"There's a Footnote to History!" Memory and the History of Martin Luther King's October 1960 Arrest and Its Aftermath

Abstract

Politicians possess characteristics with distinct implications for oral history. On the one hand, they tend to be gregarious and affable, are relatively at ease with the microphone and tape recorder, have been interviewed on numerous occasions, and often have a highly developed sense of historical consciousness, living in a world that they have clearly influenced. As the number of political oral history projects increases, politicians may also realize that oral history interviews come with the territory. On the other hand, politicians-especially the more senior ones -can easily develop and present an inflated sense of their own importance in the governmental process. They are also interested in the protection of their established public images and reputations. This is especially true of those still in or contemplating office, who must regularly face voters, constituents, and the media, and who have ongoing political obligations.1 Interviews with former southern politicians display their own special problematic aspects, particularly when the subject turns to race, segregation, or desegregation. Many white politicians grew up amid and defended segregation, ended up on the losing side, then adapted to new politicial realities. Understandably, they are often hesitant, cautious, or uncomfortable discussing the past, especially in the presence of interviewers from a different generation who have been raised with dramatically different values and practices concerning race. Yet oral history interviews with politicians can prove crucial in shedding new light on even the most celebrated of events. This essay explores the history and memory of an incident that looms large in the nation's recent political history: the October 1960 arrest of Martin Luther KingJr. and the subsequent intervention ofJohn F and Robert Kennedy in the affair. From Theodore White and Arthur M. Schlesinger