I know Nixon dropped this tidbit of news while he was in Dallas ( but actually forgot where he was when JFK was assassinated as did a # of others who had faulty memories of that day). I thought it was rather ironic that Nixon would be the bearer of bad news for Lyndon ! It kind of sounds like there was a very reliable source or sources of LBJ getting ready to be booted from the ticket in 64. Lyndon was going to get what he wanted , one way or another. You figure it out !
If JFK was planning on dropping Johnson, why was he riding in motorcades in Texas? He barely won Texas in 1960 with Johnson on the ticket. If he drops Johnson, he will lose Texas in 1964 (unless there is a landslide election). In any case, with any such plans in the offering, JFK would have written off Texas and instead visit some other key state. Texas was chosen for a visit because it is a large state, it has a lot of electoral votes, and it could go either way in 1964. Provided he doesn?t drop Johnson.
While Johnson may have lost some of his popularity in Texas, and more so in the Deep South, due to his support for Civil Rights, Texas, on the whole, was not as racist as the Deep South. Despite the Democratic Party?s support for Civil Rights in the 1960?s, the Texas voted for the Democratic candidate in both 1964 and 1968. Johnson still had a lot of support within Texas, on the whole.
But if JFK drops Johnson in 1964, that will severely jeopardize Texas. I?m not saying JFK would not drop Johnson under any circumstances. But if he was planning to do so, he would write off Texas and go visit a different state that could go either way, to help make up for the probable loss of Texas.
If JFK wanted to win Texas but drop LBJ from the ticket he would've done just what he did. Dropping the
favorite son of Texas from the ticket for political reasons wouldn't have gone over well with voters. Having
a corruption case, with prison time, hanging over Johnson's head could have forced him off the ticket for
non politically damaging reasons. Health would be my guess. LBJ could have rooted for Kennedy from the
sidelines in exchange for staying out of jail. Politics is a dirty game.
JMO
If JFK was planning on dropping Johnson, why was he riding in motorcades in Texas? He barely won Texas in 1960 with Johnson on the ticket. If he drops Johnson, he will lose Texas in 1964 (unless there is a landslide election).
If JFK was planning on dropping Johnson, why was he riding in motorcades in Texas? He barely won Texas in 1960 with Johnson on the ticket. If he drops Johnson, he will lose Texas in 1964 (unless there is a landslide election).
Doubtful. Texas was completely Democrat controlled at the time.
In 1960, in Texas, the Democrats got 50.52 % of the vote to the Republican?s 48.52 % of the vote, narrowly giving the state to JFK.
In 1964, in a landslide election, Democrats got 63.32 % of the vote to the Republican?s 36.49 % of the vote, giving the election to Johnson. The large margin of victory was due to the public?s concern over Goldwater getting us into war.
In 1968, in Texas, the Democrats got 41.14 % of the vote to the Republican?s 39.97 % of the vote, narrowly giving the state to Humphrey. Many voted for Wallace.
Having Johnson on the ticket in 1960 caused many Texan?s to vote for Kennedy. They did not like the Democratic party?s support for Civil Rights. But they can overcome this concern if it means they can vote for a Texan, even as only a Vice President.
Robert Caro makes a decent case that LBJ might have been dropped from the ticket. He is the foremost historian on LBJ so that carries some weight. But it makes absolutely no difference in regards to the assassination since LBJ had nothing to do with it.
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that Texas loved LBJ -- especially Dallas.
| Year | Presidential Candidate | Vice-Presidential Candidate | Veep State | |||
| 1948 | Truman | Barkley (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Alben_Barkley.jpg/121px-Alben_Barkley.jpg) | Kentucky | |||
| 1952 | Stevenson | Sparkman (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Alabama_Sen._John_Sparkman.jpg/121px-Alabama_Sen._John_Sparkman.jpg) | Alabama | |||
| 1956 | Stevenson | Kefauver (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/SenatorKefauver%28D-TN%29.jpg/121px-SenatorKefauver%28D-TN%29.jpg) | Tennessee | |||
| 1960 | Kennedy | Johnson (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Lyndon_B._Johnson._Waist_length%2C_seated_-_NARA_-_518140.jpg/121px-Lyndon_B._Johnson._Waist_length%2C_seated_-_NARA_-_518140.jpg) | Texas |
How come when LBJ asked Judge Sarah T. Hughes to administer the oath of office on Air Force One, he happened to have a copy of it in his pocket? Imagine that.
The Constitution also states that there is an automatic transfer of power, thus, LBJ didn't need to be sworn in. Since he was carrying a copy of the Constitution according to you then he should have known this.
How come when LBJ asked Judge Sarah T. Hughes to administer the oath of office on Air Force One, he happened to have a copy of it in his pocket? Imagine that.
The Constitution also states that there is an automatic transfer of power, thus, LBJ didn't need to be sworn in. Since he was carrying a copy of the Constitution according to you then he should have known this.
The oath of the office for the President of the United States is included in Article Two of the U. S. Constitution. It is inconceivable that the President, and his advisors would not carry copies of the Constitution with them wherever they may go. Some coincidence indeed.
The oath of the office for the President of the United States is included in Article Two of the U. S. Constitution. It is inconceivable that the President, and his advisors would not carry copies of the Constitution with them wherever they may go. Some coincidence indeed.
Questions:
Does Robert Caro explain why Kennedy is campaigning in Texas in November in 1963 while he is planning to undo this work by dropping Johnson from the ticket?
Does Robert Caro even address this issue?
Does Robert Caro explicitly state that as of November 1963, JFK was still planning on dropping LBJ?
Regardless of how eminent a historian Robert Caro is, I can?t buy his arguments if he does not address this issue.
If JFK was considering dropping LBJ from the ticket, he must have decided not to by the time of the November 1963 trip to Texas.
Presidential candidates campaign in states that are important, that can go either way. They like to campaign in larger states, but what is even more important, they chose states that can go either way. That is why candidates largely avoid campaigning in California or Texas today, because, in all but a landslide election, California will vote Democratic and Texas Republican.
Candidates who campaign in states don?t do stuff that will alienate that state. A candidate won?t campaign in Texas if he is planning on dropping a Texan as his running mate. A candidate won?t campaign in Texas if he is planning, let?s say, not installing the NASA headquarters in Texas but in some other state. If either of these actions are necessary, he needs to write off Texas and campaign in a different state that may go either way.
Give me a break, no one carried around the oath of office with them back in 63. When Sarah Hughes said to LBJ, "Sorry but I don't have the Oath of Office on me.", he handed her his copy and turned to the small crowd aboard AF1 and said jokingly, "If any of you speak of this, I'll deny it.", then he turned to his long-time friend, Texas congressman Albert Thomas and smiled, and Thomas returned a wink.
And if LBJ's 1st thought after the assassination was that it might have been a commie plot, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1? Ans: because he knew the rooskies had nothing to do with it.
Before I read Caro's "Passage of Power," I would have agreed there was little or no chance that JFK would drop LBJ. But Caro makes a decent case. He notes that by 1963 LBJ had lost most of his political influence from his Senate days, was not well liked in the South due to his promotion of Civil Rights, and had legal trouble. He was also hated by RFK. It would have been a big gamble to dump him which is not in character for JFK, but there were some good reasons to do so. Of course no one will ever know though. I highly recommend "Passage of Power" to anyone interested in the topic. A great book.
Before I read Caro's "Passage of Power," I would have agreed there was little or no chance that JFK would drop LBJ. But Caro makes a decent case. He notes that by 1963 LBJ had lost most of his political influence from his Senate days, was not well liked in the South due to his promotion of Civil Rights, and had legal trouble. He was also hated by RFK. It would have been a big gamble to dump him which is not in character for JFK, but there were some good reasons to do so. Of course no one will ever know though. I highly recommend "Passage of Power" to anyone interested in the topic. A great book.
Are you claiming we can?t expect the advisors to the President to always have a copy of the Constitution with them?
Why do CTers spend so much time thinking about what information to reveal and what to conceal, to make the strongest possible point? Is this the tactic of the side with the truth on their side?
There are a lot of books I could read. Could you provide, in a nutshell, the arguments Caro used to explain why JFK was campaigning in Texas while he was planning on dropping LBJ? Wouldn?t campaigning in a state he wasn?t about to do something negative to be more productive?
There are a lot of books I could read. Could you provide, in a nutshell, the arguments Caro used to explain why JFK was campaigning in Texas while he was planning on dropping LBJ? Wouldn?t campaigning in a state he wasn?t about to do something negative to be more productive?
Can you provide a Chapter and page reference?
Since different versions of a book may come with different page numbers, something like ?Chapter 4?, which runs from pages 129 through 157, on page 154 contains this . . .? would be helpful.
If Caro failed to address this issue, it would cause me to suspect his judgment. Even if he is right. A good historian should anticipate and deal with any obvious flaws with his theory.
There are a lot of books I could read. Could you provide, in a nutshell, the arguments Caro used to explain why JFK was campaigning in Texas while he was planning on dropping LBJ? Wouldn?t campaigning in a state he wasn?t about to do something negative to be more productive?
Can you provide a Chapter and page reference?
Since different versions of a book may come with different page numbers, something like ?Chapter 4?, which runs from pages 129 through 157, on page 154 contains this . . .? would be helpful.
If Caro failed to address this issue, it would cause me to suspect his judgment. Even if he is right. A good historian should anticipate and deal with any obvious flaws with his theory.
I just recommended the book. Not volunteering as your research assistant. Caro is the foremost historian on LBJ. All you have to do is Google him if you want to know his credentials. If you are interested in the topic, read his book. If not, don't. I've explained his arguments as best I can remember. LBJ was increasingly unpopular in the south because of his evolving stance on Civil Rights. As a local politician running for office in Texas in his earlier career, LBJ was never a civil rights advocate. Once his aspirations became the presidency, he realized that he could not be viewed as a southern segregationist and win national office. So he alienated many of his previous supporters in places like Texas by strongly supporting Civil Rights. As a result, it's not clear that dropping LBJ from the ticket would have hurt JFK in Texas. In fact, it might have helped him in the South depending on who he decided to replace him with. Perhaps another more popular Southerner. I don't think any decision had been made on dropping LBJ by Nov. 22. So your question contains a false premise as to why JFK would campaign in Texas while planning on dropping LBJ. He had not made any decision at that point.
btw: Caro who has reviewed more documents and interviewed more people associated with LBJ than anyone else indicated he came across no evidence of his involvement in the JFK assassination. And Caro has leveled some fairy damning criticisms of LBJ. So it is not a case of subject envy.
Well stated. Although it's not clear to me that LBJ's support for civil rights was hurting him that much in Texas. He did receive 63% of the vote when he ran for reelection in 1964. Unlike the other Southern states Texas at that time didn't have Jim Crow segregation (remember several black citizens of Ft. Worth attended the breakfast that morning; and the TSBD didn't have segregated bathrooms or lunch rooms). So any civil rights bill wouldn't have affected the state too much; certainly not as much as those states practicing segregation.
Just to add: LBJ received 55% of the vote for the Senate in 1954. Six years later he ran for the Senate again (yes, while also on the ticked with JFK) and received 58% of the vote. So his pro-civil rights views seemingly didn't hurt too much.
It's interesting to note that four days after the assassination that LBJ called Rev./Dr. King up asking for his support on the civil rights bill. He told King that the legislation was still stuck in the House (in a sub-committee!) and that Congress was going to adjourn without passing it.
Dallek suggests that the Kennedys were waiting for the Baker investigation to conclude before making any decision. He says they were leaking stories about possibly dropping LBJ. That is, covering themselves.
It wasn't just Texas at play but the entire South that LBJ would have had issues with his new founded love of Civil Rights. And that was just one reason cited by Caro. I haven't read the book in a few years, but he also referenced LBJ's legal troubles, bad advice during the Cuban missile crisis (advocating bombing/invasion), almost total exile from the JFK staff, loss of political power in the senate etc. It would have been a pretty bold move to drop him though. And JFK was not exactly a political maverick. I think he would only have done so if absolutely convinced he had too. I don't recall if Caro made this claim, but I do recall reading somewhere that a potential run by RFK in 1968 could have been a factor in dropping LBJ to set Bobby up as the front runner. I think the results from 1964 election are not particularly relevant since LBJ rode a wave of post-assassination popularity that didn't crash until Vietnam. Obviously, if JFK had lived that wouldn't have happened. Caro makes a good case that in the hundred days or so following the assassination LBJ's presidency was among the most productive in history. There was a wave of good will that came his way that allowed him to get things done. And I suppose that is one reason that CTers are always suspicious of him because he so clearly benefited from the assassination. But alas that is not proof of his involvement. Of which there is none.