Will JFK lose in Texas in 1964 election without LBJ as running mate in this scenario?
The Presidency of John F. Kennedy
- Thread starter hcallega
- Start date
Sounds ASB. Hope the next update comes soon enough so we can see what hcallega is gonna do.
The Home Front
“And that is why we must ensure that every American citizen’s civil rights are fully protected under the law. Today, that responsibility falls on you, the Congress of the United States. I urge you to pass the Civil Rights law before you and take a great step forward for this country.”
A cheer rose from the both sides of the House floor as members of both parties stood to applaud the words of their President. Only a few disgruntled Congressmen sat, arms crossed, as John F. Kennedy called on them to pass a bill which they saw as anathema to their way of life. Cameras panned across the Chamber, zooming in on a few select faces. There was Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, the President’s youngest brother and a champion for his legislative program; Majority Leader’s Mike Mansfield and Carl Albert, sitting apart but joined together in a renewed desire to expand their legislative majorities in the November elections; Senators Russell of Georgia and Byrd of Virginia, the leaders of the Southern Bloc in the Senate and avid opponents of the Civil Rights Act. But the focus of the night remained on the Speaker’s Rostrum, where President Kennedy delivered his fourth State of the Union Address. It was a strong, decisive speech focused on pushing Congressional and public opinion in favor of Kennedy’s agenda. The White House had two major goals in 1964: pass a major tax cut, and get the Civil Rights Act to the floor of the Senate. Even if that bill was blocked by a filibuster, Kennedy could effectively argue against conservative obstructionism and the need for the election of more progressive Senators. The President also highlighted his foreign policy goals, namely a continued focus on diplomacy with the Soviet Union combined with a renewed effort to provide economic and political support for developing countries in Africa and Latin America. In his first address to Congress since the attempt on his life in Dallas, President Kennedy was truly the star.
But there was another focus beyond President Kennedy that night. Seated behind him was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, a man who had risen from poverty in rural Texas to become Senate Majority Leader, before being denied the Democratic Party’s nomination in 1960. Johnson had proven to be a magnificent legislature, working with the Republican White House and Democratic Congress to guide the course of the country’s politics. But he was not built for the television era. Compared to Kennedy, he was not particularly attractive or charismatic. His was a politics built for the smoke-filled rooms of Capitol Hill, not the bright lights of the TV studios. And so Lyndon Johnson was forced to swallow his pride and accept the Vice-Presidential nomination instead of the title he dreamed of for so long. While he was a necessary asset in Kennedy’s 1960 victory, the Vice-President was frequently ridiculed and marginalized once in office. Nicknamed “Rufus Cornpone” by Kennedy’s Irish Mafia of staffers and aides, Johnson fell into a depression. His advice was rarely taken seriously, and whatever mastery over the Senate he used to have was revealed to be fleeting in the face of a newly elected crop of young liberal Democrats in ’58 and ’60. But at the very least, Lyndon Johnson could call himself the Vice-President of the United States.
Even that began to change in the fall of 1963. The Senate Rules Committee and Life Magazine began simultaneous and independent investigations into Senate Secretary Bobby Baker in late-November, and while Kennedy’s near-assassination put a pause to them, they quickly resumed in mid-December. In both cases, it was clear that Baker and his mentor, Lyndon Johnson, had used their influence not only to pass legislation but also to gain personal wealth. Soon it was obvious that Johnson had essentially gained a monopoly on television and radio in the Austin area, becoming a millionaire in the process. Life published a particularly damning issue focusing on Johnson’s apparently illicit dealings in early January, and the Rules Committee followed up with their own round of investigations once Congress reconvened. Within the White House, President Kennedy was already working with his political team to find a suitable means to push Johnson off the political stage. But on the night of January 9th, during the first primetime State of the Union in American history, Lyndon Johnson was still seated behind John F. Kennedy, and rabidly applauding at every opportunity.
As Congress got back to work in January of 1964, three major items were on the table. The first was the President’s long-sought after tax cut, which had floated around in Congress for several years. But the Kennedy of 1964 was a different President than the Kennedy of 1961 or 1962. He had gained immeasurably in his dealings with Congress. No longer did he leave the job of persuading Congress to his deputies, namely Lawrence O’Brien. His role personal involvement in getting the Partial Test-Ban Treaty ratified proved that Kennedy was capable of whipping up Senators when need-be. This became apparent early on in the tax debate. In early January, Kennedy brought leaders of both parties to the White House to discuss a myriad of issues. But one man in particular drew his focus: Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia. A Democrat, Byrd was the perfect embodiment of Southern conservatism. He opposed most federal programs, was an ardent anti-communist, and strongly opposed any attempt at forced integration. But most importantly, Byrd was the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and opposed the tax cut. Kennedy didn’t need his support, but he did need him to allow a vote on the bill. Speaking with Byrd, it became clear that the Chairman’s opposition was not motivated merely by a desire to obstruct the President’s agenda. Instead, Byrd was genuinely concerned that a tax cut without corresponding spending reductions would explode the deficit. After just a few minutes of negotiating, Kennedy agreed to send a budget totally under $100 billion in spending if Byrd agreed to bring the tax cut up for a vote. This served as a double victory for Kennedy: not only would the tax cut likely get passed, but he would also bolster his fiscally conservative resume in an election year.
Byrd was true to his word and after just several weeks of negotiations and hearings, marked-up the tax cut in early February. Only five members of the Finance Committee opposed the bill, including Byrd. The tax cut reached the floor of the Senate in mid-March, where it was debated for over a week. Various senators sought to protect their local interests during the debate, proposing various amendments attempting to remove language on everything from excise taxes on theater tickets to taxes on expatriates. However, the bill made it out more or less unscathed, and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-21. The House passed a similar bill, and after several more weeks of deliberation in the Conference Committee, the Revenue Act of 1964 was adopted by both Chambers of Congress with overwhelming majorities. President Kennedy signed the bill into law on May 12th, 1964, and praised Congress for “Acting on behalf of America’s workers and business. This law will create move our economy forward and ensure that our country remains the best place to do business in the world.” Specifically, the tax cut reduced rates across the board from a range of 20%-91% in 1963 to 14%-70% in 1965 for individuals. This amounted to an average decrease of 19%. For businesses, rates were cut from 52% to 48% for large corporations and 30% to 22% for smaller businesses. A number of other tax expenditures were also created, and many low-income Americans no longer had to pay income tax. The President’s budget was also left largely intact, despite opposition from members representing wheat producing states due to cuts in price supports for that commodity.
The second major focus of Congress in the first several months of 1964 was civil rights. The Civil Rights Act had remained stuck in the House Rules Committee following its adoption by the Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1963. Judiciary Committee Chairman Emmanuel Celler of New York had circulated a discharge petition in an attempt to force the Rules Committee to take up the bill, but until President Kennedy’s trip to Dallas, it appeared unlikely that it would succeed. But after Kennedy’s near-death experience, political will shifted in favor of the bill. Many previously hesitant Republicans signed on to the petition, joining a nearly unanimous block of liberal Democrats. As the petition gained more and more signatures, Rules Committee Chairman Howard Smith acquiesced and agreed to hold a vote on the bill, which passed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 cleared the Rules Committee and came to a vote on the House floor on February 29th, and passed by a vote of 290-135. At this point the bill went to the Senate, where it would traditionally be referred to the Judiciary Committee. However, the Judiciary Committee was chaired by Senator James Eastland of Mississippi. Much like Howard Smith in the House, Eastland was a staunch segregationist hailing from the right-wing of the Democratic Party. If the Civil Rights Act entered his committee, it would never see its way out. To prevent this fate, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield “met the bill at the door” and placed it directly on the Senate calendar for a vote. Senator Richard Russell, the de facto leader of the Southern Democratic faction in the Senate, raised a point of order against this motion. The Senate vote on this measure was close, with 54 Senators supporting tabling Russell’s complaint and 44 supporting him. The next obstacle to passage was a motion by Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. Morse was a former Republican but a staunch liberal voice in the Senate. However, he was also a major supporter of Senate procedure and opposed Mansfield’s end-run around the Judiciary Committee. His motion would have committed the Civil Rights Act to the Committee with instructions to report it out on April 20th. Mansfield moved to table this measure, and was only narrowly successful, with a vote of 50 in favor and 46 opposed. Debate would begin on the Civil Rights Act in early April, but there was no guarantee that the bill’s supporters had enough votes to break the Southern filibuster.
The third and final central focus of Congress in 1964 was the investigation of Vice-President Johnson’s finances. The Senate Rules Committee began hearings in mid-January, with a group of Texas businessmen who reported being cajoled by Johnson serving as the first witnesses. The Chairman of the Rules Committee was Everett Jordan of North Carolina, a conservative Dixiecrat and good friend of the Vice-President. Jordan had privately communicated to Johnson that he intended to prevent the committee from taking action against him, but that he had to respond to the growing public outcry against the Vice-President. Ranking Member John Williams of Delaware was another story. Williams was a strong an opponent of corruption as any member of the Senate, and sought to expose every detail of Johnson’s dealings. In this respect he was aided by the White House. Attorney General Robert Kennedy was a staunch an opponent of Johnson as anyone in Washington, and did little to assist Johnson in preparing a defense against the investigation. Neither did Kennedy’s aides, and while the President was clear that he didn’t want his Vice-President censured or even worse, impeached, he did little to make the process any easier. Indeed, with a full-blown investigation by both the Rules Committee and one of the nation’s largest weekly publications, Johnson’s position was becoming increasingly imperiled. In early February, facing public ridicule and an ever-shrinking bastion of support in Washington, Vice-President Johnson met with President Kennedy in the Oval Office. The Vice-President’s comments cut straight to the point: “Mr. President, I think it’s time I went back to Texas.”
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
So, to summarize:
1) The 1964 Tax Cuts pass, but are now accompanied by spending cuts. Somehow, I don't think the later are going to last. (In fact, was this as OTL?)
2) The path of the CRA to the floor of the Senate is as OTL; we'll wait to see how Kennedy handles the Southern filibuster.
3) LBJ is about to resign -- will be interesting to see how that affects the above and JFK's likely second term.
1) The 1964 Tax Cuts pass, but are now accompanied by spending cuts. Somehow, I don't think the later are going to last. (In fact, was this as OTL?)
2) The path of the CRA to the floor of the Senate is as OTL; we'll wait to see how Kennedy handles the Southern filibuster.
3) LBJ is about to resign -- will be interesting to see how that affects the above and JFK's likely second term.
Perhaps LBJ can give JFK a piece of advice, such as trying to get Republican support for Civil Rights, before he goes. Or, he can leave after the Civil Rights Act is passed. I hope this bill is passed and isn't killed on the floor.
One more thing hcallega, please don't choose Stuart Symington or RFK as JFK's new running mate, like in If Kennedy Lived and Unafraid, respectively. Terry Sanford works as VP choice.
Last edited:
As am I. Think Rockefeller will be the nominee in '68, as hcallega has him win in Camelot Forever. Don't think he'll use Greenfield's scenario of Reagan being the Republican Nominee in '68 here.
Yes, the tax cuts are the same as OTL. Kennedy already had Dirksen's support in the Finance Committee and only needed Byrd to call a vote. This wasn't an example of some expert legislating done by Johnson. He literally just promised a few spending cuts that weren't dramatic. In fact, Kennedy's record in the Senate shows that he was quite critical of price supports, so I see no reason why he wouldn't agree to cut them.
He was on the verge of trading away measures affecting public discrimination in an attempt at passage.
Au contraire, Johnson very quickly showed the difference between himself and Kennedy. He treated Byrd, an old friend of his, like a king, and wood him to support the bill, all the while assenting to Byrd's demands. The Kennedy Administration thought that they could cut a little bit, and Byrd would come around. They were completely out of their depth on the issue, and Dallas won't change that.
I do agree with your handling of LBJ, though. Excellent work there.
Again, Bobby had already promised Terry Sanford the spot. Search the PDF for yourselves. Sanford isn't actually named (maybe Baker forgot his name?), he's the "Governor of North Carolina".
No, LBJ has been broken. He's going to take what's left of his ball and go home.
And take over at Southwest Texas State Teachers' College and transform it into Texas State as a penance.
Yeah, it's funny how close he was to being kicked out of the executive branch before a few minutes in Dallas changed all of that.
I wonder if Humphrey will ever run for president with Kennedy still alive beyond 1963.
I seriously love this TL. Can't wait to see who the Republicans nominate in '64, whether it be Goldwater, Rockefeller, Lodge Jr or Governor Scranton. The election will definitely be closer then OTL '64.
A great continuation - sad to see LBJ go so unceremoniously, hope his replacement'll be someone of interest.
If Kennedy wasn't looking for a southern running mate, I'd expect Humphrey to be chosen.
If Kennedy's chosen successor doesn't win in '68, then Humphrey still has a chance in '72, and in addition, if he's not poised for a presidential run in '68, he might check out his cancer earlier - and get it treated properly, adding many more possible runs down the line.
If Kennedy wasn't looking for a southern running mate, I'd expect Humphrey to be chosen.
Yes, Johnson certainly wooed Byrd. But the bigger issue was that Kennedy didn't think he needed to keep the budget bellow $100 billion to get Byrd to eventually come around. Going into an election year, and following his mini-evolution seen through the passage of the Test-Ban Treaty, I think JFK would be more willing to make spending cuts to pass a major part of his domestic agenda.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment and suggestions!