Class on the 1960s Vietnam Antiwar Movement and how it expands the nations democratic process. This was recorded in 2010 at Temple University in philadelphia. Professor farber now teaches at the university of kansas. So, weve been talking these last few weeks out loud about a few core issues that have, in many ways have given thematic intensity to the 1960s era. Weve been trying to think about the meaning and reality of equality in the United States in the 60s era. Weve been pondering what Democratic Practice could and should look like in the United States, and then very pertinent to what well do today, what role the United States should play internationally. What role should the United States play in a world that was fast changing in the 1960s. So weve gotten to the point in this class where weve reached a point where president johnson has decided by early 1965 to begin a forthright military intervention by the United States in vietnam. And the reasons have been fairly compellingly laid out by johnson between 1964 and 65. With the gulf of tonkin resolution in 1964, the president made his case that there was aggression coming from North Vietnam pointed at the south and pointed at the United States as well in the attack on u. S. Ships in International Waters on that gulf of tonkin. And remember, its really important to understand, when this resolution was brought before congress, every Single Member of the house of representatives, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, from the south or from the north, all of them voted to approve this resolution in the house of representatives. In the senate, only two senators voted against the gulf of tonkin resolution, and they had very different reasons. One was a liberal republican. Thats an oxymoron in 2010 language. But there were such things in the 1960s. A fellow named senator morse from oregon, he smelled a rat. He had a source in the pentagon that said something was amiss about what johnson was telling the American People about that incident in the gulf of tonkin. The other guy was a curmudgeon senator from alaska, the new state of alaska, that had only just become a United States state. And this guy, senator gruning, was kind of a hardnosed realist. He was doing a cost benefit analysis. And his critique was i dont get it. Why does it make sense for the United States to spend blood and treasure going to vietnam . There was no big moral critique. There was no larger issue about the meaning of americanness. It didnt add up for him. But, again, these are two senators. Theres almost no visible critique as johnson launches what will quickly become an american war in vietnam. There were a few other voices, a few public voices that raised questions. Mostly from that realist perspective. Does this add up . Hans morgenthou, a guy in the academic community, he raised those issues. Walter litman, a famous columnist, been making pronouncements about american policy for some 50 years. He raised some questions. He also critiqued this as a really just not a reasonable solution to americas interests in asia. But otherwise, remember, theres a kind of consensus. Its an Election Year in 64. Johnson and goldwater, the republican and the democrat running for president , are both advocating the maintenance of americas position in vietnam. I emphasize this to give you a sense of the fact that overwhelmingly what americans heard in their public lives, what their politicians were telling them, what their politicians believed, was that the war in vietnam was justifiable and necessary. Now, johnson hammers this home in february 1965. After that incident in which for the first time American Marines were targeted and eight of them were killed in their role protecting an american air base in vietnam. He goes on National Television to really make the case not just for a resolution to allow the United States to move forward but to tell the American People because of the aggression by the north, North Vietnam, because the defense of South Vietnam is necessary, were going to have to start escalating our commitment militarily to the republic of vietnam, South Vietnam. And he gives a kind of litany of what do americans see as compelling reasons. One, he said, we promised them wed do that. We pledged in 1954 that wed stand by South Vietnam. This is a commitment we have as a nation to another nation state. We have to do this. And then it echoes of something diet d. Eisenhower, the president in the 1950s said about vietnam. He warned if we let vietnam fall all of asia could fall to communism. Eisenhower called this the domino effect. Johnson, the democrat, seconded and agreed with the premise that his republican president counterpart in the 50s had said. All of asia could fall if the United States doesnt honor its commitment to South Vietnam. And he also talked about the potential bloodbath that could occur if North Vietnam was allowed to take over South Vietnam, that hundreds of thousands of innocents would lose their lives, so he made a moral case as well. So political, geopolitical, moral, these were grounds upon which he placed the american involvement in vietnam. And, again, americans overwhelmingly supported this commitment, both in congress and in the public. So you begin in a sense with a kind of public consensus about the war in vietnam as being necessary and even more good and honorable, appropriate, and necessary commitment to the people of South Vietnam. This is the beginning. By 1965, early 1965, the war begins to escalate from an american involvement perspective. So american troops begin to be sent over, draft calls. Remember, theres a draft at this time. Young men are eligible to be drafted into the military. And the numbers of young men being drafted begins to increase by 1965 and, quite pointedly, Lyndon Johnson unleashes an air war on now the enemy, an american air war on North Vietnam. Operation rolling thunder, as its called, begins in which massive amounts of bombs from u. S. Airplanes flown by u. S. Pilots begin to be unleashed on North Vietnam. Now, these are targeted bombs. Theyre not wholesale destructions of cities. Theyre aimed at troop movements. Theyre aimed at munition supplies, at factories that are building war material. Theyre targeted bombs. Theyre not terror bombing. Theyre not like what happened in the end of world war ii. But the bombs are intense. 600,000 tons of bombs will be dropped on North Vietnam in this operation, rolling thunder. Largescale support at this point. So is there any critique at this point beyond those very few voices that i discussed earlier . Yeah. There are some americans who from the getgo, from the gulf of tonkin resolution right through the coup incident, the death of eight marines, the launching days later by Lyndon Johnson of operation rolling thunder, who do protest, who do raise questions. But most of these voices, most of these individuals and groups, are readily dismissed by most americans. In some cases, theyre the people weve been talking about in here these last many weeks. One of the first and earliest voices raised against the war in vietnam comes from a radical pacifist who runs a small, almost underground magazine called liberation. Starts in the 1950s. Its not a 1960s thing. This is a magazine called liberation run by a guy named dave dellinger. Dellinger, a pacifist. He opposes all wars. During world war ii he was a young man. He recently graduated from yale. During world war ii, he was called up to be drafted, as so many young men were at this time. And dellinger refused to serve in world war ii. Hed gone to jail. Hes served time. It was a nonviolent protest against the war. He refused to be complicit. So this is a guy whos against all wars. So vietnam is just one more in another war hes going to protest in his magazine, a beach front, so to speak, for that pacifist critique. So theres this tiny group of pacifists who speak out. Oh, my gosh, america is entering another war. This is morally indefensible. There are others, we talked about the student nonviolent coordinating committee. By 1964 and 65, that group that had started out of the sitin movements in 1960 had become, in parts of their experiences in mississippi, alabama, and other hardened places of racism in the United States in those days, to become more and more radical. They werent just looking at instances of bad policy in the United States but were trying to it create a more systemic critique of American Government policy. And one of the critiques that they had developed by late 1964 or 65, the radical activists, was that the United States was complicit with the kind of imperialism that they found so immoral and wrong in places like africa. So their critique of vietnam, as a theater in which the United States would become involved, stemmed from their already fairly richly developed critique of u. S. Involvement in what was then called the third world. So from africa to asia was for these activists not a long leap. And other militant africanamericans, not just associated with snick, also using this kind of critique, began to speak out early about the war in vietnam. Now, this is not mainstream groups. The reverend king, for example, in 64 and 65, is not speaking out against the war in vietnam. He had private reservations, but he did not make public those concerns at this time. So these are more, again, radical black activists in the United States. Again, for the overwhelming majority of the American People, like the pacifists, this was a group that could be essentially dismissed. Okay, these people are radical. Theyve got some overarching complaint about u. S. Policy. You know, whatever. And like the pacifists, these are not voices that are heard on the nightly news, theyre not reported in the New York Times or time magazine. Remember, theres a fairly narrow window of mass media at this point, so its hard to get your voice into those few niches where you can be heard by more than a few hundred or thousand people. So these kind of people are not being loudly heard or really barely heard at all. Theyre dismissable, pacifists, black radical activists worried about imperialism. A third group that speaks out at this time is that kind of nascent new left we talked about, those white radicals that are in 1964 and 65 relatively few in number, many of them associated with the students for a Democratic Society, that group that was formed back in 1960 and then had begun to spread throughout other campuses around the United States from its foundation at the university of michigan. They had a similar critique as their black radical counterparts. Something about vietnam that seems wrong. It seems, again, to be some kind of American Intervention in a thirdworld country where were probably not welcome and were probably not serving the the need for those people to have democratic selfdetermination. Remember, the sds activists, the white new left in particular, were really honed in on this idea of democratic selfdetermination. The people, including the American People, should have the tools and the means to realize their own destiny, to fulfill their own promise and their own policy concerns. So youve got white and black radicals. Youve got on older tradition, people who are generally chronologically older coming out of a pacifist tradition or a tradition of dissent that extends back into the 40s and 50s, who are raising some real questions, early days about the war in vietnam. But again, a very quiet voice in the national conversation. A voice that a large majority of americans can dismiss as kooks, literally, crazy people, radicals. So mainstream conversation, the New York Times, cbs news, time magazine, the president , the Senate Majority leader, the house speaker, republican democrat, liberal conservative, the establishment, as some young people start to refer to all these kinds, it is pretty much in lockstep with the policy thats developing, incrementally but almost inexorably by the United States government in vietnam as the war escalates. And again, month by month, incrementally, more troops are being sent from the United States to vietnam. More air missions are being launched from bases mostly at this point in vietnam to attack the north and to try to end the insurgency within the south of vietnam itself. This is the process. So in some ways, it mirrors roughly or at least maybe it rhymes with some of the concerns that black activists had had probably earlier days, in the early 50s, lets say, not the 60s but the early 50s. When youve got a large majority of the citizenry of the United States in essential agreement about a policy, a way of life, a vision of how america operates. In the case of these black civil rights activists, this was jim crow laws, White Supremacy and other means of maintaining a racial hierarchy. So now youve got another group in the 60s, a small group, pacifists, radicals, who are trying as a small minority to convince, convey, inform the large majority that the policy they take is a given, that the conventional wisdom that theyve been bestowed by their political leaders is wrong. Flawed, immoral, the nature of the critique is fluid. But youve got this tiny minority saying, what were doing in vietnam is wrong. And even though the large majority of americans think its fine, we have to somehow wrestle them into rethinking this proposition. Well, so how do you do that . All right. If youre this small minority trying to convince a large majority that your president has misled you, that congress is wrong, that the mass media is either misinformed or misinforming the public, what do you do . And again, a lot of these people are either people who have been living in many ways outside of the mainstream for a long time or in the case of the white and black radicals ive just described are, you know, your age. Theyre 20. Theyre 25. Theyre 18. What do you do . Literally, what do you do . What repertoire of tactics, tools, methods do you use, again, to try to convince a majority that theyre wrong . You know, you can sort of imagine in your head theres all sorts of ways you might proceed on that. Now, this is happening at a time when there already is a kind of rich movement culture, rich movement of people who have already embraced tools, techniques, tactics to change political life. Its happening simultaneously with the Civil Rights Movement. So in 1965, for example, roughly at the time that Lyndon Johnson is telling the American People weve begun to escalate a military involvement in vietnam, youve got Martin Luther king and tens and tens of thousands of others marching in selma, alabama, to ensure the right of africanamericans to vote in a state that had long disenfranchised them. So, right . So theres this kind of parallel social movement occurring as these early and we can use the word now antiwar advocates are trying to come up with their own answers and solutions. So obviously to some extent this nascent antiwar activism is going to look at the Civil Rights Movement. They have a repertoire. They already have some means and tools and practices that might be adaptable to our cause. So thats one piece out there. Theres another piece out there thats almost happening simultaneously but its, again, a precursor to this. We talked earlier about what was happening on the university of california Berkeley Campus in the fall of 1964, really just weeks after the gulf of tonkin resolution is passed. On the campus at the university of california, you remember, you had the freespeech movement erupting, mario savio getting on top of the police car, telling the students of the university of california, you have a right to political practice on campus. You have a right to speak out freely on campus about the political causes of the day. Now, he was talking about civil rights issues, about Racial Justice issues. He was not talking about vietnam. But he was offering again a kind of interesting locus, a place from which you might launch some kind of political protest. And here its more pertinent for the white majority. Heres a white radical activist on a University Campus of suitable age saying we can use this place. We should be allowed to use this place, the University Campus, as a place to mobilize, organize, and perhaps launch protests against a policy we dont think is right. So right there is this theres already this sort of available language and this available set of understandings and practices out there as these nascent antiwar activists are trying to think, what do we do . Well, following that model, its intriguing to see what happens. And johnsons speech in 65, march 65, is like a a match that lights well, its not a bonfire at this point. Its like a little tiny fire that begins to erupt around places in which there already is an established political arena and critique in the United States. So one of the first places in which a kind of antiwar mobilization effort begins is on a University Campus at the university of michigan. Again, remember the place where the students for Democratic Society had been first founded just a few years earlier. Theres a Movement Among faculty, not undergraduates, not graduate students, but basically junior faculty. These are men almost all men. It might have been all men. I cant quite remember in their late 20s and early 30s who for various reasons are suspicious of literally what johnson has just told them in this speech, this nationally televised speech about why we have to start escalating our involvement in vietnam. And about 20 of these young professors, untenured, they have no job security, gathered together in a room like this and they say, what should we do . I think we have to do something on campus to bring the attention of young people that something is amiss in vietnam. They literally sit around like this and try to brainstorm. What can we do . They do like a tick list. What are the tools we could use . What are the possibilities . They come up with a Pretty Simple solution. They say, you know what we should do . We should not have classes on a date certain, pick a day, and instead of teaching our normal classes, well have a kind of moratorium on everyday business, and they used the word moratorium. And well talk about the war in vietnam. Well try to find informed opinion. Well try to find somebody that knows something about this. Really none of the guys in the room knew anything about vietnam other than what theyd been reading in time and New York Times and cbs and listening to congress. So they had no particular expertise. They just had suspicion. And so thats what they figure. This is all done publicly. They announce what theyre doing. And youd be not surprised to understand that many powerful citizens in michigan, as they get wind that these professors are going to not do their job for which theyre paid that day, not teach their classes, deny the students the opportunity to proceed, they get a lot of pushback from this. And basically theyre told, you do this, you could be fired. This is inappropriate. And its not right to basically force your students not to be able to attend the class that they, you know, paid their monies for. So the professors, again, untenured, no real job security, they sit back and think this through. They come up with an alternative plan. They compromise. They say, okay, okay, okay, we wont strike. We wont have a moratorium. Well teach our classes that day. Fine, fine, fine. But after classes, at 8 00 p. M. , can we have a room, a big room, an auditorium the university of michigan has mammoth auditoriums and let us use the pa system and the blackboards and the room. We wont disrupt anything. Theres nothing scheduled. Let us have a teachin. Sitins from 1960, right . They kind of coin a phrase. Well have a teachin. And well bring in some people, hopefully smart guys who know something about vietnam, and well debate the great issues of the day. And intriguingly, the university of michigan think about the university of california, berkeley, just a few months earlier who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent savio et al to have access to the campus, university of michigan, every campus is different, says, okay, as long as you guys dont strike, you can do this. So a tactic is born. Through this kind of negotiating and thinking through. A tactic is born. Well have a teachin. These are early days. How do you convince a majority of people who are either supportive of the president s policy or in all likelihood, no offense to you 18 to 25yearolds, apathetic about the policies that are ensuing, how do you get them excited and impassioned and at a minimum informed . You teach them. Take a university, you extend it into the political realm. So thats what happens. 8 00 it starts, and theyre blown away. Again, i dont know if youve ever done this, had a party. You have a party of your house. 8 30, theres nobody here. 9 00, theres seven people here. I guess that would be fine. Seven peoples cool. Well be all right. Meanwhile youre praying that the hundred people you invited would show up. They have know idea how many people will show up to this teachin. 3,000 people come. The auditorium doesnt nearly hold that many people. Its astonishing. On a University Campus, early 1960s, march 1965, theres 3,000 kids who want to hear about this and want to talk about this. They dont just want this. Talking head up above telling them. They want some backandforth. They want to be part of this. Its that kind of sds participatory democracy spirit. They get 3,000 people to show up. They talk all night. Not all of them stay all night, mind you. But they go all the way to 8 00 the next morning, 12 hours. And then they kind of, you know, class is starting in three minutes. We have to leave now. No breaking of laws. This is all okay. 35 other campuses just like within a week do the same thing. An intriguing issue. You have teachin. What do you teach . Where do you get information . Theres no internet. Theres no, oh, vietnam, lets get a few perspectives. Lets see whats happening. How do you do that . Well, theyre like scrambling, trying to find these guys, starting this teachin. They dont know. They just got, you know, suspicion. Who do they get . They know a guy who is an economics professor out east who used to serve as an economic adviser in vietnam. Remember, that nationbuilding phase. Theyre bringing in experts. Smart guys trying to help build an economy in vietnam and ports and infrastructure. Hes one of these guys. You know, he had a contract, he had a grant to do this work in vietnam. So he comes. And hes informative. He spent three years on the ground in vietnam, and he says, its not working. I mean, we went there with good intentions. Working. We went there with good intentions. They dont want us there. They want to do it their way. They dont want to do it our way. What the president tells you is not accurate. Were not welcome there. Were not seen as their great allies. Were seen as one more big power intervening. Its funny to think about this. Hes an anthropologist. He had gun his field work in vietnam. You know, it was a primitive place. Thats how they saw it, right, hed work with hill people up in the hills. Hed been there a long time and he comes back and says the vietnamese see the world different than us. They see us as like china or the other great powers that have come and gone. Same thing. He says they dont see us as the freedom loving Democratic People of the United States there to just lend a hand. President johnson, were going there for no other reason to help and this anthropologist says i hate to tell you, they dont want your help. Okay, interesting perspectives. Not traditional perspectives. Its not a four star general, a u. S. Senator. These are like alternative voices. The third guy is this kind of radical intellectual. Young guy in his 30s. Hes trying to piece together a living by writing and talking and he comes in there and kind of gives the barnburner. He selkds that kind of radical critique. Hes older. Hes supposedly wellread. He says, yes, this is another war of imperialism. Something to grapple with. That was like two hours and then they had more ten more hours of hanging out, talking. Theyd broken into small groups, classrooms like this and these things spread. I guess thats what im trying to say. Who you could bring in varied, did you have an expert, did you have somebody who knew something about vietnam . Often know there were no courses in any university in the United States on the history of vietnam. There was no university in the United States that talked the vietnamese language. So you didnt have a lot of inhouse experts in the United States on these issues. Last, we didnt have many inhouse experts in the state department or cia either on vietnam, but thats another can of worms. So it was hard to get information. Okay, another turn of the same story hard to get information, youve got young people, all kinds of people saying that. I dont trust time magazine, i dont trust the New York Times, i dont trust the president of the United States. A 26yearold graduate student in new york, an English Literature major, shes sort of part of this new lab. She was involved in protests in the early 60s. Shes trying to take advantage of her skill set. I can write, i can do research. Ill setup an alternative media on this issue. And really an incredibly rapid time with almost no money in her pocket at all, she gets a little grant from a Teachers Union in new york. Remember the United Auto Workers helped fund some of the early snick activities. Im talking about at this point hundreds of dollars, but enough to get a new graph machine and a few other things. And i dont know magazine is too grandiose a term for it, an aural altenative magazine focus focused on vietnam. Okay, thats sweet. How do you fill the pages . What goes in there . She had an intriguing idea. She didnt really trust that american writers, journalists, even abdemics how dare she knew enough to really substantiate a monthly journal on vietnam that told what she saw as the true story. She luckily spoke some french, she had some connections in england through like a graduate student network, she began to use the European Press which remember had a far wider ideological range than the american press, all the way from communist to monarchist. She was using Foreign Language and get someone to translate that and use that to piece together this algturnatiternati. She wasnt alone in this. In berkeley and youll be shocked to hear in berkeley there was another guy who ran a bar in which he decides that theres a need. Hes sitting around the bar a lot of drunken nights, people spewing this and that about politics in the United States. Shes like you know what we need around here, we need our own newspaper. Yeah, theres the San Francisco examiner, the oakland tribune, the regular newspapers. Hes like we need our own newspaper for People Like Us who dont buy what theyre telling us. And he starts out of his pocket. Hes a bar owner. Hes got some cash. A newspaper called the berkeley barb. Therell be lots of these underground newspapers that sprout up in every city in the United States in the 60s in philadelphia. The free press, theres lots of them. But this one starts it off in 65, and he focuses in on vietnam. And he talks to those people who had long been seen as marginal. And he uses them as his sources. If youre a journalist normally who do you talk to . You call the congressmen, the mayor. He doesnt use those as his sources. He uses this small scale grass roots but fairly quickly growing alternative set of experts, and he fills up his newspapers. The berkeley barb is a pretty crazy fup. Its filled with all sorts of trancegressive material. Thats a nice way to put it. Its the first newspaper i think in california that will, for example, print sex ads. This guy who runs it hes kind of a wild and crazy guy. Kind of a bohemian character. Kind of an interesting new blend. Okay, teachins, university based, get the young people invested. This might have relevance to them especially the young men who could be drafted and go to war. Cant trust the establishment media. Diy, do it yourself, make your own stuff. These are tools of contention. How do you convince more and more people something is afoot they should not accept . So thats the beginning. Now, theres all these other traditional tools available, too. Sds, stands for democrat sfoi, many of the leaders and many chapters around the country already suspicious, already raising questions about vietnam, but this is not their main issue. Remember we talked before sds at this point was involved at that attempt to go into neighborhoods of poor people, white and black and organize them and try to create some kind of Economic Justice movement in the United States. That was sort of the focus of sds at this point. Nonetheless, theyre watching whats going on university of michigan, berkeley and other places and they say weve got to do something about this vietnam thing. I know its not our main concern. Were focused on issueoffs Racial Justice, Economic Justice, but lets do something. So what do you do if you want to kind of do something on the cheap, doesnt take a lot of time or effort, not this massive commitment of trying to setup sources in europe and polling. Hey, lets have a rally, lets have a march. This is something thats been happening thousands of times. Mainly having to do with race issues in the United States, but its easily accessible. If you say to somebody, hey, were going to have a march and rally do you want to join, everybody goes like oh, yeah, what the black people do all the time, right. Its an available tool everyone kind of knows about. So they figure, what the hell, lets go for it. And they announced were going to have a march and rally in washington, d. C. , april 12965 to protest Linden Johnsons escalation of the war in vietnam. And once again its like that party. They plan for a few hundred people to show up. Again, they dont have Like National advertising for this. They have no bullet at all to market or announce this. Again, theres no twitter, no social networks. Theres no easy way to get peoples attention. All they have are chapters around the country, and they put out their word to their chapter like tell the people they should come to this. Itll be interesting. But once again theres a kind of shocking moment when these few characters from sds are up in front of the crowd in washington, d. C. And people just keep coming. They didnt really know would appear 5,000, 15,000, almost 20,000 people show up in washington, d. C. For what is the first antiwar march and rally. The third tool that these guys are trying to create and develop. These are early days, april 65. There arent that many troops in vietnam though the bombing has begun american troops in vietnam. And the head of the organization and i dont believe theres any video of this because its not the big time. A gi named paul potter hes not probably the greatest speaker in the world but hes president of the organization and he gets to give a big speech. And he gets up and there gives a careful, rational, dispassionate theres no waving of arms or anything like that, speech. And he tries to wrap his head around what the United States is doing in vietnam. Hed spoken Counter Point to johnsons speech. Hes publicly struggling with why this is happening. Why is the United States going to start a land and air war in this Little Country 8,000 miles away and he comes to this conclusion theres some kind of system in the United States theres a system in the United States that creates these war, that creates these interventions. And he says essentially i dont know what it is. I dont know how to call it. I dont know how to identify it, but i know its there. And we, talking to the 20,000, theres no tv coverage, its just them. We have to learn how to identify that system, a kind of open ended phrase. A system that will create wars in asia for some kind of american interest. Thats hard to pin down. A radical critique but a kind of vague critique. Interesting moment. And creating the open ended question, again its kind of an interesting rhetorical move. Instead of telling people heres what you should think hes saying like mario did a few months earlier at berkeley what should we do about this, what do you think is happening . Again, its kind of an interesting organizing tool. You dont preach, you question. Kind of a rhetorical style youll see him organizing at least in these early days. So he spreads the word we have to do something. Theres another interesting touch to this speech and i shouldnt leave it alone because its kind of a hallmark speech, one of the first antiwar speeches made in the United States. He does this critique, theres a system, we have to identify what makes this happen, whats the underveiling pressure. And then he continues and says as i see it what the people in vietnam want is really just like what we want here in the United States. Hes making quite a leap. Again, hes a 20somethingyearold guy. He doesnt speak vietnamese. He doesnt know much whats happening actually in street thaum. He was been reading the first issue of viet report and got a little facts. He says these people i feel are just like us, and theyre fighting for some of the same things were fighting for. Theyre fighting to be able to determine their own lives, have democratic atonomy, liberate themselves from forms of oppression. These are certainly things hes feeling and that many of his colleagues are feeling. And he attributes the same struggle in vietnam as the struggle in the United States for a kind of democratic selfdetermination. Theres truth to it. But he goes further and sort of says what were fighting here in the United States is the same as what theyre fighting in vietnam. Were alike, and we share much of the same vision of how the world works, and were fighting something thats dark and oppressive. This is what one of the members of the Antiwar Movement would later call a kind of manchian world view, theres good and evil and that existential notion, you have to choose which side youre on. Okay, this is a little risky as a proposition. There dont have to be two sides. There could be two good, two bad, 50 fragments. The cold war kind of made you think that way. Soviets and americans i guess because we have two arms maybe were like a third case. So he sort of deposits this idea that the National Liberation front are similar. Its an Intriguing Development and a potentially risky one for the movement itself, early day, nobodys sure whats happening. The war in vietnam as begun to escalate rapidly, and it escalates rapidly because each time President Trump saemgs tries to bandaid the deteariation of the american ally, the South Vietnamese the bandaid fails. The military with the tools johnson gives them cant manage the deterioration of the army of the republic of vietnam and the republic of vietnam, our ally. The forces that we oppose are getting stronger. So johnson is forced to keep putting in more troops, escalating americas land war in asia. Hes bargaining, trying to negotiate with hochimin, trying to negotiate a deal as hes trying to do with the United States congress. Hes offering this, offering that. But the american enemy wont move. They wont negotiate, wont do a deal, wont compromise. So johnson tries to incrementally increase the pressure. This incremental pressure causes a couple of things to happen. One, the war is starting to cost more and more money. And its causing more and more young people remember the draft annal calls up young men women are not eligible for the draft to be called up into service. So more and more young people are getting their attentions focused willynilly on the war in vietnam. Now, quick aside. Remember the way the draft works is really how else to put it messy. There are 26 million baby boomers who come of age during the war in vietnam. Thats 26 million men come of age who turn 18. You just dont need that many people in the army, right . Theyd have to stand like this or something in vietnam. So you have to have a Selective Service system to pick which ones go. Rather than send all 26 million young men there, you pick which ones have to go. Some people dont have to go because theyre incredibly stupid, right. Youre too stupid you cant serve in the military. Some people are physically unable to go into the military, so they dont have to go. But then once youve roll that out youve still got a whole lot of people. Who do you pick to go . Well, there are deferments. Methods that keep you from having to go. If you were a skilled tradesman training to be a carpenter or electrician or plum br, that was seen as a more worthy skill then sending you to be a combat soldier in vietnam. So you could be deferred because of the job you held. In this case a skilled tradesman. More famously if you were a College Student or a graduate student you would be deferred from having to serve. Now, College Student is a specific amount of time. This is going to be a shock to some of you youre not supposed to stay in school forever, youre supposed to get out after a while but while you were a student you were deferred, you didnt have to serve. One more weird thing about the draft worked during this time. Not only could you be deferred for various vocational or positions you have in american society, you could sort of negotiate with the people who were picking the draftees. It didnt happen in washington, d. C. There wasnt a giant ibm computer that spit out the names of those who would be drafted. The way it worked you would receive a notice you were eligible and you would have to go to your local draft board. In north philly thered be a draft board. In doylestown, thered be a draft board. And usually an old white guy sitting at a table most of whom had served in world war ii who were the draft board. Literally again its like we tend to think of it as abstract. It was some guys, and then you would pitch your story. If you wanted to go you didnt have to pitch a story. You filled out your paperwork and moved out. If you said i have a reason i didnt serve, youd present it. I have a note from my doctor, i have a really bad cold, the equivalent of i cant go to vietnam. Oh, for years ive had this psychiatric condition and i have a note to prove it. The draft board could look at this stuff and go whatever, on the bus. Didnt happen that fast but you get the point. Or they could say i know your dad, hes a good guy, you dont have to go. So it was really wide open as to when ended up going to vietnam. Obviously if you had more resources, access to psychiatrists you had a good advantage if you did not want to serve. Now, in 65 when there werent that many draft notices being sent, most people got called up, they did their thing, they went. But every month as more and more people are going, as these university protests are heating up, as word is spreading there are some at least who think this war isnt right, good, there are people interested in saying theres a certain selfinterest in this. Is this a war worth dying for . Youve got now a pool of people who are potentially now noteivated to think about an issue than if it was, well, not a draft. Still i strongly overline overwhelmingly when people got called not surprisingly by 1966 as the draft is starting to increase there are young people focused now on the draft who begin to resist. Another tool, and a different tool than the three weve talked about. So heres this kind of process that doesnt really have any corollary in certainly the Civil Rights Movement or any other protest movement. The draft. What do you, should you in some ways protest this system . A litt these guys didnt say i wont serve in any war. They said in this war. And they did this literal catchy publicity garnering move. You guys dont do this anymore. You have to register to draft still, but you used to have to carry a card, literally a draft card saying your status. As a young man you were required by law to carry it everywhere you went. So these guys took their card and they burned it. I will not serve. This is symbolic, wherewith . Its like they still have a copy of your card somewhere in washington. It isnt like it magically goes away like oh, cool. But its a simple. Interestingly congress had these guys do this, passes a law saying you cant burn your draft card. Identify just cant do that. Its bad. And they literally put a 5year prison sentence for burning your draft card. Interesting court cases will ensue, and actually the courts substantiate the law saying if you burn your draft you have to go to jail. So its the beginning of a protest. Starting in 66 but escalating by 67 a draft resistance begins. It starts in boston. Its the first one. Called resistance and again quickly spreads. Its a different model. And what it does is it coaches people on ways you can keep out of the draft. It also asks people to publicly state people in 66 in early 67 in small ways, mass media oriented ways trying to come up with tools, techniques, maybe an overarching strategy to somehow get americans, young and old, to rethink the premises that their president , their congress and others have told them is the national duty. So youve got this process, so how do you escalate that . Youve got tens of thousands maybe this time its fair to say hundreds and thousands of americans who have become highly suspiciously even opposed but the nation has got 200 million people. Most people arent onboard with this. How do you up the ante . Well, instead of just having that one march and rally you start to have it all over the country and organized nationally by a group that forms out of these various usually radical factions to host, to hold, mobilize just gatherings of people, rallies, antiwar rallies in which people would come and speak explain why the war is wrong. There were organized groups in the United States, America First was the most famous of them. It held similar rallies to keep america out of the war in germany. But this is a little different, isnt it . There already is a war. So as people are rallying and protesting, refusing, resistening entry into the draft youve got to remember other young men are going to vietnam. This time over 10,000 by early 1967 have died fighting in vietnam. Many families are sacrificing. So this saprotest going on while theres a war being fought. Little different than world war ii in that there was no declaration of war, so freedom of speech, freedom of assembly are still fully warranted constitutionally. When theres a war declared theres really different rules of engagement between the public and the bill of rights. But theres no declared war, but you do have american young men dying while these people are saying this is wrong. You can imagine the backlash. Youve got, again, most americans saying the war is right, but secondly oigt or wrong our guys are dying over there. You have to shut up now. You have to rally around the troops. You can see theres room here for more than just intellectual disposition about policy. This is getting to be more and more visceral stuff. The stakes are ever more high. So by late 1966 into early 67 the nation is beginning to polarize around this issue. A very small minority actively opposing the war. A very large majority saying, you know, the troops are over there, youve got to rally around the troops. This heightens the stakes and makes things trickier, complicates the process. Theres blood being spilled. Well, the war doesnt just end in 1966. If it did this wouldnt be a lecture. This would be flea sentences of a lecture. Right, the war is just going to keep continuing. So by mid1967 more than two years of war have been fought, and americans are now in vietnam not in small numbers, not in support units, not on guarding air bases. But in order to sustain the South Vietnamese government theyre in passive numbers. Hundreds of thousands of american troops by mid1967 are in vietnam. What are we doing . Whats the end point . Youve got all kinds of americans anxious about this war now. So its a kind of opening. As the war continues more and more people focused on it. Youve still got this problem. How do you convince people to care . How do you convince people who arent directly affected to do something . How do you convince people whose sons are in harms way this is ill advised . What other tools are there, what other techniques are there . In 67 part of this Antiwar Movement that had been activated for a time, 2 1 2 years, they begin to up the ante. Some of those older guys literally at the heart of this movement and others as well say were going to have to start combining our goals here. Weve got this witness program, this gandhi approach we assemble, but we need to do more. And some of the younger people would say weve got to adopt sort of the guerilla techniques the vietnamese are using. They dont mean violence, but they mean ways to copfront, subvert, get in the way of the war machine so that the pentagon and the white house and congress understand that not all americans are going to allow this what they see now as slaughter to go on indefinitely. In berkeley, again, for example, a small group, an independent antiwar group begin to try to blockade the troop ships taking people literally to the depot in oakland, the port in oakland where troops go off to the pacific in vietnam. They literally try to stop some of the troop trains delivering young recruits to war. Theyre trying to blockade the war. Others start the protests at draft boards. They try to link arms and not allow people to get into draft boards. In 1967 a large group some 75,000, some say over 100,000 show up at the pentagon in the United States in october. On the one hand its a typical protest. We dont like the war. Its immoral, wrong, rhetoric but they also try to literally surround the pentagon. You guys ever see the pentagon . Its like really, really big, but they had a lot of people there and they are symbolically trying to stop the heart or the brains i guess you could say of the war machine by literally, you know, blocking the pentagon. Now, theres some characters in this protest who kind of try to change the rules of the game. They say weve been doing these marches, rallies around the pentagon, that might get some tv notice, thats clever but people are kind of bored so weve got to do something cool to catch peoples attention. This guy who thought of the troop blockade in berkeley hes hooked up with a long haired guy and they come up with a goof, a scam where they announce today the press that the purpose of linking their arms and incircling the pentagon is not just block people from getting in and out, its also part of a magical rite. And if done properly they can levitate the pentagon because the pentagon Everybody Knows is the ancient symbol of evil. Kind of a goof. But the press is like thats funny. Its like our poor republican friend down in delaware who gets a lot of News Coverage for saying stuff thats special. Well, same idea. The press is like thats cool, you have long hair, youre funny, can we take a picture of you . And it kind of clicks. Its like, oh, if you want more attention, youre trying to reach the majority and get more publicity, get people to hear you, maybe youve got to do clever, goofy stuff. Even people are angry, but these guys are like well whets make it funny. Lets make it clever, dangerous. Were talking about war. Were talking about people dying in vietnam, but the American Public is kind of fickle. So maybe to reach them its another how do you do contentious politics, how do you get the majority to focus, how do you break them out of their apathy . Particularly these two guys are trying to get young people to focus. Not just individually try to invade the draft but speak out publicly, change the course of the nations politics. Guess what im trying to say is between 65 and late 67 all sorts of tools are being engineered. All sorts of kind of modelings of how the public works are occurring am. Antiwar activists are stretching the boundaries of Democratic Practice. How do you do democracy as they try to figure out how to capture the nations attention. In 1968 this Antiwar Movement is split. Half is not fair. Some large percentage will continue these, well, protest politics, rallies, march, sitins, teachins, block aids, confront the war workers, protest the university. But another large segment will say, you know, whereby i think weve convinced a lot of american folks that the war is wrong. We need to now turn to the sort of highway of politics in the democratic United States which is electoral. 1968 is an Election Year. 1964 we had a chance between bomb vietnam to the stone age versus incrementally try to change the policies of vietnam through an escalating war. Now in 68 maybe we can get a choice. And some of these antiwar activists try to cajole, convince, persuade, fund an antiwar Democratic Party candidate. They can go mainstream, in other words. Maybe weve got enough support now to go mainstream. Maybe democracy ipits most traditional sense will work. So in 1968 candidates are sought who can position themselves as antiwar advocates in the president ial election of the United States of america. The first guy who kind of comes to the fore is a junior senator. He steps forward. He turns on the sitting president of the United States, the head of his party, Linden Johnson and says i will run against johnson, i will stand as the antiwar candidate. And he shocks the punditry but almost defeated Linden Johnson, the first democratic primary in New Hampshire in 1968. Suddenly its like even in conservative New Hampshire people dont like the war in vietnam. Not protesters, notadicals, not pacifists. I dont know if there were any black people in New Hampshire in 1968, but kind of just regular folks dont like this. Into infray jumpathize junior but wellknown senator from new york, Bobby Kennedy who also says i too will stand against this war in vietnam. I too will challenge the seated president of the United States. Johnson is horrified and its a real moment of truth for him. Johnson is not in the best of health. His hearts not good. Hes faced incredible stress from a war he never wanted to fight but felt it was unavoidable. He decide in the face of this genuine challenge to quit. To cut to the chase the man who wins the democratic nomination is not kennedy. As you all know hes assassinated june 1968 not interested in the war in vietnam but had other axes to grind. Kennedy is killed, probably would not have been able to get the nomination. Mccarthy never had the gravitas to carry it off. And instead lbjs Vice President , a man named hubert humphrey, a guy who was ambivalent about the war in vietnam but essentially promises to carry on the policy of johnson wins the nomination. Opposing him was a republican whod been around the political bush more than a few times named Richard Nixon. Nixon had lost to kennedy in 1960. Hed lost his bid to become governor of california in 1966, but Richard Nixon is not an easy guy to make disappear. He comes back from the political dead. He wins the republican nomination, and he does something tricky. And im not going to be able to say much more today, but he does something very interesting. Now, nixon had made his bones politically as a fierce anticommunist, as a guy who said always we must stand up to the threat of soviet communism. But by 1968 the war in vietnam was wearing thin with, again, not just radicals, not just with young people but more and more americans. They didnt want to betray their troops, give up on their vision what the United States stood for. So nixon offers something interesting. He said something different. He says americans must win this piece. Whats that . He goes, well, i promise you that i will win this piece for america. I have a plan to end the war in vietnam. Everyones like how are you going to do that . He goes, well, it would be unfair of me to tell you while im not the president of the United States because that would undercut president johnsons effort to negotiate with our enemy so youll just have to believe me because im such a believable figure that i have a plan. But were going to have to leave it here today. The war does not end with Richard Nixons victory in 1968. Indeed the war will go on until 1973 when Richard Nixon took office about 31,000 american soldiers had already perished. 27,000 more will die while Richard Nixon is president. Because nixon does not quickly, easily effectively end the war in vietnam the Antiwar Movement in the years ahead will radicalize and explode and create incredible polarization among the American People. Thats for next time. Youre watching American History tv. Every weekend on cspan 3 explore our nations past. Cspan 3 created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview whats available every weekendoon cspan 3. The u. S. Capitol has been home to the house and senate since 1800 but its their home districts and states that send members to washington, d. C. Today cspans cities tour takes a look at pivotal politicians as we travel the nation in search of their stories. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan 3. Every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern go inside a Different College classroom and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights and u. S. President s to 9 11. Thanks for your patience and for logging into class. With most College Campuses closed due the impact of coronavirus watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting to engage with their students. Gorbachev did most of the work to change the soviet union, but reagan met him halfway. Reagan encouraged him, reagan encouraged him. Freedom of the press i should mention madison originally called it freedom of the use of the press, and it is indeed freedom to print things and publish things. Its not a freedom which we now refer to institutionally as the press. Lectures in history on cspan 3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Up next on lectures in history a class about Southeast Asian migration to the United States and examines how the laws and Public Opinions on refugees have changed over the last five decades. Her class lasts about an hour. Today were going to talk about topic 18 which is a Southeast Asian refugee migrations