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 violence 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 impaled 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 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'.

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.

_______________________________________

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.

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.

____________________________________________________

Some people at the time of Kennedys' assassination commented on the similarity with the assassination of Medgar Evers.

Interestingly some of the similarities are like those of a photo negative and positive.

Medgar, a black man, was shot in the back at 150 feet at 12.30 midnight, june12 1963, almost midwinter, as he stepped out of his car after having been to a gathering watching on TV, Kennedys civil rights speech the evening of june11. The bullet narrowly missed his family. The assassin threw the scoped rifle down behind some bushes, and ran off.

John was shot at 12.30 noon, november22 1963, almost midsummer.

This I suppose is just 'interesting'. However it must be born in mind that a lot of deluded people (which I think it reasonable to consider murderers to be, at least in some ways for most, much more so others) DO consider things like that important and one may speculate that a message of sorts may have been intended.

Edited January 16, 2006 by John Dolva

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

The Sophists of Aristotle's time could persuade people to believe in falsehoods by presenting arguments that were fallacious, yet persuasive to the mind that has not been forewarned and forearmed. The first fallacy in the Tim Gratz argument above is the well known Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

Mr. Gratz's argument (that the assassination enabled Civil Rights legislation) essentially casts an aspersion on Kennedys talents and ability in his chosen field of politics. It is a personal attack on JFK, not a comment on his policies. Since this forum is dedicated to solving his murder, personal attacks on the victim somehow seem innapropriate. This is especially so when the attack is based on nothing more than speculation, or when the attack is competely gratuitous, as in the case in point.

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.

Tim Gratz says The passage of that act was certainly "a good thing for America". I sincerely doubt that the framers of the constitution would think so. To the extent that it may allow the Federal Government to operate without any checks or balances from State Government, this may not be a good law at all. But Mr. Gratz will grasp at any straw in his attempt to find a stick to beat JFK.

[Robert Howard]

I thought I would offer a thought as to civil rights, ie rolled back, moved forward by Kennedy's death.

Read William Peppers book 'Order's to Kill.'

Only in America can the media present the illusion (as they imply today in 2006) that Martin Luther King Jr. was 'seen by all Americans' as a noble man, when the reality was quite different. Here in Dallas, TX I can assure that Martin Luther King was as hated a person as you can possibly imagine, next to JFK. Whatever writings you come across concerning the subject probably could not emphasize this enough. I have lived here for 47 years, and I don't think I ever encountered more than a handful of people that liked either MLK, or JFK until I was a teenager, and then perceptions were still not dramatically different.

When the government refuses to release classified documents which reveal the truth about '60's assassinations,' citing 'national security' concerns, they are, in effect telling the truth; the exception is they are not just protecting 'sources and methods' but protecting the national security of the crooks that have been running this government since 11/22/1963, excepting Jimmy Carter. What sources and methods are protected by the records of George H W Bush's Presidency being permanently sealed and not even accessible via FOIA?

A. It has everything to do with 'high crimes' and a corrupt Congress that allows this sort of garbage to happen in the first place.

If there is ever an epitaph inscribed to the American people, in the event of totalitarian government, it should read 'Born Yesterday.'

When people are more concerned about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie or the fact that a certain News Network can be a 24/7 infomercial for the Republikan Party and no one raises a cry in this country, I believe we collectively deserve whatever happens.

[David Boylan]

JFK, along with King and Khruschev, were considered the great enemies of the far right during the early '60s. Joseph Milteer produced more that a few pamphlets linking all three together - the Kennedy, King, Khruschev (KKK) conspiracy.

The "far right" also kept a close eye on the "far left." I believe that this is one of the roles that Guy Banister and Associates played after Banister left the N.O. police. Banister had previously (1957) testified as an expert witness before the LUAC about the infiltraton of the communists into the civil rights movement. A look at Banister's files show that he did indeed track such groups and individuals. If my memory is working today, some of Banitser's files were taken by the Louisiana State Police and some were given to Kent Courtney (good friend of Gen Walker). LHO may have had a small role working for Banister in this capacity.

[John Dolva]

JFK, along with King and Khruschev, were considered the great enemies of the far right during the early '60s. Joseph Milteer produced more that a few pamphlets linking all three together - the Kennedy, King, Khruschev (KKK) conspiracy.

The "far right" also kept a close eye on the "far left." I believe that this is one of the roles that Guy Banister and Associates played after Banister left the N.O. police. Banister had previously (1957) testified as an expert witness before the LUAC about the infiltraton of the communists into the civil rights movement. A look at Banister's files show that he did indeed track such groups and individuals. If my memory is working today, some of Banitser's files were taken by the Louisiana State Police and some were given to Kent Courtney (good friend of Gen Walker). LHO may have had a small role working for Banister in this capacity.

Bannister was recommended to the Sovereignty Commission Jackson Mississippi as investigator in march 64 by a john sullivan to track guns, there is indication he was working for the at least by may64. The thing that the SC did was to monitor and collect intel on the left and anyone who threatened segregation. Thye were heavily involved with Walker, Eastland, Barnett the JBS etc. They had a number of exFBI working for them, apparently Bannister was one of these.

Any further info on Oswald in this context?

[John Dolva]

...

[Thomas H. Purvis]

JFK, along with King and Khruschev, were considered the great enemies of the far right during the early '60s. Joseph Milteer produced more that a few pamphlets linking all three together - the Kennedy, King, Khruschev (KKK) conspiracy.

The "far right" also kept a close eye on the "far left." I believe that this is one of the roles that Guy Banister and Associates played after Banister left the N.O. police. Banister had previously (1957) testified as an expert witness before the LUAC about the infiltraton of the communists into the civil rights movement. A look at Banister's files show that he did indeed track such groups and individuals. If my memory is working today, some of Banitser's files were taken by the Louisiana State Police and some were given to Kent Courtney (good friend of Gen Walker). LHO may have had a small role working for Banister in this capacity.

Bannister was recommended to the Sovereignty Commission Jackson Mississippi as investigator in march 64 by a john sullivan to track guns, there is indication he was working for the at least by may64. The thing that the SC did was to monitor and collect intel on the left and anyone who threatened segregation. Thye were heavily involved with Walker, Eastland, Barnett the JBS etc. They had a number of exFBI working for them, apparently Bannister was one of these.

Any further info on Oswald in this context?

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...e.php?letter=V%

VAN-LANDINGHAM, Z.

VAN-LANDINGHAM, Z. J.

VAN-LANDINGHAM, ZACK

VAN-LANDINGHAM, ZACK J.

VAN-LANDINGHAM, ZACK L.

VAN-LANDINGHAN, ZACK J.

VAN-LANDNGAHM, ZACK J.

VAN-LANDNGHAM, ZACK J

Your "ex"-FBI connection to the MS Commission

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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?

I wholehearteddly agree with John Simkin on this issue. Back in Feb/March 2005 I lost a fortune in bets that the UK would not join the Iraq war. I bet that Blair would not go to war without a U.N. resolution, as he had publicly proclaimed.

Blair lied to me, just as he lied to everyone.

This is a matter of courage, and Mr. Blair has failed the test.

[Tim Gratz]

J. Raymond Carroll wrote:

Tim Gratz says The passage of that act was certainly "a good thing for America". I sincerely doubt that the framers of the constitution would think so. To the extent that it may allow the Federal Government to operate without any checks or balances from State Government, this may not be a good law at all. But Mr. Gratz will grasp at any straw in his attempt to find a stick to beat JFK.

It is "beating" JFK to argue that as a result of his death a law was paased making the assassination of a president a federal crime? The logic is over-whelming. I am "beating" JFK how? By implicitly criticizing him for not proposing such a law during his lifetime? That clearly was not my point. And I am rather surprised that Mr. Carroll does NOT believe it should be a federal crime to murder the president.

It is also amusing or annoying (cannot quite decide which) that Mr. Carroll apparently asserts that only those who believe that JFK was the best president in the history of the US, and who had no moral flaws, should exhibit an interest in solving his murder. Robert Charles-Dunne once wrote that he would be as intent on trying to track down anyone who assassinated George Bush (or another president with whom he disagreed) and I commended him for the sentiment. JFK was the president of all of the American people, and his murder was a crime against all Americans, regardless of whether they had voted for or supported him.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It is also amusing or annoying (cannot quite decide which) that Mr. Carroll apparently asserts that only those who believe that JFK was the best president in the history of the US, and who had no moral flaws, should exhibit an interest in solving his murder

Give it up, Mr. Gratz, we all know where you are coming from.

[Tim Gratz]

Of course you do! You are of course a soothsayer!

[Tim Carroll]

Of course you do! You are of course a soothsayer!

Here is a statement from Raymond earlier in this thread:

Forseeing the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing the future is.

Interesting that on a historical forum, someone would make an argument that "forseeing [sic] the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing [sic] the future is." So we can evaluate history about as well as Madame Ruby can tell the future in her crystal ball? Give me a break!

I consider this thread to have grown far too personal, and couldn't agree more with Tim Gratz that the logic being applied is "specious." It wasn't just the names of schools, airports and boulevards that changed following the assassination. I am an extreme leftist, and Tim Gratz is a rightist (probably not as extreme as me), but we can agree that the assassination changed the political landscape to some degree. That is not a reflection of the kind of sophistry that could mangle that statement into an assertion that JFK's death was good for the country.

I just read where Bobby acknowledged that largely as a result of the assassination, the extreme right was in disarray. On this thread, when I said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed more easily as a result of the assassination, my statement was twisted into saying that the measure would not have passed without Dallas. I don't like such disingenuous spin, and wonder why it passes inspection here without the molestation it deserves.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Excellent post, Tim! Agree 100!!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

[John Dolva]

Of course you do! You are of course a soothsayer!

Here is a statement from Raymond earlier in this thread:

Forseeing the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing the future is.

Interesting that on a historical forum, someone would make an argument that "forseeing [sic] the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing [sic] the future is." So we can evaluate history about as well as Madame Ruby can tell the future in her crystal ball? Give me a break!

I consider this thread to have grown far too personal, and couldn't agree more with Tim Gratz that the logic being applied is "specious." It wasn't just the names of schools, airports and boulevards that changed following the assassination. I am an extreme leftist, and Tim Gratz is a rightist (probably not as extreme as me), but we can agree that the assassination changed the political landscape to some degree. That is not a reflection of the kind of sophistry that could mangle that statement into an assertion that JFK's death was good for the country.

I just read where Bobby acknowledged that largely as a result of the assassination, the extreme right was in disarray. On this thread, when I said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed more easily as a result of the assassination, my statement was twisted into saying that the measure would not have passed without Dallas. I don't like such disingenuous spin, and wonder why it passes inspection here without the molestation it deserves.

T.C.

I agree Tim. I didn't spot that mangling but would have commented had I done so. The irrelevant one liners and personal guff just clogs things up, detracts, and adds nothing except an understanding of some aspects of the manufacturers of it. When post after post is of that nature ones wish to read anythin quickly diminishes.

Sometimes I wonder if that is the purpose of it. No matter, no amount of railing against it in the past has made much difference nor has appeals to reason, so I suspect it's justr one of thoose annoying realities. It does seem that once one engages these issues one has to be prepared to cope with a certain amount of unpleasantness that have nothing to do with the issues but do unfortunately control the debate to some extent. However, it (the search for truth) is an ongoing thing.

In the final analysis what will matter is the ongoing attention by those who do engage in the debate, not the so called 'noise'. Though I do sometimes find the noise very interesting and often quite amusing. In the long run it builds an interesting 'landscape' of personalities that future sociologists, psychiatrists, historians may find worthy of study. (These pages on the Forum are building into quite a document that will allow a very large number of studies in many fields. Interestingly they exist in parts on many many hard disks throughout the world.)

________________________________

"I just read where Bobby acknowledged that largely as a result of the assassination, the extreme right was in disarray. On this thread, when I said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed more easily as a result of the assassination"

I've noticed in reading various documants that the Right went on the defensive, in many instances not mentioning the assassination at all. Various groupings suffered drops in memebership, new and sometimes more underground and extreme ones formed.

Edited January 19, 2006 by John Dolva

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Of course you

Forseeing the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing the future is.

Interesting that on a historical forum, someone would make an argument that "forseeing [sic] the past is about as close to an exact science as forseeing [sic] the future is." So we can evaluate history about as well as Madame Ruby can tell the future in her crystal ball? Give me a break!

I consider this thread to have grown far too personal, and couldn't agree more with Tim Gratz that the logic being applied is "specious." . I am an extreme leftist, and Tim Gratz is a rightist (probably not as extreme as me),

T.C.

Interesting that an extrme leftist and an extreme rightist are in agreement. Of course I do not argue that the assassination had no effect, as Tim C. seems to be implying. But predicting an alternative past is indeed exactly like predicting the future, and saying so in no way demeans the science of history.