Welles and Henry Wallace ("Wallace and Welles in '48")

Discuss Political, Social, Legal, Historical, etc. related to Welles
Post Reply
Le Chiffre
Site Admin
Posts: 2295
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm

Welles and Henry Wallace ("Wallace and Welles in '48")

Post by Le Chiffre »

Callow makes the interesting observation that Welles' hero in the Democratic Party by the beginning of World War II was no longer so much FDR, though he continued to work for him, but the populist, progressive Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace. It was Wallace who championed the brilliant farm program, the United Nations as a permanent institution, and an alliance between farmers and workers, the Century of the Common Man. Roosevelt recognized the potency of these causes, and made Wallace his Vice President for the Campaign of 1940. Welles became dedicated to the same causes because they reflected an emotional idealism formed in his childhood.

According to Callow, he had ambitions of being, if not President, perhaps a public servant of Cabinet Rank.

When, for whatever reasons, FDR dumped Wallace in 1944 and had Harry Truman nominated his Vice President, it was a beginning of a retreat by the Democratic Party from the agenda which had brought them their greatest success.

Our old friend Gore Vidal's novel, THE GOLDEN AGE, implies that it was mainly southern Democrats who pressured FDR into dumping Wallace in favor of Harry Truman. "Go back to Russia, nigger lover", one of them reportedly said to Wallace. Out of curiosity I recently skimmed through one of Ann Coulter's books, and find her describing Wallace as a 'blatant Soviet apologist' and his 1948 presidential bid as a 'proven Soviet fifth column'.

According to Barbra Leaming's book, "Wallace and Welles in '48!" was a slogan that was shouted during one of Welles campaign speeches for Roosevelt in 1944. Here's what Welles wrote about Wallace in one of his columns:

"The common man, who Mr. Pegler (Longtime Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler) calls with a shudder, 'that faceless thing', has enough to get along, and his widest hopes are for a bit more, so the rich man shouldn't be afraid of him. It's the men with nothing at all who want to tear the rich out of their gilded palaces and divvy up the gold. Wallace wants to prevent the common man from being gobbled up for breakfast so the rich don't get hung on lampposts by the extreme poor, and the bankers don't have their blood flow in the gutters.

"Wallace and his friend, the little fellow, don't want to let the rich pile up their yachts, their country houses, and their superbank accounts into glittering heaps. But they also know that if you chopped up all the luxuries and doled out all the money equally, there still wouldn't be enough to go around. They realize that what's wrong with accumulated wealth is not the wealth, but the accumulation. We can have a prosperous world, they keep saying, without it costing the rich anything but special privilege."
*************

It fascinates me that giving to charities is considered noble and praiseworthy, but creating a society that doesn't require charity is considered socialist and bad.
User avatar
Glenn Anders
Wellesnet Legend
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by Glenn Anders »

Interesting research, mteal.

I believe that there were several reasons for FDR changing over to Harry Truman. An additional one would have been that he knew that his health was deteriorating, and he wanted to be sure that he did not leave the country in relatively inexperienced hands. He knew that Truman was sober and honest, and would not be made a target by the Republicans at the end of the War.

Callow goes to pains to show that Wallace, although gulled, as many were, by Soviet Potemkin villages in the Communist Paradise, did not approve of Stalin's totalitarian methods.

Welles, in any case, was mainly taken by Wallace's Century of the Common Man concept, coming as he did from Wisconsin.

Glenn
Le Chiffre
Site Admin
Posts: 2295
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm

Post by Le Chiffre »

I think he was also taken with the fact that Wallace was such a polymath, like himself. His political career was no doubt due in large part to his having been a successful businessman, running the first commercial hybrid corn factory. He was also a scientist (plant geneticist) and helped develop the first hybrid strain himself.

But probably what fascinated Welles the most about Wallace was his interest in eastern mysticism, and his responsibility for putting that strange "Pyramid with All-seeing eye" on the dollar bill. Ever since then, Wallace has been rumored by some to have been an occultist, as in this article.

Here's another excerpt from a memo by Welles, maybe for one of his Almanac radio shows:

"No wonder the colonies of 1776 chose the truncated pyramid as their emblem on the obverse of the seal of the newly-founded republic, bearing the motto 'Annuit Coitus' ('He prospers our beginnings') where the rejected headstone bearing the all-seeing eye is suspended above the pyramid. The commitee of The Great Seal that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams formed on July 4th 1776, could hardly have known then even a hundredth of the secrets devoted researchers have since found hidden in it's stones.
"In any case, the choice of such an emblem for the seal of the newly-born republic is sufficiently strange and curious to arrest the attention of virtually every pyramid student and commentator. And not less curious is the sudden announcement by the Secretary of the Treasury on June 15 1935, that this obverse side of the seal, 'The Pyramid', would henceforth be printed for the first time, as it now appears, upon American paper money."
tonyw
Wellesnet Advanced
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:33 pm

Post by tonyw »

George Romero also uses the pyramid symbol in his contribution to TWO EVIL EYES as an attack against American imperialism.

As I read Callow, I note that Welles also opposed Henry Luce's Project for an American Century idea that has now been revamped iin our current era in a more bloodthirsty manner than has been envisaged before. Despite the occasional swipes at Welles (which were more blatant in THE ROAD TO XANADU), Callow has clearly allowed the record to speak for itself in this book. Let us hope that he will exercise similar restraint in the remaining volume(s) of his biographical project.
User avatar
Glenn Anders
Wellesnet Legend
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by Glenn Anders »

Quite so, tonyw.

It is fairly clear in Callow's latest book that Welles saw the beginnings of a return to Social Darwinism in the ambitions of Henry Luce, Helen Booth Luce and the group they represented. They were not quite able to accomplish their goals for "The American Century," but their flame burns much more darkly now, as you suggest -- in "The Project for a New American Century," upon which our present catastrophic Foreign Policy is based.

I have never quite been able to understand the significance, mteal, of the Great Seal, but evidently Our Man Welles did.

Glenn
Le Chiffre
Site Admin
Posts: 2295
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:31 pm

Post by Le Chiffre »

Well, the fact that they put the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill seems to make some kind of point about the god-like omnipotence of money, but that's just speculation.

Welles's opposition to Luce's "American Century" is understandable, but ironic, since Luce was not only instrumental in "creating" Welles, by putting him on the cover of Time Magazine in 1938, but he also helped to save CITIZEN KANE from destruction at the hands of Louis B. Mayer, by offering to buy the film himself, in order to ensure it's release. The Luce and Hearst showdown over KANE (and within the story itself!) seems like a microcosm of their larger war, not only for media influence in the U.S., but in terms of rival imperial visions as well. According to Vidal, Luce thought the key to the American Century was the liberation of China from Japanese domination, and the democratization and even Christianization of China (In fact, Luce had been raised there by Christian missionaries). Hearst, on the other hand, thought the U.S. should let Japan rule China, which he didn't even consider a nation, just a bunch of barbaric warlords. Japan would then make a good ally to overthrow Stalin, as they had already defeated Russia in 1905.

Here are some loose notes taken from a website stumbled onto recently:

1940
Wallace as Vice President
Vice President John Garner had opposed Roosevelt running for a 3rd term, so the President dumped Mr. Garner and pressured the Democratic Convention in Chicago that July 19 to nominate the plant geneticist Henry Wallace who also published the newspaper, Wallace's Farmer. Wallace had been the Secretary of Agriculture since '33, running the New Deal assistance programs to farmers. The right wing hated him, and slowly during the following years, formed a "Get Wallace!" fang-pack.

1941
The Question of What Kind of Century? Henry Luce owned several powerful magazines including Life where early in the year he published an editorial calling upon an "American Century" based on capitalism, as opposed to "utopian dreams of social reform". Henry Wallace answered Luce's Pax Americana of greed and we-know-better empirialism with "The Century of the Common Man", a New Deal for all the world through democracy.

1944
Conservatives began to focus their disapproval on Henry Wallace, and soon Party bosses were muttering, "Get him out of here". All that spring and summer they hacked heartily to gouge Wallace from the ticket. FDR tried to get Wallace to work better with the Senate, but big business Wall Streeters (and crypto-conservatives that the President had brought in to help run the war) wanted all New Deal intervention over. But it was most likely the National Democratic Chair from the St. Louis machine (close to Senator Truman) who did the most to snuff Wallace from the fray.

The Concept of a New Party Summer
FDR sounded out Wendell Wilkie (his 1940 presidential opponent) on the possibility of forming a new Liberal Party, to escape the right-wing sludge in the Democrat Party, as well as the howling, hating, hubrising Republicans. Wilkie had been defeated by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, so that July, FDR sent his trusted speech-writer/confidant Sam Rosenman to talk with him. The plan was to commingle the liberal parts of the Democrats with the liberal parts of the Republicans.Wilkie liked the idea, and on July 13, FDR dictated a letter inviting him to either the White House or Hyde Park. However, someone snitched the letter to the media, where it created such an ink-squall that the meeting was put off till after the election. Wilkie died that Fall.

Roosevelt & Truman July 19
Roosevelt came in his private train to Chicago for the Democratic Convention. Dem-wolves, judging the President's drop in health, felt he would soon die and that the VP would be the president, so it was time to get Wallace out. Senator Harry Truman of Missouri looked good to them, though some wanted Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.Wallace had a lead on the first ballot, but Truman swept into place on the second, setting the stage for the dropping of the A-Bomb.

1947
Left! Right! Left! Right!
After the war, President Truman was advised to move to the Left on domestic policy in order to stitch up the New Deal coalition - farmers, blacks, Jews, organized labor & urban ethnics - and then to push the Cold War. So said a long memo from Clark Clifford- advice which the man from Independence followed.

1948
The Strength of Henry Wallace
In the Bronx, a special congressional election was won by a candidate from the American Labor Party who was pledged to Henry Wallace. A Gallup Poll predicted that Wallace would get 13-18 percent of New York's vote.

The Faked War Scare of Early 1948
What Eisenhower would later name the "Military-Industrial Complex" entered the picture. These military-industrial-surrealists, with their hungers for profits & puissance, pushed forward a pre-planned war scare early that year, part of the purpose of which was to force the Republicans to pass the European Recovery Plan, known in history as the "Marshall Plan". This plan arrived for Truman's signature not long after the war scare had been promulgated, without any evidence of actual Russian war intent (there had been a Communist coup in Czechoslovakia which had produced vast alarmist headlines). For more, you can read Frank Kofsky's interesting Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948- a Successful Campaign to Deceive the Nation. On March 17, 1948, at a St. Patrick's Day dinner arranged by the ultra-right-wing Cardinal Spellman, Truman said, "I do not want and I will not accept the political support of Henry Wallace & his Communists".

July 23-25
The Progressive Party Convention put forth Mr. Henry Wallace for President. Among the points of his platform:
- An end to the draft
- Destruction of all A-Bombs
- Better relations with the Soviet Union
"Wallace or War" was one of his banners. This angered the "Republicrats".

Fall 1948 Campaign
When Henry Wallace ran for President on the Progressive Party ticket, Truman did what good Democrats have often done: coopted the Liberal Left by changing his dance steps, from hokey-pokey right to hokey-pokey left. He de-emphasized the Cold War, attached himself to a strong civil rights plank in the Platform (including desegragating the military), called again for National Health Coverage and price controls to help consumers, protection for small farmers, & repeal of the union-hating Taft-Hartley Act. Public opinion polls said Dewey was going to win. George Gallup's final poll on October 30 gave it to Dewey 49.5 to 44.5 percent.

The Wallace Campaign
Communists were welcomed into the 1948 Henry Wallace coalition, and there was massive red-baiting of the Wallace Progressive Party ticket by liberal democrats, especially by a group called the "Americans for Democratic Action". In addition, racist southerners formed the States' Rights Democrat Party (aka the "Dixiecrats") and ran Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president. Probably in reaction to this, one of Truman's campaign slogans was, "Keep America Human with Truman".

Labor
In the end, America's working people - particularly those in unions - voted for Harry to stand up to the assault on New Deal policies and the crushing of labor. "Labor did it," Truman said in Kansas City the day after the voting.

*****************
Here's a quote from the French review of Richard France's new play, which is on the Wellesnet main page:

We hear at some length of the Isaac Woodard episode that effectively ended Welles's radio career...Not surprisingly, as the story is not well known, people seemed to be brought up short by this one. They could be observed listening intently as Drouot/Welles recounted the history, reading from the soldier's affidavit and chronicling the perhaps inevitable, but for him, somehow utterly unforeseen, disintegration of what was left of his already collapsing radio career.

I had never thought of the Isaac Woodard case as having finished off Welles's radio career in America, but now that I think of it, it probably did. Also, Truman's election-time decision to integrate the armed forces (partly as a result of the Woodard case), eliminated whatever support Wallace may have gotten from the black community in '48, and therefore whatever political mileage Welles may have gotten out of the case by attaching himself politically to Wallace.
Wellesnet
Site Admin
Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:38 pm

Re: Welles and Henry Wallace ("Wallace and Welles in '48")

Post by Wellesnet »

From Red Skelton's New Year's Eve show (1948):

Red: Hey, did the police catch those two guys yet?

Man: What two guys?

Red: The two guys who voted for Wallace.
Henry Wallace's 1952 admission that he was wrong about the Soviet Union:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/02/h ... gging.html

Henry A. Wallace (1952) on the Ruthless Nature and Utter Evil of Soviet Communism: Cold-War Era God-That-Failed Weblogging

Henry A. Wallace (1952), "Where I Was Wrong", The Week Magazine (September 7):
Here are startling admissions from a former vice-president of the United States. For years a Russian apologist, he now tells "Where I Was Wrong", by Henry A. Wallace.

Wallace says his big mistake was not denouncing Red coup in Czechoslovakia.

Henry A. Wallace:
Many people have asked me how I reconcile my stand before Korea with my uncompromising anti-Communist attitude of the past two years The answer is simple.

Before 1949 I thought Russia really wanted and needed peace. After 1949 I became more and more disgusted with the Soviet methods and finally became convinced that the Politburo wanted the Cold War continued indefinitely, even at the peril of accidentally provoking a hot war.

In this article I shall speak frankly of some of the circumstances which have caused me to revise my attitude.

Reports from Czechoslovakia

Among the first were the shocking revelations of the activities of Russia's atomic spies. This plus the testimony of American ex-Communists convinced me that Russia had been getting information illegally to which neither she nor any other nation was entitled.

Next, I was deeply moved by reports of friends who had visited Czechoslovakia shortly after the Communist took control. In the summer of 1949, a member of the Progressive Party visited Czechoslovakia and reported the dispossession of relatives whose only crime was to own a small business. No one, I was told, could amount to anything who was not an outspoken critic of the U.S. and capitalism. Only Moscow-trained Communists were allowed in positions of authority.

As I look back over the past 10 years, I now feel that my greatest mistake was in not denouncing the Communist take-over of Czechoslovakia of 1948.

Ruthless Nature of Communism


At that time I labored under the illusion that the Communists had beaten us to the punch in popular appeal, and that they had the support of most of the people, who feared a resurgent Germany more than a domineering Russia. Therefore I said democratic Czechoslovakia was a victim of the Cold War. Her hatred and fear of the Germans had thrown her into the arms of Russia, and placed first Benes and Masaryk and finally the Czech-born Communists in an impossible position.

In other words, I blamed the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia partly on geography and partly on history.

Up to a point, my analysis was sound, but it failed utterly to take into account the ruthless nature of Russian-trained Communists whose sole objective was to make Czechoslovakia completely subservient to Moscow.

Time has also brought me new understanding of the Korean question. In 1948 I believed both Russia and the U.S. should take their troops out of Korea.

Today, knowing more about Russia's methods, I am sure it was a serious mistake when we withdrew our troops. Russia may not want a hot war at any time in the next ten years, but she certainly wants such a continuation of the Cold War as will enable her, through her satellites and internally-planted subversives, to take over the greatest amount of territory possible. Russia is still on the march, and the question now is whether she will be able to take over all of Asia, including India and the Near East.

Turning back to World War II, it is necessary to mention the period in 1944 when I went across Soviet Asia to China on a wartime mission for the President. My only instructions from Roosevelt as far as the Russians were concerned was to take a look at their agricultural experiment stations, factories, and schools. And of course, Roosevelt was always interested in the Gobi desert and the vegetation there, past, present, and future.

I was not sent to gain secret information of any kind. No mention was made of slave-labor camps. I had not the slightest idea when I visited Magdan that this far-north Pacific port--center of a vast, sub-arctic gold field--was also the center for administering the labor of both criminals and those suspected of political disloyalty.

Slave Labor

Nothing I saw at Magadan or anywhere else in Soviet Asia suggested slave labor. True, I had heard that many kulaks who had their farms taken from them in the early 30s had been sent to Siberia, but I had not the slightest idea that there were many slave-labor camps in Siberia in 1944 and that of these the most notorious was Magadan.

On the other hand, I had long had the idea that the Russians might actually be doing a better job of developing the agriculture and industry of their Far North than we were doing in Alaska. Therefore I visited every factory, school, and agricultural experiment station I possibly could.

Russian hospitality is proverbial, and it is not surprising that on this occasion the Russians should do everything possible to impress the Vice-President of the country which was sending them so many billions of dollars of vital necessities of many kinds. So on the whole these visits made a most favorable impression on me.

But, as I now know, this impression was not the complete one. Elinor Lippor, who was a slave laborer in the Magadan area for many years, has subsequently described the great effort put forth by the Soviet authorities to pull the wool over our eyes and make Magadan into a Potemkin village for my inspection. Watch towers were torn down. Prisoners were herded away out of sight. On this basis, what it was prodded a false impression. I was amazed that the Russians could do so much in such short time--as was Wendell Willkie, who had visited the same region in 1942. But unfortunately neither Willkie nor I knew the full truth. As guests we were shown only one side of the coin.

Even so, what we saw was important and should never be forgotten in these days when so many people contemplate the possibility of conflict in the Northern Pacific. The Soviets in their totalitarian way have done their best to bring the full power of science to bear on those areas which they deem of strategic importance.

More Science in Schools

I visited a number of schools in Soviet Asia, and even in the lower grades I found evidence of a much stronger emphasis on science than we give in the US. It is quite probable that within a generation Russia may have twice as many well-trained scientist as we. Russian resources are separated by vast distances. Her climate is exceedingly difficult.

Transportation problems will always be most serious. But much of her soil is rich in the elements which when combined with a severe climate produce a most vital type of human being.

Willkie as well as I had been greatly impressed with the rapid development of eastern Siberia and had likened it to the American Far West expansion in the 19th century. We were rightly interested in the immense human labor being put forth under the most difficult conditions. What we didn't see were the living conditions of the slave workers.

"I Was Too Impressed"

As I look back across my trip across Soviet Asia to China, I can see after reading accounts by former slave laborers who escaped from Siberia that I was altogether too much impressed by the show put on by high Russian officials, who as human beings seemed just like typical capitalistic "go-getters".

Later, during this same trip in 1944, it is possible that I underestimated the speed with which China could develop her military potential.

In China, which has 15 times as many people as Siberia to the north, I found almost nothing in the way of modern industry.

Her one capacity seemed to be the ability of her farmers to work impossible hours on tiny farms. From what I saw of Chinese soldiers in 1944 I would have said it would be impossible to train them by 1952 to make the kind of fight they are now staging in Korea. But the Chinese soldiers at Kunming in 1944 had excellent ability to move medium-sized artillery and to fire it accurately.

While I've been greatly surprised at the speed of development of Chinese military power in the past eight years, I felt even in 1944 that China might some day become the strongest military power on earth. I feared she might eventually lead the aspirations of the Asiatic people against the West.

But in other respects, ideas formed during this trip have not changed and are as true today as they were then.

I went to Asia in 1944 feeling that colonialism could easily be the downfall of the white race. I felt that the supreme problem of modern times was the unresting march of the common man, and that most of the common men of the world were earning less than one-twentieth as much as the workers in the US, Canada, Britain, and western Europe. These people, because of poor food, disease, and ignorance, now have a life expectancy 40 years less than ours. With education and good food they have just as great a capacity as we. I wanted the on-rushing common man on our side, and the best way to keep him with us was to trade with him and help him to increase his production.

In brief, I felt that in the long run the only safe course for the US was to make friends with the so-called backward peoples and to make such friendship pay by expanding trade and productivity.

We Could Have Saved

Therefore, when I returned from China and Siberia the first thing I did, on July 9, 1944, was to give a speech at Seattle on the possibilities of greatly expanded productivity and trade with the Far East across the Pacific. It was a good speech, and if the core I charted had been followed, we could have saved many billions of dollars.

I had seen some evidence of the common man on the march in Asia in 1944, but what I did not see was the Soviet determination to enslave the common man morally, mentally, and physically for its own imperial purposes. Today the Soviet Union has, for the moment through Mao Tse-tung, millions of Chinese workers at its disposal to be impressed into the Chinese army.

What Moscow does not seem to realize is that the dragon which she has stirred out of its sleep may turn on her. At the moment, for the sake of chasing the white man out of Korea, the Chinese Communists may profess loyalty to Moscow, but in the long run the Chinese will not love the Russian white man any better than the American or Western European.

China will find there is no net gain for China in trading Chinese feudalism and colonialism for Russian Communism.

Time Isn't Ripe

The future of the world may depend on our ability in America to make it clear through the UN that, in order to escape from Soviet domination, China does not need to go back to colonialism or feudalism. Instead she can go forward into an era of greatly expanded production and trade with a much higher standard of living than she can ever get by fighting wars for Russia. The time is not yet ripe for this but it will come.

More and more I am convinced that Russian Communism, in its total disregard of truth, in its fanaticism, its intolerance and its resolute denial of God and religion, is something utterly evil.

So far as Asia is concerned, the US has never been an imperialistic nation. We freed the Philippines and will get out of Formosa and Japan when the danger of Red military aggression is certainly past. The US never has engaged and never will engage in colonialism on the mainland of Asia. But at the moment, in spite of our superior wealth and technology, we are losing ground in Asia because we do not understand the people as well as Russia.

Who Will Lead

Of course, we know that the Kremlin will betray the people when it gets control of them, but at the moment it more nearly has their sympathy than we. The problem is one of small farmers and agricultural workers earning less than 50 cents a day.

Who will lead the march of the common man? At one time I hoped that Russia and the US could cooperate through the UN to do the job. But the Soviets' behavior in recent years makes me believe that the only core now is for the UN, through UN agencies like FAO, to go all out with technical assistance in countries like India, Nepal, Iran, etc. By helping these people to help themselves, we can buy more security with 1 than we can get with 20 cases worth of arms.

I Wanted Peace

One thing of which I am very proud is that I risked my public career for the sake of promoting peace at a time when it was very unpopular to talk about such things. No figure of high public position in the US tried harder than I to bring about understanding between Russia and the Western World before it was too late.

Many people believe Roosevelt and I tried to appease Russia. It is true that both of us saw the possibility of future conflict and wanted to prevent it. But I am one of those who believe that if Roosevelt had remained alive and in good health the whole course of history would have been changed and we would not today be spending $60 billion a year on arms.

What I wanted was peace, but not peace at the price of Communist domination. I thought the Soviets had more sense than to do what they have been doing during the past few years.

There I was proved wrong by subsequent events, yet I know I am not wrong in predicting that, if the Soviets continue along present lines, they may possibly cause disaster to the whole Western World--but in the process they will certainly destroy the Politburo, the Communist Party in Russia, and bring misery to the people of Russia and her satellites.

The three chief advisors who accompanied Mr. Wallace on the mission were:
Owen Lattimore, then Deputy Director of Pacific Operations, O.W.I.: at present lecturer at Johns Hopkins University.
John Carter Vincent, then Chief of Chinese Division, State Department, now U.S. Minister to Tangier.
John Hazard, then Chief of Soviet supply, Foreign Economic Administration, at present Professor of Public Law, Columbia University.
Post Reply

Return to “Issues”