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!

126

May 27, 1946

NEW YORK, Sunday – The railroad strike has ended, but I feel sure that this experience will lead to new methods for dealing with labor troubles when they arise in public utilities. The old right to strike does not hold good when your job is one that affects the people of the world and the great mass of people in your own country.

I still think that the public has some blame to bear, because as a rule it is so oblivious of anything which is wrong for certain groups of people and accomplishes no reforms until something drastic happens. This time, the results of the strike were so drastic that I think it will lead to the establishment of machinery which will force the taking up of any complaints immediately on their being made. The body of men who decide on their validity and on the manner in which they should be handled would have to be beyond reproach, since they will have to act as the public conscience.

Dictators of all varieties must chuckle these days, for certainly the great self-governing democracy is not functioning very smoothly!

On Friday I read a first novel, “Williwaw,” by Gore Vidal. This is a curious title; but in the Aleutians, apparently, it means a good strong wind which creates stormy weather – and the novel is a story of stormy weather. It is well-told, and the picture of the men and the events is vividly engrossing. This young author, I think, has promise of doing interesting work in the future.

I had time, also, to glance through Don Calhoun’s rather satirical, very funny and, in spots, quite serious drawings and text in “The Little President.” The author’s theme is that we become so complicated, as we grow older, that we miss out on holding to the big ideas which we should really keep before us. We get sidetracked from doing the big things because the little things swamp us. I wish it could be quite as simple as he makes it out. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for the ability to analyze clearly enough to keep the main objectives before us and refuse to be side-tracked when side-tracking does no good.

You may wonder how I happened to have all this time to read on Friday. I should really have been on my way to West Virginia to make a commencement address on Saturday afternoon at the West Virginia State College. But there seems to be a jinx on my getting to this particular school. I tried to go last year and the year before, and each time it was impossible. Now, when I was all set, the railroad strike again made it impossible! If this is three times, perhaps the bad luck is off and next time I will actually get there!

127

May 28, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – Now that the strain of the railroad strike is over, we are able to sit back and appraise the attitudes of the principal players in these dramatic events.

The President, fully conscious of the fact that any action against organized labor would bring resentment, nevertheless acted in the interests of the public as a whole. In so doing, and in doing it solemnly and seriously, he showed his real mettle and won respect and confidence. Even the strikers, when they think it over, will realize that he was acting in their interests as well as those of the rest of the people.

However, the seriousness of the situation led the President to take one step which I hope both he and Congress, in thinking it over, will not carry through. In time of war, it seems to me, men both in management and in industry should be liable to a draft wherever they can be of use. In time of peace, the use of this weapon against strikes does interfere with men’s fundamental liberty to work or not to work.

You can say, I believe quite rightly, that if men refuse to work under certain circumstances, they may not be able to return to that specific job or they may lose privileges which went with a certain job. But I do not think that you can actually bar them from exercising their fundamental rights, and I hope very much that, in the strike bill finally passed, an amendment will be made barring the draft provision in peacetime.

There is also one obligation, I think, which is upon the Government and the public as regards employees in any industry where, for the public good, a strike should not occur if it is possible to avoid it. This obligation is to see that conditions in that industry are promptly investigated as soon as any complaint is made; that the facts are made known and any injustices rectified.

The men in the railroad industry should not be forced, in spite of their raise in pay, to continue working under conditions which are unfavorable not only to them but to the public as a whole. Men working over-long hours, or in crews that are too small to do their job properly, endanger the safety of the public and cannot be expected to fulfill the requirements made upon them in the way of interest and helpfulness.

The President, I am sure, will feel it an obligation to see that collective bargaining is begun immediately and that all possible pressure is brought on railroad management to remedy injustices in working conditions.

On the other hand, one hopes that A. F. Whitney’s outburst, which may have been natural in the first disappointment of defeat, will be rescinded by himself and the rank-and-file members of his union as soon as possible. The American public likes courage, decision and fair play, but they will not like this threat to use a labor treasury in a political manner any more than, years ago, they liked the threats of big business, which were fairly similar in tone and in objectives.

Organized labor has gained strength – as it should, because it has to cope with organized business. But organized business lost popular support because it lacked responsibility, and organized labor must remember that it is only one part of the public, not the whole nation.

128

May 29, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – In our anxiety over the railroad strike, very few people seemed to connect it with the coal strike, and yet the two go hand in hand. In many ways, John L. Lewis has been responsible for the whole situation because of his arrogant attitude as regards the public interest. I do not think he should be allowed to continue, and I think that any machinery now set up will operate for the railroad workers and their leaders but not where he is concerned.

The public should know the facts about the mining industry. There is no question that some improvements have been made by the operators, but many more need to be made. Some mines cannot be operated profitably for both the management and the workers. This is a hazardous industry and, in spite of new safety devices, it is still one of the industries in which major disasters occur.

The passage of the Social Security Act meant a great deal in alleviating the hardships which used to face families at the time of such disasters. I can well remember a certain woman in West Virginia with ten or twelve children whose husband, a foreman, died in a mine trying to rescue other men trapped there after an accident. Her friends told me that, in the old days, many of the children would have had to go to work long before they should have left school, but the Social Security Act gave her a lift. It enabled her to keep her children in school, in many ways she was better off financially than when her husband was living, and she received benefits for her children until they were 18.

But this is a government security. The mining industry itself has done very little for the health and welfare of its workers and their families.

Because Mr. Lewis does not command the confidence of a great many people, there is a feeling that whatever health and welfare fund is agreed upon should, in the interests of the workers as well as of the operators, be administered under some supervision. But this fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the righteousness of the demand for such a fund. A health and welfare fund, and safety in the mines, are essential in this industry.

The size of contributions to the fund and the way it should be administered are points for negotiation.

The miners should go back to work, because coal is needed in the world, but it should also be obligatory that the negotiations go on and that results develop which cover the real causes of complaint.

The public has been very complacent about labor’s difficulties and, wherever organized labor was concerned, they have taken it for granted that there was strength enough in the organization to fight its own battles. This is not true. The public has no right to assume that it will benefit from the accomplishments of organized labor without taking the trouble to see that organized labor has a fair deal.

129

May 30, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – This is the first Memorial Day since the end of the war in the Pacific and yet in spite of that fact, many people will say to themselves on Memorial Day: “The world does not seem to be at peace as yet.” Everywhere there is restlessness. The ways of peace have not returned to us, and the results of war as still upon us.

In this country there will be parades and we will visit graves and cemeteries where lie those who have died for their country in previous wars, and most of us will pray that these years of restlessness may pass and that peace may come again to the world as a whole. I hope, however, that we will do more than pray, because it is going to require a great deal of work on our part to make of our own country the kind of a country which can back the United Nations and lead the world in its struggles to a peaceful future.

When we visit the graves of our soldiers in this country I hope we will think of the cemeteries all over the world where lie our men who died both in this world war and the last, and I hope the panorama of names representing every nation in the world will recall to us that in the United States, our citizens are citizens of the world.

We have no room in this country for racial prejudice because our people come from every race and were brought together by an idea and are made strong as a nation by the fact that we believe in certain democratic ideals. There is no room in this nation for religious prejudices either. Men of all races and religions fought the war and died side by side. The men who came back and are now struggling together to make the peace, have a right to equal economic opportunity, to equal justice before the law and to equal participation in our government. We are all citizens of the United States and as such dedicate ourselves on Memorial Day to an effort to give to all our soldiers the returns that they are entitled to for the sacrifices which they have made. As far as possible, we must insist that our government try to give them the housing and the education which we promised them and then forgot to plan for. Our government must see to it that they have jobs, and above all, that medical care which they may need for many years to come, is available at all times.

On this Memorial Day too, we might remember to shed a tear for the women in other lands who mourn their dead and their sacrifices, and who perhaps have less cause for hope of better things in the near future than we have. Let us on this Memorial Day hold out a helping hand to all women throughout the world and agree to cooperate with every agency of our government so that another Memorial Day may see us all more securely established in a peaceful world.

130

May 31, 1946

HYDE PARK, Thursday – Here we are back in Hyde Park, having left New York City very early this morning, for I realized that traveling by car on Memorial Day would not be easy. I have now moved to the country and, except for brief returns to New York for a day or a night now and then, the rest of my summer is going to be spent out of the city and I feel very jubilant about it.

I must tell you a little about the past few days in New York, since they covered some rather interesting events. On Tuesday morning, I went up to Hunter College and, as chairman of the Human Rights Commission, made my report to the Economic and Social Council. I had no idea how a report was supposed to be made, but I was told that the one presenting it was expected to say whatever he felt was important, then hand in the written document.

This gave me an opportunity to point out that while nine members had been appointed to the nuclear commission, only six had served, and that we felt it important that the full commission should be appointed immediately. We were all entirely willing, if the Economic and Social Council is able to name the full commission before our year of service runs out, to hand in our resignations. Every member realized the importance of the work which the full Commission on Human Rights would have to undertake, and we felt it should be begun and carried through as soon as possible.

I then pointed out that the method we had recommended for the choice of members for the commission was a compromise between two different ways of thinking. One group felt that the members should represent only their own governments. The other school of thought believed that those serving on the commission should think primarily of the rights and interests of humanity at large.

Our suggestion, therefore, was that the 51 members of the United Nations should each hand in the names of two persons. These could both be nationals of that country, or one could be a national of another country. All the names would be used by the Economic and Social Council as a panel from which they would appoint the members of the commission, with due regard to geographical distribution, but with particular emphasis on the qualifications of the individuals to serve on this particular commission.

The subcommission on the Status of Women had asked for an opportunity for its chairman, Mrs. Bodil Begtrup, to present her report in person, and so I merely mentioned that we had included in our report the points in theirs which seemed to us the most important to take up first. Mrs. Begtrup suggested that, as this subcommission represented half of the world’s population, they would like to be designated as a full commission. This, of course, will have to be decided by the Economic and Social Council. Both of us were thanked for our work, and may be called upon for further information when our reports are taken up for study.

131

June 1, 1946

HYDE PARK, Friday – As I was leaving the United Nations meeting last Tuesday, a newspaper woman stopped me to ask if there was a cleavage in the Human Rights Commission on the subject of the report made by the Subcommission on the Status of Women. I was glad to be able to tell her that there has been no disagreement that I know of on the part of any member of the commission.

Some of us felt that the report, because it was the work of a nuclear subcommission operating under very definite terms of reference, had perhaps covered too much ground and gone into too much detail, much of which might have been left for consideration by the full subcommission when it is appointed. However, except for this one criticism, which certainly meant no fundamental cleavage in thinking, I heard no criticism of any of the recommendations made.

It is known that I have opposed a group of women in this country, who have been in favor of an equal rights amendment to our Constitution. As some of them have been active in working on the outskirts, so to speak, of this subcommission, I suppose they felt that I would be in opposition to the report. That, of course, is not true.

I believe that, if the ladies who are so anxious to have a federal amendment for equal rights would devote as much energy toward changing the State laws which really interfere with the rights of our women, they would soon find they had little of which to complain. I am still opposed to an equal rights amendment, which would make it possible to wipe out much of the legislation which has been enacted in many states for the protection of women in industry. This, however, has nothing to do with the report in question.

We cannot change the fact that women are different from men. It’s true that some women can do more than men, and some can do men’s jobs better than men can do them. But the fact that they are different cannot be changed, and it is fortunate for us that this is the case. The best results are always obtained when men and women work together, with the recognition that their abilities and contributions may differ but that, in every field, they supplement each other.

The report of the Subcommission on the Status of Women frankly recognized this difference and the need for special considerations where women are concerned. I do not know whether the group I mentioned is opposed to this section of the report or not, but I am quite sure that, as this is an international report, they will have comparatively little influence on the thinking of the Economic and Social Council in its consideration of the report as a whole.

This report was undertaken with great seriousness, and I think the women who worked on it deserve great praise, especially the chairman, Mrs. Bodil Begtrup, who gave so much of her time and thought to having the report truly represent the thinking of the whole subcommission.

132

June 3, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – Last week I went out one evening to a meeting sponsored by a number of organizations, but really inspired by the young, democratic mayor of the town in Princeton, New Jersey. The audience was a good cross section, I thought, of this small place of some 10,000 population; and there were, of course, a number of men from the university, some of them veterans back on research jobs, some of them undergraduates. The newly-formed American Veterans Committee was one of the sponsors of the meeting.

The town of Princeton has organized to do its share in preventing starvation throughout the world. At first they collected and shipped a large number of tins of food. But then Director La Guardia pointed out that this was not the most economical or effective way to get food to Europe, because if UNRRA were given the money he could buy more food for the same amount of cash spent by individuals, and it would be the kind of food that was best to ship. In consequence, the town has set itself the goal of $10,000, which is now being raised.

In addition, Mr. La Guardia called together all the interested groups in the town – representing grocery stores, restaurants, hotels and individuals – and they are voluntarily rationing themselves on grains and fats. One day a week is to be a fatless day – no one will buy fat or use it on that day. Four meals a week will be breadless meals, whether you eat at home or in a public place. They are getting great cooperation, and a spirit apparently is growing in the community which, I am sure, will bring them success.

On Wednesday night I spoke at the opening of the Convention of the American Jewish Congress, and was most interested to listen to the record of help which they have been able to give. Mrs. Stephen Wise told me that she had reopened the houses which had once sheltered refugees and then army and navy personnel. Now again they will receive and shelter refugees on their first arrival in this country. That must be a most rewarding task, for to the people who arrive from the European area it must mean a warm welcome and a rest before they start to rebuild their lives.

I have just received a children’s book called “My Dog Rinty,” by Ellen Tarry Patton and Marie Hall Ets. Written to improve race relations, it is also a very delightful story, with charming illustrations by Alexander and Alexandra Alland, and any child would enjoy it regardless of what his feelings might be about the differences which exist among human beings.

133

June 4, 1946

HYDE PARK, Monday – I was deeply grieved by the news that Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., our permanent member on the Security Council, had handed in his resignation, and I hope very much that the President and Secretary of State Byrnes can prevail upon him to remain. It seems to me that someone who has been so intimately connected with every step in the organization of the United Nations is very badly needed during these first years.

I realize that doing this work is a very great sacrifice and that there are few compensations for a man as young as Mr. Stettinius. I know he has done it from the beginning simply because he realized that our hope of future peace lay in the success of the United Nations idea. If his resignation means that he has come to the conclusion that the work cannot be accomplished and that we are not on the right path, then I think a great many of us will feel deeply discouraged.

Last Wednesday morning, I went to the New York Port of Embarkation to one of the discussion groups carried on there among the officers and men. They asked me to talk about the United Nations. I found their interest great and realized again that, to practically everyone who has fought the war, the organization of the peace is a question of vital importance.

On Decoration Day, when Miss Thompson and I motored to Hyde Park, we did not start from New York quite early enough to avoid some of the troops who were gathering for the parade. But on the whole, we did pretty well and I was in plenty of time to be at Bard College for lunch before the commencement exercises.

This college, at Annandale-on-Hudson, has been in existence some 80-odd years, but it has had a variegated career. This year, for the first time, they graduated a co-educational class – girls and boys together received their degrees. They are making a special point of their music and arts courses, and they have a good many students in the social sciences.

It was a beautiful day and the ceremonies in front of the chapel, in the shade of the big trees which are one of Bard’s great beauties, were both impressive and charming.

I was back at Hyde Park in ample time for the Roosevelt Home Club Memorial Day service, which they held at my husband’s grave at 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Last year Frank Walker spoke. This year Robert Sherwood, the playwright, was the speaker. Both men were devoted to my husband and to the ideals for which he worked.

Mr. Sherwood went back to a speech made by Abraham Lincoln and showed the similarity in the times which both men faced. It was a very beautiful speech. I am hoping that all these memorial speeches will be kept in the library here year by year, because I am sure they will be a valuable record.

134

June 5, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – What rain we have been having! To see a blue sky and the sun yesterday was something really to shout about. The other day, one of my Hyde Park neighbors recited to me the Dutchess County farmers’ lament, and I think it holds good for many other parts of the country. It runs thus:

“In March, the weather is so beautiful that all the buds come out, and then, in April, we have winter again and everything is frozen. In May and early June, we practically have floods, and everything we plant is washed away or rotted in the ground. In July and early August, we have one continuous drought, and everything that was not drowned is burned up. Then comes harvest time and, with one voice, we all lament: ‘There is so much produce on the market that the prices one can get make it hardly worthwhile to grow anything.’”

In reading about the discussion which occurred when the Economic and Social Council took up the report of the Human Rights Commission, I thought John G. Winant, our delegate, put very well the position of the United States and most of the other nations on the importance of freedom of information. There were two additional points, however, which I think the delegate from the USSR, Nicolai J. Feonov, did not quite understand.

The main business of the full Commission on Human Rights will be to write a bill of rights which will include all the points, we hope, which Mr. Feonov mentioned. In the meantime, the material necessary for the commission’s information is to be gathered by the secretariat, if the report’s recommendations are accepted by the Economic and Social Council. So there was no ignoring on the part of the nuclear commission of the importance of equality for all persons, regardless of race or sex, and no ignoring of any of the other points which Mr. Feonov made.

A subcommission on freedom of information was considered vital as an aid to making this international bill of rights more than just a collection of words to which nations would give lip service. Unless we have freedom of information, there will be no knowledge of whether nations do or do not carry out their promises, and so even the best bill of rights that could be written would be worthless.

I think these are essential points that must not be overlooked by our very practical friends, the Russians, who do deal in realities and certainly have logical minds.

I was very much interested in reading CIO president Philip Murray’s analysis of the Case bill and his plea to the President. This bill is not an emergency measure to meet an emergency situation. It is a permanent bill which will affect our future labor conditions in the country as a whole. I think that, instead of bettering them, it will bring us more trouble and bitter resentment on the part of organized labor. Certainly that is not what we want.

I hope the President will veto the Case bill. A temporary measure to handle an emergency situation may be necessary if, unfortunately, we have not been able, in advance, to handle the situation and it becomes serious to the whole nation. The Case bill is permanently harmful, not just to labor but to labor relations, which include business and the country as a whole.

135

June 6, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – In Brooklyn yesterday afternoon, the Red Cross held a unique fashion show. They displayed samples of the garments which are being made in Red Cross workrooms. These are given to people in this country when disasters occur, and are also distributed in Europe and Asia. Thousands of layettes, clothes for grown-ups and for children have come out of sewing rooms all over the United States, though the particular garments shown yesterday in Brooklyn were products of the workers in that area.

At the peak of wartime needs, more than 20,000 women in Brooklyn wore Red Cross production uniforms. This show yesterday was an appeal to these women to return to the job of producing clothes for civilian populations, even though the war has come to an end. Such an appeal must be needed in many parts of the country where women feel that the great effort they put forth during the war can now be decreased. The Red Cross is emphasizing that the demands made upon the organization are still very heavy.

Yesterday afternoon I attended the annual meeting of Wiltwyck School for Boys. We heard again some of the stories which make one feel that there is still much to be done to make our civilization successful.

They told us of one little boy sent to the school who at first was afraid of everything and of everyone. His parents, both of whom drank, did not care about him. His father beat his mother and, if the boy was in sight, he was beaten too. This drove the mother away from home, and the little boy became a waif in the New York City streets, stealing and begging what food and shelter he could and going home only on rare occasions.

Finally, the law caught up with him, and the courts sent him to Wiltwyck. They said that he might be mentally defective and unable to learn since, at the age of 9, he could neither read nor write and did not know how to learn. But after six months at the school, with a great deal of personal attention, he has become an almost normal little boy. He is so excited about his ability to learn that he wants to help anyone else who does not get on as quickly as he does!

One of the problems brought before us was the fact that sometimes, in spite of the efforts of our social workers, the families of these boys cannot be rehabilitated sufficiently so that the children can return home when they are stabilized. We heard the story of one little boy who, after three years at the school, was sent back to a father who hated him. In a few months, he was re-arrested and the head of Wiltwyck School received a letter from him saying, “Dear Dr. Cooper: I cannot thank you and everyone at Wiltwyck enough for all you did for me, but we knew that I wouldn’t be able to manage at home. Yesterday I stole a bicycle so that I could be arrested and taken away again.”

It looks as though we should establish foster homes for after-care when the children come back to the community and yet have no real parents to care for them.

136

June 7, 1946

HYDE PARK, Thursday – I see in the paper this morning that the Administration draft-extension bill has been passed by the Senate and, if the House passes the same bill, Selective Service will be continued until May 15, 1947. The House, it is said, may cut out the drafting of 18-year-olds. If they do, I am sure it will be because a certain number of mothers have written in protesting that their 18-year-old boys should not be taken away from home. I cannot help wondering whether the boys themselves would agree.

In the first place, the great majority of boys have finished high school at that age. If we were at war, they would have to fight for their country. Because of the war, we have obligations to fulfill which will probably last for some time in various parts of the world. I do not think that the 18-year-olds would like to be prevented from accepting this obligation.

If older men are drafted, they are taken away from their opportunities for higher education, from their training for skilled jobs, or from the work which they have started. It would seem an advantage to take this training in the armed services before one takes other training, so as not to interrupt the continuity of life later on.

Also, if the flow of men into the armed services is not sufficient, the men now in the services cannot be released – and that is unfair and undemocratic. The burdens of citizenship should be equally borne.

Many young people in different states are asking to be allowed to vote at 18, and in Georgia a law to that effect has already been passed. That is an indication that young people feel able to accept the responsibilities of citizenship at that age. If so, they are not children, even though we mothers like to think of them in that category.

Young people have had to learn in their school years to differentiate among their companions. In the armed services, while they will meet older men, the choosing of their companions will still be up to them. They will be under discipline, well fed and well housed, and they will have a chance to see the world. Parents naturally want to protect their children, but probably we would be wise if we put more responsibility on them and were less frightened when they have to leave our apron strings.

In any case, I hope the day will come again when only those who actually want to serve in the armed forces are required to do so, but that will be the case only when the world has returned to greater stability than we have known for many years. The United Nations may bring that about – also our own goodwill and hard work to build better understanding among nations. At the present time, the continuation of Selective Service seems essential, and I think the young people themselves would prefer to have it apply to 18-year-olds.

137

June 8, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – The other night, we had the good fortune to see the Old Vic Company’s presentation of “Henry IV, Part I.” I am one of those benighted people who do not always enjoy Shakespeare, but this performance was outstanding and no one could help enjoying every minute of it.

We went back to the country late Wednesday afternoon. I begin to understand how one becomes a slave to one’s dog, for Fala was so pleased to see us and begged so insistently to go for a walk in the woods that, before we sat down to dinner, I took him for the mile-and-a-half walk that he and I usually take in the morning! Suddenly, on one of the upper roads, I saw two children on two white horses and they made the prettiest picture against the dark green of the evergreen trees in the failing light.

There still seems to be some confusion in people’s minds as to how they can help UNRRA with its emergency food efforts. I think one way which Director Fiorello La Guardia is urging is that every community collect money which they would otherwise spend on food for themselves and send it in to him. With this, he can buy such things as are most easily shipped and of most value to starving people in different parts of the world. These things may not all be bought in this country, but they will reach their destination. And this is the quickest and most economical way of getting food to various parts of the world.

There is another organization called The Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe, at 50 Broad Street, New York City. This is a non-profit organization of which Gen. William H. Haskell is executive director. The plan is approved by President Truman, and is sponsored by the Department of State and Department of Agriculture. The 24 member organizations cover practically all faiths and nationalities concerned with foreign relief.

You may buy packages costing $15, which are known as ten-in-one packages. Three million of these are already in Europe, because they were originally sent over to be used by our troops in combat. They are particularly valuable because the fuel problem in Europe is great and these packages contain pre-cooked food.

In addition to foodstuffs which provide approximately 60 adequate meals, they include items such as sugar, candy bars, cocoa and coffee powders, preserved butter and ham, as well as soap and cigarettes. The food is varied so as to provide five different menus.

You send in the address and name of the person to whom you wish the package delivered and, when the recipient gets it, you will receive a signed receipt. There are still some areas where deliveries are not being made, but all areas are rapidly being opened up. This seems to me one of the best personal ways of getting things to individuals in Europe whom you wish to help.

138

June 10, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – On Friday afternoon I went with my son, Franklin Jr., to his farm on Long Island. I had a chance before dinner to see all of his livestock and what he is growing on the place. Then we went to the initial big meeting for the YWCA. My daughter-in-law, Ethel, is on the board and had asked me to come down and speak. Mrs. Moors, who is head of the Foreign Division, spoke very movingly of the work which the “Y” has done in many countries throughout the world, and particularly of the remarkable way in which the various foreign staffs had stayed on under war conditions. They moved with the people of the respective countries, enduring the same hardships, and are still trying to carry on the objectives for which the “Y” was established.

One particularly moving story was about a girl stationed in the Philippines. She had once been a member of the Girl Reserves and still possessed one of that organization’s flags. During a critical period, news came that some of our paratroopers had landed in the jungle. The loyal Filipinos were afraid the men would be lost in the wilderness and not find the band of guerillas whom they had come to join. At the same time, there was great hesitation on the part of the older men, who felt that if they went out to find the Americans they not only ran the risk of being killed by the Japanese but also of being shot by the paratroopers, who might mistake them for Japanese.

No American flag was available, so this YWCA staff member took her Girl Reserve flag and went on the search with the old men. They crawled on their bellies through the jungle and finally spotted our paratroopers. When they stood up, it was to find themselves covered by every gun in the group. At that moment the girl broke out her flag.

“Hold on a minute!” shouted one of the paratroopers. “That’s a flag of an organization to which my kid sister used to belong!” And in that way, both our men and the loyal Filipinos were saved.

The YWCA has much useful work to do in every community at home where it is established. Among its most important work, however, is the opportunity to acquaint people here with the people of other lands, and to put them in touch with the work which their own organization is doing in so many other countries.

I have just had my attention drawn to a radio program called “Daily Dilemma,” conducted five days a week, Monday through Friday, by Jack Barry. Mr. Barry’s program is designed to help veterans find places to live, so he calls upon them to come and tell their stories on the radio. In the course of the last eight weeks, they have secured 100 apartments for veterans. I see quite a little of veterans these days, and I know that the housing problem is one of the things which causes them the most difficulty and therefore the greatest bitterness.

139

June 11, 1946

HYDE PARK, Monday – A young artist, Jack Lewis, who is a veteran of the Pacific war and whom I mentioned before in this column, came here to look around for paintable spots in the Hudson Valley with an eye to a book such as he has done on Delaware. While he was here, he did a watercolor sketch of the stone cottage next to us, where Miss Cook and Miss Dickerman live, and also one of the big house. Both are very charming. I hope he will return and carry through his idea of a book about this region.

I wonder how many of my readers know of the Community Committee of New York on behalf of the United Jewish Appeal. The chairman is Nelson A. Rockefeller. The honorary chairmen are Governor Thomas E. Dewey, Mayor William O’Dwyer of New York City, the Honorable Herbert H. Lehman and Bishop William T. Manning. The vice-chairmen are William J. Donovan, John J. McCloy and William S. Paley. And there is a distinguished executive committee made up of men of many races and many faiths.

I bring this to the attention of my readers because I feel strongly that every city, small or large, in this country would help to increase the feeling of brotherhood throughout the world if a similar committee was organized in their midst. The purpose is to help the survivors of the Jewish group in Europe who were the greatest sufferers under Hitler’s fascist rise to power.

Of the 7,000,000 Jews who lived in Europe when Hitler first came to power, nearly 6,000,000 were put to death in the most brutal manner possible. The methods used frequently included deliberate starvation and torture. Among those murdered were 2,000,000 Jewish children.

Just the other day, I talked to a man and his wife who had finally managed to come to this country from a concentration camp near Frankfort. They are educated, scholarly people – he is a poet. They had seen their two children burned to death. How one lives through such torture is only explained by the fact that, within each of us, there is an extraordinary tenacity which clings to life, and if we have any hope held out to us, we will struggle to start again.

We in America, who have been spared such cruelty, have a joint responsibility, I think – whether we are Catholic, Protestant or Jew – to help the 1,400,000 Jewish survivors in Europe to return to some kind of normal living.

This committee in New York is helping these people in 51 countries through a joint distribution committee, which does the work of providing food, clothing, shelter and medical supplies. They are establishing hospitals, helping to rehabilitate schools and community welfare institutions, and giving vocational training. Not the least important work is that of reuniting families – which, in war-torn Europe, is a difficult thing to do – and then assisting in their transportation to and establishment in new homelands.

140

June 12, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – Tomorrow noon, on the steps of the City Hall, the New York City campaign for funds asked for by the Emergency Food Collection on behalf of UNRRA will start. Secretary of Agriculture Clinton Anderson is coming up from Washington for the ceremonies. The program, which will be broadcast, ought to reach not only the people of this city but the people of many other communities.

I have to be at a meeting of a drafting committee of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and so, much to my regret, I will not be able to attend these ceremonies. There is nothing, however, which should be closer to the hearts of every person in this country than the cooperation of their own locality in the Emergency Food Collection drive.

There are 800,000,000 men, women and children throughout the world who are hungry and may die of starvation in countries which have been through hardships which we have been spared because our men fought to keep the war far away from our own shores. Speed is important in this drive, and that is why you are asked to give money rather than food. Gifts of money will mean that a greater amount of canned foods can be bought and shipped more quickly to the places where the need is greatest. Your money should be sent to “Hunger, 100 Maiden Lane, New York City.”

Many people will ask whether our former enemies, the Germans and the Japanese, may be fed under this program. The answer is that only displaced persons in those countries may receive food from this source, because the armies of occupation are responsible for feeding the people of the area they occupy.

The Emergency Food Collection is not duplicating any of the work which UNRRA can do with the funds contributed by the various nations. It is simply adding food to meet the immediate needs, and this will be distributed by UNRRA as part of its program. UNRRA handles many items besides food and, in this desperate situation, the immediate needs could not be met entirely under UNRRA’s present relief program.

Cooperating with the Emergency Food Collection are various religious groups and certain groups representing particular nationalities. Their collections are distributed in the same way to relieve distress, and their efforts are endorsed by the Emergency Food Collection.

It is not just money, however, that you are being asked to contribute. There will be shortages at home because of the things which will have to be sent abroad and because our own food supplies are not always equally available in every part of the country. At times you may have to ration yourselves, principally on wheat, some other cereals, and fats.

You are asked to save every bit of fat that you can and to eat at least 40 percent less wheat than you have eaten in the past. We have potatoes, fresh vegetables and fruit, all of which are lacking in Europe and Asia, so we are not going to suffer if we eat less bread.

A hungry nation will never be a safe and peaceful nation.