-
5. History Making
- University Press of New England
- Chapter
- Additional Information
128 Five❒ HistoryMaking against war OnMarch10,1967,PellreceivedaletterfromawomaninManhattan,Kansas . Helen Melaragno wrote of the disgrace she felt in America’s still-escalating role in the Vietnam War. By that point, Johnson had committed nearly 400,000 troops to the conflict and additional tens of thousands were on the way. More than 8,000 Americans had died. North Vietnam was under attack from U.S. B-52 bombers,whichwerekillinguntoldnumbersofcivilians.Onthepresentcourse, no end seemed in sight. “My Dear Senator Pell,” Melaragno wrote, I am writing to you as a former resident of Rhode Island who is very concerned about our country’s involvement in Vietnam. Frankly, I am ashamed of what we are doing there. I feel, as people in Hitler’s Germany must have felt, that I must speak out against inhumanity, and this to me is inhumanity. In view of the fact that pressure in this country seems to be building up recently , I am hopeful that we can soon, as [United Nations president] U Thant suggests, terminate the bombings as prelude to peace talks. I do hope you will do all you can. Perhaps soon we can again be proud of our country. Very truly yours, Helen Melaragno. The letter was but one in a growing volume of correspondence that Pell had been receiving. Some writers supported the war—but others, like Melaragno, were in agreement with an increasing number of opponents who were moved to action. Petitions were being circulated and protestors had taken to the streets. University students had staged sit-ins and strikes. Heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali had declared himself a conscientious objector. Two days after Pell received Melaragno’s letter, The New York Times published a three-page ad signed by thousands of professors and teachers against the war. Pell’s position was closer to theirs than to the declining majority that continued to support the president. Pell was in agreement with Martin Luther King, Jr., who in a sermon on April 4 at New York’s Riverside Church urged fellow clergy to speak against the war: I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest h i s t o r y m a k i n g ❒ 129 agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statementsofyourexecutivecommitteearethesentimentsofmy ownheart,andI foundmyselfinfullaccordwhenIreaditsopeninglines:“Atimecomeswhen silence is betrayal.” And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. Pell wrote back to Melaragno a week after her letter arrived. “As you may know,” he said, I have opposed escalation in general and believe we should do everything we can to cool down the military conflict in South Vietnam, as well as terminate our bombing of the North. As early as November 8, 1965, in a speech in Providence, I declared that “we should not escalate but rather should deescalate our bombing of North Vietnam.” I also said at that time that “while our bombing may seem to be successful in its immediate tactical objectives, I believe it is counterproductive in its political effects, in that it tends to strengthen Communist unity and morale.” I urged in that speech that we seek a neutralization of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, through the Geneva Convention; that we encourage the greatest possible participation by the United Nations; and that we be prepared to “talk and negotiate with whomever was at the conference table.” I continue to support all of these positions and will pursue them vigorously in my work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the coming weeks. Pell invariably responded to those who wrote him, on whatever issue—but as spring came to Washington that year, he did more than answer letters protesting the Vietnam War. His opposition had intensified since his November 8, 1965, Providence speech, and he wanted a larger platform to express his views. It would have power that personal correspondence lacked, particularly if it received widespread media coverage, as it would. He began to work on a major foreign-policy speech, the first on Vietnam that he would deliver in the Senate. On May 23, 1967, Pell took the Senate floor. Reporters, including The New York Times’ Hedrick Smith, a future Pulitzer Prize–winner, had been alerted. “I wish to express my concern about what seems to be a growing sense of impatience and frustration regarding the Vietnam War,” Pell began...