My Blog

The murder of Mary Kelly created panic in the streets of Whitechapel, which were again abandoned at night to the police patrols. Sporadic episodes of mob violence broke out when for various reasons, an individual cast suspicion on himself by something he did or said, usually under the influence of alcohol.

Man walking alone draws suspicious eyes

Police activity was frantic. Every lead was tracked down, every suspect interrogated thoroughly. The results were disappointing and the police were heavily criticized. Queen Victoria was furious. “This new most ghastly murder,” she told the Prime Minister, “shows the absolute necessity for some very decided action. All these courts must be lit, and our detectives improved. They are not what they should be.”

The Times was a bit more understanding of the difficulties the police faced: “The murders, so cunningly continued, are carried out with a completeness which altogether baffles investigators. Not a trace is left of the murderer, and there is no purpose in the crime to afford the slightest clue…All that the police can hope is that some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion.”

There was disagreement on the estimated time of Mary’s death. Dr. Bond believed that she had died between 1 and 2 a.m. Friday morning. Dr. Phillips thought that death occurred much later, somewhere between 5 and 6 a.m. Not having a clearer idea about time of death complicated the eyewitness testimony regarding who was with Mary or seen in Miller’s Court during Friday morning.

Miller’s Court, location of the
murder of Mary Kelly

The most important eyewitness was George Hutchinson, a laborer who knew Mary Kelly. He met her about 2 a.m. Friday morning and she asked him for some money. He told her he had nothing to spare and she walked away, but soon stopped to talk to another man. If his testimony is correct, he probably saw Jack the Ripper:

He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief a red one out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not so I went away.

Mary Kelly with the Ripper

Description: age about 34 or 35, height 5 ft. 6, complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes, slight moustache curled up each end and hair dark, very surly looking; dress, long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astrakhan and a dark jacket under, light waistcoat, dark trousers, dark felt hat turned down in the middle, button boots and gaiters with white buttons, black tie with horse shoe pin, respectable appearance, walked very sharp, Jewish appearance. Can be identified.

He further elaborated on this description later:

His watch chain had a big seal, with a red stone, hanging from it…He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean shaven…I believe that he lives in the neighborhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.

Several people had seen Mary on the night she died. Mary Ann Cox, another prostitute who lived in Miller’s Court, saw Mary with a man going into Miller’s Court at 11:45 p.m. Mary was very drunk and had difficulty talking. Mrs. Cox described Mary’s client as “about 36 years old, about 5 ft 6 in. high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers, and a thick carrotty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat.”

At 8 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, laundress Sarah Lewis was walking with a girlfriend when a man about forty years of age, who was fairly short, pale-faced, with a black moustache, wanted either one of the two women to follow him. He wore a short black coat and carried a black bag about one foot long. They refused, but he persisted, and the women ran away. At 2:30 a.m. Friday morning, just around the time that Mary Kelly was murdered, Sarah was coming to stay with friends at 2 Miller’s Court when she saw the same man, but eluded him this time. Shaken by this second sighting, she rushed to her friend’s house. Just before 4 a.m. she heard a woman shriek “Murder!” Another woman also heard the scream, but shrieks like that were apparently common in bawdy Whitechapel.

Inspector Richard
Abberline

Inspector Abberline clearly believed Hutchinson’s detailed account, but had to wonder about Hutchinson’s motivation for following Mary and her client. He said he had known her for several years and had given her money more than once. Perhaps he was fond of Mary or just worried about her with this particular client. There had to be some reason that he would take such an interest and even follow the two of them to Miller’s Court. Abberline instructed a couple of policemen to walk around with Hutchinson in the hopes that they would spot Mary’s client. One cannot help wondering if Hutchinson did not make up this story to throw suspicion off of himself. However, for some reason, the police did not pursue him as a suspect and disseminated the description that he gave to all of the police stations.

Alice McKenzie

As winter set in, the frantic police activity began to slow. All suspects had been interrogated and leads came to a dead end. It appeared that Jack the Ripper had left the scene for good. However, there were two murders that were similar in nature that should be mentioned.

The first was Alice McKenzie, who was found dead in July of 1889. She too had died from the slashing of her carotid artery. If this was another victim of Jack the Ripper, the wounds to her throat and abdomen were different than the other murders. Drs. Bond and Phillips disagreed as to whether it was Jack or not.

Frances Coles

In February of 1891, a pretty prostitute named Frances Coles was found with her throat cut. Dr. Phillips did not believe that Jack the Ripper was responsible and suspicion fell upon a man who had a quarrel with her.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

At any rate, the Jack the Ripper file was closed in 1892, the same year in which Inspector Abberline retired. The Ripper murders were over, but the legend lived on.

Hay Copy

The Hay Copy, with Lincoln’s handwritten corrections

The existence of the Hay Copy^[b] was first announced to the public in 1906, after the search for the “original manuscript” of the Address among the papers of John Hay brought it to light.^[15] Significantly, it differs somewhat from the manuscript of the Address described by John Hay in his article, and contains numerous omissions and inserts in Lincoln’s own hand, including omissions critical to the basic meaning of the sentence, not simply words that would be added by Lincoln to strengthen or clarify their meaning. However, in this copy, as in the Nicolay Copy, the words “under God” are not present.

This version has been described as “the most inexplicable” of the drafts and is sometimes referred to as the “second draft.”^[49][53] The “Hay Copy” was made either on the morning of the delivery of the Address, or shortly after Lincoln’s return to Washington. Those that believe that it was completed on the morning of his address point to the fact that it contains certain phrases that are not in the first draft but are in the reports of the address as delivered and in subsequent copies made by Lincoln. It is probable, they conclude, that, as stated in the explanatory note accompanying the original copies of the first and second drafts in the Library of Congress, Lincoln held this second draft when he delivered the address.^[54] Lincoln eventually gave this copy to his other personal secretary, John Hay, whose descendants donated both it and the Nicolay Copy to the Library of Congress in 1916.^[55]

[edit] Everett Copy

The Everett Copy,^[c] also known as the “Everett-Keyes Copy,” was sent by President Lincoln to Edward Everett in early 1864, at Everett’s request. Everett was collecting the speeches at the Gettysburg dedication into one bound volume to sell for the benefit of stricken soldiers at New York’s Sanitary Commission Fair. The draft Lincoln sent became the third autograph copy, and is now in the possession of the Illinois State Historical Library in Springfield, Illinois,^[54] where it is currently on display in the Treasures Gallery of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.

[edit] Bancroft Copy

The Bancroft Copy^[d] of the Gettysburg Address was written out by President Lincoln in February 1864 at the request of George Bancroft, the famed historian and former Secretary of the Navy whose comprehensive ten volume History of the United States later led him to be known as the “father of American History.”^[56][57] Bancroft planned to include this copy in Autograph Leaves of Our Country’s Authors, which he planned to sell at a Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Sanitary Fair in Baltimore. As this fourth copy was written on both sides of the paper, it proved unusable for this purpose, and Bancroft was allowed to keep it. This manuscript is the only one accompanied both by a letter from Lincoln transmitting the manuscript and by the original envelope addressed and franked by Lincoln.^[58] This copy remained in the Bancroft family for many years, was sold to various dealers and purchased by Nicholas and Marguerite Lilly Noyes,^[59] who donated the manuscript to Cornell in 1949. It is now held by the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections in the Carl A. Kroch Library at Cornell University.^[54] It is the only one of the five copies to be privately owned.^[60]

[edit] Bliss Copy

Discovering that his fourth written copy could not be used, Lincoln then wrote a fifth draft, which was accepted for the purpose requested. The Bliss Copy,^[e] named for Colonel Alexander Bliss, Bancroft’s Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire stepson and publisher of Autograph Leaves, is the only draft to which Lincoln affixed his signature. Lincoln is not known to have made any further copies of the Gettysburg Address. Because of the apparent care in its preparation, and in part because Lincoln provided a title and signed and dated this copy, it has become the standard version of the address and the source for most facsimile reproductions of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.^[46]

This draft now hangs in the Lincoln Room of the White House, a gift of Oscar B. Cintas, former Cuban Ambassador to the United States.^[54] Cintas, a wealthy collector of art and manuscripts, purchased the Bliss Copy at a public auction in 1949 for $54,000, at that time the highest price ever paid for a document at public auction.^[61] Cintas’ properties were claimed by the Castro government after the Cuban Revolution in 1959, but Cintas, who died in 1957, willed the Gettysburg Address to the American people, provided it would be kept at the White House, where it was transferred in 1959.^[62]

Garry Wills concluded the Bliss Copy “is stylistically preferable to others in one significant way: Lincoln removed ‘here’ from ‘that cause for which they (here) gave…’ The seventh ‘here’ is in all other versions of the speech.” Wills noted the fact that Lincoln “was still making such improvements,” suggesting Lincoln was more concerned with a perfected text than with an ‘original’ one.

[edit] Contemporary sources and reaction

The New York Times article from November 20, 1863, indicates Lincoln’s speech was interrupted five times by applause and was followed by “long continued applause.”^[19]

Another contemporary source of the text is the Associated Press dispatch, transcribed from the shorthand notes taken by reporter Joseph L. Gilbert. It also differs from the drafted text in a number of minor ways.^[63][64]

Eyewitness reports vary as to their view of Lincoln’s performance. In 1931, the printed recollections of 87-year-old Mrs. Sarah A. Cooke Myers, who at the age of 19 was present, suggest a dignified silence followed Lincoln’s speech: “I was close to the President and heard all of the Address, but it seemed short. Then there was an impressive silence like our Menallen Friends Meeting. There was no applause when he stopped speaking.”^[65] According to historian Shelby Foote, after Lincoln’s presentation, the applause was delayed, scattered, and “barely polite.”^[66] In contrast, Pennsylvania Governor Curtin maintained, “He pronounced that speech in a voice that all the multitude heard. The crowd was hushed into silence because the President stood before them…It was so Impressive! It was the common remark of everybody. Such a speech, as they said it was!”^[21]

In an oft-repeated legend, Lincoln is said to have turned to his bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon and remarked that his speech, like a bad plow, “won’t scour.” According to Garry Wills, this statement has no basis in fact and largely originates from the unreliable recollections of Lamon.^[12] In Garry Wills’s view, “[Lincoln] had done what he wanted to do [at Gettysburg].”

In a letter to Lincoln written the following day, Everett praised the President for his eloquent and concise speech, saying, “I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.”^[67] Lincoln was glad to know the speech was not a “total failure”.^[67]

Other public reaction to the speech was divided along partisan lines. The next day the Democratic-leaning Chicago Times observed, “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.” In contrast, the Republican-oriented New York Times was complimentary.^[19] The Springfield, Ma. Republican newspaper printed the entire speech, calling it “a perfect gem” that was “deep in feeling, compact in thought and expression, and tasteful and elegant in every word and comma.” The Republican predicted that Lincoln’s brief remarks would “repay further study as the model speech”^[68]

[edit] Audio recollections

William R. Rathvon is the only known eyewitness of both Lincoln’s arrival at Gettysburg and the address itself to have left an audio recording of his recollections.^[69] One year before his death in 1939, Rathvon’s reminiscences were recorded on February 12, 1938 at the Boston studios of radio station WRUL, including his reading the address, itself, and a 78 rpm record was pressed. The title of the 78 record was “I Heard Lincoln That Day - William R. Rathvon, TR Productions.” A copy wound up at National Public Radio (NPR) during a “Quest for Sound” project in 1999.^[70] NPR continues to air them around Lincoln’s birthday.

[edit] Photographs

The only known and confirmed photograph of Lincoln at Gettysburg,^[71] taken by photographer David Bachrach^[72] was identified in the Mathew Brady collection of photographic plates in the National Archives and Records Administration in 1952. While Lincoln’s speech was short and may have precluded multiple pictures of him while speaking, he and the other dignitaries sat for hours during the rest of the program. Given the length of Everett’s speech and the length of time it took for 19th century photographers to get “set up” before taking a picture, it is quite plausible that the photographers were ill prepared for the brevity of Lincoln’s remarks.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

In 2006, Civil War enthusiast John Richter was credited with identifying two additional photographs in the Library of Congress collection that potentially show President Lincoln in the procession at Gettysburg.^[73]

Innovators

Innovators are successful, sophisticated, take-charge people with high self-esteem. Because they have such abundant resources, they exhibit all three primary motivations in varying degrees. They are change leaders and are the most receptive to new ideas and technologies. Innovators are very active consumers, and their purchases reflect cultivated tastes for upscale, niche products and services.

Image is important to Innovators, not as evidence of status or power but as an expression of their taste, independence, and personality. Innovators are among the established and emerging leaders in business and government, yet they continue to seek challenges. Their lives are characterized by variety. Their possessions and recreation reflect a cultivated taste for the finer things in life.

Looking for more detail about this and other VALS types? Visit the VALS Store to read about our special handbook designed for students, professors, and anyone else who is interested in learning a little bit more about the psychological attributes and demographics that underlie consumer decision making.

At the time of the reoccupation of the Rhineland, Hitler made use of an extraordinary figure of speech in describing his own conduct. He said,

“I follow my course with the precision and security of a sleepwalker.”

Even at that time it struck the world as an unusual statement for the undisputed leader of 67,000,000 people to make at the time of an international crisis. Hitler meant it to be a form of’ reassurance for his more wary followers who questioned the wisdom of his course. It seems, however, that it was a true confession and had his wary followers only realised its significance and implications they would have had grounds for far greater concern that that aroused by his proposal to reoccupy the Rhineland. For the course of this sleep-walker has carried him over many untravelled roads which finally led him unerringly to a pinnacle of success and power never reached before. And still it lured him on until today he stands on the brink of disaster. He will go down in history as the most worshipped and the most despised man the world has ever known.

Many people have stopped and asked themselves: “Is this man sincere in his undertakings or is he a fraud?” Certainly even a fragmentary knowledge of his past life warrants such a question, particularly since our correspondants have presented us with many conflicting views. At times, it seemed almost inconceivable that a man could be sincere and do what Hitler has done in the course of his career. And yet all of his former associates whom we have been able to contact, as well as many of our most capable foreign correspondents, are firmly convinced that Hitler actually does believe in his own greatness. Fuchs reported that Hitler said to Schuschnigg during the Berchtesgaden [sic] interviews:

“Do you realize that you are in the presence of the greatest German of all time?”

It makes little difference for our purpose whether he actually spoke these words or not at this particular time as alleged. In this sentence he has summed up in a very few words an attitude which he has expressed to some of our informants in person. To Rauschning, for example, he once said:

“Aber ich brauche sie nicht, um mir von ihnen meine geschichtiche Groesse bestaltigen zu lassen.” (717)

And to Strasser, who once took the liberty of saying that we was afraid Hitler was mistaken, he said:

“I cannot be mistaken. What I do and say is historical.” (378)

many other such personal statements could be given. Oechaner has summed up his attitude in this respect very well in the following words:

“He feels that no one ins German history is equipped as he is to bring the Germans to the position of supremacy which all German statesman have felt they deserved but were unable to achieve.” (669)

This attitude is not confined to himself as a statesman. he also believes himself to be the greatest war lord as, for  example, when he says to Raischning:

“Ich spiele nicht Krieg. Ich lasse mich nicht von `Feldherrn’ kommandieren. Den Krieg fushre ich. Den engentlichen Zeitpunkt zum Angriff bestimme ich. Es gibt nur eine guenstigen. Ich warde auf ihm warten. Mit eisernor Entschlossenheit. Unc ich warde ihn nicht verpassen…” (701)

And it seems to be true that he has made a number of contributions to German offensive and defensive tactics and strategy. He believes himself to be an outstanding judge in legal matters and does not blush when he stands before the Reichstag, while speaking to the whole world, and says,

“For the last twenty-four hours I was the supreme court of the German people.” (255)

Then, too, he believes himself to be the greatest of all German architects and spends a great deal of his time in sketching new buildings and planning the remodeling of entire cities. In spite of the fact that he failed to pass the examinations for admission to the Art School he believes himself to be the only competent judge in all matters of art. A few years ago he appointed a committee of three to act as final judges on all matters of art, but when their verdicts did not please him he dismissed them and assumed their duties himself. It makes little difference whether the field be economics, education, foreign affairs, propaganda, movies, music or women’s dress. In each and every field he believes himself to be an unquestioned authority.

He also prides himself on his hardness and brutality.

“I am one of the hardest men Germany has had for decades, perhaps for centuries, equipped  with the greatest authority of any German leader… but above all, I believe in my success. I believe in it unconditionally.” (M.N.O. 871)

That belief in his own power actually borders on a feeling of omnipotence which he is not reluctant to display.

“Since the events of last year, his faith in his own genius, in his instinct, or as one might say, in his star, is boundless. Those who surround him are the first to admit that he now thinks himself infallible and invincible. That explains why he can no longer bear either criticism or contradiction. To contradict him is in his eyes a crime of ‘lese majeste’; opposition to his plans, from whatever side it may come, is a definite sacrilege, to which the only reply is an immediate and striking display of his omnipotence.” (French Yellow Book, 945)

Another diplomat reports a similar impression:

“When I first met him, his logic and sense of reality had impressed me, but as time went on he appeared to me to become more and more unreasonable and more and more convinced of his own infallibility and greatness …” (Henderson, 129)

There seems, therefore, to be little room for doubt concerning Hitler’s firm belief in his own greatness. We must now inquire into the sources of this belief. Almost all writers have attributed Hitler’s confidence to the fact that he is a great believer in astrology and that he is constantly in touch with astrologers who advise him concerning his course of action. This is almost certainly untrue. All of our informants who have known Hitler rather intimately discard the idea as absurd. They all agree that nothing is more foreign to Hitler’s personality than to seek help from outside sources of this type. The informant of the Dutch Legation holds a similar view. He says:

“Not only has the Fuehrer never had his horoscope cast, but he is in principle against horoscopes because he feels he might be unconsciously influenced by them.” (655)

It is also indicative that Hitler, some time before the war, forbade the practice of fortune-telling and star-reading in Germany.

It is true that from the outside it looks as though Hitler might be acting under some guidance of this sort which gives him the feeling of conviction in his infalibility. These stories probably originated in the very early days of the Party. According to Strasser, during the early 1920’s Hitler took regular lessons in speaking and in mass psychology from a man named Hamissen who was also a practicing astrologer and fortune-teller. He was an extremely clever individual who taught Hitler a great deal concerning the importance of staging meetings to obtain the greatest dramatic effect. As far as can be learned, he never had any particular interest in the movement or any say on what course it should follow. It is possible that Hanussen had some contact with a group of astrologers, referred-to by one von Wiegand, who were very active in Munich at this time. Through Hanussen Hitler too may have come in contact with this group, for von Wiegand writes:

“When I first knew Adolph Hitler in Munich, in 1921 and 1922, he was in touch with a circle that believed firmly in the portents of the stars. There was much whispering of the coming of another Charlemagne and a new Reich. How far Hitler believed in these astrological  forecasts and prophesies in those days I never could get out of Der Fuhrer. He neither denied nor affirmed belief. He was not averse, however, to making use of the forecasts to advance popular faith in himself and his then young and struggling movement.”

It is quite possible that from these beginnings the myth of his associations with astrologers has grown.

Although Hitler has done considerable reading in a variety of fields of study, he does not in any way attribute his infallibility or omniscience to any intellectual endeavor on his part. On the contrary, he frowns on such sources when it comes to guiding the destiny of nations. His opinion of the intellect is, in fact, extremely low, for in various places he makes such statements as the following:

“Of secondary importance is the training of mental abilities.”

“Over-educated people, stuffed with knowledge and intellect, but bare of any sound instincts.”

“These impudent rascals (intellectuals) who always know everything better than anybody else…”

“The intellect has grown autocratic, and has become a disease of life.”

Hitler’s guide is something different entirely. It seems certain that Hitler believes that he has been sent Germany by Providence and that he has a particular mission to perform. He is probably not clear on the scope of this mission beyond the fact that he has been chosen to redeem the German people and reshape Europe. Just how this is to be accomplished is also rather vague in his mind, but this does not concern him greatly because an “inner voice” communicates to him the steps he is to take. This is the guide which leads him on his course with the precision and security of a sleep-walker.

“I carry out the commands that Providence has laid upon me.” (490)

“No power on earth can shake the German Reich now, Divine Providence has willed it that I carry through the fulfillment of the Germanic task.” (413)

“But if the voice speaks, then I know the time has come to act.” (714)

It is this firm conviction that he has a mission and is under the guidance and protection of Providence which is responsible in large part for the contagious effect he has had on the German people.

Many people believe that this feeling of Destiny and mission have come to Hitler through his successes. This is probably false. Later in our study (Part V) we will try to show that Hitler has had this feeling for a great many years although it may not have become a conscious conviction until much later. In auy case it was forcing its way into consciousness during the war and has played a dominant role in his actions ever since. Mend (one of his comrades), for example, reports:  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire.

Dear Herr Schücking,

Once again my warmest thanks for your kindly reception and for the beautiful souvenir from Münster! ^[230] I read it through in Osnabrück at one sitting with great enjoyment, and I envy the poet [Annette Elisabeth Freiin von Droste-Hülshöff] for her original and tender images of nature, the many hidden splendours, the kinship with Byron, which you also, if I am not mistaken, stressed in your review. ^[231] It is a shame that these poems should have come and gone without making any impression; but what does this depth of feeling mean to the shallow reading public of our days? At the first opportunity I shall publicly do justice to the book. — Where is there a more beautiful ballad of its kind than Der Graf von Thal?

Now concerning our Shelley-plan, ^[232] had a talk with Schünemann straight away yesterday; at the mention of the fee of ten talers he shrank back as if struck by lightning and said at once he could not take it on. He is just back from the Fair where he himself inspected his masses of unsold books of every kind, pietistic novels, descriptions from Belgium, Spanish readers and other rubbish; in addition, he was foolish enough to make contracts in Leipzig for works on theology and on world and literary history at a low fee, so that he has his hands full. These stupid bookseller people believe they risk less on a commentary on the epistles of John, which costs perhaps two talers in fees and is badly produced, and will perhaps be bought by 20 students at most, than on Shelley, for which production and fees may cost relatively three times as much, but in which the whole nation will take an interest. Just now I was with Schünemann again to hear from his own mouth the final statement that on these conditions he cannot take it on; one sheet of poems, he said, contains only a quarter as much as a sheet of prose, so that the fee for a sheet would really come to 40 talers. I told him it was not child’s play to translate Shelley, and if he did not want it then he should leave it alone, for heaven’s sake; and that by the way he was standing in his own light. He: If only we would first give him a small specimen, he would print it, and then one could see what could be done. I: Schücking and Püttmann are not the people to agree to give specimens, and what specimens do for other people, their names do for them. Will you or won’t you? He: Not on these conditions. — Muy bien; to beg was beneath our dignity, so I left. — I am now of the opinion that this failure should by no means discourage us; if one will not do it, another will. Püttmann, who translated the first canto of Queen Mab, has sent it to Engelmann in Leipzig, and if he accepts, it will be easy to get him to take on the whole thing. Otherwise Hammerich in Altona and Krabbe in Stuttgart would perhaps be the ones we should approach first. But just now, immediately after the Easter Fair, is a very unfavourable moment for making our offers. If it were January I am sure Schünemann would have grabbed it with both hands. I want to go to him once more and ask him for a joke what kind of conditions he can offer us.

Friend Schünemann evaded my visits by flight; he is on an outing to the country. He would probably have offered five talers a sheet and asked, as he always loves to do, for a little specimen of three to four sheets in advance. The whole thing is the fault of none other than the pietist Wilh. Elias of Halle, on whose novel Glauben und Wissen, published by Schünemann, the latter loses about 2,000 talers. If I catch the fellow I’ll challenge him to scimitars.

What do you say to all this? I shall write to Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  Püttmann straight away today. I think it is too good a project simply to drop it. Any bookseller with a smattering of education (Schünemann is a blockhead) will take on the publication with pleasure.

I am eagerly looking forward to hearing your opinion on the matter, and in the meantime commend myself to your friendly goodwill.

Nature herself has determined the sphere of activity in which the animal should move, and it peacefully moves within that sphere, without attempting to go beyond it, without even an inkling of any other. To man, too, the Deity gave a general aim, that of ennobling mankind and himself, but he left it to man to seek the means by which this aim can be achieved; he left it to him to choose the position in society most suited to him, from which he can best uplift himself and society.

This choice is a great privilege of man over the rest of creation, but at the same time it is an act which can destroy his whole life, frustrate all his plans, and make him unhappy. Serious consideration of this choice, therefore, is certainly the first duty of a young man who is beginning his career and does not want to leave his most important affairs to chance.

Everyone has an aim in view, which to him at least seems great, and actually is so if the deepest conviction, the innermost voice of the heart declares it so, for the Deity never leaves mortal man wholly without a guide; he speaks softly but with certainty.

But this voice can easily be drowned, and what we took for inspiration can be the product of the moment, which another moment can perhaps also destroy. Our imagination, perhaps, is set on fire, our emotions excited, phantoms flit before our eyes, and we plunge headlong into what impetuous instinct suggests, which we imagine the Deity himself has pointed out to us. But what we ardently embrace soon repels us and we see our whole existence in ruins.

We must therefore seriously examine whether we have really been inspired in our choice of a profession, whether an inner voice approves it, or whether this inspiration is a delusion, and what we took to be a call from the Deity was self-deception. But how can we recognise this except by tracing the source of the inspiration itself?

What is great glitters, its glitter arouses ambition, and ambition can easily have produced the inspiration, or what we took for inspiration; but reason can no longer restrain the man who is tempted by the demon of ambition, and he plunges headlong into what impetuous instinct suggests: he no longer chooses his position in life, instead it is determined by chance and illusion.

Nor are we called upon to adopt the position which offers us the most brilliant opportunities; that is not the one which, in the long series of years in which we may perhaps hold it, will never tire us, never dampen our zeal, never let our enthusiasm grow cold, but one in which we shall soon see our wishes unfulfilled, our ideas unsatisfied, and we shall inveigh against the Deity and curse mankind.

But it is not only ambition which can arouse sudden enthusiasm for a particular profession; we may perhaps have embellished it in our imagination, and embellished it so that it appears the highest that life can offer. We have not analysed it, not considered the whole burden, the great responsibility it imposes on us; we have seen it only from a distance, and distance is deceptive.

Our own reason cannot be counsellor here; for it is supported neither by experience nor by profound observation, being deceived by emotion and blinded by fantasy. To whom then should we turn our eyes? Who should support us where our reason forsakes us?

Our parents, who have already travelled life’s road and experienced the severity of fate - our heart tells us.

And if then our enthusiasm still persists, if we still continue to love a profession and believe ourselves called to it after we have examined it in cold blood, after we have perceived its burdens and become acquainted with its difficulties, then we ought to adopt it, then neither does our enthusiasm deceive us nor does overhastiness carry us away.

But we cannot always attain the position to which we believe we are called; our relations in society have to some extent already begun to be established before we are in a position to determine them.

Our physical constitution itself is often a threatening obstacle, and let no one scoff at its rights.

It is true that we can rise above it; but then our downfall is all the more rapid, for then we are venturing to build on crumbling ruins, then our whole life is an unhappy struggle between the mental and the bodily principle. But he who is unable to reconcile the warring elements within himself, how can he resist life’s tempestuous stress, how can he act calmly? And it is from calm alone that great and fine deeds can arise; it is the only soil in which ripe fruits successfully develop.

Although we cannot work for long and seldom happily with a physical constitution which is not suited to our profession, the thought nevertheless continually arises of sacrificing our well-being to duty, of acting vigorously although we are weak. But if we have chosen a profession for which we do not possess the talent, we can never exercise it worthily, we shall soon realise with shame our own incapacity and tell ourselves that we are useless created beings, members of society who are incapable of fulfilling their vocation. Then the most natural consequence is self-contempt, and what feeling is more painful and less capable of being made up for by all that the outside world has to offer? Self-contempt is a serpent that ever gnaws at one’s breast, sucking the life-blood from one’s heart and mixing it with the poison of misanthropy and despair.

An illusion about our talents for a profession which we have closely examined is a fault which takes its revenge on us ourselves, and even if it does not meet with the censure of the outside world it gives rise to more terrible pain in our hearts than such censure could inflict.

If we have considered all this, and if the conditions of our life permit us to choose any profession we like, we may adopt the one that assures us the greatest worth, one which is based on ideas of whose truth we are thoroughly convinced, which offers us the widest scope to work for mankind, and for ourselves to approach closer to the general aim for which every profession is but a means - perfection.

Worth is that which most of all uplifts a man, which imparts a higher nobility to his actions and all his endeavours, which makes him invulnerable, admired by the crowd and raised above it.

But worth can be assured only by a profession in which we are not servile tools, but in which we act independently in our own sphere. It can be assured only by a profession that does not demand reprehensible acts, even if reprehensible only in outward appearance, a profession which the best can follow with noble pride. A profession which assures this in the greatest degree is not always the highest, but is always the most to be preferred.

But just as a profession which gives us no assurance of worth degrades us, we shall as surely succumb under the burdens of one which is based on ideas that we later recognise to be false.

There we have no recourse but to self-deception, and what a desperate salvation is that which is obtained by self-betrayal!

Those professions which are not so much involved in life itself as concerned with abstract truths are the most dangerous for the young man whose principles are not yet firm and whose convictions are not yet strong and unshakeable. At the same time these professions may seem to be the most exalted if they have taken deep root in our hearts and if we are capable of sacrificing our lives and all endeavours for the ideas which prevail in them.

They can bestow happiness on the man who has a vocation for them, but they destroy him who adopts them rashly, without reflection, yielding to the impulse of the moment.

On the other hand, the high regard we have for the ideas on which our profession is based gives us a higher standing in society, enhances our own worth, and makes our actions un-challengeable.

One who chooses a profession he values highly will shudder at the idea of being unworthy of it; he will act nobly if only because his position in society is a noble one.

But the chief guide which must direct us in the choice of a profession is the welfare of mankind and our own perfection. It should not be thought that these two interests could be in conflict, that one would have to destroy the other; on the contrary, man’s nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only by working for the perfection, for the good, of his fellow men.

If he works only for himself, he may perhaps become a famous man of learning, a great sage, an excellent poet, but he can never be a perfect, truly great man.

History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy; religion itself teaches us that the ideal being whom all strive to copy sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, and who would dare to set at nought such judgments?

If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.

Marx

Vice-President Eccarius in the chair.

The minutes of the former meeting having been read, on the motion of Mr. Dell, seconded by Mr. Whitlock, were confirmed.

The following was then elected on the Central Council. Mr. Hansen proposed by Bolleter, seconded by Lessner.

The Secretary [Cremer] stated that he had corresponded with Mr. Adams, the United States Minister, and had arranged with his secretary for the Council to present the address on Tuesday next, the 20th inst., at 6 o’clock in the evening.

Mr. Le Lubez proposed and Mr. Whitlock seconded:

That the Council meet on Tuesday evening next at 18, Greek St., at 6 o’clock in the evening. Carried unanimously.

Dr. Marx proposed and Mr. Dell seconded:

That Mr. Whitlock be elected financial secretary. Carried unanimously.

Mr. Fox then read the address which he proposed should be adopted by the British section of the Association and then transmitted to the National Government of Poland.

A long discussion took place consequent on certain statements contained in the address and which statements^[22] were opposed by Mr. Jung, Le Lubez, Dr. Marx and supported by Mr. Carter.

Mr. Fox replied defending the statement that the traditional foreign policy of France had been favourable to the restoration and independence of Poland.

Mr. Cremer thought it important that the truth of this statement should be ascertained and would propose that the further consideration of the address be deferred till the next meeting.

Mr. Morgan seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.

Mr. Cremer proposed that during the ensuing holidays a festive gathering of the members and friends be held to celebrate the foundation of the International Association and that for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing a committee of three be appointed to make enquiries and report to the next meeting. Carried unanimously.

Messrs. Fontana, Bolleter and Cremer were elected as the Committee.

Mr. Fontana then stated he had been deputed by the Italian Working Men’s Association in London, which Association numbered about 350 members, to ask for their admission into the Association, and he could also state the band of that association would attend the festive gathering.

Mr. Bolleter stated he had no doubt the German chorus would also attend.

Mr. Whitlock proposed and Le Lubez seconded:

That the Italian Working Men’s Association be admitted as members of the International Association. Carried unanimously.

The meeting then adjourned.

John Weston, Vice-President pro tem.
W. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary

Central Council Meeting

December 20, 1864

The minutes are in an unknown hand on pp. 18-19 of the Minute Book.

Mr. Weston in the chair.

The minutes of the previous meeting having been read, were confirmed on the motion of Mr. Dell, seconded by Mr. Fontana.

A discussion took place as to the soiree, the Sub-Committee having reported the price of halls, and Mr. Le Lubez proposed, Mr. Fontana seconded, that the soiree be held in Cambridge Hall, Newman St., on Monday evening, January 9th, the price of admission to be a shilling to tea and 6d. after tea.

Mr. Cremer read a letter from Mr. Adams, the United States Minister, suggesting that the address to President Lincoln be sent to him, Mr. Adams, instead of being brought.

Dr. Marx proposed, Mr. Fontana seconded, that the Secretary send the address to Mr. Adams.

Mr. Worley proposed, Mr. Wheeler seconded, that Mr. Adams be again appealed to to receive the deputation.

For amendment — 5, for resolution — 13.

Mr. Fox then resumed his defence of the address to the Polish National Government and in an able address contended for the truth of the assertions therein contained. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

After some discussion it was agreed to adjourn the question till the next meeting.

The meeting then adjourned to Thursday, December 29th.Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October A.D. 51, the youngest son of Vespasian, Roman emperor (A.D. 69-79) and Domitilla I, a treasury clerk’s daughter.[[1]] Despite a literary tradition that associated Domitian with Flavian poverty, the family’s status remained high throughout his early years: Vespasian was appointed to the prestigious proconsulship of North Africa in A.D. 59, and seven years later was granted a special command in the East by the emperor Nero (A.D. 54-69) to settle a revolt in Judaea; Titus, Domitian’s older brother by at least ten years and Vespasian’s eventual successor as emperor, had married well in the 60’s and was chosen as a legionary legate under Vespasian in the East.[[2]]

Unlike Titus, Domitian was not educated at the emperor’s court, yet he received sound training in Rome in the same way as any member of the senatorial elite of his day. The imperial biographer Suetonius records that Domitian gave public recitals of his works, conversed elegantly, and produced memorable comments; as emperor, he would write and publish a book on baldness.[[3]] Domitian’s adolescence was also marked by isolation. His mother had long been dead, he was considerably younger than his brother, and his father was away for much of his teenage years, first in Africa and then in Judaea.[[4]] An obvious outcome of all of this was his preference for solitude, a trait that would contribute significantly to his difficulties with various constituents as emperor.[[5]]

Little is known about Domitian in the turbulent 18 months of the three emperors, but in the aftermath of the downfall of Vitellius in A.D. 69 he presented himself to the invading Flavian forces, was hailed as Caesar, and moved into the imperial residence.[[6]] Guided by Gaius Licinius Mucianus, Vespasian’s chief advisor, Domitian represented the family in the senate and suggested that other issues be postponed until Vespasian’s arrival from the East. Eager for military glory himself, Domitian soon led reinforcements to Germany, where the Batavian auxiliaries of the Rhine legions had revolted. The uprising failed before he could arrive, however, and the literary accounts of his achievements are not to be trusted.[[7]] It was also during this period, perhaps in late A.D. 70, that he married Domitia Longina, daughter of the highly regarded general, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, whom Nero had forced to commit suicide in A.D. 66. For all appearances, it was an excellent choice. The name of Corbulo was synonymous with military achievement, and the general had left behind a substantial clientela. Even so, the marriage was troubled. An only child died young, and Domitia was probably exiled by her husband c. A.D 83. Later, she would be recalled to the palace, where she lived with Domitian until his death.[[8]]

Domitian’s role in the 70’s was determined largely by Vespasian’s choice of Titus as his successor. To him fell a series of ordinary consulships, the tribunician power, the censorship, and the praetorian prefecture. Domitian, on the other hand, was named six times to the less prestigious suffect consulship, retained the title of Caesar, and held various priesthoods. He was given responsibility, but no real power. Nothing changed when Titus acceded to the throne, as Domitian received neither tribunician power nor imperium of any kind. The brothers were never to become close, and as Titus lay dying in September 81, Domitian hastened to the praetorian camp, where he was hailed as emperor. On news of Titus’ death, the senate chose first to honor the dead emperor before elevating his brother, an early indication perhaps of Domitian’s future troubles with the aristocracy. At any rate, after waiting an extra day, Domitian received imperium, the title Augustus, and tribunician power along with the office of pontifex maximus and the title pater patriae, father of his country.[[9]]

Administration

As emperor, Domitian was to become one of Rome’s foremost micromanagers, especially concerning the economy. Shortly after taking office, he raised the silver content of the denarius by about 12% (to the earlier level of Augustus), only to devaluate it in A.D. 85, when the imperial income must have proved insufficient to meet military and public expenses.[[10]] Confiscations and the rigorous collection of taxes soon became necessary. On another front, he sought to promote grain production by calling for empire-wide limitations on viticulture, but the edict met with immediate opposition and was never implemented.[[11]] On the other hand, there were notable successes. The great fire of A.D. 64, the civil wars of A.D 68-69, and another devastating fire in A.D. 80 had left Rome badly in need of repair. Domitian responded by erecting, restoring, or completing some 50 structures, including the restored Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol and a magnificent palace on the Palatine. The building program, ambitious and spectacular, was matched by hardly any other emperor.[[12]] He was also able to maintain the debased currency standard of A.D. 85, which was still higher than the Vespasianic one, until the end of his reign. The economy, therefore, offered a ready outlet for Domitian’s autocratic tendencies. There were failures, but he also left the treasury with a surplus, perhaps the best proof of a financially sound administration.

Domitian’s reach extended well beyond the economy. Late in A.D. 85 he made himself censor perpetuus, censor for life, with a general supervision of conduct and morals. The move was without precedent and, although largely symbolic, it nevertheless revealed Domitian’s obsessive interest in all aspects of Roman life. An ardent supporter of traditional Roman religion, he also closely identified himself with Minerva and Jupiter, publicly linking the latter divinity to his regime through the Ludi Capitolini, the Capitoline Games, begun in A.D.86. Held every four years in the early summer, the Games consisted of chariot races, athletics and gymnastics, and music, oratory and poetry. Contestants came from many nations, and no expense was spared; the emperor himself awarded the prizes.[[13]] In the same manner, Domitian offered frequent and elaborate public shows, always with an emphasis on the innovative: gladiator contests held at night; female combatants and dwarves; food showered down upon the public from ropes stretched across the top of the Amphitheater.[[14]] Thus did the emperor seek to underscore not only Rome’s importance but also his own and that of the Flavian regime.

Beyond Rome, Domitian taxed provincials rigorously and was not afraid to impose his will on officials of every rank. Consistent with his concern for the details of administration, he also made essential changes in the organization of several provinces and established the office of curator to investigate financial mismanagement in the cities. Other evidence points to a concern with civic improvements of all kinds, from road building in Asia Minor, Sardinia and near the Danube to building and defensive improvements in North Africa.[[15]] Less easy to gauge is Domitian’s attitude toward Christians and Jews, since reliable evidence for their persecution is difficult to find. Christians may have been among those banished or executed from time to time during the 90’s, but the testimony falls short of confirming any organized program of persecution under Domitian’s reign. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that Jews were made to feel uneasy under Domitian, who scrupulously collected the Jewish tax and harassed Jewish tax dodgers during much of his rule. As with Christians, such policies did not amount to persecution, but it does help to explain the Jewish fears of expulsion present in the sources.[[16]] On balance, the tradition of Domitian as persecutor has been greatly overstated, yet given his autocratic tendencies and devotion to Roman pagan religion, it is easy to see how such stories could have evolved and multiplied.

Military Affairs

While the military abilities of Vespasian and Titus were genuine, those of Domitian were not. Partly as an attempt to remedy this deficiency, Domitian frequently became involved in his own military exploits outside of Rome. He claimed a triumph in A.D. 83 for subduing the Chatti in Gaul, but the conquest was illusory. Final victory did not really come until A.D. 89. In Britain, similar propaganda masked the withdrawal of Roman forces from the northern borders to positions farther south, a clear sign of Domitian’s rejection of expansionist warfare in the province.[[17]] The greatest threat, however, remained on the Danube. The emperor visited Moesia in A.D. 85 after Oppius Sabinus, the Moesian governor, had been killed by invading Dacians. In the First Dacian War, initial success against the aggressors by Domitian’s praetorian prefect, Cornelius Fuscus, allowed the emperor to celebrate his second triumph at Rome in A.D. 86. Fuscus was subsequently killed trying to avenge Sabinus’ death, however, and Domitian soon returned to the Danube, where Roman forces, under the newly appointed governor of Upper Moesia, Tettius Julianus, defeated the Dacians at Tapae in the Second Dacian War, most likely in A.D. 88. Matters remained far from settled. In January, A.D. 89, the governor of Upper Germany, L. Antonius Saturninus, mutinied at Mainz. The revolt was promptly suppressed and the rebel leaders brutally punished. Later that same year, Domitian attacked the Suebian Marcomanni and Quadi in the First Pannonian War, while offering the Dacian king Decebalus a settlement to avoid conflicts on two fronts. Compelled to return to the Danube three years later, Domitian fought the combined forces of the Suebi and the Sarmatians in the Second Pannonian War. Few other details are available beyond the fact that a Roman legion was destroyed in a campaign that lasted about eight months. By January, A.D. 93, Domitian was back in Rome, not to accept a full triumph but the lesser ovatio, a sign perhaps of unfinished business along the Danube. In fact, during the final years of Domitian’s reign, the buildup of forces on the middle Danube and the appointment and transfer of key senior officials suggest that a third Pannonian campaign directed against the Suebi and Sarmatians may have been underway. Even so, there is no testimony of actual conflicts and the evidence does not extend beyond A.D. 97.[[18]]

The Emperor’s Court and His Relationship with the Aristocracy

Domitian’s autocratic tendencies meant that the real seat of power during his reign resided with his court. The features typically associated with later courts - a small band of favored courtiers, a keen interest in the bizarre and the unusual (e.g., wrestlers, jesters, and dwarves), and a highly mannered, if somewhat artificial atmosphere, characterized Domitian’s palace too, whether at Rome or at his Alban villa, some 20 kilometers outside of the capital.[[19]] Courtiers included family members and freedmen, as well as friends (amici), a group of politicians, generals, and praetorian prefects who offered input on important matters.[[20]] Reliance upon amici was not new, yet the arrangement underscored Domitian’s mistrust of the aristocracy, most notably the senate, whose role suffered as Domitian deliberately concentrated power in the hands of few senators while expanding the duties of the equestrian class. Senatorial grievances were not without basis: at least 11 senators of consular rank were executed and many others exiled, ample attestation of the emperor’s contempt for the body and its membership.[[21]] The senate’s enthusiastic support for the damning of Domitian’s memory, therefore, came as no surprise. Nevertheless, the situation must be placed in its proper context. By comparison, the emperor Claudius(A.D. 41-54) executed 35 senators and upwards of 300 equestrians, yet he was still deified by the senate![[22]] Domitian’s mistake was that he made no attempt to mask his feelings about the senate. Inclined neither by nature nor by conviction to include the body in his emperorship, he treated the group no differently than any other. Revenge would come in the form of an aristocratically based literary tradition that would miss no opportunity to vilify thoroughly both emperor and his rule.

The most notable operational impacts and organizational consequences
related to each “driver” identified by the FBI are:
(1)  Global and domestic demographic changes
global — more operations abroad; need increased intelligence from within
immigrant communities; wider variety of linguists required
domestic/internal — rapid FBI staff turnover presents opportunity for culture
change, but loss of corporate memory  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
(2)  Communications revolution
intelligence — encryption constrains Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) operations, will need to get closer to end-nodes
investigations — identity theft will make perpetrator identification more
difficult
internal — easier FBI peer-to-peer communications; greater need for
technically savvy staff; need for alternate communications in event of
catastrophic outage
(3)  Global economic changes
external — terrorism and organized crime converge; greater need for
coordinating countermeasures with foreign countries and financial
organizations
internal — difficulty recruiting highly paid technical talent
(4)  Rising belief in non-material values abroad
external — increasing danger to agents working abroad as anti-Americanism
increases and actors disperse, FBI may become target
internal — greater difficulty recruiting ethnic Arabs and Muslims, as well as
any newly identified ethnic groups associated with threats
(5)  Technological revolutions  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
external — reduced ability for threat groups or governments to hide
undercover identity of agents; increase in espionage and cyber crime against
U.S. corporations
internal — need for increased technical recruiting; need for enhanced civil
liberties training as technology outpaces policy

In February 1946 Stalin gave a public address in which he implied that future wars were inevitable until Communism replaced capitalism worldwide. Events in Europe and North America convinced Congress that Stalin was well on his way to achieving his goal. The Russian veto prevented the United Nations from curbing Soviet expansion under its auspices.

Americans feared Communist expansion was not limited to Europe. By 1947, ample evidence existed that pro-Soviet individuals had infiltrated the American Government. In June, 1945, the FBI raided the offices of Amerasia, a magazine concerned with the Far East, and discovered a large number of classified State Department documents. Several months later the Canadians arrested 22 people for trying to steal atomic secrets. Previously, Americans felt secure behind their monopoly of the atomic bomb. Fear of a Russian bomb now came to dominate American thinking. The Soviets detonated their own bomb in 1949.

Counteracting the Communist threat became a paramount focus of government at all levels, as well as the private sector. While U.S. foreign policy concentrated on defeating Communist expansion abroad, many U.S. citizens sought to defeat the Communist threat at home. The American Communist Party worked through front organizations or influenced other Americans who agreed with their current propaganda (”fellow travelers”).

Since 1917, the FBI and its predecessor agencies had investigated suspected acts of espionage and sabotage. In 1939 and again in 1943, Presidential directives had authorized the FBI to carry out investigations of threats to national security. This role was clarified and expanded under Presidents Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Any public or private agency or individual with information about subversive activities was urged to report it to the FBI. A poster to that effect was distributed to police departments throughout the country. At the same time, it warned Americans to “avoid reporting malicious gossip or idle rumors.” The FBI’s authority to conduct background investigations on present and prospective government employees also expanded dramatically in the postwar years. The 1946 Atomic Energy Act gave the FBI “responsibility for determining the loyalty of individuals …having access to restricted Atomic Energy data.” Later, executive orders from both Presidents Truman and Eisenhower (pictured right, presenting National Security Medal to J. Edgar Hoover) gave the FBI responsibility for investigating allegations of disloyalty among federal employees. In these cases, the agency requesting the investigation made the final determination; the FBI only conducted the investigation and reported the results. Many suspected and convicted spies, such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, had been federal employees. Therefore, background investigations were considered to be just as vital as cracking major espionage cases.

Despite the threats to the United States of subversion and espionage, the FBI’s extended jurisdiction, and the time-consuming nature of background investigations, the Bureau did not surpass the number of Agents it had during World War II–or its yearly wartime budget–until the Korean War in the early 1950s. After the Korean War ended, the number of Agents stabilized at about 6,200, while the budget began a steady climb in 1957.

Several factors converged to undermine domestic Communism in the 1950s. Situations like the Soviet defeat of the Hungarian rebellion in 1956 caused many members to abandon the American Communist Party. However, the FBI also played a role in diminishing Party influence. The Bureau was responsible for the investigation and arrest of alleged spies and Smith Act violators, most of whom were convicted. Through Hoover’s speeches, articles, testimony, and books like Masters of Deceit, the FBI helped alert the public to the Communist threat.

The FBI’s role in fighting crime also expanded in the postwar period through its assistance to state and local law enforcement and through increased jurisdictional responsibility. On March 14, 1950, the FBI began its “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” List to increase law enforcement’s ability to capture dangerous fugitives. Advances in forensic science and technical development enabled the FBI to devote a significant proportion of its resources to assisting state and local law enforcement agencies.

A dramatic example of aid to a state occurred after the midair explosion of a plane over Colorado in 1955. The FBI Laboratory examined hundreds of airplane parts, pieces of cargo, and the personal effects of passengers. It pieced together evidence of a bomb explosion from passenger luggage, then painstakingly looked into the backgrounds of the 44 victims. Ultimately, Agents identified the perpetrator and secured his confession, then turned the case over to Colorado authorities who successfully prosecuted it in a state court.

At the same time, Congress gave the FBI new federal laws with which to fight civil rights violations, racketeering, and gambling. These new laws included the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964; the 1961 Crimes Aboard Aircraft Act; an expanded Federal Fugitive Act; and the Sports Bribery Act of 1964.

Up to this time, the interpretation of federal civil rights statutes by the Supreme Court was so narrow that few crimes, however heinous, qualified to be investigated by federal agents.

The turning point in federal civil rights actions occurred in the summer of 1964, with the murder of voting registration workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney near Philadelphia, Mississippi. At the Department of Justice’s request, the FBI conducted the investigation as it had in previous, less-publicized racial incidents. The case against the perpetrators took years to go through the courts. Only after 1966, when the Supreme Court made it clear that federal law could be used to prosecute civil rights violations, were seven men found guilty. By the late 1960s, the confluence of unambiguous federal authority and local support for civil rights prosecutions allowed the FBI to play an influential role in enabling African Americans to vote, serve on juries, and use public accommodations on an equal basis.

Other civil rights investigations included the assasination of Martin Luther King, Jr., with the arrest of James Earl Ray, and the murder of Medger Evers, Mississippi Field Secretary of the NAACP, with the arrest of Byron De La Beckwith who, after two acquittals, was finally found guilty in 1994.

Involvement of the FBI in organized crime investigations also was hampered by the lack of possible federal laws covering crimes perpetrated by racketeers. After Prohibition, many mob activities were carried out locally, or if interstate, they did not constitute major violations within the Bureau’s jurisdiction.

An impetus for federal legislation occurred in 1957 with the discovery by Sergeant Croswell of the New York State Police that many of the best known mobsters in the United States had met together in upstate New York. The FBI collected information on all the individuals identified at the meeting, confirming the existence of a national organized-crime network. However, it was not until an FBI Agent persuaded mob insider Joseph Valachi to testify that the public learned firsthand of the nature of La Cosa Nostra, the American “mafia.”

On the heels of Valachi’s disclosures, Congress passed two new laws to strengthen federal racketeering and gambling statutes that had been passed in the 1950s and early 1960s to aid the Bureau’s fight against mob influence. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provided for the use of court-ordered electronic surveillance in the investigation of certain specified violations. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute of 1970 allowed organized groups to be prosecuted for all of their diverse criminal activities, without the crimes being linked by a perpetrator or all-encompassing conspiracy. Along with greater use of Agents for undercover work by the late 1970s, these provisions helped the FBI develop cases that, in the 1980s, put almost all the major traditional crime family heads in prison.

By the end of the 1960s, the Bureau employed 6,703 Special Agents and 9,320 Support Personnel in 58 field offices and twelve Legal Attache offices. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

A national tragedy produced another expansion of FBI jurisdiction. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the crime was a local homicide; no federal law addressed the murder of a President. Nevertheless, Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  President Lyndon B. Johnson tasked the Bureau with conducting the investigation. Congress then passed a new law to ensure that any such act in the future would be a federal crime.