[iv] Anthony Sutton, Chapter VIII; endnote/source for the following letter, as provided by Mr. Sutton, as follows: U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 360. D. II21.R/20/221/2, /R25 (John Reed).
The letter was transferred by Mr. Polk to the State Department archives on May 2, 1935 though Sutton does accomplish much in the way of State Department documentation to his Wall Street theories, Sutton goes on in his book to suggest Reed might be a Soviet Agent, using the last line of said letter as “proof”. The proposal that John Reed was a “soviet agent” displays Sutton’s naïve understanding of how the government establishes a “chance” for recruiting agents.
from Anthony Sutton book: “Document in the State Department files, a letter to William Franklin Sands from John Reed, dated June 4, 1918, and written from Croton{-}on-Hudson, New York. In the letter Reed asserts that he has drawn up a memorandum for the State Department, and appeals to Sands to use his influence to get release of the boxes of papers brought back from Russia. Reed concludes, "Forgive me for bothering you, but I don't know where else to turn, and I can't afford another trip to Washington." Subsequently, Frank Polk, acting secretary of state, received a letter from Sands regarding the release of John Reed's papers. Sands' letter, dated June 5, 1918, from 120 Broadway, is here reproduced in full; it makes quite explicit statements about control of Reed:
120 BROADWAY NEW YORK
June fifth, 1918
My dear Mr. Polk:
I take the liberty of enclosing to you an appeal from John ("Jack") Reed to help him, if possible, to secure the release of the papers which he brought into the country with him from Russia.
I had a conversation with Mr. Reed when he first arrived, in which he sketched certain attempts by the Soviet Government to initiate constructive development, and expressed the desire to place whatever observations he had made or information he had obtained through his connection with Leon Trotzky, at the disposal of our Government. I suggested that he write a memorandum on this subject for you, and promised to telephone to Washington to ask you to give him an interview for this purpose. He brought home with him a mass of papers which were taken from him for examination, and on this subject also he wished to speak to someone in authority, in order to voluntarily offer an>, information they might contain to the Government, and to ask for the release of those which he needed for his newspaper and magazine work.
I do not believe that Mr. Reed is either a "Bolshevik" or a "dangerous anarchist," as I have heard him described. He is a sensational journalist, without doubt, but that is all. He is not trying to embarrass our Government, and for this reason refused the "protection" which I understand was offered to him by Trotzky, when he returned to New York to face the indictment against him in the "Masses" trial. He is liked by the Petrograd Bolsheviki, however, and, therefore, anything which our police may do which looks like "persecution" will be resented in Petrograd, which I believe to be undesirable because unnecessary. He can be handled and controlled much better by other means than through the police.
I have not seen the memorandum he gave to Mr. Bullitt — I wanted him to let me see it first and perhaps to edit it, but he had not the opportunity to do so.
I hope that you will not consider me to be intrusive in this matter or meddling with matters which do not concern me. I believe it to be wise not to offend the Bolshevik leaders unless and until it may become necessary to do so — if it should become necessary — and it is unwise to look on every one as a suspicious or even dangerous character, who has had friendly relations with the Bolsheviki in Russia. I think it better policy to attempt to use such people for our own purposes in developing our policy toward Russia, if it is possible to do so. The lecture which Reed was prevented by the police from delivering in Philadelphia (he lost his head, came into conflict with the police and was arrested) is the only lecture on Russia which I would have paid to hear, if I had not already seen his notes on the subject. It covered a subject which we might quite possibly find to be a point of contact with the Soviet Government, from which to begin constructive work!
Can we not use him, instead of embittering him and making him an enemy? He is not well balanced, but he is, unless I am very much mistaken, susceptible to discreet guidance and might be quite useful.
Sincerely yours,
William Franklin Sands
The Honourable
Frank Lyon Polk
Counselor for the Department of State
Washington, D.C.
WFS:AO
author note: It is apparent via Sutton’s research, that in fact the U.S. government did/was intervening on Jack Reed’s behalf. But that does not indicate he was an active agent. Yes Reed agreed to talk to the Government about “Russian affairs” but that was because Reed’s relationship with Trotsky was such that Reed trusted that he might accomplish the role of liaison to establish trade between the nations or at least open up a dialogue about such. Trotzky’s desire for U.S./Russia relations was no secret. As can be seen in were clear as f in his letter to the U.S. Constable, 1933. The letter, oddly, was as found in William C. Bullitt’s Papers at Yale.
The author’s personal experience in the American Indian Movement taught me one thing: the gov’t can act like a helper in order to set a person up to look like a friendly to others and can do this by making a person reliant on the favors of the government which are bestowed AFTER illegal acts are accomplished against a person, ie confiscate someone’s papers and then “benevolently” return them.
So. Dispelling the notion that Reed was an agent is important. But only because it leads us to the reality that there WAS agent activity during the “red scare”, it was real the Reed/Bryant family were part of the target. There is no evidence in any archives of Louise Bryant that her husband Jack Reed, was an agent. It is clear that he reached out for help in the State Dept, and did receive it. Was the “Bullitt” named in this letter helpful (yes the same “Bullitt” that Louise Bryant would later be courted by and, and subsequently marry)? We don’t know his exact role in either confiscating Reed’s papers and/or “helping return them”, but most obviously Bullitt was a key player in the drama of government seizure of Reed’s work, otherwise why would Reed be writing him?
So if Reed was not an agent, who was?
If anyone in this scenario was misrepresenting their fullest intent, there is in fact reason to believe that Mr. Bullitt, who is referenced in the above quote, may have in fact been actively trying to subvert both Jack Reed and his wife Louise Bryant. After Reed’s death, Bullitt moved into Louise Bryant’s world with a fury. He contacted her under the guise of Putnam assistant. The fact that until not long before her death she continued to write pleas/requests for Bullitt to “refrain from hiring people to follow me”, as found in both a letter in her private collection and referenced by Virginia Gardner as a “14 page letter to Corliss Lamont” which depicted various incidents of “being followed”. This means that it is at least possible that Bullitt who held may have created a “double identity” in Soviet Politics. As it is a fact that though he presented himself as a “Russian sympathizer” and “Jack’s acquaintance” to Louise Bryant, by 1936 as Ambassador to Russia Bullitt was espousing anti Russian sentiment, and was deeply critical of Russia, antagonistic and in a mere two years left Russia and his position, to become the Ambassador of France, where he remained after the Nazi takeover.
