Address in St. Louis at the Site of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.

Mr. Chairman, Governor Smith, Mayor Darst, His Excellency the Archbishop, members of the 35th Division, ladies and gentlemen:

This is indeed a great occasion.

I want to thank His Excellency, the Ambassador of France, for his invitation to me to visit his great country. Nothing, of course, would please me better. The President of the United States, it seems, must stay within his own borders at least until after the first Tuesday of next November.

I am happy to participate in the dedication of this historic site to the memory of Thomas Jefferson and the early pioneers and settlers of our westward expansion. The park which is to be created here will bear witness to our gratitude to Jefferson and the brave men who explored and settled the area of the Louisiana Purchase.

This park will commemorate a great act of statesmanship. When Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory, our country acquired a material basis for the kind of democratic society which Jefferson dreamed of. The abundant lands of the West made it possible for millions of families to settle on their own farms as freeholders and independent citizens.

This rural society of free men fixed the democratic character of our institutions. After this the country changed in many ways, and it was exposed to many dangers, but its democratic nature could never be shaken. The foes of democracy, whether they were the old Federalists, or the monopolists of a later period, or the adherents of new tyrannies and dictatorships, have not been able to prevail against it. And they never will.

We sometimes forget that we owe the Louisiana Purchase to Jefferson's wisdom and experience in foreign affairs. Foreign policy was a matter of first importance in Jefferson's time, just as it is today. The United States in those days was a new nation, and weak by comparison with the great European empires. Its continued survival as an independent country depended upon its having the goodwill and friendship of other countries.

Today, our foreign policy is that of one of the strongest nations in the world. But the future welfare of our country still depends upon our foreign policy just as it did in Jefferson's time.

This is true not only because the world has shrunk in terms of space and time--it is also true because in our day totalitarian tyrannies have sprung up in the world. These tyrannies, whether of the left or of the right, have threatened free institutions and free governments everywhere.

In this situation, our country has been impelled by the principles of freedom for which we stand, and by the needs of our national security, to take a leading role in the search for a just and permanent peace among nations.

We have taken the position of leadership that President Wilson wanted us to take after the First World War. Our aim today is the same as his aim was then--to establish a peaceful world order in which disputes between nations can be adjusted without bloodshed, and the individual can be sure of justice and freedom in his dally life. The creation of such a world order requires an international organization of free and independent nations, cooperating voluntarily in the maintenance of peace. And it also requires collective action to prevent aggression.

We refused to assume our responsibilities as a nation after the First World War. But by the end of the Second World War, we had learned our lesson.

Since that time, we have joined with other nations in the formation of a world organization to keep the peace. We have used our resources to aid the recovery of war-shattered economies. We have aided in carrying on international activities in economic, social, and cultural fields. We have helped to build a greater degree of international cooperation than the world has ever known before.

Our actions for peace have had the support of the American people without regard to political affiliation. Our foreign policy has been bipartisan, and I am confident that it will remain bipartisan.

The steps we have taken toward international cooperation offer real hope and opportunity to mankind. But they have not yet provided us with the assurance of permanent peace.

The reason is clear. In the 5 years that have passed since the end of the war, we have been confronted with a new, powerful imperialism. We had hoped that our wartime ally, the Soviet Union, would join in the efforts of the whole community of nations to build a peaceful world. Instead, the Soviet leaders have been an obstacle to 'peace.

By means of infiltration, subversion, propaganda, and indirect aggression the rulers of the Soviet Union have sought to extend the boundaries of their totalitarian control.

With a cynical disregard for the hopes of mankind, the leaders of the Soviet Union have talked democracy and have set up dictatorships. They have proclaimed national independence but imposed national slavery. They have preached peace but devoted their energies to fomenting aggression and preparing for war.

The result of these tactics has been to spur the free nations on to greater cooperation and more vigorous efforts for the improvement and the defense of their own institutions. These efforts have been without parallel in history. Five years ago we would not have dreamed that such joint efforts as the European recovery program or the Atlantic defense program were possible in times of peace. Measures of even closer cooperation are now being planned and set up.

We have made good progress so far. Because of this progress, we are confident that we can establish the conditions necessary to a genuine world peace. We know that the free world has both the will and the means to insure its own survival. But I would like to emphasize the difference between confidence and complacency. We cannot be complacent. Our ultimate success depends on sustained further effort. We have joined with other nations in establishing a new and stronger kind of international association than we have known before. But there is a long road ahead.

There are, of course, some people who are urging us to pull out of these joint efforts to achieve a lasting peace for the world. They point to the difficulties we have already experienced and that long road that lies ahead. They want us to reverse our foreign policy, withdraw from our cooperation with other nations, and retire behind our own defenses.

These people are known as isolationists. They are dangerous not only to the cause of world peace, but also to our own national security.

The isolationists take an upside-down view of our affairs. They want us to stop giving aid to free nations that are able and willing to make good use of our help. They ask us to give up in the very places where we are succeeding. Isn't that a fantastic suggestion ? They say that cooperation with friendly nations is too expensive--but they forget how much more expensive it would be to abandon our allies to the aggressor, and try to defend ourselves alone.

Peace costs too much, they say. But their policy would permit free nations everywhere to be swallowed up one by one, and would leave the United States alone as the sole defender of freedom.

Isolationism is the road to war. Worse than that, isolationism is the road to defeat in war.

The people who are striving to destroy our foreign aid programs and our programs for the common defense of the free nations, are striking at our own national security. They may not mean to do us harm, but they are as dangerous to our future as those who deliberately plot against our freedom.

Most of the American people know this. Most of us have enlisted in the struggle for world peace "for the duration." We are not thinking of deserting.

What we want to know is what progress we are now making in the struggle for peace and what we have to do in the future to achieve our goals.

In looking at the current world situation, it is plain that the present policies and activities of the Soviet Government are not contributing to peace. The Soviet Government is refusing to participate in the work of the United Nations. Representatives of the free nations are being forced out of the satellite countries. Soviet leaders are turning the schoolchildren of Eastern Germany into the same kind of political robots that marched into hopeless battle for Hitler.

At home, the Soviet regime is maintaining the largest peacetime armed force in history, far greater than it needs for the defense of its own boundaries. The leaders of the Soviet Union, instead of using their resources to improve the well-being of their people, are devoting a massive share of those resources to the acquisition of further military strength.

We have tried to dissuade the Soviet leaders from this militaristic course, so unnecessary, so costly to their people and to ours, so antagonistic to the pursuit of peace. After the war we demobilized the bulk of our Army, Navy, and Air Force. In the United Nations we put forward proposals to share with the world the development of atomic energy and to prevent the use of the atomic bomb. An unheard of proceeding by a great nation--absolutely unheard of in the history of the world. We urged general disarmament and the creation of United Nations forces. But despite all those peaceful efforts, Soviet armament has continued to increase.

These ominous activities of the Soviet Union, however, are being offset by the growing strength of the free world. The free nations are making steady progress in creating more satisfactory conditions of life for their people, and stronger defenses against aggression.

The strength of the free world is not to be calculated primarily in military terms. Economic, political, and moral strength are equally essential, because the challenge which confronts free nations is far more than a military challenge. Communism feeds on weaknesses of whatever kind. Wherever the free nations fail to meet human needs and aspirations, they are vulnerable. In this sense, the Soviet threat is a challenge to the free world to live up to the principles it professes.

The free nations are meeting this challenge with energy and vitality.

Over a great part of the world the work of recovery and peaceful development is quickening its pace.

Our faith in the recovery of Western Europe, expressed in the Marshall plan, has been justified many times over by the nearmiracle of production we have been witnessing. We have seen dramatic evidence there of the will to work. We have also seen resolute expression of the will to be free, and to unite in common defense.

Last month, the Secretary of State went to Paris and London to meet with the representatives of our partner-nations in the North Atlantic Treaty. Those meetings demonstrated two significant facts: first, the nations of Western Europe have grown much stronger and much more confident during the past year. Second, the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty are rapidly forging an effective partnership for a great purpose-to preserve their freedom and improve the lives of their citizens.

The recent proposal of the Foreign Minister of France, Mr. Schuman, is evidence of the growing community of purpose among the free nations. He proposed that the coal and steel resources of Western Europe be pooled and utilized jointly for the benefit of all. This statesmanlike move, and the warm German response to it, are among the most encouraging developments in Europe since the end of the war. Meetings are being held now on the Schuman proposal and, if the details can be worked out, this plan will help to end the age-old rivalry between France and Germany and result in a far more peaceful and productive Europe.

In the sphere of defense, the decisions made at London give further evidence of the growing community of purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty countries. These countries are making plans to use their resources wisely so that military protection and social progress will both be maintained.

To this end, the treaty nations adopted the principle of creating balanced collective forces of the most modern and efficient type. This means that each country will contribute to the common defense of the North Atlantic area in accordance with a common plan, instead of trying to create a complete modern defense establishment for itself.

Such a balanced collective defense will be stronger and less costly than the old system of completely separate defense establishments. It will make it possible to provide the necessary military protection without imposing an unmanageable burden upon the economies of the member countries. Countries, like the United States, which have responsibilities for maintaining peace and security outside the North Atlantic Treaty area, will, of course, continue to maintain whatever defense forces are needed to meet those responsibilities.

The conferences in Paris and London also dealt with the situation in southeast Asia. In that area, Communist agents are trying, under the cloak of nationalism, to destroy the independence of newly formed free nations.

The governments of these nations are resisting Communist encroachment and subversion to the best of their ability. We are now extending economic and military assistance to those countries to help them create the stability necessary to resist Communist pressure and to promote better conditions of life for their people. This aid to the countries of southeast Asia is designed to make it possible for them to work out their own destinies in cooperation with the other free peoples of the world.

The United States intends to do its part in supporting the decisions and implementing the plans developed at Paris and London.

The free nations of the world have all the elements of strength necessary to protect themselves from aggression. They are applying one of the clearest lessons of the two world wars--that peace-loving nations must be strong, determined, and united, if they are to preserve the peace. The resolute efforts being made by the United States, in concert with other free nations, enable us to face with confidence the hazards of the future.

We cannot be complacent, because the dangers we confront are many and serious. On the other hand, we must not become hysterical. In all probability we shall be required to make substantial efforts for peace for many years to come. But our situation is strong, our strength is growing. We must remain cool, determined, and steady.

Above all, I wish to emphasize that the objective of our efforts is peace, not conflict. What we seek is not domination over any other nation or people, but simply the creation of a just international order, applicable to all nations. We believe that this aim can be achieved when all nations seek it in good faith. We look forward to the time when all international differences can be settled peacefully, and by negotiation, on the basis of these principles.

In the language of the Charter of the United Nations, we are determined "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind."

The people of the world look to the United States of America as the strong bulwark of freedom. To them--the people of the world--we pledge that we shall work side by side with other free nations in order that men the world over may live in freedom and in peace.