Most underrated president in american history

[Warhammer]

Shiloh should never have happened except that Halleck forced Grant to wait for Buell who took his sweet time getting down to the rendevous, which allowed time for A.S. Johnston to gather his forces and attack.

Also, don't forget that Sigel and Butler were essentially forced upon him as political appointments. Still given that his command structure was as poor as it was, it goes to show just how sound his plan was, imagine if his subordinates were able to really execute it to its full extent.

[Wolfpack]

I can kind of see that, but I've been reading Shelby Foote's trilogy and the impression he gave was that Grant was a bit too lax thinking that the rebels were whipped after Henry/Donalson and the fall of Nashville. He was preparing to attack them at Corinth (thus why he was waiting for Buell), but hadn't prepared very seriously for a defense. Could be that recent scholarship indicates otherwise, though. Shiloh is a battle I've heard much of, but don't have ingrained detail like I do the Overland Campaign. Still, in spite of the bust-up on that first day, Grant never wavered and with Buell's support brought in, knew he held all the cards on day two.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I can kind of see that, but I've been reading Shelby Foote's trilogy and the impression he gave was that Grant was a bit too lax thinking that the rebels were whipped after Henry/Donalson and the fall of Nashville. He was preparing to attack them at Corinth (thus why he was waiting for Buell), but hadn't prepared very seriously for a defense. Could be that recent scholarship indicates otherwise, though. Shiloh is a battle I've heard much of, but don't have ingrained detail like I do the Overland Campaign. Still, in spite of the bust-up on that first day, Grant never wavered and with Buell's support brought in, knew he held all the cards on day two.

He was a bit too lax, but there were two things that happened. First, Halleck wouldn't let Grant attack without Buell. Second, Buell was ordered to repair the rail lines on his march south which delayed him. That gave Johnston the time he needed to assemble forces and attack, since he realized that if Grant and Buell joined forces, he'd be screwed.

The hell of it is, after Shiloh, there was no Confederate force in the area that could stop the combined forces of Grant and Buell. What did Halleck do? He split up the army, sent Grant to garrison Memphis, and had Buell repair the rail lines toward Chattanooga, if memory serves.

[WSUCougar]

I think Grant can be dinged somewhat for the surprise at Shiloh, because his army was on an offensive footing and he was the army commander. However, I personally think the bigger fault lies with the Union divisional commanders positioned in the field. How do you let yourself get that surprised in any encampment? Plus, patrols the morning of the battle had encountered the Rebel advance, such that I believe Beauregard tried to convince Johnston that they should fall back since surprise was so obviously lost.

Not trying to get Grant completely off the hook there, but if his division commanders had done their jobs better there's no way that 1st day at Shiloh happens the way it does. (We won't go into Lew Wallace's adventures...)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Grant’s brilliance as a military commander can be seen on multiple levels. As a grand strategist, he grasped what was necessary to defeat the Confederacy as an entity and then put the required assets into place to do it. That was by no means as simple as it sounds.

As a campaign strategist, his Vicksburg and Overland campaigns are widely regarded for their brilliance and are still used as examples in military education. To say that the capture of Vicksburg was only the result of superior forces and ended only with the starving out Pemberton’s garrison is, frankly, ignorant. Read a few of the excellent campaign histories available on the subject and then get back to me. As for the Overland Campaign, Lee himself recognized that it was only a matter of time once Grant’s strategy began to unfold. Plus it’s imperative to keep in mind that one of Grant’s primary objectives in that campaign was to pin Lee’s army down and bleed it while Sherman undertook his operations in the deep south. Toss in the operations to capture Forts Henry & Donelson, and the Chattanooga campaign (turning disaster into victory), and you’ve got a pretty damn successful strategist.

Tactically, I think Grant’s best asset was his ability to rapidly respond to the ever-changing situations on the battlefield with a clear sense of what had to be done. His orders were prompt and clear. His awareness and “vision” of the battlefield, the terrain, and the positions of the armies was at times almost spooky. When problems arose – usually due to the blunders of inferior subordinate commanders – he plugged the gaps, rallied his troops, and salvaged success from disaster. Fort Donelson and Shiloh are the two obvious examples, but Champion Hill (Vicksburg campaign) is another one. In the east, Spotsylvania was a near miss (almost blind luck that Lee was able to grab the town before Grant’s troops got there), and trace Lee’s breakout attempts during the siege of Petersburg to see how well Grant responds to those.

Finally, he was never daunted by the threat of defeat. He was not afraid to lose. When rebuffed, he continued to press on toward the overall goals of the campaign or the war as a whole.

Very nicely said.

One of the key points you made was " Grant’s best asset was his ability to rapidly respond to the ever-changing situations on the battlefield with a clear sense of what had to be done." I think this is true but not quite to the extent of a few of the Corps commanders like Reynolds and Hancock. But then again, I would expect them to be more in tune to what is happening on the battlefield than someone at the Army HQ. However, after reading Grant's memoirs, it became very clear that he really knew what was going on (by asking the right questions and issuing the proper orders at the right time).

Contrast this to Gen. Lee. People want to proclaim as the great tactician but look closely at what happened at Gettysburg. My favorite author, Stephen Sears, brought this home in his recent Gettyburg book by describing utter lack of responding to changing conditions on the battlefield. He would think through the strategy, using all available advice and intelligence, and issue orders that seem complete and sound. However once the orders were issued is where Lee failed. He would take a complete hands-off approach and let his Corps commanders make all of the decisions. He carried this to the extreme when during the Charge on the third day, a full 1/4 of the troops were not engaged (because of miscommunications)...and many of them were lined up right in front of Lee! And he would do nothing. There are other examples of where different Corps would not be coordinated (or lose coordination) for whatever reasons and Lee would not contradict previous orders. On the battlefield, this was where Grant proved superior to Lee despite perception otherwise.

Incidently, one of the key things I picked up from reading the letters and orders published in his memoirs was how much thought and communications went into the grand strategy leading up to the Overland Campaign. He had a clear picture of what was going in each of the theatres and kept in constant communications, as the Commander of all of the armies. This was an area that Lee (and Davis) was incapable of doing.

I could go on and on but I already have hijacked this thread enough.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I can kind of see that, but I've been reading Shelby Foote's trilogy and the impression he gave was that Grant was a bit too lax thinking that the rebels were whipped after Henry/Donalson and the fall of Nashville. He was preparing to attack them at Corinth (thus why he was waiting for Buell), but hadn't prepared very seriously for a defense. Could be that recent scholarship indicates otherwise, though. Shiloh is a battle I've heard much of, but don't have ingrained detail like I do the Overland Campaign. Still, in spite of the bust-up on that first day, Grant never wavered and with Buell's support brought in, knew he held all the cards on day two.

You lost me when you said "Shelby Foote". I do not consider his trilogy to be worth reading and he's really not a good Civil War historian (despite Ken Burns attempt to deify him). Foote's Civil War fiction books are pretty good, though.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You lost me when you said "Shelby Foote". I do not consider his trilogy to be worth reading and he's really not a good Civil War historian (despite Ken Burns attempt to deify him). Foote's Civil War fiction books are pretty good, though.

Explain why... and can you recommend writers you do consider worth reading on the topic?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Explain why... and can you recommend writers you do consider worth reading on the topic?

Here's a post from Bucc not too long ago on this

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...5&postcount=25

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Explain why... and can you recommend writers you do consider worth reading on the topic?

Academics, of which historians are a subset, despise people who can write clearly and who make money.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Explain why... and can you recommend writers you do consider worth reading on the topic?

Grant's Memoirs.

To the list that sab mentioned, I would also add the 26 volumes of the Time-Life series. It is like the American Heritage book but expanded 10x in very readable and visually attractive small volumes.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Academics, of which historians are a subset, despise people who can write clearly and who make money.

Then how do you explain the greatest Civil War author of all time, Bruce Catton?

Foote's trilogy was readable but in a folk-tale kind of way. And in many places, he played very loose with facts of the actual events and leave the reader with misconceptions. I view his trilogy as a mix of fact and fiction, as a true folk-tale of the whole war.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Then how do you explain the greatest Civil War author of all time, Bruce Catton?

Foote's trilogy was readable but in a folk-tale kind of way. And in many places, he played very loose with facts of the actual events and leave the reader with misconceptions. I view his trilogy as a mix of fact and fiction, as a true folk-tale of the whole war.

First of all, I haven't actually read either Catton or Foote. I'm commenting on a phenomenon observable in any field. The more succesful somebody is, and the more wide their appeal, the more they are attacked by the specialists, for whatever reason.

[JPhillips]

Sorry I missed this thread due to rehearsal and baby.

I'll check in with a couple of things about my distant cousin Grant.

1) Where Grant was really ahead of his time was in coordinating army and navy forces. He used the navy both for transport and fire support in ways that were damn near revolutionary. His ability to get south of Vicksburg was the key to his strategy. His later work with the navy in the East laid the foundation for combined attacks.

2) As has been said, Grant's ability to find a strategy to win the war sets him apart from Lee. Lee may have been better leading into a specific battle, but at no point did he fight with any long term goal. Grant was able to analyze the situation and devise a strategy that led to Lee's surrender. Yes he had a material advantage, but he was the only Union general to figure out how to use his advantage.

3) He won the Civil War while drunk a good portion of the time!

[Buccaneer]

He won the Civil War while drunk a good portion of the time!

Urban legend but I know you were kidding.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Grant's Memoirs.

To the list that sab mentioned, I would also add the 26 volumes of the Time-Life series. It is like the American Heritage book but expanded 10x in very readable and visually attractive small volumes.

My point is, Foote is a Southerner... most of your sources seem to be written from a Northern point of view.

Just something to think about.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

My point is, Foote is a Southerner... most of your sources seem to be written from a Northern point of view.

Just something to think about.

Oh, ok. You obviously know what you are talking about.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You lost me when you said "Shelby Foote". I do not consider his trilogy to be worth reading and he's really not a good Civil War historian (despite Ken Burns attempt to deify him). Foote's Civil War fiction books are pretty good, though.

Thanks. I'll take that under advisement as I read (which I will because I did spend the money to get the books--discounted, mind you... ). Like I said, I'm not as familiar with the western battles, and only recently went through his part on Shiloh, which is what I was basing some of my points on. I've got a stronger familiarity with the eastern theater (which figures considering I'm from NC and Bentonville is about 15-20 miles from my old house, though I never really went there that often).

[ISiddiqui]

Considering a lot of Southerners tend to 'folk story' the Civil War (and near deify their generals... well at the very least Lee, Jackson, and sometimes Stuart and Longstreet), I don't know if saying that Foote had a "Southern" point of view really helps his status.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Oh, ok. You obviously know what you are talking about.

You can dismiss me with all the sarcastic remarks you like, but you can't deny that it makes a difference.

But, of course, Grant's own memoirs would be the most objective source, right?

[ISiddiqui]

Have you read them? They are wonderfully done and considered a classic of American writing. But aside from that, he downplays a lot of legends that had grown up around him. Its an incredibly objective look by Grant. Not many others would make sure to clear up legends that weren't true in their memoirs.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Considering a lot of Southerners tend to 'folk story' the Civil War (and near deify their generals... well at the very least Lee, Jackson, and sometimes Stuart and Longstreet), I don't know if saying that Foote had a "Southern" point of view really helps his status.

But that's the funny thing about it, Foote was never accused of perpetuating the Lost Cause myth and one of his themes was rightly being critical of Davis. Civil War historians should not be viewed as "Northerners" or "Southerners" because there have been authors from both regions (as well as neither of the two) that produce interesting and thoughtful verbage on the war and its causes and effects. Foote has been mentioned in the same breath as Faulkner and I don't dispute that. Foote's fiction works are good and his folksy narrative does have a Faulkner style to it - but confuse with works of true historians and subject matter experts.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have you read them? They are wonderfully done and considered a classic of American writing. But aside from that, he downplays a lot of legends that had grown up around him. Its an incredibly objective look by Grant. Not many others would make sure to clear up legends that weren't true in their memoirs.

No, I haven't, and I probably should. I just think Bucc could make his point without his condescending bullshit.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

No, I haven't, and I probably should. I just think Bucc could make his point without his condescending bullshit.

Isn't that like expecting me to go a day without talking about Tom Brady? Whoops, I did it again.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have you read them? They are wonderfully done and considered a classic of American writing. But aside from that, he downplays a lot of legends that had grown up around him. Its an incredibly objective look by Grant. Not many others would make sure to clear up legends that weren't true in their memoirs.

It has been hailed as one of the greatest memoirs of all time and one of the truly great books in American literature - because of its humbleness, brutal honesty, lack of character defamation and quite suspensful writing despite knowing the outcomes.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Boy, you really softened the blow there Coug.

Hilarious.

And I tend to be much more direct. Same opinion and reaction, different words. But like everything written on the internet, it's all a degree of stubborness.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But that's the funny thing about it, Foote was never accused of perpetuating the Lost Cause myth and one of his themes was rightly being critical of Davis. Civil War historians should not be viewed as "Northerners" or "Southerners" because there have been authors from both regions (as well as neither of the two) that produce interesting and thoughtful verbage on the war and its causes and effects. Foote has been mentioned in the same breath as Faulkner and I don't dispute that. Foote's fiction works are good and his folksy narrative does have a Faulkner style to it - but confuse with works of true historians and subject matter experts.

Well, I was mostly kidding. Hence the . Though it is a good point to bring up that there shouldn't be a distinction among Civil War historians based on area of country.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, I was mostly kidding. Hence the . Though it is a good point to bring up that there shouldn't be a distinction among Civil War historians based on area of country.

Unfortunately there is still some of that around; even though despite the increased amount literature, it has gotten less. One of the most shocking books I've read on the subject was Gallagher's (UVA professor) The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History. It is a collection of essays about the Lost Cause literature, esp. how and why it got started. The only thing it mentioned about Foote was his "Negrophobic Reconstructionist" views. Anyway, I forgot what was my point was going to be...

[Neon_Chaos]

I say LBJohnson was underrated because of the Vietnam war simply overshadowing his earlier efforts/accomplishments.

I am particularly moved by the ff. speech by LBJ, following the Selma, Alabama incident in 1965.

I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of Democracy. I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.

At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. There, long suffering men and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as Americans. Many of them were brutally assaulted. One good man--a man of God--was killed.

There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our Democracy in what is happening here tonight. For the cries of pain and the hymns and protests of oppressed people have summoned into convocation all the majesty of this great government--the government of the greatest nation on earth. Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country--to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man. In our time we have come to live with the moments of great crises. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues, issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression.

But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself. Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, or our welfare or our security, but rather to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue. And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For, with a country as with a person, "what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.

And we are met here tonight as Americans--not as Democrats or Republicans; we're met here as Americans to solve that problem. This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose.

The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal." "Government by consent of the governed." "Give me liberty or give me death." And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives. Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny Americans and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom. Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. This most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of the right to all of our people.

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument: every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to insure that right. Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.

Every device of which human ingenuity is capable, has been used to deny this right. The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent. And if he persists and, if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name, or because he abbreviated a word on the application. And if he manages to fill out an application, he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex provisions of state law.

And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write. For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin. Experience has clearly shown that the existing process of law cannot overcome systematic and ingenious discrimination. No law that we now have on the books, and I have helped to put three of them there, can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it. In such a case, our duty must be clear to all of us. The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color.

We have all sworn an oath before God to support and to defend that Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath. Wednesday, I will send to Congress a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote. The broad principles of that bill will be in the hands of the Democratic and Republican leaders tomorrow. After they have reviewed it, it will come here formally as a bill. I am grateful for this opportunity to come here tonight at the invitation of the leadership to reason with my friends, to give them my views and to visit with my former colleagues.

I have had prepared a more comprehensive analysis of the legislation which I had intended to transmit to the clerk tomorrow, but which I will submit to the clerks tonight. But I want to really discuss the main proposals of this legislation. This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections, federal, state and local, which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.

This bill will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenious the effort, to flout our Constitution. It will provide for citizens to be registered by officials of the United States Government, if the state officials refuse to register them. It will eliminate tedious, unnecessary lawsuits which delay the right to vote. Finally, this legislation will insure that properly registered individuals are not prohibited from voting. I will welcome the suggestions from all the members of Congress--I have no doubt that I will get some--on ways and means to strengthen this law and to make it effective.

But experience has plainly shown that this is the only path to carry out the command of the Constitution. To those who seek to avoid action by their national government in their home communities, who want to and who seek to maintain purely local control over elections, the answer is simple: open your polling places to all your people. Allow men and women to register and vote whatever the color of their skin. Extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land. There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

There is no issue of state's rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights. I have not the slightest doubt what will be your answer. But the last time a President sent a civil rights bill to the Congress it contained a provision to protect voting rights in Federal elections. That civil rights bill was passed after eight long months of debate. And when that bill came to my desk from the Congress for signature, the heart of the voting provision had been eliminated.

This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, or no hesitation, or no compromise with our purpose. We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in.

And we ought not, and we cannot, and we must not wait another eight months before we get a bill. We have already waited 100 years and more and the time for waiting is gone. So I ask you to join me in working long hours and nights and weekends, if necessary, to pass this bill. And I don't make that request lightly, for, from the window where I sit, with the problems of our country, I recognize that from outside this chamber is the outraged conscience of a nation, the grave concern of many nations and the harsh judgment of history on our acts.

But even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome.

As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil, I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society. But a century has passed--more than 100 years--since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight. It was more than 100 years ago that Abraham Lincoln--a great President of another party--signed the Emancipation Proclamation. But emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact.

A century has passed--more than 100 years--since equality was promised, and yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise, and the promise is unkept. The time of justice has now come, and I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come, and when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American. For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated? How many white families have lived in stark poverty? How many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we wasted energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?

And so I say to all of you here and to all in the nation tonight that those who appeal to you to hold on to the past do so at the cost of denying you your future. This great rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all--all, black and white, North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They are our enemies, not our fellow man, not our neighbor.

And these enemies too--poverty, disease and ignorance--we shall overcome.

Now let none of us in any section look with prideful righteousness on the troubles in another section or the problems of our neighbors. There is really no part of America where the promise of equality has been fully kept. In Buffalo as well as in Birmingham, in Philadelphia as well as Selma, Americans are struggling for the fruits of freedom.

This is one nation. What happens in Selma and Cincinnati is a matter of legitimate concern to every American. But let each of us look within our own hearts and our own communities and let each of us put our shoulder to the wheel to root out injustice wherever it exists. As we meet here in this peaceful historic chamber tonight, men from the South, some of whom were at Iwo Jima, men from the North who have carried Old Glory to the far corners of the world and who brought it back without a stain on it, men from the east and from the west are all fighting together without regard to religion or color or region in Vietnam.

Men from every region fought for us across the world 20 years ago. And now in these common dangers, in these common sacrifices, the South made its contribution of honor and gallantry no less than any other region in the great republic.

And in some instances, a great many of them, more. And I have not the slightest doubt that good men from everywhere in this country, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Golden Gate to the harbors along the Atlantic, will rally now together in this cause to vindicate the freedom of all Americans. For all of us owe this duty and I believe that all of us will respond to it.

Your president makes that request of every American.

The real hero of this struggle is the American Negro. His actions and protests, his courage to risk safety, and even to risk his life, have awakened the conscience of this nation. His demonstrations have been designed to call attention to injustice, designed to provoke change; designed to stir reform. He has been called upon to make good the promise of America.

And who among us can say that we would have made the same progress were it not for his persistent bravery and his faith in American democracy? For at the real heart of the battle for equality is a deep-seated belief in the democratic process. Equality depends, not on the force of arms or tear gas, but depends upon the force of moral right--not on recourse to violence, but on respect for law and order.

There have been many pressures upon your President and there will be others as the days come and go. But I pledge to you tonight that we intend to fight this battle where it should be fought--in the courts, and in the Congress, and the hearts of men. We must preserve the right of free speech and the right of free assembly. But the right of free speech does not carry with it--as has been said--the right to holler fire in a crowded theatre.

We must preserve the right to free assembly. But free assembly does not carry with it the right to block public thoroughfares to traffic. We do have a right to protest. And a right to march under conditions that do not infringe the Constitutional rights of our neighbors. And I intend to protect all those rights as long as I am permitted to serve in this office.

We will guard against violence, knowing it strikes from our hands the very weapons which we seek--progress, obedience to law, and belief in American values. In Selma, as elsewhere, we seek and pray for peace. We seek order, we seek unity, but we will not accept the peace of stifled rights or the order imposed by fear, or the unity that stifles protest--for peace cannot be purchased at the cost of liberty.

In Selma tonight--and we had a good day there--as in every city we are working for a just and peaceful settlement. We must all remember after this speech I'm making tonight, after the police and the F.B.I. and the Marshals have all gone, and after you have promptly passed this bill, the people of Selma and the other cities of the nation must still live and work together.

And when the attention of the nation has gone elsewhere they must try to heal the wounds and to build a new community. This cannot be easily done on a battleground of violence as the history of the South itself shows. It is in recognition of this that men of both races have shown such an outstandingly impressive responsibility in recent days--last Tuesday and again today.

The bill I am presenting to you will be known as a civil rights bill. But in a larger sense, most of the program I am recommending is a civil rights program. Its object is to open the city of hope to all people of all races, because all Americans just must have the right to vote, and we are going to give them that right.

All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship, regardless of race, and they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.

But I would like to caution you and remind you that to exercise these privileges takes much more than just legal rights. It requires a trained mind and a healthy body. It requires a decent home and the chance to find a job and the opportunity to escape from the clutches of poverty.

Of course people cannot contribute to the nation if they are never taught to read or write; if their bodies are stunted from hunger; if their sickness goes untended; if their life is spent in hopeless poverty, just drawing a welfare check.

So we want to open the gates to opportunity. But we're also going to give all our people, black and white, the help that they need to walk through those gates. My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas, in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast and hungry. And they knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice. They never seemed to know why people disliked them, but they knew it was so because I saw it in their eyes.

I often walked home late in the afternoon after the classes were finished wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that I might help them against the hardships that lay ahead. And somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child.

I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students, and to help people like them all over this country. But now I do have that chance.

And I'll let you in on a secret--I mean to use it. And I hope that you will use it with me.

This is the richest, most powerful country which ever occupied this globe. The might of past empires is little compared to ours. But I do not want to be the president who built empires, or sought grandeur, or extended dominion.

I want to be the president who educated young children to the wonders of their world. I want to be the President who helped to feed the hungry and to prepare them to be taxpayers instead of tax eaters. I want to be the President who helped the poor to find their own way and who protected the right of every citizen to vote in every election. I want to be the President who helped to end hatred among his fellow men and who promoted love among the people of all races, all regions and all parties. I want to be the President who helped to end war among the brothers of this earth.

And so, at the request of your beloved Speaker and the Senator from Montana, the Majority Leader, the Senator from Illinois, the Minority Leader, Mr. McCullock and other members of both parties, I came here tonight, not as President Roosevelt came down one time in person to veto a bonus bill; not as President Truman came down one time to urge passage of a railroad bill, but I came down here to ask you to share this task with me. And to share it with the people that we both work for.

I want this to be the Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--which did all these things for all these people. Beyond this great chamber--out yonder--in fifty states are the people that we serve. Who can tell what deep and unspoken hopes are in their hearts tonight as they sit there and listen? We all can guess, from our own lives, how difficult they often find their own pursuit of happiness, how many problems each little family has. They look most of all to themselves for their future, but I think that they also look to each of us.

Above the pyramid on the Great Seal of the United States it says in latin, "God has favored our undertaking." God will not favor everything that we do. It is rather our duty to divine His will. But I cannot help but believe that He truly understands and that He really favors the undertaking that we begin here tonight.

President Lyndon B. Johnson - March 15, 1965

[Warhammer]

One of my problems with Johnson is a relatively well know quote about the civil rights effort. To sum it up, he felt that if they could pass the civil rights legislation the democrats would have the black vote locked up for the next 100 years, and that was all that mattered to him. Although, he used a lot more colorful language.

[Warhammer]

Also, Catton's Civil War trilogy is better than Foote's trilogy by far.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The Johnson Years basically boiled down to whether you let the Southern Democrats become representatives or not. Under the guise of the 14th Amendment...

And thus the death of the 10th Amendment, and the rise of the new most important amendment, the 14th

[sterlingice]

Ok, it's a bit of thread necromancy but it was sitting around in my "unread" bookmarks folder and I just now got to it. I have to say, great thread all around

SI