|
Part V - Not Quite Friends
|
There has never been any protocol for relations
between a president and his predecessors. The nature
of the contact between these men was most often
determined by personalities rather than procedures.
On the face of it, Hoover and Truman seemed to have
little in common and therefore should have had little
contact. They were of opposing political parties
and had very different personalities. Yet this oddest
of couples fashioned a special relationship that
eventually developed into a true friendship.
The
friendship evolved over two decades. During the
years that Truman was in the White House, the
two were formal but courteous. Truman praised
Hoover for his famine relief assistance and righted
a wrong by returning Hoover's name to the dam
on the Colorado River. For his part, Hoover loyally
supported the president's efforts to promote food
relief and to reorganize the federal government.
The two did not always agree; in fact there were
instances when the two presidents were frustrated,
peeved, and even angry with one another. Yet their
partnership evolved into a friendship that is
to this day unprecedented in the history of the
American presidency.
|
117. JAMES E. WEBB TO M. C.
LATTA, APRIL 29, 1947
One
of the petty injustices done to Herbert Hoover after
he left office was the removal of his name from the
project to dam the Colorado River. Until 1933 it had
been the custom for the government to name dams for
the president in office at the time the work began.
Thus the name Hoover Dam was given to the Boulder Canyon
project. But in May 1933, Secretary of the Interior
Harold L. Ickes broke this precedent by changing the
name of the dam to Boulder Dam, after the canyon where
the dam was located. Ickes falsely claimed that Hoover
had nothing to do with the project and did not deserve
the honor. It was a slight that Hoover and his friends
never quite forgot.
Congressman
Jack Z. Anderson of California introduced a resolution
in March 1947 to restore Hoover's name. The bill moved
through Congress with little opposition and went to
the president for signature. In the following memorandum
Truman's budget director summarizes the history of the
project and recommends the name change. Truman signed
the resolution in a low-key ceremony on April 30, 1947.
Hoover was pleased, but he later confided to Rickard
that Truman "missed a chance by not instigating
the change." (This document is from the holdings
of the Harry S. Truman Library.)
Executive
Office of the President
Bureau of the Budget
Washington, D.C.
April 29, 1947
My
dear Mr. Latta:
The
Congress has enacted H.J. Res. 140, a resolution, "To
restore the name of Hoover Dam."
It
is the sole purpose of this measure to restore the name
of "Hoover Dam" to the Dam on the Colorado
River in Black Canyon constructed under the authority
of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, approved December
31, 1928, which is now referred to as the "Boulder
Dam", and provide that any law, regulation, document,
or record of the United States in which such dam is
designated or referred to under the name of Boulder
Dam shall be held to refer to such dam under and by
the name of Hoover Dam. There were several amendments
to the Act of December 21, 1928 in which the dam in
question was referred to as the Hoover Dam.
There
are a number of precedents whereby dams are named after
persons living at the time of their construction, such
as the
Roosevelt Dam in Arizona, which was named while President
Theodore Roosevelt was in office; Wilson Dam, forerunner
of the Tennessee Dam; and Coolidge Dam in Arizona, which
was constructed while President Coolidge was in office.
When the dam in question was named the Hoover Dam, it
was due primarily to the fact that Mr. Hoover had an
essential part in making the construction thereof possible.
A
facsimile of the enrolled enactment has been referred
to the Interior Department, and its reply, interposing
no objection to the bill, is attached.
I
recommend that the bill be approved.
Sincerely yours,
/s/JAMES E. WEBB
Director
118.
HOOVER ADDRESS, MAY 10, 1947
Hoover
returned to the annual Gridiron Club dinner on May 10,
1947, after an absence of fifteen years. The Club was
made up of prominent journalists working in the nation's
capital and its annual dinner included a satiric look
at the people and events in the news over the previous
year. In line with the tradition of the Club's dinners,
Hoover delivered rather light-hearted remarks that sympathized
with the president. In response, the president penned
an endorsement on Hoover's address: "With high
esteem and keen appreciation to a great man, Harry S.
Truman." (The complete text of Hoover's remarks
is in Addresses Upon the American Road, 1945-1948,
[New York, 1949] pp. 152-155.)
.
. . I am not on your operating table tonight. But I
can sympathize with Mr. Truman's difficulties in this
matter as can no other man. I am fully aware of the
skill and earnestness with which you cut up his ideology,
his domestic and foreign policies. I can tell him, from
long experience, not to look forward to much use of
anesthetics . . .
And
I wish to take the opportunity to say to you that President
Truman has given high service to our country in repairing
these dikes of safety which guard our national ideals.
Moreover, amid the thousand crises which sweep upon
us from abroad, he has stood firm with his feet rooted
in the American soil . . .
119. AYERS DIARY, MARCH 24,
1948
As
the chairman of a non-partisan commission on government
reorganization, Hoover vowed not to take any substantive
part in the presidential campaign of 1948. When he agreed
to appear at the Republican National Convention in June,
he made it clear that he would not deliver the keynote
speech or attack the president. Hoover passed this message
on to Truman through presidential press secretary Charles
Ross. Based on this entry in the diary of Eben Ayers,
at least some of the president's aides would have preferred
that Hoover take a leading role in the campaign. (See
Robert H. Ferrell, ed., Truman in the White House:
The Diary of Eben A. Ayers [Columbia, Mo., 1991]
p. 250.)
March
24, [1948] Wednesday
Charlie
Ross told the president at our staff meeting this morning
that he had lunch with former president Herbert Hoover
yesterday, at Hoover's invitation. He said Hoover sent
word to the president that the Republicans wanted him
to deliver the keynote speech at their national convention
this summer but that he had refused. He said he had
great respect for the president and would not attack
him. He said he probably would speak at the convention,
but it would be on some abstract subject such as human
rights.
[Clark]
Clifford and some of the others laughingly expressed
regret that he was not going to be the Republican keynoter
as they felt it would be a help to the Democrats. This
led the president to comment that sometimes you can
be too nice to a person . . .
120.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, JUNE 23, 1948
In
response to Hoover's efforts to stay out of the political
fray, Truman penned the following note congratulating
the former president on his speech at the Republican
National Convention. This was one of three small courtesies
that the president had extended to the former president
over the previous six months. In December Truman had
invited Hoover to a White House reception, and little
more than a month later he offered Hoover the use of
the presidential retreat at Key West.
The White House
Washington
June 23, 1948
/s/Dear
Mr. President:
Your
speech to the Republican Convention was the utterance
of a statesman.
May
I presume to congratulate you upon it.
Sincerely,
HARRY S. TRUMAN
121.
TRUMAN ADDRESS, OCTOBER 19, 1948
Truman,
fighting for his political life in the fall of 1948,
seemed to face insurmountable odds. The Republican nominee,
Thomas E. Dewey, was far ahead in the polls and Truman's
Democratic party was badly divided. To rally voters,
Truman attacked and ridiculed all things Republican
-- including his new "friend", Herbert Hoover.
Truman
made a stinging attack on Hoover in a speech delivered
at the North Carolina state fairgrounds in Raleigh.
Destined to be known as the "Hoover cart speech"
for its reference to old automobiles being pulled by
mules because their owners couldn't afford to buy gasoline,
the speech showed no mercy on Hoover. (For the complete
text of Truman's address, see Public Papers of the
Presidents: Harry S. Truman, 1948, [Washington,
D.C., 1964] pp. 822-827.)
.
. . Nowhere in the United States this year have I seen
a single exhibit of that famous North Carolina farm invention
-- that product of ingenuity and hard times, of personal
despair and political mockery -- the Hoover cart.
You
remember the Hoover cart -- I didn't find that in Iowa,
or anywhere else -- the remains of the old tin lizzie
being pulled by a mule, because you couldn't afford
to buy a new car, you couldn't afford to buy gas for
the old one.
You
remember. First you had the Hoovercrats, and then you
had the Hoover carts. One always follows the other.
Bear that in mind now, carefully.
By
the way, I asked the Department of Agriculture at Washington
about this Hoover cart.
They
said it is the only automobile in the world that eats
oats. They don't recommend it, and neither do I . .
.
This year the Republicans are putting on a terrific
advertising campaign in order to sell you the same old
brand of Hoover carts. They're spending money in carload
lots and are buying themselves all kinds of strange
bedfellows. But there are some things that are not for
sale in this country . . .
But
above all I treasure the basic principle of democracy
itself -- the right to disagree among ourselves, without
letting differences of opinion lead us into temptation,
or to be betray our own best interests.
That
is why I do not worry too much about the many violent
arguments we Democrats have. I think that there will
be plenty of Democrats on election day, as long as we
retain respect for free speech, and get a fair and honest
count at the polls.
Just
the same, I hope that somewhere in North Carolina you
have a Hoover cart on display -- lest you forget that
the Republicans want you to take another ride in that
same old wagon.
In
the 1920's, the Republican Party could not fight the
depression. It was incapable of bold action for the
people. Big business owners of that dismal party said
there was nothing to do but "ride it out."
Ride it out! You did -- in Hoover carts.
Today,
the Republican Party stands convicted of being incapable
of fighting inflation. Some of its present leaders have
tried to put the blame for inflation on farm prices.
They
want you to ride it out -- ride it out! -- in Hoover
carts.
It
was under a Democratic administration that Hoover carts
gave way to real automobiles with plenty of gasoline
in them
Your
cash receipts are running eight times what they were
in 1932. You didn't make that trip in a Hoover cart
. . .
I
know that you good people of North Carolina are not
responsible for the Republicans in the 80th Congress.
But we can all learn a lesson from them. They have given
us a sharp warning of what the Republican Party stands
for today. And their record shows that the Republican
Party stands for the same thing today that it did under
Herbert Hoover.
That
is the record on which the Republican Presidential candidate
wants to be elected -- that is the one on which he wants
to be unified . . . I don't think you want to take another
chance on the Hoover brand of Republicanism.
I don't think you have to be hit on the head twice to
know who hit you the first time.
I
don't think you are going to be the victims this time
of the old Republican doctrine: "If you can't convince
them, confuse them."
I
think you know who your real friends are and who your
enemies are.
I
feel pretty sure that in 1948 the South is not hankering
for another ride in a Hoover cart . . .
122.
TRUMAN ADDRESS, OCTOBER 27, 1948
Little
more than a week after he attacked Hoover in Raleigh,
Truman mounted the stage at Mechanics Hall in Boston
and repeated the exercise. Although he made no references
to Hoover carts, the speech pulled no punches. Truman
referred to Hoover as an engineer who "backed the
train all the way into the waiting room and brought
us to panic, depression, and despair." It was the
ridicule in such remarks that stung Hoover. As Rickard
noted, Hoover thought Truman to be "unpredictable,
recalling that after his nice personal notes to H.H.,
he slammed him in Boston speech." What was politics
for Truman was treachery to Hoover. For the complete
text of Truman's address, see Public Papers of the
Presidents: Harry S. Truman, 1948 [Washington, D.C.,
1964] pp. 882-886.)
.
. . Here in Boston, you still stand among the Nation's
foremost fighters for freedom and against intolerance.
Now,
many of you recall that campaign of 1928, when Al Smith
ran for President against that well-known engineer --
Herbert Hoover. He was one engineer who really did a
job of running things backward.
That
campaign of 1928 was one of the most shameful political
campaigns in our history . . .
The
leaders of the Republican Party served notice on America
then and there that they would stop at nothing in order
to gain power.
Don't
think that the elephant has changed his habits in the
last 20 years. This Republican elephant is not that
kind of elephant. They're trying to make you believe
he has that new look, but he hasn't . . .
I
have often thought what a different and better world
we would have had if Al Smith had been elected President.
But that didn't happen. And the great engineer we elected
backed the train all the way into the waiting room and
brought us to panic, depression, and despair . . .
I
say to you people of Boston that if Al Smith -- and
not Herbert Hoover -- had been chosen President in 1928,
we and the world would have been spared untold misery
and suffering . . .
After
the Republicans had made such a mess of our domestic
welfare and world security, we brought to the Presidency
a Democrat -- that courageous leader and great humanitarian,
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Under
Roosevelt's leadership, we licked the Hoover depression,
we rebuilt a strong America, and we won the greatest
war in all history.
I
am proud to have been a part in Roosevelt's great fight
for the rights and liberties of humanity . . .
123.
HOOVER TO TRUMAN, JANUARY 21, 1949
In
spite of Truman's remarks during the political campaign,
Hoover did not break off communication with the White
House. Intermittently, he offered his ideas on major
international issues. In January, he addressed the ongoing
question of Palestinians displaced as a result of the
Arab -- Israeli War. Hoover suggested resettlement in
the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys of Iraq. For
Hoover it was a logical solution that could be incorporated
in the Marshall Plan.
The
Waldorf-Astoria Towers
New York 22, New York
January 21, 1949
Dear
Mr. President:
I
would like to make a suggestion to you in connection
with two Middle East problems.
1.
Today there are about 500,000 Arabs who have been displaced
in Palestine. They are in a deplorable condition, supported
in a wholly inadequate way by various agencies, including
some resources of American origin. I am informed by
Mr. W. Hallam Tuck, Director-General of the International
Refugee Organization, that it will require upward of
$15,000,000 a year merely to provide
subsistence, with no real solution of the problem, and
that our government is likely to be saddled with most
of this expense.
2.
I need not dwell upon the animosity against us which
has grown in the Arab countries out of the Palestine
situation, nor upon the dangers which are rising from
the weakening of their governments as the result of
their war, and upon the fertile ground that has been
created for advancement of powers antagonistic to Western
nations.
My
suggestion is:
There
are around 2,000,000 acres of land in Iraq (the Tigris
and Euphrates valleys) over which the ancient irrigation
systems could be restored. Iraq is only 400 miles from
Palestine. It is Arabic in language and culture. Under
Arabic agricultural conditions, it is probable that
five or six hundred thousand acres would absorb the
displaced Arabs from Palestine. It would probably cost
under $50,000,000 to put in modern irrigation. I believe
that lands could quickly be made available by use of
American pumping methods.
Such
an undertaking would have several advantages:
1.
It would give permanent solution to the problem of these
unfortunate people.
2.
It would ease the whole Palestine problem.
3.
It would strengthen the economy of Iraq.
4.
It would contribute a friendly gesture from the West
to all Arab countries.
Even
with no return of the money, it would seem to be a small
item to be fitted into the billions of European Cooperation
appropriations.
Yours
sincerely,
/s/HERBERT HOOVER
124.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, JANUARY 25, 1949
As
usual, the president responded to Hoover's plan with
a cordial note of appreciation. "I have been working
on just such a plan," he wrote to Hoover. If the
president was not forthcoming with any details, it was
true that Truman hoped to revive the economy of the
Tigris and Euphrates area with a major public works
project. Resettling displaced persons, however, was
an entirely different matter.
The White House
Washington
January 25, 1949
Dear
Mr. President:
I
appreciated very much your good letter of the twenty-first
and I have been working on just such a plan. I don't
know how far we can get with it but I've had conversations
with several engineers on the subject and your analysis
of the situation seems to me is one that is practical.
I
certainly appreciate your interest in this matter and
I hope we can get it worked out.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/HARRY S. TRUMAN
125.
BESS W. TRUMAN TO HOOVER, MARCH 22, 1949
Bess
Truman made a small request of Hoover in March 1949.
At that time the White House was being gutted and virtually
rebuilt. As part of the redecoration of the White House,
Mrs. Truman conducted a search for portraits of recent
First Ladies. She wrote to Hoover and asked for a portrait
of Lou Henry Hoover to be placed in the refurbished
White House. In his response on April 9, Hoover expressed
his gratitude for Mrs. Truman's thoughtfulness. "You
are the first to express interest in this matter which
has naturally long been of some concern to me,"
he wrote. "I will take steps to secure a portrait."
The portrait was delivered to the White House in February
1951, but not acknowledged until March of 1952 when
Mrs. Truman wrote to apologize. "In the confusion
someone forgot to notify us that you sent it,"
she wrote. "It is a deep regret to the President
and me that these are such belated thanks, but please
accept our sincere appreciation of this addition to
the portraits of the wives of the Presidents which hang
in the White House."
March
22, 1949
Dear
Mr. Hoover:
The
portraits of the wives of the Presidents have always
been of the greatest interest to the sightseers who
throng the building every year. Many have looked for
one of Mrs. Hoover, who was greatly beloved. With this
in mind, I am venturing to ask if you have a portrait
that you would be willing to give to the White
House and appropriately placed when the building is
finally open to the public again? If so, it would be
a great pleasure to the President and to me if we could
have the privilege of receiving this portrait for the
White House.
Sincerely,
/s/BESS W. TRUMAN
126.
HOOVER TO TRUMAN, JULY 9, 1949
In
the summer of 1949, Hoover took up with the president
the rapid decline in the price of nonferrous metals
and the subsequent closing of lead, zinc, and copper
mines around the world. As a former mining engineer
as well as former president, he advocated an increase
in American stockpiles of these metals. In nine closely
reasoned paragraphs, he laid out his rationale.
The
Waldorf-Astoria Towers
New York 22, New York
July 9, 1949
/s/Personal
Dear
Mr. President:
There
is one spot of importance in the present unemployment
which can be cured easily -- and in which other collateral
important measures are also involved.
The
precipitous fall in prices of nonferrous metals has
resulted in the closing or imminent closing of about
50% of our lead and zinc mines, 20% of our copper mines,
and likewise other non-ferrous metals. In fact, there
are but a few mines paying expenses.
I
will not trouble you with the reasons for this disastrous
slump in prices -- mostly liquidating inventories, accumulated
during the boom; dumping on the United States from sterling
countries out of fear of devaluation of the pound, etc.
In
lead and zinc alone some hundreds of thousands are unemployed,
if we include not only the miners but also those in
the smelters, in the preparation of their collateral
supplies, the transportation of ores and metals, and
the village merchants who are naturally restricting
their orders for goods from other parts of the country.
Yet the world is fundamentally short of these metals,
particularly lead, where no new mines of large importance
have been discovered in the last forty years and important
mines in Burma and elsewhere are closed by Communist
activities.
The
whole of this problem could be corrected by wise stockpiling
policies. At my last advice, the stockpiles of all non-ferrous
metals are less than a few months war supply.
If
the Government would vigorously stockpile these metals
until prices reach a reasonable production cost, it
would not only cure much unemployment; it would prevent
reduction in wages; it would save the immense collateral
costs to the country for unemployment relief; and generally
stiffen things up.
Aside
from the defense question, the Government can lose no
money by such an action as the national and world insufficient
supply will some day enable it to sell its holdings
at a profit if it wished to do so. These metals are
selling at less than cost of production, and if this
situation continues for long, we will have a famine
in these metals and unreasonable prices.
And
in writing this to you, I want you to know that my family
own some minor interests in mines which are profitable
even now, but lest some one have evil thought I want
you to know this also. In fact, our long-view interest
would be the quick elimination of higher cost products
as that would bring us larger earnings. But it is not
in the national interest. This participation in the
industry affords me practical knowledge of what is going
on.
Yours
faithfully,
/s/HERBERT HOOVER
127.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, JULY 12, 1949
Truman
endorsed the expansion of the stockpiling program in
communications both to Congress and the Munitions Board.
He held out little hope that the Congress -- especially
economy-minded" Senators -- would go along.
The White House
Washington
July 12, 1949
Dear
Mr. President:
I
appreciated very much your letter of the ninth in regard
to a stock-piling program.
I
have made that suggestion already, both to the Congress
and to the Munitions Board, but I fear very much that
due to some of our backward looking "economy minded"
Senators the stockpiling appropriation has a good chance
to be knocked out. Common sense would dictate that now
is the time to make these stock-piles of non-ferrous
metals.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/HARRY S. TRUMAN
128.
JOURNAL OF DAVID LILIENTHAL, AUGUST 17, 1949
David
E. Lilienthal, the first chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission, was an inveterate diarist. The seven volumes
of his published journals cover the years from 1939
until 1981 and runs to several thousand pages. In an
entry for August 17, 1949, Lilienthal recorded Truman's
candid assessment of Hoover. (See The Journals of
David E. Lilienthal, II: The Atomic Energy Years, 1945-1950
[New York, 1964], p. 564.)
He
[Truman] said something about the way the mossbacks
always predict the end of the world and charge him with
putting over a "welfare state" -- whatever
that is -- this was Byrnes and Herb. Hoover. Which started
him on Hoover. "He's a nice enough old man,"
he said. "Of course," and here he had a big
laugh, "he's to the right of Louis the Fourteenth.
But he deserves to be treated with respect as an ex-President.
Roosevelt couldn't stand him and he hated Roosevelt.
But he straightened out the food problem in S. America
back there in 1945, and he can do some things. No reason
to treat him other than with respect. But he doesn't
understand what's happened in the world since McKinley."
129. HOOVER TO TRUMAN, AUGUST 18, 1949
Hoover
wrote to the president in August with a personal appeal
for aid to the earthquake victims of Ecuador. Hoover
saw this disaster as an opportunity to combine the country's
long standing "good neighbor" policy toward
Latin America with money from the Marshall Plan.
The
Waldorf Astoria Towers
New York, New York
August 18, 1949
My
dear Mr. President:
I
have received an appeal from former President Isidro
Ayora of Ecuador (a good man), for aid to the victims
of the recent earthquakes.
I
feel that a public drive for funds at this time is not
likely to be very fruitful.
It
seems to me, however, that this would be an opportunity
to advance greatly the "good neighbor" policies.
And it becomes more urgent by the low economic level
of that country and the inability of the Government
of Ecuador to meet emergency tasks.
I
would, therefore, like to suggest to you that a modest
diversion of Marshall Plan funds is fully warranted
and would be generally acceptable both to our country
and to the European states.
I
am not sure but that the American Red Cross has taken
action. They have large reserve funds which have been
accumulated for such purposes. In any event, any relief,
if undertaken, should be administered by our Red Cross.
Yours
faithfully,
/s/HERBERT HOOVER
130.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, AUGUST 23, 1949
Truman
responded to Hoover with a brief but cordial note of
thanks. "I certainly do appreciate your interest
in the matter," he wrote, "and thank you very
much for writing me about it."
The White House
Washington
August 23, 1949
Dear
Mr. President:
Replying
to yours of the eighteenth, we are looking into that
approach to the situation, although the Red Cross has
taken over down there. I certainly do appreciate your
interest in the matter and thank you very much for writing
me about it.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/HARRY S. TRUMAN
131.
HOOVER TO TRUMAN, APRIL 28, 1950
Hoover
addressed the American Newspaper Publishers Association
when it met at the Waldorf Astoria on April 27. In a
speech entitled "The Voice of World Experience,"
he expressed his "suspicion that the world in its
tumults has abandoned most of its acceptance of history
as a guide post." He called for the "spiritual
mobilization of the nations to believe in God against
this tide of Red agnosticism." In fact, Hoover
suggested the United Nations be reorganized without
the Communist nations. "If that is impractical,"
he added, "then a definite United Front should
be organized of those people who disavow Communism,
who stand for morals, and religion, and who love freedom."
Hoover's
cold war rhetoric and controversial proposal seemed
popular with the 1,800 publishers, editors and guests
at the dinner and the former president received a standing
ovation. Adding to the effect of the speech was a call
from Truman shortly after Hoover had finished speaking.
Hoover wrote the president the next day to explain his
delay in coming to the phone and the flurry of interest
in the call from the press.
The
Waldorf Astoria Towers
New York, New York
April 28, 1950
Dear
Mr. President:
I
am grateful for your telephone message congratulating
me upon my speech last night at the Newspaper Publishers
dinner.
I
want you to know the background of the incident that
embarrassed us both.
The
word that you wished to speak to me came while I was
still at the Speakers' table. The publisher who conveyed
the message to
me spoke loud enough for half a dozen persons to hear.
I sent word back three times suggesting it wait a few
minutes unless it was very urgent, as I did not wish
to interrupt the current speaker by leaving the room.
Also, I did not wish to create more curiosity as by
this time the Speakers' table was agog. Word came back
from the operator that it was very urgent and I left
the hall. Apparently the man on the program stated I
had gone to answer a call from you. You have perhaps
observed that curiosity is part of the necessary equipment
of the press.
As
I hold to the old and sacred rule (from plenty of experience)
that citizens should not discuss what Presidents say,
I could only reply "No comment" to the press
bombardment.
I
am arranging to change some appointments and will accept
your kind invitation to visit you during the week.
I
will value the opportunity to discuss our reorganization
situation which is not going as we could wish.
Yours
faithfully,
/s/HERBERT HOOVER
132.
TRUMAN PRESS CONFERENCE, MAY 4, 1950
Hoover's
remarks on reorganizing the United Nations were respectfully
received at the White House. In fact Truman and Hoover
discussed his proposal in a meeting on the afternoon
of May 3. This did not mean that the president agreed.
Far from it. In response to a direct question at a press
conference, Truman laid out his differences with Hoover's
proposal. (The complete transcript is in Public Papers
of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman, 1950 [Washington,
D.C., 1965], pp. 284-288.)
.
. . [15.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to make any
comment on ex-President Hoover's proposition to revamp
the United Nations by excluding Communist nations?
THE
PRESIDENT. Yes. President Hoover called on me, at my
suggestion, to discuss the reorganization plans that
are now before the Senate and the House. And incidentally
his speech of a night or two ago was brought up. Mr.
Hoover and I are not in agreement
on the United Nations program. I am in full support
of the United Nations, both as an individual and as
President of the United States. The United Nations is
organized for the purpose of discussion of problems
with which nations are faced, in the hope of arriving
at a peaceful settlement of these problems. It is working,
in most instances. We shall continue to support the
United Nations as long as I am President of the United
States.
I
discussed the other section of President Hoover's speech,
which was the mobilization of the moral forces of the
world against the unmoral forces of the world. I have
been trying to do that for 5 years, and we are having
some success in that. And I complimented him on that
part of his speech. I did not agree with him on his
proposed reorganization of the United Nations, and we
are perfectly friendly, Mr. Hoover and I are . . .
133.
HOOVER TO TRUMAN, JULY 1, 1950
The
outbreak of the "Korean situation," as Hoover
called it, was a time for all Americans to stand with
their nation and their president. Hoover issued a statement
for broadcast on the NBC radio program "Voice of
Events" on July 1. On the day of the broadcast,
Hoover wrote to Truman to offer his services.
Waldorf
Towers
July 1, 1950
/s/Dear
Mr. President
I
need scarcely write to you that I will be glad to be
of any service within my limitations at this time.
Sincerely
Yours
HERBERT HOOVER
134.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, JULY 3, 1950
In
response to Hoover's public statement of support and
private offer of service, Truman sent the following
handwritten note.
The White House
Washington
July 3, 1950
/s/Dear
Mr. President:
I
appreciate most highly your letter of the 1st. It was
great of you to issue the statement you did. If events
require, you may rest assured that I will want your
help and advice. I pray that peace may come.
Most
sincerely,
HARRY S. TRUMAN
135.
HOOVER TO TRUMAN, NOVEMBER 2, 1950
An
assassination attempt on Truman's life by Puerto Rican
terrorists sobered the nation. Hoover was quick to issue
a public statement of thanksgiving for the president's
life and he passed on that statement to Truman in the
following letter.
The
Waldorf Astoria Towers
New York, New York
November 2, 1950
My
dear Mr. President:
My
feelings concerning the incident which occurred yesterday
are expressed in the opening statements I made to the
Military Order of Foreign Wars of the United States:
"I
am sure that I echo the satisfaction of everyone here
that the President escaped the attempt on his life today.
The President of the United States is the symbol of
our nation and assassination is not a part of the American
way of life."
Yours
faithfully,
/s/HERBERT HOOVER
136.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, NOVEMBER 3, 1950
Truman
wrote a heartfelt thank you note to Hoover for his statement
of thanksgiving. There was a certain innocent irony
in Truman's handwritten postscript: "I hope you
are in good health."
The White House
Washington
November 3, 1950
Dear
Mr. President:
It
is impossible to tell you how much your letter of November
second means to me. Please know that I am truly grateful
for these expressions, especially because they come
from you.
Very
sincerely yours,
/s/HARRY S. TRUMAN
/s/I
hope you are in good health.
137.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, NOVEMBER 25, 1950
Late
in November 1950, Truman called on Hoover to serve in
yet another capacity. With Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
of Wisconsin on the rampage over alleged Communist infiltration
of the State Department, Truman wanted a bipartisan
commission to look into the matter and, of course, to
deflect criticism of his administration. Who better
to serve as chairman than Hoover?
The
White House
Washington
November 25, 1950
Dear
Mr. President:
There
has been a great deal of talk about the infiltration
of communists in the Government, particularly in the
State Department. I've decided to appoint a bipartisan
Commission consisting of representatives of all parts
of the population of the United States -- some churchmen,
both Catholic, Protestant and Jewish, some outstanding
men from the legal fraternity, from business and from
labor.
I
would personally appreciate it if you would be willing
to act as Chairman of that Commission. There has been
a great deal of misrepresentation and garbling of facts
in regard to this situation and if you would accommodate
me by acting as Chairman of this proposed Commission
of men, I think we could not only restore the confidence
of the people in the organization of the Government
but could help the Foreign Policy situation very much.
I tried to call you yesterday but was informed that
you were not available.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/HARRY S. TRUMAN
138.
HOOVER TO TRUMAN, NOVEMBER 26, 1950
Hoover,
however, would not accept the chairmanship of a commission
on communists in government. In a detailed letter to
the president, he outlined his concerns. The issue,
he said, was not communists in government (he doubted
there were any "card-carrying Communists"
in the government); it was "men in Government whose
attitudes are such that they have disastrously advised
on policies in relation to Communist Russia. The suspicion
is abroad that they continue in Government."
Because
those in question were in the administration, Hoover
surmised that the president would not want a widespread
inquiry. Besides, he added, "the Congress itself
is likely to be engaged in such investigations anyway."
He suggested that Truman issue a statement encouraging
Congress to establish such a commission. "That
very statement by you would greatly restore confidence
in the Administration's Foreign Policy makers."
The
Waldorf Astoria Towers
New York 22, New York
November 26, 1950
My
dear Mr. President:
I
have your letter suggesting that I should take the Chairmanship
of a Presidentially appointed bi-partisan Commission
to report on the question of the "infiltration
of communists in the Government "
Despite
the encroachments of advancing age, I do not wish to
ever refuse service to the country. There are some phases
of the matter, however, which greatly trouble me and
which I should like frankly to lay before you.
First.
I doubt if there are any consequential card-carrying
communists in the Government, or if there are, they
should be known to the F.B.I.
Second.
Your admirable purpose is "to restore the confidence
of the people in the organization of the Government"
and thereby "help the Foreign Policy situation."
I suggest that the current lack
of confidence arises from the belief that there are
men in Government (not Communists) whose attitudes are
such that they have disastrously advised on policies
in relation to Communist Russia. The suspicion is abroad
that they continue in the Government.
Third.
Without a wide-spread inquiry into the past and present
of such men and the facts, the answer to this problem
could not be determined. It would require the authority
to examine on oath, together with large expenditure
for investigation staff, and to include access to all
files of all officials and departments over the years.
Such powers could come jointly from yourself and a Congressional
Act. The personnel of such a Commission would need be
approved by the leaders of both parties in that body
if it were to carry conviction to them.
Fourth.
The Congress itself is likely to be engaged in such
investigations anyway.
Therefore
it seems to me that any inquiry as to "Communists
in the Government" by an informal Commission would
not be likely to satisfy the public or to restore confidence.
I
dislike indeed to respond in terms of declination to
any request of yours as I would like greatly to be helpful
to you in these troublous times.
In
that direction may I suggest that a statement might
be issued by you that you would be glad if the Congress
would either create such a Commission or would itself
make an inquiry on the broadest basis, such as I have
outlined, both as to the past and the present. That
very statement by you would greatly restore confidence
in the Administration's Foreign Policy makers.
Yours
faithfully,
/s/HERBERT HOOVER
139.
TRUMAN TO HOOVER, DECEMBER 7, 1950
In
his response, Truman rejected Hoover's suggestion that
Congress establish the new commission. Truman was concerned
that the charges arose from partisanship -- an obvious
reference to McCarthy and that the creation of a commission
by Congress was the matter.
Truman
did agree with Hoover that the commission's mandate
must be broad enough not only to include investigation
of Communists in government, but also to review government
loyalty and security programs.
The president made it clear
that he was not dissuaded by Hoover's concerns. On January
23, 1951, Truman announced the President's Commission
on Internal Security and Individual Rights with Fleet
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz as chairman. But conflict
between Truman and the Senate prevented the commission
from ever beginning its work and the president dissolved
the commission on November 14, 1951.
The
White House
Washington
December 7, 1950
Dear
Mr. President:
Thank
you very much for your letter of November 25, 1950.
You have always given freely of your time and energy
to your country, and without thought of self. I know
that my sense of gratitude for your service is shared
by the country.
In
view of your feeling concerning the advisability of
the proposed commission, I do not believe that I should
urge you to reconsider your decision. It is very important,
however, that the appointment of the commission have
the support of the leader of this country. Consequently,
there are certain considerations which I should like
to bring to your attention.
The
charge has been made that there are some persons in
the Government who do not have the best interests of
our country at heart. This serious charge has been made
in an atmosphere of bitter political controversy. The
people have been confused by this and, I believe, will
be much better satisfied if it is looked into by persons
whom they respect as above all political partisanship.
This is not a question which should be made the subject
of a partisan debate in the Congress, which I am afraid
might be likely if the establishment of such commission
were referred to the Congress.
While
it is of course expected that the commission would be
composed of members of both parties, I do not believe
that its members should be designated to serve either
as Republicans or Democrats. They should serve as Americans
who have the interest of their country at heart and
who have the respect of their fellow Americans.
Further,
I contemplate that the work of the commission will be
of a most comprehensive scope. Its work will not be
confined to
charges that communists have made their way into the
Government service, although this will constitute a
very important part of the commission's work. Its work
will include a review of the Government Employee Loyalty
Program and of the operation of all other programs established
by the Government to assure the security of its own
operations. The Commission will review and evaluate
all existing internal security laws, procedures, and
practices, and will recommend what changes, if any,
should be made in order to achieve both the security
of the Government and the protection of the rights of
individuals. This is made particularly important by
the divided state of opinion on some provisions of the
recently enacted Internal Security Act of 1950. You
will note that the program that I have in mind for the
commission is far broader than any single question affecting
the security of the country.
In
setting the commission to its tasks, I shall give it
full access to all files and papers in the Executive
branch of the Government which are relevant to its studies
and investigations, including the files of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The commission will likewise
be assured of the cooperation and assistance of the
Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and of every other responsible official in the Executive
branch.
I
wanted you to have this information, so you would understand
why I feel this commission is necessary.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/HARRY S. TRUMAN
140.
TRUMAN PRESS CONFERENCE, DECEMBER 28, 1950
Foreign
policy frequently divided Hoover and Truman. Their differences
were never more obvious than when the president was
asked to comment on one of Hoover's speeches. At his
December 28 press conference, Truman was asked to comment
on Hoover's national radio address of December 20. Hoover
had suggested that the United States concentrate on
preservation of the Western Hemisphere, with Great Britain
as our outpost in the Atlantic and Japan, Formosa, and
the Philippines as our outposts in the Pacific. To Truman
such ideas seemed little more than a return to isolationism
and he said as much. (For the complete transcript, see
Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman,
1950, [Washington, D.C., 1965], pp. 760-763.)
. . . [5.] Q. How about Herbert Hoover?
THE
PRESIDENT. Well, I just want to say this, that the country
is not going back to isolationism. You can be sure of
that.
Q.
Mr. President, would you like to comment on the results
to this country, if you should take Mr. Hoover's advice?
What would happen.
THE
PRESIDENT. Well now, I would have to make you a speech
that would take all afternoon, and you haven't got time
to listen to that.
Q.
It's all right with me. [Laughter]
THE
PRESIDENT. No, I will not comment further. | 
