University of Virginia Library

Jones Defends First Stand On Vietnam

Letters To The Editor

I appreciate the attention given
my letter of October 20th
which stated my attitudes toward
the Anti-Vietnam Protests. I hope
you will also grant me space to
defend those attitudes.

It is very interesting to note
that whenever anyone takes a
public stand in disfavor of a protest
movement he is immediately
decried as an advocate for the
suppression of freedom of speech.
It appears that critics of my so-called
"militant," "psychotic"
and "un-American" position in
the issue, choose to argue subjectively
instead of objectively. Dissent
was not the target of my
"scathing remarks" as they would
have one believe, no the suppression
of constitutional rights. The
objectives of the Vietnam demonstration:
to pull the United States
out of Vietnam, "to block entrance
to the Pentagon and shut
down the U.S. war machine for
a day," were the stimulus of my
attack. These demonstrative aims
were both cowardly and traitorous
in that they suggest a physical disruption
of our government's functions,
(I reiterate)aid and comfort
the enemies of freedom, and
favor an unhonorable, unprincipled
and discrediting withdrawal
from open conflict.

One can easily protest involvement
in war when he sees that he
himself may be placed in a life-death
situation. One can easily
recognize the evils of war and the
unfavorable position of his own
country when war affects his personal
comfort. One cannot help
but assume that personal fears have
a great deal to do with many of
the "righteous" convictions of
anti-war demonstrations.

Article III, Section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States
reads, "...Treason against the U.S.
shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid
and Comfort..." Aaron Burr was
released in 1807 from charges of
Treason because he "did not personally
take part in the overt act."
Thirty-four thousand and six-hundred
protesters were not arrested
Saturday, October 21, 1967
because of a government respectful
of the right to dissension; the
very government those demonstrators
strive to disrupt.

I carefully reviewed my letter of
the 20th after reading the "reasonable,"
"unemotional," ("Who
the hell does he think he is?")
and by all means, "civil" rebuttals
to it, thinking that unconsciously
in my highly unacclimatized and
insane stupor I had somewhere
advocated a "blind," untempered,
and unquestionable acceptance of
government policy. Thankfully I
could find no such advocations,
although I have been accused of it.
I cannot help but question the
validity of arguments of those who
must distort and "read-in" the subject
of their dissension. It must be
expected, however, from those who
distort the real purpose of our
presence in Vietnam in order to
reconcile their own fear of misguided
rationalization.

If the label of moron has offended
those intellectual elite
whose self-styled brilliance has
shown them the omniscient light
for international peace through
submissive compromise and nonviolent
conciliation, I apologize for
my rash, uncultured "name
calling." Please permit me one
request, however: Will you explain
to the Viet Cong and North
Vietnamese that they should not
murder, torture nor threaten the
South Vietnamese in order to force
the political ideals on a free people.
Of course, the VC and the NVN
are morally justified to use any
means to subjugate a weaker nation
and the U.S. as an invited
guest and treaty signer has no
moral or justifiable right to interfere.
(Explain that also to the
village chief whose wife was
ravaged and murdered for his
defiance of an unacceptable ideology.)
Explain also to the parents
of a dead G.I. that their son has
died for nothing-that there really
is no threat of Communist world
domination-it is all an illusion
wrought by some capitalistic munitions
producer to fill his pockets.

Yes, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Smidt,
Mr. Zulkiewicz, Mr. Carson, Mr.
Payne and Mr. Russell, by all
means uphold your right of free
speech and assembly even to the
extremes of anarchy if you feel
justified; but do not dictate to
me about morals and justice and
rights. Somehow the American
ideal has become warped in the
insistence of Civil Rights-Tradition,
law and order mean very
little. The only thing that matters
is what you can "get away with."
Maintain your personal rights, to
hell with conscience. I'll see you
under the hammer and sickle.

War A Fact

As a person who is very
interested in the many aspects of
the war in Vietnam, I have read
and reread every letter printed in
The Cavalier Daily expressing the
different views on this subject.

I have a husband and many
friends who are fighting for their
country. My husband is proud to
be where he is, and I am proud of
him for giving up his happy life
here to fight for what he felt
was right. Many of the men in
Vietnam, probably 75-85 per cent,
don't want to be where they are,
but they feel an obligation to their
country. It is a fact that we are
at war in Vietnam. It appears to
me that there is no easy, instant,
honorable way out that will serve
the long-term interest of the United
States.

There is an old slogan which
has been handed down from
generation to generation which
says, "I am proud I'm an American;
I'm glad to be free." Does
this slogan mean anything to the
demonstrators who marched in
Washington on Saturday? Does it
really mean anything to them to
be "free?" Do they realize that if
not for the men fighting in Vietnam
today that we may be under
Communism? (Or do they believe:

a. North Vietnam isn't communist?

b. That communism no longer
wants to dominate the entire
world?

c. That communism is not anti-Christ?

d. That communism is against
most of the values of the Western
Christian world?

e. That Senator Fulbright and
other dissenters, though acting in
good conscience are not in fact
aiding our enemies by practicing
division at home-and putting into
doubt the will of our people to
carry on and win the war and
hence are of use to the communist
enemies of the United States?)

Every person wants their
freedom just as I do. Many letters
mention the freedom of speech,
to say what they want when they
want. Do they really expect to
keep this freedom without paying
it? Even in a free world, you
are not able to get anything without
paying for it, and the men
who lose their lives in Vietnam or
who are wounded are paying the
price for us to have that freedom.

So, as adults, I feel we should
be able to face the fact that we
are at war so that our descendants
may have this same freedom that
we have today, because it is a
fact!

March Peaceful

It was an inevitable, and unfortunate,
consequence of the
recent National Mobilization Protest
March that the national press
and television should concentrate
on those episodes of the march
that were most 'newsworthy'.

The vast majority of newspaper
and television reporters used these
few violent and/or ludicrous
moments of a twenty-hour protest
to characterize the entire march.
Generally, the march was pacifistic
in intent and in reality. It was,
at times, unorganized and rambling.

The march cannot be dismissed
as "an American tragedy" (Mike
Mansfield) nor as "un-American"
(numerous others), inasmuch as
those who were there, and
participated, saw it as a success,
not a tragedy, and saw themselves
as Americans. They were
trying to communicate to the American
public as individuals; it
is sad that the American press
saw fit not to publicize the many
rational and well presented talks
given, not by the leaders of the
march, but by the individual participants.

The Canadian Broadcasting
Company, we can hope, will provide
a fair and impartial account
of the march to the world. But
we might well ask why so many
Americans must look to Canada,
and not to their own country, for
friendship and understanding.

Carson Reply

In reading Mr. Carson's astute
and intelligent comments on Mr.
Jones' letter, it occurs to me that
he is indeed a fine person, and an
admirable patriot. I agree with him
in every way-we must support
our great and noble leader! Just
because he promised us peace and
has betrayed that promise is no
reason to doubt his abilities, for
goodness sakes! Gee whiz, WE
know he's doing the best he can,
don't we?

But how can patriots like Mr.
Carson and I go about convincing
everyone else of this fact? Our
task is a difficult one indeed; for
not only do we have to convince
a huge and ever growing segment of
our populous, but we've also got
to convince Congress, and perhaps
even the House of Representatives
(the ingrates) that our great President
knows what's best for us!

His suggestion of passing "...a
constitutional amendment permitting
the administration to suspend
national elections in the U.S.
during such periods of national
emergency" sure was neat, but
I've a much better one; why not
pass a law giving President Johnson
the title and powers of a
KING?!!! He would have supreme
power and could disperse with the
Congress and House (which only
get in his way, anyway).

Then we could all "boldly"
(mindlessly) "unite" (succumb),
"close our eyes" (shut off our
brains, forget our morals, give up
our rights as free, individual Americans),
and "Follow The
Leader." Long Live The King!!!

Yes, wouldn't it be great, living
under absolute Monarchy, in a
state of utter mindlessness (but
after all, mindlessness is bliss for
sheep, I mean Patriots, like Mr.
Carson and me).

No, Not Here

Mr. Carson's letter (Oct. 24th)
was in someways even more frightening
than the invective of Mr.
Jones. I can understand someone
who has been personally involved
with the tragedy in Vietnam reacting
emotionally. However, the
calm proposition of laws making
"criticism of Vietnam conclusive
evidence of high treason" and a
constitutional amendment "permitting
the administration to suspend
national elections" raises the
question-Is the American way of
life being defended or destroyed in
Vietnam!

Will the soldiers that dismember
dead bodies and watch (or perform)
torture on live prisoners be
able to adapt to the democratic
process? Will generals who have
committed their reputations to a
military solution accept election
results in '68, '72 or '76 that seem
to take victory away from them?

We all feel that it can't happen
here. But Mr. Carson's appeal to
"responsible men to boldly unite,
close their eyes and follow the
leader" should be warning enough.

Constrained Protest

At last a true genius has been
found on these hallowed Grounds!
I am, of course, referring to the
very honorable Patrick A. McCarthy.
(May his wisdom guide me
for the rest of my days.) His
statement: "When respectful dissent
is ignored, stronger measures
must be taken" will be my guiding
beacon. Starting today I shall
refuse to pay income and social
security taxes (respectfully, of
course), as these heinous instruments
of a corrupt, despotic
government have been robbing the
fruits of my summer labors for a
number of years to support an
unjust war and the maintenance
of the riff-raff of this nation. If
my "respectful dissent" be ignored
and produce nought but condemnation
and punitive measures
from the federal authorities, then
I shall take "stronger measures,"
following the examples set forth by
Lee Harvey Oswald and the Viet
Cong.

Should the assassination of the
president not free me from the
burden of unjust taxation, I shall
proceed to use the terror tactics
of the Viet Cong. (as befits oppressed
peoples). After disemboweling
the head of the I.R.S.
and hanging his remains from a
tree in front of the White House,
the rest of my oppressors will be
subject to the wrath of my righteous
indignation and will be systematically
eliminated.

I am convinced that I will be
successful; for my crusade against
the oppression of a dictatorial, neo-Nazi
government will, undoubtedly,
be supported by: Russia,
China, the Pope, the greatest
freedom fighter of all times-Martin
Luther King (who is nonviolent
and will start a riot if
you say that he is not)-, and,
last but not least, Robert Wetch
and Robert Shelton-and their illustrious
organizations.