Contextualizing a Primary Document
Betsi Cervantes
September 15, 2015
Pols 300
Professor Kelly
On January 13, 1970 Gilbert Zicklin, a professor of sociology at UC Davis wrote to Congressman Harold “Bizz” Johnson to express his opposition to the War only strengthened by the massacre at My Lai. It was not until November 1969 that the incident at My Lai started to garner serious media attention. This was in due in large part to a young GI named Ronald Ridenhour “ who wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of defense, the President and several Congressmen and Senators describing what had happened at My Lai and requesting an investigation” (Oliver 248). Consequently, charges were brought up against William Calley for the murder of 109 Vietnamese civilians. This document is important because it brought to light actions by the federal government as they tried to cover up what was really going on in Vietnam. The government would not speak on the matter due to court martial, and the general consensus would be to blame the Viet Cong or dismiss it as propaganda. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh broke the story in 1969 to dispel any of that and show the American public the senseless acts of crimes being committed accompanied by photographs that show women and children being rounded up for execution.
Professor Zicklin opinion is that U.S. involvement in Vietnam “represents a fundamental policy of economic if not direct political empire-building.” He is referring to the fact that the U.S should not have entered a war with Vietnam and in doing so was attempting to assert its position as the world’s most dominant power. This is supported by the actions of our leaders throughout the years, following a rhetoric of anti-communism reflected through policy decisions internationally. In 1962, President Kennedy signs the Foreign Assistance Act, which provides military assistance to countries around the world who are under attack and in danger of a communist regime. Additionally, U.S Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon supported the President of South Vietnam, Nguyen Van Thieu despite the authoritarian nature of his regime. The primary source is legislation of the sixties which was passed by Congress and can be viewed on the government website which helps us understand the attitudes of the time, as we were also going through the Cold War which is responsible for the anti-communist attitude of the time. The U.S was acting as a world police of sorts, riding the world of the communist evil and trying to assert power through the guise of democracy, liberty, and freedom.
Professor Zicklin also argues that the “enemy here is turning out to be Attorney General Mitchell (his wife) and President Nixon.” President Nixon and his administration were not aggressively advancing with negotiations with Paris. The U.S has a responsibility to assert diplomatic initiative and pressure that way we can limit our involvement in Southeast Asia. Zicklin is alluding to the attempted sabotage along with Attorney General Mitchell of the Paris Peace Accords in 1968 which would have ended the war much sooner. It was later revealed, through declassified tapes of phone conversation between President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had evidence Nixon sabotaged the peace talks in Paris and Nixon had committed treason and had “bold on his hands.” On one hand, Nixon feigned ignorance as to why the South Vietnamese withdrew the peace talks, while on the other he was the one who had orchestrated it. While at the time this letter was written, the writer was unaware that these tapes would be released many years later by the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and the BBC. The tapes provides us with insight into political strategies and how President Johnson handled a series of crisis that shook a nation. The policies and tactics that Richard Nixon used throughout the war and his administration further tarnished his legacy and is notorious for the conspiracy known as Watergate which led to his later resignation from office.
Additionally, Mr. Zicklin refers to Nixon’s policy of Vietnamization as a means to “pacify the American people,” using Wall Street strategies to sell a “quasi-lie.” Senator Edmund Muskie criticized President Nixon for releasing a private letter from Ho Chi Minh while keeping a secret a timetable for withdrawing U.S troops from Vietnam. He argues that Nixon left the door wide open for peace talks, while Nixon says in a speech to the American people that Ho’s letter, “flatly rejected my initiative.” Senate leaders urged Nixon to seek a mutual cease fire as well as their continued support to negotiation efforts. The continued media attention on Nixon and the Vietnam War was on every America’s mind as well in every major media outlet across the country. Senator Muskie was a politician, openly challenging President Nixon’s questionable actions, further piling on the pressure for Nixon to end the Vietnam War and reflect the will of the American people.
As a sociology professor, Professor Zicklin, wrote this letter attempting to appeal to Congressman Johnson’s reason and facts. He is speaking for himself as his frustrations mount with what the government and President Nixon deems for the best interest of the people. Not only is he appalled by what is going on, he pleads for the restoration of South Vietnam and for the government to tell the truth for the sake of democracy. Also, he refers to those in power as the real enemy, infringing upon our liberties and until our legislators realize the urgency of the situation. A final plea to fulfill the obligation that democracy has of peace, justice, and liberty for all are the values that our forefathers fought for and we are still fighting for today.
