More than a century and a half ago, our New England ancestors - or at least the ancestors of some of us, since mine hadn't come over yet - tried to prevent the 13 United States from expanding the Nation's boundaries to the South and West. Those old New England Federalists were motivated solely by a set of real values and a return to principle - namely, the fear that if land suddenly became cheap the real values of their vast land-holdings would go down and they would never get as much return on their principle.
But they were also convinced that bringing a lot of new votes and a lot of new politicians into the United States spelled trouble - and they were right. Political life in America would be a lot simpler today without the Midwest, Southwest and Far West. There would be no Natural Gas Bill to divide and tarnish the Senate - Senators would have to provide their own natural gas; and some of us do pretty well - even without a depletion allowance. There would be no farm problem calling for the establishment of a soil bank - although a soil bank sounds like a good savings institution if we can just convince all the Republicans to deposit their dirt before the campaign. And there would be no Detroit, no auto manufacturers and no car-dealers in the country - and thus the President's Cabinet would be smaller, duller and Dulles.
On the other hand, however, without a Midwest there would be no Illinois and no Adlai Stevenson - and that would take much of the joy out of American politics. Whom else could we criticize in California as being too moderate for saying the same thing he said in Florida - where we criticized him for being too radical? Whom else could we expect to unify his party and his country by taking a positive, forthright stand on one side or another of every burning issue that is dividing his party and his country? Whom else could we deride for being too intellectually aloof and too commonly humorous, too outspoken and too indecisive, and too much of a politician with too little political experience?
Governor Stevenson is immensely popular here in New England, I can testify. I have just completed an exhaustive survey - I must have talked with half a dozen people or so (I exhaust very easily in an election year) - and everyone was for him, except for a few who weren't sure they liked the idea of a civilian in the White House. The rest, including the Republicans, were for Stevenson - as long as he wasn't running against President Eisenhower, Chief Justice Warren, Governor Ribicoff, Milton Eisenhower, Liberace or Bishop Sheehan.
After all, New England gave Adlai Stevenson a great send-off vote in 1952 - trouble is, we sent him off around the world instead of to the White House. But Mr. Stevenson is gradually realizing what errors he made in that campaign - very gradually, since less than one full chapter of Mr. Truman's Memoirs appears in the Times each day.
But today New England Democrats are eager and active, Governor - we always have something on the fire - and it's usually a fellow Democrat. Our slogan here is "all together, fellows - and every man for himself." But we fight Republicans even harder than we fight Democrats - at least, most Democrats. After all, the Eisenhower Administration damned our textile industry, damned our Federal installations and damned our requests for assistance to meet unemployment - but they forgot while they were about it to dam up our rivers and streams. Like the New Haven Railroad, this Administration has either run us down, passed us by or slowed us up - it has usually been going the wrong way on the wrong track at the wrong time - and the stockholders are getting ready to demand a new President.
New England admires Adlai Stevenson as a great leader and statesman even more than they admire him as a great Democrat. And thus I think it would be fitting to express how New England feels about Adlai E. Stevenson by paraphrasing the tribute paid by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 to the Republican George Norris of Nebraska:
History asks, "Did the man have integrity?
Did the man have unselfishness?
Did the man have courage?
Did the man have consistency?"
There are few statesmen in America today who so definitely and clearly measure up to an affirmative answer to those four questions as does Adlai E. Stevenson.
Speech Images