Thanks to Craig Kind for his interesting historical post. I think the
'tortured' path towards abolition of slavery is quite relevant to the question
of democratic awakenings & mobilization, too. After all, there were years in
which small groups agitated against slavery (e.g., Quakers) going way back
before the reality occurred. As Howard Zinn has said, the agitation is crucial
--one never knows when it's going to encounter an optimizing environment and
either spread to a mass mobilization or effect significant change (or both).
On another of Craig's point, though, re. "immorality" of the war --a point
central to my argument re. media. I would distinguish between the antiwar
MOVEMENT's views of the war, which I would argue did, in fact, revolve around
issues of immorality,at base (probably reinforced both other concerns), and
general public opinion against the war, which I agree reflected a far wider set
of 'reasons' (including 'it's not working,' 'it's gone on too long,' 'it's too
costly,' etc.). So the question about reasoning behind antiwar sentiment is
important; we shouldn't gloss over differences between reasons.
On the other hand, I toss out for Craig & the list's consideration, the finding
of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in their quadrennial public opinion
poll in the post-Vietnam war years. Ever since, I believe, 1979, more than 50%
(and in most cases between 68-71%) of the American public have given as their
assessment of the war that it was "more than a mistake, it was fundamentally
wrong and immoral" (the other choice, I think, if there was only one... was the
it was "a mistake"). That, it seems to me indicates something, though exactly
what, as Craig says, isn't self-evident. The could be seen as immoral because
it involved a powerful giant wreaking destruction on a tiny nation, it could be
seen as immoral because it inherently involved an assault on civilian
populations, and it could be seen as immoral in that it involved a government
lying to, exploiting, and then throwing away 19-year old 'boys.' But the
latter requires some sense of what 'lying to' and 'exploiting' meant, which I
would argue at least implicity involves the kind of 'war' it was.
"Craig M. Kind" wrote:
> As a student of history I would like to suggest a few of my thoughts on
> this view of emancipation in particular, and this type of historical memory
> more generally. And finally I would like to pose a question.
> First on the abolition of slavery: While there is no doubt that the
> emancipation of slaves in 1863 had earth-shattering consequences, we must
> remember the tortured path to the final freeing of the slaves. In saying
> this I do not mean the long history of slavery and emancipation throughout
> the history of antebellum America. I am referring instead to the history
> of the Emancipation Proclamation that many people seem to forget. Lincoln
> did not free the slaves when he entered the White House. Instead he waited
> until the end of 1862 to announce his decision, a decision that was based
> on military necessity and not moral considerations. Furthermore, neither
> the preliminary nor the final Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery
> in the United States. During the war only the slaves in states of active
> rebellion were freed, meaning that those in MD, TN and MO remained in
> bondage. It was not until the passage and ratification of the 13th
> Amendment in 1865 that slavery was truly abolished in the US. And even
> then political considerations played a huge role--re-entry into the union
> was contingent upon rebel states ratifying the amendment.
> Why this tangent into Civil War history? I find the memory of the Civil
> War an interesting parallel to the memory of the Vietnam War. People have
> redefined the Civil War as all about slavery and they have placed Lincoln
> and his Emancipation Proclamation on a pedestal--yesterday was Juneteenth,
> the celebration of the last slaves in Texas learning they were free. But
> the history was infinitely more complicated. Morality was only one factor
> in the decision to free the slaves.
> I would suggest that similarly, morality was only one aspect of why
> Americans finally turned against the Vietnam War in 1968, yet the moral
> opposition to the war dominates the history of the antiwar movement.
> Obviously a sizable segment of the American population--particularly the
> formal movements of the Left--opposed the war on moral grounds--certainly
> that was why so many of the contributors to this list fought against the
> war. But when more than half of Americans told pollsters in 1968 that they
> did not support the war in Vietnam, what exactly were they saying?
> It seems to me that only a portion of the sentiment of the time is
> represented on this list. Certainly other Americans turned against the war
> because they felt we had paid too high a price, others thought the war was
> unwinnable. But I have noted in some of my local research, and some
> historians have argued more generally, that many were simply saying since
> we'll never fight the war the way it should be fought, then we should get
> out. When teaching the Vietnam War to my students, I find that these are
> many of the perspectives they want to know about. They have been taught,
> or more likely they have heard, about the moral arguments that many made
> against the war, but they are seeking more than that. They want a more
> complicated history.
> So I pose this question to this list, What were Americans saying when they
> turned against the war? I have taken what you have all said about your
> own personal histories to heart, and I hope to convey such sentiments to my
> students when I teach this time period again. But what do you consider the
> range of responses to the war, the complexity of antiwar sentiment? What
> was going on beyond the moral arguments against the war?
> I thank you in advance.
> Craig M. Kind email@example.com
> Department of History Grad Program
> University of California, Irvine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 18:41:25 CUT