A movement made of many parts
The antiwar movement that appeared in public in 1967 was not a single organisation. It was an alliance of groups that had come to the war from different directions, and it held together mainly because they agreed on one demand: that the United States should end its involvement. In earlier years, the movement had been smaller and more fragmented, with each strand working separately. In 1967 these strands began to work on shared projects, which is why the year seemed to bring a sudden rise.
The strands
Pacifists and the older peace movement. Groups such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the War Resisters League, the American Friends Service Committee and Women Strike for Peace had a long record of opposing war, and they had experience of vigils, petitions and civil disobedience. People like A. J. Muste and Dave Dellinger came from this tradition. Another group, SANE, was founded in the late 1950s to oppose nuclear testing, and moved to oppose the war in Vietnam, though more cautiously than some of its allies.
Religious groups. Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, formed in late 1965, brought together Protestant, Catholic and Jewish figures, including William Sloane Coffin Jr., Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and the theologian John C. Bennett. Their moral language gave opposition to the war a respectability that radicals alone could not provide. Many congregations took part in vigils or local meetings, and the organisation provided speakers and publicity.
Civil rights activists. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had opposed the war in January 1966, earlier than most mainstream groups. Martin Luther King’s open criticism of the war, and especially his Riverside Church speech on 4 April 1967, brought a more prominent and more widely respected figure into the coalition. King also became a co-chair of Clergy and Laymen Concerned and spoke at the spring demonstrations. Some civil rights leaders, however, feared that opposing the war would cost the movement its political allies in Washington, and criticised him.
Students and the New Left. Students for a Democratic Society, which had organised an early march in Washington in April 1965, provided energy, young organisers and campus bases. By 1967 SDS was growing quickly, and was increasingly sceptical about working with liberals.
Professional and intellectual voices. The paediatrician Benjamin Spock, famous for his baby-care book, was a co-chair of SANE and became one of the movement’s best-known faces, marching with King in Chicago in March 1967. Writers, academics and scientists signed advertisements and open letters.
How they came together
The first major joint effort was the Spring Mobilization on 15 April, which showed that an alliance could attract very large numbers. After it, the organisers formed the National Mobilization Committee, which planned the Pentagon demonstration in October. Alongside these national events, a summer organising project called Vietnam Summer sent volunteers into communities to talk with ordinary voters, a quieter strategy that aimed to widen support beyond students.
Local groups also mattered. Faculty committees, church study groups and neighbourhood vigils did much of the daily work, even though the national leaders received the attention.
The divides
Disagreement ran through the coalition and became sharper over the year. The main questions were these.
- Nonviolence or confrontation. Pacifists wanted disciplined, nonviolent action. Younger radicals increasingly argued that peaceful marches had failed to change policy.
- Who should be included. Some liberal groups were wary of Communist participants or of radicals who sympathised with the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, while others, including the Mobilization leadership, wished to avoid exclusion.
- Single issue or wider politics. Should the movement stay focused on Vietnam, or connect the war to racism, poverty and capitalism? King leaned toward the broader view; some liberals preferred a narrower message.
- Protest or electoral politics. By the autumn, some supporters wanted to put their energy into backing an antiwar candidate in the Democratic Party, while others rejected that path.
- Withdrawal or negotiation. Not everyone agreed on whether to call for immediate withdrawal or for a negotiated settlement.
Why it mattered
The coalition’s success lay in the combination of respectability and militancy. Clergy and well-known professionals made it difficult for officials to dismiss the movement as a youth fad, while the radicals drew press attention and supplied new tactics. Yet the coalition was fragile. The same disagreements about tactics would grow more serious in 1968 and 1969, and the movement would never again present quite the same united face as it did in the spring of 1967.