Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1946)

181

July 30, 1946

EN ROUTE TO CAMPOBELLO ISLAND, Monday – Many years ago, I read a book by Pierrepont B. Noyes which sounded as fantastic in many ways as some of Jules Verne’s books must have seemed before we had ever heard of a submarine. This particular book has just been reprinted under the title, “Gentlemen: You Are Mad.” It will be out the first week in August, and I think it is worth reading, thinking about and discussing, for it bears on the way we shall live and on our ability to preserve our civilization. Since some of us seem to think we are on the way to suicide for this period of civilization, the book is certainly worth our attention.

I left Hyde Park yesterday morning to drive to Campobello Island. I chose a route which avoids Boston, but passed through a number of New England’s manufacturing towns where one sees people of many different racial backgrounds.

Ours is a beautiful and varied country from the standpoint of scenery, but it is not just scenery that has attracted the people from so many foreign lands who have developed our country and made us a great nation. These people came because of the promise of freedom and justice which would give every one of them a chance to express themselves politically and lead a freer, better life.

I could not help wondering how a politician would feel who prides himself on his background of pure Americanism and his Anglo-Saxon lineage, yet is willing to accept office in his State without having gained the majority vote. The election was legal and the same kind of thing can happen for other offices in our nation. It is, however, a situation which requires revision if we believe in majority rule and that the voice of the people must be heard. Driving through New England, as I looked at people whose parents had come to us to gain greater freedom of political expression, I thought it would make one uncomfortable to occupy an office which one knew one held because the method of vote-counting was devised to meet a Civil War situation or to keep a balance between city and country.

Those of us whose ancestors came here among the first settlers would seem to have a special responsibility to see to it that our democratic practices are really kept up to date. Our ancestors encouraged others to come and help us develop this country. They made promises and we have an obligation to see that those promises are kept to the best of our ability.

I have not been in northern New England or in Maine for a long time. There is a settled feeling about these villages and these farms which is very satisfying. I love the climate and the mixture of seafaring and farming people. From the time I reached Route 1, I began to smell the sea and to rejoice that I would have some days on the island of Campobello.

Nobody ever has hay fever on Campobello Island. The sun is warm in the daytime, but you can sit by an open fire at night. Mosquitoes do not bother you.

You can cross the border into Canada, after visiting our customs officials, by simply driving your car down onto a beach, then onto a scow, and being chugged by a tiny motorboat across a narrow channel of very swiftly moving water. When you are in mid-channel, you pass into foreign waters, and when you land on the opposite beach, you are on Canadian soil.

182

July 31, 1946

EN ROUTE TO CAMPOBELLO ISLAND – I read with a great deal of interest an item which came from Mexico City not long ago. In their famed National Opera, Verdi’s “Aida” was sung by an American soprano, Ellabelle Davis. She might have made her debut on the operatic stage in her own country, where she has made a name for herself on the concert stage, but racial prejudice is hard to overcome.

So perhaps she will go on from Mexico to sing other operas in other South American countries. Perhaps when Europe has been rehabilitated, she will sing there. And if she is great enough, someday some opera company in the United States may have courage enough to let her sing in an operatic performance in her own country.

We in the United States do let our prejudices spoil our enjoyment of talent. Sometimes it seems a little foolish, but perhaps it gives us more pleasure to let the rest of the world decide whether or not our citizens are great artists before we make the decision ourselves.

After stopping overnight in Portland, Maine, I have driven on up the coast, looking for familiar landmarks as I went. Where was that nut shop or that place where, in the past, I stopped to buy jellies or jams? On the way up to Campobello Island, I used to make acquisitions which my family enjoyed, since it is not very easy on the island to get a variety of food. Gardens are late, but fish is always plentiful there.

I may be in time for the late strawberries, because they ripen slowly. They have a wonderful flavor, somewhat like the ones grown on the Ile d’Orleans, in the St. Lawrence River, near Quebec. These are famous for their delicious flavor. It used to be easy, when we had a boat, to go and come to the mainland, but a storm destroyed our boathouse and our boat last winter.

On August 1, a monument will be unveiled in the little village of Welchpool, Campobello Island, N.B., in memory of my husband, who went there so often in his boyhood and early manhood and loved not only the island itself but the waters all around it. He knew the coast of New Brunswick and of Nova Scotia and was as good a sailor man thereabouts as many of the natives. They asked me particularly to try to be in Campobello on August 1, so I am glad that, with my son Elliott and his family, I will be there. Soon afterward, we will start for home.

183

August 1, 1946

CAMPOBELLO ISLAND, New Brunswick, Wednesday – Not long ago, I was visited by a business man who has used his business not only for personal success but as a means to achieve something for the good of mankind. He is in the restaurant business in Los Angeles.

He comes from a family of missionaries who spent many years in China. They were, therefore, familiar with famine before the war made famine a word familiar in an ever-increasing area.

Mr. Clinton developed a food which can be quickly prepared and is palatable. In famine areas, each little package would furnish an individual with enough to sustain him for a third of a day. Mr. Clinton’s son prepared a small quantity of this food for me and explained that it could have a variety of flavors. Preparation is accomplished in about five minutes. This food is good, and I think it might serve as a basis for a satisfactory diet and be a great benefit in areas where it is difficult to ship and distribute supplies.

Mr. Clinton started his restaurant business in the early depression years and made up his mind that no one, even if he could not pay, would be turned away hungry! So he developed a 5¢ meal, and anyone who did not have the 5¢ could obtain the meal free. In his laboratory, this food product has undergone many changes since those days!

He is hoping to collaborate with relief agencies everywhere. I can see that this might come to be a basic food used to great advantage for such things as our school-lunch program. He has formed a corporation called “Meals for Millions Foundation.” It is organized for humanitarian purposes and will not be operated for profit.

Often, quite unjustifiably, one is just a little suspicious when people say that they want no profit, yet obviously have something which might be produced for great profit! Mr. Clinton, however, seems to be one of those rare business men who, having a successful business, are willing to put time and money into benefitting mankind. Perhaps it is the influence of his ancestors! I have always wondered how much influence our ancestors have upon us, and this gentleman would offer proof that their influence is considerable.

On every side, I hear the plea for more nurses. In New York state, for instance, hospitals have had to close some of their wards because they cannot get enough trained nurses.

The nursing profession is an unselfish one, but it also has many rewards, even for young women who do not intend to remain in it over a long period of years. The training has many advantages, for if a girl marries, she will find that having been a nurse is a good basis for the care of children and for meeting such emergencies as arise in any family through sickness.

184

August 2, 1946

CAMPOBELLO ISLAND, New Brunswick, Thursday – A correspondent who had just come over from Europe asked me recently why there are no groups working for the understanding of democracy as diligently as the groups working in the interests of communism.

It is, of course, entirely legitimate for people anywhere in the world to try to inform others about their political and economic doctrines and to argue the advantages of their particular brand of politics or economic theory. Why is it that those of us who believe in democracy do not crusade for our beliefs in the same way that communist groups do? Perhaps it is because communism dawned on a people who had suffered very greatly and, hence, amelioration in their daily lives seemed a miracle.

Democracy has existed in this country for over 150 years and, as we look back, we see the progress that has been made. Nevertheless, we realize that, in both the economic and political theories which we have followed, we have made mistakes and we gradually have been obliged to change some things. Sometimes the changes have come about through peaceful methods and sometimes they have been accompanied by bloodshed.

There is no reason to believe that the point has been reached where democracy is stagnant. It is still young – not complete as a political or economic way of life – but we take our democratic rights and our theories so much for granted that we have few crusaders among us!

The most perplexing question to many of us today is whether, in a world which has grown so small through rapid communication and transportation, two theories such as communism and democracy can each be used to improve the lot of mankind without a complete rejection of the opposing theory. The future peace of the world, I think, depends on our being able to argue out our respective political, economic and religious differences without resorting to force.

I hope we will not build up spheres of influence and blocs which are aimed at opposing each other. We should try to learn about each other’s beliefs, and about the way in which the experiments tried under both our theories succeed or fail.

For instance, today the Russians and communists throughout the world feel that they have succeeded in creating an acceptance of the value of human beings, regardless of racial background, to a greater extent than we have. And they point to the racial discrimination which flourishes in this country. They feel that their attitude increases the chance of peace in the world, because they can truly say that men of all races will be heard as equals among them.

We, on the other hand, point to our greater religious tolerance and to the fact that, under our government, we have made it possible for people of opposing ideas to live without fear. We feel that a system which defends the right of the individual to speak his mind, even against his own government if necessary, is a safeguard to all freedom. This seems to be of less importance to the communists, whose doctrine is that the state is always of greater value than the individual.

Time will answer so many of these questions. Peace and continuing education and understanding would seem to be a vital need in the next few years.

185

August 3, 1946

CAMPOBELLO ISLAND, New Brunswick, Friday – An old friend of mine who has a great interest in India has written me about the Food for India campaign conducted under the auspices of “The Caravan of East and West.” Many of us, I think, have felt that the problem of famine in India, which keeps recurring and has been augmented by war conditions, is too great for much of a dent to be made by any private organizations. However, something was said to me recently by a French woman which I think may apply in other places and even in India.

She said that a word of encouragement, a message of appreciation of the rehabilitation efforts being made within a devastated country, and token gifts showing the goodwill of individuals in faraway lands – these meant a lift to the spirit of French people. I am sure this is so in countries all over the world. And so, even if the Food for India campaign is but a small effort, I hope it will be supported by many individuals.

The India Supply Mission has agreed to ship food free of charge, and ships with available space are leaving at frequent intervals. Soya-bean flour, powdered milk and oatmeal have already gone. Perhaps some of my readers would like to send “The Caravan of East and West” a little added bit to help stem the tide of the river of famine engulfing India.

On July 12, the National Committee for a Fair Minimum Wage urged us as citizens to ask our Congressmen to sign a petition to discharge the 65-cent minimum wage bill from committee so as to bring it onto the House floor for debate. This petition required the signatures of 218 Representatives, but this number was not obtained.

It seems to me that the subject was important enough to warrant debate on the floor. Though the bill might have been defeated, at least the people in this country would have known what the arguments were on both sides and how their representatives finally lined up. Now, with Congress adjourning without debating this bill, the last chance to do anything this year has gone by the board.

According to information from the National Committee for a Fair Minimum Wage, there are 4,000,000 workers now receiving an average of $16, $18 and $20 a week. These, of course, are unorganized workers and they are the ones who are suffering most as the cost of living rises.

Over and over again, it has been proved that better conditions in the lower-income brackets mean more profit at the top, and yet it is hard to convince many people in our country that this is actually so. They fear that our economy would crash under the weight of a 65-cent minimum wage law. As a matter of fact, more money in the hands of the people who actually spend all that they get means a greater demand for goods produced and a greater profit at the top, as well as all along the line.

Even though we have OPA functioning again in a limited way, there are bound to be increased costs, even for some things which can be classed as necessities for the average American family. Buyers strikes may be the answer where the increase is unreasonable and means too great a profit in whatever the goods may be. But a higher minimum wage would have an effect on the stability of our economy.

186

August 5, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – Some of the papers in the Maine area made a good deal of the fact that, on my trip up to Campobello Island, I could not stay overnight at a hotel in Portland because I had Fala with me. Since it was a hotel rule, the clerk was quite right to stick to it and I had no complaint. I did not know of the rule because I had never stayed in that hotel before, and I would not have telegraphed for rooms there if I had not forgotten the name of the hotel where I usually stay. I remembered this hotel because my son had stayed there when he made a speech in Portland last spring.

The fault was mine, since I had not mentioned that I would have a dog with me. And it made no difference because, when I stopped for supper in Yarmouth, I asked if there were any cabins nearby that would take me in with a dog, and I found a place at once and had a very comfortable night.

During my days in Campobello I was busy trying to decide with my son Elliott and his wife what we should do with the old cottages.

Last Thursday, we all attended the ceremonies at Welchpool, a village on the island, where a stone cairn with a bronze tablet has been erected in memory of my husband. Many of the Canadian government officials attended, and our Ambassador to Canada, Ray Atherton, made a very appropriate speech. People came from many nearby places. Dr. J. C. Webster, chairman of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, spoke with great feeling, as did Lieut. Governor D. L. MacLaren, whose son had spent some time at Warm Springs and had received a letter from my husband when he was stricken with polio.

The head of the board of trade on the island, Mr. John Calder, spoke of my husband’s early association with and love for the island. I think, however, that he attributed to my husband more personal choice in his first association with the island than he really had, since his parents first brought him there in the second summer of his life!

When I mentioned this to my son, he remarked, “But you have entirely forgotten how precocious Father was! You know he always told us he could remember Aunt Kassie’s wedding, which he attended in his nurse’s arms at the age of four or six months!” So perhaps Mr. Calder was right and my husband did express a desire to return to Campobello after that first visit when he was about a year and a half old!

There is no question that, during all his childhood and youth, he loved the free life there, the sailing, the fishing and the walking through the woods and over the rocks.

On two of the days I was there, we spent several hours picnicking – one day on Penguin Island with Mr. and Mrs. Bernard and their two fine boys, and the other day making the trip up to St. Andrews and eating our lunch on the boat. We found that our two small boys enjoyed being on the water as much as we did. My son and his family had had one day of deep-sea fishing before I arrived, and both the boys caught big fish and proved to be good sailors, rather to the native fishermen’s surprise.

One feels very far away on that remote island, and some things have happened in the world which I did not read about until my return here last night. Comment must wait until tomorrow, however!

187

August 6, 1945

NEW YORK, Monday – After any war, the use of force throughout the world is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something, you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn Country, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you may be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.

188

August 7, 1946

HYDE PARK, Tuesday – On the 7th of August four years ago, our marines landed on Guadalcanal. Some of the boys who made that historic landing have told me what those first few weeks were like. It was hard fighting, not only against the Japs but against disease and against propaganda from Japan which made them sometimes feel that they were an isolated dot in the Pacific.

We should never forget this first step in our march to victory. If we had not succeeded there, the whole history of the Pacific war might have been different. Resourcefulness and courage marked the conduct of the first men to land on Guadalcanal. They upheld the traditions of the American military services in the best possible way.

We in this country must never forget that Americans took Guadalcanal, Americans held it and went from there step by step to final victory over Japan. But when I visited the cemetery on Guadalcanal in 1943, I was reminded of the fact that the Americans who lay in that cemetery stemmed from many different races. And they worshipped God in many different ways. Some had come to this country fairly recently, some had ancestors who had lived here several hundred years, but it was the idea and the ideal of America which they all fought to preserve. We must never forget that our greatness depends upon our unity and that all of us, of whatever race or creed or color, are Americans.

Sunday afternoon, I drove into New York to see Miss Thompson. She is convalescing in her apartment and, since she has to be there another week, I was glad to find that she could be comfortable and cool in spite of the fact that, outside, it was certainly hot and muggy. It was good to see her and I had a very pleasant visit.

After lunch yesterday, I took the train back to Hyde Park, as I have a number of guests, including three children of various ages, staying with me for the next few days. The train was crowded and as I was a late comer, I found no seat in any coach, and so, in self-defense, I sat down in the diner-lounge to eat.

At the lounge end of the car, I soon found myself talking with a young Poughkeepsie man lately discharged from the Army. Soon, others joined in our conversation and I was much interested in the various opinions expressed.

One young air officer told us that, in a few weeks, he would be going back to Germany to work with our military government and that he was doing this as a measure of defense. He feels strongly that our brand of democracy must become known and understood in the rest of the world to help preserve the peace. And I gathered that the other young men felt the same way.

The only young man who had not fought in the war remarked that America could never be invaded to the extent that Russia had been, and I was interested to hear the soldiers say, “Don’t say that – you never can tell what may happen.” This struck me as a far healthier attitude than the sense of false security which takes it for granted that Americans are so invincible that no enemy can make any headway on their soil!

189

August 8, 1946

HYDE PARK, Wednesday – There is something very interesting in reading about the meeting, in Cambridge, England, of representatives of the World Council of Churches. In one account that I read, Dr. Walter W. Van Kirk of New York said that he found considerable pessimism among the delegates as to the value of the United Nations. He said that the imperfections in that organization were “derived from the paganism of secular society, and that results from the failure of the churches around this table in bringing Christian influence into secular society.”

I think many of us would agree that, if we are to have peace, there must be a rise in spiritual leadership. In fact, I think many of us feel that there can be no permanent settlement of the problems that face us nationally and internationally without a real spiritual awakening in the world as a whole.

To have peace, the big powers will really have to want to see the lot of human beings improved. They will have to safeguard the rights of the individual and see to it that justice tempered by mercy is a reality throughout the world. That is a far cry from having your eyes fixed primarily on the economic success of your nation.

One hears so much of power politics. Boiled down, power politics simply means that each great nation is trying to create combinations of power greater than any of the other great nations. We won’t get away from that until the people of the big nations say to their leaders, “We want you to do the thing that is right, not for us alone but for humanity as a whole.” That will not be said until the people are conscious that spiritual force must rule the world.

Christ’s power over men was that of an individual who had great spiritual force. He could inspire those around Him to have the courage to preach and live by a doctrine which was based on unselfishness and the love of humanity. That power has been a moving force down through the ages. But even in so-called Christian countries, it has never quite come into its own and actually been the mainspring in the lives of the majority of people. It will not amount to much unless it affects the individuals in every community.

The churches cannot become just another pressure group. In a country like ours, where church and state are pretty carefully separated, great emphasis will have to be laid on the fundamental principles from which action springs, rather than on the specific actions undertaken by groups of individuals.

The churches will have to take a stand against unthinking and un-Christian prejudices. They will have to develop among the people a greater sense of responsibility for the conditions existing in society. And above all, they will have to watch the sense of values held by the youth of the world, since the world will grow to be material or spiritual exactly in proportion to the aspirations of the rising generation. If their values are spiritual values, the pattern of the world will change.

190

August 9, 1946

HYDE PARK, Thursday – In the headlines of one of our great New York newspapers yesterday morning, I read: “Byrnes Accuses Molotov of Twisting Views, Asks Russia to Print Speech.” And just below: “Molotov Derides Press. Suggests American and British Newspapers Reflect Only Views of Their Owners.” These headlines show how government representatives can reach a point of exasperation where the amenities are completely forgotten.

Amenities are important because they create an atmosphere, but there are more important things than the amenities. The fundamentals are the things which the peoples of the world must keep in mind, even when their representatives forget them. There is one great objective being served today by the representatives of 21 nations meeting in Paris. This great objective is the actual achievement of a world at peace.

The peoples of the world want peace. Their representatives, as individuals, may be tried almost beyond endurance but, when all is said and done, the only thing which will satisfy the people is the feeling that security and confidence is being built up in the world and that we are moving towards a more peaceful atmosphere.

The two nations pitted against each other in most people’s minds today are the United States and Russia. When we were fighting the war together, even the American press frequently emphasized some of the similarities that exist between us. Now, however, it is always the differences that are exploited. It is not only Russia’s actions that create fear and suspicion in the minds of the people of the United States. Our own press must accept some of the responsibility.

Of course, the Russians whom most of us meet in this country, being government representatives, are sometimes hard to get to know as human beings. They feel that they must always express the point of view of their government. They rarely feel that they can depart from this role.

Among themselves, perhaps even in their dispatches sent back to Moscow, they may acknowledge that an argument is valid for a new point of view. But it is rare, indeed, that a free and close relationship is built up with the representatives of another nation which permits them to express personal opinions. More frankness between individuals would bring their governments closer together.

The actions that are taken in great assemblages of statesmen seem far away from those of us who are leading our daily lives in rather narrow confines. But as a matter of fact, they affect our daily lives, and we the people should begin to insist that our final objective never be lost sight of.

It is impossible to find the right solution to all the questions that come up in a peace conference, and we know that many changes will be made later. But if every action is taken to bring about better conditions, we will be ready to make changes when we see that a change is necessary to attain our objective.

Because so much is said about the difficulties that may arise between Russia and ourselves, I think we should make an effort to understand some of the background of these difficulties. My experience with Russians is limited, but my experience with many different kinds of people is fairly wide. Tomorrow I would like to discuss some of the things we might bear in mind in our dealings with other peoples in this postwar period.

191

August 10, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – It seems to me that one of the first things we as a people have to learn is that our experience as a nation has been completely different from that of most of the peoples of the world.

Fortunately for us in our early formative days, when we were a weak nation, the oceans on either side of us were a real barrier against invasion. We suffered in our trade by capture of our merchant ships at sea, and therefore we built up a Navy which, though small, distinguished itself for valor and ingenuity. On shore, we had mechanical advantages against the Indians which outweighed our weakness in numbers. Canada was no permanent threat, nor Mexico either.

For a long time, the possible invasion from foreign countries, either French or Spanish or British, through Canada or Mexico or along our own shores, created a fear but the difficulties of transportation were such that this fear rarely materialized into a formidable reality. We fought wars, and our land was invaded, but it has been a long time now since any enemy forces were on our soil.

Our children have not grown up in the shadow of the constant fear of invasion by specific nations on our borders. On the other hand, French children have grown up expecting that almost every generation would fight a war with Germany. Italy might be either friend or foe, depending on the particular interest involved.

In the Balkans, where races are mixed, it has been constantly possible for big powers to incite warfare to keep the people of those countries from developing economic and social security, and to serve outside interests that often did not concern the fighting peoples. The Greeks have looked with fear upon their neighbors. The Turks have been threatened. The areas populated by Armenians have been a constant battleground.

The Germans have feared the Russians. The Scandinavians have feared both the Germans and the Russians and the British. The British have been feared by many peoples because of their far-flung empire and their strong Navy. They themselves have feared invasion of their island now and then, and also attacks upon various parts of the empire from which they draw their strength.

China and Japan have feared each other, and the Koreans have been a captive people. Innumerable people in the Pacific islands have been captives also.

So we look upon a world that has lived in constant fear of actual attack upon its homes. The United States has been a refuge for people from many of those harassed lands, because here we could allow more freedom. We could develop gradually through the processes of democracy because we were so free from the fear of invasion.

By the time the oceans became less of a barrier, we had become a strong nation. Materially, we had resources, both natural and human. We were an inventive people and, both in preparation for defense and in the production of the mechanisms that made life more comfortable we were well ahead of the rest of the world. All this gave us the confidence which made our brand of democracy possible.

In our dealings with other peoples, this fundamental background must never be forgotten.

192

August 12, 1946

NEW YORK, Sunday – The American people today are not really afraid of any other nation. We are sure that we will never use our power aggressively. We know that we want peace.

We therefore cannot understand why everyone does not believe that we hold the secret of the atomic bomb simply because we do not want anyone to have the power to use it again. We are shocked and surprised when we find that other people doubt our intentions, forgetting entirely that their background is not like ours. Few of us have any conception of what the other nations have been through whose lands have been devastated and whose homes have been destroyed. We forget, too, that our use of the atom bomb in Japan killed many innocent civilians and shocked the traditional feeling which had grown up through previous wars, when a line could be drawn between fighting men and civilians. In all probability, our government was right in believing that use of the bomb would end the war more quickly and thereby save millions of lives. But in any case, in the modern atomic world, no future war can ever draw that line of distinction again, and it is just as well that we should understand this once and for all.

With our rather naive assumption that everyone can understand our background and our good intentions, we are surprised to find a lack of confidence in what we say and in our actions when we withhold from an ally the knowledge we possess of a destructive weapon. Isn’t it just possible that they may wonder why we do not understand their background, why we do not trust them if we expect them to trust us?

Take Russia, for instance. How many of us realize that an area which in our country would cover roughly the region from the Atlantic seaboard to the Mississippi was devastated in Russia during the war? The Russians in this area lost their homes, their crops and their lives, and the survivors have starved for years.

Russia has enormous potential natural resources, many of them as yet undeveloped. She managed to move a large part of her industries back from the danger zone during the war. What she imports today is not consumer goods, which must doubtless be in great demand by her people. Her government needs goods which will serve to put her industries into production, and it exacts material sacrifices from the people to attain these ends. Soviet Russia’s standard of living, in 25 years, has not been able to approximate what we have achieved in 150 years. Yet she has taken a great number of people who were illiterate peasants and given them hope and a basic literacy, with greater opportunity for education than ever before.

She is a dictatorship, but we must not forget that it is a dictatorship not of one individual alone. Her government has succeeded in keeping the support of the people not only through the terrific hardships of invasion, but also in a postwar period where hardships are far greater than those we know in our own difficult postwar period in the United States.

193

August 13, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – Probably the best thing that Russia has done is to get her various races to treat each other as equals. From one end of her far-flung empire to the other, she has succeeded in creating a union of totally different types of people.

Each group is an independent republic, and when its citizens leave their own area, they stand as equals with the citizens of any other part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is a very great achievement, so we must not be surprised when, in their relations with other nations, the Russians stress the value of wiping out racial discrimination.

For many of them, perhaps for the great majority, conditions are vastly better than they were under the Tsars. In some of the countries along the Russian borders, they find conditions much worse than any which they now have to endure. In others, they find an advance beyond their own. But when they look back over the last 25 years, they realize that the opportunities for their young people have been very great in this short period, and that strengthens their hope for the future.

Someone told me that one often heard a slogan in Russia: “It will be better.” If the people say that and believe it, they cannot be discouraged.

Even when we realize that Russia has a large number of men in her army, that her people are back of their government, that they are young and strong and vital, that they have some very fine scientists, engineers, and experts in every field, still we do not need to be afraid of them. We can be just as strong, vital and unified if we will stop running away from the world situation as it is today and accept all our responsibilities. Russia has not accomplished in 25 years many of the things that we have achieved in 150 years.

When we were young and weak, we bragged a good deal, we were a bit aggressive, we insisted that we would be sufficient unto ourselves and that we would have nothing to do with the problems or responsibilities of other parts of the world. Now there is no need for bragging or for aggressiveness, but there is need for an understanding of our situation in the world.

We have known some shortages here, but we have known no hunger. We can assume a great role in feeding the world, as well as in providing manufactured goods. These are material obligations which will bring us economic returns in prosperity. But there is another great obligation, the obligation of spiritual leadership, which we must also assume.

If we are to become a great people, with concern for other people, we must face the needs of our own people and see to it that our form of government meets those needs. This requires spiritual leadership at home, and unless we achieve it, we cannot offer the kind of spiritual and economic leadership to the world which will be convincing of our worth.

Other nations do not believe in our good intentions today because our shortcomings very often obscure our achievements. Our domestic actions are tied very closely to the success of our foreign policy, and we must reach a point at home and abroad where people will not say, “What is the foreign policy of the United States?”

194

August 14, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – It is, of course, perfectly obvious that all the people of the country cannot lay down the rules for the manner in which their objectives in domestic and foreign policy shall be achieved. We have a State Department and various other departments in the government to plan the ways and means of achieving these results.

We have a Congress to keep the people in touch with the way their business is being conducted, and it is through the election of these legislative representatives that the people show their approval or disapproval of current events. The President is the elected executive representative of the people. His appointees assume the jobs which he gives them and, in their administrative capacity, they are responsible to him and to Congress.

The people’s control is through the election of their President and their Congress, and it is the general policy, both domestic and foreign, which the people pass on. When the people say, “What is our foreign policy?”, then these representatives should begin to be concerned, for obviously a part of their obligation is not being carried out.

We sometimes find that not only our foreign policy but our domestic policy is so little understood by the majority of the people that it might truthfully be said that indifference to these vital questions was what gave their leaders the opportunity to function. In other words, in return for not being well-informed, the people shove all their responsibility onto a few government officials. When things go badly, they blame their representatives, but if they go well, the people are complacent and think they have made a positive contribution, whereas for the most part their contribution is a very negative thing!

Progress is rarely achieved by indifference but, as a people, we are not really indifferent to the basic questions affecting our foreign policy and we can easily understand it if we will.

Let us begin with our nearest neighbors, the countries to the north and south of us. Something we call a Good Neighbor Policy has been inaugurated between us. With Canada, it is well established. Our mutual interests are understood and we can almost take each other’s good intentions for granted!

To carry out the Good Neighbor Policy in Central and South America, in Mexico and the Caribbean, we must have constant intercourse and continual understanding on the cultural and social level. This we have been achieving increasingly through the exchange of students, workers, professors, books and samples of our arts.

Our business relations are most important. If they are reciprocal and benefit both sides, they increase our good feeling. If, however, our business men engage in sharp practices and try to exploit our neighbors, then our relations are endangered.

Personally, I think we made a mistake when we offered to equip and coordinate the military services of various countries in this hemisphere, because we seemed to be creating a military group. And this will inevitably make other countries feel that we are trying to control the nations of this hemisphere, and that our purposes are not exclusively defensive but might become aggressive.

I can well understand why our War and Navy Departments might think this plan a good idea. But I should think our people would feel that it might menace our peaceful relationship with these countries, and that it might create uncertainty in other nations farther away with whom we are trying to build up a relationship based on confidence in our peaceful intentions.

195

August 15, 1946

HYDE PARK, Wednesday – The same Good Neighbor Policy which we have inaugurated in this hemisphere could and should be extended throughout the world.

In many cases, our people’s only knowledge of other countries is gained through groups of their citizens who are now citizens of the United States. These groups should help us to realize conditions and needs which so far have been little understood here, and which, if we want peace in the world, we must cope with.

However, in getting this help from our citizens of foreign background, we have one difficulty, which points up how hard it would be for the average citizen clearly to define the trend which he wants our foreign policy to follow. Just as in this country there are crosscurrents and variations of opinion, so in every other country in the world the same situation exists. Therefore, one finds reflected among our groups of fairly recent foreign origin all the many different political shades that exist in their own countries—and these are even harder to grasp than our own geographic political differences.

Our average citizen can only decide, for instance, that he wants to help feed people in countries where they are hungry. Most of us want to feed all people, particularly women and children, regardless of the political parties to which they may belong. We feel that their political differences are their concern, and that our State Department should do the deciding, wherever there are claims and counterclaims, as to what side we are on.

Watching the special interests of different nations, understanding what motivates the policy of this nation or that – this is the business of the State Department. When they know something that would affect our feeling toward any nation or would shape our decision in any situation, we feel that it is up to the State Department to tell us the facts, and then it is up to us as citizens to make our opinions known.

Because we want facts, we have an interest in the kind of people who represent us in different parts of the world. They are not only responsible for carrying out the orders of our State Department in the country where they are stationed, but they are expected to know about the conditions in that country and to report on them truthfully. Otherwise, neither our State Department nor we the people can make any kind of valid decisions. We have had some representatives who accepted what government officials told them and never noticed anything about the life or the feelings of the people in the countries where they were stationed. We can have no basis for a sound foreign policy where such men or women represent us.

No foreign policy can be static. It has to change as conditions change. We have economic interests all over the world, and often these are our closest ties with other nations. We want to see our interests advanced in legitimate ways, but not at the price of exploitation of a weaker nation or in a way that would create ill-will toward us in the world.

These are the basic feelings which I think our people have on our foreign policy.

196

August 16, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – I am sorry to have to write a different type of column from what I have been writing but, unfortunately, while driving down from Hyde Park yesterday, I must have become drowsier than I realized and, before I knew it, I had come head on with another car in a collision and then sideswiped a second one. I was terrified to think that someone else might have been hurt.

My son’s maid, whom I had in my car, was slightly injured but I hope she will be all right in a few days. And the little grandson of another maid fortunately was not hurt. The hospital tells me that the people in the other cars were not seriously hurt, either, but I know what a terrible shock this must have been for all of them. I have never had a motor accident before and had no idea that the sun, together with the fact that I had no one sitting by to talk to me, could have such a bad effect in making me so drowsy. I can only be thankful to a kind providence if no one was seriously hurt.

I myself am quite well, though for some time I shall look as though I had been in a football game without having taken any training! My eyes are black and blue. In fact, I am black and blue pretty much all over. If I tied a bandana around my head, I think I would resemble some of the Pirates of Penzance. I am told that I will feel more of a reaction in the next few days, but at present I just feel that I have much to be grateful for and that what little discomfort I have should be borne most cheerfully.

This accident, I am afraid, will prevent my doing a number of things which I had planned to do during the next few weeks, because I am quite sure no one would like to see me! However, many years ago, I read a little pamphlet entitled “The Indispensable Man,” which could just as well be entitled “The Indispensable Woman,” and I know that others will be found who will do a better job on the things which I had undertaken for the next few weeks.

I am interested to find how many things the doctor can find to think about when you have had an accident! There are many things that can go wrong, but, thank heavens, none of them did with me.

However, I had to spend three and a half hours at the dentist’s this morning. A great many years ago, on the steps of the station in Utica, when I was on my way to make a speech one wintry day, I fell and cracked both my front teeth, chipping bits off of them. As a result, I suppose, they were fragile, and so, in this accident, they broke off about halfway up. Now I shall have two lovely porcelain ones, which will look far better than the rather protruding large teeth which most of the Roosevelts have. However, three hours and a half is a long while to spend with the dentist under the best of circumstances, and I must go back to him tomorrow and again next week.

I was able yesterday to wait until I saw that everyone else had been taken care of. A very kind gentleman, Mr. Harold Godfrey, who was on his way to Newburgh, turned around and took me the rest of the way into New York. I shall always think of him as the Good Samaritan. His kindness and his efforts to cheer me up, by assuring me that no one was badly hurt and that the cars were not too badly damaged, were much appreciated. He was probably being more optimistic than he was justified in being. Nevertheless, it was comforting and I was deeply grateful.

Above everything else, I was grateful for being brought to my own door before I looked too badly. I think I shall be wearing a veil for some time, but there are a good many people who will feel that that is rather an advantage, since good looks have never been my strong point!

197

August 17, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – Before the war, a great deal was said about the friction between the United States and Great Britain. After the last war, there was an endless discussion as to whether it had been won by the British or by us. They and the French had borne the hard fighting for nearly four years, but our fresh troops coming in at the end, with our additional naval help, were of great value at a crucial time. Did we actually turn the tide and bring victory? Who will ever know?

Nevertheless, you heard young American soldiers say: “We always have to go over and clean up European messes.”

And you heard young Britishers say: “You don’t come until you finally discover that you have an interest in winning, and then you reap the benefit of the hard work and the losses which we have sustained.”

Both points of view are perfectly understandable. And both express a certain amount of truth. But these attitudes have never made for a really sympathetic understanding between us.

Our history books stress the Revolution and the War of 1812. And most of our children grow to maturity without ever realizing that our relationship with Great Britain is a little like a family relationship where the younger generation breaks completely away from the older generation with the result that relations for a time are very strained.

In most families, however, when either the younger or the older generation is threatened by real disaster, they come together and present a solid front. That doesn’t mean that they will see things in the same light in the future, and it does not necessarily mean approval on either side of the actions of the other—nor even that they might not quarrel again. But it makes future quarreling less probable. It is a kind of “blood is thicker than water” attitude which makes them stand together when a crisis occurs and, year by year, brings better mutual understanding.

The great barrier of different languages which separates so many people is only partly present where Great Britain and the United States are concerned. True, the same words don’t always mean the same thing to an Englishman and an American. As one of our soldiers said to me in London in 1942: “One of them (the British) was talking to me about a flat. I thought it was a tire, but I found he meant the place he lived in.” But at least we both know the same words. And we find out their different meanings more easily than we could learn an entirely strange language, which bars understanding between peoples for a much longer time.

The British character is very different from ours. Their habit of understatement is quite the opposite of our habit of a light exaggeration. They’re more stolid and tenacious. We are more dashing, and perhaps more volatile. We disapprove of many things the British stand for, but somehow we have a growing belief that we and they will find a way to live and work together.

That is the attitude that fundamentally, I think, the people of this country want to establish in our relations with all the countries of the world, and in simple terms it spells our basic foreign policy.

198

August 19, 1946

NEW YORK, Sunday – I think many people must feel as unhappy as I do over the fact that Jewish refugees on ships bound for Palestine are being taken to detention camps in Cyprus. Many of us will agree that resort to force by Jews in Palestine is deplorable, but I don’t think it is hard to understand. Palestine does not belong to Britain, which governs it under a mandate. When people are desperate, I suppose that a show of force against them inevitably brings retaliation in kind. The British have certainly had force in evidence in Palestine.

We are faced today with the problem of trying to find homes for many thousands of homeless people in Europe. Some of them do not want to return to their former homes. They will willingly adventure to other countries in the hope of finding better conditions and greater opportunity. A great number of the surviving Jews of Europe – and it is sad to think how few there are – long to go to a new home of their own, and to them Palestine has come to mean that home.

The suggestion that the country be partitioned seems to me no answer to the problem, since the main objection originally to Palestine becoming a home for the Jews was the grave doubt entertained by many as to whether the land would be able to support any more people than were already there. It is understandable that the Arabs are not anxious to have the Jews as neighbors. The Arabs are a nomadic people, leading simple lives, and those who have moved into the orbit of the Jewish people have found the competition difficult and the standard of living higher than that to which they were accustomed. The Jews, however, are not asking for a vast increase in land. They ask to keep what they have, with slight additions for economic needs, and to be allowed to take in refugees.

There are many Jews, even among those in Europe, who do not want to go to Palestine because they see greater opportunity in becoming citizens of other nations. There are many today who are Britons, Americans, French or other nationalities.

Those going to Palestine are mainly in two groups: old people who wish to be surrounded by their own customs and by friendly people for the rest of their lives; or young people who have been trained in camps in Europe for specific occupations. The latter are imbued with the desire to develop Palestine and to have it a homeland and a refuge for their people. They have lost so much and seen so much sorrow and suffering that this idea is probably almost like a crusade.

We sit safely and smugly in the United States and read of new detention camps in Cyprus. To an ordinary citizen like myself, the motives that Britain might have which would lead to the latest developments in the Near East are very difficult to understand. It looks as though we were forgetting our main objective of peace in this world. It is possible, of course, that what we fear is that the Arabs will go to war with us, but that hardly seems possible.

It seems to be a case of deciding what we think is right for people from refugee camps in Europe who are trying to find a place to build a new life. In Great Britain and in the United States, if we decided what was right, I don’t think we would have much difficulty in getting it done.

199

August 20, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – I have had three letters about previous columns which require an explanation. Two of them dealt with a column in which I said that we sometimes let our prejudices prevent us from discovering our own artistic talent. I mentioned that it was extremely difficult for a Negro singer to get onto the operatic stage in this country. These remarks were made in connection with the debut in the opera house in Mexico City of one of our talented Negro women, Ella Belle Davis, who is now touring South America.

My correspondents remind me that Maestro Alfredo Salmaggi, during the years of opera production in the New York Hippodrome from 1933 to 1938, introduced three Negro singers, Caterina Jarboro, Minta Cato and Jules Bledsoe. More recently, at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, where the maestro has been producing operas for the past ten years, Edith Dixon Sewell and Paul A. Smith have both appeared. I think that Dr. Salmaggi deserves our gratitude for what he has done, but I still think that my column was not far from being correct!

The second thing that has been brought to my attention is that the recent political incident in McMinn County, Tennessee, was not connected with the primary elections. My correspondent explains that three elections were held in Tennessee on the same day. Both the Democratic primary and the Republican primary took place that day to nominate candidates for state and national offices. At the same time, a general election was held for county offices. The McMinn County incident involved only the contest over county offices in the general election, and did not affect either of the two primaries.

My correspondent says: “I gather from the local newspaper accounts that the trouble arose when those in control of the general election, while under the protection of several armed deputies of the sheriff, who was a candidate in this election, carried the ballot boxes to the Court House, where it was reported that they were about to switch ballots before the count.

“These young veterans had insisted that the votes would be counted as cast. It was anticipated that an effort would be made to exchange ballots in the boxes for those already marked and prepared to be substituted for the genuine ballots. It was claimed this practice had been indulged in the past by the political machine in power.

“As soon as these armed deputies appeared in Athens in possession of the ballot boxes, these veterans took steps to resist. The deputies seized two veterans, according to press reports, and held them as hostages, threatening to do them violence if the other veterans did not lay down their arms. These veterans accepted this challenge, stormed the jail where the deputies had retreated, and forced them to surrender.

“The News-Sentinel carried a picture of a pile of ballots found in the jail after the officers surrendered, that it was alleged had been prepared for switching into the boxes. The timely resistance of the veterans apparently thwarted an attempt to switch ballots. The sheriff and others involved fled the county. Order was promptly restored. The sheriff and others then resigned from their offices, and the election commissioners certified the election of the G.I. ticket…

“If every citizen in McMinn County, or any other place where boss rule has apparently dominated local politics, voted instead of staying at home on election day, no aspirant for public office would resort to unlawful means to stay in power. They would be compelled to adhere to the will of the people and the occasion would never arise for the public to condone violence to restore government to the people. I approve of all you said in your article.”

This letter comes from Tennessee and, I think, emphasizes all I meant to say.

200

August 21, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – In the past week, the world has lost a great author, a man of imagination who had many friends – H. G. Wells. I remember an evening when he dined with us at the White House.

He sat at my right. I knew nothing of him as a person, though I knew his writings, and so, when someone spoke in a high falsetto voice, I looked around the table in some surprise. I am deaf in my right ear and always have difficulty with my most important guest, as I have to turn around almost completely to talk to him. I did not turn around to Mr. Wells because it never occurred to me that the high squeak was a remark from him!

My daughter tried to tip me off and looked at me with some annoyance. Then I suddenly realized that I had heard that Mr. Wells suffered from a voice which was not impressive. From then on, I did a little better.

I am sure that he and my husband got on well throughout the evening. However, as we sat in the big oval room upstairs after dinner, I was unable to hear what they were saying, and so I cannot say that either the evening or the conversation left me with any very deep impressions!

Mr. Wells’ books, give the real measure of the man, and his death is a loss to the world. One never feels, however, that anyone who has had a long and full life and has made his contribution can evoke, among those left behind, the same sense of sorrow and regret which the death of any young person brings.

In the last few days, we have lost a young relative. My nephew, Henry Parish Roosevelt, was a sweet and gentle person. He gave much of himself to those who knew him well.

As a boy out West, he picked up one of those terrible bone infections, which necessitated many painful operations and treatments. These had resulted in long periods of illness and, in the past year, after another operation last winter, he had gone through a great deal of suffering with his leg.

When, with several members of my family, I stopped overnight recently at the farm which he ran in Limerick, Maine, we not only enjoyed seeing his mother, Mrs. John Cutter, but found Henry a most charming host. I am glad to remember him as we saw him that evening, thoughtful as always, having even prepared carefully to receive our two dogs and give them all they could want. When he saw us off in the morning, we all hoped to have him visit us in Hyde Park in the near future.

A strange world we live in. We never know what may happen the very next minute, and the plans of mice and men often go astray. Perhaps this should remind us that mice and men, in the eyes of the Almighty, have much in common and should make us live more carefully each precious hour that we hold in our grasp as “the present.”