As a grandchild of Whittaker Chambers who has studied the historiography of the famous events around my grandfather, I’m always eager for the next book on the Hiss-Chambers Case of 1948-1950. After all, in my family, family lore is a matter of public dispute. When my grandfather included Alger Hiss in 1948 congressional testimony about a Soviet spy ring in Washington, it set off one of the biggest controversies in mid-century American public life. The Hiss Case made President Richard Nixon: it propelled “Tricky Dick” from new representative to a Senate seat, the vice presidency, and eventually the presidency. It made Sen. Joseph McCarthy: “Tail Gunner Joe” used it in the speech that launched McCarthyism. The Hiss Case helped shape the partisan politics of today: pro-Hiss (“Democrats”) versus pro-Chambers (“Republicans”). Scores of books have come out on the Hiss Case over the past eight decades: the first came out before the verdict against Hiss had come in.
This past April saw yet another new title reach the field: Rewriting Hisstory: A Fifty-Year Journey to Uncover the Truth About Alger Hiss by Jeff Kisseloff. A quarter-century in the writing, a half-century in the making, and three-quarters of a century after the events, what does Kisseloff have to tell us that’s new about the Hiss Case? Very little, unfortunately. It offers old details, scores of them, a biblical exegesis on Hiss’s innocence by a pro-Hiss partisan, not a historian. Kisseloff treats minor issues as highly salient while holding fast to a preconceived big picture. Too often, Rewriting Hisstory sifts the ashes of old, overburnt minutiae, some of which date back to Hiss’s initial testimony in 1948.
Structurally, Rewriting History works like this: Its introduction broadly blames anti-Hiss villains for McCarthyism, including “book banning and attacks on free speech.” Its first quarter on “The Hiss Case and Me” claims for Kisseloff the mantle of Hiss acolyte in a somewhat self-congratulatory manner — understandably and even justifiably, after 50 years of loyal service to the Hiss cause. The middle half, “The Evidence,” contains no new evidence (more below). The last quarter, “Means, Motive, and Opportunity,” returns to the promise of revelation. Sagely, Kisseloff asks, “Cui bono?” (Who benefits?). On the final page, he reveals all: “Of course, the primary beneficiary of all these shenanigans” is still the same guy: “Whittaker Chambers.”
The book’s dust jacket promises a “new perspective.” But the basic premise for this latest pro-Hiss book remains unchanged from previous pro-Hiss books: villains framed Alger Hiss. The introduction cautions, “There is no proof showing how the plotters” framed Hiss. However, as Kisseloff says, “there are thousands of pages of new evidence … that make it clear who was behind it.”
This is a big promise. If anyone could show Hiss was framed and not a spy, much less provide persuasive evidence of who was behind Hiss’s frame-up, they would indeed be rewriting history. Otherwise, even most pro-Hiss scholars agree that Hiss’s guilt was settled between Allen Weinstein’s book Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case in 1978 and the release of Soviet documents in the Venona project in 1995.
True to mentor Alger Hiss, a Harvard-trained lawyer, Kisseloff provides pages and pages of triple-dotting of I’s, and touch-ups on T’s within minor historiographical disputes that only a devoted Hiss scholar could care about. Some details present untruths and even mislead. Some mislead the author himself. For example, regarding the Ware Group spy ring, of which Hiss was an alleged member, Kisseloff writes definitively, “It turned out that Alger was not a member of the group.” A few pages later, however, he states that a fellow member, John Abt, “refused to disclose if Alger had been a member.” Following Kisseloff’s method of interpreting facts, Hiss was a member of the Ware Group, but other members had refused to disclose that fact during their testimony.
I, too, am researching the Hiss Case. So, here is a concession I offer to Kisseloff: Everyone involved in the Hiss Case either lied about, omitted, or misremembered the truth, often combinations thereof. By “everyone,” I mean every person who testified, politicized, or reported on the case. That includes my grandfather. In his case, I have found no intentional lies — yet. I may, though. What I have found is enough omissions to double the size of his already over-long, 799-page memoir Witness (1952). If this is surprising, given my surname, it should not be. I am a historian. Historians ought to approach history by trusting only after verifying. Omissions can do as much damage as lies.
Kisseloff’s story would be much more convincing if he portrayed Hiss as somewhere short of perfectly good. However, Kisseloff does not practice a historian’s intellectual honesty or curiosity. He is the last soldier standing of the Hiss defense team. He is still prosecuting the case for Hiss’s innocence as best as he can. Therefore, speaking of omissions, he leaves lots out. Worse, he stumbles right past glimmers of potentially new facts.
ANOTHER BOOK ABOUT MY GRANDFATHER WHITTAKER CHAMBERS PUTS POLITICS BEFORE HISTORICAL ACCURACY
It is possible that a reader unversed in the Hiss Case might find Rewriting Hisstory convincing. Readers versed in the case know Kisseloff left scores of questions unasked. Why did Hiss jump to the front of the line during initial hearings? Harvard Law must have trained him to avoid such risk. Why did Hiss never match the depth of Chambers’s personal revelations in testimony and writing? Books by Hiss make him look like he was hiding things. Why did Hiss rely so much on others to speak or write for him? Aside from the fact that Hiss was a boring writer (albeit a brilliant lawyer), some willing author and eager publisher must have asked to cowrite with him. Why did Hiss and his defense team stick to one approach, especially after Hiss lost his case? The approach remained “attack!” Point the finger at others. But to point one finger at someone else leaves three pointing back.
Is there any reason, then, to read Rewriting Hisstory? For experts, the answer must be yes. Any book by Jeff Kisseloff, the last soldier standing of the Hiss defense team, demands examination by historians of the Hiss Case, McCarthyism, the Communist Party USA, etc. For anyone else, other pro-Hiss books make for better reads. But really, the choice between most pro-Hiss books doesn’t matter. They all say pretty much the same thing.
David Chambers is an independent historian of Soviet espionage and the Hiss case (1948-1950), in which his grandfather, Whittaker Chambers, was a major participant. He runs WhittakerChambers.org.