This class 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, 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 much so and very pertinent to what were going to 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 tonkan resolution in 1964 the president made his case 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 oftonkan. Its 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 tonkan resolution. One was a liberal republican, kind of an coxymoron but senato morris from oregon smelled a rat, had a source in the pentagon said something was amiss what johnson was telling the American People about the incident in the gulf of tonkan the other guy a senator from the new state of alaska, only just become a United States state and senator gruehning was a hard nosed realist and 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 moral critique, 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 choices, a few public voices that raised questions, mostly from the realist perspective. Does this add up . Hans morganthou, adviser to the state department, a big name in the United States at least academic community, he raises those issues. Walter litman, a famous columnist, been making pronouncements about american policy for by this time some 50 years, he raises 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 for the fact that overwhelming 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 the pleiku incident for the first time American Marines were targeted and eight of them were killed in their role protecting an american airbase in vietnam. He goes on National Television to really make the case, not just for as relulgs to all reso the United States to move forward but to tell the American People because of the aggression by 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 to americans seem 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 something dwight d. Eisenhower the president said in the 1950s 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 blood bath 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, spree geopolitica moral, 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 republican census about the war in vietnam being necessary and even more good, an honorable, appropriate and necessary commitment to the people of South Vietnam. This is the beginning, and 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, and 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 movement. Theyre aimed at munition supplies, at factories that are building war materiel, theyre targeted bombs. Theyre not terror bombing, not like what happened at 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. Large scale support at this point. So is there any critique at this point beyond those very few voices that i discussed earlier . Yes, there are some americans who from the getgo, from the gulf of tonkans relulgs through the pleiku incident, the death of eight marines, the launching days later by Lyndon Johnson operation Rolling Thunder who protest, who do raise questions but most of these voices, most of these individuals and groups are readily dismissed by most americans, and 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 now the 1960s thing. This magazine called liberation run by a guy named dave dellinger, a pacifist. He opposes all wars. During world war ii, he graduated from yale, during world war ii he was called up to be drafted as so many young men were and dellinger referred to serve in world war ii. Hed gone to jail. Hed serve time. It was a nonviolent protest against the war. He recuse fused to be complicit. This is a guy who is against all wars so vietnam is just one more in another war hes going to protest, and his magazine is a beachfront, so to speak for that pacifist critique. So theres a 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, snic, the group that started out of the sitin movements of 1960 had become in part through 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 create a more systemic critique of American Government policy and one of the critiques that they had developed by late 1964 or 65, 9the snic radical activists was 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 called then the third world. So from africa to asia, was for the snic activists not a long leap and other militant africanamericans not just associated with snic, 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 fort overwhelming majority of the American People, like the pacifists this was a group could be essentially dismissed. Theyre radical, some overarching complaint about u. S. Policy, you know, whatever, and like the pacifists, these are not voices 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 n niches, so these kind of people are not being loudly heard or barely heard at all. Theyre dismissible, pacifists, black radical activists worried about imperialism and a third group is the nascent new left we talked b the white radicals that are 1964 and 65 relatively few in number, many of them associated with the students for Democratic Society that group that was formed back in 1960, and 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. Theres something about vietnam that seems wrong. It seems again to be some kind of American Intervention in a third world country where were probably not welcome, and were probably not serving 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, that 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 you got white and black radicals. Youve got an older tradition, people who are generally chronologically older coming out of the 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, New York Times, cbs news, time magazi 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, is pretty much in lock step with the policy thats developing, incremental, but almost inexorablely by the United States government in vietnam. Ly by the United States government in vietnam. Y 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. So 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 early 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 pacifist, radicals who are trying as a small minority to convince, convey and inform the large majority that the policy they take is a given, that the conventional wisdom 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. So how do you do that . 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 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 the majority that theyre wrong . 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, a rich movement of people who have already embraced tools, techniques, tactics to change political life. This is happening simultaneously with the Civil Rights Movement. So 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 that the right of africanamericans to vote in a state that had lon 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 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 tankan resolution is passed and on the campus at the university of california remember you had the Free Speech 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. Here is 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, theres this, theres already this sort of available language and this available set of understandings and practices out there, as these nascent antiwar ab activeictivists areo think what do we do . Following that model, its intriguing to see what happens, and johnsons speech in 65, march 65 is like a match that lights, well, its not a bon fire 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 the 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. There is 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, after pleiku well have to start escalating our involvement in vietnam. 20 professors, s untenured, no security gather together in a room and say what should we do . I think we have to do something on campus to bring to the attention of young people that somethings amiss in vietnam. They literally sit around like this, and try to brainstorm, what can we do . The tick list what, are the tools we could use, what are the possibilities and come one a simple solution. 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 use the word moratorium, and well talk about the war in vietnam. Well try to find some informed opinion, try to find somebody who 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 have no particular expertise. They just had suspicion. So thats what they figure. After this is 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 paid their monies for. So the professors, again, unten toured, no real job security, they kind of sit back and try to think this through and come one an alternative plan. They compromise. Okay, okay, we wont strike, wont have a moratorium. Well teach the clasts that day fine, but after classes at 8 00 p. M. , can we have a room, a big room, an Auditorium University of michigan has some mammoth auditoriums and let us use the p. A. System, and the blackboards and the room, we wont disrupt anything, theres nothing scheduled and 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 a few months earlier fighting tooth and nail to prevent savio et al. As long as you dont strike you can do this, university of michigan, so a tactic is born through this negotiating and thinking. Well have a teachin. These are early days. How do you convince a majority of people 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, interested and impassioned, and at a minimum, informed. You teach them. Take university, 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 you have a party at your house, 8 30, theres nobody here. 9 00, theres seven people here. Fine, seven peoples cool. Well be all right but meanwhile youre praying that the 100 people you invited show up. They have no idea how many people show up to this teachin. 3,000 people come. The auditorium doesnt nearly hold that many people. Its astonishing. University campus, early 19 this is march 1965, theres 3,000 kids who want to hear about this, they want to talk about this. They dont just want this, you know, talking headup about telling them. They want some backandforth. They want to be part of this. Thats that kind of sds, participatory democracy spirit. They got 3,000 people show up. They talk all night, and 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, ooh, classes start in three minutes. We have to leave now, no breaking the laws, this is all okay. 35 other campuses just like within a week do the same thing. Now, intriguing issue. You have a teachin, what do you teach . Where do you get information . Theres no internet. Theres no like oh, vietnam, lets get a few perspectives. Lets see whats happening. How do you do that . Well, they scramble and try to find these guys who started 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 nation building phase, theyre bringing all these experts, smart guys to try to help build an economy in vietnam and ports and infrastructure. Hes one of these guys. You know, we a contract, he had a grant to do this work in vietnam. So he comes, and hes informative. s spent three years on the ground in vietnam and he says, its not working. I mean, 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. 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 in their affairs. The next guy who comes up, its funny to think about this. Hes an anthropologist. He had done his field work in vietnam. It was a primitive place. Thats how they saw it, right . And he worked with hill people up in the hills. I cant remember if he worked with the mong. And he says, the vietnamese see the world very differently than us, a cultural critique. But they see us as china or the other great powers that for centuries have come and on over their soil. They dont see us as the freedomloving Democratic People of the United States there to lend a hand. President johnson, were going there for no other reason than to help and this anthropologist says, i hate to tell you, they dont want your help. Interesting perspectives. Not traditional perspectives. Its not a fourstar general, its not a u. S. Senator. These are 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 gives the barn burner. He seconds that kind of radical critique that groups had been making. Hes older. Hes well read and he says, yes, this is another war of imperialism. He uses the i word. You can imagine this, okay, something to grapple with. That was two hours. And they had ten more hours of hanging out, talking, they broke into small groups, classrooms like this. Okay, and these things spread. Thats what i guess im trying to say. Who you could bring in varied. Did you have an expert . 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 taught the vietnamese language. You didnt have a lot of inhouse experts in the United States on these issues. We didnt have many experts in the cia or other departments. Thats another can of worms. It was hard to get information. Okay, another turn of this same story. Hard to get information, right . You got young people, all kinds of people saying that. I dont trust Time Magazine norkd, the New York Times. An English Literature major, writing her docket rat on English Literature, she tries to take advantage of her skill set. I can write. I can do research. I know how to do these things. Ill set up an alternative media on this issue. And really, 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 auto workers helped fund some of the snicc activity. Im talking hundreds of dollars at this point, but enough to get a few things. And she starts magazine is too gran dious a term for it, but a magazine focused on vietnam. Thats sweet. How do you fill the pages . Think really practically. Okay, i got this cool idea. What goes in there . She had an intriguing idea. She didnt really trust that american writers, journalists, even academics, how dare she, new enough to really have a monthly magazine. She had connections in england through a graduate Student Network and began to use the European Press which had a far wider ideological range than the american press, all the way from communist to monarchists, and she began to fish for sources that she saw as giving an alternative to the kind of things johnson and congress and the regular media in the United States were reporting. She was using foreign language. She would get someone to translate them and use that to piece together this alternative media. What are the tools of contention . How do you create a counter public to the established one . This was step two. She wasnt alone in this. In berkeley, youll be shocked to hear, there was a guy who ran a bar in which he decides that theres a need, hes sitting around the bar, people spews forth this and that about politics in the United States, and hes like, you know what we need around here, we need our own newspaper. Theres the San Francisco examiner, the oakland tribune. We need our own newspaper, for people like us. Hes got some cash. He starts the berkeley barb. Its the first undergrown newspaper. This one starts it off in 65. And he focuses on vietnam. And he talks to those people who had long been seen as marginal. He talks to passivists, he talks to activists, sds and other new left radicals and he uses them as his sources. If youre a journalist, normally, who do you talk to . You call up the congressman, the mayor, you talk to their spokespersons. He doesnt use those as his sources. He uses this smallscale grassroots but fairly quickly growing alternative set of experts. He fills up his newspaper. Its a crazy newspaper, we have it here at temple. Its funny to look at. Its filled with all sorts of transgressive material. It was the first newspaper that will print sex ads. Hes a wild and crazy guy. Kind of a bohemian character. An interesting new blend. Okay. Teachins, university base, get the young people invested, this might have relevance to them, especially the young men who could be drafted and go to war. Try to create an alternative mass media. Diy, do it yourself, make your own stuff. And, again, this starts to spread. These are tools of contention. How do you try to convince more and more people that something is afoot that they should not accept . Thats the beginning. Now, theres all of these other traditional tools available too. Sds, many of the leaders, many of the chapters around the country, already suspicious and raising questions about vietnam. But this is not their main issue. We talked before that sds was involved with 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. Theyre watching whats going on, university of michigan at berkeley and other places and they say, we got to do something about this vietnam thing. Its not our main concern. Were focused on issues of Racial Justice, Economic Justice, but lets do something. So what do you do if you want to kind of do something on the cheap that doesnt take a lot of time or effort, not this massive commitment of trying to set up sources in europe and polling lets have a rally. Lets have a march. This is something thats been happening by 1965, thousands of times. Having to do with race issues in the United States. But its easily accessible. If you say to somebody, were going to have a march and a rally, you want to join. Everyone goes, yeah, what the black people do all the time. Right. Its an available tool. Everybody kind of knows about it. They figure, wont be a big deal. Lets go for it. And they announce, a few weeks lead time, were going to have a march and rally in washington, d. C. , april 1965, to protest Lyndon Johnsons escalation of the war in vietnam. 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 budget at all to market or announce this. Again, theres no twitter. Theres no social networks. Theres no easy way to get peoples attention. All they have are chapters around the country. And they put out the word to their chapters and say tell other people that they should come to this. It will be interesting. Once again, theres a kind of shocking moment when these few characteristics from sds are up in front of the crowd in washington, d. C. , and people just keep coming. They didnt really know what appeared. 5,000, 10,000, 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 the early days. April 65. There arent that many troops yet in vietnam. Though the bombing has begun. And the head of the organization, and i dont believe there was any video of this. Its like this is not the big time. Guy name paul potter. Hes maybe not the greatest public speaker in the world but hes the president of the organization and he gets to give the big speech. And he gets up there and he gives a very carefully rational dispassionate theres no waving of arms or anything like that. And he tries to wrap his head around what the United States is doing in vietnam. And he is speaking in Counter Point to johnsons speech that had taken place the month before. And hes publicly struggling he had written a little down. But hes struggling with why is this happening. Why is the United States going to start a land and air war in these Little Country 8,000 miles away in asia . And he kind of comes to this conclusion that he says, theres some kind of system in the United States. Thats the phrase he uses over and over. Theres a system in the United States that creates these wars. It creates these interventions. And he says, especially, 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, again, theres no tv coverage. Its just them. We have to learn how to identify that system. Again, an openended 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 vague critique. Interesting moment. In creating the openended question, again, its an interesting rhetorical move. Instead of telling people, heres what you should think. Hes saying what should we do about this . What do you think is happening . Again, its an interesting organizing tool. You dont preach. You question. Its kind of a rhetorical style that youll see in a lot of this antiwar 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. Its a hallmark speech. One of the first big antiwar speeches made in the United States. Theres a system, we have to identify this system, 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. Hes a 20somethingyearold guy. He doesnt speak vietnamese and doesnt know much about whats happening actually in vietnam. Hes been reading the first issue of vietnam report. But these people are just like us and theyre fighting for some of the same things were fighting for, to determine their own lives, to have democratic autonomy, to liberate themselves f from forms of oppression. Kind of projection. These are the things hes feeling and 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 Antiwar Movement will call a world view, good and evil, and remember the notion, you have to choose which side youre on. Okay. This is a little risky as a proposition. Th there dont have to be two sides with every struggle, there could be two good, two bad, 50 fragments. It doesnt have to be. But the cold war made you think that way, the soviets and the americans. The third case so he sort of posits this idea. Its an Intriguing Development and a potentially risky one for the movement itself. Early days. Nobody is sure whats happening. Its unclear. Between 1965 and 1966, by the end of 1966, the war in vietnam has begun to escalate rapidly and it escalates rapidly because each time president johnson tries to bandaid the deterioration of the american ally, the bandaid fails, the military with the tools johnson gives them cant manage the deterioration of the army of the republic of vietnam. The forces that we oppose are getting stronger. So johnson is forced to keep putting in more troops, escalating americas land war . Asia. Hes trying to negotiate with ho chi minh, trying to work out a deal. Hes offering this and that. But the american enemy wont move. They wont negotiate. They wont do a deal. So johnson keeps trying to increase the pressure. This pressure causes a couple things to happen. One, the war is starting to cost more and more money, were all familiar with that phenomenon. And its causing more and more young men, remember the draft only calls up young men. Women are not eligible for the draft. To be called up into service. 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 i dont know how else to put it. Messy. There are 26 million baby boomers who come of age during the war in vietnam. You dont do that in half thats 26 million men who come of age. Turn 18. You just dont need that many people in the army, right . Theyd have to stand like this. You got to have a system, a Selective Service system, thats called, to pick which ones go. Rather than send all 26 million young men, you pick which ones will go. To do that you have to make some people not have to do. Some people dont have to go because youre incredibly stupid, some people are physically unable to go into the military, they dont have to go. Once you ruled that out, you still got a whole lot of people. Who do you pick to go . There are deferments, methods that are used to keep you from having to go at least right away. For example, an interesting one people dont tend to think about, if youre a skilled tradesman, an apprentice, that was seen as a worthy skill that was more important to the United States economy than sending you as a combat soldier into vietnam. You could be deferred because of the job you held. In this case a skilled tradesman. You didnt have to defer. You could volunteer. You could serve. But you would be deferred. More famously, if you were a College Student or a graduate student, you would be deferred from having to serve. College student is a specific amount of time. You cant stay this will be a shock to some of you, youre not supposed to stay in school ever. Youre supposed to get out after a while. Eventually you would become eligible for the draft. One more weird thing about how 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. I didnt happen in washington, d. C. The way it worked instead was, you did receive a notice that you were eligible to be drafted and you would have to go to your local draft board, literally your local guys, north philly, there would be a draft board, in doylestown, there would be a draft board. There would be usually old white guys sitting at a table, most of whom served in world war ii, who were the draft board. Literally, its a we tend to think of things 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 the paperwork and moved on. If you said i have a reason i shouldnt serve, you would present it. I have a note from a doctor, i have a bad cold. I cant take the test. But the equivalent, i cant go to vietnam. Oh, you know, for years ive had this psychiatric condition. Its im kind of crazy. Im sorry. I have a note to prove it. And the draft board could go, yeah, 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 who would end up going to vietnam. Obviously if you had more resources, access to psychiatrists, access to good jobs that were necessary, the money to keep staying in school, you had a Real Advantage if you did not want to serve. In 65 when there werent that many draft notices being sent, most people, they got called up, they did their thing, if they got drafted they went. But as more and more people are going, as these university protests are heating up, as word is spreading that there are some at least who think this war isnt right or good, theres more people interested in saying, theres a certain selfinterest in this, is this a war worth dying for . Your mind is focused if youre an 18, 20yearold man facing this decision. You got a pool of people who are potentially now more motivated to think about an issue. If it was, well, not draft induced might not. Still, i strongly underline, when people were called up to the draft board, they went through the process. If youre a graduate student, you dont have to serve. Not surprisingly, by 1966 as the draft is starting to increase, there are young people focused on the draft who begin to resist. Another tool and a different tool than the three weve talked about. Here is a process that doesnt really have any corollary in the Civil Rights Movement or in the other protest movement. The draft, what should you, in some ways, protest this system. As early as 1966, a few of the radicals who were invested in the process publicly declaim their unwillingness to serve. A little bit like that guy during world war ii who said, i wont serve in any war. These guys didnt say i wont serve in think war, they said this war is wrong. I wont serve. And they did this catchy, publicitygarnering move. You have to register to the draft, but you used to have to carry a card, a draft card, saying your status. And as a young man, you are required by law to carry it everywhere you went. These guys took their card and they burned it. I will not serve. This is symbolic, right . Its like they still have a copy of your card somewhere in washington. It isnt like it magically goes away. Cool, im its still but its a symbol. Interestingly, Congress Passes a law saying you cant burn your draft card. Thats just bad. They put a fiveyear prison sentence on burning your draft card. Court cases will ensue and the court say if you burn your card, you go to jail. But a Draft Resistance Movement begins. It starts in boston. Its called resistance and quickly spreads. It couches people on ways you can keep out of the draft. It also asks people to publicly state that they are refusing to serve in vietnam. Its supposed to be a political thing, not a private thing. That was called draft evasion. But same time, people are being shown how to stay out of the war, a different kind of technique and tool. What youve got now are people in 66, in early 67, in small way, symbolic ways, mass media 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. Youve got this process. How do you escalate that . Youve got tens of thousands maybe by this time, its fair to say, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of americans who have become highly suspicious, even opposed to this war. But the nation at this time had 200 million people. Most people arent on board with this. How do you up the ante . Well, instead of just having that one march and rally, you start to have all over the country and then organized nationally by a group that forms out of these various usually radical factions, to host, to hold, to mobilize, just gatherings of people, rallies, antiwar rallies, in which people would come and speak and explain why the war in vietnam is wrong. This is not a new invention. Before the intervention in world war ii, before the december 7th, 1941 attack, there were organized groups in the United States that held similar rallies to keep america out of the war in germany. They werent really focused on japan. But this is a little different, isnt it . There already is a war. As people are rallying and protesting, refusing or resisting entry into the draft, you got to remember, other young men are going to vietnam. At this time, over 10,000 by the end of 1967 have died fighting in vietnam. Many families are sacrificing. So this is a protest going on while theres a war being fought. Little different than world war ii in that there was no declaration of war. Freedom of speech, freedom are assembly are warranted constitutionally. When theres a war declared, the rules are didnt. Theres no declared war, but you have american young men are dying while these people are saying this is wrong. You can imagine the backlash. Most americans think the war is right, first of all, but secondly, its like, right or wrong, our guys are dying over there. You have to shuttup now. You have to rally around the troops. You can see theres room here for more than just intellectual disquosition. The stakes are high. Into early 1967, the nation is beginning to polarize around this issue with a small minority actively opposing the war, a very large majority saying, you know, we the troops are over there. You got to rally around the troops. This heightens the stakes, 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 three sentences of a lecture, right . The war is just going to keep continuing. So by mid1967 more than two years after 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 there in massive 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 an opening. As the war continues, more and more people focused on it. You 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 that this is illadvised. What other techniques are there. In 67, part of this Antiwar Movement which has been activated for a long time. 2 1 2 years, they begin to up the ante. In 1967, some of these longtime activists, some of them the older guys, the guy i mentioned earlier, at the heart of this movement, and others are saying were going to have to start combining our goals here. Weve got this witness program, this gandhien approach, we witness in the sense that we think this war is wrong and we want people to see that there are some americans that dont want this war to continue in their name, but we need to do more to catch their attention. And some of the younger people involved in this movement, we got to adopt some of the guerrilla techniques that the vietnamese are using. They dont mean violence, but they mean ways to confront, 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 well, what they see now as a slaughter, to go on indefinitely. In berkeley, a small group, an independent, antiwar group, begin to try to blockade the troop ships that are taking people literally to the depot in oakland where troop ships go off into the pacific and the vietnam. They try to stop some of the troop trains that are delivering young recruits on their way to war. Theyre trying to blockade the war. Others start to protest the draft boards. They try to link arms and not allow people to get into draft boards. Trying to up the ante. In 1967, a large group, some 75,000, some say over 100,000, show up at the pentagon of the United States in october. This is by 1967. On the one hand, its a typical protest, we dont like the war, its immoral, its wrong, rhetoric, but they also literally try to surround the pentagon. Have you seen the pentagon . Its really, really big. Really hard to surround. They have a lot of people there. And they sort of symbolically are trying to stop the heart the brains, i guess you could say, of the war machine, by literally 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, its cool, were around the pentagon, thats kind of clever, but people are board, to tell you the truth of marches, rallies and protests. We got to do something cool to catch peoples attention. And this guy who thought of the troop blockade thing in berkeley, hes hooked up with a longhaired guy in new york city and they come up with a goof, a scam where they announce to the press that the purpose of linking their arms and encircling the pentagon is not to just block people from getting in and out, its actually part of a magical rite. And if done properly, they can l levitate the pentagon. We have to do counter magic its a goof. The press is like, thats funny. Its like our poor republican friend down in delaware who gets a lot of News Coverage for saying things thats special. Youre funny. Can we take a picture of you . It catches peoples attention. And it kind of clicks, oh, if you want more attention, youre trying to reach the majority and get publicity and people to hear you, maybe you got to do kind of clever goofy stuff that breaks the paradigm. The Civil Rights Movement, think about it, very serious and sober. These guys are like, lets 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 break them out of their apathy . And these guys in particular, theyre trying to get young people to focus. Not just individually maybe try to evade the draft but to speak out publicly, to 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 modelings of how the public works are occurring. 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. Now, in 1968, this Antiwar Movement will split. Half half is not fair, some large percent will continue these well, protest politics, rally, march, sitins, teachins, protest at universities, but another largest segment will say i think weve convinced a lot of americans, folks, that the war is wrong. We need to turn to the main highway of Democratic Politics in the United States which is electoral. 1968 is an Election Year. 1964 we had a choice between bomb vietnam to the stonage verses try to change the policy of vietnam through an escalating war. Now in 68, maybe we can get a choice. And some of these antiwar activists try to 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 in its most traditional sense will work. 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 from minnesota, not a major figure in the United States congress named you jean mccarthy. He steps forward and turns on the sitting president of the United States, the head of his party, Lyndon Johnson and says i will run against johnson. I will stand as an antiwar candidate. And he shocks the pundits by almost defeating Lyndon Johnson in the first democratic primary in 1968. He doesnt quite win, but he almost wins. Suddenly its like, huh, people dont like the war in vietnam. Not protesters, not radicals, not new lefters, not black people, i dont know if there were any black people in New Hampshire in 1968. But regular folks dont like this well, into the fray jumps the junior but very wellknown senator from new york, bobby kennedy, the dead president s brother who also says i too will stand against these war in vietnam. I too will challenge the seated president of the United States. Johnson is horrified at what he sees as betrayal by his own partys representatives and its a real moment of truth for him. Johnson is not in the best of health. Hes had gallbladder surgery, his heart is not good. Hes faced incredible stress from a war that he never wanted to fight but felt it was unavoidable. He decides in the face of this challenge to quit. He doesnt quit the presidency, but he walks away from his campaign to be reelected. Electorally, this movement has had impact. But it doesnt have success. To cut to the chase, the man who wins the democratic nomination is not kennedy. Hes, you all know, assassinated by someone 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, he wasnt a political figure to carry it off. And instead, lbjs Vice President , hubewins the nominat. Opposing him is a republican who had been around the political bush more than a few times named Richard Millhouse nixon. He lost his bid to become governor of california, but Richard Nixon is not an easy guy to make disappear. He comes back from the dead, he does something tricky and im not going to be able to say much more today. Nixon had made his bones as a fierce anticommunist. He said, always, we must stand up to the threat of soviet communist. But by 1968, the war in vietnam was wearing thin with again, not just radicals, not just with young people, both more and more americans. They didnt want to betray the troops. They certainly didnt have a radical critique of American Foreign policy. But the war had been going on now for more than 3 1 2 years when election day came. Nixon didnt say we will win no matter the cost, we will defeat communism no matter what burden it costs us. He says americans must win this peace. Americans must win this peace. Whats that mean . He goes, well, i promise you that i will win this peace for america, i have a plan to end the war in vietnam. Everyone is like, thank goodness. How are you going to do that . It would be unfair of me to tell you while im not the president of the United States because that would undercut president johnsons efforts to negotiate with our enemies. So youll just have to believe me because im such a believable figure that i have a plan to end the war in vietnam. Were going to have to leave it here today. The war does not end with Richard Nixons victory. The war will go on. 27,000 more will die while Richard Nixon is president. Because nixon does not quickly, easily or effectively end the war in vietnam, the Antiwar Movement in the years ahead will radicalize and explode and create an incredible polarization among the American People. Thats for next time. Weeknights this month, were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. 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, cspan 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 cspan3. Bidens record is a shameful roll call of the most catastrophic betrayals and blunders in our lifetime. Hes spent his entire career on the wrong side of history. Our current president has failed in his most basic duty to the nation. Hes failed to protect us. Hes failed to protect america. And my fellow americans, that is unforgiveable. The first president ial debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President joe biden is tuesday, september 29th at 9 00 p. M. Eastern. Watch live coverage on cspan. Watch livestreaming and on demand at cspan. Org or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Up next on lectures in history, a class on southeastern immigration to the United States. She examines how