ustxtxb_obs_1965_07_23_50_00015-00000_000.pdf

would support the use of tactical at least nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. That is a dangerous escalation of this war, and just as bombing north has put Russia on guard against the United States and peaceful coexistence by forcing it to move into the emplacement of anti-aircraft missiles around Hanoi, the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, in North Viet Nam would be a fearful thing. The underlying suggestion of being willing to support any weapons that are used is that we must follow without criticism that which our leaders do or propose to do, and yet if there is any lesson to be learned from events since February 7th this year it is that free citizens speaking freely can have good effect on policy. Senator Church, Senator McGovern, others who have spoken freely in the Congress, in spite of the fact that they are often severely criticized for so doing, have had effect, and once again the value of free speech reminds us that the speaker speaking out on the dissenting side may be right and that if he fears to speak out on the dissenting side the right may not be heard. THINK that I should like to conclude that neither Mr. Bush nor I are privy to the councils of government. I know I intend to say everything I say on a subject as frightening and sober as the Viet Gibson: Ladies and gentlemenunfortunately our meeting started late. Therefore, in opening for questions in the interest of time I will of necessity limit the questions, and I also ask that they be questions. We have had our speeches, so if there are. any of you that have a question you would like to direct to either Mr. Bush or Mr. Dugger. . . . Would you please rise and identify yourself, then direct your question to the person you would like the response from. Yes sir. \(Question from audience cannot be heard. It seemed to be, “What do you mean when Bush: The question was what I meant by filthy demonstrations, and I would like to speak to you outside about that, sir, because the word that I am using to describe the filthy speech movement, I wouldn’t repeat in the presence of my wife, who happens to be here, or anybody else. I am talking about demonstrations that are offensive to the moral fiber and to the morality of this country, and I think when we abuse freedom of speech by carrying a sign with a filthy four letter word on it I described it as temperately as I could. At the risk of getting in the last word let me interrupt on that other question \(and I refer sir, to the question to the question, the question of this nuclear proliferating came up, you will recall, when I started talking about napalm and nauseous gases. And then I said I would support the Namese war to be tentative, hesitant, and thoughtful. I would immediately accept correction any time evidence brought forward indicated me wrong. But I should like to remind you all that we now live in a time prior to a war psychology. To. quote to you from Edmund Wilson in his book on the Civil War, Patriotic Core: “This is the time to think what we are doing because, as soon as the war gets started, few people do any more thinking about anything except demolishing the enemy. . . . We have seen, in our most recent wars, how a divided and arguing public opinion may be converted overnight into a national near-unanimity, an obedient flood of energy which will carry the young to destruction and overpower any effort to stem it.” I hope that we can support President Johnson in his expressed desire now to avoid the escalation of the war through a long and terrible summer in Viet Nam. I myself am as upset psychically by the turmoil of events in the world as I assume most of you are, but I do not know anything for it except to brace the spirit and try to think one’s way through to a better time. I should like to say what Learned Hand said: “We may not stop until we have done our part to fashion a world in which there shall be some share of fellowship; which shall be administration in whatever weapons they use, and I reiterate this. It is not altogether improbable in my mind that Red China, with its growing nuclear capacity, outside of the test ban treaty, I might add, might do something where the President in due deliberation would feel would cause him to use nuclear weapons. Maybe it would be retaliatory. I certainly have enough confidence in the Administration that I would back them up, and I think we can think of many situations where if the President was called upon to do this he would need the support of the country, and it was in this concept and certainly not one in advocating nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. You can go ahead because I didn’t want to. . . . Dugger: Well now, on that question. in other words, perhaps in response but not necessarily in response, Mr. Bush would favor under some circumstances the use of nuclear weapons, and I wish to take a position clearly contrary to that position. In my opinion in these times, when 400 bombs can kill 500 million people, when one bomb can wipe out New.York City, we must draw the line somewhere, and if we do not draw it at nuclear weapons of any kind, where Dugger: The question was, am I for peace or ‘for liberty. I am for both, and that is why I try to avoid, as I hope you will, the man who asked the question, slogans that seem to simplify situations indicating a simple solution is within our easy grasp. Peace at any price is not what I’ve had to say nor is it what President Johnson has stood for. It might be true that Mr. Goldwater has occasionally sounded like he means liberty at any price, but we are in a world where “any price” includes the end of the world. Man now has’ the ability to end the world. That creates a situation in which we must reject simplifications of that kind Gibson: I will have to limit it to one more question sir. Dugger: I did not refer to disobedience of a federal court order. But under some circumstances that might be a form such a protest might take. any person could or should disagree with any or should act in this manner in the matter of lawlessness or any person could maybe, I should say, if they disagree with the law whether it is a federal court order or whatnotof course the point that I am making is just where do you reach this silence between whether you do or whether you don’t, who can, who doesn’twhere .. . Dugger: I think that is a fair question. I would not advocate that anybody commit an act of civil disobedience. It seems to me to be a very personal matter as to whether your conscience is sufficiently offended by a situation that you wish to take the law and your liberty in your own hands by violating the law. I do refer you though to the tradition which I think can well be regarded as an American tradition, coming as it does from the early periods of our own history, that respects the right of the individual so to be offended by a situation that he is willing to risk the punishments of the law by violating it, provided he is realistically prepared to accept the penalties thereof. It is the premise of that position that this is a great country and we can tolerate free conscience. \(ApGibson: Mr. Bush and Mr. Dugger, on behalf of the officers and directors of the State Junior Bar, I want to thank you. There was some reluctance to characterize this as a debate, I think correctly so, because in a contest of that type there is a winner. This afternoon from this dialogue we have had I think we are all the winners. Again, We have received a number of letters on last issue’s editorial, “The Liberals of Texas,” but are deferring publishing them until next issue. Anti-Union Slogan on a Paycheck While in Brownsville on July 14, I picked up the attached check stub [EnclosedEd.] July 23, 1965 15 Closing Questions