Paul Hume

Paul Hume was a music critic for The Washington Post whose review of Margaret Truman’s singing became the occasion for one of Harry S. Truman’s most notorious outbursts. Hume’s criticism judged a public performance on its merits; the President’s furious reply turned a review into a national controversy. The later record also complicates the episode: after Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur, Hume sent the President a letter of support.

Identity and Critical Judgment

Hume reviewed Margaret Truman’s recital at Constitution Hall for The Washington Post. His assessment acknowledged her attractiveness on stage and described her voice as pleasant, but judged it small and only fair in quality. He wrote that she sang flat frequently, more so than at any previous performance he had heard, and that listeners could not feel confident she would reach the end of a song successfully. In his view, she had not improved over the years, lacked professional finish, and conveyed little of the music she performed.

The review also questioned the gap between Margaret’s ability and the public response: audiences continued to pay for her recitals what they might pay for the world’s finest singers. Hume described the task of recording such criticism as unpleasant, particularly because Margaret was appealing as a person, but concluded that the repeated mismatch left reviewers little recourse beyond withholding comment. His was a forceful judgment of her performance and public reception, not simply a dismissal of her character.

The book places that judgment alongside advice Margaret had already received. Opera star Helen Traubel had urged her not to hurry her career, saying that her voice needed at least five more years of study. Traubel wanted Margaret to develop on her own merits rather than rely on her father’s position, a standard with which Truman had reportedly agreed. Hume’s review was therefore scathing, but its central concerns about vocal readiness and professional independence were not unique to him.

The Letter and Its Publication

At 5:30 in the morning at Blair House, Truman read Hume’s review in the second section of The Washington Post, on page 12. The timing, more than the substance of the criticism alone, provoked his anger: the book notes that, under the strain and grief he was experiencing, another incident might have set off a similar response. In the Blair House study, Truman wrote a furious, 150-word letter by hand on White House memo paper. He sealed it, addressed it, attached a three-cent stamp, and carried it to the White House.

Truman then asked an elderly White House messenger, Samuel Mitchell, whether the day was pleasant. After Mitchell agreed, Truman suggested that he take a stroll and drop the letter in a street mailbox. The episode depended on a small, ordinary errand, but the book also identifies a possible interruption that never occurred: had Charlie Ross still been on duty, he might have recognized Truman’s likely reaction and stopped the letter from going out. Ross had been a calming influence on the President, not merely a press secretary.

Hume and his editor at The Washington Post decided to take no action over Truman’s letter. Copies were apparently made, however, and the letter soon appeared in full on page one of the Washington News. In it, Truman attacked Hume personally as well as professionally, insulted his age and success, and threatened physical violence. The public appearance of the letter transformed a private presidential rebuke into a conspicuous story about the President’s temper and his response to criticism of his daughter.

Margaret’s Reaction and the Episode’s Meaning

Margaret was away in Nashville continuing her tour when she learned of the letter. She refused to believe at first that her father had written it, insisting that he would not use such language and doubting that he had had time to write to Hume. She also noted that access to White House notepaper alone could not establish who had written the letter. Her response shows how startling the document appeared even to the person whom Truman was trying to defend.

The incident exposed a tension between a father’s protectiveness and a President’s public authority. Hume had criticized a singer whose career was inseparable in public perception from her family name; Truman answered not with a rebuttal of the review’s musical judgments, but with personal abuse and a threat. The timing and method of the letter’s delivery, followed by its publication, made the conflict larger than a disagreement between critic and performer. At the same time, the book preserves the distinction between the severity of Hume’s assessment and the circumstances that helped make Truman’s response explosive.

Later Support for Truman

Hume’s role in the narrative did not end with the letter. After Truman dismissed MacArthur, another letter of support addressed to the President came from the Washington Post music critic. The account gives no further detail about Hume’s message, so its precise argument cannot be established here. Its presence nevertheless reverses the expected shape of the earlier episode: the critic whom Truman had attacked over a review of Margaret’s singing later stood among those expressing support for Truman during a consequential political decision.

That recurrence prevents Hume from being reduced to the antagonist in a family controversy. The book presents him first as a critic willing to publish an uncompromising professional judgment, then as the recipient of the President’s anger, and later as a supporter of the President over MacArthur. The contrast does not erase the letter or explain Hume’s motives; it shows that their relationship in the narrative was not defined solely by the morning the review appeared.