The Kennedys and Civil Rights: How the MSM Continues to Distort History

[James Lateer]

Oops! I omitted the top book, the classic on the subject of Southern Segregation: That would be: "Where Rebels Roost" by Susan Klopfer.

Her book is very hard to find. I got my read of it through inter-library loan from Wellesly College Library.

James Lateer

[Magda Hassan]

It's at Amazon. Not particularly cheap but it is there.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Rebels-Miss...1411641027

[Jim DiEugenio]

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.

[James Lateer]

Thanks for not totally blasting me in the points I was trying to make.

Just to put a sharper point on my analysis, I guess I gave the wrong impression that Mr. DiEugenio was relying on authors like Caro or Dallek. Apparently, he shares my thought that these authors (whom I haven't really got into) are not really serious or complete.

A person I know well actually read all five books on LBJ by Caro. Maybe Caro has something going that I'm not aware of, but by reputation, these authors are often described as boring and "hum-drum". I was only warning viewers (other than Mr. DiEugenio) to not waste time on "popular" authors like Caro or Dallek. There are much better ORIGINAL authors like Susan Klopfer and Dr. Garrison Nelson. Why waste your time on brewers of "baby pablum" like Dallek and Caro?

I have a little more problem with the dismissal of Dr. Caufield's book as phony. Although Dr. Caufield's "General Walker..." is a difficult read, it contains more original information and analysis than any five other JFK books.

Since my own book has sold over 700 copies in 15 countries, I have only heard from 5 or 10 people (or less) who have read it. I have a similar thought about Dr. Caufield's book. All I can say is that DR. CAUFIELD'S "GENERAL WALKER" IS A MUST-READ for any JFK oriented history buff.

I would be curious as to how many people (even on this website) have actually read
General Walker by Caufield? If you haven't, you should pay the money and allocate the time, because your knowledge of the JFK assassination will never be the same after you read it.

I could also add to the above concern--how many people have read The Skorzeny Papers? And also, the book Coup in Dallas by H P Albarelli? The latter will be out on November 20, 2018. That will by under my Christmas tree for sure.

Finally, another difficult read but well worth the time is "John W. McCormack" by Dr. Garrison Nelson. I'ts probably the best total summary of the history from 1935 to 1967 that I have come across. Sadly, very few people reading this posting will ever find out about it. It's all the more timely with the recent mysterious "execution" of Whitey Bulger. One of Nelson's major source materials was THE PERSONAL PAPERS OF WHITEY BULGER! It just doesn't get any better than that.

Also, I am curious about The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today (2018) by Mr. DiEugenio. Santa may hear about that one too!

James Lateer

[Alan Ford]

An interesting exchange gentlemen.

We can always count on Mr. DiEugenio for setting the record straight on the obvious smear campaigns directed upon JFK and RFK.

Without his timely intervention and insightful research, one could easily be lead to believe it was President Kennedy who sent many young men to their deaths in Vietnam (nothing could be further from the truth); and, he and his brother were pale in comparison to Vice-President Johnson when it came to genuinely caring about the less fortunate in society (please excuse the eye-roll).

For those of you reading along, the following video is indicative of a genuine champion of the people. All of the people ---->

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvxH3utA1kg

Sadly, what the next video reveals is the major contrast between how President Kennedy (had he been alive) and his Vice-President handled sensitive issues around fairness, equality and justice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR-ail3HX_I

IF his brother was still alive, the Attorney General of the United States of America wouldn't even have had to beg, err, ask for prudent intervention in a timely manner.

Due to the critical-thinking of the masses, who know when their intelligence is being insulted about lone gunman patterns, the only thing left to do in some quarters is to smear the victims. Thank You!, Mr. DiEugenio, and like-minded others who value honesty, integrity and truth.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Welcome Alan.

In that first link, I really like that final shot at about 2:56, with all those kids running after the train. Beautiful symbolism.