The 1960's: Who Had National Control?
By: Janna • Research Paper • 1,773 Words • January 18, 2010 • 1,020 Views
Join now to read essay The 1960's: Who Had National Control?
The 1960's: Who had National Control?
The United States of America is a democracy; therefore it is governed, ruled, and controlled by the people. The everlasting question, however, tends to be which people? During the beginning years of this country, only white property owning men could vote. And generations later, the laws have changed and all citizens can vote. This democracy is a republican democracy, where the elected officials make the laws and enforce them, rather than the people. Most citizens are aware of who governs them and who controls the country. However, the sixties created real doubt as to whom or what was in control of the country. During one of the greatest social and political changes known to the U.S.A, there was an evident and overwhelming shift of power. What was really behind this shift? From the government and politicians to the assassins, the hippies and civil rights movement to the Vietnam War, the question of whom or what had national control in the sixties is continually debated.
The government and politicians would be the most sensible and obvious answer to the question. The lawmakers and those that carry out the laws are obviously responsible for a great deal of control over the country. As Democratic President John F. Kennedy began his journey as president, the country began its journey into the sixties and both looked promising. However this outlook was short lived. The Bay of Pigs has been described as a complete fiasco and has led many Cuban Americans to the Republican side of the spectrum. There was also the beginning of the Vietnam War, a war that was fought to keep away communism even though it was thousands of miles away.("Vietnam War"1) The government of the sixties was not all that bad though. The long awaited Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed for all people to have "equal access to restaurants, bars, theaters, hotels, gasoline stations, and similar establishments serving the general public"(Patterson 164).
The Supreme Court made several important rulings in the sixties, most of which protect the rights of citizens. Two of the most important cases were Gideon V. Wainwright and Miranda V. Arizona. In 1963 The Supreme Court decided in Gideon V. Wainwright that states are responsible for providing poor defendants, in all felony cases, lawyers to represent them.(Patterson 125). In the case of Miranda V. Arizona The Supreme Court stated that without a suspect having his rights told to him, it is illegal to use anything he says in court. This implemented the "Miranda Warning" still used today.
The government had many breakthroughs and set backs in the sixties. It was basically as though it had always been, with the exception of being more accepting of minorities. However, nothing in the governmental policies indicates a major shift of power. Therefore, the shift of power must have come from another possible source.
The word assassin always brings to mind an action movie, a bad guy that deserves to die and the hero that is going to kill him in some dramatic way that will make the producers truck-loads of money. The assassins of the 1960's do not bring the same picture. In the sixties, three politically power and important people were assassinated. President John F. Kennedy was the first, assassinated on November 22nd 1963, during a visit to Dallas, TX during his re-election campaign. In an odd sequence of events that seem far-fetched and illogical, Lee Harvey Oswald, was charged with the murder and killed two days later. Regardless of possible conspiracy, or cover-up, the end result remains, Kennedy was assassinated. The country mourned. Even people that completely disagreed with Kennedy's policies were horribly saddened by his death. In a likely re-election, Kennedy could have the country in a number of positive ways, at very least there had been hope. The assassin killed that hope and controlled the Presidency, at least in terms of who would not win.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a strong, intelligent, peaceful man whose work for civil rights has helped make the nation what it is today. James Earl Ray assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4th 1968 in Memphis. Martin Luther King taught against violence, yet it was violence that put an end to his teaching. Apparently the assassin did not understand Dr. King's ideals. Without Martin Luther King, the fight for civil rights did not end. But one can not help but imagine how far the country could be today if he were still alive. Unfortunately the nation will never know.
When Robert Kennedy was running for the Presidency in 1968, people loved him. Aside from being young and good-looking like his greatly missed brother, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy brought hope. With great ideals people saw him as the right choice. Even among the hippies and soldiers, college students and