Letter from Harold Ickes to Daniel F. Clancy

HAROLD L. ICKES 3624 PROSPECT AVENUE, N. W. WASHINGTON 7, D.C. -- DUPONT 2281 March 16, 1951 My dear Mr. Clancy: Well, the people's power has been clipped at perhaps its most important point by the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment by the necessary number of states to make it part of the Constitution. The people did not seem to care, although they should have. However, I am not disposed to blame the people when information is kept from them. It was the legislatures that adopted the amendment without reference to the people. When Roosevelt ran in '40 and '44, the people showed that they understood the per sonal issue of Roosevelt versus Willkie and Roosevelt versus Dewey. They knew then what they wanted, perhaps hardly realiz- ing that in both campaigns, especially that of 1940, there was involved the question of whether the so-called two-term precedent should be maintained. The Democratic Party was not interested so far as I could see. Twice, I talked to Leslie Biffle and he promised to bestir himself. Once, I talked to Boyle who gave me the same assurances. What I would like to have, if you happen to have it among your records, is the number of Democratic state legislatures that voted for the amendment as against the number of Repuglican. I would like to see these comparisons. It seems to me that there was another important factor that carried much weight during these last two or three months and that is Truman. It is something that can not be proved but I am inclined to believe that, if he had been a strong President, giving the country the leadership that it so sorely needs, the amendment might not have carried. It could be argued that voting for the amendment was one way of displaying dissatisfaction with the weak and leadorless administration. I do not know, but it is an interesting speculation. On the other hand, it might be argued that, since the amendment made an exception as to Truman, the Democrats were not interested one way or the other in the amendment since they could re-elect him next year if they wanted to. But this argument does not impress me. I think that the practical effectis to create a climate of public opinion, as a result of which Truman probably will not run. With what grace could he run for a third term on the weak plea that he had served only seven and a half years? This would create an issue against which he could hardly hope to stand. In any event, I find that there are more and more people here who believe that Truman will not be a candidate to succeed himself. And as of this date, he could not hope to win, although much could happen between now and November of 1952. As a matter of fact, I can't forget that I did not think that he had a chance in 1948. You are to be thanked for the time and effort that you put into this anti-third term fight. It was the right fight to make, regardless of the outcome. As I see it, it will mean that a weak President, and we have had them in the past, if he is elected to a second term, will simply twiddle his thumbs and make hay while the sun shines so far as patronage and favors for his friends are concerned. I do not believe that the people did well for themselves in allowing this amend- ment to be adopted and I will be surprised if the day does not come, although it