Harry Truman greeted by members of his Cabinet and staff on his return on October 18, 1950, from the Wake Island meeting with General Douglas MacArthur. From left to right: Special Assistant to the President Averell Harriman, Secretary of Defense George Marshall, President Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, unidentified (partly obscured by Snyder), Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snyder, Secretary of the Army Frank Pace, and General Omar Bradley.
1
Harry Truman and Dean Acheson experienced their sudden transition on January 20, 1953, from President of the United States and Secretary of State to private citizens, with some shock. The exercise of power to which they had become accustomed had now to be given up, and revisited only in memory. Their shared sense of loss, together with their friendship, drew them toward each other, and they started writing letters.
Their first letters crossed, prompted only by their respective thoughts of the other. Letter followed letter, the range of subjects grew, and their friendship was recast for this new time in their lives. They shared their thoughts about what the current occupant of the White House and his advisers should be doing. They also sought to be influential by speaking out and writing, and they could do this as a team, as partners attempting to keep the country moving in the right direction, something they felt the new President too often did not seem to know how to do.
Between their forging of a renewed relationship through their correspondence, and their continuing and often coordinated presence in the public-policy arena, the two men carried into the post-presidential years what Acheson called “the Truman-Acheson front.” They were still working together—the chief always loyal to and admiring of the brilliance of his adviser, and the adviser always loyal to and admiring of the true heart and true instincts of his chief—just as in the past.
Acheson and his wife, Alice, hosted a luncheon at their home immediately following Eisenhower’s inauguration ceremonies, for Harry, Bess, and Margaret Truman and about thirty-five members of his administration. Afterward, the Trumans boarded a train for the long journey back home to Missouri. As the train left the station, Truman waved goodbye to Acheson and the others who had joined him in running the country during some of the most momentous, perilous, and fateful times in its history.
· · ·
February 7, 1953
Dear Dean:
There are not enough words in the dictionary on the favorable side, of course, to express the appreciation which Mrs. Truman and I felt for your wonderful luncheon of the twentieth. I never have been at a function of this sort where everybody seemed to be having the best time they ever had. We will never forget it, as it is one of the high lights of our trip to “Washington and back.”
I hope that we will never lose contact. Should you be in this part of the world be sure and come to see us. You can rest assured that I’ll make my presence in Washington known to you if ever I get there, which, of course, I may at some time in the future.
Please express our thanks and appreciation, with all the adjectives you can think of, to Mrs. Acheson.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S Truman
Truman sent Acheson a second letter the same day, this one concerning some last-minute State Department business.
February 7, 1953
Dear Dean:
Thanks a lot for the appointment of Thomas K. Finletter and Adrian S. Fisher on the Panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to the Hague Conventions. They are two excellent and able gentlemen and I am sure will make good on the job.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
[Handwritten postscript:] Hope you and Mrs. Acheson are having a grand vacation. I’ve had some sixty thousand letters and telegrams—99.4% favorable! Believe it or not. You’ve never seen as much crow eaten, feathers and all.
The favorable letters and telegrams were especially welcome to a brand-new former President of the United States who left office following a presidential campaign in which his administration was tarred with the failure to end the Korean War and characterized in the most strident and acrimonious fashion as corrupt and soft on communism. His approval rating when he left office was a dismal 31 percent.
The Achesons escaped, soon after Truman’s departure from Washington, to Antigua, in the British West Indies.
February 10, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
You and Mrs. Truman have been constantly in our thoughts these last three weeks. We see glimpses of you in papers weeks old and read fragmentary reports of you. But you are more vivid in our minds. We have spoken often of that last poignant day together and shall never forget the sight of you on the track platform as the train grew small and smaller down the track. We wish that you would both escape to the peace and privacy for a while of a place like this enchanted and blessed isle, where the sea and air and all around us combine to make rest and relaxation inevitable and delightful. We read and sleep and swim—Alice paints—we keep the world and its doings away from us. But we talk about the great epoch in which you permitted us to play a part and which now seems ended in favor of God knows what.
One of the glorious things which I have read—and which you probably know—is Paul Wilstach’s edition of the correspondence between John Adams and Jefferson. If you do not know it, by all means get it. There were two robust old codgers. I think one gets a wholly new affection for Adams.
We are here, I hope, until the end of March. This note brings to both you and Mrs. Truman our devotion and solicitude. I know that these are difficult weeks for you both.
Affectionately,
Dean
Truman’s correspondence with Acheson would often be handwritten, as was this letter. Bess Truman, whom Truman calls in understatement “an anti–public office holder,” had a moment of softness when she saw the thousands of people who greeted them at the railroad depot and their home. The book deal Truman mentions is for his memoirs. Truman’s daughter, Margaret—“Skinny for short”—apparently gave him a full report of a Democratic Party event in New York City on February 14 featuring Adlai Stevenson and Averell Harriman.
February 18, 1953
Dear Dean:
Your letter of Feb. 10th is a jewel I shall always treasure. Never will Bess, Margaret and Harry forget that wonderful afternoon with you and Mrs. Acheson and the official family of a former President of the United States. It was the happiest luncheon I ever had or ever will have.
The send off at the Union Station, the spontaneous meeting in front of your house, the crowds along the line of the B and O—how could any man describe them or want more.
Mitchell, the Porter, stayed up all the night long and reported that at Grafton at 12 midnight, at Clarksburg old Stonewall’s birthplace at 2:30 A.M., at Parkersburg at 3 A.M., people wanted a look at the old “ex.” All across Ohio, Indiana, Illinois just the same. At St. Louis some three or four thousand on the platform of the Union Station. Same all across Missouri. At the hometown our county police force had expected 300 and there were more than 10,000 at the Mo.P. depot and 5,000 in front of the house at home.
Now why? and again why. Mrs. T. said when we finally arrived inside the house, “Well, this pays for all the thirty years of troubles.” Some admission for an anti–public office holder, I’d say.
Dean, if it hadn’t been for you and all that official family who were at your house on Jan. 20, it could never have happened.
I’ve had fifty or sixty thousand letters—99.9% favorable and complimentary editorials and columns by the score from terrible papers like the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, the terrible Knight papers, all eating crow, feathers and all!
Our successors are making hay for the Democrats at a great rate. More power to ’em. I keep still! How can I? But I do. Stevenson made a grand talk in New York on Saturday night and Harriman did a grand job as Chairman. I had a reporter there named Margie (Skinny for short) who gave me the low down and it was all good.
Hope you and Mrs. Acheson are having the grandest time possibly to have, and from your letter I’d judge you are. We are going on a Pacific jaunt beginning March 22 from San Francisco, winding up in Honolulu for 30 days and back here about May 5th.
I’m about to sell out a book for a fantastic sum. It’s not worth it but I’m sorely tempted.
My best to you and Mrs. Acheson—and the Boss joins me, may we never lose contact!
Sincerely,
Harry S. Truman
The Achesons were still in Antigua at the time of this letter. Antigua became their favored winter retreat for many years.
February 21, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
Two letters from you came to me today—a record even in the old days. One about our last luncheon. I am glad—very glad—that it gave you and Mrs. Truman happiness. To us it was more moving than I can ever say—To see around you the devotion which you inspired and which had done faithful and good work to the end and could be gay, however heavy the heart was. None of us will ever forget that day—or many others—where you led us to do what did not seem possible to do.
Since I wrote you last, I have gone on with my idle life, mostly reading—with swimming and some moderate use of alcoholic beverages. The Thomas Life of Lincoln has impressed me very much. I think you would like it. Most Lincoln books get so bogged down in legend or detail or papers that I have never been able to see what the man was like. What made him tick? Why did he decide this way instead of that way? I used to look at his portrait and wonder what he would have said to me if I had brought him the problems which I brought to you. This book makes it clearer. I begin to feel that I know a little more. But I am not willing to swap chiefs with any Secretary of State before—or since—Jan. 20, 1953.
Alice joins me in affectionate greeting to you and Mrs. Truman.
As always,
Dean
The book that Acheson is talking about below, and which Truman referred to in his letter of February 18, is Truman’s memoirs, which would be published in two volumes, in 1955 and 1956.
March 2, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
Your wonderful letter of Feb. 18 has made us very happy. What you say about the luncheon on the Twentieth, the crowds greeting you all the way home, the letters and editorial, and Mrs. Truman’s comment on the recompense for thirty years of public life. You ask why. I am sure that I know. It was because the thirty years were years of great public service by a brave and straight shooter and the people know it and appreciate it. You have done what they would like to have done and wanted done.
Your speaking of the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial is particularly interesting. A few days ago I got here a long letter from a linotype operator on that paper, enclosing a copy of the editorial. He wrote that for years the editorials about F.D.R. and you were so bad that he often wanted to chuck the job and be free from having to set them up. This one gave him some sense that it had been worth it to stay on just to say, “I told you so.” I have written him to say that the composing room is way ahead of the editorial room.
We are delighted that you and Mrs. Truman are going to have a holiday in the Pacific and know that it, too, will be a triumphal tour. I just hope that people will give you a chance to rest and wish that Margaret could go along to see that you both did rest. We are disgustingly healthy and relaxed.
I am most excited about the book, although I worry when remembering the biblical hope that mine enemy might write a book. Where is it? In Ecclesiastes I think. But there is one book that you have spoken of which I hope you will write—perhaps it will be this one—“From Precinct to President.” I see it not as an anecdotal book—which I am afraid the Life people will want, and which would stir up controversy (as they would urge it) without shedding light. But it would be built around two central themes. One would be your favorite description of the President’s function, to persuade people to do what they ought to do without persuading. This is the heart of the American democratic process. It is an essay in persuasion, not by a dictator with police and guns as his arguments. But by one whom the people are persuaded wants what they want—though they may not always be able to state it in detail, and who must also persuade them that the complicated steps necessary to achieve results in this complicated world are directed to the just satisfaction of the popular wants. This may be pretty much true in other democracies such as England, France, Scandinavia, etc. But we have a further need for persuasion. The division of powers, imposed on us in towns, counties, states and nation, to provide checks and balances, has made government in the U.S.A. a true art and the art of persuasion from start to finish. How all of these problems came to you and were solved by you from Jackson County to the White House would be a great and profoundly useful book to young and old. And your observations on whether the process is flexible enough for the atomic age, for the contest with the monolithic opponent, for the execution of policies with continuity as an essential ingredient, and upon the effects of persuasion à la McCarthy, which is a sort of bastardization of the process & a destruction of it—all of this out of your own experience would be wonderful.
Another theme which goes along with this is the change in the function of government which began towards the end of the last century and came to full flower in the administrations of H.S.T. and F.D.R. The early needs of government were to be policeman, judge, soldier, to provide order, justice, security. But now, with the growth of populations and the complexity of relationships, a managerial element becomes strongly necessary. This emerged when the Granger movement produced the idea of the public utility and its regulation. F.D.R. and you had it in a vast number of fields—the banks, various aspects of the welfare problem, power, mobilization, foreign affairs, where in very truth you were engaged in managing with our friends. The development and strengthening of the alliance of the free.
You may well say, “Whose book is this anyway?” It surely is yours. I am only putting in my plug for the one of yours which I want most. There will be many plugs for other kinds. But I have run on too long. It is the nearest thing to the talks I miss so much. Our deep affection to you and Mrs. Truman.
As ever,
Dean
Acheson was still in Antigua when Truman wrote this letter. The “Canadian Ambassador” is probably Stanley Woodward, who was White House chief of protocol during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations and, from 1950 to January 1953, United States ambassador to Canada. Woodward and his wife would be Truman’s traveling companions during his 1956 European trip.
March 6, 1953
Dear Dean:
I can’t tell you how very much I appreciated your good letter of February twenty-first. I am glad you received both of mine. I suppose you are having a good time with our Canadian Ambassador at this minute and I wish I could be there too. We are trying to get things in shape so we can leave for Hawaii in a very short time.
I’ve been reading that Lincoln book you referred to and I like it very much. It seems to be the most sensible one that has come out lately. I am also going to get my hands on the one to which you referred in your other letter concerning the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson. I’ve read one or two of the letters Jefferson wrote to Adams and one from Adams to Jefferson which, in my opinion, would be difficult to publish in its entirety. They were most interesting.
I hope you and Mrs. Acheson are getting a good rest and I hope you are getting a lot of enjoyment out of what is taking place in Washington. It is very interesting.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S Truman
Acheson refers in this letter to Harry, Bess, and Margaret Truman’s journey to San Francisco with W. Averell Harriman (here “Averill”) in his private Union Pacific railroad car. Harriman was an influential member of the Truman administration, ambassador to the United Kingdom, the Marshall Plan administrator in that country, and Secretary of Commerce, later governor of New York.
From San Francisco, the Trumans sailed to Hawaii for a month’s stay on Coconut Island, which was owned by Truman’s friend the California oilman Edwin Pauley.
“Foster” is John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State. Eisenhower promised during the campaign that he would bring an end to the Korean War, and Acheson is worried about how he will go about keeping that pledge. Acheson was probably concerned that anxiety for peace might prompt Eisenhower to make unwarranted concessions to North Korea.
The clipping enclosed with this letter is probably Robert Waithman’s article, “The Lion Hearted: A Salute and Farewell,” News Chronicle, January 17, 1953, which says this: “As for Dean Acheson, a man of scholarship and grace, he was venomously abused by some of his countrymen: he was the object of the cruelest campaign of vilification in modern American memory. We shall remember him in the earlier days, when his irony and eloquence established a wonderful bond between him and the State Department correspondents; and in the later days, when under ferocious and unreasoned political assault he retired into himself, still patient and more resolute than ever, but with the sunlight gone. In these days one after another of the Democratic Party men fell silent, fearing to defend Acheson. But not Mr. Truman. Never once did he equivocate or withdraw an ounce of his support. And Mr. Acheson repaid him with a respect and devotion which it was a most moving thing to observe. A great play should be written, one of these days, around the story of the unblemished and fateful association of these wholly dissimilar men.”
April 6, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
Your good letter reached me just before we started home from the West Indies and read of you starting off for your Pacific holiday. Averill came here for lunch last week and made us very homesick by his account of a day’s journey with you and Mrs. Truman and Margaret, on your way to the coast. We earnestly hope that Mrs. Truman’s hand, which she wrote Alice about and which Averill says was still bothering her, is better and on the mend.
We are most eager to see all of you. I hear rumor to the effect that you might possibly be taking an apartment in N.Y. in connection with your work on the book, etc., and spend some time there off and on. This would be a great break for your eastern friends, but you will have to discipline us vigorously if you are to get a great deal of work done. It would, I should think, be useful to you to get a different point of view from time to time and see a lot of people without publicity.
The enclosed clipping was written by a good Englishman and so impressed me that I wrote for a copy of it for you. I hope it will please you. He has gotten a view of you which I have seen so often and delight to think and talk about.
Alice and I are loafing at the farm through April and then go back to the law again. I most earnestly hope that Foster and Ike do not appease the Chinese communists to get a truce in Korea. As you know so well, we could always have had a truce on their terms. This new offer does not seem very glamorous to me.
Our most affectionate greetings to all the Trumans.
As ever,
Dean
Truman started a tradition with this birthday telegram, sent on Acheson’s sixtieth birthday.
April 11, 1953
HONORABLE DEAN ACHESON
CONGRATULATIONS ON ANOTHER MILESTONE. MRS. TRUMAN AND MARGARET JOIN ME IN BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
HARRY S TRUMAN
Acheson is upset over the misdeeds of the Eisenhower administration. He is concerned about the firing of his close State Department colleague Paul Nitze. He is also referring to Secretary Dulles’s practice of dismissing senior staff who had served in the Truman administration. The Wilson he refers to is Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense, Charles E. Wilson. Acheson encloses two articles, by Drew Pearson and John O’Donnell, who had once tormented the Truman administration but were now writing negatively about Eisenhower and his advisers.
Acheson recalls Truman’s concern for his older daughter Mary, who suffered from tuberculosis. When Acheson was traveling on State Department business, Truman would call the hospital to get news of Mary and give Acheson daily reports.
“The farm” was the Achesons’ farm, Harewood, in Sandy Spring, Maryland, just outside Washington, where they went frequently to escape the city. Mrs. Acheson, an accomplished artist, painted while her husband gardened, wrote letters, or made furniture.
April 14, 1953
Dear Mr. President:
The message from you, Mrs. Truman, and Margaret, as I came around the bend into the seventh decade, touched me and delighted me more than I can ever tell you. It brought back all your kindness and thoughtfulness through so many years. Alice and I shall never forget how you and Mrs. Truman shared with us all our worries for Mary when she was so very ill in 1950.
Well, I am a spry and very lazy lad of sixty summers. After nearly three months off, the very thought of work is repulsive to me. That is, work in an office. Out here on the farm Alice has me painting the porch furniture, plowing the garden, wheel barrowing manure for her roses, building a new wood fence and taking the grandchildren down to the next farm to see horses, cattle, pigs, and puppies. Aside from that I just lie around all day.
I am also getting pretty steamed up about the way the pupils whom you had us teach so carefully are really fouling things up. Two samples are enclosed of men, who used to spend their time making our lives hard, now having a field day with our successors.
So far it seems to me that the worst side of the whole thing has been the terrible retrogression which has taken place in the processes of government and in dealing with the personnel of government. Ike is presiding over something which is corruptive on a really grand scale.
The folly of his supporting Senators and Congressmen who would cut his throat if elected one could put down to total lack of experience in politics and in government. But the studied appeasement of the Hill which is now going on at the expense of the best civil servants we have—certainly in State—is not only criminal but frightening in what it may mean regarding the quality of advice which the Secretary of State, and ultimately, the President, will receive. Just last week Dulles has separated Paul Nitze, the head of the State Policy Planning Staff, who did, as you remember, such fine work on that NSC series under which the rearmament took place and under which Ike himself operated in Europe. I understand that he is being sacrificed to the Hill demand that all who worked with me be changed or fired, and that he may be picked up again by Wilson in Defense.
This seems to me plain cowardice and utter folly. Ike knows better than this. He would never tolerate it for the uniformed members of the armed services. But it is the established policy for all the civilian departments—the exact opposite of everything which you tried to and did bring about.
This brings me to your book, as I long to see it. A book to show how good government is carried on at all levels from the county to the White House. And it is not the way things are being done now.
But I should not disturb your vacation in the quarrelsome way. It is the first time I have blown up in months.
Alice joins me in the most affectionate greetings to Mrs. Truman and Margaret and to yourself.
Most sincerely,
Dean
Although Truman was relaxing on Coconut Island when he wrote this letter, he still worried about what a new former President of the United States should make of the rest of his life. “The ‘Boss’ ” is, in this letter and always in Truman’s correspondence, Mrs. Truman. “Gov. King” is Samuel Wilder King, the territorial governor of Hawaii. He was the delegate of Hawaii to the United States Congress when Truman was a senator, and Mrs. Truman apparently knew Mrs. King from this past time. The 74th Club was made up of congressional wives. Admiral Arthur W. Radford, soon to be named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was at this time high commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. “Old man Costello” is probably Frank Costello, a Democratic Party boss from New York City. “C in C” means “Commander in Chief.” William Seward was Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. “Mr. Republican” probably refers to Robert A. Taft, senior senator from Ohio.
April 18, 1953
Dear Dean:
Your letter was highly appreciated because it is a good letter and because it bolstered my ego! The “Boss” says I already have too much of that commodity and it needs no outside cultivation. Sometimes I’m not so sure.
We’ve had a grand time here if you can call it a grand time to attain a bad case of Hawaiian fever. It is a worse disease than Mexican Mañana but not so bad as Potomac.
Our first social affair was dinner with Gov. King last Thursday evening. It was a beautiful affair in two sections—the past sixties in the State dining room and the under thirties in the garden. You’ve been there and know what a lovely place it is. It is suffering from the same debility that affected the White House. The legislators won’t furnish the money to rebuild the house. Mrs. King says it will fall down some day. Termites are its trouble. I told her that you and I had trouble with termites in Congress and that Ike seemed to have more of them. She agreed. She and Mrs. T. were in the 74th Club, so we had no political trouble whatever.
Had lunch with Adm. Radford Friday and reviewed the Marine Battalion and Air Force right across the bay from here Saturday morning. The old Marine Lt. Gen. gave me the 21 guns when I appeared. He’s from Alabama and his wife is the daughter of old man Costello, who was national committeeman from D.C. when F.D.R. was elected in 1932. I told them that 21 guns for a private in the citizen ranks was going pretty far. Reply was that they wished they had a civilian C in C now!
What shall I do? Been going over a book on what former Presidents did in times past. Maybe I can get some ideas.
Well, the end of the vacation is approaching all too fast but I’m anxious to see and talk to you and some of my other good friends. It looks as if Acheson will be appreciated much sooner than Seward was. I guess if the Fates had us by the hand maybe Ike and Snollygoster [a favorite Truman word, meaning an unprincipled, unscrupulous person] Dulles will help. I read a review of an article by Mr. Republican in Look. “Looks” as if he’s badly scared, if the review is correct. It makes me want to keep stiller than ever. We just don’t need to say a word. Events are taking care of things.
I wish you and Mrs. Acheson were here. What a time we could have! I am hoping to see you not too long after I return so we can discuss things as “nonpartisan” onlookers. Won’t that be something.
Bess and Margie join me in the best of everything to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Harry Truman
Truman was upset about Eisenhower too. His and Acheson’s letters would often come back to the theme of Eisenhower’s poor leadership.
April 24, 1953
Dear Dean:
I certainly did appreciate your letter of the 14th, very, very much. I am sure you do not feel a bit older by being sixty. You are not yet living on borrowed time; in one more year, I will start on that program.
I know just how you feel about going back to work. I hate to see next Tuesday come, when we will be leaving this vacation Paradise.
I am in complete agreement with you about the way our successors are acting. I do not see how it is possible to get things in such a mess as they have succeeded in doing in ninety days. It looks as if the President is giving all his prerogatives away and it will probably in the end appear to be just as well to have a British Legislative Government, although I do not think our country was cut out for that kind of a Government.
I am going to try to arrange that forthcoming book of mine so that we can show what really makes good Government and why it is necessary to have a policy and a program and the nerve to try to put it into effect.
I read the enclosed clippings with a lot of interest.
Tell Mrs. Acheson not to work you too hard; I am afraid she will set a bad example and I, myself, will get into trouble.
All of us join in the best of everything to you and Mrs. Acheson.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
The reference to “McCarthy” is to Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, the author of periodic accusations of communist sympathy in the Truman State Department. Acheson mentions “the Yale board”—i.e., the Yale Corporation, the governing body of the university. “Mr. Republican” is again Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio. “Senator Bush of Connecticut” was Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of two Presidents.
May 2, 1953
Dear Mr. President:
Just a note to welcome you home and to wish you the first of many, many free and happy birthdays. Free, because you will not [have] the terrible burdens and responsibilities which you have carried so long and so gallantly. Happy, because you can always know that you performed above and beyond the call of duty. The years before us will bring to all our American people an increasing realization of what they received from you in leadership and steadiness and a human understanding of all the thousands of problems which people in our country have to worry with every day. All of them in a real sense came into your study every day and unloaded these worries on your shoulders. And you picked up the problems and worked them out. You have great causes for peace of mind and spirit and confidence that you have done all in the evil day.
I am delighted that the Hawaiian holiday was so good and restful for all three of you. Your two good letters of April 18th and 24th breathe all your gay spirits when you are rested and loaded for bear. It was a great joy to read and reread them. Your old Marine General who gave you the 21 gun is a man after my own heart. If he were in the State Department, they would probably retire him or send him to Addis Ababa. But the military have a stronger position for which we should be—and I am—grateful.
Alice and I go back to work on Monday—when my address will be 701 Union Trust Building, Washington 4, D.C. We have just had a delightful visit from our Milwaukee daughter, Jane (Mrs. Dudley Brown), who keeps the flag flying in the heart of the McCarthy country and has all the flaming loyalties and prejudices which make a first class human being. She came on to get her batteries recharged, and we all had a great time in the process. She says that all her friends who voted for McCarthy are ashamed but still uneducated. So she returns to the fray with new vigor.
I am most eager to see you and get your views and guidance. My next week-end (May 8, 9, 10) I spend at New Haven, where I have taken up again my duties on the Yale board—along with Mr. Republican and Senator Bush of Connecticut, and fortunately some others. Whenever you are ready for some talk I shall be glad to be available. It is easy to get to New York should you be coming on. It is not a problem to get to Kansas City should you wish to see me there. I am quite sure that you will have lots of work to occupy you when you get home again. But when the time comes that I can be of any use, you have only to tell me when and where.
Alice asks me to get a report from you about Mrs. Truman’s hand. She has worried about it and hopes that the Pacific vacation has been what was needed. She and I send our most affectionate greetings to Mrs. Truman, Margaret and to you.
Again the best of all birthdays.
Most warmly,
Dean
Truman shares some thoughts about the development of historical understanding. “Our great General” is President Eisenhower. Joe Brown is probably a Kansas City friend with whom Truman sometimes had lunch at the exclusive, and mostly Republican, Kansas City Club. The “All Slops” and “the man who spells Lipp with two p’s” are columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop and Walter Lippmann. Truman also makes some unguarded comments about notorious Washington socialite Evelyn Walsh McLean, and about prominent journalist Dorothy Thompson. “His boy” could be John Eisenhower, General Eisenhower’s son.
May 25, 1953
Dear Dean:
I have been doing some long range thinking and studying about the future, wondering what the effect of the misrepresentation of facts will be on the history of things.
Evidently you and I have the pathological liars worried. I’ve seen some Soviet propaganda sheets charging you with certain high crimes and misdemeanors and charging me with murder, rape and arson, all of which has been approved by certain Senate and House Committees.
Our great General, whom you, Roosevelt and I built up to the skies, is about to come down with a dull thud and the apologentia must have a noise to muffle that thud. You and I are the most likely victims. Well, we’ve licked them time and again and we’ll do it for history.
I saw Joe Brown yesterday and he said he’d had a fine visit with you. He is a great admirer of yours.
I’m about to get started on the book. Wish I hadn’t signed a contract! I’m getting Mexican or Hawaiian or something lazy in the head. But since this job needs to be done I might as well do it. I expect to stick strictly to the facts and to outline my views on free government gained from experience.
I hope I can do it. May I call on you from time to time for verification of various controversial points?
It looks as if the All Slops and the man who spells Lipp with two p’s are in some mental misery. The only man who’s been substantially right all the time is Tom Stokes. Did you ever hear Evelyn Walsh McLain’s [sic] comment on Dorothy Thompson? She said Dorothy was the only woman she knew who could menstruate in public and get away with it and did! What a gal Evelyn was. She called the boss one night about 12 o’clock and told her all about Ike’s feminine affairs in Europe and said she’d sent his boy over to straighten Ike out. But such language. Captain Billy Hayes never had a vocabulary like that!
The vacation did us all a lot of good and made me lazy as hell. I am coming to Washington the week of June 22 and will hope to see you.
Mrs. T. joins me in the best there is to you and Mrs. Acheson. (She hasn’t read this letter!)
Sincerely,
Harry Truman
Acheson finds much to worry about. “Ike’s abdication” refers to Truman’s and Acheson’s feeling that Eisenhower did not have a firm hand on the country’s helm. “Bob Taft” is Republican Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio. James E. Webb was director of the Bureau of the Budget and Undersecretary of State during the Truman Administration, and J. Lister Hill was a senator from Alabama.
May 28, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
The well known envelope with your name in the corner and your handwriting on it lying on our hall table always quickens my heart. Yesterday’s letter was no exception. It was a delight in itself and because it brought the good news, which I shall treat as confidential until I see it released, that you will be here in the week of June 22 and that I shall see you. You must let me know when you will arrive so that I can have again the joy of meeting you as you step off the train. Will Mrs. Truman come with you?
Alice and I are overjoyed to do anything which will make your visit more enjoyable. We should love to have you stay with us, being emboldened by the knowledge that you do not like air conditioning which we do not have. But we can also understand that you will wish to see many people and that the anonymity of a hotel might be more useful for you and your callers. If so, perhaps Mrs. Truman might wish to escape from your meetings to our house. We can arrange a dinner either at P Street or in the country. Let us know at your convenience and we shall do the rest. Most of all we must have some talk.
What you say about the Great General is frighteningly true. I had a letter from a friend who writes: “I am anxious and worried increasingly from day to day as that fumbling silence in the White House seeps out over the country like a cold fog over a river bed where no stream runs.” Ike’s abdication has given us that Congressional government, directionless and feeble, which de Tocqueville feared would result from the Constitution. And it comes at the very time when your policy of building strength and unity would have paid great dividends as the Russians ran into the period of weakness and division which the succession to Stalin inevitably created. You remember that we used to say that in a tight pinch we could generally rely on some fool play of the Russians to pull us through. Now that is being exactly reversed. They now have, as invaluable allies, division, weakness and folly. As an example of the latter Bob Taft’s latest thinking aloud should get a special prize. It gives one doubt as to his state of mental responsibility.
And it is not only Congressional government, which must always fail because it cannot provide an executive, but Congressional government by the most ignorant, irresponsible and anarchistic elements—anarchistic because their result, if not their aim, is to destroy government and popular confidence in it.
I think that you are quite right that you and I are very likely to be in for another period of attack and vilification. This is also Jim Webb’s opinion based upon the belief that Taft will turn McCarthy loose on us sufficiently before the 1954 election to provide distraction, to revive suspicion of the democrats and to get sufficient right wing republicans to free the administration from the need for democratic support and to give Taft the kind of Republican majority which would insist on a policy which Taft would control, and which would make Ike the captive of the right wing. But as you say we have won many fights in the past and need not fear others in the future. It is, none the less, a distasteful waste of time and effort.
As to the book, I shall, of course, be delighted to help in any way you think I can be useful. Call on me whenever you think best.
Lister Hill called me this morning to ask me to meet with a group of Democratic senators to talk about foreign policy on June 8. Unfortunately I have to be in New Haven on that day but said that I would be available at almost any other time. He will let me know. I think the time may be coming when they should keep the record clear that the Administration’s words and its acts are not going along the same track, and that the conduct of foreign policy is not a mere matter of words.
I was amused this morning to read the man “who spells Lip with two p’s” tell the world how successful were the policies of the past four years. He can’t remember who the people were who did these things. The lady you refer to was a fabulous creature. It used to disgust me to see how people who should have known better used to fawn and prey upon her at the same time.
Alice sends her love to Mrs. Truman. We are looking forward to seeing, I hope, both of you very soon.
Most sincerely,
Dean
Charles S. Murphy was Truman’s special counsel during the latter years of his presidency. The library luncheons Truman mentions were fund-raising events for his presidential library, which was still in the planning stage.
June 8, 1953
Dear Dean:
I have been quite some time answering your letter and this is not to be considered an answer to it, but merely to inform you of what developments are.
It looks now as if Mrs. Truman and I will drive to Washington. Will probably arrive there on the 22nd and will be there the 23rd, 24th and 25th. Charlie Murphy tells me that arrangements have been made for me to see everybody and I am certainly anxious to have a chance to sit down and talk with you on the situation as it is.
Mrs. Truman and I certainly appreciate your invitation to come to the house but when the staff boys found out I was coming they seem to have filled up every day with something for me to do and I have had little or no control of it. I am enclosing copy of the schedule they have made out for me.
I have to go to Philadelphia on the 26th and New York on the 27th. I am having a Library luncheon in Philadelphia on the 26th and a Library luncheon in New York on the 29th. Averell says he wants to have a luncheon for some Democrats in New York on either the 30th of June or the first of July—then I must start back home.
We will stop at the Mayflower in Washington and the Waldorf in New York.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S Truman
That letter sounds like hell when I read it—but I’ll make it look and sound better when I see you. I’m still helpless without an appointment sec.
On June 19, 1953, Truman and Mrs. Truman set off by car for Washington, D.C., and New York. They soon learned that a former President could not easily stay incognito while pumping gas, eating at roadside restaurants, and staying in motels. Truman enjoyed being in Washington again, seeing Acheson and other former advisers, and feeling for a few moments that he once more had a role in shaping world events. “It seemed like a dream to relive such an experience,” he later reflected. “For one solid week, the illusion of those other days in Washington was maintained perfectly.”
Truman met with Acheson and Averell Harriman about a foreign-policy speech he was planning to make, which he wanted to be important without appearing partisan. His wish to have a bipartisan foreign policy, and his belief that he and others should support the President on matters of foreign policy, was not so strongly felt by Acheson. “Packing of the Tariff Commission” refers to the Republican effort to put trade protectionists on the commission. Senator Walter F. George of Georgia was the senior Democratic member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “Bad election results in Italy” were the strong Communist Party showings in parliamentary elections, where Italian prime minister Alcide De Gasperi was forced to resign following losses of his Christian Democratic Party in 1953. The MSA was the Mutual Security Agency, which supervised foreign aid programs. “Luce” was Clare Boothe Luce, a member of Congress, wife of the founder of Time magazine, and recently appointed as ambassador to Italy. Konrad Adenauer was chancellor of West Germany. Repatriation of prisoners of war was a major issue in negotiations to reach an armistice agreement to end fighting in Korea, which ended in a stalemate that still obtains.
June 23, 1953
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION
Averell Harriman and I had a meeting for an hour or more with President Truman at the Mayflower Hotel this morning.
The President led off by reading us a speech on national defense which he was planning to make before The Reserve Officers Association in Philadelphia on Friday night. After reading the speech, he asked us to criticize it from two points of view:
Was this a proper speech for him to make at this time? He did not wish to attack the President. He did not wish to get involved in partisan politics. He felt strongly that matters were drifting and that a most serious situation was developing, and he felt that the weakening of the defense program at this time was both a most serious aspect of the matter and one on which he could properly speak without getting involved in partisan politics.
Averell and I told him that on the first point we thought that the speech was good, was on a high plane, and should be made.
We then made a series of specific suggestions. We thought that the speech went too far in giving the impression that the Truman foreign policy was in fact being carried out; whereas what seemed to be happening was that the same words were being used but that action was being so weak and confused as to impair the policy itself. We suggested that this might be handled by praising the continuity in the policy, but saying that policy consisted in more than mere assertion; that it required on the one hand strong and difficult action and on the other, consistent and unified negotiation; that Mr. Truman knew very well the difficulties in these fields and that he was prepared to support the President and that he hoped everyone else would when the President asserted his authority in the field of foreign affairs, which must be preserved, and when he took the essential actions which were necessary to put the policies into effect.
The other changes were along the lines of not giving the impression that the President expected an attack upon us or our allies and therefore advised strong defense measures; but that strong defense measures were necessary to keep others from taking actions which might inevitably lead to most dangerous situations and possibly to hostilities.
We then turned to discussion of broader matters. I reported that Lyndon Johnson had told me that he could maintain a very strong group in the Senate to oppose the packing of the Tariff Commission and that this might get to the point of voting against a conference report on the Trade Agreements Act, which had this packing provision in it. Lyndon wondered whether this would be a dangerous action since the Democrats might be accused of defeating the bill. My advice had been that the bill with a packed Commission, together with peril point and other provisions, was worse than no bill, a view with which he said Senator George concurred. I thought that people could understand the Commission packing proposal better than they could complicated fiscal provisions and that it was well to make a fight on this issue. The President strongly agreed.
We discussed trends in Europe. Averell expressed the view that the bad election results in Italy had in his opinion a close connection with the confusion in American foreign policy leadership and with the division between the United States and its Allies. He spoke of a so-called “Crawford Report” of an MSA group which had criticized the Italians, the Luce appointment at this critical moment, and our bickerings with the British. He thought all of this could easily have made the difference in the few thousand votes which prevented De Gasperi from having a strong parliamentary majority. He said that he was fearful that a continuation of the same weakness, together with the uncertainties which a Big Four meeting would inject into European affairs just at the time of a German election, might result in Adenauer’s defeat, and that this would put us in a most precarious position.
We also discussed the Korean situation, and at the President’s request I explained the similarity between the present Prisoners of War provisions and the December UN Resolution and said that I did not think that the present armistice terms were subject to a just criticism. The President agreed.
He had other matters which he wished to discuss with us, but our time had expired and many other callers were waiting.
Truman’s former staff gave a dinner in his honor, at which Acheson delivered a moving tribute.
June 23, 1953
Loyalty … is not something which is understood solely by considering those who give it. It requires an understanding of him who inspires it. The finest loyalty is not apt to be inspired by a man unless he inspires both respect and affection. Respect comes for many reasons. It is enough here to say that it springs from the fundamental purposes of a man’s life and from his methods of achieving them, his manner of conducting himself in his relations with others. President Truman’s fundamental purpose and burning passion has been to serve his country and his fellow citizens. This devoted love of the United States has been the only rival which Mrs. Truman has had. It has never been obscured or deflected by thought of himself, by personal ambition, or desire for position. What he has wanted for the United States is what every decent citizen has wanted for his own family, his own neighbors, his own community and country. It has not been to have it big or rich or powerful for these ends themselves. It has not been to use its power to dictate either to its own people or to other people.… He has sought in every way to give full scope for ability, energy, and initiative to create abundance beyond anything we have thought possible. But he has sought to do more. He has sought to make a kind and compassionate country whose institutions would truly reflect, both at home and abroad, the kind and compassionate nature of its people. He has sought to keep opportunity open to all and to mold political and economic life so that the weak and unfortunate are not trampled and forgotten, and so that all who honestly strive to do the best they can may fairly share in the abundance which this country creates. These are purposes which excite the respect and enthusiasm of all who have been fortunate enough to work with him.
Acheson reflects on the meaning of Stalin’s death for the United States and its allies. Oscar Chapman was Truman’s Secretary of the Interior during the latter years of his presidency. The Washington Post article he mentions is titled “Writer Finds Mighty Russia Starting to Burst at Seams.” Charles “Chip” Bohlen, the preeminent expert on the Soviet Union in Truman’s State Department, was at this time ambassador to the Soviet Union. Lavrentiy Beria, chief of security and the NKVD, the secret police, under Stalin, became first deputy prime minister after Stalin’s death. A member of the Politburo, he was Stalin’s much-feared enforcer. The reference is to his sudden downfall, when he was accused of treason at a Politburo meeting, arrested on the spot, and taken away and shot. The book that Acheson mentions, Journey for Our Time: The Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custine, is the 1839 journal of a French traveler in Russia who generalizes about Russian society and the Russian character in a manner similar to Alexis de Tocqueville’s generalizations about Americans.
The reference to “Stevenson” is to Adlai Stevenson, Democratic nominee for President in 1952, former governor of Illinois.
July 21, 1953
Dear Mr. President:
I am most grateful for the last Cabinet picture, which came to me from you. It brings back the most poignant memories.
All of us here are still talking of your visit. I see the boys from time to time when we meet to discuss Library affairs and last week I had a long and most pleasant luncheon and talk with Oscar Chapman. He is a sound man and most loyal one.
In case you have not seen it, I am enclosing a clipping from last Sunday’s Washington Post. The story by Eddie Gilmore, who, as you know, has just come out of Moscow with his Russian wife, gives his reflection on the attitudes in Russia since the death of Stalin. I am doubly impressed with them because they accord with many of Chip Bohlen’s thoughts.
It is important, I think, not to over-estimate or under-estimate the change which Stalin’s death has produced. It does not in any way mean, in my judgment, that the USSR will be any less of a totalitarian, Communist, police state. There will not be any lessening of the danger in the world if the West is foolish enough to weaken itself and make aggression seem the road to profit with little or no risk.
What Stalin did to the Russia of Lenin was to impose upon it a personal, oriental despotism, in which the whims, fears, and ideas of one man and a small coterie greatly enlarged the field for intrigue and the uncertainty of life for everybody from the highest officials to the man in the street. As both Bohlen and Gilmore say, there was almost an audible sigh of relief when Uncle Joe died, and a great yearning for what was nostalgically thought of as “the good old days of Lenin” (which had become somewhat rosy-tinted in retrospect), in which there was plenty of dictatorship and ruthlessness, but in which the government was run by an oligarchy, the head of which had great power but was not deified. This tended toward committee government and greater scope for discussion and greater need for carrying some sort of acquiescence in what was done.
It is Chip’s guess—and only a guess—that it was Beria’s (the super cop’s) passion for intrigue which made him unable to accept the new movement and got him into trouble. The fact that he could be dealt with as he was and that a man who had been in high position for twenty years could be denounced universally as a scoundrel from the start is both very Russian (see the book called A Journey for Our Time) and was evidence that authoritarianism has not appreciably declined.
It may be that the Russian leaders will have to make greater concessions to the Soviet and satellite people. If this is so, they will want a period of relaxation in foreign affairs. And if this in turn is so, we may be faced with proposals in regard to Germany and perhaps even Korea and Indochina which may alter some of the factors—i.e., the openness of Russian hostility and willingness to use force against weakness—which have strengthened the allied effort.
But it would be a great mistake, I believe, to think that the essence of the problem is changed. That essence, which influenced the thoughts which you and I have held for so long—that essence is that it isn’t merely the imminent threat of aggression from the Soviet movement which causes instability and the danger of war, but the capacity for successful aggression whenever the mood or the desire to engage in it exists. Therefore, our policy was to create strength by binding ourselves and our allies both economically and militarily. It is essential to continue that policy.
I think now that the country is faced with a problem which you and I faced early in 1949, when the Russians raised the blockade in Berlin and asked for a meeting of Foreign Ministers. The first was a gesture toward relaxation, which you and I thought came from a desire on their part to extricate themselves from a failure and a weak position. The great question was how far the Russians were prepared to go. We, therefore, accepted the proposed conference promptly and with an agenda which gave the Russians a chance to show their hand one way or another.
The first week of the conference was devoted to forcing them to expose their hand fully. It turned out that they were not ready to propose anything constructive and in the resulting propaganda battle lost heavily. This, I think, convinced our allies of the true situation more than any amount of speeches and enabled us to go forward together to meet the ensuing danger and hardships with a common appreciation of the facts.
1953 has much in common with 1949. Again it isn’t a time for meetings by heads of states, a situation which puts more pressure upon the democracies to have what at least looks like a favorable result than upon the Soviets. But it is a time for a four-power meeting, at which the Russians must be thoroughly smoked out. Much preparatory work should be done with our allies. The White House must discredit the demagogic isolationist wing of the Republican Party which wishes to insult and separate us from our allies.
If the Russians propose nothing which makes a really free unification of Germany possible, I think that again, as in 1949, the Allies can be brought together on a program of building strength. If they are willing to make real concessions, then a most delicate and difficult period ensues. We cannot—and would not wish to—insist upon a continued division of Germany, but we must be very careful about what kind of a Germany we are unifying and what its place in the Western world is. I think this could be handled if there were understanding and wisdom in Washington and if I had any confidence that in the present constitutional and political situation in France that country was able to accept any solution, whatever it was. Since both of these matters are in doubt, I think the future gives rise to real anxiety.
All of this, I know, you have thought of yourself; but it gives me comfort to talk with you in this way.
I have been urging some of Stevenson’s friends to get him back here in the near future. His voyaging seems to have been over-prolonged, and I hope that, if he is wise and tactful, he can help bring Democrats of various shades closer together on some lines of policy which will be a little more positive than the Congressional minority has been able to achieve so far. I should hope that you and he would find yourselves pretty close together and that some of us who might be called in a World War I phrase “the old contemptibles” might be of some use.
Alice joins me in the warmest messages to you and Mrs. Truman. I hope that her hands are better and that I am not in her black books.
Most sincerely,
Dean
Truman worries that conditions in Korea and Iran invite Russian adventurism.
August 18, 1953
Dear Dean:
I have been trying my best to write you on present day developments but I’ve had so much business to transact that I haven’t had a chance to write you.
Your letter of July twenty-first impressed me immensely. I’d like very much to have your present view on what effect the Armistice has had on our Russian trends and what your guess is for the next strike.
It looks as if the Iranian situation has come to a conclusion where the Russians may walk in and take over. If you will remember, we had things in shape at one time so the Shah could have taken control of the Government of Iran and I think he would have been able at that time to work things out but he balked at the most important point and now he seems to have stepped in in a hurry and has left himself without a throne or a Government. I’d like to have your comments on that also.
I hope, one of these days, to see and talk with you. I have been working like a Turk on the preliminary outline for the book which I contracted to write for Life and Time. It is a terrific job. If I had known how much work it is I probably would not have undertaken it.
I am enclosing you a letter from Samuel S. Freedman, Chairman, Yale Law Forum. He is inviting me to deliver a lecture before that august body. I wonder if I should consider it. Your advice will be highly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Harry
Acheson helped Charles Murphy and others draft the speech Truman gave in Detroit on Labor Day. After Truman left the presidency Acheson continued in his role of foreign-policy adviser to his old boss. Truman, for his part, knew that he still needed help from Acheson and other advisers, such as White House staff members Charles Murphy and David Lloyd, Averell Harriman, and personal advisers William Hillman and David Noyes to formulate and present his ideas. The letter from Acheson to Murphy that Truman mentions offers several revisions to the draft of the speech Truman was to give on Labor Day. Acheson began his three pages of critical remarks by saying of the draft, “It is a very good speech and will have a fine effect.”
September 2, 1953
Dear Dean:
I can’t tell you how very much I appreciated your interest in my Labor Day speech. Your letter to Charlie Murphy was a jewel. He was kind enough to let me read it. I’ll never be able to “square up” with you for all the trouble I’ve caused you over the last eight or ten years, but I can’t say that I am sorry that I did it.
Give my best to Mrs. Acheson.
Most sincerely,
Harry Truman
Acheson helped Truman’s speechwriting team write the foreign-policy section of an address Truman gave when he received the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Award at a ceremonial dinner in New York City on September 28, 1953. Acheson is careful to point out to Truman areas where he must avoid appearing too close to some aspects of President Eisenhower’s foreign policy, such as “the Dulles liberation ideas,” which Acheson believed were impracticable and reckless.
“The Dulles liberation ideas” refer to Secretary Dulles’s stated objective of “rolling back communism” in Central and Eastern Europe, which was taken as encouragement by Hungarian patriots in their disastrous revolt in 1956.
September 24, 1953
Dear Mr. President:
Dave Lloyd sent me a copy of Draft No. 2, 9/22/53 of the Four Freedoms Award speech, with the request that I give particular attention to the foreign policy section of it, which I have done. I tried to reach him in St. Louis on the telephone with my suggestions, but have not been successful, so I am sending them to you, with a copy to him here, as I understand that he will be back tomorrow afternoon.
The first suggestion relates to page 5, paragraph beginning “it is not enough to defend our freedoms at home only,” to the bottom of the page. I think this part, together with the quotations from President Roosevelt, seems to commit you to an impossibly broad program and one which I am afraid will get you entangled with the Dulles liberation ideas. I do not think that you want to say that it is our task to establish the Four Freedoms everywhere in the world—Russia, China, South Africa, etc.—and that there is no end save victory in this struggle. President Roosevelt may have meant this in the enthusiasm of the war, but I doubt whether he would advocate it today. Therefore, I suggest that this whole section be written as follows:
“It is not enough to defend our freedoms at home only. We must be concerned with a world environment in which free men can live free lives. Franklin Roosevelt knew that we could not exist in an oasis of freedom in a world of totalitarianism or war. ‘The world order which we seek,’ he said, ‘is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.’ The Four Freedoms for us, as for all free men, depend upon a world in which peace and justice are maintained by the concerted efforts of the free nations.”
My next suggestions have to do with the listing of the foundation of our foreign policy on pages 8 and 9. The first foundation as stated is “a renewed reciprocal trade program.” I suggest the insertion after “renewed” of another adjective, so that it would read, “a renewed and reinvigorated reciprocal trade program.” The purpose of this is not to commit you to a mere renewal of the act in its present amended and weakened form.
The last suggestion has to do with the eighth foundation. I suggest that it read as follows:
“The willingness, in firm agreement with our allies and from a position of united strength, to seek in all sincerity solutions of our differences with the Soviet bloc through patient and peaceful negotiation.”
The first purpose is to fix up the English. As written, it sounds as though we need negotiating differences rather than non-negotiable differences, which clearly wasn’t meant. The second idea is to bring our allies into it so that no one would think that you had bilateral negotiations in mind. The third idea is that the purpose of the negotiations is to seek solutions rather than merely to compromise all outstanding questions.
Otherwise, I think the speech is in good shape and I am looking forward to hearing you deliver it and to seeing you in New York on Monday.
I hope Dave showed you the few observations that I am planning to make and that he has any suggestions in regard to them which you might have.
Most sincerely,
Dean
At the dinner, in presenting the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Award to Truman, Acheson said, “I hope that it will never be thought of me that I approach the matter of doing honor to President Truman with an open mind. On the contrary, it is with unshakeable convictions [that I do him honor], one of which is that no honor which can be conferred on Mr. Truman can equal the honor which he has won for himself.… I suppose Mr. Truman would like no description of himself better than, in the words of a Seventeenth Century writer, as ‘An honest plain man, without pleats.’ That indeed he is, but we cannot let him escape with that. In my prejudiced judgment we must bring in a word which is very much abused and which I fear may annoy him a good deal. But he will testify that I have always told him the truth as I saw it—and this is no time to stop. The word is ‘Greatness.’ ”
Truman refers to his regret for not sending a congratulatory cable when Acheson received an award at a Woodrow Wilson Foundation Dinner in New York. Truman also talks of his plans for his presidential library.
October 2, 1953
Dear Dean:
I failed to send you a telegram last night for the simple reason that I was out in the midst of the Caruthersville Fair Grounds making a speech on the educational necessities of the next generation. I left in a hurry to drive eighty miles in an hour and a half in order to catch a train to be home this morning.
I wish I could have been present and would have been had not circumstance prevented me. I don’t know of a more well deserved Award than that one. I would have given anything to have expressed my opinion at the meeting publicly in the same manner in which you did to me. I’ll never forget that meeting as long as I live. I wish I deserved all the nice things that you said about me and that the other gentlemen were kind enough to say. In fact I was overcome as you could very well see.
I arrived in St. Louis and they had a special session of the Grand Lodge of Masons of Missouri at which I presented them one of the stones out of the White House which had the Masonic marks on it. For the first time in my connection with that organization of some forty-four years, they had an overflow crowd present and gave me an ovation like the one in the Waldorf-Astoria, so maybe we are making some converts.
I am having more interest displayed in the proposed Library than I ever had since it started. Two or three of the great Foundations are now anxious to become interested in it and I am somewhat in a quandary as to just what to do but I guess it will work out all right. The Directors have authorized the construction of the first building, which will be the Archives part of it, and I suppose we will go to work on that in the not too far distant future. I am anxious to get the records of the whole Administration lined up there if I can. I would like, as I told the members at a Cabinet Meeting one time, to have every Cabinet Member make some contribution in papers and documents to that institution.
I had a meeting of the Deans of History and the Librarians in the City of St. Louis while I was at the Grand Lodge. I went to breakfast with these gentlemen of the Universities around St. Louis and was informed by the Dean of History of the St. Louis University that they had obtained permission from the Pope to make photostat microfilms of all the manuscripts in the Vatican—some three million of them—and that those microfilms could be available for my Library on an exchange basis. Something like that has been coming up nearly every day since I have been home from Hawaii. I feel very much encouraged about it.
Again, I can’t tell you how very much I appreciated what you did in New York last Monday night.
I have been going down to Caruthersville for twenty or twenty-five years because that southeast corner of Missouri has always been in my corner politically and I went down there this time since I was out of office and not running for office to show them I was just interested in them. I had one of the biggest crowds they ever had when I addressed the meeting and I got a bigger ovation than I did when I was President of the United States. They gave me a great big silver cup engraved—Harry S. Truman. From your friends and admirers in Caruthersville.
They had to take me eighty miles to a city down in Arkansas, Jonesboro, to catch the train for home. There had been no previous announcement that I was to go there but when I got to the station there were two thousand people there. It took two policemen and aDeputy Sheriff to get me on the train. I don’t know what the world is when people in Arkansas and southeast Missouri, which is about the same as the deep South, turn out like that for an Ex-President, who has told them where to get off on Civil Rights. Maybe the world is turning over.
I think I’ll put up a tent and charge admission!
Sincerely,
Harry S. Truman
Please give my best to Mrs. Acheson.
Acheson lists several of the Truman-administration veterans who had given generous donations to Truman’s presidential library. Some familiar foreign-policy problems from the Truman administration—France, the European Defense Community, Iran—are also on Acheson’s mind. Iran was a particularly lively topic at this time. The Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, had been overthrown by coup d’état in August. Reference is made here to the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, nationalized by Mosaddeq and, significantly, not denationalized by the shah when he was restored to power by a CIA-managed coup. David Bruce served the Truman administration as ambassador to France and Undersecretary of State; George Perkins as Assistant Secretary for European Affairs; Stanley Woodward as Director of Protocol; George McGhee as Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East; Robert A. Lovett as Undersecretary of State, Undersecretary of Defense, and Secretary of Defense; James Webb as Director of the Budget and Undersecretary of State; James C. Dunn as ambassador to Italy and France; Chester Bowles as ambassador to India; and Harold Linder as president of the Export-Import Bank.
October 8, 1953
Dear Mr. President:
Our correspondence has been interrupted for the happiest of all reasons; that I have seen you twice since your letters of August and September. And now I have your letter of October 2 about the Woodrow Wilson dinner in New York, the progress of the library, and the great and deserved ovation which you got at Caruthersville and Jonesboro.
Please do not have the matter of a message to the Wilson dinner on your mind. I knew from David Lloyd what you were up to, knew that you would wire if you could, and completely understood and understand why you couldn’t.
The two dinners in New York last week were, I thought, wonderful and happy evidence that what you say in the last paragraph is true—that perhaps the world is turning over and people are understanding better some things which were obscure to them last November.
I am enclosing a copy of the few observations which I made at your dinner and of the speech which I made at the Wilson dinner. The last six months or so I have been thinking a good deal about the essence of the problems which we had to face and the measures which we took to face them. These thoughts I tried to state in a pretty tightly reasoned statement. I hope you will approve of it. In light of what you said on Labor Day and in New York, I think it shows that the Truman-Acheson front remains as solid as it was in the old days.
A few days ago the Republican Policy Committee sent for copies of my speech. The messenger who came for them said they were wanted urgently for a meeting on the Hill. I should like to believe that they were in a mood to learn. The truth probably is that they were to be analyzed for less pleasing purposes. It will be interesting to see what they can do. As I read General Eisenhower’s latest speech in yesterday’s Times, it seemed to me that any shafts which the Republicans loose at you or me may ultimately lodge in the General’s palpitating bosom.
I am delighted to hear your good reports about the Library. One of the pleasant experiences which I have had in the last few months is the response of friends with whom I have talked about it.
Dave Bruce, George Perkins, Stanley Woodward, George McGhee, Jim Webb, Jimmy Dunn, Chet Bowles, and Harold Linder have all responded instantaneously and most generously. The other night Bob Lovett sought me out and pressed a goodly check upon me, with the promise of another in a few months. More will come. I am sure the main thing to do now is merely to get a few people in a few cities to raise the matter with your many friends.
As for depositing papers in the Library, I think that so far as the State Department is concerned, you have all the essential papers in your own files. I did not take any at all with me when I left the Department. The real records of our foreign policy are contained, I believe, in the various memoranda which we sent to you for your comment and action and in the detailed reports which went to you every day from the various conferences—four-power foreign ministers, three-power foreign ministers, NATO, the Palais Rose discussions in 1951 and UN meetings. I shall keep the matter always in mind and make available to you anything which I can gather.
In your earlier letter you prod me about developments in connection with the USSR and with Iran. It seems to me clear that whatever inspired the Kremlin to make soft-sounding noises earlier in the year has ceased to inspire them. The recent notes, linking four-power talks with five-power talks at which Red China shall be present and insisting on an agenda for both which puts the most insoluble problems in the forefront, make clear to me that the Russians do not really want meetings except under conditions where we surrender first and talk about details of it later. I think Eden’s speech at the Party Conference shows his realization of this.
The French are the troublesome ones, as they always have been. Indeed, French weakness has always been the disease from which our Grand Alliance has suffered. The French appear to be willing to do almost anything to stop the war in Indo-China on almost any terms. I do not see the answer to this, short of a change in the French constitution which will give them an executive strong enough to face up to difficult problems, make decisions, and survive long enough to live with the decisions until the politicians and the public have become adjusted to them. If every one of these decisions, which are always a choice between two difficult alternatives, has to win a popularity contest in the French Chamber, then we will always face governments falling like autumn leaves, the continuance of an inflation which is now thirty years old, and instability of the worst sort in the very heart of Europe.
David Bruce continues to be optimistic about the European Defense Community, but even he says that the decision in favor of it, with the continuance of French weakness, will not solve the problem, although it will be a help.
All of this, it seems to me, makes it clear that there is no sense in and no possibility of a four-power meeting at the level of heads of government. It seems plain that the Russians don’t want it. We certainly don’t and shouldn’t. Churchill, I think, is backing away from it. And only the French would be ready to gamble.
As for Iran, there the Shah’s attempted coup, its failure, and the counter-attack and success of Zahedi, together with developments since, show again what we always urged on the British; that so far as relations with the West and the oil dispute were concerned, the problem was deeper than the personality of Mossadegh. The fact that he was impossible made the British believe that somebody else would be the opposite of Mossadegh. I think that this is not true, that Zahedi will be controlled by the same disorderly public emotions to which Mossadegh catered and that any solution of the troubles, if any is possible, will not be very different from the proposals which we made in the last week of your Administration. Details can be changed; a new contract with Anglo-Iranian might take the place of cash compensation, since they are merely different ways of saying the same thing. But I think it impossible that Anglo-Iranian would ever get back in the country on an operating concession basis. And I think that every week that passes it becomes more difficult for Iran to find a market for its oil even through Anglo-Iranian and with the cooperation of the other oil companies. So basically I think the problem remains as tough as ever. Mossadegh’s removal is a great help, which means that in working on a difficult problem one does not have to work with a crazy man, but the removal of the crazy man does not change the dimensions of the problem.
This letter, with its enclosures, will already take up most of your working day, so I will only add a plea. Your account of your eighty-mile-an-hour dash at night through Missouri and parts of Arkansas gave me the creeps. Even without the Secret Service to make you behave, you really must be more careful. So please have a heart and remember that the doctrine of chance does not mean that you always win.
Please tell Mrs. Truman from Alice that yesterday the present members and alumnae of the Spanish class were invited to tea at the White House. Alice, on advice—and indeed upon instructions—of counsel, attended. Recalling the days when a certain lady used to chew gum and respond to all questions with a paraphrase of “no comment”, Alice discovered that glamour had overtaken this far from perfect pupil. The ushers, however, had not changed and Alice was somewhat embarrassed when they insisted on putting her at the head of the line to be received, taking precedence over her successor. At this point I draw the veil over her comments.
She also sends her love to Mrs. Truman and to you, in which I join.
Most affectionately,
Dean
October 21, 1953
Dear Dean:
I’ll never be able to tell you how much I appreciated your good letter of the eighth. I’ll continue to regret that I didn’t get to the Wilson dinner and didn’t get a message there in time but I told you what my difficulties were.
I am certainly glad the Republicans had to come to you for information and they will have to continue to do that if they expect to carry on a Foreign Policy that will do the peace of the world any constructive good.
Your contribution to the Library is wonderful. We are really making progress and before long we will let a contract.
I think you are entirely right on the four-power meeting. I hope Iran will come out of the kinks. It looks now as if Israel is in for a large shooting war again.
Sincerely yours,
Harry
Acheson has just read remarks Truman made at a news conference on December 19, 1950, in response to demands from some Republicans that Acheson be removed from office. “How our position in the world would be improved by the retirement of Dean Acheson from public life is beyond me,” Truman said at the news conference. “Mr. Acheson has helped shape and carry out our policy of resistance to Communist imperialism.… If communism were to prevail in the world—as it shall not prevail—Dean Acheson would be one of the first, if not the first, to be shot by the enemies of liberty and Christianity.… This is a time of great peril. It is a time for unity, and for real bipartisanship. It is a time for making use of the great talents of men like Dean Acheson. Communism—not our own country—would be served if we lost Mr. Acheson.”
Bill Benton is probably former Senator William B. Benton of Connecticut, who also served in the State Department during Truman’s presidency. The comment about Trieste refers to a running controversy about the future sovereignty over Trieste. Trieste was at this time claimed by both Italy and Yugoslavia. It was occupied by American and British troops, but the two governments had recently indicated that Italian troops would replace their own. Yugoslavia of course objected, and a minor crisis resulted.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was pursuing lower-level staff in the Department of the Army, with—for a limited time—the cooperation of the army.
October 21, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
Bill Benton will be seeing you on November first. I am working on him for the library and he will make a contribution but wants to talk with you first. He will probably not mention the contribution but will undoubtedly raise a pet complaint of his—that the library ought to be in Chicago, where it would get greater use than in Independence (so he says). I think that if he can be reasoned with on this point successfully his contribution will be larger.
My second point is that in looking over the record of developments toward the end of 1950 I read again your wonderful statement to the press in response to the resolution of the Republicans in Congress asking you to remove me. It gave me all the thrills all over again, and makes as clear as day what is now lacking in the White House—courage and leadership. It has every mark of H.S.T. in every sentence. If you look at it again you will see why all of us are ready to go through anything for you. You know how I feel about you, but I want you to know again, because it is a continuing emotion.
Our friend Dulles has landed us in a pretty pickle over Trieste. You remember that we went over this very suggestion from Eden in 1952 & rejected it because we foresaw the position of embarrassment we would get into having started something we could not finish. Why he will not think these things through before he acts I don’t know. I’m sure the [State] Department either did warn him or would have, if asked.
Alice is in Milwaukee with our daughter Jane and will bring me the latest from the McCarthy front. Here again the Army seems to be cooperating in building him up and destroying its own morale.
My warmest regards to you and Mrs. Truman,
As ever,
Dean
Truman had to raise private money to build his presidential library, and Acheson helped as much as he could. Truman writes about his meeting with a prospective donor. Tom Evans, an owner of a drugstore chain and a television station in Kansas City, was one of Truman’s closest friends. Truman is elated because of strong Democratic results in the off-year elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. The results in New Jersey were particularly important and were widely viewed as a repudiation of President Eisenhower’s policies. Truman often spelled Acheson’s name with a “t”—Atcheson—presumably because of the name of the town in northeastern Kansas—Atchison—and of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company.
November 5, 1953
Dear Dean:
Your letter of Oct. 21 was very helpful on Bill Benton’s visit. I met him at the plane, took him out to Independence for dinner and made him acquainted with the two District Federal Judges and one from the Court of Appeals. You know Dick Duncan, who was on the Ways and Means Committee with Fred Vinson. I succeeded in having Roosevelt appoint him in 1942 and broke all the rules in the Senate getting him confirmed. The other District Judge you don’t know. He was a Circuit Court Judge on the Missouri State Court. Was in World War I with me, and when he came home studied law, became a good lawyer, was elected to the Missouri Bench, made a great Judge and I put him on the Federal Court. The Appeals Court Judge you’ve met, Caskie Collet.
Well, we had a grand time talking about Dean Acheson, the State Dept., Ike and shoes and ships and sealing wax and things.
I let Tom Evans take Bill back to the plane and Tom put in some good licks for the Library—so I guess you can nail him.
Your comments on my statement to the press about you gave me a lift. I hope you’ll always feel that way.
There’s an article in the last Reporter on Trieste which is a dinger. It says if we want a lesson in what not to do diplomatically Trieste is it. Well, if things keep up you and I are going to be tops in foreign policy and everything else.
I’ve been sailing high since last Tuesday. Nearly all the newsmen called me for comment. All I said was that I was very happy at the endorsement of the New Deal and Fair Deal.
The Madam and I leave for New York on Sunday morning by train—she won’t fly. I receive the Stephen Wise award Monday night, address the City College of New York on Wednesday and receive another award from the Hebrew University on Thursday. (Bill Hillman says I should be circumcised if this keeps up!) Well, anyway, I expect about a half bushel of shekels for the Library as a result of these appearances.
Hope Mrs. Acheson had a good time in Milwaukee. When possible I want to visit with you. The book is fine but what a slave it made of me.
Sincerely,
Harry
Why do I put that T in your name? (Anno Domini?)
Acheson discusses the demagogic tactics used by Eisenhower’s attorney general, Herbert Brownell, Jr., who discharged some Department of Justice employees with vague imputations of security risk. Acheson refers to Adlai Stevenson’s efforts to position the Democratic Party for a better campaign than that of 1952. Lewis W. Douglas and Walter S. Gifford were both U.S. ambassadors to the United Kingdom during Truman’s administration.
December 3, 1953
Dear Mr. President,
I have an unanswered letter from you which came before the Brownell explosion. As that disgraceful episode begins to take on perspective, I think the net result was harmful to all—most of all the country—the Republicans will suffer more from it than we will. This is so, I think, because they have supped with the devil with a very short spoon. Brownell’s tactics, as you so well said, were McCarthy’s and the latter has grown so great on this food that he now challenges Ike for the leadership. And Ike has responded very feebly. It is here, I guess, that Brownell has sown the dragon’s teeth. It is not what pious words Ike utters from time to time which will count, but what he does to assert control and put the fear of God into the sewer rats. I don’t see him doing it.
Adlai seems to have done pretty well. The greatest lack I see is the absence of a small able group at the National Committee to keep working on these things, anticipate developments, help to devise a plan of campaign to meet them. I have talked with Charlie Murphy about this and he agrees. But apparently nothing is done. For instance, a theme to be constantly repeated until it becomes a slogan might be “A party which is vigorously and successfully solving the problems of its administration would be talking about its accomplishments.”
On our small front the library moves along. Walter Gifford sent me a check for $1000 and a very nice note saying how grateful he was to you for the chance to work with us on the greatest constructive achievement of the country. He is all right—no fair weather sailor like Lew Douglas.
We are all well. Alice has a one man show at the Corcoran in January. Our love to you and Mrs. Truman.
Most warmly,
Dean
Truman frets about partisan press coverage unfavorable to him and his administration. Raymond Moley and David Lawrence were conservative journalists. The “total news monopoly newspaper” he refers to is the Kansas City Star. “Dulles, Wilson, Humphrey et al.” refers to members of President Eisenhower’s Cabinet and presumably other members of his administration. Charles E. Wilson was Secretary of Defense, and George M. Humphrey was Secretary of the Treasury.
December 26, 1953
Dear Dean:
I’ve been thinking about you and Mrs. Acheson and trying to send you Christmas greetings. You know what hell is paved with—and I’ve just added another block to that famous pavement. The Boss and Margie and I appreciated most highly your good wishes on the card you sent us.
I’ve been in debt to you for some time on a communication you sent me—but I had not much to say and wonder of wonders—for me I’ve said nothing worth repeating.
Conditions are such that Ike can do no wrong and I can do no right. If it weren’t tragic it would be the best comedy in history. Ray Moley, Dave Lawrence, the Herald-Tribune, the Star in Washington, the Sat. Eve. Post and the Baltimore Sun have had some of the worst editorials and the funniest editorials I’ve ever seen. I’ve read the press on Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Teddy R., Wilson and F.D.R. and there seems to me to be no parallel. Maybe I’m somewhat prejudiced!
Dulles, Wilson, Humphrey et al. seem to be helping to make confusion thrice compounded and a lot of Republican editors are becoming “mouth pieces” for McCarthy and the Attorney General.
Our total news monopoly newspaper was indicted along with its managing editor, Roy Roberts, some time back. He thought I had something to do with it. I did not but if I’d known about it I might have. Roberts has been writing front page editorials in theKansas City Star and quoting Lawrence, Hearst, Sat. Eve. Post and all the rest. Hoping, I suppose, to have his and the Star’s indictments quashed. Brownell will probably do it too.
Our Democrats seem to be waking up to the opportunities opening up before them and perhaps will come up with a program. I hope we do just that.
Take care of yourself—we’ve got a lot of fighting to do in this great period of hysteria.
My best to Mrs. Acheson and all the family.
Sincerely,
Harry Truman