James R. Fuchs Oral History Interview, Volume 3

Notice
This is a transcript of a tape-recorded interview conducted for the Harry S. Truman Library. A draft of this transcript was edited by the interviewee but only minor emendations were made; therefore, the reader should remember that this is essentially a transcript of the spoken, rather than the written word.

Numbers appearing in square brackets (ex. [45]) within the transcript indicate the pagination in the original, hardcopy version of the oral history interview.

RESTRICTIONS
This oral history transcript may be read, quoted from, cited, and reproduced for purposes of research. It may not be published in full except by permission of the Harry S. Truman Library.

Opened 1976
Harry S. Truman Library
Independence, Missouri

[1]

CURRY: How did the Truman Library get involved in the Kennedy oral history project?

FUCHS: We became involved almost immediately in that they were looking for someone to direct the project and to do some initial interviewing, someone with experience. Stationed in Washington in the National Archives, was our first full-time interviewer, Charlie Morrissey, and they impressed his services. This was probably in December 1963, or early 1964, during which time he continued to do some interviewing for us. By March 1964, he was really directing their

[2]

project, although he did remain on our personnel roll until later in '64, about September.

CURRY: How does our oral history program compare with the Kennedy program in the number of interviews and substance?

FUCHS: Well, if you want to draw comparisons, they, with a much larger staff and many more funds, have exceeded our number of interviews. They have had as many as four full-time interviewers and one part-time, in addition to the Director of the project, four to five reviewer-editors, as well as a process supervisors and several clerk-typists, plus up to 80 or 10 transcribers. They might have had as many as fifteen persons working on oral history. This is to say anything of the early, what might be called "hoard" of volunteer interviewers who did the initial crash program of interviewing. Where as at any one time

[3]

the Truman Library has had no more than one fulltime interviewer and a part-time interviewer and two transcribers who double as clerk-typists handling all the correspondence, logs, filing and so forth a clerk would do.

Our staff hasn't exceeded four at any time, and as I've said before, we have had the services of a full-time interviewer for no more than one half of the time the program has been in operation. So you can see that there has been a much greater emphasis on oral history at the Kennedy Library.

If you consider the two projects with this in mind I think we compare very favorably. The Eisenhower interview project was done on a contract basis by the Columbia Oral History Research Office with copies of the transcripts being deposited both in the Eisenhower Library and the Research Office. They did at a later date institute some staff interviewing, but only about

[4]

8 percent of their interviews have been done by staff interviewers.

The Hoover Library has a project, commenced about 1966 by a former associate of Mr. Hoover and done under completely private aegis.

The Johnson Library oral history project was done by a staff member of the University of Texas at Austin for the Johnson Library, although now I believe they have some continuation of the project and staff interviewers.

CURRY: What about the Roosevelt Library?

FUCHS: Well, the Roosevelt Library has never had an oral history interview project, and it's strange in view of the fact that he served three full terms and commenced a fourth, and is among--it's generally said--our great Presidents, There were certainly a lot of people worthwhile to interview and probably still are today. It should be said that many individuals who were prominent certainly

[5]

in the Roosevelt administration have been interviewed by the Columbia Oral History Research Office, so there is no complete hiatus in that area.

It may have been that certain individuals connected with the Roosevelt Library and our Washington office had a predisposition against oral history, and didn't feel that it was worth the large costs. I don't know of any direct proposal to institute a program there that was subsequently turned down by authorities; there may have been one.

To recap, there has only been a total of five who have engaged in interviewing, full-time and part-time for our project, as dictating machine transcribers. This has not been enough in view of the importance of President Truman, who served nearly two full terms.

CURRY: A lot of people criticize oral history. They

[6]

say individual's memories are faulty, they remember things as they want to remember them, or at least tell them that way. They never put themselves in a bad light and rarely tell anything bad about a person they like and so on. In other words, it's very unreliable history. Do you think such criticisms are justified?

FUCHS: Well, I think it's justified to mention these things and certainly they are valid to an extent. The researcher, in the first place, must remember that these are very subjective treatments of personalities and events and that they have been filtered through the mind of the interviewee and subject to his prejudices and inclinations and desires, if you will, and therefore they must be viewed as suspect. Nevertheless, I think it is of value to record these and to get their views of these things that are of interest to historians. Certainly come distort,

[7]

but they usually don't lie outright. They are no different than those who create documents who very often alter the facts accord with what they would like them to have been. Memorandums written after the fact, and deposited in a file for notice of anyone concerned with it are often not true accounts of what really occurred at a meeting, a conference, or whatnot. They're after the fact, and maybe adjusted to make a person appear in a better light. I think you have the same sort of thing there.

You might say, "Well, documents don't lie, but liars document," or something like that. Oral history is certainly worthwhile, in my opinion, and interviews are reliable enough to make it worthwhile to record these things, although one can't accept them at face value without any introspection about them. And of course, there is the value of having multiple interviews in a particular area, and about a particular event, or

[8]

about a particular individual, because one gets a great deal of material and one can see what seems to be valid because it's corroborated by a great number of persons, that the facts jibe between what people say in an interview situation apart from the other person. I think there's ways of looking at oral history transcripts so that you can establish to a degree the validity of them. But all the things you say enter into the picture.

Do you have anything to add to that?

LAGERQUIST: No, I think as long as you consider the fact that the person being interviewed may be trying to justify his own actions, and also recognize that you can't depend entirely on the interviews, then there are these gaps in the historical record and I think this is the only thing that can fill them in.

FUCHS: Many times the interviewees are talking about

[9]

events in which they were not directly concerned and they are dispassionate about it. They sort of sat on a log and watched these things transpire, but they were on a log that was in a good position for them to see. They don't really have a vested interest, they are not trying to justify anything for themselves. In so many cases you're getting a better account of events than you could by interviewing one who was a protagonist in the event perhaps. This is one reason why we've often found that the top participants, I'll use the example of a Secretary of State who signs a treaty--is not as good to interview about the subject as it would be to interview one who worked in the preparation of position papers, and so forth, and really dealt with the nitty gritty of it. What I'm saying is that often interviews with those at a lower level are of more value than those

[10]

with a more prominent official.

CURRY: Realizing that you may be a little prejudiced for or against them, what kind of a job do you think that Morrissey and Hess and McKinzie did?

FUCHS: I feel by and large they have done a good job. They've had their good moments and their bad moments, but I've seen the same thing in other projects' transcripts. All have times when they fail to follow a logical lead, may have offered a leading question, or any number of other things that you would say doesn't make up a good interviewing technique, which they certainly acquired to a greater degree as time went on. I think they compare favorably with interviewers in other projects.

LAGERQUIST: I think in our oral history transcripts, any interviews that don't amount to much have

[11]

been with persons that just didn't want to cooperate.

FUCHS: Yes, I think that that's true. This is sometimes the case, you're just up against a stonewall. You realize that you have not produced a good interview. We know that we have some interviews that are not in the category of first class historical evidence, but I think they are in the minority. This is inevitable and the unfortunate thing about the procedure is that you really don't know what you're going to get in the interview until you've interviewed a man. Then you're already committed. Of course you can cut the interview short when you realize that you're in an unprofitable situation but you can't be rude and you have to proceed to a point. Some of the individuals whom you preconceived would be your best interviewees because of the loftiness of their position and

[12]

the things they were involved in, in relating their participation in events almost give you the feeling that they weren't there. They know the written record and they might parrot that back to you, but you don't get much else. This is sometimes due, I suppose, to the fact that they have participated in many seminars, conferences, etc., and they've said these things so many times, that they're a little less inclined to repeat them--they feel that their story has been told. They may have written books in which they've told their story. We try to fill in on the gaps we find, which they inevitably leave. We try to have them go into more detail, to get new insights and opinions about personalities, to add something to the record, even though they've written widely, but often you don't get anything much.

CURRY: Did Mr. Truman feel this way?

[13]

FUCHS: Mr. Truman was inclined, in an interview with researchers, to simply say, "I've published my Memoirs and it's all in there."

LAGERQUIST: Yes, we remember that he used to allow doctoral candidates to come in and interview him, and in most cases, especially when they got into a sensitive issue, and especially in the field of foreign affairs, he'd say, "It's all in the Memoirs."

FUCHS: I think sometimes those who were in the higher levels are more inhibited by your tape recorder in that they are very conscious of the fact that in their political life, that when things aren't recorded if it doesn't come out too well, they can retract; but when the tape recorder came in, they then couldn't say, "Well, I was misquoted, that's the way the reporter says I said it, but I didn't." Now they can play the tape back, and they're in a little different position. I think

[14]

some of them are very conscious of this, even though they know what your purpose is and what you're doing, they are a little more inhibited than people who have been not in the public eye and who are not so fearful of their position in history.

LAGERQUIST: Also, the man at the top always makes the final decision and has the responsibility for the final decision, but much of the preliminary work in negotiations would be done by his subordinates and he wouldn't enter into the making of the final decision at all, but it's this preliminary work very often that historians are interested in.

FUCHS: That's very true.

CURRY: Getting back a little bit to people who have interviewed for you, what particular abilities or qualifications do you think, Morrissey, for

[15]

instance, had as an interviewer?

FUCHS: Well, he was a trained historian; he had an inquiring mind, he was articulate, he was analytical, and he was a congenial Irishman. I suppose it was easy for him to establish rapport, to get along with the person he was interviewing with in most cases. He was well-suited I would say for interviewing.

CURRY: How about Hess?

FUCHS: Well, I think Hess was somewhat, you might say less gregarious, he was not as outgoing, quite, as Morrissey. Of course, he had the advantage of a training in history, although not to the extent of Morrissey. Of course, Morrissey wasn't with us very long and his interviews amount to only a fraction in number of what Hess did, and some of his done in rather, I suppose hurried circumstances, in that he was

[16]

becoming involved with the Kennedy project.

Hess was inclined to research quite deeply and, of course, if you want to put it on the record, Hess was more likely to ask certain standard questions, which, perhaps, he should have adapted more to the particular individual. It isn't always best to go through a preset list of questions. He was inclined to say, "The next question is," and he had a very structured interview, in that he had certain questions he wanted to ask and he wanted to be sure that he got all of them in. Morrissey was more inclined to pick up questions in the course of the interview and to make more out of them, to be more the opportunist. I think this is a fault that a lot of us have, if one tries to structure an interview too much and use a set list of questions, you fail to recognize some of the opportunities to pursue other things to a proper length, and you miss some good material.

[17]

CURRY: How about McKinzie?

FUCHS: McKinzie had the advantage of interviewing in a particular area, in which he was well trained, he was a specialist in the area he was assigned. That is in opposition to Morrissey and Hess, who were interviewing in diverse areas. For them it was a little harder to build one interview on top of another. McKinzie, who was trained in history, with emphasis on foreign relations, has a good memory and was able to seize opportunities in interviews.

LAGERQUIST: Hadn't he also done a good deal in the way of interviewing in connection with his own foreign aid project?

FUCHS: That is true. He had done some interviewing in his project for the Institute, which involved

[18]

interviewing on a somewhat narrow subject, the foreign aid program of the Truman administration. It did involve the technique, however, so he had experience when he came to our project. I think he did a good job, although there again, he wasn't without fault. He was inclined to be impatient, impatient in a sense with himself that he often felt that he didn't get a question across properly in his first statement, so without giving his subject a chance to answer, he would immediately reword his question, resulting in some long statements. I think when one asks a long question one tends to volunteer a lot of facts. This may result in just a corroborative, "Yes, that's right," by the interviewee. One doesn't really know if one is establishing what the man knows, or if you're getting what one has told him. This is something that all oral history interviewers have to watch, that they don't just make a statement of facts and giving their subject

[19]

an opportunity to say, "Yes that's right," or "No, that's wrong." It's better to ask a direct question and let him supply the answer. However, if he doesn't understand your question, or doesn't quite speak to the point, then you can be more precise and offer some information to jog his memory; but initially it's not the best way to do it.

CURRY: Do you think we could have used more full-time interviewers?

FUCHS: I certainly feel that the Truman Library project was understaffed, and underfunded. I think that there was shortsightedness in feeling that we could operated with a part-time project chief who had to handle all of the administrative matters including seeing a transcript from the interview stage clear through to its accessioning. Initially I thought, when it was set up, that I

[20]

would probably later be superseded by someone with a Ph.D. in history who maybe had had some prior experience interviewing, and who would run the project. I expected to go back to being an archivist. I was quickly disabused of that, and then I felt that the project would expand and we would have no less than a staff of two or maybe three full-time interviewers for a period at least. But I quickly learned that there wasn't much chance of this. When at various times the subject of additional interviewers was broached, it was always dismissed because "we can't afford that. We have to operate with what we have." For quite a while we operated with but one transcriber who also was the clerk-typist for the project, handling all the correspondence and all the filing and so forth, in addition to being used in many, many other Library projects in the Library, which took time from oral history, as I was likewise involved

[21]

in additional projects that permitted very little time to interview or even to spend time in planning the program. I always felt that there should have been some effort to direct funds away from other matters, which I feel were less imperative, and direct them towards putting more into the oral history project. In other words, to pay people to give full time to research and travel for interviewing.

CURRY: Why didn't we get more people?

FUCHS: Basically I think it was a matter of bodies, that my supervisors felt they couldn't get funds to employ additional personnel, or that they just didn't want to increase the amount of money devoted to it. As the saying goes, "you get what you pay for." It would be very difficult to cost the project at the Truman Library for the simple reason that to this day the oral

[22]

history project staff is involved in so many other activities, even if I were to devote full time to oral history they have always taken the oral history transcribing and clerical staff and used them for many kinds of other Library projects, such as even filling in at the Sales Desk, answering the telephone, transcribing conferences, giving relief, etc. I don't mean to complain but to actually say what has been spent on oral history, really devoted to completing transcripts for our archives, is impossible. To total salaries of the staff, plus costs of supplies and travel is not valid. Even costs of trips are not valid, since time was often spent in seeking papers with no interview involved.

CURRY: Looking back, would you like to change the project in any other way?

FUCHS: Well, at times I have felt that it might have been more successful if a bit more imagination

[23]

would have enabled a way that I proposed. In that we would have hired specialized interviewers, people who were specialists in an area, such as McKinzie in foreign affairs, and have had them conduct a series of interviews in that area, building one on another, increasing their knowledge as they proceeded even more rapidly. But this was ruled out, largely, I suppose, because of the nature of Government employment and funding. There could have been a better project, more interviews, or perhaps better interviews, but all in all I think that in comparison with other projects we have done a pretty good job.

CURRY: What is left to do in oral history at the Library?

FUCHS: I would say, apart from the fact that we have easily two or three years of work in just processing the materials that we have already

[24]

accumulated, seeing them through to the final transcript stage, and to say nothing about how long it might be before we actually will be able to conclude agreements with all of these people and accession these transcripts for research, there are at least 35 to 40 who would be good candidates for interviews. Maybe 20 to 25 of these I feel should be definitely interviewed. This number would, of course, be lessened by some attrition in a year or so probably. And there are, maybe 10 to 15 whom we are committed to interview, who we've approached and they've agreed, or who are of such prominence, or were in such a position in the administration that I feel it's rather necessary that they be interviewed lest there appears to be a glaring deficiency in the program.

CURRY: What areas are left to be done?

FUCHS: Well, there are no major areas that we've

[25]

neglected excepted in certain Cabinet level positions where we have been unable to get the top man in the Cabinet, the Secretaries, or we may have the Secretaries but we thought it rather necessary to get one or two subordinates near the top level in the Departments to help corroborate or to give their views and insights on operations as seen from close to the Secretaries. I'm speaking, naturally, of Under Secretaries, or Assistant Secretaries, or Assistants to the Secretary. In some departments we don't adequately have this type of thing covered. I think of Commerce and Agriculture, Labor. As you know, of course, Truman's two Secretaries of Labor were Lewis Schwellenbach, and Maurice Tobin. Schwellenbach died while in office and Tobin died within six months after the end of the administration, long before our project started. There's room for a little more interviewing in those particular departments.

[26]

Interior would be another one, although we have interviewed Oscar Chapman at length.

In the military many of the people who we might have interviewed have been adequately interviewed by other projects, principally comes to mind the Columbia Oral History Research Office and certain military projects. There was some carryover of personnel from the Truman administration to the subsequent administrations, of course, and in their interviewing, the Kennedy, and even the Johnson and Eisenhower, projects have taped individuals that we haven't interviewed and over some of the things that deal with our period. Although, I would say in most cases an interview with them more directly on the Truman era would be worthwhile.

There are certain individuals left who were close to Mr. Truman, and although not on the national scene, who have been on our list for a long time to interview. For various reasons

[27]

we have never been able to get them to sit down with a tape recorder and it would be a shame to not interview them. We ought to go ahead and do them. One just can't conclude that a person will now not have too much that's new to say.

There are even individuals who were on the White House staff who have not yet agreed to be interviewed. I think of one, Raymond Zimmerman, who was administrative assistant for personnel and another, Donald Dawson, who was important in the same area. So, as I say, there is a priority list of a dozen, perhaps, that should yet be interviewed. And if one wants to go down to the levels to which some of the other projects have gone, there is a list remaining that could be extended to between fifty and a hundred, I suppose. There is, of course, a point of diminishing returns in certain areas, and we have to weigh possible return against

[28]

the time and funds involved.

CURRY: Has McKinzie made any additional commitments, or did you include those?

FUCHS: I included certain persons in the area of foreign affairs with whom he has made initial contact and beyond that, had further conversations but was never able, for some reason or another, to interview them. In most cases their names are not ones that the average person would be familiar with, but here again they were at a level where they were in a position to observe, or were working on speeches or position papers, or forwarding programs, and we contacted them in the first place because we felt that they would have something of importance to say. It's always difficult to say whether an interview is going to be worthwhile, because as I have said before, you never know what a person has

[29]

to offer until you get to the taping. Sometimes those that were thought important weren't, in terms of what we have in the transcript; whereas some who it seemed would be of lesser value, and who might have been dismissed without an interview, have brought out new facts and new insights, and the interviews were certainly worth while. Now there are probably still some that are in that category.

CURRY: Does any example come to mind on how one of your interviews has been put to particularly good, or maybe unexpected use by a researcher?

FUCHS: No.

List of Subjects Discussed

Chapman, Oscar, 26
Columbia Oral History Research Office, 3, 5, 26

Dawson, Donald, 27

Eisenhower Oral History Project, 3-4, 26

Hess, Jerry (Interviewer), 10, 15-17
Hoover Oral History Project, 4

Johnson Library Oral History Project, 4, 26

Kennedy Oral History Project, 1-3, 26

McKenzie, Richard D. (Interviewer), 10, 17-18, 23, 28
Morrissey, Charles (Interviewer), 1-2, 10, 14-17

Oral Histories

Roosevelt Oral History Project, 4-5

Truman Library Oral History Project, 3, 5, 10-11, 19-27
Truman, Harry S., 5, 12-13, 26

Zimmerman, Raymond, 27

• • Interview process, 6-22
    Pro's and Con's, 5-13
    Tape recorder, 13-14
    Technique critiques, 18-19