he is accused of violating, no matter how ill-timed, unsuited to your sense of propriety, or morally wrong his opinions, utterances or writings may be.”

(That is: morally-wrong — even foolish — speech, still necessitates protection; perhaps more so.)

Antisocial Socialists or Bust!

If our democracy becomes authoritarian, it will likely transpire through the front door. A large number of citizen voters will choose to empower a campaign that is clear in its intent to consolidate and retain power of the state.

Many of the checks-and-balances built in to the current system are designed to forestall covert undermining of norms — but if the electorate desires the ending of free elections and unfettered control, then that’s the intent, however misguided or irreversible.

Do I think the majority of Americans are ready to forsake democracy just now? Probably not. Or, even a plurality of the two-thirds of eligible voters likely to head to the polls this year? Maybe. Maybe not.

However, supporters approaching the numbers needed to effect it appear very energized by the prospect of unrestrained governance. Perhaps it’s the attraction of power, the desire to be on the winning team, the hope of benefiting from a change in structure, the belief that in any case it will only be a variant of the last time. Maybe nothing more than the very human urge to control others and quash dissent.

During WWI, the women of the Heterodoxy Club were not entitled to vote. It took a lot of messy struggle, objectionable behavior, offensive action — along with reason, discourse, and emotional appeals — for women and each now-enfranchised segment of society who have gained those rights. It’s not something to relinquish lightly.

As we stand at the shore of democracy, time will tell if our faith rests on quicksand.