Are you at all aware of what happened on May 1st, 2nd and 3rd?
Here’s what happened May 1-4…
See anything that warrented the deaths of four people?
Nope, you’re right. Nothing out of the ordinary, can’t even imagine why the guard showed up at all. :rolleyes:
No, Reeder, I don’t see anything to justify the death penalty, do you see anything that might justify a panic from young guardsmen?
I can’t see anything that would justify four dead students, no. But that riot was no joke - it involved destruction of property, an attack on the police, arson, and interference with firefighters, for crying out loud.
It was a violent mess, and those responsible for that violence ensured some sort of response. And those who start riots cannot ever be sure they’ll end well.
Those who burned the ROTC building, or threw beer bottles at the cops, or trashed banks and loan companies in town - they have blood on their hands as well. They set the stage for a very violent outcome.
No, but that the event, like the Boston Massacre was the start of a shift which lead to a re-examination of how Americans think about government, and it was his hope, no doubt, that that shift would lead to a country which was more peaceful and respectful of human rights. (Obviously not what has occured, but you can’t blame the guy for trying.)
So it was really their fault, after all. :smack:
When a few people are rioting, its always procedure to shoot randomly into the crowd.
Yeah I am saying it wasn’t. It was certainly a time of cultural change. But a lot of that had started as far back as the 50s.
Most of the lasting changes that came out of the 60s and 70s had little to do with the Vietnam war. Changes in sexual morality, birth control, civil rights et cetera. Vietnam basically made decisionmakers of the future put a lot more thought into public opinion before going to war. But it’s not like leaders prior to Vietnam weren’t already giving public opinion a lot of weight.
I was a freshman in college (Boston) when that happened. A friend said he just heard it on the radio. I immediately thought student demonstrations were getting really violent. I said “you mean there’s been shooting on both sides?” He said “No - the Guard shot unarmed students”.
The Governor of Ohio at the time was James Rhodes, who passed away on March 7, 2001 at the age of 91. From what I have heard, he was always quick to “call out the Guard” so to speak. I remember at the time that the temperment of the Presidential administration (Tricky Dick Nixon et al), was very arrogant and spiteful. The Vice President was Spiro Agnew who was always ready with a snippy remark. He called college professors an “effete corps of impudent snobs”. (A line written for him by Pat Buchanan).
I’m probably letting my feelings get in the way of objectivity here but doesn’t it seem that in such a political climate, the Guard using deadly force against unarmed students just might not be met with the usual level of outrage? It was obvious that Nixon and Agnew didn’t give a rat’s ass about colleges, students demonstrators, etc. I think this sentiment probably trickled down to the governor and probably the Guard itself. Mr Moto perhaps that’s another reason why live ammo could have thought to have been justified? I am not blaming the soldiers in the Ohio National Guard for doing the shooting. After all, in the military, when you are given an order you’d damned well better carry it out.
Ironically, the 2 strict “law and order” types (Nixon and Agnew) had to resign from office. Agnew resigned in 1973 for taking kickbacks when he was Governor of Maryland. Nixon resigned in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal.
And Robert Fassnacht as well.
I still remember that August morning in 1970.
Nope, you have me wrong. I do not excuse the National Guard or Governor Rhodes. I think bad decisions were made by both.
I’m not sure whether live ammo at the time was justified given the level of training of Corps soldiers. Today it seems a given that live ammo would be issued and that the Guard would be able to handle it. The Guard is a very different institution now.
In any case, there was no clear reason to start shooting, and other soldiers only started doing so after they heard the shots. This was a travesty, a breakdown of discipline, a failure of crowd control. I excuse nobody involved.
However, it must be said that the Guard didn’t materialize out of thin air and start shooting. They were called out because the Kent State campus and the town of Kent had deteriorated into a general state of riot. And the tragic thing about riots is, no matter how they start, they can often end in horrific violence.
The folks that ramped up this ugly situation ensured a reaction by the police or the Guard, and they share in the blame when those students died. But for the riot, the shootings would not have happened.
Mr Moto
Maybe it is my “anti-Establishment” mentality but I know that the sentiment of the time was extremely anti-college, anti-student, etc.
As I said in my earlier post, the majority of American citizens outright hated students. I know this smacks of a “conspiracy theory” but I’ve always felt that it was a tacit agreement that if students were opposed with force (even deadly force), the ensuing outrage and investigation would be mitigated by those people who thought that the students deserved it. I remember hearing people say remarks such as “they should have mowed them all down”. (And I live in Boston - liberal capital of the USA).
Also, Nixon and Agnew were not teary-eyed on May 4, 1970.
If Boston were as liberal as you say, it wouldn’t have had those riots over busing just a few short years later.
I do not defend those anti-student attitudes, at least those that went as far as you report. I will note, however, that the behavior of many students at that time lent itself to criticism, to put it mildly.
I’m happy to hear your first hand accounts. I was born in 1970, myself, so this was dealt with directly by my parents as young people and my grandparents as a more established generation. I can only look back with a detachment caused by my relative youth and 35 years of history since.
Viewed as history, I have to say, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Merely painting the Guard and Governor Rhodes as villains doesn’t tell nearly the whole story.
It should also be pointed out that Gov. Rhodes was reelected to office several times after Kent State, becoming the longest serving governor in OH history, if not the country (he’s in the top 10 at least).
A cursory search shows that he holds the record, though he’s tied with George Wallace.
Mr Moto
You were born in 1970? Wow do I feel old. 
Tuckerfan
The fact that Governor Rhodes was elected several times after May 4, 1970 gives you an idea of how “outraged” the electorate was. :rolleyes:
Needless to say, at least college students felt very outraged. At one of the many demonstrations and rallies after May 4, 1970, I remember one student speaking over a bullhorn and presenting his “take” on the events. “Why does everybody hate us? Why are they shooting us? WE’RE THE NEW N*****RS - THAT’S WHY !!!”
Yep.
That means I just turned 35, and I have three kids. I’ve been working for the Tomahawk cruise missile program in one form or another for close to ten years.
I’m hardly a youngster, which must scare you to death. 
Hey, wolf-meister?
You weren’t one of those people saying “don’t trust anyone over thirty,” were you?
That’d leave both of us right out.
Hadn’t the unit just been pulled off a few days some sort of duty dealing with a trucker’s strike—or something—on top of it?
And now they’re running the country.
Alessan
There’s that old adage which states:
“What’s the best revenge against your enemies? Outlive them !!!”
BWA-HA-HA !!! 
Ranchoth
You mentioned the Ohio National Gurad had just been called off from a trucker’s strike? As I said (and I remember reading this in Governor Rhodes’ obituary) he was never reluctant to call up the National Guard.