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 A
cheson. 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 the Kansas 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 the record’ 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.
Affection and Trust: The Personal Correspondence of Harry S. Truman and Dean Acheson, 1953-1971 Page 25