Swiroset.com

Wilkins issued a memorandum to all local units of the NAACP warning that “organized units of the NAACP have no authority” to participate in the assembly of underrepresented persons established for Washington, DC in August 1965, where the main item on the agenda It was a demonstration to oppose US policy in Vietnam. Wilkins further noted that NAACP leaders must be “aware that it is difficult for the public to disassociate them from the organization. [and] that the NAACP has not passed any resolution opposing US policy in Vietnam, nor has it ever called for the collapse of the White House or seize the Capitol. “Local NAACP officials were asked not to participate in demonstrations against war to avoid potential conflicts of interest between your personal anti-war views and your roles as NAACP officers.

Wilkins praised Johnson for his handling of international problems, especially Vietnam. In March 1966, on the occasion of the Annual Freedom House Award dinner, Wilkins presented President Johnson with a bronze sculpture of Johnson on the bust, engraved as follows:

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

Freedom at home was never more shared nor aggression abroad resisted more wisely than under his leadership of the Nation.

HOUSE OF LIBERTY – 1966

Wilkins was well aware of the support that President Johnson enjoyed, as well as the level of influence he exerted on the issue of civil rights initiatives. According to Wilkins, Johnson was on the phone with him constantly calling “before every [Johnson’s] important speeches on civil rights and after every civil rights crisis. ”(Matthews, 299) The pleasant nature of their friendship emerged during one of their many phone conversations when Johnson, in the middle of a discussion on a topic, asked Wilkins : “Me” I always call you. Why don’t you call me more often? “(Matthews, 299) From then on, Wilkins never had a problem communicating directly with the president when he called.

Wilkins was also aware of the financial support the NAACP received from major sources and likely feared recrimination if he or other officials in the organization expressed disapproval of the war effort. When other civil rights organizations spoke out against the war, their funding dwindled, while the NAACP’s funding skyrocketed.

Another possible reason for Wilkins’ close alignment with Johnson during the Vietnam War stemmed from his earlier antiwar feelings and actions, many of which were documented in his FBI file. According to his FBI file records, he was a sponsor of the Fourth Annual New York City Conference Against War and Fascism in 1937, and was a keynote speaker at the Intergroup Unity Conference in Time of War. held in 1944 at the House of the Fraternal Club of the International Order of Workers. In New York. (FBI File 100-7629, June 1958) Wilkins, in his 30s at the time of these antiwar actions, was, in the mid-1960s, the leader of a major civil rights organization and, for Therefore, he may have thought that he needed to distance himself from his youthful indiscretions.

Wilkins’ support for Johnson’s policies in Vietnam appeared to be at odds with the NAACP’s own civil rights agenda at home. Lifting African Americans (approximately 11% of the population at the time) out of poverty was central to the NAACP initiatives and was part of the Johnson’s Great Society program. The transplantation of impoverished African-American youth from American cities to the jungles of South Vietnam was a by-product of Johnson’s policies.

Other observers have noted how the participation of African Americans in Vietnam was financially beneficial. For most young African Americans, the soldiers’ pay was the most money they had ever seen. Levy notes that African-Americans volunteered for the dangerous elite units because the dangerous service pay was even higher – an additional $ 55 per month for the paratroopers. (Levy, 212) Journalist Wallace Terry told the story of a sixteen-year-old African-American Marine from an impoverished family from Brooklyn, New York, who had lied about his age to join the Marine Corps so that he could earn money and send it to them. to his mother. . He was later killed in combat, and Terry vowed to write a book about these young African Americans from the ghettos of America. Wilkins was certainly aware of the economic benefits of armed service for young African Americans, including the lucrative benefits of the GI Bill for soldiers returning from Vietnam alive.

African American men volunteered for service in Vietnam in disproportionate numbers. Only after 1968, when Black Power militants began to see through the disguise of war, was there a decline in African-American volunteers (albeit a corresponding increase in recruits). Whether at the beginning or end of the war, the service of African American soldiers in combat in Vietnam was illustrative of the first war in American history fought with an integrated military. The NAACP was very proud of this achievement.

In terms of the number of African American soldiers serving in Vietnam, the Crisis, quoting President Johnson’s message to Congress on April 28, 1966, noted that “Black Americans comprised 22 percent of the men enlisted in our military units. Army combat in Vietnam – and 22 percent of those who have lost their lives in battle there. ” (May 1966: 247) Mark Rosenman indicated that “black” soldiers accounted for 21% of the casualties, while they comprised 18.3% of the Army (196), while Peter Levy suggested that African-Americans constituted “almost the 20% of combat troops in 1965 “. It was clear that African Americans represented a higher percentage, compared to their number in the general population at the time. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara contributed to this higher percentage by lowering entry standards for the military (Project 100,000 initiative), believing that “the military was a time-tested means of social progress.” . (Thomas Johnson, age 16)

Aside from the perspective that the war was boosting the economic and social prospects for the young African Americans who participated, the NAACP was unwilling to alienate President Johnson on the Vietnam issue, given his continued political support for important civil rights initiatives. When Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech denouncing the war at a fundraising dinner for Nation magazine in February 1967, he deepened the gap between moderates and liberals within the civil rights movement. According to Levy, the moderates felt that it was, in part, “suicidal to break up with President Johnson, not only because of the impracticality of breaking up with a president during the war, but also because of a feeling of loyalty to the leader who had accomplished so much.” a lot to blacks. “

The rift that developed between the NAACP and other civil rights leaders and organizations after King’s speech against Vietnam in 1967 led historian James Westheider to turn his attention to African American soldiers themselves to determine their views on the war. He found that most of the soldiers approved of his own participation in the war, and some even held views critical of King and others who spoke out against the war:

An African American officer assigned as an adviser to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) commented:

The brother does well here … You see, it’s almost the first time in his life that he discovers that he can compete with the whites on equal terms, or very close to the same base. He struggles in these kinds of situations and does it well.

Army Major Beauregard Brown noted:

Service in Vietnam represented the best opportunity for promotion, anywhere, for a black career officer.

An eighteen-year-old marine soldier stated very simply:

The brother is here and he is causing hell. We are testing ourselves.