© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Transcript on deposit at The Southern Historical Collection, The Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview A-0331-2, in
the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern Historical
Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill”
This is the second interview in a three-part series with Senator Herman Talmadge of Georgia. In the first interview, Talmadge focused primarily on his early career in politics and his tenure as governor of Georgia from 1948 to 1955. In this interview, Talmadge shifts his focus to his years in the United States Senate. First elected in 1956, Talmadge had just entered his fourth term at the time the interview was conducted in 1975. Talmadge begins by describing the 1964 schism in the Democratic Party. In explaining his belief that there was room for variation and diversity along the conservative-liberal spectrum in both major political parties, Talmadge contends that he never seriously considered leaving the Democratic Party during those years. In addition, Talmadge offers his assessment of key political figures. He compares the leadership styles and accomplishments of presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford, and he offers his perception of leaders such as George Wallace, Ralph Nader, George McGovern, and Eugene McCarthy. Throughout the interview, Talmadge pays particular attention to issues of civil rights, the environment, consumerism, and the growing relationship between television and politics. In addition, Talmadge offers his views on the role of federal government, the changing social problems facing Americans during the mid-1970s, and his reaction to the Watergate scandal and its impact on politics.
Senator Herman Talmadge of Georgia recalls national political happenings during his tenure in the Senate from the mid-1950s through the mid-1970s.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
This is an interview with Senator Herman Talmadge on July 29, 1975. Senator, can we go back to Georgia politics and the Democratic party? I believe that it was in 1964, wasn't it, that several of your colleagues in the Democratic party decided to change parties?
I believe that it was '64. That was the Goldwater race, I believe, and that was '64. Five statehouse officials who were elected as Democrats switched over to the Republican party.
There was Crawford Pilcher and . . .
Crawford Pilcher, who was a member of the Public Service Commission, Alpha Fowler, who was a member of the Public Service Commission, Jack Ray, who was State Treasurer, Phil Campbell, who was Commissioner of Agriculture and Jimmy Bentley, who was Comptroller General.
The State Insurance Commission.
That's right.
Now, at least one of those office holders came to talk to you about it.
Yes, Jimmy Bentley . . .
Who had been your executive secretary.
He was visiting Washington and in his capacity as president of the
National Insurance Regulating Commission and he came by to see me about
two days before that letter was made public in the news media in
Georgia. He informed me of what these five statehouse officials were
going
Was there any pressure on you at that time or any other time to ever get out of the Democratic party?
No . . . well, of course, when Strom Thurmond switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party, I got several hundred letters and telegrams from Georgians urging me to do likewise and in my reply to them, I pointed out that we had two elements in the Democratic party and two elements in the Republican party, that the Republican party of Javits and Case and Earl Warren was no more attractive to me than some elements in my own party.
So, you never really gave any serious consideration to it?
No.
In other words, you never really felt that the party was leaving you either, because it is such a diversified party?
Oh, the Democratic party has always covered every segment of the American society and it boxes the compass of all political opinion. I find myself comfortable with some members of the Democratic party and uncomfortable with others. The same thing is true in the Republican party.
You would describe yourself generally as a conservative?
Oh, it depends on your point of view. I think that this
"liberal-conservative" term has been much abused. Some people would
consider me a wild-eyed radical on many issues and other people would
consider me a
Well, you are a fiscal conservative, there's not much question about that?
Yes.
When I was talking to you before, Senator, we were talking about President Truman and you said that you felt that history would record President Truman as one of the great presidents. What about some of the other presidents, particularly since your own time in politics?
Since I have been in the Senate, I have served under President
Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon and
President Gerald Ford. Dwight Eisenhower was a very attractive
individual personally. He was a great military hero. He didn't know much
about government. He meant well and I think that his subordinates made
most of his decisions, called the shots and he would ratify them. Then
of course, we had President Kennedy. He was a very charming, attractive,
witty and personable fellow, but he had almost a complete failure in
getting Congress to adopt his programs. Then after he was assassinated,
of course President Johnson took over. He and I had been very close when
he was majority leader of the Senate and when I first came to the
Senate, he went out of his way to be as cordial and pleasant to me as he
possibly could. I was made chairman of the Calendar Committee my
freshman year in the Senate. It is
He could almost have held a bonfire on the White House lawn and done it in the name of national security, couldn't he?
Of course he could. It was his property, he could have done anything with them that he wanted to. Instead of that, he had this wild conceived notion about executive privilege and that was the only corrobating evidence of John Dean's there was. If he had first pled what we lawyers call "confession and avoidance" in a statement and then secondly, if he had burned his tapes, he would be President today. Now, of course, Gerry Ford succeeded him and . . .
Let me ask you this. It is hard to see Nixon outside of Watergate, but outside of that, how do you think Nixon did?
I think that many of his policies were good for the country. He tried to discourage enormous spending, with limited success, I may say. Only history will determine how this policy of detente is going to work, but the Soviet Union and the Red Chinese and the United States all live in the same world. All three of them are nuclear powers. It is in the interest of all three of those nations to avoid any confrontations, particularly a nuclear confrontation that could destroy civilization as we know it today.
And you were going to say about Ford.
I've known Gerry Ford since I came to the Senate. I didn't know him extremely well until he became Vice-President of the United States. You can't be around Gerry Ford without liking him. He is a patriotic, loyal, God-fearing American. I think that his candor and his openness have impressed the American people. It comes through on television and that is a particularly desirable trait in the aftermath of Watergate and the Nixon years. Now, this country has so many problems today that I don't think any President of the United States could make a good president. I think that Gerry Ford is doing the best that he knows how. No one can predict what will happen in 1976, but if our economy recovers rather rapidly, I think that he may well be difficult to defeat.
I've heard a lot of people, Senator Talmadge, say that around the country President Ford is respected for his openness and for his being candid and so forth, but he is also perceived as a man who is just not quite up to the job of President, he just doesn't quite have the ability.
I don't think that he is the smartest president that we have ever had in the United States by any means, but I think that the people are not necessarily looking for the smartest man in the world today. They are looking for a candid man who is forthright and will lay it on the line like it is and Gerry Ford pretty much does that.
What about one of your fellow Senators who was the nominee of the Democratic party once and was Vice-President, Senator Humphrey?
Hubert Humphrey is a very brilliant man. I think that he probably has the
best coordination of mind and tongue of any man that
What about another of your colleagues, Senator Edward Kennedy?
Ted Kennedy is a very attractive fellow and of course, I guess that the Kennedys were born to run for public office, I don't recall that ever in history have we had three brothers, all having served in the United States Senate. I am not convinced as yet that Teddy won't run if the convention starts yelling for him about the fifth or sixth ballot.
Do you think that he could overcome Chappaquidick and be elected if he was nominated?
I don't know how serious Chappaquidick has effected his political future. Evidently it hasn't hurt at all in Massachussetts. The polls show him overwhelmingly in the lead with the Democrats. My judgement is that if he wants the nomination, he'll get it.
And of course, I imagine that there is a fairly good chance of a real deadlock at the convention.
I wouldn't at all be surprised. As I see it today, and of course, you
don't know what will happen in the intervening fifteen or eighteen
months until convention time, I can foresee at the moment that we might
have four or five candidates with a substantial bloc of votes, not
anything approaching the majority, probably with George Wallace having
the largest number. And if those blocs remain firm for three or four
ballots, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the convention first
start yelling for
What about Edmund Muskie?
There is a possibility there, but I think that it is more remote than Kennedy or Humphrey.
Speaking of George Wallace, Senator, you've known him since he was a circuit judge in Alabama.
Yes, I've known Governor Wallace now for at least eighteen years.
Give me your impressions of him, both as a state politician in Alabama, what he has done in his state and . . .
Of course, he has dominated Alabama politics completely for almost twenty years now. Anyone that thinks that George Wallace is a fool is wide of the mark. I have watched him in alleged debates with some of these presidential candidates, I remember when he was a candidate in Maryland a number of years ago, my colleague, Senator Brewster was the stand -in candidate for President Johnson and they had one of these alleged television debates. Of course, it was not a real debate at all, it was more or less interviews by the news media, but Wallace just cut up Brewster so bad that it reminded you of a cat chasing a mouse around. It was right pathetic. He has a very quick mind. He has a sense of what the average middle-class American is thinking and he knows exactly how to prey on their frustrations and in my judgement, in some of these primaries that he enters, he is going to get huge votes not only in the South, but states outside the South as well.
He did before.
Oh, yes. Well, you remember his first race in Michigan, he got 10% of the vote and then that crazy judge up there threatened Detroit with cross busing all over the metropolitan area of Detroit and Wallace, as I recall, got over 50% of the vote following that busing decision with all the labor leaders, all the news media, all the members of the clergy and everything else denouncing him as a monster daily.
One other political figure that I wanted to ask you about, Senator, was Lester Maddox.
I've known Lester a long, long time. I used to eat there at his Pickrick Restuarant, before he was elected governor. He had several unsuccessful races, as you know, once or twice for mayor and once for lieutenant governor and of course, when he was in the race, the year that he was nominated as the Democratic nominee and subsequently elected by the General Assembly of Georgia. No one gave him any chance of winning. Lester has a common touch that is somewhat like George Wallace in an appeal to the average rank and file voter and he also knew how to prey on their frustrations. Of course, when he got in the run over with Ellis Arnall, Ellis was too liberal by Georgia standards. A lot of people voted for him just to demonstrate their own frustrations and then stuck with him and he got the Democratic nomination. Of course, in the general election, there was a write-in effort for former governor Ellis Arnall that got thirty or forty thousand votes and precluded any of the candidates getting a majority of the vote. Then it had to go to the General Assembly for the resolution and they are about 90% Democratic and they elected Lester.
Do you think that he has any political future now? Times seem to have passed him by.
I doubt that Lester could be elected by a majority of the voters of the state. He still has a strong following in Georgia in my judgement, about a third of the people, maybe more than a third, would vote for him again.
I want to ask you one other thing, too, about George Wallace and his own political future. The former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, is running for president and was in the office the other day and he said that while any candidate for the Democratic nomination would be a fool to bring up the question of the governor's health as an issue, because it would be counter-productive, everywhere he goes he does hear people and former Wallace supporters say that they don't think they can now support him because of his health. Isn't his health going to be an issue in this race?
There is a possibility that it might, but I would point out that the only president ever elected four times in the United States also had to operate from a wheel chair and so does Wallace.
I think that at least, Roosevelt did have more control of his bodily functions than Wallace does.
I don't know what control Wallace has. I have been in his presence only one time since the assassination effort and while he couldn't walk, he was otherwise active, mentally and physically.
Senator Talmadge, let me ask you about some of our institutions. What about the Supreme Court, both the Supreme Court that you found when you came here to the Senate and the Supreme Court today.
During my lifetime, it has absolutely changed. Of course, presidents up
until the days of Roosevelt tried to pick out the most learned judges,
scholars and lawyers for appointment to the Supreme Court bench.
Let's go back to one of the Supreme Court decisions which had tremendous
impact really around the country but beginning mostly in the South.
That's Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, the
school decision.
That was in 1954, as you recall, and it reversed previous decisions that
held that children could be classified by race for assignment to public
schools. Now, we've gone the opposite extreme, overriding the Brown
decision and now they hold that you have got to assign schools by color
to achieve a racial balance. You realize all the discord that it has
Now, this is busing to achieve racial balance. What about the decision itself of '54, outside of any busing and . . .
Well, that is a fait accompli. No one is trying to
return to the status quo of twenty odd years ago, but
I think that certainly our school systems have degenerated since that
time. Most of the urban problems that we have at the present time in
part are related to that decision. You had a mass exodus of the whites
from the central cities to the suburbs to get to what they thought were
better schools. You had a decay of values within the central cities and
a erosion of your tax base and some of the problems like New York is
being confronted with are going to confront other cities, largely
because of mass flight. I doubt if the schools now are as good as they
were twenty odd years ago.
What about Earl Warren as a Chief Justice, Senator Talmadge? I assume that you didn't care too much for him.
I knew Earl Warren well, we served in the Governor's Conference together
before he went on the Supreme Court bench. Our personal relations were
very cordial. He is personally a very warm, friendly, kind
What about Warren Burger, the current Chief Justice?
I don't know Burger, except that I have read some of his opinions. Burger certainly looks like a Chief Justice ought to look. I think there has been some improvement in some of his decisions, particularly as it relates to criminal trials, rules of evidence and so on. I was very disappointed in Burger in the Swan case, which related to cross busing in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina because there was no basis in the law whatsoever for the decision.
I suppose that busing, insofar as Wallace is concerned, will be an issue?
Yes, I don't know how much he'll talk about that issue, but everyone in the country knows that George Wallace is opposed to forced busing and that will be one of his principle drawing cards.
Senator, I've heard it said that the two smartest men in the Senate are you and Jacob Javits, representing two sort of opposite ends of the pole. What do you think of Jacob Javits?
I'm flattered that I would be considered one of the two smartest men in the Senate, I have never thought so myself. Jacob Javits is a brilliant man. His mind is very quick. He has a vast army of employees that work with him and that keep track of every bill, prepare amendments and prepare speeches for him. He is a very resourceful man. He is a very good lawyer. Sometimes our political philosophy differs.
There have been, particularly in the current session of Congress, moves
to either do away altogether with the seniority system or at least to
Yes, and Senator Humphrey and Senator Harris submitted the report, which
was a majority report and I overrode them in the caucus of the
Democratic party in my minority report. What they really wanted to do
was to prescribe standards by which all Democrats should be judged and
it was a sort of a thought control criteria that was the essence of it.
I thought that it would be utterly destructive to the Democratic party.
You can't have a thought control process where you can mold a pattern
between people that are different in viewpoint, as different as Stennis
and Eastland and Humphrey and Joe Clark and people of that type. If they
are Democrats, it's got to be like the Baptist Church, on profession of
faith, you let them enter the party. You don't try to drive them out and
you don't try to regulate their thought processes. Anytime you get away
from that, you'll have a totalitarian form of government. Now, the
seniority system is probably the worst system that you can have except
any other possible alternative. In the final analysis, when you talk
about seniority, you are talking about experience. You don't go to work
at the Ford assembly plant in Hapeville, Georgia today and become a
foreman that day. You have to work there and prove your skill and
knowledge. You work at it and then they might promote you to foreman. If
you are good enough, you ultimately might become plant manager. That's
what we have in the Senate with the seniority system. It has never been
an ironclad rule. The membership of all the committees is elected by the
Democratic caucus
What about some of the Senators who have been there for a long
I have no way of knowing. I don't doubt but what the voters of Mississippi would elect Jim Eastland and John Stennis as long as they wanted to serve in the Senate.
You don't have any idea, though, as to whether they actually are going to run?
I do not.
Let me get your views on another man that you mentioned to me the other day, who has had a tremendous impact in this country. Some people think that it has been mostly for the good and some people think that it has been mostly for the bad and that is Ralph Nader, who burst on the scene a few years ago.
I don't know Nader well, I visited with him a time or two, he came by my
office lobbying for the Consumer Protection Bill that he devised. He is
an intense sort of a zealot, really. I think that it is his mission to
save mankind. I don't doubt but what some of the things that he has
advocated has been in the national interest, others have not. You take
the Clean Air, Clean Water Bill, we probably went too far too fast. That
is one of the reasons that we are having enormous inflationary problems
now. The industry in this country is spending countless billions and
billions of dollars for pollution control that is non-productive. It
earns no income. I can give you an illustration with my personal
automobile. We are going through an enormous energy crisis now. I've got
about a seven year old Oldsmobile 98. It gets fifteen miles to the
gallon. I have got a Cutlass that is a year and a half old, the smallest
car that Oldsmobile
Why do you think that there has been such a tremendous consumer movement and environmental protection movement that has caught fire in the past decade?
This country goes through slogans from time to time and they overreact
frequently. When I first came to the United States Senate, they would
burn your mother at the stake in the name of civil rights. Then it got
to be the environment and of course, the environment needed protection,
but we probably went too far too fast. Then it got to be consumerism and
we passed a multiplicity of consumer protection bills in recent years, I
would think twenty probably. I think that I voted for all of them but
one. But it puts an enormous burden on business, trying to fill out all
these forms and prove all of these things that sometimes they are
criticized for, or to disprove them and the average businessman is just
smothered in red tape coming from Washington. Bureaucratic controls and
bureaucratic regulations. In the final analysis, in a free society like
ours where we
What about the impact of mass media?
I don't think that there is any doubt but what television today has the most enormous impact on people's thinking of anything in the country. I know that most of the time I try to watch the evening news and people like Huntley-Brinkley report the news, they can omit whatever they want to and state whatever they want to and they have got fifty million people watching them and sometimes those fifty million people are too busy to read a newspaper. That might be the only source of information they have.
And mass communications, and I suppose particularly television, have had a tremendous amount to do with all the movements that we have been talking about.
No doubt about it.
Civil rights and environmental protection and consumerism.
That's correct.
What about the impact of television, you said on people's thinking? Have you ever been involved in the Senate in any of the legislation that had to do with advertising that affects children or violence on television and so forth?
That doesn't come before any of my committees. It goes before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee that have jurisdiction over television and radio licenses. We have had some bills, I think, that have come from the committee, but the Constitution of the United States, you know, contains the First Amendment and there is a prohibition against regulation of free speech and freedom of assembly. So, you are in a difficult area to regulate. Of course, I presume that theoretically you could regulate it to some degree because we grant the license. And the television and radio networks would be a little bit different from the newspapers in that regard. It is extremely difficult to regulate something of that nature because you get into the First Amendment.
How has television changed your own campaigning, Senator?
I think that television . . .
I know that you still do an awfully lot of the person to person campaigning.
Television, I think, has benefited me more than anything in my political
career. I remember the first nationwide program that I was on at the
Chicago convention in 1952. We were trying to nominate Senator Russell
as the Democratic nominee at that time. It was my firstTime Magazine particularly would
write little snide things. For the first time it gave me an opportunity
to go into the living rooms and they could see Herman Talmadge as he was
and not Herman Talmadge who had been fabricated by Time Magazine and some other journalists. So, I think that it
gives people an opportunity to see the candidates themselves, to judge
the candidates themselves, their intelligence, their philosophy and
their candor. I think that it has been enormously beneficial to me.
You are going to be on television this Friday night, I believe.
Yes. Senator Nunn and I are going to be on Channel 17 there in Atlanta. We have been on that program once or twice before, as I recall and the audience response was such that they wanted to set it up on a continuing basis. I believe that they broadcast to some of the CRTV stations throughout the state also.
Now, you were telling me that you hoped to get from that television to the dinner for Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr.
Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. is retiring after fifty something years,
I believe, as pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church. Dr. King I have
known now for some ten or twelve years. He is an old friend of
You told me, Senator, that you really didn't know Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I don't recall that I ever met Dr. King, Jr.
But you do know of him and what his impact was and so forth. What do you think of him?
He undoubtedly had more influence in the civil rights movement than any leader in my lifetime. He was a magnificent orator. He knew how to dramatize an issue and get the attention of the news media and magnify it. He was responsible to a very great degree for all the civil rights acts that have been passed in the last twenty years.
Would you say that his impact over all on the country was positive or negative?
Only time will tell.
You know, I remember, I was in the Georgia House of Representatives in the early sixties, '64 or '63, when the speaker, I guess that it was Marvin Moate who was speaker then, looked up in the gallery and said, "Mr. Doorkeeper, get those niggers out of the white section of the gallery." And among those who they got out of the white section were Julian Bond and Ben Alexander and I don't know who else, but both of those now, of course, are in the legislature and have been for some time. How do you regard the changes that have come about in that respect, where now there are more black elected officials in Georgia, they have a much bigger voice in the government? Maynard Jackson, a black, is mayor of Atlanta, Georgia and . . .
I think that Georgia has about sixteen members of the state legislature
who are black. I think that there is only one other state
But do you think again, that the impact on the state has been good or bad to have had this increase?
I think that it has probably hopefully improved racial relations and I think it has.
And you do deal with Maynard Jackson as the mayor of Atlanta?
Oh yes. Yes, Mayard contacts me virtually every week about something in Atlanta's interest.
I think that you told me, not during a tape session but the other day, that you had also talked with Julian Bond, John Lewis on the voter education project.
Yes.
What about some of the other people in Georgia, Senator, who have been your big supporters? Mills Lane . . . the banker and . . .
Yes, I think that Mills has always voted for me. He never has contributed much money. I think that the largest contribution that I ever got from Mills was about $1,000 and that's about like me buying you a Coca-Cola.
Yes, that's right. What about other supporters, for example, people who
someday may want to go back and look at Herman Talmadge through
Oh, at one time or another, I think that virtually all the people in Georgia have been my friends, so trying to identify my closest friends who know the most about me would be difficult indeed. Bill Kinbrough, who was married for a time to my youngest sister, was associated with me throughout my political effort as governor. Jimmy Bentley was my executive secretary and the youngest one in the nation for a time. A lot of people that were closely associated with me in my adminstration as governor are now dead, Charlie Redwine, Jim Peters . . .
Roy Harris?
Roy Harris is still living and is about eighty years of age and still very alert physically and mentally.
He was a kingmaker, wasn't he?
Roy Harris was considered the most astute political campaign manager in the state for many, many years and I think that was true. He was really the man who organized campaigns for Ed Rivers, Ellis Arnall and he helped me manage my father's campaign in 1946 and was the principal campaign confident that I had in 1948 and 1950 in my campaigns for governor.
Is there anybody else similar to Roy Harris in the state? I mean anybody who would be a behind the scene man.
I don't want to seem boastful or egotistical, but when Roy Harris was in
his prime, I don't think that he had but one equal in his political
knowledge of the state of Georgia and I am vain enough to think
Yes, I think that people would say that was true of you. But you were not the behind the scenes guy in most instances.
No, I never was a behind the scenes man. The only campaigns that I have ever been involved in in an active way, was my father's and my own.
Right. Who else have you helped, though? You helped Marvin Griffin?
Yes.
You've helped Senator Nunn?
And Ernest Vandiver.
Ernest Vandiver.
That's right.
Anyone else that you have aided, I mean beside being for, but that you have actively . . .
I think that's about the principal ones. Local races, I was involved in some of them, but on the state level you have named about the only three that I was actively involved in.
What do you see coming up in Georgia politics?
No one can tell, of course. You don't have a Senatorial race until 1978 and Senator Nunn will be up at that time and I have no doubt that he will be overwhelmingly reelected and at this stage of the game, Governor Busbee has only been in office a little over six months, so a gubernatorial race is three and a half years away and no one in his right mind could predict what will happen at that time.
Right. Your own plans are to stay in the Senate?
Well, as long as I am mentally alert and physically active . . .
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
. . . for my country, fifty-two months service in the United States Navy, over six years service as governor of Georgia, eighteen and a half years service in the United States Senate and if I complete this term, it will be twenty-four years in the Senate. I think that my mind now is probably at the very height of its capability. I am in good health physically. The people of Georgia have spent many hundreds of thousands of hours working for me, electing me governor and United States Senator. They've contributed many thousands of dollars to get me elected to positions of their trust and as long as I have the mental and physical capability of continuing in service, I would think that is what they would want me to do. If I ever get to where I am not mentally alert, I hope that my friends and my family will tell me to step down and I hope that I am wise enough to do so.
You considered at one time going back and running for governor. What made you change your mind on that?
There was the most amazing reaction that I have ever seen. When I announced that I was considering coming home and running for governor and . . .
That was in 1966?
Yes, Lester Maddox was elected then. I think that's correct. I got
telegrams and phone calls from politicians all over the state, white and
black, liberals, moderates, reactionaries pledging their support and to,
for God's sake, come home and run for governor. Now, the rank and file
of the people, what we lawyers refer to as "the butcher, the baker
and
Now, you've never had any national political ambitions?
No.
And yet you've been urged to.
I've always realized that the prejudices of the War Between the States is still in this country. Prior to the war Between the States, nearly all the presidents were southerners, the greatest that we have ever had. Some of the best talent in the Congress of the United States is from the South, but we have not had a southerner nominated or elected president from 1860 to date.
And that still exists?
That still exists.
Do you think that Lyndon Johnson could have been elected in his own right had he not succeeded on the death of Kennedy?
Of course not. He claimed to be a westerner, not a southerner.
Yes, I know, he didn't say he was a . . .
He tried to escape the onus of being a southerner. Let's go.
O.K.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
[START OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]
Interview of August 1, 1975 at Lovejoy, Georgia. Senator Talmadge is describing his home as the interview opens.
. . . it was owned by the Dorsey family, Hugh Dorsey's family, for years
and there is an old Dorsey family cemetary out there. There are some
Dorseys buried as early as 1821. If you saw the movie, Gone
With The Wind and remember anything about it, you saw Negroes
picking cotton and singing in the fields and then panned the camera on
an old fallen down ante-bellum home with weeds in the yard . . .
Yes.
This is it.
Well, I might as well interrupt and say that this is an interview with Senator Herman Talmadge continuing and we are at his farmhouse in Lovejoy, Georgia and he was just describing the house. Your father bought the farm and house in 1940?
1940, yes. When I got out of the Navy, he gave me the old house and a thousand acres of land, it took me about ten years to fix it up and we have lived here since then.
How often do you get down here now, Senator?
An average of about twice a month.
You used to get down more often, didn't you?
Well, depending on campaigns, if I am up for reelection, I
But anyway, you do get down fairly often?
As often as I can.
I wanted to get you to say for the record a couple of things that you told me inbetween tape session before. One of them is when you told then Senator Lyndon Johnson that you thought Bobby Kennedy was going to be nominated. Would you mind repeating that anecdote?
Not Bobby Kennedy, I told him that . . .
I meant John Kennedy, I'm sorry.
Well, Senator Johnson was majority leader and he and I were great
friends. He was very friendly to me and anything that he thought I
wanted, I didn't even have to ask for it, he went out of his way to be
nice and cordial to me. He would come back when the Senate was doing
business rather slowly sometimes and sit on the back bench with me for
sometimes an hour at a time talking about various things. He got the
presidential bug very badly about 1959. He was making trips up in
Michigan and New Jersey and New York and places like that and making
speeches. He would come back and tell me what a great success he had had
and so on. He actually got to thinking, I believe, that he would be
nominated in 1960 by the convention. I was realistic enough to know that
the Democratic party would not nominate a southerner at that time, even
though Johnson had disavowed his southern heritage and claimed to be a
westerner. I made him a bet, I said, "Lyndon, you won't get fifty votes
from the five most populous states in the Union." He said, "What will
you bet?" I said, "A suit of clothes." He said, "Let's make it a hat."
We bet the hat and he never did pay me the hat before he died. He didn't
get the fifty votes in the five most populous states. I
Didn't you also tell him that you didn't think he ought to accept the post of . . .
Yes, you remember that we recessed for the convention in 1960 and came
back with a session to try to get the platform adopted by the Democratic
party and acted into law in the fall of 1960 subsequent to the
convention. And just before we adjourned for that recess, we had
finished all of our business, except adopting a few conference reports,
most of them were non-controversial and it didn't look like we would
have any more votes. I walked by and sat down by him when he was seated
in the majority leader's seat and I said, "Now Lyndon, John Kennedy is
going to be nominated on the first ballot. If he is as smart as I think
he is, he is going to ask you to be his running mate and I hope you
won't accept." He looked at me in his sharp manner and said, "Herman,
you know that I will do no such fool thing." I said, "That's all I
wanted to hear you say. I'm not going to the convention, you will
receive every vote in the Georgia delegation. I will be at Lovejoy
watching the convention on television." Well, as I predicted, Kennedy
was nominated on the first ballot and as I predicted, Kennedy asked him
to accept the Vice-Presidential nomination as his running mate, which he
did. About three days after the convention, I was sitting here in this
chair watching television when the phone rang and it was Lyndon Johnson
calling from the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver, Colorado. He said,
"Herman, I just wanted to explain to you why I accepted that
Vice-Presidential nomination." I said, "Lyndon, you don't have to
explain it to me now, that is water over the dam. I just never did like
to see one of my friends promoted from president of the corporation to
vice-chairman
Well, did he finally say why he did accept it?
Well, I don't know if I let him say in full, to united the Democratic party or something like that, that it was his duty and responsibility, the party had been good to him . . .
Did he not see it down the road then that he might become President, though?
I don't think so at that time. Vice-Presidents rarely become Presidents. I don't think that he anticipated that the President would be assassinated.
I'm sure he didn't, I just thought that maybe he might run for it in his own right sometime.
I doubt that, Kennedy was a very young man and under any normal procedure, he would have served eight years as President and that would have carried it to 1968.
Do you think, incidentally, that Kennedy would have served eight years had he not been assassinated?
Yes.
You think that he would have been reelected?
I think that he probably would have.
What sort of President did you think he was?
He was a very attractive, a very charming, a very witty, a very personable man.
You met with him quite frequently, didn't you?
Oh, frequently, yes. I served in the Senate with him for two years before
he became President and our friendship was cordial and pleasant and he
was not one of the real leaders of the Senate. He never could
Now, he met with you even after he became President?
Yes, in fact, he went out of his way on several occassions to be friendly to me. You know, the South is a deficit grain producing state, and that is particularly true of Georgia. At that time, we were the largest broiler producing state in the Union. We import vast quantities of grain here from the Midwest. The Southern Railroad was wanting to reduce their freight rates on the importation of grain into the Southeast. They were competing with barge traffic and of course, they wanted more of the trade. As a Senator from Georgia, I was interested in getting the cheapest possible feed for our livestock and poultry industry. So, I worked with a group of southern Senators and the Department of Justice, which at that time was Bobby Kennedy, and with the President, and Bobby Troutman at the time, who was very close to the Kennedy family and particularly to John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. He had been employed by the Southern Railroad as counsel to try to work this thing out. I had met with all these people on any number of occassions and when the President declared his support for what we wanted, that was President Kennedy, he called me to his office in advance of the other southern Senators and told me that he was going to support our efforts. He did that because he wanted me to walk out through the front door and announce to the press and get whatever credit there was for his support of our effort. But I refused to treat my southern colleagues in any such manner and so I slipped out the back door and waited until he got the entire group and let them make the announcement even though he gave me an hour's scoop on it.
I think that there may have been some Senators there who
Oh, I'm sure they would have.
Let me ask you something about some of the other members of the Senate who are running or planning to run for the Presidency. What about George McGovern who was the candidate in '72? I've heard it said that you said one time that George McGovern didn't have enough sense to be elected Commissioner of Henry County much less President of the United States.
George and I serve on the Agricultural Committee. In fact, he is the third ranking majority member of the Agricultural Committee and I appointed him chairman of the subcommittee on credit and rural electrification. He worked hard on it and he does a very fine job for American agriculture. But George is of the opinion that the government can create wealth and it is the responsiblity of the government to create this wealth and give it back to the citizens. We are poles apart on that issue.
Let me ask you something else, one other comment that I heard you had made in passing in talking about some of the candidates and that was that McCarthy, that's former Senator Gene McCarthy . . . this is when they would have all been running in '68, that "McCarthy is the laziest man in the United States Senate and Humphrey is a crybaby and can't make up his mind and vacillates and of the three, Bobby Kennedy is the strongest and most decisive and probably would make the best President." Can you sort of confirm that general . . .
Well, I don't know that I ever made any remarks like that. I served with
McCarthy on the Finance Committee for at least four years.
What about Humphrey?
Humphrey is a very brilliant man. He has probably the best coordination of mind and tongue of any man that I ever saw. He can make an eloquent speech on any side of any issue with or without notice. I don't know that Hubert has very strong convictions on any subject. He is always ostensibly for the underdog and he is strong for every program to give away more assets of the Federal Treasury to all citizens.
You did have, didn't you Senator, an admiration for Bobby Kennedy as a person who was decisive and strong?
Yes, Bobby could make up his mind. He knew what he wanted and he was absolutely ruthless in achieving what he wanted. I think that he had more of his daddy in him in that regard than John Kennedy.
Do you think that it's true, though, that he probably would have made, certainly of those three, probably the best President had he made it, because of his decisiveness?
Well actually, you know, he inherited vast wealth. He never had to work for a living. He never had to meet a payroll, he didn't know what the responsiblity was of struggling to pay house rent, automobile notes and supporting a family. I doubt with anyone with vast inherited wealth, who doesn't know what it is to work and sweat for a living, ought to be elected President, really.
What about Senator Jackson?
Jackson came up the hard way. As I recall, his parents or grandparents migrated from one of the Norwegian countries. As a young man, he had to deliver newspapers to help support the family. His family had a very humble working class occupation and Scoop has many characteristics that I think very well of, but recently since he has gotten this Presidential bug, why sometimes I wonder if those characteristics are rigid enough. Sometimes I think that no one who is a member of the Congress ought to be permitted to receive the nomination for President or Vice-President until they have retired from the Congress or the Senate for at least four years. It seems to be a rather common thing that whenever they get the Presidential bug, they lose their stability and their proportion of reason.
Now, you've also got Senator Edmund Muskie who may be in the picture again in '76.
Yes. I've known Muskie since he came to the Senate in 1959, as I recall, two years after I did. Ed is an attractive fellow, our personal relationship is extremely cordial. Sometimes he acts responsibly, particularly since he has become chairman of the Budget Committee and he is trying in many instances to hold the line there and I admire him for it.
Now, Senator Birch Bayh may also announce.
Yes, Birch is a very attractive fellow. He is on the Judiciary Committee. I've known him since he came to the Senate and we have worked together on some issues, but his philosophy is to the left of mine.
Yes. Senator, let me tell me a little anecdote that I heard
Yes, succeeded Sam Ervin as . . .
Right and this was the way that it happened, though. He said that Birch Bayh was, I believe, chairman of two sub-committees of that committee, is that right?
Could have been.
In any event, Tunney said that Bayh also wanted the Constitutional Rights
Sub-Committee chairmanship. I suppose that he wanted it as a public
forum sort of, partly for publicity for running for the Presidency. But
Tunney said, "I really wanted that and I really wanted it bad and I knew
that Birch Bayh had these two other chairmanships and I knew that under
the Democratic caucus rules, I didn't think that he was entitled to
another one. I went to Senator Eastland and I said, ‘Jim, I really want
that#x2019; . . . " first he talked to Bayh and he told Bayh that he was
going to have to give up one of the other chairmanships if he wanted
that and Bayh said that he didn't want to do it and Tunney said, "I told
him that I was going to fight him then. ‘I'm going to fight you for it
because I really believe in it.’" So, he said that he went to Eastland
and said, "Jim, I really want that chairmanship and I think that the
rules provide that I should have it." Eastland told him that he had
already given his word to Bayh. He said, "Jim, I'll tell you and I feel
strongly about it and I think that you acted on bad information because
I don't think that the rules provide for that. I'll tell you what, I
would fight it on the floor if necessary, but let's go to
There are a great many of them that grasp for power and will run over you if they can. I wouldn't think of appointing a Senator on the Agricultural Committee to the chairmanships of two sub-committees.
Well, Tunney said, "You know, I am not by nature that kind of a tough person. I almost had to play a role because I thought that I had to serve my constituents and I felt that I should have the chairmanship." I suppose that it is a rough and tumble . . .
Oh, it is. You see, these people have fought their way to the top of the political ladder and politics is a very rough game, almost like the rules of the jungle.
Well, was there any struggle at all as far as the Agriculture chairmanship was concerned?
No, I have never had any problem in that regard at all. I have always
tried to be fair and reasonable in the assignment of sub-committees and
I have followed the seniority rule without deviation on my
sub-committees. For instance, I have got Jim Eastland as chairman of the
sub-committee on Environment and Forestry. I have got George McGovern as
chairman of the Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification, I've got
Jim Allen as chairman of the Committee on General Legislation and Price
Support and I've got Dick Clark as the chairman of the Sub-committee on
Rural Development and I've got Hubert Humphrey as chairman of the
Sub-committee on International Trade and Agricultural Exports. Of
course,
Well, I think that we did discuss this briefly before, but as one of 100 Senators up there after having governed the state of Georgia, is it sort of a lonely . . .
Oh, it is indeed, it's a frustrating experience. You see, this is the first time that I have served in a legislative body. I started my political career as governor of a state. Under the laws and constitution of Georgia, a strong and determined man, that knows how to use his power and with leadership ability, can accomplish a great deal. When I was governor, virtually everything that I opposed was defeated and virtually that I supported became law. I had a legislature that not only was friendly to me but a great many of them were elected on the same ticket with me by my supporters and I could achieve my ends almost at will. Then, when I got to the Senate, I was only one of 100 members of the Senate. I had no vote at all in the House which has 435 members. Your authority is so diluted in the Congress that you never realize where it begins or ends.
I guess that was one of the attractive things about thinking about coming back here in 1966.
It was. I think that all former governors are frustrated when they come
to the Senate. They learn to adjust and live with it, but I think that
frustration continues as long as they serve in the Senate. I don't think
that there has been a day since I've been in the Senate, now more than
eighteen and a half years, that I haven't felt a feeling of frustration.
You see so much going wrong and yet being utterly powerless to
That reminds me of something. I heard, Senator, that with the current economic situation, the energy problems and everything, inflation, high unemployment, that you were fairly concerned about what might happen in this country?
Well, you know historically, throughout history, republican forms of
government have had built within their systems the seeds of destruction.
Our foreparents were great students of history when they framed our
republican form of government and they knew that. They were determined
to prohibit that from happening. They knew that we had a vast country
with divergent interests and I imagine many of them foresaw the time
when it would enlarge from coast to coast, the Atlantic to the Pacific.
They tried to preserve a dual system of government with primary
responsibility on the local and state level and delegated power only to
the national government to prevent the seeds of destruction that
republican governments historically have. They were exactly right in the
type of government that they organized, but they didn't reckon with the
power of the Supreme Court to contrue the Constitution. So, the dual
system of government that they envisioned with real power on the local
level, was broken down following Roosevelt's appointees to the Supreme
Court, when he appointed people for what they would do rather than for
what they knew. They cut loose all of the chains that restricted an
onnipotent federal government. Since that time, there has been an
erosion of power from the municipal buildings and from the county
courthouses and the statehouses to Washington. It has got to virtually
where everyone now comes with their hat in their hand, if they want to
build a new jail in a little village in Georgia or elsewhere in the
nation, they come to Washington wanting federal money. And of course,
with
How do you think that this country could survive an economic situation that now confronts Great Britain?
I don't know. Historically, you know, when people lose confidence in their government, they start looking for a knight on horseback. We have had recent examples of that in Italy with Mussolini and Germany with Hitler and . . .
Now, you are a student of that period, aren't you? In a lot of your readings?
Yes. And of course, Britain is in an extremely chaotic condition at the
present time. What frightens me about the picture, not only for
Britain's welfare, but our own . . . historically, the social programs
and the laws, the political practices that they adopt in Britain
Do you find that your concerns are shared by a great number of others in the Senate?
Yes, indeed. By some members of the Senate at least, I don't know how
many. Actually, I think that the thinking of the American people is way
ahead of the thinking of their representatives in Washington. I find the
people of this country wherever I go frightened and concerned about the
future and we have had rampant inflation now for some ten years and our
government has tried to act as banker and Santa Claus and policeman for
the whole world and at the same time, passing vast new spending programs
here, always with the idea that government can create wealth and give to
the people. They don't seem to realize that government has no wealth at
all. First they have to take it away from some productive member of
society and then there is a great deal of red tape and then you give
back a portion of it to the people after a huge cost of administration.
You have got now about
I wanted to ask you about some of the time of your service on the Watergate committee and some of your impressions of the other people. I know that you mentioned the other day about a couple of national columnists that said that the questioning of the members of the committee, that the best questioning was done by you and Senator Inoyue. What was your impression of some of the other Senators? Well, Senator Ervin, for example.
Senator Ervin is one of the great men that I have known in my life time. He is the most profound student of constitutional law that I think I have ever known. He is one of the greatest story tellers that I have ever known. He is a great wit and a great humorist and a great showman and he simply delighted the American people with his anecdotes and one thing and another. I thought that he and some of the others got a little far afield with their pontificating and moralizing, rather than trying to do what we were supposed to do and that was to determine the facts.
Let's see, the other Democrats on there were Inoyue, yourself, Ervin and one other . . .
Montoya.
Yes, what about Senator Montoya?
Well, one of the columnists said Senator Montoya would read the question
and then not listen to the answer and then read the next question. (laughter)
Yes. What about Senator Baker?
Baker, I thought, handled himself very well.
And Senator Weicker?
Senator Weicker would pontificate and moralize to a very great degree.
Senator Gurney?
Senator Gurney, I guess, was the most partisan advocate on our committee in his efforts to defend President Nixon and he was somewhat tedious in some of his questioning.
Would you say that inasmuch as Senator Gurney has now been going through a trial himself that is related to campaign contributions, that that could have had any influence on the way he reacted on the committee?
I don't know. Of course, at that time, Gurney's troubles were not known.
What about Sam Dash, the general counsel?
I thought that Sam on the whole handled himself well. I was extremely
frustrated by the leaks in our committee. Apparently in Washington, if
two people know something, one of them has diahrrea of the mouth and has
to run to the news media and start spouting off about what he knows or
what he thinks he knows. We never could get that corrected. Frankly, I
think that some members of the Senate on our committee were probably
more guilty of all that leaking than some members of the staff, probably
a combination of both. I know that Sam Dash didn't leak it, but it was
extremely frustrating to me to pick up the Washington Post and read early in the morning what a witness was going to
tell our committee several hours later.
What was your overall evaluation of the committee's work?
I think that it probably was the most important investigation in the history of our republic. It developed the facts that later the Judiciary Committee used as a predicate for the impeachment resolution and forced the President out of office and developed the facts that we used to indict and convict, I think, three members of the Cabinet and a great many lesser officials. I think that it was probably the greatest civics lesson in the history of our republic.
You mean by being televised?
Being televised, yes, letting them see how our government works.
Are you in favor of televising if possible in the Senate?
I really have mixed feelings about it. I believe in the people's right to know about their political affairs, but I know from my Watergate experience and other experiences where we have televised committee meetings, that most politicians are hams and anytime that they get free television time, they are going to exploit it to the fullest. It will greatly delay the process of government. They won't be able to restrain themselves. They will play to the galleries instead of doing what they think ought to be done on the premises.
I remember during the hearings that you made some comment fairly near the end of them, I think, that John Dean's testimony had stood up extremely well.
Yes. John Dean was one of the most remarkable witnesses I ever heard. He
was the first witness that we had that implicated the President in a
series of crimes. You will recall that he read a long statement, I think
that it took him five hours to read. Then the lawyers
Who did he talk to then about it, do you know?
I don't recall. Maybe the word was passed through the counsels. So, then
we voted to subpoena the tapes, the President refused to honor our
subpoena, we went into court to try to enforce our subpoena and of all
the things that I can't understand, we were a coordinate, co-equal
branch, duly constituted committee of the Senate and the court held that
we
Of course, the tapes as they eventually came out corroborated Dean almost . . .
They did. (interruption by telephone call)
We were talking about Dean. I was going to ask you about him. Of course, it may be hard to judge another man's motives, but what did you think of Dean in the end? What kind of a man did you think he was? He is the man who almost singlehandedly brought down the President.
I don't know what I think of him, really. He is a very astute fellow. Of course, he was a part and parcel of the conspiracy and was sentenced to prison for it, you know.
He indicated, of course, that he kind of got sucked up into it.
I think that was true of a lot of them. They were young, eager beavers. I felt so sorry for them, many of them extremely well educated. They came from fine families, lofty motives. I think that they all thought that the end justified the means and they got just sort of swept into this thing.
In your opinion, would President Nixon have been impeached without those tapes?
No, they couldn't have impeached him on the word of John Wesley Dean alone, uncorroborated.
And what about the tapes? You've wondered, I suppose, why the President didn't go ahead and destroy them?
I couldn't understand, it was his property, as soon as
And he could have done that in the name of national security?
Oh, he wouldn't have had to do that. I can go upstairs and tear up a shirt if I want to, it's mine and I don't have to plead national security.
He would have had to give the American people some explanation, though.
Well, he could just have said, "I got to thinking about it and I thought that it was wrong to tape people without their consent, so I destroyed them."
What about H.R. Haldeman? What was your impression of him?
I was rather surprised when Haldeman came before us. You remember Ehrlichman gave all the impressions of a Nazi storm trooper when he was before our committee. I interrogated him at some at some length and he indicated that he thought a man could commit murder for a good cause.
I think that you asked him that specifically.
Yes, and he rather acquiesed that he could. Then, when Haldeman came before us, I was expecting him to be just as arrogant and he came on like an All-American Boy, an Eagle Scout, a man who had won the Medal of Honor and was going home to receive the plaudits of his neighbors. He handled himself extremely well.
And he was the one that had the reputation of being the really (interruption by telephone call)
You were talking about Haldeman and his demeanor on the stand. Were you shocked when Erlichman answered that question the way that he did?
Yes.
Because what you asked him in essence, as I remember, was whether there were any circumstances under which the President of the United States could order a murder and that it would be all right to do so.
That came out, as you remember, on this question of national security. They had done various things that violated laws in the interest of national security. To wit, breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and other things and he thought those acts should be permitted in the interests of national security and I was trying to carry him along the line and see how far he thought that thing ran. I asked him if they could order someone to murder in the name of national security and he indicated that that would be possible under certain conditions, as I recall. Certainly, he didn't disavow it.
What about John Mitchell?
I felt sorry for John Mitchell, a man who had been considered one of the
outstanding lawyers in the United States and had a very lucrative bond
practice and here he had himself involved in all of these things and he
came before us. He handled himself very well, I think. I got him excited
two or three times there, I've forgotten exactly what the interrogation
was about at the moment. I asked him . . . he was talking about the
"White House Horrors" and I said, "Now, Mr. Mitchell, you were Attorney
General of the United States, the highest law enforcement officer in the
land, you were the closest man to the President of the United
John Mitchell, I think, testified that he thought the election of Nixon was more important than anything else.
He did.
What about Jeb Magruder?
I felt very sorry for Magruder, he was one of those young men who thought that the end justified the means and he just got swept along with the tide.
Well, Senator, have we really learned anything from Watergate?
I think that we have. In a republican form of government, as an investigative reporter, you know that an expose has a way of correcting the conduct of public officials and alerting others and preventing them from making similar mistakes. I think this lesson has had a cleansing effect on the body politic and I don't think that you or I will see the repetition of that in our life time.
What about the current investigation over past practices of the FBI and the CIA?
Well, I think that will be corrected, too. As a matter of fact, I think that it already has been corrected.
You don't see any real dangers then, of this ever cropping up?
Oh, it is conceiveable way down the road. Look what it
Did you ever during any of the Watergate, or the Judiciary Committee hearings, have any discussions with other Senators and so forth about the impeachment? I am sure that you must have talked about it once in awhile, of President Nixon? When did you first think that there was really a chance that he was going to be impeached?
As soon as these tapes became public that indicated Nixon's connection with it. I've forgotten the date of that tape that became public which was portrayed in the press as, "The smoking pistol." I thought at that time that his impeachment or resignation was inevitable and I thought he would resign to avoid it.
What did you think the vote would have been in the Senate had he pressed it?
Well, after that latest tape came out, it would have been overwhelming, on the order of ten to one or better.
There are a number of other things that I want to ask you about and I may have to wait until after I've gone back over the whole tape. I was wondering, though, if there is anything you can think of that we ought to put on the record before we close it?
Well, Jack, it looks like to me that we have pretty well covered it.
Yes, we have covered the field. Let me go back to one thing that I
noticed in the biography that was put out by your office. You said that
in regard to welfare reform and problems, poverty, unemployment and poor
housing, that you believed that "the best solutions and the most
important solutions to the social and economic problems facing the
country can be found in education, job training, retraining and the
creation of more
That's right.
I'm sure that you still feel that way, but is there anything else, though, that today with the problem being as severe as it is . . .
Well, we have made welfare so easy that a lot of people would rather live on welfare than work. I don't particularly enjoy work myself I would much rather hunt and fish and if the government gave me benefits according to the standard of living to which I had been accustomed, I wouldn't be out seeking a job, doing hard physical labor, I would just as soon sit around the house and hunt and fish all day.
Speaking of work, Senator, it seems to me like you put in a tremendous number of hours. I've read somewhere that you go into the office seven days a week. Is that right?
Yes.
You still do?
Yes, when I am in Washington. I have worked ever since I have been in the
political arena about eighty hours a week and that really goes back
almost to when I joined the Navy. When I went to sea, I was division
officer and I had to stand a watch in three, so that meant twelve hours
a day standing watches plus my duties as a division officer. So, that
ran to fifteen or eighteen hours a day and then I got to be executive
officer for the attack transport and it took about eighteen hours a day
to run the ship. Then, when I got back and was managing my father's
fourth campaign for governor, that took about eighteen hours a day and
then I got into politics on my own and that took about eighteen hours a
day for me to get elected. When I got in the governor's office, the only
time that
That roughly means that you go to bed maybe at eight-thirty or nine o'clock . . .
I do.
And you wake up at . . .
Three to four . . .
And go do your jogging of two and a half miles or whatever?
Yes.
And you are down to the office by seven-thirty?
Usually between seven-fifteen and seven-thirty
And you leave the office about what time?
Depending on when the routine is through. If I am sure that there is no further voting going to take place on the Senate floor, and if I have completed signing my mail, returning my telephone calls, routine meetings with my subordinates and my staff in Washington, delegating authority, I go on home as soon as I can. But even when I get home, I am still working, I carry a briefcase full of stuff with me wherever I go.
You come here to Lovejoy and you answer the telephone of constituents. What sort of calls were these?
One of them was obviously a drunk trying to get me involved
You don't screen any of these calls out when you come home to Lovejoy? You just answer the phone every time that somebody calls?
That's right. It is a rather amazing thing. They will call Washington and ask for me and then they will chase me down at Lovejoy and it will be some military matter or something else and I have to refer them back to Washington. If they would go ahead and say in the original instance that "I have got such and such a problem," I could switch my expert on that problem on the phone and they could be handling that while they are chasing me down.
What do you do for relaxation besides reading? You go fishing?
Yes, I will probably do a little fishing while I am here and I've got five lakes on the farm here and I've done a great deal of tree stand improvement and I've planted about a million pine trees on this place. I get out in the woods and I chase up some deer occassionally, flush some quail. I will get out and walk for two or three hours at a time.
I read somewhere . . . this house has six fireplaces, is that right?
Let me see, one, two, three, four, five and six.
And I also read where you really loved a fire and so, what I wondered is . . .
Betty will build one in the summertime.
What I wondered is, why do you live in an apartment in Washington rather than a house where you could have a fireplace?
Well, I prefer not to, but up there, houses with fireplaces are very expensive.
Yes, inside the District.
Yes, and then there is no . . . frequently I am in Georgia and Betty is up there alone and the crime situation in Washington is such that you are better protected in an apartment.
When you are out jogging, you don't worry about the crime?
No, of my friends sometimes get apprehensive about me but I tell them that the crooks and thugs are in bed at that time of the morning and the honest people are the only ones up working at 4:00 a.m.
Well, Senator . . .
It's rather intersting, though, when I am out running, I put on several layers of clothing, including a Marine fatigue uniform as the outer garment and you will have these police cars cruising around in Washington at that hour of the morning and when they see me running down the streets about 4:00 a.m., almost invariably they will stop and look at me there and sometimes throw the light on me to determine whether I am a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime.
Let me ask you one other thing while I think about it. Now, you sold the Talmadge farm business, is that right?
Yes, the Talmadge ham operation.
What other sort of business interests do you have now?
Actually, I own this property and I am president of a little family
corporation called Lovejoy Investment Company that owns rental property
primarily and I have some various interests in real estate in the
periphery of the Atlanta Metropolitan area. Outside of that, I am
What about the news agency, isn't there a news agency or something.
I have no connection with that. My good friend, Ed Elson, owns that. I have no stock in it at all. Ed Elson and I do have some interest in some real estate together.
Have you practiced law since you have been . . .
No, I quit my law practice and wound up my last case just before I went into the United States Senate and I have accepted no legal employment whatever since then. I have also resigned as chairman of the board of an insurance company that I was on. I was resigned from the board of directors of a savings and loan association that I was on.
Incidentally, a number of Senators do still practice law, don't they?
Yes, I think it's a great error.
You think it is a great error for them to practice law?
Yes, I see no way that you could avoid a conflict of interest if you had some measure pending before the Senate that vitally affected a client that you were accepting fees from.
What about the other interests that some Senators have? What about some who are members of boards of directors of banks and so forth?
I don't see any way on earth, I've got no criticism of that, because I
don't see any way on earth that you can isolate yourself completely from
any conflict of interest unless you are an inmate of a mental
institution and even then, you will have a conflict of interest
because
Well, listen. I will plan to get the transcripts of all of this and go over it and . . .
END OF INTERVIEW