Blog #21 – 1968 Chicago Convention a microcosm of the 1960s?
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. See this link for a day-by-day calendar of the tumultuous events of 1968. For instance:
Students in Chicago holding North Vietnamese flags in 1968.
– The differing tactics of the anti-war protestors 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;
– 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.
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 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?
3. Do you think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election w/ Nixon and Wallace? Why or why not?
Blog due Tuesday, June 14. 300 words minimum for the total blog.
Link to PBS film on Robert Kennedy.
Link to PBS film on Dr. King’s assassination, Roads to Memphis (watch online too!).
Link to PBS film on My Lai Massacre.
Link to PBS film on the Freedom Riders.
1. Yes I truly believe that the police used reasonable force when dispersing the crowds. They even at some points went a little over board. This could have been due to many reasons. They could have just been orders that they needed to follow. Or they could have been upset and tired and scared and let their emotions take control of them. The most probable cause is, was that they were provoked by the yuppies. The yuppies threw stuff at them (feces) and this defiantly did not want to make the cops nice. So I think they had the right to use force, and that there was aggression on both sides of the fight.
2. No I do not think the peace delegates would have been completely satisfied if they did this. Although this could have e made a huge difference to Humphrey. It could have made his win less of a bitter-sweet feeling, and it could have been good. Also I believe if people saw that he was less anti-war, he would have gotten more votes against Nixon and he could have won. So it could have made a huge deal. Also I believe if they were happier there would have been less tension and violence and the convention would have gone smoother.
3. Yes I believe the images made a huge impact on the election. We have to remember that Nixon won by an extremely slim vote. So if people thought he was less anti-war then he maybe could have gotten the votes. Also I believe that if people didn’t think the democrats were crazy from what happened at convention it could have changed everything. Maybe Humphrey would have won the election sand gotten those few votes against Nixon. So yes I believe the convention maybe would have changed the entire outcome of the election of 1968, and maybe Nixon would not have won.
1: I do not think the police used reasonable force to disperse the protestors in Chicago. Not only were the protestors being, for the most part, peaceful in the beginning, but they also had a permit to be in the park, or at least said they did. Even if they didn’t, the cops refused to see it, and they were beaten viciously and arrested for something protected by the first amendment.
2: I think that the peace protestors wouldn’t have been satisfied unless he conceded completely to the protestors’ cause. The protestors, while subjected to police brutality unjustly, they were still pretty vicious about their beliefs. They also might have thought that Humphrey was just being a tool to win the election.
3: I definitely think the images from this election influenced Nixon’s victory in the election. It made the democratic party look split to everyone else, and made them seem completely unreliable, and they also seemed warmongering and like they would completely ruin the country.
1. I do not think the police used reasonable force when dispersing the protestors because they beat them senseless and that was sort of uncalled for in my opinion. They could have very well used other methods for getting them to go away and not beat them, this also ruined their image because just outside the convention hall, a brutal police beating was recorded and then aired on television for all the world to see and people were not happy of how the police acted in that situation. I think that the tear gas was pretty “reasonable” but beating them bloody with billy clubs is wrong in my opinion.
2. I think that they would have been somewhat pleased if Humphrey would have been able to discuss the war because that is exactly what they wanted. They wanted their protesting to be recognized, to be heard and to be listened to and taken into consideration. I believe that allowing VP Humphrey to do this would also possibly have quelled some of the major riots that happened because of the war.
3. I do think that the images affected the outcome of the Wallace- Nixon election. I think it turned some of the american public against the democrats because of all the violence that the people saw that was influenced by the democrats. This change no doubt helped Nixon win the presidency that year. To the american public, if the democrats couldnt control their own convention, how could they run a country?
1. I believe that what the police did was wrong. I understand that they were feeling understated by the kids that were protesting but that doesn’t give them the right to beat them up. The police were to brutal in their attacks period. I don’t understand what kind of sense they were using to justify their means. These are college kids and you are using your power to beat them down. Their entire plan completely backfired because when they started using this unreasonable force the kids got mad and decided that it was their turn to take a stand and fought back. Also I didn’t understand why the public started to disapprove of the students methods. The students wanted to march in peace but when the cops wouldn’t let them do it the students got angry. In my opinion it was the cops that started all of the riots and fighting. I mean come on. You are suppose to be a public servant, but your beating the public.
2. I think that followers would have been better but not fully satisfied. They would be happy that they were making progress, but unhappy that they didn’t get all of what they wanted. I think that something is defiantly better than nothing. If I was one of the followers I would have been extremely happy f some of my wishes got to be turned into laws. I would rather that than nothing being done to make my dream of the perfect America come true.
3. The movie said that Nixon won because he said he supported the students and thought that it was time for change. I think that the position that Nixon took on the student, accepting them instead of rejecting them, did leave people to like him more and vote for him.
I think the police didn’t use reasonable force while dispersing the protestors. I think the protestors were partially at fault for provoking the police with taunts and mockery but the police had no right to beat the people, some of them children, senseless just because they were angry. The protestors were, at first just protesting peacefully and were not causing any violence. I think the peace delegates would not have been satisfied because they would have been so ecstatic over that small win that they would have gone over the top and demanded more and more concessions. It is difficult to be in VP Humphrey’s position, because he had to please two opposing groups to try and bring peace to his party but I still believe he should have tried for other methods, although I doubt that the concessions would have worked. I think the images from the convention greatly influenced the outcome of the 1968 election because people saw Nixon as being able to take charge. As the images depicted, if Humphrey could not even control his own party, how could he be expected to lead an entire nation? I believe people saw safety with Nixon because he showed that he was strong publicly, and not trying to lead a politically party so deeply divided down the center. Not only the war in Vietnam, there were other issues during the entire year of 1968 and people wanted to feel assured and safe that their leader knew what he was doing.
1. no I think there wasn’t much need for force in the first place. The goal of the protest was for peace, the most they were going to do was yell, and march, maybe a few would start trouble but there was no need to herd them like sheep. And then use gas to clear them out of the park. The city made it near impossible for them to even get the permits to do the protest, so it’s understandable that the protesters aren’t going to comply with every single demand the city makes. This assembly isn’t like a normal gathering, it should have been granted exceptions, like staying in the park over night. And even if they weren’t using tear gas and scare tactics aren’t reasonable. After days of this, and the increase in tensions their force seems a little more reasonable, later on both sides were itching for a fight, but the amount of force was unreasonable from the get go. No the force was not reasonable.
2. no think it would be impossible for any candidate to make both sides happy. Both sides had a mentality of “your with me or your against me” there was not much room to compromise. He had to be on one side or the other because if started to give concessions to the peace delegates then Johnson would have pulled out all support and then I doubt the peace delegates would have supported him anyways. They wanted out of the war; they didn’t want promises of an “attempt” at peace. They wouldn’t have been satisfied.
3 yes the events of the ’68 Democratic convention influenced the out come of the 1968 election. The events of the convention, due to how it was handled by the city and portrayed by the media., what happened at the convention showed that the democratic party was divided and a divided party can not win successfully govern, or win the election. The democrats basically handed the election to Nixon, with the events of the convention.
1) I think the police used reasonable force when dealing with the protesters. The protesters spent a lot of the time provoking the cops just trying to do their jobs, and as they had previously stated, they were there to disrupt the conference. The police had to act against what Mayor Daley saw as a threat to the Democratic Convention. The police were said to have put down their weapons and stopped when they were ordered to, and peaceful protesters were left alone. It was only when they started to attack and harass the police that they used force. Free speech is fine, but there has to be a limit. Taking the American flag down to put up the North Vietnamese flag, then resisting arrest when the police try to detain you is not an example of a 1st amendment protected right.
2) I think the peace delegates would have been happy. They just wanted something in their favor. I think that they would have taken any concession on the Vietnam war as a win and would be satisfied. The fact that they were denied something that they spent so long waiting for probably broke their resolve and patience. They wanted at least something rather than nothing.
3) I think the images of this convention did influence the results of the election. People everywhere saw that the Democratic Convention was being torn apart by rebel groups and fighting in the streets of a city with a strong Democratic mayor. All the violence probably hurt the image of the party, and more people drifted towards Nixon and the GOP.
1. I do not believe that what the police used would be called “reasonable force”. The police used violence at times when violence was not needed. Running into the crowds and attacking harmless people was totally unreasonable. I felt that when the police used tear gas on the crowd that was fair, but when they attacked harmless people, that was too far. All that the crowd was trying to do was peacefully protest the war, but the police took it way too far.
2. If concessions were put out over the Vietnam War, I think that the peace delegates would have been happy. That is all that the peace delegates really wanted and having the concessions put over would have really made them happy. It wouldn’t have completely stopped the protests though because they did want a full victory and all of the troops back home from Vietnam.
3. I feel like the images of this convention definitely influenced the outcome of the 1968 election with election and Wallace. The convention had so much violence and so many people get injured that there was no way that the nation could just ignore that. What happened at the convention changed everyone’s thoughts on the Democrats and that definitely affected eh outcome of the election. It pretty much made the democrats look terrible to the rest of the country.
1. No I do not think the police used reasonable forces when they dispersed the protestors during the week of the convention. The constitution says that people have the right to a peaceful assembly. The only people that were being violent were the police at the beginning of the rally. I think the peace rally was in fact peaceful until the police posed a threat when they attended the rally armed. When they attacked a member of the rally then that was when the situation went bad. The aftermath was the peace rally at night and that was also violent. Police attacked the students like they were wild animals going in for the kill. The Police truly didn’t have to disperse protestors. They could have simply annexed the group into a small area by walking toward them and secluding them into a certain area.
2. I don’t know if they would have been satisfied because I don’t really know what Humphrey was going to say. If the video is right McCarthy would have lost some his voters because Humphrey would have given him a run for his money. But at the same time Humphrey would have lost some of his voters. However things would have gone better Humphrey because he would have run an honest campaign. I think if Humphrey had run his own race and not the Presidents than he would have been up for the nomination.
3. I really don’t know if the convention influenced the outcome. I think it did because people saw a separation in the Democratic party which led to some believing that if they can’t run a convention how can they run a country. This is a good assumption. I think the convention played a huge role in the election because it is heart breaking to see a group of people divided and to see fights break out between a group of highly influential people that are suppose to take a part of the well being of our country
1. No, I defiantly don’t think that the police were using “reasonable force” when they were trying to get rid of the protestors. What they did was extremely unacceptable. I understand where they were coming from, because they love their country and they see protesting the war as anti-American but the truth is, they were being anti-American when they took away the peoples right to protest peacefully. When they approached the group of protestors, they were technically violating the Bill of Rights but when that punk took down the American flag, they totally overreacted! No matter what side you look at it from, it always comes out the same: the police were completely out of line.
2. I think that this might have caused a little bit of peace but not much. Those peace delegates meant business, and while having McCarthy in the decision making team for Vietnam may help a little, it wouldn’t give long-term relief. When this is initially announced, yes there would defiantly be a calm that rushes over the delegates but the fact of the matter is, McCarthy really wouldn’t have that much power! He’s only one man and the people who want the Vietnam War to keep going out numbered him.
3. No matter what, the press is always going to affect the turnouts of various elections. This however, I think may have been pivotal for this election. Because the gruesome images were released to the public, people all over America saw what was happening to their great country. I believe that people may have seen the images and thought that America was become a police state. This would scare me now but think about it back then, when the one major goal was to eliminate communism. How were we any better than the Soviet Union? So yes, these things defiantly affected the way that people thought about each candidate.
No, I do not think the police used reasonable force when dispersing the protestors during the week of the convention. In fact, i think all of the violence was extremely unnecessary. Obviously, part of the blame goes to the protestors or being a tad obnoxious, but I don’t think the police had to react with such violent measures. I feel like the whole problem could somehow have been resolved using other tactics.
I do think the peace delegates would have been satisfied if President Johnson had let Vice President Humphrey have some say in the choice regarding the Vietnam war. First, I think it would have been fair. And secondly, I think that if Humphrey had had some say, things may have turned out differently. I think he may have made some decisions in favor of the peace delegates. Ultimately, I think they really wanted to be heard, or at least acknowledged.
Yes, I do think the images made an impact on the Nixon/Wallace election. In fact, I think they had a huge impact. I think it made an impact because of the implication of the lit. It made the democratic party seem extremely unprepared and unprofessional. People saw the split, and they saw the violence, and they didn’t want to side. I think these images gave Nixon a massive advantage towards winning the election that year.