Tom Hayden Dbq

The Port Huron Statement presented in 1962 serves as one of the most influential political documents of the time that emerged from a meeting organized by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) (Attack 279). The meeting that took place in Port Huron, Michigan drew around sixty college students and presented the mood as well as the beliefs of the student protestors. However, the document not only served in representing the views of the student demonstrators,

This logic led many to flee to Canada or simply resist the draft. Protesters felt that the United States should not be involved in another nation’s civil war especially a war that uses tactics such as saturation bombing, the killing of civilians, and the use of toxic chemicals. David Harris, a draft resister, wrote, “The war was an extraordinarily obvious violation of everything that I had been led to expect from the country I was a part of….when my generation’s war showed up it turned to out to be a propping up of petty dictators so they could keep a good portion of their population in servitude” (Handout page 9). Mass protests occurred all around America. The New York Times wrote about just one protest that had occurred, “A vast throng of Americans, predominantly youthful and constituting the largest mass march in the nation’s capital, demonstrated peaceably in the heart of the city today, demanding a rapid withdrawal of United States troops from Vietnam….There were a number of arrests and minor injuries, mostly the result of tear gas” (Handout page 10). These protesters understood what the war was really doing to America and how immoral our actions truly were, but many others were in support of the war, thus causing a division in the United States.

Thus in conclusion, the drafting of young American men by the American government and the subsequent reaction of draft protests, added to the chaotic situation the Policy makers were facing due to the public disorder created, but at the same time also evidenced the limitations of the student’s power and ability to truly gain significant public support and be taken seriously. Such limitations will reoccur later and mark one of the reasons why the student’s movement was not fully responsible for the withdrawal of American troops in 1975.

The introductory attack began spectacularly during celebrations of the Vietnamese Lunar New Year and left global lungs breathless (Farber and Bailey 34-54). Widely seen as the turning point in the Vietnam War, the NLF and PAVN won an enormous psychological and propaganda-associated victory, which ultimately led to the loss of popular support for the War in the United States and the eventual withdrawal of American troops. Additionally, the events surrounding the Tet Offensive piloted American citizens to increased polarization. Attracting members from college campuses, middle-class suburbs, labor unions, and government institutions, the anti-war movement was swollen with aggrieved affiliates (Farber and Bailey 34-54). The observable pathos of the protesters delivered the distrust of a growing population to the White House doors; the budding doubt in governmental affairs was difficult to discard and impossible to ignore. Indisputably, the Tet Offensive of 1968 cleaved the fragile harmony of the public and birthed a political skepticism that continues to subsist in modern American minds.

On May 1 1970 a massive demonstration was held at Kent State, on the Commons (a grassy area in the center of campus that is used as a gathering place for rallies) and another one was planned for May 4. The students were angry and there were many who were calling to "bring the war home."

During the Vietnam War, approximately 200,000 young men and college age students avoided the draft by fleeing the country, outright ignoring the draft notices or started protests. The most famous protest took place in 1967 at Central Park in New York City. Approximately 500,000 war protesters of varying age and gender showed up and chanted “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” (Tindall 1353). This led to the anti-war protest movement of men burning their draft notices who were supposed to go to war. President Johnson implemented the draft during this time because the United States was in dire need of more troops due to the casualties and injuries suffered in Vietnam (Vietnam).

Students were one of the first organizations who rallied behind ending the Vietnam war. In part because they were the most affected, especially young male college students who were targets for the draft. Although there were many student organizations like The Student Peace Union (SPU) and Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) the face of the students by 1965 would be the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)(11). Founded in 1960, the SDS began as a student branch of the League for Industrial Democracy(27). A misconception about the SDS was that they were advocates for “draft-dodging” program and that they were the leading anti-war organization(60). On the contrary, the SDS believed in a broader social change that would help end the Vietnam War.

“In American history popular movements often shaped elites, especially in times of crisis when elites were concerned with the ‘system’” (Young 1987). Preceding the Revolutionary War, great discontent against Britain unified the American people.

This thematic standpoint in return provides ground for a second major theme; the 1960s was home to the birth of civil rights movements and forever changed the American idea of the status quo. To a large extent, it is agreeable that that the 1960s serves as the era that led to activism in the US. Anderson is able to confirm and strengthen his standpoint by the fact that it was during one of the greatest milestones of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, that for the first time in the history of the US, the government was subjected to criticism and attacks against their “ways”. This can be evidenced by the fact that Americans, which were majority college students, took to the streets to protest government action. At the time, the policies and actions put forth by the government were seen to be very secretive and wrong. Citizens were hastily informed about the need to stop the spread of communism at the expense of capitalism. Not only were government policies seen as corrupt, the government had kept the American society in the dark concerning the actual situation in Vietnam. There seemed to be no cost that was worth retreating from Vietnam. Draft calls were constantly increasing and the war itself began to result in federal expenditures, deficits, and inflationary pressures ( Anderson 90). For some Americans, the war not only damaging, but unfair. Mexican Americans were the poorest and

The 1970s was an eventful time in United States history. During the decade citizens saw positive actions committed by government officials such as ending the Vietnam War and negative actions such as the Watergate scandal. Notable, the United States documented an “unreported resistance” among its citizens. The “unreported resistance” was made of the numerous American men and women who did not support the government actions at the time. They protested nuclear plants, government munitions deals with Nicaragua, and they were not accurately represented in voting.

The anti-war protests of the 1960s was a response of resentment by minorities and young educated college students against the nation’s desire to participate in war against Communism in Vietnam and conduct a military draft. The protests, originally began with peaceful public demonstrations by activists, who were nonviolent; however, the peaceful demonstrators were frequently attacked and victimized by the police and other citizens, who did not share their same opinion. Throughout the peaceful protests the activists suffered many beatings in the hands of the police and as a result, many of the activists claimed the right of self-defense and turned to taking offensive actions against their oppressors including the police and other citizens. Later, the scene of violence and mayhem quickly shifted to college campuses, to which college students began protesting the draft (Gurr, 1989, pp. 183-185). At the time the average age of an American soldier serving in Vietnam was 19 and students quickly rebelled after realizing that young Americans were legally old enough to be drafted to fight and die, but were not yet legally allowed to vote or drink alcohol (UShistory, nd.).

1. The “silent majority” as coined by President Nixon means exactly how you described it: the Americans were “not vocal or outspoken politically.” The phase suggested that there were Americans who were not included in any boycott or protest and who did not march. It was meant for the Americans who were hard workers and the average type. President Nixon believed that in order for his plan to resolve the Vietnam War, the public needed to support or get behind his peace plan. The Vietnam War was not in the good grace with the American public because there was so much anger about fighting it and all of the tragedies that war bears. President Nixon was calling for, as you described it: the “nation’s decision on the Vietnam War [to] depend

It is amazing that it took just seven years for the Students for a Democratic Society to change from an organization that sees the United States as fundamentally good but in need of change through peaceful means to an organization that sees the United States as an imperial evil and calls for violent revolution. The Port Huron Statement comes from the beginning of a new decade. The fresh tactics of sit ins and protests still show promise of inducing change. The Weatherman Manifesto came after years of protests and continued escalation in Vietnam.

While Chafe’s use of the Port Huron Statement is more so a summary of the attitudes of the student movement, Steigerwald offers a critique of the student movement’s ambitions. Steigerwald does not deny that the Port Huron Statement was bold, stating that its critiques of U.S. Cold War foreign policy were both realistic and prescient and that the ideals presented in the statement were “meant as an antidote to the ills of bureaucratized society. Personal fulfillment was to be realized through civic participation”. However, Steigerwald argues that the deepest flaw of the student movement was that “it could encourage mere rebelliousness masquerading as radicalism, a phony radicalism that saw politics as a vehicle for exhibitionism and self-assertion rather than change”. Steigerwald’s critique questions whether the student movement actually aimed to challenge the apparent status quo of the American political landscape. Steigerwald’s critique is in accordance with the larger historical critique of the counterculture movement of the 1960s that the movement did not make the impact that it intended to make. Chafe joins with Steigerwald on the critical

The last study that will be analyzed however, does not frame their research in that manner, instead, “the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the U.S.A. on the changes in the American public’s views about the war.” There is general consensus among Verba, Brody and Schreiber that the polls did not serve as an adequate metric for determining whether the war was truly out of touch with many. Schreiber referred to the demonstrations, noting that “many members of the public simply do not mentally join together” This could lead to the formation of two conclusions according to Schreiber; one being that demonstrations had no effect in altering public opinion, and the other being that those demonstrations had great effect in communicating with the public. “The major point to be gleaned from this review is that there is no evidence that shows an effect of anti-Vietnam war demonstrations on reducing American public support for the war in Vietnam.” Schreiber then goes on to reiterate the point