Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence”

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Anticipating criticism, King begins by declaring that his position on the Vietnam War is a matter of “conscience.” To remain silent would be “a betrayal” of principle. He acknowledges that it would be much easier to express “conformist thought” rather than “inner truth,” especially when conviction leads to denunciation of government policies during wartime. Aware of this difficulty, he praises the organization to which he is speaking—Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam—for choosing “firm dissent” over “smooth patriotism.” He then lists some of the objections that he has repeatedly encountered—that he is imperiling the civil rights movement by taking an unpopular stand on the Vietnam War or that he is speaking about an issue of foreign policy that is beyond his expertise. King tries to neutralize these criticisms by insisting that they rest on “tragic misunderstandings” of public affairs and of his own career. Indeed, he asserts that his dissent from U.S. policies in Vietnam conforms to the principles that have guided him since he became a civil rights leader during the Montgomery bus boycott. King also maintains that while there is no simple way to stop the war, the United States has “the greatest responsibility” for “ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.”

“The Importance of Vietnam”

In the next section of his address, King enumerates specific reasons for opposing the Vietnam War, while emphasizing that the basis of his criticism is his “moral vision.” Especially important to King are the detrimental effects of the war on America’s poor. He condemns the war for draining funds from the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty. His language suggests that the war has become so large and destructive that it has grown beyond human control as it claims resources “like some demonic destructive suction tube.” Also troubling to King are the disproportionate numbers of poor and black soldiers who are fighting and dying in Vietnam. He emphasizes the irony of Americans in uniform fighting for liberties abroad that they did not enjoy at home. With sorrow and pain, he declares that Americans have become all too familiar with “Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them in the same schools.” This “cruel manipulation of the poor” compels him to speak out.

King then explains that his belief in nonviolence also accounts for his opposition to the war. He recounts his efforts to persuade angry young African Americans in neglected inner-city neighborhoods that violent protest would not solve their problems. How, then, he reasons, can he not similarly condemn the Vietnam policies of “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today—my own government.” King’s criticism is strong and sweeping, associating him with some of the most radical opponents of the war. He believes, however, that he cannot invoke his commitment to nonviolence selectively, lest he forfeit his credibility as an advocate for racial justice and his moral obligation to speak for American and Vietnamese victims of the war’s violence.

King’s responsibilities as a civil rights leader, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and a Christian also lead him to question the war. King deftly rebuts the charge that his work in the civil rights movement disqualifies him from speaking on issues of war and peace by reminding his audience that the goal of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is “to save the soul of America.” The poisonous effects of the war, he declares, are corrupting American values and preventing the achievement of racial justice. King also explains that his obligations as a recipient of an international prize for peace and as a Christian minister compel him to think beyond “national allegiances.” He states that he cannot view the war only as an American. Instead, he is “called to speak for the voiceless, the victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.”

“Strange Liberators”

This lengthy section reviews the history of the Vietnam War in order to challenge the Johnson administration’s position that the United States was fighting to halt aggression and advance democracy. King adopts the perspective of the Vietnamese who “have been living under the curse of the war for almost three continuous decades.” His use of the term madness at the beginning of this section indicates how strongly he disagrees with President Johnson that the war is serving either U.S. or Vietnamese interests.

King argues that the United States has supported reaction and repression in Vietnam. Between 1945 and 1954, the United States aided French efforts to reestablish colonial control of Vietnam. After the French withdrew, U.S. leaders backed President Ngo Dinh Diem, the anti-Communist ruler of South Vietnam, whom King describes as a vicious dictator who suppressed political opposition and prevented reforms that would have given land to peasants. U.S. military assistance to Diem, according to King, belied promises of “peace and democracy.” After Diem’s overthrow in a coup on November 1, 1963, a succession of “military dictatorships” offered “no real change.” Once American troops began fighting in South Vietnam in 1965, they caused horrible suffering, using heavy firepower that inflicted many civilian casualties and devastated villages and farmlands. King even goes so far as to compare American use of the “latest weapons” in Vietnam to Nazi Germany’s tests of “new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe.” Only the most extreme critics of U.S. policies made such assertions. King concludes that by looking at the war from the perspective of the Vietnamese caught in the brutality of conflict, Americans must seem to be “strange liberators.” Indeed, he asserts, Vietnamese peasants probably see the United States as “their real enemy.”

King then tries to explain the views of America’s enemies, the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam. He maintains that the National Liberation Front, an opposition group that used guerrilla tactics to gain control of the South Vietnamese government, was the only party “in real touch with the peasants.” He paints a highly sympathetic picture of the National Liberation Front, which he believes had good reason to take up arms against a corrupt government that jailed political opponents. King also maintains that it is not hard to understand why Ho Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam, distrusts the United States. Ho had led the Vietnamese fight for independence against the French, and he expected to become the leader of Vietnam according to the terms of the Geneva peace settlement of 1954. The United States, however, cooperated with Diem to divide Vietnam between North and South and to prevent the elections that would have brought Ho “to power over a united Vietnam.” From Ho’s perspective, the United States has been the aggressor by sending troops to Southeast Asia in violation of the Geneva agreements and dropping “thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.”

After these efforts to “give a voice to the voiceless of Vietnam,” King concludes this section of his address by expressing his concern about the corrupting effects of the war on U.S. troops. In Vietnam, according to King, Americans in uniform experience a very different war than the one that government officials led them to expect. U.S. troops, King asserts, have intervened in a Vietnamese struggle “on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.” The disparity between U.S. soldiers’ expectations and the reality of the war produces a cynicism that compounds the brutalizing effects of combat.

“This Madness Must Cease”

King next offers suggestions to halt the “madness” of Vietnam. His five proposals require drastic changes in U.S. policy as well as an admission “that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam.” His views are not those of a mediator who is encouraging all major parties to make concessions for peace but of a moral critic who believes that Americans should “atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam.” His harsh judgments about the U.S. war effort reflect what he described earlier in his address as “allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism.” He speaks as a brother to the suffering poor in Vietnam and the United States, a citizen of the world who is “aghast” at U.S. actions, and an American citizen who holds his nation accountable for expanding the war and for stopping it.

“Protesting the War”

King next advocates protest against the war, including counseling young men to become conscientious objectors as an alternative to military service. Opposition to the current war, however, is insufficient, because, according to King, Vietnam is only a symptom of “a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” In several other nations, U.S. military advisers or weapons were helping to suppress revolution. King charges that the United States has become an imperialist nation, exploiting overseas investments while stifling the ambitions of people in developing nations for peaceful change. King concedes that this allegation is “disturbing,” but he insists that American values are skewed. Property rights and profits have become more important than people, thereby undermining efforts to eradicate “racism, materialism, and militarism.”

King calls for “a true revolution of values” that will transform America’s world role. Although he provides no specifics, he favors economic restructuring that will end “the glaring contrast” between poverty and wealth. His prescriptions for international reform mirror his vision for domestic change. In his writings, King insisted that “justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of society.” He demanded that America “face all its interrelated flaws—racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism.” King is optimistic that Americans can change their priorities “so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.” He also believes that a revolution in values will provide enormous benefits in America’s cold war contest with Communism. Although his speech is full of scathing criticism of the foreign policies of the Johnson administration, King agrees with government officials that Communism appeals to people who lack basic necessities of life and hope for the future. Too often, however, U.S. policymakers’ fears of Communist takeovers in other countries led them to pursue “negative anti-communism,” including a resort to war. King instead favors “positive action” to “remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice” that lead to the spread of Communism.

“The People Are Important”

In this closing section, King tells his fellow Americans that they face revolutionary times and that they must find new ways to cooperate with people in developing nations. King mentions the Vietnam War only briefly as an example of a failed effort that puts the United States on the wrong side of history. Instead, he concentrates on the worldwide challenges to “old systems of exploitation and oppression” and the necessity of aligning the United States with “the shirtless and barefoot people” who “are rising up as never before.” He believes that Western nations made essential contributions to this revolutionary spirit but that they have become rich, complacent, and reactionary. “Our only hope today,” he declares, “lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.” Success requires thinking beyond one’s community, race, or nation. Instead, he calls for “an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole” based on the idea—which “all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life”—of love.

Although the term was not part of his vocabulary in 1967, King is speaking about a globalizing world that requires new ideas and new policies. The pace of change, he explains, has quickened. He uses a phrase from his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, as he asserts, “We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.” Nations and peoples that previously seemed distant now require attention. The developing world of Asia, Africa, and Latin America “borders on our doors.” King acknowledges that the challenges of creating a new world are enormous. But just as he urged his fellow Americans to pursue the dream of freedom and justice at home, he calls on them to begin “the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world.”

Additional Commentary by Paul Murray, Siena College

As a religious leader and advocate of nonviolence, King was troubled by the growing American military involvement in the Vietnam War. Although he was not a pacifist, he questioned the morality of indiscriminate bombing and attacks on civilian populations. As the foremost African American spokesman of his era, he was deeply concerned about the disproportionate casualties suffered by black soldiers and government policies that placed more African Americans in dangerous combat assignments. As an advocate for the poor, he was disheartened by the enormous sums spent to support the war—funds that could be better spent on antipoverty programs.

King had made earlier statements critical of the American war effort. These remarks were condemned by other civil rights leaders, largely for political reasons. They argued that King should limit his energies to fighting for civil rights. By embracing other causes, he weakened the movement. More important, they feared that his criticism of the Vietnam War would antagonize the commander in chief. President Lyndon Johnson had surprised black leaders by becoming the most effective champion of African American freedom since Abraham Lincoln, but Johnson was known for his vindictiveness toward those who opposed his policies. King's public dissent from Johnson's Vietnam policies threatened to dampen presidential enthusiasm for civil rights legislation. As the peace movement gained momentum, King became increasingly outspoken in his opposition to the Vietnam War. His most notable criticism came in an address delivered one year before his death to a meeting of the antiwar organization, Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, in New York's Riverside Church.

King opens by announcing his agreement with the organization's antiwar objectives and endorsing its statement: “‘A time comes when silence is betrayal.'” This statement became the keynote for his remarks. He acknowledges the problem of opposing one's government in wartime and the difficult task of sorting out complex issues, but this cannot be an excuse for inaction. He speaks of the personal conflicts he has encountered as he moved to oppose American policies in Vietnam. Many people said that he was “hurting the cause” of his people by speaking out against the war. This criticism, he insists, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of his mission. King states that his activist career that began with the Montgomery bus boycott leads directly to his present antiwar stance.

King outlines several reasons for his opposition to the Vietnam War. He argues that war is the enemy of the poor. The huge cost of fighting in Vietnam, he claims, takes money away from the domestic war against poverty. He points out that among African American soldiers, there have been a disproportionate number of combat casualties. It is a “cruel irony” that black and white GIs can fight and die side by side in Vietnam when they cannot live together in the United States. King reminds his listeners that he has urged young black rioters in northern ghettoes to refrain from violence. They, in turn, ask, “What about Vietnam?” He must be consistent and demand that the government abandon violence overseas. King rejects the notion that he should limit himself to civil rights advocacy. He cites the motto of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—“‘To save the soul of America.'” This mission includes the quest for peace as well as the struggle for civil rights. King contends that America's soul is being poisoned by the Vietnam War and that those who care about the nation's health must protest the war.

As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, King felt a special responsibility to strive for peace. His duty to work for “‘the brotherhood of man'” is universal, he says; it requires him to disregard national boundaries. Ultimately, however, King's dedication to the cause of peace was rooted in his Christian faith. He believes that all men are sons of the same God who cares for His children regardless of “race or nation or creed.” King boldly declares, “Somehow this madness must cease.” He speaks on behalf of Vietnamese victims of the war and poor Americans who bear the burden of the fighting. He speaks both as a citizen of the world and as a patriotic American. He calls upon leaders of the United States to stop the conflict. What America needs, King maintains, is a “radical revolution of values.” The country must move away from racism, materialism, and militarism to become a more “person-oriented society.” If this revolution occurs, Americans will question the wisdom of many national policies; they will realize that true compassion requires basic changes in the structure of society. King calls on American capitalists to stop extracting profits from overseas investments with no concern for the welfare of third world people. He urges world leaders to end the awful human cost of modern warfare. He calls on American leaders to embrace this revolution of values so that the pursuit of peace becomes the highest national priority. In conclusion, King asks his audience to dedicate themselves to the struggle for a new world order. Despite many difficulties, the choice is clear. As sons of God, they must embrace the cause of peace.

Additional Commentary by Paul T. Murray, Siena College

As a religious leader and advocate of nonviolence, King was troubled by the growing American military involvement in the Vietnam War. Although he was not a pacifist, he questioned the morality of indiscriminate bombing and attacks on civilian populations. As the foremost African American spokesman of his era, he was deeply concerned about the disproportionate casualties suffered by black soldiers and government policies that placed more African Americans in dangerous combat assignments. As an advocate for the poor, he was disheartened by the enormous sums spent to support the war—funds that could be better spent on antipoverty programs.

King had made earlier statements critical of the American war effort. These remarks were condemned by other civil rights leaders, largely for political reasons. They argued that King should limit his energies to fighting for civil rights. By embracing other causes, he weakened the movement. More important, they feared that his criticism of the Vietnam War would antagonize the commander in chief. President Lyndon Johnson had surprised black leaders by becoming the most effective champion of African American freedom since Abraham Lincoln, but Johnson was known for his vindictiveness toward those who opposed his policies. King's public dissent from Johnson's Vietnam policies threatened to dampen presidential enthusiasm for civil rights legislation. As the peace movement gained momentum, King became increasingly outspoken in his opposition to the Vietnam War. His most notable criticism came in an address delivered one year before his death to a meeting of the antiwar organization, Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, in New York's Riverside Church.

King opens by announcing his agreement with the organization's antiwar objectives and endorsing its statement: “‘A time comes when silence is betrayal.'” This statement became the keynote for his remarks. He acknowledges the problem of opposing one's government in wartime and the difficult task of sorting out complex issues, but this cannot be an excuse for inaction. He speaks of the personal conflicts he has encountered as he moved to oppose American policies in Vietnam. Many people said that he was “hurting the cause” of his people by speaking out against the war. This criticism, he insists, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of his mission. King states that his activist career that began with the Montgomery bus boycott leads directly to his present antiwar stance.

King outlines several reasons for his opposition to the Vietnam War. He argues that war is the enemy of the poor. The huge cost of fighting in Vietnam, he claims, takes money away from the domestic war against poverty. He points out that among African American soldiers, there have been a disproportionate number of combat casualties. It is a “cruel irony” that black and white GIs can fight and die side by side in Vietnam when they cannot live together in the United States. King reminds his listeners that he has urged young black rioters in northern ghettoes to refrain from violence. They, in turn, ask, “What about Vietnam?” He must be consistent and demand that the government abandon violence overseas. King rejects the notion that he should limit himself to civil rights advocacy. He cites the motto of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference—“‘To save the soul of America.'” This mission includes the quest for peace as well as the struggle for civil rights. King contends that America's soul is being poisoned by the Vietnam War and that those who care about the nation's health must protest the war.

As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, King felt a special responsibility to strive for peace. His duty to work for “‘the brotherhood of man'” is universal, he says; it requires him to disregard national boundaries. Ultimately, however, King's dedication to the cause of peace was rooted in his Christian faith. He believes that all men are sons of the same God who cares for His children regardless of “race or nation or creed.” King boldly declares, “Somehow this madness must cease.” He speaks on behalf of Vietnamese victims of the war and poor Americans who bear the burden of the fighting. He speaks both as a citizen of the world and as a patriotic American. He calls upon leaders of the United States to stop the conflict. What America needs, King maintains, is a “radical revolution of values.” The country must move away from racism, materialism, and militarism to become a more “person-oriented society.” If this revolution occurs, Americans will question the wisdom of many national policies; they will realize that true compassion requires basic changes in the structure of society. King calls on American capitalists to stop extracting profits from overseas investments with no concern for the welfare of third world people. He urges world leaders to end the awful human cost of modern warfare. He calls on American leaders to embrace this revolution of values so that the pursuit of peace becomes the highest national priority. In conclusion, King asks his audience to dedicate themselves to the struggle for a new world order. Despite many difficulties, the choice is clear. As sons of God, they must embrace the cause of peace.