New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

Just to digress for a moment to a related subject, can anyone doubt J Edgar Hoover's hatred of MLK? Does anyone think that MLK's assassination was the work of James Earl Ray all on his own?

I bring this up because I am reading what in my mind are false dichotomies. The idea that there are sharp lines of distinction between heads of the FBI, CIA, ONI, SISS (members of the U.S. Senate such as James Eastland or attorneys such as Robert Morris or Sourwine) and the radical right or racist right is to me just more of the same obfuscation that has prevented us all these years from naming the guilty. The main difference between US government racists and private racists is that the former distance themselves from the latter because it is necessary for their survival. It is a form of plausible deniability.

I applaud Caulfield for his research. Garrison never struck me as racist. He suggests that Garrison was not intimidated, but rather in sympathy with the racist right. Hancock suggests it might have been intimidation. I suggest he was merely looking to go up the food chain to the top.

Well, Paul B., I think it may be too early to "cut to the chase" in Jeff Caufield's new book, but it is worthwhile to review your questions from last week on the topic of the Radical Right theory of the JFK assassination.

I don't think anybody doubts J. Edgar Hoover's hatred of MLK, because history shows its reality. Even the sympathetic treatment of Hoover by Clint Eastwood's movie, J. Edgar (2011), admitted as much. As for the assassination of MLK, it was enough that Hoover looked the other way for a few moments -- that's all it took for the countless enemies of MLK to accomplish their deed (for which James Earl Ray became their Patsy).

I think Ray was guilty, but like Oswald, had accomplices. Again, I think that J. Edgar Hoover lacked the will to go after the Radical Right in the USA. We tend to forget how powerful the Anti-segregationist forces were back in 1963. As Jeff Caufield said in Doug Campbell's new podcast, the Segregationist forces would have re-ignited the Civil War if they thought they had a chance. The Brown Decision became a rallying cry that revived the flying of the Confederate Flag in the USA.

Also, according to Jeff Caufield, it was precisely the Segregationists that killed JFK -- starting with Guy Banister, Joseph Milteer and General Walker.

The fact that Lee Harvey Oswald stamped "544 Camp Street" on his Fake FPCC fliers (as Jim Garrison heroically announced back in 1968) is the smoking gun. It is real proof.

If there were racists in the CIA, I wouldn't be surprised, but it was against the law to be a Segregationist in political office since Earl Warren's 1954 Brown Decision -- a landmark in US history. A racist CIA or FBI official would know he had to watch his behavior very carefully. It was mandatory to conceal one's racism under the banner of "Anti-Communism," (which again argues for the passive aggressive cowardice of the killers of Medgar Evers, JFK and MLK).

But the times were very clear -- Little Rock High School required *thousands* of US Troops to enforce the Brown Decision (and General Walker was there). Also, Ole Miss University required *thousands* of US Troops to enforce the Brown Decision (and General Walker was there).

This was the key issue of 1963, according to Jeff Caufield. I think we should give him some room to make his case -- which has been pretty well hushed up for the past 50 years.

As for Jim Garrison himself -- anybody in politics in the South in the 1960's had no choice but to compromise with the active and vocal Segregationists, who were often the majority (Supreme Court or not). However, Jim Garrison himself was a *Catholic* and that is a major difference between Garrison and people like Guy Banister.

This is because when the racist Catholics in Louisiana started a movement against the Brown Decision in the late 1950's, the Catholic Bishop of Louisiana threatened them all with Excommunication! So, they disbanded right away!

Catholic doctrine insists that all races are equal under God. In the South, only some of the Protestant sects believed in the equality of races -- and some believed that Genesis 9:25 curses Black Americans to be servants forever. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies many Christian sects still active in the South that believe that only white people are human beings. So, old Dixie still sputters on.

Jim Garrison wasn't one of the racists -- but he didn't want to get shot in the back in his driveway, either.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. I think Paul mis-characterizes Hoover, or, more to the point -- Paul does not make a careful distinction between what might have been Hoover's personal opinions regarding any particular person or subject matter versus how the FBI (as an institution) behaved.

2. In 1963, the FBI had 6045 Special Agents. It strains credulity to believe that all 6045 Agents were bigots who had no genuine interest in competently and thoroughly investigating and solving crimes.

3. Yes, Hoover was an exceptionally strong administrator and a very savvy bureaucrat but he did not personally investigate anything. He (and the FBI) relied upon those 6045 Special Agents along with information provided by thousands of informants plus data which originated from numerous other sources.

4. With respect to this comment by Paul:

"Again, I think that J. Edgar Hoover lacked the will to go after the Radical Right in the USA. We tend to forget how powerful the Anti-segregationist forces were back in 1963. As Jeff Caufield said in Doug Campbell's new podcast, the Segregationist forces would have re-ignited the Civil War if they thought they had a chance. The Brown Decision became a rallying cry that revived the flying of the Confederate Flag in the USA. Also, according to Jeff Caufield, it was precisely the Segregationists that killed JFK -- starting with Guy Banister, Joseph Milteer and General Walker."

4.1 = What does Paul mean by "lacked the will to go after the Radical Right in the USA"? What crimes by the radical right (that fell under FBI jurisdiction) did the FBI refuse to investigate?

4.2 = If "segregationist forces" were so "powerful" in 1963, then why bother murdering anybody? Murder is not normally something proposed as a solution to some problem by someone whom thinks of himself as "powerful". Instead, the precise opposite is the more likely explanation, i.e. murder becomes a viable option because the aggrieved party(ies) feel that they cannot prevail through non-violent methods (i.e. elections, persuasion, building coalitions, and legislative remedies).

4.3 = I know Paul really believes that, in 1963, some sort of renewed "civil war" could have been triggered and (presumably) Paul thinks that thousands upon thousands of fanatical right-wingers were ready, willing, and able to take to the streets to start a new anti-government insurrection but, frankly, this is pure fantasy on Paul's part. I admit that such a proposed scenario certainly enlivens a discussion but let's briefly discuss the REALITY

4.4. = What support could anti-JFK forces reasonably expect in 1963?

Here is a brief summary of Gallup polls from that period:

• JFK was enormously popular in early 1963. In February, he had a 70% approval rating!
• His ratings for handling foreign policy and handling domestic problems were equally high (64%) and most Americans (56%) were satisfied with the way he was handling the situation in Cuba.
• In March 1963, 74% of Americans expected him to be reelected – He held a whopping 67% to 27% lead over Goldwater in Gallup's test election.
• The country was heavily Democratic (54% compared with 25% Republican) and it had been that way since the 1930's
• The Democratic Party was seen as more likely to keep the country prosperous than the Republicans (49% to 20%)

4.5 = SUPPOSE that some radical right-wing extremists decided to take violent actions What, exactly, could they expect to accomplish?

• Is Paul suggesting that a group of Robert DePugh's well-armed Minutemen could overpower their local police or their state's National Guard?
• Is Paul suggesting that radical right-wing extremists could convince hundreds of thousands of like-minded persons to start a revolution? And do what? Overthrow their state government? And secede from the United States? You could argue that such individuals got a taste of what would happen to them and their "revolt" during October 1962 at the University of Mississippi

4.6 = What Paul seems to not understand about our country is that there ALWAYS will be a disaffected group who believes that our nation is going to hell. There ALWAYS are persons and organizations who use doom-shaped rhetoric to describe our imminent demise as a free society. [i created a webpage to give readers a taste of that history -- see: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/doom

But it is also true that Americans, as a collective group, (and democracies in general) recoil in disgust and anger against ANYBODY (left or right) who advocates, condones, or uses violence---EVEN WHEN there are undisputed legitimate grievances apparent.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

For some reason, J. Edgar Hoover chose not to prosecute the JFK Killers -- the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald -- in the murder of JFK.

I say part of Hoover's reason was that the Radical Right was too powerful in 1963 -- that is, because the JBS and other Rightist groups were now supported by an armed militia known as the Minutemen -- and their actual size was still unknown. But there was even more to it.

Harry Dean was a member of the Minutemen in Southern California in 1963, in which he recognized several members of the JBS in their ranks. Harry says the Minutemen performed paramilitary exercises in woodland areas all around the USA.

If (and only if) these Rightist elements were leaders of the JFK Kill Team (which is the thesis of this new book by Jeff Caufield), then we must ask why J. Edgar Hoover decided to blame the entire JFK assassination on Lee Harvey Oswald -- by calling Oswald the "Lone Nut."

The material evidence -- as amply shown in the past half-century -- shows that Oswald could not have acted alone. There clearly were accomplices. Insofar as those accomplices were the leaders of the Radical Right wing, we must try to explain why Hoover refused to prosecute them.

IMHO, we have two broad choices: (1) the FBI was involved with the JFK Kill Team -- this is one of the most prevalent conspiracy theories in the past 50 years; and (2) the FBI was honestly concerned about National Security -- which is exactly what they told us.

Now -- if the Radical Right killed JFK, and if FBI was truly concerned about National Security, then one logical conclusion is that J. Edgar Hoover believed that the Radical Right was too powerful for the FBI to take down.

That is, Hoover was worried about the size, scope and extent of the Minutemen, such that the FBI didn't have enough men to control them, coast to coast.

Now -- one might object, "So what? If the FBI was too small to tackle the Minutemen, then just send in some Federal Troops, or the US Army!"

But that explains the whole issue! This was the Cold War! To send the US Army against the Minutemen would give the impression of a Civil War in the USA, and that would have tempted the USSR to interfere, and that could have been the start of World War III.

I believe that's intuitively obvious to the objective observer.

J. Edgar Hoover refused to prosecute the Radical Right in the murder of JFK, in order to prevent riots in the streets of America -- and ultimately to prevent a Civil War during the Cold War which could have turned into a World War.

I think that's just common sense.

Now, I don't know what Jeff Caufield will say about this. Also, I prefer to continue our slow-read of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, and in particular, push through Chapter 3, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Nazis.

I know Paul Brancato wants to "cut to the chase," and I say he's welcome to do so on his own. But for my part, I'll stick with the slow-read.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, you do understand that the FBI could not prosecute anyone...that it was not a Federal crime...that if it had been the prosecution would have been a Justice Department responsibility. The FBI is an investigative arm and in regard to the assassination was tasked with collecting information and writing a report - specifically tasked with writing a report on Oswald alone as of Sunday. That was not Hoover's decision, in fact he wanted to tweak the report to leave an opening to address a Communist conspiracy and Johnson didn't buy into that. If for some reason Hoover had produced solid evidence identifying some group of Minutemen I'm pretty sure there would have been sufficient force available to deal with taking them into custody....do you think the country would not have supported that...?

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - you did not in the least address my last post. Your theory explaining why the rightist killers were not pursued is illogical on its face.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, you do understand that the FBI could not prosecute anyone...that it was not a Federal crime...that if it had been the prosecution would have been a Justice Department responsibility. The FBI is an investigative arm and in regard to the assassination was tasked with collecting information and writing a report - specifically tasked with writing a report on Oswald alone as of Sunday. That was not Hoover's decision, in fact he wanted to tweak the report to leave an opening to address a Communist conspiracy and Johnson didn't buy into that. If for some reason Hoover had produced solid evidence identifying some group of Minutemen I'm pretty sure there would have been sufficient force available to deal with taking them into custody....do you think the country would not have supported that...?

I was going to reply to Trejo's message in detail by pointing out (yet again) the irrational and false premises contained in Paul's message -- but I think Larry has succinctly summarized some of the most defective aspects.

With respect to the Minutemen:

At some point, we have to recognize the absurd reductionist fallacy in Paul's argument. Even if you uncritically accept the most extravagant claims made regarding the total number of MM members in our entire country circa 1963 -- the MM number was only about one-third of the numerical strength of the police force in just one of our nation's largest cities. [We won't even discuss the number of MM "members" who were elderly or who were listed only because they had requested MM literature or persons who never completed their member application process but who were, nevertheless, counted as "members" by DePugh].

Apparently, in Paul Trejoland, a tiny group of right-wing fanatics could overpower their local police, their state police, their state National Guard and the U.S. military.

ALSO: Just for the education of Paul -- who claims that the FBI would be overwhelmed and could not possibly cope with MM (from coast to coast):

Paul -- please do some research into the FBI's Custodial Detention Program which was created during World War II. By March 1943 (for example), the FBI had apprehended 12,662 Germans, Japanese and Italians. The FBI at that time had a total force of 4591 Special Agents but only a portion of those Agents were required to detain those 12,662 individuals.

Keep in mind that the FBI obtained (from three separate sources) a copy of the MM membership list. Any conceivable problem which the MM might pose would certainly have been easily addressed by the FBI---if they needed to become involved.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, you do understand that the FBI could not prosecute anyone...that it was not a Federal crime...that if it had been the prosecution would have been a Justice Department responsibility. The FBI is an investigative arm and in regard to the assassination was tasked with collecting information and writing a report - specifically tasked with writing a report on Oswald alone as of Sunday. That was not Hoover's decision, in fact he wanted to tweak the report to leave an opening to address a Communist conspiracy and Johnson didn't buy into that. If for some reason Hoover had produced solid evidence identifying some group of Minutemen I'm pretty sure there would have been sufficient force available to deal with taking them into custody....do you think the country would not have supported that...?

Of course, Larry, I know that the FBI itself doesn't prosecute -- they only *arrest* so that the Justice Department can prosecute -- but my point was quite different.

When it came to picking up suspects -- the police function -- that was the FBI duty. So -- confronted with the heavily armed Militia that was the Minutemen -- if the FBI had to round them up (for prosecution by the JD) the question was this: did Hoover have enough FBI Agents coast to coast?

There were potentially tens of thousands of armed Minutemen, coast-to-coast. Could the FBI really move in on them? Could the FBI disarm them? Could the FBI arrest their leaders -- or even identify them?

I think J. Edgar Hoover doubted he had enough FBI Agents. Furthermore, for many in the South, the murder of JFK was cause for joy, not sorrow -- and a reason to resist cooperating with the FBI rather than to cooperate.

I think the task of pursuing-the-Minutemen-for-prosecution (which is what I meant, clearly) would have fallen to the FBI, and I also think that J. Edgar Hoover didn't believe he had the resources for that.

[With reply to Ernie, I seem to recall FBI documents which show that FBI didn't have a firm estimate on how many Minutemen there really were -- it was *unclear* in 1963.]

That means that Hoover would have had to ask LBJ to call in the US Army. But *that* would have smacked of Civil War.

I respectfully disagree with your estimates that there were enough FBI agents in the USA in 1963 to arrest-and-or-shut-down the Minutemen Paramilitary camps coast to coast without calling in the Military.

Again -- it's not a question of whether the USA would have supported Hoover -- we would have. The question is whether this sort of Civil Unrest was viable at the peak of the Cold War.

One mustn't forget the looming specter of the USSR in 1963. They have vanished today, but in 1963 they were the Global Enemy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - you did not in the least address my last post. Your theory explaining why the rightist killers were not pursued is illogical on its face.

Well, Paul B., I did see your last challenge -- that my theory is "illogical."

I maintain that my theory perfectly logical. What's illogical is to forget that the USSR was looming above the Global Politics of 1963, and that they would have jumped at the chance to interfere.

Your argument only looked at the domestic issue -- of course the US Military could have taken down the Minutemen in a few weeks. As a Civil War in 1963 it would have lasted weeks instead of years -- if and only if there was no Cold War going on in 1963.

I say it's illogical to ignore the fact of the Cold War and the likelihood of the USSR interfering with Civil Unrest in the USA involving Anti-Communism in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, certainly Hoover could not have legally proceeded generically against all Minutemen any more than he could have proceeded against all the Klansmen in Mississippi over civil rights crimes. He could only have investigated individuals, eventually creating cases against individuals who then would have been subject to legal action. Which is exactly what the FBI did with arrests of dozens of armed and very violent Klan members across Mississippi.....with no physical resistance on their part much less some general armed insurgency or uprising.

Even In your scenario all the Minutemen in the country didn't kill JFK - even if they wanted to - at best three or four individuals might have been charged with murder and a handful of others as accessories....how you generalize that to potential military action against every armed Minuteman is beyond me. Also, if memory serves, there were multiple instances of Minutemen and other ultra right group leaders being arrested and tried for crimes without their supporters rushing to engage in their armed defense.

As to the USSR in 1963, they fully understood the immense strategic military advantage held by he United States, it had been demonstrated to them only a year before and was even more pronounced in 1963. Their ability to "tamper" with American civil matters was also minimal at that point in time.... I'm pretty sure Hoover had the means and will to round up a few dozen Commie agitators along with a dozen or so Kennedy conspirators - even without calling out the National Guard, much less the Army.

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I don't buy that at all. No way was Hoover worried that the USSR would interfere. And in any case, if they had it would have been against the very same forces that killed our president. How would Kruschchev, a man in communication and sympathy with JFK, have intervened? Perhaps invade West Berlin? What else? Sounds good on paper, but it's an argument that cannot be backed up with possible negative repercussions. Much more logical to assume that some of the planners were untouchable.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, you do understand that the FBI could not prosecute anyone...that it was not a Federal crime...that if it had been the prosecution would have been a Justice Department responsibility. The FBI is an investigative arm and in regard to the assassination was tasked with collecting information and writing a report - specifically tasked with writing a report on Oswald alone as of Sunday. That was not Hoover's decision, in fact he wanted to tweak the report to leave an opening to address a Communist conspiracy and Johnson didn't buy into that. If for some reason Hoover had produced solid evidence identifying some group of Minutemen I'm pretty sure there would have been sufficient force available to deal with taking them into custody....do you think the country would not have supported that...?

Of course, Larry, I know that the FBI itself doesn't prosecute -- they only *arrest* so that the Justice Department can prosecute -- but my point was quite different.

When it came to picking up suspects -- the police function -- that was the FBI duty. So -- confronted with the heavily armed Militia that was the Minutemen -- if the FBI had to round them up (for prosecution by the JD) the question was this: did Hoover have enough FBI Agents coast to coast?

There were potentially tens of thousands of armed Minutemen, coast-to-coast. Could the FBI really move in on them? Could the FBI disarm them? Could the FBI arrest their leaders -- or even identify them?

I think J. Edgar Hoover doubted he had enough FBI Agents. Furthermore, for many in the South, the murder of JFK was cause for joy, not sorrow -- and a reason to resist cooperating with the FBI rather than to cooperate.

I think the task of pursuing-the-Minutemen-for-prosecution (which is what I meant, clearly) would have fallen to the FBI, and I also think that J. Edgar Hoover didn't believe he had the resources for that.

That means that Hoover would have had to ask LBJ to call in the US Army. But *that* would have smacked of Civil War.

I respectfully disagree with your estimates that there were enough FBI agents in the USA in 1963 to arrest-and-or-shut-down the Minutemen Paramilitary camps coast to coast without calling in the Military.

Again -- it's not a question of whether the USA would have supported Hoover -- we would have. The question is whether this sort of Civil Unrest was viable at the peak of the Cold War.

One mustn't forget the looming specter of the USSR in 1963. They have vanished today, but in 1963 they were the Global Enemy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- once again, I suggest that you do some research into our actual history instead of you presenting everything as an abstract intellectual argument. My comments appear underneath your quotes (blue font):

"When it came to picking up suspects -- the police function -- that was the FBI duty. So -- confronted with the heavily armed Militia that was the Minutemen -- if the FBI had to round them up (for prosecution by the JD) the question was this: did Hoover have enough FBI Agents coast to coast?"

(1) Why don't you give us some idea about what research you have done concerning how law enforcement in general (and the FBI in particular) planned to deal with the type of problem you are proposing we consider? For example: how did the FBI plan to cope with "tens of thousands" of CPUSA members and sympathizers during the 1940's and 1950's in the event of a national emergency (i.e. their Custodial Detention Program)?

"There were potentially tens of thousands of armed Minutemen, coast-to-coast. Could the FBI really move in on them? Could the FBI disarm them? Could the FBI arrest their leaders -- or even identify them?"

(2) First of all, there were not "tens of thousands of armed Minutemen coast-to-coast." You vastly exaggerate their numbers and not all of them were "armed" nor is there any reason to believe that they would all be prepared to shoot and kill their own local and state law enforcement officers or their National Guard or U.S. Marshals, or State Police or even FBI Agents

(3) What are you actually proposing? You are being very ambiguous (purposely I suppose). Are you proposing that every MM member in our entire country would decide to leave their homes and their jobs (with their guns) at precisely the same time of day and then go to their nearest police station or FBI office or Mayor's office to confront anybody who challenged them? What, precisely, would be their game plan, their objective?

(4) Let' suppose that each MM member leaves home with two handguns and 100 rounds of ammunition. Let's suppose that in our largest cities, 200 or 300 MM went into the streets. How many do you suppose would be shot dead or incapacitated? For the remaining MM, what happens when their 100-bullets were expended? Do they surrender? And then what? Are you suggesting that when they are arraigned for seditious conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, assault, resisting arrest, or a dozen or more other charges -- that they would be granted bail?

(5) You are proposing that we consider all MM members/sympathizers as one undifferentiated mass of individuals -- i.e. every one of them would think alike, and make the same behavior choices so they would become like the townspeople in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But we know from endless studies, that political extremists (left or right) do NOT process information in identical fashion. Some prefer to express their anger in words and protest demonstrations. Some will show solidarity by contributing money or supplies or agreeing to boycotts but they will not be actual participants---especially in illegal activities. [see Harry Dean for example]. Some might even agree to participate in NON-violent civil disobedience BUT when push-comes-to-shove, some decide against participation--and, in fact, some become informants and "spill the beans" to law enforcement (in advance of, OR, after the events). Again, see Harry Dean.

"I think J. Edgar Hoover doubted he had enough FBI Agents. Furthermore, for many in the South, the murder of JFK was cause for joy, not sorrow -- and a reason to resist cooperating with the FBI rather than to cooperate."

(6) Instead of telling us what you "think" -- why can't you QUOTE something Hoover wrote or said? Or something written or said by ANY senior official at FBI HQ? As I have written many times -- FICTION WRITERS can propose ANYTHING. Non-fiction writers are constrained by rules of evidence and logic -- and must SEARCH FOR verifiable factual information to support their contentions. So...if you really believe that Hoover "doubted he had enough FBI Agents" -- then give us some documentary evidence to support your contention --- and tell us what research you have done into comparable situations which the FBI faced. Tell us also, exactly what number of FBI Agents you conclude would be required (in addition to other law enforcement resources).

"I think the task of pursuing-the-Minutemen-for-prosecution (which is what I meant, clearly) would have fallen to the FBI, and I also think that J. Edgar Hoover didn't believe he had the resources for that."

(7) WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? Exactly what "resources" did the FBI require? Tell us specifically what you believe would NOT be available to the FBI that would be required!

"That means that Hoover would have had to ask LBJ to call in the US Army. But *that* would have smacked of Civil War."

(8) Sorry, Paul, that is NOT how it works. AGAIN: Check out the history of the Custodial Detention Program -- to discover what law enforcement resources were going to be used to apprehend tens of thousands of Americans. ALSO: check out the Palmer Raids and the FBI's Security Index. The FBI had very detailed plans regarding what would happen in the event of national emergency, i.e. how they planned to apprehend and detain tens of thousands of Communists and Communist sympathizers.

"I respectfully disagree with your estimates that there were enough FBI agents in the USA in 1963 to arrest-and-or-shut-down the Minutemen Paramilitary camps coast to coast without calling in the Military."

(9) But your disagreement does not mean squat unless and until you can convince us that you have legitimate factual knowledge concerning exactly how many such alleged MM "camps" existed AND if you have direct first-hand knowledge regarding each and every person who attended those camps and how they planned to behave once confronted by law enforcement AND exactly what plans existed within the FBI to carry out mass arrests?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Larry said it better than me.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, certainly Hoover could not have legally proceeded generically against all Minutemen any more than he could have proceeded against all the Klansmen in Mississippi over civil rights crimes. He could only have investigated individuals, eventually creating cases against individuals who then would have been subject to legal action. Which is exactly what the FBI did with arrests of dozens of armed and very violent Klan members across Mississippi.....with no physical resistance on their part much less some general armed insurgency or uprising.

Even In your scenario all the Minutemen in the country didn't kill JFK - even if they wanted to - at best three or four individuals might have been charged with murder and a handful of others as accessories....how you generalize that to potential military action against every armed Minuteman is beyond me. Also, if memory serves, there were multiple instances of Minutemen and other ultra right group leaders being arrested and tried for crimes without their supporters rushing to engage in their armed defense.

As to the USSR in 1963, they fully understood the immense strategic military advantage held by he United States, it had been demonstrated to them only a year before and was even more pronounced in 1963. Their ability to "tamper" with American civil matters was also minimal at that point in time.... I'm pretty sure Hoover had the means and will to round up a few dozen Commie agitators along with a dozen or so Kennedy conspirators - even without calling out the National Guard, much less the Army.

Larry -- you are using actual history and logic against somebody who believes in neither.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, certainly Hoover could not have legally proceeded generically against all Minutemen any more than he could have proceeded against all the Klansmen in Mississippi over civil rights crimes. He could only have investigated individuals, eventually creating cases against individuals who then would have been subject to legal action. Which is exactly what the FBI did with arrests of dozens of armed and very violent Klan members across Mississippi.....with no physical resistance on their part much less some general armed insurgency or uprising.

Even In your scenario all the Minutemen in the country didn't kill JFK - even if they wanted to - at best three or four individuals might have been charged with murder and a handful of others as accessories....how you generalize that to potential military action against every armed Minuteman is beyond me. Also, if memory serves, there were multiple instances of Minutemen and other ultra right group leaders being arrested and tried for crimes without their supporters rushing to engage in their armed defense.

As to the USSR in 1963, they fully understood the immense strategic military advantage held by he United States, it had been demonstrated to them only a year before and was even more pronounced in 1963. Their ability to "tamper" with American civil matters was also minimal at that point in time.... I'm pretty sure Hoover had the means and will to round up a few dozen Commie agitators along with a dozen or so Kennedy conspirators - even without calling out the National Guard, much less the Army.

Well, you can't really compare the KKK with the Minutemen in this scenario, Larry, because in this scenario we're talking about the murder of JFK, the President of the USA.

With the KKK, the concerns were clearly domestic -- local to the USA.

With the JFK murder, the concerns were global, and they involved the USSR.

In other words, the Cold War was the key element in the JFK murder. I still think that you're ignoring the elephant in the room -- the USSR.

It wasn't just a matter of rounding up a few Minutemen and General Walker and charging them with the murder of JFK -- because the Minutemen (as Harry Dean tells us) from coast to coast were praying for the death of JFK. It was a political movement on the National scale -- not a local issue like the KKK.

Remember, too, that General Walker, after his riots at Ole Miss, just walked away scot free, with all charges dropped. (JFK sent Walker to an insane asylum after those riots, but the ACLU got Walker out in only three days). In January, 1963, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Walker of all charges in the deadly Ole Miss riots.

Remember, too, that General Walker, after his humiliation of Adlai Stevenson, walked away scot free only one month before the murder of JFK. Walker wasn't even charged at all. I think you underestimate the support that Walker had among the Radical Right in the USA (especially in Dallas and the South) and the vast numbers of the Radical Right, fueled by the paranoia over Global Communism.

The FBI didn't want to fight the Minutemen. That should be crystal clear. But more to the point -- if the FBI had arrested the leaders of the Radical Right with the murder of JFK (as they should have) that would have started a political backlash during the Cold War. The USSR would have stuck their nose in.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, having just published two books studying the sixty year history of both covert and military confrontations with the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation I can assure you I'm not ignoring the Soviets and in 1963 they were most definitely an elephant in any room in 63 - in fact their strategic weakness was so great their leadership had made a hugely risky play to add at least a minimal level of balance by secretly deploying missiles to Cuba a year earlier...and they were still jockeying internally from that embarrassment. It would be several years before they moved back into a position of at least parity. They had no leverage to stick their nose in American affairs in 63 and after Cuba their nose was actually pretty well busted at that point in time.

And yes, I can equate the FBI's response in Mississippi burning to the potential arrest of a dozen or so ultra right Kennedy conspirators....because that is history, and documented in many instances when the FBI moved to arrest and take right wing leaders into custody. You might want to take a look at when that actually happened to Minutemen leaders only a few years later....not much sign of any armed resistance there. I don't underestimate any right wing support, especially in the south and in Texas - I was living there in 1963 and saw a good deal of it in person. My brother was at Little Rock, in the Army, he followed orders there and enforced the law just as did the other soldiers, many from the south. Many of the US marshals and FBI officers at the U of Mississippi were from the south, they may not have liked it but they did their duty and enforced the law. Stu and I interviewed a number of them for our research on AGOG...you might try asking their opinion or any Bureau officers opinion about the ability of the FBI to confront and arrest ultra right leaders as necessary.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, having just published two books studying the sixty year history of both covert and military confrontations with the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation I can assure you I'm not ignoring the Soviets and in 1963 they were most definitely an elephant in any room in 63 - in fact their strategic weakness was so great their leadership had made a hugely risky play to add at least a minimal level of balance by secretly deploying missiles to Cuba a year earlier...and they were still jockeying internally from that embarrassment. It would be several years before they moved back into a position of at least parity. They had no leverage to stick their nose in American affairs in 63 and after Cuba their nose was actually pretty well busted at that point in time.

And yes, I can equate the FBI's response in Mississippi burning to the potential arrest of a dozen or so ultra right Kennedy conspirators....because that is history, and documented in many instances when the FBI moved to arrest and take right wing leaders into custody. You might want to take a look at when that actually happened to Minutemen leaders only a few years later....not much sign of any armed resistance there. I don't underestimate any right wing support, especially in the south and in Texas - I was living there in 1963 and saw a good deal of it in person. My brother was at Little Rock, in the Army, he followed orders there and enforced the law just as did the other soldiers, many from the south. Many of the US marshals and FBI officers at the U of Mississippi were from the south, they may not have liked it but they did their duty and enforced the law. Stu and I interviewed a number of them for our research on AGOG...you might try asking their opinion or any Bureau officers opinion about the ability of the FBI to confront and arrest ultra right leaders as necessary.

Once again, Larry, I feel I must repeat that this isn't about Mississippi Burning, but about the murder of the President of the USA.

Even though, as you note, the USSR was on the ropes in 1963, they were still the second most powerful nation in the world, and the only other Nuclear Superpower.

These are Global Issues we are dealing with in the JFK murder, not domestic issues.

You and I both lived through the Cold War period, Larry, so we both have first-hand experience of the Zeitgeist. I wonder how you can imagine that the USSR through the CPUSA would have refrained from taking a side if the FBI had attacked the Minutemen, and had blamed the Radical Right in the USA for the murder of JFK (instead of a "Lone Nut").

I remember, as late as 1978, that the CPUSA was boasting about how their work against the Vietnam War was the crucial element in ending that war. The CPUSA was intensely active in Cold War politics, and if the JFK murder had become politicized (instead of blaming everything on a "Lone Nut") then I'm 100% certain that the CPUSA would have become involved, and the USSR by proxy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo