          Civil War: Disunity and the Road to Recovery

     A house divided against itself cannot stand.  These words of
Abraham Lincoln forever resonant with the echoes of civil war rang
in the ears of blind Americans during a critical
four-and-a-half-year period in the history of the organized blind
movement extending roughly from mid-1957 to early 1962. For in
those years their own house, self-built and self-designed, was
divided against itself and there was serious reason to doubt
whether it could any longer stand.

     The reasons for this protracted civil war among the organized
blind were various but not fundamentally complicated. The troubles
within the movement were related in part to the troubles without;
for at least a few active members came to resent and resist the 
hard line  adopted by the National Federation toward the hostile
agencies of the blindness system in the struggle for the right to
organize. (That difference of philosophy and attitude was to become
more evident in later years when the splinter group formed by
dissident ex-Federationists, under the name of the American Council
of the Blind, consistently opposed the NFB in its struggles with
industries and agencies engaged in acts of discrimination against
the blind.)

     A deeper source of division, however, sprang from the very
success of the Federation its rapid rise in affluence and
influence. Whereas in the lean years of the movement there had been
a scarcity of office-seekers and volunteer workers, during the
prosperous fifties aspiring leaders sprang up on all sides some of
whom won national office and responsibility while others failed in
their bids for recognition and accordingly came to feel neglected
and ill-used. Reinforcing this source of friction in the movement
were marked differences of personality and temperament among some
of the more prominent members, which in a few cases became so deep
as to become irreconcilable. Clearly as the bitterness and hysteria
of many personal attacks upon Federation leaders demonstrated there
were elements of envy and jealousy, as well as ambition, involved
in the campaign of disruption. Added to these feelings of personal
grievance, furthermore, were the common frustrations and suspicions
aroused in many blind persons by the very real inequities
encountered daily and habitually in a world geared to vision and
the visual.

     Although signs of disgruntlement had surfaced earlier, the
first substantial outbreak of civil war occurred in the summer of
1957 with the firing of A. L. Archibald, the Federation's
Washington representative. Archibald had tried to achieve political
power by making alliances with various members of the Federation's
leadership, but these efforts had been unsuccessful except in the
case of Board Member Durward McDaniel of Oklahoma. Increasingly
Archibald refused to accept supervision or follow instructions from
President tenBroek. Finally (in August of 1957) tenBroek fired
Archibald, but the full story of the events leading to the
dismissal was not told until almost two years later.

     In the spring of 1959 (at the height of the Federation's civil
war) a special supplement of the  Braille Monitor was issued. It
carried, among other things, the details of the Archibald episode.
Written by Kenneth Jernigan, the Archibald article played an
important part in charting the course for the organization during
the remainder of the internal struggle.

THE ARCHIBALD STORY

By Kenneth Jernigan

      In August of 1957 A. L. Archibald was fired from the staff of
the National Federation of the Blind. This event ushered in a new
era in Federation affairs. It became the focal point of an internal
conflict, which was already getting underway. It was the beginning
of a civil war.

      Throughout all of the strife which has plagued the Federation
ever since, one figure, A. L. Archibald, has been ever present. In
whatever part of the country the conflict has flared, wherever
there have been unrest and dissension, wherever there have been
charges made there has A. L. Archibald been. He has lurked in the
background as a principal agitator and emissary of hate and
suspicion.

      Unlike McDaniel and Boring [Durward McDaniel of Oklahoma and
Marie Boring of North Carolina], he has not, until recently, made
public statements or circulated letters through the mail. He has
kept himself in the background. Many of the delegates at Boston did
not even know that he was present at the convention. Yet, he was
always at Durward McDaniel's side.

      The time has now come when A. L. Archibald must be brought
forth from the shadows. His story must be told so that
Federationists everywhere may know the real reasons for his
dismissal the facts about his performance as a Federation staff
member.

      The McDaniel faction has sought to make Archibald a hero. In
general the story they tell is this: Archibald was a tireless
worker for the Federation. He was brilliant and shrewd, a lobbyist
without equal. He was loyal to the organization that hired him. He
worked both day and night to advance its interests. Because he
would not bow to the whims of the  dictator  who was and is the
President of the Federation, he was suddenly fired without warning
or cause. He was not even given an opportunity to resign or told
why he was being dismissed. Emissaries from the dictatorial
President simply came to his hotel room one night and gave him a
letter saying that he was fired.

      What are the facts? Is this a true account of what happened?
Was Archibald really a hard worker? Did he win friends for the
Federation? What were his attitudes toward the elected officers of
the organization? Were there specific reasons for his dismissal, or
was it simply based on whim? Let Federationists everywhere read the
record and judge for themselves. Let them read Archibald's own
letters. Let him speak for himself. This is the Archibald story.

      When the Federation was established in 1940, there was little
money to hire staff or do anything else. The first thought of paid
employees came in 1942 at the Des Moines convention. At that time
the delegates unanimously decided that the  President, not the
Executive Committee [the name  Executive Committee  was later
changed to  Board of Directors ], should do the hiring. The
nominating committee was also serving as a resolutions committee.
The exact wording of the motion establishing the first Federation
staff position was as follows:

      Mr. President:

      Your nominating committee formally recommends that the
Federation authorize its  President to appoint a person to act as
his assistant and to be officially designated as Executive Director
of the National Federation of the Blind.

     Passed Unanimously.

      The first Executive Director of the Federation, Mr. Raymond
Henderson, was selected and appointed by the President. He served
brilliantly and efficiently from 1942 until his death in 1945. The
President then selected and appointed Mr. Leslie Schlingheyde. Mr.
Schlingheyde, however, did not get his work done, and he was
dismissed by the President. In 1946 Mr. Archibald was hired as a
part-time employee. In 1952 he was employed on a full-time basis.

      It was hardly a year after his full-time employment that the
trouble started. He began to refuse to carry out assignments given
him by the President of the Federation. He insisted upon his right
to decide whether specific articles or other printed material sent
him by Dr. tenBroek should be distributed in Washington. In one
instance he categorically refused to circulate a particular article
concerning public assistance because he thought the wording was not
quite what it should be this despite the fact that he was a hired
staff member and Dr. tenBroek was the elected  President of the
organization with responsibility for supervising his work.

      From 1952 to 1956 there was a gradual deterioration in
Archibald's performance and attitude. He tried more than once
(unsuccessfully) to form political alliances with individual
members of the Executive Committee, always with complaints against
Dr. tenBroek and the fact that he, Archibald, was under Dr.
tenBroek's supervision. He became increasingly sulky and
insubordinate, and there were long periods of time when he did (and
moreover seemed incapable of doing) little if any work at all.

      Throughout all this nonperformance and insubordination, Dr.
tenBroek was patient in the extreme. As he later said, he kept
hoping that if he were patient long enough,  Archie would come to
his senses.  In the meantime Dr. tenBroek was careful to make no
statement which would injure Archibald's relation with the
affiliates. He had only words of kindness and friendliness for him.

      It may well be that the 1956 convention at San Francisco,
that meeting which seemed so harmonious and full of promise for the
Federation, was the real turning point in the Archibald story.
Archibald's earlier attempts at forming alliances with members of
the Executive Committee in opposition to the President had been
unsuccessful. At the 1956 convention the name of Durward McDaniel
was placed in nomination for the Second Vice Presidency of the
Federation. He was defeated in the nominating committee. It was
then that McDaniel went to Dr. tenBroek's room and angrily talked
to him and other leaders of the Federation about  the presidential
succession.  It was soon after the San Francisco convention that
Archibald's insubordination increased markedly and that carbons of
almost all of his letters began to be sent to McDaniel, but not to
other members of the Executive Committee.

      The extent of Archibald's nonperformance and insubordination
is so great that it should be shown by his own letters. Otherwise
it could hardly be believed.

      On August 6, 1956, Dr. tenBroek wrote to Archibald requesting
him to prepare a draft of proposed federal rules and regulations
implementing the new self-care and self-support provisions of the
1956 Social Security Act Amendments. This was simply a routine
assignment.

      On August 15, 1956, Mr. Archibald replied in perhaps one of
the strangest letters ever written by an employee to an employer.
Among other things, he said that while he appreciated the honor of
it all, he felt forced to decline to carry out the assignment. He
was not content merely to send this letter to the President of the
Federation but sent it to others as well, among them, of course,
Durward McDaniel. The letter says:

      Dear Chick: [Dr. tenBroek was called  Chick  by some of his
close associates.]

      My vacation plans and reservations have all been canceled. I
don't know how much good this will do the Federation; for I can't
cancel my secretary's plans. She is scheduled to give birth to a
baby this week. Tomorrow, in fact, is the due date. Having had the
forethought to time the arrival of this infant for some time after
the close of the congressional session, these plans can be changed
by no one. She has, in fact, pressed her luck a bit by staying on
as long as she has. But this is her final day with me. I have thus
far had no luck in finding a temporary replacement. Were it not for
her kindness in volunteering to come in for a few hours now and
again until she goes to the hospital, my prospects for getting
anything done would indeed be slight. I have set these facts forth
in order that you and others may understand fully my situation here
with respect to the project outlined in your letter of August 6th.

      My first comment with respect to that project is that you do
me entirely too much honor to believe that I can, like Athena
sprang from the head of Zeus, single-handedly come forth with a
complete plan in all its refinements whereby the Social Security
Administration will have to do no work to adopt regulations putting
into effect the new self-support purpose of state public assistance
plans. I am sure that there are many ideas which would never occur
to me; nor do I have any long administrative experience to think of
all the details. Therefore, while I appreciate the honor of it all,
I am compelled to decline the full responsibility for developing a
set of regulations to submit to Schottland. [He refers to Charles
Schottland, the head of the Social Security Administration.] I am
in consequence calling upon a group of Federation leaders,
including yourself, to concentrate upon this project with virtually
the same attention that I shall be giving to it. Without their help
and yours the project will amount to very little. Having deleted
the last paragraph of your letter from the copies I have made of it
(the paragraph is not relevant to the project), I am accordingly
sending copies of your letter and this one to the people who are
listed below in an earnest appeal for ideas from them and with the
full knowledge on my part that if they do not make contributions we
will probably not have very much to suggest to Schottland.

      Cordially,   A. L. Archibald   Executive Director

      On August 20, 1956, Dr. tenBroek replied:

      Dear Archie:

      This will reply to the tone and substance of your letter of
August 15.

      In my letter to you of August 6, I asked that you set to work
immediately preparing a draft of proposed federal rules and
regulations implementing the relevant provisions of the 1956 Social
Security Act Amendments. In so doing, I had no idea that I was
conferring an honor upon you. I was sending you an assignment,
which I now repeat.

      The task is not at all formidable. This is the sort of thing
that staff people are doing in welfare departments all around the
country every day and in voluntary agencies and organizations. I
expected that the product would need some refinement and that it
would not spring full-grown from your head, making unnecessary any
further work either on our part or that of Schottland. There is no
need to worry about refinement, however, until a primary draft is
in hand.

      As I view the picture, it is urgent that we prepare our
proposals as soon as possible. We are under the gun. The federal
people are already hard at work on such rules. Moreover, the people
in the state departments are also getting their ideas together. Our
proposals will have their maximum impact if presented while a
relatively fluid condition still exists in the minds of federal and
state directors. Progressively as their ideas jell, the possibility
of getting our ideas accepted diminishes.

      Let me say two things about your distribution of this
assignment to other Federation leaders. The first is that if I had
wanted them to work on the matter at this stage, I would have
written them myself. The second is that this is the wrong stage of
the matter at which to call on them for their contribution. They
are all extremely busy and overburdened with Federation work. They
should, therefore, be asked to contribute only when they can do so
with maximum advantage and minimum effort. That stage would be to
make their comments and suggestions when the primary draft has been
prepared and the pick and shovel work done. Doing that pick and
shovel work and getting the primary draft ready should be performed
by staff.

      You should, therefore, understand that these are instructions
to you and that I expect them to be treated as such. When you have
completed your draft, please send it directly to me. 

      Cordially yours,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      Despite continued urging on the part of Dr. tenBroek, the
proposed draft of the federal rules and regulations was not
forthcoming.

      On November 21, 1956, Dr. tenBroek wrote as follows:

      Dear Archie:

      On October 9 I sent you a copy of a rough draft of proposed
Social Security rules and regulations prepared by Perry Sundquist.
In the covering letter to you and a number of other people, I
requested comments and suggestions preparatory to the working out
of a final draft, which I indicated I would try to do in a couple
of weeks from that time when I returned from Ohio. Subsequent
events have prevented my completing the draft. Meanwhile, much
valuable time has gone by and valuable opportunity has been lost to
present a set of well worked out proposals to the state and federal
agencies.

      I now re-assign this task to you. From August 6 to October 9
you were supposed to have been working on this job anyway. During
most of that time you had very little else to do. Surely you had
ample chance to do the thinking required. Assuming that you did not
do it, however, you now have before you Perry's rough draft to aid
you in the process. A very few days of concentrated work should
produce the finished product. I expect you to get at it immediately
and to complete it quickly. You are to send your final draft to me
for review and distribution.

      Cordially,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      Let Federationists everywhere read and marvel at the reply of
November 26, 1956.

      Dear Chick:

      You expressed an interest in learning what progress is being
made on the proposed revisions of federal public assistance
regulations to carry out the new self-care provisions added to
Title X this year.

      I am happy to say that work on these proposals has been
underway for a long time past. I believe that, if there are no
further serious interruptions such as have occurred frequently
since the project was first undertaken, the job will be completed
in the fairly near future. 

      I am happy to say (he refers here to Dr. tenBroek's
appendectomy) that you have come out of your recent surgery in
apparent good shape. We  all seem to be subject to interruptions
which are not of our own choosing.

      Cordially,   Archie

      One need hardly add that the inevitable copy was sent to
Durward K. McDaniel.

      On December 5, 1956, Dr. tenBroek replied in a letter which
most administrators would consider mild indeed under the
circumstances:

      Dear Archie:

      In your letter of November 26 you begin with the sentence: 
You have expressed an interest in learning what progress is being
made on the proposed revisions of federal public assistance
regulations to carry out the new self-support and self-care
provisions added to Title X this year.  This is a most amazing
sentence. Yet, it expresses an attitude which you persist in
clinging to. As the person in the organization responsible for
supervising your work and determining what it will be, I gave you
a work assignment. After numerous dilatory tactics, delays, and
procrastinations, you now write me describing this work assignment
as a mere expression of interest on my part just as you would reply
to an outsider who had asked about this or that.

      In the past when you have attempted to force an issue on this
score, I have systematically followed the practice of deliberately
avoiding it, hoping that if I were patient long enough you would
gradually find your proper niche in the Federation and come to your
senses. It is obvious now that my excessive patience has not been
helpful. It is time, therefore, that we straighten this matter out
once and for all.

      You have simply got to face the fact, and moreover accept it
fully, that your position in the Federation is not that of an
independent constitutional officer. You are not free to decide what
work you will do and what work you will not do and when and how you
will do it. You are not free to select your own duties. Your duties
are to be carried out under the supervision and direction of the
President of the Federation. The tasks you will perform, your
overall work load, and how and when you will perform assigned tasks
are to be determined by him unless in the circumstances of
particular cases he tells you that you are free to decide for
yourself.

      It is absolutely preposterous that at this late day I should
have to say these things to you. You know full well that this has
been the mode of operation in the Federation as long as you have
been in it. The letter of appointment which I sent you when you
were raised to your present salary was very explicit on this point.
In addition, you were present at the Executive Committee meeting at
the Omaha convention in 1955 at which a resolution was formally
passed confirming the long-standing mode of operation on this
point, i.e., assigning to the President the authority and
responsibility of determining the duties and supervising the work
of all employees of the Federation. That resolution reads:

       WHEREAS, there is now every reason to believe that the
income of the National Federation of the Blind will continue to
increase and that, as a result, our organization will soon be in a
position to make long overdue and desperately needed additions to
its paid staff; and

       WHEREAS, it seems desirable that there is a restatement and
clarification of our established policies with respect to the
hiring, supervision, direction, and if necessary, the dismissal of
staff members:

       THEREFORE, be it resolved in the future, as in the past, the
President of the National Federation of the Blind shall have the
exclusive authority to negotiate with, hire, supervise, direct, and
when necessary, dismiss any and all members of the staff of this
organization. 

      There are some intimations in your letter that you have not
had time to get this assignment done and that you have been subject
to distractions beyond your control. This assignment was originally
given you some four months ago. Let us assume that you spent a
month working on Dave Cobb's Post Office report, which is an
extravagant assumption. [Dave Cobb was the Federation's Washington
attorney.] Let us assume further that other work claimed your
attention, or that you were sick for another month. I have had no
evidence that either of these assumptions is correct. Since August
you have done very little Federation work. Still this would leave
approximately two months in which to do a job that at the very
outside would take a week of concentrated effort.

      You are receiving a very substantial salary. Including full
maintenance in a Washington hotel, it totals between $9,000 and
$10,000 a year. [This salary must be seen in the context of the
value of the dollar in 1956.] For that amount of money, the
Federation has a right to expect a substantial amount of work, and
beyond that, a substantial amount of cooperative compliance with
those responsible for the executive direction of the operations of
the Federation. There are several people in the Federation who are
more productive than you are despite the fact that they carry on
full-time jobs in addition to their work for the Federation.

      This may seem to you like a tough letter. After so many years
of patience and putting up with your refusal or inability to comply
with work assignments and of your maneuvers to carve out a
different position in the Federation from that assigned to you, it
is intended to be just that. It may also seem to you like an angry
letter. If so, it is based on an attitude that I have had for a
long time and will continue to have for a long time.

      So far as I am concerned, Archie, you have only one course
open to you and that is at long last to face and to accept the role
assigned to you in the Federation and to carry out with a greater
show of willingness and deliberate effort the tasks you are asked
to perform.

      Cordially yours,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      It has been said by some that Archibald was given no
intimation of the fact that his attitudes and work performance were
not satisfactory. He was fired in August of 1957. The foregoing
letter from Dr. tenBroek was written December 5, 1956. Let the
record speak for itself.

      These are by no means the only instances of insubordination
on the part of Archibald during 1956. During the early part of the
greeting card difficulties with the Post Office, our then
Washington attorney David Cobb, suggested that Dr. tenBroek should
secure from him and other employees of the Federation, including
Archibald, an exact accounting of the way they spent their time
working for the Federation. This would permit the distribution of
expenditures in accordance with the various headings in the
Federation's books. On June 13, 1956, Dr. tenBroek wrote to
Archibald requesting that he keep a daily work log. On October 5,
1956, it was necessary to write again:

      Dear Archie:

      On June 13 I wrote you a letter asking you to keep a daily
work log indicating the allocation of your time to the various
projects on which you are engaged. I asked you to send me copies of
this daily work log near the end of each month. It is now October
5, and in none of the intervening months have I received any work
logs from you.

      I now call your attention to this matter again. You are
herewith instructed to begin keeping such daily work logs starting
with the 1st of October and to send them to me at the end of each
month.

      Cordially,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      On November 21, 1956, Dr. tenBroek wrote once again:

      Dear Archie:

      On June 13 I wrote you asking that you keep a daily work log.
On October 5 I reminded you of my earlier communication, pointed
out that you had not complied with it in any of the intervening
months, and repeated the instruction that you were to send me
copies of your daily work logs near the end of each month. You
still have not complied with these instructions.

      I reiterate to you once again that you are to keep a daily
work log indicating what time is spent on what projects and that
these daily work logs are to be sent to me near the end of each
month.

      Cordially,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      Perhaps the only comment needed is this: Archibald never
complied with the request. Was he really a dutiful and hard-working
employee of the Federation, laboring diligently to advance its
cause? What does the record say?

      The year 1957 brought many new things, but it did not bring
a new Archibald. He was back at the same old stand. Note the
following letter from Dr. tenBroek dated April 10, 1957:

      Dear Archie:

      Last year I had occasion to write you several times to inform
you with such emphasis as I could muster that some of your
attitudes, methods, and procedures were decidedly unsatisfactory to
the Federation. One of the points I discussed explicitly was the
procedure by which you distribute to a number of people a request
to submit ideas and judgments to you. In the case of the Switzer
letter [he refers to Mary Switzer, head of the federal
rehabilitation program] you indulged in this same procedure
modifying it, however, to the extent of at least sending out your
preliminary evaluation along with the request. The method is still
completely unsatisfactory.

      The procedure implies and your letter to Bill Taylor makes
quite explicit that you will pick and choose among the comments
submitted and decide what policy the Federation will follow. [Bill
Taylor was a Federationist from Pennsylvania who was an attorney.]
It is a basic principle of the Federation, as you well know, from
public documents of the Federation as well as from instructions
from me, that staff members of the Federation shall not decide
important issues of policy.

      I do not expect to go over this same territory with you two
or three times every year. 

      Yours sincerely,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      To those who feel that the Archibald story reveals a new
technique in employee-employer relationships, it can only be said
that more novel experiments were yet to come.

      In April of 1957 Archibald sent to Dr. tenBroek a bulletin
concerning bills affecting the blind which had been introduced into
Congress. He requested that the bulletin be mailed immediately to
all of the membership. Dr. tenBroek felt that the bulletin was not
well written, that it was entirely too long, and that it emphasized
rather starkly the poverty of the Federation's legislative efforts
for the past few months. He so informed Archibald. On May 10, 1957,
Archibald wrote:

      Dear Chick:

      I have your letter of May 7, 1957, commenting upon my letter
of April 29, which responded to your letter of April 25, describing
the bulletin I sent you for release as emphasizing  starkly the
poverty of  the Federation's legislative program. You re-assert
your description. I again reject it.

      I further herewith reiterate my request that the bulletin as
submitted to you except for one paragraph be put on the mimeograph
machine and mailed out to the general mailing list without delay.

      You will receive this Monday, May 13. Unless I hear from you
by letter, wire, or telephone before noon on Wednesday, May 15,
that the bulletin is in the course of publication to be mailed, I
shall proceed at my personal expense to order it mimeographed here
and mailed out to the limited and incomplete mailing list of this
office. It can be decided later whether the National Federation of
the Blind will reimburse me for the expense. Needless to say, I
shall disregard any directive from you ordering me to refrain from
this course of action. 

      Cordially,   A. L. Archibald   Executive Director

      Again the inevitable carbon. To whom?  Durward K. McDaniel.

      At this stage surely most administrators would have felt that
Archibald's usefulness to the organization had ended. A paid staff
member announces that a particular piece of material must be mailed
out immediately. If the elected President does not comply with his
wish, then he, the paid staff member, will  order  the mailing to
be done from the Washington office. Moreover, he will disregard any
directive to the contrary.

      Apparently McDaniel felt that his friend had gone too far and
had perhaps put himself in an untenable position. Accordingly,
McDaniel, in a telephone conversation with Dr. tenBroek on May 13,
1957, suggested that he, McDaniel, would negotiate with  Archie 
and get him to  back down  on his demand. Dr. tenBroek said that
there was no negotiating to be done. In a few days the Archibald
bulletin was mailed out from Washington. It contained no
spectacular material or information, and is probably not remembered
by most Federationists.

      Despite the fact that Archibald had said in his letter of May
10 with regard to the mailing of his bulletin,  It can be decided
later whether the National Federation will reimburse me for the
expense,  he sent a bill to Dr. tenBroek on July 16, 1957, in the
amount of $328.50. It will be noted from Dr. tenBroek's reply dated
July 31, 1957, that still other instances of insubordination had
occurred in the meantime. Archibald had asked whether he could take
his secretary to the New Orleans convention. Dr. tenBroek had told
him that he should not do this, that it would be cheaper to hire
local secretarial help than to pay all of the travel expenses
involved. Note Dr. tenBroek's letter concerning the Archibald
bulletin and the secretarial incident:

      July 31, 1959

      Dear Archie:

      I have your letter of July 16 containing a number of
suggestions and attaching two bills, one from Ginn's and one from
the City Duplicating Center. The bill from Ginn's has been
forwarded to Emil for payment. [Emil Arndt of Illinois was the
Federation's Treasurer.] The bill from City Duplicating Center (the
firm that had printed the Archibald bulletin), since it is a
personal one, is herewith being returned to you. 

      I cannot agree with your suggestion that a Washington bank
account be established from which you could make payments on your
own authorization. Such an independent account would facilitate the
development of staff positions into the positions of constitutional
officers.

      You are authorized to incur Federation bills prior to
approval from Federation headquarters only if the bills are small
and of a routine nature. For all other bills you must secure
headquarters approval in advance. This applies not only to supplies
and equipment, but also to trips for the Federation.

      When I was in Washington in June, you expressly raised the
question with me of taking your secretary to the New Orleans
convention. At that time I told you not to do so since arrangements
were being made to procure secretarial help locally. Yet, you did
take your secretary and submitted a bill for her travel expenses to
the Federation. That bill was paid by Emil before he secured my
approval. Emil has been alerted not to allow such a slip to occur
again.

      Cordially yours,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      P. S. Your bill from Ginn's is not accompanied by any
invoice. You should secure invoices in triplicate along with all
bills so that Emil and I will have a permanent record of what the
expenditures were for and the third invoice can be returned with
the paid bill so that the supplier knows what was covered in the
payment.

      On August 15, 1957, the real character of Archibald was
clearly revealed if, indeed, there had been any doubt about the
matter before. He announced to Dr. tenBroek that he, Archibald,
intended to incur expenses in the name of the Federation for any
item or service that he considered necessary and reasonable. He
said that it was unreasonable of Dr. tenBroek to ask him to send
invoices in triplicate, that Dr. tenBroek had a photographing
machine in his office, and could make his own copies. Finally, he
said that the bill for the mailing of his bulletin  must and  would
be paid by the Federation. He said that if it were not paid, he
would advise the creditors to  sue the Federation, and that he
would give testimony in their behalf. This was the  responsible,
loyal, and hard-working Archibald! These are his exact words:

      August 15, 1957

      Dear Chick:

      I have deliberately permitted a considerable time to elapse
before reacting to your letter of July 31. Surely you realize that
I will not agree to accept a Federation expense as a personal bill.
I am, therefore, returning to you herewith for prompt payment the
bill from City Duplicating Center, Inc. in the amount of $328.50.
Since you have delayed payment of this bill into the third month,
there is no difficulty in supplying you with copies in triplicate.

      I need not recount here the facts surrounding the incurring
of the bill. They are known in detail to you, to Durward McDaniel,
and to me. When Durward was in Washington during the last week of
May, I confirmed with him my understanding of the agreement reached
by telephone between you and him on May 14, following your receipt
of my letter of May 10. I can say with confidence that both Durward
and I understood that I was to mail the legislative bulletin from
here and forward the bill to you in the normal procedure.

      My actions were taken in good faith. I am sure Durward acted
in good faith also. I directed City Duplicating Center to bill the
National Federation. They accepted the job in good faith, and
billed the Federation in good faith. They expect to be paid in good
faith. In addition to repeated billings, they have telephoned to
inquire why they have not been paid and reimbursed.

      You may rest assured that under the circumstances I shall not
pay from my personal funds any bill made out to the National
Federation. [It might be inserted here that Archibald made the bill
in the name of the Federation utterly without authorization.]  Even
if the Federation's creditor should find it necessary to sue for
payment, I shall take no action except to give testimony to the
facts as I know them. If I am again contacted by City Duplicating
Center on the subject of this bill, I shall have no alternative but
to  advise them regarding their course of action. Before raising
any question about the bill, you permitted two months to pass [this
statement is not true, of course, since the bill was not even sent
until July 16, and Dr. tenBroek answered on July 31] during which
there was ample time and opportunity to straighten out any
misunderstanding which might have existed, and to take action to
avoid embarrassment for the Federation. I can only be very
forthright and honest with the Federation's creditor if questioned
again. 

      Your request for bills and invoices in triplicate will seem
demanding to business establishments supplying us with small
assortments of items. You have a photographic reproducing machine
in your office. You can easily make as many copies for record as
you desire.

      Your recollection of our conversation on June 13 about taking
my secretary to New Orleans is obviously hazy. I regret the
necessity of directly contradicting your statement that you  told 
me not to take her to the convention. I did not  expressly  raise
with you the question of taking her along. After some questions
about how she was working out as my secretary, you commented that
you were attempting to make some arrangements in New Orleans for
secretarial help. When I had heard nothing more regarding the
subject of secretarial help in New Orleans, I made the decision on
Friday before leaving for the convention to secure reservations for
my secretary in order to assure myself of competent help in the
difficult and arduous task of drafting, re-drafting, and putting in
final form the very large number of resolutions presented. 

      My practice generally in respect to incurring expenses for
which I ask reimbursement from the Federation has always been to
exercise great care to determine that they were reasonable, under
the circumstances. For me to operate under any other rule would be
to make my work impossible of accomplishment in a variety of
situations. There have been occasions which have required me to
reach a decision on my own that a hurried trip was necessary, and
there have been occasions when I have had to hire people to get
urgent work for the Federation done. There have also been other
instances which could be enumerated. The only practicable way for
me to function is to continue the exercise of the rule of reason in
making outlays for which I expect to gain reimbursement.

      Very truly yours,   A. L. Archibald   Executive Director

      Once more the inevitable carbon. To whom? To all members of
the Executive Committee? No! To  Durward K. McDaniel.

      It was at this stage that Dr. tenBroek paid the bill for
Archibald's bulletin and fired him. He did not further negotiate
with him or plead or persuade. He simply fired him.

      In view of all of the past circumstances, however, the letter
of dismissal and the financial conditions allowed can hardly be
called other than generous. The First Vice President [George Card]
personally delivered Dr. tenBroek's letter to Archibald in
Washington. The letter reads:

      August 20, 1957

      Dear Archie:

      Effective immediately upon receipt of this notice your
services as Executive Director of the Federation are terminated.

      You are directed to turn over to George Card the keys to the
Federation's Washington office and all files and other Federation
property in your custody.

      Your salary will continue for four months as separation pay.

      Your reasonable travel and removal expenses to California, if
you desire to return there, will be met by the Federation. Other
expenses incurred by you after receipt of this notice will not be
paid by the Federation.

      Your maintenance expenses incurred prior to the receipt of
this notice but not yet paid will be processed and paid by the
Federation in the usual way.

      Very truly yours,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      In his letter of August 23, 1957, to the Executive Committee
Dr. tenBroek said in part:

      Dear Colleague:

      On behalf of the Federation I have today carried out the
personally very unpleasant duty of firing Mr. A. L. Archibald as
the Federation's Washington representative. The separation has been
made immediately effective. 

      Archie has been a full-time employee of the Federation since
1952. Prior to that, beginning in 1946, he was a part-time
employee. He was originally hired as an Executive Director.
However, I soon discovered Archie was not cut out to be an
executive. He was very slow and inefficient in handling routine
matters. He failed to allocate time in accordance with the
importance of items. He went to pieces under pressure. I therefore
assigned him to duties in connection with the Washington work of
the Federation. These increased gradually until in the past two or
three years he has spent full time, practically the year round, in
Washington. Despite this reassignment of duties, the title of
Executive Director has not been changed.

      At the present time Archie's salary is $10,000 per year. He
received $5,000 in cash plus full maintenance. Full maintenance
during the past 12 months has amounted to $5,235.00. If Archie
maintained a home in California, his living expenses in Washington
could not properly be considered salary. In that event they would
be properly treated as costs of travel. However, Archie does not
have to maintain a residence elsewhere and does not maintain one.
Since he is in Washington practically the year round and that is
the almost exclusive location of his work for the Federation, the
payment of the ordinary living expenses such as rent and food must
be regarded as part of his salary.

      There are two major reasons for Archie's separation at this
time. The first has to do with the level of his performance; the
second with the conception of his position. 

      Throughout the remainder of this letter Archibald's
performance and lack of performance are discussed in detail. Since
much of the discussion would be repetitious to those who have read
the foregoing letters, it will be omitted.

      However, perhaps the final paragraph dealing with the
relations between hired staff and elected officers should be
quoted. It reads:

      The theory and even necessity behind this policy and practice
(that is, that hired staff members all be under the supervision of 
elected officers) is of utmost importance to the future of the
Federation. If the policies of the Federation are to be carried out
and its purposes accomplished, the Federation must have a strong
executive. Because of the Federation's democratic and
representative make-up, that executive must be elected. The
difficulties I have had with Archie during the past several years
illustrate what can be seen without such illustration: Either the
staff will govern the officers, or the officers will govern the
staff. All of the advantages in the struggle are on the side of the
staff. They are permanent; they are full-time; they are paid; they
become knowledgeable. Even without a deliberate purpose to do so,
the whole tendency of the operation is for them to become the
governing forces. In the Federation, the President must have
authority to hire, fire, and supervise the staff. If the
President's administration is not a good one, if he is weak,
ineffective, or otherwise incapable of discharging his duties, then
the delegates at the convention should elect another person. No
such safeguards exist in the case of the staff. If the organization
is to remain democratic, then all major policies must be handled by
persons who are responsible to the convention by election. Once the
staff is in control, then the Federation simply becomes another
agency. It loses its democratic and representative character.
Elected officers simply become the fronts for the activities of
paid employees.

      Cordially yours,   Jacobus tenBroek   President

      Even though Archibald's conduct had been of the character
described, Dr. tenBroek permitted him on August 24, 1957, to submit
a letter of resignation for the record. This was done in order to
increase his chances of employment elsewhere. The same
consideration (namely, the wish to do nothing which would damage
Archibald's chances of finding employment) has been largely
responsible for the fact that the entire story has never been fully
told before. Such a consideration can no longer be taken into
account.

      McDaniel's reaction to the Archibald firing was immediate and
violent. With Archibald's firing, McDaniel saw for a second time
the ruin of his hopes and ambitions. The first setback had come in
1956 when he had failed to get the nomination for Second Vice
President. Now the alternative means of achieving power and
influence, an alliance with the Washington staff representative of
the Federation, was also gone. In a bitter letter to the members of
the Federation's Board of Directors dated August 29, 1957, McDaniel
railed against the President and demanded an immediate meeting of
the Executive Committee. He said concerning the Archibald firing:

      In closing I would like to make a statement about the
President's letter of August 23rd, 1957. I am one of the few
members of the executive committee who has been intimately
acquainted with this episode as it developed. This letter of August
23rd is an inadequate revelation of the facts. I know A. L.
Archibald very well. I know that he has had no desire to exert an
improper influence upon the organization which has employed him.
This superficial and erroneous issue of staff versus elected
officials must not confuse and conceal the real problems
confronting us. I can think of many major achievements to add to
Mr. Archibald's credit. I was shocked to receive such a letter
about a loyal Federationist who apparently was not given a chance
to resign. I note in today's mail an effort to mitigate this
injustice by accepting a resignation which was voluntarily
submitted. 

      Sincerely and fraternally,   Durward

      As Federationists will remember, the meeting of the Executive
Committee demanded by McDaniel was held in Chicago early in
September of 1957. At that Executive Committee meeting, despite all
of his threats and railings, McDaniel had no case to make and he
and Marie Boring stood alone as a disgruntled twosome. McDaniel
went away from that Executive Committee meeting a bitter and a
disappointed man. Ever since that time his actions have seemed to
say,  If I cannot rule the Federation, I will  ruin it.  

      The foregoing series of letters and statements has been
called  The Archibald Story.  But it might also be called  The
Story of Frustrated and Twisted Ambition,   The Story of Rule or
Ruin,   The Story of Distortion and Suspicion,  or it might simply
be called:  THE MCDANIEL STORY. 

     At the Federation's Boston convention in 1958 a small minority
(soon to be known as the McDaniel-Boring faction) sought to gain
control of the convention, or failing that, to disrupt it. After a
long and embittered debate, the dissident group was decisively put
down by a vote of the delegates, and order was at least temporarily
restored. But it was plain to most conventioneers that the internal
strife had just begun and that it was threatening to consume the
Federation. Thus one veteran observer of NFB conventions  Braille
Monitor editor George Card of Wisconsin reported despairingly on
the scene at Boston:

       There has never been a National Convention like this one, 
he wrote,  and it is my fervent hope that there will never be
another like it in the future.  He went on to declare:  For the
first time in our history, there seemed to be real dissension among
us. Feelings ran higher and higher as the time for the showdown
approached. When it was all over, there was little evidence of any
real reconciliation. Some degree of tension and grimness was
apparent right through to adjournment on Monday. Whether or not the
National Federation can ever again become the united, consecrated
organization that it always has been is now in the balance. 

     Those grim sentiments came to be even more widely shared among
Federationists in the months that followed the Boston convention.
In May of 1959 (as has already been said) the NFB published a
special edition of the  Braille Monitor devoted expressly to  a
full account of the internal warfare which threatens to destroy the
National Federation of the Blind.  The special issue featured a
report from the President, Jacobus tenBroek, entitled  The Crisis
in the Federation.  His narrative began with these words:

      Two years ago I reported to you that the National Federation
was faced with a concerted and serious attack from without from a
number of powerful agencies which had pooled their resources to
oppose our right to organize.

      Today I am obligated to report to you that the Federation is
faced with an equally concerted and no less serious attack from a
different source: an attack from within.

      The assault upon the Federation by the agencies was
principally characterized then as it is still characterized by
defamation of the character of our elected leadership, by ridicule
of the achievements of our movement, and by systematic attempts to
disrupt or dominate our national, state, and local organizations.

      The present attack upon the Federation from within is
characterized by the same strategy and tactics: by defamation of
the character of our elected leadership, by ridicule of the
achievements of our movement, and by systematic attempts to disrupt
or dominate our national, state, and local organizations.

     Declaring that  one thesis above all has been repeated again
and again with mounting clamor and bitterness by a small group of
members  the thesis that  tenBroek must go  the Federation's
President maintained that the effort to oust him from elective
leadership did not stand by itself but was part of a larger scheme
to destroy the democratic character of the Federation if not the
Federation itself. He went on:

      The drive for the elimination of the present administration
has been accompanied, as thousands of our members and much of the
public are now aware, by such depths of vituperation and divisive
action as to bring the National Federation of the Blind to the
brink of ruin. Whether such total destruction of our movement is
within the purpose of the minority faction may still be a matter of
speculation; but that the disruption of the Federation has been
deliberately threatened as the alternative to resignation of the
President is now plainly part of the record.

     The bitter division within the National Federation, which this
special edition of the  Monitor documented in comprehensive detail,
raged on unabated into the 1959 convention at Santa Fe, where the
issue was finally formulated in terms on which the entire
convention could vote (the so-called  Georgia Compromise ). The
steps leading up to the decisive action, and the mood of the
delegates during the strife-torn convention, formed the substance
of an illuminating  Monitor report by editor George Card. His
article, simply entitled  Convention Notes,  follows:

CONVENTION NOTES

      A Year of Travail: A great many of us left Boston at the end
of our National Convention a year ago rather depressed and full of
forebodings for the future of our beloved organization. The 1958
convention had been a disillusioning experience. From all previous
annual meetings we had gone home inspired and with rekindled
enthusiasm for our cause. At Boston, for the first time, we had
found ourselves torn by internal dissension. Old comrades-in-arms,
veterans of many battles with our traditional foes, hurled bitter
recriminations at each other.

      The year that followed was surely the darkest in our history.
The internecine bitterness intensified as each month passed. Our
mailboxes were clogged with voluminous documents, full of charges
and countercharges, until many of our members became utterly
bewildered. Those on the outside who hate and fear us looked on
with deep satisfaction, confidently and joyously predicting to each
other that the end of the National Federation, as a united and
powerful movement, was in sight.

      But when the hour for adjournment came at five last Monday
afternoon, most of us started for home with a feeling that perhaps,
after all, the good ship NFB had ridden out the storm, had righted
herself and was once more on course. Not that the 1959 convention
was a peaceful one. Not by any means. But the decision of the
delegates when it finally came bespoke such an overwhelming vote of
confidence in the tenBroek administration that no doubt can any
longer exist as to the sentiments of the democratic majority. Since
both sides on innumerable occasions had sworn eternal fealty to the
democratic process, there is now at least reasonable ground for
hope that the verdict, freely and democratically arrived at, will
this time be accepted in good faith.

      A Day of Decision: The showdown came late Saturday night,
after thirteen and a half hours of debate. Everyone was given a
chance to express his views. Dr. tenBroek, as always, leaned over
backward in an effort to be absolutely fair. There was plenty of
applause but no boos or catcalls, and all speakers were given
respectful attention. I have listened to many debates in state
legislatures and in the halls of Congress, but I have never seen an
audience display a more mature attitude throughout. In all candor,
however, I doubt whether a single vote was changed by what the
speakers had to say. Nearly everyone had come to Santa Fe with his
mind grimly made up; and if there were any switches after the
convention began, I suspect they were brought about in smoke-filled
rooms.

      The Georgia Compromise: Many of us have been racking our
brains all year in a desperate effort to find a face-saving
compromise formula. We had not found one. Yet, the Santa Fe
delegates were offered such a compromise, and it came from a most
unexpected quarter. The delegation from Georgia worked it out and
presented it to us. It was just a bit startling at first, but it
was beautifully simple and entirely workable. As it was finally
voted on, after the thirteen and a half hours, it contained three
parts: 1. All officers and members of the Executive Committee were
to resign immediately, the nominating committee (one member
nominated by each state) was then to bring in a complete slate, and
those elected by the convention delegates would serve out all
unexpired terms. If one resigned, all were to be considered
recalled providing the motion to adopt the Georgia compromise
passed by a two-thirds vote. 2. All incumbent officers and members
of the Executive Committee were to be eligible for re-election. 3.
After this convention, anyone who persists in reckless and
irresponsible charges against any other member, or members, without
substantial evidence, may be given a fair hearing before the
Executive Committee and, if found guilty, deprived of the rights
and privileges of membership in the National Federation.

      The Executive Committee is made up of the five constitutional
officers and eight directors. All officers are elected every two
years. Four of the directors are elected each two years and
normally serve for four years. The numerical strength of the
Executive Committee is, therefore, under ordinary conditions,
thirteen. This time there were only ten. During the past year I had
resigned as First Vice President while John Nagle and Walter
McDonald had resigned as directors. During the course of the debate
all four remaining officers declared their willingness to resign,
and Clyde Ross and Jesse Anderson did the same with respect to
their memberships on the Executive Committee. Three of the four
officers Dr. tenBroek, Kenneth Jernigan, and Alma Murphey spoke in
favor of the Georgia compromise. When the vote came, it was a
resounding thirty-four to twelve in favor of adoption.

      When President tenBroek arose and uttered the terrifying
words,  I hereby resign as President of the National Federation of
the Blind,  the assembly sat stunned. I felt my body temperature
drop about thirty degrees. He was immediately elected temporary
chairman of the meeting by acclamation; and when he took back the
gavel, the delegates stood up and cheered wildly. It was one of the
most dramatic and emotion-fraught moments I have ever lived
through. The temporary chairman ruled that the vote on the Georgia
compromise had constituted a recall of all ten members of the
Executive Committee. This ruling was challenged and appealed to the
floor. It was upheld by a vote of forty to five.

      Late as it was, the nominating committee went into immediate
session. The Wisconsin delegation had nominated me as its
representative on this committee. The nominating session lasted
about three hours, and on the whole the atmosphere was one of
friendliness and cooperation. George Burke of New Jersey acted as
chairman and did a superb job. When he finished, it was well after
three a.m.

      The election was held immediately after the Sunday morning
session began so that we would not be without officers. The
nominating committee recommended the following slate: President,
Dr. Jacobus tenBroek; First Vice President, Kenneth Jernigan, Iowa;
Second Vice President, Donald Capps, South Carolina; Secretary,
Alma Murphey, Missouri; Treasurer, Emil Arndt, Illinois; Directors
(unexpired three-year terms): Jesse Anderson, Utah; Clyde Ross,
Ohio; David Krause, Virginia; Victor Buttram, Illinois; Directors
(unexpired one-year terms): Eleanor Harrison, Minnesota; Don
Cameron, Florida; William Hogan, Connecticut; Dean Sumner, South
Dakota. In some instances other candidates were nominated from the
floor, but the committee's slate was elected with a single
exception. Russell Kletzing of California was nominated against
Dean Sumner, and the vote twice resulted in a tie. Then,
Connecticut switched from Sumner to Kletzing and that did it.

     The hopes of the vast majority of Federation members for an
end to the factional plotting and disruption which had led to the
decisive actions of the  Georgia Compromise  at the 1959 convention
were dashed, however, as the disgruntled losers continued to
maneuver for power at the next National Convention the twentieth
anniversary convention to be held in Miami in 1960. On the other
side the Federation's elected officers, led by President tenBroek
and First Vice President Kenneth Jernigan, had become determined
both to settle the internal conflict once and for all and to
restore the convention to its normal agenda of positive programs,
undertakings, and accomplishments.

     The first sign of this deepened determination on the part of
the leadership came with startling surprise on the opening day of
the Miami convention. What the President was to term  a severe blow
to the National Federation and all its members  occurred with the
unexpected withdrawal of Kenneth Jernigan as First Vice President
and member of the Board of Directors. In a dramatic address to the
convention, Jernigan announced his refusal to permit his name to be
placed in nomination for any future office. He attributed his
decision to two principal factors: the mounting responsibilities of
his job as director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind, and, of
course,  of more compelling importance,  the factional warfare
within the Federation which had recently come to concentrate its
campaign of character assassination in large part upon him.

     Jernigan provided in his address the most complete and
detailed account yet available to Federationists of the origins and
ambitions of the dissident faction within their midst, as well as
an assessment of the destructive effects of the continuing civil
war.

     The text of his speech follows:

      For the past eight years I have been a member of the Board of
Directors of the National Federation of the Blind. For the past
year and a half I have been First Vice President of the
organization. With this convention my membership on the Board comes
to an end. Under present circumstances I feel that I cannot be a
candidate for re-election to the Vice Presidency or any other Board
position. In short, I will be unable to permit my name to be placed
in nomination for any elective office in the Federation this year.

      When I reached this decision several months ago, I quite
naturally discussed the matter at some length with Dr. tenBroek. It
was his opinion and also mine that the reasons involved in my
withdrawal from office were of such a nature that they should be
discussed with the convention. Accordingly, I am now on the
platform for that purpose. 

      To summarize my first reason for withdrawing from Federation
office this year, let me say that the time needed to make the
program of the Iowa Commission for the Blind a complete success
makes it difficult for me to carry the full responsibilities of
Federation First Vice President. It is as important for the
Federation as for the blind of Iowa that the program succeed. The
withdrawal from office does not mean that I intend to become in any
way inactive in the movement, and it certainly does not mean that
I feel that there is any conflict of interest involved. I would be
a strange Federationist, indeed, if such were the case.

      The second reason for not allowing my name to be placed in
nomination for Federation office this year admittedly in some ways
more compelling than the first has to do with the present internal
situation which faces us. In order to explain I must talk a bit
about history and background.

      My first Federation convention was at Nashville in 1952. That
convention is still talked about and remembered by many as one of
the best we have ever had. In more ways than one it was a milestone
and a turning point in my life. I found a united, dedicated,
aggressive organization working toward the achievement of goals
which I could believe in wholeheartedly and support without
reservation. Merely to be in the meeting hall and listen was an
inspiration and a challenge. Many of you will remember that I was
president of the Tennessee affiliate in 1952 and that I had charge
of arrangements and planning. I made up my mind at that convention
that the Federation was the greatest and most promising force in
existence for the betterment of the blind and that I would give to
it all that I possessed in the way of effort, ability, and talent.
I have never regretted the decision. It was in 1952 that I was
elected to membership on the Board.

      Nineteen-fifty-two was a good year for the Federation, as
were '53, '54, and '55. The greeting card program was launched and
made successful. Whereas in 1952 the national office of the
Federation had less than $30,000 to work with, our income was five
times as much by 1955. For the first time in the history of the
organization money was also being pumped into the state affiliates.
New members were coming in. New growth was being achieved.
Everywhere there was expansion. And above all there was unity the
kind of unity and devotion to purpose which made the Federation
unique. There was virtually no politics in the Federation and
comparatively little striving for position. Leadership was based
not on influence peddling or the holding of office, but upon the
ability to work and the willingness to work. The conventions at
Milwaukee, Louisville, and Omaha were climaxes for successive years
of growth. They were not political battlefields where contending
majorities and minorities monopolized the sessions with charge and
countercharge and little else. Instead, they were meetings of
inspiration and substantial program items, of friends and comrades
gathered to exchange ideas, of organizational renewal and
preparation for the year to come. They were not like Boston or
Santa Fe.

      By 1956 at San Francisco the progress was phenomenal. The
first state surveys had been made. Nine new affiliates had come
into the Federation in a single year. The  Monitor was a going
concern with a regular staff and a monthly publication.

      As important as any of these things, our enemies had taken
alarm and were desperately trying to crush us a sure token of
growing prestige. It seemed that the achievement of our goals was
near at hand.

      But such was not to be the case. By the 1957 convention at
New Orleans still a tremendous success a subtle change was
beginning to come over the organization. A small group of people
from within our own midst began, for reasons best known to
them-selves, to sow dissension and to foment civil war. They began
to write letters and to go from state to state systematically
destroying the unity and feeling of oneness which had always been
the principal asset and distinguishing feature of the Federation.
They began to say that the Federation, where any blind person had
always been able to make his voice heard, was not truly democratic
that we had simply believed that it was that in reality it was
controlled by a sinister dictator and his small clique of followers
who had somehow hoodwinked the gullible, unsuspecting members into
thinking the Federation was representative and democratic. In
short, the blind were told that there had been a colossal  fix  and
that they had, for eighteen years, been too stupid to see it a  fix 
which this enlightened minority had just discovered and was bent
upon exposing. There were half-truths, innuendoes, twisted facts,
and outright falsifications.

      By the time of the Boston convention the Federation that we
all had known and loved, the old Federation of unity and oneness,
of constructive achievement, and substantive, inspiring conventions
was dead killed by the very people who had said they had come to
save it. In the year between New Orleans and Boston the Federation
was transformed from a dedicated crusade to a bickering, political
movement.

      During that year many things changed. Perhaps the most
important of these changes occurred in the activities and direction
of effort which took place. My own personal role was altered
substantially. Before New Orleans virtually none of my time or
attention was given to internal political matters. Between 1952 and
1957 I traveled more than 530,000 miles organizing and building
chapters in state affiliates; wrote  What Is The National
Federation of the Blind  and  Who Are the Blind Who Lead the Blind, 
and  Local Organizations of the Blind How to Build and Strengthen
Them ; conducted a study for the Federation concerning the
employment of the blind in the teaching profession; and took part
in three state surveys of programs affecting the blind. These were
happy years. The work was challenging and rewarding. Even the
hostility and opposition of the agency administrators in Arkansas
and the bitter accusations of having ruined the lives of some of
the rehabilitation officials dismissed in Colorado and Nevada did
not diminish the keen pleasure. The brotherhood and mutual support
which characterized our movement were at the heart of the joy of
accomplishment. It was a time of unparalleled growth and progress.

      After New Orleans all of this changed. For the first time in
Federation history a group from within our own ranks organized
itself and pounded away at the very foundations of our movement
with sledge-hammer blows. It coordinated its efforts and embarked
upon a systematic campaign of vindictive destruction and sabotage
of the elected officers and leaders. If the majority was to
survive, if indeed the very structure of the organization was to be
preserved, speedy action and counter-measures had to be taken.

      The situation can, perhaps, best be summarized in the words
of Edmund Burke, the English political philosopher, who championed
the fight of the American colonies for independence. Burke said, 
When bad men combine, the good must associate. If the good do not
associate, then they fall one by one, useless sacrifices in a
contemptible struggle.  To paraphrase these words, we might say, 
When a minority of disgruntled dissenters combine to achieve
destruction and to subvert the will of the majority, then the
members of that majority must associate and bestir themselves to
militant action. If the majority does not so associate and bestir
itself, then its members will fall one by one, useless sacrifices
in a contemptible struggle not to mention which the minority
dominates and controls the society. 

      This sort of thing was new to us. We had long been accustomed
to fighting our external enemies, but never before had we been
forced to repel slander and false charges from those who had been
our comrades-in-arms and still proclaim themselves to be
Federationists. With sorrow and reluctance and, perhaps, too slowly
and with too much kindness the great overwhelming majority of
Federation members, officers, and leaders organized for battle and
took up the challenge of the civil war.

      The majority was at a disadvantage, however, in defending
itself because it could not devote its full time to the struggle.
It had the responsibility of carrying on the constructive work and
programs of the Federation, of repelling our external enemies, and
of keeping the organization afloat, while the minority, on the
other hand, could and did divorce itself completely from such
responsibility, spending virtually all of its time and energy in
subversive attack and destruction. The minority would be hard put
to point to a single legislative or other constructive proposition
which it has advanced or been responsible for since the New Orleans
convention. In the interest of promoting the basic objectives of
our movement the external work of the Federation could not be
allowed to come to a standstill.

      Therefore, between New Orleans and Boston the effort of the
officers and leaders had to be divided and redoubled. Legislative
and other program work had to be continued and at the same time the
affiliates had to be alerted to what was happening internally. This
had to be done in such a way as not to give our external enemies
aid and comfort or knowledge of our growing problems. State and
local leaders all over the country had to be shown the documentary
evidence of what was occurring and warned of what was to come at
Boston. They needed indisputable and provable facts as ammunition
against the propaganda of half-truths being spread.

      With the same energy which I had always tried to give to
promoting the welfare of the Federation, I along with other leaders
and members of the movement entered into this grim, new task. As I
went from state to state late in 1957 and early 1958 collecting
evidence and writing testimony for the right to organize bill, I
also talked to the members about what was happening to us
internally. For the first time in my life I found myself working
for the Federation without pleasure or zest. I knew beforehand that
I would earn the hatred and bitter attack of the dissenters in
exact proportion to the effectiveness of my work. Dr. tenBroek and
the other leaders were, of course, in the same situation.

      In this connection the minority showed how badly it had
misassessed matters when at the Santa Fe convention last year
several of its members said from the platform (as if they thought
it was an accusation, and one which I would feel called upon to
deny) that I had gone from state to state organizing the majority
and showing the documentary evidence of what the dissenters were
doing. They should have known than I have never yet apologized for
or been ashamed of any work that I have ever done in behalf of the
Federation. They should also have known that I would not have
denied but rather would have insisted that I had done all that I
could to expose their tactics and subversion.

      At the Boston convention in 1958 the Federation became
acquainted for the first time with political hauling and
maneuvering. The minority came organized as a bloc, and the
majority found itself forced to close ranks and counter-organize in
self-defense. Votes were taken not on the merit of issues but along
party lines. Slates of candidates were selected, and the spirit of
crusade and dedication died a painful death.

      After Boston a new vocabulary came into being in the
Federation. The minority taught us that when they attacked any of
the rest of us or made charges, it was  democracy in action  or 
the right of free speech.  When these attacks were answered,
however, it was  character assassination  or  defamation  and 
slander.  If they won an issue (a rare occurrence) it was  the will
of the people  or  democracy.  When they lost on an issue, it was 
dictatorship  and  tyranny.  When they combined to try to elect
candidates or to defeat or pass motions, it was  freedom of
association  and  the democratic process.  When the majority
combined for the same purposes, it was  dirty politics  and 
tyrannical dictatorship. 

      Despite the fact that the will of the convention was made
clear at Boston, the civil war continued. By the time of Santa Fe
the days of unity and dedication were only a memory, and even the
memory was beginning to fade. Again, the convention made clear its
will and by a majority even larger than the one at Boston.

      By Santa Fe, however, the real beginnings of chaos were
commencing to set in. The political alliances and arrangements
which had been made during the preceding two years were bearing
their inevitable fruit. It had become accepted practice that the
way to achieve recognition was not by the difficult method of doing
hard work for the Federation and forwarding programs. There was a
quicker and an easier way. Form alliances. Circulate resolutions,
make personal attacks, rise in defense of a popular leader, and,
above all yes, above all! come up with suggestions for change any
change, so long as it would bring notoriety and publicity.

      Another year has now gone by, and we are at Miami. The civil
war has continued and, if possible, has even further degenerated.
There is now scarcely a person in our movement who is not under
attack by someone or disliked by this or that group. Our
legislative and other programs have largely become secondary to
internal politics. Witness, for example, last year at Santa Fe when
even the right-to-organize bills were publicly attacked on the
floor of the convention by the minority faction.

      Or consider the fact that letters which I now have in my
possession were written into Iowa by the dissenters attempting to
destroy the expanding work of rehabilitation and job placement
being put into effect by the Commission for the Blind. In order to
hurt me personally as administrator of the Commission, certain
members of the dissenting faction were willing to destroy the
program of rehabilitation and job placement for the entire blind
population of the state. The same thing occurred in California when
Dr. tenBroek came up for reappointment to another term on the
Social Welfare Board. Regardless of the effect on the blind of the
state, letters of vindictive, personal attack were sent to the
Governor. As you know, Dr. tenBroek was reappointed anyway and made
chairman of the board into the bargain. Again the dissenters were
defeated in their efforts at destruction, but the next
Federationist anywhere in the country who comes up for appointment
to an advisory or policy-making board and who has not capitulated
to the minority may expect to be treated to the same type of
vicious and unprincipled attack.

      Also consider the letters opposing Federation legislation
recently sent by the dissenters to Congressman Baring and others.
Is this the so-called constructive activity to which the dissenters
point with pride? Is this their positive new program? Is this the
brave new democracy they would bring us?

      Our fund-raising programs have been endangered, and the very
existence of the Federation as a continuing organizational entity
is now threatened. Yet, there are those who at this present
convention and even at this late date in our civil war will tell us
that the past three years of destruction and strife have been a
wonderful thing for the Federation, that we are now stronger than
ever. I doubt that many of us will be taken in by that line.
Certainly our external enemies are not taken in by it. If what we
have had for the past three years has been success and progress, I
would to God we had been less successful and less progressive.

      The attacks on me personally have increased steadily since
the New Orleans convention. For the reasons I have already given it
was inevitable that this would be so. I knew what the cost would be
when the civil war began and accepted it as an unpleasant but
necessary by-product of the work which had to be done. During the
past three years, especially since Santa Fe, I have been accused of
every possible vice of being unscrupulous and ruthless, without
principle, morally dishonest, and above all of being desperately
and wildly ambitious. These charges have been made not only by the
recognized members of the minority faction, but also by some whose
principal claim to recognition is the fact that they have
previously held themselves out to the general membership as friends
and supporters of the administration.

      Again I say that such charges and attacks were inevitable in
the climate of continuing civil war and political maneuvering. Such
a climate encourages petty politicians and office seekers to
attempt to bargain for position and to seek notoriety by slick
maneuver and slanderous attack. Always as civil war continues, it
degenerates into chaos and anarchy. Factions splinter and beget new
factions, which in turn divide and further splinter. As dissolution
and ruin approach, stability becomes harder and harder to maintain.

      Leadership in the Federation does not depend upon the holding
of office. It has never so depended. To the extent that the
organization is worthwhile, leadership as always will continue to
depend upon willingness to work and ability to work.

      Very soon after the Santa Fe convention I told Dr. tenBroek
that I felt I could serve the Federation and the administration
better if I did not allow my name to be placed in nomination for
office at Miami. Such a decision would certainly set the record
straight with respect to the whispered charges of reckless ambition
and desire for presidential succession. It would also rob the
enemies of the administration of one of their principal issues an
issue in fact upon which they have based more and more of their
campaign in recent months. It would utterly destroy one of the main
arguments upon which the case of the dissenters has been built and
by which they have sought to justify their actions. Then, too, it
must be admitted frankly that the continuing torrent of personal
abuse and vilification made the prospect of Federation office seem
somewhat less than attractive.

      The decision was made, but not announced. Why? The answer is
surely obvious. What now of the charges of reckless ambition and
desire for office which the opponents of the administration have so
laboriously put together? During the remainder of this convention
the delegates will undoubtedly be subjected (from the platform, but
principally in the corridors and bedrooms) to hurried and desperate
verbal gymnastics in an attempt to explain away the utter deflation
of what has been charged. It will be interesting, indeed, to see
how the dissenters attempt to explain away their calumny and
misrepresentation.

      In leaving Federation office to become a rank-and-file member
I would like to make these final remarks. By ceasing to be an
Executive Committeeman I do not cease to be an active
Federationist. Nor do I cease to be a part of the administration.
I shall continue to defend and support it actively.

      Moreover, I shall continue to give whatever organizational
help I can to any local or state affiliate in the nation. When I am
invited to do so (and as time permits), I shall attend state
conventions, write articles and testimony for the Federation,
attend meetings, or do anything else which I may be asked to do.

      I have already said that the Federation has very nearly been
destroyed by the past three years of political bickering and civil
war. It may already be too late to reverse the trend and forestall
the final descent into chaos and utter destruction. However, I
believe that this is not necessarily the case. It is not on a note
of despair but of hope that I should like to conclude. It is no
game we play this business of organization. It is as serious and
important as the lives and destinies of us all. The formula for
solving our problems and saving our organization is simple. It is
also painful and hard to face. It is this. One way or another, once
and for all, now and forever, we absolutely must put a stop to the
disgraceful internal strife and warfare which is destroying the
Federation. It is as simple as that. We must make it unmistakably
clear to all concerned that this organization will no longer
tolerate the continued wrecking and destruction of its goals and
purposes whether the wrecking and destruction be in the name of
free speech, democratic procedures, rights of the minority, freedom
of association, will of the people, or any other high-sounding and
respectable phraseology used to cloak real purposes. We must refuse
to be intimidated or bamboozled by pious words. We must have the
courage to put down the demagogue, even if he makes his appeal in
the name of the very virtues in our organization which he would
destroy. If it requires taking stern action, then stern action must
be taken. If it requires losing some of the dissenters, then they
must be lost. Whatever the cost, it is cheaper than the alternative
of absolute ruin which faces us. We cannot delay, and we cannot
equivocate. By not choosing one course of action, we automatically
take the other.

      Perhaps the old Federation was too idealistic. If so, I can
only say that I believe most of its members wanted it that way, and
loved and respected it for what it was. The traditional goals and
objectives of the Federation are still the most compelling reason
for our existence as an organization. To open new fields of
opportunity to the blind, to secure the passage of needed
legislation, to exchange ideas and give encouragement to each
other, to labor in a common cause against discrimination and denial
of acceptance as normal people, to establish the right of the blind
to compete for regular jobs in public or private employment these
are the things for which the Federation was created. These are the
things which continue to make it worthwhile. Surely the National
Federation of the Blind means enough in the lives of the blind
people of this nation that a way will be found to save it from
destruction and, even more important, to save it from becoming
merely a hollow shell and an empty mockery of the great crusade of
former days.

     With those solemn words, Kenneth Jernigan left the convention
rostrum and gave up his elective office. But he continued, side by
side with President tenBroek, to lead the fight on the convention
floor in defense of the National Federation and its democracy.
During the next four days, decisions of major consequence were
taken on several fronts. The Constitution of the NFB was
substantially amended; six state affiliates were suspended for
activities destructive of the Federation; all national officers and
Board Members found themselves facing election; and important
commitments were made in various program areas. When the Miami
convention was finally adjourned the National Federation of the
Blind, while still a house divided, was not merely standing but was
more firmly grounded than before the convention. The amendments to
its Constitution, all adopted overwhelmingly, spelled out rights
and responsibilities in terms not readily twisted or evaded. And
the convention's decisive action in suspending from membership the
six state affiliates (those of Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) that had been at the heart of
the insurrection proved to be the most effective step yet adopted
toward a solution of the protracted civil war.

     It should be noted that the action taken against these state
groups was not that of expulsion they were not permanently thrown
out of the Federation but only suspended as affiliates until such
time as they might furnish evidence in good faith of a willingness
to abide by the responsibilities as well as the rights of
membership. In a post-convention  Monitor article reviewing the
suspensions, President tenBroek repeated the main points of the
motion he submitted to the convention:

      Through calculated activities on various fronts, these states
have critically endangered our vital source of fundraising; they
have opposed our basic legislative programs, and thus have
jeopardized our warmest relationships with Congress; they have
obstructed and fought against our organizational efforts within the
states themselves; they have plotted assiduously to impugn the
reputations of our elected officers and to block their appointments
to positions in public service; and they have cast suspicion upon
our integrity and fundamental purposes as an organization of the
blind. They have done these things deliberately, actively, and
vigorously. Moreover, they have formed the spearhead of a permanent
hostile organization within the National Federation the so-called 
Free Press Association,  openly dedicated to a policy of rule or
ruin. All six states have contributed through specific actions and
concerted agitation to the condition of alarming instability which
has come to characterize our organization in the eyes of growing
numbers of friends, foes, and the public alike. The harm which has
already been done to the Federation and its cause is incalculable.
The harm which would be done in the future if this condition were
permitted to continue is, however, not incalculable. It would,
quite simply, be fatal.

     The eventual consequence of the Federation's action in
suspending the six state affiliates was to lead to the permanent
separation of these factional groups, the closing of the Federation
ranks around its leadership, and the formation of a splinter
organization known as the American Council of the Blind as a haven
for the disgruntled and a willing ally of anti-Federation forces in
the blindness system. But in the short run the civil strife
continued unabated within the National Federation during the period
leading up to the 1961 convention in Kansas City.

     At the time of the firing of A. L. Archibald in the summer of
1957 the Federation was a united movement with harmony among its
leaders and members and a clear-cut purpose to achieve its goals.
But as the civil war got underway and continued month after month
and year after year, the unity and viability of the movement began
to disintegrate. The strains were such that friend began to attack
friend, and total chaos seemed likely.

     No better example of the destructive disintegration can be
given than the conduct of George Card of Wisconsin. At the
beginning of the civil war in 1957 he was First Vice President of
the organization, as well as the Editor of the  Braille Monitor.
During 1958 and 1959 the minority faction (calling itself the Free
Press Association) made prolonged and vicious attacks upon Card,
impugning his morals and motives and accusing him of a variety of
derelictions. In 1959 he resigned as First Vice President but
continued as a paid staff member, serving as Editor of the  Braille
Monitor.

     By 1960 the internal strife had become so bitter that war
weariness was almost universal. The unity of purpose which had once
characterized the movement was gone, and almost every day someone
else came forward with a different scheme to end the fighting. Even
George Card ( Monitor Editor and long-time stalwart) was apparently
not immune. Shortly after the conclusion of the 1960 Miami
convention, he openly joined the minority faction and began a
nationwide campaign, going from state to state to attack President
tenBroek. Apparently his level of dissatisfaction had been rising
for months, but he now openly changed sides and fought with the
same vigor against the administration which he had formerly shown
in its behalf.

     In September of 1960 he was replaced as  Monitor Editor by
Kenneth Jernigan. This was four months before the  Monitor
suspended publication December, 1960, being the last edition for
the next four years. The October, 1960,  Braille Monitor carried an
article about Card's defection to the minority. The text of that
article follows:

               GEORGE CARD RESIGNS FROM NFB STAFF

      The resignation of George Card from his position as a staff
member of the National Federation of the Blind became effective in
mid-September as the result of a letter to the President
reaffirming his defection from the administration and his adherence
to the McDaniel  Free Press  faction.

      Card's defection, although long in the making, was first
openly announced two weeks earlier in a letter to Dr. tenBroek
setting forth his  plans for the immediate future  plans which were
indicated to be permanent and unalterable, and which included
joining the McDaniel faction in its Nashville meeting and embarking
upon a countrywide tour of agitation against the national
administration and the policy of the National Convention. At that
time Card stated:  I am going to campaign to the best of my
abilities in an effort to persuade the states which voted against
the suspensions to stand their ground next year and to persuade at
least twelve other states to join with them and to vote for
reinstatement at Kansas City. I shall write many letters (always on
my personal stationery), and I shall make as many personal contacts
as I can. I am going to Nashville the latter part of this week. 

      Card's defection and resignation constitute the latest links
in a chain of events set in motion over a year ago when he
inaugurated a series of attacks upon the President, the First Vice
President, other staff members, and close associates of the
Federation. As the evidence and destructive consequences of Card's
activities became unmistakable, the President ordered him as a
staff employee to cease carrying them on. Instead of complying with
this elementary condition of staff employment, Card broadened his
attacks and redoubled his political activities. During recent
months, and most conspicuously following the Miami convention, the
scope of his campaign has been still further extended.

      On August 20 the President informed George Card that due to
the deterioration of his health and effectiveness, as well as of
his personal relationships, he was to be relieved of several of his
staff duties (notably the editorship of the  Monitor and the
supervision of greeting card mail) and placed on semi-retirement at
reduced salary. Card's reply was to challenge the President's
authority to carry out the transfer of staff functions, to level an
attack upon him personally and upon the convention for its action
in suspending six affiliates, and to disclose his plan to tour the
country as the agent of the McDaniel faction's purposes. As
detailed elsewhere in this issue (see article entitled  Round-Up of
Free Press Agitation ), Card has since begun his tour and has
visited numerous states with the now openly avowed objective of
eliminating the President of the Federation and overthrowing the
policy democratically adopted by the National Convention.

      On September 10 President tenBroek wrote to George Card
answering various of his charges and clarifying his status as a
staff member of the Federation. In view of Card's subsequent
resignation and political itinerary, the President's letter is
herewith reprinted in full:

      Dear George:

      Let me try to make a few things crystal clear. I made a
similar effort last spring which apparently failed. In personal
terms you cannot afford to misunderstand now.

      You tell me in your letter of August 29 that I may wish to
withdraw my offer to you of a changed job in the light of your
avowed intention to carry on a campaign against the administration
for the unconditional reinstatement of the suspended affiliates. I
made no offer. I shall not withdraw any offer. In my function as
President, I altered your status as an employee of the Federation.
You were placed on semi-retirement; your duties were adjusted. If
because of this change of status and assignment of tasks or because
of any other reason you wish to resign, that is entirely up to you.
You are free to remain as a staff member only if you comply with
the established policies of the organization regarding the staff.
You may not carry on a political campaign regarding the duties
assigned to you as a staff member; you may not carry on a political
campaign regarding the policies of the organization; you may not
carry on a political campaign affecting the officers or members of
the Executive Committee. All three of these things you are quite
patently carrying on at present. Only one of them is frankly avowed
in your letter to me of August 29. You must cease all such activity
and cease it immediately. If you do not, you will have
automatically resigned your position as a staff member.

      I still adhere to what I said in Omaha in 1955. Federation
members who have genuine moral scruples on any point should not be
subject to moral pressure. There is quite a difference, however,
between a moral scruple and political shenanigans, and between a
staff employee and a member or officer. I see no moral or other
scruple in what you are now doing; you are simply joining a
political campaign which, if it is successful, will eventually
destroy the Federation.

      The renewal of your campaign against the administration
includes an outright fabrication. I did not, in our June 30 meeting
in Miami, request you to make a statement in my support. You
volunteered to make it. Moreover, you did so in the presence of a
third person, so that you knew that you could not get by with your
present misrepresentation. Or is this, after all, as I am convinced
it is, another lapse of memory accompanying your deterioration of
health? These lapses have occurred frequently in the past couple of
years, and at times have been virtually complete.

      You seem, indeed, to be strangely ambivalent on the subject
of your own health. When the purpose is to show that you can carry
on all your staff functions, you claim that your health is not a
factor. At other times, you are willing to portray it in the direst
terms. At Miami you asked your wife to leave the room in order to
inform Bernie Gerchen and me that you felt the end to be very near,
that you were in incessant pain, and that the symptoms were
occurring which the doctors had warned you to watch for. Whatever
you may now wish to say about it, the objective evidences
concerning the state of your health cannot be disregarded.

      Your defection to the McDaniel camp is reflected not only in
your personal attacks but in your faithful echo of the McDaniel
doctrine concerning the suspensions. That argument holds that it is
only the minority which has rights, and that those rights are
unlimited, whatever the degree of internal or external wreckage
they may cause. When, after years of this bickering warfare, the
majority at last rose at Miami to assert its own rights and protect
the Federation from further destruction, its democratic decision is
held out by you to be a  mockery of fair play  and a  monstrous
miscarriage of justice.  There is nothing unjust or unfair in
requiring members to fulfill the minimum responsibilities of their
membership, and holding them to account for flagrant refusal to do
so. There is no need to repeat (to you of all people) what the
grounds of suspension were; they were not only recited at length in
my presentation of the motions at Miami, but they have been
thoroughly and painfully thrashed out for three years at our
conventions and meetings, in the  Monitor and  Free Press, in
public bulletins, open correspondence, and continuous discussion
throughout the country. Most Federationists now know them by heart.

      Furthermore, as you well know, the suspension decision was
not a punitive action or courtroom prosecution, to be regarded in
legal terms of crime and punishment. It was simply an effort on the
part of the majority to save the Federation from future
destruction. It was preventive and protective rather than punitive
and retributory. It was not expulsion which was voted, but only
suspension. The proper judicial analogy is that of a restraining
order or preliminary injunction from which the defendants are
released if they can show that they are complying with proper
standards. Any or all of the suspended members may be swiftly and
readily readmitted to full standing whenever they are willing to
abide by the indispensable conditions of membership in any
democratic society. If they cannot bring themselves to do so, they
are free to disaffiliate. The choice is clear, and it is theirs to
make.

      What choice they are making is also quite clear from their
post-convention conduct. The Georgia convention refused to budge an
inch from the activities which had led to their suspension.
Moreover, they then and there voted a $300 contribution to the Free
Press Association and authorized delegates to attend its
forthcoming meeting with power to join. Oklahoma voted a $500
contribution to the Free Press. The Louisiana executive committee
voted to surrender the national charter. The first vice president
of the Georgia Federation dispatched a letter to Congressman Baring
doing everything possible to alienate him from the Federation. A
Free Press meeting was called for Nashville on the Labor Day
weekend. The six suspended states and one or two others were
present. They voted not to comply with any conditions of
readmission that may be laid down by the Federation. They made a
pact that no one of them would seek or accept readmission unless
all were readmitted. They voted to establish another national
organization. George Card traveled to Nashville to attend the Free
Press meeting and has since projected a long tour of states in
league with the Free Press and to achieve their objectives.

      It would be instructive to know how you explain and justify
these latest factional maneuvers. Are these maneuvers  fair play 
or are they such unmistakably vicious blows at the very existence
of the Federation that suspension (if it were not already in
effect) must seem only the gentlest of possible sanctions?

      We both know that the actions and attitudes which you now see
fit to disclose have long been in the making. For many months prior
to the convention you were engaged in attacking the Federation's
fund raiser, in attacking its then First Vice President as a
ruthless and unscrupulous schemer, and in attacking me as the
accomplice or dupe of both of them. These charges which you knew to
be altogether false when you spread them, were merely the weapons
of a personal political campaign designed to destroy the First Vice
President, to bolster your own position as finance director, and to
foster an image of the President as an impractical and idealistic
professor utterly dependent upon the practical common sense of the
finance director.

      Early in 1960 I was forced to call you to task for this
agitation, and to direct you as a staff employee to bring it to a
halt. Instead of complying, you offered to resign from the paying
part of your position. Out of consideration for your years of
service, as well as for your failing health, I declined the offer.
You then promptly took up the affair with a member of the Executive
Committee and formed your league with Dave Krause, with the result
that problems of staff were made the principal issue of the March
meeting of the Executive Committee. Since then you have not only
refused to discontinue your political activity but have vastly
increased it and broadened the scope of your attacks.

      You state in your letter that I should not have informed the
convention of my decision not to remain either as President or as
a member if the Federation was unable to defend itself against
these attacks. That decision was a fact. Obviously it should be
considered among other facts. If it is not a fact of importance to
you, it is not unimportant in the minds of others. To have kept the
members in the dark about it would have been the height of
deception. It had the same relevance to the discussion as the other
factual consequences of this destructive campaign bearing upon our
relations with Congress, our fundraising, and our effectiveness as
an organization.

      In another phase of your attack on me, you speak of a  myth 
of my indispensability. I have never contributed to such a myth or
believed anything of the kind; on the contrary, I shall be most
happy to be relieved of the Presidency whenever the majority
believes that it has found a better man for the job. But in the
meantime I assure you that I shall not be driven from that office
by the harassment of a minority, even though you have now seen fit
to join its cause.

      But if I have done nothing to encourage the  myth  you
mention, I confess that I have done much to build another one: the
myth of George Card. Unlike you I do not now regret that action.
There was then a great deal of justification for it. I would not
now seek to rewrite history as it then stood. That you have ceased
to be the George Card you once were makes of the earlier portrayal
a myth of today or of any time since Boston.

      I have, despite everything, been willing to retain you as a
member of the Federation staff with the adjusted responsibilities
indicated in my letter. Let me repeat, however, unequivocally that
if you continue to flout the constitutional policy governing staff
employment, and to carry on the further agitation you have outlined
and already initiated, you will forthwith have resigned from your
position.

      Jacobus tenBroek President

     As 1960 drew to a close, the level of discord seemed (if this
were possible) to increase. The minority (calling itself the Free
Press) met in Nashville, Tennessee, over the Labor Day weekend and
followed the meeting with a series of blasts at the Federation and
its leaders. The  Braille Monitor no longer attempted to stand 
above the battle  but openly came into the fray to defend the
democratic character of the Federation and the right of the
majority to set policy. Editor Kenneth Jernigan set the tone in an
open letter to the members in the November, 1960, issue of the
magazine, saying that he believed the Federation to be democratic
and worthwhile and that he would defend it from the destructive
elements that were trying to tear it down. 

     Jernigan was as good as his word, for in that same November,
1960, issue of the  Braille Monitor he published a satirical
commentary on the lack of democracy in the Free Press Association.
Here, in part, is what he said:

      Everyone knows that the Free Press Association [later the
American Council of the Blind] is made up of dedicated reformers.
The Free Press would never have been established if its members
could have received fair play and just treatment in the Federation.
Despite slander and vilification by the tenBroek administration and
others, the Free Press and its adherents practice democracy in its
purest form. Let those who doubt the truth of this statement
consider the following comparisons between the National Federation
of the Blind (which everybody knows to be a notorious dictatorship)
and the Free Press group.

      The National Federation conventions are open meetings. Anyone
may attend. Anyone may make tape recordings. Anyone may take notes.
Anyone may speak on any issue, subject only to time limitations
voted by the majority after discussion and debate. At the Miami
convention of the Federation and at the Santa Fe convention in 1959
members of the Free Press group made tapes of the entire
proceedings.

      Compare with this the meetings of the Free Press Association.
At Nashville this year during the Labor Day weekend the Free Press
leaders stopped people at the door and demanded to know what their
sentiments were before they could enter the room. Now, wait! I know
what you're thinking! Don't jump to conclusions. You can't call
this undemocratic. You see, this was not a  meeting.  It was simply
a  session  of the Free Press held as a committee of the whole.
Yes, I know that meetings of the resolutions committee and other
committees of the Federation are open to all who wish to attend,
but you just don't understand. A new organization has to protect
itself against spies and tyrannical majorities. As I was saying, at
the Free Press meeting in Nashville people were questioned at the
door as to their loyalties and sentiments before they could enter.
Permission was denied for anyone to make tape recordings. The
President of the Federation requested the right to attend, either
personally or by representative, but permission was denied.

      During the Free Press meeting one person was caught taking
notes. Mr. McDaniel immediately explained that no one could take
notes except  the official note takers.  Of course, these  official
note takers  had not been elected by the group. One person who
managed to get into the meeting and who said, when asked about her
loyalties, that she hadn't made up her mind but had come to
observe, was asked to leave the meeting. She did leave. In other
words, the Free Press proved that it certainly practices what it
preaches.

     Perhaps the greatest testimonial to the Federation's basic
soundness and deep significance to the blind of the nation was the
fact that through all of this pulling and hauling the overwhelming
majority of the state and local leaders and the rank-and-file
members remained unwavering in their support of the tenBroek
administration and their wish to leave the civil war behind them.
The 1961 convention in Kansas City was to see the climax of the
hostilities and the beginning of the end of the strife.

     The Kansas City convention represented a watershed in the
history of the movement; for it was then that a symbolic
thunderclap struck the Federation and its members an occurrence
which none anticipated and few were prepared to accept. Here is how
that event was described in a subsequent convention report by John
Taylor:

      After 21 years as founder and as the continuously elected
President of the National Federation, Dr. Jacobus tenBroek
surprised and dismayed the convention by announcing his resignation
from office on the first morning of the sessions. Dr. tenBroek's
resignation, which came in the middle of his current two-year term
in office, was prompted solely by the bitter factional strife which
has gripped its activities during the past 12 months. As the new
President of the organization, I cannot fully describe my own
feelings. Dr. tenBroek brought this organization into being and has
nurtured it through a score of years. We have lost in Dr. tenBroek
the greatest leader the organized blind movement has ever had or
will ever have. His announcement struck dismay into the hearts of
hundreds in the audience; at its conclusion there were few among us
with eyes entirely dry. As founder of the Federation, as its only
President for 21 years, as its leader and leading spirit, he built
the Federation (against persistent external opposition during the
whole life of the Federation and internal disruption in recent
years) into an organization that is democratic, representative, and
national. In a unique way, and to a striking degree, its philosophy
is his philosophy; its character is his character; its
accomplishments are his. In the hearts and gratitude of his
fellows, he stands as the blind man of the century.

     The stunning announcement by Jacobus tenBroek of his
resignation from the presidency, catastrophic as it appeared to
most of the delegates, served to inspirit the convention to the
task of putting its house in order. The key decision was a vote
against readmitting unconditionally the four state affiliates still
under suspension (two had been re-accepted). The result of this
vote was that the suspended affiliates, while they did not formally
withdraw from the NFB, walked out of the convention and met in a
neighboring hotel, where they formed themselves into the opposition
American Council of the Blind taking with them a handful of other
disgruntled Federationists, and by so doing effectively bringing to
an end the organized insurrection within the NFB.

     The American Council of the Blind, being composed as it was of
people who had not succeeded in the mainstream of the organized
blind movement, grew slowly and sporadically through the years.
After a full generation it remained comparatively small. During the
first twenty years of its existence the Council spent much of its
time reliving the Federation's civil war and attacking the
Federation and its leaders. The 1980s saw some mellowing of this
attitude, but at the end of the decade bitterness against the
Federation still constituted a significant element of the Council's
rationale. As it developed, the organization moved closer to the
more reactionary agencies in the field and was often used by them
as a counter to the Federation's advocacy role. It is fair to say
that the American Council of the Blind has never played a major
part in the affairs of the blind.

     The struggle within the Federation, the events surrounding the
1961 convention, and the establishment of the American Council of
the Blind were assessed by Jacobus tenBroek in 1962, when the
organized blind movement was recovering from its self-inflicted
wounds. His speech said in part:

      The last of the threats to the welfare of the blind is by no
means the least. In many ways it is the gravest of all. It is the
self-challenge of our own division and dissension the internal
peril of palsy and paralysis. Movements, too, have their diseases.
And the worst of these, the one most often fatal, is the virus of
creeping anarchy the blight of disunity and discord which gnaws at
the vitals of a stricken movement until its will is sapped, its
strength drained away, and its moral fiber shattered. The movement
of the organized blind we all know to our sorrow has been so
afflicted. If our movement is to rise again, there must be among us
a massive recovery of the will to live: a revival of the sense of
purpose and mission, indeed of manifest destiny, which once infused
this Federation and fired its forward advance.

      If we fail in that, more than a movement dies. The Federation
has been, above all things, a repository of faith the faith of tens
of thousands without sight and otherwise without a voice. It has
become a symbol, a living proof, of the collective rationality and
responsibility of blind men and women of their capacity to think
and move and speak for themselves, to be self-activated,
self-disciplined, and self-governing: In a word, to be  normal. Our
failure is the death of that idea. Our success is the vindication
of that faith.

     