November 1

Blog #104 – Chicago Convention as Symbol

Image result for 1968 chicago convention

Students protesting the Vietnam War in Chicago. The blue and red flag is supprting the Viet Cong.

 

 

After we’d watched the American Experience video on the Chicago Convention in 1968 on Friday, it struck me how much that the clash encapsulated many of the tensions in the 1960s.  The clash between students and police on the outside of the convention, and the clash between the Peace platform candidate, McGovern, vs. pro-war candidate, Vice President, Humphrey, both appeared to be like a symbol of how divided the nation was in 1968.   See this link for a day-by-day calendar of the tumultuous events of 1968.  For instance:

– The peace platform delegates and followers of Senator Eugene McCarthy (dove) who tried to be heard at the Democratic National Convention, but the old guard (Mayor Richard Daley) that supported Vice President Hubert Humphrey (hawk) and the war in Vietnam (and support of President Johnson’s policies in Vietnam despite their apparent failure);

– The class differences between Chicago’s working class police officers and the “spoiled brats” as U.S. Attorney Thomas Moran called the college students who had gathered in Chicago to protest the war that could directly affect any of these young men with the draft on either side of the riot line (though truthfully, the police officers were most likely to get drafted and not be able to a deferment from a doctor or university);

– the rise of violence, disorder and chaos in daily life that impacted the political process like the deaths of John Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), and Dr. King and Robert Kennedy (1968).  There had been riots in Watts, Los Angeles, Detroit and Newark, N.J., and across the country after Dr. King’s death in April 1968. 

– The rights to free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble were directly challenged at this convention by the Chicago Police Dept. and the Illinois National Guard.  Furthermore, the indirect censorship of the TV coverage by not allowing more than one live feed from the city (infringement of freedom of the press) so that the TV news couldn’t cover both the convention and the protests at the same time;

– The differing tactics of the anti- war protesters as symbolized by David Dellinger and Rennie Davis (non-violence) vs. Tom Hayden (“by any means necessary”) and the outcome of the marches and even legal protests at Grant Park.

Questions:

1. Do you think the police used “reasonable force” when dispersing the protestors during the week of the convention?   When?  Why or why not?

2. Do you think the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police?  Why or why not?

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?

4. How do you think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election w/ Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace?  Why?

Blog due Monday, November 6.  300 words minimum for the total blog.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted November 1, 2017 by geoffwickersham in category Blogs

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

  1. Adrienne Konopka

    1. The policemen did not use reasonable force when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. During the Democratic National Convention, 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Chicago for the convention, where they were met by 23,000 police and National Guardsmen. This was a huge over response and resulted in unnecessary violence. The Chicago police riots are infamous for the police brutality. The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protesters was so great that it made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower. The police sprayed demonstrators and bystanders with mace.The police assault in front of the Hilton Hotel the evening of August 28 became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The violence was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in, the areas where confrontations were occurring. There’s also the example of the young man that climbed up a flag pole to lower the american flag. The police started beating him and then members of the crowd. Although the crowd did provoke the police on some occasions, the police hugely over reacted in many instances.

    2. I don’t think the protesters should’ve egged on the police, like they did with the name calling/ throwing food, concrete, etc at them. That being said, it was an endless cycle of tension between the protesters and the police, and with each instance it was hard for people to figure out who really started it. The police acted inappropriately in what seems like almost every instance. With that history, it’s clear to see why the protesters didn’t have much faith in the police or believe that they’d change their ways. The protesters couldn’t just stand there and take relentless, unwarranted attacks. They had every right to stand up for themselves.

    3. I don’t think the peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if Johnson had allowed Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. They would have been slightly mollified, but it wouldn’t completely satisfy them. They wanted an end to the war, and neither Johnson nor Humphrey was going to make that happen. It might’ve gotten him more support from the anti- war protesters because it showed he was willing to compromise, but overall I think everyone knew that he wasn’t going to end the war, because Johnson wouldn’t let him.

    4. I think the images from the convention definitely swayed the public towards Nixon. The violence at the Democratic National Convention shocked the nation. It showed how divided the Democratic party was and made people a little distrustful and maybe even fearful of them. Nixon also won by a very slim margin, so any little thing could’ve helped him win.

  2. Brody H

    1.
    I do not believe the police used reasonable force with the protesters during the week of the convention. The police were abusing their power. The college students, who were peacefully protesting were attacked by the police. The police we antagonizing the students to retaliate and then beat them with billy clubs and shot tear gas at them. They were beating people that were trying to walk away, people that were just standing there, and people who were trying to help their friends up or help them get out. People should have the right to protest without having police marched at them. The only thing the protestors did wrong before the police brutalized them, was that they stayed in the park passed 11.
    2.
    Yes and no, I do think protestors crossed the line by fighting with the police, but I also think that in some cases it was justified. The police were brutally attacking them with hard gloves and billy clubs and if the protesters didn’t retaliate they could have been injured, beaten up, maybe even killed. But the protesters took it too far by throwing rocks and other objects at the police that could potentially hurt them. Although the protesters took it to far they did not deserve that severe of an attack.
    3.
    I do not 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. Humphrey was strong on continuing the war with Vietnam because he needed to keep President Johnson on his side. Also peace delegates were so focused on peace, that some concessions wouldn’t mean anything to them.
    4.
    I think the images of the convention greatly influenced the results of the election, and were a big part in helping Nixon win over Humphrey and Wallace. I believe this because these depictions of people being beaten, injured, and besieged in tear gas most likely caused more people to pay deeper attention to the election. Nixon wanted to end the war and with all the riots happening nationwide, people might have thought that if the elected Humphrey, who wanted to continue the war, that that would cause more riots. This influenced many people’s opinions on who to vote for start to pick Nixon.

  3. Joseph DeMarco

    No, I do not believe that the police in Chicago during the convention were not using reasonable force against the protesters. Film from the convention show police throwing protesters onto the ground, beating them with police bludgeons, and even with the tactics used by the protesters like Tom Hayden where they tried to get their way by any means necessary, I still don’t think that brutal actions carried out by the police was justified.

    Even though I do think that the actions carried out by the police were not justified, I still do believe that actions carried out by the protesters were violent and disturbing the peace. I believe that actions were taken to the extreme by both sides, the protesters and police, and I do really believe that the actions by the protesters really provoked the police into committing the brutal arrests that they did. I think that the protesters did cross the line with the police because they were violent, including examples of where protesters threw bottles of tear gas back at the police that were already thrown, and also throwing stones at the police. Like I said, I believe that their was lines crossed from both sides, and both sides were at fault for the brutal clashes at the convention.

    I think that the peace followers and McCarthy supporters would’ve thought that Johnson allowing Humphrey to make concessions with the American people over the conflict in Vietnam would’ve been progress to getting America out of Vietnam, but I don’t think they would’ve been satisfied with it. I don’t think that they would’ve been satisfied because I don’t think Humphrey would have taken the concessions so far as to pull the U.S. out of Vietnam, which is exactly what the peace advocates wanted McCarthy to do. It would’ve been progress for the peace advocates but I don’t believe that it would’ve gone so far as to end the war.

    I do believe that the conflict at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 did affect the outcome of election in 1968 between Nixon and Humphrey a lot, and I believe so because the riots and the protesting at the DNC really split up the democratic party and the democratic vote, which gave the republicans the upper hand by taking the majority between the 3 candidates. Kind of like if you have the republicans taking only 40% of the vote, but still winning because the rest of the vote was split between 2 candidates 30% and 30%.

  4. charlie hardy

    1. The police did not at any point during the week of the convention use “reasonable force” when dispersing the protestors. They used their force to brutalize and provoke the protestors, and they steadily overreacted to a simple, non-violent protest, and used unnecessary force on the protestors to the point of hospitalization and unconsciousness for some. No one brought a gun to these protests, and the students didn’t use excessive force on the police officers, so it makes absolutely no sense that these brutal actions toward the protestors were used.
    2. In regards to the protestors fighting the police, I do not think they crossed a line. The police were overusing their power and force, and if I was put in a similar situation I would have wanted to fight back as well. I think if such crude and harsh actions are taken out at such a peaceful crowd or protest from police officers or peoples attending to control the situation that it sort of makes sense and warrants an attack from both sides. You can’t keep beating a human being down and expect them not to fight back, especially in a situation as such.
    3. I think the peace delegates/McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if President Johnson had allowed Vice President Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War because with LBJ’s bizarre childhood and the messages his received about failure, there was no way he was giving up or cutting back on the way he chose to fight with the Vietnam War. If he’d allowed someone to make cut backs and concessions over the war, maybe there wouldn’t have been such a humongous outrage. The democrats did not like the way LBJ was fighting; LBJ wasn’t backing down. It’s simple; he could have let someone make the concessions to both please the Democratic Party and his ideals about failure and never giving up.
    4. The images from this convention influenced the outcome of the election because Nixon won, and he wanted most what the public wanted as well. He wanted to end the war, which was the cause of most of these protests. The rest of the candidates weren’t so outspoken about ending the war, and since all of the riots, protests, rallies, and police brutalities occurring scared the public, I think it was like a conveyor belt. These issues pushed everyone to vote for someone who was anti-Vietnam War, so these conflicts would stop.

  5. Jonathan Giha

    Jonathan Giha
    I do not think the police used reasonable force. They ran wild on the streets, beating up anyone and everyone that they saw, even some that weren’t involved with the protests. One particular example of the police abusing the protestors is when they beat up Dave Dellinger, one of the leaders of the protest. It is definitely not ok for the police to just go around hitting people with billy clubs when they are peacefully protesting.
    I do not think the protestors crossed a line by fighting the police, as long as they were just defending themselves, which I believe many of them were. If they were just defending themselves, then I believe it’s ok because they were simply using their first amendment right to nonviolent protest before the police started beating them up. If they provoked the police, I think that they did cross a line, because then their protest becomes violent and the police have reason to take action.
    I think some of the anti-war people would have been satisfied if Johnson let Humphrey take a more moderate stance, but not all of them, especially the ones that weren’t committed to nonviolence. I think this because I believe that many of them would want him to take a hardline stance of ending the war as soon as he got into office, and accepting nothing less. However, some of them probably would accept few concessions, as long as they believed it would lead to the end of the war in the long run.
    I think that it may have made Humphrey lose, because it both showed and widened a divide within the democratic party. After all, Humphrey lost by a small margin and this could easily have been the tipping point. I think that if the convention had not been so strict on the protestors overall, or if LBJ had allowed Humphrey to have his own opinion, then Humphrey might have won the election.

    325 words

  6. Abby

    1. I do not believe that the police did not use reasonable force in handling the protesters during the week of the convention. Although some of the protesters were provoking the police, the police’s response was unwarranted and more violent than it should have been. Many of the protesters were doing peaceful things, or at least nothing dangerous. These actions should have been handled by handcuffs, not dragging someone limb by limb.

    2. I absolutely think that the protesters crossed a line by fighting with the police. Although many of the police’s actions were unwarranted, many of the non-peaceful protesters’ actions were unjustified as well. Many things that the protesters did, such as breaking bottles and using weapons and fighting, was uncalled for and could have been avoided completely by not provoking the police in the first place.

    3. I believe that the peace delegates would have been less angry if President Lyndon Johnson had allowed Vice President Hubert Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. Because of Johnson and Humphrey’s different views about the war, Johnson was basically keeping Humphrey on a leash because Humphrey did not want to lose the nomination. The peace delegates wanted a complete end to the war, a policy Humphrey could not fully guarantee to them. Because of this no-guarantee, I feel as if the peace delegates would have still been angry even if Humphrey did want a decrease in the war.

    4. I believe that these images affected the election because of the extremely divided democratic presidential party. Because voters couldn’t agree on one singular candidate, and instead split it up into three, cost the democratic party the win. Because of the split between antiwar democrats and pro-war democrats, the republican party only had one person to vote for. Had the war ended or not been going on at all could have had the outcome of a very different election.

  7. Nikki Barnas

    1. After reviewing the events of the Chicago Convention, I’ve concluded that the police used excessive force when dispersing the protesters in 1968. In the video, a moment was described between Richard Daley, the governor of Chicago, and several protesters requesting a permit. Daley portrayed arrogance and stubbornness when refusing to grant the protesters a permit, especially when he launched into a ten minute monologue centered around his opinions. “He was an embodiment so tight he can’t hear words other than his own… when we left there, I knew there would be violence” one protester states after leaving Daley’s office. This quote reflects and explains the actions of the police- if their governor isn’t supportive of the protest, shouldn’t they support him by doing whatever is necessary to break up the protest, despite the brutality of their actions? Furthermore, the main incentive of a policeman is to maintain peace, so maybe they assumed that a few beaten kids is worth it if it resulted in diminished chaos and would distinguish the masses of fiery protestors. This wouldn’t be an outlier in the patterns of protests throughout the 1960s, as it was evident that the police consistently used violence and brutality to halt civil rights demonstrations. And it has been proven that police brutality would remain a controversial issue throughout twenty first century protests.

    2. I think that from the police’s perspective, the “spoiled”, chaos-craving teens crossed the line by simply demonstrating their opinions through protest. However, I don’t believe that the protesters ventured past any boundary. Obviously, a protest towards a war that had caused so many disputes would maintain a chaotic aroma, especially during a heated Democratic Convention. I think that the police assumed chaos would eventually escalate to violence, and jumped to brutality prematurely. Furthermore, America had witnessed an avalanche of violence prior to the convention, including the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the late president John Kennedy. Cruelty was the natural law of the 1960s, and 1968 proved to be no exception, despite being among the later years of the decade. Therefore, the invisible line was more tenuous and fragile during the 60s and was easier to cross, which made the protesters seem to behave more savagely in the eyes of the police. However, I don’t believe the protesters had the intention of violence when portraying their anti-war perspective.

    3. Due to the tenacity and dedication of the protesters, I feel that they would have acknowledged and appreciated Humphrey’s concessions over the Vietnam War, but they would have demanded more. If they saw that Johnson was loosening his grip towards control over Vietnam, the protesters would have wanted to take advantage of his lenience. Their ache for peace would not have been healed with a temporary band aid- they would require a complete stop to the violence in Vietnam.

    4. Due to the protest being held outside the Democratic Convention in 1968, people may have associated the democratic party with corruption and having a lack of leadership. Therefore, it made republican candidate Richard Nixon seem like the more attractive option as to who sits in the oval office and dictates our country’s military affairs. If the democrats can’t control their own convention, how will they be able to control a country soaked in international and domestic turbulence? Another result of the protest was the lack of celebration towards Hubert Humphrey winning the democratic nomination; it looked like he was being placed at the forefront of a disastrous and fraudulent party. People were too distraught over the beaten teens in Chicago to acknowledge the new head of a corrupt democratic party.

  8. Kiran Krishnan

    1. I do not think that the police used “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. The protesters were harshly beaten with billy clubs, which to me seems like it was uncalled for, especially in the case of the protesters who were trying to sleep in the park. while I do understand that it was against the rules of the park, its seems a little extreme considering all they were technically only sleeping there. And even though in some protests the protesters did get violent, I think the police should’ve know that the protesters wouldn’t back down, but fight more, because they were angry. I think that the police could’ve handled the situation better without letting it turn so violent.
    2. I don’t think that the protesters went too far by attacking the police. From the police’s perspective, the demonstrators were young, spoiled kids who went too far by even demonstrating peacefully. The police were mad because these were affluent kids going to college and the fact that they were protesting the war, when they were not as likely to get drafted, and therefore not as likely to be directly affected by the war. These underlying tensions and the policies of the mayor led the police to be overly brutal and violent. They had begun to beat protesters and the demonstrators were defending themselves. Also, I think that the brutality with the police, on both sides, got the protesters the publicity they needed to get their ideas heard on a big platform and the protestors knew that that was what would happen.
    3. I think that the peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been somewhat satisfied if President Johnson had allowed Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War, but they might have been temporarily satisfied, or at least some people would have been. I think that they wanted a true end to the war, but temporary improvement would show that a step in the right direction was being taken. the extreme or radical peace delegates would’ve most likely still not been satisfied, but this might’ve led some peace delegates to take Humphrey’s side. If not during the convention, then during the presidential election, which might’ve allowed for Humphrey and therefore the democrats to win the entire election.
    4. I think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election with Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. Nixon wouldn’t have won if not for the split up democratic party. The images from the convention split the party even more, people were mad about the disturbing images and this probably led some to switch their support. People vote because of emotion most of the time. Even if people didn’t love Wallace’s policies they might’ve switched their support to him just out of anger.

  9. Nicole Bastian

    1. I think that the police did not use “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention. The police did everything they could to prevent further chaos and summon peace. This included beating them to the ground and once they were on the ground the police would kick them. The sad reality is that this isn’t the first time that police brutality was used during a protest in the 1960s, and definitely not the last. The police absolutely could’ve maintained peace in ways that involved less violence.

    2. During the Chicago Convention in 1968, the protesters may have been viewed as crossing the line by fighting with the police, but I disagree. These protesters were just trying to stand up for what they believe in and when the police would attack, they needed to fight back. They weren’t going to give up that easily. If the protesters just gave up, they wouldn’t be getting their message across. Also, by right of the constitution, the protesters had the right of self-defense. Therefore, if the police were attacking the protesters, they had the right to fight back. Even if the intention of the protest was to be non-violent, that doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t protect themselves.

    3. If President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War the peace delegates/McCarthy’s followers would likely not have been completely satisfied. By making some concessions, Johnson is making progress towards the delegate’s goal, but not fully reaching it. The delegates wanted to end the war completely and when Johnson made concessions, while he may have made steps toward ending the war, he didn’t completely end it.

    4. The images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election with Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. First of all, these images were likely a distraction from the election as a whole. Second of all, these images and the candidate’s’ reactions to the images showed the people another side of the candidate’s that likely wouldn’t have seen otherwise. This showed the people how much each candidate cared about violence/events that didn’t necessarily affect them either way. By seeing their different reactions, the people may have changed the candidate they side with/support.

  10. Jana Dinkeloo

    1.)I do not think the police used reasonable force against the protesters. The protesters were only inhabiting a park peacefully, and never ended up being violent until they were met with violence in the first place. The police had no patience for the protesters and exercised extreme force against the people who were innocently protesting.

    2.) I do not think the protesters crossed a line per say fighting with the police. They shouldn’t have encouraged the police to get violent by frustrating them or climbing flagpoles, but when met by the violence inflicted against them by the police, the protesters couldn’t just stand there and get thrashed. They had to fight back in what could only be called self defense. Crossing a line would be if the protesters needlessly and randomly attacked the police when the police weren’t doing anything, but since this was not the case, a line was not crossed.

    3.) I don’t think they would have been entirely satisfied if Humphrey was able to compromise about the Vietnam War, but I do think the protesters would have been a little more calm and content. They backed McCarthy because they wanted to end the war and stop the violence. If Humphrey had promised or even just said he might do something to end the war, there wouldn’t have been as much fierce opposition to his campaign.

    4.) Images from this convention absolutely affected the results of this election. The images of violence and turmoil shocked everyone who viewed it, and made many people wonder if the Democrats could handle a country in war if they couldn’t even handle protesters at a convention. These images made both Democrats, Humphrey and McCarthy look bad and made it seem like they couldn’t control their supporters, and made Nixon look great and calm in comparison.

  11. Ella Landers

    The police did not use reasonable force. We could see them maliciously beating them as they “cleared the streets”. They also were often arresting people, which was very rude and unnecessary. Although in some cases they were provoked, they overall negative forces in cases they didn’t need to.
    Yes, I generally think they should’ve tried to restrain from fighting with the police. It is more effective to the public if people are to protest peacefully instead of violently because violence will always give off a message of awfulness. I understand in some cases, because as the police were fighting with them and it is very difficult to not defend yourself. Despite this, I still overall think that for the most part, they should’ve tried to restrain from fighting.
    3) I don’t think concessions over the Vietnam War would have satisfied the peace delegates. I think the peace delegates were so determined for peace, this would’ve made a little impact on their opinions and feelings. When there is a war going on and people are dying every day, it is hard to overlook that and be willing to let go their goal of peace. However, it is hard to predict what would’ve happened but I strongly believe they wouldn’t have been satisfied.
    4) The violence shown at the convention showed the American people how divided the Democratic party was. It was very clear now that any sense of togetherness or peace they had once felt was obviously gone. This shifted many of the anti-war supporters to Nixon’s side, rather than Humphrey, because Nixon promised to end the war as soon as possible. Looking back at the convention is clear how much America detested the Vietnam war.

  12. geoffwickersham (Post author)

    1. Do you think the police used “reasonable force” when dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention? When? Why or why not?

    No, i do not believe that the police used “reasonable force” dispersing the protesters during the week of the convention, but only during the first two or three days, for an example, on the first night of protest the Yippies decided to have a overnight party at the park, the issue is, the park closes sharply at 11pm. for after that the protesters deserved everything the got from the Police Force, for they should have gotten the message after their first night-in at the park, that no one breaks the law. They just didn’t quit, even after countless example of harsh brutality.

    2. Do you think the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police? Why or why not?

    Yes, I thoroughly believe that the Chicago protesters known as the Yippies, led by Abbie Hoffman, and Jerry Rubin, crossed the line by fighting the police task force after the result of the Chicago convention in 1986. They broke the law and constantly and ben “bending” the rules for weeks. And now, the went to a place where there’s no forgiveness.

    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?

    Yes, I believe that the peace delegates also known as McCarthy’s followers would have been completely satisfied if President Johnson had allowed Vice President Johnson to make some concessions over the Vietnam War. I believe this for the whole “hype” of this specific Democratic convention was to talk and speak out about the Vietnam War and to hear the representatives thoughts and future ideas of the War.

    4. How do you think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election w/ Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace? Why?

    Yes, i do think that the images from the 86’ Democratic convention influenced the outcome of the election because the convention practically destroyed Humphrey’s campaign. Over the whole week leading up to the convention, Humphrey went to the leading nominee for the Democratic party, but after the convention almost every one of his supporters dishoned him and moved on to support the remain two other Democrats in the run for the president.

    Sam G

  13. Cariel Gamlin

    1)Now though I think unnecessary I also see the result after the violence done. The violence made retaliation from your group yippie.two different kinds odd. I think the excess”.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 it’s 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” is what is stated is referring to how the police treated Yippie and how unreasonable the police brutality was on this event. I see though some response from police was necessary but, not in such a brutal manner.
    2)I believe the protesters crossed a line when they fought against the police. I think the fighting back gave police a reason to fight the protest.Though absurd many think this gave the tip for the riotous behavior to begin.Them adding to pressure was only proving the mayor and police’s point in why Yippie must be subdued.If they were trying to have a peaceful format like MLK i think they failed by letting their own break off to violent acts.
    3)Though if the ringmaster Johnson gave Humphrey the ok on how his act should be I think through other ways the divide in this convention. The groups started divide already and we don’t a hundred percent know what Humphrey to choose. Though absurd Idea, he was a wild card of a candidate and had had his own decisions regardless of what others thought. Though he wanted presidency and Johnson was in his way he tried to allude to how he felt.
    4)Absolutely!I think this convention was a train wreck and everyone witnessed it on TV. I think this train wreck said “ That the democrats are not ready to lead this place.” Though it may seem crazy but this is what put the democrats one foot in the grave. They showed on tv how divided the party was. Not to mention they had these voices of the democrats’ children being beat up because they are antiwar. It wasn’t like this showed creative process or anything magical it showed why the organized republican party was better than the divided democrats.

  14. Cariel Gamlin

    Cariel Gamlin
    1)Now though I think unnecessary I also see the result after the violence done. The violence made retaliation from your group yippie.two different kinds odd. I think the excess”.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 it’s 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” is what is stated is referring to how the police treated Yippie and how unreasonable the police brutality was on this event. I see though some response from police was necessary but, not in such a brutal manner.
    2)I believe the protesters crossed a line when they fought against the police. I think the fighting back gave police a reason to fight the protest.Though absurd many think this gave the tip for the riotous behavior to begin.Them adding to pressure was only proving the mayor and police’s point in why Yippie must be subdued.If they were trying to have a peaceful format like MLK i think they failed by letting their own break off to violent acts.
    3)Though if the ringmaster Johnson gave Humphrey the ok on how his act should be I think through other ways the divide in this convention. The groups started divide already and we don’t a hundred percent know what Humphrey to choose. Though absurd Idea, he was a wild card of a candidate and had had his own decisions regardless of what others thought. Though he wanted presidency and Johnson was in his way he tried to allude to how he felt.
    4)Absolutely!I think this convention was a trainwreck and everyone witnessed it on TV. I think this trainwreck said “ That the democrats are not ready to lead this place.” Though it may seem crazy but this is what put the democrats one foot in the grave. They showed on tv how divided the party was. Not to mention they had these voices of the democrats’ children being beat up because they are antiwar. It wasn’t like this showed creative process or anything magical it showed why the organized republican party was better than the divided democrats.

  15. Joey Llope

    no, the police did not use reasonable force when they were dispersing the crowd. I think the crowd sometimes was partially responsible for what happened between the police and the crowd, but overall the force used on the protesters by the police was an overreaction.
    I think the protesters crossed the line several times in clashes with the police. the protesters did not follow MLK’s example of non-violence, although I cant really say I blame them. the protesters egged on the police and gave them a reason to retaliate, which was a mistake on the protester’s part.
    I do not think the peace delegates would have been satisfied if Johnson would Humphry to make concessions over the war. they may have seen it as a good start, but they would only accepted an end to the war, which Johnson or Humphry were not capable of doing. or at least people didn’t believe they were capable of doing so.
    yes, I think the convention was a total mess and the fact the nation saw it live on tv heavily influenced the election results. the convention and how bad it looked reflected negatively on the democrats. it made them look extremely divided and unready to lead the country. as a result the country was pushed towards Nixon, who made the promise of ending the war.

  16. Jacob Ellenbogen

    I would say the police didn’t use reasonable force when they attacked the protestors. Based on the situation, when the protesters became a physical threat to the police, which at times they did, tear gas may have been appropriate to make the crowd separate. However, the unnecessary beating and destruction that followed was definitely excessive force from the police, because the police were supposed to keep order; by separating a rowdy crowd, they were doing just that. By attacking an already separating crowd, they only were adding to the chaos.
    I think the protesters crossed the line by provoking the police, so they kind of brought it upon themselves. That being said, I do not commend the actions of the police, but I do understand why they happened. All of the violence that occurred could’ve been avoided if the protesters did not provoke police by threatening to attack. Peaceful protests would’ve been somewhat allowed by police, but people like Tom Hayden prevented that from occurring. Because of the constant provocativeness of the protesters, it is clear that the protesters definitely crossed the line creating a fight, but the police also crossed the line with how far they took the retaliation; Therefore, both sides are at fault.
    I think absolutely not, because it is a slippery slope. For Humphrey, and by extension for President Johnson, it is a very difficult road to walk and keep everyone happy. If Humphrey and Johnson don’t make concessions, then they’re shown as divisive within their own party and don’t stand a chance during the general election. If they make some concessions, then the peace delegates would see this as an opportunity to push even more, and they would grow stronger and gain support, while Humphrey would be seen as weak for giving up ground on the issue. So this was a lose-lose situation for Humphrey, and either way and I think regardless the peace delegates would not be satisfied.
    I think they painted major issues with Humphrey and the democratic party as a whole, as they showed themselves as completely incapable of handling issues domestically, which probably decreased public faith in them overall. Therefore, any chance the democrats had was severely damaged by the events and poor handling of the 1968 DNC, working largely in Nixon’s favor.

  17. Joey Llope

    No, the police did not use reasonable force when they were dispersing the crowd. The police live by the words “serve and protect”, but the pandemonium that ensued was a result of the police’s harsh reaction that neither served the people or protected them. The citizens of Chicago most likely felt like they weren’t safe around their own police force anymore. The scary part of it is that today’s police would have reacted the same way with a crowd of protesters. I think the crowd sometimes was partially responsible for what happened between the police and the crowd, but overall the force used on the protesters by the police was an overreaction.
    I think the protesters crossed the line several times in clashes with the police. The protesters did not follow MLK’s example of non-violence, although I cant really say I blame them.The protesters egged on the police and gave them a reason to retaliate, which was a mistake on the protester’s part.
    I do not think the peace delegates would have been satisfied if Johnson would Humphry to make concessions over the war. They may have seen it as a good start, but they would only accepted an end to the war, which Johnson or Humphry were not capable of doing. Or at least people didn’t believe they were capable of doing so.
    Yes, I think the convention was a total mess and the fact the nation saw it live on tv heavily influenced the election results. The convention and how bad it looked reflected negatively on the democrats. it made them look extremely divided and unready to lead the country. As a result the country was pushed towards Nixon, who made the promise of ending the war, an event that the country desperately felt as if they needed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*