在美国的反战运动全文

在美国的反战运动
马克巴林
A长着20 世纪60 年代，在二十世纪美国历史上最分裂势力之一的民权运动。

反战运动实际上包括若干个独立的利益，往往只是模糊地结盟，争夺彼此在许多问题上，美国只有反对越南战争。

吸引来自大学校园、中产阶级郊区、工会和政府机构成员，运动于1965 年，在1968 年，达到顶峰而名声和仍然强大在整个冲突期间。

包括政治、种族、和文化领域，反战运动暴露深在20 世纪60 年代美国社会内部分裂。

小核心和平运动曾长存在在美国，很大程度上基于在贵格会和一神论的信仰，但未能获得受欢迎的货币，直到冷战时代。

不断升级的核军备竞赛的年代带领诺曼·卡森斯，星期六评论，克拉伦斯·皮科特的美国社会的朋友(贵格会)，以及编辑器找国家委员会，于1957 年，理智核政策(SANE) 的。

其最明显的成员是本杰明·斯波克博士，后幻灭与肯尼迪总统未能制止核扩散，1962 年加入。

果断的中产阶层组织，SANE 代表传统自由和平行动主义的最新化身。

他们的目标是削减核武器。

另一组，学生和平联盟(SPU) 于1959 年在大学校园里出现在全国各地。

像SANE，SPU 是更自由，而不是激进的。

约瑟夫McCarthyinspired 解散后的共产主义和社会主义组织校园在1950 年代，SPU
成为了唯一的选择，剩余的新生的激进分子。

SPU 的目标超出了那SANE。

愿为核武器少，解决学生渴望对美国社会的批发转型。

SPU，从来没有一个有效的兴趣小组，在1964 年，它采取更积极的组合，学生为民主社会(SDS) 的横幅逐渐消失了。

SDS 1960 年形成作为老左机构与令人印象深刻的遗产联盟高校的手臂为工业民主。

杰克·伦敦曾作为一名成员，有厄普顿·辛克莱，但该组织曾长期休眠直到Michael 哈灵顿，纽约社会主义，恢复它在20 世纪50 年代后期作为劳动者，非洲裔美国人和知识分子的论坛。

短短一年内，然而，SDS 接管了学生激进分子基地哈勃和汤姆·海顿，两者的密歇根大学。

1962 年 6 月，在五十九SDS 成员会见了哈灵顿在休伦港，密歇根州，在由美国汽车工人发起的会议。

从这次会议实现所谓的新左派的休伦港语句的宣言。

64 页的文档写的海登，密歇根大学的学生报纸，编辑的表示与军事工业学术创立的幻灭。

海登引述在冷战
时期美国生活的不确定性和在南部非洲裔美国人作为自由主义意识形态的失败事例中的降解和呼吁重新计算的学术默许，他称这是一个危险的阴谋保持美国青年之间的冷漠感。

在其存在的第一年，整个SDS 侧重国内问题。

学生，与其他群体的老和新左派积极支持林登Johnson 对Barry 戈德华特1964年竞选。

随着Johnson 的胜利，他们克制了反战的修辞避免疏远主席和可能危害极大的社会发展社会事业。

虽然尚未反战组织，SDS 积极参加公民权利的斗争，并证明了十年的两个决定性原因之间的重要联系。

公民权利和反战运动之间的另一座桥是言论自由运动(FSM) 在加利福尼亚大
学伯克利分校。

FSM 始于1964 年12 月参加了密西西比州的"自由之夏"的学生，提供的例子，证明如何学生可以通过组织发生改变。

在与大学总统克拉克·科尔的小规模，FSM 和其动态领袖Mario Savio 宣传学术和军事机构之间的密切联系。

用SDS 和FSM 的兴起，老左和平拥护者发现了一身大和声乐的同情者，其中许多人获得了持不同政见者通过在南方公民权利斗争的经验。

1965 年初，反战运动基地有合并在校园里，而且缺乏只有一种催化剂，使更多市民接受到它的位置。

该催化剂出现早在 2 月，当美国开始轰炸北越。

立即加快; 抗议的步伐它的范围扩大了。

在2 月和再次三月1965 年，SDS 举办游行在奥克兰军队终端上的，很多人的出发点部队运往东南亚。

3 月24 日，教员的密歇根大学举行一系列的"宣讲"，仿照早些时候公民权利研讨会，力图教育大段关于道德和政治基金会美国参与的学生人数。

宣讲会格式蔓延到全国各地的校园和教职员工带入反战的积极参与。

今年3 月，SDS 升级持不同政见者到一个真正的国家的水平，的规模呼吁行军到首都华盛顿，抗议轰炸。

在1965 年 4 月17 日，聚集在首都，惊讶甚至组织者投票的15,000 至25000 人之间。

华盛顿3 月出席的鼓舞，运动的领导人，仍然主要是学生，扩大他们的方法和未来两年内获得新的盟友。

"越南一天，"1965 年10 月，在伯克利分校举行一次专题讨论会吸引了数千人进行辩论这场战争的道德基础。

校园编辑组成网络，分享信息有效抗议方法;其中两个，地下报业辛迪加(1966 年) 和解放新闻服务(1967 年)，成为了生产手段的传播的情报。

在春天1967年，超过1,000 的神学院学生从全国各地写信给国防部长罗伯特・麦克纳马拉主张承认世俗的道德理由拒服兵役。

今年 6 月，一万名学生写道，暗示司拟定一个计划为那些反对暴力的替代性服务。

在1967 年10 月在五角大楼两天游行吸引全国媒体的关注，而抗战领袖呼吁年轻人，把他们的草案卡。

运动蔓延到军事本身;1966 年，"胡德堡3" 获得好评中持不同政见者，他们拒绝在越南服役。

地下铁路漏斗状兵役到加拿大或瑞典;教会为那些试图避免征兵提供的避难所。

也许1965 年至1968年年间时期最重要的发展是民权领袖的出现作为越南和
平的积极拥护者。

在1967 年 1 月的文章中写给芝加哥后卫，小马丁·路德，公开表示对反战运动在道义上的支持。

牧师国王对他的看法在扩大 4 月在河滨教堂在纽约，声称战争排水急需的资源，从国内程序。

他还表示关切的非洲裔美国伤亡与总人口相比，所占百分比。

国王的语句上涨非裔美国反战事业积极分子
和建立道德的反对运动的一个新的维度。

反战运动的和平阶段已日趋成熟，作为整个国家都是现在意识到政府外交政策的基础，被广泛质疑。

随着运动的理想的蔓延大学校园之外，怀疑升级的智慧也开始出现在政府自身内部。

早在1965 年，夏天状态乔治球副主席Johnson 劝阻进一步在越南的军事介入。

在1967 年Johnson 解雇了国防部长麦克纳马拉后司关于战争的道德理由表示关注。

大多数内部持不同政见者，然而，针对不伦理而务实的准则，许多人相信，获胜的成本实在太高。

但直到1968 年普遍反对，政府内部没有出现。

使局势恶化是那一年，Johnson 面临强有力的挑战，从和平候选人Eugene McCarthy、罗伯特·肯尼迪、乔治·麦戈文，所有的民主党人，以及他的最终接班人，理查德·尼克松的总统选举。

在 3 月25 日Johnson 学到了他最亲密的顾问现在反对战争;六天以后，他退出了竞选。

与轰炸北越在1965 年，引发了爆炸的和平活动的兴趣，另一个东南亚催化剂早在1968 年唆使反战抗议的最紧张阶段。

春节攻势晚 1 月导致许多美国人质疑政府当局的准确性在报告战争进展和促使Johnson 的决定退休。

在春节后美国公众舆论转移显着，与完全一半人口反对升级。

持不同政见者升级到暴力。

在 4 月示威者占领行政大楼在哥伦比亚大学;警察用武力驱逐他们。

草案于巴尔的摩、密尔沃基和芝加哥的板上搜查不久之后，作为积极分子被涂污血的记录和清除的文件。

办公室和生产设施的厂家的凝固汽油弹，陶氏化学，被针对破坏。

在8 月民主党全国代表大会在芝加哥警察和和平活动分子的野蛮冲突典型的美国社会分裂的性质和国内冲突持续上升埋下了伏笔。

反战运动变得更强大和，同时，1969 年至1973年年间的凝聚力不强。

大多数美国人务实反对升级美国的角色在越南，认为经济成本太高;在1969 年11 月在华盛顿的第二次游行吸引了估计的500,000 参加者。

同时，最不赞成反主流文化和反战运动一起出现。

清秀，衣着塞尔维亚民主党成员，绑到麦卡锡希望寄托于1968 年，被被居次要地位作为运动的领导人。

他们更换当之无愧地获得了不少市民的尊重、被标记成"嬉皮，"标签和面临了主流的反对，从美国中产阶级不舒服与青年文化时期长头发、休闲吸毒、滥交。

抗议由琼·贝兹和鲍勃·迪伦，典型的音乐贡献年轻人和老年人之间的鸿沟。

文化和政治抗议了纠缠地交织内运动的先锋。

新的领导人变得越来越尖锐，问候归来的士兵的嘲笑和奚落，在机场的军队和公共街道上随地吐痰。

大多数美国人支持的事业，但反对的领导人，方法和文化的抗议，就出现了独特的情况。

运动恢复团结后几个令人不安的事件。

在1970 年 2 月的美莱村大屠杀的
消息成为了公众，引发众怒。

在 4 月尼克松总统，以前曾致力于实施撤军计划，宣布美国部队已进入柬埔寨。

几分钟内发表电视声明，抗议者走上街头与重新关注的重点。

然后，5 月 4 日，俄亥俄州的国民警卫队开火一群学生抗议者在肯特州立大学，杀死四人，炸伤十六岁。

死亡，以前是遥远的现在已近在眉睫。

新组-诺贝尔科学奖获得者，国务院官员公开呼吁撤出美国公民自由联盟所有。

国会开始威胁尼克松政府与总统权力的挑战。

当纽约时报》发表五角大楼文件》在1971 年 6 月13 日的第 1 部分时，美国人开始意识到战争的真正性质。

故事的贩毒、政治暗杀和不分青红皂白地轰炸导致很多人认为，军事和情报部门
已经失去了所有的问责制。

反战情绪，以前的污染空气的反美情绪，反而成为反对热心过度的正常反应。

持不同政见者占主导地位的美国;反战的事业已变成制度化。

由1973 年 1 月，当尼克松宣布美国参与的有效结束时，他这样做，近代无与伦比的任务响应。

引用
∙DeBenedetti，查尔斯。

美国的考验:越南时代的反战运动。

锡拉库扎，NY: 锡拉库扎大学出版社，1990年。

∙芬，亚当。

泄密的心: 起源和影响越南反战运动。

纽约: 圣马丁出版社，1995年。

∙霍尔斯特德，Fred。

现在出去!美国人的参与者的帐户运动反对越南战争。

纽约: Monad 出版社，1978年。

从的越南战争百科全书: 政治、社会和军事的历史。

主编: 斯宾塞 C.塔克。

牛津，英国: ABC CLIO，1998年。

版权所有© 斯宾塞 C.塔克于1998 年。

[注: 这三卷一套是关于越战的最全面的参考咨询工作。

简明的单卷版现供一般读者。

]
汤姆井
虽然反对美国介入越南的第一美国抗议发生在 1963 年，直到近两年后，当总统林登· B.Johnson 下令大规模美国军事干预和持续轰炸北越的反战运动才开始认真。

在 1965 年的春天，在许多大学校园里，举行了"宣讲"反对战争。

学生为民主社会 (SDS) 举办第一次国家反战示威在华盛顿;20000 多人，主要是学生，参加了。

随着战争的扩大——到了 1967 年，超过 400,000 美军会在越南——反战运动，吸引了越来越多的支持了校园也是如此。

运动是少一支统一的军队，比了浓郁的政治理念和愿景。

采用的战术都不同: 法律游行、基层组织、国会游说、选举挑战，公民抗命，草案电阻、自焚、政治暴力。

一些和平积极分子前往越南北部。

贵格会和其他人向越南战争的平民受害者提供医疗援助。

一些美国大兵抗议战争。

1967 年 3 月，成立了草案反战者国家组织;抵抗随后将举行几个国家草案卡轮到插件。

1967 年 4 月，在超过 300000 人示威反对战争在纽约。

六个月后，50,000 包围了五角大楼，引发近 700 逮捕。

到目前为止，Johnson 政府高级官员时通常会遇到示威者在公共场合，说话时迫使他们限制他们的外表。

很多人也有儿子、女儿或妻子反对战争，加油的包围感的人。

在反战运动中的突出参加者包括本杰明· 斯波克博士，罗伯特· 洛厄尔，Harry Belafonte 和运动由小马丁· 路德· 金牧师，鼓励、 Eugene 麦卡锡参议员宣布在 1967 年年底，他具有挑战性的 Johnson 在 1968年民主党初选;他后来强劲的表现，在新汉普郡被视为重大的失败 Johnson 和他的战争政策的批判。

Johnson 管理到反战运动，最明显的是进行密切监视，玷污其公众形象，将扬声器发送到校园，并培养亲战争活动采取了许多措施。

很多政府官员感到外国共产党人被协助及教唆的运动，尽管中央情报局和联邦调查局未能发现这种支持。

1965 年，大多数美国人支持美国的政策在越南;1967 年的秋天，只有 35%这样做。

第一次，更多的人认为美国干预在越南就是个错误，不是没有。

黑人和妇女是最温和的社会群体。

后来的研究发现，与人们的社会经济水平的反战情绪反比。

许多美国人也不喜欢反战游行示威者，和运动经常被指责媒体评论员、立法会议员，及其他公众人物。

1968 年，面对战争和令人不安的越南，前景普遍公众反对 Johnson 政府停止了轰炸北越和稳定的地面战争。

这种政策逆转是重大转折点。

在越南的美军兵力将顶在 543,000。

反战运动达到了顶点，根据总统理查德 M。

尼克松。

1969 年 10 月，超过 200 万人在全国各地参加越南暂停抗议活动。

下个月，超过 500,000 表明在华盛顿和在 San Francisco 150,000。

激进的抗议，以青年为主，继续传播，导致很多美国人不知道这场战争是否值得被分裂的社会。

其他形式的反战活动依然存在。

尼克松政府采取了一系列的措施，以减轻运动，主要动员支持者，涂抹的运动，跟踪它，美军撤出越南制定草案彩票，以及最终结束草案要求。

两个长期存在的问题继续困扰着反战运动。

许多与会者质疑其有效性，产卵辍学，阻碍抗议活动的组织和维护的反战团体，加剧纠纷在战略和战术。

内讧继续消耗能量，疏远积极分子，并妨碍反战规划。

冲突被煽动的美国政府，但它主要是内部生成的。

在 1970 年春天，尼克松总统的入侵柬埔寨和肯特州立大学枪击 (后跟那些在Jackson 状态) 引发校园抗议美国历史上的最大显示。

全国学生罢工完全关闭超过 500 的学院和大学。

其他美国人举行游行，抗议城市遍布全国各地;很多人游说白宫官员和国会议员。

超过 100,000 表明在华盛顿，尽管只有一周的事先通知。

参议员约翰· 谢尔曼· 库珀和弗兰克教会赞助 (后来通过) 立法禁止资金的美国地面部队和在柬埔寨的顾问。

很多劳动领袖说出了第一次和蓝领工人加入反战活动前所未有的数量。

然而，在纽约的建筑工人殴打一群和平学生示威者，并 (与白宫援助) 一些工会的领导人组织亲政府集会。

尽管不断恶化的内部分裂和萎靡运动，五十万人示威反对在华盛顿战争 1971 年4 月。

越南退伍军人反对战争也举行抗议活动，和其他示威者从事大规模的公民抗命，提示 12,000 逮捕。

前五角大楼助手 Daniel 埃尔斯伯格泄露五角大楼文件到纽约时报。

与此同时，士气和纪律的美国士兵在越南被严重恶化: 滥用药物是猖獗，打击拒绝和种族冲突提出了越来越多，一些士兵甚至被谋杀自己的主席团成员。

与美国军队的到来回家，反战运动逐渐减弱，1971 年至 1975年年间。

很多的剩余主义者的抗议继续的美国轰炸，南越政治囚犯的困境和美国的战争经费。

美国运动反对越南战争是美国历史上最成功的反战运动。

在 Johnson 执政时期，它发挥了重大作用在制约战争和是在 1968 年政府当局的政策逆转的主要因素。

在尼克松年中，它加速了美国撤军，继续抑制战争，美联储在美国军队士气和纪律 (提供额外动力到美国撤军)，恶化和推动国会立法，切断了这场战争的美国基金。

运动也养成了在水门事件丑闻，最终具有重要的作用，在结束战争破坏尼克松的权威在国会和因而他继续这场战争的能力方面。

它引起了臭名昭著"休斯顿计划";灵感来自 Daniel 埃尔斯伯格，其释放的五角大楼文件导致的水管工; 形成和美联储对其政治的敌人，发挥了重要的作用，在炮制水门本身尼克松政府的偏执。

The Anti-War Movement in the United States
Mark Barringer
A long with the Civil Rights campaigns of the 1960s, one of the most divisive forces in twentieth-century U.S. history. The antiwar movement actually consisted of a number of independent interests, often only vaguely allied and contesting each other on many issues, united only in opposition to the Vietnam War. Attracting members from college campuses, middle-class suburbs, labor unions, and government institutions, the movement gained national prominence in 1965, peaked in 1968, and remained powerful throughout the duration of the conflict. Encompassing political, racial, and cultural spheres, the antiwar movement exposed a deep schism within 1960s American society.
A small, core peace movement had long existed in the United States, largely based in Quaker and Unitarian beliefs, but failed to gain popular currency until the Cold War era. The escalating nuclear arms race of the late 1950s led Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review, along with Clarence Pickett of the American Society of Friends (Quakers), to found the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) in 1957. Their most visible member was Dr. Benjamin Spock, who joined in 1962 after
becoming disillusioned with President Kennedy's failure to halt nuclear proliferation.
A decidedly middle-class organization, SANE represented the latest incarnation of traditional liberal peace activism. Their goal was a reduction in nuclear weapons. Another group, the Student Peace Union (SPU), emerged in 1959 on college campuses across the country. Like SANE, the SPU was more liberal than radical. After the Joseph McCarthyinspired dissolution of Communist and Socialist organizations on campuses in the 1950s, the SPU became the only option remaining for nascent activists. The goal of the SPU went beyond that of SANE. Unwilling to settle for fewer nuclear weapons, the students desired a wholesale restructuring of American society. The SPU, never an effective interest group, faded away in 1964, its banner taken up by a more active assemblage, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
SDS formed in 1960 as the collegiate arm of an Old Left institution with an impressive heritage-the League for Industrial Democracy. Jack London had been a member, as had Upton Sinclair, but the organization had long lain dormant until Michael Harrington, a New York socialist, revived it late in the 1950s as a forum for laborers, African Americans, and intellectuals. Within a single year, however, SDS was taken over by student radicals Al Haber and Tom Hayden, both of the University of Michigan. In June 1962, fifty-nine SDS members met with Harrington at Port Huron, Michigan, in a conference sponsored by the United Auto Workers. From this meeting materialized what has been called the manifesto of the New Left-the Port Huron Statement. Written by Hayden, the editor of the University of Michigan student newspaper, the 64-page document expressed disillusionment with the
military-industrial-academic establishment. Hayden cited the uncertainty of life in Cold War America and the degradation of African Americans in the South as examples of the failure of liberal ideology and called for a reevaluation of academic acquiescence in what he claimed was a dangerous conspiracy to maintain a sense of apathy among American youth.
Throughout the first years of its existence, SDS focused on domestic concerns. The students, as with other groups of the Old and New Left, actively supported Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. Following Johnson's victory, they refrained from antiwar rhetoric to avoid alienating the president and possibly endangering the social programs of the Great Society. Although not yet an antiwar organization, SDS actively participated in the Civil Rights struggle and proved an important link between the two defining causes of the decade.
Another bridge between Civil Rights and the antiwar crusade was the Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California at Berkeley. Begun in December 1964 by students who had participated in Mississippi's "Freedom Summer," the FSM provided an example of how students could bring about change through organization. In several skirmishes with University President Clark Kerr, the FSM and its dynamic leader Mario Savio publicized the close ties between academic and military establishments. With the rise of SDS and the FSM, the Old Left peace advocates had
discovered a large and vocal body of sympathizers, many of whom had gained experience in dissent through the Civil Rights battles in the South. By the beginning
of 1965, the antiwar movement base had coalesced on campuses and lacked only a catalyst to bring wider public acceptance to its position.
That catalyst appeared early in February, when the U.S. began bombing North Vietnam. The pace of protest immediately quickened; its scope broadened. In February and again in March of 1965, SDS organized marches on the Oakland Army Terminal, the departure point for many troops bound for Southeast Asia. On 24 March, faculty members at the University of Michigan held a series of "teach-ins," modeled after earlier Civil Rights seminars, that sought to educate large segments of the student population about both the moral and political foundations of U.S. involvement. The teach-in format spread to campuses around the country and brought faculty members into active antiwar participation. In March, SDS escalated the scale of dissent to a truly national level, calling for a march on Washington to protest the bombing. On 17 April 1965, between 15,000 and 25,000 people gathered at the capital, a turnout that surprised even the organizers.
Buoyed by the attendance at the Washington march, movement leaders, still mainly students, expanded their methods and gained new allies over the next two years. "Vietnam Day," a symposium held at Berkeley in October 1965, drew thousands to debate the moral basis of the war. Campus editors formed networks to share information on effective protest methods; two of these, the Underground Press Syndicate (1966) and the Liberation News Service (1967), became productive means of disseminating intelligence. In spring 1967, over 1,000 seminarians from across the country wrote to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara advocating recognition of conscientious objection on secular, moral grounds. In June, 10,000 students wrote, suggesting the secretary develop a program of alternative service for those who opposed violence. A two-day march on the Pentagon in October 1967 attracted nationwide media attention, while leaders of the war resistance called for young men to turn in their draft cards. The movement spread to the military itself; in 1966, the "Fort Hood 3" gained acclaim among dissenters for their refusal to serve in Vietnam. Underground railroads funneled draft evaders to Canada or to Sweden; churches provided sanctuary for those attempting to avoid conscription.
Perhaps the most significant development of the period between 1965 and 1968 was the emergence of Civil Rights leaders as active proponents of peace in Vietnam. In a January 1967 article written for the Chicago Defender, Martin Luther King, Jr. openly expressed support for the antiwar movement on moral grounds. Reverend King expanded on his views in April at the Riverside Church in New York, asserting that the war was draining much-needed resources from domestic programs. He also voiced concern about the percentage of African American casualties in relation to the total population. King's statements rallied African American activists to the antiwar cause and established a new dimension to the moral objections of the movement. The peaceful phase of the antiwar movement had reached maturity as the entire nation was
now aware that the foundations of administration foreign policy were being widely questioned.
As the movement's ideals spread beyond college campuses, doubts about the wisdom of escalation also began to appear within the administration itself. As early as the summer of 1965, Undersecretary of State George Ball counseled President Johnson against further military involvement in Vietnam. In 1967 Johnson fired Defense Secretary McNamara after the secretary expressed concern about the moral justifications for war. Most internal dissent, however, focused not on ethical but on pragmatic criteria, many believing that the cost of winning was simply too high. But widespread opposition within the government did not appear until 1968. Exacerbating the situation was the presidential election of that year, in which Johnson faced a strong challenge from peace candidates Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, and George McGovern, all Democrats, as well as his eventual successor, Richard M. Nixon. On 25 March Johnson learned that his closest advisors now opposed the war; six days later, he withdrew from the race.
As with the bombing of North Vietnam in 1965, which had touched off an explosion of interest in peace activities, another Southeast Asian catalyst instigated the most intense period of antiwar protest early in 1968. The Tet Offensive of late January led many Americans to question the administration's veracity in reporting war progress and contributed to Johnson's decision to retire. After Tet American public opinion shifted dramatically, with fully half of the population opposed to escalation. Dissent escalated to violence. In April protesters occupied the administration building at Columbia University; police used force to evict them. Raids on draft boards in Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Chicago soon followed, as activists smeared blood on records and shredded files. Offices and production facilities of Dow Chemical, manufacturers of napalm, were targeted for sabotage. The brutal clashes between police and peace activists at the August Democratic National Convention in Chicago typified the divided nature of American society and foreshadowed a continuing rise in domestic conflict.
The antiwar movement became both more powerful and, at the same time, less cohesive between 1969 and 1973. Most Americans pragmatically opposed escalating the U.S. role in Vietnam, believing the economic cost too high; in November of 1969 a second march on Washington drew an estimated 500,000 participants. At the same time, most disapproved of the counterculture that had arisen alongside the antiwar movement. The clean-cut, well-dressed SDS members, who had tied their hopes to McCarthy in 1968, were being subordinated as movement leaders. Their replacements deservedly gained less public respect, were tagged with the label "hippie," and faced much mainstream opposition from middle-class Americans uncomfortable with the youth culture of the period-long hair, casual drug use, promiscuity. Protest music, typified by Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, contributed to the gulf between young and old. Cultural and political protest had become inextricably intertwined within the movement's vanguard. The new leaders became increasingly strident, greeting
returning soldiers with jeers and taunts, spitting on troops in airports and on public streets. A unique situation arose in which most Americans supported the cause but opposed the leaders, methods, and culture of protest.
The movement regained solidarity following several disturbing incidents. In February 1970 news of the My Lai massacre became public and ignited widespread outrage. In April President Nixon, who had previously committed to a planned withdrawal, announced that U.S. forces had entered Cambodia. Within minutes of the televised statement, protesters took to the streets with renewed focus. Then, on 4 May, Ohio National Guardsmen fired on a group of student protesters at Kent State University, killing four and wounding sixteen. Death, previously distant, was now close at hand. New groups-Nobel science laureates, State Department officers, the American Civil Liberties Union-all openly called for withdrawal. Congress began threatening the Nixon administration with challenges to presidential authority. When the New York Times published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers on 13 June 1971, Americans became aware of the true nature of the war. Stories of drug trafficking, political assassinations, and indiscriminate bombings led many to believe that military and intelligence services had lost all accountability. Antiwar sentiment, previously tainted with an air of anti-Americanism, became instead a normal reaction against zealous excess. Dissent dominated America; the antiwar cause had become institutionalized. By January 1973, when Nixon announced the effective end of U.S. involvement, he did so in response to a mandate unequaled in modern times.
References
∙DeBenedetti, Charles. An American Ordeal: The Antiwar Movement of the Vietnam Era. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1990.
∙Garfinkle, Adam. Telltale Hearts: The Origins and Impact of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.
∙Halstead, Fred. Out Now! A Participant's Account of the American Movement Against the Vietnam War. New York: Monad Press, 1978.
from Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Ed. Spencer C. Tucker. Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO, 1998. Copyright © 1998 by Spencer C. Tucker. [NOTE: This three-volume set is the most comprehensive reference work on the Vietnam War. A concise one-volume edition is now available for the general reader.]
Tom Wells
Though the first American protests against U.S. intervention in Vietnam took place in 1963, the antiwar movement did not begin in earnest until nearly two years later, when President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered massive U.S. military intervention and the sustained bombing of North Vietnam. In the spring of 1965, "teach-ins" against the war were held on many college campuses. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organized the first national antiwar demonstration in Washington; 20,000 people, mainly students, attended.
As the war expanded—over 400,000 U.S. troops would be in Vietnam by 1967—so did the antiwar movement, attracting growing support off the campuses. The movement was less a unified army than a rich mix of political notions and visions. The tactics used were diverse: legal demonstrations, grassroots organizing, congressional lobbying, electoral challenges, civil disobedience, draft resistance, self-immolations, political violence. Some peace activists traveled to North Vietnam. Quakers and others provided medical aid to Vietnamese civilian victims of the war. Some G.I.s protested the war.
In March 1967, a national organization of draft resisters was formed; the Resistance would subsequently hold several national draft card turn-ins. In April 1967, more than 300,000 people demonstrated against the war in New York. Six months later, 50,000 surrounded the Pentagon, sparking nearly 700 arrests. By now, senior Johnson administration officials typically encountered demonstrators when speaking in public, forcing them to restrict their outside appearances. Many also had sons, daughters, or wives who opposed the war, fueling the sense of besiegement. Prominent participants in the antiwar movement included Dr. Benjamin Spock, Robert Lowell, Harry Belafonte, and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Encouraged by the movement, Senator Eugene McCarthy announced in late 1967 that he was challenging Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries; his later strong showing in New Hampshire was seen as a major defeat for Johnson and a repudiation of his war policies.
The Johnson administration took numerous measures to the antiwar movement, most notably undertaking close surveillance and tarnishing its public image, sending speakers to campuses, and fostering pro-war activity. Many administration officials felt foreign Communists were aiding and abetting the movement, despite the failure of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI to uncover such support.
In 1965, a majority of Americans supported U.S. policies in Vietnam; by the fall of 1967, only 35 percent did so. For the first time, more people thought U.S. intervention in Vietnam had been a mistake than did not. Blacks and women were the most dovish social groups. Later research found。