Below is a transcript of our conversation with CMU History Professor Mitchell Hall:
David Nicholas:
I'm David Nicholas and this is Central Focus, a weekly look at research activity and innovative work from Central Michigan University students and faculty. Coming of age during the Vietnam War era led CMU History Professor Mitchell Hall to focus on the events of that time when U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia intersected the Civil Rights movement at home. He is preparing to publish what he calls the “culmination of his academic career”, the upcoming book “Waging Peace,” and he has been awarded CMU's 2025 President's Award for Outstanding Research and Creative Activity…
Mitchell Hall:
So, these progressive movements were already in place and as the American commitment in Vietnam escalated, especially in the early 1960s, these activists naturally, turned their attention to yet another progressive cause, and that was “we don't want things to erupt in Vietnam and become an American war.” So that's where it actually started. It was a, It was a peace movement before it was an antiwar movement because at that point there wasn't an American war.
DN:
Where did that shift take place do you think?
MH:
I think there were a couple of incidents. One was in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This is one of those times where, in this case, President Lyndon Johnson had decided to retaliate against North Vietnamese attacks on US ships that had been gathering intelligence and supporting South Vietnamese raids into the north at that point. So, it became very publicized. And when President Johnson decided to send American bombers in to attack the north just became national news. Even before that, in 1963, when there was the overthrow of the American supported government in the South, this brought attention to South Vietnam at a time when most Americans probably couldn't have told you where it was. And then spring of 1965, when President Johnson sent the first US combat forces into Vietnam, these turned the attention of American activists from long term peace and the attempt to limit nuclear weapons testing and expansion to focusing on this specific incident where stopping war might be a possibility.
DN:
In terms of what you have written, researched and (and) concluded with this upcoming book “Waging Peace,” what would you say are the findings, the conclusions that you came to as you brought this work together?
MH:
My conclusions would be, to summarize, the antiwar movement work through a fluctuating alliance of diverse constituencies separated by varied objectives and motivations. But drawn together to pursue a common goal, the core of the movement consisted primarily of highly educated middle class political liberals and moderate pacifists. Motivated by the belief that an American war in Indochina was a major foreign policy error or represented an immoral application of U.S. military, or, and the movement never operated as a singular, coherent force. And was so large and diverse that it defied control by any single organization or ideological perspective. And although the American public eventually adopted the movements essential arguments. It disapproved of the movement itself. Activists faced extensive repression that included harassment, red baiting, physical assaults and even death. The movement frequently met these attacks by appealing to traditional American ideals. Acting within a framework of dissenting patriotism, antiwar activists overwhelmingly waged peace using the tools of democracy to align the nations practice with its most righteous vision.
DN:
Professor Mitch Hall from Central Michigan University, recognized with the. CMU 2025 Presidents Award for Outstanding Research and Creative Activity. Congratulations on the upcoming publication of the book and thank you so much for spending the time with us to share the story and the perspective today.
MH:
Thank you, David.
