Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.: Accused of sugarcoating FDR's views on JewsHistorians in the News
In 1959, while working on his laudatory history of the New Deal, Schlesinger interviewed former U.S. senator Burton K. Wheeler and obtained a memorandum Wheeler prepared after speaking with FDR on August 4, 1939. Discussing the presidential aspirations of Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Roosevelt said to Wheeler that if Hull ran, Mrs. Hull's part-Jewish background "would be raised" by his opponents. "Mrs. Hull is about one quarter Jewish," FDR said. "You and I, Burt, are old English and Dutch stock. We know who our ancestors are. We know there is no Jewish blood in our veins, but a lot of these people do not know whether there is Jewish blood in their veins or not."
But Schlesinger kept the document under wraps. In his writings about Roosevelt, anti-semitism, Jewish refugees, and the Holocaust, he never mentioned that he knew of FDR's remark about the undesirability of "Jewish blood." But the issue of FDR's views on race did not go away. In 2001, Professor Greg Robinson revealed articles Roosevelt wrote in 1923 and 1925 claiming "the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results," and urging restrictions on the citizenship and property rights of "non-assimilable immigrants." Still there was no comment from Schlesinger on the role of race in FDR's thinking.
Two years ago, I wrote Schlesinger to ask his view of the "Jewish blood" remark. In his reply, he defended FDR's statement as "a neutral comment about people of mixed ancestry." Maybe so. Or maybe it was additional evidence that Roosevelt's views on race could have played a part in shaping his closed-doors refugee policy during the Holocaust. Unfortunately, Arthur Schlesinger did more to cloud the issue than to clarify it.
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies Washington, D.C.
comments powered by Disqus
Alonzo Hamby - 1/16/2008
Both FDR and Eleanor were raised in an upper-crust atmosphere in which social anti-Semitism was taken for granted. One can search through the letters of their early years and find the occasional anti-Semitic comment. But it seems clear to disinterested observers that they outgrew this prejudice rather quickly.
The Morgenthaus were among their closest friends from the time Henry Morgenthau, Jr., purchased a country home in Hyde Park. Both had many other Jewish friends and advisers.
Operating under the constraints of established immigration laws he could not ignore and the widespread anti-Semitic feeling in the US of the 1930s and 1940s, Roosevelt did what he could to facilitate the entry of at least 100,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany before World War II. (Some estimates are as high as 200,000.)
AND he led the successful effort to exterminate Nazism.
Perhaps he might have done something more, but one might think the historical record sufficient to override charges of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately that is not and never can be the case for Mr. Medoff and the David Wyman Institute, which seems emotionally invested in the idea that Nazis lurk behind every bush and that Jews are in mortal danger in the United States of the early 21st century.
Tonja Christine Fleischer - 1/13/2008
Sir to imply that FDR was an anitsemetic is insulting to his memory for those that got through the GReat Depression, and the WWII. He might not have done as much as we wanted him to do for the Jews in Europe, but he had to deal with a society that was extremely antisemetic. Lindburgh, Ford, and Vanderbelt to name a few. Lindburgh even went so far as to go over to Germany on a tour. FDR was trying to help Britain as much as he could at a time when the country was determined to be neutral. If you look at his adminitration he had more then one Jewish person work for him. Also do you really think Eleanor Roosevelt would have let him be antisemetic?
- Intellectual historians to gather in October
- Yuri N. Afanasyev, Historian Who Repudiated Communism, Dies at 81
- History professor gives Pittsburgh, PA columnist an “F” for a op ed on slavery
- Sharon Ullman says the work of historians is becoming increasingly invisible