Previous | Next
Session: 1234567891011121314 Page 491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567 of 763
He said to me that it was a poker game.
He used the word “poker game”?
I think he did. I'm not positive.
At least, that was the thought.
Yes, that he couldn't give even the slightest there, because he had to have fair employment practises, and he had to keep the threat of a march over the head of the President, because he had no other weapons, really. Eleanor Roosevelt being on his side was quite an asset. But the main argument they used was how embarrassing it would be to the nation in a war, or a model of democracy, to have hundreds of thousands of blacks marching on the capitol. Now, these were the arguments which he used, and which eventually led to the FEPC. To me, one of the fascinating things about the Roosevelt era--I've said it in some panel discussions--was how one of our most liberal presidents (certainly in terms of economic equity and justice) seemed so seemingly insensitive to racial issues. Eleanor Roosevelt was an important balance in that, I think. I don't know how much attention he paid to Eleanor on those matters, but her friendship with Mary McLeod Bethune, and her empathy and sensitivity that blacks saw may have counteracted or balanced Franklin Roosevelt's racial indifference.
Do you, then, have the sense that he was truly indifferent, or
© 2006 Columbia University Libraries | Oral History Research Office | Rights and Permissions | Help