The Jailing and Disillusionment of “Red” Rose

Rose Roast was a Jewish immigrant to America devoted to her family’s idealistic belief in Marxism and who sought to use those beliefs to bring about societal changes during the Great Depression, leading a workers’ demonstration in the depressed industrial city of Waterbury, Connecticut. Her failed attempt to rally the proletariat on March 6, 1930, resulted in her arrest and subsequent jailing. Rose’s prison interviews and trial were front-page local news that the New York Times noted. Press coverage revealed her to be an attractive and articulate young woman, but she would gradually become disillusioned with her cause and, after serving some months in jail, would spend the rest of her life as an apolitical businesswoman, wife, and mother.

The background story of Rose’s radicalization and disillusionment began in 1913 when Herschel Pichanic, a member of a Marxian revolutionary party, was warned he was to be arrested by the Tsar’s secret police the next day. He fled from his home in Ukraine to America, leaving behind his penniless, pregnant wife, and three young children. World War I, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Civil War kept the family apart until 1921.

After a harrowing escape from their war-ravaged homeland, the family was reunited in St. Paul, Minnesota. Herschel had Americanized his name to Harry Roast. He made his living by peddling clothes from house to house to a steady group of customers, but re-

Page 346

mained a lifelong revolutionary and a Communist Party member. During the Great Depression he continued to “sell” clothes on credit and eventually went out of business because he cared more for his customers than making a profit. He finished his work career with the steady income of a janitor—a suitable proletarian job for a man who loved to declare, “my faith is always with the people.” While his eldest daughter ultimately abandoned communism, his other children would make their livings as a factory worker, plumber, and waitress while advocating for communism.

This paper is about Rose. She was my mother. Rose Roast Elovitz imbued her quest for education and knowledge in me, asking me as a 22 year old to promise on her death bed that I would continue my education and become a college professor. I can also trace my idealism and commitment to education outside of formal structures to her influence. In part, I became a historian to understand my parents’ hidden pasts and a psychoanalyst and psychohistorian to work my way past the family myths and prohibitions to uncover the truths of their lives, which have had such a great influence on me. In “Family Secrets and Lies My Parents Told Me: The Impact of Immigrant Parents on Their Son,” in Paul Elovitz and Charlotte Kahn, eds., Immigrant Experiences: Personal Narrative and Psychological Analysis (1997), I wrote mostly about my father; here the focus is on my mother.

Upon her arrival in America as a 14-year-old, Rose was forced to go to work to help support her family. She went to night school and gave her children the impression that she had graduated high school, although I do not believe this was true. A fondly remembered part of her informal education was sitting around the apple barrel at home talking about social justice with family and friends.

In 1930, Rose arrived to Connecticut as a Communist Party organizer. She was on the rebound from a love affair with an Italian comrade named Avanti (he was possibly a Finn, according to her younger sister). In Connecticut, she met a young furrier named Michael who at the time was an organizer for the communist-led Amalgamated Fur and Leather Workers Union. Michael, who later became Rose’s husband and my father, warned her that the district party boss was going to make her his “patsy”—that is, a martyr to the cause of the unemployed workers. This warning did not deter her.

Preparations were underway for a massive, worldwide strike to protest unemployment, to take place on “Red Thursday,” March 6,

Page 347

1930, which was called for by the Trade Union International in Moscow. In early February, a small group of communist organizers were sent to Waterbury, Connecticut from New Haven at the direction of Peter Chaunt, the District Organizer of the Trade Union Unity League. For two weeks, the communists applied for permits to demonstrate in this industrial city of 99,900 people, but were denied this constitutional right because of their political beliefs. Party members and the police engaged in a cat and mouse game during which Rose, who used the surname Ross, was arrested four or five times, twice on March 6. Jail did not discourage this young idealist. An hour after she was released following her arrest for passing out leaflets without a permit, she was rearrested for leading a demonstration without authorization.

The communists announced that they expected 1,000 demonstrators at their rally and the police prepared to stop them. According to the newspapers, there was a large crowd of curious sightseers that Rose tried unsuccessfully to involve in the upcoming demonstration.

Rose got as far as the City Hall Plaza shouting, “Resist the police, fight the police terror.” The police immediately swooped down upon these agitators and arrested four for demonstrating without a permit; two others slipped away into the crowd. According to the newspaper, Miss Ross, “Shouting her defiance at the Police and ‘damning’ the capitalists of Waterbury…was one of the first seized” (“Local Communists Blocked; Police Grabbed the Leaders,” Waterbury Democrat, March 6, 1930, 10). A scuffle accompanied the arrest. A demonstrator with an American flag received a black eye and Rose said she was punched in the jaw. At the trial a “giant policeman” said she took a swing at him (“Three Communists Are Found Guilty By Jury,” Waterbury American, April 9, 1930, 6). In jail, Rose was “much downcast” about the failure of her efforts.

The New Haven party boss, Peter Chaunt, was not among those arrested because he had slipped away into the crowd. Rose was cheered by this news. She refused to accept the police’s theory that Chaunt had abandoned her. Rather, she hoped he was addressing a mass meeting downtown while the police focused on her and the three others who were arrested. In fact, the police were right, Chaunt left Waterbury only to be arrested the next day at a communist demonstration in New Britain.

Jail and Trial

Rose attempted to continue the class war from her jail cell and

Page 348

the press obliged her with extensive coverage. The Friday evening edition of the Waterbury American (March 7, 1930, 6) contained a story under the headline ‘“It’s Class That Counts,’ Says Rose Through Bars at Police Station.” The unnamed reporter declared that:

Rose Ross, Communistic leader of the Waterbury district, arrested in yesterday’s demonstration before city hall is not chastened, sad, morose or morbid. Fresh, smiling, almost demure and almost cordial; yet serious, with an almost pathetic conviction she looked out from between her iron bars on the third floor of the police station in city hall this morning and preached the cause of Communism to a reporter for The American.

He declared that “Rose would rather talk than eat” since she let her coffee and breakfast get cold as she enthusiastically declared her devotion to the working class and opposition to the capitalists. She dismissed individuality as unimportant and denied any interest in elevating herself above her class. He was struck by the paradox of her looking like a “debutante,” yet having been a factory worker until several months before. He described her as “she cocks her well-shaped head to one side, smiles, shakes her raven-haired, bobbed head, flashes her deep brown eyes; pats a waved lock; toys with the hem of her blue skirt and occasionally looks away from her auditor, as she gropes for a word” (‘“It’s Class,” 6).

The closest she came to self-concern, amidst her student-like dissertation on the class struggle from ancient times to the present, was when she accused her jailors of “giving prostitutes better quarters than you give me.” At the same time, she did not complain about her situation. “Never mind about me,” said Rose. “Never mind where or when I was born, or where I have worked or studied or played.” She continued. “I will tell you that I am an American, born of Polish-Italian-English parentage, but that is enough. I’ll tell you why I am a Communist” (“It’s Class,” 6). The reporter attempted a spirited defense of individualism and of an “aristocracy of intelligence,” but “the girl communist” snapped back: “Individual suffering, inconvenience or death is only a very small item in the price of freedom.”

Rose’s own freedom was in jeopardy. She was the last of the three defendants who were bound for trial to be bailed out. The defense did not put her on the stand at the trial, likely because her attorney feared that she would give another lecture against capitalism that

Page 349

would further weaken her case. The prosecutor declared that Rose’s status as a minor was a problem, but:

(A)s usual the female of the species is always the more deadly especially in anything that is fanatical. She dared to enter the office of the superintendent of police and when refused a permit warned him that permit or no permit they would be there just the same. Not a man in the court room, he added, would dare do that. She wanted to know what they cared about law and order and referred to the police as the brave and bullying police (‘“Three Communists Are Found Guilty By Jury; Sentence Is Imposed,’ Waterbury American, April 9, 1930, 6).

His depiction of her as a dangerous fanatic worked partly because he was able to tie her to the dangerous serpent of Russian communism, which would soon have to be decapitated by America. The jury deliberated for only 40 minutes and Rose was sentenced to four months in jail. The newspaper also refers to a separate sentence of two months.

Lies, Half Truths, Subsequent Behavior, and Impact

One of the most puzzling aspects of Rose’s behavior at the trial was the degree to which this fastidiously honest person lied in the cause of her ideology. For example, she was 21 years old while she declared herself to be 19. When asked why, how, and when she first became a Marxist, she said it was the previous year when she happened upon some communist literature for the first time, felt class consciousness, “became self-educated,” and participated in Party meetings. Clearly, this was a fabrication meant to make her appear to be the ideal convert to communism, as was her claim to be “an American, born of Polish-Italian-English parentage.”

In fact, she was the daughter of two non-observant Jews from the Soviet Russian Ukraine and had only arrived in America nine years before. But she came from a war-torn area where you were beaten, raped, robbed, or killed simply for being a Jew. If the enemies of communism knew she was a foreign-born Jew, then they could more easily dismiss her creed. By not mentioning her place of birth, childhood, and formal education, she also saved herself from additional lies. It is worth noting that the prosecutor pointed out the Jewishness of the other out-of-area agitator on trial. This communist had declared himself to be an American born of Lithuanian descent

Page 350

and referred in a speech to “our ancestors fighting England for freedom.” The upholders of law and order thought it important to imply his un-Americanness and foreign, Jewish origins.

Rose brushed aside other personal questions with communist jargon and phrases like “what does that matter? The individual does not count.” But the individual does matter. She was a vulnerable young woman, far from her family and friends, who was in the process of sacrificing herself for the Communist cause. It was not enough to be “the unsung…heroine of yesterday’s attempted Communistic demonstrations.”

The thought that my mother could organize a communist demonstration was exciting, frightening, and puzzling. Exciting because she was always mild-mannered and warning her children to avoid danger. Frightening because communism was “the enemy” in the era in which I grew up. Puzzling because she was admired by people, but always backed away from leadership positions and avoided dealing with people more than one or two at a time. As an adult it helped me understand how she could calm me by verbally drawing an image of a safe and perfect society when I was a five year old terrified by rats running on the metal ceiling and our apartment being burglarized.

Why, after sacrificing so much for it, did Rose subsequently leave the Communist Party? This is a difficult question to answer because I only have two sources, Rose’s younger sister who was a lifelong communist and my father, and only my father provided information about this. But he would never directly admit that she was a member of the Communist Party. He said she was played for a “patsy” despite his warnings as he tried to save her from disappointment and jail.  To him, this betrayal of her interests and her jail time were sufficient reasons for her realize that this was no way of life. He distrusted all ideologies and leaders, although he said that at least the communists were honest.

In Connecticut, Rose was away from the influence of her father and the family. She had mostly unspoken resentments toward her father; I know about them only because my father told me. She resented Harry for not properly caring for his family. In St. Paul, Rose’s mother had died of a ruptured appendix because of a lack of proper medical care. Rose certainly had some sense that this was avoidable, that her father was out saving the world instead of caring for his wife, and that once again he had abandoned the family. My

Page 351

father also implied that his father-in-law was a womanizer. (It is worth noting that as a five year old I almost died of an undiagnosed by the family doctor ruptured appendix, until my father insisted I be taken to the hospital.)

It is my theory that Peter Chaunt’s abandonment of Rose at the demonstration revived resentments that she and her family had had toward the father who left them to the ravages of the civil war and its pogroms because of his political involvements and ideals. Another way in which Harry let down his family was by not doing well enough in America so that his children did not immediately have to go to work. At 14, my mother was working in a movie theater and subsequently in factories, rather than being in school. Rose loved reading and education and struggled to achieve an education by going to night school. She was an apt student and not many years after her arrival in America she spoke English without an accent. My father once complained that she preferred to read a book rather than be amorous or go to sleep. She idealized well-educated people and dreamed that I would become a college professor. (Indeed, I have long joked with my wife and analyst that she did much to shape my character so that this became my best option in life.)

The reporter from the Waterbury American was right in raising the question of “an aristocracy of intelligence” to Rose because she did believe that intelligence was incredibly important and made one a better human being. Her pat Marxist responses were part of her struggle to deny to herself the importance of the education to which she was given so little access. Michael thought it was a shame that my mother did not have the opportunity of a formal education. Rose was too busy missing her father and siblings, who lived half a country away, to blame them very much. Dad was certainly articulating sentiments she held, though she would rather not have felt that way about her loved ones.

Let us look more carefully at what Michael had in common with the radical tradition of Rose and her family and how they differed. He came from a Hassidic family, which he rebelled against, and in the chaos of World War I pretty much went his own way. Alone, he left Poland as a 14-year-old boy because he was wanted by the Polish army for showing the “Reds” the river crossing during the war that went on in his area. In the United States, some of his friends were communists and he organized for a communist-run labor union. Upon learning of the death of Lenin in 1924, he jumped up on the table of the New York City shop where he worked and proclaimed

Page 352

that “a great man had died.” Dad was also friendly with some leaders of the communist movement and he greatly impressed his sister-in-law by introducing her to one of these individuals who was touring in Minnesota.

Though Michael felt for the underdog and hated the exploitation of workers, he still had different values from those of Rose’s father. He passionately believed that one’s first obligation was always to family and to oneself, and that concern for others should not be an excuse for not taking care of one’s own. Harry Roast had violated this principle and although Michael would financially help his father-in-law, he could never forgive such a violation.

Michael and Rose lived together and then married in the 1930’s. In marrying a radical, Rose followed the same path as every one of her siblings. Yet, Dad became a small scale capitalist when his job opportunities in New York’s fur district were limited because he became blacklisted as a union organizer. As capitalists, both husband and wife were hindered considerably by the Marxist ideology and sentiments that permeated their thinking. First, Dad was not inclined to like waiting on women who wanted expensive fur coats. He was a terrible salesman. Mom was uncomfortable with the idea of being a saleswoman; she liked to think of her customers as her friends. She was wonderful with them because she genuinely liked people and wanted to please and help them with her winning manner.

The clash between Dad’s values and those of Rose’s family came to the fore later in the Depression when her brother, sister, and sister-in-law came to live with them “briefly” on the way to Russia to help build a communist society. The motivation of the trip was also to get away from her brother’s blame for an auto accident in Minnesota; the short stay became a long stay. After the greater part of a year, the situation came to a head when Dad gave my mother an ultimatum: “Your family is here eating my food and drinking my liquor. They are not working, they are only talking,” which for him was a severe reprimand. Furthermore, he said, “they are making you unhappy with me. This cannot go on, they must leave and, if you have to, go with them.”

Mom stayed to work and live with Dad until the day she died. Her siblings never went to the Soviet Union. At the time of her death, Rose was a New Deal Democrat who never uttered a word of her radical past to her children.

Mom had difficulty accepting being a successful business per-

Page 353

son because she believed in the labor theory of value and considered anything more to be surplus value and therefore exploitation. I remember disagreements between my parents in which my father tried to get my mother to recognize that you have to charge customers for overhead if you are going to stay in business while Rose pleaded, “They are such nice people without much money and she really needs a warm coat. Can’t you charge less?” The success of their enterprise despite the tough times of the Great Depression was based upon the fact that they were both efficient, intelligent, and skillful workers who labored long hours. They became respected and successful business people.

Our family lived under the cloud of McCarthyism, especially because my parents were resident aliens; neither of their fathers had taken out citizenship, which would have made them citizens as minor children. The government tried to deport Rose’s brother and sister for their work as communist organizers in California and we children were told to say nothing if the FBI questioned us about these relatives who we really did not know. Mom was afraid of any public involvement and never considered applying for citizenship, while Dad applied and was granted it after McCarthy’s fall from power. Both were proud Americans, but Mom was ashamed of her past and family, while Dad was proud of his life even though he was disinclined to speak about it with his children. After Stalin’s murderous purges became generally known, Rose’s idealism took the form of enthusiasm for Israel, which she hoped would be a truly socialist society.

The unspoken influence of my mother’s radical past and my father’s reactions to it were considerable. I became a historian partly to learn my family’s secrets. Like my father I distrust ideology and political leaders. My political activism has been limited to marching against the war in Vietnam and for civil rights. My frustration at hearing my aunt in Minnesota spout left-wing ideology on the telephone preconditioned me, like my father, to be suspicious of theory. In helping to build a new college I showed far more idealism than most of my colleagues, which relates to my mother’s dreams of a better society. I remain inspired by Mom’s love of learning in my career as an editor, psychohistorian, professor, and scholar.

Page 354