The Freeman:
A Progress Report

Frank Chodorov and Paul Peach

[A progress report from a survey of readers on the editorial policy of The Freeman toward United States involvement in the Second World War, and on the causes of war, generally. Reprinted from The Freeman, January, 1942]

A month ago the minds of the editors of The Freeman were clouded with doubt. Those clouds are dissipated now. You, our readership, by your response to our request last month for reader opinion -- a response which, in volume and in friendliness, far exceeded our fondest hopes -- have swept the clouds away. Now we know where we stand. We turn our faces to the future with new courage, with new determination, buoyed up and strengthened by a new vision. "Nail the flag to the masthead!" says a Detroit reader. Indeed we will. Nothing less than an utterly unswerving devotion to principle -- your principles and ours -- will justify the vote of confidence you have given us.

As this is written, we have received 146 communications -- over four per cent of our readers have written to us. Of the 146, there are three that must be classed as adverse, two that do not make themselves sufficiently clear, sixteen that suggest making a change in The Freeman's editorial policy, and ten that give a qualified endorsement. The remaining 115 fully endorse The Freeman.

Rita Levine, Mount Vernon, N. Y., cancels her subscription. "I have no time for fascist, un-American, Roosevelt-baiting propaganda."

Laura Ross (Mrs. Edwin Ross) Arlington, Va., has "watched with apprehension and sorrow as The Freeman joined 'Social Justice,' 'Scribner's Commentator,' and other such papers on the road of bigotry and intolerance." Mrs. Ross thinks Mr. Chodorov and Mr. Peach ought to leave the Henry George School of Social Science and take The Freeman with them.

Edward Marchese, Brooklyn, writes, "It is too late to limit ourselves to reiterating that 'war is a social evil resulting from a bad economy' . . . This is a sterile, blind-alley liberalism that The Freeman makes of the hopeful creed of Henry George."

Five of our readers recommend dodging the war issue. Says Mrs. Sara King of Chicago, "War in The Freeman is as out of place as it would be in a cookbook or a seed catalog." Two New York and two Massachusetts readers agree with her.

Six readers suggest giving both points of view. Says Dorothy Sara of New York, "I want The Freeman continued if (1) editorials remain impersonal (2) differing viewpoints be given reasonable expression and interpretation."

Julian Hickok, director of the Philadelphia Extension, advises, "Let The Freeman be an open forum for all honest opinion treating all sides with impartiality." One reader from Texas, two from Massachusetts, one more from New York add their votes.

Five readers express a view well summarized by Jos. S. Thompson of San Francisco: "It is the duty of all right thinking nations to arrange an international police to jump on any aggressor nation the instant it breaks a moral law. So my idea is that The Freeman should come out strong for our old-fashioned friend, 'law and order,' and whenever things are legal and orderly we can turn to the next important matter." Readers from Towaco, N. J., from Boston, Brooklyn, and Yonkers endorse this point of view.

Most interesting are the ten letters which give a qualified endorsement.

Bernard Weiner of New York writes, "Keep on yelling your head off until a technical declaration of war makes it impossible, for the duration." (Mr. Weiner's letter is dated November 29th.) "I do not agree with you," he continues, "but as a true democrat and scientist, which I humbly hope I am, I say, keep on talking. You may be right and I may be wrong. It is your right, nay, your duty, to say it if you have something to say. Right or wrong, say it, whatever the cost -- such is the price and the reward of democracy."

In this group we place also Dr. Robert Hutchins, President of Chicago University, who writes, "Though I do not hold with the economic determinism which I detect in your article, I hope you will not play safe, suspend publication, or weaken in your effort to analyze and criticize the status quo from the viewpoint of the Philosophy of Freedom."

Dr. Hutchins' letter, like that of Mr. Weiner, is dated November 29th. Other letters in this vein come from Pennsylvania (2), Brooklyn, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Cincinnati, and Chicago.

As for the 115 who say, "Go to it! Never give up!" -- what can we say to these? There are so many of them; merely listing their names would take over a page. But the thought of these sturdy, loyal friends brings a great warmth to our hearts. With our tiny clerical staff and the mailing for the Spring classes under way, it isn't possible to answer these letters by more than the very briefest note -- so please accept instead this assurance of our appreciation and gratitude.

Of the 115, there were 114 letters and post cards. The 115th communication was, in a way, unique.

PROCLAMATION We, the undersigned, hereby give thanks for that "feast of wisdom and flow of good sense" that emanates from THE FREEMAN and express our gratitude to Mr. Chodorov for the knowledge he has imparted to us thru the medium of his able editorials. [signed by over forty persons]

What of the future? The question we raised a month ago is decided for us. This does not mean that our crusade is lost, or that we must sit with hands folded until the restoration of peace sets us free once again to undertake constructive work. On the contrary, our task is greater than before, and time presses. Hideous as the thought may be, it is yet true that if the war ends before our mission is accomplished, there will be no true peace; rather, there will be an intermission while the world prepares to resume the war.

The editors of The Freeman now dedicate themselves to the task of educating for an enduring peace. Though it is silly to say that our enemies are inherently different from ourselves, in mind, in morals, in capacity, yet it is true that through false education and conditioning, acting in accordance with a false philosophy, they have lost much of their capability for taking part in the ordering of a peaceful, progressive, cooperative world. We have undertaken to vanquish their arms. It would be a shocking tragedy if, when we have won a victory against force, we forget to carry on the battle against ignorance and superstition -- for it is only by waging a successful war against these last that we shall establish a real peace. Not bayonets, but books; not troops, but teachers; not marines, but missionaries; not vindictiveness and hate, but kindness and love, must win the ultimate victory for us. And before we can be fit to lead our present enemies into the light of a new day, we must ourselves uncover the light, that it may shine first of all among our own people.

Thus we may not merely bring gain to others, but may largely profit ourselves. In the preparation for the economic community which can never stop until it has embraced the whole world in its boundaries we may bring about the practical realization of the City of God on earth. The conquest of ourselves will teach us what we can learn in no other way: that of one blood, God has created all races of men.