“U.N. Deliberations on Draft Convention on the Political Rights of Women”.
Department of State Bulletin, December 31, 1951
Statement of December 15I want first to say just a little about the statements which the distinguished delegate of the Soviet Union and several of her colleagues have made on the situation of women in the United States. These delegates seem concerned, for instance, that in most of our States women share the domicile of their husbands and vote from it as their legal residence. Of course, this is true also of the men; their legal residence is the family domicile shared by their wives. In the United States we assume that husbands and wives wish to live together . . .The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt
Edited by Allida M. Black
New York : Columbia University Press, 1999, page 184.Comment Why exactly were the delegates of the Soviet Union concerned that in the U.S. women share the domicile of their husbands ?
The 'problem' seems a sheer idiocy. Did it deserve to be considered seriously ? Vide the quoted Statement.
(Overall, the Statement looks like an extended apology for the observed fact that in the U.S.A. women share the domicile of their husbands and vote from it as their legal residence, and such like matters.) — (WPT).
Arthur Grafflin, 14 November 1953 to Eleanor Roosevelt
( selections )" One of the . . . most indefensible of your recent utterances is your reference to the "alleged" treason of Alger Hiss. "Comment The entire letter by Mr. Grafflin seems impolite. On that point, justice enough may be due to Ms. Roosevelt by observing that her reply was entirely civil. — (WPT)
Eleanor Roosevelt, 19 November 1953, to Arthur Grafflin
. . . have you forgotten that Mr. Hiss was convicted of perjury and not of treason?I have not said that Mr. Hiss may not be proved guilty but so far he has not been and in accordance with our ancient custom, those of us who adhere to the ways of American justice do not condemn him.
Arthur Grafflin, 23 November 1953 to Eleanor Roosevelt
I appreciate your courteous reply to my admittedly somewhat heated recent letter.Of course I do not feel that any person should be adjudged guilty until he has been proved so. What I think you completely overlook in the case of Alger Hiss is that the very perjury of which he was convicted was in connection with treasonable acts of his which the perjury conviction established, and that the sole reason he was not directly tried on charges of treason and spying and conspiracy was because of the statue of limitations which applied in the matter under existing laws. To me, such a limitation is absurd, for treason is certainly as reprehensible and vicious as murder, on which there is properly no limitation.
I do not feel, however, that you or anyone else, because of personal prejudices, should conveniently hide behind a technicality in such a clear-cut case as that of Alger Hiss, in casting such unwarranted reflection upon our very courts, after the extremely fair trail he had, by still attempting to excuse his treasonably actions as "alleged" treason. My prime criticism of you is based upon your far too easy tolerance of and sympathy with many intolerable things and causes and persons, which seem so very misguided, however well intended. For some strange reason, you always seem to be or to wind up on the side of so many wrong people and causes. No one in his sense would suggest that you or the late President were or are deliberately and actively in sympathy with or indifferent to the really vicious things which Communists and their activities represent in the world, but there certainly appears to have been throughout an incredible unawareness and gullibility and even indifference about the menace of such things, which have caused great harm in this country.
. . . How much more honest it would be, and how much better for the country, if obvious mistakes were admitted, instead of trying to cloud them over by indirection or, as in the case of Mr. Truman, by vicious invective and mis-statements of fact, or omission of vital facts.
Comment It seems that Truman was himself not sufficiently informed and/or misinformed on some matters. It also seems that Truman had been deliberately misled by some within his own administration. Please see the Venona files story.One notes that the entire communist issue was thoroughly entangled with the "politics as usual", often at the expense of the facts of the matter.
Apparently, neither of the 'two-party system' parties was free from blame in that respect. Such issues as were/are vital to the very national security of a country could perhaps be better considered, not in a 'bi-partisan' but in some thoroughly non-partisan manner. — (WPT)
Eleanor Roosevelt, 3 December 1955*, to Arthur Grafflin
* '1955' in the copy I am using ; this would seem likely to have been 3 Dec 1953. (?) (WPT).I have never questioned Alger Hiss' conviction for perjury but many people who really knew him, which I did not, have felt that he actually had not committed treason. therefore, until it is proved it is better for those of us who do not want to add to the present hysteria, not to go on accusing him.You forget that when my husband was alive we were fighting a war with Russia as our ally. We knew quite well that Russia had accepted Germany as an ally until Germany turned against her, but we needed Russia in the war. She saved us many men. Fortunately for both of us at that time we did not have to be suspicious of everyone we knew. I think that is one of the sad things that have happened to us.
Comment Unfortunately, the administration of Ms. Roosevelt's husband, nay, many key positions throughout the entire American society during 'that time we did not have to be suspicious' were ridden with the agents of the Kremlin.Why should some people go on deluding themselves and others may seem something of a mystery. However, they were usually being helped to their delusion by highly skilled individuals specialising in such things.
The times of war may have been not a propitious time for reason. The Soviet Union was an ally, for the while. The Red Army soldier was bleeding and dying ; his masters were, as usual, cheating and lying. The latter part had somehow escaped the notice of just too many. — (WPT)
I believe if the F.B.I. had been allowed to continue its work, being strengthened if necessary, without interference by congressional committees,1 we would not have reached the hysteria and discontented situation in which this country now finds itself and which to my mind is far more dangerous than the feeling that the F.B.I. would not be able to protect us as it did between World War I and World War II. I feel this so deeply that I would think I was doing the country a great injustice if I kept silent as you suggest.
1 Speaks the congressional committee : ‘The F.B.I. if left alone, could clear up Communism in this country. I’d trust my life and the lives of my family in the hands of the F.B.I., if no political considerations were involved. It should be an independent bureau. Instead, it is hitched to the Department of Justice whose top men, politically appointed, are sometimes guided by political considerations. . . . Some F.B.I. men . . have discovered that their most comprehensive investigations of Communist subversives had been ignored when recommendations were urged for their prosecution.’ (Robert Stripling, “The Red Plot Against America", Bell, 1949, pp 162-3.) — [WPT].I do not think I have made any mistakes or done the country any harm.
The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt
Edited by Allida M. Black
New York : Columbia University Press, 1999, pages 267 - 269.Comment one does entirely believe Ms. Roosevelt in that she did 'not think' she had 'made any mistakes or done the country any harm'. Unfortunately, one is not fully convinced.
She correctly states that Hiss was convicted not of treason but of perjury. Mr. Grafflin correctly states that Hiss was not convicted of treason solely due to the statute of limitations. Ms. Roosevelt correctly states that someone not duly convicted of a crime is technically presumed innocent of the crime. She also makes a point of not having asserted that Hiss had not committed said crime.
Then, why make public statements about "alleged" treason ? Nobody was alleging anything in any courts after Hiss's conviction ; such questions had no legal import whatever and any other import was moot. But, by publicly alleging "alleged treason" Ms. Roosevelt was implying that the treason might have not been there. This, while maintaining that she had 'not said that Mr. Hiss may not be proved guilty'.
One does allow that Ms. Roosevelt was under pressure and rather naturally would have defended her and her husband’s political record. That probably was what she felt ‘so deeply’ about (else, she was speaking non-sense).
May she, and her husband, rest in peace. The problems with these issues to-day are, what is being made of these issues by the writers to-day.
Alger Hiss was only one, albeit an important one, of the agents in the orders from the Kremlin — who had wormed their ways into the upper echelons of the U.S. Government, into the academia, into the press, into the publishing business, into entertainment, into, mark well, the theological seminaries.
'We did not have to be suspicious' was Ms. Roosevelt's pious longing for the very period when all this was being put into operations.
* * *
Was it any wonder that the men (and women) who had eventually seen through all this would err on occasion ?
Would you, the reader, be infallible when dealing with fanatics who specialized in lies, distortions, hoaxes ; who were busy inventing new frauds and new tricks, for the sake of their Marxianistic chimæra or to some other sinister purposes ?
Some reportedly did err. There has been a U.S. Senator who had gained a sort of fame (some would not without good reason say, notoriety) by his opposition to Communism which was far more staunch than discriminating.
Please, beware, the reader, of anybody's using the case and the name of a single and apparently somewhat misguided U.S. Senator for covering up the facts — of what has been actually going on, not only in the early 1950's, but beginning with 1919 — if not earlier — and ever since.
(WPT)
Some Notes
Having happened on The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt (cf. above), opening it at random, I note “Intolerance” (Cosmopolitan, February 1940) on page 120 etc.It looks far better than my above remarks (relating mainly to the U.S. vs. Hiss case) might suggest. So, what’s wrong ?
Well, "Intolerance" may have been the best of Ms. Eleanor Roosevelt, few complaints could be leveled against it. Then, somebody might ask, why at all complain about the woman, after all ?
No use complaining much. One only ought to be cautious about not swallowing what may be not good for one together with some generally palatable fare. A few remarks follow.
(1) 'Intolerance has its roots in fear', says Ms. Roosevelt (page 121). The fear of what ?
A number of denominations were ‘ afraid that we cannot solve our problems in accordance with our own traditions’ says Ms. Roosevelt. Now, it stands to reason that intolerance has its roots in fear, but I do not see much connection in the deductions Ms. Roosevelt had made.
Whenever A fears B, A would tend not to be tolerant of B, could be some general statement of the principle. It seems to follow that the problem is not intolerance but fear. Hence, the lessening of the fear ought to result in more tolerance.
No fear exists in the abstract. In order to have some fear somewhere (for study purposes) one needs to have an entity (of some sentience) that might conceivably fear something (another entity, or phenomenon). One needs a fearing (fearful) entity and the feared (fearsome) entity — or phenomena, in the cases of the things fearsome.
Apparently present was the fear of intolerance, itself stemming from some kinds of fear. The husband had contributed something to this effect, that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself.
(2) "The best recent example of real tolerance that I can think of was the protection given the meeting . . . by Mayor . . , even when the speakers denounced the mayor and his actions.
" This is the kind of tolerance that recalls the statement attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (pages 123-4).
One does appreciate the 'attributed to' Voltaire, for I (for one) have not the least certainty that the statement was in fact by Voltaire, even though I have seen this repeated tens of times. (Please let me know, somebody).
Do you, the reader, approve or disapprove of what I am saying ? The point is, you ought to defend my right to say it in either case — if the statement (possibly falsely) attributed to Voltaire be chosen for the premises.
(It does not in a fact say anything about the reader who does approve of what I am saying. One allows that that might absolve that kind of reader from any possible obligation to defending my right to say it.)1
1. The question may be more valid than it seems. The reader who does approve of something that has been or is being said can easily overlook those who do not who might not apply the formula attributed to Voltaire and would instead go about destroying or sabotaging the data.
It seems that some such persons have yet been invoking the statement rightly or wrongly attributed to Voltaire for a sort of smokescreen. — (WPT)