Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Sounds like a good point to disagree on Paul.  Probably impossible to resolve but it would be interesting to judge that clout by the news impact that Walker made on his trip to Miami in the summer of 1963.  I've mentioned that to you before, don't know if you have done any checking. I spent some time reading all the Cuba related newspaper articles out of the Miami paper for that year and a few years before - thanks to the collections work of a good friend of mine down there. As I recall there was only very minor mention of his visit deep in a couple of editions and the only net result was that it made him a target for a good deal of unsuccessful fund raising - since he had little enough money even for his own political ambitions - by various anti-Castro figures who themselves had little money.  Hence a few trips and drop-bys in Dallas. I just can't see that impressing Morales, even if he had time to read the papers - given the depth of his operational activities, his new training tasks for AM/WORLD and his frequent travel to Mexico City during that period.  In any event I just wanted to assert my assessment and we can leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Larry,

We can agree to disagree on this important point.   I maintain that you underestimate the political influence of Ex-General Edwin Walker among the Radical Right in the USA (and especially in the South), and the great grassroots power that entailed -- which would have even impressed somebody like CIA agent David Morales -- expert in Latin American assassinations -- because the official CIA did not see things the way David Morales saw them.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Define "influence".   Normally, in an historical context, "political influence" means that a person was able to determine, guide, control, shape, govern, or decide matters of great significance.  

Walker was certainly a popular speaker (in the south) but I'm not sure you can build much of a case to establish that he had any direct impact upon decisions or behavior of key figures discussed by Caufield in his book.  

BUT---if you have specific evidence which shows a direct correlation between Walker's ideas and behavior and preferred objectives with various people who actually did have significant impact upon their specific community or in their state such as John Crommelin in Alabama and in the south generally, or John Kasper in Tennessee or Ed Fields and J.B. Stoner all over the south, or Mary Cain in Mississippi, or Mary Davison in Florida, or Guy Banister in Louisiana, or any KKK unit or other white supremacist leader or organization anywhere in the south --- then, by all means, specify it.

One should recall that Walker did not really have much "influence" even within his own state.  When he ran for political office, he ran last (6th) in that field of candidates and all sorts of people he despised were elected and re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Define "influence".   Normally, in an historical context, "political influence" means that a person was able to determine, guide, control, shape, govern, or decide matters of great significance.  

Walker was certainly a popular speaker (in the south) but I'm not sure you can build much of a case to establish that he had any direct impact upon decisions or behavior of key figures discussed by Caufield in his book.  

BUT---if you have specific evidence which shows a direct correlation between Walker's ideas and behavior and preferred objectives with various people who actually did have significant impact upon their specific community or in their state such as John Crommelin in Alabama and in the south generally, or John Kasper in Tennessee or Ed Fields and J.B. Stoner all over the south, or Mary Cain in Mississippi, or Mary Davison in Florida, or Guy Banister in Louisiana, or any KKK unit or other white supremacist leader or organization anywhere in the south --- then, by all means, specify it.

One should recall that Walker did not really have much "influence" even within his own state.  When he ran for political office, he ran last (6th) in that field of candidates and all sorts of people he despised were elected and re-elected.

Ernie,

Here's one illustration of General Walker's "influence" over the US Radical Right in the early sixties.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611204_Newsweek_Cover.JPG

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Here's one illustration of General Walker's "influence" over the US Radical Right in the early sixties.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611204_Newsweek_Cover.JPG

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

That cover story was not about any particular "political influence" by Walker.  That article was about the general resurgence of the right-wing during the early 1960's.  

Time magazine ran the exact same type of story -- as did Look magazine, Nation magazine, and many others.  

As you know, Walker resigned from the U.S. Army about a couple weeks before that issue of Newsweek was put together but I don't think you will find anything in Newsweek to establish any significant "political influence" by Walker -- other than him being asked to give speeches around the country such as his 11/18/61 speech in Hollywood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ernie Lazar said:

That cover story was not about any particular "political influence" by Walker.  That article was about the general resurgence of the right-wing during the early 1960's.  

Time magazine ran the exact same type of story -- as did Look magazine, Nation magazine, and many others.  

As you know, Walker resigned from the U.S. Army about a couple weeks before that issue of Newsweek was put together but I don't think you will find anything in Newsweek to establish any significant "political influence" by Walker -- other than him being asked to give speeches around the country such as his 11/18/61 speech in Hollywood.

Ernie,

Yes, the resigned, Ex-General Walker was indeed invited to make Radical Right speeches all over the USA.   Here is a brief, 30-second excerpt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw

Furthermore, Walker was said to get standing ovations every 60 seconds from large crowds, wherever he went.  Because of  this, Walker was said to be the real-life model for General James Scott, in the movie, Seven Days in May (1965). 

Furthermore, Walker was regularly featured in the newspaper Independent American, by Kent and Phoebe Courtney, who sometimes featured as many as three stories in one issue on General Walker, calling upon Walker to lead a new Independent Party in the USA.

Furthermore, Kent and Phoebe Courtney published a book about Walker, entitled, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker (1961) in which they recommended Walker for US President.

Jeff Caufield's new book has shown a social connection between Kent Courtney and Guy Banister -- as well as with General Walker.

Furthermore, as you noted above, General Walker also ran for the seat of Governor of Texas in 1962, losing to John Connally.

However -- General Walker fell out of the limelight of US politics after his poor showing at the Senate Subcommittee for Military Preparedness in 1962, because no military brass from the Pentagon came to vouch for Walker (since he had accused the Pentagon in general of being Communist stooges). 

Then, after the riots at Ole Miss in September 1963, JFK and RFK tossed Walker into an insane asylum, rendering Walker dead to mainstream politics.

However -- Walker still maintained a strong following among the US Radical Right; i.e. Walker was invited to become a Grand Dragon for the KKK because of his continuing, outspoken position on the racial segregation of US public schools.  The US Radical Right generally regarded JFK as a Communist sympathizer.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:39 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Sounds like a good point to disagree on Paul.  Probably impossible to resolve but it would be interesting to judge that clout by the news impact that Walker made on his trip to Miami in the summer of 1963.  I've mentioned that to you before, don't know if you have done any checking. I spent some time reading all the Cuba related newspaper articles out of the Miami paper for that year and a few years before - thanks to the collections work of a good friend of mine down there. As I recall there was only very minor mention of his visit deep in a couple of editions and the only net result was that it made him a target for a good deal of unsuccessful fund raising - since he had little enough money even for his own political ambitions - by various anti-Castro figures who themselves had little money.  Hence a few trips and drop-bys in Dallas. I just can't see that impressing Morales, even if he had time to read the papers - given the depth of his operational activities, his new training tasks for AM/WORLD and his frequent travel to Mexico City during that period.  In any event I just wanted to assert my assessment and we can leave it at that.

Larry,

In the personal papers of General Walker at UT Austin, we find a correspondence with Gerry Patrick Hemming.

The context is Hemming's turn to General Walker in search of funds.

The news of the summer of 1963 was that General Walker's lawyers were winning cases against US newspapers which had claimed that General Walker was the leader of the racial riots at Ole Miss.  Walker was suing them for libel, and although he was winning only 10% of his cases, his lawyers were aggressively pursuing dozens of newspapers, and so as 1963 progressed, Walker was on his way to accumulating $3 million in winnings.

Granted -- all those cases were on appeal to the Supreme Court -- but the rumor on the street was that General Walker had money.

So, Gerry Patrick Hemming tried to solicit funds for Interpen from General Walker.  That's an interesting historical correspondence.

General Walker was more visible in 1963 than many historians wish to recognize, because of the mainstream Media shunning of Walker after the Ole Miss riots, and after JFK tossed Walker into a loony bin. 

On the US Radical Right scene, however, the visibility of General Walker was still crystal clear.  David Morales had connections in Miami -- why not Louisiana and Interpen?   It's certainly worth more checking.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, you seem to think that many of us have not checked both Morales and Hemming inside out including personal connections beyond the CIA and beyond JMWAVE?   I assure you many very good investigators have.  I've talked to his best friend Ruben who was consistently in touch with Morales and discussed who influenced Morales, who he networked with socially and who he did business with after retirement.  Of course if you find some new connection we would love to hear about it.  As to Hemming, if  you check him out thoroughly you find him soliciting basically any name he could come up with for money, with letters, TV appearances (he was very convincing on TV).  In that regard Walker would be just one of a great number of people Hemming tried fund raising with...you do know that Hemming complained bitterly about Hall following along behind him and hitting up all the same people he was hitting up for money, including several in Dallas...he was bitter about not getting anything and then having Hall come along and pester them more - making them even less responsive.

Anyway, I should be smarter than to let you lead me back into these exchanges...grin...so I will be and just say if you find anything new on Morales and Walker please post it.  Or even Hemming and Walker, but lots has already been written in regard to those contacts though so please make sure it is truly new. 

 

Edited by Larry Hancock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Yes, the resigned, Ex-General Walker was indeed invited to make Radical Right speeches all over the USA.   Here is a brief, 30-second excerpt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw

Furthermore, Walker was said to get standing ovations every 60 seconds from large crowds, wherever he went.  Because of  this, Walker was said to be the real-life model for General James Scott, in the movie, Seven Days in May (1965). 

Furthermore, Walker was regularly featured in the newspaper Independent American, by Kent and Phoebe Courtney, who sometimes featured as many as three stories in one issue on General Walker, calling upon Walker to lead a new Independent Party in the USA.

Furthermore, Kent and Phoebe Courtney published a book about Walker, entitled, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker (1961) in which they recommended Walker for US President.

Jeff Caufield's new book has shown a social connection between Kent Courtney and Guy Banister -- as well as with General Walker.

Furthermore, as you noted above, General Walker also ran for the seat of Governor of Texas in 1962, losing to John Connally.

However -- General Walker fell out of the limelight of US politics after his poor showing at the Senate Subcommittee for Military Preparedness in 1962, because no military brass from the Pentagon came to vouch for Walker (since he had accused the Pentagon in general of being Communist stooges). 

Then, after the riots at Ole Miss in September 1963, JFK and RFK tossed Walker into an insane asylum, rendering Walker dead to mainstream politics.

However -- Walker still maintained a strong following among the US Radical Right; i.e. Walker was invited to become a Grand Dragon for the KKK because of his continuing, outspoken position on the racial segregation of US public schools.  The US Radical Right generally regarded JFK as a Communist sympathizer.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Actually, Paul, without knowing it, you kind of made my point for me.

The circulation of Kent and Phoebe Courtney's Independent American was only about 20,000 copies -- most of which was to JBS members/sympathizers.  In short, IA was not a publication that had any widespread impact.

Nobody disputes that Walker became a public figure in 1961-1962 after he resigned from the U.S. Army but it is quite a stretch to claim that he had significant political influence.  As previously mentioned, the people who knew him best (in Texas) totally rejected him when he sought political office.  So that leaves the obvious question:  in what specific ways did Walker exercise the alleged "political influence" you think he had?  

Was Walker able to generate unusual or decisive public support for some political candidate?  

Did Walker's endorsement or promotion result in some legislation being passed that otherwise would have failed?

Did Walker bring any subject to public attention and as a result, significantly influence public perceptions and debate?

As you correctly point out -- after his Senate testimony, Walker was generally discredited even among his own followers who recognized that he was NOT an articulate (or sometimes even coherent) spokesperson for their political point of view.  And, then, when Walker started associating himself with white supremacist individuals and organizations and making favorable comments about people who had joined the Ku Klux Klan (a subversive organization on the Attorney General's List) even Robert Welch dissociated himself and the JBS from Walker!

 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FINAL 3600 JFK-ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS

 

There are currently some reports which state that some JFK-related documents may be released as early as this summer instead of waiting until October.  Among those which may be released early are CIA docs regarding Oswald's trip to Mexico City.

Some of the documents set for release are believed to pertain to the theory that Oswald may have conspired with Cuban exile groups in the United States.  Apparently, there is also an 86-page dossier on an anti-Castro group in New Orleans backed by the CIA which may be released early.

For anybody who has not yet seen the NARA list of documents scheduled to be released, it is available here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_2017_Documents_Listing.html

As I have pointed out several times -- there are NO references to Edwin Walker, Guy Galbadon, Harry Dean, or the John Birch Society.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FROM RECENT ARTICLE IN POLITICO MAGAZINE:

The nation’s conspiracy-theorist-in-chief is facing a momentous decision. Will President Donald Trump allow the public to see a trove of thousands of long-secret government files about the event that, more than any other in modern American history, has fueled conspiracy theories – the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy?

The answer must come within months. And, according to a new timeline offered by the National Archives, it could come within weeks.  

Under the deadline set by a 1992 law, Trump has six months left to decide whether he will block the release of an estimated 3,600 files related to the assassination that are still under seal at the Archives. From what is known of the JFK documents, most come from the CIA and FBI, and a number may help resolve lingering questions about whether those agencies missed evidence of a conspiracy in Kennedy’s death. As with every earlier release of JFK assassination documents in the 53 years since shots rang out in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, it is virtually certain that some of the files will be seized on to support popular conspiracy theories about Kennedy’s murder; other documents are likely to undermine them.  

There is no little irony in the fact that decision will be left to Trump, long a promoter of so many baseless conspiracy theories about everything from his predecessor’s birthplace to the notion that the father of one of his campaign-trail rivals was in league with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. 

For the first time, the Trump White House is acknowledging that it is focused on the issue, even if it offers no hint about what the President will do. A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Politico last week that the Trump administration “is familiar with the requirements” of the 1992 law and that White House is working with the National Archives “to enable a smooth process in anticipation of the October deadline.” 

Under the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, the library of documents about Kennedy’s death must be made public in full by the deadline of this October 26, the law’s 25th anniversary, unless Trump decides otherwise. It is his decision alone. 

The prospect of the release of the last of the government’s long-secret JFK assassination files has long tantalized historians and other scholars, to say nothing of the nation’s armies of conspiracy theorists, since no one can claim to know exactly what is in there. 

Martha W. Murphy, the Archives official who oversees the records, said in an interview last month that a team of researchers with high-level security clearances is at work to prepare the JFK files for release and hopes to begin unsealing them in batches much earlier than October – possibly as early as summer. 

Beyond releasing the 3,600 never-before-seen JFK files, the Archives is reviewing another 35,000 assassination-related documents, previously released in part, so they can be unsealed in full. Short of an order from the president, Murphy said, the Archives is committed to making everything public this year: “There’s very little decision-making for us.” 

Many of the documents are known to come from the files of CIA officials who monitored a mysterious trip that Oswald paid to Mexico City several weeks before the assassination – a trip that brought Kennedy’s future killer under intense surveillance by the spy agency as he paid visits to both the Soviet and Cuban embassies there. The CIA said it monitored all visitors to the embassies and opened surveillance of Oswald as soon as he was detected inside the Soviet compound for the first time. 

Other documents are known to identify, by name, American and foreign spies and law-enforcement sources who had previously been granted anonymity for information about Oswald and the assassination. At least 400 pages of the files involve E. Howard Hunt, the former CIA operative turned Watergate conspirator who claimed on his deathbed that he had advance knowledge of Kennedy’s murder. 

The documents were gathered together by a temporary federal agency, the Assassination Records Review Board, that was established under the 1992 law. In an interview last month, its former chairman, Judge John R. Tunheim of the Federal District Court in Minnesota, said he “wouldn’t be surprised if there’s something important” in the documents, especially given how much of the history of the Kennedy assassination has had to be rewritten in recent decades. 

He said he knew of “no bombshells” in the files when the board agreed to keep them secret two decades ago, but names, places and events described in the documents could have significance now, given what has been learned about the assassination since the board went out of business. “Today, with a broader understanding of history, certain things may be far more relevant,” he said. 

Murphy, the Archives official, said she, too, knew of no shocking information in the documents – but she said her researchers were not in a position to judge their significance. “As you can imagine, we’re not reading them for that, so we’re probably not the best people to tell you,” she said. “I will say this: This collection is really interesting as a snapshot of the Cold War.” 

The Review Board, created by Congress to show transparency in response to the public furor created by Oliver Stone’s conspiracy-minded 1991 film “JFK,” did force the release of a massive library of other long-secret documents from the CIA, FBI, Secret Service and other federal agencies, as well as from congressional investigations of the assassination. 

Many showed how much evidence was withheld from the Warren Commission, the independent panel led by Chief Justice Earl Warren that investigated the assassination and concluded in 1964 that there was no evidence of a conspiracy in Kennedy’s death. 

The documents showed that both the CIA and FBI had much more extensive information about Oswald—and the danger he posed to JFK—before the assassination than the agencies admitted to Warren’s investigation. The evidence appeared to have been withheld from the commission out of fear that it would expose how the CIA and FBI had bungled the opportunity to stop Oswald. 

Under the 1992 law, agencies may make a final appeal to try to stop the unsealing of specific documents on national security grounds. But the law grants only one person the power to actually block the release: the president. The law allows Trump to keep a document secret beyond the 25-year deadline if he certifies to the National Archives that secrecy was “made necessary by an identifiable harm to military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement or conduct of foreign relations” and that “the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” 

Both the CIA and FBI acknowledged in written statements last month that they are reviewing the documents scheduled for release; neither agency would say if it planned to appeal to the White House to block the unsealing of any of the records. “CIA continues to review the remaining CIA documents in the collection to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to any previously-unreleased CIA information,” said agency spokesperson Heather Fritz Horniak. The FBI said it had a team of 21 researchers assigned to the document review. 

According to a skeletal index of the documents prepared by the Archives, some of the files appear to involve, at least indirectly, a set of conspiracy theories that Trump himself promoted during the 2016 campaign – about possible ties between Cuban exile groups in the United States and Oswald. 

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promoted an article published last April in the National Enquirer that suggested a connection between Oswald and the Cuban-born father of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of Trump’s rivals for the Republican nomination. The article was based entirely on a 1963 photograph that showed Oswald, a self-proclaimed Marxist and champion of Fidel Castro’s Communist revolution in Cuba, handing out pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans with a man who, the tabloid suggested, was Cruz’s father, Rafael. 

The Cruz family denied that the senator’s family was the man depicted in the photo and that Rafael Cruz had any connection to Oswald; there is no other evidence of any connection. 

The National Archives index shows that the documents to be released this year include a 86-page file on a prominent CIA-backed anti-Castro exile group that Oswald appears to have tried to infiltrate in New Orleans, his hometown, in order to gather information that might be of use to the Castro government. 

Judge Tunheim said that Oswald’s trip to Mexico City in September and October 1963 figures directly or indirectly in many of the documents that remain under seal, including the internal files of CIA operatives who worked at the American embassy there. 

Historians agree that the trip, which Oswald apparently undertook in hopes of obtaining a visa to defect to Castro’s Cuba, much as he had once tried to defect to the Soviet Union, has never been fully investigated. 

“I still think there are loose threads in Mexico City that no one has ever explored,” Tunheim said. “It was a bizarre chapter – there’s no question about it.” Previously declassified CIA and FBI documents suggest that Oswald openly boasted to Cuban officials there about his intention to kill Kennedy and that he had a brief affair with a Mexican woman who worked in Cuba’s consulate. The American ambassador to Mexico at the time of the assassination said later that he believed the woman had probably been working for the CIA. 

Tunheim said the Review Board agreed to keep the Mexico-related documents secret in the 1990s at the request of the State Department, the CIA and other agencies that warned that their release could do damage to relations with the Mexico government, which worked closely with the CIA and FBI during the Cold War. “Mexico City was where everybody spied on everybody else,” the judge said. 

But given the chill in relations between the United States and Mexico following Trump’s election and early moves by his administration to build its long-promised wall along the Mexican border, a similar plea to keep the documents secret may not go very far with the new president. Said Tunheim: “I guess we don’t have much of a relationship with the Mexican government to protect anymore.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

FINAL 3600 JFK-ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS

There are currently some reports which state that some JFK-related documents may be released as early as this summer instead of waiting until October.  Among those which may be released early are CIA docs regarding Oswald's trip to Mexico City.

Some of the documents set for release are believed to pertain to the theory that Oswald may have conspired with Cuban exile groups in the United States.  Apparently, there is also an 86-page dossier on an anti-Castro group in New Orleans backed by the CIA which may be released early.

For anybody who has not yet seen the NARA list of documents scheduled to be released, it is available here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_2017_Documents_Listing.html

As I have pointed out several times -- there are NO references to Edwin Walker, Guy Gabaldon, Harry Dean, or the John Birch Society.

Ernie,

This is still very hasty -- as if this somehow offers a full insight into the three-thousands documents on the JFK assassination still withheld by the US Government.

Let us wait until all the documents are opened, before drawing conclusions.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

This is still very hasty -- as if this somehow offers a full insight into the three-thousands documents on the JFK assassination still withheld by the US Government.

Let us wait until all the documents are opened, before drawing conclusions.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Quite the contrary Paul.  There is nothing "hasty" about my reply or my conclusion.  As I told you once before, I went through this list many months ago and looked up every FBI file number specified and NONE of those file numbers pertain to the JBS, Harry, Walker, or any of the subjects or "top secret" documents which YOU delusionally believed would be revealed.  It took me about 2 hours of research to make that determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

Actually, Paul, without knowing it, you kind of made my point for me.

The circulation of Kent and Phoebe Courtney's Independent American was only about 20,000 copies -- most of which was to JBS members/sympathizers.  In short, IA was not a publication that had any widespread impact.

Nobody disputes that Walker became a public figure in 1961-1962 after he resigned from the U.S. Army but it is quite a stretch to claim that he had significant political influence.  As previously mentioned, the people who knew him best (in Texas) totally rejected him when he sought political office.  So that leaves the obvious question:  in what specific ways did Walker exercise the alleged "political influence" you think he had?  

Was Walker able to generate unusual or decisive public support for some political candidate?  

Did Walker's endorsement or promotion result in some legislation being passed that otherwise would have failed?

Did Walker bring any subject to public attention and as a result, significantly influence public perceptions and debate?

As you correctly point out -- after his Senate testimony, Walker was generally discredited even among his own followers who recognized that he was NOT an articulate (or sometimes even coherent) spokesperson for their political point of view.  And, then, when Walker started associating himself with white supremacist individuals and organizations and making favorable comments about people who had joined the Ku Klux Klan (a subversive organization on the Attorney General's List) even Robert Welch dissociated himself and the JBS from Walker!

Ernie,

You left out a key piece to the puzzle of General Walker, namely, that his sponsor in his campaign for Texas Governor was no less an influential person than oil billionaire H.L. Hunt.

Hunt himself was also a radio talk-show host, with his program, "Life Line," which was a stridently Anticommunist propaganda series.

So, even if General Walker didn't have a national following -- the intention of his political backer, H.L. Hunt suggests that a national backing was planned for Walker in 1961 and 1962.

You mention the fact that JBS founder Robert Welch distanced himself from General Walker -- but that was only in early 1963, after JFK and RFK had sent Walker to an insane asylum for his role in the racial riots at Ole Miss University.  That was a late development.  Walker had become a liability to the Rightist propaganda cause -- among the mainstream.

Your portrait compresses time, Ernie.  If we spread out 1961 and 1962 as we should, then we can see a widespread recognition of General Walker, starting with that 1961 Newsweek cover that I shared, and continuing through his campaign for Texas Governor -- and finally crashing with the racial riots at Ole Miss in late 1962.

Furthermore, even before that Newsweek cover, while Walker was still a US General, many right-wing journalists spoke up for Walker publicly, including William F. Buckley, Jr., in his magazine, National Review.   Buckley was enthused about the Walker case in mid-1961, as long as Walker was still in the Military.  Only after Walker resigned did Buckley lose interest -- because then, said Buckley, Walker was only one more civilian at that point.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You left out a key piece to the puzzle of General Walker, namely, that his sponsor in his campaign for Texas Governor was no less an influential person than oil billionaire H.L. Hunt.

Hunt himself was also a radio talk-show host, with his program, "Life Line," which was a stridently Anticommunist propaganda series.

So, even if General Walker didn't have a national following -- the intention of his political backer, H.L. Hunt suggests that a national backing was planned for Walker in 1961 and 1962.

You mention the fact that JBS founder Robert Welch distanced himself from General Walker -- but that was only in early 1963, after JFK and RFK had sent Walker to an insane asylum for his role in the racial riots at Ole Miss University.  That was a late development.  Walker had become a liability to the Rightist propaganda cause -- among the mainstream.

Your portrait compresses time, Ernie.  If we spread out 1961 and 1962 as we should, then we can see a widespread recognition of General Walker, starting with that 1961 Newsweek cover that I shared, and continuing through his campaign for Texas Governor -- and finally crashing with the racial riots at Ole Miss in late 1962.

Furthermore, even before that Newsweek cover, while Walker was still a US General, many right-wing journalists spoke up for Walker publicly, including William F. Buckley, Jr., in his magazine, National Review.   Buckley was enthused about the Walker case in mid-1961, as long as Walker was still in the Military.  Only after Walker resigned did Buckley lose interest -- because then, said Buckley, Walker was only one more civilian at that point.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

H.L. Hunt sponsored and was a politcal backer of many people and you can make a case that his financial support and promotion of them made Hunt somebody with "political influence".  However, Hunt never transferred that patina of respectability and competence to Walker -- so your citation of Hunt is NOT compelling evidence of anything.  By contrast (for example) you could legitimately claim that Hunt made the career of Dan Smoot after Smoot retired from the FBI.

Your timeline is TOTALLY incorrect with respect to Robert Welch and the JBS.  There were three relevant factors:

1.  UNLIKE other individuals whom Robert Welch thought were deserving of JBS support when they came under attack (such as when Medford Evans was fired by his university), Welch never set up or even suggested that Birchers begin a defense organization for Walker (circa 1961)

2.  By October 8, 1962, (not 1963 as you falsely claim) Welch had already written a memo to all JBS National Council members stating that Walker was taking advice from people whom, if Walker continued to listen to them, would discredit the conservative movement.

3.  You will notice that the JBS did NOT sponsor Walker speeches.  Instead, Walker had to accept the support of Billy James Hargis and white supremacist groups.

Lastly, nothing you have written has actually addressed your original comment -- i.e. that Walker exercised "political influence" within the radical right.  Yes, of course, the radical right reflexively supported Walker (at least at first) but the more mainstream elements (such as Young Americans For Freedom and William Buckley) quickly dissociated themselves from Walker AND, more importantly, the major conservative organizations of that period never invited Walker to speak to their followers or contribute any articles to their publications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

In 1964, Robert Welch spoke at a Rightist rally in Oklahoma along with Billy James Hargis and Ex-General Walker.  The cause was the campaign of Barry Goldwater. 

So the break in late 1962 was not absolute.

As for the exact date of Welch's official break with Walker, you're right.  it was seven days after JFK sent Walker to an insane asylum.

But Walker was acquitted in January, 1964.  In just a matter of months they were on speaking terms again -- evidently.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...