Dean Acheson, Harry Truman, and others at the construction site of the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, in 1954.
6
As the 1958 midterm elections approached, Truman and Acheson increased their political activity, Truman as inveterate political campaigner and also as author of a new syndicated newspaper column, Acheson as a member of the Democratic Advisory Council and author of influential foreign-policy position papers. The presidential election wasn’t far away, and Truman and Acheson were already worrying about finding a good Democratic presidential candidate. They met on three occasions during this period—at Yale University in early April 1958, in Kansas City later that same month, and in New York and Washington, D.C., in early May 1959. All three occasions included, in addition to a personal get-together, speechmaking and other formal activities. Truman’s trip to New York City and Washington, D.C., was especially eventful. First he met with and spoke to students at Columbia University for three days, and then he attended a number of events at which his seventy-fifth birthday was celebrated in grand style. During all this, he was preparing to help his wife through a serious operation later in the month and to celebrate the birth of his second grandson. He fretted that his schedule did not permit him to visit with his old friend Winston Churchill, who was in Washington and New York on the same dates.
Truman’s and Acheson’s letters were, as usual, full of criticism of Eisenhower. Truman thought Eisenhower was following the same big-business economic policies that the Republicans had disastrously followed in the 1920s. There were three serious foreign-policy crises during this period. Truman and Acheson found themselves disagreeing in public about two of them: Eisenhower’s actions in Egypt—the so-called Suez crisis—and in what at the time was called the Formosa Strait, involving the small islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Acheson was strongly critical of Eisenhower’s responses to both crises, whereas Truman’s instinct was to support the commander in chief in times of peril and to advise all Americans to do so too. Acheson wrote him very cross letters about the wrongheadedness of the position he was taking.
· · ·
Truman has been reading Acheson’s book Power and Diplomacy, which was based on his William L. Clayton Lectures at Tufts University. Truman also refers to his upcoming speech, on February 22, at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. In the phrase “Humphrey-Mellon program,” Truman means Eisenhower’s Secretary of the Treasury George M. Humphrey and Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. The country was in recession in early 1958, brought on, Truman believed, by the typical big-business policies of the Republican Party.
January 24, 1958
Dear Dean:
I’ve been reading the lectures you delivered for the Will Clayton set up and for the benefit of Harvard, Tufts, et al. Those lectures are history at its best. I hope you’ll keep the fires burning on foreign affairs. John Foster needs guidance just as his boss does. When I said that all the toady columnists had spasms! Shows it needed to be said.
John Knight, believe it or not, took it for what it meant. Even Hearst could not refute it. Let’s keep needling them. Sam Rayburn asked Charlie Murphy to urge me not to needle Ike too much in my Feb. 22nd speech. Shows what’s going on. My Sec. of the Treasury, John W. Snyder, has refused to be mixed up with me on a financial article about the Humphrey-Mellon program which brought on the recession. Now they found what happens when the N.Y. Federal Reserve Bank discount committee has charge of things financial. For three years that outfit tried to influence me to do what the former Sec. of the Treasury did (Mellon).
Now the Seventh Fleet has been returned to the Federal Reserve Bank, not only in D.C. and N.Y. but even in this backwoods, long horn, cattle, hog and hay capital known as Kansas City—the biggest suburb of the capital of Jackson County—Independence, Missouri.
In every instance where Ike, et al. have tried to discredit you or me they’ve had to back up.
Take care of that area and remember we have those tickets sold out here. We’ll have a reunion around Feb. 22 in Washington.
Sincerely,
Harry
Acheson has finally succeeded in arranging a “distinguished visitors” program for Truman at Yale. It is not clear what the enclosed column was about, but the reply (see the next letter) indicates the subject was presidential disability.
March 25, 1958
Dear Mr. President:
I am enclosing the revised schedule for the three days, April 8, 9, and 10, in New Haven.
You and I will both be staying with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Bergin at the Master’s House of Timothy Dwight College. This is one of the ten residential colleges in which Yale undergraduates, except Freshmen, live. Professor Bergin is a genial host and an Italian scholar of considerable eminence. Mrs. Bergin you will find a delightful lady.
In making out the schedule, I have insisted that you must have a nap every afternoon. If, as seems likely, they have crowded you a little, we will stretch it out again.
All of your engagements on the list, with the exception of the Law Journal Banquet, are with small seminar groups, enlarged a little for your visit, but not too much, say, fifty or sixty students. The Law Journal Dinner is the annual event given by the high-standing men in the Law School who publish their monthly Journal. I am to introduce you and you are to speak. There is no occasion for a lecture or any written speech. As I said over the telephone this morning, the ideal thing would be for you to take an important presidential decision—we talked this morning of Korea—and trace through how a President meets this responsibility and comes to his conclusion—how the facts, uncertain at first, gradually develop, how and from whom the President gets counsel, and how finally he does what only he can do, come to a decision. This can be fairly short, and I think I would keep it to twenty minutes.
In the seminar groups, the subject matter of which is fairly well indicated on the schedule, either the professor in charge or I will break the ice with a few minutes of chatter, and then ask a question ourselves or stimulate the boys to begin. Once they begin, the meeting rapidly becomes very informal and a great deal of fun.
The train which you should take from New York on Tuesday morning, April 8, is the New York, New Haven and Hartford train No. 8, leaving from the Grand Central Station at 8:00 a.m. You will be met at the New Haven station. I will arrive as soon thereafter as my plane can get up and get in, and probably will meet you at Mr. Bergin’s house around noon.
They will arrange at Yale for your transportation to Washington so you will get there in time for the luncheon. This will be either by the Federal Express from Boston to Washington, which has a New Haven car, or by morning plane as the weather seems to indicate.
You will need to bring dinner coat and black tie.
I talked this morning with President Griswold, whom you will like very much. He is looking forward keenly to your visit and to having you to dinner.
Sam Rayburn has already said to me that the enclosed column of mine shows mental deficiencies which cause him grave worry. Since you are the other “eminent” man referred to, you had better see how stupid I am as soon as possible.
With warm regards.
As ever,
Dean
Truman talks about both his and Acheson’s recent articles on presidential disability and succession. Truman, who served without a Vice President during his first term as President, believed that the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate should succeed to the presidency ahead of the Cabinet officers. This order of succession became law in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
March 28, 1958
Dear Dean:
I appreciated your letter of the 25th and will arrange to arrive in New Haven at the time set.
The suggested program suits me perfectly, and thanks to you I will remember to bring my dinner jacket.
I read your article on Presidential disability. I wrote one myself for the North American Newspaper Alliance in which I included the Speaker, the President pro tem of the Senate, and the leaders of the Majority and Minority in both houses in a group to pass on the disability of the President.
As you know, the difficulty between Thomas R. Marshall and Woodrow Wilson arose from Marshall’s statement that there was only one heart beat between him and the White House. It was said as a joke, but I do not believe Wilson appreciated jokes which affected him.
I made another suggestion regarding the death of the President and the taking over of the office by the Vice President. It seems to me that it might be a good plan to have a constitutional arrangement whereby the Presidential Electors would meet, on the death, or perhaps the disability, of the President and elect a new Vice President, in which case there would be no necessity for a bill on succession. But I will talk it all over with you when I come back east.
Sincerely yours,
Harry
My best to Alice.
Truman left Independence for Yale on April 6. He arrived in New York City the following day and visited his daughter and son-in-law. On April 8 he took the train to Yale. After a day of tours and social events, he spent two days meeting in informal settings with students, talking about the presidency and American history. Acheson joined him for most or all of these gatherings. Truman left Yale for Washington, D.C., on April 11 and, after two days of social gatherings, left for home on April 13. Acheson on April 15 delivered a speech titled “Factors Underlying Negotiations with the Russians” at the second memorial Eddie Jacobson dinner in Kansas City; Edward Jacobson was Truman’s former business partner.
April 16, 1958
Dear Dean:
I don’t know how to express my appreciation for your visit here. Your foreign relations speech was a knock-out. I have never listened to a more logical approach than the one you delivered. I was exceedingly anxious for you to speak here, because this place in times past was a strong center of isolationism.
I have heard nothing but praise from everyone, and I have talked to a surprising number of people this morning who are well-informed on foreign affairs and half of whom are not Democrats.
The only person who was not pleased was Mrs. Truman, and that was because she was not there to hear you. Although she seemed to be feeling somewhat better this morning and I wanted to be at the airport to see you off, I thought I should stay with her.
I hope you can understand how very much I enjoyed my visit to Yale. I have never had a better time anywhere. It is what I have always wanted to do, but the opportunities were too infrequent. The visit to Yale and a recent one to the University of Oklahoma were, I believe, most successful.…
Sincerely,
Harry
Acheson refers to dental problems Bess Truman was having. He also discusses an encounter with a Turkish journalist who believed that Eisenhower administration officials concerned with Turkish affairs did not measure up to Truman’s ambassador to Turkey during the early years of the Cold War, Edwin C. Wilson, or to George C. McGhee, who coordinated the distribution of U.S. foreign aid to Turkey from 1947 to 1949 and who served as U.S. ambassador for about a year at the end of Truman’s presidency. Neither Acheson nor his informant would have known of a secret National Security Council document, “U.S. Policy Toward Turkey,” issued in June 1957, which advised the U.S. to be wary of attaching conditions to its aid to Turkey to avoid impinging on that country’s sense of sovereignty. Presumably Edwin C. Wilson and George C. McGhee were not hampered by such a policy prescription during Truman’s administration.
April 18, 1958
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you very much for your reassuring letter about my speech in Kansas City. At the time it seemed to me that it was not the speech for that gathering, but, if you approve, that is enough for me.
I am glad that you stayed with Mrs. Truman and did not come to the plane. Please give her the most sympathetic and affectionate messages from Alice and me. I hate to think of all the discomfort and worse through which she has been.
This morning I have had a most interesting talk with a Mr. Yalman, a Turk, who is the editor of the Turkish newspaper Vatan and who is on a tour of this country. He is the great advocate of the western position in Turkey and carries with him several bullets which were put into him by some communist rowdies during the troubles which your Greek-Turkish Program helped to bring to an end. The great days of U.S.-Turkish relations, he says, were under your administration, when Ed Wilson and George McGhee were venerated and powerful in Turkish affairs. Since then we have drifted with men who are afraid to interfere in “internal affairs of Turkey,” which, Mr. Yalman says, ought to be interfered with continuously, but tactfully. He is most eager to pay his respects to you, and will be coming east from San Francisco at a time when he could stop in Kansas City on May 12 if you could receive him. I am enclosing an envelope and a card. Would you note on it whether or not you could see him?…
With warm regards.
Sincerely,
Dean
April 30, 1958
Dear Dean:
… I am still thinking about the wonderful time you and I had at Yale and the fine speech which you made here for the Eddie Jacobson Foundation. It is the book on that subject, and I expect to use it, with your permission, all during the coming political campaign—if I am asked to participate.
I thought it was proper for me to do just what I did in the Arthur Krock matter. If the Republican Congressman who asked me the question had quoted more than just two sentences from the interview, I believe I would have remembered it, but whether or not it reflects on me, I believe my action was right, and I am glad you approve.
Bess is still having trouble with her dental affairs but seems to be improving gradually.
Please give my best to Alice, and my best to you, as always.
Sincerely yours,
Harry
May 15, 1958
Dear Dean:
I am very grateful to you and Alice for remembering my birthday. It was a happier one because of your kindness.
You are very thoughtful people, and I wish I could hear from you and see you more often. I cherish our good, and bad, times together and wish we could relive them all.
Sincerely yours,
Harry
Yale still rings in my ears. What a time we had!
This is a transcript of a call Truman made to Acheson to ask for his advice on what to say to the press about President Eisenhower’s sending of thousands of marines to Lebanon. The Lebanese government had requested American troops in the wake of a military coup in Iraq and to prevent a feared invasion by Syria.
July 15, 1958
The President: How are you, Dean?
Mr. Acheson: I’m just being cross-examined by the Army.
The President: By whom?
Mr. Acheson: By the United States Army …
The President: What I was interested in … I have talked to Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson about the meeting last night authorizing the sending of the Marines into Lebanon, and, of course, I am being harassed by people who want statements from me, and I was anxious to talk to you before saying anything publicly. I would like to know your reaction, if you want to tell me.
Mr. Acheson: You mean the agreement that Dulles made? Is there a proposal for a joint resolution in …?
The President: Yes, in the Security Council of the UN, just like the one we got for Korea, only this comes after the fact.
Mr. Acheson: But the United States Marines are not in there, are they?
The President: Yes, 6,000 of them are now in Lebanon, at the request of the President of Lebanon, and the reason I wanted to talk to you is that I didn’t want to go off half-cocked or do anything to upset any policy affecting the peace of the world.
Mr. Acheson: Well, if that has been done, the only thing we can do is support it, but I think it’s probably a mistake. I don’t think they should have done it.
The President: I don’t think they should have done it before the fact, either—I mean, before the UN approved it.
Mr. Acheson: I think the President having taken this step, all of us have got to see him through, that under the circumstances, the President had no other choice. The peace of the world is at stake.
The President: All I intend to say is that he had no other choice.…
Mr. Acheson: I don’t know if I would say “He had no other choice.” My suggestion is to say something to the effect that the President, as the Commander in Chief and the head of the nation, is taking this step, and you think it’s the duty of everyone to stand by him. That just underwrites what he has done. He is the one who had to make the decision. We don’t approve or disapprove, but we stand by him.
The President: I hope you’re having a good time up there.
Mr. Acheson: I just came up to speak to the Army at their meeting on weapon development. You know, this is a very surprising thing. I didn’t know we had landed Marines.
The President: I have talked to Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson about it. Sam was at the conference that authorized the thing at the White House, and he made quite a statement that [Lebanese President Camille] Chamoun asked us to come in, so we are not barging in.…
Mr. Acheson: But the landing has taken place?
The President: Yes, it’s civil war in a way, with outside help coming in.… (The President proceeds to quote Rayburn’s statement to him on the subject.) This thing was done at the request of Chamoun without the endorsement of the UN, and now they’re trying to getthe endorsement of the UN. The Congressional leaders went along with the President on the subject.
Mr. Acheson: Are they going to have a Congressional resolution?
The President: Neither Sam nor Lyndon said anything to me about it. They are trying to get one from the UN, just as we did before Korea.
Mr. Acheson: I think the whole thing’s a terrible mess. Lebanon has been left and probably the whole thing will blow up. I think if you make this statement, it’s the right one.
The President: I’ll do my best to get one together. Don’t worry about this; it’s not our responsibility this time. I will be back in Washington on the 26th, and …
Mr. Acheson: I am just here for today, and will be back tonight.…
The passing of Acheson’s mother made Truman think of his own mother. He was always very sentimental on the subject of mothers. General Harry H. Vaughan was a Truman confidant.
July 29, 1958
Dear Dean:
I have received a letter from Henry [Harry] Vaughan dated July 26th enclosing a clipping from a Washington paper about the death of your mother.
I’ll never forget my experience back in 1947. So you very well know that my sympathy is heartfelt. There is no supporter like your mother. Right or wrong from her point of view you are always right. She may scold you for little things but never for the big ones. Wish I’d known about it sooner. You’d have heard from me sooner.
Sincerely,
Harry Truman
The Former Presidents Act of 1958, which was introduced in 1955, gave Truman a pension of $25,000 and an allowance for his office staff.
August 2, 1958
Dear Mr. President,
Thank you so much for your warm and understanding message about Mother’s death. What you say is very true—particularly of mothers like yours and mine who had such quality and strength.
I am delighted to see that the Presidential Pension bill finally passed the House; you will get some help now in dealing with the mountains of mail you get—and also with the grocery bills. What an outrage that it has to take so long and that small minded men had to oppose it. However, they told me what I did not know—that you are an oil magnate!
With deepest thanks for your note.
Faithfully,
Dean
Truman sends Acheson a speech he had given on August 6, in Chicago, to the Fraternal Order of Eagles. His theme was the Cold War and the need for the United States to make a great effort to resist the Soviet threat. He warned against “peace at any price” demagogues and said that, in perilous times, “it is better to take too much action than too little.”
August 7, 1958
Dear Dean:
Here’s what I talked to you about.
After what you told me on the telephone, I believe you will like it.
Sincerely,
Harry
The people mentioned in this letter were with the Democratic National Committee and its Democratic Advisory Council. Eisenhower’s speech to the United Nations, which Acheson ridicules, was on August 13. “Conversion of salt water” refers to Dulles’s proposal to finance condensation plants for producing fresh water from sea water in the Middle East.
August 14, 1958
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you very much for your speech to the Eagles in Chicago, which you sent along to me in your note of August 7. I both agreed with it and enjoyed it.
The statement on the Middle East which you and I liked was strongly approved by Hubert Humphrey and Tom Finletter. However, Paul Butler, Charlie Murphy, Phil Perlman, and Averell opposed it, with the result that Charlie Tyroler did not issue it. They opposed it on what I thought was a silly ground—that it was not constructive. Why one has to be constructive in criticizing a fool step by someone else I do not know.
I said at a luncheon meeting of Civitans today that in one respect, which a lawyer could appreciate specially, Eisenhower’s speech to the UN was excellent. It adhered strictly to the principle that if one’s case is too weak to talk about, talk about something else. Apparently his principal plan to save the Middle East is by conversion of salt water.
As ever,
Dean
“Krusie” is Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Sherman Adams, Eisenhower’s chief of staff, was forced to resign on September 22, 1958, as a result of allegations that he had accepted favors from a businessman who was being investigated by the government. Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles, was at this time director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
August 19, 1958
Dear Dean:
It has been some time since I’ve written you a long hand letter. I’m glad you liked my speech to the Eagles in Chicago. I made them “scream” but not in the usual way. I’ve made that speech many times before and the smart news men never seem to recognize it.
William J. Bryan made the “Cross of Gold and Crown of Thorns” speech three or four times before he had the chance to make it in Chicago in 1896. I’m of the opinion that the repetition of what’s right is just as important to the minds of men as perhaps the lies of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Krusie are. Sometimes I’m not so sure about that.
You were right about Ike’s speech. It is in the same case situation as was Sherman Adams. The plan to take Sherm off the front page was Lebanon. I wonder if Korea was in that class also? I’ve never thought so. It seems now that “my war” in Korea may have been necessary!
This President doesn’t know where he’s going nor why. Allen Dulles came to see me a day or two ago and wanted me to read the President’s speech before he made it to the U.N. I refused to look at it. I had no right to pass on his innocuous remarks and then give him hell about them.
I wonder just where we are going and what we’ll do after we arrive, if we ever get there.
Guess I’m becoming a pessimist. Hope I’m not. This G.D. Dem. Committee has been trying to schedule me for a number of appearances. Guess I’m a weak person and will probably take on most of them for no good reason.
My best to Alice and to you.
Harry Truman
On August 23, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) began shelling two islands near the mainland coast, Quemoy and Matsu, which were occupied by the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. Eisenhower took measures in support of the Taiwanese government, and it seemed possible the United States might go to war with the PRC over the two small islands. As had happened during the Suez crisis almost two years earlier, Truman’s instinct was to support the President in time of peril. Acheson writes from London to ask if Truman’s statement as reported in the British press is accurate and complete, and to try to persuade him that the United States should not risk war, possibly nuclear war, over an unimportant and indefensible position.
September 16, 1958
Dear Mr. President,
As the last paragraph of this dispatch in the Manchester Guardian suggests I am somewhat bewildered, but most of all, eager to know what you said in full. Could you send it to me in Washington? My secretary will forward it to me.
I thought that we were in complete agreement on my statement. Does your statement (quoted) refer to the offshore islands Quemoy & Matsu? If so no amount of unity in the country can make a spot, as weak as Quemoy, strong. The Administration should not be encouraged to make the stand here. It would be a disaster involving, as it well could, defense by atomic weapons.
I have just been at a conference called by the Prince of the Netherlands, some fifty or more people. A secret questionnaire was issued on the Formosa Straits issue. Of those who answered only two, one American out of twelve including members of this administration, & one European out of thirty, thought Eisenhower should be supported on these small islands. All the rest believed that the position had to be, and could be, liquidated at an acceptable price.
Please don’t be hooked on one of their “my country right or wrong” gambits. In this way Foster can always drive us like steers to the slaughter pew.
I eagerly await a word from you.
Affectionately,
Dean
Acheson writes Truman a punishing letter that must have shaken the former President. Acheson has now seen Truman’s full statement on the crisis over Quemoy and Matsu, and he disagrees with his position in very strong language. The enclosed dispatch might have been Joseph Alsop’s “Quemoy: We Asked for It,” published September 3, 1958.
September 17, 1958
Dear Mr. President,
Just after writing you yesterday the N.Y. Times (European edition) brought me your statement or rather article on the Far East. It was so far from our telephone talk that I am quite at a loss to know how our earlier agreement comes now to be complete disagreement. I can only suppose that you have had second thoughts. I am writing again only because the consequences of error here can be so disastrous, and because I think you have encouraged very grave error.
The point is not that the Chinese Reds have taken the initiative, or that their purpose (and Moscow’s) is to cause us the gravest embarrassment and divide us from our friends—all this is true. The essential point is that it is unwise, indeed reckless to make a stand over Quemoy. Consider why.
First, our position in the eyes of our friends whose security we are risking. We say that the question of Quemoy should not be settled by force. We then say that we cannot negotiate away what belongs to Chiang. And Chiang says he will never yield Quemoy. So what we really say is that Chiang must have an island which blocks Amoy harbor and which Chiang insists is an invasion base. Not even you can defend this position with all the high regard you command.
Second: The military realities. Chiang says (see enclosed dispatch from Alsop) that the talks are a mistake and that the only defense of Quemoy is an attack on the mainland. This latter is true. It is also true that Chiang cannot succeed in this. The U.S. must join in the attack. It may well be that a conventional bombing may not be possible. Perhaps nuclear weapons will be used from the start. The attack may succeed; or the conflict may expand. If it succeeds now, the issue will arise again. The Reds cannot accept for any time what we demand that they accept—a blocked harbor, an invasion base four miles away, a continued humiliation. If the conflict expands what do we risk and what do we stand to gain? In our present state of readiness do we want to precipitate a nuclear exchange?
There are many statements in your article which I think are gravely wrong. For instance, that Chiang cannot start a war and that only Russia can—but the central one on which my letter is based is your assertion that “Whenever and wherever we are challenged by the Communists” we must meet the challenge. You cannot mean this. Certainly you did not want to fight in Hungary. This opposition to Russia is a dangerous business which requires lots of sense and coolness in making decisions of where and how.
You say that the mistakes of the past are not important now. They are vitally important. This crisis arises because of the fraudulent and wrong actions of 1953 which put Chiang’s army on Quemoy to make a pretence at invasion. To go on perpetuating this error even though to isolation and war is simply not sense. It has got to be reversed.
Your attitude seems to insure that Foster is to be given united support to continue every folly he commits provided only the results are bad enough.
I am getting off that band (or funeral) wagon now. Please, Mr. President, reflect and do not continue this line, or listen to those who urge you to do so. It is a grave disservice to the country; and it makes the Democratic Party wholly useless as an opposition and brake upon wrong policies.
Yours as ever,
Dean
Truman sends Acheson his two most recent NANA articles, thinking they will demonstrate that the two men don’t seriously disagree on the Quemoy-Matsu crisis. The articles, however, suggest a considerable distance between them regarding the crisis. The first article, from early September, argues that as long as the communist countries remain expansionist, “we have no other choice but to meet them and thwart them at every point where it is necessary,” including at Quemoy and Matsu. Acheson did not agree. The second article, from early October, argues that the United States must present a united front to the world with respect to such crises, and that Democrats and Republicans must join together in a bipartisan foreign policy. Acheson probably wouldn’t agree with this either; Truman in this letter seems to change his view regarding the need for a bipartisan foreign policy.
October 14, 1958
Dear Dean:
I have been trying to get a chance to send you a longhand letter ever since I received yours of September 16th, and I am still going to write you in more detail than I am now.
I am enclosing you copies of the two last articles which were gotten together on the foreign situation and while they are not exactly in conformity with the conversation which you and I had over the telephone, I did a lot of thinking after I talked to you, which no doubt I should have done before, and came to the conclusion that my fight for bipartisan foreign policy ought to be rather consistent and I think if you will read these statements you will find that you and I are not more than an inch or two apart on the subject. I am sure that the foreign policy of the United States is in the doldrums and has been ever since you and I left the White House.
When Eisenhower went to Korea and surrendered, that is what caused the present trouble. You remember the fiasco of the 7th Fleet when they pulled it out and in three weeks put it back. It was like the Frenchman marching up the hill and right down again.
I have been going around over the country listening to what people have to say. They are entirely confused by the procedure of the present administration on foreign policy and I have made press statements time and again. If we ever could find out what the foreign policy of the present administration is, then we could decide whether we want to support it or not.
I repeat, the bi-partisan foreign policy has never been in existence since you and I left the White House.
I was hoping that I would have a chance to see and talk with you personally in Washington the evening of the 17th, when Stanley Woodward is giving a small dinner for us.
We are going back there for the Women’s Democratic dinner and then I am going to New Castle, Pennsylvania, Boston, Massachusetts, and maybe to Delaware. After that I hope to spend two or three days with the young man in New York who is beginning to walk and talk. His mother says that he is just like his grandfather—he never walks—he runs—and talks all the time.
Please tell Alice to help me keep in the good graces of the former Secretary of State.
Sincerely yours,
Harry Truman
Acheson, still in England, expresses relief at receiving Truman’s letter of October 14, the first in almost two months. He has been worried that perhaps he offended Truman.
October 24, 1958
Dear Mr. President,
Today your most welcome letter of October 14th reached me. I had begun to wonder whether perhaps I had offended you by disagreeing with your first article, but I never really believed this, because it would be so unlike you.
I think that perhaps we are a little further apart on the Quemoy issue than your letter suggests, but it is of no moment. What seems to me of importance in this issue has a dual aspect. In the first place, in some way or other, we ought to end up after a respectable time by having Chiang Kai-Shek off these islands which present such a continuing hazard. In the second place, we ought to so arrange it that Foster has to clean up the mess which his own policies have created. It would be too bad if this had to be done by the Democratic President in 1961, with all the opprobrium which this would bring upon him.
However, I think we have both said enough so that we know one another’s position, and I am delighted that our affection for one another remains as I know it always will, proof against any passing differences of view.
My stay in Cambridge has been a delight. Alice joins me today for a final weekend, and then we fly home in time to vote. She has been traveling in Ireland with our daughter, Jane, and having a glorious time. She tells me that she was received by President O’Kelly of Ireland, who immediately addressed Jane as “darling” and Alice as “dear.” After this I think that she will regard your form of address as very formal indeed.
If Alice were here she would want her love sent to Mrs. Truman, as do I.
As ever,
Dean
Truman reassures Acheson. He goes on to indulge in a “spasm.”
October 31, 1958
Dear Dean:
You’ll never know how very much I appreciated your letter of Oct 24 from King’s College at Cambridge. There’s no way in the world for you to offend me—even if you’d hit me in the nose. I was very much afraid the offender had been this old man.
You know national political approaches are somewhat complicated. Especially is that true in foreign affairs and the touchy and soft feelings down south [in Latin America]. When we have a Secretary of State whose experience has been altogether in dollar diplomacy, a Democratic national Chairman whose experience has been in northern Indiana and Michigan State, you can see what we are up against to maintain somewhat of a balance for the welfare of the whole country.
“Professional liberals” are a pain in the neck to me as are “professional conservatives.” To make them understand that the welfare of the whole country and the leadership of the free world is more important than some crazy local idea, is more important and is a chore for honest to god leadership.
We just haven’t had that since 1952. To the so called conservatives high interest rates make the money lenders more bloated, make the borrowers not only subject to increased fundamental rates, but to commissions and palm grease for the lender—well, you can see what happens. The Home Owners Loan Corp. bought out all the busted house owners in the end with a profit. The Federal Housing Adm. gave the small family a chance to own a little farm. The Reconstruction Finance Corp. gave the little business man a chance to run without having his financial throat cut by a greedy banker when his inventory was too large.
Andrew Mellon taught me that lesson in 1922 when he broke me and thousands of others just like me.
Now are you bored enough? I get so steamed up when I view what these executive numb skulls have done to a foreign policy that you and I left to them and a domestic policy that took twenty long years of sweat, blood and tears to establish.
I hope Alice will still plead my case in spite of the Irish! How I would like to see you both. Just talked to the “Boss” and she wants to be remembered to both you and Alice.
When you want the next spasm just call for it.
Sincerely,
Harry
Truman visited Washington, D.C., for a week in early January to see members of Congress, and especially to welcome the many new Democratic members elected in the 1958 midterm elections. He had dinner with Acheson at his home in Georgetown on January 6.
January 7, 1959
Dear Dean:
Never have I had a more pleasant evening than the one at your house last night.
It was more than a pleasure to talk to you and Stanley about conditions facing the country. The Democratic Party must face up to its responsibilities. Let’s hope it will.
I’ll be in touch with you after my merry-go-round here this week. Maybe I’ll do no good but a man can’t be prosecuted for trying.
May you have the best of everything in 1959.
Sincerely,
Harry
Truman is venting again about the press. The Cabell Phillips article he mentions, “Dean Acheson, Ten Years Later,” is an appreciative account of the life, ideas, and accomplishments of its subject. James J. Rowley was a member of Truman’s Secret Service detail during his presidency. “Mr. P.” means “Mr. President.” The “Armenian Camel Thief” is Anastas Mikoyan, the first deputy premier of the Soviet Union, who had recently visited the United States. The “suburban scandal sheet in K.C.” is probably theKansas City Star.
January 22, 1959
Dear Dean:
I’ve just read the New York Times Magazine of the 18th. You see these damned newspapers and nutty columnists eventually have to admit the facts. Don’t know when I’ve had as much satisfaction as when I read that Cabell Phillips article.
It is most difficult for a person in a place of terrible responsibility to take some of the things a so called “free press” insists on publishing. Sometimes I’ve been so worked up about what was published about you and General Marshall that I’d have been glad to punch the publisher. Luckily I couldn’t get to him.
Jim Rowley once told me when I said to him that any SOB who tried to shoot me would get the gun shoved up his behind and I’d pull the trigger, “Mr. P. you can’t get to him.” I always remembered that. After about forty years of taking it and not taking it I’ve found that sometimes the facts come out and it’s best to give them a chance. Hope you noticed that “no comment” was my answer to the Armenian Camel Thief. That’s what Stalin called him.
You and General Marshal took it much better than I did and now you are both reaping the proper reward. I’m still after them. Just told my suburban scandal sheet in K.C. what I thought of them. One good thing there’s nothing new it can say.
Tell Alice I’m still appreciating that grand dinner and the opportunity to talk to you.
Sincerely,
Harry
Acheson is concerned that Eisenhower is responding weakly to Soviet Premier Khrushchev’s announcement in November 1958 that the Soviet Union intended to repudiate the right of the Western allies to occupy West Berlin, and to his proposal that all foreign troops be removed from Germany. The section of the Constitution Acheson mentions addresses impeachment of a President for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Secretary of State Dulles was terminally ill with cancer. The “ ‘off therecord’ appraisal” to which Acheson refers was made at a luncheon address in Washington to the Harvard Law School Association. The luncheon was a private affair and Acheson’s remarks were, as he says, off the record, but reasonably complete and accurate accounts of his remarks quickly made their way into the press. One newspaper called Acheson’s performance “an astonishingly candid appraisal of Democratic presidential possibilities.” “Stu” is Missouri Senator Stuart Symington.
January 27, 1959
Dear Mr. President,
You are very good to write me so warmly about the Cabell Phillips article. What you wrote gave me a good warm glow all the way through. When Cabell showed me the parts attributed to me, I remarked about the reference to drinks of whisky which seemed a bit overdone. I also said that, as he then had it, I was doing all the drinking and apparently hadn’t offered him a drop, whereas in truth he wasn’t one swallow behind. So he did change it to “another round of drinks.” Some of my more suspicious friends claim that the whisky was what produced the favorable tone of the article. A gross slander.
At present I am at work on a piece on Berlin for the Sat. Eve. Post. When I get it done I’ll send you the text. The effort is to wake the country up to the true gravity of the Berlin crisis, what is involved, and the soul searching decisions which may go by default, or be made in ignorance. If the words of the Constitution in Article II, Section 4 mean anything Ike ought to be removed from office.
We have two pamphlets for the Advisory Committee in the press now. One takes Dulles apart in a way you will like. If he will only stay well for two weeks, we’re in business.
An “off the record” appraisal by me of the Democratic candidates made the press in a big way two weeks ago. It was all right with me except that only a part of what I said about Stu was printed, which made the tone unfavorable, although what I said was quite the reverse. But I have straightened Stu out and all seems to be well. Adlai will never forgive me. Are you making progress in consulting the leaders on candidates?
Alice is well. We talk often about our delightful evening with you. We must have Bess the next time.
Our warmest greetings to her and to you.
As ever,
Dean
Acheson sends Truman an advance copy of his article “What About Berlin?” in which he says the current Berlin crisis may be the gravest test of the Western allies’ will since the outbreak of the Korean War. Acheson refers to his differences of opinion with Truman over U.S. policy during the Suez and Quemoy-Matsu crises.
February 12, 1959
Dear Mr. President:
So you will know what I have been up to before it comes out in the Saturday Evening Post the first week in March, I am enclosing a copy of a piece which I have written for that magazine on Berlin. We have had rather bad luck in getting on opposite sides of foreign policy questions recently. Maybe this will help us in keeping that from happening now.
I am off for Yale today and then on Sunday Alice and I leave for two weeks at our favorite vacation spot, Antigua, in the British West Indies.
Our warmest greetings to you and Bess.
As ever,
Dean
General George C. Marshall, very ill at this time, died later in the year.
February 19, 1959
Dear Dean:
Your letter of the 12th and the enclosure arrived over the weekend and I couldn’t make the phone people fix things so we could talk.
You had left Yale and Miami. Florida central told me that lines to your winter resort were so busy I had no chance to get through to you! What would have happened in that case in 1949?
The piece “What about Berlin” is excellent. So what you are “up to” reads all right to me.
Now Dean there has never been a serious difference between us and there never will be if I can help it.
What I was anxious to talk to you about is General Marshall. I had talked to Mrs. Marshall before I called you and she had told me not to come to Ft. Bragg because the General couldn’t recognize me. She and I spent the most of my call weeping. But I still hope he’ll come out of it.
You know we fixed things for General Pershing about four times.
Hope you and Alice have a grand vacation and a good rest. Some day I hope I can try out a real vacation. I have my doubts about ever getting one.
Harry Vaughan took the Saturday Evening Post (Curtis Pub. Co) for $10,000.00 for libel and slander the other day. They owe you twice as much and me too.
Hope they are meeting the situation on this good piece of yours.
The Madam joins me in the best to you and Alice.
Sincerely,
Harry
Truman mentions Acheson’s letter to Dr. Philip C. Brooks, director of the Truman Library, concerning Acheson’s donation of his papers to the library.
April 10, 1959
Dear Dean:
Dr. Brooks has just handed me a copy of the letter you addressed to him on April 1st. I more than appreciate it.
I expect to be in the Capital City from April 30th until May 7th and hope that you will be available then for a conversation or two.
All this ballyhoo about my 75th birthday is beginning to embarrass me a little. As you may realize, it embarrasses the Madam even more, but I suppose we will have to go through with it.
I had a grand trip to Crackpot City, California, but returned with one of their brand of flu bugs. It is responding to the usual medication.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
It surely was good to talk to you on “another birthday.” You expressed my opinion about birthdays.
“Supreme Headquarters on P Street” was Acheson’s home at 2805 P Street in Georgetown.
April 16, 1959
Dear Mr. President:
I was just about to write you to find out your dates in Washington when in came your letter of April 10 with the answer—from April 30 until May 7. Alice and I have to start off for St. Paul’s School [in New Hampshire] on April 30, but will be back the morning of May 4.
I have been instructed from Supreme Headquarters on P Street to ask you and the Boss to dine with us there on Wednesday evening, May 6, at 7:45, Black Tie. If you are engaged for that night, could you come on Monday the fourth? Same hour, same clothes. Either day is convenient for us, but Alice thinks you will not get as good a dinner if she only has one day to work on it. With this view I don’t agree. So either day is fine for us.
You were very thoughtful to call me on my birthday. It was a great joy to have a gossip with you.
With most affectionate greetings to you both.
As ever,
Dean
The “rat-race at the Waldorf on the 8th” that Truman refers to was his grand seventy-fifth birthday dinner on May 8 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.
April 22, 1959
Dear Dean:
You do not know how very much the Boss and I appreciated your letter of the 16th.
Margaret, as you know, is in an expectant condition, and the Boss has made up her mind to stay in New York while I come down to Washington. But if you and Alice would consent to my coming to your house for the evening of May 4th, I certainly would like to do it.
I have to return to New York on the afternoon of the 6th, because it will take me all the following day and most of the next to get myself ready for the rat-race at the Waldorf on the 8th.
It is always a disappointment to miss an opportunity to be with you and Alice, and if Monday evening, the 4th, will not cause you too much trouble, I will be there. Please tell her not to worry about things to eat. I am not a hearty feeder anyway.
Sincerely,
Harry Truman
But I always eat everything she’s responsible for on the table.
April 24, 1959
Dear Mr. President:
Hooray! You are ours for the evening of May 4. We agree that Margaret’s claim on the Boss is greater than ours, but this concession we make only under the present circumstances. On the next visit we will put in our claim again.
We shall try to get some congenial friends together for the 4th.
Sincerely,
Dean
Truman’s East Coast trip extended from April 27 to May 9. He first spent three days speaking to and with students at Columbia University. Then in Washington, he spoke before committees of both houses of Congress, advocating repeal of the Twenty-second Amendment (which sets a term limit for the presidency) and supporting the Mutual Security Agency, made the dedication speech at the National Guard Memorial, and attended reunion luncheons with his White House staff and the members and staff of the Senate Truman Committee. In between engagements, he joined Bess Truman at the side of their daughter, Margaret Truman Daniel, who would give birth to Truman’s second grandson, William Wallace Daniel, later in the month.
May 14, 1959
Dear Dean and Alice:
Thanks for the lovely evening. What a grand time I had!
If only Bess could have been there. I’m taking her to the hospital today for a check up. So you know I’m somewhat upset—and can’t show it and won’t. You’ll hear from me as things develop.
Sincerely,
Harry
Bess Truman underwent an operation to have a growth removed from her breast on May 18. The growth was benign.
May 20, 1959
Dear Mr. President,
This morning’s paper brings us two bits of very good news—one, that our hopes about the boss have been confirmed; the other that Margaret has another boy. I know how happy both of these have made you; what a weight of worry has been lifted from you.
We rejoice with you. Please give Bess our deepest affection and Margaret our warm congratulations.
For your amusement I am sending on to you my latest venture in the field of literature, a short story in the June Harpers. This ends me as a serious character & puts me down, to the surprise of a good many people, as the frivolous fellow I really am.
The day seems bright for the good news of both your girls.
Affectionately,
Dean
Acheson formulates the outline for a speech Truman was invited to give at the Air War College at Maxwell Field in Montgomery, Alabama (today’s Maxwell Air Force Base). Truman did not accept the invitation.
May 26, 1959
Dear Mr. President:
A week or so ago the Executive Officer from the Air War College at Montgomery, Alabama (Maxwell Field), called me up to ask whether I would intercede with you to get you to come to the War College to speak. He wanted you to speak about the appeal of democracy. I said that this was a stupid subject and that I would not urge you or anyone else to speak about it. This, of course, led him to ask and me to tell him the sort of thing which would be helpful if discussed by you. He went off to discuss all of this with the commandant and returned to accept the suggestion.
The suggestion was to discuss the problems of a democracy and how to solve them in its struggle with a great totalitarian power, all as seen from the vantage point of the chief of a democratic state. In order to make it as concrete as possible, he worked it out in this way:
The title of the speech would be “The Office of the Chief Executive of the United States in the Current World Conflict.” The content of the speech would discuss:
(1) What are the problems that the great democracies face in meeting the challenge of the totalitarian governments? (These problems, I think, are first identifying the nature and extent of the challenge and then summoning and maintaining the continuous will and effort required to meet it.)
(2) What are the methods available to a democratic nation in thwarting communist designs? (I think that these are the methods in the political, economic, and military fields which you used during your administration.)
(3) How can the leader of a democratic government obtain the support of the people of his country in dealing with the aims of communism? (No one knows this better than you.)
(4) Does the office of the Chief Executive have adequate power for the exercise of timely and forceful leadership in today’s world?
(a) If not, what changes would you recommend in the relationships between the three branches of the government?
(b) What structural and administrative adjustments would facilitate the functions of the Executive? (In my judgment, this is chiefly a matter of personality and not machinery.)
(5) Can Democratic nations take the initiative in the current world conflict or must they react? (Initiative about what? The Marshall Plan and Point IV were cases in which you took the initiative. Democracies cannot take the initiative in attacking someone else or increasing world tensions.)
With this kind of a speech, which I hope you would deliver largely from notes and not from a written text, I would urge you to consider going. They will invite you formally if I give them any encouragement at all. They would hope that you could do it in the last week of October or the first week of November.
They have a class of about 300 who are all Colonels in the Air Force or Army and Captains in the Navy or people of equivalent rank in the State Department and CIA. They would like to have you speak for an hour; then take an hour off with a few people in the library, chatting and resting; and then another hour receiving questions from the whole group and dealing with them.
I go once a year to the Air War College. They fly me down the afternoon before I speak, put me up comfortably in the Bachelor Officers’ Quarters, with meals at the Officers’ Club, and fly me back again.
I think you might enjoy it. If, however, you have a lot to do at that time and feel that it would be a strain, please turn it down without further thought, and I will get you out of it. A word to me at your earliest convenience will dispose of the matter.
Sincerely,
[Dean]
Acheson worries over Winston Churchill’s disappointment in not seeing Truman during his recent trip to the United States. Churchill was in Washington and New York City from May 4 to 10, when Truman was also in those cities but could not escape his heavy schedule to meet with Churchill. Truman had already sent Churchill a letter, on May 27, explaining, “I had no intention of appearing discourteous to you.” Kay Halle was a well-connected Washington resident who had many friends on both sides of the Atlantic.
May 29, 1959
Dear Mr. President,
I have a letter from Kay Halle from London who hears much of Sir Winston’s disappointment that he did not see you on his farewell visit. When we lunched with him at the Embassy on May 7th he spoke of it. I told him of your being swamped by the jubilee festivities and held out hope that you might see or talk to him in New York. Apparently this was not possible. Now the old man seems to brood about it as he is very fond of you.
Would it be a good idea to drop him an affectionate line? I think he would treasure it. It would be too bad for him to get the wholly wrong idea that you didn’t care about seeing him.
Probably you have written him already and I should have minded my own business. But you have had enough on your mind to have driven out such ideas altogether.
We hope the boss continues to make great progress. When does she come home? Our most affectionate greetings to you both.
As ever,
Dean
June 2, 1959
Dear Dean:
You’ll never know how very much I appreciated your letter of May 29th.
I had worried about the situation to no end. So I wrote Winston about my difficulties and you should see the answer. It was heart warming.
Don’t ever “mind your own business” where I’m involved. I’m hopelessly dependent on you for good advice. Sometimes I don’t take it, but it’s always good and appreciated.
My best to Alice. The Boss will be home tomorrow, thank God.
Sincerely,
Harry