With all due respect to those who served, suffered, and died in Vietnam, I think the positive aspects of LBJ's presidency greatly outweigh the negative. In 100 years, when everyone connected to the Vietnam War has died, the enormously beneficial effects of the civil rights laws will continue to be visible throughout the United States. I feel that the positive impact of these reforms on American society outweighs the tragedy of Vietnam.

Some people here have said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have been passed even without LBJ because their "time had come." This is, at best, very shaky conjecture. The fact that the civil rights movement succeeded does not mean its success was inevitable. There had been several civil rights bills passed during the Eisenhower administration, but they were very weak. Ironically, the first of these--the Civil Rights Act of 1957--was guided through the Senate by LBJ. We don't know with certainty what would have happened if JFK had lived. It's true that Kennedy introduced into Congress the bill that became the 1964 act. But many of the weaker bills that had been previously passed started out much stronger than they were when they finally became law. It is clear that JFK did not have the legislative skill of LBJ. Without Johnson, we may have had a Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, but versions of these far weaker than those which came to pass.

Furthermore, those who apply the "it would have happened anyway" argument to Johnson's civil rights achievements ignore that this can be said, with much greater justification, about Vietnam. There is strong evidence that most other political leaders would have chosen to escalate the war in a similar way that Johnson did. This can be seen not only in the congressional and public support that existed for the war at the beginning, but in the fact that almost all of Johnson's close advisers--many of whom had also served Kennedy--urged him to expand American involvement in Vietnam. Clark Clifford, who became Secretary of Defense in 1968, said: "I don't know if any other president would have done it any differently...When you look at those who were for it, and those who opposed it, it's ten, fifteen, twenty to one." The evidence about what JFK would have done in Vietnam is at best ambiguous.

None of this absolves Johnson of responsibility for the war. He was the commander-in-chief. He could have overruled his advisors. It's also clear from released White House recordings that he had grave doubts not only about the wisdom of the war, but about whether it was even winnable (which it was not). Johnson definitely deserves criticism for not following his instincts and pulling us out. But one cannot have it both ways, seeking to whittle away Johnson's civil rights achievements on the grounds that they would have happened away (again, a highly questionable proposition) while ignoring the fact that the U.S. would probably have gotten into Vietnam full-scale in the mid-60s even if LBJ had not been president.

I think Johnson is one of the most underrated presidents among the general public. This isn't so true among historians; in a poll Arthur Schlesinger conducted in 1996, 15 of the 32 historians polled rated LBJ as a "near great" president. While the tragedy of Vietnam should never be forgotten, neither should Johnson's monumental achievements on the domestic front including, as Sidney Blumenthal said, "...the glory of the greatest presidency for civil rights since Lincoln."

Garry Owen,

Your rant proves nothing. No one is disputing what Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. did. It is clear that without the civil rights movement, there would have been no civil rights legislation. But none of this disproves what I said, that Johnson played a critical role in the legislation as well.

And for your information, Johnson did far more than "get off his big fat Texas ass" and sign the bill. He worked tirelessly behind the scenes to persuade congressmen and senators, Democratic and Republican, to support civil rights. He made sure the 1964 act stayed on the Senate floor and was not filibustered to death by refusing to put other legislation before the Senate until the act was passed. Try actually becoming informed about this issue before you write about it.

Regarding Vietnam, it is true that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was partially aimed at Barry Goldwater, and that Johnson lied to get the resolution. He said that the attacks against U.S. ships were unprovoked. This was untrue, the U.S. had been running covert raids against North Vietnam for months. Furthermore, the second attack probably never happened at all. But one must understand that even when Johnson got the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, he had not decided on U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam. This threshold wasn't reached until 1965.

And no one disputes that Johnson is responsible for the Vietnam War deaths that took place on his watch. If you choose to hate him, and to decide that Vietnam is the only important aspect of his presidency, that's up to you. But I strongly disagree with you.

Owen,

If you want an ignorant liar, just look in the mirror.

Since you're obviously incapable of winning an argument on logic and facts, you have to call me names. I'm sorry to tell you this, but it just makes you look like a fool.