New Orleans, Espionage, and Regime Change

New Orleans is a mysterious city full of fascinating history, structures, and institutions. The city is also dualistic: its façade of ease and leisure sometimes conceals an underlying secretive, sinister reality.  Such, I would argue, is the case with two of New Orleans’ more interesting institutions — International House and its “logical adjunct“(in the words of Adolfo Hegewisch), International Trade Mart. (1)

These institutions are of interest, first, because of their shadowy nature, and second, because they played a part in the investigations of Jim Garrison concerning the assassination of JFK.  Clay Shaw, of course, was one of the founders of the International Trade Mart, as well as its first general manager. (2) He was also one of Garrison’s suspects in the assassination.  But Garrison also said that Shaw “was only a small part of the overall conspiracy.” (3) What, then, was the larger part?  Could it have involved other high level members of International House and the International Trade Mart? That is at least a plausible interpretation.

Of course, International House and the International Trade Mart were first and foremost trade organizations, developed to establish and stimulate trade between the port of New Orleans and the rest of the world.  In this capacity they seem to have served their purpose well.  But it is also possible that these organizations had more clandestine purposes – not at the level of the ordinary member or employee of course, but at the elite level.  At this level, it may be surmised that certain members had connections to government intelligence agencies; that they were actively involved with political affairs, particularly in the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean; that their undertakings included programs to maintain political stability (usually) or regime change (when necessary) regarding these countries; that this involvement may have included the financing and training of expatriate paramilitary forces to invade these countries; and lastly, that this program of political control/regime change might have gone well beyond overseas interests, and involved an extreme form of regime change within the United States itself.

To accept these suggestions requires, of course, that we make a few intellectual leaps.

The first point, that trade organizations should at the same time serve as intelligence organs, is an issue that is not conceptually difficult to grasp.  It is clear that given the foreign connections and frequent travel of the officers and functionaries of these institutions, that their executives would be ideally positioned to learn of important goings-on across the world, and thus be sources of important intelligence and therefore logical recruits for intelligence agencies.  In fact, had not at least some IH and ITM members been recruited, it would signal a complete lack of imagination among American intelligence officials.

Indeed, looking back in history, we find confirmation for this supposition.  International House was founded in 1943 during the depths of World War II, a period with desperate needs for intelligence regarding the Latin American/Caribbean area, several nations of which had important commercial connections with Nazi Germany.  We also find that it was on January 28, 1944, in a “hemisphere broadcast” on CBS radio, that Nelson Rockefeller and others introduced International House to the world.  (4) We further find that Nelson Rockefeller was the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (CIAA) at this time.  CIAA was concerned with Latin American commodities and trade, but was also heavily involved in propaganda and intelligence tasks. The Rockefeller influence on IH continued with the succession of J. Stanton Robbins to the position of managing director in November, 1944.  Robbins had been Nelson Rockefeller’s special assistant at the Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. (5)

Further implying an intelligence role for IH were the connections between Sidney Souers, then with ONI, and several of the founders of IH, most importantly Rudolf S. Hecht, a renowned banker who had served as one of the directors of the Dock Board with Souers in the late 1920s, and who has been described as “the driving force behind the founding of International House.” (6) (7) Other IH founders who were in one way or another associated with Souers included Joseph W. Montgomery, (8) Charles I. Denichaud, (9) George H. Terriberry, (10) E. O. Jewell, (11) and Adolfo Hegewisch (12).   It is also very probable that Souers knew another IH founder, Theodore Brent, given that Brent was a close associate of Rudolf Hecht’s at Mississippi Shipping Company. (13) Brent later became president of the International Trade Mart where he was associated with the Mart’s general manager, Clay Shaw. (14) Shaw’s intelligence connections are, of course, well documented elsewhere and need not be gone into here, but see (15).

So point number one is not such a leap after all.  The intelligence roles of IH and ITM are both logical and acknowledged.  But what about the next point: the idea that these trade organizations, or at least some of their principals, might in some way have been involved in training and supplying Latin American exiles and soldiers-of-fortune for unofficial military missions with the intent of effecting regime change in these Latin countries?  This would seem a larger leap.

Or maybe not.  In fact, a study of New Orleans history reveals that there have been many instances of New Orleans business interests having encouraged, financed and trained unsanctioned military forces for invasions in various regions of the Latin American world.

One might begin with the French or Spanish periods, with all manner of pirates and privateers in league with the business interests of New Orleans; but let us settle with the American period, starting in 1803.  During this period, and well into the 1830s, New Orleans’ prime filibustering destination was Texas – a vast land of unknown riches waiting to be exploited.  Numerous expeditions were organized, planned and financed by New Orleans businessmen at such meeting places as Maspero’s Exchange at St. Louis and Chartres, or Banks’ Arcade on Magazine near Gravier.   Take, for example, the 1812 expedition of Bernardo Gutierrez and Augustus Magee, which actually captured San Antonio for a period before being defeated; or the James Long invasion of 1819, aggressive and confident, but another failure.  (16) Also of importance were the excursions of the New Orleans “Greys” of 1835, many of whom met their end at the Alamo in 1836. (17)

But it was not only to Texas that the New Orleans filibusteros looked.  There was also the Nicaraguan expedition of William Walker, which was partly financed and organized in New Orleans. (18).  Then there were the Narciso Lopez expeditions against Cuba in 1850 and 1851, enthusiastically supported not only by New Orleans businessmen, but by the general populace, who eagerly bought bonds to finance the missions.  Abysmal failures, these invasions were so similar to the Bay of Pigs invasion some 110 years later as to be uncanny:  engine failures, ships damaged by coral reefs, false intelligence reports, expectations that indigenous rebels would join with the invasion force, and the expectation that the United States government would intervene once a reasonable level of initial success had been achieved — which of course did not happen. (19) (20)

But it is not necessary to go back to the nineteenth century to find examples of New Orleans businessmen supporting revolution or intervention in Latin American countries. The years 1923-4 will do quite well.  These were the years of Adolfo de la Huerta’s rebellion in Mexico against the regime of President Alvaro Obregon.  De la Huerta’s New Orleans connection was none other than Adolfo Hegewisch.

Hegewisch is of interest for many reasons:

1) He knew Sidney Souers, the first head of America’s central intelligence apparatus.

2) He was one of the founders and an early president of International House.

3) He was a president of the Cordell Hull Foundation.

4) He was an operator at a very deep level of Mexican politics. 

5) He was a friend and close associate of Gerard F Tujague, Vice-President of the Friends of Democratic Cuba.

6) He was the founder of the freight forwarding firm that hired teen-aged Lee Harvey Oswald as a messenger in 1955.

7) He was a friend and close associate of Alton Ochsner.

8) He was an associate of Hale Boggs, another among IH’s founders, who later became a congressman and Warren Commission member.

9) He knew Clay Shaw and Lloyd J. Cobb.

10) He was almost certainly associated with William F. Buckley, Sr. (see below)

11) His son, also named Adolfo Hegewisch, a resident of New York City, was one of Mexico’s representatives to the United Nations, certainly in 1966, and likely earlier in 1963, when Carlos Lechuga was Cuban ambassador, and backdoor attempts were being made by John F. Kennedy for rapprochement with Fidel Castro.

For some background on Hegewisch see (, but consider also the following:

To begin with, let us look at Adolfo Hegewisch’s political connections, which were legion.  First of all, he was a relative – through his wife – of Mexican diplomat and one-time President of Mexico (from May to November, 1911), Francisco Leon de la Barra.  De la Barra, in turn, became an exile from Mexico, taking up residence in Paris, France, after having served for a short time as an official in the Victoriano Huerta regime.  Among other problems, de la Barra was suspected of having been behind the assassination of his successor as President, Francisco Madero, although this, of course, has never been proven, and there were many other suspects. (21)

Adolfo Hegewisch was close to the de la Barra family and is known to have visited Luis de la Barra (Francisco’s brother) in Paris in 1912 (22).  Francisco de la Barra, in turn, established a successful law career in Paris, where he taught international law at the Sorbonne.  (23)  De la Barra is known to have met with CFR founder Colonel Edward House  and U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing on several occasions at Versailles in 1919 (24).  Also present at Versailles at this time were Lansing’s nephews, John Foster and Allen Dulles. (25).

Adolfo Hegewisch continued to maintain an interest in Mexican politics even after he had been living in New Orleans and managing his freight forwarding business there for several years.  In May, 1920, Hegewisch arrived in Mexico City (coincidentally?) the day before President Venustiano Carranza left the city aboard his “treasure train.”  While in Mexico City, Hegewisch demonstrated a close interest in the course of political events, sending communications to his New Orleans office concerning the outlook for the upcoming presidential election (26).

Whatever was Carranza’s destination aboard his train, he did not make it.  He was assassinated (some say he committed suicide before the assassination was complete) the night of May 20-21, 1920 at Tlaxcalantongo, deep in the Sierra Madre, by General Rodolfo Herrero’s forces.  Herrero was a supporter of Carranza’s former allies, and current adversaries, Alvaro Obregon, Plutarco Calles, and Adolfo de la Huerta.  Although Herrero was tried for the murder, he was acquitted. (27)

Hegewisch’s whereabouts in the weeks following the assassination are not clear, but he is recorded as having left Veracruz aboard the “Yuma” on June 12, 1920.  Accompanying him were Candido Aguilar, (former carrancista governor of Veracruz), Aguilar’s wife, Virginia (who was also Carranza’s daughter), and the couple’s young son, Venustiano.  The group arrived in New Orleans on June 18, 1920.  (28)

Adolfo de la Huerta, in the meantime, was appointed interim President of Mexico, a post he held from June to December, 1920, at which time the newly elected President Alvaro Obregon took office.  Obregon then appointed de la Huerta to the post of Secretary of Finance – a position that led him to negotiate with American oil producers with interests in Mexico, as well as with international bankers such as J. P. Morgan partner Thomas W. Lamont, who was also chairman of the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico (ICBM).  Together, de la Huerta and Lamont negotiated the not surprisingly named De la Huerta-Lamont Treaty of 1922, which specified the terms of repayment of Mexico’s debts and led to a period of improved U.S.-Mexican relations, and, by 1923, U. S. diplomatic recognition of the Mexican government. (29) (30)

Although he signed the agreement, President Obregon was not satisfied with de la Huerta’s performance in the negotiations, particularly his inability to get further loans from the bankers.  For this and other reasons the relationship between de la Huerta and Obregon began to fall apart, and Obregon began to favor Plutarco Calles as his presidential successor.  (31)  By December, 1923, relations had deteriorated to the point that de la Huerta fled the capital for Veracruz, where, along with other supporters, he began his rebellion. 

Adolfo Hegewisch, in the meantime – in keeping with his tendency for finding himself in interesting places at interesting times – was also in Veracruz in December, 1923. He left later in the month, arriving in New Orleans aboard the “Yoro” on December 23.  (32)  There, he set himself up as de la Huerta’s commercial representative, and shortly thereafter, “consul-general of the de facto de la Huerta government of Mexico.”  (33)  He is further known to have met with Antonio Manero, de la Huerta’s New York based financial agent, and with Madame de la Huerta, Adolfo’s wife, who was living in New Orleans at the time. (34) (35)

Given these facts, and given further Hegewisch’s previously noted relationship with Candido Aguilar, another de la Huerta supporter, as well as his relationship with Teodoro Frezieres, de la Huerta’s cousin and agent in the procurement of arms, it is clear that Hegewisch played an important role in the rebellion – perhaps a very important role indeed. (36) (37)

 Looking deeper, it is reasonable to question the extent of de la Huerta’s leadership position in the rebellion named after him: he was by all accounts a reluctant and uninspired revolutionary.  The entire rebellion has been called a “revolution without a head” — an incohesive amalgam of anti-Obregon elements including large landholders, business interests, church hierarchs, conservatives, and a large, though clearly not decisive, portion of the military. (38) (39)

But the fact is that revolutions generally have a head – and if the true head was not de la Huerta, who was it? Could it have been Adolfo Hegewisch?  Perhaps.  In fact, Hegewisch was in nearly constant communication with the de la Huerta regime through a radio connection with the Wireless Company of Port Arthur, Texas, which, at the time, had the only wireless equipment strong enough to send messages to the interior of Mexico. (40)  Payment to the Wireless Company was guaranteed by Hegewisch himself, who seems to have been frequently updated regarding events in Mexico and regularly interviewed by the New Orleans press regarding the situation there (41) (42).

But maybe we can look further than Hegewisch.  Was it not typical, after all, looking at the course of the Mexican Revolution, for many of the coups and rebellions – successful and unsuccessful – to have been promoted and financed by American interests, particularly oil interests?  The cases of Albert Fall, Edward Doheny, Henry Sinclair and William F Buckley, Sr., for example, come to mind.  (43) (44)

So the question arises, could any of these individuals – or some other U. S. interests — have been the true power behind the de la Huerta rebellion?  The historical record is sparse, but there are reasons to believe that, in fact, it was William F. Buckley, Sr. who was involved.  Consider:

1)  Buckley was a definite foe of President Alvaro Obregon, who had had him expelled from Mexico and expropriated his properties there.  Obregon, in other words, was Buckley’s natural enemy, whom he would have had every reason to oppose.

2) Interestingly, however, this enmity does not seem to have extended to (then) Secretary of Finance, Adolfo de la Huerta, who actually tried intervening in Buckley’s behalf to prevent his expulsion from Mexico. (45)

3) Although Buckley seems to have left no evidence of a relationship with Adolfo de la Huerta, Buckley’s close friend Nemesio Garcia Naranjo was a supporter who wrote glowingly about de la Huerta, referring to him as among the noblest of Mexican presidents. (46)

4) Overall, Buckley is known to have supported and financed several attempts at rebellion, both before and after the de la Huerta revolution.  In particular, he was a supporter of the Cristero rebellion, which followed de la Huerta’s rebellion by a few years, and had the support of many delahuertistas. (47)

5) Buckley was closely tied to de la Huerta supporter Manuel Pelaez.  (Pelaez, however, was arrested by government forces in December, 1923, and did not directly participate in the rebellion.) (48) (49)

6) Buckley is also known to have been involved with Esteban Cantu, another de la Huerta supporter, whom he had helped with financial contributions in his 1921 insurrection against President Obregon. (50) (51)

7) Finally, Buckley should be considered purely by default, since by mid-1921 several of the major American oil producers in Mexico, including Doheny’s Mexican Pete, Henry Sinclair’s Sinclair, the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil, as well as Atlantic Refining and the Texas Company –“The Committee of Five” – had compromised with the Obregon government regarding the issues of taxation and mineral rights.  Buckley was conspicuously absent from this group, making him the likeliest among the oil interests to support an anti-Obregon rebellion. (52)

Very well.  Let us move on with the assertion that both Adolfo Hegewisch and William F. Buckley were deeply involved, and maybe the very power behind, the de la Huerta rebellion.  It follows therefore that the two men must have known each other.  Is there evidence for this?

Perhaps there is.  To begin with, both Buckley and Hegewisch were living in Mexico City during the latter part of the first decade of the twentieth century.  Buckley, who had recently graduated from the University of Texas and studied law in Mexico, started his law practice in November, 1908, at the offices of Wilson & Gonzales Garza in Mexico City.  Hegewisch was in the meantime working in the transportation and freight business in Mexico City, where his father, Everardo, was an importer and Secretary for the Chamber of Commerce. (53) (54) (55) (56)

Of course, the presence of two individuals in a city the size of Mexico City does not mean that those two individuals knew each other.  So let us look further.  Veracruz, in April, 1914 is a better bet.  Hegewisch and Buckley were both clearly present there during the bombardment and occupation of that city by American troops; further, they were both to be found on the streets assisting American citizens from harm.  Buckley’s story is reported in many sources, and is a part of his legend: saving American Marines from snipers on the rooftops. (57)  Hegewisch, in turn, played the role of sheltering beleaguered American citizens in his home and using his influence to escort them safely out of the city.  His house seems to have been located near the thick of some serious battles.   In fact, several of the incidents of Marines being shot by snipers occurred near the Hegewisch home and were observed by his guests.  (58)

So the Buckley and Hegewisch stories from Veracruz share many common elements.  This does not prove that the two men knew each other, of course, but it is suggestive.  Further, it seems likely that the man who was offered the governorship of Veracruz (Buckley) would have been acquainted with one of Veracruz’s leading citizens (Hegewisch), particularly since Hegewisch had such strong American – particularly New Orleanian — connections.  Buckley’s wife, Aloise, it will be remembered, was New Orleanian, as well.

And then there is something a bit more arcane: the issue of Madame Paloma (or is that Madame Palomo?) — a fascinating individual who is mentioned by both Reid and Carol Buckley in their memoirs. Reid Buckley relates that Madame Paloma was an aged woman who was fond of his mother, Aloise, and to whom she had given several gifts including, most splendidly, the vest that Emperor Maximilian had worn to his execution in Mexico City in 1867 (and perhaps, also, the very desk that had been used by the Emperor in his office – a piece of furniture that is documented to have used on the premises of Great Elm, the Buckley estate in Sharon, Connecticut).  Madame Paloma was close enough to the Buckley family to have been named godmother of one of the Buckley children, Priscilla. (59)

Carol Buckley adds a little more information about Madame Paloma, notably that she had been a maid-in-waiting to the Empress Carlotta in the 1860s – thereby explaining how she had come to own Maximilian’s vest.  Madame Paloma had also given a lace veil to William F. Buckley Sr. some years earlier in Mexico.  Carol, as well as her sisters, wore the veil in their marriage ceremonies, attesting to the Buckley family’s ties to Madame. (60)

And now to the Hegewisch connection.  Adolfo Hegewisch had a sister, Julia, who was married to a man named Joaquin de Haro.  Hegewisch and de Haro were quite close, with de Haro having been employed by Hegewisch at his New Orleans office in the early 1920s. (61) Later, Julia and de Haro moved to Dallas, where they lived for the rest of their lives and raised their family.

Now, Joaquin de Haro had an interesting background.  A renowned linguist, and a former faculty member at the University of Mexico, he had at one point served as a deputy in Mexico’s congress.  He descended from a long line of political leaders, including a governor of the state of Puebla, Joaquin Haro Tamariz.  His father, also named Joaquin de Haro, had been chamberlain to the Emperor Maximilian, while his mother, Maria de la Paz Marron, had been one of Empress Carlotta’s ladies-in-waiting.  (62) (63) (64)

Let us move forward to the year 1934, to the city of Dallas.  One of the most significant social events in the Hispanic community that year was the marriage of Maria de Haro, daughter of Joaquin and Julia (and therefore Adolfo Hegewisch’s niece), to Edgar Welch, an up-and-coming Dallas attorney.  (65)

The wedding was a traditional Spanish ceremony, patterned after the weddings of Maria’s mother and grandmother (the lady-in-waiting to the Empress).  The bride wore an heirloom handkerchief of pointed lace, incorporated into a bridal costume that had been worn by both the mother and grandmother of Maria.  Among other gifts was a wedding fan from Princess Radziwill, formerly of Poland, then of Mexico City. (66) The engagement had been announced on cards which had been found in a tiered silver stand that had once been the property of the Emperor Maximilian and Empress Carlotta, and given to the bride’s grandparents by them.  (67)

Among the many distinguished guests at the wedding was Joaquin de Haro’s sister (and Maria’s aunt), Senora Paz de Palomo.  The Senora was the widow of a former professor of English at the University of Mexico, and an officer of the Banco del Estado de Mexico, Joaquin Palomo Rincon.  In other words, she was Madame Palomo. (68) (69) (70)

Palomo, not Paloma.  And it was Paloma’s mother, not she herself, who was the lady-in-waiting.  But if one can accept that Reid and Carol Buckley perhaps got a few details mixed up (or purposely obscured?) it seems that Paloma and Palomo were the same person.  If not, we are forced to postulate the existence of a separate Madame Paloma and Madame Palomo, one of whom was (or claimed to be) a lady-in-waiting to the Empress Carlotta, and the other who was (or claimed to be) the daughter of her lady-in-waiting – and each of whom was in possession of properties owned by the royal pair, which they were wont to give away to their family and friends, particularly on the occasion of weddings.

So to summarize, the “Madame Paloma” who was William F. Buckley’s close friend (and godmother to one of his daughters) was likely identical to Adolfo Hegewisch’s brother-in-law’s sister, “Madame Palomo”.  And how would Buckley come to have met Madame?  Probably through her husband, the University of Mexico professor.  Buckley was known, after all, to have been closely acquainted with many Mexican intellectuals of the revolutionary period including the aforementioned Nemesio Garcia Naranjo, as well as Luis Calbrera, Emilio Rabasa, and Jose Vasconcelos, each of whom was associated with the University of Mexico or its associated law school in one way or another.  (71)  There was also a Madame Palomo (note the spelling) who was an acquaintance of Edith O’Shaughnessy, wife of the American Charge de Affairs in Mexico City, Nelson O’Shaughnessy,  a well-known Buckley associate who accompanied Buckley to Veracruz in April, 1914. (72) This Madame Palomo, with her Red Cross connections, was clearly identical to Maria Paz de Haro, who was one of the founders of the Mexican Red Cross and the sister of Joaquin de Haro, Adolfo Hegewisch’s brother-in-law. (73)

There is thus an almost certain connection between Adolfo Hegewisch and William F Buckley.  The two men were a twentieth century extension of the tendency for New Orleans business interests to interfere in an extreme way in the affairs of Latin American countries – a tendency that continued at International House and the International Trade Mart in the 1950s and 60s.

There more to be said about Buckley, Hegewisch et al. (including Hegewisch’s suspicious death, apparently by a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, on August 9, 1966).  And then there is the web connecting Hegewisch, Joseph Hendrix Himes, Sidney Souers, William F. Buckley, and Lee Harvey Oswald’s uncle, James Coker.  More to come.

(1) New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 5, 1948, p 32.

(2) ibid, p 52.

(3) Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins (New York: Warner Books, 1988), 267-8.

(4) Arthur E. Carpenter, “Gateway to the Americas: New Orleans’s Quest for Latin American Trade, 1900-1970” (Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, 1987), p. 79.

(5) ibid. p. 80.

(6) ibid. p. 78.

(7) New Orleans Times-Picayune, March 25, 1927, p 3.

(8) New Orleans States, May 24, 1918, p 11 (and numerous others references).

(9) New Orleans Times-Picayune, November 29, 1926, p 36.

(10) New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 27, 1924, p 6.

(11) New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 18, 1929, p 9.

(12) ibid.

(13) New Orleans States, March 28, 1919, p 8.

(14) New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 5, 1948, p 87.

(15) James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed (New York:  Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2012), 110, 157, 166, 183, 217, 232, 384.

(16) Herbert Asbury, The French Quarter (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 172-4.



(19) Asbury, op cit., 177-86.


(21) Peter V. N.  Henderson, In the Absence of Don Porfirio (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2000), 201-6.

(22) Passenger List, S.S. Minnetonka, arriving in New York November 4, 1912. Available at

(23) Henderson, op. cit. p. 215.

(24) ibid. p. 220-2.

(25) Nancy Lisagor and Frank Lipsius, A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm Sullivan and Cromwell (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 70-1.

(26) New Orleans Item, May 19, 1920 p. 2.


(28) Passenger List, S.S. Yuma, arriving in New Orleans, June 18, 1920. Available at



(31) Linda B. Hall, Oil, Banks, and Politics: The United States and Postrevolutionary Mexico, 1917-1924 (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1995), 94-103.

(32) Passenger List, S.S. Yoro, arriving in New Orleans, December 23, 1923. Available at

(33) New Orleans Times-Picayune, Feb 4, 1924, p 20.

(34) New Orleans Times-Picayune, Feb 20, 1924, p 3.

(35) New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mar 27, 1924, p 3.

(36) David Allen Brush, “The De La Huerta Rebellion in Mexico, 1923-1924” (Ph.D. dissertation, Allegheny College, 1975), 173.

(37) New Orleans Times-Picayune, Jan 25, 1924, p 5.

(38) Jürgen Buchenau, Plutarco Elias Calles and the Mexican Revolution (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 106.



(41) New Orleans Times-Picayune, Oct 30, 1925, p 36.

(42) New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mar 27, 1924, p 3.  (and several other occasions)

(43) Hall, 162.

(44) Dan La Botz, Edward L. Doheny: Petroleum, Power, and Politics in the United States and Mexico (New York, Praeger, 1991), 59-69.


(46) Nemesio Garcia Naranjo, El Asesinato de Carranza: La Nobleza de Don Adolfo de la Huerta (Prensa, March 12, 1959, p. 5)

(47) Reid Buckley, An American Family: The Buckleys (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2008), 53.

(48) ibid. 159-60.

(49) Jonathan C. Brown, Oil and Revolution in Mexico (Berkeley CA:  University of California Press, 1993), 306.

(50) La Botz, 104.

(51) Hall, 166.

(52) ibid. 28.

(53) Priscilla L. Buckley and William F. Buckley, Jr., W. F. B. – An Appreciation (New York, privately printed, Priscilla L. Buckley, 1959), 26.

(54)  See memorandum of Mar 27, 1951.

(55) Philadelphia Enquirer, June 7, 1897, p 1.


(57) Reid Buckley, 158.

(58) Alice-Leone Moats, A Violent Innocence (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1951), 145-53.

(59) Reid Buckley, 169.

(60) Carol Buckley, At the Still Point: A Memoir (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 110.

(61) Soards’ City Directory of New Orleans, 1920, p 434.

(62) Dallas Morning News, April 9, 1944, p 12.



(65) Dallas Morning News, Sep 23, 1934, Section III, p 3.

(66) Dallas Morning News, Oct 25, 1934, Section I, p 6.

(67) Dallas Morning News, Sep 23, 1934, Section III, p 3.

(68) Dallas Morning News, Oct 24, 1934, Section I, p 7.



(71)  See memorandum of Mar 27, 1951.