Interview with Ted Kennedy
Interview with Ted Kennedy in his Senate Office in March/April 1989 where he is asked about offering amnesty to draft dodgers
OKAY. WELL I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, IN THE '72 SENATE HEARINGS ON
AMNESTY THAT YOU CHAIRED, YOU ASKED THE FOLLOWING
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. HOW, SOME ASKED, CAN AMNESTY BE OFFERED
TO THOSE WHO FLED WHEN OTHERS FOUGHT? BUT OTHERS ASSERT, HOW
CAN AMNESTY NOT BE OFFERED TO THOSE WHO RIGHT ABOUT THIS WAR
BEFORE THE REST OF US? l'M WONDERING WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT
THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE INTERVENING 17 YEARS, IF YOU'VE REACHED
ANY CONCLUSIONS?
Well, the conclusions that I've reached after a number of years just reinforced.
my feelings and beliefs at that time. That was that the young people that left as
a matter of conscience, both those prior to the time or the draft, and at that
time the draft was grossly unfair, or those that even went to Vietnam and
perhaps came to the conclusion as a matter of conscience that it was an unjust
war. We're following a very important tradition In our society and that is to at
times of a moral crisis, exercising a conscience and refusing to be a part of a
system that perpetuates illegality or gross injustice. And civil disobedience has
been a part of our tradition and in the early 1960s, with the civil rights
movement, it was rekindled as a matter which many young people were involved
in. And then in the course of the war, it was rekindled again by those that
refused to be a part of a system in the United States that had an unfair, was
supporting an unjust war-. And I have a good deal of admiration for the courage of
those individuals. They played a very important role, I think, in accelerating the
time when the United States finally did end the war, although it certainly wasn't
perceived to be a popular step at the time, or even an understandable policy
question to grant some reprieve, some amnesty, for those who left the United
States as a matter of conscience because they believed, that the war was unjust.
To a very real extent, they understood that it was an unjust war before the
politicians did. So rather than being condemned, their action should be
recognized as a positive contribution to the whole debate and discussion on the
war in Vietnam. And they ought to have a sense of satisfaction that they helped
bring the war to an end sooner. ,
,
EVEN THOUGH THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY, DIDN'T THAT PLACE THEM
OUTSIDE OF THE TRADITION OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND .••
Well, in the fact that civil disobedience took place here, it was a different
expression but they certainly recognized that it was something that their roots
being here, their parents, their friends, it had an important impact in the, in the
American political history. And that was not insignificant.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE LEGACY OP THIS EXODUS OP PEOPLE
DURING VIETNAM?
Well, as I look back on it, they saw that the war was unjust prior to the time that
military commander saw it, and that politicians were really willing to
recognize .. And they made a contribution, 1 believe, in bringing the war to an
earlier end. I mean there ware many who were involved in bringing that war to an
earlier end, but they certainly had their place in history.
OKAY. IM WONDERING WHAT MOTIVATED YOU TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP
ON T!IIS ISSUE AND HOLD THE '72 HEARINGS ON AMNESTY. WHAT WERE
TIIE POLITICAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THAT DECISION FOR YOU?
6:25 - Well, there were very few political benefits. I approached the issue as someone
who believed that the draft system was chronically unfair. It was poor people
fighting rich men's wars. The combination of deferments and other provisions of
the draft law were very unjust and very inequitable. I conducted hearings in
1969 on the draft issue and you couldn't come to a real studyof the whole draft
issue without facing the issue of amnesty and its implications. And then again
conducted them in 1972 and then following President Ford's partial amnesty in
1974. The mail was running about twenty-to-one against any form of amnesty.
And in the course of those hearings that were very widely covered by the media;
you had parents who lost boys in Vietnam that were extremely harsh in their
criticism of those that had left the United States as a matter of conscience. And
then you had parents who had lost boys in Vietnam and who understood the
injustice of that war, who respected the decision of those who as a matter of
conscience went to Canada. and you had these parents sitting right next to each
other. Both parents, the series of parents that spoke on that question exhibited
the same kinds of emotions, the same kind of feelings, the same kind of love for
their children. And so across the communication to the American people is that
this issue, really it was a matter of conscience. And I think people had a better
understanding of what was really involved. They hadn't really thought about it.
And even though as a result of that hearing, there wasn't a real break in the
national opposition to amnesty, there was a very important softening of the
opposition. And I felt myself during the course of those hearings that there was
really, the healing process was really beginning. It was just a feeling, but I
believe that it was there. And I think although we were unable to pass any
legislation, we never would have had the votes for it. And I think probably have
been beaten sufficiently badly that any president might have been extremely
reluctant to take any executive action. But there was no question there was a
deepening of understanding of the real principles involved. And I like to believe
with that understanding, we saw the partial amnesty of President Ford and then
the further actions of President Carter In 1977.
l'M WONDERING, GIVEN THAT OPPOSITION, THAT LETTERS WERE RUNNNG
20-TO-l YOU SAID AGAINST IT, WHY PRESIDENT CARTER DIDN'T DECIDE
TO GO WITH AMNESTY
Well, he certainly deserved credit. The atmosphere in '77 again was different
from where it was even in 1974. There was a real desire to try and bring some
healing to the society that had really been very much torn apart in the course of
the whole Vietnam war. The incremental step of '74 and then the intitial step in
'77, although I give credit to President Ford and to President Carter for taking
the actions that they did. They deserve credit.
DO YOU FEEL, OR I SHOULD SAY, WERE YOU SATISFIED THEN WITH THE
RESULTS OF YOUR HEARINGS IN '72 AND '74?
Well, I was. We're legislators and being members of the United States senate, we
oversee legislation that's passed in time. But we're, also part of our function is to
try and inform the American people, too, and the education process, both for
ourselves as well as the American public. And I think the American public had a
better understanding. I'd like to hope that we made some contribution in that
area. And I think although we didn't pass the legislation, that we were able to
encourage the process which really had to be with the executive, certainly at
that period of time
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE WAR RESISTERS IN GENERAL, OR THE
PEOPLE THAT WENT TO CANADA? DID YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR OPINION
OF THEIR MOTIVATIONS THEN AND HAS YOUR OPINION CHANGED?
No. l think that the, someone who was opposed to the war in 1967 and certainly
on, a number of these individuals went there prior to that period in time. I think
probably my view of them may have changed from the time that there was a
general kind of support for the war and when we saw how unjust the war was.
And then thought about the issue subsequently. I suppose my view of the, both
the issue and those individuals changed in 1967 when my own understanding and
awareness of the war had changed very very dramatically.
IF YOU HAD BEEN A YOUNG MAN.
Oh, l don1t know. It depends whether I suppose, whether it was prior to the time,
1967, or afterwards. It would have so happened that I probably would have been
not affected because I would have had the educational deferments and the other
deferments that were available. I think that that may very well have been the
circumstances.
SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THAT POSITION.
Most people that followed that particular track that I did in terms of college,
and law school, and then marriage didn't serve.
THERE WAS ONE THING THAT WAS ALWAYS SURPRISED ME WAS THAT THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT UNDER THE JOHNSON AND NIXON ADMINISTRATIONS,
DIDN'T SEEM TO PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE TO CLOSE THE DOOR.
The only other thing I might mention is that I was in the army prior to that in
any event.
I UNDERSTAND. HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
Yes.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD ANY THOUGHTS WHY THE·UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT IN THOSE DAYS DIDN'T PUT PRESSURE ON CANADA TO
CLOSE THE BORDER TO THESE PEOPLE.
Well, Canada of course has fought with the United States in its wars, close
valued ally with many shared values and principles and friendships, associations.
And I think there was probably a recognition that the Canadians would be making
their own independent judgment as I think clearly they would have. And they
have value In recognizing men and women of conscience in its own tradition. I
think the presidents were smart enough to understand that they would make their
own judgment and probably didn't want to face that independent decision perhaps..
I would think that's my conclusion.
OKAY. THERE WAS ONE QUESTION I DIDN'T ••• EARLIER THAT STRIKES ME,
AND THAT IS THAT PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY SAID ASK NOT WHAT
YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR
COUNTRY. THAT HAD A TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE ON THAT GENERATION
IN THE SIXTIES. AND THEN THESE PEOPLE WERE PLACED IN A POSITION
WHERE SO MANY, AS YOU'RE SAYING, FOR REASONS OF CONSCIENCE,
DECIDED EVEN TO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY. ISN'T THERE A
CONTRADICTION BETWEEN PEOPLE WANTING TO ASK NOT WHAT YOU
KNOW, THEIR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR THEM, BUT TO GIVE, SACRIFICE
FOR THEIR COUNTRY. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, END UP IN A POSITION
OF .CONSCIENCE TO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY. HOW DO THESE THINGS
RIG