Blogs > Liberty and Power > Eleanor Roosevelt's Defense of Japanese Internment

Feb 9, 2008

Eleanor Roosevelt's Defense of Japanese Internment




At a time when libertarians and libertarian-conservatives, such as George W. Schuyler, a pioneer in the Harlem Renaissance, and newspaper publisher, R.C. Hoiles, were criticizing the internment of Japanese Americans as a violation of fundamental individual rights, Eleanor Roosevelt was penning this article making the case on the other side. Here are some selections:

In an effort to live up to the American idea of justice as far as possible, the Army laid down the rules for what they considered the safety of our West Coast. They demanded and they supervised the evacuation. A civil authority was set up, the War Relocation Authority, to establish permanent camps and take over the custody and maintenance of these people, both for their own safety and for the safety of the country.

To many young people this must have seemed strange treatment of American citizens, and one cannot be surprised at the reaction which manifests itself not only in young Japanese American, but in others who had known them well and been educated with them, and who bitterly ask:"What price American citizenship?"….

Many difficulties have had to be met, but the War Relocation Authority and the Japanese themselves have coped with these remarkably well. There were unexpected problems and one by one these were discovered and an effort made to deal with them fairly. For instance, these people had property they had to dispose of, often at a loss. Sometimes they could not dispose of it and it remained unprotected, so as the months go by it is deteriorating in value. Some business difficulties have arisen which had to be handled through agents, since the Japanese could not leave the camps.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Tim Sydney - 2/17/2008

It's interesting to note that in William Cole's book on Charles Lindbergh, he mentions discovering an unissued draft of a speech for C.L. Jr. planned to be made just prior to Pearl Harbor in which C.L. accuses the Rooseevelt addministration of hypocrisy for planning a war to fight for 'freedom and democracy' abroad whilst ignoring the status of negro Americans in the South.


David T. Beito - 2/15/2008

Interestingly, it was generally the conservatives, like William Knowland, who supported the tougher version of the cr bill of 1957.


Anthony Gregory - 2/14/2008

Or, even better, taken away voting rights from whites!


Jonathan J. Bean - 2/14/2008

We did have a 15th amendment but what did that mean with such monstrosities as the Mississippi Constitution, which scarcely granted all citizens a "republican form of government." Heck, the NY Times in 1900 had opined that it was a mistake of the GOP to have given blacks the vote (15th amendment). The racial environment hadn't improved much by 1917 (first Dyer bill, shortly after the heinous E. St. Louis riot).

FYI: The GOP _did_ push for a strong voting rights bill in '57. Good old LBJ killed it (see Caro, et al.).


Jonathan J. Bean - 2/14/2008

The anti-lynching bills were aimed at those in authority who failed to offer "equal protection of the law" (14th amendment justification). There were different proposals: fines of counties that let lynchings go by, arming of county sheriffs with machine guns (Hamilton Fish proposed that), and more.

Plenty of precedent for making something a crime beyond the "actual" crime itself: conspiracy, gross dereliction of duty, and so on.

This was unusual in that it was federal intervention in a normally local matter (a point spat out by southern Dems between racist rants). However, those same white-only Dems became New Dealers and voted all sorts of "friendly" federal intervention -- for whites only, of course.

Yes, Dyer is fascinating and I discuss him, Hamilton Fish and others in the GOP anti-lynching movement.


David T. Beito - 2/11/2008

If the GOP, not to mention FDR, had really wanted to help blacks in a major way, it would have pushed for voting rights.


Jim Krallman - 2/11/2008

Ultimately, what is the point of an anti-lynching bill? The last time I checked, murder was illegal. Why dont' we have an anti stabbing bill, or an anti shooting someone bill introduced in Congress? I'm sure that would put an end to all stabbings and shootings.


Jim Krallman - 2/11/2008

Wow, communism sounds fantastic! I love how Mrs. Roosevelt expains that, while the government has an obligation to take property and ration materials to civilians, these same rules do not apply to government:
"It is logical that in the Armed Forces, men who are undergoing training, physical and mental, should require more food that the civilian population." Of course government does not have to follow the rules. I wonder how the White House and Congress were affected by rationing as well. I'm sure our selfless omnipotent leaders need more energy than the peasantry.


Clark W Griswold - 2/11/2008

Similar to the way the top US Prosecutor, was it Gonzales, says if HE were water boarded HE would call that torture, but if that happened to anyone else, its a-ok and lawful.


Tim Sydney - 2/11/2008

It would be interesting to learn more about Dyer. There doesn't seem to be much on the web about him.


David T. Beito - 2/11/2008

Thanks! To be fair, FDR didn't exactly oppose the bill. He just didn't lift a finger to get it through. His first priority in 1937, when the Bill actually had its best chance to become law (even Garner was inclined to support it apparently), was the Supreme Court packing.


David T. Beito - 2/11/2008

Perhaps but this private opposition doesn't come through in her article.


Tim Sydney - 2/10/2008

I've heard David mention Warren Harding's role as the first President to condemn lynching when speaking in the South. David may be interested in digging into the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill (see here, raised by Republican congressman Leonidas Dyer (see here). This bill was defeated by fillibuster in the Senate and formed the model for a later federal anti-lynching bill raised in the 1930s. FDR opposed the later bill for over eleven years.


Tim Sydney - 2/10/2008

J Edgar however seems to have favoured a mass internment in 1950 of subversives, presumably those seen as too pro-communist. See news item here


Tim Sydney - 2/10/2008

The Wikipedia entry on this (see here) lists Eleanor as opposed to Executive Order 9066.


Sudha Shenoy - 2/9/2008

Sorry -- don't know how this double-posting happened.


Sudha Shenoy - 2/9/2008

1. Faugh. What a nauseating combination of condescension towards mere subjects, & PR for noble bureaucrats struggling to do their high-minded duty.

2. So Japanese-Americans had to be vetted & vouched for by white Americans before the Japanese were graciously allowed to join the army. Superiors passing judgment on inferiors...


Sudha Shenoy - 2/9/2008

1. Faugh. What a nauseating combination of condescension towards mere subjects, & PR for noble bureaucrats struggling to do their high-minded duty.

2. So Japanese-Americans had to be vetted & vouched for by white Americans before the Japanese were graciously allowed to join the army. Superiors passing judgment on inferiors...


Tim Sydney - 2/9/2008

I think J Edgar Hoover, something of a bete noire to the left, was opposed to internment.