 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Sorry, you got it the other way around. The Civil Rights ideas were started precisley BY the Kennedy brothers. LBJ just continued what the Kennedys had already planned.
Plus, it's hard to pass legislation when, you know, somebody kills you. |
You've been thouroughly pawned by Imran throughout, but just to summarize:
Of the administrations from Roosevelt to Nixon the weakest record on civil rights belongs to the administration of JFK. He was barely elected president in 1960 and would have lost had he not been able to hold the solid south together. He was not going to rock the boat in 1964 either, which explains why he was constantly trying to hold a lid on the civil rights movement that you seem to think he somehow championed. Truman, Ike and LBJ took great political risks in order to finally enforce the constitution after many decades of Jim Crow. Kennedy dithered.
As for the Cuban Missle Crisis, I'd want my name as far from that travesty as possible unless I had counseled JFK to let it be. We went on full nuclear alert for nothing but a political victory for himself and a political defeat for the moderate Kruschev which in short order led to his removal from office and the return to power of the Stalinist group in the Kremlin, which lasted until Gorbachev.
Being the campaign manager of a winning presidential candidate is good, but hardly the stuff of greatness. Being an eastern liberal in favor of civil rights in the mid 1960s (and tactfully muting public proclamations of this fact until after the 1964 election) was hardly noteworthy. What would he have done about civil rights had he taken office in 1969 that wasn't already being done by the courts or wasn't in the event actually done by the Nixon administration? Sure he had the potential to do things (or for that matter to fvck up royally), but those things were in fact done by others.
The fact of the matter is Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison had more success as musicians then Bobby Kennedy did as a statesman. They all had potentially greater success had they lived longer, but they didn't. Potential doesn't make you great, deeds do. Otherwise we'd all spend our time celebrating the greatness of the stuff drying on our hankies after a session of viewing internet porn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
LBJ was the real hero of Civil Rights. If you listen to his taped discussions (Presidential), he knew he was very likely turning the South into a Republican stronghold, but did it anyway because he knew it was right. He took the ultimate risk for any politician, not just defeat but permanent damage to his party, because he knew it was right and he knew he could pull it off. JFK talked an excellent fight, but the analysis of his genuine actions or lack thereof by Imran and Sikander is sadly right on the mark.
To put LBJ's peronal ethics into an even better light, remember this - he was a native Texan born in 1908. All he would have had to do was sit on Civil Rights legislation and he would have been considered a hero to the South by the voting majority. He might have even survived his involvement in US escalation into Viet Nam, which blights the record of a man who almost became one of America's greats. I still respect him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Now on to Lincoln. Lincoln's position on slavery never changed. However, the way he approached the issue constantly evolved as the situation during the Civil War changed. The man was a brilliant political strategist. There is an excellent book that analysizes this, from one of the University Presses, but I haven't gotten it back yet. The author uses Lincoln's speeches and letters extensively, and shows a very sharp man.
Lincoln took no actions concerning slavery at first due to the fact, as he stated, the most important thing to him was to preserve the Union (first inaugural address). He kept that simple, clear priority thoughout the war. He continued to take no action once the war became active, because of the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.
While very useful to the Union, they only increased it's industrial capacity by 5% (this is all from memory, so forgive me if I am off on some numbers). The bigger value was their geographic location which gave the Union a much better operational starting point for operations against the South.
But by denying them to the Confederacy, Lincoln cut their military potential in half. Lincoln took no actions to put that at risk, and thus waited until 1862 at which point those states were very firmly in the Union camp. He then tried a series of progressive steps, for example threatening slavery in any state that did not return to the Union, recognizing Contrabands (black slaves that fled to Union lines), etc. gradually ratcheting up the pressure.
The final problem was that Lincoln needed more troops, and by 1863 he realized that to get them he needed to create black garrision units along the Mississippi river basin to free up white troops for actual combat operations (the Union was still quite racist, as was all of American society). At which point the various conflicting policies on Contrabands and slaves in conquered areas of the South were consolidated into this policy that essentially created the extra garrision, and later combat troops, that Lincoln needed to preserve the Union.
Added to this was the constant pressure to keep France and Britian out of the war, already analyized by other posters. That was worked in conjunction with the strategy above. Please not I am not doing justice to the book, which takes the data I have read in many other sources and provides not only excellent interpretation, but also much better primary source material from Lincoln to support the various statements about this that I have read in other texts. The book had some weakness in it's military coverage of the war, but that is a forgivable sin given it's superb analysis of Lincoln's actions reference slavery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
If you listen to his taped discussions (Presidential), |
driving along on some errand. Usual crap on the rock stations. Fund raiser (or something equally unlistenable) on public radio. Ah, Cspan radio, thats the ticket! maybe they'll have a good congressional hearing on Iraq, a speech by hilary, or even Rummy, or whatever. Lets see, thats 90.1 FM
"Why dont you get Mike and Sam, and y'all go over and talk to the Republicans about this jobs bill - but dont promise anything before Ive talked with George Meany, I promised him wed talk before we made any changes to the bill. Oh, and hows the little lady? Did she like White House dinner? ......"
so far i havent actually fallen asleep and crashed yet. How many hours a day they have to play this? couldnt they pick out some highlights? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Mr. Fun, that's not the book. I read the one in question in 2003, and picked it up from the University Press section at Half-Price Books (a chain) just outside OSU. I'll have to get it back from our little girl's godmother, her great-great-great-greatgrandfather (I hope that is the right number of greats) served in one the ex-slave garrison units on the Mississippi. Her comment to me was how can you read this, it's so DRY! It's a typical university press book, painfully dry but awesomely documented, with the added advantage it is quite comprehensive with regards to it's topic.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-2005 14:03
|