Huey Long
People Called him "The Kingfish"
(And a Lot of Other Things)

The Traditional Kingfish

At one time it was accepted wisdom that Huey Long, the Kingfish and who was elected governor and later US Senator of Louisiana, was a dangerous demagogue and even had become a veritable dictator of the state.

But now interest in Huey has undergone a revival. You can read that Huey was a true humanitarian. It was he who pulled the citizens and communities of Louisiana out of poverty by building roads, bridges, schools, and colleges. And unlike many southern politicians of the time, Huey worked for all citizens regardless of race, creed, or color.

That is, interest in Huey has undergone a revival for people who know who he is. But the early 1990's was the time when a lot of hitherto famous people dropped from the historical radar screen. Huey vanished with them, and you have to wonder why.

Perhaps it was because the 90's saw the decline of the late night movie. Before then you'd see lots of re-runs you wouldn't ordinarily buy on videos. So if you turned on the boob-tube at 11:30 p. m., you might catch All the King's Men, the movie that was based on the best selling novel by William Penn Warren.

The movie - which is actually quite good - starred Broderick Crawford as the fictional politician Willie Stark. The movie won Broderick an Academy Award for Best Actor although in later years he was relegated largely to television roles including that of KAOS agent, C. Errol Madre, in The Treasure of C. Errol Madre, an episode of Get Smart.

Changed name or not, Willie was clearly modeled after Huey Pierce Long. But not we should say - in a positive light. Starting out as a small time politician who championed the poor and downtrodden, Willie looses the election for governor (his candidacy was a set-up by his opponent). So Willie runs again and finds himself in the governor's mansion. But in learning how to win, Willie unknowingly becomes corrupt himself.

But remember. All the King's Men is fiction. Willie Stark isn't Huey Long. Despite his long absences, Huey and his wife Rose had a happy marriage, and Huey's oldest son (and later US Senator), Russell, admired his dad. But Willie detests his wife and fiddles around while Willie's son, Tom - played by John Derek (Joshua in The Ten Commandments) - grows to despise his dad. The father-son rapport hits the nadir when Willie forces Tom to play in a football game after he was injured. In the game the injury is compounded, and Tom ends up paralyzed.

The REAL Kingfish

And Huey? No, Huey Long did not grow up in a poor family. For the time and place the Longs were comfortably middle class. And Huey was not one of those kids who had to drop out of high school and work to help his family out.

Instead Huey was expelled from high school for circulating an essay against the teachers. He then took a job as a traveling salesman. He mastered the ability to size up the customer and convince them they needed what he was peddling. And he peddled pretty much everything.

Huey was energetic in his job. He quickly rose to be a district sales manager. But unfortunately there were a number of recessions in the late 19th and early 20th century. Jobs and companies folded, and Huey was out of work.

Well, what to do? Well, if Huey couldn't find a job, why not become a lawyer? After all, at that time barristers didn't need a degree. So Huey took a few law courses and studied for the bar on his own. Then in 1915 he passed the exam which was administered by a committee of practicing lawyers. Clarence Darrow said that when he took the bar exam in Ohio - nearly forty years before Huey did - it was mostly a bunch of older attorneys shooting the bull with the students. Everyone who showed up passed.

But whatever the rigor or lack thereof of the bar exam in Louisiana, Huey passed, and he began to practice law. Getting a job was easy since - a point he omitted in his autobiography - his brother Julius already had a law practice and took Huey on as a junior partner.

But being an attorney didn't excite Huey. So he began his climb up the line of political offices. Starting out as a state commissioner - railroad, public service, stuff like that - he garnered a reputation as a smart and effective official and once personally argued a case (and won) before the US Supreme Court. Then two years later, in 1924, he ran for governor. He lost that election but won four years later.

(Psst! Huey Was a S-c--l-st)

Huey's campaign strategy was perfect for the time and place. He didn't pit party against party or ideology against ideology. But he did know that there were a lot of poor people in Louisiana. So he decided to pit the rich vs. the poor.

Did you know, he asked, that 85 % of the wealth was held by 10% of the people? And do you think that the 10 % who spend their time wearing fancy suits and sitting on their culs worked harder than a farmer tilling the soil or a worker in a factory? Of course not, and this was the fundamental problem with America.

Huey, of course, had the solution. He'd start improving things right away. He promised aid programs, new and better roads to the towns, and more schools.

None of that trickle down stuff, either. He'd make the rich pay for it right away. And that was easy enough to do. He'd just up their taxes - not only of the rich fat cats but of their businesses and corporations as well. And that included the powerful oil companies.

And what is most strange is today is that the very people who lament that we no longer have politicians like Huey would be the first to oppose his programs. That's because by any meaningful definition of the word, Huey was a socialist.

Among his promises, Huey advocated a guaranteed annual wage of $5000 per family - close to $100,000 in today's currency. Such an income would provide everyone with "necessities" which Huey believed included a home, a radio, and a car. Today Huey would probably throw in cell phones, Internet connections, and flat screen TV's.

But Huey then proposed a most socialistic addendum. It didn't do any good, he said, to have just a minimum wage. You had to have a maximum wage too. Yes, Huey proposed salary caps.

Incomes above $1,000,000 a year would be strictly prohibited. No one could have more than $50,000,000 at any one time, and you couldn't will anyone more than $5,000,000.

If you went above those limits, the excess would be "shared". Huey also promised to look after older citizens. Everyone over 60 years of age would be guaranteed a pension. If all this sounds familiar it probably means you've read Sinclar Lewis's It Can't Happen Here.

But Huey was not stupid. He knew that he could not advocate socialism if it was called socialism. It was "Share the Wealth" and that's the way he advertised it.

Huey's Modus

There were other parts of Huey's modus kingfisherandi that were particularly astute. In fact, they're so astute that they've been forgotten by modern politicians.

Rule #1 was don't tick off the press. Huey would take time to speak with reporters wherever he encountered them. His joking manner and humorous comments always made good copy and were a good way to deflect questions he didn't want to answer. Most of all he knew not to exclude anyone and would readily sit down with any reporter.

Then there's what has to be one of Huey's true strokes of genius. Get the college professors on your side. And that's not too hard, either. Just increase funding for state colleges, build bigger football stadiums, and appear in newspapers promoting the schools' institutions. You can say that Huey Long was the best friend Louisiana State University ever had.

People quickly noticed that in pushing his agenda, Huey had little patience with the slowly turning wheels of democratic governments. None of that deal making or negotiating stuff. He quickly began to take control of the state from the top to the bottom.

The techniques by which Huey seized control were complex, and there wasn't any "one" way. He might appoint his more pliable friends to various commissions and boards. Then he'd help others get elected to lower offices. Either way the new officials would shore up Huey's administrative base in the government.

Huey also got authority to appoint officials down to the parish (i. e., county) level and even in municipal governments. One Louisianan remembered that you couldn't even hire a custodian at a local school without getting approval from Baton Rouge. If there was an opponent to Huey's plans, there would appear a new regulation or reorganization so the trouble maker could be regulated or reorganized out of office.

Legislative loopholes were also numerous and useful. Huey would get a bill to the floor that was acceptable to most everyone. Then he would have one of his buddies offer an amendment which was actually an entirely new bill (one "amendment" was over 200 pages long). The less stringent rules for passing amendments would then ensure that the new bill would blow past the opposition in a manner of minutes.

If anyone complained, well, that was tough boudan. Accused of acting like a dictator, Huey shrugged his shoulders. A perfect democracy, he said, can come close to looking like a dictatorship.

As far as Huey was concerned, he was just being forceful, decisive, and forthright, and doing what had to be done. To his opponents, though, he was an autocrat and despot, and his methods questionable and even illegal. Huey's enemies also said he carried concealed weapons and deported himself "scandalously" at parties. Then he was even accused of ordering the murder of a political opponent. Nine months after assuming office, Huey was impeached. But he beat the rap in the state senate.

Huey's fans like to point to his accomplishments. During his tenure, he put in 9000 miles of new roads. He built schools and made sure the kids got free textbooks and even instituted adult education programs. All within the short span of 1928 to 1935 - only seven years.

Huey's Antagonists

Extra taxes notwithstanding, within a couple of years, Louisiana began sliding into bankruptcy. Although Huey did increase taxes by 75%, the state's debt rose from $11,000,000 to $150,000,000. During Huey's time in power, per capita income in Louisiana fell by 50%.

Some say that it was the impeachment attempt that really changed Huey for the worse. After the trials, tales of Huey's corruption and autocracy increased. It wasn't just hard persuasion he used now, but we hear he offered officials and legislators money, booze, and women. And you didn't cross Huey. One story is that he had his thugs break into hotel rooms and kidnap some of his opponents.

Huey's opponents also found their family members in Huey's sights. A legislator remembered that Huey confronted him about voting for a particular bill. The legislator said that he couldn't support the bill - it compromised the autonomy of local government. When he got home that day, he learned that his father had been fired from his job.

More worrisome was that Huey began to take steps to where the Louisiana State Police and National Guard were looking more and more like his own private army. When a newspaper editor wrote stories he didn't like, Huey ordered the National Guard to destroy the presses. However, Huey had been imbibing too much that night, and the next day he canceled the order. But he did seize copies of a college paper that wrote an unfavorable editorial. More and more people were seeing Huey as a dictator in its most literal sense.

Huey Goes National ...

So Huey was already famous when he was elected to the US Senate. But voters in the rest of the country had always seen him as something of a joke, a loud-mouth buffoon who might fool the yokels in Louisiana but would find himself at sea among the Washington and East and West Coast sophisticates. The opinions soon changed.

As a freshman senator, Huey flouted all tradition. He slapped senior senators on the back and kept his cigar during the swearing in ceremony. And in a phone conversation with the President, Huey called him "Frank".

His way of handling the job was also not what his brethren senators thought proper. He'd shout at his fellow senators, accusing them of being slaves to Wall Street and toadies to big business. Once he nearly came to blows with the elderly Senator Carter Glass. Actually, it was Carter who challenged Huey to duke it out. "I couldn't hit you," Huey said. "You are too old a man."

It's one thing to berate your colleagues, seize newspapers, and kidnap your opponents. But being insulting to the ladies is something else. A contemporary news story said that Huey had shown up at a party - "in his cups". He then saw a rather plump young lady about to eat her dinner. He walked up and said, "You're too fat already. I'll eat this." Actually Huey didn't have much room to talk. He was pretty tubby himself.

Soon Huey realized what seemed clownish and humorous back home was not selling at the national level. So he quit drinking, stopped smoking cigars, and dropped 30 pounds.

Of course, in Washington Huey couldn't use the strong armed tactics he had taken for granted back home. When frustrated he had to resort to dilatory and largely ineffective maneuvers like the filibuster.

Huey acknowledged his diminished status in the nation's capital. There's the story that he met with the Washington press corps and said "I'm a small fish here in Washington. But I'm the Kingfish to the folks down in Louisiana." A good story and it may even be true.

... and Stays Local

So it's no surprise that Huey's interest never really left Louisiana. His senate seat notwithstanding, Huey remained Louisiana's de facto governor. He kept pushing through state laws he wanted and looked for ways to negate Federal laws he didn't. Louisiana was a "Jeffersonian Democracy", he said. This means that Huey was saying Louisiana's state legislation trumped federal law.

Whether state laws - which reflect the more immediate will of the people in a region - or federal statutes - which are intended to produce unity and bind parts of the country together - should prevail is a debate that continues to this day. But as for what the United States Constitution says, it's pretty clear:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Simply put, if the federal and state laws contradict each other, it's the federal law that prevails.

Huey then tried a new tact. His laws wouldn't directly countermand the federal law but would prohibit state officials from helping with its enforcement. In fact, one of Huey's favorite pieces of legislation actually mandated jail time for Louisiana officials if they helped implement certain New Deal laws - which Huey euphemistically called "directing unconstitutional activities".

Huey the Humanitarian

One prevailing characteristic of Huey's rhetoric should be noted. He did not pit ethnic or religious groups against each other. He was also outspoken against the Ku Klux Klan and - in what he evidently considered an insult to both - likened Big Oil and the KKK.

Huey soon found himself the subject of horribly racists ads that claimed he actually included African Americans in his "Share the Wealth" programs. Huey didn't deny it. He said poor black people needed help as much as poor white people.

You'll also read that Huey overturned the poll tax which had kept Louisiana's black citizens from voting but that it was the "local" Jim Crow laws that denied universal enfranchisement. So we now sometimes read that Huey was an early champion of the rights of Louisiana's African Americans. But his hands were tied.

So what was Huey's actual stand on racial issues? You still get a lot of debate about this today.

True, with the repeal of the poll tax the number of voters doubled and most of them voted for Huey. But the new voters were white, and Huey himself had given assurances that the primary system - set up by state law - would ensure only white citizens would vote.

In fact, no African Americans voted in Louisiana or other Southern states until the mid-1960's, and this was only after the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. These laws, we should not need to point out, were Federal legislation and became - à la the Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land.

So what did Huey really think? Well, we can start off by avoiding chat rooms that talk about Huey and instead read what Huey said himself - and when speaking to a black reporter.

Roy Wilkins was later to become one of the most important civil rights leaders of the 1950's and 1960's. But in 1935, he was a young journalist who had recently assumed the editorship of The Crisis, the official publication of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Roy asked for a meeting with Huey, and to his surprise, he was granted an immediate interview.

The interview can be painful reading for a Huey Long Fan Club with modern sensibilities. Roy wrote down what the Kingfish said verbatim including the repeated use of a most objectionable word. The picture that emerges, while by no means being that of a one-dimensional bigot, is certainly not that of an enlightened champion of equal rights either.

When ushered in to Huey's hotel room, Roy found Huey wearing a bathrobe and getting ready to brush his teeth. At first Huey expressed irritation that some people thought he hadn't done much for Louisiana's black citizens. Why, he told Roy, he had built schools for black children and provided them with textbooks. He had always stood against anyone who wanted to block education for the race. Better education would mean better protection. Huey even denounced the share cropping and tenant farming system where the land owners cheated their tenants by deliberately doctoring the books so at the end of the year the tenants had nothing left. "That ain't right!" Huey declaimed.

At the same time Huey brushed aside Roy's questions on what could be done to combat the lynchings in the South. By the end of 1934 there had been over three thousand extra-judicial executions of black citizens since the end of the Civil War. State governments had shown little interest in reducing the atrocities, and by 1935, there was pending legislation to make lynching a federal crime. Huey ducked the question when Roy asked if he was for the bill.

Well then, asked Roy, why weren't the murderers of a young black man who had recently been dragged from a Louisiana jail not being pursued? No one was even trying to find the killers. Huey again waved the issue aside, saying breezily (and incorrectly) that if he went after the murderers, that would just cause more lynchings. Besides, Huey said, the man was guilty anyway.

Then apparently without prompting, Huey told Roy not to write that he, Huey Long, was working for African-Americans (although again Huey did not use such polite wording). He was working for the poor regardless of color. "Black and white, they all gotta have a chance!" Today Huey's fans happily quote the last sentence. It's the initial disclaimer they leave out.

What about the vote, Roy wondered. In the southern states no black citizens were allowed in at the polls. But they were fully enfranchised in most northern states. How about Louisiana leading the way?

Well, Huey said, the Northern States could do as they please. But in Louisiana? No, sir. Then as Huey concluded the interview, he told Roy to stop by and see him in Washington anytime.

Roy came away uncertain what to think. Except for repeatedly using the epithet - which Roy realized Huey didn't think was offensive - Huey had treated Roy courteously. On the other hand, Huey ducked hard questions and was vague on the easy ones.

Ultimately Roy decided Huey was a hard-nosed, ambitious, and practical politician. If helping black Louisianans would further Huey's advantage, he would help them. If he could achieve more by cutting them loose, he'd cut them loose. Huey, Roy decided, put Huey first.

We said that Huey never pitted racial groups against another. We have to modify this statement with the caveat of the Captain of the Pinafore.

One of Huey's tactics was to label his opponents with derisive nicknames. We will not repeat the names that Huey hurled, but suffice it to say some of them implied his opponents had African antecedents. Although today discovering you had African heritage would be a point of pride for anyone, in Huey's time it was not only a smear, but had serious social and even legal consequences.

Annus Horribilis Hueyonis: 1935

Being de facto governor of Louisiana even when he was de jure US Senator continued to be a challenge. Things became a bit easier when his good friend O(scar) K(elly) Allen was elected governor. O. K. worked hard to make sure that what Huey wanted Huey got.

Although initially supporting FDR's New Deal, Huey began to object when FDR began - in Huey's opinion - to get too pally with the Big Money Boys. You don't help the poor by working with Wall Street. As Huey became more of an opponent of the New Deal, people were wondering if he would run for President in 1936.

Some historians have questioned that Huey was really interested in running for the highest office of the land. But when Huey was asked, he said that if things continued as they were he probably would. He also began working on a book My First Days in the White House. You sometimes wonder how historians draw their conclusions.

But back home in Louisiana Huey was trying to push through some constitutional amendments that were being approved by voter referendum. When the votes came back suspiciously - some say impossibly - lopsided in Huey's favor, two judges ordered a recount.

No problem for Huey. He just called up his friend, Governor O. K. Allen, and told him to declare martial law. So the officials doing the recount did so in the presence of armed guardsmen. The recount affirmed Huey's win.

This actually sounds pretty bad - a governor declaring martial law to influence the democratic processes. But as we'll see later, there was more here than just a recount. Huey had reasons which - in his opinion - were legitimate.

Huey was still miffed at the jurists' effrontery. And he was increasingly irritated with that pesky institution that always frustrates an autocrat - a separate and independent judiciary.

One of Huey's most bitter enemies was Benjamin Pavy, a state judge known to rule against Huey at every turn. The battle got personal and two of Benjamin's relatives lost their jobs in the state school system.

Benjamin's jurisdiction was in East Baton Rouge - exactly where O.K. had declared martial law. Strangely enough, this was not a Huey-friendly district as his support was largely from the rural areas. To his consternation, Huey was never able to get Benjamin voted out of office.

So Huey took yet another Very Huey Approach and decided to gerrymander the legal districts in a way that would eliminate Benjamin's seat. And now we must mention that one of Louisiana's most successful physicians, Dr. Carl Weiss, was married to Benjamin's daughter, Yvonne.

Carl had graduated from high school at age 15 and had received his medical degree when just 21. He then studied in Paris and Vienna and later joined his dad's medical practice. Carl and Yvonne had a newborn son, and things were looking quite rosy for the young couple.

Things were rosy for Carl and Yvonne, yes, but not for everyone. As the summer of 1935 moved in, times were not good for the Bayou State. It was one of the worst years of the Great Depression. City workers were losing their jobs and those who were still employed weren't getting paid. Even garbage collection had stopped. Since Huey had refused to contribute state funds to federal relief programs, more and more people were being dropped from public assistance. Murder rates - which were already high in New Orleans - went even higher. Carl - as did many physicians who made house calls while carrying pharmaceuticals - sometimes carried a gun.

The Anti-Hueyites Get Serious

With 1935 moving along, Huey's opponents were afraid America had a despotic dictator who was not hesitant to use extra-legal means to increase his power. And this despotic dictator said he would probably run for President.

But we don't want to imply that Huey's opponents were always goody-two shoes pacifists dedicated to the principles of democracy and law and order. Huey's beefing up the National Guard prompted some of his more rabid opponents to form paramilitary groups. One group was called the Square Dealers, and their members included two former Louisiana governors. Although there was no provable connection with the Square Dealers or any other of the anti-Huey militias, someone once fired a bullet into Huey's house. No one was hurt but no one thought it was an accident either.

We repeat: These were armed groups dedicated to opposing Huey. Even the women's division of the Square Dealers - who usually acted as an auxiliary to provide refreshments to the men - carried guns. And on January 25, 1935, three hundred Square Dealers - complete with their guns - walked in and took over the courthouse at East Baton Rouge Parish. This, then, is the most immediate reason that O. K. declared martial law. In this case, the Square Dealers dispersed peaceably.

But the following day, January 26, a group of fifty Square Dealers and their guns assembled at the Baton Rouge Airport. Suddenly the National Guard showed up. Although shots were fired, only one man was injured and the Guards mostly used tear gas. Some Square Dealers were arrested but others escaped. The leader of the Dealers, Ernest Bourgeois, hurried across the border to Mississippi.

Actually the Square Dealers had not really known what they were supposed to do once they got to the airport. They had just gotten phone calls telling them to show up. What, they asked, was going on?

It seems a man named Sidney Songy - ostensibly a member of the Square Dealers but actually a spy for Huey - had obtained the Square Dealers membership list and turned it over to the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The BCI had phoned the men telling them to get their guns and meet at the airport. So the "Battle of the Airport" was a set-up intended to trap the Square Dealers.

This, then, was the atmosphere in Louisiana as 1935 rolled in. Armed insurrection was a real possibility.

And then Sidney said that he had learned ...

... of a plot ...

...... of an active plot ...

......... of an active plot to assassinate Huey Long.

Huey now set up an armed cordon of khaki clad guards armed with machine guns around the Governor's mansion. Then he launched an investigation into the plots revealed by Sidney. Huey learned - he said - that the plot was much more widespread than you would think. His political enemies and their flunkies were involved, of course. But some of the conspirators were the Big Boys who opposed his programs to help the poor. He even insinuated that Standard Oil - who was having a tussle with Huey about the oil tax - was behind the conspiracy.

The Square Dealers immediately pooh-poohed the idea of any plot. Huey's talk of a conspiracy was just a sham, they said, cooked up by Huey to justify his dictatorial and banana republic tactics. They said that now instead of harassing his opponents by arresting them for trivial charges like driving without their headlights on (which did happen), Huey was going to have them charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

For his part Sidney was - literally - making a profession of claiming to hear people plotting to kill Huey. He said he would call up anti-Hueyites and get them to talk about their plots and have stenographers listen in. He was at meetings where plots were hatched and he'd hurry to tell Huey's bodyguards. If anyone said they were a-gonna git Huey, Sidney was there hearing it all.

Then in July a group of men met at the De Soto Hotel in the French Quarter in New Orleans. The purpose was for an anti-Huey get-together. The number of attendees reported varies from five to two hundred.

Whatever the number really was, there were five of Louisiana's congressmen who wanted Huey out of office. There was also a former Louisiana Pro Tempore who had once backed Huey but was now a Roosevelt New Dealer. Other notables showed up as well, including a famous Louisiana newspaper editor.

Huey Takes the Floor

On August 9, 1935, Huey stood up in the Senate. You'll read that Huey, flushed and indignant, denounced those at the Hotel DeSoto meeting as traitors who had been plotting his murder. Before he sat down he even said Franklin Roosevelt would pardon the killers if they succeeded.

Huey said he would now read the actual words of the conspirators. One story is that he ordered John DeArmond, the chief of Louisiana's Criminal Information Bureau, to drill holes in the ceilings and dangle microphones from fishing poles into the conference rooms. On the other hand, Huey himself said that "someone" had planted a Dictaphone, an early office dictation machine (also called a Dictagraph), in the room. It wasn't he, Huey assured the senators, who did the planting. But whoever did it was kind enough to give him the minutes of the meeting - with verbatim quotes.

Given the limited technology and cumbersome nature of the Dictagraphs - many of the machines still used the old wax cylinders and acoustical recording - it seems unlikely that anyone really planted Dictaphones in the rooms. Huey himself said the Dictagraphs were the cheaper models and so the fidelity must have been too poor to pick up room conversations. Even ten years later, the FBI often simply sat an agent down with a notepad when they were conducting surveillance. Certainly from Huey's remarks it is more reasonable that any transcript was taken down by an eavesdropping stenographer.

Was the meeting really about a plot to murder Huey? Well, let's read some of what Huey entered into the Congressional Record.

Voice: I would draw in a lottery to go out and kill Long. It would only take 1 man, 1 gun, and 1 bullet.

Voice: Single handed?

Voice: Yes; that's the only way to do it.

Or what about this:

Voice. I haven't the slightest doubt but that Roosevelt will pardon anyone who killed Long.

Voice. But how would it be done?

Voice. The best way would be to just hang around Washington and kill him right in the Senate.

Then one of the attendees also said:

I am out to murder, kill, bulldoze, steal or anything else to win this election

Not good. And then we have:

Voice. Sixty percent of the people want him [Huey] in the Gulf of Mexico weighted with chains. The trouble is getting the various elements together.

We repeat. This sounds bad.

However, there are some things to note. Nothing here reveals an actual plot against Huey. The first two quotes were not actually planning any overt act. Nor does Huey claim that Franklin Roosevelt will pardon the killers. He is simply reporting what others say was a possibility.

And we know the names of some of the participants. The statement about winning the election by the nefarious means was made by Oscar Whilden, one of the biggest supporters of the anti-Huey militia called the Minute Men. The statement, though, is clearly hyperbolic - such as when a member of a future White House administration said he'd run over his grandmother for the President.

Then the last quote - the one about weighing Huey with chains - is included here to show how you can edit statements for - quote - "clarity and brevity" - unquote - and change the meaning. As we wrote it above, it certainly sounds like part of an actual murder plot.

But the whole statement was:

Voice. Long is potentially beaten right now. Sixty percent of the people want him in the Gulf of Mexico weighted with chains. The trouble is getting the various elements together. Many meetings have been held in Alexandria, but no results because each district has its own candidate. We must present a united front. Will all rally around [Louisiana Congressman Cleveland] Dear?

So the discussion was really about getting a good candidate to run against Huey.

And it's this last quote that is actually representative of the whole DeSoto Hotel meeting. Very high feeling against Huey, yes, and plenty of violent rhetoric. But there was no actual plot. Instead, the real purpose of the meeting was to see how to defeat Huey at the polls. For those who wish to read Huey's speech for themselves, just click here

In fact, neither Huey nor his fellow senators took the threats seriously. You'll remember the statement:

Voice. I haven't the slightest doubt but that Roosevelt will pardon anyone who killed Long.

Voice. But how would it be done?

Voice. The best way would be to just hang around Washington and kill him right in the Senate.

At this point the senators listening to Huey broke into laughter. Huey himself said it was funny. Then he went on to demonstrate the meeting was not really a plot against his life.

As Huey read:

Voice. But how would it be done?

Now here [Huey interjected] is where I get a lease on life. Here is something to show Senators where something comes in and gives me a break:

Voice. I once thought that was necessary but I don't think so now.

So it seems [Huey continued] like temporarily I got a respite on this matter.

Far from furthering a criminal plot, some of the attendees at the De Soto Hotel believed Huey was actually on the way out.

A Voice. You know it is peculiar the way some of our own friends feel about that [a program for eradicating ticks on cattle]. I had a good friend of ours, a man 100 percent anti-Long, come to me, and ask what was going to be done about eradication [of ticks], and in the course of our conversation he said. "You know it is more important to get rid of the ticks than it is to get rid of Long."

Again the senators broke up in laughter.

Not that Huey took it lightly that elected representatives would speak even rhetorically about someone killing a political opponent. But he was actually more miffed about the quasi-legal methods the opponents were planning to use - indictments for tax evasion, use of public funds for political use, and such stuff - rather than any physical threats.

But .... (you knew there would be a "but")...

Later the attendees at the DeSoto conference were asked just what they did say. And the answers were most interesting.

First, no one - that's no one - ever denied that the quotes that Huey read in the Senate chamber were not actually stated during the Hotel Desoto meeting.

And one of the men present hemmed and hawed and said he didn't "think" the meeting was about an assassination plot.

Another admitted that there was much talk of how great it would be if someone would boil Huey in oil or skin him alive.

And the famous newspaper editor remembered that there were many expostulations expressing the hope that "someone would kill the son-of-a-[gun]".

But all were most defensive and pointed out that never was there any talk of an actual assassination plot.

So why was everyone suddenly speaking so soberly about Huey's speech when earlier the US Senators - including Huey - thought it was "funny"?

Well, that's because of what happened a month later.

Not Quite as Funny as It Seemed

We'll first look at the official version which was based on the most contemporary information.

On September 8, 1935, Huey had attended a session of the Louisiana legislature which was ramming some of his favorite bills through the legislative paper mill. He stopped by the office of the secretary of the governor to remind everyone that they needed to get his supporters to the capitol building. He then left the office and headed down the corridor.

Suddenly Carl Weiss - yes, Dr. Carl Weiss, the son-in-law of Judge Pavy - stepped forward. Elbowing his way past the others, he pressed a pistol against Huey's stomach.

Immediately, a young state trooper, Murphy Roden, saw the gun and tried to push it aside. But Carl fired. The bullet penetrated Huey's right abdomen and exited out his back.

Holding his stomach and bending double, Huey headed for the staircase to the basement. At the bottom he saw his friend and Public Service Commissioner, James O'Connor. "Jimmy," Huey gasped, "I'm shot." Jimmy got Huey into a car and they headed for the nearest hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Sanitarium. This was about five miles to the southeast.

As Huey was heading toward the stairs, Murphy and Carl struggled for the gun. After grappling a few seconds, Murphy wrenched himself free and shoved Carl back. Knowing the gun was still in Carl's hand, Murphy pulled his own weapon and emptied ten bullets into Carl.

The other guards also pulled their weapons and began blasting. The number of times Carl was hit can't be determined. He had a total of 30 bullet wounds in the front and 29 in the back. Estimates of how many times Carl was hit vary, with 20, 30, 40, 58, 60, 61, and 62 bullets being cited. Carl fell face down next to a marble column.

At the hospital, the first doctor to see Huey was Arthur Vidrine who Huey had appointed to be the superintendent of the Charity Hospital of New Orleans. Arthur immediately called in Dr. William Cook, a general surgeon who had also worked at Charity Hospital.

As you can expect Huey neither looked nor felt very good. He was in a cold sweat and felt nauseated. His pulse and breathing were rapid and his blood pressure was dropping. Arthur told Huey he needed surgery and Huey gave him the OK.

Huey had asked that two of Louisiana's most prominent surgeons be called, Urban Maes, and Russell Stone. But Urban was delayed when the car he was in had a minor accident. And before Russell arrived, Huey's condition had deteriorated to the extent that the doctors decided they couldn't wait any longer.

Arthur assumed the role of chief surgeon and William was his assistant. This is a bit odd since William was more experienced. On the other hand some people said that William did most of the actual surgery. Arthur may have felt his administrative duties had left him a bit rusty.

Getting an anesthesiologist was a bit more problematical. None was present at the hospital, and finally they phoned Henry McKowen who was one of the best in the business.

There was a wee bit of a problem, though. Henry was known to be famously anti-Huey. In fact, just a few days earlier, he had snorted "If I ever give Huey an anesthetic, I will put him to sleep for good". Henry agreed to come in only if another physician, Cecil Lorio, would agree to monitor him to prove he had just been joking.

This was one of the strangest surgeries in history. Not only were the doctors and nurses in the operating room, but Huey's bodyguards, assistants, friends, and a few spectators stood around as well. Crowded around the table, some had changed into operating scrubs, others kept their street clothes.

The doctors found the bullet had penetrated Huey's right front abdomen and exited almost opposite from the back. At first things didn't look that bad. There was wasn't much blood and the bullet appeared to have hit the colon but with little "spillage" (to use the medical patois). A simple penetrating wound and one easily repaired.

Huey was out of the operating room in about two hours. Urban and Russell finally showed up at the still chaotic scene. Evidently they found fault with what they considered to be slap-dash surgery, and they voiced their opinion in no uncertain terms. Their concerns were not mollified when Arthur mentioned he found indications that the kidney was bleeding but didn't bother to look. But by then everyone agreed that Huey was too weak for a second operation. Russell left without even seeing Huey.

Despite a press release saying Huey was in satisfactory condition, that was far from the case. Russell had put Huey's odds at recovering at only 50%, and throughout the following day Huey's pulse and temperature continued to rise. By night his temperature had reached 104 degrees, and the doctors gave him little chance of recovery.

Huey died the next day, September 10. Most say the principal cause was internal hemorrhaging, but others think it was peritonitis - infection of the membrane lining the abdomen and very common at the time for gunshot wounds to the stomach. The two causes are not, of course, mutually exclusive.

A coroner's inquest on the shooting began on September 9. There were two witnesses the first day. The most important was Charles Frampton, a reporter for the New Orleans Tribune, and who also served as a statistician in the Attorney General's Office. Although the inquest was officially convened by Coroner Thomas Bird, most of the questions were put to the witnesses by the District Attorney for East Baton Rouge, John Fred Odom.

But when Huey died the next day, the inquest was postponed and was only resumed a week later. Among the most detailed accounts of the shooting was by John Baptiste Fournet. John was a justice on the Louisiana Supreme Court and a friend of Huey's.

Judge Fournet had said he had wanted to talk to Huey and so was present when Huey came down the hall. But Huey, the Judge, said walked fast. As he was trying to catch up ...

... a man of small stature, a man dressed in a white suit - he was a slender man - flashed among us. He moved hurriedly, wedged in with him, flashed a gun and shot almost simultaneously ... I put my hands on the man's arm and tried to deflect the bullet. I had my hat in my left hand, but I dropped it or lost it in all the excitement. As I put my hands on his arm he shot almost simultaneously.

So it seems the Judge said it was he who grappled with Carl and pushed him away. Murphy, he said, had been thrown to the floor.

Contradictory testimony doesn't always bother historians. In fact, it is expected, particularly in an incident when men are shouting, smoke is billowing, and bullets are flying.But there are legitimate concerns about the Judge's testimony. Read what the Judge said later.

I had not noticed him [Carl] or seen him before he fired. He drew it from the hip and straight up and straight out; the man made one step and fired.

So on the one hand, the Judge saw Carl come up, pull his gun, and then he tried to deflect Carl's aim. He grappled with Carl and shoved him down. He saw Carl had pulled his gun "from the hip and straight up and straight out". Then Carl "made one step and fired".

And yet the judge didn't even see Carl until Carl had fired the gun.

Ha? (To quote Shakespeare). How the heck is that possible?

Part of the problem is that the witnesses were responding to questions. So a particular answer can get confused with those of previous questions. Fortunately, the Judge was able to later more or less state in his own words what had happened.

The man came straight up to Senator Long and fired. I grabbed his hand and my next move was to shove him as hard as I could; my next effort was to grab him. In the meantime, he and Murphy Roden were mixed up; then I stepped back two steps. The firing was ceasing about that time.

Murphy was also called to testify. He said as he was walking in front of Huey, Carl pushed in and pressed his gun against Huey. Murphy grabbed Carl's arm but Carl fired.

Murphy then said he and Carl fell to the floor. From the way Murphy told it, others had begun shooting even before he did. He also said that he had smoke and powder burns in his eyes. Carl, though, still had the gun in his hand. So he got back up and began firing at Carl. In six seconds, the whole thing was over.

Afterwards, Murphy noted that his watch had been broken and there was a mark on his hand. He guessed that a second bullet had been fired and had grazed his wrist. And in fact, most witnesses did report two initial shots.

Murphy didn't say much about Judge Fournet, only that the Judge "shoved" him and Carl. He mentioned nothing about the Judge grappling with Carl.

But despite the discrepancies, the agreement between the three witnesses is about as good as you can expect (remember Charles didn't see the first few seconds of the action). Carl pushed past the guards, shoved the gun against Huey's stomach, and fired. After a brief scuffle mostly involving Murphy and the Judge, everyone turned their guns on Carl.

There were, of course, other witnesses. One of the guards, Joe Messina asked for permission to first make a statement. This was granted and Joe said:

In the first place, Senator Long is a very close friend of mine, and, in the next place, with a plot that conspired before my friend Sidney Songy came to me and begged me to take him to Senator Long's room, that he wanted to confess a crime they wanted him to pull off. He said he couldn't do it. We got him up to Senator Long's room and he told about it. A lot of stuff was captured in that plot, bullets, guns and hand grenades. In a cowardly way Senator Long was shot. I am ready to answer any questions you want to ask.

The statement, to say the least, is rather rambling, and even newspaper accounts said Joe was "rather incoherent". The reference to Sidney, though, shows us that Joe felt that Huey's death was part of the conspiracy that Huey had been talking about all year.

As far as what Joe witnessed, he said he saw two men grappling, and one of them was Carl. When he saw Carl had a pistol, he pulled out his own gun and began to shoot. His purpose, he said, was to keep Carl from shooting others. But later he added he shot Carl because Carl shot Huey.

This question - why did the guards fire - was asked of others. There was also interest if anyone had seen Carl commit an "overt act" before they fired. These questions are quite important to the purpose of the inquest.

There's one thing to realize. We mentioned the coroner's inquest began on September 9. But Huey didn't die until September 10. How can you have a coroner's inquest when the victim is still alive?

That's because the hearing was not an inquest into Huey's death. It was a hearing into the Carl's death. In addition to determining how Carl died - which was pretty clear - the inquest was also to determine whether the police officers and bodyguards had acted properly.

Ultimately the jury concluded Carl had died from gunshot wounds and the guards had indeed acted properly. To read the actual transcript of the inquest you can click here.

Of course, there are the inevitable doubters. The most common alternate theory is that Huey had accidentally been hit by a stray bullet from his own guards. And of course mainstream historians generally disagree. When asked about the new theory one of them replied:

No one had taken it [the theory that Carl didn't shoot Huey] very seriously, for unless all the witnesses to the event were lying or mistaken, only four shots had been fired while Huey was still in the corridor, the two from Weiss's pistol that struck Huey and Roden's wristwatch respectively and the two from the revolvers of Roden and Coleman that dropped Weiss. By the time the other guards had got their guns out and started to fire Huey had run from the scene.

Mr. Long, What Does It All Mean?

We repeat: "Unless all the witnesses to the event were lying or mistaken."

Which is exactly what Carl's friends and supporters say.

Instead, they argue that Carl never intended to shoot Huey. But for some reason Huey's guards interpreted his appearance as a threat. They pulled their guns, killing Carl and accidentally hitting Huey. Naturally they had to cover up their blunder.

We won't try to detail all variant explanations for Carl's innocence. That would take (literally) books. But we can at least summarize the general arguments.

1. First, Carl would never have killed anyone. He had a wife and infant son to support. He had even made plans for an operation the next day.
   
   
2. Instead Carl had gone to the capitol building to talk to Huey, probably to discuss Huey's dealing with the Pavy family. After twice getting the brush-off, on the third encounter Carl lost his temper and swung a punch at Huey. So the guards pulled their guns and blasted away, killing Carl (on purpose) and Huey (accidentally).
   
   
3. That Carl punched Huey was confirmed by one of the emergency room nurses who later said that she noticed a cut on Huey's lip. She asked what happened and Huey said "That's where he hit me."
   
   
4. The calibre of the bullet that hit Huey was wrong. This was confirmed by the funeral director as he prepared Huey for burial. He said he found a .38 calibre bullet. Carl's gun was .32 calibre.
   
   
5. The gun found at the scene was taken from Carl's car and planted at the scene. Then it and all the spent bullets collected at the scene mysteriously disappeared. So ballistics tests were impossible. In any case, Carl could not have gotten a gun into the capitol building. It would have been confiscated before he would be allowed in.
   
   
6. The inquest board consisted of Huey's friends and supporters as were all the witnesses. Some of the bodyguard refused to testify and all who did committed perjury. Some testimony was later recanted, and the first witness, reporter Charles Frampton, was threatened with death unless he lied.
   
   
7. Finally, Huey's insurance company ruled the death was accidental and paid double indemnity. So the insurers did not believe the death was murder.
   
   

You'll sometimes hear the above statements as if they are well known and accepted as established facts. But Huey's friends disagree vehemently. They point out that none of these statements are based on contemporary testimony. Instead, they are simply revisionist conspiracy theory which should have no credibility.

OK. What do we conclude?

First, what happened to the gun and the bullets? Here, Carl's friends are correct. The gun mysteriously vanished, and the spent bullets were all thrown away. So no ballistics tests were possible. Exactly what we expect if the guards had blunderingly shot the very man they were supposed to protect.

Under proper protocol, Carl's pistol should have been kept by the Louisiana State Police. But, Louis Guerre, the chief of the LSP, always denied he had it. He, as did Sergeant Schultz, knew nothing.

Well, Louis may not have had the gun, but his daughter Mabel did. In 1985, the gun turned up in her safe deposit box and in 1991 was finally returned to the Weiss family.

The box that held the gun also contained a loose bullet. The bullet was slightly flattened and there was a bit of calcium carbonate on its surface - which could come from hitting a marble wall or floor. So after half a century it was finally possible to have an inquest into the death of Huey Long.

But when bullets were fired from the gun, they did not have the same markings as the bullet in the box. So if that's Carl's gun, then it didn't fire that bullet. If that's the bullet that Carl fired, that wasn't his gun.

As a second part of the investigation, the body of Carl - but not Huey - was exhumed. Although the remains were now reduced to a skeleton, it was still evident that Carl had indeed been riddled by gunfire. A total of 24 bullets had struck his bones. Again since we don't know how many bullets hit only soft tissue, we can't tell how many bullets were actually fired.

There was, though, some new information. The forensic anthropologist who examined Carl's bones found two bullets in the region of the skull. They also had bits of white cloth adhering to them - fitting with the description that Carl was wearing a white linen suit. And if bits of Carl's suit were carried to the skull, this indicates Carl's hands were raised into what forensic pathologists call a "defensive position". The wounds on the arms and hand bones support this conclusions.

Defensive postures are not usually taken by someone who is actually on the attack. On the other hand, the wounds might have resulted from the "crouching" position witnesses reported. Besides if someone has as many as 60 bullets hitting his hands, wrists, chest, arms, and face as he spins around and falls to the floor, we wonder how much the pattern of impacts can really tell us about anything.

Finally, the crime lab of the Louisiana State Police found photographs of Huey's clothes - his coat and undershirt. On the outer jacket, there were two bullet holes, one on the right abdomen with a "star" pattern and a sooty residue. The other tear showed no soot and was opposite the first tear.

The conclusion was that the soot-stained star patterned tear was the entrance wound and that Huey was hit by a bullet fired from a gun held against or very near his body - what forensic pathologists call "close or loose contact range". If the bullet hit no bones, then the bullet would have passed through Huey's body with little or no distortion. When it exited, it would form a wound close to the same size as the entrance wound, maybe even smaller. But there would be no powder burns.

With only one loose contact entrance wound and a corresponding exit wound, Huey must have been shot only once. The gun was either pressed against Huey's body or close enough to leave a powder mark. So the new forensic evidence fit the eyewitnesses testimony perfectly.

But what about the cut on Huey's chin? How does that fit?

William Cook - remember he was one of the surgeons who operated on Huey - was called to the inquest. He said that Henry, the anti-Huey anesthesiologist, noted that there was an abrasion or "brushburn" on Huey's lip. Henry asked that some iodine be dabbed on it.

William said that it was not possible to determine where the abrasion came from. Anything hitting Huey's lip could do it. It might have happened as he stumbled down the stairs to the basement.

There was, though, a bit more interest in the cut than such an answer warranted. In particular, Elliott Coleman, one of the guards at the building, said he had taken a punch at Carl after Carl had shot Huey. He missed and hit - quote - "someone else" - unquote.

Paul Voitier, another of Huey's guard, confirmed the story. Paul said Elliott "walked in and punched at Weiss, and, I think, struck Weiss and punched again and missed Weiss. I think he hit Senator Long in the mouth right where that bruise was."

Now Elliott and Paul's statements strike some as protesting a bit too much. Even a week after Huey died, the manner in which Huey cut his lip was deemed important. But why? Having two witnesses testify is a little too pat - almost like Elliott and Paul knew the cut really came from a punch by, well, from someone else, and they had to make excuses.

Taken together and giving all the information equal, the evidence is, as forensic investigators say, inconclusive. Some evidence suggests the official account is correct, but you can't dismiss the alternative as eyeball-rolling conspiracy theory.

Still, honesty compels us to say that despite much debate, most historians accept the official account. This conclusion is largely derived from the guidelines for deciding what evidence is most credible.

Most of the testimony contradicting the official theory was obtained more than half a century after Huey died. In at least one case, a witness clearly had memory problems. That some of the re-investigators had a vested interest in the outcome - they were specifically trying to disprove the official theory - could have influenced the statements of the witnesses.

In the end, then, we have the following rationale for accepting the official version:

1. During his lifetime, Carl's father never disputed the findings of the hearing. Objections occurred only when other of Carl's family began to voice their doubts.
   
   
2. The forensic findings that Huey was shot once at close contact - the muzzle on or nearly touching his body - is consistent with the bullet holes in Huey's clothes and supports the testimony in the 1935 inquest.
   
   
3. The claim that the guards were reluctant to testify isn't correct. Most testified willingly even though they had been told they had every right to remain silent. But only one refused to answer questions.
   
   
4. The inquest was not conducted just by Huey's friends. True, most of the witnesses were Huey's admirers, but the primary interrogator at the inquest, District Attorney John Fred Odom, was one of Huey's strongest political opponents. At no time did he ever question the official conclusion.
   
   
5. That the gun was planted strains credulity. Somehow we're supposed to believe the guards 1) shot Carl, 2) saw Carl was unarmed, 3) realized they accidentally shot Huey, 4) waited until someone identified Carl, 5) went out and found Carl's (locked) car, 6) ransacked it to find the gun they didn't even know was there, and 7) snuck back and planted it by his body. And no one noticed. Most unlikely.
   
   
6. Although Carl's supporters insisted that with a wife and children to support Carl would never have taken violent action against Huey, they have no problems saying that Carl would throw a punch at a nationally known public figure who was always surrounded by armed guards.
   
   
7. Carl could easily have concealed a weapon and entered the capitol building. Even well past the mid-20th century, many visitors could enter state and even federal government buildings without being searched.
   
   
8. When people punch someone in the jaw or other bony protuberances, they often damage the bones in their hands. There was no such evidence in the forensic examination of Carl's skeleton.
   
   
9. We also have to avoid the trap of seeing the guards only as thuggish toadies for Huey. Although standards of police training have changed over the decades, the guards were nevertheless professional officers. That the guards immediately pulled their guns and began to fire was far beyond what you expect if they saw a man confront their boss, even if he swung a punch. The response is much more in line with them seeing that they and others were in immediate danger for their lives.
   
   
10. Virtually all evidence exonerating Carl was based on decades old memories of events that the witnesses never mentioned before. The funeral director supposedly kept mum about a .38 bullet until nearly fifty years later. He should have turned the bullet over to the police. And the nurse never told anyone about Huey saying the cut on Huey's lip was "where he hit me".
         Memory deterioration happens much faster than most people realize. Tests have shown that 50% of the memory encoded is lost within the first hour. So these fifty-year old memories must be taken with a few pounds of salt.
    
    
11. Even if some testimony was recanted, the recantations were also half a century after the event. In any case, recanting witnesses are known to be notoriously unreliable and have little legal credibility (they were either lying then or are lying now or possibly both). This combination of old memories and recanted testimony should be given zero - that's ZERO, ZIPS, KEINS - credibility.
    
    
12. Finally, Huey's insurance company did not pass judgement on whether Huey's death was from a stray shot or deliberate murder. A spokesmen for the company stated that for insurance purposes even homicide is considered an accidental death and would be paid in double indemnity. The only objection to making the payment would have been if one of the beneficiaries had fired the gun.
    
    

In summary, Huey's friends say if Carl's friends don't like eye-witness testimony, they just say it's perjury or the witnesses were coerced. If they like the worst possible evidence - memories that were supposedly kept secret for decades - then they accept it without question. With such loose criteria, you can prove anything.

But take the the most credible evidence - contemporary testimony and forensic evidence - and we must conclude that Carl did it.

With the Carl-Did-It and the Carl-Punched-Huey theories being argued today, it's easy to forget the other - and contemporaneous - theory. That Carl was guilty, but was part of the massive conspiracy (allegedly) launched even before the Hotel De Soto meeting.

Today, though, virtually no one accepts this theory. But certainly a lot of Huey's friends did. The most sincere of the They-Were-Out-To-Get-Huey-Believers was Gerald L. K. Smith, a fire-breathing minister who was summoned to the inquest.

Gerald remembered the words Huey read from the Senate floor.

Voice: I would draw in a lottery to go out and kill Long. It would only take 1 man, 1 gun, and 1 bullet.

Voice: Single handed?

Voice: Yes; that's the only way to do it.

And at the inquest Gerald refused to have any truck with the questioners:

I respect your court, Mr. Coroner [Gerald said], but I brand the district attorney as one of the plotters of this assassination. I refuse to answer his questions. I worshiped Long as my hero. I propose to say nothing that will harass these boys [i. e., Huey's bodyguards] who gave themselves unreservedly in his defense.

After Gerald's statement there was a burst of applause from the audience.

Naturally the district attorney, John Odom, took exception with Gerald's tirade. After Gerald left the stand, John said "I might add that I care nothing for his [Gerald's] opinions of me or of my actions. When he says I ever plotted this killing he is a willful, deliberate, and vicious liar."

In fact, John had indeed been one of the attendees at the DeSoto Hotel Meeting and he had also been named as a conspirator by Sidney Songy the previous January. So we shouldn't be surprised that when "1 man, 1 gun, and 1 bullet" did indeed end Huey's life that Gerald in effect said he told them so.

But Gerald wasn't the only one who remembered the words that now seemed so prescient. Huey's brother, George, who at the time was a dentist practicing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, also took the 1-Man-1-Gun-1-Bullet quote at face value. It was Carl, he said, who had been the one in the hotel who drew the short stick of the "lottery".

George said he had proof. He had the actual recording of the meeting.

And the recording ....?

The recording - like evidence that will meet with everyone's satisfaction - was never produced.

In conclusion we can say that if you want to believe Huey was shot by Carl, you can find all the evidence you want to prove your case. If you want to believe that Huey was accidentally killed by his bodyguards, you can "prove" that, too.

But so far no one has found evidence that Huey was killed by ancient aliens.

But give it time.

References

Huey Long, Thomas Harry Williams, Knopf, 1969.

Kingfish: The Reign of Huey P. Long, Richard White, Random House, 2006.

The Kingfish and His Realm: The Life and Times of Huey P. Long, William Hair, Louisiana State University Press, 1991.

The Day Huey Long Was Shot, David Zinman, University of Louisiana Press, Updated Edition, 1993, Original Edition, 1963.

"The Strange Career of Assassinated Louisiana Politician Huey Long", Jennifer Latson, Time, September 8, 2015

The Fight to Vote, Michael Waldman, Simon and Schuster, 2016

Legacy to Power: Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, Robert Mann, Paragon House, 1992

"Huey Long's Life and Legacy", Ben Phelan, PBS>, February 24, 2017.

After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection, James Davidson and Mark Lytle, Alfred Knopf, 1982. Not a history book per se, but a book on how to do historical research. There is a chapter about Huey and also a good chapter on how to check out who were the sources for Woodward and Bernstein's The Final Days - and how to determine who wasn't a source.

"Researchers Exhume Doctor's Grave To Resolve Part of Huey Long Legend", Frances Marcus, The New York Times, October 21, 1991

"Huey P. Long's Last Operation: When Medicine and Politics Don't Mix", Michael Trotter, MD, FACS, Ochsner Journal, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 9-16

"Clues From the Grave Add Mystery to the Death of Huey Long", Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, June 29, 1992.

In Re Senator Huey P. Long: Final Investigative Report, Louisiana State Police, June 5, 1992.

"Huey Long Says - An Interview with Louisiana's Kingfish", Roy Wilkins, The Crisis, February, 1935, p. 41, p. 52.

"Homicide, Says Jury of Killing of Long Slayer", Chicago Tribune, September 17, 1935.

"Huey Long", Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, Richard White (Editor), ABC-CLIO, 2003.

"Huey Long", Social Security History, Social Security Administration Archives.

"Inquest Witness Huey Long as a Family Man", Philadelphia Inquirer, September 10, 1935.

"New exhibit offers greater look at Huey Long's life, assassination Huey Long served as Louisiana governor, U.S. senator, and was planning a run for the White House in 1936 when he was assassinated", Doug Ware, UPI, April 23, 2015.

"A Fresh Look at the Shooting of Huey P. Long", http://whoshothuey.yolasite.com/

"The Death of Former Senator Huey Long", Congressional Record, September 10, 1985, pp. 23210-23221. This is the transcript of the 1935 inquest. Available online at the Government Printing Office Web site.

Accident and Deception The Huey Long Shooting, Donald Pavy, Cajun, 1999.

Requiem For A Kingfish, Edward Reed, Award Publications (1986)

Huey Long, Ken Burns (Director), Geoffrey Ward (Writer), David McCullough (Narrator), Public Broadcasting Service, 1985.

"Controversy, Mystery Still Surround the Death of Huey P. Long", Robert Travis Scott, The Times-Picayune, September 8, 2010."

"Three Frightened Little Girls Tell About Shooting", Alexandria (Louisiana) Daily, September 9, 1935.

"Troops Await Huey's Return", Phillip Kinsley, Chicago Daily Tribune, January 29, 1935.

Proceedings and Debates of the First Session of the Seventy-fourth Congress of the United States of America, Volume 79, Part 12, August 6, 1935, to August 17, 1935.

"Insurer Turns Over Records on Huey Long," Alan Sayre, The Tuscaloosa News, p. 8B, February 24, 1994.

Gerald L. K. Smith, Minister of Hate, Glen Jeansonne, Yale University Press, 1988

We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts, Timothy Good, University Press of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, 1995. The reader of this book can decide for themselves how severe the effect of memory deterioration is on eyewitness accounts.

"Trial by Jury: Reflections on Witness Credibility", Elaine Ingulli, Valparaiso Law Review, pp. 145 - 185, 1986.

"The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom", National Review of Neuroscience, Joyce Lacy and Craig Stark, Vol. 14, Issue 9, pp. 649 - 658, 2013.