The Unmaking of the President
Lyndon Johnson believed that his withdrawal from the 1968 presidential campaign would free him to solidify his legacy
- By Clay Risen
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2008, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 6)
Conventional wisdom holds that Johnson backed out of the 1968 race a broken man, undone by years of domestic division. But 40 years later, such a view seems too simplistic. An examination of that fateful week in the Johnson presidency, based on documents from the National Archives and interviews with Johnson White House staffers, shows that he was, in fact, emboldened by his withdrawal—only to be broken, finally and irreparably, by the King assassination and the riots that followed.
Indeed, soon after he made his withdrawal address, Johnson was plotting a new agenda. "His demeanor was that of a new man," his confidant and former speechwriter Horace Busby wrote. "His conversation began to quicken with talk of what could be achieved over the balance of the year. There was fresh excitement and an old bite in his tone as he declared, ‘We're going to get this show on the road again.'"
But the show closed quickly. Consider the fate of a speech, conceived in the hours after King's death, to outline a massive new effort to address urban poverty. On Friday, April 5, the day after King died, Johnson had gone on television and promised to deliver the speech the following Monday. Then he pushed it back to Tuesday night, supposedly to avoid overshadowing King's funeral in Atlanta earlier that day. Then he postponed it indefinitely. When Busby urged him to get on with it, Johnson demurred. "We don't have the ideas we used to have when I first came to this town," he told Busby. "Until we all get to be a whole lot smarter, I guess the country will just have to go with what it has already."
Johnson's withdrawal—which he announced on March 31 on national television with the words "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President"—was long in coming. According to his press secretary George Christian, Johnson had been weighing the decision since October, and he had casually broached the subject with friends even earlier. In January 1968, he asked Busby to draft a withdrawal statement to slip into his State of the Union address, but the president never delivered it.
By late March, however, Johnson had begun to reconsider. At lunch on Thursday, March 28, he brought up the idea of withdrawing with Califano and Harry McPherson, his special counsel. With antiwar protesters outside the White House gates chanting, "Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" Johnson rattled off his reasons for withdrawing. He was worried about his health. He wanted to spend time with his family. Most important, his political capital was gone. "I've asked Congress for too much for too long, and they're tired of me," he told his lunch companions, according to McPherson, now a partner at a Washington law firm.
Johnson's staff had spent weeks working on a major speech about Vietnam, scheduled for the evening of March 31, in which the president would announce a halt to bombing over most of North Vietnam to encourage Hanoi to enter peace talks. The day before, he asked Busby to rework the statement that had gone unread during the State of the Union address. Busby came to the White House the next morning, and Johnson secluded him in the Treaty Room to work on what Johnson discreetly called his "peroration."
Johnson told his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, about the new ending that morning, but informed key cabinet members only minutes before going on the air. As he sat in the Oval Office, his family watching from behind the cameras, he exuded a calm rarely seen on his face of late, "a marvelous sort of repose over-all," recalled his wife, Lady Bird. When he finished his speech, he stood quietly and hugged his daughters.
The White House was silent. "We were stunned," McPherson told me. And then the phones began ringing. All night, friends close and estranged called with congratulations and approval. The White House press corps exploded in activity, clamoring for a further statement. The first lady finally emerged. "We have done a lot," she told reporters. "There's a lot left to do in the remaining months; maybe this is the only way to get it done."
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (6)
Read the book "LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination" to get an accurate vision of who this man really was. One must go beyond the good sentiments toward this man that are based solely on the fact he managed to become president.
Posted by Alexandre Boucher on December 31,2010 | 03:06 PM
Sounds a lot like an apologist of LBJ writing the whole story. Personally, LBJ always struck the middle and lower classes as an arrogant, boisterous thorn in the country's side. If he was not linked to JFK's assassination, it would be surprising to hear those arguments. This man was one who could be vile,vulgar and perhaps evil. Much was evidenced by transcripts and audiotapings of his dialogue. All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; LBJ loved power, and hence was a principality in this country who many think did more harm than good. I knew several middle class guys who died in Nam thanks to his wish to be idolized just as FDR was, but look at what they have done to our war on poverty and tax structures. It is over for them. . . let us find new ways to correct our wonderful country.
Posted by L.Mark on May 19,2008 | 09:10 AM
My largest negative regarding LBJ, that I hold in mind, is that LBJ campaigned for election on peace platform, although he never, seemingly, had intended to deliver peace and withdrawal of our troops in Vietnam, but had intentions to escalate the war in Vietnam, later calling it a peace offensive. LBJ, for all intents and purposes, was determined to not be the president who lost a war. Present day, we currently have two democratic candidates that are promising the same sort of thing, essentially, in relation, to Iraq. The dems are promising to draw down the troops and bring our troops home. To myself, I just totally make those issues a null void box in my mind because I know in history we have had candidates/presidents who promised peace, and who promised we would not get involved in foreign wars (FDR), but who never delivered on these things. Inspiring words, campaign promises, moving speeches and rhetoric are not actions. Even Woodrow Wilson was considered a oratorical phenom.
Posted by Mercey on April 20,2008 | 12:09 AM
History will look back at LBJ's incredible courage in civil rights, and read such speeches as he gave to a joint session of Congress after the horrors in Selma, invoking Dr. King's words, "And We Shall Overcome", reportedly bringing Dr. King to tears as he watched Johnson on national TV. Johnson will be remembered as a great President for what he achieved, and what he tried to achieve, in his civil rights and his entire domestic agenda.
Posted by David E. Whitten on April 19,2008 | 12:10 AM
I found this article extremely interesting. I had forgotten many of the details of what happened at the time, and was glad to be reminded, and to hear information about the inside workings of the Johnson administration that I hadn't heard about before. My only criticism would be that the author jumps about in time, so that the sequence of events is muddled and hard to get straight in one's mind.
Posted by Ms Troy Parker Farr on April 12,2008 | 02:15 PM
I sat in that meeeting at the whiite House on April 5, 1968 with President Johnson. To this day,I wonder why Floyd McKissick of CORE, who was in the building, was not permitted to join us in the Conference Room. Paranoia was running rampant in the White House that day.
Posted by IRichard Gordon Hatcher on April 8,2008 | 12:05 AM
What better testimony to Johnson's magnificent civil rights accomplishments then, 40 years later, we have an African-American candidate who may well become president. While obsession with race and injustice because of it is the sorriest part of the American story, it has also brought forth moments of great courage, from people of all colors.
Posted by Fred Ripley on April 8,2008 | 09:09 AM
Except for Abraham Lincoln, has any President held office in more turbulent times in America than LBJ? He took over for a President that after his death all of a sudden became the greatest President we ever had in many peoples minds. He had to deal with racial tension, Vietnam and the assasinations for MLK and RFK. LBJ was a big man with big faults, but I would like to see history treat him more kindly than it has to this point.
Posted by Pete Iseppi on April 3,2008 | 08:13 AM
We need that kind of unifying spirit from our current leaders. Too many of the same attitudes of 40 years ago still persist.
Posted by jim jordan on April 1,2008 | 05:18 PM
A very good article. Useful to remind people president Johnson was a sincere new dealer.
Posted by Claude Julien on March 28,2008 | 06:10 AM