On a positive note...

First to answer your question, who is Richard C. Knopf and why do you have his stuff?

Well, Mr. Knopf was an amazing man....you will soon learn that with future blogs. I will briefly tell you a little bit about him. He was a WWII veteran, taught History at Ohio State University and Kent State University. He served on the Anthony Wayne Parkway Board as staff historian and I believe in some capacity he worked with the Ohio Historical Society. He edited and authored many books from children's books to Historical text books.

I acquired a small unpublished manuscript of Mr. Knopf's on ebay (where else?!). What I received was more than his unpublished manuscript.....I received written works about his thoughts and feelings on the war, society, religion, etc. I was so taken with his work, which I found to be timeless, applicable to our current war, society, etc, that I set out to find and purchase everything I could from his estate. I was very successful in my pursuits and am proud to say I own a considerable amount of his war letters, written works, published and unpublished manuscripts, etc...

Reading his thoughts were of great comfort to me as I acquired them several months after 9/11 and right as we went into war. However, they continue to be a comfort and inspiration to me on so many levels.

I wish I could have met Mr. Knopf and I would love to hear from anyone who knew him.

Here is something he wrote in 1944, while serving in Europe during WWII. It's probably my most favorite "article".

3 December 1944, Sunday.

The other day I was reading a prayer taken from Ralph S. Cushman's "Pocket Prayer Book and Devotional Guide". The whole prayer is a challenge to the reader, but the first verse in particular offers the most important task "Help me to take the common things of life and make them beautiful, Help me to take the common things of life and make them beautiful."

So many times we are mislead, so many time we search for pots of gold at the end of rainbows when we are trampling the purest gold underfoot. So many times we look with lust for our neighbor's wealth, and see not the richness at our own doorsteps.

Sheridan Watson Bell, in a letter to his children writes that men can either be greedy and selfish or kind and generous. They learn through understanding and misunderstanding.

The whole world today is tossed in the thunderous conflict because men are greedy, because they misunderstand, because they do not have a set of true values.

The happiness of men depends on their ability "to take the common things of life and make them beautiful." The painter touches his brush to a blank canvas and creates a beautiful picture, the musician applies his fingers to the keyboard and produces melodious music, the farmer plows his land, plants his seed, and finds satisfaction in his growing plants.

In a way, each of us is like the artist, the musician, and the farmer. We each have abilities and talents for producing beautiful things out of the common, elementary conditions around us; we each have individual abilities and talents which will make us satisfied, contented individuals. All too often we seek the finished product, not realizing that it's true value is only known by it's creator. The word "make" is the secret "open sesame" to abundant full living.

Some have abilities to write and through their written words come not only contentment to themselves, but to those who read of their works. The poet puts his heart into verses and creates beautiful poetry, the philosopher find satisfaction in his ideas, the mother and father take pride in rearing their children and teaching them the secret of making life beautiful.

Douglas Fairbanks Sr., wrote a volume entitled "Life is what you make it". Yes, we can make life miserable and hard and difficult if we face it with greed and lust and selfishness; but we can make it happy, enjoyable and beautiful if we face it with the spirit of generosity and kindness in our hearts.

Out of the common dust God created man, out of his common rib woman, out of the dirt of the earth He produced plants and in the waters fish, and in the sky He placed the stars to guide the mariners; out of the "common" He created the useful and beautiful. Just as He created these things, so He gave to men like powers. He gave him the power and the materials to create, to be happy in his own efforts. He gave him a mind to reason, and a conscious to know right from wrong, and a body to perform the tasks, and a soul to act as a compass to guide his thoughts and his actions in the right direction and to act as a sort of radio to have direct communication with his God.

Oh, how we have diverted our God given powers; oh, how we have failed to see the light of unselfishness and feel the warmth of kindness and generosity; oh, how we have surrered and are suffering from our lack of knowing how to make and our abundant knowledge of how to break.

Thus, as the chemist must know his ninety some basic elements in order to mix his formula, thus we too must know the basic, common facts of successful living to be happy and to live abundantly.

Christmas is only three weeks away. It is a time dedicated to the anniversary of the birth of God's son. It is a time which challenges us to dedicate ourselves to the ideas, and ideals or making life worth living and making living abundant, happy and most of all peaceful.

Richard C. Knopf

And on that positive, inspirational note, I am going to bed!

AKM

**Permission must be obtained by me, in writing, before any works of Richard C. Knopf can be used in any capabity in any medium.**

Kent State Shootings, Part 3

I will post Professor Knopf's response to "TG" and then "TG's" correspondence with the Kent State President.

June 7, 1990

Dear "T":

I just returned to the Island yesterday afternoon and found your welcome letter and it's enclosures of May 21st. Thus the reason for my tardy response.

This will probably be a rambling note, but will try to address some of your comments and my own thoughts on the enclosures. (I might be repeating myself from earlier letters, but don't have the copies of our former correspondence; thus will aks that you bear with me.)

You and I both agree that it was a good thing for Dick Celeste to address the May 4th rally and dedication at Kent. I wrote to him thanking him for his remarks, noting, though, that htey should have come from Jim Rhodes a good many years ago. (Dick is a neighbor of mine here on the Island.) If such a move had been made years ago, it might have assuaged the hurt somewhat, but Jim ( a neighbor of mine in Columbus) is a died-in-the-wool shoutheastern Ohio hill-billy who is stubborn as hell--and not too bright, despite his political success. (He is also as crooked as the perverbial dog's hind leg!) Also, as you so cogently write, the various Kent administrations from 1970 to the present time have left much to be desired, not only insofar as the May 4th issue is concerned, but on most other aspects of the university. (I fear that the inept admnistration will probably continue so long as the Board of Trustees continues to be composed of locals who have no interest or investment in the university.)

As far as "SS" is concerned, the fact that he still exists does not change my contention that he was the tool of the F.B.I. (or other governmental agency). Perhaps it is the reason that he has been unheard of for so long. Also, I have wondered, over the years, that in none of the court hearings or court cases was he ever called or his name even mentioned. I find this particularly distressing considering the major role he played in the events leading up to May 4th and the fact that he photographically appears over and over again. I cannot bury the feeling that borth sides in the hearings and court cases were warned to stay away from him (and others who may have been included in the counter-activities). How a campus that, admittedly, was seething with government agents could go completely unnoticed during the immediate aftermath of May 4th baffles me. As I think I noted to you earlier, the lawyers for both sides (the N.Y. attorney for the plaintiffs) and Gus Lambros for the Guard, both told me that they had never heard of "S", nor had his name ever come up. I find this difficult to swallow. To me, "S" is but a symbol, one among what must have been many agents, of the government undercover operation. I cannot help but believe that both sides in the hearings and court cases were instructed not to pursue this particlar--and, obviously, sensitive element. Making the complete issue the Guard vs. the students is far too simplistic. Likewise, I cannot accept the idea that he 72 acknowledged F. B.I. agents who were on the campus after May 4th ( and into the full quarter, 1970) had not been there before May 4th. I tink that I told you that, on May 4th, when I returned home to Ashtabula on that evening, my telephone had already been tapped (and remained so for two weeks) by the F.B. I. This I learned from one of my students who was a repairman in the central telehpone exchange who told me about the tapping on May 5th. (I might mention, if I have not before, that all of the members of the faculty __?__ of which I was one--were similarly tapped.) I cannot be shaken from my belief that this action--the tapping--was planned well in advance; otherwise how could it have been done prior to 8P.M. on May 4th, 83 miles away in Ashtabula?

Of course, as I have pointed out to you earlier, I do feel that things, on the part of the "law-and-order" crowd got out of hand on May 4th; I cannot bring myself, even at this late date, to believe that the carnage which took place was planned, even though the idea of the Guard having loaded rifles still plagues me considerably; one does not go into a situation with live ammunition unless it is expected that it might be used. Frankly, I think that such action--the ordering of loading the firearms--was just stupidity on the part of the Guard officers. (Having served with a National Guard unit during WWI--I was not a Guard member, I realize how very ignorant and poorly trained the Guard was/is.) Yet, it was the officers who ordered the arming of the troops and they must take the blame--no matter what a court may say--for what happened on May 4th.

As I think I told you before (pardon the ramblings of an old man, who forgets far too easily), after leaving the Commons at noon of May 4th, I was standing talking with one of my 354 students just outside Bowman hall when the shots rang out. The boyfriend of the young lady with whom I was talking came running up to us, shouting "the soldiers have killed some student," tears running down his cheeks. Frankly, I could not believe it and made what, a little later, I would consider a most unfeeling statement: "Thank God, it is your generation and not mine." However, as I was walking up to my office in Bowman , one of my old students, who had hit the pavement in the parking lot, came rushing up to tell me that, in fact, the Guard had fired in the students.

As you might imagine, my statement, which I had not intended to be callous, certainly seemed so. Fortunately, a couple of years later, the young lady, just about to be graduated, came into my office; my words had troubled her as much as they had me. Thus I was able to unburden my own feelings of guilt and I was so glad that she had stopped by.

In one of the articles ou included, there was a mention of the Faculty Observers. Contrary to what the articles seemed to indicate, this was meant by the Faculty Senate to be a means of trying to keep repercussions to May 4th at a minimum. As a matter of fact, I think that is was Glenn Frank who made and supported the proposal to organize this group. Perhaps, in the minds of some, this was to be an informer group, certainly that was not the intention of the Faculty; quite the contrary. It was to be a means of off-setting the government-inspired and organized informers who were presumably still on the campus. Insofar as I know, the Faculty Observer group never functioned as an informer group--as a matter of fact, had little effect one way or another.

I suppose, in short run, the only positive movement resulting from May 4th was an earlier end to the war in Southwest Asia. I have no doubt that the carnage on the Kent campus hurried the end of the carnage in Viet Nam. But what is more worrying, for me at least, is that the real lesson of Kent State has never really been learned; that the American public, still feels that violence and force is justified in putting down protest. Americans, for all their sooth-saying about democratic idealism, are far from achieving that goal.

Well, I've bored you long enough. Am goin to drop a note to "JG" re: "S"; I think that he will be interested in knowing what happened to his old "buddy", though I'm sure that he shares my supspicions of "S's" informer involvement.

Finally, congratulations on your M.A. in History. Am interested in your thesis topic, though, perhaps you could/should have used your own experience in that case.

I'm going ot be on the Island until the 26th of this month. At that time, I'll return to Columbus for a couple of weeks. I don't like to be here either on Memorial Day or the 4th of July. However, will be coming back on the 6th of July and, for the most part, will be here until the middle of November. I certainly would hope that you might make it out this way. Just drop me a line, if you can. It is on the whole, a restful, stress-free place to be, aside from the holidays. Meanwhile, please accept my thanks and best wishes--and extend the same to your folks.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Knopf

Please pardon the poor typing and rambling.

Kent State Shootings, Part 2

In response to Professor Knopf's letter, Mr. Kelner had this to say.

January 12, 1984

Dear Professor Knopf:

I read with great interest your letter relating to "SS". His name never was brought to my attention in any context whatever during the Kent State litigation.

I found your summary of events to be very intriguing and I thank you for the interesting summary which you sent.

With all good wishes,

Joseph Kelner

Moving on....

The following is correspondence between a student of Knopf's and Professor Knopf. Incidentally, this student was injuring in the Kent State Shootings. In addition to the correspondence between Knopf and the student; I will be posting correspondence between the student and the President of Kent State University regarding the memorial for the events that transpired on May 4, 1970.

May 21, 1990

Dear Dr. Knopf,

You can't imagine how much I appreciate your letters and the clippings. How kind of you to think of me. had it not been for your efforts I never would have seen the many articles you collected and passed along to me. The one piece from The Cleveland Plain Dealer , provided my first picture of the memorial plaque. There is much that I have said on the subject of Kent's effort to memorialize the deceased students. The enclosed letters I exchanged with President Schwartz should be self-explanatory. While all should be of some interest, perhaps the most telling is the final letter, dated April 30.

When I saw Martin and Sarah Scheuer at the candlelight vigil on May 30 they indicated that their meeting with Schwartz (referenced in the April 30th letter) was arranged at this request. Their version of the sessions had Schwartz (after months of public and private pressure to affix a description plaque and tablet of the names of the slain students) as being __?__ what he could do to enhance the memorial. They indicated that the granite tribute would mean nothing without Sandy's and the other three names on the memorial. He acted as though the suggestion was a novel one and then promised it would be done "within 24 hours". They are convinced it was in the works for some time and that Schwartz waited until he had a better idea of how the political winds were flowing. I don't pretend to know how long it takes to prepare such a tablet but I imagine one usually doesn't do so literally overnight. Through this experience I came to realize why some so dislike Schwartz.

One final impression. I was terribly impressed with the presence of and the remarks by Gov. Richard Celeste. Having been at 15 of 19 anniversary programs I found his forthright statements to be among the most significant ever made on May 4th at Kent.

On another subject I learned recently (I was at the Organization of American Historians Conference in Wash, D.C.) that "SS" is now teaching at an army base in West Germany. I had not previously been aware that "S" was interviewed at length in the final book kinstallment of the Time-Life serious on Vietnam. I have yet to read the piece but that would explain why his name was used in the Time-Life promotional brochure I sent you some months ago. Evidently "S" is well aware of the suspicions that exist about him. Does this explain, at least in part, his absence from the U.S.?

I hope to continue our correspondence for it enforces my conviction that Kent State University's strength always lay in it's faculty rather than it's administration. Thanks again for your support and 20 years of thoughtfulness.

Best Regards,

"TG"

P.S. I obtained my M.A. in History on May 20th.

Kent State Shootings, Part 1

Let me preface this post by saying that the letters posted here are owned by me personally. I purchased them from an auction after Professor Knopf died. Mr. Knopf was a highly intelligent man who took maticulous care of his written material, be it letters, books, history papers, etc. His wish upon his passing was that the entire contents of his house be auctioned off and the proceeds go to set up a scholarship in his name at Ohio State University. That being said, I feel I have Mr. Knopf's permission to do with this material what I wish. I can only assume that if he wanted to keep his personal correspondence private, he would have had the material destroyed or given to certain individuals, but not left for just anyone to obtain.

I will be posting material not original to Knopf but rather sent to him by his student that he corresponded with. After great thought, I have decided to post this as well in an effort to give you as complete a picture as possible. Leaving out certain things will only result in confusion.

**Permission to use the material posted in this blog and the following blogs must be received by me, in writing, before it is used in any capacity in any medium.**

It is not my intention to be irresponsible with this material and therefore some names will the abbreviated into initials only. Nor, is it my intention to violate any one person's privacy. However, I found this information so intriguing and riveting that I couldn't resist posting it. I hope you find it just as interesting. I know it is a lot of information to read and take in. In my opinion, it's worth it.

If you know nothing about the Kent State Shootings of 1970, then please familiarize yourself with the events before reading....might make reading the following posts more understandable and interesting.

So, in the spirit of Amendment #1, here goes.....

This letter was written by Professor Richard C. Knopf to Joseph Kelner, author of: The Kent State Coverup on January 4, 1984.

Dear Sir:

I have just completed reading your The Kent State Coverup, a most interesting account of your parrying with the partisans of Jim Rhodes. However, this letter is directed to you, not for what is included in your book, but rather, for what is not there.

My own association with May 4 and the events which led up to it is a rather close one. However, I shall not regale you with my own observations and activities during that tragic week-end, but, rather, I should like to raise a question and, hopfully, peak your interest.

The query: Who was (is) "SS"?

During the whole aftermath of May 4--including the Scranton hearings and National Guard trials, not once did I note any references to "SS". As a matter of fact, after one of the trials in which an old friend of mine, Gus Lambros, was a defense attorney, I asked him if the name of "SS" had come up. He answered in the negative and then I related to him the story which I want to tell to you. He was interested and surprised, but, I fear, did nothing about it; perhaps there was nothing to be done.

However, here is the story for what it is worth: During the academic year 1969-1970, I was a Professor of History at Kent State University. As such, I was assigned a number of graduate assistants, among whom were "JG" and "SS".

"G" I had known for some time as a graduate student in the department. However, "S" (whose picture is on p. 184 of your book) was new that year.

Almost from the beginning, "S" was considerably different from the other graduate assistants in the History Department. Granted it was a time of considerable feeling re: Viet Nam and other social issues among both faculty and students. Kent, like other large campuses, had its' share of both reform and radical elements. Frankly, I shared many of the concerns of the time, but "S" seemed to be in the forefront of the most radical campus elements; as a matter of fact, his work for me as a graduate assistant suffered so badly from his non-academic activities that I complained to the departmental chairman about his lack of enthusiasm for his departmental work.

It was at this point that I was informed that he was a "special" student; to wit, (1) he did not possess the required prerequisites for a departmental assistantship, but had been assigned to the History Department by the university administration; (2) he was not paid out of departmental funds (as was the case with the other assistants) and (3) succinctly, we were to ask no questions about him.

Obviously, this made me rather wary, especially as his work (grading papers) for me was carried out with a most cavalier attitude.

Meanwhile, "S", though holding (at least to my knowledge) no official position in any radical group, worked tirelessly as a campus agitator. Again, my concern was not his campus activity, but his dereliction of his duty to me and the department. (In addition, in the three-plus quarters he was at Kent, his own classes were all "incomplete"--he finished not one single course in which he was enrolled.)

In the Spring Quarter of 1970, "S" and another of my graduate assistants, "JG", became friends. "G" was the docile follower; "S" was the leader. "G" was (and is) a well-meaning, good soul who came under the influence of "S", the agitator.

At any rate, what is often forgotten, but, I think, of primary significance in the whole of the May 4th affair is that the events which led up to the Monday killings were initiated by "S" (and a meekly following "G") on the preceding Friday afternoon when "S" led a rally--among other things burning a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

To this point, you might well ask, what is so different about "S's" behavior and that of hundreds of other student radicals across the land.

The acts themselves, designed to be symbolic protests, were not, indeed, unusual.

But let us get on with the story.

After a hectic summer, when the fall quarter of 1970 began, "S" was again assigned to me as a graduate assistant. However, about two weeks into the quarter, he asked me if he could have a few days off; he was to get married to a girl in upper New York state. This obviously, was not a peculiar request and I okayed his absense, congratulating him on his impending wedding. That was the last we ever saw or heard of "SS"!

Hopefully, by now, you have understood my concern and curiosity in the whole "S" affair. Frankly, I have felt ever since that he was a "plant" perhaps by the F.B.I. or other government agency; that he was supposed to infiltrate the Weathermen, S.D.S., or other campus radical groups. Further, I am (at least to this moment) convinced that he not only did an intelligence job, but, perhaps, did it so well that it led to the whole series of tragic events culminating on May 4th.

I think that it is more than happenstance that "S" took the lead as an agitator, but then faded out completely from the picture. For me it is interesting that Miller, Krause and "G" (who was a student of mine), among others, come in for considerable criticism for their radical activities, but that "S" is either completely omitted or, at most, only mentioned in passing. That he came on the scene at Kent under the most peculiar of circumstances and then disappeared as mysteriously presents a most interesting puzzle.

One might ask why "S's" activities have never been mentioned before. I think there are several reasons, depending upon one's point of view and/or knowledge of "S":

1. No one could believe that he was instrumental in the agitation which led to May 4th. (From my point of view, the facts belie this.)

2. That the peculiar circumstances of "S's" presence on campus were a secret known only to top administration.

or

3. That there has been a fear of "opening a can of worms" should "S's" mission be revealed.

Perhaps none of the above is a true statement and perhaps "S's" role is a matter of circumstances only. Yet, for over a decade, I (and others) have had a haunting feeling that the real coverup is not as you have maintained in your book (frankly I think it was not a coverup--the trial--but a miscarriage of justice), but surrounds "S".

Whether the real truth or identity of "S" (or a fair assessment of his activities) are ever to be known is anyone's guess. However, the whole train of events, from "S's" appearance on campus to his departure, lend credence to the thought that he was more than just another radical. That he had, at least from an agitator point-of-view, a great influence over the events of that year--and most especially that first week of May--one just cannot deny. To me, the amazing and mysterious point is that he is given no serious attention in the aftermath; it is almost as if he had never existed.

Well, Mr. Kelner, that is my story in which you will, perhaps, have a passing interest. I could have bothered you with a recital of some of the bizarre happenings of that week-end, to which I was both a participant or observer, but I felt, especially having read your book (plus a number of others including Michener's "novel") that you might be interested.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Knopf

Emeritus Professor of History,

Kent State University