General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: To KING from J Edgar [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)By BEVERLY GAGE
The New York Times, NOV. 11, 2014
The note is just a single sheet gone yellow with age, typewritten and tightly spaced. Its rife with typos and misspellings and sprinkled with attempts at emending them. Clearly, some effort went into perfecting the tone, that of a disappointed admirer, appalled by the discovery of hidious (sic) abnormalities in someone he once viewed as a man of character.
The word evil makes six appearances in the text, beginning with an accusation: You are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that. In the paragraphs that follow, the recipients alleged lovers get the worst of it. They are described as filthy dirty evil companions and evil playmates, all engaged in dirt, filth, evil and moronic talk. The effect is at once grotesque and hypnotic, an obsessives account of carnal rage and personal betrayal. What incredible evilness, the letter proclaims, listing off sexual orgies, adulterous acts and immoral conduct. Near the end, it circles back to its initial target, denouncing him as an evil, abnormal beast.
SNIP...
When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received this letter, nearly 50 years ago, he quietly informed friends that someone wanted him to kill himself and he thought he knew who that someone was. Despite its half-baked prose, self-conscious amateurism and other attempts at misdirection, King was certain the letter had come from the F.B.I. Its infamous director, J. Edgar Hoover, made no secret of his desire to see King discredited. A little more than a decade later, the Senates Church Committee on intelligence overreach confirmed Kings suspicion.
Since then, the so-called suicide letter has occupied a unique place in the history of American intelligence the most notorious and embarrassing example of Hoovers F.B.I. run amok. For several decades, however, only significantly redacted copies of the letter were available for public scrutiny. This summer, while researching a biography of Hoover, I was surprised to find a full, uncensored version of the letter tucked away in a reprocessed set of his official and confidential files at the National Archives. The uncovered passages contain explicit allegations about Kings sex life, rendered in the racially charged language of the Jim Crow era. Looking past the viciousness of the accusations, the letter offers a potent warning for readers today about the danger of domestic surveillance in an age with less reserved mass media.
The F.B.I.'s entanglement with King began not as an inquiry into his sex life but as a national security matter, one step removed from King himself. In 1961, the bureau learned that a former Communist Party insider named Stanley Levison had become Kings closest white adviser, serving him as a ghostwriter and fund-raiser. The following year, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved wiretaps on Levisons home and office, and the White House advised King to drop his Communist friend. But thanks to their surveillance, the bureau quickly learned that King was still speaking with Levison. Around the same time, King began to criticize bureau practices in the South, accusing Hoover of failing to enforce civil rights law and of indulging the racist practices of Southern policemen.
This combination of events set Hoover and King on a collision course. In the fall of 1963, just after the March on Washington, the F.B.I. extended its surveillance from Levison and other associates to King himself, planting wiretaps in Kings home and offices and bugs in his hotel rooms. Hoover found out very little about any Communist subterfuge, but he did begin to learn about Kings extramarital sex life, already an open secret within the civil rights movements leadership.
CONTINUED...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensored-letter-to-mlk-reveals.html
PS: You are most welcome, SoLeftIAmRight. The thought that my political heroes -- the Kennedy brothers -- would use their official powers to "go after" King once was most troubling to me. I could not understand the "Why?" until the anti-communist/national security part meets the political: They needed the South to get reelected in 1964.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):