“The Century of the Common Man”
Vice-President Henry A. Wallace’s May 8, 1942 speech articulating the goals of the war for the allies.
This is a fight between a slave world and a free world. Just as the United States in 1862 could not remain half slave and half free, so in 1942 the world must make its decision for a complete victory one way or the other.
As we begin the final stages of this fight to the death between the free world and the slave world, it is worth while to refresh our minds about the march of freedom for the common man. The idea of freedom — the freedom that we in the United States know and love so well — is derived from the Bible with its extraordinary emphasis on the dignity of the individual. Democracy is the only true political expression of Christianity.
The prophets of the Old Testament were the first to preach social justice. But that which was sensed by the prophets many centuries before Christ was not given complete and powerful political expression until our nation was formed as a Federal Union a century and a half ago. Even then, the march of the common people had just begun. Most of them did not yet know how to read and write. There were no public schools to which all children could go. Men and women can not be really free until they have plenty to eat, and time and ability to read and think and talk things over. Down the years, the people of the United States have moved steadily forward in the practice of democracy. Through universal education, they now can read and write and form opinions of their own. They have learned, and are still learning, the art of production — that is, how to make a living. They have learned, and are still learning, the art of self-government.
If we were to measure freedom by standards of nutrition, education and self-government, we might rank the United States and certain nations of Western Europe very high. But this would not be fair to other nations where education had become widespread only in the last twenty years. In many nations, a generation ago, nine out of ten of the people could not read or write. Russia, for example, was changed from an illiterate to a literate nation within one generation and, in the process, Russia’s appreciation of freedom was enormously enhanced. In China, the increase during the past thirty years in the ability of the people to read and write has been matched by their increased interest in real liberty.
Everywhere, reading and writing are accompanied by industrial progress sooner or later inevitably brings a strong labor movement. From a long-time and fundamental point of view, there are no backward peoples which are lacking in mechanical sense. Russians, Chinese, and the Indians both of India and the Americas all learn to read and write and operate machines just as well as your children and my children. Everywhere the common people are on the march. Thousands of them are learning to read and write, learning to think together, learning to use tools. These people are learning to think and work together in labor movements, some of which may be extreme or impractical at first, but which eventually will settle down to serve effectively the interests of the common man.
When the freedom-loving people march; when the farmers have an opportunity to buy land at reasonable prices and to sell the produce of their land through their own organizations, when workers have the opportunity to form unions and bargain through them collectively, and when the children of all the people have an opportunity to attend schools which teach them truths of the real world in which they live — when these opportunities are open to everyone, then the world moves straight ahead.
But in countries where the ability to read and write has been recently acquired or where the people have had no long experience in governing themselves on the basis of their own thinking, it is easy for demagogues to arise and prostitute the mind of the common man to their own base ends. Such a demagogue may get financial help from some person of wealth who is unaware of what the end result will be. With this backing, the demagogue may dominate the minds of the people, and, from whatever degree of freedom they have, lead them backward into slavery. Herr Thyssen, the wealthy German steel man, little realized what he was doing when he gave Hitler enough money to enable him to play on the minds of the German people. The demagogue is the curse of the modern world, and of all the demagogues, The worst are those financed by well-meaning wealthy men who sincerely believe that their wealth is likely to be safer if they can hire men with political “it” to change the sign posts and lure the people back into slavery of the most degraded kind. Unfortunately for the wealthy men who finance movements of this sort, as well as for the people themselves, The successful demagogue is a powerful genie who, when once let out of his bottle, refuses to obey anyone’s command. As long as his spell holds, he defies God Himself, and Satan is turned loose upon the world.
Through the leaders of the Nazi revolution, Satan now is trying to lead the common man of the whole world back into slavery and darkness. For the stark truth is that the violence preached by the Nazis is the devil’s own religion of darkness. So also is the doctrine that one race or one class is by heredity superior and that all other races or classes are supposed to be slaves. THE belief in one Satan-inspired Fuhrer, with his Quislings, his Lavals, and his Mussolinis — his “gauleiters” in every nation in the world — is the last and ultimate darkness. Is there any hell hotter than that of being a Quisling, unless it is that of being a Laval or a Mussolini?
In a twisted sense, there is something almost great in the figure of the Supreme Devil operating through a human form, in a Hitler who has the daring to spit straight into the eye of God and man. But the Nazi system has a heroic position for only one leader. By definition only one person is allowed to retain full sovereignty over his own soul. All the rest are stooges — they are stooges who have been mentally and politically degraded, and who feel that they can get square with the world only by mentally and politically degrading other people. These stooges are really psychopathic cases. Satan has turned loose upon us the insane.
The march of freedom of the past one hundred and fifty years has been a long-drawn-out people’s revolution. In this Great Revolution of the people, there were the American Revolution of 1775, The French Revolution of 1792, The Latin-American revolutions of the Bolivarian era, The German Revolution of 1848, and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Each spoke for the common man in terms of blood on the battlefield. Some went to excess. But the significant thing is that the people groped their way to the light. More of them learned to think and work together.
The people’s revolution aims at peace and not at violence, but if the rights of the common man are attacked, it unleashed the ferocity of a she-bear who has lost a cub. When the Nazi psychologists tell their master Hitler that we in the United States may be able to produce hundreds of thousands of planes, but that we have no will to fight, they are only fooling themselves and him. The truth is that when the rights of the American people are transgressed, as those rights have been transgressed, The American people will fight with a relentless fury which will drive the ancient Teutonic gods back cowering into their caves. The Götterdämmerung has come for Odin and his crew.
The people are on the march toward even fuller freedom than the most fortunate peoples of the earth have hitherto enjoyed. No Nazi counter-revolution will stop it. The common man will smoke the Hitler stooges out into the open in the United States, in Latin America, and in India. He will destroy their influence. No Lavals, no Mussolinis will be tolerated in a Free World.
The people, in their millennial and revolutionary march toward manifesting here on earth the dignity that is in every human soul, hold as their credo the Four Freedoms enunciated by President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on January 6, 1941. These four freedoms are the very core of the revolution for which the United Nations have taken their stand. We who live in the United States may think there is nothing very revolutionary about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom from the fear of secret police. But when we begin to think about the significance of freedom from want for the average man, then we know that the revolution of the past one hundred and fifty years has not been completed, either here in the United States or in any other nation in the world. We know that this revolution can not stop until freedom from want has actually been attained.
And now, as we move forward toward realizing the Four Freedoms of this people’s revolution, I would like to speak about four duties. It is my belief that every freedom, every right, every privilege has its price, its corresponding duty without which it can not be enjoyed. The four duties of the people’s revolution, as I see them today, are these:
The duty to produce the limit.
The duty to transport as rapidly as possible to the field of battle.
The duty to fight with all that is in us.
The duty to build a peace — just, charitable and enduring.
The fourth duty is that which inspires the other three.We failed in our job after World War Number One. We did not know how to go about it to build an enduring world-wide peace. We did not have the nerve to follow through and prevent Germany from rearming. We did not insist that she “learn war no more.” We did not build a peace treaty on the fundamental doctrine of the people’s revolution. We did not strive whole-heartedly to create a world where there could be freedom from want for all peoples. But by our very errors we learned much, and after this war we shall be in position to utilize our knowledge in building a world which is economically, politically and, I hope, spiritually sound.
Modern science, which is a by-product and an essential part of the people’s revolution, has made it technologically possible to see that all of the people of the world get enough to eat. Half in fun and half seriously, I said the other day to Madame Litvinov: “The object of this war is to make sure that everybody in the world has the privilege of drinking a quart of milk a day.” She replied: “Yes, even half a pint.” The peace must mean a better standard of living for the common man, not merely in the United States and England, but also in India, Russia, China and Latin America — not merely in the United Nations, but also in Germany and Italy and Japan.
Some have spoken of the “American Century.” I say that the century on which we are entering — The century which will come out of this war — can be and must be the century of the common man. Perhaps it will be America’s opportunity to suggest that Freedoms and duties by which the common man must live. Everywhere the common man must learn to build his own industries with his own hands is a practical fashion. Everywhere the common man must learn to increase his productivity so that he and his children can eventually pay to the world community all that they have received. No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there must be neither military nor economic imperialism. The methods of the nineteenth century will not work in the people’s century which is now about to begin. India, China, and Latin America have a tremendous stake in the people’s century. As their masses learn to read and write, and as they become productive mechanics, their standard of living will double and treble. Modern science, when devoted whole-heartedly to the general welfare, has in it potentialities of which we do not yet dream.
And modern science must be released from German slavery. International cartels that serve American greed and the German will to power must go. Cartels in the peace to come must be subjected to international control for the common man, as well as being under adequate control by the respective home governments. In this way, we can prevent the Germans from again building a war machine while we sleep. With international monopoly pools under control, it will be possible for inventions to serve all the people instead of only a few.
Yes, and when the time of peace comes, The citizen will again have a duty, The supreme duty of sacrificing the lesser interest for the greater interest of the general welfare. Those who write the peace must think of the whole world. There can be no privileged peoples. We ourselves in the United States are no more a master race than the Nazis. And we can not perpetuate economic warfare without planting the seeds of military warfare. We must use our power at the peace table to build an economic peace that is just, charitable and enduring.
If we really believe that we are fighting for a people’s peace, all the rest becomes easy. Production, yes — it will be easy to get production without either strikes or sabotage, production with the whole-hearted cooperation between willing arms and keen brains; enthusiasm, zip, energy geared to the tempo of keeping at it everlastingly day after day. Hitler knows as well as those of us who sit in on the War Production Board meetings that we here in the United States are winning the battle of production. He knows that both labor and business in the United States are doing a most remarkable job and that his only hope is to crash through to a complete victory some time during the next six months.
And then there is the task of transportation to the line of battle by truck, by railroad car, by ship. We shall joyously deny ourselves so that our transportation system is improved by at least thirty percent.
I need say little about the duty to fight. Some people declare, and Hitler believes, that the American people have grown soft in the last generation. Hitler agents continually preach in South America that we are cowards, unable to use, like the “brave” German soldiers, the weapons of modern war. It is true that American youth hates war with a holy hatred. But because of that fact and because Hitler and the German people stand as the very symbol of war, we shall fight with a tireless enthusiasm until war and the possibility of war have been removed from this planet. We shall cleanse the plague spot of Europe, which is Hitler’s Germany, and with it the hell-hole of Asia — Japan.
No compromise with Satan is possible. We shall not rest until all the victims under the Nazi yoke are freed. We shall fight for a complete peace as well as a complete victory.
The people’s revolution is on the march, and the devil and all his angels can not prevail against it. They can not prevail, for on the side of the people is the Lord.
“He giveth power to the faint; to them that have no might He increaseth strength…. They that wait upon the Lord shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk and not be faint.”
Strong in the strength of the Lord, we who fight in the people’s cause will never stop until that cause is won.
Henry Wallace was kicked off the 1944 ticket in favor of Harry S. Truman.
Discuss.
Henry Wallace was kicked off the 1944 ticket in favor of Harry S. Truman.
And all those stupid idiots on the right think PBO is a Socialist. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
I find this interesting:
From the Wikipedia article about Wallace.
The real story is fascinating.
Say more.
I just saw that “story” was a link. (A cup of coffee does wonders.)
Wow, what a bunch of frat-boy politics! I guess in the end it does come down to that, doesn’t it.
Interesting that FDR wanted Bernard Baruch’s good buddy Jimmy Byrnes to replace Wallace.
When you said “real story”, I thought there was more about Wallace’s run-in with the Allocation and Production Board. Was interested in whether there was some policy substance there or just a conflict of personalities.
Yes. I had always heard the the Southern Democrats wanted someone Southern and Conservative and Truman was a compromise, the Southerners thinking a Missouri man with ties to the Prendergast machine would “keep blacks in their place:. Subsequently they were enraged when he integrated the Armed Forces, sparking the Dixiecrat movement. At least that was what I was told long ago. I was either not born or a little kid when all this was happening. That;s why Strom Thurmond was a wonder (not wonderful!) to me; that a man was still in the Senate when I was 58 years old that had run for President when I was three years old!
BTW, I note that he was 22 when he impregnated his 16 year old family maid. Rape, even if he did pay for the consequences.
Stom Thurmond ran for Senate in 1954 on a write-in campaign that played on the news of the Supreme Court’s consideration of segregated schools and the “dumb Southerner” image of the South. His pitch was “They say you’re illiterate. Show them that you know how to spell “J.” “S-t-r-o-m” “T-h-u-r-m-o-n-d” And he won. And that became the legend that re-elected him over and over again.
Byrnes was a business conservative, not necessarily a cultural conservative. It is not clear to me what he would have done with respect to the armed forces had he become President. And it was the business conservatives in the Democratic Party who in the 1960s allow segregation to disappear in South Carolina when challenged by the civil rights movement without the posturing of a Ross Barnet, Orville Faubus, or George Wallace.
Strom Thurmond, however was a cultural conservative, and we now have some understanding why he clung so tight to his attitudes. As someone from a small Georgia town pointed out to me in the 1970s, the reason that the “bad parts of town” exist is so that the bigwigs can hide their affairs, prostitutes, and rapes. This guy was a car dealer who on the side rented beat up used cars that he referred to as “poontang cars”.
Byrnes not a cultural conservative? Perhaps only by the extreme segregationist attitudes of the white power structure in SC at the time. But he was a segregationist nonetheless, a supporter of separate-but-equal conditions. It was partly for his anti integrationist attitudes that he didn’t make it to VP, as he was otherwise a strong supporter of the New Deal.
Blacks and pro-civil rights white liberals in 1944 didn’t trust him. And I don’t think there is reason to suspect he would have acted boldly as Truman did in desegregating the armed services. I think we would have had status quo on CR, and basically the same FP as Truman delivered. He might have offered some moderate policies here and there but overall he would have gone down as the most conservative Dem prez of the 20th C.
On a slightly-related note, I would HIGHLY recommend the movie Lincoln.
I believe this may have been the real reason why he was booted from the ticket – high ideals are fine and all, but don’t mess with the oligarchs’ money…
FDR saved Capitalism, and Henry Wallace was much too economically liberal for the Democratic party of 70+ years ago.
In comes Truman.
Truman, and a good many Democrats before and after have been decent liberals socially. Whether it was regarding race, sex, or any other socially liberal issue, they’ve been decent.
But economically, Wallace was an actual liberal. Truman was a moderate conservative in that respect.
You can trace our particular flavor of US Fascism from Truman, and may I suggest 1947 as an arbitrary date to look at.
Taft-Hartley Act
House Un-American Activities Committee
National Security Act / CIA
Loyalty Order
Truman Doctrine
GATT
-etc-
If only we had Wallace from 45-52. Things might actually be working here and around the world.
This seems like the criticism of Clinton’s second term and Obama’s first, especially after the 2010 elections. The election of 1946 made a huge difference, sweeping in a Republican majority in the House. There was a Republican gain of 55 seats. And they came in on a fear campaign of red-baiting and demanding that wartime price controls be ended immediately. And then hyped the Communist advance. This moved the Truman administration to re-jigger the military and intelligence functions, laying the architecture of the national security state that still saps our income.
Taft-Hartley was a product of an alliance between Republican business interests and Southern Democrats, like Strom Thurmond, who represented Southern business interests.
HUAC was completely a Republican doing. Sorta like the GOP’s current preoccupation with Benghazi. And was part of an attempt to delegitimize the Truman administration through accusations that they were a nest of communist infiltrators. Wallace would have been savaged by that same 1946 Congress. Truman’s moderation partially immunized him.
Your “If we only had Wallace…” statement mistake rhetoric for the ability to carry out effective action. And fixates on the President as dictator, which not even the strongest Presidents are. All of the legendary arm-twisting that Presidents do are for only a few critical votes needed to pass legislation.
Speculative history is always a difficult undertaking. There are too many things at play in historical events.
HUAC was mostly a creation of Democrats in its earlier incarnations. Through her actions, Eleanor Roosevelt chastised those paranoid men in 1939 – Nobody Had to Ask Her and by her words spoke even louder in 1947:
I’m not arguing that Truman himself is responsible for all of those things that I listed.
What I’m arguing is that while Truman was a Democrat, he wasn’t economically liberal. Truman used Taft-Hartley, regardless of his veto of it.
You wouldn’t have had President Wallace from ’48 to ’52.
No, there would have been President Dewey, which would meant no President Eisenhower. And we would have been well on the way to Amerika.
That presumes that you still would have had the Republican blowout of 1946.
Speculation is hazardous.
How would Wallace have dealt with the endgame of World War II. How would he have dealt with the fact that he had a nuclear weapon?
If he didn’t use a nuclear weapon, would the Soviet Union have entered the Pacific War? What would Japan’s response been to that and how would that have shaped both the nature of the peace agreement and the nature of post-war Japan? Would the United Nations have been set up in quite the same way? Would Bretton Woods have been as long-term a framework as it was?
Welcome to Schrodinger’s universe.
The Wallace of 1945 and in the immediate years after the war was of a firm liberal mindset and so would likely have sought to avoid using the bomb while also accepting Japanese peace terms, put out weeks earlier via the Soviets, that only asked to keep the emperor.
Truman of course was stupidly stubborn on unconditional surrender and didn’t hesitate a second to use the bomb. I can’t see the more sophisticated and liberal minded Wallace taking such unthinking hardline stances, especially given the number of top military leaders who argued against its use.
And the Soviets had already agreed to enter the war against Japan prior to the use of the bomb. In fact some believe the Soviets entering the war was the decisive factor in the Japanese decision to surrender, not the two atomic bombings.
Correct with a major correction — Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley.
I’m not arguing that Truman was responsible for any or all of the things that I listed, and I’m aware that he vetoed Taft-Hartley.
His veto did not stop his administration from relying on Taft-Hartley multiple times during his terms as President.
Henry Wallace was a spiritual man who studied all the major religions of the world and was a champion of the common thread that existed through all religions across all cultures. He liked the idea of those common threads as expressed in the Bible when he talks about democracy as the only true political expression of Christianity. He would not have considered today’s religious political right as even Christian.
He understood where the real fight for freedom remains today, between democracy and fascism. For him, successful democracy was the expression of the goodness of an educated people empowering freedom. He also recognized that the forces of darkness were present throughout the world wishing to crush democracy leading us down the path to slavery. The same forces are stronger than ever today with voter suppression to limit democracy, even emergency manager laws to eliminate democracy altogether. The very definition of fascism, the idea that business must make the choices instead of the people leads to the ultimate goal of these dark forces, to conquer the world in the name of corporate greed. He recognized these forces as expressed by the international cartels. At the time of this speech, Texaco’s CEO was supporting Spain’s Franco and Hitler with oil, on credit. Yes indeed, don’t forget IBM and Ford’s involvement in Germany, Joe Kennedy, Lindberg and many British elite up to their fascist eyeballs. It had been up in the air which side we would take if any until Hitler blundered to declare war on us.
Wallace believed in the goodness of all people of the world but to harness that goodness for democracy, education was the key. During our better times we established the best public education system in the world complete in some areas with free college or very affordable college. He was a champion of all people to have the information so they could think for themselves, all around the world, resulting in the inevitable strong labor movement.
Wallace’s real enemy was ignorance, people not thinking for themselves, as well call it, the low information Fox news voter because they can so easily be led down the path to slavery by demagogues, or as known today, the conservative entertainment complex. And we always wonder how they can get so many people to vote against their own self interest.
Wallace could not stand people who believed they were racially superior to other people. This list included Churchill with his colonial empire, American racists, Nazi Germans and Imperial Japan. He was against both military and economic imperialism. I wonder what he would think of our world military dominance today used to enforce world economic dominance on behalf of our global corporations.
His approach to the world was much like JFK and the New Frontier. He wanted to share, not exploit, science so all the people of the world could have enough to eat. Yes indeed this would have been the century for the common man instead of the American century.
FDR declined to accept the nomination for his third term unless Wallace was on the ticket. He needed him to help implement the New Deal and guide our wartime economy. FDR said we must go one way or the other but not both ways at the same time as the Democratic party bosses wanted. The dark forces were all around FDR and had been there all along, he just ignored them. This speech was their evidence against Wallace. With FDR in failing health, the last thing these forces wanted to see was Wallace gain power as President of the United States. Wallace was lucky those forces merely forced him off the ticket as VP for FDR’s fourth term because when JFK tried to go down this same path, they killed him.
The most unforgivable crap you’ll ever hear comes out of the mouths of politicians in favor of their asinine and criminal wars.