ŷ������

Again on page 15 there are further examples of inflammatory language and action by government leaders. You get the sense that they truly believed in what they said and did. But does that make it right or valid? It seems that it is a dangerous path to tread even if one is convinced that there is some terror or evil spreading through society. In this case, I am referring to the statements such as:
"the Bureau of Investigation to work as a political strike force"
"intended to put the IWW out of business"
"the union's leaders were 'in effect, and perhaps in fact, agents of Germany'"
"Federal authorities should make short work of these treasonable conspirators"
Granted it was wartime, but those are startling remarks and descriptions of attitudes of many in the nation at the time.

Page 24 describes aggressive efforts on the part of Hoover that increasingly looked like the actions that would be taken by a heavily authoritarian government. I wonder what direction America might have taken if Hoover had ever risen to the presidency. He was quite a relentless zealot.

Regarding Hoover as possible president, looking at when he was the FBI Director (1935-72), he served under some fairly strong, and at times, popular presidents with FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon being his boss. I could see him mounting a challenge for the White House if facing lesser-skilled opposition, say an Obama or Romney (trying not to get too political here, but I don't see either of these leaders as skilled, popular and/or powerful as the half-dozen presidents that Hoover served under), but as others mentioned, he was probably much more content with his FBI Director's role. Still, I do wonder what he would have done as U.S. President.

Nathan wrote: "The volume of paperwork that Hoover had to come through must have been astounding. By being a human ctrl+F for radicals and communists it becomes the only thing he sees. The threat grows larger f..."

You bring up an interesting point, Nathan. Do you think Hoover is seeing too many trees in this forest? I have to say if you stay in this dark forest he was in for long, paranoia would develop.

Lewis wrote: "Page 24 describes aggressive efforts on the part of Hoover that increasingly looked like the actions that would be taken by a heavily authoritarian government. I wonder what direction America might..."

This might be a good question to ask Tim.

A reminder: if you think up any questions for our author, please post on our Q&A with Tim. He will stop in and answer what he can. Very exciting.

Now back to our program ;-).

Tim sketches a very shy person in Hoover (p. 4). He says he was very unemotional when it came to people. I think he would have a real problem with connecting to the American people to win a large-scale election. And I suspect if secrecy was his hallmark to keep and gain power, then the presidency is not a great place to do it.

Great Comments by everyone and they are really influencing my thinking about this book. One aspect that is evolving with me is this notion of fear by leaders and their reaction to it.

I still hold to the thinking that leaders, especially law enforcement, will always over reach. I always thought this was because they were attempting to consolidate power in their agencies. I'm starting to consider that fear works both ways. Their over reach is a fear that no one wants a horrid event to happen during their tenure.

It appears to be a vicious circle. There is a valid threat, law enforcement doesn't want to be responsible for that threat becoming a reality so in their fear, they project that onto the legislative and populace which then gives them more authority. As others have point out, civil liberties is often not a major concern or is easily rationalized away.

As with many things, it's easy to identify the problem, how that circle can be broken is the big question.

Rodney wrote: "Great Comments by everyone and they are really influencing my thinking about this book. One aspect that is evolving with me is this notion of fear by leaders and their reaction to it.

I still hol..."

Well said. I think the Bureau and the Wilson administration faced some big threats (or perceived ones): industrial sabotage, bombings, the overthrow of the government by Communists.

I think this is an important concept if we want to understand why the passionate words and actions by DOJ.

Thanks, Nathan, it seems Hoover is becoming more righteous: everyone who is against what you believe in becomes a Communist.

Here is a good quote from Hoover about Communists:
"They would destroy the peace of the country and thrust it into a condition of anarchy and lawlessness and immorality that passes imagination." (p. 30)

I see the ingredients of another vicious circle: Hoover's fear of communism stimulating his rounding-up the alleged communists, McCarthy's own fear now stimulated, started his Hearings, expected Hoover's support, and getting away with what the hearings did to a lot of again alleged communists.

We are beginning to see a life long hatred here.

I found this on the FBI website on the Palmer raids:

The “Palmer Raids�� were certainly not a bright spot for the young Bureau. But it did gain valuable experience in terrorism investigations and intelligence work and learn important lessons about the need to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights.
(Source: )

The beginning's of this book have been fascinating and very enlightening. The first chapter on anarchy sets up the situation and the fear of anarchy very well. My first thought was that some of the incidence's have a lot of corollaries in present day times. The next chapters identifying of the causes of anarchy and the fear tactics used to suppress these movements is well described. The picking out of a scapegoat for sometimes irrational fears by our leaders is displayed at its most devastatingly worst. The lack of a politically unbiased investigative force with no oversight seems to me to have led to these violations of citizens rights who happened to not agree with what was popular opinion at the time. Fear often causes these overreactions. We still face those same tactics today. I look forward to reading the following chapters and the reaction of liberal Americans to these conservative tactics of the early part of the 20th Century.

Thanks, Clayton, you do see some of the same things going on. Human nature, I suppose.

I might be a little behind everyone, but look forward to discussion. At the very beginning of Chapter 3, the book explains that when Hoover was just 19 years old he became Cheif of the Justice Department. I would think that would cause a lot of resentment from other men that had worked just as hard and for a lot longer. It is also kind of frightening how quickly and how powerful Hoover became.

He was young, but not quite that young. The book indicates he was 24 when he became chief of the new Radical Division (an intelligence division which pretty much shaped the Palmer Raids) within the Justice Department He had obtained his law degree from George Washington a few years earlier and was well on his way to gaining his future power as the head of the FBI.

These first chapters are fascinating and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book. It is clear that the the first years of the FBI were tumultuous ones as the President and Attorney General were in the process of determining how to create and use a Bureau of Investigation. In addition, freedom of speech as we know it did not exist and false arrests and imprisonment would not be tolerated today by the public as it was during these years. It will be interesting to read about how the history of the FBI's powers change over time.

Just an observation about the early years covered in the first four chapters. There was during those early years extreme social & economic forces at work that are not discussed here. The beginnings of the national labor force movements the early years of the formation of groups to fight racism and other inequalities that were rampant during this time. The founding of the NAACP in 1909. The granting of women the right to vote in 1920. I just wonder what role the FBI played in subverting these organization. It seems from what I have read so far that these organization would have been a high priority for Mr Hoover. Does anyone else have any comments on this.

Good questions, Clayton. I urge you to ask Tim in the Q&A section.

Craig wrote: "He was young, but not quite that young. The book indicates he was 24 when he became chief of the new Radical Division (an intelligence division which pretty much shaped the Palmer Raids) within th..."

You're right, Craig. I did mix up the age when he took over the department. But still, very young for the head of a division. I know I couldn't imagine having that much responsibility when I was that young.

Hoover seems to have natural talents like organization, analysis, and political survival. His superiors, I think, saw this right out of the gate.

Clayton wrote: "Just an observation about the early years covered in the first four chapters. There was during those early years extreme social & economic forces at work that are not discussed here. The beginnings..."

Clayton, these topics do get discussed in later chapters.

On page 28 strikes by the Boston police force and the iron and steel workers are mentioned in the context of being blamed on the Communists. Neither strike had anything to do with the Communists or Russians.

Cynthia wrote: "On page 28 strikes by the Boston police force and the iron and steel workers are mentioned in the context of being blamed on the Communists. Neither strike had anything to do with the Communists o..."

So true, Cynthia, and you get the impression Hoover and Palmer worked hard to convince people that they were. Clearly, they are seeing the world through "Red" glasses.

Cynthia, I think that the Communists and Red Scare were just convenient scapegoats for the wealthy power brokers of the country at that time. Individuals will abuse the power that their money buys to blame and misdirect towards almost anyone to keep their power. Things are not much different today. Rarely do you hear, if ever, of anyone saying that the problems we face today or because of my greed. It is always the fault of someone else. Do the rich ever spend their exorbitant wealth to help the poor and downtrodden or do they just keep buying bigger houses and bigger boats and more expensive trinkets. Greed is a terrible thing.

We think of labor strikes now as something that is more or less a given in the modern industrial work world. Back then when labor unionization and organization was new it is interesting to see how it was viewed as being anti-american.

Alisa wrote: "We think of labor strikes now as something that is more or less a given in the modern industrial work world. Back then when labor unionization and organization was new it is interesting to see how..."

Yes, truly a surprise to me - that unions and most types of organizing were originally considered anti-american, or Communist. Something I did not know.

The unions were considered as anti-american or communist by the people in power and not by the people who were being abused on a daily basis. Organizations of unions has been the main reason for the American middle classes existence. Without the threat of strikes and the use of collective bargaining the owners of companies would still be using child labor and paying a below subsistence level wages. My father who was born in 1902 used to talk to me about the organization of unions in the coal fields of Eastern Kentucky and the tactics used by coal companies to keep the working man from ever gaining any ground in their quest for a better life.

Clayton wrote: "The unions were considered as anti-american or communist by the people in power and not by the people who were being abused on a daily basis. Organizations of unions has been the main reason for th..."

I absolutely agree. This is a topic I'd like to learn more about. Maybe we could add 'UNIONS and COLLECTIVE BARGAINING' to our reading list topics.

Clayton wrote: "The unions were considered as anti-american or communist by the people in power and not by the people who were being abused on a daily basis. Organizations of unions has been the main reason for th..."

You can understand how the responses from companies on strikes like the Homestead Strike, inspired Goldman to take action.

I think the fact that Hoover began his career during the First World War is important. He saw the strikes as sabotage, not everyday people trying for a better life.

Bryan wrote: "Clayton wrote: "The unions were considered as anti-american or communist by the people in power and not by the people who were being abused on a daily basis. Organizations of unions has been the ma..."

A good book on just Hoover and his life would be something I would love to read. What was his early life like. If you know of something worth reading I would appreciate the heads up. The psychology behind the way a person sees the world has always been of utmost interest to me. What caused Hoover to be the man he became?

Sandy wrote: "Clayton wrote: "The unions were considered as anti-american or communist by the people in power and not by the people who were being abused on a daily basis. Organizations of unions has been the ma..."

Great idea Sandy. I am sure we could have some lively discussions both those subjects.

Clayton wrote: "A good book on just Hoover and his life would be something I would love to read. What was his early life like..."

We have a Hoover thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Also, we asked Tim about good Hoover biographies on the Q&A:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Communism and socialism are considered anti-American in this country; and I think the source of this belief is from this period and has developed over time for the benefit of the capitalists. Yet we live in a mixed economy: Social Security, Medicare and health insurance are based on socialist ideas and principles. The profiteers and government institutions backed by them are threatened by these ideas which is why they have been propagandized as anti-American to the public (in particular, by conservative extremists).

Let's steer back to our topic on hand.

Cynthia, I like the word you used "threatened." Threats are a great way to see what Palmer, Hoover, etc. are seeing the labor movement in America as.

However, the labor movement is large. Why do you think mass arrests would be the best method? Could they have arrested some major players and see what happened?

Mass arrests were an extreme reaction. Palmer and Hoover appear to have overreacted to a "threat" that they did not understand (since most union organizers were not threats to the country, but rather, to the capitalists). On the other hand, if their intention was to frighten the public regarding union organizing in general, this would be an effective remedy.

JEH convinced AG Palmer (page 41), and Palmer argued to President Wilson, "that the country faced the threat of revolution and insurrection." He believed that there was a red "conspiracy to kill American leaders and destroy American landmarks."
Unfortunately, their zeal, sensationalism, and misguided vision led to unwarranted arrests, widespread fear, and unnecessary suspicion between people.

On page 55, we are told that "in Washington, at least two more senators...,critics of the president and the attorney general, also became targets for political investigation by the Bureau." Criticizing and looking for dirt seem to be the norm in politics. But when a government department is routinely used to discredit one's opponents or critics...the scenario begins to look very much like many oppressive regimes that come to mind in recent history.

I'm quite impressed with the volume of information that Tim includes in the first four chapters. There is a lot here to meditate upon. A couple things really stand out for me - that Wilson was in France for five months to argue for the League of Nations. Most other historical accounts mention that he visited France to argue for the creation of the League, but give the impression that it was only a couple of weeks. The way Tim puts it, it makes one wonder who was running the government at home. Thankfully, he gives us an answer.

Until I read these chapters, I did not know that Wilson suffered a stroke. That was news to me. I appreciate the fact that he included it in this tome because the things that occurred during his convalescence are too important to trivialize.

There so much rich material here that I'm just going to cut my comments off there and see if he expands upon the things I'm interested on in later chapters.

Well said, Jeff. Yes, it is amazing to think that Wilson was clocked out for so many months...which no doubt made it more plausible to believe rumors of insurrection, etc...when the whole nation may have felt a bit adrift.

Jeffrey wrote: "I'm quite impressed with the volume of information that Tim includes in the first four chapters. There is a lot here to meditate upon. A couple things really stand out for me - that Wilson was in F..."

He did indeed, Lewis, it was pretty devastating one, too. (He had a vascular disease dating back 20 years at least.) His wife became a "chief of staff" gatekeeper role and the country was run by his cabinet.

Between the Wilson's absences due to the peace negotiations in Europe and the stroke, Palmer had a huge blank check on this.

More of Wilson's stroke:

October 2, 1919
On this day in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson, who had just cut short a tour of the country to promote the formation of the League of Nations, suffers a stroke.

The tour's intense schedule--8,000 miles in 22 days--cost Wilson his health. He suffered constant headaches during the tour, finally collapsing from exhaustion in Pueblo, Colorado, in late September. He managed to return to Washington, only to suffer a near-fatal stroke on October 2.

Wilson's wife Edith blamed Republican opponents in Congress for her husband's stroke, as their vehement opposition to the League of Nations often took the form of character assassination. Edith, who was even suspicious of the political motives of Vice President Thomas Marshall, closely guarded access to her husband. She kept the true extent of Wilson's incapacitation from the press and his opponents. While Wilson lay in bed, unable to speak or move, Edith purportedly insisted that she screen all of Wilson's paperwork, in some cases signing Wilson's name to documents without consulting the convalescing president. Edith, however, denied usurping her husband's position during his recovery and in her memoirs insisted she acted only as a "steward."

Wilson slowly regained his health, but the lasting effects of the stroke—he remained partially paralyzed on one side--limited his ability to continue to campaign in favor of the League. In 1921, Republican Warren Harding's election to the presidency effectively ended efforts by the League's supporters to get it ratified. Wilson died in 1924.
(Source: )

Lewis wrote: "On page 55, we are told that "in Washington, at least two more senators...,critics of the president and the attorney general, also became targets for political investigation by the Bureau." Critici..."

It is crazy that Hoover and other Bureau directors began to open files on politicians. I guess knowledge is power, even if it is misinformation.

Is this one from the JEH playbook? Any thoughts?

Lewis, if you mean using fear to save your bureaucracy/power, yep, I can see this from Hoover's playbook.

Do you think Hoover was too involved in the trees to see the forest? I guess what I mean is that do you think his everyday investigation into radicals and communism deterred him from seeing reality?

Page 90:
"Hoover proceeded to investigate not simply the source of the pamphlet but the entire financial structure of America First."
"Three months later he let the White House know that he was listening in on 'all telephone conversations into and out of the following embassies: German, Italian, French, Russian, and Japanese'".

JEH was relentless.

Page 108:
"The President had fractured the field of intelligence. One result was a false map of the world. Another was surprise attack."

FDR used false, fabricated information to help the Allied cause. Was this justified? Was it effective...or did it divert US attention away from Japan, opening the door for Pearl Harbor?

Page 111:
"Hoover shaped the story of the Nazi saboteurs."

Apparently, JEH believed it was justified to create the truth for the greater good as he perceived it. Is this legitimate? How far can one go down this road? When does abuse of truth and freedom become more serious than ferreting out possible subversives?

Page 112:
"It would run a secret trial against the saboteurs under military law."

JEH was clever, creative, ruthless, and relentless in pursuing his goals and convictions. In the right circumstances, his talents are valuable. One wonders whether in some cases he crossed the line of what was legitimate and upright.

Interesting thoughts / comments. Shouldn't they be in the later chapter folders? (I know I'm reading some books that were older discussions - and I'm able to follow easily because of the chapters / folder structure).

Indeed, Brian, I moved the comments over.

A reminder to everyone: please keep the subject matter related to the threads. No spoilers.

Am I misunderstanding? I thought we were following the schedule below, which was posted at the beginning of our discussions? I have taken this to mean that from June 25 - July 1, we can discuss up through chapter 16...is that not correct?
Lewis C.

ENEMIES: A HISTORY OF THE FBI -
CHAPTERS THIRTEEN-SIXTEEN (109-139) June 25-July 1
CHAPTERS NINE-TWELVE (73-108) June 18-June 24
CHAPTERS FIVE-EIGHT (33-70) June 11-June 17 CHAPTERS ONE-FOUR (xv-32) June 4-June 10