January 15, 1957
Dear Mr. President:
I wish it were possible for us to coordinate our efforts a little better on foreign policy matters. Your article in last Sunday’s New York Times, the first of your North American Newspaper Alliance articles, has, I am afraid, cut a good deal of ground out from under an effort to put some sense into the Administration’s foreign policy and to put some fighting spirit into the Democrats.
Your article says that “Congress has no alternative but to go along with the President in this program.” If this is so, then I spent four useless hours before the Foreign Affairs Committee and a good many useless days of work in devising what I thought an excellent alternative, and one which was thoroughly in accord with steps which had been taken during your Administration.
The article says later on, “Now that the President proposes to adopt a clear-cut policy of action, we should do everything to back him up.” I do not think that, upon reflection, you will really regard this as a clear-cut policy. In fact, there is no policy about it at all, as I tried to show in the statement before the Committee, which David Lloyd sent to you.
Again, the article says that “We must at this stage accept the President’s assessment of what the situation is, for only the President is in possession of all the facts.” This seems to me a wholly artificial view to take. I don’t think we have to accept the President’s assessment; and I doubt very much that he is in possession of more facts than the rest of us here. Certainly he is not in possession of any more than Dulles told him about, and I would hesitate to rely on that source of information.
Finally, the article says, “The proposals made by the President, when approved by the Congress, will strengthen the position of the free world.” Again, I don’t think they will strengthen it at all. There are alternative courses of action which would strengthen it far more.
However, the main purpose of this note is not to stick on what has been done, but to urge that in the future we try to get together and not be at cross purposes. I had thought that we were in agreement when you were in Washington. Of course, I did not know that you were about to publish an article saying that you would, if you were a Senator, vote for a proposal which I was about to urge Congress to supplant with a better one.
I hope that Mrs. Truman is completely over all the pain and discomfort of her accident. Alice and I send our love to her and to you.
As ever,
Dean
Acheson likes the statement Truman sent to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs much better than the NANA article. The statement, while still saying that the Congress had no choice but to act in response to the President’s request, placed some of the blame for the Middle East problems on the Eisenhower administration and criticized the vague plan the President put before Congress. Truman advised Congress to provide some guidance to administration actions in the Middle East and watch the developing situation carefully. Archibald MacLeish served for a brief time with the State Department; he had also served as Librarian of Congress and was a noted poet and dramatist.
January 26, 1957
Dear Mr. President,
The New York Times brings me your statement given to the House Committee. Since I criticized the statements in your article, may I praise those before the Committee. You still go further than I would, but that is all a matter of judgment on which I could well be wrong. But the new statement helps in placing the blame where it should be and, in this way, destroying the new myth of Eisenhower’s infallibility. I thought Bill Fulbright’s statement was excellent from this point of view.
Alice and I have had a week of lovely sun here in Bob Lovett’s house. We have another week and then go on to Archie MacLeish in Antigua, B.W.I. I can get along very well without work.
Alice, who is painting, joins me in sending our affectionate greetings to Mrs. Truman and to you.
Sincerely,
Dean
Truman responds to Acheson’s highly critical January 15 letter as well as to the more positive January 26 letter. The “proper reaction” mentioned would be that the House committee, or at least the Democratic members, would endorse Acheson’s suggestions. “Mon Wallgren” is Senator Monrad Wallgren of Washington.
January 28, 1957
Dear Dean:
You certainly “took a load off my mind” with your good letter of Jan. 26th. Of course I want your views frankly on any subject at any time.
But I was somewhat flabbergasted when your formal letter, all beautifully typed, came on January 17th. I felt the same way I do when Miss Lizzie gives me hell for something I know nothing about. She’s still in plaster of paris half way to her knee and I have the advantage. I can run and she can’t catch me.
The final result of your statement to the Committee and mine has been a proper reaction that both of us are hoping may create a foreign policy. I am going to send you a copy of all the statements I’ve made in the last week or so and then if you want to give me further hell—do it—and I’ll continue to like it.
Mon Wallgren told me a story about a Swede in North Dakota who had been forced to leave Minnesota because of a mix-up with a lady. After he was established in N.D. he began going with Gina Olsen. One day she came to see him and told him she thought she was pregnant, that she would go see the doctor and let him know. Well, Olie walked the floor of his store, kicked himself and felt very badly. Gina came back and reported the doctor out. So they took a walk to discuss things. Going by the town water reservoir Gina said to Olie, “If dot Doctor tell me the worst tomorrow, I coming up here and jump in that pond.” Olie grabbed her in his arms and said, “Oh Gina you take a load off my mind.” Well you did it too.
My best to Alice and you in which Bess would join if I’d ask her.
Harry
Truman had recently suffered a bad fall on an icy walkway. Acheson’s reference to Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana may refer to the attachment of a so-called Mansfield Amendment to the Eisenhower Doctrine. This amendment, which was viewed as an indirect security guarantee to Israel, stated that preserving the independence and sovereignty of the Middle East nations was in the national interest of the United States.
February 12, 1957
Dear Mr. President,
Please stay right side up. We want your head unbowed but not bloody.
Your letter about Gina Olsen was a joy. I’m glad that I took a load off your mind. What a fine job Mike Mansfield did in his Senate speech.
This is only a line to send you and Mrs. Truman our love and to urge you both to keep your feet on the ground.
Sincerely,
Dean
We go home on Saturday.
Truman did not send this letter about the Potsdam Conference to Acheson. Instead, he incorporated its content into a longer letter dated April 8.
March 15, 1957
Dear Dean:
It was certainly a pleasure to talk with you about Potsdam and the Doctor who is interested in that phase of our foreign policy.
I hardly ever look back for the purpose of contemplating “what might have been.” Potsdam brings to mind “what might have been” had you been there instead of the Congressman, Senator, Supreme Court Justice, Presidential Assistant, Secretary of State, Governor of Secessionist South Carolina the Honorable James F. Byrnes!
At that time I trusted him implicitly—and he was then conniving [to] run the Presidency over my head! I had Joe Davies, at that time a Russophile as most of us were, Ed Pauley, the only hard boiled, hard hitting anti-Russian around except the tough old Admiral, Bill Leahy. Certainly things were presented because Russia had no program except to take over the free part of Europe, kill as many Germans as possible and fool the Western Alliance. Britain only wanted to control the Eastern Mediterranean, keep India, oil in Persia, the Suez Canal and whatever else was floating loose.
There was an innocent idealist at one corner of that Round Table who wanted free waterways, Danube-Rhine, Kiel Canal, Suez, Black Sea Straits, Panama
all free, a restoration of Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Balkans, and a proper treatment of Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, free Philippines, Indonesia, Indo China, a Chinese Republic and a free Japan.
What a show that was! But a large number of agreements were reached in spite of the setup—only to be broken as soon as the unconscionable Russian Dictator returned to Moscow! And I liked the little son of a bitch. He was a good six inches shorter than I am and even Churchill was only three inches taller than Joe! Yet I was the little man in stature and intellect! So the Press said. Well, we’ll see.
Wish you’d been there. Tell your friend I’ll help him all I can. My best to Alice.
Sincerely,
H.S.T.
The article by Max Freedman (Manchester Guardian) titled “Lessons in How to Master a Crisis,” which Acheson encloses, contrasts the Truman Doctrine and the Eisenhower Doctrine. Eisenhower’s response to crisis compared with Truman’s is “shabby,” wrote Freedman. Truman was about two months away from becoming a grandfather when Acheson wrote this letter. Truman was, with very few exceptions, opposed to having anything named for him, and this applied to grandchildren too. Many things have been named for him anyway, especially in the Kansas City area. But not one of his four grandsons was given his name, with the exception that his first grandson’s name is Clifton Truman Daniel.
April 5, 1957
Dear Mr. President,
It was a sad disappointment to miss lunching with you last Tuesday but, as David told you, my brother-in-law’s funeral was that morning. Perhaps I shall see you in May. For my sins I am to be chairman of the Democratic dinner on May 4. The whole outlook would change if there should be the possibility of introducing you.
The enclosed piece by Max Freedman in the Manchester Guardian draws a contrast which you will be glad to see noted. You might want to put it with your Greek Turkish papers.
I hope all goes well with Margaret. What is this about your being adamant against having a grandchild named for you? Have you had an offer? I never had one, perhaps for the reasons you gave.
Warmest regards to Mrs. Truman and to you.
As ever,
Dean
This letter incorporates the one Truman wrote on March 15. Something may have still worried him about this letter, and he probably didn’t mail it for several days. Dick Stone is Richard Stone, Democratic senator from Florida; Donald Dawson had been a presidential aide; and Scott Lucas was a former Democratic senator from Illinois.
April 8, 1957
Dear Dean:
On March 15 I wrote you one of my long hand spasms after I’d talked to you about Potsdam and the Doctor who is interested in that phase of your foreign policy.
This morning your long hand letter came with the photostat of the piece from the Manchester Guardian. I immediately dictated a note to you telling you how I appreciated the enclosure and how much I regretted missing you in D.C. the day I was there.
Mrs. Truman’s youngest brother was taken to the hospital yesterday and, I’m told, may not go back home. So—I can understand exactly why we did not have that meeting at the noon day lunch with Charlie Murphy, Dave Lloyd, Senator Dick Stone and Don Dawson. Of course it was a disappointment—but we’ll try to alleviate that between us when the Boss and I come to the capital on May 3rd.
On May 2nd I’m lecturing the Student Body of N.Y. University on the President’s duties and prerogatives, as was done at M.I.T., Harvard Law School and Oklahoma A and M recently. What a lot of fun I had at those places. Been reading your book on the Congress. Between you and Woodrow Wilson I’m learning a lot—and hope to learn a lot more!
I hardly ever look back for the purpose of contemplating “what might have been.” Potsdam brings to mind “what might have been” had you been there instead of the Congressman, Senator, Supreme Court Justice, Presidential Assistant, Secretary of State, Governor of Secessionist South Carolina, the Honorable James F. Byrnes.
Makes me think of a [former Senator] Scott Lucas [D., Illinois] story about a trial in Illinois when Scott was on one side and an astute cross examiner was on the other. One of Scott’s witnesses was an old electioneer, who, of course, was addressed as Colonel. The astute cross examiner took him over and asked, “Mr. Jones just what does that Colonel in front of your name stand for?” The old Colonel said, “My friend, it is just like that Honorable in front of yours it don’t mean a damn thing.” Cross examination ended there.
Well, at Potsdam I trusted the “Honorable” Jimmy implicitly. He was then conniving to run the Presidency over my head just as old Seward tried it on Lincoln. Seward learned his lesson. “Hon.” Jimmy did not.
I had Joe Davies at that time, a Russophile as most of us were, Ed Pauley, the only hard boiled, hard hitting anti-Russian around except the tough old Admiral, Bill Leahy. Certain things were presented because Russia had no program but to take over free Europe, China and Korea, kill as many Germans, Poles and Lithuanians as possible and break up the Western Alliance. Britain only wanted to control the Eastern Mediterranean, keep India, oil in Persia, the Suez Canal and whatever else was floating loose, including control of the seas of the world!
There was a nice, innocent idealist (good definition for a diplomatic damn fool) in one corner of that Round Table who wanted free waterways, Rhine-Danube, Kiel Canal, Suez, Black Sea Straits, Panama, all free, a restoration of Germany, France, Italy, Poland, the Czechs, Romania, the Balkans, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Indonesia, Indo-China, a Chinese Republic, a Philippine Republic, and a free Japan. That damn fool wanted a free trade agreement between all the countries in the world and a full development of their resources for the benefit of the people in their various locations.
Well, what a show that was! In spite of the set up a great number of agreements were accomplished—only to be broken when the Dictator of all the Russians without a conscience returned to his home dunghill. And I liked the little son of a bitch—self made of course, no reflection on his mother. He was a good six inches shorter than I am and even the great Churchill was only three inches taller than that Russian.
But I was the little man there present in stature and intellect! At least that’s what our “free press” said.
Wish you’d been there. Tell your friend I’ll help him all I can. I’m looking forward to a grand visit with you on May 3rd, 4th and 5th.
My best to Alice. Wish I could have seen her picture exhibition.
Most sincerely,
Harry S. Truman
April 11, 1957
HONORABLE DEAN ACHESON
CONGRATULATIONS ON ANOTHER MILESTONE. I HOPE YOU HAVE MANY MORE OF THEM AND THAT ALICE DOESN’T THINK YOU ARE BECOMING CRANKY ON ACCOUNT OF AGE.
HARRY S. TRUMAN
Truman is responding to Acheson’s letter of April 5. He did eventually send the longhand letter he mentions (dated April 8; see above).
April 12, 1957
Dear Dean:
You don’t know how much I appreciated your note enclosing the photostat from The Manchester Guardian, which will be placed where you suggest.
The reason I couldn’t stay over in Washington was that I had to be back here to prepare a speech for Topeka, Kansas, for the celebration of the election of a Democratic Governor in Kansas. We had a most successful meeting and a lot of fun.
I wrote a longhand letter after I had talked to you about the Potsdam papers but I haven’t made up my mind to send it.
For your information, you are going to have an opportunity to introduce me at that May 4th meeting and Mrs. Truman will also be there. Even if I had decided not to come, when I found out you were going to preside nothing could keep me away.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
Acheson looks forward to seeing Truman during his upcoming trip to New York and Washington.
April 17, 1957
Dear Mr. President:
The last few days have delighted me by bringing your two letters and a telegr
am. Why should you have hesitated to send me the longhand one? It is one of the most delightful letters I have had from you and gives your reflections on most important events in an incomparable way.
I am looking forward to seeing you and Mrs. Truman and introducing you to the assembled Democrats.
We want very much to introduce you to another and much smaller assembly. My daughter Mary, in conjunction with her sister from New York and her brother from Washington are putting on a small party at Mary’s house on Sunday night, May 5, to celebrate Alice’s and my Fortieth Wedding Anniversary. It would give all of us the greatest joy if Mrs. Truman and yourself could come, even if only for a short time. She will have dinner and supper and people will stay on after. If you are not going back on Sunday, let me put in our claim on both of you now.
With warmest regards.
Sincerely,
Dean
Your birthday telegram gave us both a glow of pleasure. D.
April 23, 1957
Dear Dean:
I appreciated your letter of the 17th as I always appreciate any communication from you.
Our schedule calls for our arrival in Washington on May 3rd. We will be there the 4th and 5th but will have to leave on the B and 0 Diplomat at 9:30 on the evening of the 5th. You may count on our coming Sunday, but we will not be able to stay as long as we would like.
You are ahead of us in anniversaries by two years. The “Boss” and I will celebrate our 38th in June. Both you and I are very lucky in the partners we took for life.
Please give our best to Alice and all the rest of the family, and as soon as we get to Washington, we will work out a plan so that we can put in an appearance at Mary’s.
Sincerely yours,
Harry
Truman spoke to student groups at Columbia University and New York University on May 1 and 2, to a Democratic Party dinner in Washington on May 4. On May 5 he attended the party celebrating Dean and Alice Acheson’s fortieth wedding anniversary.
Affection and Trust: The Personal Correspondence of Harry S. Truman and Dean Acheson, 1953-1971 Page 20