Was JFK going to drop LBJ from the 64 Ticket ?

[Joe Elliott]

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.

Are you claiming we can?t expect the advisors to the President to always have a copy of the Constitution with them?



There are two statements you could have chosen to make:

Statement 1:

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 the oath on hand? Imagine that.

Statement 2:

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 the Constitution which contained the oath on hand? Imagine that.

It is clear that Statement 1 is much more effective than Statement 2, which contains more information. From Statement 1, a reader could conclude that this was very suspicious. From Statement 2, such suspicions would not take hold so readily.

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?

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.

I can?t believe the aids who carried the nuclear football would have not accompanied the new President on the afternoon of the assassination as he flew back to Washington D. C.

Question:

Do you have any reference to this claim that President Kennedy did have this but the new President Johnson did not? Can you back this claim up?

[Joe Elliott]

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.

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.

[John Iacoletti]

Are you claiming we can?t expect the advisors to the President to always have a copy of the Constitution with them?

Since when do government officials care what the Constitution says?

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?

If you mean LNers, then yes, this is absolutely the tactic that they use.

[John Iacoletti]

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 was a schism in Texas between the conservative "Connally" Democrats and the liberal "Yarborough" Democrats.  He was hoping to help unify them so that they wouldn't split the vote.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

Here's Caro in 2013 on the issue. It's brief but interesting. My guess is that JFK hadn't yet decided on what to do (if he still though he would need Texas, would he have dropped LBJ for Connally?).
                                         ________________________

Question: Was it a given that LBJ would have been on the ticket for a second Kennedy term?

Caro: No. It was a very open question. When you talk about the president?s trip to Texas in November 1963, there is a very revealing element. Kennedy invited Gov. Connally to come to Washington to meet with him about the trip. He didn?t invite LBJ.

When I was visiting Connally on his ranch, I talked to him about this. He told me that the Johnsons knew he was coming to Washington and they had invited him over for dinner. Then they found out that he was meeting with the president and that Johnson hadn?t been invited.

Source/link: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2013/10/25/qa-robert-caro-on-viewing-kennedy-through-lbjs-eyes

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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 Texas 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 ticket 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.

[Richard Smith]

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.