Federal Bureau of Investigation. "Transcript of Conversation with Martin Luther King, Jr."
March 25, 1967.
Date Issued: March 25, 1967
Date Declassified: December 23, 1983
Length: 13 pages
NOT Sanitized
 FULL TEXT
Time Initial IC
OG Activity Recorded
1:43 AM OG R5501-1 to 58
(S. LEVINSON) to (DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING) @ TRIANGLE [4]-6285,
(Chicago, Ill. ?) by operator. Call on KING's credit card
#W5222494035.
K-How was your trip? L-Trip was very good. Gave me a
chance to rest and clean up some business. L-How have you
been? K-Good. Out here in Chicago to reafirm our right
to be here. L-You were on the New York Times front page
again today. K-I saw it. L-They have your right next to
BROOKE. Which is what I expected. I think I mentioned it
to you that after he was elected they would develop him into
the acceptable leader and just the position of the two. This
is what they are doing. He is moving to the right on the
war and you are moving in the other direction. K-I'm so
discussed with his position. I really was. L-You have a
right to be. At least SENATOR JAVITS stuck to the position
he expressed., you know on the bombing. For BROOKE to back
up on it. That was to much. K-I don't know his motovation
I don't know how political it was. Some of it I guess it was
The interesting thing is I had a call in to him yesterday
morning-had a call in for him day before. Talked with his
administrative assistant, who told me to call him between
9-10AM. I didn't call and after that I was glad I didn't.
Calling him to be speaker at banquet in Atlanta in August
at our convertion. Saw it as a compromise that wasn't
necessary. Murdering of integrity. He campaign as kind
of dove.
SL: That's right. He was very encouraging, as a matter of
fact, that he was elected with that kind of a position. And
he didn't have any reason to change it. Except that I think
they must be putting a lot of pressure on people like Whitney
and him and Roy, people who aren't dependent for their
support, for the position they occupy, on these kind of force
MLK: Right.
SL: I called you last night. I had a couple of things I want
ed to raise with you. One was whether you had read the mater-
rial of Mike Miller and what kind of reaction you had to it.
MLK: I had a very positive reaction. I think it's excellent
material and most helpful to my own thinking.
SL: I don't know if you talked to Joan about it. But Joan
and Hermine and the editor at Harper all feel that well,
they don't like it. They don't like it I guess from many
points of view. Joan says it's boring, dull. They feel
that some of the material is just too unclear. The Editor
at Harper suggested dropping it out altogether. And when I
talked to Joan she offered me the happy task of making it
clearer without adding any words, and trying to make it more
interesting. Now I think that I disagree with them in the
sense that I agree with you that there is some very good
material there; very good programs.
MLK: I can see the gap here. One has been in civil rights
and who's looking at it from a broad perspective would be
seeing this material as very important. And one who has been
on the outskirts of it wouldn't.
SL: That's right. And it isn't too well written. it certain
ly isn't written in an interesting style.
MLK: Right. But being in the appendix it isn't a part of the
main text. And I don't think it needs it. I agree that it
certainly isn't in the style of the book as a whole. But I
would certainly insist that it stay because I think it's
saying something very important and very positive.
SL: I wanted to start seeing if I could make it a little more
interesting. There's one part of it where Hermine seemed
quite baffled, and so did Joan. And this part I understood.
It's where he dealt with the question of new rights. Now if
you don't know what's meant by new rights, and they clearly
never heard of it, they have no concept of it, they apparent-
ly got very confused by this. This I think I can straighten
out because it's a matter of introducing it by indicating
that you're talking about rights against the growing bureau-
cracies in welfare and so forth. But I just wanted to know
whether you objected to anything in it.
MLK: No, not at all.
SL: I'm going to try my hand at it and I'll let them know how
you feel. And I happen to feel the same way about this
material, that it offers something. Joan and Hermine think
of this as a book that anyone should be able to pick up and
no matter how little connection or interest he's had with
civil rights, he should be able to read it. That's asking
too much. You have to make certain assumptions of some
amount of knowledge. Because the truth is the large majority
of the people who read this book will have more than an
average interest in civil rights. This is not going to be
read by the general public, by the people who read the Daily
News and the Hearst papers and so forth. It's going to be
read by people who have followed the progress of civil rights
So I think we can make a reasonable amount of assumptions as
to their knowledge.
MLK: Exactly.
SL: Another thing. Adele told me she got a letter from Andy
in which he asked for reports from staff heads. And it
asked for a report in a hundred copies for the Board Meeting.
I remember the last time we made up a hundred copies, but you
didn't want to distribute the because you didn't want that
much material about income floating around. How many copies
should we make up?
MLK: I wouldn't think you'd need that many. There's about
fifty Board members. I don't think you'll have more than
thirty there.
SL: If you don't want this kind of material floating around
and I don't think it's a good idea, it might be well to make
up even fewer than one for each so they won't be passing
around.
MLK: I'd say twenty five would be alright. When you put
Staff and Board members together we may have fifty people,
but they don't all need it.
SL: Another thing. After reading the Times story of the
announcement of your participation in the April Peace
Demonstration. The one thing think we have to be
careful about is what I mentioned to Andy, I think. And
that is we do have to bear in mind that in the fund raising
letters at no time have you ever discussed the Peace Issue,
have you ever asked for money for any Peace activities. So
that when the question is raised by the press about how much
attention will be given, you're always free to give as much
of your attention and your time as you want.
MLK: I thought it may be good to get something to the
contributors on this very thing, kind of making it clear
that this was my personal witness on the basis of conscience
but that SCLC as an organization is basically committed to
civil rights activities and that we are not spending any
money for Peace activities. It may clear the air on that.
This wouldn't be a fund raising thing at all. A letter
stating why I feel the need of making a personal stand.
SL: Maybe that would be a good idea. I don't yet see any
effect on the fund raising. I'd just like to anticipate
rather than wait for some kind of criticism to be made;
you know, the fund raising is for civil rights and the organ-
ization appears to be engaged in something else, so it's a
kind of fraud. Before anybody says that I'd like to deal
with it. Let me try my hand at it. Then I think we ought
to reflect on it. The one thing I'm thinking about is that
if you send a letter only on that, that can objectively
appear defensive. If it were incorporated with something
else, it may be less defensive. Some of the reasoning
behind your position could be gone into. In other words,
you may be expressing your views to the contributors and
using the opportunity to express yourself. But it has to
come out right or it can be misconstrued. This is one of the
things you have to try your hand at and then see what it
looks like. I remember two years ago when I wrote a letter
of explanation on the minister in Selma who was charged with
misuse of funds. And it was so bad after I finished writing
it that it was hair raising. It sounded so apologetic that
you realized it's not the kind of thing you can send out.
I'll work on something and then you can go over it. Another
thing. You probably got Joan's note about the Saturday
Review and Norman Cousins. Do you know what Norman Cousins
said? She didn't have it in her letter. What he said
specifically to the other editors who had liked the article
was that he didn't want to run anything of yours because the
kind of position you've taken on Peace is so wrong that in
six months your name is going to be mud. And therefore,
it's not worth running anything by you. I said to Joan this
sounds like what Johnson is reported to have said to Bobby
Kennedy.
MLK: I had Andy call Norman Cousins to discuss the reasons
why I felt I had to do this. And you know the Peace movement
is more divided than the civil rights movement. And they
really didn't deal with the article. But, you know, the
reasons why I felt compelled to take a greater stand.
SL: Did Norman Cousins show any indications of accepting
your reasoning?
MLK: Yeah. Andy said he said he understood that, but he
just felt that these forces were the "Hate America" forces
and they would end up doing more harm than good; that they
would bring about a climate that would really call more for
escalation than deescalation. There may be something to that
but I don't see that as the real problem. But they didn't
get into the article. And Andy opened the discussion with
the article. He opened by saying that my agent had reported
that he had heard from sone people that the reason the
article was turned down was because of my participation in
the mobilization. Then it went on from there and Andy said
he never came back to that point, but that he appreciated
the call. And he said he could understand the position that
I'm in and why I felt the need of doing this. Now whether
it's alright trying to go back to him, I really don't know.
Since it was not an issue that was really discussed in their
conversation.
SL: Maybe I can discuss it with Joan. Possibly Joan can
make an approach to one of the people there that she knows
and sort of test it out. I wouldn't think offhand that it
changes anything because I don't think that Norman Cousins
really changed his position in any respect. He's always
been very much the right wing of the Peace movement. Some
years back he worked very closely with Senator Dodd against
these kind of people. And knowing what we know today about
Senator Dodd, we can question his judgment about the kind of
associates he finds. He was very close to Dodd because Dodd
was part of the one world organization that Cousins is also
close to.
MLK: Is Cousins in SANE?
SL: He was and left. He was Co-Chairman with Spock until
about four years ago. Then he resigned. He was really one
of the founders of SANE. He was the Chairman of SANE before
Spock became Co-Chairman. then quite an issue developed
over the kind of people that were coming into SANE. Norman
Cousins was involved in a sort of which hunt. That was when
Dodd apparently was feeding him the information. Then he
stayed awhile and then resigned. He really always had a
very cautious, very conservative approach. And very sensitive
to Establishment attitudes. Something did strike me as
possibly another evidence of a similar reaction. Joan told
me yesterday that the other two chapters were submitted to
Look; the first one and the one on Where Do We Go From Here.
And she submitted these confident that it couldn't be said
that the material was not new and fresh. She said the
editors liked it and sort of indicated it was just the kind
of thing they were looking for. And then very surprisingly
orders came from Cowle, the Publisher of Look, the material
went to him and then came back that they couldn't use it.
From him. Now this sounds a bit like the same sort of play.
And while I have no evidence of it, I wouldn't be surprised
that it may have gotten around that Norman Cousins didn't
want to publish a part of it. So this may be one of the
problems of the period.
MLK: I anticipated some of this and it doesn't bother me at
all.
SL: I anticipated that it would certainly not come easily
because you're certainly not in the same kind of climate
that you were in 1964. But I think added to the fact that
there isn't that much interest in general in civil rights
on the part of major magazines. The moment there's any
diminishing in interest, I've always noted over the years,
they don't like a civil rights spokesman as the author of
an article. They'd prefer that it be either a member of
the staff of a magazine or somebody they feel is outside the
area of leadership. Because when there's any kind of public
withholding of support then they become afraid, I think,
that they'll be accused of giving a platform to the [spokesman]
on civil rights. And they don't want to encourage this kind
of enmity. And I think that has to be taken into account as
part of the explanation. And I think the other part may very
well have to do with the fact that there is a feeling that
you're not so safe.
MLK: I think that's the major thing.
SL: You're not just the man who's saying you must love them.
They're getting the other part of the message. So there's
certain sacrifices involved.
MLK: I don't have any problems about it whatsoever.
SL: Neither do I.
MLK: If we don't get a single chapter placed. Maybe Harper
would take one of the chapters. Has she approached them?
SL: I think she submitted the Black Power there. And she
still has a few magazine like that to send some of the
chapters to. I don't know quite where she is on the various
schedules, but I'll be checking with her, probably tomorrow.
Another thing. On this Housing proposition in Chicago, I
told Chauncey that I'd be willing to stay in for about $7500
and put $1000 in toward the expenses that they had. He said
they had some $4000 in expenses as a result of the start.
And I think he's gotten Boutay(ph) to pick up $1500 in the
expenses. And he's going to try and get the balance from
the foundation. Now I just have one reservation about this
thing. I have no idea, and I never did, about the competence
of the people who have to do this job. I know something
about this kind of work and I know it's not easy to do it
successfully. So I always look on this as having a real
element of risk. I wouldn't like to see the kind of people
who have been giving you support in Chicago, these business
men, brought into something on which they would lose money
when there was no financial gain to be made by SCLC, and very
limited gain in terms of community contribution. Because
the amount of units that can be built will be quite limited.
I wouldn't like to see you put pressure on these men to stay
in a risk proposition unless it was very clear that it's
entirely voluntary on their part.
MLK: We had a meeting tonight. I had dinner with them, and
we stressed this point. We made it very clear that the risk
was greatly minimized.
SL: Why is the risk minimized?
MLK: I don't know enough about economics to know why. But
this is the judgment given by those who are supposed to know
it; Boutay(ph) and Chauncey and others. They all strongly
recommended this. I just don't know enough about it to
know because this is an area that I'm completely incompetent
in.
SL: I know that and I don't believe that Chauncey knows
either. And I didn't get the impression that Jess Gill(ph)
is such an expert. As a matter of fact, I got quite the
opposite impression. All he knows is the paper routine at
FHA. That's not actually taking hold of a building and
reconstructing it. There are lots of unknowns in these
situations. How did it come out? How many of the men stayed
with it?
MLK: I got the impression that all of them were staying with
it. Most of them anyway. They voted to stay with it
unanimously with the idea of 6% interest. Some raised the
question of raising the interest to 7%. But what we really
need is 25 to $30,000 to get started. I think
once we get started it will go alright. There'll be others
who'll want to come in after they see it's going alright.
SL: That's the way they should do it. At this point I'm
skeptical. I'm willing to leave a certain amount of money
in because I'm willing to risk it in order to try to
accomplish something. But I wouldn't like to see too many
men involved in a loss. Fortunately most of them did not
put in any sizeable amount of money individually.
MLK: That's what they contended, that it wasn't enough money
that no individual had put enough money in it to be really
worried about losses.
SL: In other words, you're saying the target was to 25
or $30,000?
MLK: Right.
SL: That's not so bad. Because if he starts with my 7500,
then they don't have to raise too much.
MLK: Three checks were written tonight. Chauncey authorized
them to write these three checks which will be sent back to
you. I think we had something like 53,000 in cash and another
20 in pledges. And they voted unanimously to turn the money
over to the Not For Profit Corporation with the 6% interest.
I didn't even deal with the financial aspects. I appealed
to them mainly on the social aspect of it, the joining of
the Negro haves with the have nots. And that if this works
it will be a pattern that will be vastly enlarged, and they
can be a part of the process. So they responded to this very
well. I don't know how many wanted their money back, but of
the people there tonight, they said they wanted to leave it
in. Because of the appeal I made for them being a part, at
least attempting to grapple with the problem of the less
fortunate.
SL: If your appeal was of a nature where you're saying to
them if you had to contribute this money, not invest it, but
contribute it, you should because this is the way the haves
should react to the have nots, and they're responding to
that, fine. But if on the other hand, they have a 90% chance
of getting their money back with interest, then they only
have to be 10% insecure. Now I don't happen to agree with
that 90% figure. And I know that no one who is giving you
that figure is in a position to do it. Chauncey and Jess
Gill(ph) don't know, and I don't know how much experience
that mortgage broker has.
MLK: This is rehabilitating old property, and it's something
new really.
SL: If it were New York you could be much more exact because
in New York all the old buildings are very much alike. In
Chicago they're not. And that's where one of the problems
comes up. You really don't know how much work you're going
to have on a building. So you make an estimate of what the
rehabilitation is going to cost and when you get involved in
it you find it's going to run higher and you may not have
left enough margin for error. And this is the kind of thing
which in some cases makes it turn out that it isn't possible
to complete that particular building within the figures you
have. In order not to get you deeply involved in promoting
money for an operation that may be risky, I'd like to see
them take a couple of buildings and go ahead and do it.
Then if they demonstrate that they've got the kind of
contractors and architects that know how to do the job, then
it's a different story. But I must raise my voice to be
skeptical when people who have not done this kind of thing
before make such positive appraisals. And then when it's
sort of put in your mouth to have others respond to you.
That's really what I'm cautioning about; that there's not
really too much exact knowledge yet of what this kind of
proposition involves. And they should go ahead and demon-
strate in a limited area that they know how to do it, and no
use you to raise too much money on what is fundamentally still
an unknown proposition.
MLK: Yeah. That's why I wanted to keep it low. No more than
25 Or $30,000 and from that we'll see how it works out.
SL: Stick to that. Don't let them persuade you to go beyond
that with any kind of enthusiastic stories because there
may be money available. I don't think you should use your
influence with these men who've been so responsive to SCLC,
to involve them in something that may not be what it's
represented to be. So keep them at this low figure and let
them demonstrate it.
MLK: I think you're exactly right. That's actually what it
is. It's about 30,000 that will be left in. And I would
rather see it remain right there and see how the thing works
out.
SL: When you make one run with it then you know whether the
contractor and architect know how to do it, and then you're
not guessing any more.
MLK: Are you coming to the Board Meeting?
SL: I'm not sure I can. I'm so far behind after the couple
of months I took off and going to Ecuador that I'm not sure.
If I can make it I will. How have you fared in Chicago?
Have they, you know, the group that was going to do you a
favor by helping you leave?
MLK: I haven't met with them since I've been back, so I
really don't know how they're feeling. I had a meeting in
Atlanta Tuesday where I put on paper about a 28 or 30 page
document the kind of structure that SCLC should be in the light of
discussions I'd had, how I envisioned it in my own
thinking. And they were generally very enthusiastic about
it. I mean the Executive Staff. One of the things they have
insisted on here in Chicago is an Executive Director of the
whole project. And I'm working on all of that. I'm trying
to get Joe Lowery(ph) as Executive Secretary and T.Y.
Rogers(ph) as Director of Affiliates; Bringing Blackwell
back as head of the Labor & Economic Affairs Department.
And, of course, Bob Green(ph). And I'm working with and
talking with all of these men and they are generally very
responsive and enthusiastic. So I think we're going to see
a much more stable organization.
SL: If you can get those men in those slots there's just no
question. But the job is to get them in those slots.
MLK: That's right. I'm working on it very hard and I'm
going to meet with them again in Louisville next week
probably. And I'm hopeful about the possibility of getting
them. I think things will work out here in Chicago if we
really let them know that we mean business and that we have
structure. That's the important thing to do now. I had a
press conference today re my return to the city. That went
very well. The press was very inquisitive and very respon-
sive. We had more press there today than I've seen since
I've been in Chicago.
SL: That's because you said you're going to renew action so
they're expecting to hear some dramatic plans. But I think
even more than that that in this period they're looking at
you as somebody who's going through something of a metamor-
pheses. They can't quite place you as conveniently as they
used to be able to. And I think you'll be getting a lot of
attention, not all of it necessarily favorable. You'll
command attention. Because they'll know where to put most
of the leadership. As a matter of fact you might say all
of them. They know where to put Stokely as well as they
know where to put Whitney Young, but I think they don't know
quite where to put you. And until they do they've got to
keep watching you.
MLK: I think you're exactly right. I could see this right
here in Chicago. So we'll see how it turns out.
I was telling ANDY tonight that at times you do things to
satisfy your conscience and they may be all together un-
realistic or wrong tatically but you feel better.
I just know, on the war in Viet Naum I will get a lot of
criticism and I know it can hurt SCLS but I feel better
and I think that is the most important thing, because I loose
the fight then SCLC will die anyway but if I have
the feelings that I am right I can make enough contacts to
raise the money. And I feel that we are so wrong in the
situation that I can no longer be conscious about this matter.
I feel so deep in my hart that we are so wrong in this coun
try and the time has come for a real pro[phesy]
and Im willing to go that road.
SL: Well I have always had the belief that much of the
financial support is not going to leave us if you take
this position. If you were to be seen as only a peace leader
and not a Civil Rights leader concerned about peace
you would not have had as much weight. So by you doing it are
you just adding another person or to the weight which opens the door.
MLK: Yes I see.
SL: So it is tatics that concerns me more than anything.
MLK: I think that is very important.
SL: Yes that you take a stand that satisfy your conscience
is of the most importance and second are you using what
you got to the best advantage.
MLK: This is what I was trying to say to Harry Belefontie
He said he had a deep feeling that this thing has gotten
so bad that I was the only one that could save the Nation
and the world but I told him right off that I felt he
placed too much in me.
SL: Laughs, It's flattering but...
MLK: His contention was that I could unite the already
existing peace movements and bring others to it far beyond
america and be of an influence in this peace movement.
I am going to talk to him when I come up Monday the 3rd.
He was talking about that I should resign from SCLC and
spend my time in taking a stand on Peace
It was my position that I would be much more effective
in taking a stand so peace and maintaining my base in the
Civil Rights movement.
SL: That's right. You got to impress on Harry that when
you speak as a man whom 90 % of negros regard as their
lader ,that is a big voice. When you speak as a man who
some scattered peace movements regard as a leader that is no
such a big voice.
MLK: That's right.
LS: Harry is a naieve man . When you were indicted
in the past Harry wanted to cann a National Labor Strike
and I told him that the Labor group has never done this
on a National sale even for one of their own causes or
their leaders and they are not going to do it for a
negro leader. He has this tendency to make broad generalization
which have no foundation in fact.
MLK: Yes I know that.
SL: Yes. O.K. I will let you go to bed.
MLK: O.K. I will probably be talking with you around the
beginning of the week.
End
|
|
|
