SC - Document Analysis - The Tumultuous 60s Lesson

Document Analysis - The Tumultuous 60s

Document Analysis icon

The 1960s were a time of large-scale change in the United States. Much of this change was controversial in that it reversed practices that had been common for many years. Change came not only through legislation, but through the judicial branch as well. The Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren took on several controversial cases and issued rulings. Areas these cases dealt with included the role of religion as it relates to government, segregation, birth control, and the rights of the accused. Conservatives protested that this amounted to "legislating from the bench" and infringing on states' rights. Liberals cheered these moves as creating a more equitable society and protecting individual rights.

The event that divided the American public in the 1960s perhaps more than any other is arguably the Vietnam War. Initially a large majority of Americans supported U.S. involvement in the war as a way to prevent the spread of communism. However, as the war dragged on and casualties mounted many Americans began to oppose American involvement in Vietnam. President Johnson supported a large role for American troops, while others including Martin Luther King came out against a war that they viewed as unjust.

Examine these 5 documents and answer the questions that follow. You can also download a pdf copy of the documents here. Links to an external site.

Document 1: Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale (1962) that removed school lead (even if voluntary) prayer from public schools; the prayer that the case centered on is given as well as an excerpt from Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in the ruling Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country. The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Document 2: from Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) decision opinion written by Justice Douglas which struck down a state law prohibiting contraceptives for married couples Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family - a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization -surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Document 3: from the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) decision stating that police must inform suspects of their rights; Chief Justice Earl Warren The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well which were admitted at their trials. They all thus share salient features - incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.

Document 4: President Johnson defends American Involvement in Vietnam, 1965 Why are we in South Vietnam? We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Vietnam....We have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence. And I intend to keep our promise.... We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of American commitment, the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war. We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Vietnam would being an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied.

Document 5: from Martin Luther King’s “Beyond Vietnam” Speech; April 4, 1967 Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

Members of the military police keep back protesters during their sit-in at the Mall Entrance to the Pentagon.

Questions

  1. On what grounds did Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority of the court, say that school (government sponsored) prayer was unconstitutional?
  2. On what grounds did the Supreme Court throw out Connecticut's law against contraception in marriage? How does this decision bring forward an argument over Constitutional interpretation that dates from the earliest years of our Republic?
  3. What does the Miranda ruling require law enforcement to do in regards to a suspect prior to arrest and subsequent interrogation? Why would some Americans disagree with this decision?
  4. What arguments does President Johnson use in defending American involvement in Vietnam?
  5. How does Martin Luther King frame his position of opposing the Vietnam War? In his opinion, who has the greatest responsibility for ending the War?

Answer the questions on your own paper or word processing document.

 

RESOURCES IN THIS MODULE ARE OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (OER) OR CREATED BY GAVS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SOME IMAGES USED UNDER SUBSCRIPTION.