You do know that under Kennedy the FBI was spreading the lie that MLK was a philandering pimp who had big sex parties right before the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, right? You do know that John Lewis's original speech on that famous 1963 rally was censored because it was too critical of the President and the civil rights bill, right? Kennedy was accused by the civil rights movement of trying to co-opt and diminish it. Kennedy condemned the Freedom Riders and voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. He was an opportunist. By contrast LBJ pushed both the 1957 and 1960 Civil rights Acts through Congress. And LBJ was a southern Senator.

Yes, yes, I know you love unprovoked wars of aggression against poor countries. I'm very impressed with your manliness.

You provided absolutely nothing on Madison to demonstrate he was a 'good President'. All you can say is he wrote the Constitution, which was a long time before his disastrous foreign policy nearly got the country wiped out. To think he wanted to fight both France and Britain at the same time, and with nothing in the way of an army or navy.

*SIGH*

First, the rift between Kennedy and the FBI is so infamous I'm shocked I ahve to point that out...so yeah, sorry, I don't buy your JFK-behind-MLK-slander bit unless you give me something directly linking him to it, as otherwise, if it's JUST the FBI, yeah...

The FBI and Kennedy didn't get along.

Socker of the century to all living under a rock for the past half a century.

And I LAUGH when you condemn JFK for being an opportunist--the best politicians are--and yet don';t do so with the most opportunist President EVER, LBJ!

The man INSISTED having a photo taken with the still-bloodied Jackie Kennedy just hours after her husband had splattered all over her to make the press tomorrow and look as if he was a seamless transition!

The man latched onto the seat of power thrust to him by an assassin's bullet!

LBJ--famed opportunsit...and we're going to knock JFK for doing the same thing?

See, it's that double standard you hold, Putin...third or fourth time it's cropped up, and it's getting harder and harder to take your arguments seriously when you don't seem to realize...

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS.

You evidently haven't been keeping up with the Jackie Kennedy tapes that were released about MLK. Anyway it was Jackie who insisted on keeping the blood stained jacket on, and I don't get why you blame LBJ for the photo. The photographer was the only evidence LBJ had been sworn in. Where is the evidence that Johnson "insisted" Jackie be in the picture? Are you one of these conspiracy nuts who think Johnson wanted JFK dead or something?

LBJ has a long list of civil rights legislation he pushed forward and the NAACP certainly agrees with me that he was better than Kennedy on civil rights.

Does the pre-eminance of Lincoln go unchallanged by everybody in the US? I studied American history for acouple of years and our teacher brought the views of that steadfast abolitionist and libertarian Lysander Spooner to our attention. He seems to have been somewhat written out of your conventional narrative. Anyway here is a letter Spooner wrote to Seward when he was asked to join Lincoln's republican party:

Boston Jany. 22 – 1860

Hon. William H. Seward,

Sir,

Your note of the 11th was not recd until the 21st. It was read with some surprise, and with more regret, to say nothing of other sentiments.

The note is marked “private.” I decline the confidence. Both your notes came into my hands fairly without my having authorized any implication of privacy. And although I may not think it proper or any longer feel disposed, to use the one to Mr South in the particular manner I had desired to do, I shall nevertheless, since you are a public man, feel at perfect liberty to use both of them in any other manner, however public, as evidence of your unfaithfulness to freedom, and your own convictions of the true character of the constitution, which you have sworn to support.

And if in so doing, I shall chance to “embarrass” the plans of the Chases, and Summers, and Wilsons, and Hales, and the other jesuitical leaders of the Republican party, who profess that they can aid liberty, without injuring slavery; who imagine that they can even be champions of freedom at the north, and at the same time avowedly protect slavery in the south, “where it is”; and that they can thus ride into power on the two horses of Liberty and Slavery – if I should happen to “embarrass” these plans, I shall not feel that that consequence is one which I need to care to “avoid.” I had had some hope that you would put you foot on these double-faced demagogues, and either extinguish them, or compel them to conduct, for the time being, as if they were honest men. But it seems that you have decided rather to throw yourself into their arms, commit your fortunes to the keeping and do nothing on behalf of liberty, that may “embarrass” their operations.

In contrast to your conduct, I take the liberty of exhibiting to you that of Senator Brown of Mississippi. In the Senate Decr. 2 – 1856 (As reported in the Congressional Globe) after describing the book as “an argument in favor of the constitutional power of Congress, not only to interfere with, but to abolish slavery in the southern States of the Union,” he said “The Senator [Wilson] did not say – what I am willing to say myself – that the book is ingeniously written. No mere simpleton could ever have drawn such an argument. If his premises were admitted, I should say at once that it would take a Herculean task to overthrow his argument.”

Although Mr. Brown thus left it to be inferred that he thought there might be some error in the premises, he made no attempt to point to any.

Thus an open advocate of slaver from Mississippi, virtually makes more concessions to the anti-slavery character of the constitution, than a professed advocate of liberty, from New York, notwithstanding his private convictions of the truth, thinks it for his interest, “under existing circumstances,” to claim for it.

I shall very likely make the whole of this correspondence public; and if it shall serve any purpose towards defeating yourself and the Republicans, I shall be gratified; for I would much rather the government be in the hands of declared enemies of liberty, than in those of treacherous friends.

Lysander Spooner

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/letters/SESP012260.htm

and this extract from an 1864 letter to Sumner:

''Had all those men at the North, who believed these ideas to be true, promulgated them, as is was their plain and obvious duty to do, it is reasonable to suppose that we should long since have had freedom, without shedding one drop of blood; certainly without one tithe of the blood that has now been shed; for the slaveholders would never have dared, in the face of the world, to attempt to [3] overthrow a government that gave freedom to all, for the sake of establishing In its place one that should make slaves of those who, by the existing constitution, were free. But so long as the North, and especially so long as the professed (though hypocritical) advocates of liberty, like those named, conceded the con­stitutional right of property in slaves, they gave the slaveholders the full benefit of the argument that they were insulted, disturbed, and endangered in the enjoy­ment of their acknowledged constitutional rights ; and that it was therefore neces­sary to their honor, security, and happiness that they should have a separate government. And this argument, conceded to them by the North, has not only given them strength and union among themselves, but has given them friends, both in the North and among foreign nations; and has cost the nation hundreds of thousands of lives, and thousands of millions of treasure.''

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/43

Spooner saw very clearly that the war, as far as Lincoln and his party was concerned, was pre-eminantly about preserving the union and NOT about the abolition of slavery. He also saw that the preservation of the union was, above all, a matter of business, that is what 600 000 died for.

If preserving the Union at any cost and for any reason is a measure of greatness then Lincoln indeed fits the bill. I suppose it all depends on how you define ''greatness''.

That's just it--

I DON'T blame LBJ for the photo...

I'm just saying that was an example of HIM being an opportunist, and he was one as well as JFK, as well as all politicians.

It's not a bad thing, it's just a fact--politicians are, by the nature of their job, opportunists.

LBJ didn't force Jackie into the blood-sp-lattered clothes, obviously, but he also clearly wanted the picture with her coming off of Air Force One and also with her and his taking the oath and all...

There IS documentary evidence as well as first-hand account evidence of this.

And, AGAIN, this isn't a BAD tjhing, it's just JBJ being an opportunist, which is what a politician naturally is, so I'm, just saying that while JFK was an opportunist, so was LBJ, so was Nixon, so was FDR, so was TR, so were they all and so they all still are.

As long as their are agendas to set and press and media to garner, there will be opportunism in politics.

LBJ and JFK were just two examples of it.

Hold them to that same standard of opportunism is all I ask.

A bit off topic but Spooner also wrote this:
“If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.”

Seems eminantly reasonable to me, no doubt some would call it sedition.

Yeah, I knew the obligatory Confederate propaganda was going to be plastered in this thing by Fulham. No surprise here. Still haven't gotten an answer as to whether a Confederate victory would have been good for blacks. Oh, and can the neo-confederates answer a simple question - why did the union need defending? For what purpose did the Confederacy exist? Why did the rebels call Lincoln a "Black Republican"? Why did the South threaten to secede when Fremont was nominated in '56? Why was the economy of the South booming if they were so oppressed? Why was the northern economy recovering from a panic? Why was the tariff so low? Why couldn't the tariff be raised despite the northern panic and southern boom?

But no, because Lincoln didn't think he had the legal authority to unilaterally abolish slavery in all territories, that somehow means he's not 'great'.

And of course, nevermind that he relentlessly pressured the border states to emancipate their slaves, and offered them generous compensation. No, no, of course he was sufficiently committed to abolitionism, but somehow that means that the Confederacy wasn't a horror show for black rights. And of course nevermind that Jefferson Davis engaged in the same kind of "civil rights violations" ,ie suspension of habeas corpus, that Lincoln is blamed for.

I don't get how being in a swearing in photo is an example of opportunism. But keep going with the "double standards" meme. My whole point was that JFK flip flopped on civil rights when it was useful. LBJ was far more committed and spent far more capital on the issue.

Putin asks a simplistic question about what would have been good for Blacks in the context of 19 th and 20 th century America, a confedrate or union victory. I have ignored up to now because of its ''when did you stop beating your wife'' nature. To shut him up my answer is marginally on the side of a Union victory. However, I would not wish this to be taken as an endorsement of the subsequent treatment of Blacks in the US, which was appalling in both the north and south. This even more clearly emphasis the point that the war was NOT about the freeing of the slaves. Lincoln said this himself extremely clearly, if you remember.

Marginally? Being murdered on sight is marginally worse than the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments? Jesus christ you're ridiculous.

Anyway, you keep repeating the same crap over and over. So I ask again, why did the South secede? You claim Lincoln didn't unilaterally want to abolish slavery, but why did the South secede? Why did the Union need preserving? Why the always Republicans called Black Republicans, and so loathed that even if Fremont had won, the South would have bolted?

Frederick Douglass knows better than you.

"When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Haiti, the special object of slave-holding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months' grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more."

What I find particularly fascinating is Fulham expresses shock, *shock* that any Americans would adore a man (and believe me our history books actually trash Lincoln) who smashed to pieces a rebellion of Slaveocrats who murdered black POWs, but yet he worships at the totem of Saint Churchill, and seems to buy into the conventional history of his own country. Selective contrarianism, indeed.

On Churchill:

Putin, when Churchill refused to negotiate with the Nazis the Soviet Union was at peace with Hitler via the appalling Ribbentrop-Molotov pact which carved up Poland between them and allowed the Nazis to proceed with a single front campaign against western Europe. There were many in the English establishment who wanted to come to an agreement with Hitler (e.g., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2650832/Lord-Halifax-tried-to-negotiate-peace-with-the-Nazis.html), but Churchill stood firm. This was a pivotal moment in the history of the world.
Please don't misunderstand me I do not unreservedly support all of Churchill's policies or utterances. Unlike Putin I do not see historical figures as characters in cowboy films where one can tell the goodies and the baddies by the colour of the hats they wear. Most people are shades of grey of course and it is only the childish who hero-worship or villainies without qualification. My judgement on Churchill is that in the Europe of 1940-1941 he was a remarkable leader, not just of Britain but the rest of the non-Nazi world. At other times his conduct might have been more questionable, that is my balanced view.

Putin accuses me of being a confederate sympathiser. I would ask that he backs this claim up with specific citations from anything I have said. My posting record is available for all to see, unlike his which has been withdrawn because he has exceeded the site's allocated memory cache.

It should be noted that the latest instance of his use of this accusation was in response to my quoting of primary documents from the abolitionist Spooner. Spooner's points have been ignored completely by Putin who restricts himself to calling me a confederate sympathiser; some methodology at work here!

Where can one begin with Putin's unquestioning defence of the treatment of Blacks in the north? Perhaps a good place to start is with the educational system? I offer this extract from a review of JIM CROW MOVES NORTH: THE BATTLE OVER NORTHERN SCHOOL SEGREGATION, 1865-1954, by Davison M. Douglas. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/douglas0206.htm

''Douglas concerns himself with events prior to 1954, but I nonetheless wonder what he would make of the continued de facto segregation of schools in the north today. I suspect this history could shed light on contemporary questions. It was striking, for example, to read Douglas’ description of segregated schools for black children, when communities in the antebellum north were able to erect them at all. They were often cold, dark, dirty, dilapidated, and overcrowded sites in which the expectations of students were low and little real education occurred: more recent laments on the awful conditions in which our poorest children are expected to be taught today echo throughout these pages. The teachers in those black schools were typically paid substantially less than those in white ones, and the least qualified tended to concentrate there as a result. It is similarly difficult not to think of how many of our best urban teachers are recruited by suburban (and whiter) schools and made offers that are hard to refuse – safer workplaces, students with fewer problems in class and at home, more abundant resources, and much higher pay. It is unfair, I realize, to fault Douglas for neglecting to make such connections. Instead, he should be credited for presenting this history so well that it implicitly invites a comparative analysis of contemporary education policy, and raises difficult [*148] questions about our long and continued legacy of segregated schools, even in the north, and about the limited power that both courts and legislatures may have when confronted by the forces of economically-based residential segregation, and by the (albeit softer) racism that still lingers throughout the nation.''

One could move on from there too, if he cares too, how about Chicago Illinois and Cicero? That would be interesting.

Sweet Jesus and his virgin mother, how many fucking Lincoln/President X was good/bad debates do we need?

John A. was grossly overrated. Now, Chretien, that's a great leader.
"I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand"

@ Putin33

"His accomplishments are overlooked"

What accomplishments?

http://obamaachievements.org/list#

^ stupid partisan bullshit. maddow is used as a reference for some of that shit and half of it either is patently false or simply not an achievement

We were all happily going on our way yelling at each other about other Presidents and then Fulham had to come along.

yes, and it is not partisan bullshit that Obama has accomplished nothing

It is so relaxing to have Putin's fabrications and fantasies totally muted. I miss nothing of consequence.

I know! Let's all calm down and talk about how awesome I am.

I'm pretty sure Testicle Chew is the same guy who runs Rasmussen polling.

...that might be the best derogatory nickname ever.