67 thoughts on “Blog #104 – Chicago Convention as Symbol”

1. Nia Kepes November 3, 2017 at 2:07 pm

   Nia Kepes
   1. The police did not use reasonable force at any point during the week of the National Democratic Convention. As we could tell the police were constantly holding back the protesters by beating them. Also, the police and National guard “cleared the streets” by beating people and mass arresting them. Although the police were provoked by the protesters, the police were consistently the ones to start the fighting with the protesters.
   2. The protesters should have tried their hardest not to fight with the police. Fighting is not an efficient way to get a message about peace across to the public. Also, if the protesters turn violent they immediately lose all of their rights to protest. The protesters should have stayed non- violent and not resisted the police but the police did show no mercy and complete brutality to
   3. The peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have would have been excited and glad but not entirely satisfied if President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. The protesters wanted a complete end to the war by any means necessary. If Vice President Humphrey made some concessions over the Vietnam war it would have been just the start to the campaign for peace by the protesters. After they got him to make some concessions over the Vietnam war they would have pushed for more and more until they reached their goal.
   4. The images from the Chicago convention were extremely influential to the outcome of the 1968 election. The democrats lost to the Republican candidate Richard Nixon mainly because they were so divided over the Vietnam war. The images from the Democratic convention not added to the anger of some anti-war Democrats it upset the whole country. These images showed us what a free Democratic country was willing to do to it’s own people. These images showed police officers brutally attacking protesters which goes against their constitutional right to protest peacefully. If the protesters had been allowed to peacefully protest in the first place violence on such a large scale might not have occurred. These thoughts went through the minds of voters when deciding which candidate to vote for. Ultimately, the Democratic party was split between those who were anti-war and those who were pro war. The images of police brutality from the Democratic Convention swayed many people and the Democrats ended up losing because of their division.
2. Jake Stollman November 3, 2017 at 3:34 pm

   1) I think that, at first, the police used reasonable force. The unwarranted force, in my opinion, was that of mayor Richard J. Daley and his abhorrence of the zany, wild Yippie protesters. The policemen were following orders. However, as the riots progressed, I would say that the policemen did indeed use very excessive force. Some was warranted. For example, if someone with a broken bottle comes at you, you have all authority to control and submit them. However, police action at the peaceful protesters was unwarranted. For example, the person who climbed the flagpole was treated with absolutely horrible conditions. In the film we saw video of the boy being dragged by all of his limbs. Handcuffs would have done, but that leads me to wonder- how did Crisis rush affect the psyches of the police and the protesters? Since many protesters tried to protest the flag student’s arrest by blocking the police, which was met with violence from the police, and thus incited more violence. Did this sudden rush of violence lead to irrationality from the police who arrested the man. They were the main targets of the crowd, who probably were thinking “get him and get out.” I wouldn’t defend a lot of the police action in that fateful week, but not all of them were in the wrong.

   2) I think the protesters certainly crossed the line. You don’t fight with the police. If enough people mobilize and attack the police, more police will be called in. If the city’s police are exhausted, the national guard will come in, like what happened during the 1968 DNC riots. The only thing that can stop a police force is diplomacy and arguing. It is like the Hydra of greek mythology. Additionally, the police were just doing their job. They were scared too, riots of that scale were incredibly frightening. Scared people lash out, and thus protesters were met with much more violence than there could have been if they hadn’t attacked the police..

   3) I think the peace delegates would surely would have been satisfied and supportive of McCarthy. Most of the public were tired of the war and wanted to “bring our boys home”. Nixon won, for a large part, because Humphrey was viewed as a war supporter. However, this was not his opinion. He was being played by Lyndon B. Johnson, who in a way was blackmailing him- since, according to the video, LBJ had control of the electoral process, he could deny Humphrey the nomination if Humphrey chose not to support the war. Humphrey promptly switched opinions publicly. The war would be the defining issue of the election, and Humphrey knew he was on the losing side- that same issue had previously divided his party and gave him control of a viciously fractured Democratic Party.

   4) I believe that images from the 1968 DNC riots helped swing the election in Nixon’s favor. They portrayed the Democratic Party as a deeply divided organization, one that had a very difficult and uncertain experience in electing Hubert Humphrey as the presidential nominee, and certainly would have a tumultuous and difficult tenure in the White House. Another effect of the rioting on the populace’s opinion of the Democratic Party was that it seemed as if it somehow wanted to restrict the right to free speech, or at the very least call it into question. This would be a direct violation of the constitution of the United States, and the US eventually decided to vote them out.
3. Luke L November 3, 2017 at 11:41 pm

   1. The police used anything but reasonable force to disperse the protesters during the convention, as you see during the movie police officers brutally beating innocent people and damaging them to the point where they would become unconscious and have to go to hospitals and be treated. Had they controlled the situation better then maybe the police wouldn’t have been viewed in such a negative light by the general public.

   2. I feel that that the protestors both did and didn’t cross the line with the police. On one hand, they could have just given up and go home after realizing that the police were preventing them from protesting. Had they done that, then there would probably be a much more peaceful outcome yet a lack of passion. However, on the other hand, instead of giving up, they could have fought for their beliefs and create a sort of statement from them showing that they wouldn’t get down so easily. This brings up the question as to whether or not it’s okay to fight for what you believe is just and to challenge authority. If they were provoked, then they would obviously react depending on how strong-willed they were. But if they weren’t, what would happen? Would they continue to protest peacefully? Or would they get to ahead of themselves and start to become an actual danger? It’s questions like these that bring up the thoughts of morality and as to when it’s okay to stand for what you believe in.

   3. Peace delegates/McCarthy’s followers would most likely be somewhat pleased if LBJ allowed Humphrey to make concessions to the Vietnam War. This is because LBJ was very set on winning the war, and concessions were almost a nonexistent option. Because of this, I feel that making some concedes would be better than none if a situation like this were to actually happen.

   4. Due to the fact that there were many strong feelings against the war, Nixon was chosen over the rest of the candidates simply because he wanted the war to end as well. Many of the riots were broadcasted on TV, giving the public the idea that choosing a president who was pro-war would only result in more of the anti-war riots, causing more fear and possibly conflicts that could lead to disaster.
4. Nicholas Haddad November 4, 2017 at 11:12 am

   1. After watching how the events unfolded between the police and rioters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, I would definitely say that the policemen brutalized their authority and provoked many rioters to retaliate. During peaceful, non-violent protests by college kids, including the one at Lincoln Park at night, policemen lined up, and began attacking kids with billy clubs, shooting cannons full of tear gas, and savagely beating them up. Their horrifying actions are in part due to Mayor Richard Daley’s refusal to grant permits to protest, and his unwavering obliviousness to the opinions of the people; he was willing to use any force necessary to dispel the protesters. However, the police used reasonable force on Wednesday, August 28 after noticing a student climbing a flagpole to dismantle an American flag, which is a great disrespect to our nation. They went in and arrested the kid, but then began to abuse their power again when they beat students who had done nothing wrong.

   2. No, I don’t believe that the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police as the policemen didn’t treat them with any respect, and any opportunity they got to instigate the rioters, they did. Many of the organizers and groups participating in the protests seeked permits from the Mayor’s office in order to protest peacefully. Yet, Mayor Daley denied any of them from receiving a permit, inviting more people to protest, and violence to erupt between the protesters and the policemen. In most cases, the police began the fight, and the rioters were protecting themselves from being beaten, abused, or killed.

   3. The peace delegates were seeking a complete end to the war in Vietnam, and nothing less. Given what President Johnson had done to escalate the conflict in Vietnam, I don’t believe that any concessions made by Vice President Humphrey could influence McCarthy’s followers to be satisfied. Humphrey had a pretty firm stand on continuing the war in Vietnam, especially so that he could keep support from Johnson. At this point, the Democratic party was so fractured that satisfying one group of people would dissatisfy the other.

   4. The violence shown at the Democratic National Convention showed the American people just how divided the Democratic party was, and how fervent anti-war protesters were. After Humphrey, a war supporter, was nominated to be the Democratic candidate, many anti-war supporters most likely drifted towards Nixon, who promised an end to the war soon. This convention symbolized the hatred towards the Vietnam War, and the solid commitment by the American people to put an end to it.
5. Dorian Campillo November 4, 2017 at 11:43 am

   1. I do not think the police used reasonable force when dispersing the protestors during the week of the convention. As said in the video we watched Friday, the police were non stop beating people and once they seemed submissive, they would do that again to another person. The police force easily could have found another solution to disperse the crowd. They could have found a way to not use so much violence on the protestors, although they were violent too.
   2. The protesters, however, also crossed the line by fighting with the police. They did so because the police are present when there is something disturbing the peace. However, the protestors took it too far and started acting violent which resulted in the police also acting very violent. Both sides had no right to fight with one another. The protestors should have known that something terrible would start if they fought with the police, and of course, something did happen. Many were injured because of their consequences
   3. I think that the peace delegates/McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if Lyndon Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. They would have been satisfied because they would have seen how their candidate had some say in what was going on with Vietnam. In addition, they would see that he has some experience with what was going on and with foreign affairs.
   4. The images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election with Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace because it resulted in some people changing sides as to who they would vote for. Some people, who were originally going to vote for the Democratic, saw these images and then changed their minds. They may have then decided for the Republican Party, who had Nixon as their candidate. This could have changed a ton in the United States because Humphrey could have been president instead of Nixon.
6. Kevin Gruich November 4, 2017 at 1:35 pm

   1.
   No, I do not think the police used reasonable force against the protesters. This is especially true in the case of Grant Park, where many were brutally beaten. The violence was even instigated by the police with their assault on a teenager, who lowered the American flag. They didn’t try to arrest him instead they came at him clubs swinging, inciting the rest of the police and protesters. Even the Chicago Study Team appointed by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that while protesters provoked police, the police’s indiscriminate violence was to blame. It was even referred to as a “police riot”.
   2. For the most part I think the fighting with the police was not crossing the line. I mainly have issues with some protesters pelting police with rocks and chunks of concrete that could kill someone. While the protesters may have provoked the officials, they were not seeking an all-out attack, like that which they received. I do think militant protesters like Tom Hayden really were justified in their means. Though the violence endured by the protesters showed the divide and issues in America to the public right in their living room.
   3.
   I don’t think concessions over the Vietnam War would have satisfied the peace delegates. I think the peace delegates were so heavily focused on peace, concessions would mean little to them. When someone is in the search of peace, they will not rest until full peace is realized. This is because while a war with less soldiers is still a war between countries where people are lost every day. Even if the numbers are smaller on paper the emotional and moral impact is still unchanged.
   4.
   The images from the 1968 DNC most definitely affected the outcome of the election. Humphrey might have pulled out a win with his delegates at the time, but the DNC only hurt him. With images of police brutality and live coverage of the suffering of young students. Having such events sent right into the living room of tens of millions of Americans, will change the outcome. All this left an easy opening for Nixon to cut him way right into the White House. The chant of the protesters “The whole world is watching”, held true.
7. Ugo Uchendu November 4, 2017 at 1:50 pm

   I do not think the police used reasonable force when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. There were many moments in time when police officers were unreasonable and obtuse in their treatment of the protesters, though one moment that sticks out in my mind is in the beginning of the convention, although protesters had permits to be in the park, police refused to listen and beat demonstrators for no reason at all. Throughout the duration of convention week police officers continuously abused their power by brutally beating protesters, and anybody who dared to get in their way.
   The protesters definitely did cross the line by fighting with the police in my opinion. They acted as if police officers had no authority over them, as if police officers were just random people who weren’t carrying guns or wearing badges. No good came out of provoking the police officers.
   I think that the peace delegates would have been slightly satisfied if Humphrey was permitted to discuss the war. All the peace delegates wanted was for their voices to be heard,and their ideas taken into consideration. Though at the same time I feel that the peace delegates would be disappointed at the fact that all their requests weren’t met.Maybe allowing Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War would have prevented some of the rioting going on at the time.
   I do think that the images displayed from the convention influenced the outcome of the Wallace, Humphrey and Nixon election. I think the images made some of the American public give democrats the side eye. After all, a lot of the violence that the people saw was influenced by the democrats. This change, no doubt, is part of what helped Nixon win the presidency that year. To the american public, if the democrats couldn’t control their own convention, how could they run a country?
8. Gray Mulligan November 4, 2017 at 3:09 pm

   I think the police started off by using reasonable force and in the early demonstrations the police were containing the protests but as the film went on the police started to cross the line using tear gas and billy clubs felt excessive but i could still understand it but by the time in front of the hotel the police were just beating anyone who got caught in the path of the police and that felt appropriate for the police to act like that.

   I think that most of the protesters were justified in fighting the police and that most of them were acting in self defense against the cops and that the protesters had no other choice to act. But i think that also at some point it would have been best if they started to comply with the police and avoid such large clashes with police and instead took smaller groups to peacefully protest and they might have got farther with their message if the protests didn’t shift into brawls.

   I think that the peace followers would have appreciated some independence on humphrey’s part and that might have prevented the party from splitting up the way it did and might have prevented the problems at the convention and personally if i was voting in that election it would have made me feel like he would be a good candidate and not just LBJ’s puppet. But as i see his actions now i think that he wasn’t making his own decisions and i probably would have liked to see him make his own voice heard on vietnam.

   I think that the chicago convention caused the party to split and weaken itself going into the election and let the vote be split in half and allow nixon to only need half of the support to win. But other than just numbers i think that the convention put the thought in peoples heads that if our party can’t come together as one and make these decisions now, how will we ever hope to convince others that we know what we are doing? and that must have impacted the end result of the election
9. Isabelle November 4, 2017 at 4:03 pm

   Isabelle Borr
   Mr. Wickersham
   AP US History
   4 November 2017
   Blog #4
   1. At times, the police used reasonable force, but at times like right outside the convention, it was too harsh and uncalled for. The police were beating the protestors and throwing them into police vehicles very aggressively. The police overstepped their authority to control of protest. You do not need to savagely beat protestors because they are not dispersing. There are other alternatives to force that don’t injure people and leave them on the ground to die. The reasonable force would be creating a police barrier without using tear gas and Billie clubs. In the movie, it was mentioned that police wore gloves filled with a hardener to make their blows even more powerful. The gloves are a perfect example of the force that should have not been used. The people have a right to protest and not get assaulted by police. There were some however who have escalated the issue and making it violent, however, they should have just targeted those violent culprits and not the whole protest in general.
   2. The protestors definitely overstepped the line when they fought with police. Violence should never be used; it is counterintuitive when trying to get the point across. It actually pretty ironic to be against war and violence then turn around and use war and violence against police. It gives them more of a reason to attack the protestors when they are trying to harm people and things around them. Public pressure helps get protestors points against but nobody is going to want to support you if you are violent. The point is washed away when violence occurs. If you want to stand out and make your point heard, you need to talk the talk and walk the walk. It is understandable to get frustrated under the censorship of Chicago’s mayor, but if you show strength and persistence than things can actually get done.
   3. The peace delegates would not be completely satisfied if Hubert Humphrey made concessions with them, but I do think they would be not as enraged. The delegates were angry over the lack of cooperation made by Humphrey to calm them. They wanted to end the war and attain peace, but you could not start if there were no promises to de-escalate Vietnam. The leaders of the convention were not listening to them even though they had a right to have their voice heard. The cards were already stacked against them, but they could make a point. Their first opportunity was the debate on the Vietnam war, but it was postponed from prime time when more people would be watching. This was a huge blow to their cause. The point of party conventions is for them to decide on a candidate and unite as a party for the general elections, but this is not what happened. Uniting means compromise and Humphrey’s campaign did not do that. I guess you could say that is was Lyndon Johnson’s doing, but Humphrey should of put more of a fight up.
   4. The images that came from the Democratic convention were dramatic and show how divided the party was. I think this contributed to the outcome of the general a lot. A lot of people saw this as if Humphrey cannot unite the party how can he unite the United States? The protests outside of the convention shed a light on the anti-war movement, and probably mounted pressure on the administration to do something. The public has now seen Humbert Humphrey as weak and not capable of leading the country. Other factors like the Dixiecrats split to the third-party candidate, George Wallace, and Nixon saw as serving the “silent majority” weakened Humphrey’s campaign, but the chaos at the convention is probably the main reason he lost the presidency.
10. Dominic Gullo November 4, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    1. After seeing the video on Friday, it’s hard for me to believe that the Chicago police ever used “reasonable” force (is reasonable force even a thing) when dispersing the protestors. Most of the time, the police were the ones to start the fighting the actual violence. Once violence started, police would beat anyone they came across. They never took into account the fact that some of the groups of protestors had permits that allowed them to peacefully protest. (Although they might have been ordered by Mayor Daley) The police’s way of dispersing the protestors was uncalled for and went completely out of hand.
    2. Although some of the violence was caused by policemen, some of the blame should go to the protestors (some of the protestors, not all). When the police started the violence, the protestors only escalated it further. Many of them didn’t understand the idea of protesting without violence (Tom Hayden), some of them let their rage overcome them. Just like in the Kent State incident, the rowdy protestors in Chicago probably scared many of the policemen into attacking. So, yes, I do think that many of them crossed the line. How are they going to protest about peace in Vietnam when they can’t even hold a peaceful protest?
    3. I think that if President Johnson had allowed Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam war, then some of the peace delegates would have been a little more satisfied. I think that Humphrey would’ve wanted to make more efforts to create peace, but Johnson stopped him. I think that if Humphrey did make these changes, the peace delegates would have given a little more support to him. It also might have eased some of the tensions at the Democratic National Convention. I don’t think Humphrey would’ve gained their complete support, but at least the peace delegates wouldn’t feel like their ideas were being completely ignored.
    4. I think that the images of police beating and arresting protestors were a sign to many Americans that their government was not listening to them. Americans had been ready for the war to end for a long time, and they were growing tired of the president ignoring them. The images only probably fueled the anger of anti-war Americans. Also, the democratic party had been in control of the White House for too long, and they weren’t making any efforts to make peace (plus, the democrats had nominated Humphrey, a pro-war politician). I think these events caused Nixon (a Republican) to be elected as president (along with that, Nixon had also promised peace). Americans were ready for a change.
11. Emily Parker November 4, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    #1: No, I do not think that the police used reasonable force when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. I also I do not think that at any point during the convention they used “reasonable force.” The police and National Guard were always the ones starting the fights and beating people to clear the streets. Despite the fact that the protesters were breaking the law by staying at the park after the 11 p.m. closing time, the police responded with excessive force. The police were provoked by the protesters but the police always started the fighting, the protesters never started with any physical force.
    #2: I do think that the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police. The purpose of protesting the Democrat’s Vietnam War policy during the convention, was to help end the war and bring about peace. While a few of the protest leaders maintained their commitment to protest peacefully, other determined that engaging the police under the watchful eye of television cameras would gain national exposure for their cause.
    #3: It seems likely that the peace delegates would have been satisfied if President Johnson would have allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. Humphrey was put in a difficult situation: either contradict the sitting president or reveal his plan for bring an end to the war, which would have likely cost him the nomination.
    #4: The images captured during the 1968 Democratic convention were riveting. People from all walks of life were shocked by seeing small armies of police and the national guard using tear gas, wearing gas masks and wielding batons to beat back seemingly peaceful groups of young people. The timing of the protest during the convention, underscored the division within the Democratic party and likely led to moderate Democrats abandoning the party and voting for Nixon.
12. Dylan Cohen November 4, 2017 at 7:41 pm

    1. I am not sure you could consider it reasonable or unreasonable but they might have been a little too violent but they also couldn’t not do anything or it would show that the protestors could just push them around. I think the police sort of stepped over the lien when they started really hurting people. I think, what they should have done was give the protesters a well defined area where they can freely express their opinions, have their voices heard, and not disturb the peace and make fools of themselves. When the police started beating protestors, they played right into their hands and didn’t help the situation one bit.

    2. I do think that the protesters crossed the line when they fought with police because it was sort of hypocritical. I understand that they wanted to achieve peace in the Vietnam by any means necessary. But, it’s hard to preach peace and love when you are beating the crap out of police while they are subsequently beating the crap out of you.

    3. I don’t think that the anti war people would be satisfied until they saw a big movement within the country and the government to end The Vietnam War and The Cold War as a whole. I think that even if Humphrey pandered to them a little bit, they still would not view him as an ally. The anti war people wanted to see big changes and they wanted to see them ASAP.

    4 I think that the images of the protests and the coverage of them and inside Democratic National Convention galvanized the effort to end the war quickly and “bring our boys home”. I think it also split the Democratic party and might have turned some pro war people towards Nixon, who was for the war, and was trying to get the vote of the “silent majority”. The images may have also hurt the peace efforts by making the protestors look like “spoiled brats” and “fools”. It definitely kept the war the talk of the town which a candidate’s view on the war was definitely a deciding factor on whether or not they got a vote
13. Kate Karaskewicz November 5, 2017 at 10:15 am

    1. The police took it too far too soon. Although protesters provoked them and did get violent, the police drew first blood. The scenes of police using billy clubs and tear gas on protesters is hard to watch, and you can’t blame protesters for fighting back just in self defense. When the police arrived at Lincoln park it was a non-violent protest, but after you through tear gas into a crowed of people it’s bound to get hostile.
    2.) On the whole I do not think protestors took it to far. In a lot of cases when they were being attacked by police would fight back more in self defense than anything else. Some decisions of the protestors were not smart however, throwing tear gas back at police officers with riot gear is not in anyone’s best interests. But protesters were taking a stand against the more brutal war in Vietnam.
    3.)I do think that peace delegates would have been more content if LBJ had let humphrey promise changes in the war policy. You could see that the party and furthermore, as evidenced by the protests outside, the nation was divided. How can you unite people without changing anything? The peace delegates where just look for some change and I’m sure they felt that they were not being heard.
    4.) scenes of the protest influences the election because one looks at it and thinks how did we get here? Then you find you way to the commander and chief, LBJ, who fueled the fires of Vietnam. Humphrey who was LBJ’s vice president and the democrat’s nominee for president wasn’t calling for much change regarding Vietnam, due to LBJ’s influence. With all the riots going on not just in Chicago too, Voters I’m sure felt that the country needed a change so that pushed them toward Nixon.
14. Henry Berthel November 5, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    The police did not use reasonable force when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. They were following their orders initially. If Mayor Richard Daley had granted permits to protest, the police’s actions would not have been justified in any way. However, since these permits were not granted, the police were allowed to try to stop the protesters. Although they were allowed to, they could have attempted to hold the protesters back in a more peaceful way than they did, instead of immediately beating them. The police’s actions were due to the protesters, but overall, the police were always the ones to start the fights.
    The protesters didn’t cross the line by fighting with the police. Although it is never good to fight against the police, they didn’t cross the line. If they had been permitted to protest by the Mayor, they would not have needed to fight the police the protest what they believed was right. When the police started to fight against them, the protesters had two choices: fight back or go home. Going home would show that they weren’t very passionate about what they were protesting, so they had to stay. This meant they had to fight back, and so they did not cross the line.
    The peace delegates would not have been completely satisfied if President Johnson allowed Vice President Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. They wanted a complete end to the war, but allowing Humphrey to make concessions was a start. The peace delegates would have continued to protest until a total end of the war happened. However, the majority of the public wanted the war to end as soon as it could, whether it was 100% complete or not. If Humphrey made concessions, the public would view him as someone who wanted to end the war, so it would satisfy them in some ways.
    The images from the Democratic National Convention in 1968 influenced the election by giving Nixon a big advantage. The public now saw the Democratic Party as less anti-War than the Republican Party. The way they handled the protesters would lead many Americans to think the Democrats were trying to stop the protesters from getting their message out. Since the public wanted the war to end at the time so much, they were willing to choose the president who appeared to be more against the war than the alternative, so they elected Nixon.
15. Hanna Lupovitch November 5, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    Hanna Lupovitch
    Mr. Wickersham
    APUSH
    5 November 2017
    I do not think that the police, when attempting to disperse the protesters, used reasonable force whatsoever. They were being so brutal, so violent, and way overly-forceful. This became my belief when the students were peacefully protesting. The students were just accessing their freedom of speech, and taking a stand on something, and the police, being “all-powerful,” just used so many harmful tactics to break it up. There was no reason for that sort of violence at that time, especially since at that time the protesters were not fighting back yet.
    I think that the protesters did indeed cross a line by fighting back. This takes some of their credibility. They were doing nothing wrong, because they were just using their freedom of speech and right to peacefully protest; however, they completely ruined their streak of legality by protesting non-peacefully.
    I think that McCarthy and his followers would have been satisfied if Hubert Humphrey had made his concessions about the war. This is because since McCarthy and his followers were anti-war, and Hubert Humphrey wished to talk about how he wanted to get out of the war, they probably would have favored him. Hubert Humphrey could not, however, say that he was anti-war because then President Lyndon B. Johnson would basically have taken him out of the running for office.
    I think that the images from this convention affected the outcome of the 1968 election between Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace, because of their opinions on these events. For example, when one of the candidates would mention their opinion about these instances, for instance that it should not be happening, they gained popularity throughout the crowd. Although, if one of them had chosen to not even mention it, they might have lost popularity because the public might assume that that candidate does not care as much.
16. Ethan B November 5, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    I think that the police originally used reasonable force to break up an unapproved protest. However, as the events of the week carried on, the police used more and more unacceptable tactics. The original response with tear gas is often used by law enforcement to break up protests, and is considered to be reasonable force. When the police force entered the park on the first night, and began beating people with billy clubs, and attacking those who were already fleeing or injured, they had crossed a line. The force that they were using was no longer acceptable. Once they had crossed this line, they never went back. The events of the rest of the week saw the police continue to use brutal methods to attempt to achieve their goals.
    I think that the protestors did not cross a line when they fought back against the police. As aforementioned, the police used brutal force when they tried to break up these protests. The protesters had every right to defend themselves in a violent fashion. However, the protesters would throw rocks at the police at the beginning stages when the police were still using reasonable force. This is crossing a line, and is essentially asking for a fight.
    I think that the peace delegates would not have been satisfied if Humphrey had been allowed to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. These delegates wanted to stand completely against the war, not at a halfway point. These concessions would have produced a compromise that neither the peace delegates nor the war delegates would have been happy with. If the peace delegates had known what would have happened if there were no concessions, I think that they would have gladly accepted any concessions that Humphrey would have made. However, I think that concessions was not their ultimate goal.
    The images from the 1968 convention greatly influenced the outcome of the election. The convention showed the Democratic party deeply divided. It showed that they could not control protestors outside, and were brutal in their methods of dealing with dissenters. It showed that the party could not manage a convention, and led to the inference that they could not manage a country. The Democratic base was already divided between Humphrey and Wallace, and any on the fence voters who saw the convention would certainly have voted for Nixon.
17. Will D November 5, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Will Drake
    11/5/17
    Democratic Convention Blog
    I believe that at first, the police did use reasonable force – to an extent. But as tensions grew, things got out of control from both sides. I believe this to be the fault of the mayor of the city though, who ordered the police and national guard in to deal with the protestors. The mayor allowed any force necessary to be used to disperse the protesters. At first, the fighting between both sides was apparent, but after time passed it was clear that the police were not using reasonable force on the protesters. One example of this is at the concert (I believe), where after the police arrested someone taking down the American Flag (which was justified), they began to push protesters back, which resulted in large scale fights between the two sides. Some leaders of the protests were knocked unconscious and had to be taken to a hospital for treatment. Another example is in the park, where the police launched tear gas into the crowd and hit protesters with their clubs.
    I do believe that the option to fight with the police was a bad move on behalf of the protesters. Even in present day, attempting to fight to get your message across will not garner many people to your side. If you fight with the police, they will fight back. This not only results in a game of who instigated the fight, but also both sides looking bad not only to the American public, but also to the rest of the world who now see Americans fighting each other on the streets.
    I do not believe that some of McCarthy’s followers would have been happy if Johnson allowed Humphrey to make concessions over Vietnam. Many of McCarthy’s supporters/anti-war supporters did not want the war to continue any longer and wanted to bring the troops back home. Even if Humphrey made some concessions, this would not be enough to sway to anti-war supporters to his side.
    I think the images of the convention greatly influenced the results of the election, and were a big part in helping Nixon win. The Democratic Convention of 1968 showed people how divided the party was, with two candidates with completely different opinions. Nixon wanted the war to end as well, and with the riots being shown nationally that happened in 1968, people might have feared more war would lead to more riots. After Humphrey was nominated, many anti-war supporters most likely drifted towards Nixon, who did not support the war.
18. Katie Lucken November 5, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    1. I think the police mostly did not use “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. The force they used was not reasonable at times because a lot of the protests and marches were peaceful. Two of the influential leaders, David Dellinger and Rennie Davis, were against violence. An example of unnecessary force was when the police beat Rennie Davis unconscious when he approached them to discuss the peaceful protest the group was planning on starting. Other times, another leader, Tom Hayden, said it was important to get their agenda across to the nation by “any means necessary”. This included violence, and perhaps was centered around the use of violence to get where they needed to go to protest.

    2. I think the protesters did cross the line by fighting with the police, in some instances. I don’t think they were violent to begin with, they became violent as a reaction to the police attacking them with clubs, tear gas, and other things. Although the police often used unreasonable amounts of force, the protesters were being purposely defiant of the laws or requests of the city and police. This was not a violent action, but they did push the police to using force as a method to remove and subdue protesters. The violence was caused both by police and protesters, violent and nonviolent, and lines were crossed on both sides in regards to defiance of the law and violence.

    3. I do think that the peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. This is because many peace delegates and McCarthy’s party were all for the resolution of the Vietnam War, and even though they obviously would have not liked to see America lose, they also wanted to stop the war by any means necessary. It does depend on how devoted each individual was to the resolutions towards peace, because I am sure that many would not support America doing something major as a concession of the Vietnam War.

    4. I think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election with Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. This is because the terrible depictions of people being beaten and bombarded with tear gas in parks and on streets probably caused more people to pay attention to the election. The images caused the nation to largely sympathize with the protesters, and whichever candidate addressed the violence in the nation, and the calls for ending America’s involvement in the Vietnam War in the way that best resonated with the people definitely had a larger amount of voters on their side.
19. Nick Johns November 5, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    1. I think there were times when the police used reasonable force, and there were times where they didn’t. At the start of the protests, the police used reasonable force because the protesters were doing things that violated the law, such as threatening to put LSD in the water supply, and throwing Molotov Cocktails. Everybody has a right to a peaceful protest, but once they start breaking the law, they are not practicing those rights, and can be arrested. Therefore, at the start of the rallies, the police were doing the right thing in taking action against the protesters. However, near the end, then tensions between the police and the rioters were high, as they had been brawling all week, so the police officers were probably aggravated and eager to clash with the protesters. This led them to become unreasonable with their use of force on the rioters.

    2.Yes, I do think the protesters crossed the line when they fought with police. As mentioned above, I do not believe initially the police were doing anything wrong, they were just doing their job. The protesters were doing things that were breaking the law, and the police were trying to stop them. When the protesters fought back, they were preventing the cops from doing their jobs, and that is when the police started getting hostile towards the protesters. If the protesters had never fought with the police in the first place, then perhaps the police wouldn’t have been as aggressive with them towards the end of the week.

    3. I do think the peace delegates would have been happy with Humphrey if Johnson let him be flexible on his stance on the war. It mentions in the video that Humphrey asked Johnson numerous times if he could be more flexible and understanding with what the peace delegates were proposing, but Johnson was very close minded and refused to give up his position in the war.

    4. The result of the 1968 election was probably influenced by the protests in Chicago. The people who saw what was going on within the Democratic Party were probably swayed to the right when they saw all the chaos and division. As the movie put it: “How could the Democrats run the country if they couldn’t run their own convention?”
20. Devin Woodruff (1st Hour) November 5, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    1. No, I don’t believe the police used reasonable force when dispersing protestors during the week of the convention because the police knew what they were doing we they decided to beat the people in the crowd. There wasn’t a reason for the two even attack the people in the crowd since all they were trying to do is a peaceful protest. Another reason, why I don’t believe the police used reasonable force is they started to beat them with sick’s. That was not needed.
    2. No, I don’t think the protester crossed the line by fighting the police because they only reacted to what the police started doing which was hitting them. During that moment they did what they taught was best which was to protect themselves and do get beat by the police. Furthermore, all they were trying to do was prove a point without trying to hurt the police or attack anyone. Another reason why I don’t think they crossed the line is that they were trying to peaceful protest instead the police decided to try to beat them.
    3. Yes, I think the peace delegates would be satisfied if President Johnson had allowed vice president Humphrey to make some concessions over vitamin war because he wanted to have a say in vitamin war anyway. Lots of people thought that his views were going to lean towards the Vietnam since he had a lot of experience in the war and it could be seen as a conflict of interest of him leaning towards one way or another.
    4. I think the images had a great influence on the outcome of the 1968 election between Nixon. Humphrey and Wallace because the American people didn’t want to elect a president to invade in some many wars. To sum up I think it had a great effect on the outcome because the American people wanted to elect someone that they could trust.
21. Cole Sutton November 5, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Cole Sutton
    11/5/2017

    1. I believe that that the police used excessive force for the entire convention by constantly beating and tear gassing the students. The police never referred to peaceful alternatives to stop the protesters and they only beat and arrested the protestors. But the police did have certain reasons to fight back against the protesters after being hit with bottles and other items. This still gave them no excuses to attack and arrest the peaceful protestors.

    2. I do believe that the protestors crossed the line by fighting the police, as it did not aid in their protest it just made the aggression towards them worse. You can argue that fighting the police gave them more attention. But attacking the police ultimately made people dislike the protesters as they were violent and rebels, who wouldn’t follow the rules and were damaging society. Attacking the police also made the police attack back and arrest some of the protesters and injured them too.

    3. I do think that the peace delegates/ Mccarthy’s followers would have been excited if president Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War, but i don’t think that they would be entirely satisfied. The peace delegates were looking towards a complete end of the war and wanted nothing less. Yes, they would be excited but they would not be satisfied, they are only part way of reaching their goal but it wasn’t completed.

    4. I do believe that the photos from the convention boosted voters towards Nixon’s favor because they showed all of the problems created because of the war. Nixon was anti-war which boosted his favor because the people didn’t want any more war that would lead to more riots and rebellions. So voters picked Nixon’s side to end the war and the violent protests and destruction.
22. Graham November 5, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    11/5/17
    Chicago Convention
    Graham Hupp
    With the harsh activist groups known as the Yippies, the police used the correct amount of force towards the college students protesting the war. The week of the convention there were harsh standards of the force that could be used against these activists, assuming they would back down and the problems of these protests, the force of police used showed the world what was happening and made the groups attempt to be stronger than ever, resisting the police force as civil as possible, singing songs to drown out the Democratic National Convention on National Television, again showing the whole Nation, the whole world, what they could do and what they were willing to do to make it happen. In my opinion, the force could be deemed reasonable because it was assumed that it would diminish the hope and size of the protest group but in turn it only made the group stronger and fight even harder against the police force and the government as a whole.
    I do think the protesters crossed the line with the police by attacking them, as these police were ordered to keep these protesters back and keep order in the city basically by all means, so they had to attack some protesters in order to keep them succumbed to the police and at the hand of the government. These college kids that basically had no jobs, (their job was to go to college) did not like what was happening overseas in vietnam so in order to stop it, they decided to protest the war in hopes that the troops would be sent back home. Of course, this was a new party, who enjoyed recreational use of drugs such as marijuana, and even the flag for their party (youth international party) was a red star overlapped with a marijuana leaf. These police with orders to keep this party back, had one job and they were payed for this job and would not let any “hippie” going through college, most not even having a job.
    I think the peace delegates and followers of McCarthy would have been satisfied if Johnson had allowed Vice President Hubert Humphrey to make concessions for the Vietnam War, their overall goal was to get troops sent back and for the violence to stop in Vietnam. Most likely tensions would have been eased with the police and protesters and the protests would become to a minimum, if not stopped completely.
    These images were most likely all collected from the Chicago protests at the Democratic National Convention. These images most likely turned the tide of the 1968 election with Richard Nixon because as these Yippie parties were protesting the views of the Democratic party at the Democratic National Election and as the police forces brutally beat some of the protesters, the Democrat party to some could be seen as the bad guys, keeping these protesters away by any means which did not make the national TV viewers very happy with the party.
23. Kyle V November 5, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    1. I believe that there were times that the police used reasonable force. Before the convention even started and the protesters were not getting the permits because of the mayor they made threats. Even though they were being treated unfair you don’t need to threaten a city with tainting the entire water supply for Chicago with LSD. But the police unleashed hell on the protesters and sometimes it was unprovoked. When they gathered outside of the Hilton and the police shoot tear gas and beat up the protesters was wrong and so was the actions of the police in attacking the protesters at the park for which they had a permit. But some of the attacks had reason, like when the man tried to take down the American flag.
    2. Like with the section above I believe that the protesters fought with the police for good reason and for some not good reasons. If you practice peaceful protest or a rally you need a permit and the police can follow the law by kicking you out. If you fight with the people who are doing their job, trouble is bound to happen. There are other times like at the concert hall when they did have a permit and did nothing wrong, except for the guy trying to take down the flag that you can fight back and say that we have the right to be here.
    3. I believe that the peace delegates would have been fine if President Johnson allowed Humphrey to make concessions over the war. It may cost them the nomination because they would not be seen as peace delegates for the party. They may have just wanted the fighting to stop. They would have also been happy that the government would finally talk about the trouble going on in Vietnam and not just ignoring it and not telling the people what the United States was doing.
    4. The Images of what happened at the DNC totally effected the election in 68. Nixon was appealing to the middle class or “silent majority” but never promised to end the war. George Wallace appealed to rednecks and back country folk of southern United States. Humphrey’s image after the Democratic National Convention was seen as a war loving politician just like his boss Lyndon Johnson who wasn’t as well received as Humphrey. In the end the middle class followed with Nixon who was seen as the peace maker and could end the war and Humphrey who was seen as the country splitter for how he handled the DNC
24. Jake Flaherty November 5, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    1. Well, I would say they didn’t. On Sunday, the day before the convention, all the people are in the park, and you’re supposed to be out by 11. The police made a long line, and they all had gas masks, and they sent out a lot of tear gas. I would say that’s reasonable. But they weren’t reasonable at all because they didn’t stop there. The video said that they attacked people running from the park; trying to escape the park, etc. Really? That day had been pretty peaceful, and the protesters had been protesting, but now that they’re leaving you attack them?!? You already dispersed it, that’s not cool. The tears gas… I’m not quite sure how it feels but I feel it was effective.
    2. Okay. Do I think they went overboard? Yes. HOWEVER – You have to keep in mind that the police had been beating everyone up before the protesters started fighting… It’d be hard not to fight back. I don’t think they crossed the line by fighting with the police. Fighting back was going to come, and the police had been brutal. They had crossed the line before though, they had been completely obnoxious with the convention… But I feel they had every right to fight with the police once the police had started attacking. But they were also asking for it.
    3. No! Not satisfied. I don’t think Humphrey could’ve stopped the war, and that’s really all the peace people want! However, I think it would’ve helped, just to show some ease in the war… I think the peace delegates would’ve liked that, but they wouldn’t of been satisfied, I can’t see the VP convincing someone as bold as Johnson to stop the war…
    4. Oh, absolutely! This showed so much chaos on the Democratic side! You have Nixon absolutely STEAMROLLING the Democrats… This shows the Democratic party as brutal, and extremely divided. It probably strayed away a lot of people. And it showed that the Democratic party might not really know what was going on, and didn’t have any promises if the war would be any closer to an end. The Republicans did have promises of it ending…
25. Neve Robinson November 5, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    1. Not at all, even though the protesters did use some force, which was wrong. Most people were peacefully protesting. The police were told to contain protestors instead they ended up beating and gasing a bunch of college students who were protesting against war in Vietnam, when there was already a war that they were fighting in the US, between protesters and the police. I do understand how some police would have felt the need to intervene especially after a protester started to take down the American flag but as soon as that happened the police were not afraid to wiped out their batons and started beating people to try and keep the protestors in order. The problem with this was the protesters would not just sit and watch as other protesters were being hurt, so this created even more violence, as the protesters tried to stop the police. I think the best thing the police could have done in this situation was not take out their batons and gas but just try and move people back and keep the peace without any violence.

    2. No I think the protesters saw other protestors being beaten by the police and thought this was unjust, we have to stop this by playing the police’s own game which was violence. It wasn’t that the police intervened it was how they did it which started the violence between the protestors and the police that week in Chicago.

    3. I don’t know I think people who be completely satisfied because he didn’t have a firm stance on the war in vietnam like McCarty and Robert Kennedy did. I also think people didn’t have their faith that he could stop the war, they thought he would just slowly try and get people home, which wasn’t what they wanted. I think most of the protesters believed that Vietnam should be stopped now and they didn’t care who stopped it, just that it was over.

    4. Yes I think it did. It shows how desperate Americans were for the war to be over and how the democrats were divided. People would fight the police or go to jail if it meant the war would end. That’s why there was so many people participating in the demonstrations and protests. I think this also showed up in the election of 1968 too. The protesters would vote for whoever as long they were anti-war and as long as it meant the US troops were home safe and we were out of Vietnam quickly.
26. Diego Roell November 5, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    1.    I do not believe the cops used force appropriately to deal with the protesters. While it is entirely true that the protesters were becoming unruly and even the protest’s leader were having difficulty reining in their followers, protests had mostly been peaceful. It was a difficult decision, however: the Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of assembly, but the protest organizers did not get permission to organize their protest from Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago. They forcibly stayed in a park overnight, even though they were not allowed to. The Yippies particularly were troublesome: they seemed so outlandish and anarchic that conceding to any of their requests would be considered madness. Regardless of how disorderly or unauthorized this protest might have been, it was still directed by pacifist leaders and did not intend to cause harm. Some of the protesters became more violent after cops beat up Rennie Davis, a pacifist leader, during the incident where a protestor forcibly lowered the American flag. This unwarranted aggression against pacifist protesters lead to a more violent reaction, which incited further violence and led to the riots outside the DNC. These riots were truly violent, where protesters and cops clashed and many were arrested.

    2.    The protesters are certainly not blameless. While it is true that they were exercising their right to freedom of assembly, they had become belligerent and had effectively splintered into a more militant wing and a pacifist wing struggling to regain control. The protesters were explicitly campaigning for peace in Vietnam, and bringing the practice of pacifism was a perfect way of relaying the message. The protesters did cross the line when they attacked police: they had initially embraced peace and wished for a resolution to problems faced by the country, but violated many of their own principles. Attacking the police certainly did not aid their cause. It painted the Democratic anti-war protesters as unreasonable and violent, and only further split the party.

    3.    The Anti-War Democrats were quite vehemently opposed to the war. Since the soon-to-be Ex-President Lyndon B. Johnson held great influence in the DNC, Hubert Humphrey’s nomination depended greatly on LBJ’s approval of him. Upon seeing the large anti-war crowds assembling both inside and outside the DNC, Humphrey called LBJ and suggested that he acquiesce on certain points to sway anti-war voters. Unfortunately, LBJ had become too personally involved in the war and saw conceding to any demands from the anti-war crowd as an attack on himself and his legacy, so he forcefully rejected. Humphrey was forced to continue with his pro-war stance. It seems to me that if LBJ had not been so caught up in his own pride and let Humphrey take on more anti-war stances, more voters would have been swayed to the Democrat side. Nixon, who would go on to win the election by a landslide, had based a lot of his campaign on the promise that he would pull America out of Vietnam. Even though Nixon did not actually have a plan and would in fact extend the war even more, his empty promises were enough to win him the Presidency.

    4.    The images and tapes of the Chicago DNC riots that were broadcasted absolutely had an impact in the election. While the Democratic primaries had already proved to be divisive and had shown that the Democrat Party had some level of disunity, many people were not truly aware of the true extent of the fractures in the party. When millions of people across America saw young students and police forces violently clashing just outside the DNC, the truth became evident: the Democratic party was divided and dysfunctional. This likely led to many anti-war Democrats to vote for Nixon, even if they disagreed with him ideologically.
27. Nolan Kamoo November 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    Blog #104
    Chicago Invention as a Symbol

    Question #1
    No, I do not think the police used reasonable force against the protesters during the week of the Democratic National Convention. Although the protesters could be rowdy, irritating, and snobbish, they still abided by their first amendment right to protest and have freedom of speech. People have a Constitutional right to be able to protest for something they want to fight for, to an extent. I also believe that the protesters reached a little too far in the beginning when it was unprovoked, but that still doesn’t give the police the right to beat and assault them. After all, the protesters all still people and are just trying to express their individual opinions on a national concern that many people had at the time. The only instance in which police using force like they did in 1968 outside the DNC, is if their life is being threatened and they are trying to protect themselves. Otherwise, the police have no excuse to assault a crowd with any means of a weapon unprovoked, which is how the protests began during the DNC in 1968.

    Question #2
    I am kind of on both sides for the issue of the protesters crossing the line by fighting with the police. Somewhat of what I said in the previous answer, if any person is trying to fight for their life and protect themselves, then so be it. If a protester believes they are in a life threatening situation, then they need to protect themselves. However, an unprovoked attack on the police by a protester, which then turns into a rioter, is unacceptable especially when all the police are trying to do is keep everyone safe and make sure everyone is obeying the laws. So, I do think that the fighting was partially the protesters fault because of the extent that they took it, but also the police’s fault for making the situation lead up to the point that the protesters believed they needed to use that kind of violence.

    Question #3
    Yes, I do think that the peace delegates would have been satisfied if President Johnson would have let Humphrey make some concessions over the war in Vietnam. The biggest problem in the DNC was that Humphrey was the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination at first, but he could not garner any votes from the anti-war voters/delegates because he was under Johnson’s thumb. At that time, the president still got to approve the nominations, so VP Humphrey could not say or agree to anything that would set off Johnson, which put him in an impossible position between the two sides of delegates. If Johnson would have given Humphrey the leeway to make his own decisions, an agreement would have been made between the North Vietnam and South Vietnam/US sides. If an agreement had been reached, both sides of the thoughts on Vietnam would have been satisfied, Humphrey would have garnered the peace delegates votes much more easily, and he would pretty much have the Democratic nomination locked up.

    Question #4
    Only video and taped footage of the DNC in 1968 was allowed to air out of Chicago because the city shut down other footage of protests outside of the DNC. Once the videos of the police brutality and severity throughout the protests was released to the public, I think people started to understand the legitimacy of the anti-war movement. People started to side more with ending the Vietnam war, rather than to continue it. Looking at the presidential candidates, the Republican nominee was Richard Nixon, a candidate who said he would end the war in Vietnam. Then there was Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic nominee, whose position was a direct reflection of President Johnson’s; continue the war. When election day rolled around, Humphrey was defeated by Nixon by 0.7% in the popular vote. The footage of the protests could have easily swayed that much of the population into the anti-war movement.
28. Philip Bradbury November 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    1. Do you think the police used “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention? When? Why or why not? I think that the police used equal amounts of reasonable and unreasonable force during different times throughout the week of the convention. When the Yippies applied and were denied the permits to sleep and protest in Lincoln park, yet slept there anyway and were attacked by the police can be argued either way. The people that were sleeping in the park were bombed by tear gas grenades which are useful, but can be overkill in that situation. If the protesters didn’t have anywhere else at all to sleep, then I would have said that it was unreasonable force, but the city of Chicago offered to let them sleep and protest a couple of miles away so they were completely breaking the law and denying a reasonable offer so I would say that it was reasonable force by the police. An example of unreasonable force is during the ‘Battle of Michigan Avenue’ when innocent bystanders, reporters, and doctors tried to offer medical help to some protesters, and were severely beaten. I say that this is unreasonable force because even when it comes to peaceful protests, if people aren’t being physical or threatening in a protest, then there is no reason to attack them.

    2. Do you think the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police? Why or why not? I do think that the protesters crossed the line by fighting the police. The riots as a whole were caused by the protesters because of their ignorance. Like I said before, the city of Chicago offered a different location for them to protest at, yet they declined and chose to protest in an area that wasn’t permitted. If the protesters had just agreed to the deal than the riots would have never happened in the first place, but you have to realize that the policemen were just doing their job. The officers definitely had specific orders from the city that they, for the most part, followed and I can guarantee they didn’t want things to get out of hand, no matter how much they were probably annoyed. No person in their right mind would just attack another person for doing their job, yet the protesters did. It wasn’t their place to fight the police officers at all, and they had to have known that they would fight back harder if they were provoked which was what happened. If the protesters had just agreed to moving their location to the one offered by the city, then they probably could have even coordinated the protest with the police and maybe even gotten their protection. All in all, I do not think that the protesters had any place to fight the police because they had asked the city to protest and sleep in an area, and they were denied it but offered a new area, which they should have taken, instead of fighting the police for the place that they were denied.

    3. Do you think that the peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War? Why or why not? I think that the peace delegates would have been satisfied if president Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam war. I think this because many McCarthy’s followers and peace delegates only wanted to make change in the Vietnam war, no matter how small of a change that may have been. Although they also wouldn’t have wanted to see the U.S. lose the war, they also didn’t want anyone else to die.

    4. How do you think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election w/ Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace? Why? I think that the convention definitely gave a bad reputation to the democratic candidates and party as a whole during the 1968 elections. I say this because the convention was such a disaster that democrats probably wouldn’t have wanted to vote for their own party if they couldn’t even run a simple convention without any trouble. I think that the convention tainted the reputation of the democratic party for that election. Not to mention, the republicans had made sure to lay low and try to get the votes of the ‘silent majority,’ which i think definitely helped them win the election. Finally, I think that the convention made more citizens focus on the election and vote for Nixon because of the brutalities at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
29. Andrew Frenkel November 5, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    1. I think that the police did not use reasonable force. I think that the police used unreasonable force in dispersing the protesters. I believe that reasonable force is no violence but arrests are allowed in this reasonable force. It reaches unreasonable when the police started tossing tear gas canisters into the crowds and the police start injuring the protesters. The force that police used to disperse the protester was unnecessary in that situation the protesters may have cooperated if they were more peaceful.

    2. I think that some of the protesters crossed the line but not all. They didn’t cross the line because the police started fighting with them first and the protesters just retaliated to police action. Those that crossed the line crossed it because they had attacked first and not after the police attacked.

    3. I think that peace delegates would have been more satisfied had LBJ let Humphrey speak his mind. Humphrey could’ve been completely against the war but he was too scared that if he spoke his mind LBJ would take away his nomination so Humphrey continued to say what agreed with LBJ and what people thought were his own thoughts. But since LBJ was instilling fear in Humphrey we will never really know Humphrey’s thoughts on Vietnam and how that would’ve effected the Democratic National Convention of 1968. If Humphrey’s views truly didn’t line up with LBJ’s things would’ve been different and the peace delegates would’ve been satisfied.

    4. I think that since images from the Democratic National Convention were those of riots and violence it really effected the credibility of the Democrats. It also showed that the Democratic party was split in half that were very distinct. The images probably made Nixon’s lead even larger because the Democrats that didn’t support Humphrey may have not voted for him they voted for Wallace which took votes away from Humphrey therefore extending Nixon’s lead.
30. AJ Zako November 5, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    I think the police did what they could when trying to fight back against the protestors. As I watched I did hear them say how they would beat the kids with their batons but the kids refused to stop protesting when the cops told them that it wasn’t happen. I don’t disagree with the fact that the cops could’ve been a little less violent but the protesters provoked them and they were just doing their job. Like the students were throwing the tear gas back at the police.
    The protesters definitely crossed the line by fighting with the police. If I’m not mistaken, they were originally peaceful protests. The protesters were just like spoiled kids who would whine until they got what they wanted. Again the police were just trying to do their job and the protesters were just making it so much more difficult for them to do their job. Like how they threw the tear gas back at the police. They deserved what the police gave them.
    I do think that the peace delegates would’ve been happy if President Johnson allowed Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. This is because of how they reacted when they found out that he had nothing to say about the topic. There was a huge breakout of fighting inside the convention center. If he would’ve said anything about how he was even thinking of Vietnam I do believe that the peace delegates would’ve acted much differently.
    The images from this convention did affect the outcome of the 1968 election. With everything happening inside and outside the convention center showed that if the Democrats couldn’t run their own party, than they definitely weren’t cut out for running a whole country. Nixon won the election by quite a lot because of this failed convention. The Democrats wouldn’t have a presidential nominee elected until Jimmy Carter even after all the stuff with Nixon and the Watergate crisis.
31. Megan Zacharias November 5, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    1. I do not think the police used reasonable force when dealing with the protesters. The protesters were peaceful and did not cause any intentional violence. The police’s reaction was not warranted for the peaceful protest. They had no provocation to charge into a crowd of peaceful protesters and inflict bodily harm. This violence was an overreaction and unnecessary. The protesters had no intention to hurt the police. The police let their anger control their decisions which led to numerous injuries upon innocent people. The police’s actions were not rational during the anti-war protests.

    2. I do not think the protesters crossed the line by retaliating with force against the police. The only reason the protesters had to engage with the police was for self-defense. The police were placing the protester’s life in danger. The protesters had the intention of being peaceful. Because of the police’s violent reaction, the protesters had engage in violence as well. It is not crossing the line when one needs to protect oneself and that is what the protesters had to resort to.

    3. I believe the protesters would have been hopeful if President Johnson had allowed Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam war. The protesters would probably be grateful for some changes to the country’s involvement in the War. However, if Humphrey would not live up to their expectations, the protesters would remain unsatisfied. They intensely wanted a complete end to the war. In the end, they would have been disappointed if Humphrey did not provide this result.

    4. The images of protests impacted the eventual presidential election. The images revealed violence, anger, and division. Because of this, the Democratic Party was viewed in these negative connotations. The majority of the voting public viewed these images and ultimately decided that Nixon was a better choice for president. They began to see the democrats divided over the want for the war to come to an end. The voters believed that Nixon would be the one to end the Vietnam War and in turn ending these conflicting protests.
32. David Mueller November 5, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    When dispersing the protesters during the convention police used an excessive amount of force. The retaliation of many of the protesters after initial actions taken by the police justified some of the police’s following actions. Many protesters were savagely knocked down and beaten by police. The police also used tear gas to disperse the crowds. The savage beatings of those who were not retaliating by throwing back tear gas canisters or rocks or molotov cocktails or the like was often excessive. Some protesters refused to do as the police said and disrespectful and uncooperative in nonviolent but unacceptable ways. In situations like that or of retaliation proper force was used by police, but after initial actions were taken in other situations the police used excessive force.
    Some protesters went too far against the police. The protesters who threw back gas canisters and threw rocks were very much in the wrong. Those individuals went from protesting to assault. The violence used against the police in most cases were too far. When the violence was not too far was when it was used to stop a brutal beating by the police.
    If President Johnson had allowed Hubert Humphrey to make some concessions about the Vietnam war the peace delegation would have been much more happy. If Humphrey had been allowed to make the concessions he wanted too he may have been able to quell the peace delegation. If McCarthy’s followers had seen that effort was being made to obtain peace there would not have been as much anger towards the administration and the delegates. Being able to show that progress was being made at the least would leave less division in the party. With less division there would be little to no need to unite behind a peace delegate. Likely this would lower their voices and gain more of their support but McCarthy’s followers would not be totally satisfied.
    The DNC showed the democratic party as divided and torn. It showed a lot of the hate for Humphrey’s Vietnam policy. This ultimately hurt his chances and made Nixon look like a much better candidate. The scenes of violence between protesters and police made the democratic party look like kid beating savages. The scenes in the convention also made the party look divided. Both of those turned people off from the democratic party. This made people turn to Nixon. He had the policy people wanted and was from a party that looked clean as a whistle compared to the other one.
33. Rochelle D November 5, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    1.)I do not think the police in Chicago used reasonable force against the protesters, they abused their power to get what they wanted to, and nobody would stop them. When it comes to a point where policemen are throwing tear gas, something that is used in WAR, and could injure or possibly kill someone, it’s being taken too far. Although some of the protesters were violent, and showed disrespect none of them took the violence to a brutal level. Policemen lining up with billy clubs, guns, tear gases, and gloves that could make a punch 100x worse were over emphasizing the situation and threatening the lives of many kids.

    2.)I believe that when the police started fighting the protesters with more aggressive methods, the students responded and crossed the line by attacking the police officers. Although they did start out as a peaceful protest, the kids got enraged when they witnessed the violence that the police were using. I do not blame them for being more aggressive, I would be frustrated and try to defend myself if a police officer was beating me. The protesters would not have gotten violent if it wasn’t for the police getting violent first, which they had little reason too, and could have handled the situation in a better way. So as I type this out more I realize that the students only crossed the line as a result of the police being violent, but fighting fire with fire isn’t a good way to solve the issue.

    3.)I’m certain that the peace delegates would have been satisfied if Johnson allowed Humphrey to make some decisions on the vietnam war. By now a large portion of America was tired and thought that fighting the war was pointless. By Humphrey making concessions on the war, it would have been a step closer to their goal; ending the war. It wouldn’t have fulfilled the whole goal though of putting a total end to the vietnam war. Humphrey also believed he was on the losing side and was anxious most of the time he was running for democratic nominee, and probably could change his mind anytime to get more voters.

    4.)The images of the convention helped Nixon win by showing how divided the Democrats were, these images of violence and bloodiness could have persuaded the democrats to the pro-war or anti-war sides, depending on how they looked at it. People probably drifted over to Nixon’s side also after hearing that he would end the war quickly. His landslide win was a result of these protests and the division of the democratic party, and also Americans wanting an end to the war so badly. It also shows how disorganized the democratic party was at the time, and if a democrat won office, there would be disagreeing on the war with others members of the white house and the promise would not be met.
34. Sathvik November 5, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    1.I think at first the police were using reasonable force, but then I think later on the police abused their authority. I personally think that it was excessive that the police started to use tear gas and clubs to disperse the protestors, but in that situation, it is a tuff decision to make. It appeared to look like the police just started beating up everyone they saw. In the end, the police went overboard but the protestors help trigger the excessive acts by fighting back.

    2. Although the thing the protestors were protesting was a war, they still took it too far by fighting back. The protestors fighting made the whole situation worse. Although the violent protest sent a message, it was a message of violence. I think a peaceful protest would have sent a better message. Some the protestors started throwing tear gas back at the police and while others pelted rocks at the police officers.

    3.The peace delegates mission was to get. Given what the President had done in trying to de-escalate the conflict in Vietnam, I believe that there is no way that any concessions made by the Vice President could make McCarthy’s followers satisfied. But I do think that if the Vice President was making an effort to de-escalate the conflict for the good of the nation then he would have gotten them satisfied. During the Vietnam war, President Johnson’s approval rating tremendously dropped which led people voting for a Republican candidate in the next election.

    4. The images from the Chicago convention greatly influenced the outcome of the election. The images from the Chicago convention influenced many people to vote for the Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The country was torn by the war in Vietnam which most Americans were against it. This caused the most Americans to vote for Nixon and not the Democratic candidate because Americans didn’t want another “Vietnam”. The images from the Chicago convention influenced Americans to not vote democrat.
35. Maya Wolock November 5, 2017 at 6:02 pm

    I do not think that the police used reasonable force during the week of the convention in Chicago. It was clear that many of the tactics were unnecessary. One example of this was when the protesters stayed later than the curfew in the parks. The police officers beat them senselessly. They could have nicely asked them to leave, or even let them stay overnight. I don’t believe that them staying the night in the park was a threat to public safety. The real danger that night was caused by police attacking civilians.
    Protesters crossed the line in some ways, however the majority of the time they did not. When the police tried to disperse protesters, they did so in a very violent way. There were other options besides beating protesters senselessly with billy clubs. Yes, the protesters didn’t have a permit, but if the police were going to take action, it should have been civil and peaceful. Lacking a permit does not justify physical abuse. The protesters did have a right to fight back only in self-defense. If a police officer attacked me while I was trying to run from them, I would most likely try and protect myself. However, when protesters initiated violence with the police officers, they were wrong. I believe that the protesters were feeling a deep hatred towards the government for putting soldiers in Vietnam, and unfortunately, some took it out on police officers. They may have subconsciously blamed them for the war. In the end, I believe that the protesters were not wrong for the most part.
    I think that some peace delegates would have been satisfied if President Johnson had allowed Hubert Humphrey to make some concessions about Vietnam. However, the majority wouldn’t have been. A lot of the peace delegates wanted a concrete plan to leave Vietnam, which Humphrey would not be able to give.
    I think the images from the convention affected the outcome of the election because it lead people to believe that democrats could not lead. The escalation of the Vietnam war was caused by Lyndon B. Johnson, a democrat. When voters saw images of people protesting and getting injured at the convention, they put the blame on Johnson. People thought that a vote for Humphrey would be a continuation of the Johnson administration and its policies. People also did not want to vote for Wallace as they had seen how the major escalation of the war affected America and its people. As a result, people voted for Nixon.
36. Brenden kashat November 5, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    1. No, I do not think the police used reasonable force against the protesters during the week of the Democratic National Convention. Although the protesters could be rowdy, irritating, and snobbish, they still abided by their first amendment right to protest and have freedom of speech. People have a Constitutional right to be able to protest for something they want to fight for, to an extent. I also believe that the protesters reached a little too far in the beginning when it was unprovoked, but that still doesn’t give the police the right to beat and assault them. After all, the protesters all still people and are just trying to express their individual opinions on a national concern that many people had at the time. The only instance in which police using force like they did in 1968 outside the DNC, is if their life is being threatened and they are trying to protect themselves. Otherwise, the police have no excuse to assault a crowd with any means of a weapon unprovoked, which is how the protests began during the DNC in 1968.

    2. No, I don’t believe that the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police as the policemen didn’t treat them with any respect, and any opportunity they got to instigate the rioters, they did. Many of the organizers and groups participating in the protests tried to get permits from the Mayor’s office in order to protest peacefully. Yet, Mayor Daley denied any of them from receiving a permit, inviting more people to protest, and violence to erupt between the protesters and the policemen. In most cases, the police began the fight, and the rioters were protecting themselves from being beaten, abused, or killed.

    3The Anti-War Democrats were quite vehemently opposed to the war. Since the soon-to-be Ex-President Lyndon B. Johnson held great influence in the DNC, Hubert Humphrey’s nomination depended greatly on LBJ’s approval of him. Upon seeing the large anti-war crowds assembling both inside and outside the DNC, Humphrey called LBJ and suggested that he acquiesce on certain points to sway anti-war voters. Unfortunately, LBJ had become too personally involved in the war and saw conceding to any demands from the anti-war crowd as an attack on himself and his legacy, so he forcefully rejected. Humphrey was forced to continue with his pro-war stance. It seems to me that if LBJ had not been so caught up in his own pride and let Humphrey take on more anti-war stances, more voters would have been swayed to the Democrat side. Nixon, who would go on to win the election by a landslide, had based a lot of his campaign on the promise that he would pull America out of Vietnam. Even though Nixon did not actually have a plan and would in fact extend the war even more, his empty promises were enough to win him the Presidency.

    4. I think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election with Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. This is because the terrible depictions of people being beaten and bombarded with tear gas in parks and on streets probably caused more people to pay attention to the election. The images caused the nation to largely sympathize with the protesters, and whichever candidate addressed the violence in the nation, and the calls for ending America’s involvement in the Vietnam War in the way that best resonated with the people definitely had a larger amount of voters on their side.
37. James Laport November 5, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    1. In the weeks before the Democratic Chicago Convention, members of the Youth International Party, or yippies, The Students for Democratic Society, and other youth groups gathered in Chicago to protest the Vietnam War. The police met these protests with violence and unreasonable force. While the teenagers were acting peacefully, the Chicago Police Department were nothing but, throwing teargas, making mass arrests, and beating them to clear the streets. When one college age teen went to climb a flagpole to take down an American flag. When he reached the ground again, police brutally beat him.

    2. No, I do not think the protesters crossed a line by fighting the police. For the majority of the time, it was the teens goal to protest peacefully. But, after the police began to attack the innocent protesters, they acted in self defense in order to protect themselves from the brutality of the officers. I do agree though, that once the protests transitioned to riots, many of the members of organizations lost sight of what they were there to do, bring peace in South East Asia and the rest of the world.

    3. I think the peace delegates would have been satisfied had LBJ allowed Vice President Humphrey to make some concession on the war. The majority of Americans were against the violence in Vietnam and they wanted the war to stop. Humphrey had the same opinions on the war. However, according to the video watched in class, President Johnson told Humphrey he would deny him the election if he were to disapprove of the war. This caused the Vice President to be seen in the public eye as a supporter of the war. Sadly for Humphrey, a major point in the race for president was the Vietnam War. Because he “supported the war”, the Democratic party was split. Had this not been the case, Nixon most likely would have lost the election.

    4. The images from the convention heavily influenced the 1968 election. As previously mentioned, Humphrey was viewed incorrectly as a war supporter. After seeing the violence in Chicago, the American public may not have seen him only as a supporter of the war, but also a supporter of the riots, further splintering the democratic party. Had the democrats not split, Nixon could have lost yet another election.
38. Annie Chernow November 5, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    1) I believe the police did not use reasonable force at all during the week of the democratic convention. They took things was too far during the protests that week that made America tune in and watch the horrible acts of violence the police were using on the citizens. They beat people with clubs, tear gassed the protests, and harmed people who were harmless and giving them serious injuries. From the violence of the police, people were knocked out or hurt to the point where medical attention was needed. I would understand where people would fight back against the police; it was for self defense and to protect themselves from being seriously harmed. At the peaceful protest they held at a park, police still used tear gas to break it up and hurt many of the protesters and arrested one for simply trying to lower the flag trying to prove a point. Which was our country is divided and this war cannot go on for much long

    2) At a point in the week of protesting, I do believe the protesters did cross a line by fighting with the police. At first, they weren’t looking for harm. They were just trying to spread the word about the movement and share that the war should end quickly. When the police got involved, everything went downhill. Protesters were fighting against being arrested and fighting in violent ways that could cost them and get them into more trouble. But I do believe the had a right to protect themselves and use self defense from being seriously harmed. In the end, both protesters and police had crossed the line on being violent with each other which created more of an uproar and got more people involved. Protesters in the end did make the police’s job more difficult which made them have to take another route to put the riots to a stop.

    3) The delegates would have been more satisfied if LBJ had let Humphrey share his thoughts and opinions. Humphrey was very quiet about speaking his mind because he could’ve been against the war which could have resulted in LBJ taking away his nomination. So, Humphrey kept quiet and just agreed with the decisions and opinions LBJ had. Many people wanted a complete end to the war and to have troops come home and end the violence which was happening across the world. If Humphrey could have spoken up without the costs he would have faced, he probably would’ve but the issue was that it would cost him a nomination for running for office.

    4) I believe the comic was created from the Chicago protests that occurred during the week of the Democratic convention. This image showed how divided, angry, and violent our country was. It also showed that our democratic party was splitting into two and each side was very clear on what the believed in. It represented the election because people were going to vote for the person who was anti-war and who was planning on getting our troops home in a safe and quick matter. With the democratic party being divided and not promising anything dealing with an end to the war, a majority went with the republican party who had a better understanding and who were more organized about planning to end this horrible war.
39. Maddy Penoza November 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    1. I think the police went overboard with the amount of violence they used against the protestors. While a small amount of force may have been necessary to get the protestors away from places they did not have a permit to be, the police had no reason to grab and beat people who were already running away. For instance, it was aggressive to tear gas the park, but it was unreasonable, and immoral, to bring in the clubs. I think the police should have let the protestors be, in that particular instance, but I can see why they had to drive the protestors out. However, I cannot see why they had to use so much violence. That’s just kicking them while they’re down, and not what we would hope to see from our police officers.

    2. I admire the protestors for fighting the police, but I do not think its something they should have done. The police are not the people the protestors had a problem with. They were there to protest the war. While the police did use violence against them, they seemed to forget the goal. They wanted peace, but they ended up trying to make the police seem like the bad guys, instead of focusing on what was important.

    3. I do not think the peace delegates would have settled for anything but an end to the Vietnam war. They made it very clear what they wanted; they wanted to bring out boys home. They were very intent on it and were not about to come to a compromise. If they were willing to go out night after night and risk being beaten by clubs, then they were not willing to settle for anything less than what they wanted. However, I believe that it does not matter what would have happened. There really are no “what ifs” in history. What ifs belong to the future, not to the past.

    4. I think that if the Democrats had their act together, they would have had a shot at the 1968 election. The images showed that the party was a disaster, they showed a party that was divided and not a party that could be trusted to run a country.
40. Rachel Shulkin November 5, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    Blog #104

    1) In the case of the Chicago protests, I believe very strongly that the police were not using “reasonable force” to bring order to the protests. In several instances, the demonstrations were not violent until the police had intervened; they made the situations violent where they were simply a call for change from desperate students. Likewise, the arrest of the man who climbed the flagpole resulted in the lashing out of many officers of upset protesters, who were making an attempt at symbolizing their movement by involving the American flag. In this case, the police definitely took it too far by unleashing redundant cruelty onto these protesters for supporting a cause.

    2) Without analyzing the whole issue, not taking in account the actions of the police onto the students, it would be completely wrong of protesters to act violently upon police officers. But, considering the reprehensible acts of Chicago’s police force, the students would be just as at fault as officers would be, maybe even less considering that the police officers are meant to protect the law, including that of free speech, not abusing their authority and creating tensions. All in all, in any normal situation, being violent towards anyone is immoral, putting both students and officers at fault, even though the officers are largely at blame for catalyzing most acts of violence in Chicago.

    3) If President Johnson had allowed Humphrey to intervene in war efforts, I believe that the people would have approached the Democratic convention at a different perspective. Instead of opposing the Government, they might have come from a place of support for the President, backing up his ideas.

    4) The Democratic Convention of 1968 greatly influenced how many viewed the Democratic party at the time. After this convention, the party was unstable; with divided opinions on the war, they were not able to keep behavior settled at the convention. Viewed as disorganized and uncontrollable after the violence in 1968, some voters believed that the Democratic party was no longer capable of keeping the nation at peace, especially at such a tense time.
41. Devin Roberts November 5, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Apush Blog #104 Chicago Convention as a Symbol 11-5-2017 by: Devin Roberts

    1.I am not necessarily sure if the officers used reasonable force when dealing with the protesters. If the college kids were as rowdy as they were portrayed then it might have been reasonable. The major issue is that the police looked heavy handed to some people while the protesters looked horrible to others. It was really just a terrible event for America and the Democratic Party.
    2.Yes, I do think the protesters went too far fighting with police because unless they were being hit at first or being assaulted first then they should not have done that. It was not smart for the protesters to try to hit at the police because the police have guns and pepper spray and whole lot of other bad things to use at their disposal. If we are being completely honest it made the anti-vietnam cause look bad to most people if the protesters started the violence because it made them look like they wanted to start trouble.
    3.It depends. If the protesters were there to make trouble and used the vietnam war as a cover when they were just trying to stir up trouble then no. If they wanted real and concrete policy solutions then they would have taken the concessions and went on with uniting the already fractured Democratic Party which was already extremely fractured because of racist George Wallace who officially took away the deep south from the Democrats.
    4.I think that the images from the convention catapulted Richard Nixon to victory because even though most Americans were against the war it didn’t help that Wallace was running because the south was still solid dem during that time period and that didn’t help their chances as well. But the images showed that the Dems were divided and that if the Dems couldn’t run a convention then they would not be trusted to run the country and have their nominee be the leader of the free world.
42. Alex Smith November 5, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    1) I do not believe that the police used reasonable force when dealing with the protestors because they were very physical in their arrest and very brutal. During the debate where it was decided on humphrey and the police clashed with the students they often hanged up on people and beat them severely. Also during the fight when one college student took an American flag down while he was wrong the police used unneccesary force in making the arrest.

    2) I believe the protestors did cross the line when they fought the police during the debate. They should not have provoked the cops in fighting them the way that they did and they clearly were looking for a fight just as the cops were. But not when they fought them after one student took the flag down. I feel as though the flag fight was provoked. The cops burst through the crowd with force and forcefully arrested the student who took the flag down. They also actively seeked out the leaders of the riot and beat them harder than the other students. But the debate fight was very unneccesary.

    3) I believe that the peace delegates would only have been okay with Hunphrey making decisions in Vietnam if the les to peace. If they were decisions that would lead to more fighting or small squabbles then they would be against it. However if it was a decision to speak with Ho Chi Minh and come up with a compromise then they would have gone along with it. Other than that they would’ve’e most likely wanted him to stay out of Vietnam.

    4) I think that the fights over the war and the strong feeling being exposed to the world greatly effected Hubert Humphrey’s ability to win. I feel like it deminished his chances heavily and fro fly influenced voting towards other candidates. The anti war protest were large and often as though it seemed and I feel America was tired of the violence being caused by them.
43. Jackson Gugni November 5, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    1.) I think that the police used some reasonable force as well as unreasonable force. For instance, at one point the protesters were threatening to put LSD in the public water which is a huge problem. At this point I think the police had a right to remove the protesters with force. I also believe that when the protesters started to fight the police officers, the officers obviously had the right to protect themselves. There were points when the cops used force unreasonably. At one point during mid-day, the officers charged into a large crowd and just beat everyone. This was completely uncalled for.
    2.) I definitely think the protesters crossed a line when they decided to fight the officers. No matter what the circumstances are, you should never fight a police officer. That is blatantly going against the law and is very un-called for. Not only does this go against moral code, but it also doesn’t help their movement. By fighting the officers, it puts on bad publicity for the protesters and doesn’t help them in the slightest.
    3.) I definitely think that the delegates would have been happy and supportive of Humphrey if Johnson let him be more open on his thoughts on Vietnam. In the movie we watched on Friday, they said several times that Humphrey asked Johnson multiple times if he could be more open on the subject of what the peace delegates were proposing, but Johnson refused to budge on his views on the war.
    4.) I think all the protesting and rioting around the convention definitely swayed the election more to the right because of the lack of problem solving the democratic party had. The democratic party handled the rioting and such horribly, they could not settle down all that was going on outside of the hall which begs the question ”How could the Democrats run the country if they couldn’t run their own convention?”.
44. Gabriel Gamlin November 5, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    1.I do not believe that the police used “reasonable force” when combating the demonstrators, because I believe that the notion that force needs to be used in any way on both sides to warrant “victory” is simply an example of local desensitization to reason. The American public is commonly led to believe that because the purpose of the police is to protect and serve, that their actions, regardless of morality or consequence, are for that greater good ultimately, and that even somebody is hot dead that its for a good cause. This belief is toxic to the socioeconomic state of America, as we can see from the Chicago riot, and is justifying mindless violence in the country. Now I that sounds like just predictable black perspective rhetoric, but the reality of the fact that the police’s image and presence is what invokes the belief of a need for rebellion in the first place when protests are afoot is evident of the reality of the hypocrisy of America.

    2.To be honest I believe that they were in a dark shade of moral grey area in their plights and fights during their protest. From a standpoint that takes context out of the picture, the protesters were led astray by their outcry, because in attempting to protest against violence and war, they themselves invoked and perpetrated such by doing heinous things such as threatening to kidnap the daughters of politicians, and throwing their literal feces at officers, who are “just doing their job”. But, we have to consider the philosophical action being portrayed here. As a man in the documentary stated, and im paraphrasing, the protesters believed that if the opposition wouldn’t let them live in peace and fairness, they wouldn’t get that either, because of the moral principle of conditional equability.

    3. I think that Captain McCarthy and the Pirates of the White House would have at least been satiated with some of the possible decisions made by the VP if Lyndon had allowed Humphrey to take a course of action, but I do think that they would have eventually sailed upon the plight of controlling an arm of the state Kraken to bring anti war legislation to starboard, challenging the agenda of Long John Johnson’s crew. This would be similar to the republicans’ actions in the house of reps during Admiral Obama’s voyage into Healthcare island.

    4. I think that the images shown in the convention affected the race in a way that many voters and lobbyists turned their favor toward the will that was in favor of their safety at home AND overseas: leaving the war. You see, i think that the image of a kid getting beaten up by an officer triggers the internal thought that truly it matters little the cause of reason of why the officer took such an action, and that the urgency of stopping such action in the first place against the kid was the public’s prioritization. They could only do such a thing by ending the war in the first place. Nixon is smart, so… wait I think smart is a strong word, let’s use knowledgeable instead… Nixon was knowledgeable, so he knew he could use that to pull support for his campaign, and he did, resulting in a Godlike curb stompping of his opponent in the election.

    my anti spam word was “if slaved”. OOF.
45. Jocelyn Warnica November 5, 2017 at 9:10 pm

    1. I believe that the police did use “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. The term, “Reasonable force”, is very vague. For this particular situation, I believe that the police were inside the “reasonable force” limit. I believe this because the things that the protesters were doing, and to the extent that they were doing these things to was enough for the police to call what they did and used “reasonable force”. Also, the police avoided the permits that the protesters requested. Therefore, a little bit of the blame goes to the police.
    2. I think that the protesters did not realize that they were crossing a line then and now, but studying it from a high school student’s point of view, in my opinion, they did cross a line. I believe that the protesters crossed the line because it is common knowledge that if the police think that you’re putting the public population in danger, that they’re going to try to get you to stop, but if you don’t then they may use “reasonable force” against you.
    3. I do believe that the peace delegates and McCarthy’s followers, at the convention, would have been happy if President Johnson had let VP Humphrey to make some concessions concerning the Vietnam War. I believe this because obviously the peace delegates and McCarthy’s followers wanted the war in Vietnam to stop. Also, Humphrey would have done anything to get himself into office. That’s how bad he wanted to be the President. The only person stopping all of this was LBJ.
    4. I think that the photos from the convention influenced the election between Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace by adding another obstacle to the race. This led people to maybe choose different presidential candidates depending on the candidates views and their own views on the photos.
46. Hadin Sayed November 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    1. I do not think the police used reasonable force when dealing with the protesters. While I can understand that they were frustrated and had a distaste for the protesters, they definitely didn’t use reasonable force when dealing with them. The police were protected and had strong forces. The protesters were just college students who were unarmed. The way the police used their tear gas and billy clubs, while injuring hundreds of protesters shown in the video we watched was awful. The protesters were never a real threat to the police. Also, by beating them with billy clubs, that it only escalates the situation and makes the protesters more angry. By beating the protesters up, the police were making the protesters more of a threat then they were before. Also, it embarreses the police as the protesters took full advantage of that by chanting “The whole world is watching”.

    2. I don’t think the protesters crossed a line when fighting back with police because a lot of the time they were not the aggressors. For example, although there were tensions on one of the days the protesters were gathered peacefully with the police in the area. Then one protester lowered the American flag. The police then began to fight through the crowd and beat that man. In situations like those, I believe it is ok for the protesters to fight back. Although the protesters threw stuff like food and rocks at the police, I don’t think they crossed a line because the police could handle that stuff; unlike the protesters who couldn’t handle the billy clubs and tear gas.

    3. I don’t think that the peace delegates/McCarthy followers would have been satisfied if Johnson allowed Humphry to make some sort of concessions over the War. Humphrey was very loyal to Johnson and would’ve followed Johnson’s policies on Vietnam. I don’t think any sort of concessions would of satisfied both groups, as the peace delegates wanted a complete stop to the War and Humphrey showed his commitment to Johnson.

    4. I think the pictures from the Convention influenced the results of the 1968 elections in some ways. One way it did not influence the election, is because the Candidates knew this wasn’t the opinion of the majority of Americans. So therefore, they wouldn’t need to change their policy to satisfy the protesters, as they knew while many people may be opposed to the War, the majority of Americans didn’t take it as far as the protesters did. So the protesters themselves had little to none effects on the election results. The way the pictures of the Convention did influence the election is how people saw the Demoratics. The convention pictures showed how divided and how much chaos the Democrats were in. I think this led people to think if the Democrats can’t run their own convention how can they run the country. In my opinion that is what led the people to vote for Nixon convincingly, a person thought to be a leader and who promised to end the War soon.
47. sofia di stefano November 5, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    #1) The police did not use reasonable force during the week of the National Democratic Convention.the police was trying to control what the protesters were doing by beating them. The police was told to clear the streets and they did this by beating people and arresting hundreds of people all at the same time. Even though the police was getting annoyed and provoked by the protesters they were the ones that always hit them first and started the fights.
    #2) No, I don’t believe that the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police because the police were the ones that mistreated them and would beat them and arrest them. They should have tried their best to not fight against the police but they obviously would try to defend themselves if the police was attacking them. This would lead to them hurting the police as well. I think in this position both sides, the police, and the protesters were scared and wanted to get their point across and they thought fighting would help. Both sides had no right to fight with one another. The protestors should have known that fighting the police would have consequences and one could be getting arrested.
    #3) I think the peace delegates would surely would have been satisfied and supportive of McCarthy. Most of the public was tired of the war and wanted everything to end. Nixon was the winner because Humphrey was seen as a war supporter. LBJ had control of the electoral process for this reason he could deny Humphrey the nomination if Humphrey chose not to support the war. Humphrey promptly switched opinions. He knew his side was losing and that same issue had previously divided his party and gave him control over the Democratic Party.
    #4)The images from the 1968 DNC most definitely affected the outcome of the election. Images of police brutality and live coverage of the suffering of young students definitely hurt humphrey. Having such events posted and be seen by tens of millions of Americans, will clearly change the outcome.The chant of the protesters “The whole world is watching”, held true. This effected humphrey a lot which helped nixon make his way to the white house.
48. Autumn M. Reed-Nordwall November 5, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    APUSH Blog 104 Chicago Convention as Symbol
    Autumn Reed-Nordwall
    I absolutely do not feel the police used reasonable resources. Their actions were obviously out of fear of the massive crowd of protestors that outnumbered them greatly and I can understand that, but they reacted too violently. The police started the violence by attacking the protestors who only needed a place to sleep while in the park with tear gas and clubs. Of course the protestors were running away. Of course they were confused, terrified, and unsure where to go. The cops came through wearing gas masks and handling weapons, of course they will feel the need to defend themselves. If the police weren’t involved, then the whole event wouldn’t have gone to hell. The police should only have been involved if the protesters became violent. Only then should they have been introduced.
    It’s hard to say if the protestors crossed the line with the police. They did fight back, but most the time they were trying to keep the peace. They mainly were acting in self defense. At one point in the documentary, some protesters linked arms and made a barrier from the protestors to the police. The police closed in on them and said “Kill Davis,” Who was one of the leading war protestors. When the word kill is implied to a person, it’s only four letters, but it’s powerful. That word would trigger anyone to fight against whoever is threatening a life. The protesters did fight back, and violence against violence is no way to win. Look at the civil rights movement for African Americans. By not fighting the police and allowing themselves to be attacked, they are purposely making themselves the victim, and there is no way to be in the wrong in their situation. By becoming a victim to such racial violence and broadcasted across a country, your going to get a lot of people on your side. Yet the protestors were the victims as well. They did fight back, but as a way to protect themselves because it was the police that drew first blood.
    I do believe that McCarthy’s supporters would have been satisfied if Johnson allowed VP Humphrey to have some concessions over Vietnam war because then more people running after the presidency are trying to achieve the same goals that the silent majority are all after. If Humphrey had some concessions over the vietnam war, he would have had more supporters for his cause.
    These images displayed show how horrific the protest ended up to be. It caused people to lean in Nixon’s favor since he opposed of the war. The democratic party appeared to be very divided after such events compared to the republican party, and since Nixon was the main representative running for presidency of his party, it only makes sense why people would favor him.
49. Carolina Ishikura November 5, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    I believe that the police did not use “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. At first, the police would act violent but not to the extreme when they could kill someone. During the week of the convention the tension between the protesters of the police were escalating in seconds, any minor thing a protestor would do the police would act hostile in response. The behavior of the police got out of hand on August 28th when some of them declared that they wanted certain protesters dead. Police are supposed to protect the people not kill, even when the protesters would tease them they should have acted maturely and not resort to violence. Both (the police and protesters) should have took a deep breath and realise what they were doing. Also, the police’s solution to dispersing the crowds was by beating them which raises tension and conflict. Their actions were nothing but unreasonable and made the election turn into a war between peace and war.

    The protesters were very provoking but they did not cross the line fighting the police. Though they were all about promoting peace they had to fight back in self defense because they were being attacked almost constantly. You cannot shame the protesters fighting back owing the fact that some of that would have been killed if they did not fight back. They could have tried their best to not fight back but what can you do when you’re scared and a group of people with weapons are coming at you? However, since they are promoting peace and nonviolence they SHOULD have kept the feud between them and the police civil.

    I think that the peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. I believe this because the majority of America was exhausted that this war was still happening. Which is why Nixon won the presidency because the people saw Humphrey as a war supporter. Lyndon Johnson was set on winning the war because we’ve been in it for so long and it was set that we had to win since the beginning.

    The images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 with Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace because it showed how violent the crowd was turning. Most of these images were about anti-war and promoting peace so it affected the election greatly because people wanted our leader to finish the war. Nixon won because he wanted to war to be over which pleased the crowd more than other candidates such as Humphrey. In addition all of the riots were being televised which made people want a President who could end all it.
50. Kyla Hurns November 5, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    Blog #104 – Chicago Convention as Symbol
    1. I do not think that the police used reasonable force.The police did not use reasonable force at all during the National Democratic Convention in 1968. As we could tell the police were constantly holding back the protesters by beating them, tear gassing them and taking violent actions against some nonviolent protester. Also, the police and National guard “cleared the streets” in their words by beating people and creating mass arrests. While there were times where the protesters provoked or instigated the police officers in some situations, the police repeateadly turned the situation violent when it wasn’t always necessary.
    2. No I do not think that the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police. In many instances the police started the violence and actively acted out against the protesters by beating them or tear gassing them. The police prevented them from protesting in something that they deeply believed in. The protesters were truly exercising a right that they were given and when they were denied that they felt that the only way to respond or counteract that was through violent acts. A majority of the protesters were acting in self defense against the violent actions that the police officers had taken.
    3. The peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been excited and glad but not entirely satisfied if President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. The protesters wanted a complete end to the war no matter what steps the governemnt would have had to take. If Vice President Humphrey made some concessions over the Vietnam war it would have been just the start to the campaign for peace by the protesters. The protesters had an end goal in mind and worked hard to try to achieve that goal. After they got him to make concessions over the war the protesters would have pushed for more and more until they reached their goal.
    4. The images from the Chicago convention were extremely influential to the outcome of the 1968 election. The democrats lost to the Republican candidate Richard Nixon mainly because they were so divided over the Vietnam war. The convention deepened the divide in the party and let the vote be split in half and allow nixon to only need half of the support to win. The images from the Democratic convention not added to the anger of some anti-war Democrats it upset the whole country. The images showed that America wasn’t perfect and that even though the government gives us certain rights it doesn’t mean that they can’t be taken away from you. The protests outside of the convention shed a light on the anti-war movement, and probably mounted pressure on the administration to do something.