10-11-2018, 07:32 PM
Mr Lateer:
1. Black troops in the service began with the civil war. So obviously such a thing existed in later wars, this is called the space time continuum. Why that would be some great triumph escapes me.
2. Teddy Roosevelt damaged the careers of over 100 of those Brownsville troops without any kind of due process. Again, why this is a triumph escapes me.
3. How siding with Booker T Washington and screening the Dixon/Griffith film of The Clansman is playing both sides of the street also escapes me. If there was ever a popular media work that was racist to the core and a big lie, it was that book, play and film. As I was at pains to show, it completely falsified the actual events.
4. There was no back and forth on the racial issue until the coming of Charles Houston, a truly important figure in the struggle who always gets shunted aside and who you never mention. He almost singlehandedly turned the tide on a national scale. Hold your breath for Caufield to mention him.
5. My point was not to trace the history of the KKK. There are many books that do that like McLean's. My aim was to show how the Supreme Court, and the presidencies following those 1876-96 decisions, ratified the triumph of the Redeemers in both 1876 and 1896.
6. I did mention how strong the Southern Bloc was in congress and mentioned how it was almost impossible to break that filibuster. The idea that McCarthy was some kind of major part of that--over Russell, Thurmond and Ervin--is ludicrous.
7. Dombrowski was more important than Houston, and King in the south after the war? Wow.
8. The reason that RFK agreed to a 30 day wiretap on King was to get Hoover off his back. Hoover had been trying to drive a wedge between RFK and MLK, as shown by the dossier that RFK had recalled. As Wofford reveals in his book, Hoover had secretly wiretapped King without approval, before RFK did the thirty day OK. What this has to do with the topic of my essay, which was reviewing those four books, again this escapes me. (Like what a lot of Lateer writes.)
9. In the early fifties, "RFK, JFK, McCarthy and Nixon" were all basically the same in their politics". This is nothing more than an all out howler. Nixon wanted to 1.) Drop atomic bombs, and 2.) Use American combat troops, at Dien Bien Phu. JFK went after this tooth and nail. Nixon was essentially a clone of John Foster Dulles. JFK had been attacking that style of foreign policy since 1951. He was also opposed to Nixon's anti unionism from that time and they debated each other on that issue in a small town in Pennsylvania in the early fifties.
10. JFK in 1956 came out for the Brown decision in NYC. This made the front page of the New York Times. In 1957, he did the same in Jackson Mississippi. How that denotes he was allied with southern racists at that time escapes me. (Again, as does much of what Lateer writes.)
11. In my essay, I mentioned how the state of Virginia tried to kick out the NAACP in the late fifties and earl sixties. so yes I was aware of the fact that there was an attempt to stamp them out in the south. This was not going to work because of the points I brought up in my essay about the Fourth and Fifth Circuit being ratified by the Warren Court.
12. I spent some time on the whole LBJ War on Poverty which was stolen from JFK, RFK and David Hackett. And I showed how it was altered by LBJ in deleterious ways. Even though that happened there were some good programs that have survived to this day from Hackett's early work: Head Start, Upward Bound and Legal Services. It went south because of the Vietnam War and the fact LBJ let CAP be taken over. I spent several paragraphs on this. Again, I do not know how this was ignored.
13. What emphasis did I put on the Evans/Novak book? I used it for about 2-3 footnotes. Because it has a good summary of the 1957 debate in the senate on civil rights. To say that somehow that impacts my point of view is demolished by the overall theme of the essay. Again, I have a hard time following what Lateer is trying to say. This was one out of 48 books and three footnotes out of several hundred. Did he read Brian Lee's groundbreaking thesis on Prince Edward? If he did not then do we discard everything he says?
14. The idea that I used Caro or Dallek shows where this guy is coming from. I wrote devastating reviews of both of those guys which somehow Lateer was not aware of. And I also spent fourteen pages taking apart Caufield's phony book.
He read those about as well as he did my essay.
1. Black troops in the service began with the civil war. So obviously such a thing existed in later wars, this is called the space time continuum. Why that would be some great triumph escapes me.
2. Teddy Roosevelt damaged the careers of over 100 of those Brownsville troops without any kind of due process. Again, why this is a triumph escapes me.
3. How siding with Booker T Washington and screening the Dixon/Griffith film of The Clansman is playing both sides of the street also escapes me. If there was ever a popular media work that was racist to the core and a big lie, it was that book, play and film. As I was at pains to show, it completely falsified the actual events.
4. There was no back and forth on the racial issue until the coming of Charles Houston, a truly important figure in the struggle who always gets shunted aside and who you never mention. He almost singlehandedly turned the tide on a national scale. Hold your breath for Caufield to mention him.
5. My point was not to trace the history of the KKK. There are many books that do that like McLean's. My aim was to show how the Supreme Court, and the presidencies following those 1876-96 decisions, ratified the triumph of the Redeemers in both 1876 and 1896.
6. I did mention how strong the Southern Bloc was in congress and mentioned how it was almost impossible to break that filibuster. The idea that McCarthy was some kind of major part of that--over Russell, Thurmond and Ervin--is ludicrous.
7. Dombrowski was more important than Houston, and King in the south after the war? Wow.
8. The reason that RFK agreed to a 30 day wiretap on King was to get Hoover off his back. Hoover had been trying to drive a wedge between RFK and MLK, as shown by the dossier that RFK had recalled. As Wofford reveals in his book, Hoover had secretly wiretapped King without approval, before RFK did the thirty day OK. What this has to do with the topic of my essay, which was reviewing those four books, again this escapes me. (Like what a lot of Lateer writes.)
9. In the early fifties, "RFK, JFK, McCarthy and Nixon" were all basically the same in their politics". This is nothing more than an all out howler. Nixon wanted to 1.) Drop atomic bombs, and 2.) Use American combat troops, at Dien Bien Phu. JFK went after this tooth and nail. Nixon was essentially a clone of John Foster Dulles. JFK had been attacking that style of foreign policy since 1951. He was also opposed to Nixon's anti unionism from that time and they debated each other on that issue in a small town in Pennsylvania in the early fifties.
10. JFK in 1956 came out for the Brown decision in NYC. This made the front page of the New York Times. In 1957, he did the same in Jackson Mississippi. How that denotes he was allied with southern racists at that time escapes me. (Again, as does much of what Lateer writes.)
11. In my essay, I mentioned how the state of Virginia tried to kick out the NAACP in the late fifties and earl sixties. so yes I was aware of the fact that there was an attempt to stamp them out in the south. This was not going to work because of the points I brought up in my essay about the Fourth and Fifth Circuit being ratified by the Warren Court.
12. I spent some time on the whole LBJ War on Poverty which was stolen from JFK, RFK and David Hackett. And I showed how it was altered by LBJ in deleterious ways. Even though that happened there were some good programs that have survived to this day from Hackett's early work: Head Start, Upward Bound and Legal Services. It went south because of the Vietnam War and the fact LBJ let CAP be taken over. I spent several paragraphs on this. Again, I do not know how this was ignored.
13. What emphasis did I put on the Evans/Novak book? I used it for about 2-3 footnotes. Because it has a good summary of the 1957 debate in the senate on civil rights. To say that somehow that impacts my point of view is demolished by the overall theme of the essay. Again, I have a hard time following what Lateer is trying to say. This was one out of 48 books and three footnotes out of several hundred. Did he read Brian Lee's groundbreaking thesis on Prince Edward? If he did not then do we discard everything he says?
14. The idea that I used Caro or Dallek shows where this guy is coming from. I wrote devastating reviews of both of those guys which somehow Lateer was not aware of. And I also spent fourteen pages taking apart Caufield's phony book.
He read those about as well as he did my essay.