Edwin Walker

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - I really don't question the value of FBI files to serious researchers such as yourself, and the writers and researchers who have done such good work over the years on the '60's in particular. Having said that, I have no doubt that Hoover had a beef with MLK and JFK and RFK, and it was personal. So what I mean to say is that there is nothing in FBI files that could possibly dissuade me from believing something so obvious, and my bet is that you would agree with me from your vantage point as well.

[Paul Trejo]

...(2) Nobody cares if Walker ever "claimed" to be a racist. Here again your principle for decision-making is exceptionally revealing...

BARRY GOLDWATER:

(1-10) Ernie, there's no way to ever defend Barry Goldwater's "extremism" remark, from here to eternity, so please just get over it.

EDWIN WALKER:

(1) Ernie, you want to make every racist just like every other racist. There is no nuance in your logic. Himmler, the man behind Auschwitz and Dachau, was equalled by President Woodrow Wilson by your logic, because Wilson succeeded in keeping Princeton University campus all-white. You seem to lack any sense of nuance. You speak in terms of EVERYTHING, and ALWAYS and NEVER, and the day to day nuances just go over your head.

(2) It makes a lot of difference if a person says, "I am a racist" or if that person says, "I'm not a racist." You say "nobody cares," but that only shows your unending bias.

(3) Even in the early 1960's, bigotry was very common in the USA. In fact, in some communities, a marriage between a Baptist and a Methodist was considered a "mixed marriage" that some people would worry about. Those people would simply be stunned and stupified to see a mixed racial marriage. The bigoted remarks by President Harry Truman prove my point. One could be an American bigot without being a Heinrich Himmler. One must remember the decade and the environment.

(4) I will categorically deny that Presidents Nixon or Truman were racists -- despite their conformity to ordinary American bigotry -- yes -- simply because they never joined the KKK. This is an important nuance that you, Ernie, simply wisk away.

(5) I answered your simple questions adequately for present purposes. Let's move on to more important issues. Robert Welch barely tolerated Jews and Black Americans, but he did tolerate them. My only point is that Edwin Walker was ideologically a FOLLOWER of Robert Welch. If Walker was a true racist, he would never have been a follower of Welch, who was no racist (e.g. we know of Anti-Semites who explicitly quit the JBS because they thought the JBS was "soft on Jews.")

As for Welch distancing himself from Walker -- you are neglecting the other half of that story. Welch never revoked Walker's membership in the JBS, and Welch continued to maintain his personal friendship with Edwin Walker for life.

Insofar as Edwin Walker was a child of the US South, born in 1909, it is pointless to try to make Edwin Walker into any more of a racist than the common US Southerner of the same historical period.

(6) Your challenge: You are merely repeating the simple questions you asked before, i.e. whether any US Civil Rights organization endorsed Edwin Walker, or whether he endorsed them. I've already answered that -- the answer is a resounding, NO.

Yet as I stated clearly, my own parents, and the parents of all of my friends (yes, all of them) in my community in Southern California where I was raised (the town is Duarte) all regarded the Civil Rights Movement as a frightening challenge to law and order, and a genuine disturbance of the peace. This opinion was even held by the Black Americans in our Church, who were themselves dearly beloved.

The Civil Rights card is simply not a one-sided card. There are nuances, again, and you're ignoring them, Ernie.

As for the Citizens Councils, they were openly bigoted when they were founded on 11 July 1954 by Robert Patterson in Mississippi. Their entire purpose for existence was to repeal Earl Warren's BROWN DECISION and to Impeach Earl Warren.

The original Citizens Councils made no secret of their purpose -- however, they also carefully set themselves apart from the KKK, which extolled the use of VIOLENCE to attain the same goals.

Robert Patterson argued that the KKK would only *weaken* their cause, by making it appear to be led by poor white trash. They (like Robert Welch) terminated the membership of anybody in the Citizens Councils who had become a member of the KKK at any time.

So, there are nuances that you're ignoring, Ernie. It's all just either/or, black/white to you, while reality is rich in nuances.

I admitted that in the Ole Miss riots, that Edwin Walker (a frequent speaker for the Ciitizens Councils and the JBS) knew very well that in calling for a massive resistance against JFK's use of Federal Troops at Ole Miss on 30 September 1963, that the KKK would answer his call by the bus-load, and they would bring their rifles with them. Walker was never ignorant of that simple fact.

Yet again, Walker was not a member of the KKK. Yet he did want to make a splash in the South. Remember that Governor Ross Barnett had already opposed JFK in the national media at that time. Further, in only a few more months, Governor George Wallace would personally stand in front of Alabama University's front door to keep Federal Troops out. IT WAS THE POPULAR THING TO DO IN THE SOUTH IN 1962-1963.

Once again -- Walker played politics for the Southern voters. Civil Rights was the big issue in the South. Edwin Walker was playing it in his own unique way. Yet Walker never joined the KKK. Walker never called out direct hatred for Black Americans. Walker was a POLITICIAN (not a very good one, but still he was one).

I don't say that Walker was *hostile* to the KKK -- only that he never JOINED them. Is that so hard to grasp? Are there too many nuances there? Walker would pander to groups for their money and votes. Surely that doesn't sound odd to you; surely you recognize politics as usual.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 31, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...(2) Nobody cares if Walker ever "claimed" to be a racist. Here again your principle for decision-making is exceptionally revealing...

BARRY GOLDWATER:

(1-10) Ernie, there's no way to ever defend Barry Goldwater's "extremism" remark, from here to eternity, so please just get over it.

It is not a matter of "defending". It is explaining the context and intent in the mind of the author. You attempt to make exactly the same explanations when YOU "defend" Walker (see below),

EDWIN WALKER:

(1) Ernie, you want to make every racist just like every other racist. There is no nuance in your logic. Himmler, the man behind Auschwitz and Dachau, was equalled by President Woodrow Wilson by your logic, because Wilson succeeded in keeping Princeton University campus all-white. You seem to lack any sense of nuance. You speak in terms of EVERYTHING, and ALWAYS and NEVER, and the day to day nuances just go over your head.

FALSE. I have no interest in moral equivalence arguments. Instead, my position is opposite to yours. I believe there are many ways in which racism can be expressed (both directly and indirectly) and both explicitly and through use of linguistic subterfuge aka code words or themes. You, by contrast, dwell upon ONE SINGLE factor -- i.e. did Walker join the KKK? It is YOU (not me) who does not seem to understand the "nuance" in Walker's personality and beliefs and values. I have presented you with a series of questions which would help determine whether or not Walker could legitimately be described as harboring racist sentiments. You just ignore all of them.

(2) It makes a lot of difference if a person says, "I am a racist" or if that person says, "I'm not a racist." You say "nobody cares," but that only shows your unending bias.

Sorry -- I don't understand your point. Some bigots enjoy revealing their bigotry. Others hide it. For example: Eustace Mullins incorporated into some of his books what appears to be verbatim excerpts from chapter 11 of Hitler's Mein Kampf (Nation and Race -- see especially pages 419+) which proposes that Jews should be considered parasitic organisms.

The ultimate point is how we interpret behavior (words and deeds). No human being is uni-dimensional although you expect us to accept your uni-dimensional interpretation of Walker based solely upon ONE characteristic -- i.e. did he join the KKK?

(3) Even in the early 1960's, bigotry was very common in the USA. In fact, in some communities, a marriage between a Baptist and a Methodist was considered a "mixed marriage" that some people would worry about. Those people would simply be stunned and stupified to see a mixed racial marriage. The bigoted remarks by President Harry Truman prove my point. One could be an American bigot without being a Heinrich Himmler. One must remember the decade and the environment.

But the difference is that Truman never PUBLICLY expressed his bigotry nor did he work to change American society to make his personal bigotry acceptable or predominant. By contrast, Walker's PUBLIC behavior (both words and deeds) expressed his bigotry and he never attempted to hide it because he was not ashamed of it. And he used every opportunity to publicly associate himself with bigots within white supremacist circles.

Furthermore, regardless of Truman's PRIVATE beliefs about Jews and "niggers" ------

(1) On May 14, 1948, when the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel, Truman recognized the provisional government as the de facto authority of the Jewish state and formal de jure recognition was announced in the subsequent January.

(2) On July 26, 1948 he signed an Executive Order establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services which committed the U.S. Government to integrating its segregated military and

(3) Truman recognized that organizations like NAACP were LEGITIMATE civil rights organizations and there was nothing "subversive" about African Americans wanting to pursue integration and nothing "subversive" about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund using our court system to challenge Jim Crow practices in our country.

So we have AFFIRMATIVE evidence that Truman's PERSONAL views did not contaminate his PUBLIC POLICY decisions.

BY CONTRAST: We have NO SUCH AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE with respect to Edwin Walker. Instead we have his CONSISTENT hostility toward ALL civil rights organizations and leaders AND we have Walker declaring that "integration is illegal" AND we have Walker providing aid and comfort and support to explicitly racist organizations and their agendas AND we have Walker buying into the arguments of the JBS -- which considered our civil rights movement to be Communist controlled and dominated and Communist-inspired!

(4) I will categorically deny that Presidents Nixon or Truman were racists -- despite their conformity to ordinary American bigotry -- yes -- simply because they never joined the KKK. This is an important nuance

that you, Ernie, simply wisk away.

I repeat: No SINGLE criterion can be proposed as compelling dispositive evidence. Many factors must be considered before making fair conclusions about a person's beliefs and values and principles. Sometimes people make stupid comments and they often immediately retract those comments and express regret that they made such comments. But Walker never retracted anything. He never apologized. He never endorsed comments by FBI Director Hoover. He never disputed JBS arguments re: our civil rights movement. He never made ANY positive comments about the black struggle for equality under the law. He never made ANY comments to confirm that there were legitimate racial grievances which needed to be addressed.

(5) I answered your simple questions adequately for present purposes. Let's move on to more important issues. Robert Welch barely tolerated Jews and Black Americans, but he did tolerate them. My only point is that Edwin Walker was ideologically a FOLLOWER of Robert Welch. If Walker was a true racist, he would never have been a follower of Welch, who was no racist (e.g. we know of Anti-Semites who explicitly quit the JBS because they thought the JBS was "soft on Jews.")

How do you know what Welch "barely tolerated"?

He appointed a very prominent Jew (Alfred Kohlberg, a founding member of the Society) to the JBS National Council. He excoriated the anti-semitic bigotry of Elizabeth Dilling and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning in an 1959 issue of the JBS magazine, American Opinion. He hired numerous Jews as the primary authors for JBS publications -- such as Gary Allen and Alan Stang and Samuel Blumenfeld. He welcomed Jews as JBS chapter leaders, as JBS section leaders, and as JBS Coordinators. He devoted a major section of his 1966 publication (The Neutralizers) to explaining how anti-semites seduce honorable and decent people into believing false information regarding Jews and Communism. He described The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a vicious anti-semitic forgery. What else do you think he should have done?

As for Welch distancing himself from Walker -- you are neglecting the other half of that story. Welch never revoked Walker's membership in the JBS, and Welch continued to maintain his personal friendship with Edwin Walker for life.

So what?

Insofar as Edwin Walker was a child of the US South, born in 1909, it is pointless to try to make Edwin Walker into any more of a racist than the common US Southerner of the same historical period.

How does one escape being accurately described as a racist when you simultaneously admit that the prevailing attitude within the south was racist?

(6) Your challenge: You are merely repeating the simple questions you asked before, i.e. whether any US Civil Rights organization endorsed Edwin Walker, or whether he endorsed them. I've already answered that -- the answer is a resounding, NO.

Yes-- but what AFFIRMATIVE evidence can you cite to demonstrate that Walker was NOT racist? Tell us something about his good deeds or perhaps you can quote from some correspondence in his personal papers where he dissociates himself from racial bigotry?

Yet as I stated clearly, my own parents, and the parents of all of my friends (yes, all of them) in my community in Southern California where I was raised (the town is Duarte) all regarded the Civil Rights Movement as a frightening challenge to law and order, and a genuine disturbance of the peace. This opinion was even held by the Black Americans in our Church, who were themselves dearly beloved.

But none of us know your parents or your neighbors. Give us an example of some political figure whom you want us to believe was NOT racist but who had something comparable to Walker's record (i.e. these hypothetical persons praised and gave speeches to white supremacist groups, they endorsed white supremacist politicians, they helped create new white supremacist organizations, they wrote articles for white supremacist publications, they attacked ALL of our national civil rights organizations and leaders but they were NOT racist).

If you will give us JUST ONE CLEAR EXAMPLE of any such political figure whom we all would recognize then (and only then) can we understand how your criteria operate.

The Civil Rights card is simply not a one-sided card. There are nuances, again, and you're ignoring them, Ernie.

What nuances? As previous answer. Where is your AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE?

As for the Citizens Councils, they were openly bigoted when they were founded on 11 July 1954 by Robert Patterson in Mississippi. Their entire purpose for existence was to repeal Earl Warren's BROWN DECISION and to Impeach Earl Warren. The original Citizens Councils made no secret of their purpose -- however, they also carefully set themselves apart from the KKK, which extolled the use of VIOLENCE to attain the same goals. Robert Patterson argued that the KKK would only *weaken* their cause, by making it appear to be led by poor white trash. They (like Robert Welch) terminated the membership of anybody in the Citizens Councils who had become a member of the KKK at any time.

Incorrect. They did not terminate the membership of such people. As long as the KKK members did not attempt to takeover their Citizens Council chapter or direct it in ways contrary to the policies of the national organization -- those folks continued to be members. Here again, FBI files about the Citizens Councils movement routinely identify KKK members who joined the Citizens Council chapter in their community. I have posted numerous FBI files online regarding individual chapters so you can read the details for yourself.

incidentally, many members of the Friends of Walker joined the Dallas-based Indignant Citizens Council and several of them were KKK members such as William Joiner.

Robert E. Hatfield was the guy who spat upon Adlai Stevenson after his UN Day speech. Hatfield was a JBS member, a member of Friends of Walker and a member of the Indignant Citizens Council. When he resigned from the JBS, Hatfield wrote a bitter letter to Robert Welch in which he referred to a "Jewish-UN campaign to put me behind bars".

So, there are nuances that you're ignoring, Ernie. It's all just either/or, black/white to you, while reality is rich in nuances.

Paul, I sincerely do not understand your comment. I have never ever claimed everything is black/white. BUT YOU HAVE. You insist that we can just discard ALL data except ONE thing -- i.e. that Walker never joined the KKK (despite the fact that he was interested in and considered accepting the UKA Grand Dragon position) and despite the fact that Walker had a years-long record of associating with, endorsing, and supporting all sorts of despicable bigots.

I admitted that in the Ole Miss riots, that Edwin Walker (a frequent speaker for the Ciitizens Councils and the JBS) knew very well that in calling for a massive resistance against JFK's use of Federal Troops at Ole Miss on 30 September 1963, that the KKK would answer his call by the bus-load, and they would bring their rifles with them. Walker was never ignorant of that simple fact. Yet again, Walker was not a member of the KKK. Yet he did want to make a splash in the South. Remember that Governor Ross Barnett had already opposed JFK in the national media at that time. Further, in only a few more months, Governor George Wallace would personally stand in front of Alabama University's front door to keep Federal Troops out. IT WAS THE POPULAR THING TO DO IN THE SOUTH IN 1962-1963.

Apparently you are not familiar with the federal crime which is called misprision of a felony. Here is a quick summary: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m034.htm

Insofar as Walker participated in, or had foreknowledge about, attempts by white supremacists or violent mobs to violate the Constitutional rights of black Americans, he could be held culpable. To the degree that Walker endorsed or defended or supported the activities of violence-prone racial radicals or welcomed their attempts to incite racial bigotry -- we could conclude that he was not just a bystander or observer -- he was a facilitator.

Once again -- Walker played politics for the Southern voters. Civil Rights was the big issue in the South. Edwin Walker was playing it in his own unique way. Yet Walker never joined the KKK. Walker never called out direct hatred for Black Americans. Walker was a POLITICIAN (not a very good one, but still he was one).

Walker was a rotten politician which is why his first political campaign was his last. He placed 6th in a field of 6 candidates for Governor of Texas.

I don't say that Walker was *hostile* to the KKK -- only that he never JOINED them. Is that so hard to grasp? Are there too many nuances there? Walker would pander to groups for their money and votes. Surely that doesn't sound odd to you; surely you recognize politics as usual.

Sorry Paul -- no cigar but nice try at misdirection.

In law and morality we make distinctions between people who commit, or associate themselves with, or facilitate, violations of civil rights or other crimes VERSUS those individuals who clearly speak out against or express opposition to such radicals and criminals.

I will repeat: We have no affirmative evidence to support the idea that Walker was hostile toward the KKK or that he opposed ANY white supremacist organization OR that he ever accepted the idea that black Americans had any right to pursue integration. Instead, he said such activity was illegal and he believed that the KKK had "more good Americans" as members than a typical liberal organization like ADA.

Incidentally, here is something you might have forgotten.

The KKK was on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. Consequently, anybody who KNOWINGLY participated in KKK activities or who spoke favorably about KKK leaders or organizations or who, in any way whatsoever, facilitated KKK activities and objectives could legitimately be characterized as "subversive". I'm sure that Walker was aware of this -- and this also explains why he never joined the KKK.

Significantly, the FBI periodically sent documentary evidence about Walker to the U.S. Secret Service.

When the FBI sent their info to the Secret Service they used their standard cover letter form(FD-376) and they checked off the following category as a quick reference to explain why they were sending their reports to the Secret Service i.e. “Subversives, ultrarightists, racists, and fascists who meet one or more of the following criteria” – and the FBI checked off box © which is: “Prior acts (including arrests or convictions) or conduct or statements indicating a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government."

Paul -- my replies appear underneath your comments

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...Incidentally, here is something you might have forgotten.

The KKK was on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. Consequently, anybody who KNOWINGLY participated in KKK activities or who spoke favorably about KKK leaders or organizations or who, in any way whatsoever, facilitated KKK activities and objectives could legitimately be characterized as "subversive". I'm sure that Walker was aware of this -- and this also explains why he never joined the KKK.

Significantly, the FBI periodically sent documentary evidence about Walker to the U.S. Secret Service.

When the FBI sent their info to the Secret Service they used their standard cover letter form(FD-376) and they checked off the following category as a quick reference to explain why they were sending their reports to the Secret Service i.e. “

Subversives, ultrarightists, racists, and fascists who meet one or more of the following criteria” – and the FBI checked off box © which is: “Prior acts (including arrests or convictions) or conduct or statements indicating a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government."

Well, Ernie, you omitted the date of this FBI report to the Secret Service about Edwin Walker, yet I will guess that it is dated sometime in 1963.

If that's the case, then of course Walker would be labeled as a subversive because the US Government knew that he organized and led the riots at Ole MIss University on the night of 30 September 1962.

In their records they would have seen that Edwin Walker was arrested for this role the next morning, and remanded to an insane asylum by order of the Justice Department and the Attorney General, RFK, with the blessing of JFK.

The OFFICIAL opinion of the US Government in 1963 was that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a violent subversive, and that he proved his true colors by leading the Ole Miss racial riot in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

Perhaps Mark Knight was correct to suggest that I made too much of Walker's peaceful months, because when one looks at, it was less than one year after Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army (and forfeited his pension, another hot-headed act) that Edwin Walker led the violent riots at Ole Miss.

So, maybe Edwin Walker wasn't really so peaceful deep, down inside.

My rationale was that Edwin Walker was primarily a speech-maker, and in none of those speeches did Walker call for violent revolution. In none of those speeches did he call for a race-war. In all of those speeches, the villains were always the same -- the Reds and the United Nations, and all those who supported them -- allegedly the FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK administrations. Also, Walker ran for Texas Governor -- all this betokens a Southern gentleman. The sad truth is that Edwin Walker turned to violence in only ten months. He quit the Army in November 1961, and he was arrested for rioting in September 1962. It doesn't look good for the home team.

Yet my point to you, Ernie, was that unless you have other information, it is likely that the FBI sent the Secret Service this memo about Edwin Walker in reference to the Ole Miss riots -- and not because he made the occasional speech to the White Citizens Councils and States Rights Party gatherings in which KKK members would surely show up.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 1, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Incidentally, here is something you might have forgotten.

The KKK was on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. Consequently, anybody who KNOWINGLY participated in KKK activities or who spoke favorably about KKK leaders or organizations or who, in any way whatsoever, facilitated KKK activities and objectives could legitimately be characterized as "subversive". I'm sure that Walker was aware of this -- and this also explains why he never joined the KKK.

Significantly, the FBI periodically sent documentary evidence about Walker to the U.S. Secret Service.

When the FBI sent their info to the Secret Service they used their standard cover letter form(FD-376) and they checked off the following category as a quick reference to explain why they were sending their reports to the Secret Service i.e. “

Subversives, ultrarightists, racists, and fascists who meet one or more of the following criteria” – and the FBI checked off box © which is: “Prior acts (including arrests or convictions) or conduct or statements indicating a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government."

Well, Ernie, you omitted the date of this FBI report to the Secret Service about Edwin Walker, yet I will guess that it is dated sometime in 1963.

If that's the case, then of course Walker would be labeled as a subversive because the US Government knew that he organized and led the riots at Ole MIss University on the night of 30 September 1962.

In their records they would have seen that Edwin Walker was arrested for this role the next morning, and remanded to an insane asylum by order of the Justice Department and the Attorney General, RFK, with the blessing of JFK.

The OFFICIAL opinion of the US Government in 1963 was that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a violent subversive, and that he proved his true colors by leading the Ole Miss racial riot in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

Perhaps Mark Knight was correct to suggest that I made too much of Walker's peaceful months, because when one looks at, it was less than one year after Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army (and forfeited his pension, another hot-headed act) that Edwin Walker led the violent riots at Ole Miss.

So, maybe Edwin Walker wasn't really so peaceful deep, down inside.

My rationale was that Edwin Walker was primarily a speech-maker, and in none of those speeches did Walker call for violent revolution. In none of those speeches did he call for a race-war. In all of those speeches, the villains were always the same -- the Reds and the United Nations, and all those who supported them -- allegedly the FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK administrations. Also, Walker ran for Texas Governor -- all this betokens a Southern gentleman. The sad truth is that Edwin Walker turned to violence in only ten months. He quit the Army in November 1961, and he was arrested for rioting in September 1962. It doesn't look good for the home team.

Yet my point to you, Ernie, was that unless you have other information, it is likely that the FBI sent the Secret Service this memo about Edwin Walker in reference to the Ole Miss riots -- and not because he made the occasional speech to the White Citizens Councils and States Rights Party gatherings in which KKK members would surely show up.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, you can "opine" all you like but your conclusion is wrong (as usual). The date was 5/3/65.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Paul, you can "opine" all you like but your conclusion is wrong (as usual). The date was 5/3/65.

Well, then, the FBI date was quite a bit later than the Ole Miss riots! So, that date serves my point better than it serves yours.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Paul, you can "opine" all you like but your conclusion is wrong (as usual). The date was 5/3/65.

Well, then, the FBI date was quite a bit later than the Ole Miss riots! So, that date serves my point better than it serves yours.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Huh??? You totally lost me.

How does the fact that the FBI was so concerned about Walker that they felt compelled to periodically send FBI reports about him to the U.S. Secret Service serve your "point"?

The only reason why the FBI bothered notifying the Secret Service about some person is because the Bureau thought such persons might pose a risk to the security of the President or other government officials because (for example) their "conduct or statements" indicated "a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government."

Doesn't seem like such a belief helps you in any way nor does the fact that the FBI sent the Secret Secret multiple reports on Walker.

One of the things I have tried to research is how the FBI defined or limited their use of the term "ultrarightist". It appears that they used that description as a catch-all for general right-wing political extremists who had engaged in (or condoned) acts of violence. Most of their FD-376 forms were used for people who belonged to subversive organizations or who engaged in or incited violence or criminal acts.

Significantly, however, the FBI did NOT routinely send the Secret Service reports about JBS members or about JBS officials even though, indisputably, senior officials of the FBI certainly thought the JBS was a right-wing extremist organization. Sometimes FBI officials used the term "ultraright" to describe adherents of JBS ideology.

Bottom-line -- when you consider the purpose behind the FBI using their FD-376 form -- I don't think putting Walker in the company of the categories shown on the form (listed below) is of much help to your argument.

• subversive
• ultrarightist
• racist
• fascist

ADDENDUM

I just checked Walker's FBI HQ main file. The first reference I could find where the FBI notified the Secret Service about Walker's activities was dated 11/8/61. However, it is possible that his Dallas field file contains earlier references. In May and June 1965 the FBI deluged the Secret Service with incessant FBI reports about Walker.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

How would you compare FBI surveillance of MLK to that of Walker?

[John Dolva]

I put this together from a couple of sources some years ago. It seems a relevant general reference in judging what the feebs thinks/though important :

[Paul Trejo]

I put this together from a couple of sources some years ago. It seems a relevant general reference in judging what the feebs thinks/thought important: <SNIP>

Thanks, John; that's a useful graphic model. IMHO it accurately reflects the FBI and the US Government attitude in general at the peak of the Cold War -- in other words, the Communists were seen as the real global threat.

One might consider that the US Communist Party (CPUSA) was harmless enough based on their literature and lack of violence, but that opinion would ignore the fact that globally, the Communist Parties held vast armies and vast nuclear arsenals. Insofar as Communism was international, all they would require from their American comrades would be a few votes here and there, some money, some gentle speeches, softly urging people to consider the International Workers Movement -- and that could tilt the scales.

Many in the USA feared that the Communists were winning -- at one point they had China, the USSR, and were gaining ground in India, Africa, Latin America, what to speak of many Western Europeans and especially intellectuals.

I remember the 1970's and 1980's very well as the Cold War continued. I thought it would last for my entire life. I remember, for example, that professors at Western Universities, even outside Berkeley, like Stanford and UCLA, who could speak about Marxism, were in high demand for speeches by both left and right wing groups, who wanted to hear an "experts" opinion on this or that matter of public policy.

A professor of Marxism in the USA in the 1970's and 1980's could make a nice living making speeches, it seemed to me.

All that came crashing down in 1990, as the Berlin Wall fell, and then the USSR fell. I was astounded. If the left-wing had been cowed by McCarthyism and the John Birch Society in the previous forty years, the fall of the USSR completely demolished the Communist movement in the USA, and collapsed nearly all left-wing ideology in America.

(Today the left-wing seems to feebly imitate the 1960's right-wing agenda of blaming international bankers, Jews, Masons, the CIA, CFR, Trilateral Commision and the UN for everything.)

Now it's almost impossible for a Marxist professor to get a speaking engagement in the USA -- nobody gives two cents for his opinion anymore.

So -- in retrospect, it's hard to imagine what all the fuss was about in 1960-1969, when the FBI spent millions spying on the CPUSA. But as strange as it may seem today, the Communists had real clout in the 1960's.

On the other hand, many Americans believed that the Racist rightwing in the USA was not an equal threat -- not since the Civil War had clipped their wings. All the South had left was Jim Crow, and only in a few States.

Jim Crow just wasn't the big threat that Nuclear Meltdown would be. It was perceived as a question of priorities.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 1, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Thanks John - that about says it all.

[Paul Trejo]

...I just checked Walker's FBI HQ main file. The first reference I could find where the FBI notified the Secret Service about Walker's activities was dated 11/8/61. However, it is possible that his Dallas field file contains earlier references. In May and June 1965 the FBI deluged the Secret Service with incessant FBI reports about Walker.

Ernie, it would be interesting to know why in the world the FBI would tell the Secret Service anything about the Resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 11/8/1961, since military records show that Edwin Walker was a US General until the date of 11/4/1961.

Among his personal papers there is this sheet of Walker's double-resignations -- once unsuccessfully in 1959, and once successfully in 1961, at this URL:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611104_Walker_Resignations.JPG

The point for this post is that Walker successfully resigned from the US Army on 11/4/1961 -- honorably -- and then the FBI sends the Secret Service a memo about Walker's activities only four days later??

What in the world could a resigned US General do in only four days to grab the attention of the FBI?

I will venture a guess -- it was merely an echo of the oddity that a US General had actually resigned from the US Army (i.e. spurning his pension instead of retiring). That had never happened in America in the 20th century -- before or since. I would guess that was the content of that FBI report to the Secret Service.

I think you're mistaken, Ernie, that the "Dallas field file contains earlier references," since there would be little reason for the FBI in Dallas to maintain any files about Edwin Walker who was a US General since the Korean War, and in WW2 before that, until 11/4/1961.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 1, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...I just checked Walker's FBI HQ main file. The first reference I could find where the FBI notified the Secret Service about Walker's activities was dated 11/8/61. However, it is possible that his Dallas field file contains earlier references. In May and June 1965 the FBI deluged the Secret Service with incessant FBI reports about Walker.

Ernie, it would be interesting to know why in the world the FBI would tell the Secret Service anything about the Resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 11/8/1961, since military records show that Edwin Walker was a US General until the date of 11/4/1961.

Among his personal papers there is this sheet of Walker's double-resignations -- once unsuccessfully in 1959, and once successfully in 1961, at this URL:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611104_Walker_Resignations.JPG

The point for this post is that Walker successfully resigned from the US Army on 11/4/1961 -- honorably -- and then the FBI sends the Secret Service a memo about Walker's activities only four days later??

What in the world could a resigned US General do in only four days to grab the attention of the FBI?

I will venture a guess -- it was merely an echo of the oddity that a US General had actually resigned from the US Army (i.e. spurning his pension instead of retiring). That had never happened in America in the 20th century -- before or since. I would guess that was the content of that FBI report to the Secret Service.

I think you're mistaken, Ernie, that the "Dallas field file contains earlier references," since there would be little reason for the FBI in Dallas to maintain any files about Edwin Walker who was a US General since the Korean War, and in WW2 before that, until 11/4/1961.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I cannot give you a definitive answer but I can provide you with several possible explanations for why the FBI was sending reports about Walker to the Secret Service.

1. The 11/61 Los Angeles memo which I previously referenced is heavily redacted so I cannot know with certainty what triggered FBI concern but there is a reference to a southern California organization known by the acronym "HELP".

As you probably know, many right-wing extremist groups were created in the period from 1959 thru 1966 --- particularly in California and Texas -- including JBS and Minutemen chapters and chapters of American Nazi Party and National States Rights Party. It is possible that "HELP" was advocating stuff which elicited concern within the FBI about Walker's motives and intentions.

In Texas, for example, the National Indignation Convention (NIC) was created in October 1961 and within weeks they had organized chapters around the country. Its founder (Frank Boaz McGehee) was a JBS member who described Kennedy Administration trade policies as "treasonous" -- when he discovered that the US had sold American fighter jets to Tito's Yugoslavia and Yugoslavian Air Force pilots were being trained in the U.S. in the use of the F86D interceptor aircraft. When McGehee spoke to NIC crowds, he asked "Why are we losing everywhere? Treason is the reason!"

Naturally, Edwin Walker became a featured speaker at NIC meetings and during those speeches he often accused the Kennedy Administration of "appeasement". Most of the NIC meetings around the country had literature for sale which was published by many different groups -- including by white hate groups. This, too, may have alerted the FBI to the type of activities which Walker was lending his name and prestige to.

2. Walker had made speeches and written publications which stated that Kennedy Administration officials in the State Dept, the Defense Dept, and at the White House (such as Secretary of State Rusk, Walter Rostow, McGeorge Bundy and Adam Yarmolinksky) were "soft-on-communism" or worse. For example, in Walker's pamphlet entitled "The Victory Purge", he declared that the official policy of the JFK Administration was to prepare our Armed Forces for "liquidation". Walker also stated that JFK was leading the country "into a totalitarian state" in which free elections would be abolished.

3. This is where we need to begin considering the categories on the FBI form I previously cited. It is entirely possible that the FBI interpreted Walker's speeches and publications in the context of "expressions of strong or violent anti-U.S. sentiment" or "conduct or statements indicating a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government."

About one year later Walker we got a sense of what Walker was prepared to do when he participated in the Oxford MS debacle.

A plausible argument could be made that a government security analyst concluded that Walker was speaking and publishing material calculated to destroy the morale of our Armed Forces and convince them that our elected government was illegitimate -- especially when you throw in Walker's comments about a "Fifth Column Conspiracy" operating in the U.S.

4. In other words, given Walker's recent personal history (Germany), one could argue that Walker was fomenting seditious sentiments which could be interpreted as providing the intellectual justification for committing acts of violence against our government. Then put this into the context of what groups like the Minutemen and JBS believed AND in the context of Walker's recent "Pro-Blue" educational (sic) program in Germany.

5. With respect to your comment about Walker resigning. The FBI had no interest in that and there is nothing about resigning from the Armed Forces which falls into any category that would trigger potential interest by the Secret Service.

6. I should mention that the form used by the FBI to forward threat information to the Secret Service underwent a significant revision. If I have some time, I will try to find one of the older versions because the form expresses different (although similar) criteria.

7. With respect to your comment about the Dallas field file --- I don't think you are correct. Field offices routinely forwarded copies of their reports to military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI) and Secret Service.

Postscript:

8. It should also be mentioned that when the FBI sent a report to the Secret Service, it may not have been ABOUT Walker -- but just included a reference to him because of some link he had to other individuals or subjects mentioned in the report. It could even be something totally innocuous -- such as reporting that Walker subscribed to some publication -- and that publication and/or its employees had made comments which was the subject of the FBI report.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Unfortunately the mad bufiles appear to no longer be available. An amusing interlude involving among others Walker and his lawyer Watts. I found a snippet of one of from memory 4 from w&w to fbi :

edit typo

Edited November 2, 2014 by John Dolva

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- I have found something which does answer your question. When I originally answered you, I looked at Walker's FBI-HQ file but this morning I checked his Los Angeles file (which I should have done first).

The very first serial in Walker's Los Angeles file (dated 11/7/61) is a letter from the SAC of the FBI's Los Angeles office (William G. Simon) to the head of the Los Angeles Secret Service. The Secret Service had phoned FBI-Los Angeles to inquire about Walker.

FBI-Los Angeles told the Secret Service that one of their informants whom they considered reliable had advised them that Walker had been invited to appear as a speaker at a November 18th National Indignation Convention rally in Los Angeles to be held at Hollywood High School. The FBI estimated that 2000 people would attend this rally.

Furthermore, the NIC had sought and obtained police clearance to march 10 blocks from Hollywood High School to the Hollywood Palladium Ballroom (to protest JFK policies) -- because JFK was scheduled to attend a fundraising dinner there that day. In addition, an "anti-nuclear warfare" group was also expected to conduct a demonstration in a parking lot across the street from the Palladium. That group was headed by an individual who was a Communist Party member since 1944.

As I originally mentioned, the 11/8/61 HQ memo was heavily redacted so I could not see much detail except that reference to the group "HELP" but the equivalent Los Angeles field memo was much less redacted and it mentions the CP member in charge of the left-wing anti-nuclear group -- so it appears that "HELP" is related to him.

So -- what all this reveals is just your typical communication between FBI and Secret Service -- particularly when two polar opposite groups are planning protest demonstrations at a location where the President is scheduled to appear -- but, in this case, the fear must have been magnified by the fact that NIC was using inflammatory rhetoric describing JFK policies as "treasonous" and they were about to march to a location where, on the other side of the street, there were people whom NIC probably thought were "Communists".

E

Edited November 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar