Election 1944: Democratic National Convention

conv.dem.top.banner

At platform hearings –
World setup to keep peace is endorsed

Witnesses testify on foreign plank

Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
Mrs. J. Borden Harriman told the Democratic National Convention Platform Committee today that it is time to establish the international organization of nations to prevent future wars as promised in the Moscow Declaration and the Connally Resolution approved by Congress.

Mrs. Harriman, former Minister to Norway, was among witnesses appearing before the committee as it turned to the vital foreign policy issue, with the broad outlines of the party’s foreign plank apparently already agreed upon.

She added a warning that a national movement has been started by citizens who are willing to “slug it out with all and sundry who are sowing the dragon seed of World War III.”

Isolationists assailed

She said:

I refer to the isolationists, the so-called nationalists… to the cynics and defeatists, to the business-as-usual bunch, and to any little group of willful men that may crop up.

Mrs. Harriman recommended that the international organization:

  • Guarantee relief from war to all nations with the “peace-loving nations” pledged to advance together against an aggressor.

  • Establish means for peaceful settlement of disputes and for advancement of human rights.

  • Create agencies for international cooperation in such fields as trade, labor, currency stabilization, agriculture and aviation, to promote an expanding world economy.

Ely Culbertson, bridge expert, representing a group called Fight for Total Peace, Inc., told the committee a federal alliance between the United States, Great Britain and “a collection of small nations” would not cost this nation its sovereignty because the only sovereign right any of the countries would give up is the right to wage war of aggression.

Police force urged

Mr. Culbertson also called for an international police force.

Frederick J. Libby, executive secretary of the National Council for Prevention of War, urged the party to support a “peace offensive,” a statement of peace aims based on the Atlantic Charter.

Other proposed planks calling for U.S. participation in an international organization with power to prevent aggression were submitted by the National Peace Conference, representing 16 organizations; the League of Women Voters and the Women’s Action Committee for Victory and a Lasting Peace.

Connally will testify

But the man whose recommendation is expected to carry the greatest weight will not be heard until the committee adjourns its open hearings late today and meets in executive session to begin drafting the platform. He is Senator Tom Connally (D-TX), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, author of the Senate-approved Connally Resolution and a special adviser to the Platform Committee.

Mr. Connally has drafted a proposed plank of less than 300 words which was reported to beat the approval of President Roosevelt. It is expected to call for a post-war association of sovereign nations to maintain peace. It was understood that Senator Connally favored language advocating specific authorization of military force to prevent aggression, to contrast with the Republican platform pledge to support “peace forces” against aggression.

Platform Committee Chairman John W. McCormack (D-MA), House Majority Leader, said the committee expected to begin whipping the platform into shape for submission to the convention tomorrow.

Domestic issues

The committee completed hearings on domestic issues yesterday, receiving lengthy statements from AFL President William Green and CIO President Philip Murray. They submitted recommendations for labor, reconversion, foreign policy and other planks.

Both urged U.S. participation in a post-war association of nations, reconversion programs to assure full employment after the war and immediate repeal of the Smith-Connally anti-strike law. Mr. Murray read the text of the program adopted at a CIO Political Action Conference at Washington last month.

Racial issue paramount

Mr. Murray also added to the flood of testimony on the racial issue – an explosive one for the Democrats – by urging the committee to draft a strong plank condemning racial discrimination.

The party’s declaration on the race issue promised to rival the foreign plank in importance.

americavotes1944

Nominees picked in three states

By the United Press

A “decisive victory” for Governor Sidney P. Osborn, who won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Arizona by a 2-to-1 margin, and a substantial lead piled up by Senator Carl Hayden (D-AZ), running for renomination, highlighted light primary election returns from three states – Arizona, Montana and Wyoming – today.

In Montana, where a three-way battle for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was the principal feature of an otherwise dull primary, Lief Erickson, 38-year-old justice of the State Supreme Court, was leading Austin B. Middleton and former Governor Roy E. Ayers.

In the race for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, Governor Sam C. Ford was far out in front of his only opponent, former Congressman Dr. J. Thorkelson of Butte.

Governor Osborn was conceded the Democratic nomination in Arizona by William Coxon, who extended congratulations for winning “a decisive victory.”

Senator Hayden, and Reps. John Murdock was Richard Harless were leading their opponents for renomination on the Democratic ticket.

In Wyoming, where the only contest was for the Democratic nomination for Congress, Charles E. Norris of Laramie was leading Clyde C. Winters.

conv.dem.top.banner

Editorial: ‘I do not wish to appear…’

Two things stand out at the Democratic National Convention. It is dominated by the indispensable man who isn’t there. And he is operating as usual through party machines headed primarily by the notorious Mayor Kelly of Chicago, Boss Flynn of New York and Mayor Hague of Jersey City.

There is a great show of fighting over the Vice Presidency. But when the final gavel falls on the perspiring delegates who sit in the convention hall while the managers elsewhere rig the plays, it will be clear that Mr. Roosevelt got what he wanted. Not only the fourth term candidacy for himself, which he in effect has already accepted in advance, and the platform he has already outlined, but also the running mate.

We don’t know Mr. Roosevelt’s choice for second place. Even some who think they are close to him, including Henry Wallace, apparently cannot be sure – yet. That is not surprising. It happened in 1940. Remember? Several vice-presidential aspirants, who had talked with Mr. Roosevelt, had been told it was an open race and that any one of them was acceptable of not his favorite. But, when he finally showed his fist, Mr. Wallace was in it – along with an ultimatum to nominate Mr. Wallace or else. Kelly, Flynn, Hague and Company delivered.

We can’t guess the meaning of the President’s letter to the convention chairman regarding Mr. Wallace, because it is deliberate double-talk. Its purpose may be to damn Mr. Wallace with faint praise, as his friends fear and his opponents hope, and to clear the way for the real FDR selection. Or it may be canny encouragement for several other aspirants to kill each other off, so that Mr. Wallace can be named in the end without the appearance of White House dictation.

On one point, however, the President’s letter is clear. He has grown sensitive about his party dictatorship and is terribly anxious to remove the “appearances” of it before they become a worse campaign liability. To quote: “At the same time, I do not wish to appear in any way as dictating to the convention.”

Well, that is Mr. Roosevelt’s only important wish in connection with the convention which cannot come true. Because it is not within the power of the convention – not even of Kelly, Flynn, Hague and Company – to give him that on top of everything else. The “appearances” in the end will be unable to cover up the fact that the absent indispensable man made all the final decisions. With all of his skill as a political manipulator in absentia, not even Mr. Roosevelt can control a national convention and keep that a secret.

conv.dem.top.banner

CIO political group hit by AFL spokesman

Support by committee called kiss of death

Washington (UP) –
Philip Pearl, publicity director and official spokesman of the American Federation of Labor, charged today that the CIO Political Action Committee was resorting to “typical communist technique” and predicted that most candidates would find its support “the kiss of death.”

As far as President Roosevelt is concerned, Mr. Pearl declared, his election to a fourth term would be in spite if, rather than because of, CIO backing.

‘A tricky outfit’

Mr. Pearl said in his column in the AFL’s Weekly News Service that the CIO committee had shown itself to be a “rather tricky outfit” when it set up its new national citizens political action committee “to front for it.” By thus going underground, he said, the committee followed typical communist tactics.

He said:

The reason given is that unions, under the Connally-Smith Act, are forbidden to make political contributions and that therefore a new committee was necessary to raise campaign funds by voluntary contributions.

But a more practical reason is apparent. That one is to take the CIO name out of the organization’s title. The communist stooges behind the PAC are canny enough to realize that the initials CIO are

Backs Gallup poll

Mr. Pearl said that while he often disagreed with findings of the Gallup poll, he agreed with its recent report asserting that many people would be “inclined to vote against, instead of for, candidates who bear the CIO label.”

He declared:

If President Roosevelt is elected, the CIO will loudly claim all the credit. But if the President is elected to a fourth term, it will be in spite of rather than because of the CIO’s help.

As for candidates for lesser office, they are likely to find that the benison of the CIO in 1944, as in former years, will turn out to be the kiss of death.

conv.dem.top.banner

pegler

Pegler: Democratic Convention

By Westbrook Pegler

Chicago, Illinois –
With the presidential nomination disposed of long before the fall of the gavel by Mr. Roosevelt’s grinning acceptance of a fourth nomination, the incongruous and uneasy Democrats at their convention present a new spectacle in the politics of the United States, a strange congress of distrust, resentment, fear and a cynicism such as not even the most sordid Old-Guard Republican ever had the effrontery to express.

Here is idealism of the most pretentious and milky sort, the pious nobility of purpose of the New Deal, fermented and soured into a mesh of underworld politics and European continental trickery, all in the course of 12 years since the faithful went forth from the same hall in 1932, bawling “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

Many old faces are missing now, a few to appear in the following of Tom Dewey, disillusioned, repentant and humbly eager to atone. Many enthusiasts of the early New Deal have gone to their graves. And Jim Farley, standing ears above the crowd and wearing the same smile as of old, but a smile done with the muscles now and not by the impulse of a confident heart, has become a beloved but pathetic has-been, trampled, scuffed and confused, while Sidney Hillman, leader of the CIO-Communist coalition, holds press conferences at a hotel of his own selection, the Sherman House, at the other side of the Loop.

To a degree, it may be said for Jim that he is standing by his principles for he never would court or have any political traffic with Hillman’s aggregation of naturalized but unassimilated Europeans in New York when they called themselves the American Labor Party. Never yet has he compromised his total American devotion by appearing, under any pretext of emergency or wartime unity, on any platform where he could be photographed under the hammer and sickle of the Communist conspiracy.

Yet, although, as an American, he obviously believes the election of President Roosevelt to a fourth term would be a national misfortune, still his deep, personal devotion to the rules of the game will deter him from opposing the ticket.

No longer ambitious for Presidency

Jim is no longer ambitious for the Presidency. He may hope to become Governor of New York two years from now, but even that is a remote and highly speculative possibility and would be a dull climax to the career of a man who, four years ago, had an honest, if naïve, hope of going to the White House.

But boy and man, Jim has been a Democrat, and that perverse loyalty, that spirit of politics as a game, is stronger in Jim and, also, in many others here this week, than the inner whisperings of patriotic judgment.

Many men and women in this convention long ago lost their belief in the President as an idealist, even lost faith in him as a party man as he steadily took over and became, himself, the party, but, in resignation, go along anyway this once more because they don’t know what else to do.

Some feel an obligation to their little followings back home. Some are too proud to make public demonstration of their private fears for the country after four years more of the same. Some are so degraded they would risk it all for the little pay and power the politics gives them.

There are men and women here who hatefully resent Hillman and his small but tireless and clever group of scheming Europeans and fully understand the superior importance of a few hundred thousand New York votes, cast under the influence of European fears and hatreds, as compared with several times the same number of votes cast in their own home states.

Hillman most prominent lay-Democrat

They know the power of such people to pull the switches and throw American cities and factories into darkness and terror for they have seen it demonstrated. They know that, at Hillman’s plea, Charles Poletti, as temporary governor of New York, secretly released from prison a European communist firebug who held office in Hillman’s union and that, nevertheless, if not for this very reason, Poletti was made a full Army colonel and the American Military Governor of Rome.

It was not so much that Hillman and his group demanded Wallace. The humiliation, the startling, disturbing change lay in the fact that they could make any demands on the convention.

Whether or not, Hillman has his way, he becomes, nevertheless, the most prominent lay-Democrat in the party, although not necessarily the most powerful. For Kelly of Chicago and Hague of New Jersey are still in silent, secret action and these tough old brawlers this time are under no cloud of outward disavowal.

conv.dem.top.banner

Perkins: Democrats fully aware of importance of CIO

Hillman-Murray influence is indicated in deference shown them by party leaders
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Chicago, Illinois –
As the Democratic Convention opens here today a definite contrast is presented in the political positions of the principal leaders of American organized labor.

Philip Murray and Sidney Hillman. of the CIO, are deeply involved in the affairs of the Democratic Party; staking their present prestige on winning a renomination for Vice President Wallace; and risking the future of their organization on success of the Roosevelt ticket in November.

William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, pursues the traditional policy of that organization in not becoming an appendage of any political party, and of working both sides of the street in efforts to get favorable commitments from both the Democratic and Republican platforms.

Lewis backing GOP

John L. Lewis, of the United Mine Workers, got some burnt fingers through involvement as head of the CIO with the Democratic Party in 1936 (on a scale not so great as that on which Messrs. Murray ad Hillman are now involved), is backing the Republican ticket, and hoping he will be more successful than in 1940 in swinging miner votes against President Roosevelt.

The Murray-Hillman importance in Democratic affairs is indicated by the deference being shown them by other party leaders in selection of the running mate for Mr. Roosevelt; by a press conference they held which drew one of the largest crowds of reporters during this convention period; by applause in the Resolutions Committee for Mr. Murray when he finished a spirited presentation of the CIO ideas of what should be in the Democratic platform.

Votes in strategic states

Just how many delegates the CIO has in the convention is uncertain, but the number is believed to be less than a hundred among the total of 1,176. That proportion, however, is not the important point. The Democratic leaders are depending on the CIO to produce enough votes in strategic states to produce a victory over the Dewey-Bricker ticket. If it works out that way, the Democratic Party will become more than an alliance of professional politicians with labor leaders. If it doesn’t, the strategy of the politicians and the labor leaders will be due for a revamping before another presidential campaign rolls around.

conv.dem.top.banner

Allen: Roosevelt-Willkie ticket would save lots of metal

They could go out to Wisconsin and dig up all those buttons Wendell buried there
By Gracie Allen

Chicago, Illinois –
Every reporter dreams of having a scoop. Well, today it’s just possible that I may have a scoop. Here ‘tis: Guess who might be proposed as President Roosevelt’s running mate at this Democratic Convention. Wendell Willkie! Yes, sir, I heard that straight from a delegate who says he is going to do the proposing. George says the man pulled my leg when he told me that. Well, I was too excited to notice, and besides, if this turns out to be a scoop, let him get fresh.

Wouldn’t that be sensational? Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Willkie running together? It would certainly save a tremendous lot of metal, they could go to Wisconsin and dig up all those Willkie buttons that are buried there.

No more mussed hair

One thing – if Mr. Willkie should leave the Republican Party to run with Mr. Roosevelt, he wouldn’t have to worry about his hair being mussed up anymore. What the Republicans would have to say to him would undoubtedly curl it.

As I told you yesterday, stripteases have been banned in Chicago during the Democratic Convention. Today there’s a report that there will be no beer or hard liquor sold at the Stadium where the convention is to be held. The Republicans had all the stripteases and liquor they wanted. What puzzles me is that Chicago is Democratic, yet it seemed more hospitable to the Republicans than to its own party.

I asked one Chicago Democrat about that and here’s what he said:

Well, Gracie, we figure this way – let the Republicans have a good time at their convention. It’s the only fun they’ll have for four years.

On second honeymoon

The Democratic Convention officially opens today and that means I’ll be putting in my full time as a reporter. Up to now George and I have been enjoying a sort of second honeymoon. And it’s really better than our first. On our first honeymoon, we stopped at a cheap hotel and because George wanted to save money, I used to spend hours cooking our meals over a sputtery little alcohol stove.

Now we are stopping at the Ambassador East, where that famous restaurant, the Pump Room, is located. We have a lovely suite on the top floor and I don’t have to spend all that time cooking. The alcohol stove burns much better up there.

So now our second honeymoon is ended because I have to go out and get to work. Funny thing – that’s what ended our first honeymoon.

That’s all for now – more political news tomorrow.

conv.dem.top.banner

Keynote Address by Oklahoma Governor Robert S. Kerr
July 19, 1944, 9:00 p.m. CWT

In this solemn hour, as representatives of the common people of every state and territory in this nation, we meet again to reaffirm our faith in democratic principles and to give an accounting of our stewardship. But in this greatest crisis in history, America and the world have a right to ask more of us. They are entitled to know where we stand and what our aims and purposes as a great political party are. We are here to answer.

Our aim is complete and speedy victory.

Our goal is a just and abiding peace.

Our promise to a world at peace is responsibility and cooperation.

Our pledge to America at peace is a government responsive to the needs and hopes of every citizen, even the humblest, a government which will not shirk or fail, but will fulfill with gratitude and fidelity our sacred obligation to our returning service men and women.

The keynote of this convention and of America’s heart and mind is not being sounded here tonight. It is being thundered by our fighting men around the world; by those at home who provide the food for them and us, by the workers who provide the munitions of war, by the rank and file of our citizens who, through taxes and bond purchases, provide the money required to pay our part of the daily cost of this global war.

This keynote is being sounded loud and clear by the roaring, swirling thousands of our fighter planes, our slashing bombers and our mighty Superfortresses of the air. It comes from the deadly throats of the many guns of the battle units of our powerful fleets – all seven of them! It comes from the blazing firepower set and kept in motion by our men who fight on the ground, the infantry – yes, and the invincible Marines.

May God bless them and keep them – all of them, our fighting men and women, and give them the sustaining strength to match their glorious spirit. It is they who since Pearl Harbor have been and now are sounding the keynote of America’s unyielding purpose, of democracy’s aims and hopes.

Let us be in tune with the spirit of that keynote.

Hitler, in his blind ignorance and fury, called us a “decadent soft democracy.” Our fighting men have given him his answer – the greatest all-American team of all times – the team of all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, has given him his answer! The farmers, the workers, the rank and file of our citizens, the Armed Forces of our nation, democratic, but not decadent, are marching, tramping and climbing with our Commander-in-Chief to victory!

There is no easy way to win this war either at home or abroad. As our fighting men battle and slash their way closer and closer to Berlin and Tokyo, they will meet harder and sterner tasks. The same is true where we fight.

Our sacrifices will be harder and sterner. We know that in the long shadows we yet must travel there will be in the words of the mighty Churchill: “blood, toil, tears and sweat.” That is our portion – that we can and will endure – but wouldn’t it really be terrible if, in addition to all of these, we should be compelled to suffer the affliction and disaster of another Hoover administration?

In this hall last month, the Republicans nominated as their candidate for President the man selected for them four years ago by Herbert Hoover. As America looked on, she saw the mantle of Herbert Hoover not falling upon but being placed upon the shoulders of his cherished disciple, Thomas E. Dewey. What she did not see, but what will become more and more apparent, is that the mantle has become the shroud.

When that same convention snubbed and sidetracked Wendell Willkie, the last vestige of liberal leadership in the Republican Party was buried under an avalanche of reactionary sentiment from which it cannot soon emerge.

Talleyrand said: “The Bourbons were incapable either of learning anything or of forgetting anything.” To give these modern Bourbons, these Republican leaders, control of the nation for the next four years would bring about a certain return of 1932. It would be to invite disaster without even the chance of coming in on a wing and a prayer.

The Old Guard is again in the saddle in the GOP, hoping to run rampant over liberalism in America in November as they did over their own ranks here three short weeks ago.

In their blindness the Republicans have charted a course America will not follow.

In their hatred they have matched a fight they cannot win. The forces of democracy will accept their challenge and defeat them either on the issue of what they did not do and cannot do, or on the issue of what we have done and will do.

I have never in my lifetime seen men who had greater desire or a more consuming ambition, with less justification or worthiness for either, than the Republican leaders this year.

Do you remember the twelve long years from 1920 through 1932 when America “hardened” under Harding, “cooled” under Coolidge and “hungered” under Hoover?

The Republican Party had no program to prevent economic disaster then. It had no program in the dangerous years preceding Pearl Harbor to prevent war or to meet it if it came. Most of the Republican members of the national Congress fought every constructive move designed to prepare our country in case of war.

They fought and voted against the Naval Expansion Bill in 1938.

In March 1939, they voted against a bill to increase our air force to a total of 6,000 planes.

In June 1939, in the House they voted 144–8 to reduce the appropriation for the Army Air Corps.

In September 1939, after war started in Europe, they voted six-to-one against the repeal of the arms embargo.

In September 1940, after France had fallen and the blitzkrieg against England had begun, the Republicans in the House voted 112–52 against the Selective Service Act.

In February 1941, the Republicans in the House voted 135–24 against Lend-Lease.

In August 1941, four months before Pearl Harbor, the Republicans in the House voted 133–21 to disband that part of the Armed Forces built from Selective Service personnel.

They fought every person who came forward with courage to declare the danger that threatened the world and us, and every person who sought to prepare this nation to meet the conflict that loomed across the world’s horizon.

The Republican Party has no program today, except to oppose. Let us limit them to that role.

They have played partisan politics with one of the most deadly dangers confronting our nation – the danger of inflation! They have offered no program to prevent it. Yet with reckless abandon they sought to destroy the one adopted.

Our Republican opponents are not even united among themselves. Millions of them favored Willkie and deeply resent his being driven from the party.

Confidentially, my fellow Democrats, real battles are being fought among the tall timbers of the Republican Party. I have never seen a group more keenly suspicious of each other, nor have I ever seen suspicions better founded.

Most Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that our President has done a great job as a war leader. Our opponents attack him and seek to defeat him on domestic issues.

I take it that none here is too young to remember the tragic years of 1929 through 1932. The awful depression and Republican unemployment of those four years, brought on by the unsound policies of Coolidge’s administration and intensified by Hoover’s inadequacy and insufficiencies, created more suffering in this nation, destroyed more wealth, caused more poverty and left our nation in the most weakened and hopeless condition ever known.

What American is not grateful for the gains our people have made since those dark days? A prosperous nation now demonstrates its mighty power as its factories, mills and farms, year after year, set new records of production. They are the wonders of the world. I share your pride in the unparalleled peacetime advances won under the matchless leadership of our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt!

If you truly favor private enterprise and equal opportunity to all, can you support the Republican Party, under which these suffered most and came the nearest to destruction?

Do you remember when the President of the National Chamber of Commerce publicly urged that the President revive and restore the crushed and broken structure of private enterprise?

Do you remember when the captains of industry throughout the land, struggling to free themselves from the quicksand in which they were sinking, pled for the national government to save them? How often must they be saved from the flames of depression and bankruptcy brought on by the short-sighted policy of the Republican Party, when in power before they will seek to avoid the cause of their trouble with as much vigor as they strive to be relieved of its consequences?

How many whirlwinds must they reap before they learn the folly of sowing the wind? If we truly favor private enterprise, how can we fail to support the democratic President, under whom the greatest advance in material prosperity by the largest percentage of our people in all of the nation’s history has been achieved?

A few weeks ago, I read a news story as follows:

The 13,275 insured commercial banks reported net profits after taxes of $638 million for 1943, the largest total since the inauguration of deposit insurance.

Yet, I know a few bankers so concerned because their tax bill in 1943 was $51 million greater than in 1942 they ignore the fact that after all taxes for 1943 were paid their net profit for that year was $197 million greater than in the year before.

I even know some whose prosperity is exceeded by their pessimism. Their howls are louder in the midst of the most prosperous times they have ever known than their groans were in the bottom of Hoover’s black depression. And this when so many are suffering and sacrificing so heroically and without complaint!

If Americans truly favor prosperity for our farmers, can they support the Republican Party under which the farmers suffered the most, or oppose the present Democratic administration, under which they have prospered the best?

If Americans truly favor labor, can they support the Republican Party, under which labor fared the worst, or oppose the present administration, under which it has enjoyed the greatest progress?

If you truly favor old-age assistance to give our honored aged citizens freedom from want and starvation, can you support the Republican Party, under which this security was never known, or can you oppose the present administration which originated it in spite of the Republicans’ bitter opposition?

If America truly favors a social security program giving American workers security from starvation when conditions beyond their control temporarily prevent their employment, can we restore the party to power that fought the legislation providing it? Or can we afford to remove the party from power that erected this great milestone of progress?

If we in America truly favor a sound banking system providing profit to its owners and safety to its depositors, could we restore the party to power under which in twelve years more banks failed than in all the rest of our nation’s history, with the greatest loss to depositors ever known, or could we remove from power the Democratic administration under which the depositors have suffered the smallest losses and the stockholders received the fairest percentage of profit ever had during any similar period?

If we favor economic conditions permitting small business to prosper, could we vote to restore the Republican Party to power, under which in 1932 alone 32,000 small businesses failed, or could we vote to remove from power the Democratic administration under which small business has enjoyed its most profitable years?

If we in America truly favor the opportunity for the average family to own its home, can we vote to restore to power the party under which more homes and farms were lost and more mortgages foreclosed than during any other similar period, or could we vote to remove the Democratic Party from power when more millions of American homes, both on the farms and in our cities and towns were saved than during any other time?

If we in America truly favor conservation of our greatest natural resource, the soil, the reclamation of badly eroded or abandoned lands, the provision for irrigation of millions of acres, can we vote to remove from power the administration under which the most progress ever made has been brought about, or could we vote to return to power the Republican administration under which these matters were either forgotten or ignored?

If we favor winning an abiding peace after our magnificent fighting men and women have defeated our enemies – if we do not want to compel each succeeding generation of America’s sons to leave their homes and firesides and families to go yonder where the ravages of war maim and disable and kill, can we vote to restore to power the political party whose leadership after World War I willfully and wickedly sabotaged every effective vehicle for keeping the peace?

Shall we restore to power the party whose national leadership, under the domination of isolationists, scrapped and sank more of our fleet than was destroyed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor? Or can we fail to support the Democratic administration under which America has become the greatest naval power on earth?

If we in America truly love these sons and daughters of ours who today fight for us and who tomorrow will achieve the victory for which they fight today, and if it is our resolve that they shall have the opportunity for profitable peacetime employment when they return from the wars to take their place as the most respected and best loved among us, can we hope to return to power the political party whose national leaders were so indifferent to the welfare of the veterans of World War I? You saw those veterans compelled to sell apples and pencils on the streets of our cities because no jobs were available anywhere in the land.

You saw them go to Washington to petition their government, for which they had fought at Château-Thierry, at Belleau Wood, in the Meuse-Argonne and on a dozen other battlefields.

You saw that same Republican administration turn a deaf ear to their petition and order its military forces to drive those veterans from the streets of the capital of the nation they and their battle-killed comrades had saved. You saw the military armament, machine guns, rifles and tanks of the government for which they had offered their lives turned on them by the unwilling hands of their own comrades because of the stupid and brutal orders of Republican President; you saw some of them killed, you saw their pitiful personal belongings, evidences of their poverty, taken from them and burned.

If you oppose this kind of bitter ingratitude, and I know you do, can you oppose the Democratic administration which has already recommended and helped to bring about legislation providing lasting and constructive benefits to the returning servicemen and women of this war? Can you fail to support this Democratic administration that has declared so unequivocally its purpose of providing the opportunity for profitable peacetime employment to our returning servicemen and women?

The American fighting man aims to win this war and then come home to Mom and Dad and to Mary and the kids, and he wants a job, the opportunity for honorable and profitable employment. Where is the American who would deny him this blessed privilege? Where is the American who would give him less? The Republican administration gave him much less after the other war, at the very time Andrew Mellon, without even an act of Congress, was returning billions of dollars from the federal treasury to great corporations already war wealthy.

The Republicans made some vague promises to our fighting men here in this hall last month about what they will do for them after the war. That’s pretty good from a bunch that wouldn’t even give them the opportunity to vote during the war. I’ve seen the Constitution used for a lot of fine purposes, but that is the first time I ever saw it misused as a cudgel to drive millions of fighting Americans away from their own ballot boxes.

Many Republican leaders, sounding the real keynote and purpose of the Republican Party in this fateful year say: “There has not been a single constructive accomplishment brought about by the Roosevelt administration.” Reactionary Republicans have resisted every progressive measure of this administration and bitterly oppose them now. They remind me of the cantankerous old grumbler who on his 92nd birthday was asked: “Uncle, you have lived to the ripe old age of 92; you must have seen a lot of changes in your time, haven’t you?” Replied the uncle: “Yes, and I’m agin’ every one of them.”

I read a graphic, if not elegant, poem the other day describing the Republican opposition. It read as follows:

‘Twelve Long Years’

The Republicans for twelve long years
Have shed their coats and skins and tears
To tell their comrades how they feel
Regarding Roosevelt’s New Deal.

For twelve long years they’ve pled for votes,
But never mention nine-cent oats.
They say “this New Deal stuff is rotten,”
But never speak or four-cent cotton.

For twelve long years they’ve wept aloud,
And cussed this money-spending crowd.
They say “Of liberty we are shorn,”
But not a breath of twelve-cent corn.

For twelve long years they’ve been at sea,
And now they come to you and me
And offer us as bait for votes
More three-cent steers and nine-cent oats.

For twelve long years they fume and fret,
Hammer and slander the “New Deal set.”
They say to all: “What a cheat!”
But forget to talk of two-bit wheat!

They offer, as in days of old
A crown of thorns, a cross of gold,
More gilded promises – can you beat ‘em?
Well, one sure thing, you can’t eat ‘em!

My friends, the Democratic Party has proved its worthiness of the people’s continued confidence.

Time and again we have seen the results of the President’s leadership. Time and again our opponents have sought to fill the minds of the people with doubt and confusion, and time and again successes have dispelled the doubts, confounded the confusers, and confused the doubters.

The people have not been – they will not be – misled! They are doing a magnificent job. Men and women, boys and girls of all political parties, of every race and color and religious faith are proving themselves to be America’s greatest generation.

Our enemies, dazed and bewildered, cannot understand the striking power, producing and building power of our military and civilian soldiers.

Between the fall of France and July 1, 1944, American industry and labor produced more than 210,000 military airplanes and are now producing 100,000 per year. They have produced during that period more than five million tons of naval vessels, one-half of which are combat ships; this represents an armada of more than 40,000 ships of all kinds including 35,000 landing craft.

They have produced 77,000 tanks and 1,600,000 trucks, 35 million tons of merchant shipping, equal to almost one-half of all the merchant ships in the world when war was declared in 1939. This vast fleet of merchant ships, manned by our heroic merchant marine, has transported endless cargoes of men, weapons, food and freight to our battle lines on every front.

Our heroic and patriotic farmers have made greater production records each year in spite of increasing shortages of manpower and farm machinery and regardless of periodic gloomy prophecies of national starvation by many, including Herbert Hoover.

All of these and thousands of other things have been accomplished by America’s civilian armies, with American women doing their proud part and more. They march side by side with the men in the Armed Forces. Their strong and faithful hands never stop working, in the homes, on the farms, in the factories and at every job that will speed the day of victory. They long for, work for, and pray for peace. The kind of peace worked for, fought for and died for by the immortal Woodrow Wilson! The kind of peace worked for and fought for now by President Roosevelt.

America and her Allies are winning this war because they have planned their work and are now working their plan. They can and must win an abiding peace; international peace, as we of this generation have had to learn twice, is of vital concern to every American. It cannot be achieved by burying our heads in the sand and leaving white tail feathers waving in the breeze.

Through tragic experience we have learned that it is just as necessary to prepare for peace while waging war as it is to prepare against war while enjoying peace. We must realize that the unsolved problems of peace are the causes of war.

Some of the greatest victories won in this war have been in the field of diplomacy. No military victory can mean more to America and her Allies than the diplomatic advances made in the Atlantic Charter and in the conferences held at Casablanca, Moscow, Tehran and Cairo. These and many other such advances have been wisely conceived by our President, so ably aided by that grand American statesman, the greatest Secretary of State in a hundred years, Cordell Hull.

The President during the next four years must represent our country in many more such conferences. I ask all Americans everywhere: Who can best represent our nation in the future councils of war with our Allies and in the conferences around the peace table? I know America will not regard this question rightly, nor decide it wrongly. Shall it be Thomas E. Dewey or Franklin D. Roosevelt?

Who will represent England at the peace table? An untried man, or her greatest and wisest, Winston Churchill?

Who will represent China? Some man without experience, or Chiang Kai-shek?

Who will represent Russia? One who for the first time will participate in such a meeting and who, no matter how honorable he might be or how able he might sometime become, would thus be greatly handicapped, or will she be represented by her most experienced and strongest, Josef Stalin?

Each of our allies will be represented by the one who has demonstrated the greatest ability for the task.

Who will represent the United States of America? An untried leader who has not even told his own people what his views are? Or the man who has from the start declared his position in clear and certain words, and who has the respect and esteem of all the United Nations as no other living American?

Will it be Dewey – or Roosevelt?

Just suppose for a moment, but no longer, that it were Dewey. What would Churchill and Stalin and the Generalissimo and the other Allied leaders think and do when they learned that he looked on them as just a group of “tired old men?”

When England faced her darkest hour, with her military forces unorganized and poorly armed, in whose leadership did she place her trust? Her least tried or most proven? Can England, can we, can the civilized world ever discharge the debt of gratitude due Winston Churchill?

When he was just about as old as Mr. Dewey is now, he permitted an impetus urge to lead him into the tragedy of Gallipoli. But how differently he acted at 65. After Dunkirk, he stood before the House of Commons. Listen, are these the words of a “tired old man”?

We shall not flag nor fail. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, landing grounds, in the fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender!

Look at Stalingrad! Whose figure looms amid the defenders? Whose spirit sustains them in the most heroic and awful hour in Russia’s history? Who stopped and defeated and now drives Hitler’s once mighty armies, once dreaded air force, back and back and back? Mr. Dewey would have discarded him nearly three years ago, when he was 62, as a “tired old man.” But Russia is smarter than that. She marches irresistibly today under the leadership of her much revered, world respected, 65-year-old Joseph Stalin.

Let us examine the record!

Shall we discard as a “tired old man,” the 59-year-old Adm. Nimitz?

Shall we discard as a “tired old man,” the lion of the Pacific, 62-year-old Adm. Halsey?

Shall we stop his onward sweep to redeem the Philippine Islands and discard as a “tired old man,” 64-year-old Gen. Douglas MacArthur?

Should we discard as a “tired old man” the chief of all our naval forces, 66-year-old Adm. King? Shall we discard as a “tired old man,” the greatest military leader of our nation, 64-year-old Gen. George C. Marshall?

No, Mr. Dewey, we know we are winning this war with these “tired old men,” including the 62-year-old Roosevelt as their Commander-in-Chief. What diplomatic or military experience have you had that justifies you or us in believing that you can handle the most difficult and important responsibilities and duties ever placed upon the shoulders of any American?

When the life and liberty of every American hang in the balance; when the safety and welfare of unborn generations in this fair land are at stake, what assurance do you have for yourself and for your own loved ones or can you give our 130,000,000 Americans that you and we may know that you can do this tremendous job?

Suppose we broke up this team that every American knows is a winning one, which you have openly approved and in an effort to gain votes promised to keep, that is, all but the Commander-in-Chief, which position you seem to regard as a minor detail.

And suppose we named you Commander-in-Chief. What assurance could our fighting men, their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters have that we could thereby win the war one day sooner, or as soon, and with as few casualties, as we can under our present leadership? What experience have you had or what deeds have you performed to indicate that you could do as well, to say nothing of doing better?

Imagine, if you can, what we would have suffered and where we would be if Dewey had succeeded in his efforts to defeat Lend-Lease when it was proposed by President Roosevelt, who was neither too old to originate that great program nor too tired to put it in operation.

Roosevelt was not too old to see the terrible danger to America from Germany and Japan, nor too tired to move with speed and courage to get munitions of war to the democracies who were fighting them and thus keeping them away from our shores.

Lend-Lease, in spite of Dewey’s opposition, in spite of opposition from the vast majority of Republican leaders in Congress, went into effect nine months before Pearl Harbor. Now, three years and four months later, all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, can thank God for it and for Roosevelt who did so much to accomplish it.

In his efforts now to appear something other than the isolationist that he is, Thomas E. Dewey has gathered a few posies from the declared foreign policy of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Hull, until he has most of the form of a Willkie bouquet without any of the substance.

The forces of isolationism crucified the great-hearted Woodrow Wilson. The same forces now strive with equal fury and frenzy to inflict the same fate on Roosevelt. But where they succeeded then, they will fail now.

The people, patriotic Democrats and Republicans alike, will not again be misled and betrayed by the same false doctrine and propaganda, no matter how disguised or camouflaged it may be.

In 1920, Mr. Harding and the Republican Party promised to lead America back to normalcy.

Mr. Hoover reiterated that thought from this platform last month when he said, "And may I say this to the youth, you can lead our nation back to unity of purpose again.

Our answer to that is: “This nation is not going back again.”

When this war is won a grateful nation will not go back on the farmers of America who have produced so heroically and so abundantly in our great war effort, nor will nation go back to a Republican administration that did back on American farmers.

When this war is won a grateful nation will not go back on labor, the workers who have produced the munitions and equipment of war so patriotically in this great struggle, nor will this nation go back to a Republican administration that did go back on the workers of America.

When this war is won a grateful nation will not go back on the home owners, businessmen and the great masses of our citizens who have served so faithfully in this war effort, nor will this nation go back to a Republican administration that did go back on these, our citizens.

When this war is won a grateful nation will not forget nor go back on its returning service men and women, nor will this nation go back to a Republican administration that did go back on the returning service men of World War I.

Our President has already made comprehensive plans for America to go forward now and in the post-war period. He has submitted them to the Congress. Part of them are now law. Others soon will be. It is his proposal and our program that wartime America can and will become a prosperous peacetime America with opportunity for profitable employment for all.

I say to you, to the Democrats of America, to our fighting forces around the globe and to all men and women of this nation who have dreamed of a better world and who are willing to work and sacrifice to realize that dream, victory is within our grasp. We have stormed the beaches of poverty and discouragement and fear and seen the hearts of the people filled with new life, lifted with new hope and buoyant with superb confidence. We have overrun the ramparts of special privilege and reaction and planted the banner of democratic liberalism high on the hill of human progress.

Let our opponents, who have grown fat in a prosperity they could not build for themselves, do their worst. We will not now retreat! We will not falter in mid-passage! We will win!

conv.dem.top.banner

Thursday, July 20
Call to order at 11:30 a.m. CWT by Temporary Chairman Governor Kerr of Oklahoma
Invocation by Rabbi Louis Binstock of Chicago
National anthem by Lucy Monroe
Report of committee on permanent organization
Resolution to confirm committees selected by the several states
Address by Permanent Chairman Senator Jackson (D-IN)
Report of committee on platform and resolutions and its adoption
Reports of other committees and their adoption
Recess until 8:15 p.m.
Call to order at 8:15 p.m. by Permanent Chairman Jackson
Invocation by the Rev. Joshua Oder of Chicago
National anthem by Danny O’Neill, USS Lexington
Address by Mrs. Helen Gahagan Douglas, vice chairman, California State Committee
Address by war correspondent Quentin Reynolds
Roll call for presidential nominations
Appointment of committee to notify successful candidate

The Pittsburgh Press (July 20, 1944)

Wallace and Truman camps spar to land knockout punch

Bitter behind-the-scenes battles split convention; Senator’s supporters waver
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Bulletin

Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
Mayor Edward J. Kelly of Chicago said today he had “changed my mind” about Senator Harry S. Truman for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination because the Missourian “doesn’t want the job.” Senator Truman later today told the United Press, “I am not a candidate, but will accept the nomination if the delegates want me.”

Chicago, Illinois –
The Democratic National Convention nominates President Franklin D. Roosevelt for a fourth term today with both Wallace and Truman forces claiming Mr. Roosevelt’s blessing in the bitterly-contested vice-presidential nomination.

As the convention entered its third session, with presidential and vice-presidential balloting scheduled for late today and tonight, Edwin Pauley of California publicly claimed President Roosevelt’s support for Senator Harry S. Truman (D-MO).

Mr. Pauley, National Democratic Committee Treasurer and newly-elected California National Committeeman, told his state delegation that Mr. Roosevelt is convinced Senator Truman will cost him fewer votes than any other candidate for Vice President.

“And I could not make such a statement,” he added, “if I didn’t have the approval of the President!”

Wallace forces confident

Wallace forces, contending they had more than 400 first ballot votes, presented an equally confident claim of Roosevelt support. Georgia Governor Ellis Arnall, a Wallace leader, said his side would go on assuming that Mr. Roosevelt still favored Mr. Wallace’s renomination until the President told the convention “in writing” that he had changed his mind.

The Wallace people said the balloting couldn’t come too soon to suit them.

National Chairman Robert E. Hannegan, who has been plugging Senator Truman, still refused to comment on the so-called “Truman letter” in which the President was reported to have stated that he would be happy to have the Missourian for his 1944 running mate.

Hannegan is challenged

Wallace supporters had challenged Mr. Hannegan to produce such a letter. Governor Arnall, expressing skepticism, said he did not believe Mr. Roosevelt would “permit himself to be ‘used’ by those who would misquote him.”

The Credentials Committee of the convention, by a vote of 18–6, today recommended the seating of both delegations from Texas. The Texas “Regular,” or anti-New Deal, delegation threatened to walk out of the convention when this word was received.

Meanwhile, members of the Illinois delegation disclosed after a lengthy caucus that they had decided to cast their 58 votes for Senator Scott W. Lucas (D-IL) for Vice President until Senator Lucas releases them.

A spokesman for the Alabama delegation said it would vote for Senator John H. Bankhead on the first ballot and then decide what to do on the next.

May postpone vote

Mr. Hannegan, in the meantime, said that while there was “always the possibility” that vice-presidential balloting would start as soon as President Roosevelt is renominated, such a schedule had not been officially decided.

This meant the vice-presidential vote might be put off until tomorrow.

The delegates in their third session installed Senator Samuel D. Jackson (D-IN) as permanent chairman and heard him declare that a change of administration in these critical times would be “frightening to contemplate” and “dangerous to make.”

Hits at Dewey

Hitting at 42-year-old Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican candidate for President, Mr. Jackson asserted:

What the Presidency demands now is not so much a bright young man as a man of wisdom and breadth of vision.

Mr. Roosevelt will accept the nomination in a radio address tonight. His voice may calm the storm which threatens to weaken the New Deal-Democratic coalition of 1936 and 1940 in this campaign year.

Some of the President’s closest political associates here have fallen out and are beginning to call each other names. Southern leaders met in rebellious conferences last night and broke up, apparently frustrated both as to their objectives and methods of achieving them. Principally they wanted to scuttle Vice President Henry A. Wallace and put up a Southerner for his $15,000-a-year job.

Mr. Wallace is still likely to be scuttled in his contest with Senator Harry S. Truman (D-MO), who has some kind of White House acceptance and the support of some of the big party bosses here, but putting a Southerner on the ticket this year does not seem likely at the moment.

Senator Alben W. Barkley (D-KY), who feels along with some others here that he has been maneuvered out of his chance at the vice-presidential nomination, jarred convention managers with a surprise request that they hold up release of his speech placing Mr. Roosevelt in fourth term renomination. That was a bald threat to run out on the assignment to propose the President’s name, but it lasted only a few hours.

Toward 2:00 a.m. today, one of Mr. Barkley’s aides said the Senator had sent a note to National Committee publicity headquarters authorizing release of the speech on schedule today.

Meanwhile, it was learned that Mr. Wallace will deliver a speech seconding Mr. Roosevelt’s nomination for the Presidency.

‘Big Four’ runs show

The presidential nomination was scheduled for midafternoon, following the address of Permanent Chairman Samuel Jackson, disposition of credentials and rules disputes, and adoption of the platform.

Mr. Barkley was evidently resentful of the smooth operations here of the Big Four – National Committee Chairman Robert E. Hannegan, who was handpicked last winter to handle Mr. Roosevelt’s reelection campaign; Chicago Mayor Edward J. Kelly, who bosses the Democratic Party in Illinois; Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague, who rules the organization in New Jersey; and Edward J. Flynn, leader of the Democratic Party in the Bronx and the manager of the President’s successful third-term campaign.

The center ring battle is over the vice-presidential nomination for which Mr. Roosevelt personally endorsed Mr. Wallace but for which Mr. Hannegan now says the President would be happy to have Mr. Truman.

Guffey gets angry

The fact that Mr. Truman and Mr. Hannegan are fellow Missourians and that Mr. Hannegan owes some of his rise to political heights to Mr. Truman makes the Wallace men more than a little suspicious that something is wrong. But there is supporting evidence that Mr. Hannegan does have a go-ahead for Mr. Truman and directly from the President.

Persuasive reports persisted that he had received a letter to that effect. Mr. Hannegan denied it. Others said that it was received and that it suggested either Mr. Truman or Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas if Mr. Wallace were not acceptable to the convention.

Senator Joseph F. Guffey (D-PA) shouted what other Wallace supporters had been whispering when he said:

I doubt very much if Mr. Hannegan quoted all of the letter the President is supposed to have written. It is time that Mr. Hannegan remembers that he was elected chairman of the National Committee to serve all the members of our party, to give some of his time to the party and not all of it entirely to the candidate [Truman] of Hannegan, Kelly, Hague and Flynn.

CIO spokesmen echoed Mr. Guffey’s charge that these four men who are bulwarks of the New Deal-Democratic coalition are unfairly bossing the convention.

conv.dem.top.banner

Race issue dispute holds up platform

Southerners term outline ‘too strong’

Bulletin

Chicago, Illinois –
The Democratic Platform Committee completed its declaration of party policy today after defeating a Southern effort to exclude state voting regulations from federal control.

Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
Approval of the Democratic Party platform was held up temporarily today as members of the Platform and Resolutions Committee debated the controversial plank on racial equality.

The racial plank approved by the Drafting Committee was reported to be too strong for Southern state members of the full platform committee who wanted a declaration similar to that in the 1940 platform which simply assured equal rights under the law to all minority groups.

The drafters’ proposal was said to read:

We believe that racial and religious minorities have the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution. Congress should exert its full constitutional power to protest these rights.

The foreign policy plank was also under discussion by the full committee, still in session only a few hours before the platform was scheduled to be offered to the convention.

New emphasis was placed on the racial issue which has divided the party by announcement that the Tennessee delegation had rescinded its decision to cast its 26 votes for President Roosevelt pending the time when it learns the content of the platform’s racial plank.

Tennessee Governor Prentice Cooper, a member of the platform committee, warned that if certain proposals should be written into the platform over Southern opposition, there would be a strong protest on the floor from Southern delegations.

A group of rebellious Southerners had previously met to adopt a resolution opposing any pledges to support anti-poll tax or anti-lynching legislation and declaring opposition to any proposal calling for “social equality” between races.

Foreign plank prepared

Senator Kenneth D. McKellar, chairman of the Tennessee delegation, said it wanted to be “free,” but that “if the platform is reasonable and has nothing out of the ordinary in it, there won’t be any trouble.”

Senator Tom Connally (D-TX), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with the drafting subcommittee last night to discuss his proposed draft of a foreign plank providing for American participation in an international organization to maintain peace.

There appeared little likelihood of a contest over the foreign policy plank, although some of the committee members had expressed themselves in favor of an international police force.

conv.dem.top.banner

CIO pressures delegates with Back-Wallace wires

Bundles of telegrams sent by local unions urge renomination of Vice President
By Robert Taylor, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Chicago, Illinois –
Pennsylvania’s CIO unions, backing their leaders in a last-minute drive for Vice President Henry A. Wallace for renomination, have showered the state delegation to the Democratic National Convention with telegrams.

“Don’t let Wallace down,” was the gist of most of the messages.

The wires arrived yesterday for each of the 72 delegates, in batches of half a dozen at a time, while CIO leaders at the convention were rallying their forces in support of the Wallace candidacy.

One delegate counted 62 messages. They poured in, even to U.S. Senator Joseph F. Guffey, who was acting as unofficial manager of the Wallace campaign and who spent most of the day in conference with the Vice President.

Most of the messages to Pittsburgh delegates came from United Steelworkers locals, while others came from units of the United Railroad Workers, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, Allied Stone and Clay Products Workers and others.

The telegram blitz featured a day in which CIO leaders poured on steam in the push to whoop up the Wallace campaign.

Some 125 delegates, most of them delegates or alternates, but some of them regional directors of the CIO-sponsored Political Action Committee, attended a special caucus of CIO delegates devoted chiefly to Mr. Wallace.

Cheering delegates behind closed doors – reporters were barred – were urged to go back and contact their state delegates on behalf of the Vice President’s campaign.

The meeting was hardly over before it was reported that President Roosevelt, in communication with National Chairman Robert Hannegan, had given his approval to the candidacy of Senator Harry S. Truman (D-MO), on whom the opposition to Mr. Wallace has settled.

Definitely want Wallace

CIO leaders were reported not averse to Mr. Truman, in the event of his nomination, but they held out stoutly for Mr. Wallace as the only candidate they were willing to discuss for second place on the ticket.

“We want Wallace,” Sidney Hillman, chairman of the Political Action Committee, said as he entered the CIO caucus. “That’s the only statement there is to make.”

Mr. Hillman, CIO President and delegate-at-large from Pennsylvania Philip Murray, and president of the United Auto Workers R. J. Thomas addressed the CIO delegates, who comprised less than five percent of the total delegates and alternates.

Among CIO delegates

Pennsylvania had one of the largest state delegates in the CIO group, with 11 of the 144 delegates and alternates listed as CIO members, relatives of members or officers or employees of CIO organizations.

In addition to Mr. Murray, they included Joseph A. Donoghu of Pittsburgh (alternate delegate-at-large, chairman of Pennsylvania Political Action Committee), John T. Akinson of Aliquippa (alternate), and State Senator John H. Dent of Jeannette (former Rubber Workers official).

Others were Angelo Pasquarella of Philadelphia (Amalgamated Clothing Workers, alternate), Joseph Kane (employee in Philadelphia of the Political Action Committee, delegate), Ernest Palmer Jr, of Delaware County (delegate), John J. Malick of Delaware Country (alternate), Irene A Stackhouse of Bucks County (alternate and wife of a CIO member), James W. Batz of Berks County (member of the Hosiery Workers Union, alternate).

@jacktyunmen I know you don’t like Westbrook Pegler, but that doesn’t excuse you editing out his article. It’s history, Bircher or not.

fuck, I did that? I think I meant to reply.

1 Like

See the arrow next to the edit button? That’s the reply button

I think I may have accidentally misclicked, i’m deeply sorry.

1 Like

That’s alright. Just be careful next time :slight_smile:

conv.dem.top.banner

Guffey-Lawrence factions sidestep VP showdown

Delegates at breakfast meeting hear state chairman try to minimize party split
By Kermit McFarland

Chicago, Illinois –
The rival Lawrence and Guffey factions in the Pennsylvania delegation to the Democratic convention, battling each other in a new outbreak of a six-year feud, today sought to postpone until the last possible moment feud, today sought to postpone until the last possible moment a showdown of their respective strength in the delegation.

At a breakfast tendered the delegates – ironically – by Democratic State Chairman David L. Lawrence and U.S. Senator Joseph F. Guffey, jointly, both sides succeeded in avoiding a second caucus on vice-presidential preferences – the cause of the latest split between these two who are Damon and Pythias turned Hatfield and McCoy.

Senator Guffey, in fact, didn’t even attend his own affair. He was 20 stories up in the same hotel, conferring with CIO and Wallace leaders.

Differences minimized

Mr. Lawrence, who informed the 200 delegates and friends, all from Pennsylvania, that despite his absence Senator Guffey would “split the check,” went out of his way to describe the affair as a “social gathering.”

The state chairman also made an attempt to minimize, publicly, the differences between himself and Mr. Guffey over the vice-presidential nominee.

He said:

Not even the vice-presidential nomination or anything else is going to split the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania. The Senator and myself have gone up and down the state since November trying to out the Democratic Party back where it was before 1938.

Charges continue

But the charges and countercharges which have been developing in the split Pennsylvania delegation since the battle for the vice-presidential nomination began to shape up between Senator Harry S. Truman (D-MO), supported by Mr. Lawrence, and Vice President Henry A. Wallace, backed by Senator Guffey, continued on their way.

Senator Guffey’s blast at the Truman forces, which he implied were being “bossed by the well-known machine leaders, Kelly, Hague and Flynn,” aroused resentment among the Allegheny County leaders and others favorable to Senator Truman.

Caucus is opposed

When the breakfast invitations were first extended, Mr. Lawrence indicated it would e converted into a caucus. But today, both he and Senator Guffey said they thought a caucus unnecessary.

If the convention follows its tentative schedule and hears nominating speeches for Vice President tonight, a caucus before the first roll call is inevitable.

Mr. Guffey claims “55 to 60” of the 72 Pennsylvania votes. Mr. Lawrence isn’t claiming.

Wallace’s best 35 votes

The best estimates indicated Mr. Wallace’s best poll probably would be 35 votes, with 26 likely to go for Mr. Truman and eight or nine in doubt.

Among the doubtful delegates could be listed Pittsburgh’s Mayor Scully and Edward D. Johnson, chief clerk of the Public Safety Department. Both voted for Mr. Wallace at the Tuesday caucus, but they are politically beholden to Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Johnson was elected as an alternate, but has taken the place of Delegate Robert C. Malcolm of Curtisville, who is not here.

Attorney General Francis Biddle, who, as a delegate-at-large has only a half vote, also plumped for Mr. Wallace Tuesday, but if President Roosevelt, as indicated, goes for Mr. Truman, he probably will switch.

Others may switch

The tipoff on this is the attitude of Postmaster General Frank C. Walker of Scranton, who voted against Mr. Wallace at the Tuesday caucus. He told other delegates he did not wish to “vote against the Chief” – Mr. Roosevelt.

Other delegates who may switch to Senator Truman includes Clerk of Courts John J. McClean and Mayor Frank Buchanan of McKeesport. But still sticking firmly to Mr. Wallace is Irwin D. Wolf of Fox Chapel.

Sure Truman backers include County Commissioner John J. Kane and Mr. Lawrence (both half-vote delegates), Register of Wills John M. Houston, City Treasurer James P. Kirk, Coroner William D. McClelland, Mrs. Marguerite Naughton and County Commissioner George Rankin.

New letter ‘the bunk’

Leaders of the Lawrence faction swore that Democratic National Chairman Robert E. Hannegan, Truman promoter, has a new letter from President Roosevelt saying the Missouri Senator is “acceptable” to him as a running mate.

Senator Guffey said that was “the bunk.” He declined to say whether he had been in touch with Mr. Roosevelt, but Lawrence forces claimed he tried unsuccessfully all day yesterday to reach the President by telephone.

Congressman Francis J. Myers, nominee for the U.S. Senate, was the only speaker at today’s breakfast, aside from Mr. Lawrence.

Lawrence, Guffey praised

As a candidate whose chances might be endangered by a split in the party organization, he praised Senator Guffey and Mr. Lawrence for “walking throughout the state arm in arm” building up the Democratic machine.

He said:

Unless the vote is heavy, we may not carry Pennsylvania, regardless of how beloved the President is by the people. But if we get out the vote, victory is sure.

Mr. Lawrence pleaded for “strong” finance, labor and women’s campaign committees in each county and said it was “amazing” how many members of organized labor are not registered to vote.

americavotes1944

Nye is victor for renomination

Bismarck, North Dakota (UP) –
North Dakota Secretary of State Thomas Hall said today that Senator Gerald P. Nye was virtually assured of renomination in the June 27 primary election in North Dakota.

Unofficial figures from canvassing boards in 32 counties plus previous totals gave Mr. Nye a lead of 956 votes over Lynn U. Stambaugh, former national commander of the American Legion.

All figures will remain unofficial until the state canvassing board meets July 27. Latest tabulations gave Mr. Nye 38,169 votes, comparted to 37,213 for Mr. Stambaugh and 35,680 for Rep. Usher L. Burdick.


Incumbents win in three primaries

By the United Press

Late returns from Tuesday’s primary elections in three states decided all contests today, with all incumbents renominated in Arizona and Lief Erickson, 38-year-old State Supreme Court Justice, conceded the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Montana. In Wyoming, Charles E. Norris of Laramie won the Democratic nomination for Congress.

Senator Carl Hayden, who has served in Congress ever since Arizona became a state, polled 29,327 votes to win the renomination by a 2-to-1 margin and Reps. John Murdock and Richard Harless received 29,414 and 26,910 votes respectively to win by a wide margin. Governor Sidney P. Osborn polled 34,797 votes to win renomination by a 3-to-1 margin over his nearest opponent. Jerrie Lee won the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

Both Austin Middleton and former governor Roy E. Ayers conceded the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Montana to Mr. Erickson, who held a lead of more than 6,000 over Mr. Middleton. Republican Governor Sam C. Ford won renomination by a 6-to-1 margin.

Montana had no senatorial contest this year and both incumbent Democratic Congressmen were unopposed for renomination.

conv.dem.top.banner

Keynoter’s speech starts demonstration

Magic word ‘Roosevelt’ sets mob to whooping

Chicago Stadium, Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
Democrats went whooping into the aisles for the first big demonstration of their convention last night when Oklahoma Governor Robert S. Kerr made a keynoted speech calling for the reelection of President Roosevelt and denouncing Republican administrations under which American “hardened under Harding, cooled under Coolidge, and hungered under Hoover.”

The speech was interrupted by a 12-minute demonstration during which state standards were paraded down the aisles to the platform where Governor Kerr put on a 10-gallon white hate while the band blared, “You’re Doin’ Fine, Oklahoma.”

Governor Kerr’s reply to the Republican Party’s “accent on youth” was the declaration that such “tired old men” as President Roosevelt, Adm. Ernest J. King, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Gen. George C. Marshall “are winning this war.”

Repeating the refrain, “Shall we discard as a ‘tired old man,’” he alluded in staccato succession to 59-year-old Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, 62-year-old Adm. William F. Halsey Jr., 64-year-old Gen. MacArthur, 66-year-old Adm. King, and 64-year-old Gen. Marshall.

Then he added the paragraph which stopped his speech and produced the most deafening demonstration which this convention had seen thus far.

The keynoter said:

No, Mr. Dewey. We know we are winning this war with these “tired old men,” including the 62-year-old Roosevelt as their Commander-in-Chief.

The words “Commander-in-Chief” were almost drowned out by the burst of applause which greeted the word “Roosevelt.”

Governor Kerr himself was caught offguard. He had expected applause, but he hadn’t expected bedlam. He quickly sensed the situation, however, spread his arms like a cheerleader, and urged them on.

conv.dem.top.banner

Democratic Convention hopefuls must be received by ‘Big Four’

Bosses hold court, decide what’s what
By Sandor S. Klein, United Press staff writer

Chicago, Illinois –
Those in the know here say the men to “see” in the Democratic Convention are the “Big Four” – National Chairman Robert E. Hannegan, Former National Chairman Ed Flynn of New York, Chicago Mayor Edward J. Kelly and Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague.

These big city bosses are working frantically behind the scenes to untangle the vice-presidential scramble. They are not actually dominating the convention – yet – but their influence is great. They may be the men who will decide who is to be the vice-presidential nominee if it appears that Henry A. Wallace has definitely lost his chance for the necessary majority.

Hopefuls see bosses

Some vice-presidential hopefuls – not all of them – have been received by the quarter. A number of them, favorite-son candidates, are being ignored.

One of the candidates most prominently mentioned in the vice-presidential sweepstakes was almost distraught his first day here when not one of the “Big Four” called on him. His managers felt convinced that this meant their candidate was “out.” But the next day, two of the bosses invited him over to their rooms and the candidates hopes were revived.

The “Big Four” was said to be in touch with the White House. For the present, they are not doing any “dictating.” They discuss with various candidates their chances and convey to them the latest “dope.”

Keep in touch

And, of course, they keep in constant touch with the leaders of the key state delegations.

Three of the “Big Four” have their quarters in the Blackstone Hotel, across the street from the Stevens Hotel, which is convention headquarters. Mr. Hannegan has a corner suite on the seventh floor. Right next door is Mr. Flynn’s room. Mr. Hague has a corner suite on the fifth floor. Mr. Kelly operates from his spacious six-room apartment overlooking Lake Michigan.

There are frequent conferences among the four in Mr. Hannegan’s suite, where the transoms over the doors are kept tightly locked.

Of the four, Mr. Flynn is believed to be closest to the President.

Another former National Committee Chairman in the same hotel is James A. Farley. He doesn’t get invited to the conferences. He isn’t close to Mr. Roosevelt anymore.