The “Anti-warriors” of Vietnam: A History of the Anti-War Movement
“And It’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for?” this was the question on many American’s minds in 1964, as is reflected in Joe McDonald’s I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-To-Die-Rag. What was the U.S. fighting for in Vietnam? This question sparked one of the largest anti-war movements in American history. The movement began as early as 1957 and slowly gained momentum throughout the decade. Student organizations were the first to organize and protest the war, and gained a larger following with each protest (Small 2002: 7). As U.S. involvement in Vietnam escalated, so did anti-war sentiment and protest. The counterculture, which had developed during the 1960’s, allowed the movement to thrive for the greater part of a decade. With the attacks on the Vietnamese holiday of Tet 1968, the majority of the American public became convinced that Vietnam was a mistake; this decline in support for the war came too late because the movement had already begun to fizzle out. After Nixon took office, the movement began to die away as a result of Nixon’s plan to gradually pull out of Vietnam. The movement was resurrected for a brief period of time following the bombing on Cambodia. Toward the end of the war, students were still carrying the anti-war torch; however they had little hope that U.S. troops would be removed any quicker than they already were being withdrawn. It was students who remained loyal to the movement both at the start and the end of the war they were the “anti-warriors” (Small 2002).
Vietnam protest began as early as 1957, when anti-war activists began to appear on college campuses around the country. In 1957, the University of California at Berkeley established the SLATE party, which helped to lay the foundations for political activism of the 1960’s. These California students were the first to protest on campus, which incited the series of campus protests that outlined student activism for the next decade. Activism increased in the 60’s as the number of college students increased with the aging of the baby boomer generation (Small 2002: 7). In the early 1960’s, activists started forming organizations such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which would become the leader in initiating anti-war protests in 1964. Many of these activists had held organizational leadership positions in the civil rights movement, which provided the newly formed anti-war organizations with experienced activists. The presence of such experienced leaders helped to facilitate the growth of the movement. On college campuses nationwide, a counterculture had been developing among the members of the SDS, “fueled by anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-materialist attitudes” (Small 2002:17). The SDS was “the vehicle through which counterculture, New Left, was brought into an anti-war movement” (Garfinkle 1995:64). By 1960, SDS was the chief New Left organization on campus, boasting a membership of 100,000. Californian students had sparked interest in protest among other college campuses with their protests for the right to free speech at UC Berkley, as well as the 1960 protest against the House Committee on Un-American Activities. SDS was able to gather a large activist base in the early 60’s because they targeted students in their recruitment process, and these were the people most affected by the looming probability of war (Small 2002:17).
The civil rights movement was still the forerunner in terms of social issues of the early 1960’s, leaving Vietnam out of the sight and mind of the American public. The public eye turned even further away from Vietnam in November of 1963, when Ngo Dinh Diem had been overthrow and it seemed like the conflict would resolve itself (Small 2002:12). However, by the summer of 1964, President Johnson’s advisors were pressuring him to increase the U.S. military presence in South Vietnam to aid the deteriorating Saigon regime. With this increasing pressure came an increase in protest, in May of 1964 newspapers began running ads signed by men who would refuse to serve in Vietnam if drafted. Shortly after the ads appeared, 12 men burnt their draft cards in New York City on Armed Forces Day (Small 2002: 13). Folk songs reflected the rising protest among students and popular music of the time period reflected the growing anti-war sentiment of 1964 (Anderson 1986:55). Throughout the rest of the summer of 1964, other small scale protests occurred in opposition to the war. However, most citizens still agreed with Johnson’s actions in Vietnam. Then, on August 2, a second report of a North Vietnamese attack on a US naval carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin was received, prompting Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This resolution gave Johnson “sweeping power” over Vietnam (Small 2002:13). While the war in Vietnam still did not concern many Americans in 1964, it was becoming more public “as the number of American corpses coming home in wooden boxes” increased (Garfinkle 1995:58).
By February of 1965, President Johnson had begun Operation Rolling Thunder, a large scale bombing raid on North Vietnam, as retaliation for a North Vietnamese strike on a U.S. Air base. This bombing raid provoked the SDS into organizing the first anti-war rally in Washington. The images and reports of civilians and towns destroyed by American aerial bombing shattered the idea that this war was moral and humane. Johnson feared escalation would lead ultimately to a full blown war with the Soviets and Chinese, so he avoided the subject of war, which in turn allowed the anti-war movement to flourish (Small 2002:20). In March of 1965, the number of anti-war protests began to pick up with the gradual American escalation in Vietnam. On March 16th, Alice Herz an 82 year-old woman, burnt herself alive in the streets of Detroit to protest American justification of the bombing of Northern Vietnam. In late March, the movement began to recruit supporters through teach-ins on college campuses. By April of 1965 the “doves” emerged on the protesting front to protest the bombing on North Vietnam (Small 2002: 23). Despite the increase in war protest, in July of 1965, Johnson commit American ground troops to take over the fighting in South Vietnam. With the take over of ground forces in Vietnam, the number of drafted soldiers increased, and so did the number of draft protests (Small 20002: 30). While the majority of the anti-war critics came from the Left, which felt that the U.S. was not justified in entering Vietnam, they hesitated to criticize the war early on for fear that Johnson would undercut his support for the Great Society, the greatest social program since FDR’s New Deal. Johnson knew of Congress’s wariness about the U.S. position in Vietnam, but he also knew Congress would not deny him funds so long as there were Americans fighting over there (Small 2002: 25).
As American involvement in Vietnam increased, so did the protests at home; by February of 1966 the movement had begun to gain momentum among more than student groups. The initial wave of war veterans had returned home to medals and decorations they did not want, and a group of a hundred Veterans had gone to Washington to return these decorations in protest. Johnson had started encountering extreme protest not only in front of the White House, but when he traveled throughout the country to make speeches. Both he and Nixon would encounter rude, lewd jeers from hostile crowds who opposed U.S. foreign policy toward Vietnam (Small 2002:42). Among the other protests of 1966 was a movement among three thousand to not pay their taxes because they went toward supporting the war. Furthermore, seventy-three thousand protestors signed a National Voter Peace Pledge, pledging to vote for a peaceful congressional candidate. May of 1966 brought with it a West Coast protest of Napalm among housewives; these women blocked transportation of Napalm as well as boycotted Saran Wrap because of Dow’s role in the manufacturing up of Napalm (Small 2002: 44). The anti-war movement had expanded far beyond college campuses, it had become a “shifting coalition of pacifists, liberals, social democrats, socialists, Communists, and cultural radicals, many of whom were college students, working people, suburbanites, clerics, politicians, journalists, and intellectuals” (Small 2002:2).
The year 1966 however, was not without student protests on campus. When National Secretary Advisor McGeorge Bundy was awarded and honorary degree at Amherst College and New York University, many students left graduation as a form of protest (Small 2002:44). Despite these protests, the Second International Day of Protest did not generate much support, and received little media attention. While the Protest at home did not generate a lot of support, anti-war sentiment was picking up in Australia and New Zealand. During a visit to Australia, Johnson was greeted by activists who felt the U.S. had no place in Vietnam. Despite the hostility he encountered he still continued to ignore the anti-war movement (Small 2002: 46). Though Johnson could ignore the movement, Defense Secretary McNamara knew the bombing was failing and wanted to withdraw from Vietnam (Small 2002:49).
The year 1967 however, ushered in a new era in movement protest. The October 21st rally in Washington in 1967 was, “the moment that the fever broke in the whole anti-war movement” (Small 1988:110). Thousands of people met outside the Lincoln Monument and marched onward to the Pentagon. After the media had gone home and most of the protesters had left, the police went to break up those remaining and holding vigil. Six hundred sixty-seven people were arrested, the most ever arrested at a peace demonstration (Small 2002: 78). Among the protesters “hippies” had become active as a group for the first time in movement history (Small 2002: 83). The presence of “hippies” at movement protests may have harmed the movement, in the sense that many Americans disliked hippie culture in 1967, for fear their children would join the free-loving, drug taking, unruly group (Small 2002:84). Some Americans saw demonstrators as unruly “hippies” with whom they could not relate, rather than sensible, politically-oriented activists involved with the movement (Small 2002:85). The media perpetuated the American idea of protest radicalism by focusing on radical demonstrators, rather than rational men in coats and ties (Small 2002: 32).
The movement continued to grow through 1967 into 1968. School demonstrations were becoming increasingly prevalent, especially at Berkeley. In the 1968-1969 school year alone, Berkeley experienced 2,000 arrests, 22 days of fighting accompanied by 22 day of the National Guard’s presence, and 150 suspensions or expulsions (Small 2002:87) The growth of the movement reached a major turning point in January of 1968 when the North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive. A “credibility gap” had been uncovered after the Tet attacks; Americans saw they were being lied to, and that the U.S. was not close to winning the war in Vietnam (Zaroulis and Sullivan 1984:152). For the first time since the beginning of the war, over fifty percent of Americans felt getting involved in Vietnam was a mistake (Small 2002: 90). The media coverage of the Tet Offensive, “exposed error, self-deception, lies in government, and encouraged distrust of political authority” (Herring 1998:30). The movement had taken its toll on LBJ as well; not only did he lose his desire to run for reelection, but he no longer felt the war could be ended in a short amount of time (Small 2002:90). The movement had caused “fatigue and anxiety among policy makers and the public, eventually encouraging efforts to find a way out” (Herring 1998:30).
Furthermore, the Tet Offensive also set off a series of protests in the following months of 1968. The growing disdain towards the American presence in Vietnam empowered more and more people to join the movement. On February 24th, protesters gathered at the 5th Avenue Peace Parade to protest the use of bombs, and to protest further American escalation (Zaroulis and Sullivan 1984: 25). The protests were finally beginning to take their toll; by March of 1968, the lack of progress in Vietnam caused the House of Representatives to call for a review of U.S. policy in Vietnam. Less than a week after the House called for this review, 21 Representatives sought a repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; they no longer felt that the President should have sweeping power over U.S. action in Vietnam (Zaroulis and Sullivan 1984:152). The “doves” in Congress were beginning to view the Vietnam War as an “avoidable tragedy”. They felt U.S. motivation for entering the war was unfounded, “Driven by mindless anticommunism and with utter disregard for Vietnamese history, politics, and culture, America plunged into a conflict it had no business meddling in and no chance of winning” (Herring 1998:24). As Congress was moving closer towards withdrawing troops, protests were increasingly becoming more radical and violent. With this increase in violence, the little organization the movement had was starting to unravel. (Zaroulis and Sullivan 1984:127).
By the end of 1969, the SDS had completely unraveled; the movement had become out of control, radical groups had taken protest to such a violent extreme that they had lost their unity. The antiwar movement had peaked in 1969 and had now started to fade (Zaroulis and Sullivan 1984:27). By 1970, the two chief peace coalitions remaining were the Moratorium and Mobilization. However by 1970, the movement had started to fizzle out; protest stories were removed from the front page, and militant organizations were breaking up demonstrations. The Moratorium could not even survive the year. April 21, 1970 the Moratorium dissolved; the movement was dying (Small 2002: 120).
The steady decline of the protest movement reflected the American support for Nixon’s policy of gradual demobilization. However, when Nixon decided to escalate the war by bombing Cambodia, students across the nation went crazy over this decision. Protest on campus picked up, yet this protest had no affect on Nixon; he figured he would wait out the storm (Small 2002: 121). The student’s rage may have subsided, had untrained guardsmen not fired on students, killing four and wounding nine at Kent State University. This incident sparked a chain of protests on campuses nationwide. Over eighty college presidents had to close their universities due to the nationwide strike on college campuses. The National Guard maintained peace and order on campuses around the United States, while Nixon rode out the storm (Small 2002: 124).
The Cambodian bombings not only angered students, but inspired one hundred thousand people to protest in Washington. To the surprise of the protesters, Nixon showed up at the Memorial to talk to distraught students, showing he sympathized with their concerns (Small 2002: 126). Despite the protests which surrounded the Cambodian bombings, most Americans supported Nixon. The war appeared to be winding down as Nixon had promised. Movement individuals started lacking spirit as well; they had to resign to the fact that U.S. withdrawl of troops could not move faster (Small 2002: 141).
The nation spent the greater part of the 1960’s divided over war. Protests occurred on campuses, in cities, and in classrooms. Businessmen, doctors, lawyers, students, hippies, and politicians all fought against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. It was a movement supported by many Americans of different backgrounds. The fight against the war was a never-ending uphill battle, and in the end, the movement prevailed. The protesters were fighting a war of attrition at home, against the politicians, while the soldiers were fighting a war of attrition in Vietnam. Eventually both the soldiers of protest and those in Vietnam had to settle for negotiations. Unfortunately lives were lost both by soldiers in Vietnam, and by those on campuses fighting to bring the boys back alive. The war ended and the question “what are we fighting for?” remained unanswered. Nothing had been gained from the war, but 58,000 lives had been lost.
Back to Home