Sovereignty Commission Files

[John Dolva]

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|

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.

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

Tom: "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."

Tom, I understand Walker tried and his resignation prior to little Rock was rejected. From then he referred to it as an event where he was on the wrong side. At ole Miss Oxford he was free to do as he wished.

Edited January 15, 2006 by John Dolva

[Tim Carroll]

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 assasination 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.

I don't understand Tim Gratz to really be saying that "the assasination of JFK may have been a good thing for America," but that there may have been some good to come out of it, such as a heightened support for the Civil Rights movement.

The world was certainly a different place as a result of Dallas, and there is little room for argument that the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't pass more easily than it would have had JFK lived. It's often forgotten how low JFK's numbers had plummeted (53%, I believe) after he sent the troops into the South, with Bull Connor acting up and a white backlash emerging. Overnight following the assassination, the segregationist position was diminished in the mainstream.

Allowing for Tim Gratz's devil's advocate-type assertion, I would say that in the long run, civil rights in America was set back by the Kennedy assassination. The late Sixties are better remembered for the anti-war movement than for the localized eruptions in America's inner cities every summer, beginning with the Watts riot in 1965.

Not allowing ourselves to be overly taken in by LBJ's adoption of Kennedy's legacy, we remember J. Edgar Hoover's persecution of the black movement under Johnson. This was followed by Nixon's "Southern Strategy," with constant winks and nods to "states rights" protagonists. Bigotry became quieter and more insidious. The "What If JFK Had Lived?" is equally applicable to civil rights as to Vietnam.

T.C.

[John Dolva]

**partial delete...

BTW Nathaniel, I don't know if the Sovereignty Commisssion is what you are looking for in Southwest Intel, but they certainly were gathering intel. On their staff/associations were ex FBI, Government, Police etc

Edited January 15, 2006 by John Dolva

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[ there is little room for argument that the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't pass more easily than it would have had JFK lived. It's often forgotten how low JFK's numbers had plummeted (53%, I believe) after he sent the troops into the South Overnight following the assassination, the segregationist position was diminished in the mainstream.

T.C.

With the greatest respect, I suggest that "There is little room for argument " is a bit strong when you are asserting as fact something that in reality cannot be anything but speculation. Forseeing the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing the future is.

The suggestion that JFK would have lost the Congressional battle for Civil Rights omits the simple fact that Civil Rights was an idea whose time had come, and that JFK was a master politician who was perfectly capable of mobilizing the American mainstream, Democrat and Republican alike, behind his Bill.

It is often forgotten that, a few weeks before JFK left for Dallas, the House Judiciary COmmittee had voted to approve the Civil Rights Bill.

Apologies to John Dolva for hijacking his thread (I think Tim Gratz started it).

[John Dolva]

[ there is little room for argument that the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't pass more easily than it would have had JFK lived. It's often forgotten how low JFK's numbers had plummeted (53%, I believe) after he sent the troops into the South Overnight following the assassination, the segregationist position was diminished in the mainstream.

T.C.

With the greatest respect, I suggest that "There is little room for argument " is a bit strong when you are asserting as fact something that in reality cannot be anything but speculation. Forseeing the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing the future is.

The suggestion that JFK would have lost the Congressional battle for Civil Rights omits the simple fact that Civil Rights was an idea whose time had come, and that JFK was a master politician who was perfectly capable of mobilizing the American mainstream, Democrat and Republican alike, behind his Bill.

It is often forgotten that, a few weeks before JFK left for Dallas, the House Judiciary COmmittee had voted to approve the Civil Rights Bill.

Apologies to John Dolva for hijacking his thread (I think Tim Gratz started it).

No worries, Raymond. all is welcome. The points I wanted particularly to get across have been made. Tim Gratxs' dialogue was a good opportunity to deal with some stock stuff.

" ...a few weeks before JFK left for Dallas, the House Judiciary Committee had voted to approve the Civil Rights Bill." kinda sums it up.

__________________________________

particularly for me though, I want to emphasise the value of alternative sources, in this case the Sovereignty Commisssion files that are now being released as the reopening of unsolved civil rights murders are proceeding under new bill.

Also I'd like someone to look at the speech* and say whether one can say it is a chilling thing in light of the events that were to follow.

To keep in mind that the civil rights issue has been distorted since then but at the time was a realtime thing going on and the future hadn't happened yet.

*the site is a bit overloaded at times and there are 11 pages from which I condensed it to this, 'the essence' as I see it.

EDIT:: Remember, Kennedy was alive and well, going ahead with his civil rights initiatives, Medgar Evers had just been assassinated by (as yet unknown to public, but reasonable in light of who the assassin turned out to be, known to Hollis. Walker came to Beckwiths trial to shake his hand, he was accuitted but finally convicted late 90's after repopening of trial) a KKK sniper and MLK was rumbling...

Edited January 15, 2006 by John Dolva

[J. Raymond Carroll]

"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."

Thomas, can you please post the source of this quotation? Thanks in advance

[Tim Carroll]

...there is little room for argument that the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't pass more easily than it would have had JFK lived. It's often forgotten how low JFK's numbers had plummeted (53%, I believe) after he sent the troops into the South Overnight following the assassination, the segregationist position was diminished in the mainstream.

With the greatest respect, I suggest that "There is little room for argument " is a bit strong when you are asserting as fact something that in reality cannot be anything but speculation. Forseeing the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing the future is.

My language that "there is little room for argument..." was overly assumptive, even pompous. I should have phrased that better.

The suggestion that JFK would have lost the Congressional battle for Civil Rights omits the simple fact that Civil Rights was an idea whose time had come, and that JFK was a master politician who was perfectly capable of mobilizing the American mainstream, Democrat and Republican alike, behind his Bill.

It is a misreading to assert that I suggested that JFK "would have lost" the Civil Rights Act battle. I did not speculate about whether or not it would have passed, only about how "easily." To assert that the outcome was certain at the time of JFK's death would also be presumptive. I of course agree that JFK was a master politician, and my speculation on the "What If JFK Had Lived" question as it relates to civil rights centered on how much the societal growing pains might have been managed better had he been around.

T.C.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"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."

Thomas, can you please post the source of this quotation? Thanks in advance

Jackson Democrat

12/27/61

STUDENT EDITOR HITS BACK AT YOUNG DEMOS

The Editor of the nationally distributed Campus Conservative, a collegiate political newspaper published in Mississippi, accused the Mississippi Young Democrats of issueing "gross distortions" in recent statements about Maj. Gen Edwin A. Walker.

The controversial Walker is scheduled to speak in Jackson Friday night.

Jere Real, University of Virginia graduate student and editor of the Conservative, said last night that Young Democrat President Robert 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."

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

Perhaps there is more fact to the story of "two Oswald's" than most are aware.

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

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|1|1|1|1|37902|

Mr. Robert Oswald--------------------------------Pascagoula, MS (27 miles down the road and another old stomping grounds)

Mr. W.J. Simmons--------------------------------Jackson, MS

Both of which are worthy of their own research.

However the subject matter being Mr. John U. Barr, one should not go astray at this point!

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...64|1|1|1|50708|

And here, we find much additional information, which includes:

A. That Mr. John U. Barr's address was on "LaSalle St", in New Orleans, La.

B. That the "Vice-Chairman" of this grouping was located in Dallas, TX.

C. That Mr. Leander Perez was highly involved in these activities.

D. That "A TEXAN LOOKS AT LYNDON" may have more motive than just political discord.

(For those who know not in which tongue I speak):

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?...000000001245800

Edited January 16, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Tim Gratz]

Mr. J. Raymond Carroll's assertion that I said or implied that the assassination of President Kennedy may have been a good thing for America is patently absurd.

That LBJ may have been able to enact meritorious civil rights legislation as a result of a changed atmosphere in America as a result of the shock over the assassination in no way implies that the assassination was a good thing.

His argument is so ridiculous it is laughable.

There is an old saying that some times good things may result from bad acts. That in no way makes the acts good.

It was widely commented that there was a new sense of patriotism and national unity that resulted from the tragedy of 9-11. That was certainly true but has certainly abated to a certain degree now. But those who commented on that new sense of patriotism were certainly not saying that 9-11 was a "good thing for America."

There are certainly many other examples where commentators have commented on good things arising from tragedies. Tragedies often bring out heroism in men, presumably a good thing. But does anyone argue that the acts of heroism somehow justified the tragedy? Of course not.

To note that the martydom of JFK may have helped advance the cause of civil rights in no way detracts from the tragedy of the assassination. No one would so argue.

J. Raymond Caroll also stated:

This theme lurks as a subliminal message encoded in many of his posts, but its nice to see him finally make it explicit.

By this I take it he means that when I am critical of certain of JFK's policies I am implying that his removal from office by assassination was a "good thing for America". This argument is equally ridiculous. The corrollary to it is that anyone who disagrees with the policies of President Bush, as many members of this forum do, would consider the assassination of President Bush a "good thing for America". In no way would I imply that any forim member would advocation the assassination of President Bush. It is outrageous from J. Raymond Carroll to assert that I would applaud the assassination of JFK meremy because I did not agree with all of his policies or actions. Moreover, that also implies that I thought LBJ was a better president than JFK. While I think LBJ deserves credit for the passage of the civil rights legislation, I can assure each one of you that I was no fan of LBJ.

Finally, I would note that it was because of the JFK assassination that an act was passed making it a federal crime to kill a president. The passage of that act was certainly "a good thing for America". But the fact that some good things occurred as a result of the assassination in no way makes the assassination "a good thing for America".

To reiterate: the argument of J. Raymond Caroll asserted is specious and outrageous.

Edited January 16, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

The suggestion that JFK would have lost the Congressional battle for Civil Rights omits the simple fact that Civil Rights was an idea whose time had come, and that JFK was a master politician who was perfectly capable of mobilizing the American mainstream, Democrat and Republican alike, behind his Bill.

It is often forgotten that, a few weeks before JFK left for Dallas, the House Judiciary COmmittee had voted to approve the Civil Rights Bill.

I agree. I suspect that most Americans are unaware of how the civil rights issue was being portrayed in the rest of the world. Until the civil rights activity against the Jim Crow laws in the 1950s, most people outside America did not know much about the way blacks were treated. These pictures (and it was mainly the pictures of blacks being beaten for trying to eat in white lunch-counters, etc.) shocked the world. These events were likened to those of Nazi Germany. Reporters on television pointed out that Hitler was a great admirer of the way the Deep South treated the blacks. There was universal contempt for the hypocrisy of the Americans who were fighting the Cold War based on the lack of human rights enjoyed under communism.

Eisenhower and Kennedy showed no interest in civil rights before they became president (in 1960 JFK had actually sent RFK to meet political leaders in the Deep South to ensure them that his administration would not push for civil rights legislation). However, both men, once they entered the world stage, discovered how America was seen by the rest of the world. Eisenhower and Kennedy realized this problem had to be tackled.

It is very much like the situation America finds itself in today. Except for a couple of Western lapdog political leaders, world opinion is virtually united in seeing Bush and his cronies as being hypocrites in their so-called fight for human rights. This time a larger percentage of the American population are also aware of the real situation (as a result of the communications revolution). However, there are still some (Tim Gratz) who refuse to question the media propaganda they receive.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Except for a couple of Western lapdog political leaders. . .,

John, the fact that you would cheapen your argument by characterizing political leaders with whom you disagree (each of whom, I would suspect, is your intellectual equal) as "lapdogs" suggests to me that your hatred of Bush has affected your judgment. The fact that you can call someone a name does nothing to advance your viewpoint, IMO.

I would characterize your entire argument as "barking up the wrong tree" but I refuse to let my rhetoric go to the dogs!

Edited January 16, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

John, the fact that you would cheapen your argument by characterizing political leaders with whom you disagree (each of whom, I would suspect, is your intellectual equal) as "lapdogs" suggests to me that your hatred of Bush has affected your judgment.

Being a lapdog has nothing to do with intellect. It has more to do with political courage. Blair will never be forgiven for being Bush's lapdog. He has only remained in power because he has had the good fortune in the UK to face inept political leaders.

[Tim Gratz]

Being a lapdog has nothing to do with intellect. It has more to do with political courage.

It takes political courage to be a lapdog?

[Thomas Graves]

Being a lapdog has nothing to do with intellect. It has more to do with political courage. Blair will never be forgiven for being Bush's lapdog. He has only remained in power because he has had the good fortune in the UK to face inept political leaders.

________________________

Hear Hear!!

FWIW, Thomas

________________________

[John Dolva]

The suggestion that JFK would have lost the Congressional battle for Civil Rights omits the simple fact that Civil Rights was an idea whose time had come, and that JFK was a master politician who was perfectly capable of mobilizing the American mainstream, Democrat and Republican alike, behind his Bill.

It is often forgotten that, a few weeks before JFK left for Dallas, the House Judiciary COmmittee had voted to approve the Civil Rights Bill.

I agree. I suspect that most Americans are unaware of how the civil rights issue was being portrayed in the rest of the world. Until the civil rights activity against the Jim Crow laws in the 1950s, most people outside America did not know much about the way blacks were treated. These pictures (and it was mainly the pictures of blacks being beaten for trying to eat in white lunch-counters, etc.) shocked the world. These events were likened to those of Nazi Germany. Reporters on television pointed out that Hitler was a great admirer of the way the Deep South treated the blacks. There was universal contempt for the hypocrisy of the Americans who were fighting the Cold War based on the lack of human rights enjoyed under communism.

Eisenhower and Kennedy showed no interest in civil rights before they became president (in 1960 JFK had actually sent RFK to meet political leaders in the Deep South to ensure them that his administration would not push for civil rights legislation). However, both men, once they entered the world stage, discovered how America was seen by the rest of the world. Eisenhower and Kennedy realized this problem had to be tackled.

It is very much like the situation America finds itself in today. Except for a couple of Western lapdog political leaders, world opinion is virtually united in seeing Bush and his cronies as being hypocrites in their so-called fight for human rights. This time a larger percentage of the American population are also aware of the real situation (as a result of the communications revolution). However, there are still some (Tim Gratz) who refuse to question the media propaganda they receive.

Medgar Evers brother, Charles did an interview with Playboy where he described his relationship with the Kennedy brothers. He respected but did not know well Ted. He supported and campaigned for John in 1960> but did not know him well then. He saw the Kennedys as ambitious and politically astute, ruthless even.

After Medgar was assassinated (12.30 midnight june 12 1963, with a scoped rifle at 150 feet), all this started to change. John rang Charles and pledged to Charles that Medgar will not have died in vain. Bobby and Charles started to build a closer and closer relationship, to the point that Charles was at Bobbys side when Bobby was assassinated, and he flew to be with Bobby when John was assassinated.

Out of this close relationship he was able to say that the Kennedy brothers committment to civil rights was a product of exposure. They were essentially good, warmhearted people, who through circumstance had been ignorant of the situation people faced in some parts of the US.

When the Kennedys came face to face with the truth through personal experience, they did NOT shirk from their responsibilities, they followed through.

This is important to understand as John S.'s rather dry comments about this may lead to a false perception of the Kennedys as 'johnnie come latelys' to civil rights.

LBJ was possibly more aware of the importance of civil rights and he was able to say in 1960 to black leaders that 'watch us. In the next four years you will see progress.'

This indicates to me that it was the politician in John tempered with an ignorance born of lack of exposure that seemed to give him a skewed relationship to the civil rights issue,

OR::: as the brilliant politician that he was he saw that to do anything around these divisive issues he needed FIRST to be president.

So his intimates KNEW where he stood, and the emergence as a champion for civil rights came as no surprise.

Edited January 16, 2006 by John Dolva