With reference to my minute of 7th April,2 enclosing copy of reports received from the Consul in Chicago3 regarding Mr. de Valera's visit to that city, I enclose a summary made by Mr. Conway of the speech given by Mr. de Valera at the Irish Fellowship Club, in Chicago.
With regard to the effect Mr. de Valera's visit is likely to have on the anti-partition movement, the Consul in Chicago reports that he consulted a number of prominent people there who are interested in partition and 'they are all of the opinion that his visit to the U.S. and to Chicago undoubtedly focused a lot of attention on this question and that nothing but good can result from the visit'.
Reports have not yet been received from the other Consular Offices in the U.S., as to the influence the visit may have had on the anti-partition movement, but so far as this office is concerned, I am of the opinion that Mr. de Valera's visit revived interest in Irish affairs, amongst our own people, which had been dormant. His statements, in regard to partition, were listened to very carefully by those who heard them and undoubtedly, so far as Irish people are concerned, his statements will give them fresh interest in the anti-partition movement in this country. It will depend on the continuing organisation here as to how effective the movement might be. One will not be able to make any appraisal of the efficiency of the organisation for several months.
It is difficult to assess the impression made by Mr. de Valera's visit and speeches on those not connected racially with Ireland. This country, as a whole, today lives in the fear of the possibility of another war. Ireland's neutrality in the last war has not been wholly forgotten and, while largely understood, is not wholly forgiven. Quite a number of people here while theoretically in sympathy with the idea of Ireland's unity are inclined also to believe that the fact that the six counties were available to the U.S.A. in the last war was a factor of some importance in the success of American arms. They are inclined further to think that the interest of American security would be threatened if the six counties were no longer under British control. They point out that there is no guarantee that, given unity, in another war Ireland would not be neutral again, and the six counties would therefore be lost to the U.S.A. as a base. It is a point of view which must be taken into account. People such as these will freely admit the justice of Ireland's claim to unity but they put America's security first.
Other factors militating against real interest in Partition amongst those not of Irish extraction are high prices, inflation, and the coming Presidential and Congressional elections. These are big issues for the American people and it is difficult to arouse them for something they consider of very much less importance. In addition, fears of propaganda have conditioned the Press and Congress, as well as millions of others, to accept without too much question the thesis of the Administration that it is for the welfare of the American people that Great Britain should be maintained in as strong a position as possible; they are rather inclined to resent the criticism of Britain which an anti-partition speech involves. One noted columnist expressed this idea to the writer when he said, that when addressing other than Irish audiences here Mr. de Valera was making no converts, for he was speaking to people strongly prejudiced in another direction and unwilling to have an open mind on the partition issue. When Mr. de Valera spoke before the Press Club in Washington, the writer was present, and gained the opinion that while those present were satisfied with the sincerity of Mr. de Valera, with the justice of the case against partition, they were not by any means 'sold on his ideas'. There were hundreds of journalists present, but not a columnist of all of them has since referred to Partition in his column so far as has been observed. There is no desire to paint too gloomy a picture or to detract from the undoubted good done by Mr. de Valera's tour, but propaganda methods now are such that effectively to influence a people involves using a public relations organization with large sums at its command, and then it may be fruitless if the propaganda is not maintained by means of the press and radio over a long period of time.
Despite the foregoing observations which are offered for the general information of the Department, it would appear however from the statements made by Sir Basil Brooke, at a Press Conference in London yesterday (see clippings sent under separate cover by airmail on 14th instant)4 that the reports he received concerning Mr. de Valera's visit indicated that his speeches had an effect on public opinion. It is also known to this Legation that the British Embassy here followed closely Mr. de Valera's progress throughout the country and took particular note of the content of his speeches. One of the Legation informants in the British Embassy - a fairly senior officer there - commented that Mr. de Valera's references to Britain became more forthright as his tour progressed and that he was less inclined to 'soft pedal' his mention of Britain's part in the establishment of the six counties, towards the end of his stay than he was on first arrival. One can be very sure that the Embassy received reports from all its Consulates on Mr. de Valera's reception in the various cities he visited, and that the effect of his visit has by this time been fully appraised by the appropriate British Government Department.
