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 understa