Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1947)

21

January 24, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – I had a visit yesterday afternoon from labor leaders David Dubinsky and Matthew Woll, who came to see me about the human rights bill which they have presented to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. I explained to them the preliminaries that I thought the commission would have to go through, and the work which would have to be done by the secretariat, but I think it very valuable that such groups as the American Federation of Labor are taking an active interest in the achievement of human rights throughout the world.

It is natural, of course, that labor unions should be interested in human rights. And one of the things that I hope will evolve from any bill of this kind is the right of people to economic as well as political freedom. For instance, any discrimination as to race or religion in obtaining work at any level is a violation of economic human rights, from my point of view.

I was also visited by some other influential people who are hopeful that the International Refugee Organization will come into being and who are anxious to see it work as well as possible. However, they stressed to me again a situation of which I have heard a number of times lately. A certain directive from UNRRA, which seemed to have the backing of some of our military-government people, makes it possible to use a good deal of coercion on displaced persons in camps, in order to make them accept repatriation. Apparently there is a feeling that, in some cases, the result is almost forced repatriation. That is certainly not the intent of our government here.

I was surprised to learn, from these guests, of the fears of many of our local relief agencies on the subject of the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund. They feel that any appeal to individuals will hurt the money-raising of private organizations, and they feel no assurance that the setup of the Children’s Emergency Fund will use these agencies in carrying out the job of relief. This worries many of the agencies which have been working in the international field, primarily with children.

They recognize that the mass feeding which may need to be done in the course of the next year or two cannot be done solely by private agencies, but they do not want to be put out of business. This is a problem which the board of the Children’s Emergency Fund will have to take up, and I am quite sure that some solution, satisfactory to all concerned, can be found.

The main problem is to keep the children of the world from starving and to provide them with medical care – and everyone wants to see that problem solved.

22

January 25, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – I was sorry to see a headline in a paper the other day which seemed to indicate that Henry Wallace and I were at odds. I have always believed in Mr. Wallace’s integrity and admired his ability, but that does not mean that you have to agree in the way in which you wish to work for your objectives.

I made it quite clear, when I attended the first meeting of the Americans for Democratic Action, that I was not an active member of any new organization. I am afraid I am too old and too busy to take on new activities. But all the members who attended that first meeting were asked to consider themselves a “committee of the whole” and, of course, I shall be glad to be helpful whenever it is possible.

I would like to see all progressive groups work together. But since some of us prefer to have our staffs and policy-making groups completely free of any American Communist infiltration if we can possibly prevent it, while others have not quite as strong a feeling on this subject, it is natural that there should be two set-ups. That does not mean that the force of all liberals may not go to some of the same objectives, and I certainly hope this will be the case.

In our democracy, I feel that Americans who believe in democracy should lead. While other beliefs must exist and I would fight for the rights of others to their own beliefs, I must work with those who hold to the fundamental beliefs which I consider sound and true.

I went down to Washington yesterday morning to speak at the opening of the 1947 March of Dimes campaign for the Infantile Paralysis Foundation. From the station, we went directly to the White House, where Mrs. Truman met us. It was pleasant to see the many familiar faces. They are always kind and welcoming.

At lunch, there were the young movie star Peggy Ann Garner and her mother, as well as a young substitute who came from New York City with her mother because the foundation workers were a little uncertain as to whether the plane from Hollywood would arrive on time. We were joined by the President, which was a great thrill to the girls and very pleasant for me, as it gave me an opportunity to talk to him.

Then we were taken downstairs to pose for the newsreel and still cameras. Finally, at 3:15, we went on the air.

I had not realized before that the emergency fund which the foundation builds up for use in epidemics is practically exhausted, and so this year they are asking everyone to contribute twice as much as they did last year. I hope this will be done.

I spent two hours at the State Department with the interdepartmental group interested in human rights, and we discussed the agenda for the meetings of the Human Rights Commission which start on Jan. 27th. I also had an opportunity to see Secretary of State Marshall for a few minutes. I was happy to be able to see him, as my husband always had such respect and admiration for him as Chief of Staff. Later I dined with friends, then took the midnight train back to New York.

23

January 27, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – People are writing to me constantly now on the subject of juvenile delinquency. All over this country people are troubled at the increase in the number of youthful criminals and at the way delinquency extends down even to small children.

I think it is time that we reexamined our theories of education. “Progressive education” is an interesting grouping of words. Naturally, we want education to progress to meet the times. We do not want it, however, to progress to the point of doing away with some of the tried and true customs and traditions. These do not have so much to do with the actual school curricula as they do with the molding of character. I sometimes wonder if what is commonly called progressive education, in the effort to make children enjoy school and develop their individual personalities, has not done away with some of the essential disciplines. These disciplines made education in the old days, both at home and in the schools, seem somewhat harsh at times; but even the children came to recognize that in some ways they were valuable.

In Mrs. Kleeman’s book about my husband’s childhood, she tells a story that my mother-in-law loved to recall. At a very young age – somewhere around seven, if I remember correctly – little Franklin came to his parents and sighed: “Oh, for freedom!” Struck by the tone in which he said it, his mother asked him what he would do if he had complete freedom. He didn’t seem to know exactly, and so his parents told him that for one whole day he could do exactly as he chose. The day seemed glorious to him at the start; but as it wore on he found freedom less and less interesting, and by night he was quite willing to return to his usual obligations and restrictions.

Until he went away to boarding school, my husband was taught almost entirely alone, so that the problems of the average school room were not present. But every now and then, when I go into a school room where every child is supposed to be developing his or her own personality, I find it somewhat confusing.

Of course, parents in the home are to blame quite as much as the school for any condition that exists on a large scale. Perhaps what we really need is an investigation of how the parents of this generation, which is providing us with so many young delinquents, were brought up. They grew up to maturity in a post-war period like the present generation. Their parents were confused and the mechanics of life had outstripped our ability to cope with the changes.

Now, perhaps, we need to sit down and look over our whole educational system, from primary school to college; to examine as adults our own beliefs and standards by which we live, and which we transmit to our children. That might be the shortest cut to finding the cause for juvenile delinquency. Courts and reformatories and prisons are not the final answer.

24

January 28, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – The other day John Foster Dulles, Republican adviser on world affairs, in a speech in New York, said that our strength with foreign nations was due to the participation of the Republicans in our foreign policy. In one way, he is entirely correct. Foreign nations have learned from sad experience that, while it is the duty of the executive branch of our government, the President and the Secretary of State, to draw up treaties and deal with foreign affairs, the final agreements have to be ratified by the Senate. The array of treaties that were not ratified caused one Secretary of State – John Hay, I believe – to remark that he was tired of drawing up useless documents, or words to that effect!

The failure of President Wilson to take Republican Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge with him to the conferences out of which grew the League of Nations, was probably the cause of the failure of the Senate to approve of our participation in the League. Since a little group of “willful men” can do a very effective job in preventing a policy from being adopted, it’s no wonder that the representatives of other governments and the peoples of the world want our participation in the United Nations and the framing of our foreign policy to be on a bipartisan basis.

This was important while the Republicans were in the minority, and it is equally important today that the Democrats be in accord with our foreign policy, even though they may be in the minority in the legislative branch of the government. So I would like to emphasize the value of bipartisan participation in the formation of foreign policy, rather than the predominant influence of either party.

Yesterday I was in Cleveland to participate, on the closing day, in a conference of the educational directors of the UAW-CIO unions. Nearly a thousand people came to the conference from all over the United States. It was an interested and active group of men and women, all of whom wanted to learn how to make their unions more intelligent, and more useful not only to union interests but to the United States and the world as a whole.

The two morning speeches were made by James Patton, head of the National Farmers’ Union, and by Edward L. Bernays, public relations expert. I was particularly interested in a suggestion made by Mr. Patton that a council be appointed from the UAW to work with a council from the Farmers’ Union, so that they could more closely coordinate their interests and understand at what points they could work together.

Ever since I can remember, there had been an apparent division between agriculture and labor. Yet each is a consumer of the other’s productions. And of course, this is true of every individual – nearly all of us are both producers and consumers. If we could understand our mutual interests, we might wipe out a great many points of difference and work out some wide areas in which we could work together.

25

January 29, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – At the UAW educational conference in Cleveland last Sunday, Edward L. Bernays, public relations expert, said that using different words would benefit the labor movement, and he cited as an example the words “closed shop.” These words or what they represent are currently exciting a good deal of interest. Almost every field has a phraseology all its own, and to many people the terms used in labor discussions would mean very little.

I remember a girl translator coming in to translate a speech at a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission last spring. The speech was delivered by the French delegate in very rapid French. As he proceeded, the young translator looked more and more worried. I realized that the phraseology was entirely new to her and probably made very little sense to her. When the speech was finished, she ran out of the room in tears. Of course, it was panic, but it was caused by unfamiliarity with the subject and with the type of words used.

“Closed shop,” to most of the uninitiated, would mean something that was controlled, whereas “open shop” would mean something that was free. And in this country we tend to like things that are free. That is why the argument against a closed shop is nearly always that it prevents some people from working and from making free agreements. But as a matter of fact, the closed shop comes into existence only when the employer and a majority of his employees agree upon it.

If a union is strong, the closed shop probably is not necessary as a protection. But when a union is weak, the closed shop gives it added security, for if both employer and employees have agreed that new employees must belong to the union, new workers will be an added strength to the union. Otherwise, if non-union employees multiplied too rapidly, employers could use them as an instrument to break down agreements entered into with the union or asked for by the union.

There is nearly always a choice of places where a man can work at his chosen trade or occupation, but it is to his own interest to be a part of a union and to strengthen the union’s bargaining power.

The only valid argument against the closed shop is that union leaders sometimes misuse their power. That is true of leaders in any field. It is so with some political leaders and some business leaders. If labor leaders do not use their power in the interests of labor, the wise union membership will throw them out, but sometimes that takes time.

The day may come when the closed shop will be unnecessary as a protection, and then it may fall into disrepute. But at present there are many employers as well as employees who have found it a useful mechanism. The point to be remembered is that if enough individual workers feel it is unfair to them and to labor as a whole, they can throw it out at any time.

26

January 30, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – I was called up last evening by some friends who are deeply interested in progressive education and who feel that my recent column on that subject was very unfair. They say that only about 1 percent of the children of this country are actually getting the benefit of an education as given in a really progressive school. That is more than likely, and I am afraid they took my word “progressive” too literally. Much of the education today in public schools is called progressive education.

What I was really complaining about is what perhaps could better be described as modern education. So much emphasis is placed on the development of the individual child and so little upon any kind of unpopular or unwanted discipline! That is probably not progressive education at all, but just plainly the easiest way to get along.

There is one kind of progressive education which I have seen at close range and which worked miracles in drawing a whole community together. Ordinarily a community grows together gradually, little by little over a period of years, but this community was started like a mushroom field and sprouted all at once. The woman who started the first school there, Miss Elsie Clapp, made it the center of the community, and she related the school and its children to their environment. They were busy with many useful projects which touched on their daily lives, their past history and their future possibilities. I imagine that that might have been called an extremely good progressive school.

I realize that many of those who are horrified at my using the word “progressive” lightly would probably say that any shortcomings are due to the lack of really well-trained teachers. That may be, but if it is true, then that is a lack which we have to face, for it may be that, without well-trained teachers, the process is not as successful as it was intended to be.

In any case, I am glad if I have created sufficient interest to make people look into their schools, both public and private, and decide whether these are giving children, rich and poor, the kind of education which will prevent juvenile delinquency. It is a mistake to think that juvenile delinquents are produced only where children have few advantages. The more advantages you have, the more should be expected of you; and if you fall far short, even though you may not actually go to jail, you may be quite as much a failure as the child who is sent to a reformatory.

I see in the paper that our Dutchess County representative in the New York State Senate – Sen. Frederic H. Bontecou – has introduced a bill which was denounced by the American Federation of Labor, who supported him for reelection last November. They are wholeheartedly against his bill, which would outlaw the closed shop. Employees would still have the right to bargain collectively, but they would not be barred from employment in certain companies if they did not belong to a union.

I can hardly see why the members of the American Federation of Labor should be so much surprised. This Senator’s record on labor legislation would seem to lead logically to the presentation of this bill.

27

January 31, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – We are going to Hyde Park this morning to attend ceremonies in commemoration of my husband’s birthday. I will tell you about them tomorrow.

These warm days we are having give me a little anxiety. I read of the cold weather in Europe, think how much better able we are to withstand it, and regret that the curious freaks of weather give us, in this part of the country, so many warm days in the month of January!

However, I would rather have a few warm days now than have them burst upon us temporarily in March. For the last two years, we have had prolonged warm spells in March which brought out our fruit trees, and then when cold weather came again in April, the buds were nipped and we lost a good part of our crop. I hope we will not have this same trend for a third year. As far as I know, we have not been told by scientists how to save our crops from freak weather of this kind. I have often seen, in the orange-growing States, a lot of smudges burning among the trees to keep them from suffering from the frost, but I doubt if that would help much in colder climates.

It seems incredible that a majority of the Georgia House of Representatives actually think that the State of Georgia is so far removed from the rest of the world that they go ahead and approve a “white primary bill” which would bar Negro citizens from voting in the Democratic primaries.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has before it the creation of a subcommission on discrimination. Are we going to put ourselves in the position of having the world think of us as a backward nation? A nation that discriminates, and takes away political rights from a large group of its citizens?

We can hide behind a provision in the U.N. Charter which states that domestic affairs cannot be interfered with unless they menace the peace of the world. But I do not think that will make us very happy, since there is no way of hiding from the thoughts of others.

I believe that a great majority of our citizens will hang their heads in shame if one of our great States actually practices what little Liberia has been trying to do away with. Liberia, I understand, has recently taken steps which seem to promise the full participation in the government of the country by all of her citizens who are able to vote.

I wonder if these citizens of ours, who, in the view of some of our other citizens, are so recklessly abusing their State’s rights at the moment, think that this will have no effect on future arguments concerning States’ rights. I can well imagine the orators who will cite this particular situation as showing that the citizens of a State should not be allowed to take a stand in opposition to the progressive outlook of the majority of the citizens of the country. This is not a stand which affects just the people of Georgia. It affects the standing of the United States in the world family of nations.

28

February 1, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – Yesterday morning Frank C. Walker, former Postmaster General, drove my son James, Miss Thompson and myself to Hyde Park for the unveiling of the bust of my husband which the International Ladies Garment Workers Union presented to the Roosevelt Memorial Library. The bust is in white Westerly granite on a very simple black Swedish granite base, and stands looking out over the field as you come up the steps to the library. The sculptor is Gleb W. Derujinsky who, I understand, once did a bust of my uncle, Theodore Roosevelt, whom he also greatly admired.

I was very glad that my son James was here from California and could be present as well as my son Elliott and his wife and her little boy. The ceremonies were very simple, but very dignified and impressive. Miss Lucy Monroe sang the National Anthem. The Rev. Gordon L. Kidd, the young minister who has just come to our Episcopal church in Hyde Park, gave the invocation, and the Rev. George W. Anthony, who was the acting rector of the church during the war, gave the benediction.

David Dubinsky, president of the ILGWU, made a speech which expressed the thoughts which I think will remain with all of us who were privileged to be present yesterday. This bust, presented by a group of workers, will long symbolize the close tie that existed between my husband and labor as a whole. He had the gift of talking in simple language, and many people who had never understood government problems knew, while he was in office, that these problems were really simple and that it was not impossible for the people to share the burdens of government. The ceremonies yesterday were a reminder of this tie; and the bust, I think, will constantly recall to the minds of many that, even though a man may die, the things he believed in may live after him in the hearts of men and may be expressed in their actions.

We drove up to the top cottage and had a delicious but somewhat hurried lunch with Elliott and Faye. Then we returned to the library, where I greeted the members of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, who adjourned yesterday and came to Hyde Park in honor of my husband’s birthday. After I had accompanied them to the big house and told them one or two things about it which I thought might interest them, I returned to the library with my son James, who spent a little while there with the director, Fred Shipman.

Then, since the drive up had been very foggy in spots, we decided to drive back to New York, fearing that the weather might become bad and make the trip unpleasant. I was very grateful to Mr. Walker for enabling us to make the trip so easily, and was grateful, too, for all the kindly thoughts which many people expressed on this day, which would have been my husband’s 65th birthday.

29

February 3, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – At yesterday’s meeting of the Human Rights Commission, Dr. Chang, the Chinese representative, spoke with deep insight about the problems we must consider in writing the preamble to the proposed Bill of Human Rights.

Dr. Chang, speaking without notes in the general debate, stressed the need for bringing an historical background to bear upon the subject. He pointed out that in the eighteenth century, human rights had come to the fore in contrast to the doctrine of the divine right of kings. In the nineteenth century, however, world thinking and European thinking had slipped back, and it was not until the twentieth century that our views were again placed on a broad plane.

Since the divine right of kings became a thing of the past, continued Dr. Chang, much emphasis has been laid on man the animal. Only a small layer separates the animal from thinking man, and perhaps the difference may simply be that man can think of someone else as well as of himself – the “two-thinking man,” as Dr. Chang put it. It is that little difference which means progress for the human race.

Dr. Chang also called attention to the fact that China had long stood in the forefront of philosophic thought. In the eighteenth century its philosophic writings were known to all thinkers in Europe, but in the following century the European outlook again became provincial. Only now are we thinking again on a world scale.

As Dr. Chang talked, I looked across the table where sat the interpreters and other representatives to the seats beyond filled with visitors, many of them high school students. I felt what a great opportunity it was for these young people to listen to the reflections of so mature a mind. I do not know what went on in the minds of those youngsters; but my own desire is to know so much more than I do, and I wish I could be young again with years ahead of me to acquire knowledge!

In the latter part of the afternoon, the Yugoslavian representative touched on a point which may prove one of the difficult trends of thought to reconcile with the conception held by many of the members of the Human Rights Commission. As I understood him, he felt that in many of the bills of human rights which had been presented for study the emphasis was wrong because it was based on the rights of individuals, whereas the new trends in the world made it impossible to consider individuals except collectively.

General discussion of these matters will continue today, and I will refer to them again, since I believe it is of great importance to the people of the world.

30

February 4, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – There must be a great many people who were relieved to hear from the President that he was opposed to any general increase in rents. Most of us would be more sympathetic with the owners of real estate if there were not such a shortage of housing, so that any decently livable apartment or house can be occupied every day in the year, without any loss to the landlord.

The same principle holds good in real estate as in other business. If your product sells in great quantities, you can usually sell the individual item at a little lower price. That is really the case with houses and apartments today everywhere in the country, and I know of few real estate people who could tell you honestly that they are losing money on the properties which they manage at the present time.

If the rent ceilings were taken off, the result would be reckless bidding, in which those who could afford higher rents would have an unfair advantage over those who must live within a limited budget.

The other evening, I went to the theater. I doubt very much if I would have managed it if my children had not urged me to go, since I had to get home from a Human Rights Commission meeting and give a lecture at the Women’s Trade Union League before going to the theater!

The play, “Years Ago,” a new comedy by Ruth Gordon in which Fredric March, Florence Eldridge and Patricia Kirkland take the chief parts, was just the right one for a completely relaxed evening. I understand it is the story of Ruth Gordon’s early life, and if so, she deserves credit for her courage in pursuing her stage career.

The family in the play is a typical old-fashioned family, reminding one a little of “Life With Father.” But the father has fine qualities, and the mother is certainly one of those angelic women who existed apparently in past generations but seem to have disappeared in the present!

Someone asked me the other day for a prescription as to how to make friends, and I think a good way is to be Fala’s owner and walk with him around this neighborhood near my apartment. Sunday morning, we were doing a little exploring in Greenwich Village, and I found myself walking down Minetta Lane towards Minetta Street. A man came around the corner, and he and Fala held a long conversation. Wherever we go, children, other owners of dogs, and lonely people of all kinds talk to Fala and to me. So I think any friendly little dog who wags his tail at strange dogs and strange people alike is “Open Sesame” for making friends.

31

February 5, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – In the Human Rights Commission meeting yesterday, we had a long argument as to the type of working group which should be set up, between sessions of the commission, to draft an international bill of rights. Having finally decided that the work shall be under the supervision of the chairman, vice-chairman and rapporteur of the commission, who will be assisted by the U.N. Secretariat, we will at last get down to the discussion of what rights shall actually be written into this bill. This discussion must, of course, serve as a guidance to the working group and as a basis for their future report.

The working group may also receive suggestions, either oral or written, from other members of the commission and may ask for any member’s advice or suggesions. It can also ask the U.N. Secretary General and the president of the Economic and Social Council for their consent to consultation with any experts who may be needed on certain points which may come up for consideration – legal, religious or social questions, for instance.

As chairman of the commission, I shall be a member of this working group. I am very glad that my responsibility will be shared by two of my colleagues, for I shall be away for a short time next month, I hope. Having made that announcement to the commission, I found myself, at the end of the meeting, the center of a group of excited newspaper people who wanted to know whether I was going to attend the conference in Moscow next month!

Such a supposition had never crossed my mind, as it had never crossed anybody else’s, but I realized how easily one could start a rumor. If I hadn’t been there to tell the reporters at once that I expected merely to make a few speeches on the West Coast, they might have gone out with the firm conviction that, when our officials started for Moscow, I was going to tag along!

Miss Katharine Lenroot, head of the U.S. Children’s Bureau, went with me last night to the opening of the Council Child Development Center at the Halsey Day Nursery on East 59th Street. We found the building filled when we arrived. I was very glad to meet Dr. Marian Putnam who, I believe, has started the only other such psychiatric child guidance center in the country. The findings here should prove of value all over the country. And I am sure they will help to explain many of the difficulties which we found in connection with some of our young men when they were drafted.

It was interesting news to read that the AFL, at its meeting in Miami, proposed a joining of hands with the CIO, so that labor could present a united front to Congress, which undoubtedly is going to bring up some suggestions which won’t be pleasant for any labor group. One may be pardoned, however, if one is a little skeptical about some of those who are going to do the negotiating for the AFL. I am quite sure Philip Murray, CIO head, will choose shrewd, wide-awake men to represent him and will give them good guidance. It would be sensible if labor could present a united front. However, the gap between the kind of leadership which John L. Lewis represents and that which Philip Murray represents is difficult to bridge!

32

February 6, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – Curiously enough, in United Nations meetings, the things which seem likely to create the longest discussions sometimes create less discussion than do minor procedural points! Yesterday in the Human Rights Commission, with comparatively few speeches, we covered the whole question of what should be embodied in the first draft of an international bill of human rights.

We did bring out the fact that there are two very distinct differences of opinion, and yet several members of the commission felt that they were not irreconcilable. One school of thought emphasizes the importance of the human being and, by inference at least, the subordination of government to the interests of the individual. The other school insists that there is no such thing as the interests of one person, that he must be considered in the environment of his community or group. By inference, the government therefore assumes greater importance because it affects the well-being of the group, and the individual must be subordinated to its decisions because he can only be benefited as the group is benefited.

One of the members brought out the fact that the one thing which, evidently, nobody objects to is freedom. This much, at least, may be permitted to every individual – he must make his own decisions.

One interesting point was made on a number of occasions – namely, that we must have responsibilities as well as rights in modern society.

The representative from China warned us against writing a document which would repeat all the old words and phrases and leave out fresher and more modern phraseology. He gave as an example the phrase “freedom from want.” This, of course, leads to a discussion of many rights. In the various proposed bills which have been sent in to us, we have listed the right to food, to shelter, to medical care, to health, to education, and a number of other similar rights, which all really are covered by the general term “freedom from want.” Perhaps it has to be spelled out in social security plans or laws to give it full implementation, but it expresses a modern conception.

The representative from the United Kingdom is very much troubled by the fact that, while you can write a bill of human rights, it will mean nothing to various parts of the world where people are still in a state which will not allow them to enjoy many of these rights. It is quite obvious that the people of Borneo do not have exactly the same conception of rights and freedoms as do the people of New York City or London.

Therefore, we will have to bear in mind that we are writing a bill of rights for the world, and that one of the most important rights is the opportunity for development. As people grasp that opportunity, they can also demand new rights if these are broadly defined.

33

February 7, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – It would seem that David E. Lilienthal, in speaking out his mind to the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy in answer to Sen. Kenneth McKellar’s charges against him, explained fairly well what a majority of the citizens of this country believe is the meaning of democracy. Sen. McKellar, opposing the confirmation of Mr. Lilienthal as chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, had accused him of Communistic sympathies. Yet here is what Mr. Lilienthal said in part:

“Traditionally, democracy has been an affirmative doctrine rather than merely a negative one. I believe … the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all government and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and defend the integrity and the dignity of the individual; that that is the essential meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is essentially the meaning of religion…

“I deeply believe in the capacity of democracy to surmount any trials that may lie ahead, provided only we practice it in our daily lives.”

This speech might have been made before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and I think it is one that young Americans all over this country should learn.

Yesterday in the Commission on Human Rights, we took up the question of implementation of international bill of rights. It seemed to be the consensus of opinion that we should discuss this difficult subject as a guide to the drafting committee, since the Economic and Social Council had requested that we make recommendations on various methods of implementing the bill. In fact, to write a bill without any suggestions as to how it is actually going to be observed seems a rather empty gesture.

However, some of the commission members felt that it was impossible to make any suggestions on implementation until the bill was before us. Since they had no instructions from their governments, they did not see how we could formulate anything until the bill of rights was formulated and under discussion.

The discussion became so heated that at one point I had before me a resolution and four amendments – which is a procedure designed to make a chairman perfectly happy! The decision as to which amendment is furthest away from the original motion, and even the effort to remember the wording of the original motion and of the amendments, create more or less confusion in the chairman’s mind.

We resolved our difficulties, however, and finally decided that the drafting committee should explore and discuss methods of implementation, then present their findings to the next session of the commission – not as a formal part of the bill of rights, but merely as suggestions.

Two of my husband’s cousins went out to Lake Success with me yesterday – Mrs. Frederic B. Adams, and Mrs. Cyril Martineau of London. As we went to lunch after the morning session, Mrs. Martineau remarked that, for the uninitiated, some of the speeches had seemed a trifle difficult to understand, but that she supposed we knew what we were talking about. I certainly hope we do!

34

February 8, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – At the end of yesterday morning’s session of the Human Rights Commission, a woman came up to me and said that she had written me two letters – that her human rights were being interfered with, so she wanted to know what she could do.

I’m afraid that many, many people think that the Human Rights Commission is a tribunal where all people who have complaints can hope that their complaints will be heard. Over and over again in our discussions, it has been brought out that, if we do certain things, we will be raising false hopes among people throughout the world. These people will be disappointed, because they are looking anxiously for some answer to their dilemmas, and the name of our commission misleads them.

The Human Rights Commission is not a court which can deal with individual wrongs. The commission, set up by the Economic and Social Council, is trying to formulate an international bill of rights for acceptance by the member nations of the United Nations. Once this bill is formulated and accepted, it will be a help to people throughout the world because it will be a yardstick for judging appeals made by individuals or groups who desire consideration for their wrongs.

But it must be borne in mind that it would be improper for the Human Rights Commission now even to pass upon such communications received, since many of them would require investigating to ascertain whether the facts are as represented, and the commission has no machinery for investigation. And in many cases, such investigation would be contrary to one of the provisions of the U.N. Charter, which assures the member nations that there will be no interference in their domestic affairs unless there is a threat to world peace.

Eventually, many of these things will probably come up for consideration. In the meantime, the main objective of the present Commission on Human Rights is to write a bill of rights to be presented to the member nations. However, the communications received from individuals and from groups may serve a useful purpose. They may form a background against which the needs of people will appear more clearly, and in view of these needs, action of various kinds will undoubtedly be recommended in the coming months. Still, it would be unfair to let people continue to feel that any immediate help in their personal problems will be forthcoming through this commission.

35

February 10, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – I notice that some newspapers, in discussing the Bill of Human Rights, have singled out for special comment those differences which of necessity must arise from time to time among 18 people representing 18 different nations. They have spoken little, however, of what I find particularly encouraging – namely, that in spite of the differences on procedure which occasionally have meant long discussions, there has been on the whole a very encouraging effort by all members of the Human Rights Commission to expedite the work.

As we begin to know each other, there is a growing sense of confidence and understanding as to the reasons why we take certain stands. An example of this is the reaction to the U.S. government’s attitude about the various sub-commissions. We have felt that it might be conducive of better results if, instead of having governments chosen to serve, people were chosen on the basis of their competence for the specific work in hand. We recognize that anyone who serves must have at least the consent of his government or he would carry no weight; but we still believe that such a procedure, particularly on working sub-commissions, would bring us people whom several countries might feel were especially competent to do some particular job.

This point of view, however, did not carry in the drafting committee, and I said I would have to reserve the right to bring the point up before the entire commission when discussing the drafting of the committee’s report. It would not have seemed to me very unreasonable if the other members had thereupon objected that this would delay the acceptance of the report, and had shown some annoyance. Instead, they all agreed that since this was the view of my government, I was fully entitled to present it to the commission as a whole. The very pleasant way in which all delegates accepted this was a sign, I felt, that we were working better and better together. Basically, the Marxist and the democratic point of view are different, but where human rights are concerned I hope we will have a considerable area of agreement.

It was a shock to read on Friday morning of the death of Miss Ellen Wilkinson, Minister of Education in England’s Labor government. She had been for a long time a dynamic figure in British politics, and women owe her a great debt of gratitude not only for what she did for them, but for what she accomplished in the welfare and educational fields. It was a fitting recognition of her work that she was made a part of the Labor government, and her diminuitive but energetic figure will be missed in the Hall of Parliament.

I would also like to express my very deep regret at the sudden death of our new Ambassador to Great Britain, the Hon. O. Max Gardner. He had well earned this honor by long public service, and I am sure he would have represented the real American spirit of democracy at the Court of St. James.

36

February 11, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – I have been asked to draw attention to the fact that this is National Heart Week, during which the American Heart Association is putting on an extensive educational campaign in the hope of raising funds for their work. The New York campaign treasurer is Robert H. Craft, Guaranty Trust Company, 140 Broadway, New York City. Heart disease is one of the chief ailments causing casualties among both adults and children, and yet at the present time the amount of money put into research in this particular field is shockingly small.

The long fight put up against tuberculosis has brought down the deaths from that disease by 79 percent. Diphtheria is down about 98 percent; pneumonia and influenza, because of the new drugs discovered, 69 percent. Today, per hundred-thousand, there are 41 deaths from tuberculosis, 62 from pneumonia and influenza, 72 from accidents, 129 from cancer, and 315 from heart disease.

It looks as though our modern way of living tends to put greater strain upon the heart. Certainly, however, we should be putting more money into research and also into the care of patients.

Cancer is being brought increasingly to public attention, and efforts are being made to provide not only adequate research but adequate education, which is the most important part of the fight against cancer. If people will recognize symptoms soon enough, the chance of a cure is so much greater.

We are becoming aware too of the great value of mental hygiene. Though I smiled a little the other day when someone told me that a psychiatrist was going to make a study primarily of mental disturbances arising in children under a year old, I think perhaps there is more wisdom in this than we realize. Many a child’s nervous system must be seriously affected in infancy by parents or nurses who have no appreciation of the effect of some careless act. For instance, I have seen people slap babies on the face with little regard for the fact that the mechanism of the ear is particularly sensitive and that an adult’s hand is heavier than one realizes.

One great difficulty about medical advances seems to be that education in regard to them must be assimilated by the grownups of a generation before the advances can be useful to children. Think how long it took us to induce people to innoculate for diphtheria! But since the education of parents has been accomplished, look how the percentage of diphtheria deaths has dropped. I remember that, when I was a child, there was practically no hope for anyone who contracted diphtheria!

The fight against disease is a long hard one, and a test of the intelligence of the average man and woman.

37

February 12, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – Yesterday afternoon the Commission on Human Rights ended its first session. The good feeling that prevailed throughout the meetings is indicative of the fact that there is a genuine interest in human rights and, as I said to the correspondents who gathered together at the end of the session, I felt encouraged.

A subcommission on minorities and discrimination was set up. And once an international bill of rights has been accepted by the Assembly, I think the commission will play an important role in helping nations to solve their minority problems and to find solutions to the causes that lead to discrimination.

A people, to be free from discrimination in their hearts, must be mature and secure. Discrimination against others because of race, sex or religion arises, of course, from fear. But we can never wipe out the basic rights of human beings, and unthinking discrimination is dangerous.

On the setting up of the subcommission on freedom of information and of the press, I was asked a question which showed how much the democracies today have to prove their value by deeds rather than by words. My contention was that freedom of information would help us to insure the rights of human beings and would aid us in breaking down discriminations. Very pointedly, one of the delegates asked whether, in a country where there was a so-called free press, there was less racial discrimination than in others where the press was more controlled. I could only say “touché,” because it was a fair criticism.

Nevertheless, I think that a free press is essential even though, by itself, it cannot wipe out the evils of discrimination. The more information there is available, the more people will begin to think out their own attitudes. And that will most certainly lead to more support for those who are trying to obtain real justice and fair treatment for people throughout the world.

Although the first session of the commission is over, I must say that the weight of work which has been placed upon its officers for the interval between this and the next session is a pretty heavy burden. The writing of a preliminary draft of the bill of rights may not seem so terrifying to my colleagues in the drafting group – Dr. P. C. Chang, Dr. Charles Malik and John Humphrey, all of whom are learned gentlemen. But to me it seems a task for which I am ill-equipped.

However, I may be able to help them put into words the high thoughts which they can gather from past history and from the actuality of the contemporary situation, so that the average human being can understand and strive for the objectives set forth. I used to tell my husband that, if he could make me understand something, it would be clear to all the other people in the country – and perhaps that will be my real value on this drafting commission!

38

February 13, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – I want to thank the many kind people who wrote me letters on my husband’s birthday and sent money for the March of Dimes. I would like to write to each one and tell them how much their very fine letters are appreciated. I realize more today than even when my husband was alive how closely he was a part of the people of this country; and how many of them felt that he was a friend who understood their aspirations and needs. He had a gift of projecting his feeling for people into the homes of many who never had an opportunity even to see him. I thank you all collectively, since it is not possible to do so individually.

It is becoming physically impossible for me to keep up with the mail that comes in day by day. I cannot afford to keep a large enough office staff, and since I left Washington, I have had no facilities for doing many of the things which the letters take it for granted I will be able to do. As far as possible from now on, when subjects come up in the letters about which I have information, I will try to give that information in my column, hoping that it will be generally useful.

But I am not going to be able to answer the mail, as I have tried to do up to now. It takes me on an average of three hours a day and, since I have not that much time free in the daytime, I have had to do it at night. In addition, it requires more secretaries than I can justify for the amount of good I can accomplish through answering much of this mail.

It is not that I am not interested in people’s problems. I am as keenly interested as I ever was, but when I was in Washington, there was something I could do about almost any problem that was placed before me. That is no longer possible, and it is not fair to let people count on help from a source from which it cannot come.

I have been hoping that people would gradually realize the change which must come when one leaves the White House and returns to life in one’s own home. As the wife of a President, I had certain facilities at hand which have not been available since I returned to a private and inconspicuous existence!

However, there are great advantages, one of the greatest being the added privacy and the realization that you have a right to a life of your own. You do not have to judge everything you do in the light of whether you have an obligation first to the people who placed your husband in office. To really reap the full benefit of the change, however, some activities must be given up, and one of them is the answering of mail. From now on, my column alone will be the medium through which I will try to give my correspondents any information I may have on a given subject.

39

February 14, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – As Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday was celebrated this week, has always seemed to me the epitome of our ideal of democracy, I want to pay a tribute to his memory. It is a curious thing that so many of our great men who lived in periods of crisis were often subjected to vitriolic attacks during their lives and even after their deaths. Usually, however, they had a loyal and devoted following among the majority of the people, and this following gained as the years went by. Today it would be hard to find anyone who would write some of the things which were written to or about George Washington by contemporaries or near contemporaries – or about Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln.

It is fortunate that there is nearly always this majority of the people who recognize the true worth of a great leader in spite of the groups or individuals who may attack him.

There is a painting of Lincoln over the mantelpiece in the state dining room in the White House which, I have always thought, gives extraordinary insight into his character. It was painted by George P. A. Healy, who painted portraits of many of the 19th century leaders both here and abroad. To me, his portrait of Lincoln is one of his greatest successes, because it brings out Lincoln’s gentleness and humor, the strength of the man in repose. It does not emphasize his awkwardness nor the characteristics which made it easy for the cartoonists of his day to make cruel fun of this great man.

In the lives of our great men, we can see the development of the ideals for which we have striven in this country of ours. The ability of each man to go forward depended on what had been done by his predecessors. And in years to come, I think we will see that the era through which we have recently lived is one which has contributed to the growth of the United States and to its capacity for leadership in a democratic world.

Since the war, we have suffered the usual reaction. We see this exemplified today in the attacks on a man like David Lilienthal. But I believe he will win out, because no one could live by the credo he recently enunciated and not serve his country well.

The appearance of such an organization, for instance, as the Columbians in Georgia is a sign of the slump which comes when people are weary after a war. But this will not last. Sooner or later, the people of this country will realize that they have an obligation to carry the torch of democracy, not only on their own behalf but on behalf of the world. Is our way of life and our form of government worth preserving? Then we must work for its constant improvement, and must prove its worth by its services to the world.

40

February 15, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – It is hard for us to visualize displaced persons in Europe as people like ourselves but living under unnatural conditions, so today I am quoting from a letter about them which has a moving quality and will, I think, help toward a better understanding of the problem:

“It is Christmas Day in Germany. Last night the young displaced persons on my staff and I had our Christmas Eve dinner of regular British Zone rations. Little gifts dug from the bottoms of duffel bags were produced for each person, and we spent a nostalgic evening singing the songs of Latvia, Estonia, Poland and the United States, with a few concentration camp favorites thrown in for good measure. A bad German was our common tongue, but it sufficed. I felt very sad about the pitiful presents I had given. They had not seemed so futile last year, but this Christmas they seemed a poor recompense for the only things these young people really wanted – a country, freedom and a home. I did not dare think of their next Christmas!

“This morning I went to the Christmas service in a fine old 12th century church. Wrapped well in a woolen blanket, I watched the white breath of the German congregation who were listening to the Christmas messages of love and peace. Again I dared not think of how little joy and light there was in the somber hearts of these unhappy, hungry people. In the last twenty months I had heard daily of the atrocities their nation had committed against the people for whom I am working. But I could not hate them. I only wanted to help them, for I knew too well what they could again become if left long without hope. But first of all I wanted to get my people out of this sad land, and I did not see how they could stand the hate and the suspicion they find here until another Christmas! I was sure I could not…

“In this brief letter I shall not go into the assets and liabilities of the various groups, but I know them well. All I shall say is that, except for some few thousand Poles, the people left here will not willingly repatriate. To force them will mean only countless tragedies. I am very sorry that they will not go home. I feel sincerely that their countries are most progressive and are pointing the way to a social revolution that cannot and should not be stopped (no, I am not a Communist).

“The only solution I can see now is emigration – and emigration in the not too distant future, if the people are to have any morale left with which to face the difficulties of making a new life for themselves. It is on this point that I feel most strongly. These people must not stay on here in Germany.

“Locked here in Germany, we cannot know all that is being done for our people on the outside (yes, that is prison language, but I have worked in prisons and the words fit well here).”

What are we doing here about this problem, and what is the answer of the people of the United States?