Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1946)

121

May 21, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – I spent most of Saturday at the Rosenwald Fund meeting. But I left long enough to spend a half hour at the annual luncheon meeting of the Adult Student Council of the Board of Education of the City of New York. They had asked me to receive a posthumous award which they gave to my husband for the services he rendered to the cause of adult education.

I know he would have been pleased to see what a large group of students attended this meeting, for all of them had learned to be better citizens. My husband always felt that there never was any end to education and that everything one did could contribute something to one’s learning. I imagine that was why he was always so sympathetic with those who came to this country from other lands, or with those who, for some reason, had not had early opportunities for education and yet were not willing to let this be a permanent handicap.

Miss Thompson and I got away from New York City around a quarter to six, and, in a drizzling rain, drove up to Hyde Park. It was a gray, dreary day with little traffic on the road, but when we reached the cottage, a little black dog hurtled out of the door to greet us with as much enthusiasm as though it were early morning and the sun was shining brightly.

In spite of the cold weather, I notice that things are beginning to show in our vegetable garden. And my lilies-of-the-valley are coming up nicely. Another week and I think I’ll have some in bloom. In the meantime, some lovely yellow tulips are out and some white lilacs make the house fragrant.

Sunday afternoon I spoke in Poughkeepsie for the “I Am an American Day” celebration. I always like this day because I feel that every new voter should have a sense of real importance about his first vote.

That ballot and the way in which we use it symbolizes our freedom, and nothing should ever make us underestimate its value. I am glad, therefore, that in almost every community new voters, whether they have just come of age or have just been naturalized, are given particular attention on this day and that emphasis is placed upon their potential importance to the community.

Of course, one may be a bad citizen rather than a good one, but I can’t help believing that most of us want to be good citizens and that we will do all we can to fulfill our obligations once we clearly understand them. So let us continue to celebrate “I Am an American Day” and learn a little better each year how to develop into good citizens and be the great assets we should be to our nation.

122

May 22, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – In Washington tomorrow, May 22, there will be held a memorial service for Harry Hopkins. Those of his friends who are able to attend will be grateful for an opportunity to think of him and to talk about him to others who still keenly feel his death.

In the last years of my husband’s life, Harry Hopkins was probably his closest and most trusted co-worker. He went on missions that required tact and courage, and he met the great men of the world face to face. I cannot remember the time when he looked really strong and, as the years went by, he became more and more delicate. Yet he seemed to be able to rise above his bodily weakness and meet every great emergency. Perhaps it was this quality of indomitable spirit which first drew my husband and Harry Hopkins together.

They met and worked together in New York State while my husband was Governor and Mr. Hopkins had charge of the State unemployment relief program. They got on well then, and when Mr. Hopkins came to Washington to take over the much larger and more serious relief job that faced the nation, my husband felt he was dealing with someone he already knew and on whom he could count. It was not, however, until domestic issues began to be secondary and the war seemed to be growing daily closer to us, that the two men really began to work on the whole world picture together.

My husband recognized the weaknesses as well as the strength of the people with whom he worked, and I often heard him take Harry Hopkins to task because, in spite of repeated warnings, he would do the things which he enjoyed doing and then his health would suffer. However, my husband understood the impatience with bodily handicaps which made Mr. Hopkins such a poor patient.

To a man who was handicapped physically in the way my husband was, it was almost essential that he have a few people whom he could trust absolutely and whom he could use as messengers. He had to have the knowledge that his messages would be delivered accurately and that his ideas would be conveyed in the way he wished them conveyed. True, he expected everyone who worked for him to use their own initiative and their own judgment whenever the need arose, but when they were carrying a message, or getting a plan across, any initiative must bear on the ultimate accomplishment, and the personality of the individual must not in any way obscure the job that had to be done.

Harry Hopkins was in himself a very big person. I think it was because of this that he was willing to subordinate himself and to accept the fact that the objects for which he and my husband worked together were more important than any kudos which he might acquire for himself.

In some ways, the comforts and luxuries of this world were matters of complete insignificance to Mr. Hopkins, and yet there was another side to his character. There were times when he felt he wanted to enjoy them all. But always his tongue was in his cheek, and you felt that a little imp sat on his shoulder and said: “Go ahead and have a good time, but you know it has no real value.”

His was a life spent too fast, and yet it was well spent. Few people have left a greater record of accomplishment to spur their children and future generations of mankind to achievement.

123

May 23, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – I am sure that every citizen listened with as much interest as I did to Secretary of State Byrnes’ report to the nation about the Paris conference. It seemed to me a forthright, honest story and, in view of all the elements of the situation, it was less discouraging than I had expected.

I was particularly glad to have him say that we still intend to carry out the original agreements and keep Germany from being able to rearm. Some of us have realized that under the surface, ever since those agreements were made, there have been groups of people in both Great Britain and the United States who have not looked upon them with favor.

For one thing, certain people have thought that, when all was said and done, we had beaten Germany twice, and perhaps it would be better to have her as a buffer in central Europe against the spreading out of the Soviet Union and its influence over neighboring states. In addition, there are large business interests in the international field which tie all nationalities together. Thirdly, since Russia only recently granted freedom of religion within her borders, there has been considerable feeling against wiping out the strength of a country which, except during the Hitler regime, was considered a religious nation.

All these interests added together meant that there was a strong undercurrent against carrying out the original agreements. And yet, twice in 25 years, we have been taken into a world war by Germany.

It cannot be said that, in the last year, Russia has taken any pains to allay the fears of those who have been worried about her spreading power. To be true, she has assured the world repeatedly that her interests lie along the paths of peace, and all of us know that she feels the loss of her sons and the devastation of her land. However, it has been easy for people to say that Russia was relying more and more on the building up of her own power, and less and less on the joint power which won the war and which the founders of the United Nations hoped would win the peace. We must get together with Russia, but it must be a two-way matter.

Such situations as exist today in Trieste and in the Tyrol arise largely from mistakes made at the end of the last war. It is true that the region back of Trieste is occupied largely by Yugoslavs, but the city itself is predominantly Italian. Therefore, Secretary Byrnes’ suggestion that Trieste become a free port for the world seems a fair solution. I only hope that the same type of answer, internationalizing the places where many interests meet, and building up the strength of the United Nations instead of the strength of individual nations, will finally be the accepted pattern.

Our congratulations go to Secretary Byrnes for an honest report which ought to make the world situation clearer to the people of this nation.

124

May 24, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – I found Senator Vandenberg’s statement on our foreign policy particularly interesting. It strengthens us very much with the rest of the world when they realize that our policy will be supported no matter which political party may be in power and regardless of any change in the Administration.

I hope very much that the next meeting on peace treaties may actually bring about some settlements. Keeping armies in Europe and not letting people return to normal living is unhealthy and detrimental to their recovery.

Certain agreements made in the past may have to be revised in the light of new circumstances. For instance, enough industry must be allowed in Germany so that she will not have to count on subsidies from other countries to live. The heavily industrial Ruhr area must function – and function quickly and effectively – but in the interests of the whole of Europe, not in the interests of Germany alone and certainly not in the interests of the old private industrial groups.

I find myself hoping for a better basic understanding among the great powers. We should be able to accept the fact that none of us is interested in any further individual aggrandizement, but only in building joint strength for peace through the United Nations.

Tuesday night, I had the pleasure of attending a performance of “Call Me Mister.” This is a GI show, and even the girls in it were connected with the armed services in some way. Melvyn Douglas and Herman Levin certainly have presented a show which gives one an entertaining evening. Here and there are some words and scenes of serious import, but they go down easily. Harold Rome, who wrote the music and the lyrics, has done a delightful job, as usual.

Betty Garrett’s performance is outstanding. And it will be a long time before we hear any songs much better than “The Red Ball Express” and “The Face on the Dime.” The cast, through Mr. Rome, presented me with the original of the latter song, which will take its place in the Hyde Park library along with so many other tributes to my husband.

Yesterday morning, I called for ex-Senator Townsend of Delaware and drove him to Hyde Park. I showed him around our place. When he casually mentioned that he grew 1500 acres of lima beans, I realized that our problems were very small. But he seemed to like our woods and was much interested in my husband’s Christmas tree plantations. He left us after luncheon.

In the evening, I went to have supper at the Vassar Alumnae House, and then to give the Helen Kenyon lecture. After the lecture, we all went over to the old gymnasium building and I answered questions for three-quarters of an hour.

125

May 25, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – Yesterday afternoon the railroad strike did actually start. No postponement this time. And all over the country, one thing after another will slow down and stop. People will be made uncomfortable, raw materials will not come in, finished materials will not go out, jobs will close down. And if I am not mistaken, labor and management are going to find that all this is going to lead to some rather drastic results.

As I pointed out before, I do not blame labor itself, but the leadership in industry and, to some extent, in labor has been shortsighted. No one has managed to bring legitimate grievances to an end, and yet it is easy enough to realize that conditions which men endured during the war could not continue indefinitely afterward.

Management is chiefly concerned, I imagine, with replacing rolling stock and with the physical difficulties they have had to face as a result of the war, but the human problems eventually reach the boiling point. However, a whole nation’s well-being should not be jeopardized by any group, whether they be miners or railroad or utility men.

Someone was telling me, not long ago, about a plan for labor courts where each difficulty, as it arose, would be brought in and analyzed on a fact-finding basis, and judges would render opinions as they do in any other court of law. That may be a possible solution. Great Britain, after the general strike there, set up the most complicated mechanism which, from that time on, seems to have obviated strikes on any big scale. I have a feeling that that, or something similar to it, is what is going to come out of our present situation.

The public – and the workers themselves are included in the public – will not long accept any situation in which everybody suffers. I wonder whether, with all his vaunted wisdom and foresight, John L. Lewis knew, when he started the coal-strike ball rolling, where it would come to rest.

In the past, there have been many people in the business world who have wanted to control government, and have controlled it to a great extent. In recent years, I think that same ambition has been in the minds of some of our labor leaders.

The leaders of industry sought control for a privileged few, but always I am sure that they would have added that, while a small group might hold power, it was for the benefit of the great mass of people. The well-being would flow down from the top. The leaders of labor who desire power today undoubtedly believe that they too desire it only for the benefit of the people as a whole, and they would say that what benefits the masses will flow up to the top and benefit the industrial leaders as well!

As a matter of fact, we are all tied together and depend upon each other, and what is really essential is that we find a method whereby all groups will be controlled for the benefit of the whole. That, I am afraid, means some kind of compulsory machinery, since voluntarily we don’t seem to get together very well!