Review of Joan Mellen's new book on LBJ

[James DiEugenio]

J. Evetts Haley was a great American?

The guy who called the New Deal socialism, and was anti integration into the sixties?

If that is your definition of a Great American then one has to ask: Were you also a John Birch Society member as he was?

As per Darby and Harrison:

What I am saying about the first is simply that his work on the JFK case would seem to me to be superseded by Garrett's for two reasons: 1.) The quality of his materials and 2.) The better technology we have today.

How is that a personal smear?

About Jay Harrison, I am simply asking an empirical question: What did the guy ever produce as far as scholarly work is concerned?

That is not a smear. It is a fair and objective question.

Which has not been answered.

And BTW, Hoffmeister's declaration of recantation is in Joan's book. He specifically states that the quality of the materials rendered were simply not adequate and therefore allowed for varying estimates of matches.

Edited October 3, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

GN: And Wallace is known to have "dated" LBJ's wacky-named sister... don't you find all of these "coincidences" a bit smelly? After a time, all the tedious explanations of tedious coincidences start to ring hollow, no matter how factual they may be...

​This is another point Joan goes into. According to her, it was Kinser who had the sexual relationship with Johnson's sister. That is because he was trying to use her to get a government loan to expand his golf course. (pgs. 81-82)

​Joan writes that Wallace, working for the Agriculture Dept. at the time, was supposed to keep an eye out for Josefa through a LBJ crony named Horace Busby. It does not appear that he had the same kind of relationship with Josefa as Kinser had. Kinser seems to have been a real player.

Since, among others, he was fooling around with Wallace's wife.

I think it had already established that Kinser was hooked up with Josefa (how do i forget a name like that??). This is not news.

your points simply speak to the only point I'm making, that there was a "less-than-honorable," significant relationship between him and LBJ (not that LBJ had many - or any - "more-than-honorable," or "equal-to-honorable" relationships).

but not to my question: don't you find such coincidences just a bit fishy, in terms of odds and all that...?

I don't know a thing about Joan Mellen other than her quite versatile bibliography; I'm only trying to establish differences between folklore and fact, without an agenda. (Not an accusation, just a clarification, as it is that agenda often plays a role in much of this research...)

[Glenn Nall]

And [Joan Mellen] found out about the circumstances of that trial, things that no one has ever written about before. Namely that there was a ringer on the jury.

James,

Didn't the "ringer" ask for a life imprisonment? (As opposed to the rest of the jury, who asked for the death sentence.)

And then didn't the judge overrule the jury and give Wallace only a 5 year sentence? After which he suspended the sentence and immediately freed Wallace?

That is not the way Joan presents it in her book. (Pgs. 103-04)

And this is the problem I have with people who critique someone's work without reading it. And also relying on what I call the folklore in the field.

May I ask another question:

Who the heck is Jay Harrison? Did he ever write a book? Did he publish any essays in any journals?

Did he ever compile any indexes to files?

I mean even Mary Ferrell published a couple of essays.

I am not one to be overly impressed by how many binders a researcher accumulates.

well, now, aren't these some odd prerequisites... must needs to have published something to be considered 'reputable?' Does that mean that those who have published something have brownie points toward a "Reputable Researcher" nametag? Because I've read some real crap, from pathetic writing to pathetic expectations of sensible readers to pathetically indulged delusion. There are several nametags I can think of that some deserve. "Reputable" is not one of them.

If a person has never published something, does he have to tee-off from the back tee? Must he be extra-diligent in his citations?

I published an essay once, on why my puppy only destroys my living room when I'm asleep and still acts as if she's the most adorable puppy on Glenn's planet (she is).

Does that count?

[Glenn Nall]

Just a question:

What exactly is the significance of "proving" that Mac Wallace either was there or was not there, aside from gaining some real satisfaction if he is shown to have been there?

Where exactly does this get anyone?

Presence of a Mac Wallace print gives a clue as to what role Vice President Johnson played.

The presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint tells me that Johnson might have been blackmailed into cooperating with the assassination. It seems that blackmail was a popular method for the CIA at the time. For example, James Angleton had a photo of J. Edgar Hoover homosexually involved with a man.

have to respectfully question this, Sandy. Even hard proof that Wallace was there would not, in and of itself, connect LBJ to the assassination. Wallace surely had other "pals," and if he was there a closer connection to why and at whose motivation would be needed, to me.

Wallace's presence, if so, only tells me, in a procedural sense, that Wallace was there.

[Douglas Caddy]

Jim E.:

J. Evetts Haley was indeed a great American. His book, A Texan Looks At Lyndon, sold 7.5 million copies, making it one of the most successful books of all time.

Senator Barry Goldwater, like Haley, was also a great American. He termed President Eisenhower's domestic policies to be a "dime store New Deal" and voted against Civil Rights legislation. Later on his views moderated quite a bit (as did mine) so that at the time of his death he and I viewed the world the same way in most respects. Of course, I may be biased because Goldwater when being interviewed in Life Magazine by Gore Vidal in the June 9, 1961, issue ("A Liberal Interviews Senator Goldwater") was kind enough to single me out for special praise. My guess is that Goldwater today would be a card-carrying member of the ACLU as I am.

Here is Haley's Wikipedia biography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Evetts_Haley

To head off you spreading false information about me, I hereby declare that at no time was I ever a member of the John Birch Society. However, here is an interesting story. I was the National Director of Young Americans for Freedom after it was formed in1960. YAF's chairman was Robert Schuchman, a brilliant student at Yale University Law School. Schuchman soon after YAF's formation had occasion to have breakfast alone with Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb. The subject arose at breakfast of Robert Welch, who was head of the John Birch Society, calling President Eisenhower a communist. To Schuchman's shock and surprise, Teller said he agreed with Welch!

Teller, like Goldwater and Haley, was also a great American.

Teller for all his fame and power was a modest man and readily available to the public. I met him once when he spoke in Houston to a small gathering of about a dozen people although the announcement of his forthcoming speech had been widely publicized. I spoke with him for a few minutes after his speech.

The criteria for being a great American does not require that the American in question agree with your personal political or social views. So I believe FDR and George McGovern were great Americans, just as Goldwater and Haley.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Douglas Caddy

[Glenn Nall]

Jim:

Jay Harrison was a great American as were J. Evetts Haley and Nathan Darby, all of whom you never miss a chance to defame and villify. They are deceased but those of us who were privileged to know them are still able to speak up in their behalf.

Jim, you are an extremely talented researcher and writer, one of the best, but like Trump you undercut your effectiveness with personal attacks like these. Why do you want to alienate those would gladly boost your public persona except for these unwarranted attacks? As with Trump, this is puzzling as it is self-defeating.

In memory of these three great Americans, I am mailing to Robert Caro the most relevant documents that Jay compiled although I suspect that he already has these as he writes his fifth installment of the LBJ biography.

I cannot resist reiterating a couple of your sentences, Doug. I've been trying to categorize this man's campaign and veracity for a year now (Trump's not Jim's or Jay's):

"...but like Trump you undercut your effectiveness with personal attacks..."

"...unwarranted attacks? As with Trump, this is puzzling as it is self-defeating."

(One will note I didn't highlight "unwarranted," in the case of Trump's, only "self-defeating" and "undercutting effectiveness")

nearly perfect description, for me. Grateful.

my girdle is showing. I better chill.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

Jim E.:

J. Evetts Haley was indeed a great American. His book, A Texan Looks At Lyndon, sold 7.5 million copies, making it one of the most successful books of all time.

Senator Barry Goldwater, like Haley, was also a great American. He termed President Eisenhower's domestic policies to be a "dime store New Deal" and voted against Civil Rights legislation. Later on his views moderated quite a bit (as did mine) so that at the time of his death he and I viewed the world the same way in most respects. Of course, I may be biased because Goldwater when being interviewed in Life Magazine by Gore Vidal in the June 9, 1961, issue ("A Liberal Interviews Senator Goldwater") was kind enough to single me out for special praise. My guess is that Goldwater today would be a card-carrying member of the ACLU as I am.

Here is Haley's Wikipedia biography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Evetts_Haley

To head off you spreading false information about me, I hereby declare that at no time was I ever a member of the John Birch Society. However, here is an interesting story. I was the National Director of Young Americans for Freedom after it was formed in1960. YAF's chairman was Robert Schuchman, a brilliant student at Yale University Law School. Schuchman soon after YAF's formation had occasion to have breakfast alone with Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb. The subject arose at breakfast of Robert Welch, who was head of the John Birch Society, calling President Eisenhower a communist. To Schuchman's shock and surprise, Teller said he agreed with Welch!

Teller, like Goldwater and Haley, was also a great American.

Teller for all his fame and power was a modest man and readily available to the public. I met him once when he spoke in Houston to a small gathering of about a dozen people although the announcement of his forthcoming speech had been widely publicized. I spoke with him for a few minutes after his speech.

The criteria for being a great American does not require that the American in question agree with your personal political or social views. So I believe FDR and George McGovern were great Americans, just as Goldwater and Haley.

Isn't Haley's book the one that Ruby had in his jail cell...? just a fleeting memory of some sentence I read somewhere...

[Glenn Nall]

J. Evetts Haley was a great American?

The guy who called the New Deal socialism, and was anti integration into the sixties?

If that is your definition of a Great American then one has to ask: Were you also a John Birch Society member as he was?

As per Darby and Harrison:

What I am saying about the first is simply that his work on the JFK case would seem to me to be superseded by Garrett's for two reasons: 1.) The quality of his materials and 2.) The better technology we have today.

How is that a personal smear?

About Jay Harrison, I am simply asking an empirical question: What did the guy ever produce as far as scholarly work is concerned?

That is not a smear. It is a fair and objective question.

Which has not been answered.

And BTW, Hoffmeister's declaration of recantation is in Joan's book. He specifically states that the quality of the materials rendered were simply not adequate and therefore allowed for varying estimates of matches.

"fair and objective?" really?

[James DiEugenio]

Yes it is a fair and objective question.

Did you ever see Jay Harrison posting on any forums Glenn?

I have not.

Then how else do we get a measure of the guy and where he is coming from?

To give you an example which punctures your accusation against me:

There used to be a guy who posted on this forum who's name was Charles Dunne. To my knowledge he never wrote a book and I never saw any essay he wrote.

But I had the utmost respect for him as a writer and researcher--even though I disagreed with him at times-- because of the intelligent, quite informational and astute quality of his posting here.

I cannot say that about the late Jay Harrison. For the simple reason there is no way to measure what his ideas were and what the quality of his research was.

And then you say that somehow that does not matter? Sorry if I disagree with you. But I think that is the only rational way to measure someone, through empirical evidence.

Edited October 3, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

Yes it is a fair and objective question.

Did you ever see Jay Harrison posting on any forums Glenn?

I have not.

Then how else do we get a measure of the guy and where is he coming from.

To give you an example which punctures your accusation against me:

There used to be a guy who posted on this forum who's name was Charles Dunne. To my knowledge he never wrote a book and I never saw any essay he wrote.

But I had the utmost respect for him as a writer and researcher, because of the quite intelligent, and quite informational and astute quality of his posting here.

I cannot say that about the late Jay Harrison. For the simple reason there is no way to measure what his ideas were and what the quality of his research was.

And then you say that somehow that does not matter? Sorry if I disagree with you. But I think that is the only rational way to measure someone, through empirical evidence.

James, I clearly stated that there's no accusation against you, in this reply or another.

that's where I stopped reading.

[James DiEugenio]

Doug:

Because the John Birch Society helped Haley sell tons of books does not make him a Great American.

Jacquelinne Susann sold millions of books too; does that make her a Great American? How about Bill O'Reilly?

Haley was not a conservative. He was a rightwing extremist. I mean would you also call David Duke a conservative? Haley was slightly less rabid than Duke.

Which is why he wrote his book about LBJ when he did. Because he thought that, get this, LBJ was too liberal!

I wonder what the Vietnamese would think of that?

Edited October 4, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

And [Joan Mellen] found out about the circumstances of that trial, things that no one has ever written about before. Namely that there was a ringer on the jury.

James,

Didn't the "ringer" ask for a life imprisonment? (As opposed to the rest of the jury, who asked for the death sentence.)

And then didn't the judge overrule the jury and give Wallace only a 5 year sentence? After which he suspended the sentence and immediately freed Wallace?

That is not the way Joan presents it in her book. (Pgs. 103-04)

And this is the problem I have with people who critique someone's work without reading it. And also relying on what I call the folklore in the field.

May I ask another question:

Who the heck is Jay Harrison? Did he ever write a book? Did he publish any essays in any journals?

Did he ever compile any indexes to files?

I mean even Mary Ferrell published a couple of essays.

I am not one to be overly impressed by how many binders a researcher accumulates.

I wasn't critiquing Joan Mellen's Book, Jim. And I wasn't making a statement. I asked you those questions because I was wondering if Mellen's account differs from what I had just read at Spartacus Educational.

So will you now answer my two questions?

P.S. I don't know anything about Jay Harrison.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

GN: And Wallace is known to have "dated" LBJ's wacky-named sister... don't you find all of these "coincidences" a bit smelly? After a time, all the tedious explanations of tedious coincidences start to ring hollow, no matter how factual they may be...

​This is another point Joan goes into. According to her, it was Kinser who had the sexual relationship with Johnson's sister. That is because he was trying to use her to get a government loan to expand his golf course. (pgs. 81-82)

​Joan writes that Wallace, working for the Agriculture Dept. at the time, was supposed to keep an eye out for Josefa through a LBJ crony named Horace Busby. It does not appear that he had the same kind of relationship with Josefa as Kinser had. Kinser seems to have been a real player.

Since, among others, he was fooling around with Wallace's wife.

According to Spartacus Educational, both Kinser and Wallace were having an affair with Josefa.

[Sandy Larsen]

Just a question:

What exactly is the significance of "proving" that Mac Wallace either was there or was not there, aside from gaining some real satisfaction if he is shown to have been there?

Where exactly does this get anyone?

Presence of a Mac Wallace print gives a clue as to what role Vice President Johnson played.

The presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint tells me that Johnson might have been blackmailed into cooperating with the assassination. It seems that blackmail was a popular method for the CIA at the time. For example, James Angleton had a photo of J. Edgar Hoover homosexually involved with a man.

have to respectfully question this, Sandy. Even hard proof that Wallace was there would not, in and of itself, connect LBJ to the assassination. Wallace surely had other "pals," and if he was there a closer connection to why and at whose motivation would be needed, to me.

Wallace's presence, if so, only tells me, in a procedural sense, that Wallace was there.

First Glen, let me say that even if it is Wallace's fingerprint, I don't believe Wallace was actually there. If anything, I'd say the fingerprint was secretly inserted into the FBI files. For blackmail purposes.

Let me ask you.... isn't it true that by 1963 there were rumors in Texas that Mac Wallace was doing dirty work for Johnson? If so, wouldn't the presence of his fingerprints in the snipers nest lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved? Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal? Which could have been leaked to the public at any time, if necessary. (i.e. if Johnson didn't do the CIA's bidding.)

As a matter of fact, Life Magazine was ready to publish two articles saying as much. Here is what former Life Magazine employee James Wagenvoord's wrote on his blog about them:

A story that would have forced Johnson off the Democrats 1964 presidential election ticket had been slated to publish in the first December issue of the magazine [Life]. For weeks the Kennedy Justice Department had been a rich source of confidential information concerning money allegedly funneled to Johnson from lobbyists and contractors during his years as Senate Majority Leader, through his senior aide, Bobby Baker. Tension between the President and the Vice President had been widely reported since the early days of the administration. Exposure would mean that Johnson would have effectively taken himself off the ticket and likely out of politics sparing President Kennedy the controversy that might arise if he announced that simply wanted a different Vice-President. Two articles, the first a general bad guy picture essay detailed the opening of Baker’s Carousel Hotel on Maryland’s eastern shore and showed Baker in a glaringly negative light. My boss headed the reporting team and the material, kept under wraps for weeks, now being readied to be shredded, would if published tie Lyndon Johnson directly to illegal compromises and graft.

It didn’t matter anymore. Now the story was the violent death of a President. And a smooth transition.

(Source)

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Glenn Nall]

"...lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved?"

no question about it. All I'm saying is that there's a big difference in 'wondering if' and 'finding a connection to' ...

"Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal?"

right. yet another reason to suspect Johnson. but there's no connection.

"As a matter of fact, Life Magazine was ready to publish two articles saying as much. Here is what former Life Magazine employee James Wagenvoord's wrote on his blog about them..."

to me, the single largest reason to suspect his complicity. To me. this, with the numerous other pieces of circumstantials, pretty much hangs Johnson as at least in some way involved.

I do not dispute the idea that he was involved. I'm with that. I was just trying to define clearly how to get to the proposition.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Glenn Nall