Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Adams claims that FBI investigation into Milteer was compromised from the top down beginning with Hoover. Not surprised.

Yes, I also agree with Don Adams, because only one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, J. Edgar Hoover had already formulated his "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination, and obliged all FBI Agents to conform to that interpretation of the evidence -- EVEN IF IT MEANT TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE.

This, IMHO, is the single explanation for all the tampering of material evidence throughout the Warren Report.

Yet I will repeat here -- the Cover-up of the JFK assassination had a specific purpose -- not to protect the JFK Killers, but to prevent riots in the streets of the USA.

The JFK Kill Team actually wanted the US Public to believe that Oswald had accomplices -- Communist accomplices.

J. Edgar Hoover was not going to let them have their way. Even though good citizens like Sylvia Duran and Harry Dean, as well as FBI Agents like Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, would be SMASHED by the "Lone Nut" theory -- it was necessary for National Security to maintain the fiction of the "Lone Nut" theory.

It still stands strong today.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul, I'm afraid that should be taken with a small grain of salt, perhaps more than a few grains. There are actually years of extensive FBI files on Milteer, at headquarters at least. And his JFK remarks in Miami were communicated to the Secret Service as well as several FBI field offices, no cover up there at all. You can fault the FBI's investigation - as Stu and I do - but it involved field offices in several states and they were indeed very interested in both Milteer and the informants they were using against them. Much of that is in The Awful Grace of God. I'm not sure how much of this Adams even knew or knows but after Stu spent great amounts of time and years of FOIA requests on Milteer we have a fair picture of the overall investigation of him -- including their history with the key informant they were using.

I would agree that FBI headquarters including Hoover did compromise one area of the Milteer investigation, but that was in regard to the King assassination where Milteer may well have had involvement and knowledge.

-- Larry

Larry, have you specifically concentrated on the material relationship between Joseph Milteer and Ex-General Edwin Walker? If so, where can I find this work?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, we have been over this before - the answer is that we specifically concentrated on Joseph Milteer and all his ultra right contacts. We found his Texas contacts and connections to to be pretty much run of the mill - he had contacts in more than a dozen states - when compared to much deeper and more operational (by that I mean plans to kill people) contacts with Stoner of the NSRP and the Swift network. That is all in the book I mentioned above and have referred to you before. We did not focus on Walker nor talk about him specifically any more than dozens of other similar folks Stoner met with, went to conferences with or corresponded with...which is why I said I would eagerly await the book you are promoting...

I said something similar to this on other threads, most likely the gigantic Harry Dean thread but I hope this makes it clear. Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, we have been over this before - the answer is that we specifically concentrated on Joseph Milteer and all his ultra right contacts. We found his Texas contacts and connections to to be pretty much run of the mill - he had contacts in more than a dozen states - when compared to much deeper and more operational (by that I mean plans to kill people) contacts with Stoner of the NSRP and the Swift network. That is all in the book I mentioned above and have referred to you before. We did not focus on Walker nor talk about him specifically any more than dozens of other similar folks Stoner met with, went to conferences with or corresponded with...which is why I said I would eagerly await the book you are promoting...

I said something similar to this on other threads, most likely the gigantic Harry Dean thread but I hope this makes it clear. Larry

Ah, yes, Larry, I remember that months ago you cited your book, The Awful Grace of God (2013) which you co-wrote with Stuart Wexler. I obtained a copy of that book, and I read it, and I didn't recall anything in-depth about Edwin Walker.

Thus my question. I thought you were saying above that this ground has already been covered.

My point was (and is) that this ground still remains to be covered -- even after fifty years. I believe that next year Dr. Caufield's book will be the very first to cover it in-depth.

I'm familiar with the JFK literature about the US right-wing, Larry. Including your material.

Nor will Dr. Caufield's book be limited to the material relationship between Joseph Milteer and Edwin Walker -- that will be only one aspect of his rather large book.

Like you, I'm eagerly anticipating his publication.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul "As-Pedantic-As-A-Professor" Trejo wrote:

"Now, even if J. Edgar Hoover was personally sympathetic to these people [Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, and the White Citizens' Council], he would never dare to say so publicly."

I never said that Hoover publicly supported them. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Again.

Now who's trying to put words into the other's mouth, Tommy? I never denied that J. Edgar Hoover persecuted Martin Luther King, or persecuted the NAACP, using the typical Southern rhetoric that Civil Rights was COMMUNIST. We have ample evidence of this.

My point was one of NUANCE. I have solid proof that Guy Banister sharply broke with the FBI on the topic of the Brown Decision. That's my point, and if you keep denying it, you're really only wasting my time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. I agree that understanding the values and beliefs of Hoover's FBI (as an institution) is a very complex matter which has many "nuances".

2. As is the case with any complex subject, interested parties must first agree upon definition of terms.

3. For example, at what point is someone accurately described as "racist"?

4. Is it possible to be insensitive and/or ill-informed (or mis-informed) about certain public policy or social matters that primarily involve or impact racial or ethnic minorities -- but NOT be a racist?

5. May an individual be accurately described as "racist" on the basis of just ONE derogatory factor? OR Must there be a combination of several different factors present?

Which of the following characteristics or sentiments are always required to be present in a racist?

(1) use of bigoted language

(2) stated belief in the biological, intellectual, or moral inferiority of an entire racial or ethnic group

(3) being uncomfortable around individuals who have a different racial or ethnic background from the majority group within society

(4) unwillingness to hire racial or ethnic minorities

(5) unwillingness to rent or sell real estate to racial or ethnic minority

(6) refusal to attend multi-racial or multi-ethnic churches

(7) refusal to attend multi-racial or multi-ethnic educational institutions

(8) refusal to attend multi-racial or multi-ethnic businesses or events (such as sports, concerts, entertainment venues, bars, restaurants, etc)

(9) attributing most violent crimes to racial or ethnic minorities

(10) believing that racial or ethnic minorities are the primary recipients of social welfare programs

(11) believing that radicals or subversives are present in racial or ethnic minority organizations

(12) hostility toward prominent individuals who believe in and advocate for equal opportunity for everyone within society

(13) always voting for white politicians

(14) willingness to commit or excuse violence or criminal behavior against racial or ethnic minorities

6. If you believe that everything listed above is always present in a racist, then Hoover's FBI would not qualify as "racist" because (arguably) the FBI as an institution and FBI Agents as individuals violated at least 8 or 9 of the 14 "required" characteristics of a racist.

7. There is also one additional factor to consider -- namely, public statements and behavior (as opposed to personal beliefs and behavior). For example: it is often pointed out that professional journalists can accurately investigate and report upon a major news event -- regardless of their personal political convictions. So, for example, a conservative or liberal reporter can accurately and truthfully report upon a liberal or conservative political figure or about an institution or business he/she personally dislikes.

Given this background, a few conclusions seem to be in order:

1. Contrary to what has been written in this thread -- neither the FBI or Hoover believed that our civil rights movement was "Communist". In fact, Hoover made a number of PUBLIC speeches stating the EXACT OPPOSITE.

2. What Hoover and the FBI did believe, however, is that there were radical individuals (including subversives) involved in some civil rights organizations. The FBI was concerned that those radical individuals might influence the leadership of our civil rights organizations and (in particular) convince them to adopt policies which would inflame sentiments and ultimately result in disrespect for law and perhaps even violence. This was a particular concern to the FBI with respect to current or former Communist Party members who were advisers to MLK Jr. -- such as Stanley Levison and Bayard Rustin.

3. Keep in mind the larger context.

(1) During the 1960's there were spasms of terrible racial violence in our country -- including major riots in several American cities.

(2) ALL Communists and other left-wing radicals welcomed violent incidents because they believed that as black Americans became convinced that peaceful demonstrations or litigation through the courts would NOT result in significant changes, then black Americans might become the vanguard of "the revolution" which Communists believed was inevitable in order to overthrow the existing order and replace it with a Communist-dominated political system which would produce the radical changes which they wanted within our society.

(3) Nevertheless, when the FBI did its internal studies of racial riots in our country and then Hoover and his subordinates testified before Congress and/or made PUBLIC statements -- they consistently REJECTED the arguments of racists and others who asserted that our racial riots were instigated, dominated, or controlled by "Communists" or "subversive elements".

As Hoover stated in a 1964 speech:

Let me emphasize that the American civil rights movement is not, and has never been dominated by the communists—because the overwhelming majority of civil rights leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected communism as a menace to the freedoms of all.”

[J. Edgar Hoover speech, 12/12/64, Our Heritage of Greatness, pg 7 - Hoover speech before Pennsylvania Society and the Society of Pennsylvania Women; bold emphasis in original document on “not” and “never”]

In November 1966, Hoover received an inquiry from a self-identified JBS member who saw the above quote in a letter-to-the-editor of his local newspaper and he wanted to know if the quote was an accurate reflection of Hoover’s judgment both in 1964 and 1966. Hoover replied affirmatively and concluded: “This position remains essentially unchanged today.” [HQ file 62-104401, serial #3021, 11/15/66 Hoover reply to incoming Bircher inquiry]

Also see following Hoover comments :

“It would be absurd to suggest that the aspirations of Negroes for equality are communist inspired. This is demonstrably not true…” [J. Edgar Hoover speech, Faith In Freedom, 12/4/63, page 6]

“In general, legitimate civil rights organizations have been successful in excluding Communists, although a few have received covert counseling from them and have even accepted them as members…The CP is not satisfied with this situation and is continually striving to infiltrate the civil rights movement at every level. “ [J. Edgar Hoover, U.S. News and World Report, 11/1/65, page 46]

“It is no secret that one of the bitterest disappointments to communistic efforts in this Nation has been their failure to lure our Negro citizens into the party. Despite every type of propaganda boomed at our Nation’s Negro citizens, they have never succumbed to the party’s saccharine promises of a Communist ‘Utopia’. This generation and generations to come for many years owe a tremendous debt to our Negro citizens who have consistently refused to surrender their freedoms for the tyranny of communism.” J. Edgar Hoover testimony before U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 01/17/60, reprinted in March 1960 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, page 7]

CITIZENS COUNCILS / GUY BANISTER

Paul, we've gone through this before so I won't re-hash this in detail....but you are simply mistaken about groups changing their name from "White" Citizens Councils to "Citizens Councils"

With respect to Hoover, there is nothing to support the idea that he was "secretly" sympathetic or allied with or condoned the activities of Banister, Citizens Councils, Walker, or segregationists.

BANISTER: FBI documents make it very clear that the FBI considered Banister to be someone comparable to Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot, i.e. AFTER they retired from the FBI, they associated themselves with right-wing extremist organizations and became persona non grata.

When Banister ran for New Orleans City Council in 1961, his position was as follows:

“I take a positive stand in favor of segregation of the races. There are 15 active organizations in New Orleans promoting integration of the races. Ten of these organizations are Communist fronts or have submitted to Communist influence and direction. As council-man-at large, I can be helpful in nullifying the machinations of these Communist agents and help in maintaining peace and harmony in the city.”

The FBI did not conclude that 10 pro-integration organizations in New Orleans were "Communist fronts" and the FBI certainly did not accept Banister's statements regarding groups like the NAACP. The Executive Directors of the NAACP (Walter White and then Roy Wilkins) maintained very cordial relationships with the FBI (and with Hoover personally).

Furthermore, the FBI believed that the NAACP was a LEGITIMATE civil rights organization whereas Banister and his associates believed it was a Communist front!

In December 1953, Hoover wrote the following letter to NAACP Executive Secretary Walter White:

“In line with our conversation, you may feel free to utilize the following statement of mine relative to your radio program:

It is my belief that Mr. Walter White’s radio program makes a valuable contribution to intelligent enlightenment in a crucial sector of this democracy’s struggle against the forces of bigotry, prejudice and subversion. The aims of his program are straightforward and simple. He emphasizes the truism that freedom belongs to everyone, that equal rights have been bestowed by our Creator and by our laws without regard to race, creed, or religion. He rightly contends that justice does not exist where there is partiality in administering the law. He urges unceasing vigilance against the Communists whose determination to sow disunity he fully appreciates. Mr. White’s efforts to create public opinion based on intelligent understanding and appreciation of the need for unity of purpose among all Americans are most commendable.”

On 4/8/47 Walter White sent Hoover a letter requesting a statement by Hoover concerning the NAACP. Hoover replied 4-14-47:

“Equality, freedom, and tolerance are essential in a democratic government. The NAACP has done much to preserve these principles and to perpetuate the desires of our founding fathers.” [HQ 61-3176, # 378X thru #383, 4/14/47 and 4/21/47; Walter White correspondence to J. Edgar Hoover and Hoover reply]

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I agree with the substance of what Ernie has written here.

J. Edgar Hoover was not a dedicated racist -- however Hoover did spy on Martin Luther King.

Hoover never declared that the Civil Rights Movement was dominated by Communists (the way many Southerners did, including members of so-called Citizens Councils and members of the JBS).

However, Hoover did spy on Martin Luther King to verify whether he had any Communist influences.

There are subtleties -- yet the substance of what Ernie has written above is correct, according to me. (Insofar as Hoover spied on MLK, this gave comfort and support to racists -- and Hoover could not have been ignorant of that. One JBS member, as shown in Ernie's post, had to write to Hoover to double-check that Hoover really was admitting that the Communists didn't run the Civil Rights movement -- because it was so subtle -- Hoover's behavior gave a mixed message.)

As for Edwin Walker, there are no overtly racist statements in his copyrighted or recorded speeches. He insisted that he opposed the Brown Decision for the integration of US Public Schools only on the basis of States Rights, and for no other reason -- even in 1963.

We should recall that in 1963 Alabama Governor George Wallace was still using the "N" word in public. That's why it's remarkable that Edwin Walker never did.

Technically speaking, Edwin Walker wasn't a racist -- however, in effective terms, he gave great support and comfort to racists, especially those who wanted to keep Ole Miss University all-white. He was willing to resort to violence to ensure that result -- and he knew what he was doing when he opposed JFK in September 1962 at Ole Miss.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

You shall know the tree by its fruits. What Hoover, and Walker, said or didn't say publicly doesn't impress me. Hoover claimed he was worried about Communist influence on the Civil Rights movement, Walker claimed his objection to Brown vs Board of Education was a States Rights issue. Both of them engaged in hostile acts for years that belied their words.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to post
Share on other sites

You shall know the tree by its fruits. What Hoover, and Walker, said or didn't say publicly doesn't impress me. Hoover claimed he was worried about Communist influence on the Civil Rights movement, Walker claimed his objection to Brown vs Board of Education was a States Rights issue. Both of them engaged in hostile acts for years that belied their words.

Yes, Paul B., there is something to be said for that opinion.

Yet I propose that the Civil Rights Movement was NOT the main reason that Edwin Walker plotted to murder JFK.

In my view, Edwin Walker led the only successful plot to murder JFK by getting wide support from many groups -- including the racists on the extreme right -- but racism wasn't Walker's ultimate goal.

Walker butt heads with JFK at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962, and that was certainly over the Race issue (e.g. Civil Rights). It was, however, the foreground and the aftermath of Ole Miss that offers the main clues in the murder of JFK, IMHO.

The foreground is the Cuba issue. We know this because only four days before the Ole Miss Riots, Walker published an "Open Letter to the President" which can be read here:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19620926_EAW_Open_Letter.JPG

The tone of that letter is harsh; Walker shows the minimum amount of respect to JFK possible. In that letter Edwin Walker mentioned Ole Miss only in passing -- his main complaint was about Cuba.

The aftermath of the Ole Miss riots began the next morning, when JFK and RFK had Edwin Walker arrested -- which was appropriate -- but they inappropriately had Walker committed to an insane asylum.

This was a major error on the part of JFK and RFK, as most historians readily agree. Psychiatry has no place in politics, yet they tried to use it as a ploy. It blew up in their faces, as people from the left-wing joined people on the right-wing to protest this witches' brew of political psychiatry.

Instead of spending 90 days in psychiatric observation, Edwin Walker was released in 3 days with an apology. Most history books omit that part. Edwin Walker was fuming with outrage. The Kennedy Brothers had stripped him naked; him, General Edwin Walker, victorious US General of WW2. It was unforgivable.

But the worst was yet to come for Edwin Walker.

It all started harmlessly enough. In late January 1963, an all-white Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Walker of all charges against him in relation to the Ole Miss riots. Walker's lawyers (Clyde Watts and Robert Morris) began a three-year journey of lawsuits against every US newspaper who had printed the truth about Walker; that he led those riots. They hoped to amass $30 million in winnings (which amounts to $300 million today, adjusted for inflation).

The exuberant Walker joined Billy James Hargis on a coast-to-coast speaking tour, railing against Civil Rights, the United Nations and the Kennedys. They started in February 1963, and came back in early April 1963. The NAACP picketed every speaking event that the pair had engaged coast to coast.

On his second night back in Dallas, on Wednesday 10 April 1963, somebody tried to murder Edwin Walker at 9pm by a sniper's bullet through his living room window. The personal papers of Edwin Walker claim that on the following Sunday he found out that the shooter was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Here is just one of many examples of this fact -- a letter to Senator Frank Church of the Church Committee on 23 June 1975:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

Ex-General Edwin Walker not only concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter, he also hastily concluded that JFK and RFK had decided to murder Walker because they failed to stop Walker with their insane asylum ploy. In Walker's opinion, Lee Harvey Oswald was a paid employee of RFK.

The motive for Edwin Walker to kill JFK was political. Walker had submitted his resignation from the Army in 1959 and again in 1961 in order to enter politics and eventually run for the office of President of the United States. The Kennedy Brothers effectively removed all chances of Walker fulfilling his lifelong goal.

So, Walker gathered every JFK-hater in the USA to help. Not only racists, but also Cuban Exiles, Cuban Exile supporters among the CIA and Secret Service, Citizens Councils, Anti-Communist agitators of every possible stripe. Walker especially relied upon moral and financial support from the John Birch Society, which had given Walker his ideological justification -- that JFK was, after all, a Communist.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I agree with the substance of what Ernie has written here.

J. Edgar Hoover was not a dedicated racist -- however Hoover did spy on Martin Luther King.

Hoover never declared that the Civil Rights Movement was dominated by Communists (the way many Southerners did, including members of so-called Citizens Councils and members of the JBS).

However, Hoover did spy on Martin Luther King to verify whether he had any Communist influences.

There are subtleties -- yet the substance of what Ernie has written above is correct, according to me. (Insofar as Hoover spied on MLK, this gave comfort and support to racists -- and Hoover could not have been ignorant of that. One JBS member, as shown in Ernie's post, had to write to Hoover to double-check that Hoover really was admitting that the Communists didn't run the Civil Rights movement -- because it was so subtle -- Hoover's behavior gave a mixed message.)

As for Edwin Walker, there are no overtly racist statements in his copyrighted or recorded speeches. He insisted that he opposed the Brown Decision to integrate US Public Schools only on the basis of States Rights, and for no other reason -- even in 1963.

We should recall that in 1963 Alabama Governor George Wallace was still using the "N" word in public. That's why it's remarkable that Edwin Walker never did.

Technically speaking, Edwin Walker wasn't a racist -- however, in effective terms, he gave great support and comfort to racists, especially those who wanted to keep Ole Miss University all-white. He was willing to resort to violence to ensure that result -- and he knew what he was doing when he opposed JFK in September 1962 at Ole Miss.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Not surprisingly, I disagree with several aspects of what Paul has written.

1. First, let's assume we made Paul Trejo the Director of the FBI in the 1960's when there were hundreds of racial incidents including major violent incidents that resulted in loss of life and hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage.

2. Given federal laws regarding conspiracy and/or crossing state lines to commit federal crimes -- wouldn't ANY FBI Director (regardless of personal views or political convictions) be interested in discovering the extent to which those racial disturbances were planned as opposed to random acts of violence?

3. And given that Marxist ideology instructs its adherents that capitalist societies have inevitable internal socio-economic contradictions which produce alienation and violence by "oppressed" classes of people and the Communist Party intends to be in the vanguard of the revolution which will replace capitalist societies, wouldn't ANY FBI Director want to discover to what extent a conspiracy might be involved in racial incidents?

4. And, by necessity, wouldn't that require "intelligence gathering" with respect to learning what radicals were doing to precipitate violence and what organizations they were attempting to infiltrate in hopes of influencing or controlling/dominating legitimate mass organizations?

5. If we answer "yes" to such questions -- because intelligence gathering is a legitimate function of any agency charged with the responsibility for internal security and addressing violations of federal laws (particularly conspiracy laws) -- isn't "spying" an emotionally-laden term calculated to prejudice readers into believing something dishonest or in violation of our civil rights and liberties was occurring?

6. Hoover and the FBI under his direction did something much more significant than merely express a negative conclusion i.e. Communists did not "dominate" the civil rights movement.

Much more importantly, the FBI eviscerated the entire argument of segregationists that was predicated upon the idea that ANY pro-integration or anti-Jim Crow activity was, by definition, "subversive" or "un-American" and a violation of "states rights". Hoover's FBI declared unequivocally and emphatically that the civil rights movement was a LEGITIMATE expression of long-held grievances against real injustices within our society.

7. For example: not only did Hoover's FBI declare that the 100+ racial incidents and riots in 1967 were NOT part of any conspiracy -- but the FBI declared in no uncertain terms that organizations such as the NAACP were legitimate civil rights organizations attempting to redress genuine grievances while southern states conducted hearings and produced numerous reports with testimony from people like J.B. Matthews, Guy Banister, and local police officials that NAACP was a "subversive" organization! Nothing very "subtle" about that! Nor was there any "mixed message".

8. Check out the NY Times on 8/2/67, page 1 for article captioned "Hoover Discerns No Plot in Riots". This was precisely OPPOSITE to what southerners believed. Nothing very "subtle" or "mixed message" about THAT!

9. With respect to Paul's comments re: Edwin Walker -- as previously mentioned, racist sentiments can be expressed in many different virulent forms -- some of which can be "subtle" or use code words.

I suggest a different test from whatever Paul is using.

I suggest giving a random scientific sample of black Americans copies of articles and speeches by Walker AND also give them a list of the organizations which Walker helped to create or which he endorsed as well as a list of organizations and publications which Walker associated himself with (as a speaker or contributor of articles in their publications). THEN, let's ask 1000 black Americans what THEY think about Walker, i.e. ask THEM, "Was Edwin Walker a racist?" And let's see the result and compare that result to Paul's assurances.

10. One of the things which most Citizens Councils attempted to do was dissociate themselves from the most extreme elements within anti-black and pro-segregation circles. This was supposed to represent the "kinder gentler" face of the "states rights movement" -- which was predicated upon a philosophical argument about the proper role of the federal government vs. state governments.

11. Significantly, this "kinder gentler" subterfuge did not impress or fool genuine conservatives like Sen. Barry Goldwater.

  • Goldwater NEVER accepted a speaking invitation from ANY white supremacist organization
  • Goldwater NEVER endorsed a white supremacist organization or political leader
  • Goldwater NEVER accepted an offer from an explicitly racist publication (such as Ned Touchstone's, The Councilor or Conde McGinley's Common Sense or Harry W. Pyle's Political Reporter) to write articles for their publications.
  • Goldwater NEVER sought nor wanted the endorsement of groups like KKK or Americans For The Preservation of the White Race
  • INSTEAD -- Goldwater was a charter member of (and a financial contributor to) NAACP in Phoenix!

Now-- COMPARE THAT RECORD to Edwin Walker's and THEN tell us again (with a straight face) that Edwin Walker was NOT a racist or that he NEVER accepted arguments made by white supremacists, and he NEVER contributed articles to and letters-to-the-editor to racist newspapers, and he NEVER endorsed racist politicians or organizations.

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY:

WHERE IS THE AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE RE: WALKER WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY PAUL'S EVALUATION?

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

Contrary to what Paul wrote, there is nothing "remarkable" about Walker never using the n-word in public. As previously noted, he had political ambitions. He knew that any explicit endorsement of or expression of bigotry would DOOM his chances and such expressions would be constantly used against him by his critics -- including moderate conservatives like Goldwater or Sen. John Tower (Texas).

Significantly, Walker endorsed and campaigned for Gov. Wallace in 1968. See: http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2220845

PAUL: If you endorse and campaign for a bigot who DOES routinely use the n-word --- what does that tell you about the values of the endorser?

"Technically speaking" and by every known metric for indisputable racist sentiments and values -- Edwin Walker WAS a racist.

Which is why he was so actively sought as a featured speaker by (and he accepted invitations from) explicitly racist organizations and that is also why the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America did not hesitate to offer Walker the job of Grand Dragon for the UKA in Texas!

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly, I disagree with several aspects of what Paul has written...

...

11.

  • Goldwater NEVER accepted a speaking invitation from ANY white supremacist organization
  • Goldwater NEVER endorsed a white supremacist organization or political leader
  • Goldwater NEVER accepted an offer from an explicitly racist publication (such as Ned Touchstone's, The Councilor or Conde McGinley's Common Sense or Harry W. Pyle's Political Reporter) to write articles for their publications.
  • Goldwater NEVER sought nor wanted the endorsement of groups like KKK or Americans For The Preservation of the White Race
  • INSTEAD -- Goldwater was a charter member of (and a financial contributor to) NAACP in Phoenix

The flaw in your argument, Ernie, is that you one-sidedly neglect to recall Barry Goldwater's most famous saying, namely, "Extremism in the defense of Liberty, is no vice!"

The extremist right-wing went wild for that saying, and they cheered like thunder. Such a saying would even have met the approval of the Third Reich, frankly. So, even though Barry Goldwater (who was half-Jewish) would not dally with the extremists personally -- the fact that Goldwater would make that statement in 1964 shows that he was not above exploiting the extreme right-wing to garner their votes.

"Technically speaking" and by ever known metric for indisputable racist sentiments and values -- Edwin Walker WAS a racist. Which is why he was so actively sought as a featured speaker by (and he accepted invitations from) explicitly racist organizations and that is also why the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America did not hesitate to offer Walker the job of Grand Dragon for the UKA in Texas!

No, Ernie, you're still mistaken, because you one-sidedly neglected to mention the salient fact here, namely, that Edwin Walker rejected that offer to join the KKK!

Edwin Walker wasn't above EXPLOITING racism to serve his political ambitions -- but then, neither was Barry Goldwater. That's why it's so great that LBJ demolished the Goldwater campaign in a landslide.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

You shall know the tree by its fruits. What Hoover, and Walker, said or didn't say publicly doesn't impress me. Hoover claimed he was worried about Communist influence on the Civil Rights movement, Walker claimed his objection to Brown vs Board of Education was a States Rights issue. Both of them engaged in hostile acts for years that belied their words.

Paul B: If what public figures say and do with respect to public policy issues or controversies does not impress you -- then what is YOUR metric for evaluating their actual beliefs and values?

Your reference to "hostile acts" cannot exist in a vaccum. You would have to be explicit -- and (in terms of Hoover or the FBI) you would have to explain what behavior YOU think should be determinative -- i.e. when Congress passes federal laws compelling an agency to investigate certain crimes as well as gather intelligence in order to prevent crimes from occurring and more generally to keep abreast of what is happening within society so that any future incidents can be addressed -- is it your position that the federal agency has the discretion to ignore federal laws compelling their involvement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly, I disagree with several aspects of what Paul has written...

...

11.

  • Goldwater NEVER accepted a speaking invitation from ANY white supremacist organization
  • Goldwater NEVER endorsed a white supremacist organization or political leader
  • Goldwater NEVER accepted an offer from an explicitly racist publication (such as Ned Touchstone's, The Councilor or Conde McGinley's Common Sense or Harry W. Pyle's Political Reporter) to write articles for their publications.
  • Goldwater NEVER sought nor wanted the endorsement of groups like KKK or Americans For The Preservation of the White Race
  • INSTEAD -- Goldwater was a charter member of (and a financial contributor to) NAACP in Phoenix

The flaw in your argument, Ernie, is that you one-sidedly neglect to recall Barry Goldwater's most famous saying, namely, "Extremism in the defense of Liberty, is no vice!"

The extremist right-wing went wild for that saying, and they cheered like thunder. Such a saying would even have met the approval of the Third Reich, frankly. So, even though Barry Goldwater (who was half-Jewish) would not dally with the extremists personally -- the fact that Goldwater would make that statement in 1964 shows that he was not above exploiting the extreme right-wing to garner their votes.

"Technically speaking" and by ever known metric for indisputable racist sentiments and values -- Edwin Walker WAS a racist. Which is why he was so actively sought as a featured speaker by (and he accepted invitations from) explicitly racist organizations and that is also why the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America did not hesitate to offer Walker the job of Grand Dragon for the UKA in Texas!

No, Ernie, you're still mistaken, because you one-sidedly neglected to mention the salient fact here, namely, that Edwin Walker rejected that offer to join the KKK!

Edwin Walker wasn't above EXPLOITING racism to serve his political ambitions -- but then, neither was Barry Goldwater. That's why it's so great that LBJ demolished the Goldwater campaign in a landslide.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul: Goldwater's "extremism" comment had no relationship to any civil rights matter and, more importantly, if you get past the sensational newspaper coverage (which was designed to discredit Goldwater) you would realize that Goldwater's comment was meant to be an expression of how important it was for everyone to be involved in government and to defend our country's basic values. You might recall that subsequent to that comment being made at the GOP Convention in San Francisco, Goldwater's political team pointed out that (for example) our World War II veterans fought a war against the Axis powers which resulted in their UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER -- i.e. what you could describe as the most "extreme" option available.

Similarly, our American Revolution excluded the option of compromising with Great Britain (i.e. we did not consider a "moderate" middle-ground option which could have resulted in our agreement to remain part of the British Empire but have much more autonomy to govern ourselves.) So, again, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

EDWIN WALKER:

Paul, if I understand your argument correctly, you are asserting that we should always adopt a SINGLE criterion for making any judgments regarding Walker (and perhaps everybody else)??

In your scheme of things, the ONLY conclusive or definitive piece of evidence is whether or not Walker declined the UKA position. EVERYTHING ELSE can be discarded??

So--according to Paul Trejo, NOBODY is a racist if they choose to not join ONE particular racist organization. NOTHING ELSE needs to be considered -- right?

Goldwater never "exploited racism to serve his political ambitions" and what you still are not addressing is all the AFFIRMATIVE evidence which points to Goldwater's REAL values and beliefs -- i.e. the numerous acts of conscience which reveal his values such as his NAACP membership and his life-long support of other minorities such as native Americans.

I suggest you answer for us the questions I presented to you. I copy them again below. Since you have reviewed all of Walker's personal papers, you should be an expert and be able to effortlessly and definitively answer these questions:

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

ABSENT such AFFIRMATIVE evidence -- WHY should we accept your interpretation of Walker?

Let me put it slightly differently.

Can you specify the name of any OTHER person about whom you would answer NO to every question listed above but you would still tell us that they were NOT racist?

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Walker just wanted peace and calm..."

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

"Walker just wanted peace and calm..."

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

WHAT A CROCK.

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...