American Journey - Chapter 16

16. Nixon, Ford, and Carter (1969-1980)

Beginning the Journey
The era of the 1970s is covered in a number of modules with the American Journey Online database. Users will find useful documents, images, and other materials in "The Vietnam Experience," "Women in America," "The Native American Experience," "The Cold War," and "The Constitution and Supreme Court."

Many of the sources in the database deal with foreign affairs during this period, which saw the rise and fall of détente with the Soviet Union and the ratcheting up of tensions in the Cold War. This is not to say that domestic affairs are slighted. It is only to say that the database and the activities that follow cover foreign affairs in detail.

The same search strategies that have been suggested before apply to this unit as well. Scanning the appropriate modules' "Key Topics" and "Years" will provide users with a good idea of what each contains in the way of topical coverage. The "Index" for each volume remains a useful tool for locating sources, as does a search of each module by "Regions." This latter search can be of special value for users looking for information on a specific foreign policy development. And in "The Vietnam Era" it is invaluable for tracing specifics/battles confrontations.

Activity 1
When Richard M. Nixon was elected president in 1968, he inherited the U.S. commitment to the war in Vietnam from Lyndon Johnson. Throughout the presidential campaign, Nixon had claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war. Historians now know that he had no such plan, just some vague ideas about the necessity of maintaining American credibility and achieving what he and his advisers came to call "peace with honor."

The president and his national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, hoped to effect a gradual American withdrawal from Vietnam and a concomitant transfer of responsibility for the war to the South Vietnamese. They called this policy "Vietnamization." In their minds, it would satisfy the growing domestic demands for U.S. withdrawal while not abandoning the goal of a non-Communist Vietnam.

Within "The Vietnam Experience," explore Nixon's overall Vietnam policy by going to "Speech on Vietnamization and Silent Majority, November 3, 1969" and "Speech on Cambodian Incursion, April 30, 1970." (These documents may be located by going to "Contents," then "Authors," then "N," then "Nixon, Richard N.," then select each title from the list.)

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

According to Nixon in the first document, what are the reasons for American involvement in Vietnam? Are these reasons credible? Do they justify the costs of the war, which he lists in his speech as including the loss by early 1979 of thirty-one thousand American lives? Explain.
What does Nixon identify as the risks of a precipitate American withdrawal from Vietnam? Why is he unwilling to take those risks, even though withdrawal would be popular with the American public?
How does Nixon in the first doctrine explain the Nixon Doctrine? How specifically did that doctrine apply to Vietnam? How was it designed to ease the U.S. commitment there? Utilize specifics from the document in answering these questions.
How does the second document announcing military operations in neutral Cambodia relate to the idea of Vietnamization explained in the first? Was the incursion into Cambodia an expansion of the war? Did it contradict the goals Nixon laid out in the first document? Explain.
Why would the second document have generated an intense negative reaction at home with the American people? What about it would have upset them most? Would they have viewed the operation in Cambodia as proof that the administration had lied to them about scaling back in Vietnam?

Activity 2
The early 1970s witnessed a flurry of activity on behalf of women's rights. Women built on the gains they had made during the 1960s, particularly as a result of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They launched lawsuits against numerous employers and secured some stunning victories.

One of the most heated debates affecting women during the 1970s concerned ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which was introduced in Congress in 1970 and sent to the states for ratification two years later. Many individual women spoke out in support of the ERA, as did the National Organization for Women. Although a number of states jumped on the ratification bandwagon early on, in the end the ERA failed to gain ratification by the requisite number of states by the 1982 deadline and went down to defeat.

To explore the debate over the ERA, within "Women in America" go to:

"Equal Rights Amendment"
"NOW Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment (1970)"
"Statement on Equal Rights Amendment by Rep. Shirley Chisholm"
"Gloria Steinem's Testimony on the Equal Rights Amendment."

All of these documents may be located by going to "Index," then "E," then "Equal Rights Amendment," then click on each title.

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

The language of the Equal Rights Amendment related in the first document is simple. Yet it generated a great deal of controversy. What does the amendment propose? Why would have been so controversial?
What evidence does Wilma Scott Heide marshal in support of the ERA in the second document? How effective is this evidence in making her case? Does her testimony seem credible? In general, how would you characterize Heide's arguments and testimony?
How does Shirley Chisholm's statement relate the struggle for women's rights with the crusade for civil rights for African Americans? How does Chisholm relate this struggle to her own life as a member of Congress? What are the most important arguments that Chisholm makes in support of the ERA?
To what problems does Gloria Steinem in the last document claim that American women have routinely been subjected? What myths does she detail and how does she try to debunk them?
Taken together, what do the three statements in support of the ERA suggest about the position of women in American society during the early 1970s? About their efforts to improve that position? About the reasons for the ERA's ultimate defeat?

Activity 3
In addition to fighting (ultimately unsuccessfully) for the Equal Rights Amendment, American women in the 1970s also became caught up in the debate over the legalization of abortion. Most states at the time prohibited abortion unless the life of the woman was in danger, although some states had more liberal laws. As a result, there was no national policy on abortion. Each state formulated its own rules.

In 1970, a Texas woman challenged a restrictive state law that was preventing her from having an abortion. The case finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1973 ruled in her favor. The court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision overturned the Texas law, and all others like it, in supporting a woman's right to an abortion. In doing so, it ignited a firestorm of opposition and ensured that the abortion question would remain an almost permanent feature of American political discourse.

To explore the landmark opinion, within "The Constitution and Supreme Court," go to "Roe v. Wade." (One way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Years," then "1973," then click on the title.)

Use the document to answer the following questions.

Why does Justice Harry Blakmun make reference to abortion and abortion law throughout history in his decision? To what audience were these references aimed?
How does Blackmun review the history of the criminalization of abortion? What does he have to say about previous arguments about why the state (or government) would have been interested in it?
Explain Blackmun's reference to the right of privacy in his decision. Why does he base his opinion on privacy? How might reference to the right of privacy affect the long-term legitimacy of the decision?
How does the debate in Roe v. Wade case amount to a conflict between state and federal power? Which level of authority ends up being supreme? Why?
Based on your reading of the Roe v. Wade decision, explain why you think the decision remains so controversial today. Do you think Blackmun expected that controversy would continue long after his decision? Why or why not?

Activity 4
In 1968, Native Americans dissatisfied with their treatment in American society formed the American Indian Movement (AIM). Its members sought to call attention to civil rights abuses against Native Americans through acts of defiance and mass action.

"The Native American Experience" contains a number of sources on AIM's activities. To explore some of them, go to:

"The Occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs"
"The Siege of Wounded Knee"
"Confrontation Heroes"
"Urban Radicals on Reservations."

The first source may be located by going to "Contents," then "Years," then "1972," then click on the title. The others may be located by following the same procedure except using the year "1973."

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

Why did the Trail of Broken Treaties that Vine Deloria, Jr., relates in the first document originate? On what was it patterned? What were its organizers protesting, and what did they hope to accomplish?
What impression of the occupation of Wounded Knee does the second document present? Why do the occupiers undertake their operation? Does the operation seem well thought out? Do the occupiers seem to have a clear objective and coherent plan? Are they prepared for the level of police opposition they encounter?
What long-term abuses and wrongs does Russell Means detail in the second document? How have they resulted in cumulative anger and frustration? Within this long-term context, is the occupation of Wounded Knee understandable? Can it be condoned? Why or why not?
How do the last two documents describe AIM and its leaders? Why is Gerald Vizenor critical of the movement? Do these criticisms seem justified?
How do these sources, and the events they depict, reveal continuing shortcomings in the way Native Americans were treated by mainstream society? How do they reveal complaints against fellow Native Americans? How do they reveal conflicts in Native American identities?

Activity 5
Richard M. Nixon is the only U.S. president to have resigned from office. He did so on 9 August 1974 as a result of the controversy called Watergate.

Originating as a botched burglary attempt, apparently at Nixon's behest, at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee during the summer of 1972 (in the middle of the presidential election campaign), Watergate became a full-blown constitutional crisis. As news leaked of Nixon's knowledge of the burglary and involvement in its subsequent cover up, he struggled with the Justice Department over the release of secretly recorded tapes of conversations in the White House that might incriminate him. He also faced a growing credibility gap with the American people over what he knew about the break in and the possibility of impeachment by the House of Representatives. With conviction by the Senate likely if impeachment went forward, Nixon decided to resign rather than run that risk.

Two documents within the module "The Constitution and Supreme Court" can help to familiarize users with the issues at stake in Watergate: "United States v. Nixon" and "Watergate and the Presidency." (One way to locate these documents is to go to "Contents," then "Regions," then "District of Columbia," then scroll down and select the titles.)

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

How does Chief Justice Warren Burger's decision in the first document lay out the issues in the government's case against Nixon? Why does it seem that Nixon refused to comply with the order to surrender his tapes? On what did he base his refusal?
What does Burger use as the basis of his decision? Why does he rule that Nixon must surrender the tapes? How does his decision relate to the debate over whose interpretation of the Constitution is supreme? In effect, does Burger rule that there is only one interpretation? And if so, who or what develops that interpretation?
How does Burger's decision limit the power of the president? To what law(s) does it subject the president? How does it amount to an assertion of the judiciary branch's power?
What abuses by Nixon and his associates does Senator Sam Ervin detail in the second document? What does he believe was at the heart of those abuses--that is, why did Nixon and his associates do what they did? Why is Ervin so distressed at what he sees as the reasons behind Watergate?
How does Ervin propose to avoid future Watergates? Why does doing so require more than legislation? Why does he believe it is essential to ensure that nothing like Watergate ever happens again?

Activity 6
As the Nixon administration dealt with the Watergate crisis, it was also working to extricate the United States from the war in Vietnam. Nixon's national security adviser Henry A. Kissinger worked for months to negotiate a deal with the North Vietnamese that would end U.S. involvement but guarantee the security of the South. The tortured course of the peace talks finally resulted in a treaty signed in Paris in January 1973. The United States subsequently withdrew, and South Vietnam collapsed to the North two years later.

Within "The Vietnam Experience" go to:

"Peace Is at Hand" (you may locate this document by going to "Contents," then "Authors," then "K," then "Kissinger, Henry A.," then click on the title)
"South Vietnamese Opposition to Kissinger-Tho Agreement" (one way to locate this document is to go to "Index," then "P," then "Paris, France," then click on the title)
"Letter to Nguyen Van Thieu, December 17, 1972" (this document may be selected from the list of related items that appears at the top of the immediately preceding one)
"The Paris Peace Accords, January 27, 1973" (you may locate this document by going to "Contents," then "Years," then "1973," then click on the title).

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

What are the primary provisions of the preliminary peace agreement that Henry Kissinger details in the first document? What aspects of the agreement do you believe might cause dispute with the South Vietnamese? Why might those particular points be contentious ones?
Why does South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu object to the agreement outlined by Kissinger in the first document? What specific problems does he note? Does he seem especially upset that the agreement was negotiated without consulting him? What does the fact that the Nixon administration went behind Thieu's back say about the U.S.-South Vietnamese relationship at the time?
How does the third document reveal Nixon's (and by extension the American public's) frustration at Thieu's foot dragging on a peace agreement? What veiled threat does Nixon's letter to Thieu contain? Was this threat likely to be followed through? Explain.
What does the last document, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, contain to benefit North Vietnam, the United States, and South Vietnam? Which side got the best end of the deal? Which side fared the worst?
Considering these sources together, evaluate whether the Nixon administration secured the "peace with honor" it had sought in Vietnam. Use specifics from the documents to bolster your answer. What would have compelled the administration to accept an agreement that seemed less than perfect? What would have compelled it to accept an agreement that seemed in the end to provide no guarantees for the U.S. goal of a non-Communist South Vietnam?

Activity 7
The controversy over the Vietnam War and the disillusionment that resulted from Watergate led to numerous congressional investigations into American policy. Not surprisingly, given the secrecy that often surrounded it, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was a favorite target.

The CIA was created under the National Security Act of 1947, which also created the National Security Council and consolidated the armed forces under the unified Department of Defense. It was authorized to gather foreign strategic intelligence and counterintelligence and to engage in covert political activity.

In 1976, a Senate investigation of the CIA revealed Agency operations on American soil, a clear violation of its charter. These revelations ignited a firestorm of criticism in Congress, which was still reeling from its confrontation with Nixon over Watergate and which had begun to take a greater interest in foreign policy matters as a result of the Vietnam War.

The investigating committee's report is excerpted in "The Cold War" module. Go to "Book II, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities." (One way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Authors," then "U," then "U.S. Senate," then click on the title.)

Use the document to answer the following questions.

How does the document frame its subject? With what problem specifically is it concerned? How serious, according to the document, is this problem? How wide ranging? What specific abuses does the document detail?
What reference does the document make to traditional American values and rights? How important is protecting these rights and traditions? Why is doing so important?
How does this document balance the protection of American rights and the maintenance of national security? What, in the eyes of the document's authors, is most important? Why?
Written in the mid-1970s, this report came out amid the revelations of the abuses of Watergate and was part of a greater willingness to scrutinize and criticize the U.S. government. Do you think the hearings this report drew on could have been conducted in the absence of the tumult of Watergate? Why or why not?
This document represents the sort of self-scrutiny that is the hallmark of democratic states. Yet many criticized its authors at the time. Why do you think that was the case? Is it dangerous to dredge up and publicize the U.S. government's shortcomings and errors? If it is dangerous, is ferreting out the truth more dangerous than covering it up? Explain.

Activity 8
During his one term as president, Jimmy Carter tried to leave his mark on U.S. foreign policy by waging a crusade in support of international human rights. Carter hoped to enlist other nations around the world in his crusade, especially the Soviet Union, long considered one of the worst violators of human rights principles.

Not surprisingly, Soviet officials did not take kindly to Carter's harping on human rights, and the détente that Richard Nixon had tried to effect between the United States and the Soviet Union was seriously imperiled during the Carter years.

To explore Soviet-American relations during the Carter period, within "The Cold War" go to: "The Path to Disagreement: U.S.-Soviet Communications Leading to Vance's March 1977 Trip to Moscow" and "To the Soviet Ambassador." (These documents may be located by going to "Contents," then "Regions," then "Soviet Union," then scroll to and click on each title.)

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

What does the first document enumerate as Jimmy Carter's goals with regard to Soviet-American relations? How realistic do these goals seem?
How does the document report the Soviet reaction to Carter's goals? How do they seem to judge him in general, at least in the period before he assumed office? Does the first document suggest a Soviet expectation of being able to work with Carter?
How does the second document relate the Soviet reaction to Carter's human rights campaign? What objections/criticisms does it raise? Why does the document assert that it is unwise--and even dangerous--for one nation to criticize domestic conditions in another?
What motives does the second document seem to ascribe to Carter's campaign for human rights? How are these supposed motives related to the Cold War? How does the human rights campaign seem to threaten the friendly spirit of détente?
Using these sources collectively, how do they illustrate an early deterioration in Soviet-American relations during the Carter administration? What caused this deterioration? What were some of its results?

Activity 9
The decline in Soviet-American relations that had begun as a result of Jimmy Carter's human rights agenda escalated dramatically after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Soviets intervened to consolidate their hold over the pro-Moscow Afghan government. Not surprisingly, Carter and his advisers saw the Soviet action as imperialistic and proof that the Soviets wanted to move through Afghanistan to the oilfields of the Middle East.

The Soviet incursion into Afghanistan signaled the death of détente. Carter responded angrily, withdrew a proposed arms control treaty from Senate consideration, and called for a boycott of the 1980 Olympic games to be held in Moscow.

Several documents within "The Cold War" trace the evolution of Soviet thinking on Afghanistan and provide insights into why the Soviets got involved there. Go to: "Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Central Committee, January 7, 1979" and "CPSU CC Politburo Decision and Instruction to Soviet Ambassador in Afghanistan, May 24, 1979." (One way to locate these documents is to go to "Contents," then "Years," then "1979," then select each title individually.)

Use these sources to answer the following questions.

What measures does the first document spell out to protect Soviet interests in Afghanistan? How do these measures fall short of war? Why do you think the Soviets place limits on what they're willing to do in Afghanistan?
In what terms does the first document place Soviet interests in Afghanistan? Does it describe Soviet actions as serving Afghan interests, or at least the interests of the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan?
How does the second document build on the first? What sorts of assistance does it commit to the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan? Why does it promise that aid?
What limits does the second document place on Soviet involvement in Afghanistan? Why do the Soviets refuse certain types of aid to the Afghan Communists? What are they worried such aid might result in?
How do these two documents illustrate the motives of Soviet officials as they worked out their Afghan policy? How do they illustrate their international mindset? Their concern about American reaction?

Activity 0
Foreign relations during the 1970s was a favorite subject for editorial cartoonists, who had a field day summing up the foreign policies of Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, and Jimmy Carter.

Many of these cartoons are contained in "The Cold War" module. Exploring them will provide users with an introduction to some of the important foreign policy developments of the 1970s (including some events not explored in the activities above). It will also demonstrate the power of images as opposed to words.

Within the above module, go to:

"Nixon's Muscle"
"Realpolitik and Support for Dictators"
"Kissinger's Balancing Act"
"Controversial Helsinki Accords"
"Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe"
"Souring of Détente"
"Lion Tamer Henry A. Kissinger"
"U.S. Support for Dictators"
"Nuclear Peril, Nuclear Winter"
"Nuclear Proliferation"
"Soviets Seen as Duping United States"
"Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan"
"Olympic Politics."

All of these images may be located by going to "Contents," then "Images," then the first letter of each title, then the individual titles.

Use the images to answer the following questions.

Collectively, what do the first three images reveal about the Nixon administration's foreign policy? What were the administration's priorities? How did it seek to accomplish its goals? How successful do the cartoons suggest that the administration was in the foreign policy realm?
What facets of the foreign policy of the brief administration of Gerald Ford are emphasized in the next four cartoons? Does that foreign policy seem very successful? What do the artists here see as the greatest failings of Ford diplomacy? What seems to trouble them the most about it?
How do the last six images depict Jimmy Carter's foreign policy? What successes and failures do the artists highlight? What issues seem most important?
Collectively, how do these images portray American foreign policy during the 1970s? What are its goals? Does it seem successful and effective? How do the artists collectively see foreign policy as affecting domestic affairs? What connections, in other words, do they note between foreign and domestic policy?
How can historians and other scholars use editorial cartoons like these in studying American foreign policy--or any sort of policy, for that matter? What power might these kinds of images have on the public? Do they help to make complex events easier to understand? Do they oversimplify? What dangers are there to using them as historical sources?