Posted on 01/06/2005 6:49:14 PM PST by WKB
PHILADELPHIA, Miss. - Reputed Ku Klux Klansman Edgar Ray Killen was arrested late Thursday on murder charges in the 1964 slaying of three civil rights workers in Neshoba County, officials said.
Neshoba County Sheriff Larry Myers told The Associated Press that Killen, a 79-year-old preacher, was arrested at home without incident.
The arrest came after a daylong grand jury meeting Thursday that apparently included testimony from people believed to have knowledge about the killings.
"We've got several more to arrest, but we went ahead and got him because he was high-profile and we knew where he was," Myers said.
Myers said Killen was being held on three counts of murder. Calls to Killen's home late Thursday were answered by a recording.
Neshoba County District Attorney Mark Duncan said during the grand jury hearing that arraignments would be held Friday morning.
The grand jury considered whether sufficient evidence existed after 40 years to bring charges in the crimes that were dramatized in the movie "Mississippi Burning." Killen was identified in testimony in earlier federal court proceedings as having a role in the killings.
Mississippi has had some success reopening old civil rights murder cases, including a 1994 conviction of Byron de la Beckwith for the 1963 assassination in Jackson of NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers.
But until recently there has been little progress in building murder cases against those involved in the Ku Klux Klan slayings of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner.
Seven Klansmen were convicted of federal conspiracy charges in the killings and sentenced to prison terms ranging from three years to 10 years. None served more than six years. But the state never brought murder charges.
"After 40 years to come back and do something like this is ridiculous ... like a nightmare," said Billy Wayne Posey, one of the men convicted. The graying Posey, supported by a cane, refused to say what he expected to be asked by the grand jury.
Goodman's mother, Carolyn Goodman, said she "knew that in the end the right thing was going to happen."
"As I have said many times before, I'm not looking for revenge. I'm looking for justice," Goodman, 89, said from her home in New York.
Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were among hundreds of Freedom Summer volunteers, mostly white college students, who came to Mississippi in 1964 to educate blacks and help them to vote. The three were beaten and shot to death. Their bodies were found later in an earthen dam.
Chaney, a 21-year-old black man, was from Meridian, Miss. Goodman, 20, and Schwerner, 24, were from New York.
Jackson attorney James D. McIntyre, who declined to identify his client but said he was on the defense team during the 1967 trial, was critical of prosecutors.
"It appears to be a sad day for the state of Mississippi," McIntyre said. "The investigation that has being brought forth - the prosecutors, news media - I just hate to see it happen."
McIntyre said all he new of the reopened case is "what I read in the newspaper and it appears there has been a lot of judgment made concerning the guilt or innocence of a lot of these people."
Ben Chaney, the younger brother of James Chaney, called the latest investigation a sham that may target one or two unrepentant Klansmen but spare wealthy and influential whites who he said had a hand in the murders.
He said he and others had asked Hood early last year to turn the case over to the FBI with the goal of having a special prosecutor named to take up the investigation.
"Oh please- How about linking Bush to Herbert Hoover- LOL. I dont think KKK preacher has ties with either national party."
You don't think so because.............?? The issue is not Bush, it is this preacher. Why do you think the preacher has no ties with either party? Based on what? Wishful thinking?
I suspect that this preacher is a democrat as he worked on the campaign to elect democrat Big Jim Eastland to the US Senate back in the 60's.
Most KKK are democrats as the org was started by and peopled by democrats.
David Duke was a democrat who swithced to the GOP. Doesnt that make the GOP Duke's party now?
"David Duke was a democrat who swithced to the GOP. Doesnt that make the GOP Duke's party now?"
However, the GOP did not start the Klan, nor did they have a long institutional relationship with the klan. The democrats DID. Duke is an aberration in the GOP, whereas, it was once the norm in the democrat party. However, whenever the rare Republican, like Duke, is mentioned, his party affiliation is always mentioned. When it is a democrat, the silence is deafening. THAT was my point and I was not surprised to discover that this man is a democrat.
I don't believe that the democrats currently support the klan, but there is no reason to hide the longstanding historical - and institutional - racism that exists in the dem party.
I agree that those are the facts. Buts thats because the Democratic party was popular in the south ( I speak as a southerner) before and after the Civil War. If you know history you know that the republicans were extremely rare in the south prior to 1964. That fact has nothing to do with the issues that divide the parties today.
The Republican Party of the Civil War and Reconstruction was opposed to slavery and the terrorism that followed it. That party supported the rights of freemen and nonracist white Southerners to full participation in society, including suffrage for all men. Reconstruction failed, mainly because the federal government stopped supporting it.
The sharecropping system, Jim Crow and then segregation de jure rose to replace slavery. Most Southern whites either supported those practices or acquiesced in them. The Republican Party lost support as blacks were locked out of voting, often under threat of death. In its wake, most voters in the South (white, of course) became Democrats.
As early as the 1940s, some leaders the Democratic Party openly opposed some aspects of discrimination. Southern leaders, segregationists almost to a man, threatened to bolt the party for that reason. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for president as a third-party candidate for the States Rights' Democratic Party. The monicker applied to some Southern Democrats from then on was 'Dixiecrats' -- white Southerners who were Democrats, but opposed to desegregation. Thurmond also wrote the Southern Manifesto, the position paper of white Southerners who opposed integration, in 1956. George Wallace would repeat Thurmond's gestures in the 1960s and 1970s.
By the 1960s, desegregation had become real, instead of just a threat. The Republican Party courted angry white voters who were opposed to integration and other changes in the status quo. The term to describe that courtship came to be known as the Southern Strategy. It was and continues to be very successful. Most Southern whites have switched from being Democrats to being Republicans, either literally or by being reared in now Republican families. The GOP could not win its races nationally without them. Georgia is the most recent state to become Republican dominated. Its current governor, Sonny Perdue, was elected partly on the basis of support from still segregationist neo-Confederates. (A capsule history of the Southern Strategy can be read here.)
An event in the Republicans' support of bigotry is directly related to the Mississippi Burning murders. Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town obscure except for being the site of the murders of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney. Doing so was a wink and nod to Southern voters who opposed civil rights.
To summarize, the Democrats lost the Dixiecrats to the Republicans. It is now the GOP that is the standard bearer for those who oppose racial equality. Black voters support the Democrats by close to 90 percent of the vote. Other minorities also vote Democrat most of the time.
Whenever I see the 'Democrats are the party of racism' claim being made, I wonder if the person making it is purposely trying to mislead others or just plain stupid. The only way one could not know that claim is false is not to know that the Democrats became more inclusive from the Civil Rights era on, while the GOP regressed. I expect intelligent people to know contemporary history.
Another lie trotted out to in the same way is that Congressman Byrd was a longterm leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Not so. He was briefly a member as a young man, but resigned when his conscience bothered him. He has volunteered that information, which he could have kept secret. The late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was also a member of the Klan, under the same circumstances. (In many Southern cities, young white men joined as a matter of course.) Like Byrd, he saw and admitted the error of his ways. But, members of the GOP who are segregationists, such as Trent Lott, have not changed.
Welcome to FR. I hope your stay is short troll.
Who are you kiddin'? It was the GOP that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pancake lady.
What kind of scam are you tryin' to pull, signing up with the nickname "Jemima"? Is that not racist, in itself.
As for Trent Lott, he is not a segregationist, and Byrd's involvement in the KKK was much more than you detail.
You're just a garden variety troll.
Why don't you return when you can say something that is true?
We may have live one here.
Sen. Lott is not a segregationist as you say. He just said something nice about Sen. Thurmond and the liberal media had him hanged.
Read about Ronald Reagan's inauguration of his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., here, here and here. The event, and the Southern Strategy behind it, are facts. They can't be evaded.
Trent Lott established just what he is through his own actions. I believe most Americans got the message.
One advantage of the truth is that the neutrals become your allies.
So it's okay to commit murder if they're communist agitators?
Not in MY America.
Especially when globalblacknews.com and pbs.org are two of your sources. Yep. They're certainly impartial toward Ronald Reagan.
Trent Lott established just what he is through his own actions.
Yeah. Just trying to be nice to an old man.
You've established what you are, pancake lady.
Most FReepers get the message.
Putting aside history, about which you have some of it right, and some of it wrong, by omission and by selective editing, just which party is more interested in getting folks of color off the plantation now?
I'm a white guy who graduated from a historically black university (Virginia State, in Petersburg, VA). When I saw people wearing T-shirts that said "The Blacker the college, the sweeter the knowledge," I knew that we had a long way to go to meet Dr. King's vision of a world where people were judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.
I do have to give you credit, however, for at least trolling in clear, readable English, and for replying to posts. It's way better than most trolls do.
Oh, and welcome to FR.
Frist - Tenn Alexander - Tenn Hutchinson - Texas Cornyn - Texas Allen - Virginia Warner - Virginia Graham - SC DeMint -SC Dole - NC Burr - NC Chamblas - Georgia Isakson - Georgia Martinez - Florida Miss - Lott Miss - Cochran Ala - Shelby Ala -Sessions Louisiana -Vitter
Which of the above GOP Senators from the former Confederacy do you consider patent or latent racist, or race card players, other than the senator you mentioned?
The Republican Party lost support as blacks were locked out of voting, often under threat of death. In its wake, most voters in the South (white, of course) became Democrats.
Ummm, no. The South was solidly Democratic before the war as well. In fact, Abraham Lincoln didn't even appear on most ballots in the South in the 1860 election.
As early as the 1940s, some leaders the Democratic Party openly opposed some aspects of discrimination. Southern leaders, segregationists almost to a man, threatened to bolt the party for that reason. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for president as a third-party candidate for the States Rights' Democratic Party. The monicker applied to some Southern Democrats from then on was 'Dixiecrats' -- white Southerners who were Democrats, but opposed to desegregation. Thurmond also wrote the Southern Manifesto, the position paper of white Southerners who opposed integration, in 1956. George Wallace would repeat Thurmond's gestures in the 1960s and 1970s.
You're correct...and both were Democrats.
By the 1960s, desegregation had become real, instead of just a threat. The Republican Party courted angry white voters who were opposed to integration and other changes in the status quo.
The "other changes" that you mention were the hard left turn the democrats took on all kinds of social issues, not just race relations. Remember that in the '40s the Democrats had to essentially purge themselves of communist influences. By the '60s, the extreme left wingers in the US were almost to a man identified with the Democratic party.
The term to describe that courtship came to be known as the Southern Strategy. It was and continues to be very successful. Most Southern whites have switched from being Democrats to being Republicans, either literally or by being reared in now Republican families. The GOP could not win its races nationally without them. Georgia is the most recent state to become Republican dominated. Its current governor, Sonny Perdue, was elected partly on the basis of support from still segregationist neo-Confederates. (A capsule history of the Southern Strategy can be read here.)
No, it was from Georgians who were pissed because the previous Governor didn't put the state flag issue to a referendum to let the people decide for themselves. I know, because that's why *I* voted for Perdue. And, BTW, I like the current flag much more than the old one with the battle flag on it.
An event in the Republicans' support of bigotry is directly related to the Mississippi Burning murders. Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town obscure except for being the site of the murders of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney. Doing so was a wink and nod to Southern voters who opposed civil rights.
Too bad the rest of the country saw it as a token of respect to the three who lost their lives there.
To summarize, the Democrats lost the Dixiecrats to the Republicans.
The Democrats lost a lot more than just the Dixiecrats. Thurmond only got 2.4% of the popular vote in 1948, and the only states he carried were his home state of South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, along with 1 EV from Tennessee.
It is now the GOP that is the standard bearer for those who oppose racial equality. Black voters support the Democrats by close to 90 percent of the vote. Other minorities also vote Democrat most of the time.
That's rapidly changing. According to This CNN website, 30% of nonwhite men and 12% of nonwhite women voted for George Bush in 2004.
Whenever I see the 'Democrats are the party of racism' claim being made, I wonder if the person making it is purposely trying to mislead others or just plain stupid. The only way one could not know that claim is false is not to know that the Democrats became more inclusive from the Civil Rights era on, while the GOP regressed. I expect intelligent people to know contemporary history.
Intelligent people know that when the Democrats started hemorrhaging voters due to their hard left turn in the 60s, they became the party of special interests: race baiters, gays, environmentalists, etc. "Inclusivism" is code for "we can't thing of anything else we have in common." When I look around, I only see one party that believes in Dr. King's dream that men - white or black - should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skins, and that's the Republicans.
Another lie trotted out to in the same way is that Congressman Byrd was a longterm leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Not so. He was briefly a member as a young man, but resigned when his conscience bothered him. He has volunteered that information, which he could have kept secret. The late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was also a member of the Klan, under the same circumstances. (In many Southern cities, young white men joined as a matter of course.) Like Byrd, he saw and admitted the error of his ways. But, members of the GOP who are segregationists, such as Trent Lott, have not changed.
I will agree that I'd never seen anything substantiated that said Byrd had any long term position in the Klan. The fact remains he was in the Klan. That by itself should be a disqualifier. The Dems even let Fritz Hollings stay in their party - and you certainly won't argue that *he* changed his spots, will you?
As for Trent Lott, he made a boneheaded statement while trying to humor an old man. Would you have preferred him to say, "Good thing you lost in '48, you doddering old fool?"
Anyway, thanks for stopping by FR. Like I said before, at least you post coherently. :)
However, I would not just look at senators to determine whether segregationist or obstructionist behavior is playing a role in state and federal politics. I would look at the big picture, including support for egalitarian policies, such as improved education.
Tragically S-----, you seem to be a biased and bitter person. If I saw that slogan I would interpret it to mean that since knowledge was withheld from blacks, first through slavery, and then through unequal education, it is all the more to be valued by African-Americans. Very fitting for a historically black college. Your interpretation misses the point. BTW, who is it that the 'we' in your signature phrase would like to kill?
And one for the loser. He doesn't know it, but Jemima, is, of course, a very traditional Southern name of Hebrew origin. Southerners have a tradition of using Biblical names. Jemima means "dove."
And update on Edgar Killen: He has been released on bail. Though Killen told the judge he can't afford a lawyer, it appears that he may have considerable funds tucked away somewhere.
1) Could you direct me to some objective sources that interpret Ronald Reagan's inauguration of his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., (which played to a white Right Wing audience that included Trent Lott), as somehow memorializing the slain civil rights workers instead of celebrating racism? I've not seen thoughtful people claiming Reagan went there to support civil rights. Indeed, it would be an odd choice of both place and audience to do that. Do offer support for your position. (You are to be credited for acknowledging that the event took place. Some people on the thread are in denial about that even.)
2) You are side-stepping the Southern Strategy. Why? It is the best explanation of why Southern white voters made a tidal shift from Democrats to Republicans. Furthermore, 'communist' this and 'federal government' that have always been used as covers for opposing desegregation and equality under the law. It seems rather obvious that people who throw out code phrases like that are just masking opposition to a multiracial society. So, it is apparent that the main reason white Southern voters fled the Democratic Party is integration. Why obfuscate?
3) Neo-Confederates favor the 1956 Georgia flag because it is a symbol of opposition to desegregation. It was adopted to oppose Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and to support the Southern Manifesto (1956) and massive resistance to desegregation.* The flag controversies are excellent examples of the still strong influence of segregationists on politics in the South. They represent the Southern Strategy at work.
*Though neo-Confederates would have people believe otherwise, the symbols of the Confederacy fell into disuse from Reconstruction until the 1950s and 1960s. Then they were revived as symbols of opposition to racial equality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.