. . . Do you know W. Tapley Bennett—[note 1] Johnson and Russell had discussed Bennett five days earlier, and Russell explained, “His daddy is one of my best friends. I helped raise him. He’s a hell of a good boy. He’s consul in Greece.” Russell also stated that Thomas Mann was pushing for Bennett’s appointment somewhere in Latin America. See the conversation between President Johnson and Richard Russell, 15 January 1964, in this volume.

Yes.

—the state of Georgia?

Yes, sir, I know him.

What do you think about him?

Well, he’s a fine young man, Mr. President. I, of course, don’t know him as well as I do his father. His father was more of a contemporary of mine, though he’s eight or ten years older than I am—

Is he able enough and tough enough, and would Russell name him ambassador to the Dominican Republic . . . if he were president, if he was governor of Georgia and they were naming him, like you were when you were 32 years old?

I would if you’ve got somebody that’ll give Tap instructions what to do. He’ll carry them out to the letter.

Well, we’ll do that. You and I will do that here.

He’ll carry them out to the letter. You needn’t worry a second. He comes of that breed—that’s an old crowd been around over there in that section of Georgia since before the Revolution.

They deserving of their heritage?

Yes, they’re good, tough people.

All right.

Tap was, of course, a genius in college. He graduated with Phi Beta Kappa and everything else and, I think, is [an] extraordinarily able young man. I think he would make a fine ambassador. I’m always very hesitant to endorse anybody [President Johnson tells an aide to arrange a meeting] without any reservations, because sometimes they fail you. But if I were making the appointment, I wouldn’t be a bit afraid it would fly back on me.

All right, that’s all I need. Do you know anything else?

No, sir. How’s everything going?

No. We missed you yesterday. Way things are going, like hell: We’re in trouble in Indonesia, and we’re in trouble in Tanganyika, and we’re in trouble in Zanzibar, and we’re in trouble in Panama. They say that—

Approximately one and a half minutes excised under deed of gift restriction.

. . . There was an English journalist that writes for the London Observer, I believe, that had an article [that] was carried in today’s Washington News that I thought was so excellent I had it printed in the body of the Congressional Record this afternoon.[note 2] The article took a stand that Russell had been making to Johnson since 10 January, arguing that Panama “is the creation of the United States just as much as the Canal is the creation of the United States.” In asking the Senate to print this article, Senator Russell declared, “It is gratifying to learn that there are those in the world who recognize that we have some rights in Panama and who do not think it is necessary for us to apologize for the wealth and power of these United States.” See Robert Pitman, “The Flag Was Made in Washington—One Englishman’s View of Panama,” Cong. Rec., 88th Cong., 2d sess., 1964, 110, pt. 1:669–70. He said that we had done everything that people could be expected to do, and that we had suffered one great defeat in Cuba, and we ought not take another one down there. If we did, it would just keep on building up on us.

Well, we’re not going to. But I’m going to take a lot of heat, I’ll tell you—

[Unclear] my amazement, the Atlanta Constitution, Harold Martin, who’s the best writer they have—he also writes for some of the slick papers—he had an article today just giving the Panamanians hell. Their objective was to take the Panama Canal Zone over and to extort high charges there. Said he’d read what old Khrushchev said, but he’d like to see [the] expression on his face if they had that canal when they started extorting from him for Russian ships going through. I’m going to put that one in the Record tomorrow.

I wish you’d put something in the Record about this—first time in ten years that a president’s reduced the acceleration of federal expenditures and started it downward. [The] trouble with you and Harry Byrd and all my friends, when you-all get me to do something, then, by gosh, I don’t hear any more out of it—

Well, I—

I just do it.

If I’d gone up that 5 billion [dollars] that Kennedy goes up every year, I’d have had 103.8 [billion dollars]. Instead of that, I cut below it, and the Republicans all denounce me. They get mad, and they say, “Well, god-damn it, he don’t know how he’s going to do it.” But, you know, I had a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday, or Saturday, my independent agencies, and do you know how many . . . I made them . . . under the budget figures. I’ve already got them 7,500 jobs below the budget figures on the first quarter’s report.

That’s terrific.

I’m going to have reports every quarter, and they can’t employ a man that I don’t approve of over their target. I’ve got them thinking economy and talk—

Well, you’re doing a tremendous job, Mr. President.

Well . . .

I thought it’d been just universal. Everybody I’ve seen everywhere just—

No. No, when that budget message gets up there tomorrow, you ought to whisper to old Harry Byrd, like you did, to send those apples to Bob Anderson that time.[note 3] Byrd owned apple orchards in northern Virginia. He said he wouldn’t even send Eisenhower that many apples. You ought to say, “Now, you raise hell with him all the time, and if you want this boy to keep on, you just brag on him a little bit, and, God, he’ll fly to the moon.” Get up there and just say, “I don’t know how he’s going to do it. He says he’s going to do it, and I’m going to take him at his word, and we’ll support him as long as he does,” so forth. He don’t need to underwrite it; he [can] just commend the general trend in that direction.

Well, I’ll be glad to do that.

I’ll send—I’ll find some good editorial for you, because I don’t want [Hubert] Humphrey putting everything in the Record for me. I want the other side a little bit, too.

Well, I’ll be glad to. I issued a statement lauding it to the skies. [Unclear]—

Did I show you that poll Don Cook sent me?[note 4] Cook was a utility executive and close friend of Johnson.

No.

He said, [reading]

Each year the electric utility industry has a number of surveys made on matters of important general interest. Since I believe it may be of interest, I’m enclosing it. [At] the bottom of the third page is stated the question being raised in the business community is whether President Johnson will prove to be understanding and constructive toward business. The January index report would provide the first assessment by corporations. I’ve had an opportunity to get a preview of the results of this survey. The final results are not expected [to] change. The results are based on returns of 176 top executives in manufacturing, finance, and utilities. The complete study will show returns from 190—

so they have 176 of 190—

or an additional 14. Thus, the results set out below may for all practical purposes be regarded as definitive.

Two questions were asked. The question and reply follows. From what you know about President Johnson, how helpful do you expect the policies of his administration will be in stimulating business growth and expansion? Johnson, very helpful, 32 percent; Kennedy, 1962, following clash with [U.S.] Steel, 2 percent. Fairly helpful, Johnson, 58 percent; Kennedy, 19 [percent]. Not very helpful, Johnson, 4 [percent]; Kennedy, 75 [percent].

Jesus.

[continuing]

No opinion, 6 [percent]; Kennedy, no opinion, 4 [percent].

So 32 and 58 makes 90 percent think I’ll be fairly helpful, or very helpful, and only 4 percent—

Oh, yes, and the comparison, too.

And there’re 200 of the top men in business. [continuing to read]

Under the Johnson administration, in your opinion, is the outlook for cooperation between government and business reasonably good or pretty poor? Reasonably good, Johnson, 95 [percent]; Kennedy, 17 [percent]. Pretty poor, Johnson 1 [percent]; Kennedy 66 [percent]. Qualified answers, 2 [percent], Johnson; 14 [percent], Kennedy. No opinion, Johnson, 2 [percent]; 3 [percent], Kennedy.

Although the difference reflected in question two above is magnified by the fact the Kennedy study was made after the clash with U.S. Steel over [the] steel price [hike], there nonetheless can be no doubt about the favorable reaction among business leaders to the President at this time. The people who made the survey advise that traditionally new administrations hit their peak in good will at the start, and point to, among other things, the case of President Truman.[note 5] President Truman’s popularity at the close of World War II had plummeted so far by the 1948 campaign that most experts predicted he would lose the election. In the end, he squeaked out one of the biggest surprises in campaign history. They also state, however, that neither Truman nor Kennedy started off ever with such a favorable goodwill as Johnson does.

I don’t believe Eisenhower had any high like that—

[continuing]

I personally believe that a great deal of support for the Johnson administration can be obtained in the business community.

That’s true.

[continuing]

I’ll be doing everything possible to bring about this help. Don Cook, President of American Electric Power.

That’s terrific. Yes, sir, it sure is.

Almost six and one half minutes excised under deed of gift restriction.

All right. OK. Much obliged. You know anything else good for your country?

No, sir. I wish I did. I—

What have you done for Georgia today?

Haven’t done a damn thing—not one thing—

I’m going to name Carl Rowan [as head of the USIA]. Now, I want you to hold your hat.

Well, he’s [unclear] very good man. That’s all right.

He’s the best man that’s available anywhere, and we’ve looked at all of them. He’s got all the background, and—

Well, when he just pitches in giving the South hell—[note 6] Rowan had written two critical books about the South that may have caused Russell to worry, South of Freedom (New York: Knopf, 1952) and Go South to Sorrow (New York: Random House, 1957).

He’s not going to be, he’s not—

—[saying] they’re ignorant dirt eaters that lay about in the grass, and ignoramuses and all—

He’s not . . . He’s not going to do—

It’s going to get you in more trouble than you ever heard of.

He’s going to lean over backwards. He’s going to lean over . . .

You’re in mighty good shape down there now, but just one thing like that could just tear the . . .

He’s going to lean over—

I personally don’t care a cent, but [unclear]—

He’s going to lean over backwards. The South don’t listen to USIA.

Oh, Mr. President, don’t you remember that time when that fellow gave that thing down there, and we spoke? I didn’t open my mouth. But John McClellan and [James] Eastland and [John] Stennis and Spessard Holland and others, Allen Ellender and Russell Long spoke for two days over there. Some fellow sent out some very derogatory business all over the world about the USIA, about the South, and put them in a very bad light. And they just raised hell for two days. That’s really what has been—

Well—

—USIA’s trouble in Congress ever since then, been that fellow there, happened seven or eight years ago. Of course, you’ll never get a kickback on it at all unless he does just go to slaying the South. Then, if he does that, it’ll upset our applecart down there.

Well, he’s not going to do that. He’s [a] Tennessee boy, and he’s born and raised there, and he’s got more sense than that.[note 7] Rowan grew up in a small town southeast of Nashville. He’s had all these prominent positions, and you haven’t heard anything. I got into him about this other thing. He said he did not say or imply or believe that any senator got any money improperly. He did see an FBI report where a couple of congressmen did. They were furnishing money.

Well, I thought I remembered something about it.

But he didn’t . . .

[stuttering] Well, I got a funny memory. Things stick in my mind. I just happened to remember that at the time when it came through. I think he’s probably all right, and I don’t think—

I asked Roy Wilkins about him. He said his articles in [the] Saturday Evening Post indicated that he didn’t think the Negro was ready for everything, and that’s where I might get a kick-back—that he’s Uncle Tom.[note 8] See the conversation between President Johnson and Roy Wilkins, 16 January 1964, in this volume.

[skeptically] Well, I don’t know about that. You’ll get along all right with him. He’s a pretty able fellow.

I know he is. I took him around the world with me for a month. I lived in close quarters with him. He’s able, respectful, and a gentleman.

He’s got a good deal on the ball, but if USIA goes to tearing off down there . . . and you know they did that to start with on the Kennedy assassination. They started giving the South hell, on the first announcement of it. Said it—

Oh that is—

—was [unclear] shot by southern racist—

Not the USIA.

Yes, it did—United States Information Service—yes, sir. Said he was shot by a southern racist. They stopped it in about 30 minutes, but the first they sent out was that. If you’ll check it, you’ll find out I’m right about it.[note 9] Russell was likely referring to a report from the Voice of America in the minutes after the assassination that characterized Dallas as “the center of the extreme Right Wing.” The reference was deleted from future broadcasts, but the initial report caused some to associate the murder with southerners and provided material for Communist propagandists. Arthur Krock, “The Modern Miracle and the Ancient Curse,” New York Times, 26 November 1963.

Something like that, if that fellow is down there, it can really cause some trouble, and we got a mighty tranquil situation down there at present. But he’s got enough sense to run it, if he hasn’t got some great ambition that he’s going to take over and be the spokesman for all the Negroes by denouncing the South before the world. I don’t know enough about him to appraise him, but you won’t have the slightest repercussion unless he does do that. But if he cuts through [unclear]—

I believe he’ll be . . . My own judgment is, from the Negro standpoint, from that issue, I believe that he’ll be better than [Edward R.] Murrow.

Well, that’s altogether possible, because Murrow was not very good.

He didn’t administer much. Murrow was . . .

Murrow was a promoter.

That’s right. That’s right. That’s right.

He was a promoter, and he never was a good businessman or administrator.

I think they got a thousand more people than they need. I think they ought to get out of Western Europe completely and let the embassies handle it. I think they ought to get into Africa and Latin America and Asia where they can do some good. I think they ought to put out a good movie now and then. I looked at this movie last night that they published on the March to Washington.[note 10] The USIA produced two films about the 28 August 1963 march, The March and The March on Washington. See The March, 1963, RG 306.765; Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Records, Special Media Archives Services Division, NARA; and The March on Washington, 08/1963, RG 306.3394, ibid. Now, there’s been some hell raised about that.

I saw it, and it’s not a good movie, but it’s not bad from the South’s standpoint. All it shows—it doesn’t mention the South—it shows this march in here, from the Washington Monument to Lincoln’s Tomb, and it shows that the Negro has a right to be heard and is heard and has a voice and can petition and doesn’t get shot doing it.

I had three Republicans talk to me about it, and I said, “I haven’t mentioned it to a living soul.” I’ve seen you since I saw it. I’ve seen Dean Rusk twice since I heard about it, but I hadn’t mentioned it to a soul.

This damn son of a bitch [Clark] Mollenhoff, who’s on the advisory board—Bobby Kennedy put him on there—and he ain’t worth a damn.[note 11] Clark Mollenhoff was a reporter for several midwestern papers who zealously pursued the Bobby Baker scandal. He’s called them all over the country trying to—he called [J. William] Fulbright trying to get him [to] raise hell.[note 12] J. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a civil rights moderate. So I just ordered it brought in last night, and I watched it. Lady Bird watched it. She thought that it could have been a better-edited movie, and a better movie, but it was showing that all, notwithstanding all they say and do, that you do have a right of petition in this country. By God, they can come right up here—100,000 of them—and march down the street and get in front of there. They heard Lincoln—

Damn sight; rather they’d show that than show some of these things where they violate the laws by laying down in the road, [unclear], and all that stuff.

It’s a whole lot better.

A whole lot better.

OK. Much obliged.