This literature review synthesizes twelve scholarly sources on the Vietnam antiwar movement, spanning works published from the 1970s through 2014. The paper examines the movement's ideological breadth, covering Black student protests at historically Black universities, anarchist and queer perspectives, Catholic internal debate, anti-war sentiment in New Zealand, and the legacy of the movement in later political contexts such as the 2004 presidential campaign and the Iraq War. The review argues that the antiwar movement cannot be reduced to a single political ideology or demographic, and that its influence—while sometimes indirect—fundamentally reshaped American attitudes toward military conflict and public dissent.
The Vietnam War marked a number of "firsts" in American history. It is the first war the United States lost. It is one of the first major military actions undertaken without a formal declaration of war. It is also the first war brought to a halt largely by public uproar and political fallout. The American people were a major reason — if not the primary reason — that the war ended the way it did, and this movement took on many forms. Numerous scholarly and pundit-based treatises have been written and scrutinized since then that are worthy of review.
This report covers twelve sources relating to the Vietnam antiwar movement, ranging in time of authorship from during the conflict itself through the present day. While the war could conceivably have been won, or could have ended differently than it did, the results as they actually unfolded represent a marked shift in how wars are fought and the degree to which public support — before and during military actions — matters.
One major flashpoint of the Vietnam War was the involvement of Black soldiers during the conflict. While Black soldiers had played an integral part in World Wars I and II, Vietnam was different because Black Americans were still fighting for equal footing even as the era of Jim Crow was finally ending. Additionally, the Vietnam War was immensely unpopular, which gave rise to a widespread refrain: "keep our Black warriors out of the draft." The assertion was that Black people should not be subject to compulsory military service in the same way whites were at the time. Major proponents of this idea were students and faculty at traditionally Black universities. This position was advanced throughout the height of the Vietnam War, from 1968 to 1973.
One manifestation of this resistance was a direct linkage between the antiwar movement and the social and economic inequalities that existed in the United States at the time — inequalities that fell disproportionately on Black Americans. The Vietnam War and many of the more consequential Civil Rights Movement legislative victories occurred at roughly the same time. Protests at historically Black colleges stood in contrast to the similar but distinct clashes that occurred at institutions like Berkeley or the Ivy League. Furthermore, any violence that occurred at Black colleges tended to center on civil rights and issues specific to the Black community rather than on the war itself. Indeed, many Black activists conflated the two issues as part of the same overarching problem.
However, racial politics represented only one of many perspectives that existed within the antiwar movement. A different body of scholarship suggested that the uprising against the Vietnam War was related to a "confluence of scholastic meritocracy and cold war mobilization in the new student class" (Gandal, 2010). Even groups considered social outcasts — particularly at the time — such as homosexuals and anarchists found a voice within the Vietnam antiwar movement. An example of this can be found in the work of Robert Duncan, as summarized by Eric Keenaghan in 2008. Keenaghan notes that Duncan was on record stating that the Vietnam War had themes strongly related to anarchism and homoeroticism.
Duncan further argued that anarchism — which some people equate with lawlessness — simply holds that the power of individuals, rather than the state, should be the guiding force of a society. In other words, Duncan contended that anarchism is meant to oppose the state through "creative" rather than destructive means, and he viewed the Vietnam War through that lens. Duncan was deeply outraged when military actions began against North Vietnam and engaged in what Keenaghan describes as an "unrestrained and venomous condemnation of the Johnson Administration for taking military action."
Similar broad-based outrage was documented by Charles Chatfield in his 2004 treatise on perceptions of those who opposed the Vietnam War. The abstract for that work states that "popular myth today associates the anti-Vietnam War movement with radical New Left politics, counter-culture, and student protest, if not also with violence." Chatfield adds that "these stereotypes originated from media coverage at the time is widely assumed, no doubt, but our images of the antiwar movement are also constructed and were reinforced by the historical literature written during and in the decade or so after the war." Chatfield then asserts that the base of people who opposed the war was much wider, deeper, and more ideologically varied than such stereotypes suggest. Indeed, the "New Left" has since "disintegrated," yet antiwar ideology remains very much present.
"Catholic debate and New Zealand antiwar sentiment"
"Kerry, Muhammad Ali, Iraq War parallels, protest effects"
"Movement's complexity and post-9/11 legacy"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.