Each party might be secretly hoping the other would win control of the Congress as the party in control would likely receive the blame in 1948 should a recession occur in the ensuing year. Should they remain the minority party, the Republicans could continue to coalesce with the Southern Democrats to pass legislation without taking the blame.

Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon had urged voters to vote for his party to place the onus on its members to deliver results and not just criticize Democrats.

Effective control of the Congress was not at stake the following Tuesday, as the Southern Democrats who formed the coalition in the 79th Congress were re-elected in the primaries and would thus be elected from their respective states and districts. The only issue was whether in the other states, enough Republicans would be elected to form a majority under the aegis of the party, not merely as a coalition.

It suggests that a Republican victory would serve the best interests of both the country and both parties.

These forms of diplomacy were unnerving in the face of the real issue, establishing the peace on a permanent basis. Although historians were finding it improbable that, even with adequate inspection, a system of disarmament could be successfully established and maintained, failing to allow for the possibility of it being openly discussed and negotiated at the U.N. would frustrate any attempt to try to effect such a system—the only way ultimately to prevent an arms race with the atomic bomb, at present held only by the West.

Thus, regardless of any bluster by the Russians, the main focus, it asserts, ought be on effecting peace and not exchanging dialectic salvos.

Private citizens had to exert pressure to bring the desired end of consolidation into being. Meanwhile, despite consolidation's obvious benefits in reducing government functionaries and saving taxes, such things as suspicion of rural dwellers for city folk, the tradition of split government in the community, suspicions of too much government arising out of consolidation, and the challenge to the ensconced power structure in each entity, all, for the moment, prevented consolidation from becoming a reality.

It finds it likely that Senator Bilbo, the next time he would run, could win votes by claiming that his steadfastness to his home state had produced such reaction by Northerners.

He would be dead in a year and so it no longer mattered.

Perhaps, too much stress was being placed on individual exponents of racism, Southern politicians such as Mr. Bilbo and Representative John Rankin, also of Mississippi, with that emphasis shifting the responsibility for the complex onto the politicians who merely gave voice to the frustrations, poverty and a cycle of generational ignorance which kept people in poverty, which produced racism. Education, in itself, presents no panacea for racism as its antecedent family tradition can be maintained regardless of education, and maintained for the very purpose manifested by Mr. Bilbo and Mr. Rankin, both of whom were well-educated, that is to be a captain within the complex, steering the omnipresent need in the uneducated for a feeling of superiority to someone toward a political force gravitating around the central catch-phrase "white superiority". Education does, however, present a means by which the tools may be accumulated to reach another end than to stultify progress out of fear of the future and change to that thought immutable in the human condition, the idea that slavery of one sort or another is necessary for the production of necessities to be realized in any society.

The thought was that getting rid of the flashpoint, the Bilbo or Rankin, would extinguish the breath of life to the racist complex. That obviously did not occur. For every Bilbo who died, there arose, as a multi-headed Hydra, a Patterson or Wallace in the neighboring state to take up the fallen mantle of the conquering white hero, even if, little by little, such voices of progress and reason, as, for instance, editor Hodding Carter in Mississippi, or, in the political realm, Governor Ellis Arnall of Georgia, were able to chip away gradually at the complex by convincing the intended objects of the political rhetoric that they were merely being used by husksters to achieve private power fiefdoms, that the path to relative economic freedom and security lay in cooperation across racial and cultural lines, not in a divide-and-conquer competitive mentality motivating the racist rhetoric, that the path to the future and progress lay in better education, meaning ultimately the need to integrate schools, in the process, theoretically, aiding in the integration of the community at large over time and generations, to eradicate the superstitions, the myths, which had for so long beset both sides of the racial divide, quite as much so as the xenophobic urges characterizing the usual concomitant to racism in that era, virulent opposition to anything foreign, especially Russian, Communism becoming the antithetical flashpoint to the racist, perceived as accompanying integration, unionism, and anything smacking of socialism, all, in sum, associated with "liberalism", thus a complex spreading its appeal, especially by the mid-1960's, to the working classes of other regions of the country as well, especially the industrial North and central Midwest, coalescing ultimately in "conservatism".

The root of all the evil was not Theodore Bilbo or John Rankin. Again, sometimes it is better to know where the snakes are than to seek to eradicate them and thereby drive the complex underground, out of sight, out of mind, purged, believing naively then the garden to be cleansed of all threat to its well-being, the real enemy, nevertheless, persisting. For it is ignorance and poverty and the cycle it fosters which are the hallmarks of the poison fruit, the need to experience something before understanding it to be inhospitable to life, not only life individually or in the family unit but within the broader society, the inability, for want of understanding, to imagine in advance of the experience the probable consequences of the behavior pattern to the society and ultimately to the individual.

The captains who exploit it, in any land and in any time, whether political or industrial and corporate, are merely exploiters and perpetuators of conditions which liberals seek to eradicate, those conditions being the real enemy, rather than individuals.

For to make the Bilbo or Rankin, the Wallace or Maddox, more than historical exemplars for a typology, but rather the actual incarnation of the Devil on one side, made also FDR, the Kennedys or Dr. King the Devil on the other, the flashpoints for coalescing the perception of need for elimination of individuals, the "if only they were dead" ideal, to achieve the reactionary's dream of white superiority, of nationalistic superiority, of conquering all enemies at once on the High Hill overlooking the battle park, one which likewise has never come to be as a result of false emphasis on a few individuals as the problem.

Stultifying open and vigorous debate by elimination of the troublesome voices on either side who generate the debate, no matter how strident and caustic, no matter how genteel and poetic, leads only to fascism and ignorance, and the start of the decadent cycle anew.

He had received several hundred dollars in supposed campaign contributions from named individuals—including Fred Johnson, who, after losing his arm in Korea, would kill Helen Kimble in 1963 and cause Lt. Philip Gerard to expend police resources out of Indiana for four years, all before the American tv viewing audience every Tuesday night at 10:00 p.m., hunting down Dr. Kimble despite his innocence—each of whom either were drawing unemployment or did not even vote for Mr. Danner in the primary. Mr. Pearson suggests that these "donors" were covering other unnamed donors.

He adds that he had nothing against Mr. Danner and would investigate all Congressional candidates if he had the time and resources. He points him out only as an example, to inform the electorate of Ohio.

He next addresses the reasons for his focus on the money being contributed to the GOP by Joseph Pew of the Sun Oil Co. in Pennsylvania. Some had asked why he did not give more stress to the money contributed by the CIO PAC to the Democrats, to which he responds that labor began making contributions in response to wealthy contributors such as Mr. Pew, the Rockefellers and Mellons. It was difficult to trace the family contributions and so he felt obligated as a public service to do so.

When he had traced down family contributions in 1940, he found that the DuPont family had contributed over $186,000 when the Hatch Act forbade any individual contribution over $5,000. The DuPonts had avoided the law by simply spreading the contributions within the family.

Sun Oil had contributed $108,000. The Alfred P. Smith family of G.M. had ponied up $36,000. The Widener family of Philadelphia had contributed $25,000. The Queeny family of St. Louis, which operated Monsanto, gave $43,000, and the Pitcairns of Pennsylvania, manufacturers of helicopters, provided $29,000. In all, ten families provided a million dollars to Republican coffers.

He asks the reader to decide whether that was better than having 20 million workers contributing $1 each through the CIO PAC, contributions which were recorded and not camouflaged under a mass of relatives and in-laws.

Yet, the two Senatorial candidates in Missouri still inspired in the electorate the same casual indifference to the influence of political bosses on their votes. The incumbent was Senator Frank Briggs, a small-town editor from Macon, a regular Democrat, serving his party faithfully. He had served in the Missouri State Senate as a pawn to the utility interests, but no one ever accused him of accepting bribes. After Senator Truman became Vice-President in 1945, Mr. Briggs was appointed to fulfill his term. Since then, Senator Briggs had voted exclusively for the New Deal, voting as President Truman wanted.

The Republican candidate, James Kem, was a corporate lawyer, described by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as one of the most reactionary Republicans that Missouri had produced in a long time. He denounced New Deal bureaucracy. He primarily sought the seat as a personal crowning achievement, having made his fortune.

Mr. Childs suggests that President Truman was more honest, conscientious and dedicated than the nation deserved from its indifferent attitude to the type of political machinations which got him into office initially.

Warren Harding had also been an accident of history, and he thinks that one day the country might suffer such an accidental candidate who would sweep away the things prized most in the American system.

He thinks it might have been better to wait a couple of years before convening the Assembly, as public pressure then would have been exerted to use diplomacy to settle differences. Instead, the forum was simply being used to demonstrate that the delegates were staying busy, while little work was really being done.

The Assembly needed a meeting between President Truman, Prime Minister Attlee, and Prime Minister Stalin to make it work. The present meeting merely time-compressed what was ordinarily taking place in speeches interspersed by weeks across the world stage.

The General Assembly, he finds, was "doomed, like a mirror, to reflect the state of the world, whatever it is." If agreement prevailed, it would improve on it; if disagreement, it would accentuate it. It could not effect change in the basic relations of the nations. To believe otherwise was to become the victim of a "parliamentary illusion" when the Assembly did not operate as a parliament, merely as a body able to recommend action, but ultimately governed by the Security Council where power primarily was vested in the Big Five.

He concludes that, while the Assembly might find power in the future, it was still struggling for its identity. The Assembly could not be expected to construct the peace, and yet could be eviscerated in its potential power by failing to do so.

"We are entitled to turn to our leaders and ask that they make the peace, and save the Assembly, and the other world dreams of only a year ago."

She thinks it therefore dismissive of the Court not to appear to care whether the Constitution was followed or not.

While well-meaning, she misinterprets the decision, which left in place the Court of Appeals opinion, founded, insofar as the challenge brought regarding the Helen Mankin Congressional race, on Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which leaves to the State Legislatures, subject to alteration by Congress, the time, place, and manner of election of members of Congress, both Senators and House members. The challenge, as to both the gubernatorial election and the Congressional election, was primarily pursuant to the 14th Amendment, as denying equal protection of the laws to the voters of the more populous counties in relation to the less populous, and the 15th Amendment, as denying effectively the full benefit of the franchise to the more populous county residents. The lower court had found that, as to the Congressional race, the time, place, and manner of election had to be determined by the State Legislature or the Congress, and the Federal Courts lacked jurisdiction to resolve the issue. As to the gubernatorial race, it had also found no jurisdiction to intervene, again deferring to the State Legislature. The fact that the election had already taken place was also a factor, rendering moot the challenge.

The Supreme Court majority, not issuing an opinion, may have simply also found the case to be moot.

Thus, the letter writer's energies should have been then directed at the Congress to pass a law which would prevent such inequities, lacking any ability directly to impact the Georgia Legislature. Or, she should have urged Georgia office seekers to contest the statute prior to an election.