CHAPTER 1

What Doest Thou Here?


And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long have ye been
between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then
follow him. And the people answered him not a word. *** And (Elijah
fled) for his life ... into the wilderness. *** And behold ... a great
and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks ...
but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but
the Lord was not in the earthquake, and after the earthquake, a fire;
but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice
... came ... and said, What doest thou here, Elijah? -- I Kings, 18:21;
19; 3, 11-13.

Avoidable catastrophe and missed opportunity, both immense, have marked
the years since Union Now appeared in 1939. Change -- violent and
peaceful -- has also been immense. Yet the fundamentals faced in the
opening pages of this book still face us now. The basic lines of the
picture have grown in magnitude rather than changed in nature. The
stakes are higher, the need for action -- sound and bold -- much more
urgent. The same catastrophes knock at the door, and the same
opportunity. If there seems cause for despair, there is greater cause
for the faith that moves mountains.

The catastrophes have been much greater than I anticipated. So too have
been not only man's deafness to opportunity, but his and opportunity's
capacity for survival. From all this I draw greater faith in the
soundness of the fundamental philosophy and principles of Union of the
Free, and a greater sense of the nowness of Union Now, and the federal
union of North Atlantic democracies it proposed. (To avoid repetition I
would suggest that the reader who is not familiar with that proposal
turn now to Book II, Chapter 1, and read the first ten paragraphs, which
give its essence.)

ENTER THE ATLANTIC CONVENTION

One change in the picture, which has seemed too slight or too recent to
be noted yet by the general public, seems to me so significant as to
give in itself reason enough for new faith in freedom's future, and for
this new effort to advance it. On September 7, 1960, President
Eisenhower signed an act of Congress authorizing a United States
Citizens Commission on NATO to organize and participate in a Convention
of Citizens of North Atlantic Democracies with a view to exploring fully
and recommending concretely how to unite their peoples better. Before an
Atlantic Federal Union can be formed, such a convention must meet. The
meeting does not mean that such a Union will be formed, but it does open
the door to this.

The fact that it has taken twenty years to open this door is proof of
its importance. Other facts increase it. One is that the Senate approved
the Convention on June 15, 1960, by the narrow majority of 51 to 44 --
but with the support of both candidates for President and the Majority
Leader. Another is that, despite the close Senate vote, the House --
whose shorter term requires its members to assess current and coming
public opinion more accurately -- gave overwhelming approval, 288 to
103, after three hours of debate on August 24. In between came the
Democratic Platform pledge of a "broader partnership" in "the Atlantic
Community," and the Rockefeller-Nixon proposal that the United States
"should promptly lead toward the formation of a North Atlantic
"Confederation."

Delegates from the other NATO nations had already joined with those of
the United States in unanimously recommending -- both at the NATO
Parliamentarians Conferences in 1957 and 1959 and at the Atlantic
Congress in 1959 -- that such a Convention be called. The latter
Congress of some 700 eminent citizens, from all the NATO nations except
Iceland went much further. It not only made the unanimous Declaration
cited on the opening page of this book but it also approved the
unanimous report of its Political Committee, which stressed that the
Convention should tackle the problem of Atlantic Unification "as a
whole" and face, too, "the important question of principles it involves.
The preamble, written by the committee's rapporteur, Maurice Faure of
France, added:

One solution would be to bring about some form of political federation
of all our states. The idea of such a federation at this time should not
be ruled out, but we must face up to the possibility that it may be
psychologically premature. In any event we must proceed beyond the stage
of an alliance. In other words what we must do is to create a genuine
community.

This will not be an easy task. What it requires is an entirely new
enterprise for which there is no precedent *** The traditional concept
of the sovereignty of our countries must not be regarded as something
unalterable, as Holy Writ. *** It must also be realized that in our
democratic society, the rights of the individual *** are limited by law
in order to preserve the freedom of other individuals, or to secure
social progress in accordance with technical progress. Hence the need
for us to accept limitations of the sovereignty of our States,
limitations which are urgently called for by the over-riding needs of
our defense, our well-being and our unity. ***

It is clear that we are living in an era when safeguarding the freedom
of Man -- which is the highest good -- will be impossible to ensure
without far-reaching structural reforms The time has come for this need
to be fully understood, for the peril is becoming more serious as well
as more general *** NATO must prepare itself to meet all these
threatening perils. But NATO can only do this if *** it builds up
stronger institutions which will effectively place the whole of its
means at the service of a policy of closer union which will lead mankind
to the new era made possible by scientific, industrial, political and
moral progress.

A STILL GREAT PATTERN, AND A STILL SMALL VOICE

One more significant fact needs be added. The Atlantic Convention's
approach to the problem of unification is patterned on that of the
Federal Convention in 1787 -- notably in that the members are free from
official instructions, each able to act as his individual experience,
vision and conscience advise. This procedure, which is unprecedented in
the field of international relations (as the debate in the United States
Congress on the Atlantic Convention resolution brought out) produced the
most prodigious and enduring success in the history of conferences among
sovereign states -- the United States Constitution.

Yet the Federal Convention began in Philadelphia amid skepticism much
stronger than the Atlantic Congress' fear lest Atlantic federation be
"psychologically premature" today.

George Washington himself asked on March 10, 1787: "Is the public mind
matured for such an important change ...? What would be the consequences
of a premature attempt?" And after he arrived at the Convention on the
day set for it to open -- May 14 -- and had to wait ten days for apathy to
permit a quorum, he went further and forecast: "It is too probable that
no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is
to be sustained." But in the next breath he added: "If, to please the
people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward
defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the
honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God."

Thanks to the heroic faith and efforts of Washington and the other
Founding Fathers, out of that Convention came, not another dreadful
conflict, but the world's first Federal Union of the Free. There is, of
course, no certainty that the Atlantic Convention will thus rise to the
occasion ... but it can. It may indeed produce only unneeded proof that
democracy moves almost always "too little and too late." It will fail
thus, miserably, if its members and the press and public do not see with
much more clearness and act with much more courage than has marked
Atlantica's past twenty years. The fact remains that free men now, at
last, are in position, at least, to grasp the vast opportunity that has
been vainly knocking at their door.

Like the ancient Hebrews they have remained since 1939 between two
opinions, uncertain whether their highest Truth was the Sovereign
Citizen or the Sovereign Nation -- whether their Lord was God or Baal.
Like Elijah they sought escape in ... a wilderness. There, in those
twenty-one years, they have, dumbfounded, witnessed hurricane,
earthquake, holocaust. But their Truth came not out of the wind of war
that rent mountains of states. Nor did it come out of the earthquake of
science, nor out of the fire that consumed empires.

Their highest Truth can come out of the Atlantic Convention, however
still and small its voice may seem today. It will come out if the
Convention brings home to enough free men and women the question with
but one answer which, through the ages, has moved the individual
conscience to assert its sovereign power, and led man to make his many
miracles: ... "What doest thou here, Elijah?" To help make this voice
heard is the present purpose.

THE REWARDS OF BAAL, THROUGH TWO DECADES

Let us begin by following the lead that Lincoln gave when he said on
June 17, 1858: "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it." To adapt
his next sentence to the present occasion I have changed a few words to
those italicized: "We are now far into the twenty-first year since
policies were initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of
putting an end to our problem. Under the operation of those policies,
that problem has not only not ceased, but it has constantly augmented."
The proof is evident, but not its accumulating effect-judging from the
failure to reverse these policies. In the 1949 edition of Union Now its
new chapters began by reporting on the situation ten years after the
book's appearance, and noted first that the policies that had prevailed
since 1939 had left this result:

Still disunited, the democracies still confront a formidable
dictatorship. It is armed with a great army, and a militant dogma that
violently subordinates man to the state. It is bent on driving
individual freedom off the earth, and enslaving all mankind under its
tyrannical world government.

In the decade since, the Communist dictatorship has added to its arsenal
all the other four arms that we then practically or completely
monopolized. It has now a very powerful air force. Its sea power is much
stronger than Hitler had -- most of all in submarines to which the free
are doubly vulnerable, because of their Atlantic life-lines and because
their great cities and industrial areas are much closer to the coast
than Russia's, more exposed to bombardment by the aerial "torpedoes"
submarines can fire today. Out of the devastation of Russia has risen,
too, since 1949, a mighty industrial plant, keyed to producing arms
rather than electric kitchens. Moscow has also broken the one complete
monopoly we had, its stockpiles of atomic bombs now balance ours. On top
of this, it is armed with rocket power that surpasses ours in
intercontinental guided missiles and in thrust into Space.

Nor is this all: By being first to send a satellite into orbit round the
planet, this dictatorship has armed itself with the prestige in the
field of science and invention that Atlantica had almost monopolized for
the previous two centuries.[1] Moreover, Communist dictatorship has
consolidated its hold over 600,000,000 Chinese since 1949. It is arming
itself there under even more ruthless pressure than in Russia ... at a
time in history when the methods of mass production and mass destruction
give an advantage to the country with the greatest masses of men.

The Postwar edition of Union Now continued, in its report on the 1939-49
decade:

Still without a central government, the free Atlantic community still
invites economic collapse and another World War.

We have continued through another decade to escape the depression that
sooner or later has invariably followed great wars in the past. Our
escape has been only partly due to the "built-in" stabilizers to the
economy which so many trust will prevent another great depression. It
has also resulted partly from the market provided by such great
undertakings as the Marshall Plan's reconstruction of Europe, and "Point
4" and other programs for aiding underdeveloped nations.

But perhaps the main reason for our escape thus far is that -- as Felix
Morley succinctly put it in his Freedom and Federalism: "We have avoided
the depression that normally follows war by the unusual expedient of
avoiding peace." In an important sense the war period has not yet ended;
while the line-ups have changed, it has continued in cold fury rather
than hot -- but at a total cost to the United States alone that
surpasses its expenditures in World War II. Meanwhile there have been
building up inflationary and other economic strains that make for a
collapse much more dangerous to freedom than was the Great
Depression.[2] And now for the first time we face an autocracy that can
hope to win not merely by war but by using economic arms -- all of which
it monopolizes as we monopolize only military arms -- to advance its
aims in all the Cubas and the Congos, and to try to deepen any Atlantic
economic recession into a serious depression.

Since 1949 the Soviet dictatorship has already gained significant
economic beachheads in the Mideast, in Africa and at the doorsill of the
United States. Meanwhile the people of Atlantica have not yet begun to
form a common government through which to meet common dangers by the
common sense of common policies. True, the European shore of the ocean
community has regained its productive power through joint efforts that
are to the honor of all the Atlantic people. But this restoration of
national competing power, with no means of regulating it for the common
purpose, can be as productive of depression now as it was in the 1920s.
True again, the "Six Nations" of the Continent have formed a common Coal
and Steel Authority and a Common Market; but this advance has left
Western Europe dangerously divided -- literally at "Sixes and Sevens" --
to say nothing of the far more dangerous economic division between
Atlantica's European and American shores.

While the United States spent billions rebuilding Western European
nations into such independent Daniels that they already beard the
automobile lion in his Detroit den, Communist Russia has tightened its
grip on the nations of Eastern Europe. By "specializing" their
economies, it has tied them to its system to a degree and at a speed
that make the integrating efforts of Western Europe's audacious "Six"
seem trivial.

BALKANIZING THE WORLD FOR NATIONALISM'S BAAL

Since 1939 only the Russian and Chinese empires have strengthened their
grip on the peoples they conquered in past centuries, and extended their
empires. In this period the Atlantic countries have transformed
practically all their empires into dozens of new sovereign nations.
These have been admitted to the United Nations with all sides rejoicing
for a cacophony of reasons, This reached its peak when the 1960 Assembly
admitted fourteen new member nations, and Prime Minister Diefenbaker of
Canada rose to ask: "How many human beings have been liberated by the
U.S.S.R.?" -- after he had proudly pointed out:

Since the last war seventeen colonial areas and territories, comprising
more than forty million people, have been brought to complete freedom by
France. In the same period fourteen colonies and territories, comprising
half a billion people have achieved complete freedom within the
Commonwealth. Taken together some 600 million people in more than thirty
countries, most of them now represented in this Assembly, have attained
their freedom -- this with the approval, the encouragement and the
guidance of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and France.

This is indeed a record unique in the annals of empire, with such
overtones of virtue in all concerned as to have drowned any discordant
doubts. And yet ... and yet ... forty million divided by seventeen
results in seventeen new nations with an average population of a bit
more than two million each. Subtracting India and Pakistan from the 600
million, one finds that the population of the other dozen new
Commonwealth nations averages only five million each. Put together,
these twenty-nine new nations sprung from the British and French empires
average only 3.5 million people -- only half the population of Balkan
Bulgaria. In all the words that have welcomed these new nations,
precious few have paused at these ominous facts.

Yet, great as is the virtue in this act of creation, the still unseen
economic and political vice accompanying it is so plain that, to be
seen, it needs but be stated: This "complete freedom" has also created
dozens of new national barriers to trade and production, dozens of
dubious new currencies, dozens of new visas and other vexations to
commerce and travel, dozens of new doubts, uncertainties and new reasons
to make private investors reluctant to risk their savings in potential
Congos and Cubas. Dozens and dozens of these balkanizations of business
have come, in freedom's name, to enshackle the economic growth which
freedom requires. They have been added pell-mell to the superabundance
of these on the planet. Even in the 1920s there were enough to help
bring on the recession that produced Mussolini, and the depression that
put Hitler in power -- even in nations as advanced as Italy and Germany.

The dragon's teeth which the United States sowed in those years by
adding new barriers to the free flow of men, money and goods are now
being scattered over the Earth as never before. There is every reason to
fear that the example which the oldest democracies still set in economic
nationalism will be followed with enthusiasm by the new nations, to their
grief, and ours. These trappings of unlimited national sovereignty are
no aid to them in their efforts to overcome their true foes --
ignorance, disease and poverty -- nor to us in our hopes of helping them
win this war on which their true freedom depends. All these
nationalistic bedevilments to their economies and ours serve only the
ends of dictatorship.

They breed Lumumbas and Castros -- or rather, they convert ambitious
idealists into national dictators who fall easy prey to the Communist
dictatorship. They encourage leaders in under-developed countries to
believe their best hope for developing them quickly is to follow the
methods that seem to have succeeded so well in backward Russia, rather
than the free principles -- political and economic -- that led the
British and the Americans to advance so much further against ignorance,
disease and poverty. They lead these beginners to seek to make
themselves strong by eating the swift rising but poisonous mushroom, and
shunning the fruit of the slow-growing, enduring Tree of Liberty and
Life.

To think that the people of Atlantica can cope with this huge problem
while remaining as blind to these factors as are our political leaders,
pundits and press, -- and while continuing to set the anarchic example
around their own ocean, and also while lacking the vision to call for
Atlantic Union as Kwame Nkrumah calls for African Federation -- this is
folly indeed.

"Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad" -- and this is
that kind of madness. The god that has afflicted Atlantica with it is
the Baal of unlimited national sovereignty, on whose bloody, barren
altars we have sacrificed so many of our finest hours, and men, and
whose worship we have spread around the world far more than our true
religion. For our God lies in no collective form of man, in no body
politic-whether nation, state or tribe -- but in the only human body
endowed with soul and conscience ... individual man.

To turn back to my 1949 review of the preceding decade:

Meanwhile, science and engineering have released atomic power and
developed radar, the robot rocket, the jet plane, supersonic speed, germ
warfare, and things still secret. At the same time free enterprise has
further expanded mass production. Man has immensely magnified his power,
both to build a far better world and to destroy civilization. Never did
man's future seem so vast as it does today. Never did more massive
catastrophe threaten to cut us all from it.

In the decade since, there have come sputniks orbiting the Earth, Moon
and Sun. They are witnesses enough to prove that this awesome race has
continued to accelerate. All too clearly the dangers of "depression,
dictatorship, false recovery and war are hemming us in" still, as when
those words appeared on page 1 of Union Now in 1939. Like shadows they
have stuck with us through political hurricanes, economic earthquakes
and volcanic social eruptions. And like shadows they have lengthened as
we moved away from our true direction -- the West -- and let our Light
sink in the heavens, lower and lower.

ALWAYS IGNORED, OPPORTUNITY TOO HAS REMAINED

For there to be shadow there must be light. And so let us turn now to
the opportunity that has also clung to us ... always ignored, while we
followed our shadow, instead, toward the idols of the East. At the start
of the 1939-1949 decade, we Americans put our trust in neutralism and
then in measures "short of war," while the British and French put theirs
in alliance. When this combination of policies cost freedom the
Continent, I wrote Union Now with Britain in 1940 to bring out the
opportunity which that emergency offered. That book proposed that we
form immediately a provisional union with the English-speaking
democracies that then stood alone. The aim: To make sure that freedom
would not only win the war but secure the peace by creating, while the
iron was hot, the nucleus of the broader Atlantic federation that Union
Now had proposed. The answer: No, this would bring us into the war. Six
months later Hitler invaded Russia. When he was at the gates of Moscow
while we stood petrified, an emboldened Japan Pearl Harbored us into the
war we had sought to avoid by disunion of the free.

Now we Americans had the white heat of war to help leaders form the
nuclear Atlantic Union which could win it with less loss of life, and
greater assurance of peace and freedom. This opportunity, too, went
begging. Japan and Hitler, in allying us to the Isles that had flowered
then through (and in) Churchill, had tied us also to Stalin's Siberia --
and we sought to achieve peace by treating them both on a par, and
replacing the League of Nations with the United Nations league. The
fatal defect of the former, people said, was not the one which Union Now
set forth in chapter VII, but Washington's absence from Geneva. A league
that began with both the United States and Soviet Russia could not but
succeed. Remember?

While this policy was forming, the Wartime Edition of Union Now appeared
in 1943, with three new chapters. They held that it was folly to trust
either in a league that had no Atlantic Union in it, or in a
dictatorship, even though it was our ally. To quote from the first of
these chapters entitled, "Again in Vain?"

Now, once more, many think we are out of danger, but the end is not in
sight. We Americans are hoping to secure peace by merely defeating and
disarming the other side, or by establishing some kind of international
organization, no matter what, just so it is backed by force, does not
really limit our national sovereignty, and does not stir us too much
from our mental ruts.

America and all the United Nations are still far from applying the
principles of Union Now. Yet, if one grants that Union Now has isolated
the germ and provided the serum, then it must follow that peace cannot
be had by other principles any more than malaria can be ended by chasing
butterflies. *** Victory must be disastrous if it is victory really for
the anarchy of national sovereignty among the democracies.

The second chapter agreed there was need for a universal league, but
took issue with those who put their hopes in it, alone. It opposed alike
those who urged this whether, "in the name of idealism, universal union
or nothing, the brotherhood of man or bust," or as appeasers -- "only
now it is Stalin before whom they would have the democracies bow and
scrape for fear he might do business with Germany, Japan or China"; or
as "realists" who advocate alliance "as just as good and much cheaper"
than union. The chapter added: "The free can listen to these Pied Pipers
of 'idealism,' 'appeasement,' and 'realism' -- but God help their
children if they do."

WARTIME WARNING AGAINST THE COMMUNIST ALLY

"Russian hopes of expansion lie in the least developed area of Europe,"
this 1943 edition noted, in warning against trusting in dictatorship.
"The only serious possibility of Soviet Russia quickly over-running the
world lies in the continued disunion among the democracies. The Soviet
Union, of course, has great potential power, and so have China and
India. But this power is potential. The power of the democracies is
immediate; they do not need precious years to develop it. They need only
unite to enjoy, in the decisive years immediately following this war,
the same great opportunities to secure enduring peace in freedom that
they had in 1938." (Italics in original.)

"Suppose we of Atlantica form no Union now," the last of these 1943
chapters concluded. "Suppose that all we do is to organize,
nation-to-nation, the United Nations. *** Now for the first time in
Europe we have to reckon with a great power whose possibilities of
expansion do not solely depend on the old European methods of conquest
... Let us assume the best. Let us assume that the Soviet Government in
dissolving the Comintern definitely abandoned all idea of spreading
Communism, all idea of world revolution ... But suppose ... that the
very reasons that keep them [the Atlantic democracies] from forming a
Union now -- their prejudices, mutual distrust ... wishful thinking,
apathy, lack of political courage and vision -- suppose all this keeps
them from working together on ... complex problems better than they did
before the war. The result -- nothing essential is done and chaos rules.
***

"Under this hypothesis ... there is no Union of Democracies in which any
people who desired to try our free way of life could hope to enter, or
even turn to for support in their early struggles. Could you blame the
Soviet Union for spreading thus willy nilly through Eastern Europe,
Germany ... China, the Americas? Nature abhors a vacuum not only in
physics but also in politics. It was this kind of democratic vacuum that
led to the Nazis spreading through Europe. And today, as in 1939, Union
Now calls attention to the cause of the vacuum and the danger in it.

DEMOCRACY BETRAYED FOR DISUNION

"You can still dismiss Union Now as alarmist or visionary. You can still
listen to those who see under its covers all manner of ghosts and
goblins. You can defer action on it until it is no longer possible. You
can make alliances or try half-measures such as the proposed United
Nations organization. *** But you cannot thereby keep other nations and
other forces from organizing the world that the airplane and mass
production imperatively demand. You cannot beat somebody with nobody, or
with a semi-body.

"This war is a tremendous testing ground for all the various ways of
life offered to humanity. Why has the prestige of the Soviet way risen
so remarkably? Because Communist Russia has proved stronger than most
people expected ... Why has the prestige of the free gone down so badly?
Because they disappointed expectations. Because they sold their
opportunities for a mess of nationalism. Because they wrangled when they
should have wrought. Because they identified democracy with disunion.
***

"Where the success of the Soviet armies and factories have redounded to
the prestige of Communism, even the successes of democracy in
production, transportation and on the battlefield have redounded more to
the credit of the U.S.A. or Britain than to democracy They have served
to keep nationalism alive rather than to give freedom itself the
prestige it would have gained had merely these two peoples worked and
fought as a Union of the Free.

"How can you expect our freedom to inspire the Russians ... others, as
it is? Take yourself. Have we yet achieved or undertaken anything in
this war that stirred you to the soul raised you out of your ordinary
self, left you inspired? ... The Founding Fathers knew that feeling.
Hear James Madison telling the Federal Convention: 'The government we
mean to erect is intended to last for ages.' ... Thirteen little
democracies in a world ruled by great hereditary despots ... Don't you
think that all Americans want to share that sublime faith of the
Founding Fathers, once before they die?

"If all the tears we shed, and cause others to shed in this war, are
tears of grief and frustration, if none of them is a tear of joy -- one
of those heart-warming tears that well to the eyes when we see men do
great good against great odds -- if we have no such tears of joy to shed
before this war is over, then God pity us in the bitter years to come."

THE POSTWAR OPPORTUNITY THE ATOM BROUGHT

That wartime opportunity was lost; instead of winning by the courage of
statesmen and the proverbial power of union we won by the courage of
millions of young men and the diabolic power of the atom bomb. Its
explosion blew public opinion in the United States toward the view that
peace was more important than freedom. Peace, by this view, must and
could be gained only on a universal basis -- by strengthening the United
Nations with such steps toward universal world government as the atomic
energy plan which the United States proposed -- or the more radical
steps in that direction that many Americans urged. In these conditions
the Postwar edition of Union Now appeared with five new chapters. They
pointed to ten such fallacies in current thought as these:

The atomic weapon has made the need for world government much more
urgent; therefore it has made all nations ripe for this ... Every nation
willing to try the free way of life is able to practice it; therefore
there is no danger that the great mass of humanity that has never
succeeded, in fact, in achieving free self-government will swamp the
small minority that has achieved this, if these two groups should be
united together in a world government.

Experience since then has made it no longer necessary to argue this. Nor
does there seem need now to restate the major case the 1949 edition
made, namely, that "freedom is the key to peace," that we must put it
first, not second, or take it for granted, that freedom is "in a
dangerous minority," that "mere European Union" -- in which so many
hopes then were placed -- would leave freedom's cards dangerously
divided between Europe and the United States, but that Atlantic Union
could still give freedom the decisive power needed to preserve both
itself and peace. True, so few yet understand all this that I wish there
were room here for those pages in the Postwar edition-particularly those
that explain why the principles and institutions of individual liberty
make for peace as those of dictatorship make for war. Since the
formation of the Atlantic alliance a few months after the appearance of
that 1949 edition, however we have at least been acting on the principle
that the free Atlantic community is the citadel of peace.

Those postwar years when (be it repeated) we possessed a monopoly of
atomic power -- and practically of air, sea and production power -- gave
us another great opportunity to assure by Atlantic Union that freedom
would shape the future. Again we let it slip through our hands -- and
again the event proved that the national advantages on which we counted
were far less durable, and the price of disunion far higher, than any of
us imagined. In the decade that began in 1950, dictatorship, we have
noted, soon broke our atomic monopoly, and was challenging us in air and
sea power, and boasting of "burying" us by its production in another
decade. Instead of uniting the great scientific and technical resources
of the Atlantic Community to advance freedom's lead, we sought to do
this by keeping our scientific secrets as rigorously from the free as
from dictatorship -- and within nine years we were ignominiously
trailing the latter in Space. Meanwhile we saw China's traditional
friendship for us propagandized into unbelievable hatred.

THE LOST CHANCE TO SAVE THE GOOD IN EMPIRE

Meanwhile, too, we lost another great opportunity that Atlantic Union
offered -- that of developing democracy's non-self-governing territories
as the Thirteen States did theirs -- into new states in the Union. Union
Now put this opportunity thus in chapter X:

The Union's policy should be to train them [colonial territories] for
admission to the Union as fully self-governing nations. It is true that
one can destroy democracy by seeking to spread it too quickly and
overloading the state with too many voters untrained for
self-government. It is also true, however, that the only way to acquire
such training is to practice self-government, and that an old and
well-trained democracy can safely and even profitably absorb a much
greater proportion of inexperienced voters than seems theoretically
possible.

Only Atlantic Union gave this possibility of liberating all the peoples
in the Western empires, both as persons and nations, without the losses
and dangers to them, and to freedom and peace that, it is all too
evident now, were inherent in the policy followed. That policy was no
doubt the better remaining alternative, but it destroyed the good with
the bad in empires. Union allowed the bad to be eliminated while
retaining the advantages for all concerned that unity in certain fields
brings. Such unity would have hastened building the sound political and
economic foundations that are needed, even by the most experienced
democratic peoples, to maintain freedom.

Out of Atlantica came more than the principles of individual and of
national freedom to which all the world pays at least lip service now.
Out of it came also the federal union way to combine individual and
national freedom to the advantage of both, and save them from the twin
dangers of anarchy and tyranny to which each remains always exposed.

Around 1950 the people of the United States faced a choice between these
two concepts they had fathered -- a choice much more crucial than anyone
realized then. Their Declaration of Independence had already encouraged
every colonial people to seek its combination of democratic government
and national sovereignty. By leading the way with Atlantic Union while
the empires of Western Europe still held vast territories in trust, the
American people could have worked out the problems of imperialism with
them the federal way -- and thus established through all this great area
the higher democratic pattern of free federation. Unlike imperialism,
federal union gives an equal status to every citizen and an equal
dignity and independence to every state, large or small, developed or
undeveloped, old or new, Founder or Fiftieth State -- whether it be
Texas or Delaware, New York or Alaska, Virginia or Hawaii.[3]

THE WAY OF HAWAII AND THE WAY OF THE CONGO

The multiracial people of Hawaii provide an enlightening example of the
difference -- as regards status, preparation for self-government,
guarantees of freedom, economic development and political future --
between the territory of a free federation and that of the freest of
imperial powers. Even before their admission to statehood in the Union,
the Hawaiians enjoyed far greater advantages in all these respects than
the peoples to whom imperialism points as its star exhibits.[4]

While still a territory, the people of Hawaii enjoyed practically every
advantage the people of any state enjoyed, with this major exception --
they had no voice in electing the President of the United States and no
voting representation in Congress. Statehood put them on a par in these
respects with every citizen and every state in the Union. One of their
two United States Senators is an American of Chinese origin, while their
Representative in the House is one of Japanese descent. Each has
precisely the same great power that each of his white, and black,
colleagues possesses -- the power of casting the single vote that often
makes a majority and thus decides the policy of the United States on the
gravest issues.[5]

All the dignity, freedom and self-government that each colonial people
rightly sought could have been assured them by the time-tested way that
delivered all this, and much more besides, to each of the Thirteen
Colonies and all the Fifty United States-without the fearful price which
the balkanizing alternative inevitably costs. By pledging themselves in
an Atlantic Constitution to prepare each people in their trust for
self-government and admission to the Union as early as practicable as a
fully self-governing state,[6] the people of Atlantica could have given,
on a world scale, an object lesson in the immense advantages of free
federation in solving the problem that underdeveloped peoples present.

Instead, we Americans let all our weight continue behind the last
paragraph in the Declaration of Independence -- and therefore against
its great opening principles and the Federal Constitution they produced.
And so the people of Atlantica went dizzily down the road that gave the
Congo the costly illusions of national independence, an equal but
powerless vote in the United Nations and a precarious choice at home
between domestic and foreign dictatorship. With never an effort to set
humanity the higher goal we had found, we prided ourselves more than
ever on making "complete freedom" mean only complete national
sovereignty. The more unprepared the people for self-government and the
greater the consequent danger of continued poverty, disease, ignorance,
dictatorship and war, the more we speeded the world's balkanization.
Faced with a faltering United Nations league we sought to save it by
saddling it helter-skelter with still spinier problems to be solved by
more and more inexperienced, sovereign nations.

Granted, the problems European empires left were much harder to solve
the federal way than those the American Union solved. Even so, the
Balkan way was no answer, but only a jump from the frying pan into the
fire. Granted, we still have an opportunity to make free federal union
the world's future pattern. The continents of Latin America and Africa,
and much of Asia may still be to a North Atlantic Union what the Far
West was to the Union of the Thirteen States, namely, a vast area
capable of immense development, politically and economically, to the
equal advantage of all concerned, by the federal principle uniting it in
generations ahead -- whether as new states in the union of the Free, or
through the growth first of federations in Latin America, Africa, Asia,
or by mixture of the two procedures. True, this great opportunity is
still ours -- but it is no less true that our balkanization of the world
has made the problem infinitely harder, and more urgent and dangerous,
than it was twenty years ago, or ten, or one.

SOME EUROPEANS WHO KEPT OPPORTUNITY WITH US

Despite all the missed opportunities, opportunity has remained within
reach of the free because they have thrown overboard enough impedimenta
to stay in the race -- though not enough to keep the lead they still had
in the early 1950s Mor to keep from falling more and more behind since
then. By my standards, the greatest contributions that kept Atlantica in
the running were made before and during the war by the British, and
since then by the Six Nations of Western Europe, and the United States
and Canada. (These standards of mine are not merely the principles of
Union Now: They include those of noblesse oblige -- how far a people
justifies its privileges, lives up to its responsibilities and ideals,
turns its assets to the greatest good. I would add to the parable of the
talents this thought: From him who hath the most advantages, the most
can rightfully be required, and to him who hath the most handicaps,
relatively more honor should go for what he achieves.)

For almost a year and a half the British stood up, alone, for all
Atlantica. Like the French in World War I they bore the brunt of the
battle and held the Verduns until reinforcements arrived. After heroic
efforts, whether moral or physical, anyone needs rest. Perhaps that
explains why the French failed in 1940 to live up to their great name as
soldiers, and why the British since 1945 have clung to their most
outworn ideas, and have done relatively so little to build free
government (the field they once led), on the scale of the ocean that
cradled their power.

Since the war the Dutch and the Belgians, though handicapped by their
small numbers, and by neutrality's sterile traditions combined with
invasion's embittering disillusionment, have lighted the way of the
future with Benelux.

The French, whose Jean Monnet and Charles de Gaulle were the first to
propose the 1940 offer of Franco-British Union[7] that Churchill made a
little too late, were also the first to propose officially the creation
of an Atlantic alliance. General Pierre Billotte in 1946-47 persuaded
the Paris Government to authorize him to urge on General George C.
Marshall (who proved very receptive) a much more advanced organization
than NATO is even now.

The French also led the fight for European Union that Churchill launched
but did not long continue. They, who alone were burdened with emotions
piled high by three invasions since 1870, threw off the most
impedimenta. Under the leadership of Robert Schuman, Edouard Herriot,
Georges Bidault, Vincent Auriol, Guy Mollet, Paul Reynaud, Maurice
Schumann -- and now Charles de Gaulle -- they have carried
reconciliation with the Germans the farthest toward union, in the
establishment of the Council of Europe and the much more advanced Coal
and Steel Community, Euratom and the Common Market of the Six Nations.

Reconciliation and union require more than one nation. These
achievements could not have been done without Benelux, and such Belgians
as Paul-Henri Spaak, Frans van Cauwelaert, and Paul Van Zeeland, such
Dutchmen as J. W. Beyen, Henri Brugmans and Paul Rykens. Nor without
Italy. It has had the handicap of fascismo to overcome -- but democratic
statesmen of the calibre of Count Sforza, Alcide de Gagperi, Gaetano
Martino, to restore its true glory.

The Western Germans merit special praise for throwing off so soon the
worst poisons and humiliations that any Atlantic people has suffered.
Rising from rubble and cigarette currency, their economic genius not
only led in Europe's recovery, but -- more important -- the spirit that
created the free Hanseatic cities produced incredibly, from the ruins of
Cologne and Berlin, three mayor-made Gibraltars of freedom: The towering
Konrad Adenauer, the heroic Ernest Reuter and Willy Brandt.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS THE U.S. HAS MADE TO ATLANTICA

Let us turn now to the American people. Their isolationism and
neutralism had made them the one absentee at the Geneva League which
their own Woodrow Wilson had founded; they threw off this incubus in
1945 and entered the United Nations. Under President Truman they
continued to discard other impedimenta in a swift series of moves, each
an immense break with the past -- however inadequate from the standpoint
of the immediate future. First came 1947's bold guarantee of the Greeks
and the once "terrible" Turks -- at the point of Europe most remote from
Washington and most touchy for Moscow. That year ended with the
far-sighted Plan that Will Clayton conceived, General Marshall fathered
and Britain's Ernest Bevin mid-wifed -- a Plan so generous that only
Moscow's nyet kept it from restoring Eastern as well as Western Europe,
and Russia besides.

Then in 1949 -- thanks to Stalin's blockade of Berlin, the one city
where the squabbling Americans, British and French had joint vital
interests, and forces -- the United States threw overboard its historic
injunctions against entering "entangling alliances" with Europe. It
followed President Truman and Secretary Acheson and Senator Vandenberg
in forming (with powerful assists from Britain's Ernest Bevin and
Canada's Lester Pearson[8]) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Thereafter came the arming of NATO -- under the leadership of General
Eisenhower and General Gruenther -- with the most entangling and
advanced form of international force ever achieved in a military
alliance. There followed (with Secretary Dulles leading, and Secretary
Generals Ismay and Spaak doing the groundwork) the development of the
NATO Council into an instrument of political consultation which set
another new high for the alliance system. Thereafter came, too, to
establishment in 1955, of the annual NATO Parliamentarians Conference,
fathered by the Speaker of the Canadian Senate, Wishart McL. Robertson,
Finn Moe, M.P. of Norway, and these members of the United States
Congress: Senators Estes Kefauver and Guy Gillette, Representatives
James P. Richards and Wayne Hays.

By this series of moves toward Atlantic Union, Western Europe was
restored, the Atlantic Community was made aware of itself, and
Communism's advance in Europe was halted. Thus freedom survived, and its
great opportunity remains at the door. And now the United States has put
forward a hand -- the Atlantic Convention -- that can unlock the door
and seize the opportunity.

WHAT IS THE KEY CAUSE OF IT ALL?

When all credit is given, troubling questions remain. What brought on us
the hurricane, earthquake, holocaust? Why have such vast danger and
opportunity moved us too little, too slowly? Freedom-and-union blessed
us Atlanticans with the greatest advantages -- why have we done no more
with them? Why have we, the community that is still far more advanced
politically and economically than any other on earth, advanced so
gropingly, so timidly, so snailishly through these fifteen postwar
years? How does it come that Russia, burdened by the poverty and
ignorance of unbroken ages of tyranny, has risen so much faster from the
war that left Russia in ruins ... and America intact? Have the people of
Atlantica lost their purpose and grown soft ... through the high
standards of living democracy brought them? Is that the answer? Long ago
Tocqueville warned:

While men devote themselves to this honest and legitimate search for a
better material life, they need beware lest they finish by losing the
use of their most sublime faculties and, in seeking to improve their
surroundings, end by degrading themselves. There, and not elsewhere,
lies the danger. ***

When the materialists have proved sufficiently that they are not brutes,
they seem as proud as though they had proved themselves gods.

Materialism is everywhere a dangerous disease of the human spirit, but it
is to be guarded against particularly by a democratic people, for it
combines marvelously with their common vice. Democracy encourages a
taste for material satisfactions. This taste, if it becomes excessive,
leads men soon to believe that matter alone counts; materialism, in
turn, leads them to pursue material satisfactions with a senseless
ardor. Such is the vicious circle into which democratic nations are
pulled. To hold themselves back, they need to see this danger.[9]

To say that our high standards of living have thus softened us for the
kill would be a bleak answer indeed. All the new nations, and all
humanity, are now eager to gain the material comforts we have attained;
they seek these much more avidly than the high moral principle of
freedom-and-union which brought us these fruits. What draws them most to
Moscow is that the Communist dictatorship seems to have found a shortcut
by which under-developed nations can more quickly attain greater
material rewards. But Tocqueville also pointed out:

Man has risen above the beasts because he used his soul to gain the
material goods they gain by instinct only. The angel in man taught the
beast in him the art of satisfying his needs. It is because Man is
capable of rising above the body and sacrificing his own life [for what
he believes in] -- a quality that beasts have no conception of -- that
he has found out how to multiply his bodily satisfaction to a degree
that they can not conceive of either.[10]

If we who have proved this most by our respect for the "angel in man" --
if we have already fallen victims of materialism to the point where we
can no longer surpass the Communist dictatorship, then what hope can
there be for humanity in the triumph of the system that begins by making
materialism its god, and denies each human being the spark of God that
makes him a man?

LOOKING UP TO HEAVEN, NOT MERELY UP TO SPACE

There is much to make one believe that where our Founding Fathers looked
up to Heaven, we look up to Space. But there is more to persuade me, for
one, that this bleak answer is not the key cause of our present problem.
The free people of Atlantica need to be more vigilant against
materialism -- but they have by no means succumbed to it. They are not
soft, nor have they lost their high purpose. Look at the way they have
responded to all the highest and hardest appeals their leaders have made
to them. Look how the British rose to the faith that Churchill had in
them ... Remember the response of the French to de Gaulle ... the
Germans to Adenauer ... the Italians to de Gasperi ...

Consider the prodigious efforts we Americans made in the war and -- more
important -- how our people responded to every effort our leaders asked
of us then, and since then, no matter how great the break with our past
or how heavy the sacrifice.[11] Entry into the United Nations ...
sacrifice of sovereignty in the Acheson atomic plan ... guaranty of
Turkey and Greece ... Marshall Plan ... Atlantic alliance ... upholding
the United Nations by war in Korea ... carrying a heavy unending
taxation burden for foreign aid -- there has not been a single great
thing asked of the American people since the war that they and their
representatives in Congress have not promptly delivered, no matter how
much power was divided between the parties, between the Houses, and
between the Congress and President.

Compare this recent record with that which followed World War I -- the
Senate's rejection of the Covenant inspired by so great a President as
Woodrow Wilson, and the people's return to "normalcy" with Harding, and
their appearance as "Uncle Shylock," with Coolidge's "they hired the
money." Compare the two postwar periods ... and then say whether the
fault since 1939 lies in the people having too many gadgets, and too
many mass media ... or in their leadership seeing too many ghosts, and
having too little faith in themselves, and in their fellow-citizens ever
to look up to, instead of down on, the American people -- ever to ask
them to seize the great opportunity there at the door.[12] ...

Henry L. Stimson in his memoirs, On Active Service, which he wrote in
the third person, thus characterized his own role in the period between
World Wars I and II: "To himself he seemed adventurous." In reviewing
the book in The New York Times Book Review, Gerald W. Johnson noted:

It is sufficient commentary on the failure of statecraft in the Long
Armistice that a man doing the obviously prudent and necessary thing
should have seemed adventurous to himself. "The political history of
Postwar Europe," he [Stimson] comments bitterly, can easily be read as a
series of great hopes meanly lost. Stimson emphatically refuses to try
and exculpate himself or his colleagues as they blundered from war to
war.

"The besetting sin of the nations was nationalism, that of the statesmen
was timidity," Stimson concluded. To themselves they all seemed
adventurous, but the most courageous among them ended by finding they
were, in fact, cowards.

There is much to make one believe that their continued rash caution is
the cause of the disasters that we have suffered, the opportunities we
have missed, the plight we are in. But to me this, like our sins of
materialism, is only a contributing factor. There are many such factors,
of course. It may seem foolhardy to single out one as the key cause, but
to do this is essential -- as essential as it was for Pasteur to single
out one invisible microbe, when anthrax slew the sheep. If we are not
venturesome enough to try to do this, we are cowards indeed, and doomed
to fail.

THE MASTER KEY TO PANDORA'S HOTEL:
CONFUSION OVER SOVEREIGNTY

Amid the hotel-keeper's mass of keys, there is a master key that seems
no more important than the rest, but does open all the doors. There is
also a master key, I believe, to our disasters, our missed
opportunities, our balkanization of continents, our suicidal policies,
and to the timidity of our leaders, the fear of popular opposition that
prevents them from doing what they know is right, and the sense of
hopelessness that keeps so many, in politics, diplomacy, press and the
public, from tackling openly -- or at all -- the dragon ahead that is
blocking us all.

The key cause, I believe, is the continuing confusion of the free over
sovereignty. That this confusion should continue is only too
understandable, for the democratic concept of sovereignty does leave the
people, like the subjects of Baal's Jezebel, between two opinions.
Looked at the old way, the sovereign is the nation, the state. The
sovereign is collective man, whether federation, kingdom, city republic
or tribe, and whether the body politic be incarnated in a divine right
autocrat or in a tribal divinity -- a Baal whom man was made to serve.
Looked at the democratic way, the sovereign is the citizen -- equally
each of the people who make the state, and make it to serve life,
liberty, and greater happiness to them individually -- and who count on
"the angel" in each of them to make this concept work.

So much does this concept count, in fact, on the God in every soul that
Rousseau found that "democracy is a government for gods, but unfit for
men" -- and put his faith instead in the older idea, which he disguised
as la volonte generale -- "the general will."[13] It is more often known
today as the "national interest," "the collective will," "the
dictatorship of the proletariat," the "totalitarian state."

The confusion over the democratic concept begins when a number of
democratic states arise in a region, for then all these free people must
answer the question: Which is our true sovereign, which shall we
recognize as supreme, in our dealings with one another -- the state or
the citizen, our nation or our soul? They must answer, in short, the
probing question Elijah put to the Hebrews: Which is the Lord -- Baal,
or the God who speaks with a still, small voice inside each individual?
Between them we have remained ... with two opinions. We Atlanticans have
kept God above Baal within each of our nations, and have kept Baal above
God in our Atlantic community. We still seek to serve both Jesus and
Jezebel.

For twenty-seven years now I have tried, in books, articles, talks, to
end this confusion. The only clear result is that I have not done so.
Nor have better men. There is some little comfort in noting how
confused, and confusing, so many great men of the past have been on this
subject -- and I shall share with you in chapter 7 some of this comfort.
No matter from what angle you approach the democratic concept of
sovereignty, you soon find that it is not the simple thing it seemed at
first. And yet, like all great truths, it must be simple.

The confusion surrounding it is a most difficult fog to see through, and
clear away. Yet I am completely convinced that until, and unless, this
subject of sovereignty is clarified greatly, there will be, and can be,
only stumbling little steps foredoomed to disaster -- and no possibility
whatever of our grasping in time our immense opportunity. After
pondering all that has happened since Union Now appeared, and studying
how I might contribute most at this stage to its program, principle and
philosophy, I came to this conclusion: Freedom, peace and man's vast
future will all stand or fall on how clearly we understand our
democratic concept of sovereignty. And so I threw out the work I had
done on concrete questions, and have devoted most of the chapters in
this book to this subject.

In them I try to clarify sovereignty by approaching it from several
angles, but mainly by throwing on it the searching light that American
history provides. I concentrate so much on the latter for two reasons
(plus those in the Introduction): A) My deep respect for Europe's many
achievements includes admiration for the rare grasp a few Europeans have
had even of United States history and federalism -- fields in which
Europe generally is not at its best. In other words, I agree with
Tocqueville and other exceptional European observers that democratic
sovereignty is the subject on which everyone can learn most from United
States history. B) Finally, I agree with Lord Acton, and the British in
general, that in questions so complex as political ones, example and
experience provide the wisest guides.

In writing Union Now originally, I studied much more American history
than its few references to this might suggest. I thought I had also
gained an understanding of sovereignty in my ten years covering the
League of Nations. Since then I have learned far more than I then knew
about both sovereignty and its history in America. This has confirmed
but clarified the basic view of sovereignty I gave in Union Now.[14]
This is true, too, of the chapters that follow. In writing them, I have
added so much to my own understanding, at least, as to make me
comprehend better why Sir Isaac Newton said that he was but picking up
pebbles on the seashore of truth.

Yet if one picks up the right pebble, and aims it as truly as David,
Goliath himself can be conquered. It is time that he should fall.

CONTINUED TRAGEDY -- OR TRIUMPHANT ENDING?

So swiftly have the years flown for me since Union Now appeared, that it
comes as a shock to realize that children who were born then are old
enough to vote today -- the boys to bear arms, the girls to bear
children. A new generation has risen that was too young to read the
editions of 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1943. Millions of new human beings who
were just learning to read fairy tales when the last edition appeared in
1949 are in high school today -- old enough to take part in the current
interscholastic debate on Atlantic Union. The generation I addressed on
page 52 of Union Now in 1939 -- those with whom I played cowboy and
hide-and-go-seek -- they are grandparents now, as I am. And our
grandchildren are the ones who will die Communists -- if Mr. Khrushchev
is right, and his concept of sovereignty continues to divide the free.

"Some day ... something like what Mr. Streit suggests will have to come
to pass, either now or after we and our children's children have waded
anew through flowing rivers of blood." So wrote the historian, James
Truslow Adams, in reviewing Union Now in The New York Times in 1939.
Nothing like it was done by parents then. Their children went to war as
they came of age. Must their children's children continue to fulfill
that prophecy -- because parents continue to be "too busy to read" or to
help assure that something like what Union Now suggests will be tried --
now?

"The reader of Union Now," Mr. Adams continued, "will feel Fate marching
on with the inevitable footfalls of a Greek tragedy as the author takes
up one alternative after another and shows the certain futility of them
all ... If all alternatives are futile and this solution is impossible,
what then? The answer -- misery, chaos, untold horror -- lends a tragic
and poignant emotion to the slow moving, but states manlike pages of
Union Now."

Now the stage is set at the Atlantic Convention for the greatest act in
this drama. For my part, I am not discouraged by democracy's painful
process of trying error always first. I believe that, with
freedom-and-union now, we can not only bury Communism, as completely as
we did Hitler, but do it without world war. I see our children's
children -- and even us grandparents -- enjoying a higher civilization
than we dream of ... no utopia, but something as real as the immense
advance that men have made since the principle of freedom-and-union
began its miracles on this continent in 1789.

My faith that this will come about is not blind faith. It is lit by the
most lucid thought I am capable of. If this book should succeed in
making this reasoning clear and simple enough for anyone to understand,
then this faith should be contagious ... and we shall, together, bring
the long tragedy of our century to a triumphant ending. But faith is
shown by works, not words. In the end, all depends on how we each answer
the double-barbed question which a still small Voice put to Elijah, when
he too had fled to the wilderness ... "What doest thou here?"

____

1. See Freedom Against Itself by the author (Harpers 1954), Chapter 4
and Annex 1, which lists "1,012 Major Inventions, Discoveries and
Innovations since 1750," and shows that 95 per cent came from Atlantica,
2 per cent from Russia.

2. Freedom Against Itself, pp. 150-172.

3. See "Federalism's Expansion Principle," chapter 20, The New
Federalist by Publius II (Harper & Bros., 1950).

4. That these advantages for Hawaii resulted from the virtues of free
federal union rather than from any national superiority seems evident
from the fact that race prejudice afflicts many more white Americans
than Frenchmen, or Britons.

5. Incidentally, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the
Atlantic Convention on Feb. 10, 1960, by a vote of eight to seven. Had
this majority of one been the other way, the measure would not have
reached the Floor and action would have been deferred to the new
Congress, meeting in 1961.

6. As Union Now proposed in Article II, sections 2 and 4, of its
"Illustrative Constitution." (See Book II, first annex.)

7. See "De Gaulle Urged Federal Union on Churchill in 1940," July 1958
Freedom & Union, a research report based on their memoirs and other
sources. A reprint of this may be had from Freedom & Union for $0.10.

8. Mr. Pearson fathered the most constructive provision in the North
Atlantic Treaty, Article 2 by which the Parties pledge "further
development of peaceful and friendly international relations by
strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better
understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are
founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being," and
by seeking "to eliminate conflict and encourage economic
collaboration."

9. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Part IV, chapter 15 (my
translation).

10. Ibid., Part IV, chapter 16 (my translation).

11. I shall never forget hearing Will Clayton, Joseph Grew and Justice
Owen J. Roberts stress this fact to Dean Acheson, then Secretary of
State, when he received one afternoon a delegation of Atlantic Unionists
I was privileged to be in.

12. For my part, I confess I would have despaired, had not my direct and
widespread knowledge of the American people always kept me looking up to
them, and expecting greatness from them -- not 13-year-old mentalities.
This may seem strange, in view of the time it has taken to get even an
Atlantic Convention called, but the answer is that it would have been
called much sooner had Presidents whom the people trusted had my own
trust in the American people.

13. Felix Morley has much to say on this in his book, Freedom and
Federalism (Regnery 1960) which one should read.

14. See especially chapters VI, VII, IX, XIII in Book II.

