Edwin Walker

[Mark Knight]

And I see that Mr. Trejo had conveniently edited out the comment of his that I quoted...

Apparently Goldwater wasn't the only one "trying to pull a fast one..."

[Paul Trejo]

"Walker just wanted peace and calm..."

Right....that's why he went to Ole Miss and helped lead the...what, "peace and calm" that occurred there?

"Walker just wanted peace and calm..."

Right...that's what his speaking tour with Hargis was about, to tell everyone to remain calm and be peaceful, and not rock the boat.

WHAT A CROCK.

Well, the Ole Miss racial riot -- which I hope one day will be made into a full-length motion picture -- was the great exception to Walker's political behavior in 1962.

But make no mistake -- Walker didn't enter the political battleground of Ole Miss because of racism -- he entered that battlefield in order to face off against JFK sending Federal Troops to Mississippi.

It was a question of States Rights for Edwin Walker.

Edwin Walker had no illusions about the politics of Mississippi. Those were RACIST politics. Edwin Walker had no illusions about what he was getting mixed up with when he challenged JFK at Ole Miss.

JFK was going to send thousands of Federal Troops to Oxford, Mississippi during the final week of September 1963. Walker got on radio and TV and called for "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to join him in a "protest" against JFK's use of Federal Force against State Governor Ross Barnett and his stubborn demand to keep the Ole Miss campus all-white.

When news reporters asked Edwin Walker if he expected his people to bring guns, he replied, "That's up to them!"

In fact, Federal Troops confiscated trunk-loads of rifles and ammunition at the Mississippi and Jackson County borders.

Yes -- Edwin Walker had chosen to confront JFK with "Civil Disobedience" or perhaps even Uncivil Disobedience. It was the LAST STRAW.

As Edwin Walker admitted, he had been "on the wrong side" in 1957, in Little Rock, Arkansas, when he responded to President Eisenhower's orders to enforce the BROWN DECISION on Little Rock High School. Now, claimed Walker, he would "be on the right side."

This was Walker's first descent into violence since he left the Army in November 1961. Before this time he was strictly a maker of speeches, and a candidate for Governor of Texas. Edwin Walker was a man of peace until the Ole Miss period.

Nor was the Ole Miss issue specifically troubling to Walker. He openly said that if Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi had agreed to accept James Meredith, a Black American Air Force veteran, into Ole Miss University, that he would have no problem at all with it. It was simply a matter of PRINCIPLE -- it was a matter of "States Rights." The Federal Government should NEVER force a US State to do anything it hated doing.

According to Walker and his people, it wasn't Edwin Walker who was breaking the peace -- it was JFK himself.

Naturally violent racist elements were the motor force behind Edwin Walker's call to resistance against JFK at Ole Miss -- and Walker knew it very profoundly. In a political confrontation, one cannot be too terribly picky about the public one allows to march for the cause.

But as his Open Letter to JFK had shown in stark colors only four days beforehand -- Edwin Walker was far less concerned about James Meredith and Ole Miss University than he was in Fidel Castro and Communist Cuba.

It was really about Cuba.

Even during the violence at Ole Miss that gloomy night, where two were killed and hundreds were wounded, Edwin Walker told the students, "These Federal Troops should be in Cuba, fighting THERE, and not HERE!"

Cuba was the great mistake that JFK was making, claimed Edwin Walker -- and Walker knew that if he had won that skirmish at Old Miss that night, that JFK would have had egg all over his face, and then he, Edwin Walker, would have had a real chance at the White House in 1964.

Having failed that, Edwin Walker in 1963 sunk deeper and deeper into the pit of violence -- a violence he did not originally seek. In 1963, according to me, Edwin Walker carefully planned out the murder of JFK, including using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy.

So, yes, Mark, Ex-General Edwin Walker's idyllic dreams of a quiet, Southern Dixie, would shatter once again into violence in Dallas -- first in October 1963 with the attack on Adlai Stevenson there, and then again on 11/22/1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 31, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Walker was a man of peace? Sure. That's why he was a career soldier...because he preferred peace to warfare. Soldiers don't fight; they simply preach peace, and everybody lays down their arms to them.

So what was Walker taught at West Point? Peace? Or warfare? Buddah preached peace; Walker was a freakin' General. Generals do NOT lead peaceniks. They lead men who are trained to fight and kill.

As a peaceful man, I will simply say "POPPYCOCK!", in reference to your characterization of Walker as a man of peace...as opposed to the term I originally had in mind.

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Ernie, it won't be so easy to excuse Goldwater's "extremism" declaration -- it was carefully calculated for the widest interpretation to garner votes from the US right-wing -- and only the naïve will deny that. IMHO. So, it was a political gamble, and Goldwater lost -- badly.

BARRY GOLDWATER : It is unavailing to argue that Goldwater "meant well" and that in its mildest meaning it means to be diligent in defending Liberty. The logical fact, however is that Extremism and Liberty are OPPOSITES and don't belong together in the same sentence except as OPPOSITES.

Goldwater was trying to pull a fast one -- he knew that Extremists in the USA would rally around his call to "Extremism in the defense of Liberty," as contradictory as that sentence truly is.

History has already made its judgment on Goldwater's declaration and on his Presidential campaign. It is fruitless to defend them a half-century later.

Since you try to use rhetoric to justify repeating that sentence even today -- by confusing Extremism with genuine Patriotism -- then your emotional defense of Barry Goldwater must be crystal clear to every reader.

You can defend Barry Goldwater in a dozen different ways, showing how Liberal and even Libertarian he was -- but he will always be marked for the rest of American History by his "Extremism" remark, which will always carry the shame of his generation.

EDWIN WALKER: You failed to understand my argument (again) Ernie, by substituting your own argument for a "a SINGLE criterion" for judging anybody.

My simple point was that Edwin Walker was not a member of the KKK because he refused to join the KKK. Very simple. Very clear. You've attempted to mangle my point with your rhetoric, but I believe most readers here can see right through your obscurantism.

Edwin Walker never CLAIMED to be a racist. Edwin Walker openly said that he was NOT a racist. It is impossible to find remarks in his speeches that use the "N" word, at a time in history when Governors of Southern US States were using the "N" word on a regular basis.

That said, Edwin Walker was an ambitious politician, and he went where the money was in the South. H.L. Hunt was one of Walker's political backers, but there were many more, including the same backers as Guy Banister in Louisiana -- mostly within States Rights Parties and "Citizens Councils" (some of which went by the name of White Citizen's Councils as early as 1954 and 1955).

As for the answers to your questions, you seem to wish to contrast Edwin Walker with Barry Goldwater. That won't be difficult, since Walker was a country boy from the South, while Goldwater was a city boy from Arizona. Anyway, here are my answers to your six questions:

(1, 2, 3) Edwin Walker was regularly opposed by the NAACP and virtually every Civil Rights organization in the 1960's.

(4, 5) Edwin Walker regularly opposed the NAACP and virtually every Civil Rights organization in the 1960's.

(6) Walker tended to praise mainly those writings of J. Edgar Hoover that were specifically Anti-Communist.

I find no affirmative evidence that Edwin Walker supported any US Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. On the contrary, he worked closely with the "Citizen's Councils" and the "States Rights Parties" and especially with specific elements in the Southern chapters of the John Birch Society to roll-back Earl Warren's BROWN DECISION and to "Impeach Earl Warren."

So -- should we apply your same criterion to Robert Welch, founder of the JBS? Did Robert Welch support the NAACP or MLK? No? Was he therefore a racist? Yet Welch denied that he was a racist.

Actually, if Edwin Walker ever dared to alter that political persona, he would have lost all his political support from the South that he had enjoyed for many years. He would have had to exit politics (as pathetic as right-wing politics were in the South) and retire into obscurity -- something he resisted with all his might.

Still -- I repeat -- Edwin Walker never joined the KKK. Walker never joined the American Nazi Party. Walker never joined the Aryan Nation Christian Association in its many incarnations. Walker was an old-style "Conservative." He liked the politics of former President Woodrow Wilson, who had worked very hard to keep the old Princeton University campus all-white. It was simply the "Southern Way." It was the Status Quo. It was CONSERVATIVE -- at least in the South.

Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place. (In early 1960 census figures, all colored people combined amounted to only 11% of the USA population). Walker claimed that he just wanted peace and calm -- law and order -- as most Americans in the South and even nationwide wanted.

So Ernie -- you ask me to cite anybody else who refused to support the Civil Rights Movement, and still claim that were NOT racist. I can easily do that by citing the neighborhood in which I grew up. Even in our Church, for that matter. Everybody I knew when I was a child in the 1960's openly rejected the Civil Rights Movement as a bunch of trouble-makers and malcontents. Yet we had Black Americans in our Church whom we loved very much, and called them "brother" and "sister."

We weren't racists -- and even our Black friends refused to join the Civil Rights Movement. So, there, that wasn't very difficult at all.

Again I say -- Edwin Walker EXPLOITED racism for political opportunity. I don't deny that. Walker gave support and comfort to violent racists, specifically in his bizarre handling of the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 in Oxford, Mississippi.

Still -- Edwin Walker fought alongside Black American soldiers in the Korean War, and he never spoke badly about them -- on the contrary.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

1. Despite the caricatures of Goldwater which were prevalent in 1964 and afterward, no serious historian disputes that Goldwater was an honorable decent human being with a life-long commitment to PROTECTING the liberties of ALL Americans.

So this is not a question of whether or not Goldwater "meant well". His entire life was committed to a Jeffersonian political philosophy which wanted to restrain government overreach and protect minorities ---- something which has particular resonance in 2014. [incidentally, he funded NAACP legal challenges to segregation and he desegregated his family department store business in the 1950's. One of his contributions to NAACP in Phoenix was $400 in 1953 which in today's dollars would be over $3600.]

I already mentioned his actions (and words) with respect to African-Americans, civil rights, and native Americans. He also enraged people within his own party when he came out in favor of gay rights. It might also be remembered that it was Goldwater's candid conversation with President Nixon which convinced Nixon to resign because Goldwater told Nixon that he would vote FOR Nixon's impeachment.

2. Goldwater also can claim credit for neutralizing the extremism of the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson, and the religious right. He bitterly criticized their positions on abortion and gay rights and his libertarian philosophy was affirmed when he declared:

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

3. When Moral Majority leader, Rev. Jerry Falwell announced his opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater replied: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

4. Goldwater criticized the military's policy re: gays and he observed that:

"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar."

He also supported a female Democratic candidate for one Arizona Congressional seat. Incidentally, Goldwater also supported legalizing medical marijuana.

In many of these examples we see how Goldwater stands in stark contrast to bigots like Edwin Walker.

5. We have got to get to the point in our country where we stop demonizing PRINCIPLED politicians who, for sincerely held philosophical or public policy reasons, disagree with specific proposed legislation. A free society cannot survive or prosper when we adopt a "one-strike and you're out" mentality.

I know it is easy and risk-free to denounce political figures whose personal convictions and political objectives are perceived as contrary to our own political preferences but the strength of a free society is that we do not just "tolerate" diversity -- we CELEBRATE it as the ONLY way we can assure the continued existence of a stable and prosperous country.

6. Goldwater did not "gamble" with his "extremism" remark. He just thought he was making a self-evident historical observation-- i.e. that extreme measures often are proposed and adopted during societal crises in order to defend and preserve basic principles and values.

When we send our men and women into a foreign country and they risk their lives, all of them have made a conscious decision to risk EVERYTHING in defense of their country and its values.

Our founding fathers understood this basic principle very well. They declared:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

No "mixed message" or "subtle" concepts there. Instead -- just a bold declaration of WHY violent revolution was required and there was NO "moderate" position possible (i.e. "extremism in the defense of liberty..."). If our founders had lost our Revolution, most or all of them would have been hanged for treason!

The test of political courage and honor is not whether you win or lose the immediate battle --- it is whether or not you ENGAGE in the public arena to fight for what is right and decent. Extremism and liberty are not always (as you wrote) "opposites". Everything depends upon the objectives and what is at stake. IF survival and freedom are at stake -- then we must do whatever is required to prevail -- which is exactly what our founding fathers did and exactly what our World War II generation did.

(7) IF you want to talk about "extremism", try researching the indiscriminate fire bombing by the U.S. Air Force of Dresden Germany as well as Japanese cities (prior to dropping the A-bombs). Those air raids explicitly were intended to destroy the morale of our enemies and break their will to resist. The US Air Force estimated that 500,000 people would be killed (!!) and almost 8 million would be made homeless (!!) and another 3.5 million would need to be evacuated (!!). But "extremism in the defense of liberty" was the operative principle for Allied bombing campaigns.

(8) YOU want to describe Goldwater as a "loser" simply because of the 1964 election results. But as many people later quipped, Goldwater won the 1964 election -- it just took until 1980 (Reagan's election) for us to count the votes! The Reagan Revolution transformed American society and brought the Democratic Party into disrepute for a long period of time which was particularly evident from Reagan's two huge electoral college wins.

(9) Lastly, Goldwater did not need to "rally" any "extremists". First of all, all of them were voting for him anyway -- even bigots who were worried about his "Jewish" heritage, swallowed their objections and voted for him. [see, for example, the initial objections and the later change of heart by Kent and Phoebe Courtney].

Second, no national candidate can win an election by appealing to "extremists" -- because there are not enough of them to make any substantial difference -- except perhaps in states with a very evenly divided electorate -- a phenomenon which Goldwater did NOT face. That is why candidates always track rightward or leftward in their primaries but then move to the POLITICAL CENTER in the general election.

(10) There is no "emotional defense" of Goldwater which I need to make. Principled politicians can always be caricatured. What you don't mention (for obvious reasons) is that Goldwater was widely liked within the Senate -- even by liberal Democrats and that particularly includes JFK. They were FRIENDS --- and JFK did not think Goldwater was some sort of wild-eyed radical extremist --- regardless of whatever campaign tactics his political team thought were expedient.

EDWIN WALKER:

(1) If I am mistaken that you propose to judge Walker's values and beliefs SOLELY based upon him refusing to join the KKK -- then tell me what OTHER criteria you think should be operative.

Everybody understands your original comment which you repeated in your reply. You think NOT joining ONE bigoted group tells you EVERYTHING you need to know so you can just IGNORE and DISMISS all other evidence. We still do not know WHY you propose that standard as being the most accurate way to discern some person's principles, values, and beliefs.

(2) Nobody cares if Walker ever "claimed" to be a racist. Here again your principle for decision-making is exceptionally revealing. YOU think that someone with political ambitions would be willing to declare their bigotry as some badge of honor as though it would have NO discernible impact upon their political prospects!!

(3) There are MANY politicians (including Presidents) who have been recorded in the Oval Office (or have written correspondence) where they have made extremely BIGOTED remarks about Jews and blacks...but they never PUBLICLY made such remarks.

FOR EXAMPLE, see the following:

RICHARD NIXON on Jews:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/12/nixon_bigotry_caught_on_tape_-.html

HARRY TRUMAN on Jews and "niggers":

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/18/opinion/oe-kuznick18

(4) Now---according to the Paul Trejo School of History, it would be FALSE to describe either Nixon or Truman as a racial or religious bigot -- because, after all, they never joined any KKK or similar organizations!!!!

(5) YOUR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS:

(1, 2, 3) Edwin Walker was regularly opposed by the NAACP and virtually every Civil Rights organization in the 1960's.

(4, 5) Edwin Walker regularly opposed the NAACP and virtually every Civil Rights organization in the 1960's.

(6) Walker tended to praise mainly those writings of J. Edgar Hoover that were specifically Anti-Communist.

I find no affirmative evidence that Edwin Walker supported any US Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. On the contrary, he worked closely with the "Citizen's Councils" and the "States Rights Parties" and especially with specific elements in the Southern chapters of the John Birch Society to roll-back Earl Warren's BROWN DECISION and to "Impeach Earl Warren."

You evaded some of my questions. For example, I asked you if Walker ever endorsed or affirmed Hoover's or the FBI's position about our civil rights movement. You changed the subject to Hoover's anti-communist comments or writings. If Walker was NOT a racist, then why would he not have publicly supported Hoover?

NOW LET'S DEAL WITH YOUR "EXAMPLE"

So -- should we apply your same criterion to Robert Welch, founder of the JBS? Did Robert Welch support the NAACP or MLK? No? Was he therefore a racist? Yet Welch denied that he was a racist.

(1) Welch terminated the membership of every JBS member whom the JBS discovered was a KKK member. By contrast, Walker PRAISED the KKK and other white supremacist organizations and he eagerly spoke at their events and he contributed articles to anti-black and anti-Jewish newspapers/newsletters. Welch never did that.

(2) African-Americans were invited to join the JBS and they did so (John Rousselot stated that the Society had about 400 black members in March 1967). In fact, many of the paid JBS speakers on the civil rights movement were African Americans -- such as Rev. E. Freeman Yearling, Charles E. Smith, Lola Belle Holmes and Julia Brown and Gerald W. Kirk (former FBI informants), and conservative black intellectual, George S. Schuyler, and Reform Party VP Candidate, Ezola B. Foster.

(3) Welch defended J. Edgar Hoover's comments in his 1958 book, Masters of Deceit, which praised the NAACP. The JBS publishing arm (Western Islands) published Julia Brown's memoir [I Testify] which explicitly stated that the NAACP was a legitimate anti-communist civil rights organization.

(4) Welch's position regarding both segregation and integration was that neither should be compelled through state or federal government coercion. He thought (naively) that society would evolve (slowly) and segregation would ultimately be discontinued because local communities would decide it was no longer viable or desirable.

(5) The official position of the Birch Society with respect to the KKK or civil rights movement was as follows: "Communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK". From this perspective, in Welch's scheme of things, Walker was performing a PRO-Communist function by making favorable comments about the KKK and by maintaining "friendly" relations with its leaders.

As I previously reported, Welch distanced himself from Walker -- precisely because Walker was taking advice from racial extremists like Dr. Medford Evans (Citizens Councils of America).

(6) As your favorite source (Harry Dean) has explicitly stated), he found no evidence of racism inside the JBS during the years he was a member -- including the most turbulent period in our racial history. BTW-- what year did Harry no longer consider himself to be an adherent of JBS ideology? [i'm NOT asking when he no longer was a dues-paying member. Instead, at what point did he purge himself of the fundamental precepts of JBS ideology?]

.

This comment by you is a textbook definition of racist sentiments:

"Walker naively thought that colored people should all know their place in White Society, and keep that place. (In early 1960 census figures, all colored people combined amounted to only 11% of the USA population). Walker claimed that he just wanted peace and calm -- law and order -- as most Americans in the South and even nationwide wanted."

"Knowing your place" is precisely what all racists believed -- because they contended that there was a natural hierarchy of society which should be defended and implemented. In short, Walker perceived American society like a military organization -- i.e. there are specific leaders entitled to unquestioning obedience and "orders" which must be implemented. [see my comments below re: Walker and the American Royal Rangers].

MY CHALLENGE:

None of us can understand your answer because we do not know your neighbors or friends or whomever. So..... please name some prominent American whom all of us would recognize whom you believe was NOT a racist BUT you believe they could never answer "YES" to any the questions I proposed (substituting their name for Walker below).

• Does ANYBODY know of ANY local, state, or national civil rights organization or civil rights leader which Walker endorsed or praised?
• Did ANY civil rights organization EVER invite Walker to speak before their conventions?
• Did ANY civil rights organization or publication endorse Walker in Texas when he ran for Governor?
• Did Walker EVER state (in his entire lifetime) anything POSITIVE about civil rights groups OR
• Did Walker EVER make ANY financial contribution to a civil rights organization in Dallas, in Texas, or nationally?
• Did Walker EVER affirm or defend statements made by J. Edgar Hoover or by the FBI regarding our civil rights movement?

With respect to these comments by you:

"Again I say -- Edwin Walker EXPLOITED racism for political opportunity. I don't deny that. Walker gave support and comfort to violent racists, specifically in his bizarre handling of the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1962 in Oxford, Mississippi. Still -- Edwin Walker fought alongside Black American soldiers in the Korean War, and he never spoke badly about them -- on the contrary."

There is particular significance to some of your observations, as follows:

1. The Citizens Council movement generally disavowed violence and they wanted to create the perception that they were not bigoted. Instead, their objections were (according to them) principled and philosophical. Most of them explicitly denounced the KKK (as white trash). So, for you to acknowledge that Walker "gave support and comfort to violent racists" is a VERY damaging admission because that means Walker was NOT an honorable principled conservative -- but, rather, an individual who had a "take-no-prisoners" temperament which could even justify or condone CRIMINAL acts---just like the KKK!

2. This is further illustrated by Walker's comment that "integration is illegal" and by his assistance with the formation of American Royal Rangers -- which was intended to be a substitute for the Klan organized along military lines.

3. You give a lot of weight and significance to the fact that Walker never "joined" the KKK. However, you neglect to mention that Walker told associates that when he was offered the position of Grand Dragon of Texas, he actually "was interested in it" --

Can you name ANY person in American history who expressed "interest" in becoming Grand Dragon of their state KKK -- but that person was NOT a racist?

4. If Walker was so hostile toward the KKK (in your scheme of things), why (in October 1965) did Walker accept the keynote speaker invitation he was offered by the Pasco FL Federation For Constitutional Government? That organization was a front for the United Florida Ku Klux Klan of Dade County FL!

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - your methodology is impressive. I am not going to engage with you on that level though. We both know that Hoover and his FBI spent much more time monitoring MLK than the Mafia. We know that anti-communism was used to justify everything. JBS did the same. We all know that States Rights arguments are cover for racism. No need to prove any of this.

I'm glad that Trejo has come out of the closet. I don't think he understands that the rest of us don't view Walker as a man of peace, or Hoover as a patriot. And he can't resist laying out his theories.

I'll try not to post on this thread anymore. It's hard sometimes, but it is futile.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - your methodology is impressive. I am not going to engage with you on that level though. We both know that Hoover and his FBI spent much more time monitoring MLK than the Mafia. We know that anti-communism was used to justify everything. JBS did the same. We all know that States Rights arguments are cover for racism. No need to prove any of this.

I'm glad that Trejo has come out of the closet. I don't think he understands that the rest of us don't view Walker as a man of peace, or Hoover as a patriot. And he can't resist laying out his theories.

I'll try not to post on this thread anymore. It's hard sometimes, but it is futile.

1. When you refer to Hoover "monitoring" MLK or Mafia, I assume you mean the FBI as an institution -- because Hoover never investigated anybody during his entire FBI career.

2. I'm not sure what metric you are using to compare the extent of FBI monitoring KKK versus Mafia. Are you referring to the number of FBI employees engaged in writing summary memos or reports?

3. Keep in mind that, like all bureaucracies, FBI workload and resources were driven by incoming information from outside independent sources -- (including local, state and federal law enforcement agencies such as Police Departments, County Sheriffs, State Police, US Attorneys Offices, etc, military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI), plus other federal departments or agencies such as CIA, State Dept, Post Office Inspector, plus White House inquiries, Congressional hearings, etc. etc.

4. MLK was a particular concern for the FBI because of his associations with known Communists. That was NOT something Hoover or the FBI just invented in their imaginations.

5. Let me ask you something Paul.

If YOU were FBI Director and you discovered that senior Communist Party officials boasted in several of their closed, secret meetings at their New York HQ office that some prominent American (let's call him Joe Smith) who headed a major national organization had privately acknowledged to one or more Communist Party members that he (Joe Smith) was a Marxist but Joe would never publicly acknowledge his actual convictions -- what would YOU want your employees at the FBI to do about that information?

Would you want to instruct your employees to monitor that person?

Would you want to share that information within the law enforcement community?

Would you want to share that info with the White House?

6. When you make statements about the FBI --- what sources are you using for your information? And how did you go about confirming those sources?

7. Are you aware that the FBI created an entire unit within the Bureau to monitor the Mafia and produce regularly updated reports about it? Have you ever read the FBI's 1958 two-part monograph about the Mafia? http://vault.fbi.gov/Mafia%20Monograph

8. Are you familiar with all this documentation? http://www.onewal.com/maf-fbi.html

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Apparently Hess, 'goldwaters soerensen', penned the extremism bit. Goldwater enabled a rightward shift that led to raygonzos criminal governement and the continued fragmentation of an organised working class with left leanings. Partly an argument was for a reuther coalition, which did seem on the horizon with a rfk, mlk, reuther group in 68.

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/liberalanalysis.pdf
http://www.sds-1960s.org/goldwaterism.pdf
http://www.sds-1960s.org/PEP-Goldwater.pdf
+ plus the various references in the docs, which unfortunately I cannot find, are, imo, a contribution to the discussion. Particularly, it seems. to deal with what goldwater(ism) meant for the labour movement.

edit typos

Edited October 31, 2014 by John Dolva

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I think the Mafia, some of whose leaders were Hoover's friends, was much more dangerous than the pathetic Communist party USA. From personal experiences of my dad, who was in the party for a while, the FBI presence at party meetings and functions was huge. There was no way American Communists posed a threat to the US, even when they were in the government. I am sure your facts and figures are right, but they miss my point entirely. Free speech is supposed to be protected by our Bill of Rights. There was never any danger of. communist revolution here, yet Hoover's FBI focussed on them as if they were dangerous. This is institutional. JFK was killed in my opinion largely because he could see a world in which we could co-exist peacefully with Communism. Meanwhile the Mafia continued its cozy relationship with FBI and CIA despite the fact that they were a destructive force with a bloody history. Why don't you tell me why our national security state saw Communism as the greater threat?

I have no wish to engage in the kind of procedural details you are so familiar with. My focus is completely on the big picture. You think the truth lies in the details of FBI reports and procedures. I don't. I think Hoover vacationing at DelMar says much more about him than any FBI documents proving they were monitoring the Mafia.

You think that Hoover had MLK monitored because of his known associations with Communists. I don't. I don't care what the files show, or what nice words Hoover uttered about the Civil Rights movement. Sure, Communists were active in that movement, to their credit.

[Larry Hancock]

It is fairly well accepted not that initially Hoover was in a conflict with MLK simply because MLK was constantly prodding the FBI to intervene in local racial violence which Hoover did not view as a Federal crime and part of the Bureau's responsibilities. In certain instances Hoover did direct Bureau involvement, specifically when directed by the Attorney General or the President to do so. Hoover was irate that on at least one occasion he was ordered to provide a level of FBI security for a series of King appearances in Mississippi. As time passed and King continued to push, it became a very personal matter with Hoover and his response and directives within the Bureau went far beyond anything rational. That story has been told in many places; Gerry McKnight does a fine job with portions of it in his book The Last Crusade and we pick up portions of it in The Awful Grace of God. The sad part is that by maintaining a personal and legal advisory relationship with one or two people who had been Communist Party members and who were circumspect, King simply gave Hoover an opening to continue what had become a personal vendetta against him. In the final years, his attack on King centered far more around purported moral issues than the earlier Communist slant...you can see that in the extensive warning reports on King being circulated by the FBI in early 1968 as Hoover was moving to undermine King's Washington march project.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - I think the Mafia, some of whose leaders were Hoover's friends, was much more dangerous than the pathetic Communist party USA. From personal experiences of my dad, who was in the party for a while, the FBI presence at party meetings and functions was huge. There was no way American Communists posed a threat to the US, even when they were in the government. I am sure your facts and figures are right, but they miss my point entirely. Free speech is supposed to be protected by our Bill of Rights. There was never any danger of. communist revolution here, yet Hoover's FBI focussed on them as if they were dangerous. This is institutional. JFK was killed in my opinion largely because he could see a world in which we could co-exist peacefully with Communism. Meanwhile the Mafia continued its cozy relationship with FBI and CIA despite the fact that they were a destructive force with a bloody history. Why don't you tell me why our national security state saw Communism as the greater threat?

I have no wish to engage in the kind of procedural details you are so familiar with. My focus is completely on the big picture. You think the truth lies in the details of FBI reports and procedures. I don't. I think Hoover vacationing at DelMar says much more about him than any FBI documents proving they were monitoring the Mafia.

You think that Hoover had MLK monitored because of his known associations with Communists. I don't. I don't care what the files show, or what nice words Hoover uttered about the Civil Rights movement. Sure, Communists were active in that movement, to their credit.

Well, Paul, I suggest you read Venona documents and the carefully documented books by Dr. John Earl Haynes to learn what the "pathetic Communist Party" in our country was able to accomplish. [Also see testimony by Elizabeth Bentley.]

With respect to the Mafia -- there is a lot of mis-information floating around. First of all, you have to get into the matter of jurisdiction. For a long time, the FBI had no legal basis to inject itself into local crimes involving Mafia figures. The types of crimes most associated with the Mafia (gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc) were local matters -- not federal crimes. [incidentally, "technically" the FBI had no basis to insert itself into JFK's murder since murder falls under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement agencies.]

But when you say "I don't care what the files show" -- that ends any possible rational discussion because when someone says they are not interested in discovering factual evidence -- then what basis is there for making any sort of informed judgment -- regardless of the subject under scrutiny?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

It is fairly well accepted not that initially Hoover was in a conflict with MLK simply because MLK was constantly prodding the FBI to intervene in local racial violence which Hoover did not view as a Federal crime and part of the Bureau's responsibilities. In certain instances Hoover did direct Bureau involvement, specifically when directed by the Attorney General or the President to do so. Hoover was irate that on at least one occasion he was ordered to provide a level of FBI security for a series of King appearances in Mississippi. As time passed and King continued to push, it became a very personal matter with Hoover and his response and directives within the Bureau went far beyond anything rational. That story has been told in many places; Gerry McKnight does a fine job with portions of it in his book The Last Crusade and we pick up portions of it in The Awful Grace of God. The sad part is that by maintaining a personal and legal advisory relationship with one or two people who had been Communist Party members and who were circumspect, King simply gave Hoover an opening to continue what had become a personal vendetta against him. In the final years, his attack on King centered far more around purported moral issues than the earlier Communist slant...you can see that in the extensive warning reports on King being circulated by the FBI in early 1968 as Hoover was moving to undermine King's Washington march project.

Yes, there was a personality conflict between Hoover and MLK which contributed to their mutual animosity over much larger and more important issues. But all of this did not occur in a vacuum. Many people (including me) who lived through all the controversies of the 1960's tried to process in our minds what was happening in and to our country.

Think about it for a moment.

1, The U.S. came out of World War II as the undisputed most powerful and wealthy and most influential country on the planet.

2, We had the most powerful military the world had ever known.

3. We had exclusive possession of the most powerful weapon ever created in history.

4. We had the greatest scientific minds and inventors and technological experts in existence.

So, we entered the Truman and Eisenhower years supremely confident about our future.

But then within the next 15 or 20 years everything seemed to unravel.

1. Through theft of our atomic secrets, the USSR became a nuclear power.

2. The Soviets sent the first man into space.

3. We were suddenly powerless to prevent the USSR from imposing new dictatorships upon the countries which we had just liberated from Nazi tyranny during World War II

4. We suddenly discovered that our predominance in science and math and engineering was being challenged.

5. Huge social problems developed -- leading to major incidents of violence. The relative tranquility of the Eisenhower years was shattered.

6. Americans personally witnessed (on TV) the bombings of churches and murders of little children and the use of dogs and firehoses against civil rights protesters.

7. A former U.S. Army Major General was indicted for sedition because of his actions at the University of Mississippi

8. Our most prominent political and moral leaders were murdered in rapid succession (JFK, RFK, Medger Evers, MLK) and an assassin almost murdered George Wallace.

9. There were violent anti-war protests on many American college campuses. Students were killed at Kent State University.

10. The 1968 Democratic Convention was remembered more for the violence in the streets outside the Convention Center than for what was going on inside the Center.

11. Nixon so destroyed the faith of our people in the integrity of our political system that he had to resign from office.

12. And if all this was not bad enough -- there were enormous social and economic changes taking place within our society -- the women's rights movement, the beginnings of the gay rights movement, the anti-ERA Amendment movement, the Hippie and "Free Love" Movements, proliferation of recreational drug use plus huge changes to sexual behavior (multiple partners, abortion rights, racial intermarriage etc), and the success of musical artists who seemed to support everything despised by Middle America (LSD, free love, anti-authority figures, anti-police, anti-military etc) protest songs

How were the "Greatest Generation" supposed to interpret and process all this information and behavior in such a relatively short period of time? For many people, the search for "explanations" gravitated toward "subversives" within society -- persons who consciously undermined respect for law and who proposed that civil disobedience was entirely justified by existing circumstances (and to hell with the consequences).

It was within THAT context that decisions were made.

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, just as a technical note, on the morning of either Nov 23 or 24, in a call to the White House, Hoover did note that he had identified a Federal statue which would have given authority...it was a stretch, one of the general "conspiracy to deprive of rights" type as I recall..in this case right to live. Of course Johnson had already directed him to take over well before that and had not particular concern for legal justification when he did so. Its interesting that Hoover would cite that statute given that seems that it might have also applied to justify FBI involvement several of the incidents MLK would pressure him to move the Bureau into addressing.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - I think the Mafia, some of whose leaders were Hoover's friends, was much more dangerous than the pathetic Communist party USA. From personal experiences of my dad, who was in the party for a while, the FBI presence at party meetings and functions was huge. There was no way American Communists posed a threat to the US, even when they were in the government. I am sure your facts and figures are right, but they miss my point entirely. Free speech is supposed to be protected by our Bill of Rights. There was never any danger of. communist revolution here, yet Hoover's FBI focussed on them as if they were dangerous. This is institutional. JFK was killed in my opinion largely because he could see a world in which we could co-exist peacefully with Communism. Meanwhile the Mafia continued its cozy relationship with FBI and CIA despite the fact that they were a destructive force with a bloody history. Why don't you tell me why our national security state saw Communism as the greater threat?

I have no wish to engage in the kind of procedural details you are so familiar with. My focus is completely on the big picture. You think the truth lies in the details of FBI reports and procedures. I don't. I think Hoover vacationing at DelMar says much more about him than any FBI documents proving they were monitoring the Mafia.

You think that Hoover had MLK monitored because of his known associations with Communists. I don't. I don't care what the files show, or what nice words Hoover uttered about the Civil Rights movement. Sure, Communists were active in that movement, to their credit.

Correction:

I do not think "the truth lies in the details of FBI reports and procedures".

However, I DO think FBI files contain an enormous treasurehouse of PRIMARY SOURCE documentation which any serious researcher needs to review.

For more details, see the Introduction to the 1993 book by Gerald K. Haines and David A. Langbart, entitled "Unlocking The Files of the FBI: A Guide To Its REcords and Classification System".

Haines was a senior historian within the CIA and he also served on the NARA/FBI Task Force which evaluated FBI records

Langbart was an archivist on the staff of the Records Appraisal Project of the National Archives.

As they wrote in their Introduction:

"The Bureau's records touch on all aspects of American society from prostitution and auto theft to espionage and subversion...The 1960's and 1970's saw Hoover and the FBI embroiled in domestic social, political, and economic matters...The information gathered and produced by the Bureau in the course of developing its investigations is massive. Its records...constitute a valuable source for scholars and others interested in almost every aspect of American development in the twentieth century. The social historian investigating changing mores and attitudes in the United States relating to civil rights, racial matters and minority concerns; the foreign policy specialist delving into U.S. intelligence activities or the intense U.S. focus on communism and the Soviet threat; the political scientist examining the operation and structure of the bureaucracy; the criminologist studying law enforcement techniques and federal, state, and local cooperation; or the social scientist hoping to develop a profile of conscientious objectors or white-collar criminals will all find a wealth of primary source material with the FBI files. These FBI files contains classifications for all cases investigated and cover diverse topics from kidnapping to bank fraud to cattle rustling, civil rights violations to espionage. They include raw data and initial interviews as well as finished reports, internal Bureau memorandums, directives, guidance, agent interviews, surveillance logs, phone logs, photographs, and related court and other agency records."

I will take their comments one step further.

Other than the millions of items which are archived in our Library of Congress -- there is no single repository regarding American history and American society that exceeds in either quantity or quality what is available in FBI files. This is particularly true with respect to copies of publications of historical interest by all sorts of individuals and organizations which are not available in any U.S. library!

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Walker was a man of peace? Sure. That's why he was a career soldier...because he preferred peace to warfare. Soldiers don't fight; they simply preach peace, and everybody lays down their arms to them.

So what was Walker taught at West Point? Peace? Or warfare? Buddah preached peace; Walker was a freakin' General. Generals do NOT lead peaceniks. They lead men who are trained to fight and kill.

As a peaceful man, I will simply say "POPPYCOCK!", in reference to your characterization of Walker as a man of peace...as opposed to the term I originally had in mind.

Well Mark, evidently you don't believe that soldiers make war in order to make peace.

Evidently you don't believe that the USA fought WW2 in order to "end all war."

Evidently you don't believe that the US Military exists as a Peace-keeper and a Peace-maker.

Am I right in presuming that you've never been a part of the military?

In any case, I was speaking of Edwin Walker as a CIVILIAN, after he resigned from the US Army.

When he resigned, he didn't intend on fomenting a race riot at Ole Miss University. Instead, he ran for the office of Governor of Texas.

Yes -- when Edwin Walker was a civilian, he started out as a man of peace. He was LATER turned to acts of outrageous violence in the face of the political challenges of the Cold War.

You keep ignoring the fact that I'm placing Edwin Walker at the center of the cyclone that killed JFK. Yet I don't want to take an either/or, black/white approach and simply condemn Edwin Walker as an evil person. I don't think he was. He was a complex and nuanced man. You seem to want easy answers.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, just as a technical note, on the morning of either Nov 23 or 24, in a call to the White House, Hoover did note that he had identified a Federal statue which would have given authority...it was a stretch, one of the general "conspiracy to deprive of rights" type as I recall..in this case right to live. Of course Johnson had already directed him to take over well before that and had not particular concern for legal justification when he did so. Its interesting that Hoover would cite that statute given that seems that it might have also applied to justify FBI involvement several of the incidents MLK would pressure him to move the Bureau into addressing.

Yes-- I have always maintained that the general "conspiracy" statutes could be fairly interpreted to give the FBI authority to immediately enter JFK's murder.

In addition, the Bureau opened its 89-classification files in 1925.

Those files pertain to federal statutes regarding "Assaulting or Killing a Federal Officer". At first, this was intended to apply to U.S. Marshals, U.S. Post Office employees, IRS agents, INS officials, Federal Prison employees, Indian Reservation police, etc but it was gradually expanded to include any assaults or murders or threats to U.S. Congresspersons, Federal Judges, and the President and Vice President.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar