“Eight miles south of Gibsland, [Bonnie and Clyde] crested a rise and spotted Ivy Methvin standing beside his truck, which was jacked up in the road. Bonnie put her sandwich down, and placed it on the magazine spread across her lap. Beneath the magazine was a Colt .45. Clyde took his foot off the accelerator and let the Ford coast to a stop beside Methvin’s truck. Clyde turned his head to the right, toward Methvin and his truck, and away from the six guns that were aimed directly at his head…Just then Methvin doubled over as if in pain and stepped away. Twenty feet to Clyde’s left, hidden in the brush, Sheriff Jordan was just about to put down his gun and yell something…Clyde took his foot off the brake for a moment, and the Ford began to ease forward. The moment the car moved, Jordan’s deputy, Prentiss Oakley, fired…”
- Bryan Burrough, Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the F.B.I., 1933-34
Bank robbery did not begin during the Great Depression, of course. Banks – being the places that have money – have always been targeted by thieves. Moreover, as Bryan Burrough points out in Public Enemies, the Great Depression did not represent a high-water mark of such crimes, as bank hits had actually peaked years earlier, a function of emergent technology (Thompson submachine guns, fast cars) and outdated laws (no federal statutes, no federal police force, thousands of local jurisdictions) that both favored the robber over the cop.
But it was during the Great Depression that an odd thing happened: the outlaw became a folk hero.
Then again, maybe this wasn’t so odd.
After all, the Great Depression saw a cascading failure of institutions, both private and governmental, that cast millions of people out of work, and wiped out the savings of millions more. In a wounded country starved for heroes, who cheered for an undersized horse and an underdog boxer, perhaps it made a certain sense that a self-consciously debonair criminal like John Dillinger – who was here for the bank’s money, not yours – would capture the national attention.
In Public Enemies, Burrough recounts the period from March 1933 to January 1935 when some of the most famous gangsters in American history roamed Middle America, knocking off banks, making daring escapes, and becoming fixtures in the newspapers. During this same span, there arose a counterforce, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Investigation, soon to be known as the F.B.I. Despite starting off as a rather inept band of bunglers, led by a man more concerned with timeliness and dress codes than effectiveness, the Bureau managed to capture or kill – mostly kill – just about every crook on their most-wanted list.
Thus, in a way, Public Enemies is a tale of competing mythologies, that of the gangs, and that of the F.B.I. That Burrough is able to deconstruct both, while also providing an extraordinarily entertaining story of murder, mayhem, and car chases, is pretty amazing.
The biggest thing that jumps out at me with regard to Public Enemies is its structure. Though it covers a period of a little less than two years, it is ambitious in its scope. This book is not just about John Dillinger and the F.B.I., but encompasses the rise and fall of Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, and Al Karpis and the Karpis-Barker Gang. Though we spend a lot of time with the gangs, Burrough also covers the G-men in pursuit, such as Melvin Purvis, Samuel Cowley, and America’s most dangerous public servant, J. Edgar Hoover. Keeping tabs on this huge cast of characters, especially the cross-cutting between the movements and heists of the various gangs, all while maintaining chronological lucidity, is a rather dazzling feat of storytelling. Everything about this approach seems bound to plunge the reader – especially someone unfamiliar with this time – into hopeless confusion. Yet that never happens here. Burrough does an excellent job with datelines, a cast of characters (complete with pictures), and a separate map for each gang, all with the purpose of providing a measure of clarity.
Public Enemies is probably among the most epic true crime stories I’ve ever read. It is approximately 550-pages long (not including endnotes), and features no shortage of outsized figures. Though Burrough occasionally displays a modern historian’s tendency towards pedantic de-romancing (especially with regards to Bonnie and Clyde, even though his beef with them seems to stem more from their embrace by the 60’s counterculture), Public Enemies has no shortage of novelistic action set pieces. There are bank robberies – obviously – but also kidnappings, ambushes, chases, jail breaks, shootouts galore, and a lot of bloodshed, all described as vividly as Burrough is able. At times, it became a bit repetitive, as one bank job bleeds – often literally – into the next. At other times, though, I found myself in the book’s grip as tightly as though I were reading great fiction.
With regard to the veracity of Public Enemies, I can only say that Burrough did his homework. This book is thoroughly sourced with contemporary documentation, supplemented by some additional interviews and his in-person visits to the scenes of the crimes. Even though Burrough adheres to a narrative style, he often interjects – both in the text and in footnotes – to describe conflicts in the evidence. For instance, Burrough makes sure to mention that “the lady in red” who accompanied Dillinger on the night of his death was actually wearing orange.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to add – since he makes a big deal about it – that Burrough relies heavily on newly accessible F.B.I. reports. This raises a couple flags with me. First, as Burrough himself demonstrates, the F.B.I. wasn’t very good at their jobs, at least at the start. They screwed up in so many basic and fundamental ways that it is hard to take them seriously. If they can’t properly surveil a suspect’s apartment, why should I believe their written reports? Second, if the F.B.I. reports were anything like the thousands of police reports I’ve read in my years as a lawyer, then they were themselves a dubious collection of hearsay, uncorroborated statements, and speculation. To treat an F.B.I. report as supporting documentation for a book is absolutely legitimate. But to act as though these reports are superior evidence, as Burrough does, feels like a mistake. However, I hasten to add that this specific slice of history is outside my usual stomping grounds, so I cannot judge the contents with even a pretense of certainty.
Beyond the heavy reliance on F.B.I. sourcing, I’m mildly disappointed in Burrough’s unwillingness to tease any lessons from the F.B.I.’s actions during this first “War on Crime.” To be sure, the need for a federal law enforcement body to catch interstate criminals is rather self-evident. Yet there were many negative consequences attendant to that body being led by J. Edgar Hoover who – more than most – resembled a bone-eating troll living under a bridge. To that end, Burrough tends to either ignore or write off the Bureau’s civil rights violations. For example, he devotes only a sentence or two to the F.B.I.’s proclivity for killing the men they were chasing in situations that felt closer to an assassination than an arrest. It would have been nice for Burrough to have drawn some connections across space and time, to observe how things both change and stay the same (this was published in 2004, as the War on Terror was really heating up, so this reticence is all the more surprising).
In many ways, Public Enemies is an origin story. Because of men like Dillinger and Nelson, and because of Hoover’s excellent public relations skills, the F.B.I. transformed from a collection of young lawyers looking for better jobs, to an omnipresent law enforcement organization that combined technological prowess with an unhesitating willingness to venture far beyond constitutional boundaries. Like all origin stories, this one is buried beneath layers of legend and received wisdom.
Perhaps the chief accomplishment of Public Enemies is that it demythologizes its subject matter without destroying it. I have read more than a few books that – in pursuit of the “true” story – have convinced me that I shouldn’t have bothered in the first place. Here, we see plainly that Dillinger was no knight errant, and Purvis no doggedly capable pursuer, but that does not make their ultimate collision any less dramatic, violent, or real.