Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Yankee-Cowboy Conflict and 2006

Recommended Posts

The Yankee mind, of global scope, is at home in the great world, used to regarding it as a whole thing integrated in the far-flung activities of Western exploration, conquest, and commerce. The Yankee believes that the basis of a good world order is the health of America's alliances across the North Atlantic, the relations with the Western Democracies from which our tradition mainly flows. He believes the United States continues the culture of Europe and relates to the Atlantic as to a lake whose other shore must be secured as a matter of domestic priority. Europe is the key world theater, and it is self-evident to the Yankee mind that the fate of the United States is inevitably linked up with Europe's in a career of white cultural destiny transcending national boundaries: that a community of a unified world civilization exists, that there is such a thing as "the West," "One World."

The Cowboy mind has no room for the assumption that American and European culture are continuous. The Cowboy is moved instead by the discontinuity of the New World from the Old and substitutes for the Yankee's Atlantic-oriented culture a new system of culture (Big Sky, Giant) oriented to an expanding wilderness Frontier and based on an advanced Pacific strategy.

The Yankee monopolists who first broke faith with the goal of military victory in Vietnam did so in view of what they saw as the high probability of failure and the certain ambiguity of success. The Cowboy entrepreneurs who fought hardest to keep that faith alive did so out of conviction of the necessity of success. Said the multicorporate-liberal Yankee (about 1968): "The United States cannot wage a whining nonnuclear land campaign in Asia. It will destroy its much more essential relations in Europe if in spite of all wisdom its leadership continues to siphon off precious national blood and treasure to win this war. It is necessary to stand down." Said the Cowboy: "Only the strong are free."

The distinction between the East Coast monopolist and the Western tycoon entrepreneur is the main class-economic distinction set out by the Yankee/ Cowboy perspective. It arises because one naturally looks for a class-economic basis for this apparent conflict at the summit of American power. That is because one must assume that parties without a class economic base could not endure struggle at that height. It is then only necessary to recall that antiwar feeling struck the Eastern Establishment next after it struck the students, the teachers, and the clergy-struck the large bank-connected firms tied into the trans-Atlantic business grid. During the same period, industrial segments around the construction industry, the military-industrial complex, agribusiness, the Southern Boom of the sixties and seventies, and independent Texas/ Southwest oil interests-i.e., the forces Quigley calls "new wealth"-never suffered a moment of war-weariness. They supported the Texan Johnson and the Southern Californian Nixon as far as they would go toward a final military solution. (See Steve Weissman and Steve Johnson, Ramparts, August 1974)

Why should this difference have arisen? After a century of Northeastern leadership, and one-quarter century of Cold War unity, why should the national ruling coalition of the old and new owning classes, Yankee and Cowboy, have begun pulling apart? But then we have to go back: What was the basis of their unity to begin with?

William Appleman Williams deals with a variation of this question when he argues that the basis for the long-term general (or "pluralist") coalition of the forces of capitalism (or "plutocracy") with the forces of democracy in American politics is the constant companionship of the expanding wilderness frontier. Williams thus stands the Turner Frontier on its head, correcting it. (William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 1959)

I add that another and cognate effect of the frontier in American economic development was to preserve the entrepreneurial option long after the arrival of the vast monopoly structures which tend to consume entrepreneurs. In the states whose political-economic histories Marx studied, for example, the frontier was never the factor that it was in America, except as America itself was Europe's Wild West. The rugged individualist self-made rich man, the autonomous man of power, the wildcatter, began to drop out of sight, to lose presence as individual, type, and class, with the rise of the current-day computer-centered monopoly-corporate formations. The tycoon-entrepreneur is of course disappearing as a type in America too, at least as a political force in national life. The Hughes empire, at last, has been corporatized. Old man Hunt is dead. His sons are bringing Harvard Business School rational bureaucracy to the operation. But that only makes it all the more curious that political power continued to emanate from the type and the person, the image and the reality, the ghost perhaps, of a creature like Hughes as late as the second victorious presidential campaign of Nixon. Why should the Cowboy tycoon have persisted so long as a political force, competent to struggle against the biggest banking cartels for control of the levers of national power?

As others have argued, the Frontier was a reprieve for democracy. We may note here that it was also a reprieve for capitalism as well, whose internal conflicts were constantly being financed off an endless-seeming input of vast stretches of natural riches, having no origin in capitalist production. All that was needed was for the settlers to accept the genocidal elimination of the native population and a great deal became possible-the purple mountains, the fruited plains. And generation after generation of American whites were able to accept that program. The Indian wars won the West. The railroads and highways were laid. The country was resettled by a new race, a new nation.

Energies of expansion consumed the continent in about two centuries, pushing on to Hawaii and Alaska. There is no way to calculate the impact of that constant territorial expansion on the development of American institutions.

There is no way to imagine those institutions apart from the environment created by that expansion. It is a matter our standard national hagiography paints out of the picture, though we make much of the populist-saga aspect of the pioneering (never "conquering") of the West. How can we congratulate our national performance for its general democracy and constitutionalism without taking into account the background of that constant expansion? We do not teach our children that we are democrats in order to expand forever and republicans on condition of an unfrozen western boundary with unclaimed wilderness. To the extent that the American miracle of pluralism exists at all, we still do not know how miraculous it would be in the absence of an expanding frontier, its constant companion till the time of the Chinese revolution.

The war in Asia has its internal American origin in the native reflex to maintain the Western Frontier on the old terms and to do so at all cost, since our whole way of life hinges on the Frontier. What the late-blooming Yankee liberal critics of the Vietnam war refused to hear and recognize between the lines of the prowar arguments of the more philosophical Cowboy hawks was this essential point about the importance of Frontier expansion in American life from the beginning.

In the nature of things, the American Frontier continued to expand with the prosperity it financed. Now, in our generation, it has brought us to this particular moment of world confrontation across the Pacific, fully global in scale for both sides, fully modern in its technological expression far both sides - the old Westward-surging battle for space projected onto the stage of superpowers.

The success and then the successful defense from 1950 to 1975 of the Asian revolutionary nationalist campaigns against further Western dominance in Asia-China, Korea, Vietnam-means that all that is changed. What was once true about the space to the west of America is no longer true and will never be true again. There will never be a time again when the white adventurer may peer over his western horizon at an Asia helplessly plunged in social disorganization. In terms of their social power to operate as a unified people and in the assimilation of technology, the Chinese people are, since 1950, a self-modernizing people, not colonials any more. And instead of a Wild West, Americans now have a mature common boundary with other moderns like ourselves, not savages, not Redskins, not Reds, only modern people like ourselves in a single modern world. This is new for us, a new experience for Americans altogether.

Our national transformation from an unbounded to a bounded state will of course continue to stir the internal furies. No one interpretation of the event will be able to establish itself. No one will agree what the end of the Frontier means, what it will lead to, what one ought to do about it. But all will agree that it is upon us and past, whether it is called one thing or another. And now after Vietnam, as though it were not clear enough before, it is apparent beyond any possibility of doubt that whatever this force of Asian self-modernization is, whether it is evil br good or beyond good and evil, it is assuredly not a force that United States policy-makers can manhandle and manipulate and hold back through diplomatic chicanery and military force. Even if it were still advisable for the United States to stop "the march of Asian communism," if that is what we are really talking about, it is not possible for the United States to do that. Look and see: China, Korea, Vietnam.

I have not written this book to say at the end, choose sides between Cowboy and Yankee for Civil War II. My less bloody belief is that ordinary people all over the map, Northeast by Southwest, have a deep, simple, and common need to oppose all these intrigues and intriguers, whatever terms one calls them by and however one understands their development. But this need of course must be recognized, and that is why I write: to offer an analysis of the situation of domestic politics from the standpoint of power-elite collisions taking place at the top, and then, at the end, to suggest that democracy's first response must be to demand a realistic reconstruction of the assassination of President Kennedy. To comprehend his murder (as with the murder of Lincoln) is to comprehend a very basic event in the history of American government, as well as the crimes that came after it. The comprehension of these covert political actions is the absolute precondition of self-government, the first step toward the restoration of the legitimate state.

More broadly I write to say that we are the American generations for whom the frontier is the fact that there is no more frontier and who must somehow begin to decide how to deal with this.

What shall America do about the loss of its wilderness frontier? Can we form our nation anew, on new, non-expansionist terms without first having to see everything old swept violently away? The unarticulated tension around, that question undermined the long-standing Yankee/Cowboy coalition and introduced, with President Kennedy's assassination, the current period of violent and irregular movement at the top of the power hierarchy. It is the precipitous and at the same time unfocused character of this question of the closed, lost frontier that has created such a challenge, such a threat, to traditional American values and institutions, the threat of a cancerously spreading clandestine state within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in what your view is of the Yankee-Cowboy conflict in 2006. On the surface, the last six years has suggested the dominance of the Cowboys. It is clearly no coincidence that a Texas based company, Halliburton, has done extremely well out of Bush’s aggressive foreign policy. However, like presidents before him, has not Bush been forced to provide lucrative military contracts to the Yankees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in what your view is of the Yankee-Cowboy conflict in 2006. On the surface, the last six years has suggested the dominance of the Cowboys. It is clearly no coincidence that a Texas based company, Halliburton, has done extremely well out of Bush’s aggressive foreign policy. However, like presidents before him, has not Bush been forced to provide lucrative military contracts to the Yankees?

Bush 41 and Bush 43 are PSEUDO-COWBOYS. Yankee roots. Skull and Bones.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

"GEORGE W. BUSH is an emotionally disordered son of a famous Yankee who found some ground beneath his feet when he was turned into a millionaire by genuine Texas Cowboy financiers and told he could ride with them and wear a Stetson."

The above is from a piece penned on September 11, 2007 (http://www.newcombat.net/article_tuesday.html#sorrows), and was inspired by my reading of The Yankee and Cowboy War.

1. The Papa Bush-Baby Bush story seems indeed a Yankee-Cowboy story.

Baby Bush was not in essence a Cowboy. But sure wanted to be one, and was used effectively by them. In the end he was not (as the saying goes) his father's son.

Bush pere was a pure-bred Yankee (indeed his father's son), who rubbed elbows with Cowboys during the Pacific war and then after with the CIA re Cuba.

(I'm one of those who believe Bush pere's ne'er do well oil company at some point circa Castro's victory became a CIA affiliate. Whether he himself was Tapped at Yale or just invited postwar by the opportunistic Company to play a little rodeo .... dunno. The CIA had been founded and dominated by Yankees but by 1960 was diversifying: Howard Hunt and Bill Harvey were Cowboys, as were some of the old OSS footsoldiers. Ed Lansdale? Hmm ... Cowboy?)

The story of two Bush presidents is, in its vulgar way, Shakespearean: the radical so-called Neo-conservatives who were given control of baby Bush's foreign policy in 2001 had been, beneath the GOP tent, personal enemies of Bush pere going back to the Reagantime.

Indeed, their first public spat seems to have come during the Ford Administration, when Ford's Chief of Staff (Rumsfeld) and Rummy's gopher (Cheney) nixed Bush's move to become a leading national figure in support of his anticipated presidential bid. Instead he was given the CIA chair -- which at the time was deemed a kiss of death for presidential aspirants. (Or so goes the story ...)

Reagan quietly sidelined Neo-Cons within his administration -- Perle, Weinberger, Wolfowitz, Adelman -- during the 80s, in favor of George Shultz (who ran the Gorbachev policy) and Bush pere (who as VP influenced Reagan, and helped Casey run the CIA, more than is realized).

This infuriated the Neo-con hawks -- the originators of the Sunday talk show notion that Bush pere was a "wimp" and a "lap dog." And when in 1991 Bush-Scowcroft then stopped the Gulf War short of Baghdad, allowing Saddam Hussein's regime to survive, they went nuts.

But fast-forward to 1999 -- and there we have BABY Bush hiring some of the very same people to advise his presidential campaign on foreign affairs -- people his father and Scowcroft had criticized heavily in their book (A World Transformed) the year before. And (as Woodward reports) when it came time to push the button on Iraq, baby Bush did not consult dad.

During early 2004, when "Mission Accomplished" was a joke and Bush's usefulness on the world stage fading fast, I went so far to wonder in print if the Neo-cons might go so far -- should Bush come out of the GOP convention trailing John Kerry in the polls -- as to send the boy president down in his helicopter. Cheney, their reliable man, would then advance to the top spot. The Party would have a martyr to help it limp thru the election. And old foe Bush pere would have been paid back in grisly all-too-human Shakespearean style.

Sadly my dream was never tested, as Kerry never succeeded in overtaking baby Bush.

2. So: It seems to me the Yankee-Cowboy distinction is still very much alive in American politics. And Mr O's question from 1977 (above) -- What happens now that the USA's foundational frontier has been closed?" -- helps me think about what happened under Bush-Cheney.

The neo-Cowboys who inhabited the Bush-Cheney White House weren't perfectly in the Oglesby mold. The Frontier indeed had closed in Vietnam, and most of them were Jewish Americans for whom the security of Israel was paramount in foreign affairs.

Furthermore, the Y-C distinction, during most of our history, was not identical to the distinction between Diplomats and Militarists. But when the Frontier closes, must things tend that way?

Can one live in the Pentagon, today, without being a Cowboy? And can any Yankee today lead with the stick?

However that may be, the ascension to power of the Likud Lobby Neo-Cons, and the way they used their power, make Mr Oglesby's question active and interesting.

That is: We have, now, one answer at least as to what happens to the Pentagon (and the vast political and commercial complex it feeds and takes nourishment from) when the Frontier closes. A: The Cowboys hire themselves out to people who still have frontiers to conquer/defend. Give me a home, where the buffalo roam ...

Not that the current Iraq war was in essence a child of the Pentagon. (It seems to me it was mostly forced upon the Pentagon by an eccentric White House cabal.) So perhaps the better answer, in this instance, is: The Pentagon gets shanghaied. By a handful of unpatriotic zealots. Very strange.

At best it seems the psychic and economic forces compelling the US military-industrial complex to grow and act constitute a hair trigger.

And Mr Oglesby's question, in our day, does seem to roughly translate: Was militarism bred into the USA's bones by its protracted birth on the Frontier?

President Obama, of course, has re-hired Mr Gates and Adm. Mullen -- the leaders of the Bush-Cheney Pentagon and foreign policy since the expulsion of the Neo-Cons in 2006 -- and signed off last spring (along with McCain) on their plans to escalate in Pakghanistan, where death and failure wait with gaping jaws. There is no history to suggest anyone can win anything Over There.

And so I feel some of the same puzzlement that Mr O expressed above -- puzzlement as to how the US Cowboy continues to survive on contemporary Earth.

Perhaps the death of the Cowboy will require the death of the state itself, and Chalmers Johnson's discussion in SORROWS OF EMPIRE is the dark answer to Mr Oglesby's question from 1977. If a shark stops swimming, it dies (the story goes).

Edited by William Ney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
The story of two Bush presidents is, in its vulgar way, Shakespearean..... The aim is to keep the Machine, born of the Frontier, alive.....

....Maybe, then, Chalmers Johnson's SORROWS OF EMPIRE is the answer to Mr Oglesby's question from 1977. If a shark stops swimming, it dies.

Aren't the two Bush presidencies simply the signs of fruition of the efforts of the wealthiest few to manipulate the masses into aspiring to be as wealthy, instead of aspiring to overthrow them and forcibly redistribute their wealth?

Didn't the modern era result from the concentration of wealth achieved by the oil and transport barons, and what they then chose to do with all that wealth? The modern MIC began with the group I've described here:

Samuel F. Pryor & Son, by Sam Pryor III, Jupiter Island, Epicenter of MIC, ONI,OSS, CIA, Cold War, Bush Dynasty


....and weren't the Harrimans, Lovetts, (Robert S. of Union Pacific, son Robert A. and his best friend, Trubee Davison, of pioneering airpower doctrine, design and staffing of CIA, and DOD Korea policy, and JFK ex-comm in Oct. 1962) and Rockefellers, and their Pryor and Bush family errand boys, the financiers and founders of MIC and anti-left politics still thriving today?

This cabal filled five presidential or VP slots, of 16 available, between 1980 and 2008. In their group was Walter S. Carpenter Jr., first non-Du Pont family president and chairman of Dupont industries, while it took over Rockefeller owned and Pryor managed Remington-UMC, and acted as lead Manhattan project and H-bomb project contractor, still managing to keep in communication and in business with IG Farben as late as in Jan., 1945.

JFK attempted to fill his cabinet with this Jupiter Island cabal that has given us the two Bushes:

The Wise Men, Six Friends and the World They Made: Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, McCloy


JFK also appointed C. Douglas Dillon of Jupiter Island to his cabinet, the son of Clarence Dillon who had contributed his right hand man, James Forrestal to head the War Department. Forrestal spent his last uninstitutionalized hours on earth at Lovett's Jupiter Island estate.

George Walker and Prescott Bush were business partners with Jupiter Island founder, Samuel F. Pryor. Pryor worked for Percy Rockefeller, investigated in the 1930's senate hearings by Ferdinand Pecora:


Samuel P. Bush was put in charge, by Bernard Baruch, in 1918, of overseeing Pryor's Remington-UMC war production.

The money behind the MIC and the policies it drove were the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Whitneys, and a little later the Mellons and Dillons they created the intelligence community and they all lived happily together on Jupiter Island....

The people listed in this wedding party and the relationships of their family members, illustrate and reinforce my points:


SANDRA H. PAYSON LISTS ATTENDANTS; Sisters to Be Members of Her...

- New York Times - Dec 9, 1948

The ush ers will be Cord 1V[eyer Jr., another brother; Willetts Meyer of New York, cousin of the prospective ; David F. Bartlett of I-lobe Sound, Fla., ...

The groom in the 1948 wedding linked above, was William B. Meyer, brother of CIA"s Cord Meyer, and first cousin of S. Willets Meyer, the best man in the 1946 wedding of Edward Gordon Hooker, close friend and school roommate of GHW Bush, as well as the business partner of George de Mohernschildt, and stepson of his brother, Dmitri.

The bride of William Meyer was Sandra Helen Payson, daughter of Joan Whitney Payson, eleven years later, the partner in the NY Mets expansion team baseball franchise with George Walker's son and GHW Bush "Uncle Herbie", George H Walker Jr.

The other usher in that wedding was David Frost Bartlett, the son of Valentine C. Bartlett of Chicago and Jupiter Island.

A year later, in 1949 when David Bartlett was married to Gladys Pulitzer, both JFK and Jacqueline Bouvier were guests at that wedding, of the best man, David's brother, Charles L. Bartlett. Charles and his wife later introduced JFK and Jackie to each other, and they all became best friends, Charles and his wife were part of JFK's 1953 wedding party, and Mrs. Bartlett

was JFK Jr's godmother. David and Charles had to know the Bushes from wintering together on Jupiter Island, and in his memoirs, GHW Bush describes Charles as one of his closest friends....

Sandra Payson and her mother Joan Payson Whitney's family provided the seed money for Samuel F. Pryor's son's close friend, Juan Trippe to finance the start of his Pan Am airline empire:


William Collins Whitney (July 5, 1841 - February 2, 1904) was an American political leader and financier and founder of the prominent Whitney family. He served as Secretary of the Navy in the first Cleveland administration from 1885 through 1889...

...Educated at Williston Seminary, East Hampton, Massachusetts, Whitney was graduated from Yale University in 1863 and then studied law at Harvard. He left in 1864 to study law with Abraham R. Lawrence in New York City, and in 1865 was admitted to the bar.[2][3]

On October 13, 1869, he married Flora Payne, daughter of Senator Henry B. Payne of Ohio and a sister of Whitney's Yale classmate, Colonel Oliver Hazard Payne, later treasurer of the Standard Oil Company. They Whitneys had five children:

* Harry Payne Whitney (1872-1930)

* Pauline Payne Whitney (1874-1916) - married Almeric Hugh Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough

* (William) Payne Whitney (1876-1927)

* Oliver Whitney (1878-1883)

* Dorothy Payne Whitney (1887-1968) - married (1) Willard Dickerman Straight; (2) Leonard Knight Elmhirst...


William Payne Whitney (March 20, 1876 - May 25, 1927) was a wealthy American businessman and member of the influential Whitney family. The son of William C. Whitney and Flora Payne, and younger brother to Harry, he was known throughout his life by his middle name.

....Payne Whitney attended Groton School and then Yale University. There, he was a member of Skull & Bones, Delta Kappa Epsilon, and captained the Yale rowing team. In later years, he helped finance the team, including donating funds to build a dormitory for the crew. After graduating in 1898, Whitney then studied law at the Harvard Law School, receiving his Bachelor of Laws in 1901.

In 1902, he married Helen Hay (1875-1944), the daughter of then-United States Secretary of State (and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom) John Hay. Their Stanford White-designed house at 972 Fifth Avenue was a wedding gift from his maternal uncle, Oliver Hazard Payne. The couple also had an estate, Greentree, in Manhasset, New York. Their son, John Hay Whitney, also served as the Ambassador to the U.K. Daughter Joan, an avid sportsperson, was the first owner of the New York Mets Major League Baseball team....

In addition to a substantial inheritance from his father, Payne Whitney inherited $63,000,000 from his uncle, Col. Oliver Hazard Payne.


Gertrude Vanderbilt spent her summers in Newport, Rhode Island, at the family's mansion, The Breakers, where she kept up with the boys in all their rigorous sporting activities. Educated by private tutors and at the exclusive Brearley School in New York City, at age 21 she married the extremely wealthy sportsman Harry Payne Whitney (1872–1930).

A banker and investor, Whitney was the son of William C. Whitney, and his mother was the daughter of a Standard Oil Company magnate.....Gertrude and Harry Whitney had three children, Flora (1897), Cornelius (1899), and Barbara (1903).

Clipper Skipper

Monday, Mar. 28, 1949


(1 of 8)

On the opposite wall, a plaque pays tribute to the foremost explorer of the modern world of the air—Juan Terry Trippe. The plaque commemorates the rediscovery of the old world by the new: the first passenger flight of Trippe and his Pan American Airways Dixie Clipper from the U.S. to Lisbon on June 28, 1939.


(2 of 8)

Returning from such a jaunt, wiry Eddie Eagan, New York State boxing commissioner and a Yale classmate ('21) of Trippe's,


(3 of 8)

In 1939, Cornelius Vanderbilt ("Sonny") Whitney, a Yale schoolmate, and at the time Pan Am's board chairman, teamed up with some directors against Trippe. They felt that Trippe was spending too much on new planes and routes, instead of on dividends. They shunted Trippe aside and Whitney took over. But Whitney was unable to take over the thousand & one details of Pan Am's far-flung operations which Trippe kept in his head.

After ten months of floundering around, Whitney was glad to step aside and let Trippe take over again. The lesson was plain: Trippe would run things his own way because he had shown that he was the only man who could run them.


(4 of 8)

...After service as a World War I Navy pilot (he did not get overseas), he returned to Yale's Sheffield Scientific School. He organized a flying club and an intercollegiate air meet, which he helped to win in a souped-up Jennie. He also became fast friends with a rough-cut classmate named Samuel F. Pryor, now his right-hand man. The old school tie is strong at Pan Am: Vice Presidents Howard B. Dean, Franklin Gledhill and David S. Ingalls were all Trippe contemporaries at Yale.

Three years out of college, he helped organize Colonial Air Transport, which won the first U.S. airmail contract. But when he daringly proposed that little Colonial's Boston-New York route be stretched all the way to Florida, his staid New England backers were alarmed. Trippe pulled out, having learned a lesson: never to take a board of directors into his confidence until his plans were all set.

Though the U.S. had no international air policy in the early '20s—and did not even know that it needed one—Trippe did. In 1927, while Sonny Whitney lined up $300,000 capital, Trippe merged three aviation firms into what eventually became Pan American Airways, and started flying the 110-mile Key West-to-Cuba route.

He lost no time in donning his seven-league boots. Working hand in glove with the post office, he won contracts to fly to San Juan and the Canal Zone, and overnight was assured $2,500,000 a year in mail revenue for ten years. Pan Am began the year 1929 with no miles of routes; at year's end it had 11,000. By 1930, at the age of three, Pan Am was the world's longest airline, and still is...

...He worked with planemakers to turn out the flying boats he needed, sent Charles A. Lindbergh, a consultant to Pan Am, on Great Circle survey flights to the Orient. ...


(5 of 8)

...He negotiated his own treaties with 62 foreign governments. "If Pan American had let the State Department deal with these countries in its behalf," Trippe says, "the U.S. would have had to grant reciprocal landing rights, and today would be crisscrossed with foreign carriers. As it was, by doing its own negotiating, Pan American had to offer nothing but air service."

War Horse. The day after Pearl Harbor, this air service became a prime military asset to the U.S. as a means of quick transport across the oceans. On the routes which Trippe had first plotted with a piece of string on the globe in his office, the armed forces built their huge transport service. Drafted by the Army & Navy as a contract carrier, Pan Am ferried high brass, spies, planes and war materials into Africa, Europe and Asia, and built 53 airports. Its payroll swelled from 4)395 to 88,000 and its Lisbon base for a time was the only Allied radio outpost on the Continent....

...He keeps on excellent terms with 73 nations, running all the way from democracies to dictatorships, by a simple rule: he never ties himself to any political party, and he keeps his political opinions to himself....

...He did well under a Republican administration, did even better under the New Deal. His political fences are always carefully tended. Pan Am Vice President Pryor, onetime Republican national committeeman from Connecticut, knows his way round G.O.P. circles in Washington. On the Democratic side, Pan Am has Vice President J. Carroll Cone, onetime Army pilot and all-around air expert, who campaigned and raised money for Truman before Philadelphia and helped keep his native Arkansas from going over to Dixiecrat Thurmond. ...


Marie Norton Whitney Harriman (1903-1970) was the first wife (1923-1929) of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, with whom she had two children, Harry Payne Whitney II and Nancy Marie Whitney. Her second marriage was to statesman W. Averell Harriman. From 1930 to 1942 she owned and operated an art gallery on 57th Street in Manhattan, the Marie Harriman Gallery.....


Charles Shipman Payson

Joan Whitney Payson

Daughter Sandra Helen Payson died on July 15 in Manhattan, where she was visiting. A former New Yorker, she was 78 and lived in Washington and Delaplane, Va.

she grew up in Manhasset, N.Y., where she founded the Manhasset Stable for thoroughbred racing, which she later moved to Delaplane.

She was a board member of the Lincoln Center Institute for Arts in Education, the Whitney Museum, the Madeira School and the Research Center at the New York Public Library. She also was active in the Women's Leadership Forum of the Democratic National Committee in Washington.

Her two marriages, to William Blair Meyer and George (later Lord) Weidenfeld of London, ended in divorce.

Ms. Payson is survived by a son, William Blair Meyer Jr. of Manhattan and Palm Beach, Fla.; two daughters, Joan Curci Meyer of London and Porto Ercole, Italy, and Averil Payson Meyer of New York City and Katonah, N.Y.; two sisters, Payne Whitney Middleton of Manhattan, and Lorinda Payson deRoulet of Manhasset; a brother, John Whitney Payson of Jupiter Island, Fla.; and eight grandchildren.

(Prescott Bush had facilitated Charles Bartlett's 1956 Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalism which cost Air Force Secretary Harold E. Talbott his job):


The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty‎ - Page 205

by Peter Schweizer, Rochelle Schweizer, Inc ebrary - Politicians - 2005 - 574 pages

Pres, who was on the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time, had been a

source, and the two had been friends ever since. Bartlett had received a tip ....


Wednesday, November 1, 2003

A sporting blueblood

By Tom Farrey


....George W. Bush's uncle, Wall Street financier Herbert Walker, was one of the original owners of the New York Mets. In fact, George's dream of owning a baseball team was sparked when as a boy he attended games at Shea Stadium, where he sat in Uncle Herbie's box seats....

.... Bush's family, through the Walker side, was also responsible for the financing or overseeing and creation of Madison Square Garden and Belmont Park, two of the most famed venues in sports....


Backers Named For New York Third Ml Club . - St. Petersburg Times Jun 19, 1959


The Bush Tragedy‎ - Page 24

by Jacob Weisberg - Biography & Autobiography - 2008 - 271 pages

... as an end in itself" — a trait he sees in Poppy and George W Bush as well,

... George Herbert Walker Jr, known as "Uncle Her- bie" Herbie was a driven ...

...A baseball lover who co-founded the New York Mets as an expansion team in 1960, Herbie went to every one of George's college games--but often skipped the sports matches of his own sons...Ray Walker once described his father's attitude toward his nephew Poppy as "hero worship."

....In the White House, Poppy often talked to aides about Uncle Herbie's ownership of a baseball franchise as the life of Riley--the kind of thing he would do if he weren't burdened with the responsibility of service and the cares of the world. This became the fantasy of young George W. as well, after his great-uncle Herbie took him to meet Casey Stengel and the legendary St. Louis player Rogers Hornsby in the Mets dugout....

...But Prescott's nemesis in this battle was less his father-in-law than his brother-in-law George Herbert Walker Jr., known as "Uncle Herbie"....

...This paternal triangle left wounds on both sides. Prescott envied his son's closeness to Herbie. Herbie's sons wondered why their father was so generous to his nephews and so tough on them....

Charles Leffingwell Bartlett & Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets"

What was the real agenda of Charles L. Bartlett ?






All the Best, George Bush

By George H W Bush

Page 133

...This idea originally was the idea of Charles Bartlett,* a great friend of mine.

*Charles Bartlett was a Pulitzer Prize--winning journalist, savvy in Washington ways.

He had been a close friend of John F. Kennedy's and was at my side in Washington through

good times and bad.

Mr. Charles Bartlett August 8, 1978

Washington D.C.

Dear Charley:

....The "tough enough" theme is getting fed by some of the adversaries. It

does not bother me; I've had tough jobs, made tough decisions, and emerged

with the respect of people whom I worked for and whom I led.

We're putting together some material for interested feature writers, based

on interviews with people I work with in various jobs. This material will be

emphasizing tough decisions, leadership, etc. Down the line it can be

extraordinarily helpful...

I continue to travel. Here is a copy of our fall schedule. Please keep it confidential.

There is a helluva lot happening. I am not discouraged. Indeed, I believe I can pull it

off, Charley; we'll see.

Sincerely yours,

George Bush.


I had nominated Senator John Tower to be secretary of defense....he was more than qualified for the job and Congress is usually kind to its own. I could not have been more wrong. He was getting hammered, mainly as a result of rumors about his personal life. I wrote my friend Charley Bartlett:

Honorable Charles L. Bartlett February 21, 1989

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Charley,

Thanks for your most encouraging and supportive letter of February 11. I

am going to stand with Tower all the way, and I am confident he will make it.

I have never seen such a campaign of innuendo, vicious rumor, and gossip in

my entire life...I am not considering alternatives.

Warm regards,



The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty‎ - Page 205

by Peter Schweizer, Rochelle Schweizer, Inc ebrary - Politicians - 2005 - 574 pages

Bartlett lived in Georgetown near Pres and Dottie and had won a Pulitzer Prize

in 1956 for a series of articles on corruption at the Department of Defense. ...

Snippet view - About this book - Add to my shared library - More editions

The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty

The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty‎ - Page 284

by Kitty Kelley - Biography & Autobiography - 2004 - 705 pages

In his view, George HW Bush no longer had a political future. "I feel like I

saved his public career," said George's friend Charles Bartlett, the Pulitzer



One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the Central Intelligence Agency included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). These journalists sometimes wrote articles that were unofficially commissioned by Meyer was based on leaked classified information from the CIA....


However, George knew exactly what job he wanted: Ambassador to the United Nations.

Family friend Charley Bartlett had suggested it once, and after much thought, George

decided it was where he could serve the President and the country best. He discussed

it with White House chief of Staff Bob Haldeman and many others, but not directly with

President Nixon....


Barbara Bush: A Memoir - Google Books Result

by Barbara Bush - 1995 - Biography & Autobiography - 608 pages

Once a week in the early morning, I played tennis with Meredith Hornet, Milly Dent, ... I also played with Barbara MacGregor, Joanne Kemp, Martha Bartlett, ...


Seymour Hersh

From The Dark Side of Camelot

(Little, Brown, 1997)

November 22

....There was further evidence of financial corruption in Kennedy's personal files. As the president's 1964 reelection campaign neared, Kennedy was put on notice by newspaperman Charles Bartlett, his good friend, that campaign contributions were sticking to the hands of some of his political operatives. "No books are kept," Bartlett wrote the president in July 1963, "everything is cash, and the potential for a rich harvest is clear.... I am fearful that unless you put a personal priority on learning more about what is going on, the thing may slip suddenly beyond your control."

Robert Kennedy understood, from his own investigations, that there was independent evidence for the Bartlett allegations: one of the attorney general's political confidants had assembled affidavits showing that money for JFK's reelection campaign was being diverted for personal use. The Bartlett letters could not be left for Lyndon Johnson.


For the President's Eyes Only

By Christopher Andrew

reminded Robert Kennedy how badly both of them had been personally deceived by Soviet spokesmen and by the KGB officer Georgi Bolshakov in particular....he telephoned his friend Charles Bartlett and told him, "Get ahold of Georgi and tell him how he betrayed us and how we're very disappointed....

Even the era that came before was about the same thing....using the military to separate a mass of people from their land and resource wealth, so as to concentrate it in just a few hands....hands deeply committed to fooling the mass of voters to vote for the few hands' policies of wealth through government sponsored violence and the military contracts that enable and maintain it.....

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Tom Scully...

"Even the era that came before was about the same thing....using the military to separate a mass of people from their land and resource wealth, so as to concentrate it in just a few hands....hands deeply committed to fooling the mass of voters to vote for the few hands' policies of wealth through government sponsored violence and the military contracts that enable and maintain it..... "

You have IMPLIED a significance but not elaborated on your cause and effect conclusions. Are you agreeing with me that the original JFK and MIC alliances, recently threatened by his departure with them on expanding the Vietnam war, led to his ultimate demise? We both agree with Gen. Smedley Butler, that "War is a Racket" and anyone who blocks the use of the Military to defend U.S. financial, religious or military domination interests abroad is not long for this earth.

Carl Oglesby, by the way, is one of my major supporters regarding the Fascist and neo-Nazi domination of the JFK hit along with Bill Turner

and Mary Ferrell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The history of America itself is a story of ruling families, and those factions competing for dominance within the political structure of the US Government......Carl Oglesby, as is Peter Scott are unique in being able to analyze these aspects of American history in a manner that is both factual and pertinent. When the Pentagon was mobbed by anti-Vietnam protesters, circa 1969, many members of the government literally watching the event thought it was the scariest thing they had ever seen.

[A reference to this can be found in many sources, mainly biographies of then active politicians and members of the Pentagon and White House in their memoirs, as well as

The Peter Vea Index: Chronology and Summaries of Files from the Garrison Investigation.]

It does not take a genius to realize that "that was then and this is now," even though the JFK assassination, in my estimation has never conclusively and definitely dealt with said topic in a forthcoming manner by the US Government.

The obvious ramification is that we are all observers in a sense to the ability to resolve and give closure to the JFK assassination, that is not a politically correct treatise of President Kennedy's assassination; and, as such are seemingly powerless to effect lasting reforms that can do away with scandal withing the government whether it is illegal activities in general or the sinister machinations that are at the center of what transpired in 1963. As long as politicians are able to manipulate the desire for reform vis a vis the media, killing corruption of any kind will always meet this dynamic;

The sad truth is that we are Americans who oft times love their country more than any politician, who, in many instances talk the talk with words to us, but arguably are as corrupt as any of our enemies desire to inflict damage on America, are in their moral values, or, lack thereof.

In the final analysis, the most profound point is, that if this methodism is real, and there are thousands of examples on this Forum and elsewhere that have definitively proved it is, then how democratic a society do we really live in?

I can speak for many members of the Forum in saying that revealing the definitive facts regarding the conspiracy in the assassination of JFK and wanting to overthrow the US Government are two completely different topics, but the media manipulates societies desire to be freed from the very corrupt forces that perpetuate scandal into yet another methodism to prevent the reforms previously mentioned

earlier on this thread.

Edited by Robert Howard
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
  • Create New...