Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sovereignty Commission Files


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

july 22 1963

A five point action program

An address by Louis W. Hollis

Executive Director, Citizens' Councils of America

"..the CCA, the only nation-wide organisation dedicated to the preservation of the integrity of the white race....we will NEVER surrender."

"...no responsible person WANTS violence. It is an unpleasant remedy to which people resort only in a desperate extremity, when all else has failed.

...the position of CCA..: to prevent vilence by preventing integration.

But, there is a point beyond which even the most judicious restraint becomes cowardice. To say there will be no violence under any circumstances whatsoever, is like President Kennedy's assuring Kruschev that the US will not invade Cuba.

These 'moderates', who have never resisted integration in the first place, now merely encourage the NAACP and other 'race mixers' to redouble their efforts....a moderate is for segregation, but he is chicken!"

"Certainly we in our state would never take up arms against our country, be it right or wrong...in this instance we believe it is grievously wrong. Our remedy lie/s in another means. And here I come to the price the Kennedy's will pay for their actions."

"the Kennedy's have inpaled themselves by this invasion of the south... The south will never go for those Kennedy's again becouase everybody knows that a vote for Kennedy is a vote for..integration at the point of a bayonet. We know racial integrity is essential to civilisation and liberty"

"..ask..: What can we do?"

"...tonight, we are coming to you with a plan...for Citicen' Council organisations. Yoy will hear much about this plan in the days and weeks ahead..."

" The good sense of the people in other parts of the country will assert itself and the politicians who are primarily responsible for injecting the element of danger into this will be eliminated from office."

"...This is a fight to maintain Racial Integrity..."

"Tough minded...Arm yourself with truth as a weapon...pride of race...the truth will make you free"

"It is no longer a question of bad government. It is a question of impossible government. Only strong aggressive organisation will deliver us..."

"Hear me, men and women of my race, the hour is struck when we must rise in our might, strike down the traitors and scalawags who would be the ruling power (JFK?) in our country..."

"We have a constitution because our pioneer fathers who cleared the wilderness and dared the might of kings (MLK?) were FREE MEN...if you can make men out of paper, then it is possible with a scratch of a pen in the hands of a tyrannical judge (Warren?) or a vicious attorney general (Bobby?), to transform by its magic 18 million blacks into 18 million kings."

"..self restraint under the terrible provocations of the last nine years (IOW since Warrens brown ruling) But there is a limit..for at this point (july 1963) self restraint is cowardice.."

"(We)..are now engaged in a mortal conflict, and only one can survive."

"..where integration occurs violence becomes inevitable.." ... "Join with those who will stand...fearlessly...detrmined..that segregation will be maintained."

I'd say that Hollis would be pleased by the outcome 123 days later on 12.30 11/22/1963

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|2|1|1|1|60336|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John, why would he have been pleased?

Look at the civil rights laws passed by LBJ.

They were probably made possible by the death of JFK.

But any southern racist who thought that civil rights could be stalled by the death of JFK was, of course, very mistaken.

What the death of JFK did cause was the cessation (ultimately) of US efforts to topple Castro (see "Ultimate Sacrifice") and a slow-down of the RFK campaign against organized crime.

One cannot, certainly, draw definitive conclusions about who shot JFK from who benefited from his death; but it is, at least, food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, why would he have been pleased?

Look at the civil rights laws passed by LBJ.

They were probably made possible by the death of JFK.

But any southern racist who thought that civil rights could be stalled by the death of JFK was, of course, very mistaken.

What the death of JFK did cause was the cessation (ultimately) of US efforts to topple Castro (see "Ultimate Sacrifice") and a slow-down of the RFK campaign against organized crime.

One cannot, certainly, draw definitive conclusions about who shot JFK from who benefited from his death; but it is, at least, food for thought.

Tim civlil rights ARE stalled. Throughout 1963 Kennedy publicly determined to go into 64 with a platform of civil rights. To LBJ's credit (opportunism?) he continued this Kennedy direction. What else could he do. Since then rights have eroded largely because there has been no-one with Kennedy's determination in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I do not understand what you mean by saying that civil rights are now "stalled".

Furthermore, most historians agree that JFK was not pushing a civil rights agenda or if so was only doing so only reluctantly. Whatever his motivation, LBJ did far more to advance civil rights legislation than JFK had. What JFK would have done had he lived we cannot know for sure. I suspect he might have pushed a civil rights agenda with more "vigah" after his re-election.

I do concur that there were some southern racists who so hated JFK that they might have had the motivation to kill him. If my scenario of the assassination is incorrect, I would find it far easier to believe that JFK was killed by southern racists than, for instance, by oil barons. Heck, we know that the southern racists were indeed killing people in their futile attempt to stop the march toward equal rights.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I do not understand what you mean by saying that civil rights are now "stalled".

Furthermore, most historians agree that JFK was not pushing a civil rights agenda or if so was only doing so only reluctantly. Whatever his motivation, LBJ did far more to advance civil rights legislation than JFK had. What JFK would have done had he lived we cannot know for sure. I suspect he might have pushed a civil rights agenda with more "vigah" after his re-election.

Ignorance surely is bliss...

How strong was LBJ's civil rights legislation?

"Read accounts of those affected by the civil rights rollback ... An event around

the civil rights rollback of the last four decades will provide a ..."

http://www.nylpi.org/rollback.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0431,lee,55636,1.html

http://www.clipi.org/blog/wp-content/AFTDFlyer.pdf

http://www.nyls.edu/pdfs/aftd_toc.pdf

http://www.civilrights.org/campaigns/civil...oots_manual.pdf

etc etc etc

keywords : civil rights rollback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, I read one of the articles (from Village Voice) and the roll-back of civil rights complained of is the "profiling" of people who fit the profile of terrorists. Not blacks certainly.

Is this what you are talking about? My gosh!

And the booklet re the proposed Civil Rights Act of 2004 related to things such as the minimum wage and employee agreements not to sue--certainly not matters related to racial discrimination.

And FYI the civil rights legislation passed under LBJ made significant differences in American society (all to the better). Surely you realize this.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, I read one of the articles (from Village Voice) and the roll-back of civil rights complained of is the "profiling" of people who fit the profile of terrorists. Not blacks certainly.

Is this what you are talking about? My gosh!

And the booklet re the proposed Civil Rights Act of 2004 related to things such as the minimum wage and employee agreements not to sue--certainly not matters related to racial discrimination.

And FYI the civil rights legislation passed under LBJ made significant differences in American society (all to the better). Surely you realize this.

Tim those articles and many others cover a wide field. some go into KKK resurgence and other extreme right wing activities.

The big affront to the radical right was Ole Miss. Barnett and Walker responded with a call to arms.

THE enemy in 1963 was Kennedy, not LBJ. Kennedy was declaring a continuance of the policy of defending, fighting for civil rights to the point of using the National Guard. In jan 1963 he declared further intentions, his speech the evening that Medgar Evers was assassinated (not many weeks prior to the speech by CCA executive Hollis (see post #1)) declared the time for waiting was over. Kennedy's assassination perhaps greased the process towards a bill by LBJ. If that bill and the defence of it was according to Kennedy's intent or not is another question.

What is without doubt is that the radical right saw it as a fight to the death in defence of 'racial purity'.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, a recently released poll shows that a high percentage of Americans believe there has been significant progress toward civil rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_...er_king_ap_poll

The poll says that 75% of all Americans feel there has been significant progress toward the fulfillment of MLK's dreams, a sentiment shared by two-thirds of black Americans.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, a recently released poll shows that a high percentage of Americans believe there has been significant progress toward civil rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_...er_king_ap_poll

The poll says that 75% of all Americans feel there has been significant progress toward the fulfillment of MLK's dreams, a sentiment shared by two-thirds of black Americans.

Polls of course are interesting. The fact that public lynchings are no longer as frequent is a good thing. The rollbacks are there though.

The rollback links are the first of the first page of a search resulting in many pages of links. to take a milder one as an indicator of content in all the rest is ridiculous.

They represent a recognition of the weakness of the civil rights legislation.

There are many other examples of media distorting the truth. Witness El Salvador and the contras. Many believed things were ok in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Some believe Nixon was a good honest man and that ... etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But John you have yet to define one "rollback" of civil rights.

Your argument that there must be a rollback of civil rights even though most would dispute that because some also felt Nixon was an honest man makes no sense at all. Sorry, but I have to put it that strongly.

Can you identify any "rollbacks" of civil rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I do not understand what you mean by saying that civil rights are now "stalled".

Furthermore, most historians agree that JFK was not pushing a civil rights agenda or if so was only doing so only reluctantly. Whatever his motivation, LBJ did far more to advance civil rights legislation than JFK had. What JFK would have done had he lived we cannot know for sure. I suspect he might have pushed a civil rights agenda with more "vigah" after his re-election.

I do concur that there were some southern racists who so hated JFK that they might have had the motivation to kill him. If my scenario of the assassination is incorrect, I would find it far easier to believe that JFK was killed by southern racists than, for instance, by oil barons. Heck, we know that the southern racists were indeed killing people in their futile attempt to stop the march toward equal rights.

Tim, I just noticed your edited in addition to this post.

I agree, however I also see that Oil Barons are also capable of being rascists and concievably could use the 'lumpen' emotional elements of the segregation movement to their advantage. I see the 'conspiracy' as compartmentalised with layers.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I would agree there were probably some oil barons who were also racists.

Tim, I suspect you would also agree that the recent releases of sovereignty files are a useful research source. And that the Civil Rights angle may yield information that ties into other scenarios. I tend to 'overpush' the issue in response to what I percieve as neglect.

The good thing about heading for the conspirators through this avenue is that the material is largely neglected and therefore less 'covered'. there are some very interesting background material touching on many of the known persons of interest there. Particularly Walker et al., as the ole Miss Oxford events were of prime interest to the commission.

The OXford insurrection is another example of government complicity in distorting events. There was a real concern that the whole thing could spiral out of control. This cover up was supported by the Kennedy's and frankly I think it could be seen as the real reason for LBJ's directives around the Warren commission and that the 'cover' for this real reason was presented as a concern about nuclear war. In another post I posted comments from a member of the US armed forces about the codes in germany following the assassination. While the media hysteria continued unabated in the US, forces quickly stood down on the frontline.

Another way perhaps of saying 'the conspiracy IS the conspiracy'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the civil rights laws passed by LBJ.

They were probably made possible by the death of JFK.

Tim has finally come straight out with it. I predicted many months ago that, sooner or later, TIm would openly assert that THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK MAY HAVE BEEN A GOOD THING FOR AMERICA. This theme lurks as a subliminal message encoded in many of his posts, but its nice to see him finally make it explicit.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, I read one of the articles (from Village Voice) and the roll-back of civil rights complained of is the "profiling" of people who fit the profile of terrorists. Not blacks certainly.

Is this what you are talking about? My gosh!

And the booklet re the proposed Civil Rights Act of 2004 related to things such as the minimum wage and employee agreements not to sue--certainly not matters related to racial discrimination.

And FYI the civil rights legislation passed under LBJ made significant differences in American society (all to the better). Surely you realize this.

Tim those articles and many others cover a wide field. some go into KKK resurgence and other extreme right wing activities.

The big affront to the radical right was Ole Miss. Barnett and Walker responded with a call to arms.

THE enemy in 1963 was Kennedy, not LBJ. Kennedy was declaring a continuance of the policy of defending, fighting for civil rights to the point of using the National Guard. In jan 1963 he declared further intentions, his speech the evening that Medgar Evers was assassinated (not many weeks prior to the speech by CCA executive Hollis (see post #1)) declared the time for waiting was over. Kennedy's assassination perhaps greased the process towards a bill by LBJ. If that bill and the defence of it was according to Kennedy's intent or not is another question.

What is without doubt is that the radical right saw it as a fight to the death in defence of 'racial purity'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnett and Walker responded with a call to arms.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oswald demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about Walker by questioning why he failed to resign at the time he commanded the troops that were used to integrate Little Rock."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...