Should the TSBD be demolished?

[Rick Plant]

Again, after I praised LBJ for his efforts with Civil Rights you bizarrely responded that I viciously attack "every Democratic President."  I assume that even you realize that LBJ was a "Democratic President."  Thus, a falsehood.  Just one of many.  Anyone can read your endless, hate-filled threads on Trump that contain all manner of debunked conspiracy theories and judge for themselves whether you are several fries short of a happy meal.

 

Richard stepped up to the plate and watched 3 strikes go by not even taking his bat off his shoulder. Didn't even take a swing....pathetic.

Richard has made false accusations against me claiming that I "defended Oswald" and "posted outlandish and false copy and paste conspiracy theories", which I never did.

I asked Richard 3 times now to point to where I "defended Oswald and posted outlandish and false copy and paste conspiracy theories" and he completely ignored it 3 times now continuing on with his same ridiculous accusations as well as his usual gaslighting tactics.

Like I said before, everything I posted was 100% factual and accurate. Richard can't point to one thing inaccurate that I posted and he knows it. That's why he never even attempted to post anything. He is just wants to argue his same ridiculous nonsense.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Howard Smith of the Rules Committee said he would hold up the Civil Rights Bill. But Johnson didn't persuade him to release the bill. Emanuel Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the bill's floor manager, filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee. When Congress reconvened in January, Smith was facing not only Celler's petition but an in-committee revolt (Democrats and moderate Republicans on the Committee who could have voted for his removal) if he didn't release the Bill.

Though not all, most of Congress, the media, clergy and the general public were behind what was a moral issue. There was also the incentive among politicians outside the South to have the bill passed before the election.

Well, now it's no longer JFK getting credit it's Celler?

Question: Why didn't Celler, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 1950s, do this while JFK was president? As Caro pointed out, Smith was keeping the bill from going to the floor. Celler could have gone around him then. But he didn't. Why not?

Answer: Nobody, i.e., JFK, was pushing him for it. Celler - and Humphrey who guided it through the Senate (this is where the bills were usually killed) - were in constant contact with LBJ, who was pushing, pushing, pushing for them to get the bill through. Humphrey and LBJ became so close that LBJ selected him as his Vice Presidential candidate for the '64 election.

The death of JFK was, as Caro pointed out, a major catalyst behind the passage. And it was LBJ using that death to shame, embarrass, prod, push Congress for its passage. And after the bill was passed LBJ pushed for passage of the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act and other assorted legislation and poverty programs to fight racial injustice. It wasn't just the Civil Rights Bill that he promoted. It was a long series of acts.

This unwillingness to give any credit to LBJ for this is remarkable.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This is from the Caro account in "Passage to Power". LBJ provided "levers", i.e., votes, to Celler to get around Smith. When one failed, he would get another one. A more complete account is here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Passage_of_Power/rQO5g9pQjDIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Celler

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah. I'm willing to put my home town and region in my profile, so it appears beneath my name in posts. How about you? And some of the other Republican apologists?

  He's not even brave enough to use his real name.

[John Iacoletti]

And Johnson says, “What the hell’s the presidency for, then?” He makes civil rights a centerpiece of his speech. He puts it in the context of Kennedy’s memory. “This is what he fought for. This is what he wanted.” Sympathy for Kennedy is not the whole story, but it’s a big part of the story of why that Civil Rights Bill gets passed."

  Johnson, like other presidents, would often reveal his true motivations in asides that the press never picked up.
  During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so
  important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

  “That was the reason he was pushing the bill,” said MacMillan, who was present during the conversation. “Not
  because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic party. He was phony
  from the word go.”

- Ronald Kessler, "Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World’s Most Powerful Institution", 1995

[Steve M. Galbraith]

  Johnson, like other presidents, would often reveal his true motivations in asides that the press never picked up.
  During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so
  important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

  “That was the reason he was pushing the bill,” said MacMillan, who was present during the conversation. “Not
  because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic party. He was phony
  from the word go.”

- Ronald Kessler, "Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World’s Most Powerful Institution", 1995

So we have on the one hand Caro's (and other historians; see Dallek for example) long detailed account of LBJ and his support for civil rights and other legislation and then on the other you have this anecdote and you think the latter outweighs the former?

As I cited from Caro, LBJ literally risked his presidency - his election in 1964 - by pushing this legislation. His advisers told him no, don't do it, it's too risky, it might split the party, lose the South. But he went ahead. From our advantage point today it didn't appear too risky; but not at that time. They didn't know that a terrible candidate like Goldwater would get the Republican nomination.

He then worked after his election in '64 and after the Civil Rights Bill had been enacted for passage of a Voting Rights Act, a Fair Housing Act, poverty programs, education programs and more to address racial injustice. The civil rights bill alone was enough to secure the black vote. Particularly after Goldwater and the GOP came out against it. Once they did that the black vote was lost for generations. As it has been. So why then follow up with all of this other legislation? It's not needed. He's got the black vote secured.

That long series of acts (yes, he didn't pass them alone; he had a large majority in Congress after the '64 election) are not the acts of a racist who hates black people. If he hated black people then why try to get their vote? And by trying to get their votes in the South he risked losing the larger white vote. And chances for election. Which also happened later. As he said it probably would. It makes no sense.

Was all of this done with no self interest involved? Of course not. He was a mean, nasty, miserable person. Caro documents it - his regular use of the "n" word and other shocking language; as have others. In fact, Caro has repeatedly stated that he "loathes" LBJ. But to dismiss it all - when the evidence presented by Caro indicates otherwise - as being only selfish acts by a racist (really? why would a racist want black votes when he didn't need them? for what) to win over black votes is simply not supported by history.

It's difficult to reconcile these two images: LBJ the user of racist slurs and other horrible language and LBJ the promoter of racial justice. Who was the real LBJ? Answer: both. We have to somehow hold both views of the man at the same time. Not easy to do but it's what he was.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

LBJ won 94% of the black vote in the 1964 election. He didn't need to do anything more; the black vote was his. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, by opposing the '64 Civil Rights Act, had lost the black vote for generations. The "game" was over. As it essentially has been since then.

If LBJ was driven solely by a desire to secure or win over the black vote (a strange wish for a supposed racist), he had accomplished that. He didn't need to then pass, as was done in his administration, a Voting Rights Act, a Fair Housing Act, another civil rights bill, and a series of poverty and education programs that were intended to address racial injustice. Why do all of this? The black vote had been won. It wasn't necessary.

As to his role in the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, the accounts have been made by historians like Robert Caro, Robert Dallek and others. His work on behalf of the bill was essential in getting it passed. As Caro pointed out, at the time of JFK's death, the bill was going nowhere. It took JFK's death and LBJ's efforts (and yes, others) to get it passed. To ignore this is to ignore the fact that 1+1=2.

It has nothing to do with Donald Trump or "strongman" or any other silly argument. It has to do with the facts.