Nixon and the 1969 Vietnam Moratorium

Nixon and the 1969 Vietnam Moratorium

In 1969, as the anti-war movement was reaching a peak, Richard Nixon’s White House staff debated what they could do to “show the little bastards” what kind of man they were up against. They were concerned about what would be the biggest antiwar demonstration in US history on Nov. 15, 1969, when half a million people came to Washington D.C. to demand that an end to the war in Vietnam.

Now, newly released documents from the Nixon Library provide fascinating details about the debate within the White House staff two months earlier about how the president should respond. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, at the time an influential member of Nixon’s inner circle, suggested that the president could “take away the day” from the protesters if he would “close down” the White House “in sympathy.”

“That will show the little bastards,” Moynihan said. He knew the kind of talk that impressed Nixon.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

In 1969, as the anti-war movement was reaching a peak, Richard Nixon’s White House staff debated what they could do to “show the little bastards” what kind of man they were up against. They were concerned about what would be the biggest antiwar demonstration in US history on Nov. 15, 1969, when half a million people came to Washington D.C. to demand that an end to the war in Vietnam.

Now, newly released documents from the Nixon Library provide fascinating details about the debate within the White House staff two months earlier about how the president should respond. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, at the time an influential member of Nixon’s inner circle, suggested that the president could “take away the day” from the protesters if he would “close down” the White House “in sympathy.”

“That will show the little bastards,” Moynihan said. He knew the kind of talk that impressed Nixon.

The Vietnam Moratorium Committee had called for a national work stoppage and coordinated local protests on Oct. 15, followed by a massive demonstration in Washington DC a month later. Nixon’s staff was contemplating the October events at their meeting on Sept. 26, 1969.

Moynihan, who at the time held the title Counselor to the President for Urban Affairs, advocated what he called “a cease fire” with the moderates in the anti-war movement, according to notes on the meeting taken by Dwight Chapin, Special Assistant to the President.

Moynihan reminded the staffers in the room that Nixon “is going to do something which is very difficult,” according to Chapin’s notes. “He is going to be the 1st Pres. to lose a war.”

“It is not his war,” Moynihan said; it was “LBJ’s war.” That much was true – Nixon had been president for only eight months when this meeting took place.

The Moratorium organizers, Moynihan told the White House staff, were “good people,” veterans of Gene McCarthy’s failed bid for the Democratic nomination in 1968. That also was true.

Nixon should preempt the demonstrations, Moynihan argued, by going on TV the night before and declaring that he was “for peace.” That would “keep the nutty opposition invalidated” while it would “pacify the non-violent.” Such a move would give Nixon “more time to work out” an exit strategy.

Nixon however rejected the advice. On Oct. 15, demonstrations were held in dozens of cities; the biggest was in Boston, where 100,000 turned out to hear George McGovern. The same day in Oxford, England, a Rhodes scholar named Bill Clinton organized an anti-war Moratorium demonstration there.

And on Nov. 15, half a million people gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Pete Seeger led them in singing John Lennon’s new song, “Give Peace a Chance.” Nixon let it be known that he was watching sports on TV in the White House. He kept the war going for another four years, during which tens of thousands of Americans were killed, along with perhaps a million Vietnamese.

Chapin’s notes were among 280,000 pages of documents released by the Nixon Library on Jan. 11.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x