Affection and Trust: The Personal Correspondence of Harry S. Truman and Dean Acheson, 1953-1971

by David McCullough

  April 29, 1955

  Dear Mr. President,

  Your notes and Mrs. Truman’s brought joy to Alice and me. We had such a glorious time at our Sunday lunch for you that it was doubly satisfying to know that you did too. I had not intended that my words to you should be anything but gay, like the occasion. But it is too hard for me to speak about you without going beneath the surface where emotions and affections run deep. I must discipline myself more strictly.

  Your testimony on the U.N. went very well indeed. I was too full of worries about it and should have known that you would take care of yourself perfectly. It was particularly good coming before Mr. Hoover’s and drawing a comparison. Poor Mr. Hoover! His latest idea of giving the parcel post back to the express company was the perfect expression of his attitude.

  For your birthday we send all good wishes. Our especial wish for you—long years of health and happiness—seems to be in fair way of being granted already. I have never seen you so well and so blooming with happy vigor. I wrote a good friend the other day that none of us here were able to keep up with you on this last visit. You left us convinced that you not only enjoyed jet assistance on the take-off, but that after the take-off it continues from your own self-generated power. This suggests, as I remember the plans for the library, that there may be a duplication in them. One room is called “power plant” and another marked President Truman’s office. Perhaps these two should be put together.

  Alice and I hoped that we could arrange our commitments so as to be with you on the eighth of May to celebrate your birthday and to see you put that gold plated spade into the ground to start the library. Even if it is gold plated you will still call the spade a spade and use it as such. Please leave something for the bulldozers. Our own plans, as they so often do, have become entangled again with Yale where I am committed to speak. But our disappointment is mitigated by selfish considerations. We shall look forward to another visit to Independence when we can have you more to ourselves without the competition of great events. But you will know that both of us will be thinking of you and talking to you on this day to which you have looked forward so long.

  With our heartiest congratulations on breaking ground for the Library and our most affectionate greeting to you on your birthday and to “the boss” for preserving you from the last one to this one, a great feat.

  Most sincerely,

  Dean

  Harry Truman sits in a limousine with Dean Acheson in Washington, D.C., on December 28, 1951, upon the President’s return after spending the Christmas holiday in Independence, Missouri.

  3

  June to August 1955

  A Blunt Critique of Truman’s Memoirs

  In June and July 1955, when Truman’s deadline for submitting his memoirs to his publisher was drawing near, he asked Acheson to review the second draft of the work—1,775 pages bound in four thick books, two books for each of the two memoir volumes. The first volume would be titled 1945: Year of Decisions and the second volume Years of Trial and Hope, 1946–1952. Acheson set energetically to work, scribbling corrections, changes, additions, and comments within the text and in the margins, and he drew his ideas together in six letters totaling forty-five pages of typescript. The annotated manuscript and letters together constitute a sometimes shockingly blunt critique. Truman, though, expressed gratitude for “the ideal help I’ve had in the form of an intellectually honest Secretary of State.” Truman considered every suggestion Acheson made, adding his own marginal comments on the annotated drafts. He then turned over the manuscript and Acheson’s letters to his assistants to make revisions in response to Acheson’s comments.

  Truman’s first memoir volume, 1945: Year of Decisions, covered his early life, his political career before becoming President, and the first year of his presidency.

  June 7, 1955

  Dear Dean:

  I am sending you the draft of the First Volume of the book I have been trying to write. There is a preface that goes with it but I have not yet prepared it.

  The book will be in two Volumes and will be called “Memoirs” by Harry S. Truman. The First Volume will be called “Year of Decisions,” and the Second “Years of Trial and Hope.”

  This is next to the final draft but it will have to be back in my hands in time to make any corrections suggested so that I can get it off by June 30th. After June 30th, Life and Doubleday will be reading for corrections so that in that period there will be another opportunity to correct any errors. There will also be a chance to correct galleys and final proof.

  I hope you will not be overwhelmed by my request that you go through this Volume very carefully and make any suggestions you feel should be made. Do not spare my feelings in the matter. What I am trying to do, as you know, is tell the truth and the facts in a manner that people can understand and in my own language.

  The Second Volume will be sent along in a couple of weeks after I return from Portland, Oregon, but it will not be published until February or March of next year.

  Sincerely,

  Harry S. Truman

  “My best to Alice.”

  In this letter Acheson’s penchant for accuracy and honesty of exposition is cleverly coupled with tactful arguments for the revisions. He comments on Truman’s account of, among other things, his first days as President, his early life, his service in the Senate, his selection as vice-presidential candidate in 1944, his termination of lend-lease, and President Roosevelt’s “Supreme Court packing proposal” of 1937. Truman gave this letter to his chief writer, Francis Heller, who marked it to indicate revisions in the memoirs manuscript in response to Acheson’s comments.

  June 21, 1955

  Dear Mr. President:

  I have read with great interest the first of the two manuscript volumes which you sent me, containing pages 1 through 442. I think it is a fine job. It gives the reader a real feeling of the kind of man you are and it holds his attention.

  As a general observation, which may be useful when you come to editing and cutting down, the material is more interesting and gripping when you are talking about your own life and your ideas than it is when you are giving lists of callers at the White House and the activities of the Truman Committee which do not reveal much about you as a man. I know these latter things are necessary, but I think they can be shortened and I will make specific suggestions as we go along. Now for specific and sometimes minor points:

  Page 6, line 1. Bishop Atwood was the former Episcopal Bishop of Arizona and not of Washington. [Truman staff marginalia: “corrected.”]

  Page 8, line 11. Do you really doubt that FDR made any major political decision without consulting Mrs. Roosevelt? As you say later on, I think, she was useful to him in getting, through her, impressions of public opinion; but my guess would be that he did not consult her much or rely on her judgment in making decisions. [Truman staff marginalia: “same comment made by SIR (Samuel I. Rosenman)—slight change made in wording.”]

  Page 8, last line. Couldn’t you put stars instead of the word “Wisconsin”? Certainly Senator [Alexander] Wiley [R., Arizona] is and was a windy senator, but he stood by us pretty well, and I think this reference would unnecessarily hurt him. [Truman staff marginalia: “recommend be done.”]

  Page 9, line 7. I make the same suggestion about your reference to [Senator Pat] McCarran [D., Nevada], but for different reasons. I just don’t think it accomplishes much to leave the reference specifically identified. [Truman staff marginalia: “should be done.”]

  Page 14, line 9. Shouldn’t it be “There are bound to be some changes,” etc.? [Truman staff marginalia: “corrected.”]

  Page 36, last paragraph. You say that during your meeting with Byrnes on April 13, “I had told Byrnes that I was thinking of appointing him Secretary of State after the San Francisco Conference.” This raises two questions. One is that, although I looked for it later on, I never found any point where you actually asked him to be Secretary of State. The second is that one wonders why you told h
im you were thinking of making him an offer rather than either making it or not speaking of it until you were ready to make the offer. I seem to recall that you told me once that you actually made the offer to him on the train coming back from the Roosevelt funeral. (Please read here the post script to this letter.) [Truman staff marginalia: “except for the point made in the final sentence of this paragraph (which check w/HST) this requires no correction. I have checked p. 535 and see no inconsistencies.”]

  Page 37, middle of the page. You say, “I felt it my duty to choose without delay a Secretary of State with proper qualifications.” Wouldn’t it be better to add to the end of the sentence, “to succeed, if necessary, to the Presidency”? Otherwise, it seems like quite a crack at poor Ed Stettinius [Secretary of State from 1944 to 1945]. [Truman staff marginalia: “this insertion has been made.”]

  Page 45, two lines from the bottom. You refer to Blair House as the official guest house “for heads of state.” A small matter—but shouldn’t one say “foreign dignitaries”? [Truman staff marginalia: “correction made.”]

  Page 47. The inclusion of this conversation with John Snyder and Jesse Jones [Secretary of Commerce under President Roosevelt] seems to me rather pointless. John is being modest about his qualifications, but he says he might be “accused of being a Jesse Jones man.” Why, the reader wonders, is that the subject of accusation? I would suggest merely recording that you talked with John, offered him the position and that he accepted it.

  As a matter of English, in the middle of the page, shouldn’t it be “I don’t think you ought to appoint me to that job,” rather than “for that job”? [Truman staff marginalia: “this change made.”]

  Page 59, last sentence. This one-sentence reference to the press, I think, should come out. If you are going to attack some section of the press, it has to be done more fully and with some more proof and power. This one sentence seems to me weak and sounds a little querulous.

  Page 68. In the middle of the page Sam Rayburn says, “Just a minute, Harry.” I seem to recollect at some earlier page, after you had become President, somebody else called you “Harry.” This I don’t like, and I don’t like to see you quote it as though it were of no moment. Why not just leave out the “Harry”? [Truman staff marginalia: “This is a matter of record—should stay as is—”]

  Page 114, line 3. You use the cliché, “striped pants boys in the State Department.” I should like to see you change this to “people in the State Department,” not merely because the phrase is tiresome, but because it gives quite a wrong impression of the tremendous support which you gave to the career service and for which they will be forever grateful.

  Page 147e. This page is very confusing, as undoubtedly the transcript of the conversation was. From the middle of the page down, Churchill is reading a telegram which he proposes to send. This is not at all clear from the text, and the confusion is not clarified until one comes to the bottom of 174f. Here the same telegram is read again. I think that some editing would be useful here to keep the reader on the track. [Truman staff marginalia: “suggest a footnote on 147 to remind reader that this is exact transcript—with asterisk for names not understood and some garbles. Addition (made) of interior quotes helps this→”]

  Page 147g. At the end of the first paragraph, the word “oration” with a question mark appears obviously to be a garble. I wonder if editing couldn’t make the real meaning clearer?

  Page 150. Are you correct about Frances Perkins’s title? I always thought she was called “Miss Perkins” or “Mrs. Wilson.” [Truman staff marginalia: “checked and correction made.”]

  Page 151, line 2. The name of the eating place on 17th Street is the Allies’ Inn. [Truman staff marginalia: “checked and correction made.”]

  Page 151, last paragraph. You refer here to three agencies which you did not want cut down “because of their importance in the prevention of inflation.” Two of these are the Petroleum Administration for War and the Foreign Economic Administration. I did not understand that these two had anything to do with the prevention of inflation.

  Page 153, line 7. You speak of apprehension “that the isolationist spirit might again break out into the open.” Is this the phrase that you want? It would seem to be a good idea to get it into the open. Weren’t you apprehensive rather that the isolationist spirit might again become an important political factor?

  Page 154, second paragraph. You refer to Harold Smith’s report of our bad administration of relief in Italy. It isn’t at all clear what Harold was talking about; whether this was relief distributed by Military Government or UNRRA; nor is it clear what the British were doing which seemed undesirable. Furthermore, you say that you accepted this “as probably an accurate report” and asked the State Department to correct the situation. I don’t think you ever did accept a secondhand report as probably accurate. Finally, although it may be that the State Department had some control over the situation, I cannot quite see now what it could be. These two paragraphs, on page 154 and the top of 155, seem to me most obscure, and I suggest their elimination.

  Page 158, middle of page. Will Clayton at this time was Assistant Secretary of State, not Under Secretary. [Truman staff marginalia: “checked and corrected.”]

  The progress of the narrative up to Chapter 8 has followed the method of taking the reader with you through each appointment and through the various documents laid before you in the days immediately following your assumption of the Presidential office. Up to Chapter 8 I think this has served as a useful method. It makes real to the reader the exact nature of the responsibilities which suddenly devolved upon you. No general description would convey this the way your hour-to-hour and visitor-by-visitor method has done. But I think this method can be overdone and I think that beginning with Chapter 8 it is overdone. It starts out with the problem of Germany and McCloy’s report. On page 164, we get into specific callers again. And so it continues. I would suggest in editing Chapter 8 that it be made the dividing line and that you no longer give us a detailed list of callers but dwell on the main problems with which you had to deal.

  Chapters 9 and 10 about your early life are well done and most interesting.

  Page 229 and 236. On both pages you use exactly the same words in describing Carl Hayden as “one of the hardest working and ablest men in the Senate.” [Truman staff marginalia: “correction made.”]

  Chapter 11, which deals with your first term in the Senate, is interesting at the beginning and at the end. But there are about ten pages in the middle which I think should be approached from a different point of view.

  These are pages 238 to 248, which deal with the various votes you cast. In these pages you have short paragraphs dealing with the views you held on matters, many of which are of the greatest historical importance. These comments give an impression of a man quite contrary to what you are. They are brusque, didactic, and in one instance, which I shall specify, superficial. I should like to see these pages reorganized so that you concentrate on two or three important measures, giving your own feelings in more than a short paragraph about them; and, as for the rest, saying that your general point of view can be gathered from the measures for which you voted and against which you voted, and then merely enumerating each. I urge this, not merely from the point of view of reader interest, but so that you will not give what I think is quite a wrong impression about yourself.

  One of these measures you discuss in eight lines on page 245. This is the Supreme Court packing proposal of 1937. The discussion of it seems to me so inadequate as to be almost irrelevant. You list the different numerical relationships [Truman staff notation: “relationships” crossed out and “memberships” substituted] of the Court throughout the years, say that you saw no reason why it should not be increased in 1937, making reference to the new Court building, and suggesting that you thought that [the purpose of] the whole bill was to get enough judges to keep the Court’s work up to date.

  This does not do justice to you but does you g
rave injustice, and I think will do you harm. The Court proposals of 1937 had nothing to do with appointing enough justices to do the Court’s work. They were directed toward reversing the current majority and changing the current interpretation—which I believe was wrong—of the commerce clause and the Fifth Amendment, which interpretation has since been changed. The proposal did not purport to do this openly and frankly but through a most cynical subterfuge. This attack on the Court and the counter-attack on the President, I think, damaged both irreparably. It was a tragic episode; made even more tragic by the lack of necessity; for within four years, time had given the President the majority which the Congress denied him. There were grounds on which legislators might honorably, though I think mistakenly, support the proposals—grounds based upon action both taken and threatened in England to reduce the power of the House of Lords. But all of these involved a grave constitutional crisis, as grave a crisis as was involved in General MacArthur’s challenge to your authority in 1951.

  The paragraph on page 245 gives the impression, which I know is erroneous, that you were wholly unaware of any of these considerations, and that the whole question was that, having built a large court house, we should have more judges. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable for you to re-argue the Court proposals, and I would strongly urge that you do not, but merely list your vote along with the others to show that which, so far as the history of your life is concerned, is the important thing; that is, the loyalty with which you stood by President Roosevelt. I know that you will not be offended by the frankness with which I have written. I do it because of the grave injustice, as I have already said, which this paragraph does you.

  Page 249, line 2. The discussion of your opposition to the $500,000,000 cut, I do not think, enlightens the reader, nor do I think you will want to leave in the ad hominem reference to Harry Byrd. If my suggestions above of merely listing the bills is a useful one, this would not be necessary.