Stop the historical purge — smearing J. Edgar Hoover as racist is simply dishonest

The civilized world rightly recoiled in horror at the images of the Taliban felling of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in 2001. The primitive theocracy in Afghanistan had little use for what its virulent ideology opposed, and an unapologetic “historical purge” was undertaken forthwith.

The photographs of the dynamited Buddha images, which had been hewn into sandstone cliffs some 1,700 years ago, is a stark modern reminder that nothing in history is sacrosanct.

{mosads}More recently, Islamist militants conducted a “purge party” of their own, demolishing archeological sites in Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State (ISIS) destroyed historic buildings in the ancient city of Palmyra, in war-torn Syria; a place that served as a Roman trading outpost sometime around 200 A.D.

With modernity, mankind seeks to ever cleanse itself of whatever a particular faction or tribe finds unworthy. And in America, we have crossed the threshold of reasonable and rational debate about historical figures and images, and moved directly into the age of pitchforks, torches, and unrestrained hysteria.

To wit, Richard Cohen’s recent New York Daily News Op-Ed entitled, “J. Edgar Hoover’s name lives in infamy.”

Cohen’s assault on Hoover’s legacy isn’t unprecedented. The prickly Hoover had numerous enemies — deserved and undeserved — during his career as director; one that spanned eight presidents. And many of his detractors made themselves known after he died on May 2, 1972.

Recent, “biographies” have proliferated that described his peccadilloes and even some criticism-worthy actions. Then they predictably devolve into unsubstantiated claims of his sexual orientation and salacious details about his alleged penchant for feather boas.

But Cohen aims his ire at Hoover with a fervor typically reserved for fascist dictators or domestic terrorists. He wants Hoover’s name stricken from the FBI’s headquarters building in D.C.

He is disgusted that “a racist, anti-communist zealot, who in the name of God and the American flag set out to destroy Martin Luther King, Jr.” could still have his name emblazoned upon the façade of a government building.

Hoover, who was born in 1895, is certainly no longer around to defend himself against the withering attack from Cohen. And as with innumerable historical figures who are currently under assail, he will no longer be afforded the privilege of “historical context” being applied to his legacy.

Cohen, and other Leftists seeking these now popular historical purges, are guilty of intellectual dishonesty. And that is deleterious to the national discussion.

Why? Well, let’s take Cohen’s opening non-fact-checked salvo, for instance.

Many of those who worked with, and under Hoover have objected to the characterization that he was a “racist.” In an agency that zealously prided itself on storing and archiving documents, where is the “smoking gun” memo from Hoover that used the N-word?

Hoover took charge in 1924 and oversaw the FBI until his death in 1972. Many of his notes, letters, and documents are available. Many detailed discussions during the Civil Rights Era. And the N-word, sadly, carried little of the shame and stigmatization in its usage during Hoover’s lifetime that it rightly does today. Yet Hoover appears to have eschewed it.

And, truth be told, the FBI, under Hoover’s tutelage, admitted African-Americans into its Special Agent ranks during the early 1920’s, with the first, James Wormley Jones, appointed in 1919.

These Special Agents worked directly alongside their white counterparts. Important to note that the U.S. Military, as a progressive an institution of government as can be found related to race, didn’t integrate its forces until President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9981 in 1948.

And though much has been made of Hoover’s well known feud with Dr. King as a means to smear Hoover as a racist, that canard simply doesn’t meet muster.

In his 1995 book, “Hoover’s FBI: The inside Story by Hoover’s Trusted Lieutenant,” Cartha D. “Deke” DeLoach steadfastly maintains that in his years by Hoover’s side, he never heard him utter a racist thought or idea. Taken alone, you could dismiss as expected cover provided by a loyal acolyte. But when applied to innumerable similar accountings, you have the exonerating evidence that Cohen ignored.

DeLoach also sheds some light on the widely chronicled Hoover-King feud. Hoover, a fiercely proud and egotistical man — show me a successful person who isn’t — was demonstrably annoyed with King for questioning the loyalty of Hoover’s agents who were assigned to the Deep South during the Civil Rights Movement.

King had erroneously speculated that the agents were not as zealous in their duties to protect the marchers, because their fealty to their states overrode their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Hoover, understandably was livid. And he called King a “notorious liar.” FBI Agents have never been assigned to their home states. They are assigned according to the “needs of the bureau.” King’s unfortunate misstatement proves he was unaware of FBI personnel assignment policy..

Cohen also refers to Hoover as an “anti-Communist zealot.” Is this a bad thing? Isn’t communism credibly defined as “socialism at the end of a gun barrel?”

The hysteria wrought by the perceived threat of communism during the early stages of the Cold War —the Red Scare — promulgated by Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) damaged our country immeasurably, and turned neighbor on neighbor. But we have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. Again, are we to judge Hoover’s “anti-Communist zealotry” by 2017 standards?

Cohen’s textual attack isn’t wholly unexpected. The anti-Hoover brigades have been at it for a while. In 2015, Steve Cohen (no relation), a white U.S. congressman serving Tennessee’s predominantly black ninth district, underwent an effort to eradicate Hoover’s name from FBI headquarters. Was he pandering to a constituency in the run-up to his reelection?

Well, he released the following statement describing his efforts:

“The civil rights we enjoy today are in spite of J. Edgar Hoover, not because of him. Yet, his name adorns one of the most prominent buildings in our nation’s capital and one that houses one of the agencies of government responsible for justice. Given his well-documented   abuses and prejudices towards African Americans, gays and lesbians, I believe it is past time to remove his name from this place of honor.”

Yes, President Barack H. Obama was permitted to “evolve” on the matter of gay marriage in 2012, during his reelection campaign, but the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover is not.

It’s funny who we elect to forgive for their outdated ideas and those we refuse to forgive.

Tread carefully, those who traffic in this kind of selective historical whitewashing.

It could happen to one of your revered figures sometime soon.

James A. Gagliano is a CNN law enforcement analyst and retired FBI supervisory special agent. He also serves as an adjunct assistant professor at St. John’s University and is a leadership consultant at the Thayer Leader Development Group (TLDG) at his alma mater, the United States Military Academy at West Point. Follow him on Twitter @JamesAGagliano.