Vote who you think is/was THE greatest American.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Johnson even said in his own words he was only continuing Kennedy's work:

Of course he's going to say that! Kennedy's death resulted in a massive outpouring of emotion! If you don't capitalize on that, you suck as a politian.

What exactly did Kennedy DO for blacks? You are just talking about rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. It doesn't mean a damn if you aren't going to do anything about it. Actions speak louder than words and always have.

But it wasn't civil rights that dethroned LBJ but Vietnam. It was anti-war Gene McCarthy's surprising showing in New Hampshire that got LBJ to withdraw from the race.

And McCarthy went far .

It only goes to reason that a successful politician, like LBJ, realized the writing was on the wall when his Southern base up and left him and backed the Southern segregation candidates.

[SpencerH]

I saw the advertisements for the show and noticed that Einstein was among the faces that popped up; so I'll vote for him.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, just to mess with the liberals, since most of my favourites are doing quite well.

Helen Keller
Ronald Reagan
Alexander Hamilton

IIRC Helen Keller was a great friend of FDR's and quite a liberal. She championed rights for the disabled.

[Jon Miller]

considering Ben is disabled...

that is probably the reason he voted for her

JM

[Ted Striker]

.

[MrFun]

Strange how Imran professes to want to affirm historical justice for blacks in United States when he completely fails to appreciate what Abraham Lincoln actually did for blacks.

But also -- the statement "what (insert name of white politician) did for blacks" is a bit problematic. Blacks often found their own ways to resist and reach out for justice. But for lack of a better, concise statement when talking about white politcians' contributions to racial justice, I guess this would have to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

For someone who always talks about the Constitution and SCROTUM, you sure don't understand the power of words. It's kinda why the First Amendment, you know, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, is so highly protected.

Oh, bull****. Presidential rhetoric without action is basically useless. Woodrow Wilson spoke about this League of Nations, but it never got done and his grand prouncements were all for naught.

Kennedy put Civil Rights back into the national dialogue.

Yes, because Brown v. Board of Education didn't happen a few years back. Eisenhower didn't send the troops to integrate Little Rock's schools. There weren't marches and movements popping up. Truman didn't integrate the military in the early 50s. Jackie Robinson wasn't playing for the Dodgers. Yep, civil rights just wasn't even in the national dialogue.

It's that type of idiocy which leads people to think JFK was responsible for the civil rights of the 60s.

Please, Ned... I mean Ted. I know you've embraced your leftist friends, but try to stick to the facts.

Martin Luther King didn't DO anything about Civil Rights either. He just walked around and talked about it all the time.

King actually organized a movement! He didn't just speak, he got people together for protests, walking instead of taking the buses that kicked Rosa Parks off. Sit-ins, demonstrations, boycotts, etc! Without civil disobediance, the movement would have succeeded as it did. That's action, not mere rhetoric. If JFKennedy said he was pleading with Congress to pass Civil Rights and he urged people to go into the streets and yell for change, even THAT would have been something!

Strange how Imran professes to want to affirm historical justice for blacks in United States when he completely fails to appreciate what Abraham Lincoln actually did for blacks.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclimation was so not what it is seen as today. It only freed the blacks in the areas that were still in rebellion. It was basically only a political tool. Lincoln's big plan for reconstruction was not much different from Johnson's. The Radicals in the Congress were not going to have that either. They wanted swift change, not Lincolns gradual, moderate change in civil rights for blacks. His legacy was saved, ironically, by John Wilkes Booth, because the 2nd term would have gotten bogged down by Congress's intrasingence.


I'm also not sure how much regard you hold in wikipedia, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement

Randolph and Bayard Rustin were the chief planners of the second March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which they proposed in 1962. The Kennedy administration applied great pressure on Randolph and King to call it off, but without success. The march was held on August 28, 1963.

This would be the "I Have a Dream" march, btw.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

nm

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Lincoln's Emancipation Proclimation was so not what it is seen as today. It only freed the blacks in the areas that were still in rebellion. It was basically only a political tool. Lincoln's big plan for reconstruction was not much different from Johnson's. The Radicals in the Congress were not going to have that either. They wanted swift change, not Lincolns gradual, moderate change in civil rights for blacks. His legacy was saved, ironically, by John Wilkes Booth, because the 2nd term would have gotten bogged down by Congress's intrasingence.

In the 1850s, Abraham Lincoln consistently spoke about the moral injustice of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation has been exaggerated and is still exaggerated by some today, when they refer to Lincoln as The Great Emancipator. I agree with you on this.

However, it is questionable as to how complete abolishment of slavery with the thirteenth amendment might have taken shape without the antecedent of the Emancipation Proclamation. In spite of the limitation put on emancipation with this document, there is a powerful, underlying premise that could not be denied once the Civil War was over.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And McCarthy went far .

McCarthy's base was stolen away by RFK's jumping into the race after McCarthy proved LBJ was vunerable.

[MrFun]

To whom does all of McCarthy's bases belong to anyway?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
In the 1850s, Abraham Lincoln consistently spoke about the moral injustice of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation has been exaggerated and is still exaggerated by some today, when they refer to Lincoln as The Great Emancipator. I agree with you on this.

However, it is questionable as to how complete abolishment of slavery with the thirteenth amendment might have taken shape without the antecedent of the Emancipation Proclamation. In spite of the limitation put on emancipation with this document, there is a powerful, underlying premise that could not be denied once the Civil War was over.

It is doubtful that even if the Emancipation Proclamation not been issued that slavery would have still existed. Thad Stevens, John Bingham, Benjamin Wade, among others were already the power brokers in the Senate and they were pushing for the ending of slavery as WELL as granting full political and social equality for blacks. They were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. They were the ones who passed the 14th Amendment. They were an unstoppable force, who clashed with Lincoln on a number of occassions because Lincoln was not that radical at all.

Lincoln's Reconstruction was very, very kind to the South. As long as they pledged to the US, they could come back in. All they had to do was free the slaves according to the 13th Amendment.

There is little support for the notion that Lincoln would have approved the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the 14th Amendment, because, he probably would have considered such measures as too harsh on the South, which he wanted to reintegrate into the union as soon as possible. Lincoln wanted to let the South off easy, which would not bode well for any civil rights, and would have definetly led to a defeat of the 14th Amendment (which needed 2/3rd of states... the Radical Republicans were able to get around this as the South was divided into military terrorities and not states yet).

[Ted Striker]

.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It is doubtful that even if the Emancipation Proclamation not been issued that slavery would have still existed. Thad Stevens, John Bingham, Benjamin Wade, among others were already the power brokers in the Senate and they were pushing for the ending of slavery as WELL as granting full political and social equality for blacks. They were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. They were the ones who passed the 14th Amendment. They were an unstoppable force, who clashed with Lincoln on a number of occassions because Lincoln was not that radical at all.

Lincoln's Reconstruction was very, very kind to the South. As long as they pledged to the US, they could come back in. All they had to do was free the slaves according to the 13th Amendment.

There is little support for the notion that Lincoln would have approved the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the 14th Amendment, because, he probably would have considered such measures as too harsh on the South, which he wanted to reintegrate into the union as soon as possible. Lincoln wanted to let the South off easy, which would not bode well for any civil rights, and would have definetly led to a defeat of the 14th Amendment (which needed 2/3rd of states... the Radical Republicans were able to get around this as the South was divided into military terrorities and not states yet).

You're right in that Lincoln would have enacted a more lenient reconstruction policy in regards to the treasonous states.

However, I don't think you realize that Lincoln's attitude towards blacks evolved over a period of time, throughout his political career. He started arguing against the wrongfulness of slavery by merely stating that all humans have the right to eat the food that they harvest. Then during the Civil War, he did not like the idea of blacks in Union uniform -- at first. Then, Frederick Douglass and others convinced Lincoln otherwise, and he came around to accepting this idea.

The prevelance of white supremacy in the United States in the antebellum years through the Civil War does not mean that it was impossible for anti-racist individuals to think outside of their society's social norms at the time.

I believe in the argument that Lincoln's views on race were still evolving at the time of his assassination and that in spite of what would have been leniency, he would have accepted greater equal rights protection -- even if with his lenient policy, he would not be able to succeed in this himself.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Jesus didn't make the top 25?