From Analog to Digital

Within the last several weeks, employees of the Maag Library’s IT, MMC, and Archive Departments have teamed up to start the conversion of analog oral histories to digital files (in cooperation with the YSU Oral History Department). This project is expected to take about two years and make available all of the YSU Oral Histories in both audio and text format. Providing researchers, historians, and all interested parties accessibility to this prized audio collection.

Coinciding with the African American Delta Heritage Archival Project, we are making available two digitized recordings concerning the experience of African Americans in Youngstown during the Depression. As we move forward with this project, we will be making more recordings available. The following are the two selections from the oral history collection (Courtesy of the YSU Oral History Department):

Rev. Lonnie A. Simon and the Depression Experience

Edward J. Stonework and the Depression Experience

The Delta Heritage Project, by Adam Sullivan

In February 1999, the Youngstown Alumnae chapter of Delta Sigma Theta sorority celebrated Black History Month with a project commemorating the achievements of the local African American community. The women in this group took upon themselves the responsibility to continue the oral history tradition by creating an audio-visual presentation documenting the history of African Americans in the Mahoning Valley.  The presentation, entitled Remembering Our Past and Moving Forward, premiered on Saturday, March 27, 1999, at the “Give the Children a Chance, Inc.” offices in Youngstown.

One part of this presentation was a series of posterboards of different sizes, each containing photographs, news clippings, and biographies prepared for the presentation, as well as other ephemera relating to thirty-nine African Americans who have made contributions both locally and nationally, spanning the mid-nineteenth century to the present. Local groups and institutions of pertinence, such as the McGuffy Centre, were also highlighted. This collection was graciously loaned to the Archives & Special Collections of Youngstown State University’s Maag Library in 2008 to be digitized and made publicly available online.

The biographies compiled by the Delta Heritage Project form a community portrait when viewed as a whole. We can see the story of a group of people who fought with determination and dignity to attain the equality upon which the United States of America was founded. Given our nation’s troubled history, this struggle naturally could be expected to appear as a common thread throughout such a collection as this. In a more general sense, however, we see people who lived their lives. In total, the Delta Heritage Project is a picture of human life, complex and multi-faceted, set against the backdrop of our city.

On an individual level, these aspects reveal themselves to be diverse, as well.  In archival practice, records such as those that make up this collection are arranged thematically into specific categories, called series. For the Delta Heritage Project, the biographies were processed by the series “Persons by Occupation,” with several different occupations (such as “business” and “media”) serving as subseries. The process of defining a person in this manner can be a difficult judgment to make. The breadth of experiences of many of the individuals profiled by the Delta Heritage Project is that more boldy underscored when posed with the singular question, “What is this person’s occupation?” For instance, Herb Washington appears in the subseries “Business” as the owner of twenty-one local McDonald’s restaurants and the Steelhounds hockey team; however, he was also a professional baseball player and has long been involved in politics, from protesting the lack of black officials and faculty as a student athlete to serving on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Youngstown Chamber of Commerce. Dr. Ron Daniels is placed in the “Arts and Letters” subseries for his vast scholarship, but he is also the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights–and even ran for President of the United States in 1992 as a third-party candidate. When reading through the biographies created by the project, it becomes clear that community service alone could be rightly applied as a category for most of the people being commemorated. In addition to being lawyers and laborers, businessmen and broadcasters, however, they were also soldiers, protestors, scholars, volunteeers, actvists, athletes, role models, and more.

The materials preserved in the Delta Heritage Project Collection offer inspiration and information that is candid and close-to-home. In this collection, one sees that individual lives are truly the basis for “community.”

Additional resources of pertinence available through Maag Library and the YSU Archives include:

Delta Heritage Project Finding Aid

Delta Heritage Digital Archive

Delta Heritage Project Exhibit Page

The following links are to articles from the Jambar Digital Newspaper Archive (Courtesy of the Youngstown State University Archives).

Hugh A. Frost named executive director of the McGuffey Center

Edna Pincham breaking ground for new honors facility at YSU

The following links are to oral histories dealing with African-American migration to Youngstown. (Courtesy of the Oral History Department at Youngstown State University).

Katherine and Governor Bowers, interviewed by Michael Beverly

Mary Albron, interviewd by Michael Beverly

Leroy and Ethel Adams, interviewed by Michael Beverly

Erskine Crenshaw, interviewed by Michael Beverly

Ernest Rheins, interveiwed by Michael Beverly

McCullough Williams, Jr., interviewed by Michael Beverly

Herbert Armstrong, inteviewed by Michael Beverly

Reverend Lonnie Simon, interviewed by Michael Beverly

Isadore Blakeny, interviewed by Michael Beverly

Edward J. Stonework, interviewed by John A. Parker

Reverend Lonnie A. Simon, interviewed by John A. Parker

Frankie Halfacre, interviewed by Michael Beverly

Historical Truth?

Recently, I came to be fascinated by the historical theories of Oscar Handlin and William McNeill, which focus on whether or not history is true.  I was exposed to their essays while reading Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History, Volume II Reconstruction to the Present for one of the History classes I am taking this semester.  I tend to favor Handlin’s theory more than McNeill’s, but both encourage thinking and question their readers’ belief in historical truth.  If anything, Handlin and McNeill are capable of making one see history through different eyes.

Oscar Handlin opens his essay, “The Uses of History,” by saying that the world has a desire for facts, for knowledge, and also for reassurance and relevance.  This need for reassurance and relevance can be a problem for historians seeking the truth.  Historical data becomes distorted as historians try to meet these demands. To make the past usable, to “solve the world’s problems,” historical data has to have a scientific approach, a formula.  Historical truth is NOT influenced by the desires or visions of the viewer.  Historical truth is evidence.  This evidence forms a record; the record is the truth.  Oscar Handlin says evidence is chronological, evidence is vocabulary, and evidence is context.  He says without a record, there could be no “counting of time, no reading of words, and no perception on the context, and no utility of the subject.” Fact is something of common ground for all historians despite the difference in their interpretation.  Scientific methods must be used to distinguish between fact and opinions.  Handlin warns the historian to be careful of the difference between fact and interpretation, and confronts the arguments of falseness in historical truth.  Such is false when influenced by external pressures (as in Stalin’s imposition on Russian history), when opinions get involved with evidence, when information is manipulated for convenience, when the distinction between fact and interpretation disappears, and when it becomes a means to an end of someone’s preconceived notions instead of arriving to the truth based on the evidence alone. All these external pressures and choices are the basis of William McNeill’s opinion of historical truths or myths.

McNeill’s essay, “Mythistory, or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians,” emphasizes the falsehood of historical truth, seeing history as evolving through the discovery of new data and exposure to intellectual choices and subjective judgments on the arrangement of historical facts.  These judgments and choices have nothing to do with scientific methodology.  The scientific method of finding historical truth is meaningless and is of no use to the historian. Unlike Handlin, McNeill believes all the “evidence” becomes nothing but a catalogue; it has to be put together for the reader in order to be understandable, credible, and useful because facts alone do not give “meaning or intelligibility to the record of the past.”   Everything evolves, causing emphasis on what is important to change.  Previously important facts become “background noise” while others remain constant.  This picking and choosing of facts is what makes history elastic and evolutionary.  Every culture has its own version of truth; truth about its own culture as well as the “truth” about other cultures.  Truth to one is another person’s myth (mythistories).  Therefore, all these outside forces of culture, background, relationships, society, etcetera, affect what is true whether the individual realizes it or not. Because of this, history tends to be biased and, according to McNeill, the past is influenced by the way an individual wants it to be.  History (or myth) becomes self-validating.   What historians need to do is to view history and group identities on a more general scale. Specialization with a focus on documents should be avoided.  Historians need to view history as ecumenical and parochial.   It evolves as groups evolve.  The main important figure he states is “ever-evolving mythistories will indeed become truer and more adequate to public life, emphasizing the really important aspects of human encounters and omitting irrelevant background noise more efficiently so that man and women will know how to act more wisely than is possible for us today.”

This is what makes history interesting and dynamic, not static.  It makes for new and fresh versions of history.  How one views historical truth can influence his or her outlook on events and people in history. Can history be based on science and knowable things (Handlin’s chronology, words, and context) or can that even be manipulated by the people of that time because it reflects their “truth,” which can be other’s “myths”?   What about things which are “common ground” to historians and people?  Everyone can say “Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”  Is this based on scientific evidence or is it an evolution of an important fact that didn’t become “background noise,” whereas some other facts may have? Is history true? Such is not up to the historian only, but also to the reader’s interpretation of the historian’s interpretation, which is all influenced by theories of historical truth.

How to Study Documents

If there is a scientific aspect to archives, the study of Diplomatics would be that area. Its function is the same as anatomy is to a doctor, and grammar to a linguist. Its indispensable for having an understanding of the meaning and function of the constituent parts of a document. Luciana Duranti in Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science (London, 1998. The Scarecrow Press, Inc), elaborates on this well know analytical tool (used by Europeans for many years but only within the last 10 years has it been given any attention among American archivists).

Over the last several centuries the primary focus for diplomatics has been the document and all of the elements that it embodies. Diplomatists have used the document to analyze the relationships between it and persons, procedures, functions, acts, and the overall system that creates them. In essence the study of diplomatics is akin to using the inductive method of philosophy to analyze a specific subject or area without any previous notions or ideas (a-priori), such as what a botanist or biologist might do. So, instead of imposing some sort of meta-theory on to a body of documents or records (such as the macro-functional approach does) the archivist uses only what is available to them (for further reading on the meta-theory and empirical debate, see my previous post on this subject, Postmodernism and Logical Positivism in Archival Thought).

Duranti divides her work into six sections: first explaining the origin and nature of diplomatics; secondly, describing the relationship between fact, act, and the function of documents; thirdly, discussing the public and private nature of documents; fourthly, elaborating on the procedures of document creation; fifthly, how to actually analyze a document, and concluding with the further uses of these tools.

Throughout her book, Duranti creates an argument for the superiority of her method (as opposed to macro appraisal) based upon the empirical study of documents. “It is by studying the form of documents objectively, that we come to know and understand the administrative actions and functions generating them without prejudice.” All documents have extrinsic and intrinsic elements that help an archivist not only appraise the document itself but draw conclusions about the contextuality of how, where, and why those documents were created.

While this method has been accused of being radically empirical (and its followers of being logical positivists, running very much against the predominanting postmodernist philosophy), this form of analysis does give the archivist “objective” tools, enhancing his ability to not only analyze documents but to understand the context in which those documents were created. However, these tools like everything else, is limited by the person wieldying them. No amount of mechanisms can eliminate the subjective form from any analysis.

FDR on the Mortgage, Farm and Dollar Crisis

Our video of the month takes us back to 1933 and how Franklin D. Roosevelt dealt with the tumultuous economic period of the 30’s. In this particular segment he addresses mortgages, farms, and the dollar crisis.

Postmodernism and Logical Positivism in Archival Thought

The term postmodernism first came into existence in a 1939 article, “Our own Post-Modern Age has been inaugurated by the General war of 1914-1918.” by famed British Historian Arnold J. Toynbee to describe the post WWI era. Philosophically postmodernism would be put on center stage in 1966 when Jacques Derrida a French Algerian born philosopher delivered a lecture at John Hopkins University challenging the underlying premises of structuralism (unofficially ushering in the era of postructuralism). While the effects of postmodernism have been felt in all the sciences and arts, archival science has been slow to embrace it. Part of the problem lies in archival sciences attachment to logical positivism and empiricism (part of the reason for this, is archivists deal with physical documentary evidence within the confines of a laboratory like setting, not unlike some physical sciences). There can be no doubt that postmodernism has created epistemological dilemmas that have shaken the foundation of the sciences, archives being no exception.  Terry Cook explores the dynamics of postmodernism and its antithesis (logical positivism) and their role in changing archival epistemology. While Cook lays out a strong case for using postmodernism and having it replace (or override) aspects of archival empiricism (informational and evidential analysis); I differ in that I see it as another tool to be incorporated into the archivists skill set.

The two articles (authored by Cook) titled: Archival Science and Postmodernism: New Formulations for Old Concepts and Fashionable Nonsense or Professional Rebirth: Postmodernism and the Practice of Archives presents several archival paradigm shifts revolving around postmodernist modification of society and culture. While postmodernism has been around for several decades, it has not affected archival thought until at least the last 10 years (I would argue that many archivists are still oblivious to its effects). One new role espoused by this philosophy is to view records now as dynamic objects as opposed to static (they never were static but that is for another blog), another is how postmodernist’s rebellion against the notions of universal truth and objective knowledge, has affected archives and their function in society. This blog will focus on the latter.

Before we continue, I will digress to explain a little of postmodern thinking. As mentioned before, postmodernists distrust any belief in obtaining “truth.” The postmodernist trusts nothing at face value and questions all societal constructs as unnatural and in need of being deconstructed or analyzed to reveal their true meaning. It becomes more important to analyze power group’s, then actual facts or acts.

Postmodernism in archives addresses the point that all documents or artifacts are not neutral evidence but formed by societal context and the creator’s prejudices. But more then this, the document is not objective because it represents society’s power over memory and over the future. It is the state’s (or any entities) power, as contended by postmodernists, who control how the future will be told. Therefore it is more important to study macro- contexts then the content itself. Macro-appraisal theorists are representative of this form of thinking.

[Critics of postmodernist thought label postmodernist historians as “theory-mongers” who pass off a-priori theories for rational thinking. The subjective interpretation of the past becomes more important then the places, persons, and events. (One of the best critical accounts of postmodernism is Alan Sokal’s, Fashionable Nonsense.)]

On the other end of the spectrum lies the logical positivist school (The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the “positive” data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics.). A professor from the University of British Columbia, Luciana Duranti, best personifies this philosophy within the archival framework (known as Diplomatics). Luciana Duranti bases her beliefs on the ability to use principles of documentary analysis, to derive truth from documents, that are universally valid and objective regardless of place. (See: Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science, to read more about this theory.)

The criticism of this theory is that it does not take into account the political and cultural contexts. Its basis in universally valid principles does away with historical and sociology circumstances. Instead it concentrates on the legal doctrine and juridical context of the creator, and the documents it analyzes.

These two ways of thought provide a dichotomy that is false and has really no reason to exist. Both theories have merit and neither can stand on its own (I contend that many of the analytical features of postmodernism have been used by archivists already but remain difficult to completely implement do to the physical, fiduciary,  time, and labor constraints).  Postmodernist thought in archives deems to have archivists rely on functionality and the contextualization of records creation (and societal contexts). While diplomatics provides content analysis tools devoid of any “prejudices,” and which lead to certain truths. When I examine these theories, I see two very different forms of methodology but both seeking the same objective, truth within a certain parameter.

Both of these forms of investigation can be reduced to deductive (beginning with a general concept or rule and working down to specific conclusions) and inductive methods (is a process of using observations to develop general principles about a specific subject or theory). Postmodernist’s represent what I believe is the deductive school. By starting out with general a-priori theories, regardless of the actual empirical data found in records, then move to decide what records are valid for permanent historical reasons. The inductive method personified by the logical positivist archival school clearly uses the available records (observations) and derives general acquisition and appraisal policies from such.

As mentioned before neither method can stand on their own. Understanding contextuality of both society and organizations that create records is highly needed, especially when the size of the documentary region is daunting. When trying to make acquisition and appraisal decisions for large series and record groups this theory proves to be a powerful tool in the archivist’s arsenal (also useful in relating records to other series and record groups in the description process).  However, knowing and analyzing content at the record level (diplomatics) is also very useful when seeking form, legal and historical authenticity of records. More importantly it also gives archivists tools for reappraising collections and making future deaccessioning decisions. (This is a very limited analysis of both within an archival framework, the uses of both have yet to reach their limits.)

Theories are very useful and both of these are no exception but archivists must always move beyond theory to applicability. The archive is the great historical laboratory where all theories and their results are played out. The question that should always be asked and one that I feel carries with it an aspect of objectivity that can guide us when decisions must be made with one eye on the budgetary bottom line (along with time, labor, and space) is, what records had and have the greatest effect upon society or geographical region (or describe events, places, and ideas better within the same societal and geographical context)? And how can these theories aid in answering that question? In the end, immediate physical realities play a much greater role then any theory.

[Another area of criticism by postmodernists is the lack of historical representation of all disenfranchised groups within archival holdings. Valuing all histories is admirable and should be archived if possible, but if we are to believe that a collection of documents that describe for example ethnic gardening methods, (regardless of how good their resultant creation may be) have the same value as the records of Standard Oil.... to even contemplate the thought, is ludicrous.]

Gas and Oil Prices: Then and Now

It seems like today the subject that is most often brought up in conversation is the price of oil and gasoline. Many people are shocked to see gas prices skyrocket to or above $4 a gallon. Of course this isn’t the only time gas prices have crippled driving in America. Since this is a topic generating a great deal of interest, I thought it would be interesting to see the reactions, thoughts, and conjectures of people at YSU. Their theories about who was behind it and what actions they took and are taking to minimize the effects upon their day to day lives. I decided to rummage through the Jambar Newspaper archive to find some answers.

During the 1970’s several problems occurred in the Middle East that caused the raising of gas prices. In 1973 there was the OPEC embargo of the United States because of the US support for Israel. In 1979 Iraq invaded Iran and both countries significantly, if not completely, stopped their export of oil, leading President Jimmy Carter to declare an “energy crisis” in America.

Despite these problems that globally affected the world, many of the opinions generated in the 1970s closely reflect current themes. Many people believed that the Middle Eastern events were just the oil companies taking advantage of the situation. For example, in the January 15, 1974 edition of The Jambar, an article titled, “Oil Slicks,” states that oil prices were “spurred by capitalistic avarice, the oil firms are priggishly manipulating the market, hoarding petroleum reserves, raking in windfall profits, operating refineries below capacity, and providing inertia in the administrative agencies laden with oil lobbyists. Simultaneously, the industry has paid lip-service to superficial solutions….Simply put, the industry is benefiting from the oil crunch by manipulating supply and demand.” More reactions like today were reflected by YSU Professor of Economics, Dr. Taghi T. Kermani in the Aug 2, 1979 issue of The Jambar. He spoke of the “Energy Crisis” as, “being played up…It sounds very odd to hear that there is a lack of energy, lack of oil, and every time you read about it the oil profits have gone up 30, 40, or 50 percent.” He claims that “the American people have been fed nothing but lame excuses.” So what did they do about it?

On Nov 9, 1973, The Jambar printed an article on a “Computerized car pool” proposal. However, the response was “lukewarm,” due to the giving out of personal information. Alternative energy was also suggested at the time with coal and nuclear energy and The Jambar (1/15/1974) stated that “energy industries should be nationalized as public utilities with “profits” filtered back to the citizenry.” A task force was also suggested by the University to find ways to reduce energy on campus during the “Energy Crisis.” The government also initiated C.A.F.E. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) to increase the miles per gallon in cars.

The energy crisis of the 1970’s ended in the early 1980’s with an “oil glut,” caused by a decrease in demand and an over production of supplies. This begs the question: Can the same thing happen today? An article on CNNMoney suggests that oil prices will eventually tank, but with end of summer prices heading towards $5 a gallon, it seems like many of us will suffer pain at the pump for a while before it gets any better.

Today, many people are considering other transportation alternatives like scooters or public transportation. The production of SUVs and trucks has been severely cut and the production of small cars and hybrids has increased. The government is trying to focus on other forms of energy such as electric, ethanol, and wind. Countries, like Iceland, are working on a completely “fossil-fuel free economy” with a focus on hydrogen power. At YSU, students are getting second jobs to help pay for rising gas prices, scheduling classes so they won’t have to drive to Youngstown everyday during the week, or, unfortunately, not attending class as much as they should, according to a recent article in The Jambar. Will history repeat itself, only time will tell.

Want to see more about the current oil crisis? Click on this link.

What makes a record historical and another not?

In the archives world there always seems to be quandaries (I think there always will be) when deciding what to keep. Do we base it on precedent, major events, social theory, macro-appraisal theory, or another of the myriad of ideas that have taken hold. The easy answer is, “just save the historical record.” But what makes a record historical? Is it society, the “objective archivist,” an event, survival (what records survive and which ones do not), or a combination of all four?

Many times the historical record is simply what was left behind, such as the Domesday Book or the Bayeux Tapestry. Such archival appraisal decisions become self-evident. However, the luxury of being able to apply a simplistic acquisition and appraisal decision is no longer viable. Paper and recently with the growth of electronic communications, have rendered appraisal to be the most difficult of decisions. This brings us back to our original question, what then is a historical record? Is a record historical from the beginning or does it take time to acquire such a meaning?

There have been many theories related to this dilemma. Herodutus, the father of history, (while not addressing this question) tried to capture the memory of the past by telling of achievements and conflicts of the Ionian people. His reliance on oral records, with a few exceptions, such as his use of physical (descriptions of buildings, bridges, and sculptures) and oracular evidence proves the theory of using what ever is available at the time. The current era (the last 100 years) has definitely produced an assortment of new theories that shed further light on the quandary.

Some modern theorists conclude that the historical record is whatever the creator (creator here refers to one who gives “birth” to a record, not an infinite being or deity) decides it is, this is commonly referred to as Jenkinsonism, after famed archival thinker Sir Hillary Jenkinson. Some prefer that the archivist (supposedly staying objective) by applying evidential and informational theories, can capture the zeitgeist of society or rely on some form of a documentary strategy (using major themes or events as a starting point) to decide what is historical. While others have advocated the use of societal norms as the principle axiom for documenting society.

All of these theories still rely on the subjective individual entering the appraisal process at some point. Archival theorists contend (implicitly), that their theories remove the subjective element and allow for only an objective methodology. While this is a noble belief, it is delusional to believe that this is ever true. Even though G.W.F. Hegel wrote the following for historians, it can be easily applied to archivists, “any historian who claims to let the facts speak for themselves brings his categories with him and sees the data through them.” In other words, even when the archivist is using supposedly objective tools in deciding what is historical, he still processes them through the subjective. All of his prejudices, ignorance, and knowledge become part of the decision making process, regardless of what mechanisms are used. (This is especially compounded by limitations in repository storage space.) Without belaboring the issue or having some readers ask the question, “when are you going to answer the question?” here goes.

Any record can be perceived as historical, what we really refer to as historical and non-historical is a matter of degree. The problem is not what makes a record historical but what records define our society (past, present and future) and its ideas better then others. But the individual archivist can never hope to capture, even within a small geographical framework, a complete societal or institutional pathology. As mentioned before, an individual is restricted by his senses and can only perceive an infinitesimal small amount of events, words, and deeds. Even greater then these sensory limitations are societies scarce resources of time, money, and space (this will be the subject of another blog) and the other subjective actors involved in the record making process (that make the job even more difficult). All records regardless of form (written, oral, 3-D) give us insight into humanity; it is the archivist who decides to what degree.

Fleeing the Coming Storm

The official papers of Representative Michael J. Kirwan (D-19th Ohio), which are currently being processed by Archives & Special Collections, contain a substantial volume of correspondence between the congressman and his constituents. Among these letters are those from local residents pleading with Kirwan for assistance in obtaining asylum for friends and relatives desperate to flee Europe. Most of the people in question were Jewish and in urgent need of sanctuary from the Nazis. Sadly, the congressman’s official correspondence reflects what little power he had in these matters.

American immigration laws at the time were based upon a quota system, whereby entry into the U.S. was limited by an annual number assigned to each country of origin. Once the limit was reached for a particular group, the gate was closed for that year. For the Jews of Europe, however, the situation was complicated further by the promulgation anti-Semitic legislation in Germany that codified the Nazi definition of “Jewishness.”

The Nuremberg Laws, so-called because they were first made public in 1935 at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, declared that only persons of German blood could be citizens of the Third Reich. Accordingly, German Jews were stripped of their citizenship and other rights because they were viewed by Hitler and the Nazis as a foreign ethnic group. The Party’s definition, however, did not match that followed by United States immigration authorities, who saw Jews as practitioners of a religion, not as an ethnic group. Thus, German Jews seeking immigrant visas to the U.S. were seen as Germans by American officials and were placed in the same quota group for Germany as non-Jewish applicants. Later, Jewish residents of other countries would experience this same bureaucratic dilemma.

The appointment of Breckinridge Long to the post of Assistant Secretary of State made things worse. Smug, bigoted, and ambitious, Long did nothing to alleviate the plight of those endangered by the Nazis as he supervised 23 of the 42 divisions in the State Department, including the visa section. Citing “the interest of national security,” Long denied visas to a multitude of potential immigrants because he feared the infiltration of fascist spies and saboteurs into the United States. Thus, Long and his associates (with the support of President Franklin D. Roosevelt) abandoned thousands to the tender mercies of Hitler’s SS while never coming close to filling established quotas. Working within such an environment—and hamstrung by the law, prejudicial policies, and Long’s supposed phobia of Nazi espionage—it is small wonder that Congressman Kirwan could do little in this regard to serve his constituents as the clouds of war gathered.

Selections from the Kirwan files relating to immigration between 1937 and 1940 can be read online through the following links:

Correspondence involving Augusta Berkowitz

Correspondence involving Bernard Altman

Correspondence involving Mr. & Mrs. Solomon Hirschhorn

Correspondence involving I.E. Philo

Correspondence involving Mrs. Zysla Goldszak

Correspondence involving Jacob Bierman

Correspondence involving Krueger Family

Correspondence involving Nicholas and Joseph Banko

Correspondence involving Joan Wheeler and Nancy Wheeler

Interested in learning more about the Holocaust, view the Alfred Hitchcock Documentary.

______________________________________
Sources:

Dallek, Robert. Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Friedman, Saul S. A History of the Holocaust. Portland, Ore.: Valentine-Mitchell, 2004.

Kirwan, Michael J. Michael J. Kirwan Archives. Youngstown, Oh.: Youngstown State University, Maag Library, Archives & Special Collections, 1937-1970

Israel, Fred L., ed. The War Diary of Breckinridge Long: Selections from the Years 1939-1944. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

Wyman, David S. The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.

Turning Points in YSU History, by Brian Brennan

See also: YSU History Timeline