The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
9. NO ORDINARY TIME ~ CHAPTER 13 (334 - 359) (12/14/09 - 12/20/09) ~ No spoilers, please
Mod
page 334 -
"Although public concerns dominated the thoughts and activities of the president and the first lady in the early months of 1942, the Roosevelt White House, where family and friends lived and worked in unusually close quarters, was also the site of the irrepressible renewal of love and desire. In the spring, Missy LeHand returned to her old room on the third floor in the hope of reclaiming her place in the president's heart; Harry Hopkins fell in love with socialite Louise Macy; Princess Martha visited the president again and again; Eleanor seemed obsessed by her relationship with Joe Lash; and the president, as always, seemed to be removed from everybody; in spite of his ever-tolerant, ever-cheerful manner."
Love and desire...who was chasing whom and who was being chased. It would have been nice if the chasers and the chasees were after each other!
What was the nature of the relationship between Eleanor and Joe Lash? Or the others for that matter. For any White House, all of it was a bit strange.
Here is a Times article from 1942 titled:
U.S. At War: Career for Joe Lash
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...
He had an interesting obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/23/obi...
A Biography: (Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site)
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/gloss...
Photo of Eleanor Roosevelt and Joe Lash:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgur...
Joseph P. Lash
Joseph P. LashPhotos of Missy LeHand:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgur...
This is a cute photo of Harry Hopkins, Churchill hanging out at the White House I presume in one of those jumper suits, Diana (Harry's daughter) and FDR's dog Fala. Diana and Harry seem to be more interested in Fala (smile).
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill...
US At War:Song of Happiness - Time
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...
This was the third marriage for Harry.
Princess Martha of Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess...
http://www.meredith.edu/summer-readin...
Mod
And what did FDR mean by the equality of sacrifice.
How did the GMPR work and was it effective?
Page 339
Mod
Here is a table which outlines the programs and the years that they were introduced. What is your impression of some of these programs; which ones do you think helped the country?
http://www.chuckallan.com/fccj/amh202...
I think the CWA and PWA helped rebuild our infrastructure...it is probably time to get these programs going again.
Top 10 New Deal Programs - about.com:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/g...
Lots of important things in this chapter, but the woman who mailed her old girdle to the White House really must be a highlight of the book!
Mod
Thank you for appreciating my contribution, Bentley:). I would like to know more about how the farm economy was affected by the GMPR. The rural economy had suffered a great deal during the Depression. Was there any protest about GMPR from farm states or was it understood as necessary.
Mod
The first cite that you have listed includes quite a few related to agriculture. It looks like the New Deal may have substituted the idea of soil conservation to have a similar result as direct payment for taking land out of production. It seems to be a fairly complicated issue.
Mod
This reading section is full of so many topics and worthy of so much commentary.The persistence of Eleanors support for the equality of the blacks continues to permeaqte the book.
The thing that stuck me however was/is the continuing feeling of being special by so many groups especially congress _ that they had, initially, no rationing on gasloine, makes me think of congress taking their pay raise this year. It is not the reality - for non public sector, non great big sompanies, a stable compensation or recdcution was more common in what
Mod
Are there some topics that you would like to bring up for discussion. I opened up the thread and there did not seem to be so many folks caught up as yet. But we keep moving and keep the thread open.
Bentley
Mod
From my view the japanese began the war activity - they hurt the expected war effort as they gave us an immediate second theatre of operations & the did large damage to our fleet.But for FDR they made the war decision a rightous and indignant American decision - not a political or moral decision arrived at by politicians - the Japanese forged american anger
just my short view in response to the question in 13
Bentley wrote: "In what ways did the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor aid or impede the war effort in Roosevelt's eyes?"The attack on Pearl Harbor ignited public sentiment toward waging war on foreign soil. The American public did not want to meddle in foreign affairs and sacrifice by fighting a foreign war. It made Roosevelt's ultimate goal, in helping the British defeat the Germans, much easier by being able to declare war against Japan and later Germany.
Like Joe, my thinking is that that Pearl Harbor truly did ignite public sentiment...and outraged Americans to such a degree that they were finally willing to accept a war in which American troops were actually engaged. But FDR would have found it almost impossible to send troops to Europe after Pearl Harbor had not Hitler declared war on the US 9 days after the attack. (Was this discussed in an earlier thread? I can’t recall.)
Following Pearl Harbor, Hitler “reported exclaimed to his generals, ‘Now it is impossible for us to lose the war: we now have an ally who has never been vanquished in three thousand years’” …
“Hitler here missed an opportunity to work incalculable mischief with the American commitment to give precedence to the European war. If Hitler had not now obligingly declared war on the United Stated, Roosevelt, given the apparent willingness of both sides to acquiesce in protracted and undeclared navel war in the Atlantic, would have had undoubted difficulty finding a politically useable occasion for declaring war against Germany.
In the absence of such a legal declaration, R might well have found it impossible to resist demands to place the maximum American effort in the Pacific, against the formally recognized Japanese enemy, rather than in the Atlantic, in a non-declared war against the Germans. This was precisely Churchill’s worry, and it was not easily laid to rest. Well after the German declaration of war, R came under stubborn pressure to give priority to the fight against Japan.
Pressure came from the navy [more interested in the Pacific than in the Atlantic:], and from public opinion, infected by a legacy of racial animosity toward the Japanese and inflamed by the humiliation of the Pearl Harbor attack” (Freedom from Fear 524).
(Perhaps a personal aside here: I read that last sentence two or three times to consider the phrase “racial animosity.” I read somewhere that perhaps a third of the American colonists were of German background. In 1941, there were a lot more Americans with German roots than with Japanese connections. I’m aware that this country (probably other countries, too), has made but limited progress in accepting “them” as part of “us”… Is that some basic human instinct, I wonder. Still, I think as a country we have become more inclusive. My grandmother was adamant that she didn’t want her Norwegian grandchildren to marry German Americans. I married a Chinese man and my family was fine with that.)
Sentiment against war must have been incredibly strong, as Robert Sherwood wrote that Marshall and Roosevelt were “far more afraid of the isolationists at home than they were of the enemies abroad” and had been carefully constrained in their actions lest they be called “warmongers” (Roosevelt and Hopkins 434). (Earlier that year a Congressional Committee had raised a considerable fuss when it found out that the Army was ordering “overseas caps” for American troops.)
Throughout my life, I’ve many a time heard WWII referred to as “The Good War.” Perhaps there’s a bit of revisionist spin on that. Robert Sherwood (copyright 1948) writes, “Strangely enough, insofar as the people as a whole were concerned, the element known as ‘morale’ did not become a vital consideration. Morale was never particularly good nor alarmingly bad.
There was a minimum of flag waving and parades. It was the first war in American history in which the general disillusionment preceded the firing of the first shot.
It has been called, from the American point of view, ‘the most unpopular war in history’; but that could be taken as proof that the people for once were not misled as to the terrible nature and extent of the task that confronted them” (Roosevelt and Hopkins 438).
Did anyone else have a negative or bewildered reaction to Eleanor’s “providing safe cover for their [Joe Lash and Trude Pratt:] meetings” (338) when Trude Pratt was going through her divorce? Or for John Boettiger and Anna before THEIR divorces were final? Given the impact that FDR’s affair had had on ER, I found her active support for illicit rendezvous -- difficult to understand.
David M. Kennedy
Robert E. Sherwood
Following Pearl Harbor, Hitler “reported exclaimed to his generals, ‘Now it is impossible for us to lose the war: we now have an ally who has never been vanquished in three thousand years’” …
“Hitler here missed an opportunity to work incalculable mischief with the American commitment to give precedence to the European war. If Hitler had not now obligingly declared war on the United Stated, Roosevelt, given the apparent willingness of both sides to acquiesce in protracted and undeclared navel war in the Atlantic, would have had undoubted difficulty finding a politically useable occasion for declaring war against Germany.
In the absence of such a legal declaration, R might well have found it impossible to resist demands to place the maximum American effort in the Pacific, against the formally recognized Japanese enemy, rather than in the Atlantic, in a non-declared war against the Germans. This was precisely Churchill’s worry, and it was not easily laid to rest. Well after the German declaration of war, R came under stubborn pressure to give priority to the fight against Japan.
Pressure came from the navy [more interested in the Pacific than in the Atlantic:], and from public opinion, infected by a legacy of racial animosity toward the Japanese and inflamed by the humiliation of the Pearl Harbor attack” (Freedom from Fear 524).
(Perhaps a personal aside here: I read that last sentence two or three times to consider the phrase “racial animosity.” I read somewhere that perhaps a third of the American colonists were of German background. In 1941, there were a lot more Americans with German roots than with Japanese connections. I’m aware that this country (probably other countries, too), has made but limited progress in accepting “them” as part of “us”… Is that some basic human instinct, I wonder. Still, I think as a country we have become more inclusive. My grandmother was adamant that she didn’t want her Norwegian grandchildren to marry German Americans. I married a Chinese man and my family was fine with that.)
Sentiment against war must have been incredibly strong, as Robert Sherwood wrote that Marshall and Roosevelt were “far more afraid of the isolationists at home than they were of the enemies abroad” and had been carefully constrained in their actions lest they be called “warmongers” (Roosevelt and Hopkins 434). (Earlier that year a Congressional Committee had raised a considerable fuss when it found out that the Army was ordering “overseas caps” for American troops.)
Throughout my life, I’ve many a time heard WWII referred to as “The Good War.” Perhaps there’s a bit of revisionist spin on that. Robert Sherwood (copyright 1948) writes, “Strangely enough, insofar as the people as a whole were concerned, the element known as ‘morale’ did not become a vital consideration. Morale was never particularly good nor alarmingly bad.
There was a minimum of flag waving and parades. It was the first war in American history in which the general disillusionment preceded the firing of the first shot.
It has been called, from the American point of view, ‘the most unpopular war in history’; but that could be taken as proof that the people for once were not misled as to the terrible nature and extent of the task that confronted them” (Roosevelt and Hopkins 438).
Did anyone else have a negative or bewildered reaction to Eleanor’s “providing safe cover for their [Joe Lash and Trude Pratt:] meetings” (338) when Trude Pratt was going through her divorce? Or for John Boettiger and Anna before THEIR divorces were final? Given the impact that FDR’s affair had had on ER, I found her active support for illicit rendezvous -- difficult to understand.
David M. Kennedy
Robert E. Sherwood
Adelle wrote: "Like Joe, my thinking is that that Pearl Harbor truly did ignite public sentiment...and outraged Americans to such a degree that they were finally willing to accept a war in which American troops w..."Hi Adelle
I think this may have been called the good war because it seemed that the Germans & Japanes were truly evil by historical standards.
Even today the Germans have still a big distaste for war or warlike activity - I don't know about hte Japanese but I think they do not face their acts the way the Germans were forced to. (maybe an being an island nation unlike Germany an nation an island in the middle of former victims)
So aside from the holocaust I can refer you to a couple of books
Delivered from EvilRobert Leckie
Title here obvious and
The Rape of Nanking The Forgotten Holocaust of World War IIIris Chang
just some thoughts.
Regarding Eleanor's safe cover I didn't give it much thought but I think that Eleanor made a different decision about staying with FDR - she had five kids - she & FDR both seemed to buckle under Sara
I don;t recall if the other couples had kids but Eleanor had experienced unhappiness and really going throught a divorce is not same as married.
I do beleive that, at least in New York, a legal seperation (not sure what the actual cases were then or in the states where those folks were - were there legal seperations in that era?) eliminates adultery as an offense.
Mod
Robert Leckie
Hi Vince,
Please use the book cover option on the add and the author's link...if a photo is available...please use that option first for the author.
Thanks.
Hi Vince, I read The Rape of Nanking (truly horrendous) and I've put a hold on the other book you referenced. Thank you for the link.
Your post made me start to wonder where/when the phrase "the good war" originated. I knew Studs Terkel had popularized the phrase with his book of that name. (a good book for getting glimpses into the thinking/the emotions of ordinary Americans of that time).
In trying to find an answer, a NYT [negative:] book review put forward that though there are no "good" wars, there are necessary wars, and that WWII was necessary.
http://www.nysun.com/arts/war-games/7...
I agree with you that the actions of the Germans and the Japanese could well be described as "truly evil," and yet, I don't think that that in and of itself is enough to justify a war.
Something else MUST be required to justify the certain loss of life amongst our fighting forces and the crushing monitary expenditures.
Consider the Pol Pot Genicide and the genicide in Rwanda. Evil. But the US, Europe, apparently don't see the outcome as fundamentally changing the world.
But had England been defeated, had Hitler prevailed, gaining power and resources as he expanded his Nazi regime, the world would be quite different. There probably wouldn't have been a rising clamor for democracy. I would imagine that after Hitler had consolidated his power in Europe, that he would have eventually turned his focus towards the US.
Certainly, had he prevailed, the Nazi influence in the world would have been much stronger than that of a weakened, isolated, America.
Thank you for engaging me in the reading material.
Adelle
Regarding Eleanor: I'm not viewing her actions from a legal perspecitve, but rather from a moral perspective. ER was emotionally hurt by the fact that FDR had an affair.
The supposition of her son and others was that FDR and ER hadn't had sex since 1916 (ER not wanting any more children. Separate bedrooms.)
Smith, in his book, FDR, writes, [with what I think must be SOME supposition} “After the birth of their sixth child, John Aspinwall Roosevelt, on March 13, 1916, the evidence suggests that E and F adopted abstinence as the only sure means of birth control. That was common at the time. The Episcopal Church (as well as the Catholic) forbade birth control, and it was illegal in many states by statute. Sara had adopted the practice after Franklin’s birth, and in the refined circles in which the Roosevelts moved, contraception was not discussed” (150). *”Alice R Longworth recalled, “Most of my contemporaries were far too shy even to ask their doctors about such matters. I think most American doctors at the time would have been horrified, fearing lawsuits.”
“The R siblings are in agreement on the matter. Anna, who was closest to her parents, said her mother told her that ‘sex is an ordeal to be borne’.
After John’s birth, “that was the end of any marital relationship, period.’ James, more circumspect, wrote, ‘It is possible that she {ER} knew no birth-control methods other than abstinence when she determined to have no more children.’
Elliot said that from John’s birth
“until the end of Father’s days, my parents never again lived together as man and wife.
Mother had performed her austere duty in marriage, and five children [plus FDR, Jr who had died as an infant:] were testimony to that. She wanted no more, but her blank ignorance about how to ward off pregnancy left her no choice other than abstinence…..It quickly became the most tightly held secret that we five children ever shared and kept.” ‘ (FDR 150).
And yet ER remained emotionally connected with FDR and was deeply hurt by what she was as his betrayal.
As I see it, even during the process of separation or divorce, there is a strong possiblity that one party or the other has not yet fully disengaged from a marriage on an emotional level. Would not that party be hurt?
If a married couple were going through difficulties, would it not be more likely that they might resolve their difficulties if neither of them were at the same time engaged in an affair?
Had not friends of FDR been accommadating him and Lucy Mercer, Eleanor's relationship with FDR might not have been as battered. Why then would she take an active part in encouraging affairs? I simply can not understand. SHE had been hurt; why in the world would she play ANY part in hurting others in a similar way?
FDR's friends rationalized their helping FDR facilitate his affair. As Alice Roosevelt is famously quoted as having said, "he deserved a good time; he was married to Eleanor."
So Eleanor must have somehow rationalized her own "helping" of Trude Pratt and of Anna Roosevelt.
(Anna and John Boettiger had one child together; there were also two children from Anna's first marriage)
Studs Terkel
]
[author:Jean Edward Smith|191016
Your post made me start to wonder where/when the phrase "the good war" originated. I knew Studs Terkel had popularized the phrase with his book of that name. (a good book for getting glimpses into the thinking/the emotions of ordinary Americans of that time).
In trying to find an answer, a NYT [negative:] book review put forward that though there are no "good" wars, there are necessary wars, and that WWII was necessary.
http://www.nysun.com/arts/war-games/7...
I agree with you that the actions of the Germans and the Japanese could well be described as "truly evil," and yet, I don't think that that in and of itself is enough to justify a war.
Something else MUST be required to justify the certain loss of life amongst our fighting forces and the crushing monitary expenditures.
Consider the Pol Pot Genicide and the genicide in Rwanda. Evil. But the US, Europe, apparently don't see the outcome as fundamentally changing the world.
But had England been defeated, had Hitler prevailed, gaining power and resources as he expanded his Nazi regime, the world would be quite different. There probably wouldn't have been a rising clamor for democracy. I would imagine that after Hitler had consolidated his power in Europe, that he would have eventually turned his focus towards the US.
Certainly, had he prevailed, the Nazi influence in the world would have been much stronger than that of a weakened, isolated, America.
Thank you for engaging me in the reading material.
Adelle
Regarding Eleanor: I'm not viewing her actions from a legal perspecitve, but rather from a moral perspective. ER was emotionally hurt by the fact that FDR had an affair.
The supposition of her son and others was that FDR and ER hadn't had sex since 1916 (ER not wanting any more children. Separate bedrooms.)
Smith, in his book, FDR, writes, [with what I think must be SOME supposition} “After the birth of their sixth child, John Aspinwall Roosevelt, on March 13, 1916, the evidence suggests that E and F adopted abstinence as the only sure means of birth control. That was common at the time. The Episcopal Church (as well as the Catholic) forbade birth control, and it was illegal in many states by statute. Sara had adopted the practice after Franklin’s birth, and in the refined circles in which the Roosevelts moved, contraception was not discussed” (150). *”Alice R Longworth recalled, “Most of my contemporaries were far too shy even to ask their doctors about such matters. I think most American doctors at the time would have been horrified, fearing lawsuits.”
“The R siblings are in agreement on the matter. Anna, who was closest to her parents, said her mother told her that ‘sex is an ordeal to be borne’.
After John’s birth, “that was the end of any marital relationship, period.’ James, more circumspect, wrote, ‘It is possible that she {ER} knew no birth-control methods other than abstinence when she determined to have no more children.’
Elliot said that from John’s birth
“until the end of Father’s days, my parents never again lived together as man and wife.
Mother had performed her austere duty in marriage, and five children [plus FDR, Jr who had died as an infant:] were testimony to that. She wanted no more, but her blank ignorance about how to ward off pregnancy left her no choice other than abstinence…..It quickly became the most tightly held secret that we five children ever shared and kept.” ‘ (FDR 150).
And yet ER remained emotionally connected with FDR and was deeply hurt by what she was as his betrayal.
As I see it, even during the process of separation or divorce, there is a strong possiblity that one party or the other has not yet fully disengaged from a marriage on an emotional level. Would not that party be hurt?
If a married couple were going through difficulties, would it not be more likely that they might resolve their difficulties if neither of them were at the same time engaged in an affair?
Had not friends of FDR been accommadating him and Lucy Mercer, Eleanor's relationship with FDR might not have been as battered. Why then would she take an active part in encouraging affairs? I simply can not understand. SHE had been hurt; why in the world would she play ANY part in hurting others in a similar way?
FDR's friends rationalized their helping FDR facilitate his affair. As Alice Roosevelt is famously quoted as having said, "he deserved a good time; he was married to Eleanor."
So Eleanor must have somehow rationalized her own "helping" of Trude Pratt and of Anna Roosevelt.
(Anna and John Boettiger had one child together; there were also two children from Anna's first marriage)
Studs Terkel]
[author:Jean Edward Smith|191016
Adelle wrote: "Hi Vince, I read The Rape of Nanking (truly horrendous) and I've put a hold on the other book you referenced. Thank you for the link.Your post made me start to wonder where/when the phrase "th..."
Hi
Thanks for your comments
Turkels book is on my list to read too ----------------when?
If war is wrong it is hard to say that self defense is also wrong.
The second world war was truly, in my view, defensive except for the actions of the Germans, Japanese and the Italians (some actions but overall the others were defensive)
If you think it was not justified what would one have done when the Japanese or German soldier arrived at the door as asked that the round eyes or the Jews be handed out?
Sorry to be tough - my Mom was Jewish and although neither I nor my kids are we would be gone if the Nazis had come triumphant to America
Hi Vince, you don't have to say "sorry to be tough." Your posts are not in the least rude or offensive. I think reading people's opinions is much of what makes the book readings interesting.
Perhaps my post was not sufficiently clear: I, too, believe that American involvement in WWII was necessary and that the war WAS justified...for the reasons I gave above: that a world with Nazi Germany in power would have been unthinkable/unacceptable.
Nor do I believe that self-defense is wrong. Individuals, and countries, must be able to stand up for themselves, to defend themselves. But I think the use of the word "good" is controversial, due to the fact that such tremendous damage and sorrow result from war---EVEN when going to war is the right choice---perhaps even the only possible action.
Perhaps my post was not sufficiently clear: I, too, believe that American involvement in WWII was necessary and that the war WAS justified...for the reasons I gave above: that a world with Nazi Germany in power would have been unthinkable/unacceptable.
Nor do I believe that self-defense is wrong. Individuals, and countries, must be able to stand up for themselves, to defend themselves. But I think the use of the word "good" is controversial, due to the fact that such tremendous damage and sorrow result from war---EVEN when going to war is the right choice---perhaps even the only possible action.
Mod
"Yes..terrific..don't forget you have a preview button which will show you how everything will look before you post..and then you have the edit button to go back in and fix and/or add to your existing post.
Bentley, those links led to really interesting information about Joe Lash. It was fun to see a picture of him. I don’t believe there was one in No Ordinary Time.In answer to your questions in Message 3, I don’t know how well GMPR worked and if it did what it was supposed to do, but it makes sense to me. I’m not enough of a economist to know if there are obvious dangers that I’m not seeing. It ties into the equality of sacrifice you are also mentioning. During a war, or crisis, there is opportunity for opportunism. You can have people deciding to give up schooling, family, fun to go risk their lives, you have people making do without butter and gas and girdles, and then you can have people who happen to be the only source of something that used to be common but is now in demand charging as much as possible to make their fortunes. Some people are working towards winning the war, which benefits everyone, some people towards making their fortunes, which benefits only themselves. If as a nation we are going to work towards something, we should all work towards it, rather than some working towards their own aggrandizement.
The question is, in this free country, should people be forced to work towards the national goal? In general, that is a very debatable point. But in times of war, justified war, necessary war, defensive war, the nation can get to that martial law type point where the needs of the nation or of the people as a whole outweigh more individual needs than usual. In a sense, we all give up some individual rights for the good of the community. We all agree to give up our “right” to drive when we reach a red light. We know that it will be our turn to drive in a minute, so it is fair. But what if there is an accident, and the wait is even longer? It hardly seems fair that some people be allowed to drive as usual just because they are more pushy than others. So we have a policeman directing traffic, doing his best to give everyone a chance to make it around the accident. I guess I see the GMPR as the policeman, trying to keep things fair and even while as a whole we deal with a crisis.
I'd like to comment that there is so much more to the story (on the bottom of page 341) about how breaking the codes helped Nimitz position better for the Battle of Midway. Code breaking is not just about mathematically deciphering text. Even when you get messages in clear text you have to understand, or guess, what they are referring to in order to use the information. When deciphering the Japanese messages, the Americans had several possible locations for where the Japanese fleet was heading. Midway was the location they gambled on, and it paid off. If anyone wants to read the whole story, try the Battle of Wits I mentioned in a past thread.
In the discussion of Molotov's visit to the White House, it doesn't sound like it went all that great. Not that it was a disaster, but everyone seemed more on edge. I think a lot of that was the whole translation thing. To have to work through interpreters would really cramp FDR's style. It is hard to tell a joke and have it survive the translation. Even if it translates well, the timing is so off. Same for anecdotes and the stories FDR liked to tell.And then the whole issue of the Soviets wanting, and needing, a Western front, but the British and the military not ready... talk about walking on eggshells. How would one even know what the right answer was?
Another issue brought up in this chapter is the necessity for the president to submit to the will of the populace as a whole. George Marshall basically said it on page 349, "the leader of a democracy has to keep the people entertained." Eleanor basically says it again on page 353 when she points out that someone running for office can say whatever they like, but once elected, "on that day, he would have to take into consideration the people who are heads of important committees in Congress...people on whom he must depend to pass vital legislation for the nation as a whole."It isn't a one-man show. You can't just decide what is the right thing and then do it. You have to persuade everyone else that it is the right thing. And they are all trying to persuade you that something else is the right thing. And what a task to persuade the nation as a whole. You have to keep morale up, entertain them, whatever you want to call it.
Mod
In answer to your questions in M..."
Elizabeth, I love the paragraph in your response that began with:
Elizabeth stated: "The question is, in this free country, should people be forced to work towards the national goal?"
What a hypothetical great question to ask? I think you did a great job in terms of your response...but then I think of the Civil War and how Lincoln forced everyone to adopt the national cause and even got push back in the North. I have wondered aloud if what he did was constitutional at that time and/or what other options he had at the time which still could have kept the country together. I also asked the same question based upon the times changing. Do you have more of an ability to not work towards a national goal during peace time rather than war time; during good times versus bad, good economies versus bad ones and/or should any of those things matter. Absolutely a fabulous query whether we are talking about Roosevelt or not.
I also found the links about Joe Lash to be quite interesting...glad you also liked that sidebar.
Bentley
Mod
This sounds like a fabulous book Elizabeth and you are so correct in what you stated.
Mod
And the problem with everything is that timing and the right word can make all of the difference. For a president like FDR...timing and language were his strong points so to be held hostage by this kind of communication scenario must have been particularly debilitating.
Mod
Very very true. You are representing the office of the Presidency when you speak; not your personal viewpoint. I do not know if you got to this week's thread as yet; but there is an exceptional interview with Mike Wallace and Eleanor Roosevelt which basically states the same thing.
The interesting aned valid discussion of whether one gives up some degree of freedom to be part of a free society - we all sort of make a covenant with each other - then as long as the loss or reduction of freedom or choice is equitable it should be OK-The place this has been evident is in the draft for military service - the acceptance of it in the end - the discontent when we feel someone has cheated
In less dramatic ways the quarantines that had been imposed for disease in past
I think the reality is that we make a deal with each other to be in the game - more so for Americans whose forefathers have mostly chosed to be Americans within the last hundred years or so than older countries or cultures where there is less evidence of recent choice.
As a side note I get discouraged when my anomous partners run stop signs or red lights - more pushy that Elizabeth referred to in message 25
Mod
The draft for military service had often been criticized as 'not equitable" and in many instances it was not.
But what about the high salaries that Goldman Sachs employees get during a bad economy....does that have to be equitable because other folks in other industries are losing their jobs? Does everybody have to be the same?
You make another valid point with the term "recent choice". I often wonder why many of the new immigrants do not feel the same way about America or even those going to Britain from other parts of Europe (European Union). Why do they not revere their new country as offering them so many opportunities for freedom than their old country and culture did? Why don't they embrace their new country and their new language like our forefathers in most cases did? Why are some of these country interlopers more enamored with their old confining cultures which in many ways have a major lack of freedom built into their cultural systems? Some take their money from these countries and send it back to their old one to help support family members and homes left behind. Many of the illegal immigrants from countries south of the border who we are paying for with our tax dollars have no intention of staying here forever and/or making a new life here and/or becoming a part of the fabric of our country. What covenant have they made with their new country or one which they are using for a period of time?
I also get discouraged with the red light bolters. But, then again, I think about how they must also "run their lives"; on a side note I think I believe in karma somewhat. Maybe that is how I deal with it or come to terms with these behaviors.
A bit of a digression I know but one very interesting question that Elizabeth raised.
Vince wrote: "As a side note I get discouraged when my anomous partners run stop signs or red lights - more pushy that Elizabeth referred to in message 25"I agree with you, Vince. And a lot of what Bentley was saying. I think it offends my fairness quotient.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "...I also asked the same question based upon the times changing. Do you have more of an ability to not work towards a national goal during peace time rather than war time; during good times versus bad, good economies versus bad ones and/or should any of those things matter. Absolutely a fabulous query whether we are talking about Roosevelt or not...."Agreed, this discussion can be applied in many situations. Funny, isn't it, what a crisis can bring out of us. And why should we have more national pride when we are under attack or at war or whatever? For the giving up freedoms question, I think it isn't directly because we are in a crisis. It is because we are united. When we all agree on a goal, whether it be to win a war or to go to the moon, we are willing to make joint sacrifices to get there. I think a crisis can make people more unified (like in WWII) or less unified (I'll let everyone apply their favorite example for this one).
Bentley wrote: "...I do not know if you got to this week's thread as yet; but there is an exceptional interview with Mike Wallace and Eleanor Roosevelt which basically states the same thing."Haven't gotten to this week's thread yet. Still have to read last week's. A little catching up to do. I'll watch for that interview when I get there. Sounds good.
Mod
Would Katrina for example have gotten more attention and would the situation have been righted faster; if the mayor had been Bloomberg and the location New York City or if this had happened in San Francisco or LA and the governor was Schwarzenegger? I think there is a difference in national pride depending upon the circumstances and the "me" quotient.
Mod
Have..."
Yes don't miss the Mike Wallace interviews even if you just watch and listen to the commercials. Unbelievable.
just an observation on Bentley's comment 34 and the lack of, or the lesser, committment of new arrivals.Mostly they come on planes and know that return will be by plane so they are always 3 to 20 hours at most from their origin with only a substandard meal (no offense to any airline emplyees or first class fliers) to bear before they get back.
it is not the same as folks arriving at Ellis Island having decidded to come over in steerage or whatever class hoping to get in - and having no easy fast way home.
it is just less of a decision or commitment to come to America than it was 60 years ago.
We decide to go to Europe to visit for let's say $600 - $800 round trip which will take one day and cost less than a week's pay - less than a day's pay for Bentley's mentioned bankers - the decision is easy -
Decisions are different now and options are greater for all stratas of society I think.
Mod
I was actually thinking that it was less than an hour's pay for some of the folks at Goldman (smile).
Adelle wrote post #16: "Did anyone else have a negative or bewildered reaction to Eleanor’s “providing safe cover for their [Joe Lash and Trude Pratt:] meetings” (338) when Trude Pratt was going through her divorce? Or for John Boettiger and Anna before THEIR divorces were final? Given the impact that FDR’s affair had had on ER, I found her active support for illicit rendezvous -- difficult to understand..."-------------------
I found it very hard to comprehend, also. One would think she would feel the opposite. And to do it twice is very odd. It doesn't seem to fit her personality. She seemed to have a strict set of morals. (disliked drinking liquor and gambling card games)
I enjoyed reading on page 359 the books that were popular at the time. And how "all in all, pleasures became simpler and plainer as people spent more time going to movies, entertaining at home, playing cards, doing crossword puzzles, talking to friends and reading. Not a bad thing to my mind. :)
Vince wrote: "This reading section is full of so many topics and worthy of so much commentary.The persistence of Eleanors support for the equality of the blacks continues to permeaqte the book.
..."
-----------------------
Yes, ER was terrific. It was so sad to read about Odell Waller and how she tried to save his life but failed. How painful that must have been for her. And I think for FDR, too.
Back on page 282, chapter 11, FDR asked everyone to name four outstanding leaders, including Ben Franklin.
ER would be on that list for me and also FDR. I think I would also probably add Susan B. Anthony.
Did anyone else think of who would be on their list?
I had one question or really just a comment about page 341 where FDR says regarding where the war planes came from and he replies Shangri-la. I realize he was trying to be funny, but I don't think it fits. Shangri-la was a peaceful almost Buddhist like hideaway. I don't know, even though its just a mythical place his using the reference in this way bothered me a little.
Personally, I really hate to pick just four, or even ten, of the greatest leaders. There are so many who had a lot of different strengths. As we are learning about the Roosevelts, there are things I don't admire. Although overall there is much I do. Maybe put me down as one who is on an eternal search for great leaders, enjoying those I find in whatever circumstances I may. :)
Mod
I realize he was trying to be funny, but I don't thi..."
I think FDR is implying who knows...or a secret place where folks do not happen to know where it is. A complete mystery. This was just FDRs type of humor. And of course...sometimes his timing was off.
Elizabeth...I take men and women as they are..folks who all have frailites and strengths and weaknesses....but there are some who inspire confidence and are able through their charisma to motivate and I think FDR was one of those people.
Bentley wrote: "...I take men and women as they are..folks who all have frailites and strengths and weaknesses....but there are some who inspire confidence and are able through their charisma to motivate and I think FDR was one of those people."I like how you put that, Bentley. I agree. Sometimes it is hard to separate out a particular weakness, perhaps it is a weakness that grates on us more than on others. But it is worth it to honor everyone for what they do well. I do think FDR was a great man and ER a great woman. I'm glad they were there when our country really needed them.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Battle of Wits: The Complete Story of Codebreaking in World War II (other topics)The Good War: An Oral History of World War II (other topics)
FDR (other topics)
FDR (other topics)
The Good War: An Oral History of World War II (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Stephen Budiansky (other topics)Jean Edward Smith (other topics)
Studs Terkel (other topics)
Studs Terkel (other topics)
Jean Edward Smith (other topics)
More...
For the week of December 14th through December 20th, we are reading the next 25 pages of No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
We are reading less pages due to the upcoming holidays.
The ninth week's assignment is:
December
December 14 – December 20 ~~ Chapter Thirteen (334 - 359)
Chapter Thirteen – “What Can We Do to Help?” – page 334
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This thread should only deal with this chapter and these pages. No spoilers, please.
Discussion on these sections will begin on December 14th.
Welcome,
Bentley
TO SEE ALL PREVIOUS WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
Doris Kearns Goodwin