Texas Oil Industry and the Assassination of JFK

[John Simkin]

Over the last few weeks I have been researching the connections between the Texas oil industry and the assassination of JFK. To fully understand the story it is necessary to go back to the end of the 19th century.

The first significant discovery of oil in Texas took place in Navarro County in 1894. By 1900 the Corsicana oilfield was producing more than 839,000 barrels of oil a year. This success prompted exploration in other parts of Navarro County. This led to the discovery of the Powell oilfield and by 1906 it was producing 673,221 barrels a year. Other discoveries took place at Sour Lake (1902), Humble (1905) and Goose Creek (1908). Some of those who became extremely wealthy as a result of these discoveries included Ross Sterling, Hugh R. Cullen, Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison.

The most prolific oil reserves in the United States was not discovered until October, 1930. The East Texas Oilfield included Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. The first small company to find oil in East Texas was Deep Rock Oil Company. The first investor to take advantage of the discovery was Haroldson L. Hunt. He bought 5,000 acres of leases and an eighty-acre tract for $1,335,000. Hunt soon owned 500 wells in East Texas.

The discovery of oil in Texas made a small group of men a great deal of money. They decided to join together in order to maintain their profits. This included strategies for keeping the price of oil as high as possible. The rich East Texas field caused problems as it initially caused the price of oil to fall.

Ross Sterling, the former owner of Humble Oil, was elected governor of Texas and took office on 20th January, 1931. The Texas Railroad Commission, under the control of the large oil producers, attempted to limit the production of oil (prorationing) in the new fields of East Texas. On 31st July, 1931, the federal court in Houston sided with a group of independent oil producers and ruled that the Texas Railroad Commission had no right to impose prorationing.

Large oil companies in Texas such as Humble Oil were in favour of prorationing and Sterling came under great pressure to intervene. On 16th August, 1931, Sterling declared martial law in Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. In his proclamation Sterling declared that the independent oil producers in these counties were "in a state of insurrection" and that the "reckless and illegal exploitation of (oil) must be stopped until such time as the said resources may be properly conserved and developed under the protection of the civil authorities".

Sterling now ordered the commander of the Texas National Guard, Jacob F. Wolters, to "without delay shut down each and every producing crude oil well and/or producing well of natural gas". Wolters who was the chief lobbyist of several major oil companies in Texas, readily agreed to this action. Wolters used more than a thousand troops to make sure that the oil wells in East Texas ceased production. The Texas Railroad Commission was now in firm control of the world's most prolific oil fields. It now controlled the supply of the oil in the United States. As a result, the price of oil began to increase.

The courts ruled that Sterling had exceeded his authority by the declaration of martial law and he was easily defeated by Miriam A. Ferguson when he attempted to be elected for a second term as governor.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt gained power he attempted to push a bill through Congress that would give his Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, the authority to regulate domestic oil production. However, Sam Rayburn, a politician from Texas, as chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, was able to kill the bill. It was left to another powerful Texan, Tom Connally, to sponsor the Connally Hot Oil Act. This gave the Texas Railroad Commission the authority to proration oil.

Texas oil millionaires also fought hard to maintain its tax concessions. The most important of these was the oil depletion allowance. It was first introduced in 1913 and allowed producers to use the depletion allowed to deduct just 5 per cent of their income and the deduction was limited to the original cost of their property. However, in 1926 the depletion allowance was increased to 27.5 per cent.

As Robert Bryce pointed out in his book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate: "Numerous studies showed that the oilmen were getting a tax break that was unprecedented in American business. While other businessmen had to pay taxes on their income regardless of what they sold, the oilmen got special treatment."

Bryce gives an example in his book how the oil depreciation allowance works. "An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income. Thus, in just one year, he's deducted nearly three times his initial investment. But the depletion allowance continues to pay off. For each of the next nine years, he gets to continue taking the $275,000 depletion deduction. By the end of the tenth year, the oilman has deducted $2.75 million from his taxable income, even though his initial investment was only $100,000."

Such a system was clearly unfair and only benefited a small group of oilmen in Texas. It seemed only a matter of time before Congress removed this tax loophole. However, these oilmen used some of their great wealth to manipulate the politicians in Washington.

1932 several politicians from Texas assumed important positions of power in Washington. John Nance Garner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. Texans also became the chairmen of some very important committees. This included Sam Rayburn (Interstate and Foreign Commerce), Joseph J. Mansfield (Rivers and Harbors Committee), Hatton W. Sumners (Judiciary Committee), Marvin Jones (Agriculture Committee) and Fritz Lanham (Public Buildings and Grounds Committee).

As the historian, Robert A. Caro has pointed out in Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power: "Texans were elected on December 7, 1931, not only to the Speakership of the House but to the chairmanship of five of its most influential committees, Lyndon Johnson's first day in the Capitol was the day Texas came to power in it - a power that the state was to hold, with only the briefest interruptions, for more than thirty years."

Several of these Texas politicians became involved in the Suite 8F Group, a collection of right-wing political and businessmen. The name comes from the room in the Lamar Hotel in Houston where they held their meetings. Members of the group included George Brown and Herman Brown (Brown & Root), Jesse H. Jones (multimillionaire investor in a large number of organizations and chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), Gus Wortham (American General Insurance Company), James Abercrombie (Cameron Iron Works), William Hobby (Governor of Texas and owner of the Houston Post), William Vinson (Great Southern Life Insurance), James Elkins (American General Insurance and Pure Oil Pipe Line), Albert Thomas (chairman of the House Appropriations Committee), Lyndon B. Johnson (Majority Leader of the Senate) and John Connally (Governor of Texas). Alvin Wirtz and Edward Clark, were two lawyers who were also members of the Suite 8F Group.

Suite 8F helped to coordinate the political activities of other right-wing politicians and businessmen based in the South. In this way they were able to prevent the oil depletion allowance removed. This sometimes meant that they supported the Republican Party in elections. For example, Dwight D. Eisenhower received considerable funds from Texas oilmen in the 1952 presidential elections.

Soon after being elected, Eisenhower stopped a grand jury investigation into the “International Petroleum Cartel” citing reasons of “national security”. Eisenhower had already starting paying back the generous support he had received from the oil industry.

In 1954 Paul Douglas began making speeches in the Senate about the need for tax reforms in order to eliminate special privileges such as the oil depletion allowance. Douglas attempted to join the important Finance Committee. He held seniority priority and should have been given one of the two available seats on the committee. Johnson had to apply considerable pressure on Harry Byrd, the chairman of the Finance Committee, to stop this happening.

In 1955 Lyndon B. Johnson became majority leader of the Senate. Johnson and Richard Russell now had complete control over all the important Senate committees. This was proving to be an expensive business. The money used to bribe these politicians came from Russell’s network of businessmen. These were men usually involved in the oil and armaments industries.

According to John Connally, large sums of money was given to Johnson throughout the 1950s for distribution to his political friends. “I handled inordinate amounts of cash”. A great deal of this came from oilmen. Cornel Wilde worked for the Gulf Oil Corporation. In 1959 he took over from David Searls as chief paymaster to Johnson. He testified that he made regular payments of $10,000 to Walter Jenkins.

In 1956 there was another attempt to end all federal price control over natural gas. Sam Rayburn played an important role in getting it through the House of Representatives. This is not surprising as according to Connally, he alone had been responsible for a million and a half dollars of lobbying.

Paul Douglas and William Langer led the fight against the bill. Their campaigned was helped by an amazing speech by Francis Case of South Dakota. Up until this time Case had been a supporter of the bill. However, he announced that he had been offered a $25,000 bribe by the Superior Oil Company to guarantee his vote. As a man of principal, he thought he should announce this fact to the Senate.

Lyndon B. Johnson responded by claiming that Case had himself come under pressure to make this statement by people who wanted to retain federal price controls. Johnson argued: “In all my twenty-five years in Washington I have never seen a campaign of intimidation equal to the campaign put on by the opponents of this bill.”

Johnson pushed on with the bill and it was eventually passed by 53 votes to 38. However, three days later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, vetoed the bill on grounds of immoral lobbying. Eisenhower confided in his diary that this had been “the most flagrant kind of lobbying that has been brought to my attention”. He added that there was a “great stench around the passing of this bill” and the people involved were “so arrogant and so much in defiance of acceptable standards of propriety as to risk creating doubt among the American people concerning the integrity of governmental processes”.

Senators called for an investigation into the lobbying of the oil industry by Thomas Hennings, the chairman of the subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Johnson was unwilling to allow a senator not under his control to look into the matter. Instead he set up a select committee chaired by Walter George of Georgia, a member of the Southern Caucus. Johnson had again exposed himself as being in the pay of the oil industry.

Drew Pearson of The Washington Post picked up on this story and wrote a series of articles about Lyndon B. Johnson and the oil industry. Pearson claimed that Johnson was the “real godfather of the bill”. Pearson explored Johnson’s relationship with George Brown and Herman Brown. He reported on the large sums of money that had been flowing from Brown & Root, the “big gas pipeline company” to Johnson. He also referred to the large government contracts that the company had obtained during the Second World War. Pearson also quoted a Senate report that pointed out there was “no room for a general contractor like Brown & Root on Federal projects”. Nevertheless, Johnson had helped them win several contracts including one to build air-naval bases in Spain.”

Johnson was now in serious trouble and sought a private meeting with Pearson. He offered the journalist a deal, if Pearson dropped the investigation, he would support Estes Kefauver, in the forthcoming primaries. Pearson surprisingly accepted this deal. He wrote in his diary: “I figured I might do that much for Estes (Kefauver). This is the first time I’ve ever made a deal like this, and I feel unhappy about it. With the Presidency of the United States at stake, maybe it’s justified, maybe not – I don’t know.”

The decision by Dwight D. Eisenhower to veto this bill angered the oil industry. Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison began negotiations with Eisenhower. In June, 1957, Eisenhower agreed to appoint their man, Robert Anderson, as his Secretary of the Treasury. According to Robert Sherrill in his book, The Accidental President: "A few weeks later Anderson was appointed to a cabinet committee to "study" the oil import situation; out of this study came the present-day program which benefits the major oil companies, the international oil giants primarily, by about one billion dollars a year."

During the 1960 presidential election John F. Kennedy gave his support for the oil depletion allowance. In October, 1960, he said that he appreciated "the value and importance of the oil-depletion allowance. I realize its purpose and value... The oil-depletion allowance has served us well."

However, two years later, Kennedy decided to take on the oil industry. On 16th October, 1962, Kennedy was able to persuade Congress to pass an act that removed the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad. While this law applied to industry as a whole, it especially affected the oil companies. It was estimated that as a result of this legislation, wealthy oilmen saw a fall in their earnings on foreign investment from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

On 17th January, 1963, President Kennedy presented his proposals for tax reform. This included relieving the tax burdens of low-income and elderly citizens. Kennedy also claimed he wanted to remove special privileges and loopholes. He even said he wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance. It is estimated that the proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen.

After the assassination of Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped the government plans to remove the oil depletion allowance. Richard Nixon followed his example and it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

[Tim Gratz]

Over the last few weeks I have been researching the connections between the Texas oil industry and the assassination of JFK. To fully understand the story it is necessary to go back to the end of the 19th century.

The first significant discovery of oil in Texas took place in Navarro County in 1894. By 1900 the Corsicana oilfield was producing more than 839,000 barrels of oil a year. This success prompted exploration in other parts of Navarro County. This led to the discovery of the Powell oilfield and by 1906 it was producing 673,221 barrels a year. Other discoveries took place at Sour Lake (1902), Humble (1905) and Goose Creek (1908). Some of those who became extremely wealthy as a result of these discoveries included Ross Sterling, Hugh R. Cullen, Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison.

The most prolific oil reserves in the United States was not discovered until October, 1930. The East Texas Oilfield included Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. The first small company to find oil in East Texas was Deep Rock Oil Company. The first investor to take advantage of the discovery was Haroldson L. Hunt. He bought 5,000 acres of leases and an eighty-acre tract for $1,335,000. Hunt soon owned 500 wells in East Texas.

The discovery of oil in Texas made a small group of men a great deal of money. They decided to join together in order to maintain their profits. This included strategies for keeping the price of oil as high as possible. The rich East Texas field caused problems as it initially caused the price of oil to fall.

Ross Sterling, the former owner of Humble Oil, was elected governor of Texas and took office on 20th January, 1931. The Texas Railroad Commission, under the control of the large oil producers, attempted to limit the production of oil (prorationing) in the new fields of East Texas. On 31st July, 1931, the federal court in Houston sided with a group of independent oil producers and ruled that the Texas Railroad Commission had no right to impose prorationing.

Large oil companies in Texas such as Humble Oil were in favour of prorationing and Sterling came under great pressure to intervene. On 16th August, 1931, Sterling declared martial law in Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. In his proclamation Sterling declared that the independent oil producers in these counties were "in a state of insurrection" and that the "reckless and illegal exploitation of (oil) must be stopped until such time as the said resources may be properly conserved and developed under the protection of the civil authorities".

Sterling now ordered the commander of the Texas National Guard, Jacob F. Wolters, to "without delay shut down each and every producing crude oil well and/or producing well of natural gas". Wolters who was the chief lobbyist of several major oil companies in Texas, readily agreed to this action. Wolters used more than a thousand troops to make sure that the oil wells in East Texas ceased production. The Texas Railroad Commission was now in firm control of the world's most prolific oil fields. It now controlled the supply of the oil in the United States. As a result, the price of oil began to increase.

The courts ruled that Sterling had exceeded his authority by the declaration of martial law and he was easily defeated by Miriam A. Ferguson when he attempted to be elected for a second term as governor.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt gained power he attempted to push a bill through Congress that would give his Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, the authority to regulate domestic oil production. However, Sam Rayburn, a politician from Texas, as chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, was able to kill the bill. It was left to another powerful Texan, Tom Connally, to sponsor the Connally Hot Oil Act. This gave the Texas Railroad Commission the authority to proration oil.

Texas oil millionaires also fought hard to maintain its tax concessions. The most important of these was the oil depletion allowance. It was first introduced in 1913 and allowed producers to use the depletion allowed to deduct just 5 per cent of their income and the deduction was limited to the original cost of their property. However, in 1926 the depletion allowance was increased to 27.5 per cent.

As Robert Bryce pointed out in his book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate: "Numerous studies showed that the oilmen were getting a tax break that was unprecedented in American business. While other businessmen had to pay taxes on their income regardless of what they sold, the oilmen got special treatment."

Bryce gives an example in his book how the oil depreciation allowance works. "An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income. Thus, in just one year, he's deducted nearly three times his initial investment. But the depletion allowance continues to pay off. For each of the next nine years, he gets to continue taking the $275,000 depletion deduction. By the end of the tenth year, the oilman has deducted $2.75 million from his taxable income, even though his initial investment was only $100,000."

Such a system was clearly unfair and only benefited a small group of oilmen in Texas. It seemed only a matter of time before Congress removed this tax loophole. However, these oilmen used some of their great wealth to manipulate the politicians in Washington.

1932 several politicians from Texas assumed important positions of power in Washington. John Nance Garner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. Texans also became the chairmen of some very important committees. This included Sam Rayburn (Interstate and Foreign Commerce), Joseph J. Mansfield (Rivers and Harbors Committee), Hatton W. Sumners (Judiciary Committee), Marvin Jones (Agriculture Committee) and Fritz Lanham (Public Buildings and Grounds Committee).

As the historian, Robert A. Caro has pointed out in Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power: "Texans were elected on December 7, 1931, not only to the Speakership of the House but to the chairmanship of five of its most influential committees, Lyndon Johnson's first day in the Capitol was the day Texas came to power in it - a power that the state was to hold, with only the briefest interruptions, for more than thirty years."

Several of these Texas politicians became involved in the Suite 8F Group, a collection of right-wing political and businessmen. The name comes from the room in the Lamar Hotel in Houston where they held their meetings. Members of the group included George Brown and Herman Brown (Brown & Root), Jesse H. Jones (multimillionaire investor in a large number of organizations and chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), Gus Wortham (American General Insurance Company), James Abercrombie (Cameron Iron Works), William Hobby (Governor of Texas and owner of the Houston Post), William Vinson (Great Southern Life Insurance), James Elkins (American General Insurance and Pure Oil Pipe Line), Albert Thomas (chairman of the House Appropriations Committee), Lyndon B. Johnson (Majority Leader of the Senate) and John Connally (Governor of Texas). Alvin Wirtz and Edward Clark, were two lawyers who were also members of the Suite 8F Group.

Suite 8F helped to coordinate the political activities of other right-wing politicians and businessmen based in the South. In this way they were able to prevent the oil depletion allowance removed. This sometimes meant that they supported the Republican Party in elections. For example, Dwight D. Eisenhower received considerable funds from Texas oilmen in the 1952 presidential elections.

Soon after being elected, Eisenhower stopped a grand jury investigation into the “International Petroleum Cartel” citing reasons of “national security”. Eisenhower had already starting paying back the generous support he had received from the oil industry.

In 1954 Paul Douglas began making speeches in the Senate about the need for tax reforms in order to eliminate special privileges such as the oil depletion allowance. Douglas attempted to join the important Finance Committee. He held seniority priority and should have been given one of the two available seats on the committee. Johnson had to apply considerable pressure on Harry Byrd, the chairman of the Finance Committee, to stop this happening.

In 1955 Lyndon B. Johnson became majority leader of the Senate. Johnson and Richard Russell now had complete control over all the important Senate committees. This was proving to be an expensive business. The money used to bribe these politicians came from Russell’s network of businessmen. These were men usually involved in the oil and armaments industries.

According to John Connally, large sums of money was given to Johnson throughout the 1950s for distribution to his political friends. “I handled inordinate amounts of cash”. A great deal of this came from oilmen. Cornel Wilde worked for the Gulf Oil Corporation. In 1959 he took over from David Searls as chief paymaster to Johnson. He testified that he made regular payments of $10,000 to Walter Jenkins.

In 1956 there was another attempt to end all federal price control over natural gas. Sam Rayburn played an important role in getting it through the House of Representatives. This is not surprising as according to Connally, he alone had been responsible for a million and a half dollars of lobbying.

Paul Douglas and William Langer led the fight against the bill. Their campaigned was helped by an amazing speech by Francis Case of South Dakota. Up until this time Case had been a supporter of the bill. However, he announced that he had been offered a $25,000 bribe by the Superior Oil Company to guarantee his vote. As a man of principal, he thought he should announce this fact to the Senate.

Lyndon B. Johnson responded by claiming that Case had himself come under pressure to make this statement by people who wanted to retain federal price controls. Johnson argued: “In all my twenty-five years in Washington I have never seen a campaign of intimidation equal to the campaign put on by the opponents of this bill.”

Johnson pushed on with the bill and it was eventually passed by 53 votes to 38. However, three days later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, vetoed the bill on grounds of immoral lobbying. Eisenhower confided in his diary that this had been “the most flagrant kind of lobbying that has been brought to my attention”. He added that there was a “great stench around the passing of this bill” and the people involved were “so arrogant and so much in defiance of acceptable standards of propriety as to risk creating doubt among the American people concerning the integrity of governmental processes”.

Senators called for an investigation into the lobbying of the oil industry by Thomas Hennings, the chairman of the subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Johnson was unwilling to allow a senator not under his control to look into the matter. Instead he set up a select committee chaired by Walter George of Georgia, a member of the Southern Caucus. Johnson had again exposed himself as being in the pay of the oil industry.

Drew Pearson of The Washington Post picked up on this story and wrote a series of articles about Lyndon B. Johnson and the oil industry. Pearson claimed that Johnson was the “real godfather of the bill”. Pearson explored Johnson’s relationship with George Brown and Herman Brown. He reported on the large sums of money that had been flowing from Brown & Root, the “big gas pipeline company” to Johnson. He also referred to the large government contracts that the company had obtained during the Second World War. Pearson also quoted a Senate report that pointed out there was “no room for a general contractor like Brown & Root on Federal projects”. Nevertheless, Johnson had helped them win several contracts including one to build air-naval bases in Spain.”

Johnson was now in serious trouble and sought a private meeting with Pearson. He offered the journalist a deal, if Pearson dropped the investigation, he would support Estes Kefauver, in the forthcoming primaries. Pearson surprisingly accepted this deal. He wrote in his diary: “I figured I might do that much for Estes (Kefauver). This is the first time I’ve ever made a deal like this, and I feel unhappy about it. With the Presidency of the United States at stake, maybe it’s justified, maybe not – I don’t know.”

The decision by Dwight D. Eisenhower to veto this bill angered the oil industry.  Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison began negotiations with Eisenhower. In June, 1957, Eisenhower agreed to appoint their man, Robert Anderson, as his Secretary of the Treasury. According to Robert Sherrill in his book, The Accidental President: "A few weeks later Anderson was appointed to a cabinet committee to "study" the oil import situation; out of this study came the present-day program which benefits the major oil companies, the international oil giants primarily, by about one billion dollars a year."

During the 1960 presidential election John F. Kennedy gave his support for the oil depletion allowance. In October, 1960, he said that he appreciated "the value and importance of the oil-depletion allowance. I realize its purpose and value... The oil-depletion allowance has served us well."

However, two years later, Kennedy decided to take on the oil industry. On 16th October, 1962, Kennedy was able to persuade Congress to pass an act that removed the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad. While this law applied to industry as a whole, it especially affected the oil companies. It was estimated that as a result of this legislation, wealthy oilmen saw a fall in their earnings on foreign investment from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

On 17th January, 1963, President Kennedy presented his proposals for tax reform. This included relieving the tax burdens of low-income and elderly citizens. Kennedy also claimed he wanted to remove special privileges and loopholes. He even said he wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance. It is estimated that the proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen.

After the assassination of Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped the government plans to remove the oil depletion allowance. Richard Nixon followed his example and it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, IMO the oil depletion allowance had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination. I suspect you would agree with me that every single Texas oliman would prefer to see a 50% drop in his earnings to frying in the Texas electric chair. And the oilmen were intelligent enough to know they could not guarantee escaping justice. The risk just so far exceeded the possible (financial) gain to justify the risk. LBJ is a different story, since if he was involved, you have offered convincing evidence that he could have been motivated by fear of a lengthy jail sentence--a stronger motive than financial gain. Plus, of course, LBJ would be in a unique position to influence the investigation. It is even possible if things were closing in on him he could have pardoned himself (what a constitutional crisis that would have been!)

Heck, if an oilman really did it one would suspect he might have been smart enough to hire someone to commit the crime in a jurisdiction that did not have capital punishment.

[John Simkin]

John, IMO the oil depletion allowance had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.  I suspect you would agree with me that every single Texas oliman would prefer to see a 50% drop in his earnings to frying in the Texas electric chair.  And the oilmen were intelligent enough to know they could not guarantee escaping justice.  The risk just so far exceeded the possible (financial) gain to justify the risk. LBJ is a different story, since if he was involved, you have offered convincing evidence that he could have been motivated by fear of a lengthy jail sentence--a stronger motive than financial gain.  Plus, of course, LBJ would be in a unique position to influence the investigation.  It is even possible if things were closing in on him he could have pardoned himself (what a constitutional crisis that would have been!)

Heck, if an oilman really did it one would suspect he might have been smart enough to hire someone to commit the crime in a jurisdiction that did not have capital punishment.

I would have thought that there had been enough research published to show that there is little connection between the committing of murder and capital punishment. It is the reason why all democratic countries (except for the United States) have not reintroduced capital punishment. Criminologists have also pointed out that despite the use of capital punishment, the murder-rate in the United States is one of the highest in the world.

Research suggests that the main reason for this is that murders never expect to be caught. Rich people who employ others to carry out such a crime particularly think this. As long as they make sure that the murderer cannot be linked to them, they are safe. The person who organized the assassination on the ground probably did not know who was paying for the contract. The shooters definitely did not know. If the oilmen did pay for the assassination, they definitely would not have made any confessions about what they had done.

If you believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy you need to ask who provided the money. One clue is to examine what happened after the assassination. Did the person/s who paid the money, get what they wanted?

Did the Mafia get what they wanted? No. Did the Soviets? No. Did the anti-Castro Cubans? No. Did the Texas oilmen? Yes. Did the Military Industrial Complex? Yes. Therefore I would suggest it is the last of these two groups that are likely to be responsible. They of course came together in the Suite 8F Group. This is also the same group that Lyndon Johnson was a member before becoming vice president in 1960.

[Tim Gratz]

If you believe that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy you need to ask who provided the money. One clue is to examine what happened after the assassination. Did the person/s who paid the money, get what they wanted?

Did the Mafia get what they wanted? No. Did the Soviets? No. Did the anti-Castro Cubans? No. Did the Texas oilmen? Yes. Did the Military Industrial Complex? Yes. Therefore I would suggest it is the last of these two groups that are likely to be responsible. They of course came together in the Suite 8F Group. This is also the same group that Lyndon Johnson was a member before becoming vice president in 1960.

I will address the capital punishment issue later. The last point you made is interesting, however. Who benefitedfrom the assassination?

You state that the Mafia did not get what it wanted by the death of JFK. I submit, however, that the evidence is clearer than a bell that the prosecutions of organized crime dropped like a stone after RFK left the DOJ.

As you know, Joseph Trento believes a faction in the KGB orchestrated both the Kennedy assassination and the peaceful coup that replaced Khruschev a year later. So if Trento is right that faction within the Soviet system got what it wanted.

The figure of Fidel Castro is conspicuous by his absence from your list. If Castro sponsored the assassination, with or without KGB help, he got what he wanted: the cessation of the continuous CIA plots to kill him (and reportedly the cancellation of a second Cuba invasion planned by the Kennedys before the 1964 election).

It is arguable whether the MICC got what it wanted since historians still debate whether JFK realy intended to withdraw from Vietnam. RFK said he did not.

I agree, of course, that LBJ did not terminate the oil depletion allowance. But if Texas oilmen were indeed willing to risk the electric chair to fatten their already overflowing pot, why then did they not kill Carter too?

Edited December 30, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

After the assassination of Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped the government plans to remove the oil depletion allowance. Richard Nixon followed his example and it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, as you know, I do not believe JFK was killed by Texas oilmen to save the oil depletion allowance.

I would also like to ask this: if he was, what is the historical significance thereof?

I suppose one wealthy Texas oil man (let's not name the obvious, let's call him X) could have decided to kill JFK to save the oil depletion allowance. He could have sufficient connections to organize it (or hire someone to do so). Let's even assume he got together with his friend Y, another Texas oliman, to plot the deadly deed.

I am sure (or I sure hope) that you would not indict the entire membership of the Texas petroleum industry merely because two of its members were willing to commit murder to prevent an amendment to the tax code.

So if somehow we discover through irrefutable evidence that X and Y, two Texas oilmen, plotted the assassination, and did so to save the oil depletion allowance, we have set the historical record straight, but I don't think we can draw any great morals from such a resolution. What would be the lesson? The oil industry is bad because two of its members plotted a political murder? That is a fallacious argument, obviously, and I surely cannot believe your analysis would take that path.

Perhaps I look for an answer to the assassination that WILL allow the rendition of a great moral lesson. Of course, whether a moral lesson can be drawn from who shot JFK and why is of no evidential value in reaching a resolution of the case, but it may explain my perspective.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

You state that the Mafia did not get what it wanted by the death of JFK.  I submit, however, that the evidence is clearer than a bell that the prosecutions of organized crime dropped like a stone after RFK left the DOJ.

It is true that the public image is that RFK did make some advances in dealing with organized crime. You have mentioned on the Mafia thread that RFK got Carlos Marcello deported. It is true that on 4th April, 1961 Marcello was arrested by the authorities and taken forcibly removed to Guatemala. This got a great deal of publicity and it gave the impression that the JFK was serious about tackling organized crime. However, RFK was fully aware that within a few weeks Marcello was back living in the United States. JFK did not seem too concerned about this and he was not rearrested until 1966. He was eventually charged and convicted for assault.

RFK also had no success with other senior crime figures such as Santo Trafficante (died without being arrested in 1987), Meyer Lansky (found not guilty of various charges in 1973), Sam Giancana (died without being arrested in 1975), John Roselli (charge with illegal gambling in 1970), Frank Costello (died without being arrested in 1973) and Peter Licavoli (charged with stealing a painting in 1976).

As you know, Joseph Trento believes a faction in the KGB orchestrated both the Kennedy assassination and the peaceful coup that replaced Khruschev a year later.  So if Trento is right that faction within the Soviet system got what it wanted.

The figure of Fidel Castro is conspicuous by his absence from your list.  If Castro sponsored the assassination, with or without KGB help, he got what he wanted: the cessation of the continuous CIA plots to kill him (and reportedly the cancellation of a second Cuba invasion planned by the Kennedys before the 1964 election).

It is true that the far-right in America made attempts to show that JFK had been assassinated as a result of a Soviet/Castro conspiracy. We now know that the FBI also had evidence that this was the case. However, this evidence was suppressed by LBJ and the Warren Commission. Some have argued that this shows that LBJ and Earl Warren were part of this communist conspiracy.

The theory is that JFK had shown during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was indeed a Cold War warrior who was willing to stand up to the Soviets and Castro. Therefore, they would be better off with LBJ as leader of the United States. It was also added that Castro wanted JFK to be killed in revenge for the CIA plots to kill him.

However, we now know that this image of JFK was not true. He never won a great victory as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK did a deal that gave the Soviets everything they wanted: the removal of US missiles in Turkey and Italy and a promise not to invade Cuba.

During the summer of 1963 JFK was carrying out negotiations with the Soviets and Castro (via William Attwood, Lisa Howard, Jean Daniel) to bring an end to the Cold War and to normalize relations between the US and Cuba. The death of JFK brought these negotiations to an end. How did that benefit the Soviets and Castro.

Castro knew that any attempt by him to assassinate an American political leader would result in the US invading Cuba and removing his left-wing government. Understandably, the Soviets and Castro were concerned that Oswald had been set up in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

It is arguable whether the MICC got what it wanted since historians still debate whether JFK really intended to withdraw from Vietnam.  RFK said he did not.

It is true that RFK did claim in 1964 that JFK did not intend to withdraw from Vietnam. We now know that RFK lied about a great many things in these private interviews (part of the Oral History Project) that he gave to Anthony Lewis, John Bartlow Martin, Arthur M. Schlesinger and John Francis Stewart. See for example what he has to say about Bobby Baker, Ellen Rometsch, the CIA plots to kill Castro, etc. If you have not done so I suggest you read these interviews in the fascinating book, Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words (1988).

Personally, I prefer to believe JFK aides such as Kenneth O'Donnell and Pierre Salinger. Don’t take their word for it, look at what people like John McCone, Director of the CIA at the time, said about this. This is an interview he gave to Harry Kreisler on 21st April, 1988.

Harry Kreisler: Would our involvement in Vietnam have taken a different course if Kennedy had lived?

John McCone: When Kennedy took office you will recall that he won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth. So the first thing Kennedy did was to send a couple of men to Vietnam to survey the situation. They came back with the recommendation that the military assistance group be increased from 800 to 25,000. That was the start of our involvement. Kennedy, I believe, realized he'd made a mistake because 25,000 US military in a country such as South Vietnam means that the responsibility for the war flows to (the US military) and out of the hands of the South Vietnamese. So Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over.

I agree, of course, that LBJ did not terminate the oil depletion allowance. But if Texas oilmen were indeed willing to risk the electric chair to fatten their already overflowing pot, why then did they not kill Carter too?[/color]

By the time that Jimmy Carter was in the White House the Texas oil interests had lost its control over Congress. It would have been pointless to have killed Carter. The Texas oil interests are now back in control of American politics. But that is another story. Or is it?

[Tim Gratz]

You state that the Mafia did not get what it wanted by the death of JFK.  I submit, however, that the evidence is clearer than a bell that the prosecutions of organized crime dropped like a stone after RFK left the DOJ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is true that the public image is that RFK did make some advances in dealing with organized crime. You have mentioned on the Mafia thread that RFK got Carlos Marcello deported. It is true that on 4th April, 1961 Marcello was arrested by the authorities and taken forcibly removed to Guatemala. This got a great deal of publicity and it gave the impression that the JFK was serious about tackling organized crime. However, RFK was fully aware that within a few weeks Marcello was back living in the United States. JFK did not seem too concerned about this and he was not rearrested until 1966. He was eventually charged and convicted for assault.

RFK also had no success with other senior crime figures such as Santo Trafficante (died without being arrested in 1987), Meyer Lansky (found not guilty of various charges in 1973), Sam Giancana (died without being arrested in 1975), John Roselli (charge with illegal gambling in 1970), Frank Costello (died without being arrested in 1973) and Peter Licavoli (charged with stealing a painting in 1976).

As you know, Joseph Trento believes a faction in the KGB orchestrated both the Kennedy assassination and the peaceful coup that replaced Khruschev a year later.  So if Trento is right that faction within the Soviet system got what it wanted.

The figure of Fidel Castro is conspicuous by his absence from your list.  If Castro sponsored the assassination, with or without KGB help, he got what he wanted: the cessation of the continuous CIA plots to kill him (and reportedly the cancellation of a second Cuba invasion planned by the Kennedys before the 1964 election).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is true that the far-right in America made attempts to show that JFK had been assassinated as a result of a Soviet/Castro conspiracy. We now know that the FBI also had evidence that this was the case. However, this evidence was suppressed by LBJ and the Warren Commission. Some have argued that this shows that LBJ and Earl Warren were part of this communist conspiracy.

The theory is that JFK had shown during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was indeed a Cold War warrior who was willing to stand up to the Soviets and Castro. Therefore, they would be better off with LBJ as leader of the United States. It was also added that Castro wanted JFK to be killed in revenge for the CIA plots to kill him.

However, we now know that this image of JFK was not true. He never won a great victory as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK did a deal that gave the Soviets everything they wanted: the removal of US missiles in Turkey and Italy and a promise not to invade Cuba.

During the summer of 1963 JFK was carrying out negotiations with the Soviets and Castro (via William Attwood, Lisa Howard, Jean Daniel) to bring an end to the Cold War and to normalize relations between the US and Cuba. The death of JFK brought these negotiations to an end. How did that benefit the Soviets and Castro.

Castro knew that any attempt by him to assassinate an American political leader would result in the US invading Cuba and removing his left-wing government. Understandably, the Soviets and Castro were concerned that Oswald had been set up in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

It is arguable whether the MICC got what it wanted since historians still debate whether JFK really intended to withdraw from Vietnam.  RFK said he did not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is true that RFK did claim in 1964 that JFK did not intend to withdraw from Vietnam. We now know that RFK lied about a great many things in these private interviews (part of the Oral History Project) that he gave to Anthony Lewis, John Bartlow Martin, Arthur M. Schlesinger and John Francis Stewart. See for example what he has to say about Bobby Baker, Ellen Rometsch, the CIA plots to kill Castro, etc. If you have not done so I suggest you read these interviews in the fascinating book, Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words (1988).

Personally, I prefer to believe JFK aides such as Kenneth O'Donnell and Pierre Salinger. Don’t take their word for it, look at what people like John McCone, Director of the CIA at the time, said about this. This is an interview he gave to Harry Kreisler on 21st April, 1988.

Harry Kreisler: Would our involvement in Vietnam have taken a different course if Kennedy had lived?

John McCone: When Kennedy took office you will recall that he won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth. So the first thing Kennedy did was to send a couple of men to Vietnam to survey the situation. They came back with the recommendation that the military assistance group be increased from 800 to 25,000. That was the start of our involvement. Kennedy, I believe, realized he'd made a mistake because 25,000 US military in a country such as South Vietnam means that the responsibility for the war flows to (the US military) and out of the hands of the South Vietnamese. So Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over.

I agree, of course, that LBJ did not terminate the oil depletion allowance. But if Texas oilmen were indeed willing to risk the electric chair to fatten their already overflowing pot, why then did they not kill Carter too?[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the time that Jimmy Carter was in the White House the Texas oil interests had lost its control over Congress. It would have been pointless to have killed Carter. The Texas oil interests are now back in control of American politics. But that is another story. Or is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, you make some good points here (but some I will respond to later). I read just yesterday statistics showing that prosecutions of organized crime increased under LBJ (which frankly surprised me). But the Mafia may have killed JFK not so much expecting a better deal out of LBJ but simply for retaliation for the double-cross. If you gave someone $500,000 with an implicit promise they would do something for you, and they just took the money and snubbed their nose at you, you'd probably be mad (I sure would be). But the Mafia motto was "Don't get mad; get even!" At least a reasonable argument can be made using that analysis.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Precisely how interesting is Jesse H. Jones? We know he was important to LBJ.

The writer Charles Higham claims that Jones was a big influence on FDR's decision to advance 6$ million a year to Ibn Saud, even though the latter was a Nazi collaborator, so the Germans would not get enough oil. "Saudi Arabia was emphatically not a lend-lease country. If it were known that Ibn Saud as Hitler's close ally in Nazi pay was being bribed by the President to protect an oil company [Jones was part owner of the Davis Oil Company] there would have been a major public outcry. Roosevelt ordered Harry L. Hopkins, who was in charge of Lend-Lease, to arrange with Britain for the money to be paid to the king under the table. Lend-Lease to England was to be surreptitiously increased." p.81 Trading With The Enemy?

Any other sources on this?

[Robert Howard]

I certainly believe the article below is pertinent to the discussion.

Dallas Morning News, page 7

January 9, 1963

Dallas Group Forms New Petrochemical Company

Formation of Premier Petrochemical Co., with Dallas

headquarters, to build a $4,000,000 plus plant on the

Houston ship channel was announced here Tuesday.

Joining in the announcement was A.H. Meadows,

General American Oil Co., chairman who will be

chairman of Premier Petrochemical. General Americ

-an will hold 25 per cent of the firms stock and provide

three of its directors.

The plant will produce 70,000 tons annually of prilled

urea, including both fertilizer and feed grade. Location

will be near Pasadena, close by to Phillips Chemical

Co.’s ammonia plant, which will supply feedstock.

The Phillips organization will also market the Premier

product.

Work is to start on the plant within 60 days with operation

scheduled by January, 1964. President of Premier will be

Sylvester Dayson, who joined Meadows in the formal

announcement. Dayson was president of Premier Oil

Refining Co, at Longview prior to its sale several years

ago and since has been active as an individual in the

petroleum business. There is no financial connection

between the Premier Petrochemical and Premier Oil

Refining, which now is owned by Western Natural Gas

Co., Houston. Other Premier Petrochemical Stockholders

are these Dallas men. Lewis W. MacNaughton, DeGolyer

and MacNaughton senior chairman; Roland S. Bond and

R. H. Venable, independent oilmen D. Harold Byrd,

president of Byrd Enterprises and Frederick R. Mayer,

president of Exeter Drilling Co.,Other stockholders are these

Tyler men: Joe Zeppa, Delta Drilling Co.,

president, D.G. Byars and Watson Wise, independents.

J.R. Rogerson, formerly Monsanto Chemical Co., vice-

president at El Dorado Ark. will be executive vice-president.

He will headquarter in Houston. Edward Kliewer, Jr.,

Dallas attorney, will be secretary and general counsel

The announcement stated financing for the new company

will be arranged through the First National Bank in Dallas.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Robert Howard