A Tribute to FDR

In commemoration of 78th Anniversary of FDR’s death, we share a tribute to the 32nd U.S. President written by Dhruthi Dev Gurudev, an tenth-grader in Tamil Nadu, India.

Writing in her second language, she hopes to raise awareness of FDR’s history in South Asia, in defense of democracy.

 

A TRIBUTE TO FDR

I am, Dhruthi Dev Gurudev quiet pleased to join the 78th (12/4/2023) Anniversary of our great leader Franklin Delano Roosevelt and I have great pleasure in delivering this address and pay my heart warming tribute to FDR.

A total of 413 days (12/4/2023) have been passed since the beginning of Russian Ukraine War and there is no real science of a way out of a conflict. Neither side appears primed for an outright military victory and progress at the negotiating table seems just as unlikely for the civilian caught in a cross fire, that means the bloodshed and suffering brought on by the war has no discernible. The war might be the reappearance of psychopathology of Adolf Hitler in the Humanity.

In the 78th anniversary might be most disharmonious celebration of FDR’s Anniversary since 1946.

Still the celebration of 78th Anniversary and remembrance of FDR might bring in explication to solve not only the current war but a permanent relief to the civilians from war and for the analyst to exuberance new concepts and means. It might not be wrong to state that United Nations is the blood and flesh of FDR and it is the responsibility to ensure WORLD PEACE BY UNITED NATIONS.  

History saved and preserved documents, images etc individuals or group have the highest responsibility to investigate and summarise such documents for the betterment of. the world in which they live.

In this article the contribution of FDR to the humanity is submitted as a reminder as well as the important of the humanitarian’s values. To emphasise the role of UNITED NATIONS, Extract of League of Nations are also stated.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

In an interview on the question of Anglo-American relations as a factor in world security, published by The Sunday Observer of London on December 2, 1934, United States Ambassador Bingham made the following significant statement:

“An entirely new situation has arisen in the United States itself which makes possible now what has not before been possible—I frankly admit it—since the war. It is a commonplace of British and European comment on American diplomacy that, the United States proposed the formation of the League of Nations yet has not joined it, and proposed the formation of the World Court yet has not adhered to it; in short, that in the words of the old epigram, the American President proposes but Congress disposes. That criticism was fair, but it no longer holds.

“No American President was ever in the position that President Roosevelt is now in. He is not merely a Democratic President, he is a national President, supported by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate. No American President before him increased his majority in the mid-term election. But the point is this: He is not only wise, statesmanlike, and fair to every party and interest in the United States; you may depend upon it, he will never propose anything to Congress which he is not certain in advance that Congress will endorse.

“That is the great new thing. If your government reaches an understanding on any question with President Roosevelt, it reaches a certain, binding, and lasting understanding with the American nation…. America’s house at home is being put in order. Abroad she offers a new reliable basis for confident diplomacy.”

After he became President, in an address at the annual dinner of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation on December 28, 1933, Roosevelt spoke of the League in more friendly terms. In conclusion the President said: “We are not members and we do not contemplate membership. We are giving cooperation to the League in every matter which is not primarily political and in every matter which obviously represents the views and the good of the peoples of the world as distinguished from the views and the good of political leaders, of privileged classes, or of imperialistic aims.”

As the situation in Europe escalated into war, the Assembly transferred enough power to the Secretary General on 30 September 1938 and 14 December 1939 to allow the League to continue to exist legally and carry on reduced operations.  The headquarters of the League, the Palace of Nations, remained unoccupied for nearly six years until the Second World ended.

At the 1943 Tehran Conference, the Allied powers agreed to create a new body to replace the League: the United Nations. Many League bodies, such as the International Labour Organization, continued to function and eventually became affiliated with the UN.  The designers of the structures of the United Nations intended to make it more effective than the League.

The final meeting of the League of Nations took place on 18 April 1946 in Geneva. Delegates from 34 nations attended the assembly. This session concerned itself with liquidating the League: The League is dead. Long live The United Nations.

 

UN 75 

Declaration on the commemoration UN75 was released on June 25, 2020.

It states as given below; Born out of the horrors of WW II , the United Nations common endeavour for humanity, was established to succeeding generations from the scourge of war, etc etc ……

The UN75 celebrations were heartbreak for many as United Nations failed to bring in the full life history of United Nations in its 75 key documents that are shaped by United Nations. FDR’s most sincere and effective work in establishing United Nations had missed in UN 75 celebration.

The US President Harry S. Truman in 1945, had failed in one account by not incorporating the Founder of United Nations as the late US President Mr Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Founders Day 1st January.  UN celebrates more than 100 Days in a year but failed to celebrate 1st of January as Founder Day and the Founder is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. UN has stretched its hands on many fields but the main object the World Peace needs more attention.  The extract of Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly on September 28, 2014 substantiate the arguments.

“There are no major wars, but tensions and conflicts abound; and, there is absence of real peace and uncertainty about the future. An integrating Asia Pacific region is still concerned about maritime security that is fundamental to its future. Europe faces risk of new division. In West Asia, extremism and fault lines are growing. Our own region continues to face the destabilizing threat of terrorism. Africa faces the twin threat of rising terrorism and a health crisis. Terrorism is taking new shape and new name. No country, big or small, in the north or the south, east or west, is free from its threat. Are we really making concerted international efforts to fight these forces, or are we still hobbled by our politics, our divisions, our discrimination between countries. We welcome efforts to combat terrorism’s resurgence in West Asia, which is affecting countries near and far. The effort should involve the support of al! countries in the region. Today, even as seas, space and cyber space have become new instruments of prosperity, they could also become a new theatre of conflicts. Today, more than ever, the need for an international compact, which is the foundation of the United Nations, is stronger than before. While we speak of an interdependent world, have we become more united as nations? Today, we still operate in various Gs with different numbers. India, too, is involved in several. But how much are we able to work together as G1 or G-All? On the one side, we say that our destinies are inter-linked, on the other hand we still think in terms of zero-sum game. If the other benefits, I stand to lose. It is easy to be cynical and say nothing will change; but if we do that, we run the risk of shirking our responsibilities and we put our collective future in danger. Let us bring ourselves in tune with the call of our times. First, let us work for genuine peace, No one country or group of countries can determine the course of this.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have directly rebuffed Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that now is not the time for war. In what was the latest in a series of setbacks for the Russian leader, Modi told him of the need to “move onto a path of peace” and reminded him of the importance of “democracy, diplomacy and dialogue”.

The comments from Modi came during a face-to-face meeting on Friday, on the sidelines of a regional summit, and highlighted Russia’s increasing isolation on the diplomatic stage. They came just a day after Putin conceded that China, too, had “questions and concerns” over the invasion.

All the world leaders extended their full support and said PM Modi was right when he said this is not time for war.  French President Emmanuel Macron told world leaders at the UN General Assembly session that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was right when he told Russian President Vladimir Putin that this is not the time for war.

The soviet Empire was made up of Soviet Socialist Republic in the period 1982-1992 and Russia was officially known as Russian federation and Ukraine was one among the 15 countries.  Ukraine is now a household name and people aware that Ukraine is wheat-bowl country.  In the family of Russia and 15 -member countries, Russia should/must be the strongest, the parent body.  Siberians are killing Siberians and it must be stopped. Further it should not be allowed to spread. United Nation along with leaders of Non- Aligned countries should end the Russia- Ukraine war at the earliest.  If the war continues, all the possibilities for disturbances in that area to certify their individual strength, not wise to predict the worst by an individual. Let us pray that Almighty and the soul of FDR bless us for World Peace.

Truth is always bitter and also the very concept of objective truth is fading.  So in celebrating the anniversary, it might be home or country, the past is remembered and the Truth sustain.  The anniversary celebration of FDR too reminds the world- WORLD PEACE. 

UNITED NATION had not its birth over table discussions, rather it is blood and flesh of FDR. By founding UNITED NATIONS, FDR successfully get rid of Nazi tyranny and Japanese militarism.                        

The WWII broke out on September 1, 1939 and by 1941, Nazi captured entire Europe and strongly fighting to capture UK.  Europe was burning, Americans are not to enter the war and the Congress refused any military help to UK, hoping it may all be used against them if UK was captured by Nazi.   The only one American differed from this, FDR.

FDR delivered speech to congress on January 6,1941 known as his Four Freedoms Speech in which he described his vision for extending American ideals throughout the world and the extract:

“I address you, the Members of the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word “unprecedented,” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.

“War began in Europe in 1939. By 1940 Adolf Hitler had conquered France, and Great Britain stood on the verge of military collapse. Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his State of the Union speech on January 6, 1941. In it he laid out national policy and, in a famous passage, named what he considered the four essential human freedoms. His speech follows.

“Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And fortunately, only one of these–the four-year War Between the States–ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.

“And in like fashion from 1815 to 1914–ninety-nine years–no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.

“During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

“Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to “give to the Congress information of the state of the Union,” I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

“As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are soft-hearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.

“We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement.

“We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.

“As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we–will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.

“And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.

“That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history.

“That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility and great accountability. 

“The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily–almost exclusively–to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.

“The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.

“For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds, which they can produce and which we need.

“The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation’s hands must not be tied when the Nation’s life is in danger.

“I have called for personal sacrifice. And I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

“The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

“The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour–anywhere in the world.

“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

“Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a perpetual peaceful revolution—revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions—without the concentration camp of the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands, heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is in our unity of purpose.
To that high concept there can be no end save victory.”

On January 10, 1941 FDR introduces the lend-lease program to Congress and the act on approval of Congress. FDR enacted the lend-lease act March 11, 1941.  The UK was not the only Nation, and over the course of war, the United States contracted lend-lease agreement with 30 countries.  Winston Churchill later referred to the initiatives as “the most unsordid act” one nation had ever done by another.  FDR primary motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity.  Rather, Lend – Lease was designed to serve American interest in defeating Nazi Germany without entering the war, until the American military and public was prepared to fight.

American President FDR and UK Prime Minister issued a joint declaration on August 14,1941 known as Atlantic Charter.  This declaration was signed by US, UK, USSR, and the nine governments of occupied Europe on September 24,1941.  To the great surprise, the Japanese bombed Pearl harbour on December 7, 1941 and invited US into the war.

FDR coined the name “United Nations” to refer to the Allied Powers of WWII and Churchill accepted the idea. On December 29, 1941 two line text of “Declaration of United Nations “ was drafted at the White House.

President Roosevelt, PM Churchill, Maxim Litvinov of the USSR, T V Soong of China signed the document on New Year Day 1942 and the next day the representative of 22 countries were signed the declaration.

The government’s signatory hereto declares:

“Each government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such Government is at war.

“Each government pledges itself to cooperate with the governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.”

To the Banyan size grown United Nations’ seed is the above two-line declaration and almost lost in all memories.

The war in progress and FDR was on his way in the formation United Nations.  Carrying 10 pounds below his waist, irrespective of health conditions, he attended the Casablanca Conference 1943 and the notable development at the conference was the finalisation of Axis force towards unconditional surrender. 

In the Teheran conference 1943 FDR outlined his vision of United Nations dominated by four police men (The United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union), who would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the piece and any sudden emergency which require action. As not have faith in majority, VETO power to individual police man were suggested.  The Yalta Conference took place in a Crimean resort town and by the time the war was at a close.

FDR’s last address on March 1,1945 to Congress on the Yalta Conference and the extract:

“I hope that you will pardon me for this unusual posture of sitting down during the presentation of what to say, but I know that you will realise that it makes it a lot easier for me not to have to carry about ten pounds of steel around on the bottom of my legs and also because of the fact that I have just completed  a fourteen thousand mile trip.

“First of all, I want to say, it is good to be home.  …….

“I am confident that the congress and the American people will accept the results of a permanent structure of peace upon which we can build, under God, that better world in which our children and grandchildren- your and mine, the children and grandchildren of the whole world – must live and can live.”

Early in April 1945 FDR travelled to his cottage in Warm Springs, Georgia and had his last breath on April 12, 1945.

I am proud to be an INDIAN and also the citizen of UNITED NATIONS.

All the members of 193 member states publics are proud of their country and also the citizen of UNITED NATIONS.  This Bonafede certificate issued on mutual trust is valid in a war free world.

On this day, April 12, every year we should pay tribute to our UNIVERSAL LEADER, FDR, and pray for the ever valid Bonafede Certificate.

Honestly UNITED NATIONS should come forward to celebrate January First the FOUNDER  DAY and honour the late American President FRANKLIN  DELANO. ROOSEVELT, the FOUNDER OF  UNITED NATIONS, the glorious history for the coming generation.

JANUARY  FIRST  THE  FOUNDER  DAY  OF  UNITED  NATIONS
LATE AMERICAN PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT FOUNDER OF UNITED NATIONS

This is my dream, when my dream come true.
JAI HIND

Truth, Fiction and Lies in the New Media Environment

The rise of social media and the fragmentation of traditional news media has led to a global crisis of disinformation. Governments, non-government actors, and shadow groups are spreading misleading and often false information, which undermines democracy around the world. Democratic nations that depend on a certain level of social and political trust to function properly face an existential crisis as that trust is eroded. How can democratic governments face this crisis to rebuild faith in democratic practices and values?

Watch here.

75th Anniversary of Repeal of Chinese Exclusion Act

In 1943, Congress passed a measure to repeal the discriminatory exclusion laws against Chinese immigrants and to establish an immigration quota for China of around 105 visas per year. As such, the Chinese were both the first to be excluded in the beginning of the era of immigration restriction and the first Asians to gain entry to the United States in the era of liberalization. The repeal of this act was a decision almost wholly grounded in the exigencies of World War II, as Japanese propaganda made repeated reference to Chinese exclusion from the United States in order to weaken the ties between the United States and its ally, the Republic of China. The fact that in addition to general measures preventing Asian immigration, the Chinese were subject to their own, unique prohibition had long been a source of contention in Sino‑American relations. There was little opposition to the repeal, because the United States already had in place a number of measures to ensure that, even without the Chinese Exclusion Laws explicitly forbidding Chinese immigration, Chinese still could not enter. The Immigration Act of 1924 stated that…

Read more at: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/chinese-exclusion-act-repeal

Foreign Interference in Elections: Advice for 2018 (from Denmark)

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, after fourteen months evaluating the Intelligence Community’s work on Kremlin interference in the American election, announced on May 16 that the foreign effort was “extensive” and “unprecedented.” Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the Committee’s Vice Chairman concluded that “one thing is already abundantly clear – we have to do a better job in the future if we want to protect our elections from foreign interference.”

How does one go about doing that? In an effort to find out, we interviewed officials and academics from eleven countries, asking them how they go about defending their elections, what the U.S. should learn from them, and what keeps them up at night. Country by country, we’re going to share their advice here at FDRfoundation.org. Up first: Denmark!

It turns out the Danes were already paying attention to us. “The real wake-up call for Denmark was in 2016, when we saw the coordinated Russian influence campaign that targeted the US election, Jesper Møller Sørensen, Political Director at the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained. “This was an example of the whole Russian toolbox of active measures which we need to counter with democratic means.”

The Danes, like many others, suggested a focus on education and coordination. Helping the general public understand that sometimes “fake news” is actually fake news is key. “In the end,” said Sørensen, “psychological resilience comes down to education.” “In our view an important part of education is also making public the ways influence campaigns are conducted and engage openly in these debates.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. (for now) lacks the Dane’s superpower: trust in institutions. “We have a well-educated and informed population, Sørensen noted, “but the greatest strength the Danes possess is the high amount of trust toward our government and institutions in general. This makes it harder to sow distrust and polarize debates.” Distrustful and polarized nations, like America, are easier to manipulate with disinformation.

Another Danish superpower is their ability to coordinate with friendly neighbors. “Close cooperation with like-minded countries is crucial to exchange experiences about the threat, said Sørensen, “we are engaged in a well-established and extensive cooperation with the Nordic and Baltic countries on this issue.” Can America do this?

Awareness, education, coordination: advice from Denmark for defending our 2018 elections.

Then and Now: When Presidents Fear

Franklin Roosevelt is remembered for “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” the ringing words by which he inspired courage and hope in a nation devastated by the Great Depression.  Eight years later, in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, this same president signed Executive Order 9066, which removed over 110,000 Japanese Americans from their homes on the West Coast and confined them to internment camps during World War II.

If Franklin Roosevelt, champion of the Four Freedoms, fell prey to xenophobia in 1942, with lasting injury to our democracy, what damage is being done today by the Trump presidency, which targets Muslims, Mexicans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Africans.

Greg Robinson’s historical paper was originally presented at our conference When Presidents Fear on March 4, 2017.   We post it now in remembrance of the 76th anniversary of Executive Order 9066.

 

FDR’s Decision to sign Executive Order 9066: Lessons From History

Greg Robinson, Professor of History at l’Université du Québec À Montréal.

 

 

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt singed Executive Order 9066. As a result of the President’s order, over 110,000 Japanese Americans were ordered from their homes without trial and sent to camps under military guard. Some 70,000 of these people were U.S. citizens of an average age of approximately 18, and the rest were long-resident aliens who were predominantly middle-aged. They were allowed to take only what they could carry, and were thus forced to sell or dispose of homes, businesses, cars and all other personal property. The Japanese Americans were first herded into a network of “Assembly Centers,” which were generally disused fairgrounds and race tracks. There the inmates were housed in stables and animal pens. After several weeks or months, the Japanese Americans were sent on under guard to a network of “relocation centers,” camps operated by a new government agency, the War Relocation Authority. These American-style concentration camps were located in remote desert and swamp areas and were surrounded by barbed wire and armed sentries. The inmates were housed in hastily-built tar paper shacks, with one room per family. Health and sanitary facilities were primitive, especially at the outset, and food was limited and poor quality. Although all adults were expected to work, their maximum salary was set at $19 per month. The stark conditions of the camps and the stigma of arbitrary imprisonment led to trauma and conflict among the inmates, and sparked several strikes and riots in the camps. In the end, most Japanese Americans remained in the camps throughout the war years.

How could this have happened in a nation fighting a war to preserve freedom against fascism? In particular how could it have happened during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, a President justly renowned for his humanitarianism and support for democracy? This is the question with which I began my inquiry. Still, it is possible to identify several important factors that shaped the President’s actions. As Milton Eisenhower, who became the first director of the WRA, the civilian government agency that ran the camps, later stated, “The President’s final decision was influenced by a variety of factors, by events over which he had little control, by inaccurate or incomplete information, by bad counsel, by strong political pressures, and by his own training, background and personality.”

In my book By Order of the President (Harvard University Press, 2001), I discuss at length how all these factors influenced the actions of President Roosevelt, first in his decision to approve the mass removal of West Coast Japanese Americans, and subsequently in his actions in support of the policy. Although sporadic, these decisions were essential in determining the duration of the incarceration and the consequences to its victims. What I would like to explore is to look at the role played in the President’s decision by the last of the factors cited by Eisenhower, namely the President’s training, background, and personality. From this point of view, the President’s past attitudes towards Japanese Americans must be considered as a significant factor in his decision to approve Executive Order 9066. Franklin Roosevelt had a long history of viewing Japanese Americans in undifferentiated racial terms as essentially Japanese, and of expressing hostility to them on that basis.

In order to understand this history, it is necessary to look back at the turn of the century American society in which the young Franklin Roosevelt grew up and came of age, and how he was shaped by dominant ideas. At the time, the nation’s intellectual climate was dominated by Darwinian or biological thinking. According to the ideas of Charles Darwin on animal evolution, which were adapted to human society by such thinkers as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, humanity was divided into different groups, or races. Just as the various species of animals adapted in order to survive more easily in a given environment, each race developed particular characteristics that gave them an advantage. Thus, the various races developed not only different physical characteristics—height, skin color, body shape, skull shape, and so forth—in response to their particular surroundings, but also particular personality traits.

How did these ideas affect the young FDR? He deplored visceral prejudice, and he expressed interest in Japanese culture and became friendly with a number of Japanese. Nevertheless, he regarded the Japanese as a danger. In 1913, shortly after Roosevelt was named Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the government of Woodrow Wilson, the protests of California whites against Japanese immigrant farmers led to the Alien Land Act, as I mentioned, which forbade these immigrants property rights. The passage of the law set off vigorous protests within Japan, and when an extreme nationalist called for a blockade of America in return, Roosevelt had drawn up a plan for naval war between Japan and the United States and recommended the massing of the Pacific fleet in preparation for such a war. Although the immediate crisis abated following some careful diplomacy, in the years that followed, even as the United States moved closer to involvement in World War I, he continued to call for the arming of the Pacific fleet for war against Japan, which he considered the most dangerous foreign threat. The greatest lesson he took from the incident was that Japanese Americans were a source of trouble—friction with their neighbors and aggression by Japan.

 Even when FDR’s attitude towards Japan began to change, following the end of the First World War, his opinions about Japanese Americans remained constant. In 1922-1923 FDR was invited by his old friend George Marvin to write an article for Asia magazine about Japanese-American relations. It was a time of international tension, following the Washington Naval Conference. Roosevelt feared that a resurgence of militarism would set off a futile and costly war between Japan and the United State, and he decided to write in opposition. By March 1923 he had produced the first draft of a text called “The Japs – A Habit of Mind.”  After Marvin made some minor stylistic changes and inserted some additional factual material, the piece appeared under the title “Shall We Trust Japan?”  in the July 1923 issue of Asia.

“Shall We Trust Japan?” was designed as a plea for a “pacific attitude” in the Pacific and for an end to the instinctive hostility most Americans felt for Japan. Roosevelt’s principal argument was that, even assuming that it had been “natural” in the past for Japan and the United States to consider each other as “the most probable enemy” and to plan for war against the other, the new era crystallized by the Washington Naval Conference made such thought obsolete. FDR expressed confidence that, once the “yellow peril” fears of Japan were eliminated, the two countries could resolve peacefully the underlying causes of Japanese American friction.

Roosevelt confessed that the principal cause of such friction, which had to be eliminated, was the presence of Japanese immigrants and their children in the United States. FDR brought up this vital question with reluctance, because, as he said, it was so difficult to discuss without sparking “unreasoning passions on one side or both.” Nevertheless, while he conceded that the Japanese, as well as other groups such as the Chinese, Filipinos, and Indians, were “ a race…of acknowledged dignity and integrity,” they nonetheless had to be excluded on racial grounds from the United States

So far as Americans are concerned, it must be admitted that, as a whole, they honestly believe—and in this belief they are at one with the people of Canada and Australasia—that the mingling of white with oriental blood on an extensive scale is harmful to our future citizenship…As a corollary of this conviction, Americans object to the holding of large amounts of real property, of land, by aliens or those descended from mixed marriages. Frankly, they do not want non-assimilable immigrants as citizens, nor do they desire any extensive proprietorship of land without citizenship.

The assertion that Americans (whom Roosevelt clearly assumed were white) “honestly” believed that they had to combat mixed marriages through discriminatory legislation and that people of “oriental blood” were inherently and ipso facto unassimilable, constituted an undeniable rationalization of white prejudice both towards Japanese immigrants and towards their native-born children in the United States. Roosevelt continued that immigration restriction, whether by laws or by the Gentleman’s Agreement, was morally justified because it was reciprocal :

The reverse of the position thus taken holds equally true. In other words, I do not believe that the Americans people now or in the future will insist on the right or privilege of entry into an oriental country to such an extent as to threaten racial purity or to jeopardize the land-owning privileges of citizenship. I think I may sincerely claim for American public opinion an adherence to the Golden Rule.

Even ignoring the fact that white Americans never in fact obeyed the “golden rule”—the United States held colonies in Asia and American investors enjoyed extensive property rights and extraterritoriality in Asia—Japan was not a nation of immigrants, and there never were any large groups of Americans who wished to emigrate there. Although Japan limited immigration, it never singled out Americans or whites for exclusion on a racial basis.

In any case, Roosevelt’s assertion that discriminatory laws had been passed in order to preserve “racial purity” was illogical. White-Asian intermarriage was statistically insignificant on the West Coast, where such laws existed, and in any case laws banning the practice had existed long before passage of the Alien Land Act, so it could not have been passed to prevent the threat of mass intermarriage. Instead, as Roosevelt well knew, such laws were passed to reduce economic competition Japanese immigrant farmers and landowners and to stigmatize them as undesirable. 

Roosevelt nevertheless continued to believe that the Japanese would not object to race-based exclusion. In 1925, while on his first visit to the Georgia resort of Warm Springs, to take treatments for his wasted legs, he began a short-lived substitute newspaper column in the nearby Macon Telegraph. One of his columns, dated April 30, 1925, explored the “Japanese question.” It was written during a minor diplomatic crisis between the United States and Japan prompted by the announcement that the US Navy would be undertaking naval maneuvers in Hawaii designed to guard against an eventual Japanese attack. Roosevelt agreed that the Americans had a perfect right to defend their coasts, in which the Hawaiian bases played a vital role, but he deplored the announcement as needlessly provocative. FDR declared that the announcement paralleled the campaign by “troublemakers” on both sides of the Pacific that had led to the Japanese exclusion law. He contended that the United States, instead of using economic arguments, should instead justify its policy on racial grounds. He saw no contradiction between American-Japanese friendship, on the one hand, and the exclusion of Japanese immigrants as a racial danger:

It is undoubtedly true that in the past many thousands of Japanese have legally or otherwise got into the United States, settled here and raised children who become American citizens. Californians have properly objected on the sound basic ground that Japanese immigrants are not capable of assimilation into the American population. If this had throughout the discussion been made the sole ground for the American attitude all would have been well, and the people of Japan would today understand and accept our decision.

Roosevelt was sure that if the United States defended exclusion on a purely racial basis, the Japanese would not protest and relations between the two countries would remain harmonious. After all, he said, the Japanese were known to have strong taboos against interracial marriage, and would not want to have their national culture polluted by such inter-mixtures:

Anyone who has traveled in the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results…The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated, and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese come over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question then of Japanese exclusion from the United States, it is necessary only to advance the true reason—the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples.  

These words and action point to Roosevelt’s continued acceptance, in the months after Pearl Harbor, of the idea that Japanese Americans, whether citizens or longtime residents, were essentially Japanese and unable to transform themselves into true Americans. Therefore, in a time of conflict between the United States and Japan, they could be presumed to be supportive of their Japanese brethren. This presumption was not absolute—Roosevelt could well imagine that there existed loyal Japanese Americans. But in the absence (and sometimes in the presence) of significant evidence testifying to their loyalty, the presumption remained and controlled Roosevelt’s actions in regard to the Japanese American community generally. Roosevelt’s ideas about the Japanese left him prepared—even overprepared—to believe the worst of Japanese, and to accept without challenge in the wake of Pearl Harbor the military’s false accusations regarding the disloyal activities of a Japanese American fifth column, even if he had solid proof to the contrary. He therefore gave the Army much too free a hand in dealing with West Coast Japanese Americans.

Roosevelt’s basic attitude towards Japanese Americans may have also shaped his response to the moral and constitutional questions involved in mass evacuation. FDR’s refusal to admit the discriminatory purpose behind race-based exclusion of Japanese immigrants during the 1920s and his contention that Californians rightly objected to the Japanese presence in their midst also serves as a model for his voluntary blindness to the essential role of racial hostility and economic jealousy in motivating calls for mass removal of Japanese Americans by Californians with a long history of nativist bias. Moreover, during his 1920s articles, Roosevelt defended the denial of property rights to Japanese immigrants as a way to ensure racial purity. This attitude could well have contributed to Roosevelt’s unwillingness to stake steps to protect the property of the evacuees such the appointment of a strong Alien Property Custodian, with the result that the interned Japanese Americans were forced to sell off their property at ridiculously low prices or were stripped of it by the white “friends” to whom they entrusted it, or were forced to place it in unguarded warehouses which were looted and vandalized.

Perhaps the most important part that Roosevelt’s anti-Japanese prejudices played in shaping his decision to approve mass removal and his subsequent actions in support of the policy was in nourishing an indifference to the condition of the Japanese Americans involved. As extraordinary as it may seem, Roosevelt was ready to approve mass removal without hesitation precisely because the matter was unimportant to him. In the end, it is this indifference, which marks not only Roosevelt’s decision to sign Executive Order 9066, but his involvement in the policy that followed. In that sense, the sin that pervaded the President’s actions, if we can use such a loaded term, was not hostility but indifference.

 

 

GREG ROBINSON is Professor of History at l’Université du Québec À Montréal. A specialist in North American Ethnic Studies and U.S. Political History, he has written several notable books, including By Order of the President: (Harvard UP, 2001) which uncovers President Franklin Roosevelt’s central involvement in the wartime confinement of 120,000 Japanese Americans, and A Tragedy of Democracy: (Columbia UP, 2009), winner of the 2009 AAAS History book prize, which studies Japanese American and Japanese Canadian confinement in transnational context. His book After Camp: (UC Press, 2012), winner of the Caroline Bancroft History Prize, centers on post war resettlement. His most recent book is The Great Unknown: Japanese American Sketches  (UP Colorado 2016) an alternative history of Japanese Americans through portraits of unusual figures.