Waiting for the White Horse

By: Samantha Therrien

The riots at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 and the unconstitutional Chicago Seven Trial that followed are landmark events in the modern civil rights movement. The trial proved that change was impossible through the existing political and legislative systems and that freedom is easily dismissed in exchange for order. Current and future civil rights violations are merely outgrowths of this earlier, more conservative, pattern of exchange. Exploring this case not only illustrates Americas sense of justice, but poses the question: is our republic and constitution worth fighting for? The Chicago Seven Trial, which was held from September 24th, 1969 until February 18th, 1970 tried eight individuals for their thoughts. Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale were charged for believing that America had become a capitalist institution and a tyranny that needed reform. They wanted an immediate end to the Vietnam War as well as disarmament of the police. All eight were indicted for crossing state borders with the intent to riot, which violates the Anti-Riot Act, which was an addition to the Civil Rights Bill that was passed in 1968. The verdict stated that none of the seven were guilty of conspiracy, but five (everyone except Lee Weiner and John Froines) were guilty of violating the Anti-Riot Act, charged with contempt and were sentenced five years jail time and a five thousand dollar fine. Bobby Seale, chairmen of the Black Panthers, was not considered one of the seven in the trial as he was denied the right to defend himself and was ultimately severed from the case and tried separately to prevent race riots. The Chicago Seven were representatives and co-founders for the three major anti-war organizations: MOBE (The National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam), the SDS (The Students for a Democratic Society), and the Yippies (The Youth International Party). All of whom who were planning to meet in Lincoln Park, Chicago in 1968 during the same time as the Democratic National Convention to hold a Festival of Life - a cultural music festival with

underlying anti-war motives. As David Dellinger, co-creator of MOBE said, were trying to contribute to a set-up in which the energies of the anti-war movement can be unleashed or liberated. The Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley made a strong and violent presence at the protests of the Democratic National Convention in 1968, ordering an army of police which turned the protests into police riots. Daley denied the Chicago Seven any permits for protesters to camp out in Lincoln Park during The Festival of Life. In preparation for this festival, Delay put 11,000 police on 12-hour shifts, gathered 5,000 members of Illinois National Guard, 7,500 men from the 101st Airborne, as well as 1,000 FBI and CIA agents. The Illinois National Guard assembled twenty-five thousand men armed with tear gas and batons, armored tanks, helicopters with machine guns, and erected ten miles of barbed wire fences all in preparation for the Yippie, MOBE, and SDS event. The Yippies, MOBE, and SDS looked to Martin Luther Kings success through non-violence in their own anti-war protests. Although Jerry Rubin had predicted that Chicagos response to The Festival of Life would be far from non-violent, The beauty of it is the establishment is going to do it all themselves. We dont have to do a thing. They will smash the city themselves and provoke all of the violence. Although the intentions of all three groups were to remain non-violent, David Dellinger stated, We plan to make a militant but peaceful presence, a political confrontation but not a physical confrontation [at the Democratic Convention in 1968]. Dellinger hoped to be able to make a statement about the unjust system that is America by using non-violence as the tool to expose the establishments true colors. Although the police outnumbered the Yippies, MOBE and SDS by threeto-two, the collective energy stayed strong as the protesters were sure they had the power to take the country back by whatever means possible. Abbie Hoffman said, Many of us may fight and die here. We recognize this as the vision of the founding fathers of this nation. We recognize that we are free men. Political pigs your days are numbered. We are the second American Revolution, Yippie! Late on August 27th at the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the headquarters of the National

committee, the police battered, gassed and arrested men and women of all ages; this was the bloodiest night of the DNC riots. The protesters chanted, The World is Watching. Since the media covered the riots and the police brutality, the protesters expected the public to see the establishments corruption and sympathize with them as they were being unnecessarily beaten. As these overt violations of freedom continued the people did not sympathize with the protesters, they sided with the police. This illustrated how the people negotiated their civil rights and freedoms in exchange for law and order. In a time of crisis maintaining the peace and stability means rationing civil rights. Allowing such rights to be infringed upon creates the opportunity for further civil rights violations. As Defense Attorney William Kunstler said, free speech died here in the streets, under those clubs and the bodies of these demonstrators are the sacrifices to its death. In this way, the DNC riots forecast the downward spiral of civil rights and freedoms for the people. The violence did not stop in the streets. In the courtroom, Bobby Seale was bound and gagged by leather straps when he would not cooperate with the court. Seales lawyer was unable to represent him in the case and Seale was denied the constitutional right to defend himself. All that Seale would say during the case was, I want to speak on behalf of my constitutional rights. You cant deny me my constitutional rights. Judge Julius Hoffman ordered for Seale to be bound and gagged and then removed from the courtroom due to his behavior and constant rant about his constitutional rights. The trial was far from fair and became a mixture of mockery and endless provocations. The prosecution was harsh, held questionable statues and was a disgrace to American justice. Judge Hoffman interviewed and hand-picked the jury that would serve for this case, one that was clearly biased towards the defendants. He asked potential jury members questions like, Do you know who Jimi Hendrix is? and Would you let your daughter marry a Yippie? The heart of the case was based on Irwin Bocks, William Frappolly, and Robert Piersons accounts, as they had been undercover cops. Bocks was Rubins bodyguard, and Frappolly and Pierson were members of the SDS. The undercover witnesses described that the seven had

plotted hit and run guerrilla tactics such as: disrupting traffic, taking over hotels, and sabotaging restrooms. Judge Hoffman always ruled in favor of the prosecution and the undercover cops on evidentiary disputes. William Kunstler said, I am going to turn back on my seat with the realization that everything I have learned through my life has come to naught, that there is no meaning in this court, there is no law in this court. The trial represented an ideological division in the country, and illustrated the prejudices of the court system that had no sense of checks and balances. The winds of conspiracy were crushing democratic rights, not only those involved in the Chicago Seven Trial but in all groups of minorities across the country. As Bob Dylans anthem Blowing in the Wind says, You dont have to be a weatherman to see which ways the winds are blowing. Since the media was largely covering the riots, trial, and the Vietnam War there was a highly charged environment geared towards reform. This environment focused on taking the bitterness and cynicism towards the American institution and repression and motivating the people to start a non-violent revolution in the streets. The Chicago Seven created a feeling amongst young people that spurred the emergence of many grassroots organizations that are an extension of modern civil rights. This sense of empowerment radicalized womens rights, gay, environmental, ethnic, Latino, Chicanos, and Native American rights movements, as well as temporarily radicalized the African American civil rights movement. This call to action shows the passion of the American dream in motion. It shows the communal effort of the people to band together to fight for justice, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are the basis of the Constitution. Using their constitutional rights even when they were not granted them, as Rennie Davis said, we believe that the power of the people is a permit, and we hope the city will let us go [referring to the march to the amphitheater, the location of the DNC in 1968]. It is clear that those involved in the protests in 1968 understood that you couldnt just pass a law to change an attitude. They understood that the reconstruction necessary to fix the republic and save the Constitution would call for some major reform.

Besides inspiring and motivating the youth and largely radicalizing civil rights movements across the nation, the Chicago Seven Trial also played a part in the way the media would cover the news from this point further. The fallout of 1968, in combination with the coverage of the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and the Chicago Seven Trial, caused the media to stop asking tough question and in so doing created a media that stopped covering news. After the events of 1968 the news and media felt they had been used for political purposes. Feeling this way, the media started covering only parts of the news which, in turn, has increasing marginalized and corporatized democracy. This new sense of the media and news is dividing the nation instead of uniting it. It is now isolating movements and ceasing to cover events that may not please corporate sponsors. In so doing, the nation is not aware of issues of civil rights violations, as they had once been. Although the media had been covering the bloody riots at the DNC in 1968, the people had sided with the police and not the protesters. This gave rise to radicalized beliefs and anarchism within the protesters as they became frustrated with how easily rights became less important than order. The Yippies already saw themselves as self-styled anarchists, they believed in the action and responsibility of the individual and not the group. David Dellinger said, We don't just want to be part of the American way of life. We don't want to live in the suburbs. We don't want to have college degrees. We don't want to stand before the judge and say, Yes, we respect you judge, no matter what happens. We don't want that. We are moved by something else. We are moved by a firm belief in ourselves. When the American public did not sympathize with the anti-war organizations, the protestors became even more militant and individualistic. The Yippies questioned the functionality of authority versus anarchy in society. In theory anarchy would provide more freedoms than a corrupted government. This is what the Yippies tried to illustrate, that only in a police state would innocent men and women be beaten for exercising their constructional right to demonstrate and be tried unjust in court. While there are many negative

connotations with the word anarchy, on the simplest level it extends civil rights to each and every person, what the constitution struggles to do in a manipulative authority state. President Thomas Jefferson believed that each individual has, certain inalienable rights. These rights exist with or without government, Jefferson also said, rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add within the limits of law, because law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Jefferson spoke of an anarchist society where each person is granted his or her innate rights as human beings. Jefferson and the Yippies believed in the same principles and shared the view that the law is, often but the tyrants will. When the mayor called those involved with the protests of the DNC in 1968 terrorists, it was a powerful choice of words that did not weigh as heavily as it does today. Mayor Delay said, I will not allow this lawless violent group of terrorists to menace the lives of millions of people, destroy the purpose of this National Convention and take over the streets of Chicago. Abbie Hoffman said during sentencing, Mr. Foran says that we are unpatriotic? I don't know. That has kind of a jingoistic ring. I suppose I am not patriotic. But he says we are unAmerican. I don't feel un-American. I feel very American. I said it is not that the Yippies hate America. It is that they feel that the American Dream has been betrayed. That has been my attitude. The word terrorist has become a fear tactic, a way to shock and awe America and scare Americans into ceding their rights to the political elite in exchange for safety. In 2001 the Patriot Act, or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was passed. It clearly defines a terrorist as a person who is dangerous to human life, either through violent or nonviolent acts which include: intending to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This act expands power over basic civil rights, increasing the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and email communications, medical files, financial

information and other records without consent. By expanding the definition of terrorism, the government is allowed to limit the activities and demonstrations by the people. It gives the government the ability to strip Americans of citizenship to anyone who provides support for groups labeled by the federal government as terrorist organizations. This act also abolishes the right to habeas corpus, or fair hearings, for lawful permanent residents convicted of criminal offenses through an expedited removal procedure. The Patriot Act suggests that America would be safer without the basic checks and balances, which directs the focus to the institutions of our democracy instead of the terrorists that threaten it. If one takes the literal definition of a terrorist as stated by the Patriot Act and applies this to the government leaders and behavior abroad, America is itself a terrorist. So where is the line between being a terrorist or a patriot? It appears to be a grey area that the political elites who already control the language and the message get to define. But, when America preaches democracy to countries with radically different ideas of freedom and order, it is quite hypocritical to be violating those principals itself. Understanding the Patriot Act exemplifies the belief that since the civil rights infringements of the Chicago Seven, it has been a downward spiral where in one congressional act the government strips Americans of many basic freedoms. The court system uses its powers to define rioting, the same way the political elites define terrorism. Abbie Hoffman questions what it means to intend to riot during the trial, he says, If Abraham Lincoln had given that speech in Lincoln Park, he would be on trial right here in this courtroom, because that is an inciteful speech - that is a speech intended to create a riot. I don't even know what a riot is. I thought a riot was fun. Riot means you laugh, ha, ha. That is a riot. Ultimately all defendants are charged with crossing state borders with the intent to riot, as the court militantly followed the Anti-Riot Act and did not even consider the defendants testimonies or the police brutalities. When a revolution didnt happen at the end of 1968, regardless of all the political activism, the country began severely dividing itself. It became us

versus them in many instances: the terrorists versus the patriots, the Democrats versus the Republicans, the politically active versus those disenfranchised. With the media who no longer challenged the courts or the establishment, the country subdivided even further, thus power and knowledge also became divided. Almost as if in the divide of us versus them, it had been forgotten that they are us and that in unity there is strength. During the Democratic National Convention of 1968 there was a spirit and a unity among people who were fighting together. But, when this revolution wasnt achieved, it became clear that a revolution wasnt possible through the existing system. A new mindset was emerging, one where there werent any rules. The public believed if the government officials were serving their own interests, whether it be in the civil rights violations or prolonged stay in Vietnam, why cant I? In this context the definition of the constitution becomes blurred and questions whether it is even worth fighting for when the system has interpreted the constitution to serve those in power. President Thomas Jefferson, one of the writers of The Declaration of Independence, said, Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not a right. Jefferson believed nineteen was the age of maturity, when an individual was able to reason for himself. Therefore, Jefferson believed that the U.S. Constitution should be revised twice a generation to prevent civil injustice. The Yippies believed in the idea of using political street theater to make a statement and gain a media following. The Yippies nominated a pig named Pegasus for the presidential candidate. Once Pegasus was elected, they planned to eat him, flipping the process in which the pig is elected and proceeds to eat the people. After the nomination of the pig, it was rumored that the Yippies were going to contaminate the Chicago water supply with LSD, seduce the delegates wives and daughters and lead a protest of 10,000 floating bodies in Lake Michigan. All of these rumors were false, although Abbie Hoffman, a cocreator of the Yippies, had no limits. The Chicago Seven Trial became an entertaining theater. As Norman

Mailer pointed out the alleged conspirators understood that you didnt have to attack the fortress anymore. All you had to do was surround it, make funny faces at people inside and let them have nervous breakdowns and destroy themselves. The defendants had a sound belief that the system would do all the damage themselves, time and time again. They made it their job to broadcast these violent and unconstitutional tendencies and then the people would have to interpret the system as it is seen. One day Hoffman came to court dressed in a judges uniform, the next he brought a birthday cake, he blew kisses at the jury, and placed the flag of the National Liberation Front on the defense table. At sentencing Abbie Hoffman recommended the judge try LSD; offering to hook him up with a dealer he knew in Florida, as he knew the judge was going to Florida on vacation that summer. By the end of the trial, the Chicago Seven had 159 charges of contempt brought by Judge Hoffman. The defendants refused to rise for the judge and had multiple accounts of obnoxious laughter during the trail. Hoffman said, We cannot respect an authority that we regard illegitimate and we cant respect the law when its tyranny. How can I respect the highest court in the land or a federal government that puts people on trial for their dreams? I can show it no respect. Hoffman continues to question, Is the government going to present our defense as well as our prosecution? Although the court was completely biased, the Chicago Seven used it to further their agenda of exposing the system for what it is. During sentencing Jerry Ruben told Judge Hoffman, The demonstrations in Chicago in 1968 were the first steps in the revolution. What happened in the courtroom is the second step. Julius (Hoffman), you radicalized more young people than we ever could. Youre the countrys top Yippie. There was no end to the message the Yippies and the court was projecting. Abbie Hoffmans sixyear-old daughter sent a note saying, Perhaps the judge change his glasses, he doesnt have a pair that enables him to see what the defendants are all about. The country wants to believe in America, although sometimes it is hard due to the power of the authority and its corruption of power. President Barack Obama is reviving the yes we can, and the we want change mindset that is

needed to unite the people and create reform. This mindset is similar to the Chicago Sevens, believing that change was necessary and possible to save freedom from a troubled institution. As Obama said in his victory speech on November 4th, 2008, In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Lets resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Lets remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Obama is working on repairing the country by involving the masses and allowing them to believe a revolution is once again a possibility. Its about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes we can seize our future. Out of many, we are one. Because in the end, were not just against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, were also struggling with our own doubts, our own fears, our own cynicism. There are many parallels between the Chicago Seven Trial and Barack Obamas campaign. Obama has received the same media coverage as Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies, except this time the public is largely siding with him. Obama realizes that the public is looking for major reform sprouting from the feeling that change is not possible through the existing systems, as the Chicago Seven have taught us. Obama refutes these beliefs, This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cant happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. Obama has become the symbol for optimistic progress and reform in America, pushing the people to fight for the same justice and freedom that the Chicago Seven had fought for forty years earlier. We can learn from the Chicago Seven trial that our

10

spirits should not be radicalized by the lack of a revolution. Obama has said, There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government cant solve every problem. The Chicago Seven trial also teaches the power of theater to get the attention of the public as well as the power of the people in masses, both of which Obama has used in his campaign which ultimately got him elected president. There is no simple answer to determine whether or not the Chicago Seven intended to incite riots in 1968. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed all convictions for the eight defendants on November 21st, 1972. The appellate court based this decision on the hand-picked jury that did not provide a fair trial for the eight. Regardless of the outcomes of the court these accusations have become largely irrelevant in the larger scale of civil rights. This one case radicalized many grassroots organizations and forecasted future civil rights violations through Americas exchange of freedom for order. Ultimately pushing the people to look at how the Constitution was being applied and if it still holds meaning and relevance. A revolution is seemingly something that cannot be obtained as America is in a constant state of change. But, 1968 showed how from the few came many and how united the masses are when motivated in unity. Currently it appears as the American public is plagued by the idea of someone on a white horse coming to save the day and has settled in a state of either complacency or a feeling of defeat. While President Obama can deliver insightful and moving speeches what differs from 1968 is the immediate call to action to the streets from the people. While during his election countless supporters rallied for Obama, it seems as if they were rallying for him to bring the change they so excitedly anticipated and not for the belief in themselves to create this change. So it is a question of whether the public will answer the call to action or will they continue to let the political elite construct the change as best suites them. At the end of the day it is our actions that speak louder than words. In the past we

11

have shown that our republic and constitution are worth fighting for even in times of cruelty or injustice. Even now we have shown that we will stand in masses of thousands and chant We want change, and Yes, we can. But, will we be willing to pick up where the protesters of 1968 left off and be able to continue to fight for our freedom and not just the constructed version of the American dream that is being feed to us, even when we dont see an immediate revolution? As Obama said, The change we seek has always required great struggle and great sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and mind about what kind of country we want and how hard we are willing to work for it. While most have heard Obamas words it is clear that hearing and listening are not the same. It is also clear that thinking and acting are not either. The answer to the question of is our republic worth fighting for can be shown in a continually updated constitution, proving the relevance to the public without compromising our sense of freedom for order, like our founding fathers did two hundred and twenty two years ago.

12