The Charlotte News
Tuesday, November 6, 1956
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page
reports from London that, a day after a ceasefire was declared by the
British as British and French paratroopers landed at the north end of
the Suez Canal at Port Said, the ceasefire intended to permit
discussion of Egyptian surrender terms, ground units this date from
both countries went ashore on a widening beachhead, heading south
from Port Said, in defiance of Soviet demands for an end to the
hostilities. British armored forces had gone into action below Port
Said, according to the combined headquarters on Cyprus, and
tank-supported assaults had "gone well". French paratroops
had captured the town of Port Fuad, across the Suez Canal from Port
Said, and other French forces were reported to be advancing south on
the causeway from Port Said. Egypt sought volunteers from other
nations, with Radio Cairo announcing that Saudi Arabia had sent
troops into Jordan in support of Egypt, while other Arab troops, from
Iraq and Syria, had been reported massing in Jordan, on Israel's
eastern flank, but had not launched an attack. A Cairo newspaper
exhorted its readers to slay paratroopers before they landed,
stating: "Kill him immediately and take his arms. The parachute
trooper cannot defend himself while he is landing." As the
continuing fighting in the Middle East had brought new international
tensions, Switzerland proposed that the Big Four and India hold a
summit conference to avert a third world war. Britain and France had
put new ground forces into action
The White House this date warned Russia that military intervention by it in the Middle East would be opposed by the U.S. The situation arose from Russian threats to use force against Britain and France because of their attacks. The President's initial response to Soviet moves, including a bid for a joint U.S.-Russian force to act against Britain and France under U.N. auspices, had been set forth the previous night in a White House statement and a letter to Premier Nikolai Bulganin, in which he made the major points that a U.S.-Soviet force against the British and French would be "unthinkable", while in New York, the U.N. Security Council had refused to consider the proposal made by Premier Bulganin in a letter to the President the previous day. The President had also indicated that the introduction of any such forces into the Middle East would violate the U.N. Charter, making it the duty of all U.N. members, including the U.S., to oppose any such effort. He also had stated that the first and most important step needed for world peace was for the Soviet Union to withdraw its forces from Hungary in accordance with the request embodied in a U.N. resolution.
At the U.N., Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold announced this date that six countries had offered troops for an international police force to monitor a ceasefire in Egypt, those six nations being Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Pakistan, Norway and Sweden. In a report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General added that other nations were considering participation and that he believed it ought be possible to meet quickly the most basic needs for personnel, which he estimated to be a few units of battalion strength. Troops of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and Nationalist China, were barred from participation.
In Nicosia, Cyprus, it was reported that a correspondent, Peter Woods of the London Daily Mirror, who had jumped with British paratroops over Egypt the previous day, had said this date that Egyptian defenders had met them with "a screeching, crackling hell." Mr. Woods had been a former member of the regiment with whom he jumped, the "Red Devils" of the Airborne Brigade. Their objective had been Port Said's Gamil Airfield, and he described the jump as the sky having become "littered with white, black, green and khaki parachutes. Antiaircraft guns, machineguns, tanks and small arms made the air around a screeching, crackling hell of lead. Egyptians in slit trenches were waiting for us everywhere." He said that the paratroops had taken it calmly as though it were a practice jump. Repeatedly, stretcher bearers had gone into the shell-battered runways to collect the wounded, with no one having complained. Surgeons had operated as shrapnel shattered the windows of the makeshift operating theater, with Mr. Woods reporting that he was writing from "the bloody casualty clearing station in a captured building."
From Belgrade, it was reported, according to informed sources, that Hungarian men, women and children had thrown themselves with renewed fury into heavy fighting against the Russians in Budapest this date, after the Russian occupation troops had returned folllowing their earlier apparent withdrawal in the wake of widespread rebellion. The fighting had been described as about as intense as it had been when the anti-Russian, anti-Communist revolt had begun on October 23, resulting in the unseating of the pro-Moscow Government of Premier Andras Hegedus, starting Hungary's move for neutral independence. Informants in Belgrade said that extremely heavy firing had lasted continuously throughout the previous day and night, having risen in intensity during the daylight hours, particularly in the Gellert Hills area of Budapest. While there appeared to be no hope for the revolution at present, there was the prospect that for some time to come Hungary would be besieged by bitter guerrilla warfare waged by holdout rebels from strongholds in the interior of the country. In Budapest, according to reports, women had darted into the streets and thrown grenades at Soviet tanks and other women had sniped at the Russians from windows of buildings. Even children had been seen handling weapons, with the situation being one of utter confusion and chaos. Repeated appeals had been broadcast by Radio Budapest to the rebels to surrender their arms. But the insurgents were also on the air from unlocated points inside the country, begging the rebels not to surrender their arms and to keep them hidden for future use against the Russians. Information on the situation inside the Hungarian Army was scarce, with much of its supplies having apparently been handed over to rebel forces. Based on reports in Belgrade, it appeared that the Russians and the provisional Government of "workers and peasants" under Premier Janos Kadar looked upon a large segment of the Army as unreliable. There was a severe shortage of food, fuel, building materials, drugs and other necessities in Budapest, and the Kadar regime had broadcast an appeal to the "friendly-Socialist-Communist countries" to send supplies.
It was election day in the U.S., with an unexpectedly heavy vote, exceeding that of 1952, appearing at the present hour to be accumulating as numerous precincts across the nation reported citizens standing in line to register their vote, with election officials indicating that balloting was exceeding their expectations. Both major parties had contended that a large vote would be favorable to their cause. It was speculated that the crises in Egypt and Hungary were stirring Americans emotionally, and in the case of Hungary, dramatizing the privilege of free elections, producing an abnormally high turnout. In Miami, for instance, where officials said that it appeared there would be a statewide vote of about 1.1 million out of 1.6 million eligible voters, both Democratic and Republican officials stated that they thought "the war scare" was influencing the large turnout. Through the morning, there were no reports of disorders at any of the polling places. Former President Herbert Hoover had voted early in New York City. As in all quadrennial elections, a few of the smaller precincts had received all of their votes early and had tabulated them, with nothing striking having been produced. Democrats could cheer that Adlai Stevenson had carried Harts Location in New Hampshire by 5 to 3, whereas four years earlier, the vote had gone for General Eisenhower, 5 to 4. From a scattering of ballot boxes across New Hampshire, the vote total thus far was 25 for the President and five for Mr. Stevenson. In Kansas, where there was counting of ballots before close of the polls, a Leavenworth precinct tallied thus far 59 for the President and 38 for Mr. Stevenson, out of the first 97 ballots cast. In 1952, that precinct had gone to General Eisenhower by 303 to 240. Republicans believed that the attempts of the President to bring about peace in Egypt and Hungary, though initially unsuccessful, had strengthened his position as a leader who could keep America out of war. But Democrats said that events had substantiated Mr. Stevenson's charges that the President and Secretary of State Dulles had "blundered".
Julian Scheer of The News reports that it appeared that the largest vote in the history of Mecklenburg County was probable for the date, as citizens by the thousands jammed polling places and formed long queues outside the 59 precincts of the county. During the first five hours of voting, 28,385 citizens in the county had voted, more than a third of the total registered voters, with traditionally the greatest volume of votes to be cast during the late afternoon. The figure would be much higher but for the fact that 14 of the 59 precincts had not reported their figures yet to the newspaper. The rural vote and black vote were "average" or "low", according to precinct officials, but the turnout in those areas was expected to increase in the early afternoon and evening. Prior to sunrise, scores of voters had already cast their ballots and lines continued long throughout the day at most of the voting locations. Traffic jams had been reported at several polling places. The weather was clear with the temperature in the upper 60's from the early morning hours. If the trend continued, the total turnout would likely be more than 80,000. In 1952, with a little more than 90,000 registered voters in the county, there had been an 85 percent turnout, of 77,676. The same level of turnout this time would produce 81,279 votes. Mr. Scheer reports on the turnout at a series of individual precincts.
On the editorial page, "Hungary: A Shooting Star Is Crushed" tells of Hungary having been revisited by tyranny, with the hearts of free men seldom so saddened as a result.
For a decade, it had been possible for Americans not to think about the people of Central Europe, as they had been absorbed by Communism and there had been provocations of the West by their Communist masters waged in their name. Thus, in the minds of Americans, the people of Central Europe were added to the substance and menace of Russia. The nations of the region had been called satellites.
But it finds that Hungary was a shooting star for eight days, plunging away from Communism in all its forms, causing free men who read of their reckless courage and sacrifice to feel "for a moment the breathless awe that only the sight of a shooting star can conjure." But now Hungary was crushed again under Russian Communism.
Yet, now the free world knew that Hungarians had read its message sent over the border by balloons and listened to Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America, understood that Hungarians were not Communist slaves but free men in leg irons, and realized anew that no person was wholly free as long as one was held captive. It suggests that Americans had to think anew about the people of Central Europe, and remember that the U.S. did not carry the whole burden of saving the world for democracy, that taxes for defense and foreign aid were cheap compared with blood, and that all free men were in debt forever to the Hungarians.
It suggests that they had to remember to preserve liberty by seeking it for all people, and recall the power of the image of America and "make that image blaze with the light of liberty."
"Political Systems Are Based on Ideas" finds that the most disappointing aspect of the 1956 campaign had been the nearly total indifference of the average voter to what Democratic partisans had referred to as "the issues". What had been true nationally was generally true in the local Congressional district also, being largely the case of the party versus the man.
Even sincere advocates of "the man" could find little long-range comfort in that condition. What a candidate stood for was also important. Issues had been available, with creditable cases able to be made on each side for most of them. But the public had shown little interest, having adopted an apathetic attitude which the piece finds political immaturity at its worst, with only a country which was rich and safe able to afford it.
It suggests that both the Republican and Democratic parties had an educational job to do, that in the coming years, the people would have to be taught hard facts about hard problems, as the political system of the country had to be based on ideas as well as personalities.
"Exporting Enemies Is Bad Business" finds that the U.S. was about to rid itself of the faceless informer, "whose widespread use against innocent and guilty alike has been a black mark against the nation's tradition of individual liberties."
The Immigration & Naturalization Service would now permit aliens to examine information advanced against their entry or to force their exit from the country, except for "the most compelling reasons involving the national safety or security". Only a decision by the Immigration commissioner could authorize the use of secret evidence.
It finds that it took the country another step back from "the cruel and unreasoning excesses of its security system and, at the same time, makes all Americans a little more secure." It posits that no wise nation exported enemies, but yet the U.S. had continually run the risk of doing so by not permitting aliens to try to disprove charges filed against them, resembling too much the very conditions which many aliens had fled in the hope of finding a haven for freedom.
It concludes that the U.S., as it continued to attack the police-state philosophy in the world, would be more effective for having "swept around its own doors."
"Program Notes for Tonight's
Big Show" advises that those who were going to sit by the radio
or television
Doubters needed only to recall 1948, when the voters had "mulishly" re-elected Harry Truman, in defiance of almost every pundit and pollster in the country. In 1952, Adlai Stevenson had received 3.2 million more votes than had President Truman in 1948, but was still buried in a landslide by General Eisenhower.
It indicates that Mr. Stevenson would have to carry all of the solid South, most of the border states and some combination of the large industrial and farm states to win. It suggests that if he were to carry California, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, plus the South and the border states, he would be able to accumulate 270 electoral votes, four more than the 266 needed for election. It suggests therefore watching the results from Pennsylvania and California, each with 32 electoral votes, that the loss of either by Mr. Stevenson would be difficult to make up, with the loss of both probably resulting in his defeat. It finds that the election might be decided by Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Massachusetts and California, that if the President carried the first three of those states, he was almost assured of victory, whereas Mr. Stevenson practically had to win all four. To increase the suspense, California would be late in reporting its returns.
It indicates that the barometer states would include Delaware as an early trend-maker, as it had industry with its big labor vote, agriculture, and Southern influence on racial issues. Another such state would be Illinois, where Republicans were favored, but a much-publicized scandal in State Government could trigger an upset. Connecticut, with industry and a large urban population, was expected to go for the President, but if it did not, the President might be in trouble in the large Eastern states. New York, if it were carried by Mr. Stevenson, might also transfer into New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
It also advises watching the faces of the pollsters if they were shown on television, to look for nervous twitches, which would indicate that they were recalling 1948, as nearly all of them had said that the President was a shoo-in.
"But don't ever forget that the man in the voting booth was in charge today. The nation's destiny was largely in his hands. That's the way it should be."
Drew Pearson indicates that
elections in the U.S. were, according to some, more sedate and
"sissyfied", with torchlight parades having been replaced
by coffee hours, the spellbinding oratory of the times of William
Jennings Bryan having given way to Madison Avenue
George Washington had been called a
"tyrant" and a "fool", Thomas Jefferson, an
"infidel", Theodore Roosevelt, a "pansy blossom",
a "sissy" and a "punkin lily", and Woodrow Wilson
had been accused of being promiscuous with his lady friends.
Republican enemies of Grover Cleveland in 1884, had raised the issue
of his illegitimate son, with torchlight parades chanting: "Maw,
maw, where's my paw? He's in the White House, haw, haw, haw."
By the time of Warren G. Harding, in 1920, that type of mudslinging
had either changed or newspapers had leaned over backwards to protect
him, as he, also, had an illegitimate child. But his mistress, who
later wrote a book on her life with Mr. Harding, had been taken to
Japan during the election campaign and her expenses paid by the RNC. (At least, it was not a birth-strangled babe
But it had not been so in the time of the forefathers. When Mr. Jefferson had run for President in 1800, Timothy Dwight, president of Yale, had charged that his election would mean lustful moral depravity and "our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution, soberly dishonored, speciously polluted." He was described as a "thief, a coward, a libertine, an infidel, and an atheist." Though he believed in God as a spiritual force, the Unitarian creed, he did not believe in a personal god. William Linn, a Dutch Reform minister, said: "Let the first magistrate be a professed infidel and infidels will surround him. Infidelity will become the prattle from the highest to the lowest condition in life, and universal dissoluteness will follow." Cotton Mather Smith had accused Mr. Jefferson of having obtained his property by fraud and of having robbed widows and orphans. Others called him a Republican ogre, plotting to confiscate all Bibles, referring to the fact that the Democratic Party had been called Republican in those times.
General Washington, who had never campaigned for the presidency, had earlier been accused of all kinds of perfidy by two of his generals, Horatio Gates and Thomas Conway. He had been investigated by secret session of the Continental Congress, and though the minutes had never leaked out, it had been reported that a motion to arrest General Washington had lost by only a single vote.
Andrew Jackson had been accused of stealing another man's wife and making her mistress of the White House. General Winfield Scott, hero of the Mexican War and Whig nominee in 1852 contesting Democrat Franklin Pierce, had been depicted in cartoons as climbing to the presidency on the skulls of dead soldiers. General Ulysses Grant was described as a drunk who could not stand up at public meetings.
Republican James G. Blaine, the opponent of Grover Cleveland in 1884, had been called a crook, while William Howard Taft was charged with being out of his mind, and during the Republican split in 1912 between Theodore Roosevelt and President Taft, TR's daughter, Alice, had accused the President of being a "traitor". Alice was presently Mrs. Nicholas Longworth, lived in Washington, and could relate all about it, and could impart also that she later became devoted to the Taft family and was a loyal friend and booster of the late Senator Robert Taft. Thus, along with the name-calling of the old days, there had also been an ability to forgive and forget.
Tempers had been out in the open and there were not many economic daggers in the back. Political boycotts and business pressures were not in vogue as they were in some areas at present. After tempers had flared and people had fumed, they pulled together.
"Let's hope that despite the undertone of bitterness in the present campaign, the same will be true tomorrow, after it's all over."
Joseph & Stewart Alsop indicate that, even as voters were casting their ballots this date, they were prepared to venture some observations on the campaign and the assumed outcome of the election. They first observe that the President would likely be re-elected by a "fairly handsome majority." Second, contrary to general opinion, they find that the President had not been unbeatable, and third, that Adlai Stevenson, despite his many virtues, had simply not been the candidate to beat him.
When the campaign had just begun some six weeks earlier, they would never have dared record their first impression, that the President would win by a sizable majority, for in mid-September, it had appeared that the President was in real danger. On a trip to the Northwest, one of the Alsops found a surprising number of people in the workers' districts who had voted for the President in 1952 but now said that they would vote for Mr. Stevenson. On two trips to the Iowa corn-hog country, another of the brothers found an even more surprising number of farmers who were ready, eager and anxious to make that switch. There was also evidence at the time that Mr. Stevenson was really beginning to register as a candidate, such as in his tough, partisan and highly effective speech at the National Plowing Contest in Iowa, to which a large crowd of farmers responded with genuine and obvious enthusiasm.
They then had observed the promised "new Stevenson", a personality and candidate with whom to be reckoned. But toward the beginning of October, something appeared to change, after the President began campaigning in earnest. He had the prestige of his office, always a vast advantage for an incumbent, plus the friendliest press which any President had during the current century. He had also made excellent speeches, for which his best and virtually only speech writer, Emmet Hughes, deserved credit. He also had "the Eisenhower aura", a phenomenon first described by the Alsops and on which there had been much comment since, consisting of a glowing personality which appeared to cheer people up and make them feel happy and confident. But despite those positive attributes, the President remained not unbeatable.
That was so despite the "Eisenhower prosperity", as there were many people in the country discontented for various reasons, farmers worried about losing their farms, older people and working people who were unemployed or badly in debt, blacks and other minority groups who believed they were unfairly treated and denied their share of the national economy. Those discontented people had been the key elements in the majorities put together by FDR and Harry Truman. Many of them had expressed their discontent in 1952 by voting for Mr. Eisenhower, and Mr. Stevenson now had to attract them by a large majority for a chance to win in 1956. He had attracted some.
They recount that wherever they had gone during the final weeks of the campaign, they found some previous Eisenhower voters willing to switch to Mr. Stevenson, only partially offset by some who were switching in the other direction. But the switch toward Mr. Stevenson was not enough for him to win. They suggest it was partly because of the nature of his campaign during the final weeks, that his stands regarding ending tests of the hydrogen bomb and urging consideration of ending the draft had only served to obscure the larger issue of the Administration's dangerous shortcomings in the defense and foreign policy areas. They find it more important that they had obscured the bread-and-butter issues which a Democratic candidate had to exploit forcefully to win.
They indicate that their travels had shown them that the country was far more class-conscious than generally supposed, that the oft-repeated phrase, "The Democrats are more for the little guys", summed up the central Democratic asset, and also suggested why the President was not unbeatable. Yet Mr. Stevenson did not fit comfortably into the role of protector and friend of "the little guys", perhaps the primary reason why he appeared to the Alsops destined to a second defeat.
Robert C. Ruark, in Palamos, Spain, indicates that he had tried desperately to ferret out the thinking of youths, mixing in all possible excuses, including past wars, overcrowding, television, psychiatry or lack of it, frustration built up between the wars, etc. Yet, he still did not dig it.
He says that he was in England
recently when the Teddy boys
He had recently read of a new thrill-game in New Orleans in which two large youths sat back to back in the center line of a principal highway, narrowly missing death, explaining to the cops, "We were daring each other and we didn't want to be chicken."
He indicates that the dark streets
and parks
He wants to know why the Duke of Kent always was raising hell in a hoodlum fashion, as it was not attributable to poverty, a broken home or anything which would apply to a Rocky Graziano, now a public hero instead of an "electrocuted stiff", which was where he had been headed had he not seen the light, a fate achieved by his "fun-loving playmates, the 'Mad Dog' Espositos".
He says that he could not speak for
Russia or Communist China but had been nearly everywhere else and
finds that there never had been an age when youth had a better shake,
without the grinding poverty which put people on the public dole and
in Civilian Conservation Corps camps or on Works Progress Administration
jobs or on just plain relief, as during the 1930's. Now, there was
more entertainment
He indicates that a recent survey by the Interior Department had shown that 25 million Americans spent three billion dollars the previous year on hunting and fishing. Outdoor magazines, with few exceptions, had booming circulation and advertising rates. Abercrombie and Fitch was one of the great stores of the world, making its living from people who hunted, fished, swam, skied, rode horses and otherwise did not indulge in murder, robbery, rape and mayhem. If that store was beyond the means of many, every country store sold fishhooks and shotgun shells, and Sears Roebuck did a thriving business in sporting goods for those who were enjoying unheard of prosperity, if even on a small scale.
Yet, sabotage and defacing of public property had reached record proportions, not only in America but also in England and Australia, and terrorization of neighborhoods by young thugs appeared universal, with the possible exception of Spain, where juvenile misconduct was almost nonexistent.
The latter fact led him to wonder why in a country which had once been wracked by civil war in 1936-39, which made heroes of bullfighters and which was until recently abjectly poor, which still had much poverty in certain areas, there was honesty, decency and politeness at a higher level than in any country he knew.
"I give up. I am not an old fuddy-duddy, really, but I swear things were different when I was a boy."
A letter writer, executive director of the Home Builders Association of Charlotte, comments on a story which had appeared in the newspaper the previous Thursday relating that building permits had been issued at record high levels during the year. He calls attention to the figures on residential building permits issued by the Charlotte Building Inspection Department, that in comparing the totals for single-family and duplex living units connected with City water and/or City sewer service in corresponding periods during the current and previous years, it was revealed that during the first ten months, there was a valuation of 16.35 million dollars, compared to 20 million in 1955, a drop of 18.4 percent, and since July 1, a total of 4.4 million dollars, a 37.2 percent drop from the previous year's 7 million dollars. He provides other facts which he believes the story had obscured, creating a faulty impression.
A letter writer says that she had never heard as much mudslinging in her life as during the current campaign, with both Democrats and Republicans talking about one another in words which were not kind. Yet, when Governor Luther Hodges had been running for the Democratic nomination the previous spring, he had not said anything against his opponents, leading her to believe that he was one of the finest men in public office at present. She says that Christian men were needed in office, who were honest and loved the poor. She indicates that a day was coming when rich and poor alike would be judged, that those who were dishonest and cheated their fellow man would pay for it. She hopes that those who voted had asked for God's help in picking the right candidate, regardless of party.
A pome appears from the Atlanta Journal, "In Which Is Suggested A Method For Being Known As A Truthful Person:
"Indulge your capacity
For earnest veracity."
And cease your rapacity
For skillful mendacity.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.