J. Edgar Hoover outed?

*sigh*

You don't get the point. And will you calm down with your socialist insecurities about reactionaries?

In any case, my case stands. If Hoover was replaced by anyone else that was any good, they'd do the same thing.

And finally, being the head of any federal department is very political. Being the head of a federal department that's allowed to wiretap people...

Buzzwords rule!
 

King Thomas

Banned
On the plus side for Hoover, he did help fight the Ku Klux Klan (perhaps the only CONTRELPRO target that deserved it.)
 
Hoover didn't get on organized crime till the Kennedy years, in fact denied its existence. When RFK was on an inspection tour of the NY Organized Crime Office, the SAC said "Mr. Attorney General, I'm sorry, but we've had a newspaper strike the past couple of weeks..." More in Schlesinger's RFK bio. You can imagine his reaction...
 
Saying he was an open and proud bigot doesn't say anything. Anyone that would have replaced him in the 1930s might be and do the same.

Besides, Hoover was a capable man. His reforms of the FBI stopped Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger, Bonny and Clyde, among other criminals from running around. You can't deny that. Besides, have met any policemen? It takes a thief to catch a thief, and it takes a mob boss to catch several dozen.

He also had a vendetta against the man who caught Dillinger Melvin Purvis because he was jealous of the other man's fame.
 
I don't think that Hoover would admit his homosexuality. Even the most ruthless head of the Feds can't live an open life as a homosexual. In his era at least. So Hoover would rather kill himself than admit his homosexuality.
 
*sigh*

You don't get the point. And will you calm down with your socialist insecurities about reactionaries?

Can you pull off an actual discussion without resorting to the old "You don't agree with me so you must be the Red Menace"?

Hoover was reactionary and concerning race, was a reactionary bigot. Were people more conservative socially back then goes without saying. But Hoover was at a level which was truly reactionary. For example, believing any black who wanted equality, or any pacifist or dissenter or anybody else who critiqued the status quo was a Socialist or a true threat to America at least and a spy at worst (take into account the Beatles, John Lennon and Charlie Chaplin).

In any case, my case stands. If Hoover was replaced by anyone else that was any good, they'd do the same thing.
They would not have done the same thing. Hoover's rule was based on his character, not his position. Hoover did not just go after crime, he went after anybody who he disagreed with socially or who dissented against the existing order of things.

And finally, being the head of any federal department is very political. Being the head of a federal department that's allowed to wiretap people...
That as an excuse for his actions is out and out ridiculous. His most heinous actions weren't about any normal political position as his post was, nor would his post require any of those heinous actions. He didn't just wiretap to stop crime (which was legal back then and I believe until the mid 60's), he wire tapped to monitor anybody he disagreed with or thought presented a threat to his position. He blackmailed people, violated their civil liberties, and destroyed their careers and lives for the two reasons that they either were people he disagreed with politically or socially and thought, in his twisted mind, were true threats to America or feared presented a threat to his political power. Hoover abused his power, and did so to fulfill ideological gratification and his own lust to be in control. Excusing that because he was in a political post is like excusing the Surgeon General of those things because he was in a political position.
 
I dunno Ryackov. It seems to me that the question is, do you want a democracy or do you want a police state.

Hoover turned the FBI into America's secret police. His activities were fundamentally incompatible with a free nation.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
Would it be more likely to have had Clyde Tolleson and Hoover gunned down.

I am sure they would have has some level of security, Yet traveled together so much

They certainly had enough enemies. Political and Criminal.

And also who would be in pace to take the role ? and how bad would that person have been ?. Is the appointment political or bureaucratic ? someone set to take the job. or Presidential appointment as one example
 
I know this is turning into a flame war so this will be my last post in this thread.

Can you pull off an actual discussion without resorting to the old "You don't agree with me so you must be the Red Menace"?

Hoover was reactionary and concerning race, was a reactionary bigot. Were people more conservative socially back then goes without saying. But Hoover was at a level which was truly reactionary. For example, believing any black who wanted equality, or any pacifist or dissenter or anybody else who critiqued the status quo was a Socialist or a true threat to America at least and a spy at worst (take into account the Beatles, John Lennon and Charlie Chaplin).

They would not have done the same thing. Hoover's rule was based on his character, not his position. Hoover did not just go after crime, he went after anybody who he disagreed with socially or who dissented against the existing order of things.

That as an excuse for his actions is out and out ridiculous. His most heinous actions weren't about any normal political position as his post was, nor would his post require any of those heinous actions. He didn't just wiretap to stop crime (which was legal back then and I believe until the mid 60's), he wire tapped to monitor anybody he disagreed with or thought presented a threat to his position. He blackmailed people, violated their civil liberties, and destroyed their careers and lives for the two reasons that they either were people he disagreed with politically or socially and thought, in his twisted mind, were true threats to America or feared presented a threat to his political power. Hoover abused his power, and did so to fulfill ideological gratification and his own lust to be in control. Excusing that because he was in a political post is like excusing the Surgeon General of those things because he was in a political position.
No, you must be a communist because you keep saying Socialist buzzwords like reactionary. So... your complaining he acted only slightly like Stalin? But you couldn't admit that so you had to write a very large paragraph. In any case, Hoover didn't support McCarthy.


I dunno Ryackov. It seems to me that the question is, do you want a democracy or do you want a police state.

Hoover turned the FBI into America's secret police. His activities were fundamentally incompatible with a free nation.
The better question is if you want security or anarchy. You know, criminals are also very concerned about their rights.

MacQ: Doubt they would be gunned down. Hoover likely kept his movements secret.
 
Last edited:

Bearcat

Banned
The secret 'blackmail' files Hoover kept on so many important Americans - politicians and others - are enough to demonstrate he never should have held his position.

The country would have been better off without him.
 
Top