Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1946)

261

October 31, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – It was interesting, yesterday, in the United Nations to find the subject of reduction of armaments brought up both by the Canadian delegate and by Mr. Molotov. There is no question about it – the sooner there is agreement as to the type of international police force we can have, the sooner it will be possible to discuss the way to reducing armaments universally.

I feel there is a lack of understanding in Mr. Molotov’s speech of the fact that Mr. Baruch has only stated a very obvious truth when he says that the veto cannot be used where the international control of the atom bomb is concerned.

That part in Mr. Molotov’s speech in which he advocates the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only left rather vague how the nations of the world were to make sure that this was actually being done. There is only one way to insure no misuse of this development and that is by international inspection and punishment for anyone who violates the rules laid down for this type of industry. The veto could not be used, or inspection would be meaningless.

The United States was accused of selfish interests as regards the plan developed by the Baruch committee. I am quite willing to believe that selfish interests enter into that plan, but it seems to me there is no nation which does not have selfish interests. The thing we will have to do is to come to an understanding of the fact that selfish interests are better served when we have international cooperation. I believe that for the present the general veto on questions which deal with the actual use of force within a country by order of the Security Council is entirely correct.

The United Nations is built on the assumption of unity among the five great powers in their efforts for cooperation throughout the world. That unity never can exist, however, if our nation, Great Britain and Russia do not stop discussing their differences. Unity is created by trying to find points of agreement – by developing better understanding among the individuals representing each group, so that they may interpret better to their various countries the points of view which must be arbitrated in order to find ways of working together.

At no time will everyone feel that he has won all he desires, but it is just this give-and-take which has to be developed within the United Nations. Otherwise, we will go back to the isolation of individual nations and in the world, as it is today, that seems to mean a miserable life for the people of every nation.

Mr. Molotov is quite correct when he said: “Atomic bombs used by one side may be opposed by atomic bombs and something else from the other side.” I suppose that the day will come when all nations will know the secret of making the atomic bomb and since all nations, including Russia, Great Britain and ourselves, are now busy developing other weapons of war, they also will be available.

The objective of the United Nations is to create an atmosphere in which peace can grow in the world. The Assembly is of value because the weight of public opinion can be brought to bear through the spokesmen of the various delegations. We should pay attention to that public opinion and profit by it and not resent it. Compromises are the only solution that I know of when opposing views have to be harmonized sufficiently to create a working basis among individuals or nations.

262

November 1, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – There was a full gathering in the United Nations plenary session yesterday afternoon to hear our senior delegate, Senator Warren R. Austin, speak. On Tuesday, the Russian Foreign Minister, V. M. Molotov, had impugned our motives in our plan for atomic control and development and attacked Bernard Baruch personally, and, therefore, I felt that his speech lost much of its value. People are rarely convinced by exaggerated and violent statement. So I was particularly pleased at the restraint shown by Senator Austin.

He spoke at once of the things that had been said by Mr. Molotov, but he stressed the fact that we were seeking unity and that recriminations accomplished little. From there on, there was no more notice taken of the attacks made on Tuesday. Senator Austin went in very fully to the whole veto question and I should think that his comprehension on that particular point would be a work of reference from now on.

We did not get away from the session until nearly eight o’clock, and I went directly to Wadleigh High School to speak under the auspices of the Southwest Harlem Neighborhood Council, Inc.

This section of the city is planning to rebuild its whole community, not only in a physical way but also from a spiritual and educational standpoint. The Council wants to encourage people of the community to do things for themselves, and I think their plans might turn out to be a very useful program to start in many other parts of the city. No community can really be better than the people who live in it.

One of my neighbors in Greenwich Village area is the New School for Social Research, which has just elected Charles Abrams and Dr. Channing H. Tobias to the Board of Trustees.

Mr. Abrams, who is a consultant of the Public Housing Authority, inaugurated at the New School for Social Research in 1939 the first coordinated educational housing program in the country. It is a program designed to tell the public about the needs and problems in housing and to train for professional service those wishing to work with city, state and Federal housing authorities.

Dr. Tobias is a trustee of the Phelps Stokes Fund and is widely known for his work in inter-racial cooperation. For 23 years he has been senior secretary of the Negro department of the YMCA, and serves on the boards of many organizations. He has recently returned from a trip to Africa where he visited Liberia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, Nigeria and Belgian Congo.

These two men should make a valuable contribution to the work of the New School.

I have just received a beautiful box of Christmas cards from the American Artists Group, which has arranged a Christmas-card publication of the famous pictures in the Encyclopaedia Britannica collection of contemporary American paintings. The members of this group have been making these cards for the past 12 years and their efforts not only make really artistic gifts but go far in spreading the knowledge of American art throughout the country.

Rockwell Kent, who is one of the pioneers in the group, says: “The American Artists Group has brought the artists and the people together on the happiest and friendliest occasion of the year, at Christmas time. It has made the names and works of literally hundreds of American painters familiar to millions of Americans. It is a heartening experience for an artist to know he is functioning for a large audience which enjoys his work.”

263

November 2, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – I have written many times in this column of the need for research in the field of cerebral palsy, and the need for further study of the heart diseases from which so many children suffer after attacks of rheumatic fever. One of the great difficulties encountered by children who suffer from cerebral palsy is the lack of public care available on a low-cost basis. In addition, there has been very little assistance available at high or low cost, for continuing education for young people who may be able to learn to do some kind of work – and even hold an outside job if they have the proper facilities and can return to congenial environment.

Just the other day, I received a story about a new undertaking in this field, which interested me greatly. A group of businessmen has just been granted a charter by the New York State Division of Corporations to run on a nonprofit basis a club for spastic young men. Pemberton House will be its name, and it is not a charity. It is nonprofit, but each member will pay his share of the cost. These costs, because of privacy and homelike atmosphere and because of the special care required, will not be low, but it is possible that they may be considerably lower than adult spastics now pay in private institutions and for special care and attendance at home.

Of course, to establish this house will require a fairly good-sized membership. But with a large membership, the cost can be kept reasonably low and it is for that reason that I make special note of it. The people behind this movement are desirous to make it known to the group of young men for whom it will be a great boon.

Even this undertaking, however, does not meet the needs of those in the low-income brackets. That is why it is essential that the government take cognizance of the problem of these youngsters who face, from their earliest days, a crippled existence.

There are women as well as men to think of, and one of the saddest things to think about is that as spastics grow older they are left with very little companionship and care. This is even more heartbreakingly true where the really poor are concerned.

There are more victims of cerebral palsy and the various forms of heart disease than there are those afflicted with infantile paralysis. The public however, has been less aware of the toll that these diseases take. I hope that someday not too far off research in all three fields will lead to cures and, perhaps, prevention.

At the present time, all we can do for those who are badly afflicted with polio is to give them the best care and best training possible. That holds good of spastic people as well. Care that improves their general health and training that makes them able to enjoy many things and to develop certain gifts so they need not feel a useless burden on the world are as important to spastics as to the victims of infantile paralysis.

I was interested to read a little item the other day stating that a number of paralyzed servicemen in the veteran’s hospitals are getting much pleasure out of developing what abilities they may have for expression in writing. It is evident that what all crippled people need is a sense of accomplishment that spurs them on to further effort.

264

November 4, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – An amusing little episode occurred in the session of Committee Three at Lake Success on Saturday. I had made a speech urging that we accept the proposals passed in the Economic and Social Council as regards taking over the control of narcotics from the League of Nations and getting the agreement signed by as many nations as possible during this session. This is important to insure that there will be no break in the control of narcotic drugs.

After long discussion, the Economic and Social Council decided that since the present Spanish government is not a member of the United Nations, they should not be allowed to sign this convention. In addition, it had been suggested that, for purposes of drafting, the resolution should be submitted to the Judicial Committee. But Draft B proposal was the one before us and the one which I moved to pass, and it excluded participation by Spain.

The Argentine delegate spoke at length on not allowing political differences to interfere with the cooperation by all nations on matters for the benefit of mankind. Quite evidently he was in favor of allowing the Spanish government to sign, but he ended his speech by saying that he backed my motion heartily. This proved to me how valuable the State Department advisers are – for if I had failed to read a resolution, as my colleague may have done, my advisers would have seen to it that the resolution, when mentioned, was before me!

I have on previous occasions mentioned the services rendered to the delegates by the State Department advisers. But I should like to emphasize again how valuable it is to all of us. We cannot continuously give careful scrutiny to every paper which is sent us, and we cannot possibly keep in mind all the time the intricacies of every move made by every one of the 50 other members on our committees.

The various governments apparently consider the work before Committee Three of great importance, judging by the men and women on every delegation who are keeping in touch with the work. Many of the most important delegates come in from time to time and sit in when different points come up for discussion. I am very happy to see this, for I realize that it will mean more careful consideration and better decisions on the points before us.

On the advice of the chairman, two subjects were discussed – the convention on narcotics, and the resolution presented by Belgium and accepted by the Economic and Social Council. The discussion was not completed, so we did not reach the third subject, which will be the International Refugee Commission. The chairman suggested that three subcommittees be appointed to which any subject which seemed to require lengthy discussion could be referred and then brought back for final consideration by the whole committee. This ought to expedite our work, provided no delegation, having said its say in the subcommittee, feels that it has to repeat all the arguments when the report is brought back to the whole committee.

265

November 5, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – I took the train to Hyde Park yesterday because I was so afraid our Committee session at Lake Success would not be ended in time for me to get to Poughkeepsie to do a broadcast which I had agreed to do, so I decided to stay in town Saturday night and broadcast at 10:45 from here. It was the final speech that I will have to make in this campaign. I was glad to be able to do it for the Hon. Herbert H. Lehman, since he was one of my husband’s friends and associates.

On reaching Hyde Park, I had a walk in the woods with Fala. It is still lovely and the air is soft, for there has been no frost as yet. All the leaves are off the trees, however, and one can see far into the woods where in summer it all seemed dark and mysterious. There are banks and banks this year covered with ground pine which I have marked in my mind’s eye, so if the snow comes to cover it up, I will know where to dig when I am looking for Christmas decorations!

I did not think the representatives of the United Nations on their pilgrimage to my late husband’s grave would reach the International Business Machines employees’ clubhouse in Poughkeepsie so promptly, but when I reached there at 12:15 they were all seated at table. The board of governors of the club were our hosts for luncheon, and Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Watson came up from New York City to greet us.

Short speeches of welcome and thanks were made and, after we had eaten, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., drove me up ahead of the cavalcade so I could be on the steps of the big house at Hyde Park to say a few words of welcome. Paul-Henri Spaak, President of the General Assembly, responded, and then together we went out and he placed a wreath on my husband’s grave. I then took him back to the house while other wreaths were laid by various delegations.

I greeted everyone in the house and then went back to see the other wreaths and over to the library before coming home to my cottage.

I hope the representatives of the various nations who were there, felt rewarded for the long day. Mr. Spaak said it was a pilgrimage which they were all glad to take. I kept hoping that the spirit of friendship which my husband always extended to all people who came to his home would be felt by them, one and all, and that the visit would serve to augment the sense of kindness and international solidarity which can exist even when points of view are different and people have to disagree.

During the war, the one main thing that kept us all together was the need to win the war, but I think my husband’s spirit of friendliness toward everyone whom he met, together with his determination to go at least halfway in making the effort to create a friendly atmosphere, were a help in all our international situations.

I do not always find that I agree with my colleagues from other countries on the United Nations, but I never have any feeling of personal antagonism. I think if that sense of friendliness can be preserved among us, we will gradually come to solving all our international problems, no matter how complicated they are.

266

November 6, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I have been asked to remind you that at the Hotel St. George in Brooklyn on Wednesday evening, November 6, the Hospitalized Servicemen’s Committee is having a dinner-dance. Again the net proceeds will be devoted to the purchase of potted plants and Christmas trees for the hospitalized servicemen not only in this area but in many other places. The Combined Florists Association of Greater New York takes a great interest in this particular charity, it being one of the ways in which it can contribute substantially to the happiness of such men and women in the service who have not yet sufficiently regained their health to get home for Christmas.

I also want to tell you a little about the “World Festivals for Friendship.” This celebration will take place here in New York City on the evening of Nov. 27. It is a children’s festival, and the children are going to play a most important part in this evening. They are making preparations so that many children overseas will find some Christmas gifts awaiting them on Christmas morning. For many of these children in war-devastated lands Christmas will not be like the festive time of former years, for their homes may be gone and their food may be scant, but these presents coming from friendly children overseas will bring them hope that someday again they may enjoy an old-fashioned Christmas, celebrated in their own traditional ways.

While I am telling you about this children’s “World Festivals of Friendship,” I should also like to mention the work being done by the American Junior Red Cross in the 1945-1946 period.

These youngsters are learning to be members of a noteworthy organization, and both at home and abroad they do an amazing amount of good. In the schools of New York, for instance, a remarkable international and national program of service is carried on. Last year, for instance, the Junior Red Cross collected $27,917.37 for the National Children’s Fund. More than 8,500 gift boxes were made up, and 1,033 soft toys and 900 cakes of soap were collected.

Clothes were remodeled for children in war-ravaged countries, and innumerable children began to correspond with other children in foreign countries. This last-named activity often has far-reaching results, and may lead later to an interchange of visits. Window transparencies have been made for permanent display at national headquarters.

In the Veterans’ Hospitals of this area alone, the American Junior Red Cross provided a Christmas tree, 850 Christmas gifts, 17,984 candy cups, 4,910 tray mats and many other things that must have gone into celebrations for various gala occasions.

The four objectives of the Junior Red Cross seem to me well met by their program. Their purposes in reaching schoolchildren with the program are varied:

(1) practice citizenship responsibility, locally, nationally, and internationally; (2) render service to the hospitalized, the unfortunate, the suffering, thereby creating a sense of responsibility for the welfare of others; (3) create an interdependent world, a belief in the dignity of man, and an appreciation for the cultural contributions of all peoples; (4) develop future leaders and workers for social service everywhere.

This is a big program, but the American Junior Red Cross carries it through successfully.

267

November 7, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – We came down from Hyde Park Sunday evening, and Monday morning at 9 o’clock I was back in the Hotel Pennsylvania at a delegates’ meeting. The discussion was quite animated. I often wonder whether all the other delegations have as many different shades of opinion and as many different points of view as we have! The fact that our State Department gives us a great deal of help and many valuable background papers sometimes gives us a chance to find fault with them.

This happens primarily when the State Department assumes that we have more knowledge on some particular item than we have, which results in our not understanding some of the material that has been prepared. However, out of it all, we get much information, good discussion, and, I think, eventually a good understanding among the delegates of what they, as a whole, think the President and the Secretary of State want to have expressed as being the position of the United States.

After the delegates’ meeting came a long meeting with my advisers, so I had only a brief period of freedom before starting for the afternoon meeting of Committee #3 out at Lake Success. I managed, however, to give Fala a short walk, which is a thing I rarely find time to do these days.

I still have to learn how to express myself clearly enough so that my colleagues do not attribute to me positions that I have really not taken.

Monday afternoon we had quite a long argument on procedure and I made the suggestion that we be asked whether we wanted a general debate or the immediate taking up of the charter of the International Refugee Organization. In the latter case, the debate would take place on each point as it came up in the charter. If the committee voted for a general debate, we should then decide whether we wished the general debate limited and how that was to be done.

I really expressed no preference at all, but my Brazilian colleague immediately attributed to me a desire for as full a debate as possible! In reality, of course, I wanted the committee to have a general debate if that was the majority desire. But I was trying to bring out at the same time that with 51 members on our Committee, and with every speech having to be translated once and sometimes twice, a general debate could last a very long time. Yet, we are supposed to wind up the Assembly before the middle of December! At least, that is the hope I have heard expressed on a number of occasions.

It is true, of course, that we are acting on the reports sent us by the Economic and Social Council and on that body only 18 nations are represented. Therefore, on our full committee there are 33 nations that have not before had an opportunity to say how they feel, not only about the findings of the Economic and Social Council but about the problems as a whole. They may well differ with the fundamental premises that are being advanced by the Economic and Social Council!

The only way to save time is for all of us who have been heard in the council to use words sparingly, and show consideration for the rights and privileges of the others.

This is the basis of service in a democratic form of government, and I hope that the defeated Democratic candidates, who made the run with a real desire to be of service, will still keep this desire and apply it in service to their local communities.

268

November 8, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – Election Days come and Election Days go. In the course of my existence I have seen the Democratic Party lose and win a number of times. A defeat really is of little importance. The only thing that matters is what you do with your defeat. If you analyze it and learn from it, I think defeat very often can be as valuable for the future as victory.

It all depends upon one’s ability to learn! If one profits by defeat and gains more wisdom for the next turn of the political wheel, it will be a valuable experience. If one becomes discouraged to the point of feeling that the period out of office cannot be usefully employed, then it can be a harmful experience.

From my own point of view, being out of office has always been a pleasant situation. Having no responsibility, while being able to sit on the side lines and observe with a critical eye, is one of the most delightful positions I know.

Of course, my time for active participation in politics is long gone by. I could not again go barnstorming through the state organizing the women, as Mrs. Daniel O’Day, Mrs. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Miss Cook, Miss Dickerman and I used to do, after Miss Harriet May Mills had pointed the way. Those, of course, were the days when women’s active part in politics was at stake, and it was great fun seeing them learn to participate and seeing the gentlemen learn to consider them as individuals and as voters.

The men haven’t learned quite yet how important the women are, but perhaps this election will serve to point up the fact that I have preached for so many years. Women must be enthusiastic for a candidate, and their interests cannot be ignored. Even children should not be ignored. They actually figure in many a candidate’s popularity!

History is repeating itself in so many ways, at least so far as this country is concerned, and I only hope that we will be constantly on our guard.

The boom-and-bust Republican period of the 1920s and 1930s is not something that any of us wish to see recur.

Some of the election results are really pleasant to contemplate. For one, Mrs. Helen Gahagen Douglas, of California retained her seat in Congress. She never shirked saying what she believed in, and she certainly ran on her record. She made very few campaign speeches, spending much of her time attending sessions of the United Nations here in New York. She put the U.N. and world peace above her own election.

Her conduct of her campaign proves, I think, that people like honesty and convictions in their candidates, and that they recognize integrity.

Nevertheless, many another candidate who had many of these same qualities went down to defeat, and I deeply regret their loss. But such is the fortune of political life!

At one time or another, defeat comes to all who are willing to take part in political life. To be truly active in politics, one must enjoy every part of the political game. Then when defeat comes, there must be sufficient interest in outside things in order to acclimate oneself with added zest to a different kind of occupation. Real activity in politics takes one completely away from personal concerns.

This is the basis of service in a democratic form of government, and I hope that the defeated Democratic candidates, who made the run with a real desire to be of service, will still keep this desire and apply it in service to their local communities.

269

November 9, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – The meeting of the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, or Committee #3, at Lake Success on Wednesday afternoon dragged itself out rather lengthily. I was deeply interested in watching Mr. Vishinsky make his speech on the subject of the International Refugee Organization. Even though I could not understand what he was saying, he spoke at times with so much feeling that one chafed at not knowing the language so as to get the full impact of his talk. The French and English translations that followed were, of course, necessary, even though they were repetitious to those that know both languages.

When I realized that three hours and a half had gone by I took to calculating the minutes that would be needed if each of the 50 remaining members had to take as much time to express his views. It got into higher mathematics, and I am not very good at figures. So I determined then and there to try to condense as much as possible my own thoughts on this subject.

A little before eight-thirty in the evening I was called for and taken to a meeting at the Hotel Pierre at which the Woodlea Foundation had invited me to speak. A very small group, it has carried on an interesting experiment in intercultural relationships. One of its enterprises is a camp for children under eight years old. The camp’s staff is interracial, and the children, who belong to many races and religions, brought their parents into contact with others whom they might never otherwise have met.

The group has been so highly successful that the Foundation now hopes the idea will spread to many other cities, and even into other countries.

The Foundation hopes to raise money for scholarships and to publish literature that will spread the knowledge of their experiment and its results. Little by little these experiments in interracial understanding are multiplying, and whenever they are successful I think they advance the cause of peace in the world.

It is only as we accept our differences, and become unconscious of them, that a real knowledge and appreciation of each other will be possible throughout the world.

Our United Nations meetings are so very irregular that it is hard to know at any time when I am going to be free or where I can be at a given time. So from now on, I am going to make no outside engagements and shall keep only those that were made before the United Nations General Assembly began. I simply cannot spend my life saying “yes” in the morning and “no” in the afternoon!

I have just had a letter from the American Relief for Holland, Inc., which may interest some of my readers. The Mayor of a small town named Schoondijke wrote me that his name was van Roosevelt and told me some of the things they need. Various members of our family were interested enough to raise a small fund, and a consignment of useful articles has just gone off to this small town.

In telling me what has been sent to Holland the director wonders if there are not other communities and individuals who would like to adopt Dutch churches, or communities, or institutions of any kind, or families, and suggests that direct correspondence might lead to many helpful results. He wishes especially to establish contacts for letter writing between 10,000 American boys and girls and the same number of Dutch, between the ages of 15 and 25.

The last sentence in his letter is one we, of Dutch descent, should take to heart. He says: “The Dutch are lonely and any word from American friends gives them a tremendous lift.”

270

November 11, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – Someone said to me the other day that the atmosphere in this country was changing. From having been a non-militaristic nation where the majority of the people wanted only a small army and navy, we were almost imperceptibly moving toward a situation where the wishes of the War and Navy departments carried more weight than did the State Department. That is more or less natural at the end of a war – particularly a war like the one we have just been through, where our men are still scattered throughout the world and where peace has been so long in the making.

Nevertheless, I believe the time is approaching when we had best take thought about where we are drifting. I am sure the vast majority of our people are hoping that we will wholeheartedly support the development of a police force within the United Nations, for we know the United Nations must, for a time at least, wield the “big stick” when necessary. In the back of our minds, however, there is also the hope that support of a joint force will fall less heavily on any one nation and that it will leave us a larger margin of our national income to spend on measures serving the daily well-being of the people.

Whenever our fleet is particularly strong, we have a tremendous urge to send it around the world, or to some faraway point. The Mediterranean has been particularly attractive of late, and I must say it did not fill me with great joy to have the planes from the carrier Franklin D. Roosevelt writing the ship’s initials in the sky over Greece at a time when many people wondered just what was going to happen in that country.

Our ships are just paying nice, friendly visits, and it surprises us when anyone thinks that some ulterior motives might lie behind these visits. This is another example of a trait no other nation seems to possess in quite the same degree we do – namely, a feeling of almost childish injury and resentment unless the world as a whole recognizes how innocent we are of anything but the most generous and harmless intentions.

It is true that we do not have a Red Army anywhere in the world, but we do make a pretty good showing with our navy and our air force and – tucked away, out of sight of the rest of the world – a few little atomic bombs. On the whole, our armed services have been doing pretty well in the way of keeping us defended, but I hope our State Department will remember that it is really the department for achieving a peace. We must keep our minds focused on the fact that we are not attempting on a unilateral basis to defend ourselves against the world, but that we intend to develop collective force within the United Nations in order that we may gradually cut down on some of the weapons we now have and outlaw others.

I doubt if even a peace-loving nation like ours can expect the branches of government which are dedicated to the development of efficient defense to change from their original purpose. There is much for the women to do in every home throughout the country, therefore, since they are primarily the ones who are going to worry about the attitude and the climate we will create in the world if we allow our armed services to exercise greater influence than any other branch of the government.

271

November 12, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – I have been watching with interest some of the Republican pronouncements that have come as a result of their victory last Tuesday.

First and foremost came an announcement from Senator Taft on economy. The Federal budget will be cut, he says, and while he was not as optimistic about an income tax cut as Rep. Harold Knutson, still cautiously he admitted that there might be a cut. One gathers that these economies in federal government are going to be effected through curtailing the President’s war powers and doing away with wartime agencies. Of course, they are not going to affect in any way any of the services rendered by government that are of benefit to the people.

Senator Taft himself is committed to more and better housing, but, apart from that, very few things that affect the lives of the people have received his unqualified support. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how these economies are made.

Senator Vandenberg has given assurance to the foreign nations, some of whom were a little troubled, that there will be no change in our bipartisan foreign policy as a result of the change in the Congressional party in power. That must have calmed some fears! In another item I saw that Nelson Rockefeller had assured the South American countries that the program of goodwill now being carried on would most certainly be continued under Republican administration.

A third thing that several Republicans have announced in the press is their determination to see that labor is “brought into line.” They have announced that there will be amendments made to the Wagner Act. In fact, it has been said that they have bills ready for introduction that would forbid strikes and the closed shop.

Governor Dewey, in his New York State campaign, wept over the terrible conditions that he claims he had inherited in our state institutions for the insane and which he was now, at the end of four years in office, about to begin to improve.

We will wish him well in that attempt, but we also wonder what he expects to do with some of the other institutions in the state that are not really accomplishing the best possible results. I happen to believe that any institutions that deal with children and young people are of paramount importance. When a mature man goes to jail for a crime, there is very little you can do except to punish him. When a youngster starts downhill, however, there is a great deal that you can do to change his development and put his feet into better paths.

For us in New York State, it will be very interesting to watch the accomplishments of the Republican party in their second term of office.

The record of Senator-elect Irving M. Ives, particularly where international questions are involved, will be carefully scrutinized. He knows something of labor questions but has still to be tested about foreign affairs.

Curiously enough, the Democratic party, which has been so split as a majority party, will in all probability be much more unified in the minority. Even though it is announced that the Republicans are still counting on a coalition with some of the most reactionary Southern Democrats, the few progressive Democrats are going to be working together in very much closer harmony than they have been in the past few years.

272

November 13, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I did not write about Armistice Day yesterday because I had a curious feeling that I had to stop and think through what this day really should mean to all of us. When the armistice came at the end of the first World War, I was still youngish and I remember the wild elation at the thought that all of the soldiers would soon be home, and above all, I remember the determination of the younger people that the war just won should really be “a war to end war.”

Year by year since then, we have observed Armistice Day, but its real meaning gradually faded away. Some of the young people used it as a day for demonstration against war, but these youngsters were sometimes used by extremist groups. Their natural desire for peace forced them into exaggerated stands which often brought them into disrepute with people who felt they should have had older heads on young shoulders!

The fact remains, however, that we became so apathetic and so indifferent to what was happening in the world, that World War II marched steadily toward us and we did nothing to prevent it. When some of our statesmen saw that it was inevitable, they bent every effort to make the absolutely necessary preparations for defense, but even then, there was no recognition in the country of what World War II would mean.

Now we have come to the end of World War II. Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7th, the day of the sneak Japanese attack which brought us to our lowest ebb in our Pacific defenses, has become an easier date to remember than V-J Day, the date of the final collapse of Japan. Supposedly, when we celebrate Armistice Day now, we think of both these wars and of the great loss of young lives, not only in this country but in many others. We remember that we have again reached an armistice but that we still have no peace. Even among our youth, there is none of the assurance that was prevalent after the first World War that we are on our way to permanent peace.

In the United Nations, we have set up the machinery for creating a climate in the world in which peace can grow. However, just as I have sensed for many years that Armistice Day did not have the meaning for the mass of our people that it should have if we were going to preserve peace, so I feel now that this is not yet a day on which we dedicate ourselves to living and working along the lines which will make peace possible throughout the world.

Some people had a holiday on Monday, the 11th of November. But how many people actually stopped for two minutes at 11 a.m. and thought of what they should do to prevent future wars? As a country, our unwillingness to pay the price for peace comes up in one thing after another, day by day. Let’s stop and add up the price of peace!

273

November 14, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – How do we pay for peace? One of the first things to do is to overcome our own prejudices and intolerances. That is a high price, for these prejudices are among our pet indulgences! We are still thinking largely along the lines of isolationism and are shirking our responsibility as a leader nation.

A picture of the possible feeling in Congress on the refugee question was painted for me the other day by a responsible man.

He said: “You think we ought to welcome, within our present immigration quota system, the full numbers allowed over the year, not insisting that they should come month by month, according to the old regulation, but using up unused quotas at any time that people are available to come. I tell you that asking for such a change would only lead to the complete cutting-off of all immigration to this country.

“The labor groups, the veterans’ groups, many of the agricultural groups, and the representatives of states in which there are only a few foreign-born, want no responsibility for displaced people and want no competition. They remember the depression, when jobs were scarce. They want no more people to make jobs any scarcer, and they will bring pressure on Congress to keep out all so-called displaced persons from Europe or any other part of the world.”

If we feel that way, the same fears must assail people in many other countries where displaced persons might find a chance to start life anew. Yet we are willing to pay the price to keep these refugees in camps in Europe where they have no future and are constantly deteriorating as human beings, creating a menace to the economy of the whole area in which they are. Their children are growing up in unhealthy surroundings. And the mere fact of their presence is creating a problem which may change the political situation of almost any country overnight.

If peace depends upon us – and many feel it must – then we will achieve it only by giving leadership. We will achieve it only by making sacrifices. We cannot tell other people what to do. We must show them by our example what we think is right, and that will lead them to recognize their own responsibilities.

Certainly the recent election showed that there is no sympathy in this country with the American Communists and that we wish democratic policies to govern our country. However, that does not absolve us from making every effort to find a way to get on with the Russian Communists. Under our very theory of democracy, we must grant them the right to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

In the final analysis, it is only by making our economic system work and making our form of government meet the needs of the people better than any other economic system or any other form of government, that we show its strength and desirability to other nations. You may say that the Russians will never know of our achievements, since their information services are all government-controlled, but sooner or later human beings communicate with each other. If we fail, the Russians will know it, and if we succeed, they will know it. By our very success, we will draw them toward better understanding of our objectives, and we will build one more bridge over which to march to the peace for which we strive.

274

November 15, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – Fiorello H. La Guardia, director of UNRRA, made an eloquent appeal to the United Nations the other day for continuing to distribute food in Europe through some form of international agreement after UNRRA expires. The next day, our State Department announced that, while we would consult with other nations, we would distribute relief pretty much on our own, though we might cooperate fairly closely with Great Britain and Canada, the two nations which with us have borne the brunt of the expense so far.

This seems a fairly natural decision, in view of the fact that there have been accusations that supplies given for relief have often been used for political purposes. It seems to me quite understandable that we should want to say how our money shall be spent. But, as in the case of so many questions, there are arguments on both sides of this one.

One of our great desires at present is to build up the strength of the United Nations. And the advantage of doing things on an international basis, even when only a few nations foot the bills, is that a greater number participate in the policy and that knowledge of one another is gained through working together.

In this, as in many other things, we are trying not only to fill the needs of the present, but to look into the future and be prepared to meet situations which have not yet arisen but which may arise. It is this ability to look ahead, and to calculate the importance of events in the light of tomorrow as well as of today, which is vitally important.

I hear on all sides that individual members of Congress feel that their constituents are not interested in continuing to help people so far away from home, and I have had a number of letters which bear this out. They say “Charity begins at home.” They say that, as long as there is one child underfed and one family with an inadequate standard of living within this country, we should be more concerned about that than about starvation or hardships greater than our own which exist in other countries.

It is hard to prove that conditions in other countries will affect us, but it’s nevertheless true. We are truly now all in “one world.” And I cannot help feeling that there are people in our country who will not be content to forget the suffering in other lands, even though they work to decrease any suffering in this country.

There is one way, apparently, to reach everyone’s heart. The fate of children seems to touch us all. The other night, I attended a dinner of the United States Committee for the Care of European Children, which launched its campaign to raise $800,000 to bring war orphans over to this country. Three hundred have already come and, from the offers of homes which have poured into the committee’s headquarters, it is evident that the supply of children will never remotely meet the demand. It was stated at the dinner that about 100 homes will probably be offered for every child brought here. So the warm heart of America is still open to children who have suffered.

275

November 16, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – Sometimes, these days, it seems as though weeks go by without my getting to see a play or read a book. All I have had time to do is to go to meetings of the United Nations and read long official documents! My reading for pleasure has been done in snatches.

Up at Hyde Park one weekend, I read halfway through Sumner Welles’ book, “Where Are We Heading?” I found it most interesting and very informative, a real contribution from a man who was on the inside of our foreign affairs and was a very able and valuable public servant. However, one cannot read that book without having a little leisure, so I am still only halfway through.

Then I read part of that delightful volume, Theodore Roosevelt’s “Letters to Kermit From Theodore Roosevelt 1902 to 1978.” The letters to his children which were published some years ago were charming and had illustrations such as are reproduced on the inside covers of this new book. Theodore Roosevelt had a gift for friendship with his children, and he and Kermit had a special tie which, as the years went by, made their trips together such memorable experiences.

The letters, of course, bring back to a member of the family like myself little incidents and old ties which have almost been forgotten. For instance, at the end of one letter, I found: “David Gray was down here this week and was as nice as possible. I always find something companionable in a man who cares both for the outside of a horse and the inside of a book.” David Gray is married to my aunt, and is now our Minister to Ireland, where he still gets pleasure from “the outside of a horse and the inside of a book.”

Lastly, I spent a little while the other evening skimming through Vice-Admiral Ross T. McIntire’s “White House Physician.” To me, this is a very valuable book. It should bury forever some of the cruelly malicious rumors which were circulated about my husband’s health during his lifetime. He knew these rumors were political, but nevertheless, it is good at last to see the truth printed.

Some of the things that Admiral McIntire tells are good to read now – for instance, the story of my husband’s visit to a military hospital, when he was wheeled down along the row of beds where men stricken in the war had to make the same fight he had made. Such moments must have given him great satisfaction and in some way compensated for the suffering which he himself went through. To be able, by his mere presence, to give those men a lift must have been a joy.

Last night, I actually saw a play, the second I have seen this autumn. This time it was John Golden’s production “Made in Heaven,” a very light comedy. Even though he tells me the critics have been none too kind, we who were part of the audience can say with truth that we had an amusing evening. The lines are good, Donald Cook is excellent in the leading role, and the cast as a whole is good. What more could one ask for when in search of relaxation?

276

November 18, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – We spent another session of Committee No. 3, last Friday, listening to the representatives of country after country make speeches in favor of the resolution proposed by Mrs. Begtrup of Denmark. The resolution asked that the General Assembly request members of the United Nations to grant political rights to women where they have not already done so.

This is in the Charter, of course, and the committee will unanimously pass the resolution, which it has been ready to do from the time of its introduction. Mrs. Pandit of India said she was not in favor of the resolution solely because she hoped the time would come when we could talk about human beings and not about men and women. I am quite sure, however, that India will vote to reaffirm what is already in the Charter.

Much to my amusement, Mrs. Pandit in her speech said that I felt women were not “ready for full political rights.” I could not help wondering where she acquired this strange information, and I discovered afterward that it was from the ladies who back the Equal Rights amendment in this country. I was amused since these ladies know quite well that I am not opposed to equal political rights for women.

Our differences have always been on the question of whether in the U.S. we should pass a Constitutional amendment stating broadly that women shall be on an equal basis with men. This would necessitate ratification by two-thirds of the states, and would wipe out any protective legislation now in force for women. Since we would still have to repeal laws in the states which are unfair to women, it has always seemed to me less trouble to repeal these laws now by working in each state, and not run the risk of wiping out those laws for the protection of industrial women which in some cases are still very useful. The day will come when industrial women will not need protection any more than do professional women, but I do not think that moment has actually arrived. I have never suggested that we should wait to grant political rights to women throughout the world until any particular group is ready for them. Some groups may not always use them well. We do not always use them well in the U.S. I know of no better way, however, to educate women to their responsibilities as citizens than to give them civil and political rights on an equal basis with men.

My real feeling about this resolution is that its proponents were misguided in not letting it follow the regular and orderly procedure of reference to the Economic and Social Council, from which it would have been referred to the Commission on the Status of Women. This commission could then have made concrete suggestions as to how the council might contact the individual nations which have not yet found a way to give their women political rights and urge that initial steps be taken in each particular case. This is the only practical way in which results can be obtained.

I appreciate fully the value of creating public opinion, and I hope the General Assembly resolution will strengthen whatever efforts are made later on by the Economic and Social Council to implement this first step toward raising the status of women throughout the world. I shall be surprised, however, if any concrete results are attained in less than a year, though it is quite evident from the speeches which have been made that there must be a desire to convince the ladies at home of the interest of their delegates in their welfare. Eleven of these speeches still remain on our next calendar.

277

November 19, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – For several days now, the chief headlines in the papers have been held by John L. Lewis and his threats against the Government. Curiously enough, what he says rarely stresses the one point which I think is important – namely, that the conditions under which the miners today are working may need to be changed. He insists that there must be a strike, but one has the feeling that it is not because every effort to better the miners’ condition has failed, but because Mr. Lewis wishes to show his power.

There was a time, a long while ago, when I thought Mr. Lewis one of the best labor leaders in the country. I thought he cared about the men in the mines. I know that the reason he has kept his hold over them is because they thought he cared. They knew that, at the time when they needed help, he was the only person who got them even the slightest consideration. I remember what conditions for the miners were at their worst. I remember what they were in the early ‘30s, in the black days of the depression. I have always had respect for the work they do and a desire to see all possible improvements made in their working and living conditions.

The miners still trust Mr. Lewis, and the long-distant past would justify that trust. But a nearer view makes one begin to wonder. For a long time now, it has seemed that John L. Lewis and those immediately around him feel that they rule an empire. The people who make up that empire seem to be there mainly to serve a lust for power which seems practically insatiable. No one could read Mr. Lewis’ last letter without being struck by its arrogance.

A strike in the coal mines will mean the stopping of hundreds of industries – industries which are necessary to the rebuilding of the economy in our own country and in the world.

I cannot help wondering which of two things Mr. Lewis is trying to achieve. Number one – is he expecting recognition from the Republican Party if they should win in 1948? Has he entered into an understanding with the owners of the mines whereby, if he breaks the contract with the Government, he hopes to force the return of the mines to the owners and then to make a better contract with the owners? This would make him a great figure in labor. The Republican Party and the industrial leaders might feel that they had some one whom they could safely place in power, because he would be amenable to their interests in the long run, even though he might ask enough for labor to hold his power over them. That power the practical Republican leadership knows is essential.

The only other alternative, of course, is that he does not realize how much resentment a strike in an essential industry is going to cause on top of the other strikes which have only just been settled. It is just possible that what he is doing now may lead to a demand in our country for the nationalization of the coal industry as a basic utility which the people themselves must control.

I would be sympathetic with a plea for better conditions, but I cannot help believing that, at the moment, we have to subordinate ourselves to the paramount interest of getting our economy running full blast. How can the people of devastated countries hope to succeed in this if we don’t succeed?

278

November 20, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I noticed in last night’s paper that Mrs. Julius V. Talmadge, president-general of the Daughters of the American Revolution, is against President Truman’s proposal that the United States ease some of its immigration restrictions to permit the entry of some of the displaced persons from European refugee camps. As I understand it, the President has not asked for any increase in the quotas of immigration, but simply that we carry over from one month to another the unfilled quotas. If for any reason, such as difficulties of transportation or visas, certain people could not come during a given month, they might come the next month.

I had been told that women belonging to some of our patriotic organizations such as the DAR were opposed to this humanitarian easing of our immigration rules. One cannot help wondering, however, what makes these women, and other groups that think along the same lines, so fearful of holding out even so mild a helping hand as is suggested.

The years of high immigration in the past were usually prosperous, because at that time we were expanding. At present, we are again in need of labor. And the types of immigrants we could obtain would, in many cases, be of a very high order. We might count on their creating new opportunities for employment, rather than being content simply to hold jobs of their own.

I wonder how many of us would be here today if the founding fathers had been as nervous as we are about the oncoming hordes that threatened to starve them to death when they were not growing much more than they themselves could eat!

I can understand a little better the attitude of the veterans’ and the labor groups, because they are in direct competition. But one would expect that women would think of the effect that a shortsighted policy might have on future peace. Unless we show some willingness to absorb our quota of displaced people and refugees, why should other countries make any sacrifices?

When all the repatriation possible has been done in Europe, there will probably remain several hundred thousand people – Jews, Balts, Poles, Yugoslavs, Ukrainians and others – who, for reasons which to them seem valid, do not wish to return to their homes. If they stay where they are in Europe, they delay and impede the return to normal conditions, and they are not able to use their abilities to the best advantage.

We hope, of course, that all people who can possibly go back to their own countries will do so, because those countries need help in rebuilding. It may be hard at first, but it will be rewarding to contribute to the revival of one’s native land. But the Jews, for instance, cannot be asked to return to countries where their memories are tragic and bitter, and where, often, they are still not too welcome.

Some other people whose countries have changed their form of government may quite honestly prefer not to live under the new conditions, simply because they would not feel as free as they did before foreign domination wiped out the government that they originally supported. They are not necessarily Fascists, and we of all people should do what we can to help them to start life anew.

279

November 21, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – With many other New Yorkers, I grieve at the passing of former Mayor James J. Walker. He seemed a part of this great mixed city of ours, and if one met him at a meeting or at a dinner, one was always sure of a laugh. He had Irish wit and an Irish heart and, though I was only a casual acquaintance, I shall miss those occasional meetings. He had his faults as well as his virtues, but I know that there will be much deep and sincere grief at his death, and many of his friends will hope that someday they will see again the kindly smile and hear the ready word which always fitted the occasion.

Yesterday was a long day, starting at 9 o’clock with a meeting of the U.S. delegates to the U.N. Assembly. Then out to Lake Success where, from 11 o’clock on, we in Committee 3 discussed the charter of the new International Refugee Organization. We were in the committee room where simultaneous translation is done, so the work progressed rapidly. That translating system is certainly a time-saver and, because of my deafness, it is of great value to me since it amplifies the voice of the speaker.

I marvel at the way the translators actually try to put the same feeling and expression into their voices that the speaker has in his. If the speech sounds impassioned, the translation may sound just as fervid – and you are sometimes a little surprised to find that the weather or something equally harmless is the subject of this heated oratory! The Ukrainian delegate can make an impassioned speech at the slightest provocation, and now and then our colleague from Yugoslavia can do the same.

During the meeting, I reminded myself of my school days and took to pointing out grammatical errors in the amendments!

To my surprise, when I came back from lunch in the cafeteria, my husband’s cousin, Mrs. Warren Robbins, appeared from a seat in the rear of the room. Some people are a constant part of the audience and come in day after day. Others appear only occasionally, when subjects of special interest to them are being discussed.

At a little after 5:30, I went over to the General Assembly plenary session at Flushing to say a few words for our delegation on the narcotic-control convention. The resolution taking over the narcotic-control duties of the League of Nations was passed unanimously. It now remains only for the Secretary General to prepare the protocol for signatures, and then all the countries will be notified. Those delegations signing it will do so subject to the ratification of their congresses or parliaments, if that is their form of government.

Last evening I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra play at Carnegie Hall. We were an endless time getting uptown because a huge crowd had gathered for a film premiere and blocked the traffic in every direction for several blocks. As a result, we were too late for the first number. The second number, a new Concerto for Flute and Orchestra by Louis Gesensway, had not been played in New York City before. The audience seemed to appreciate it very much. This was my first concert in a long while and I enjoyed it, even though I had started my day so early that I found it hard to keep awake.

280

November 22, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – In a conversation among a group of delegates to the United Nations General Assembly, a rather interesting idea developed. One man said, “So many people come here with the idea primarily of advancing the interests of their own nation and their own people, and yet the value of the United Nations is in learning that our interests have to widen. We must discover what are the ties between the interests of our own nation and those of all the others around the world.”

He was right, of course, for only as we make these discoveries and see the pattern of mutual interests grow, can the real objectives of the United Nations be attained. There would be very little point in asking a country in South America, which was just beginning to develop many of its own resources, to help the war-devastated countries to return to a self-sustaining basis unless, by so doing, the people in the South American country would in the long run find that they had benefitted themselves.

There would be no real reason for supporting the World Health Organization unless that support was going to increase the health standards of all nations. And there would be no real reason for all nations to take part in UNESCO unless each one was going to benefit eventually from the experience of the others in all the fields covered by UNESCO.

The unity which we want to see develop in the United Nations can only be achieved if each member has a complete understanding of the reasons why we meet together and the advantages of working together in various fields.

I believe that there is an advantage in the near future in producing, through the United Nations, some tangible results which will touch the lives of the people in different parts of the world. If this is not done, the people are apt to ask, “What is all this talk about? Where does the United Nations really help us?”

There may come a day when, in the U.N. General Assembly, time will be set aside for the discussion of the interrelation of interests. Why is the education of a new group of people in Mexico important to the citizens of France, for instance? Perhaps each delegation, in receiving their information on certain subjects, might be given some suggestions by the secretariat as to the ties which bind their country to certain interests of other countries though, on the surface, there may seem to be little or no connection.

The United Nations is a young organization, but it can stimulate developments along economic, social and spiritual lines. The delegates who attend the different meetings, not only of the General Assembly, but also of the councils and commissions, might feel it part of their obligation, on their return home, to spread the knowledge not only of the decisions reached but of the discussions which pointed up the problems of various nations around the world.