Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" Speech - August 1963

          I agree with Irina that Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” was very powerful and with her assessment that his use of intelligent language was effective and inspirational.  A statue of the seated Abraham Lincoln provided the perfect backdrop for Dr. King’s seminal speech.  It was a hot August day in 1963 and almost a quarter of a million people, black and white, gathered peacefully to show their support for the black civil rights movement.  Dr. King’s choice of the Lincoln Memorial steps as the podium for his speech was brilliant as the carved face of the great emancipator enhanced and supported the call for full civil rights for black Americans.  His rhetoric, evocative use of language, the cadence and rich literary allusions, together with his fervent delivery make this one of the most powerful speeches of modern time. 

          When I listened to and then read this speech, I felt that there were two distinct parts.  The first part was elegantly written with great precision and use of literary and historical references woven in. Dr. King opened by invoking Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, “. . .Five score years ago a great American . . . signed the Emancipation Proclamation.”  And as Irina points out, Lincoln’s promise had not been fulfilled.  Here Dr. King used the simile of a check, a promissory note or a payment that is long overdue.  He echoes the argument between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois when he states that “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” has no further use when it comes to desegregation and opportunity for education and jobs.  “This sweltering summer of the Negroes’ legitimate discontent” is a play on the opening of Shakespeare’s Richard III [“Now is the winter of our discontent”].  The Old Testament is invoked in “every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight” [Isaiah 40:4].  His exhortation to “continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive” is a core Christian belief.   Dr. King’s use of repetition of the opening phrases “I have a dream” and “let freedom ring” are highly effective.

          The power of this speech, however, is more than a sum of its gracefully written parts.  Dr. King was a Baptist minister and the authority of his conviction and purity of his call for justice surpasses even his impressive rhetoric as he begins the “I have a dream” portion of his speech.  In a cadence that builds with every sentence, he paints a picture of freedom for all Americans, where cruelty and discrimination will be toppled. And when he closes with those beautiful words, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!", it feels like a mighty prayer of thanksgiving to which we all say “Amen.” 

Dwight D. Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex Speech

I agree with Danica that President Eisenhower’s speech was motivational by encouraging the next administration avoid bankrupting the nation through the excessive expansion of military buildup, although I do not believe it was his central argument.  The title itself, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” declares its focus.  Eisenhower was an interesting combination of characteristics that made him an effective president for the mainstream population, though his civil rights record was reactive rather than proactive.  A civilian might expect a former general and war hero to embrace policies that favor heavy military spending, but Eisenhower was a moderate who believed in “the most bang for the buck” [I see a pun in there].  He was deeply concerned with the escalating arms race and as Danica points out, he declared “we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren” [an argument that continues today in the debate about Social Security reform].  While he emphasizes the importance of America’s military establishment, Eisenhower makes a very telling point:  “until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.”  Consider what a shift in world view this represents.  From colonial times onward, America’s view of the world was “no foreign entanglements.”  That view may have made sense when the distance to Europe entailed travel of many weeks.  However, after World War II when Europe was as close as a several hour plane flight, the security America felt because its borders were the high seas, no longer applied.  The technology of transportation had reduced the size of the globe, so that the idea of “foreign” no longer applied to most the world.  With the advent of unmanned missiles that could carry payloads of nuclear weapons, the touch of a button could ignite a weapon of mass destruction that could destroy hundreds of thousands of lives. When the United States declared war on the Axis powers on December 8, 1941, America was militarily unprepared for global warfare. That lack of preparedness in the Cold War could have spelled annihilation for the United States.  Instead of gearing up for war, the United States was now in a constant state of readiness. 

During Eisenhower’s presidency, one out of every ten individuals working in the United States was employed in the defense industry. The growth in federal spending on defense materiel was partially responsible for the enormous population shift to the “Sunbelt” and west coast states.  President Eisenhower was very cognizant of the dangers inherent in an industry that was so closely interwoven with federal policies.  He warned the country against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex [“MIC”].  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplace power exists and will persist.”  This warning from a conservative Republican president (who as a five star general spent over forty years of service in the military) is quite astonishing and is, in my opinion, the heart of his speech.

Eisenhower’s argument in support of his position is logical and difficult to refute.  He points out how insidious the MIC’s influence was on intellectual property and independent research in universities.  His comments showed a great deal of insight and prescience.  Eisenhower’s fears were that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and that public policy could become “the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.”  Of all the statesmen that have called for disarmament, President Eisenhower stands out.  From 1915 to 1953 he served in the United States Army, Five Star General of the Army and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in World War II.  He experienced and influenced the transformation of the American armed forces through two devastating world wars and the threat of nuclear war and had a singular expertise and wealth of experience in all things military.  Because of this, I believe his comments are to be taken very seriously.  And finally, I have to say, after reading the speech and course materials, I have to join in with millions before me to say, “I like Ike.”

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address

           John F. Kennedy, with his first inaugural address, set a whole generation of young people on fire to end poverty, promote social justice and protect the weak from tyranny.  President Kennedy argued that in order to defend liberty, it was imperative for the United States to maintain its military strength so as not to “tempt [our enemies] with weakness,” and thus prevent an atomic holocaust; while simultaneously seeking to negotiate peace by focusing on common “enemies of all mankind.”  He announced to the world that even with the scepter of atomic war hanging over their heads, that “we shall pay any price . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”  Kennedy also invoked the Monroe doctrine by pledging to “our sister republics south of the border” to oppose military incursions in the Western Hemisphere.   President Kennedy reminded the nation that it was entering a new era of scientific knowledge and that with that knowledge, carried a grave responsibility. “For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of life.”  [emphasis added.] 

President Kennedy’s logic is clear.  He appealed to the Soviet Union, not by name, but by implication to:  “explore problems that unite us,” “formulate . . . precise proposals for inspection and control of arms”, “use science to solve the problems of mankind, not destroy it,” let “the oppressed go free,” and create a new world of law, “where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.”  Kennedy mapped out specific and realistic steps to accomplish his goals, and extended his hand to the Soviets, inviting and challenging them to accept his call for international cooperation.

The emotional appeal of Kennedy’s speech is undeniable.  He reminded listeners that they were the “heirs of that first revolution” and the new generation, “born in his century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.”  Everyone, he told Americans, holds the “final success or failure of our course” in their hands; they are soldiers in the war against “tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.”  Kennedy's speech empowered his listeners to take an active part in American goals, to feel loyal, brave and generous.

As America’s first Catholic president, Kennedy's character was perceived as idealistic, patriotic, hopeful, strong and spiritual.  He humbly asked for God’s blessing “and His help,” but reminded Americans that they were part of “God’s work” on earth.  Kennedy echoed the Declaration of Independence when he reminded Americans that human rights come not from the “generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”  In this era of the Cold War where the world feared nuclear warfare, President Kennedy courageously declared, “I do not shrink from this responsibility - - I welcome it.”  Kennedy was a decorated World War II veteran and proved his courage in the Pacific Theatre - his bravery was well known.  The patriotism and hope he demonstrated when he said “I do not believe that any of use would exchange places with any other people and any other generation,” inspired listeners with pride and confidence. 

This document is historically significant because John F. Kennedy inspired a whole generation of idealists.  These words have thrilled Americans since the first day they were uttered: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  His inaugural address set the tone for the rest of his presidency.  The Kennedy Era was a time of political romanticism.  Here was America’s very own “Camelot.”  Kennedy created the Peace Corps that enlisted thousands of idealistic young Americans willing to pick up the challenge to end poverty in our time.  He was dedicated to scientific advancement, made America’s space program a national priority, promoted a strong national defense and commitment to improve the world.  The promise of his inaugural address only accentuates the country's grievous loss when he was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

          Fifty years later, John F. Kennedy's words still have the ability to convince me that our country and its ideals are worth fighting for; not just in wars, but in our daily efforts to contribute to an end to injustice, poverty and tyranny, both on the home front and overseas.  He reminds us that it isn’t what we receive - it’s what we give that defines us as a nation and as human beings.  And that message is eternal.

How Did the GI Bill Transform Education?

1. How did the GI Bill transform higher education?

Although perhaps an unintended consequence, the GI Bill not only transformed higher education, but the entire nation.  When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, it made education and job training available to over 16 million veterans.  This type of benefit was unheard of.  A college education was thought to be a luxury that only those from wealthy families could enjoy.  Now colleges and universities had to open their doors to middle class students, many of whom had never considered college an option before.  University Trustees had to expand their campuses and programs.  The influx of students advanced the establishment of community colleges that could provide a college transfer program or job training program at the same campus.  It also spurred teachers colleges and gave rise to a growth of the number of college educators.  Once hesitant about admitting veterans, college administrators later commented that the GIs were the best and most dedicated students on campus.  They were older, more experienced and mature, and focused on preparing themselves for better financial opportunities in life.  The GIs were more interested in practical courses like engineering and business and this demand shaped the course of college curriculums in the decades to come.  The GI Bill also gave minorities educational opportunities not available to them in the past, resulting in a more diverse student population.

2. How was the government able to pay for the large amount of veterans attending college and university?

At the end of the war, the government had to revert to a peacetime economy and military expenditures plummeted.  After World War II, America enjoyed an economic boom as it made a successful transition from a war time to a peacetime economy.  The aid program to rebuild the European economy allowed those countries to purchase U.S. goods, further stimulating the economy.  The expense of sending the WW II veterans to college (along with the other benefit the GI bill had to offer) was far less than the cost of the war.  In addition, with a large number of GIs attending college at any one time kept unemployment numbers down.  After veterans graduated from college, because of their education, they were able to obtain higher paying jobs, had more spending money and paid higher taxes.  For every tax dollar the US government spent on veterans, it got back eight.  The upward mobility of GIs enriched the country financially as well as sociologically.

3. Why did the Southern States refuse to grant black veterans the same equal benefits of the GI Bill?

Since GI Bill benefits were administered on the state and local level, southern states with Jim Crow laws still on the books were able to discriminate against black veterans even though under the GI Bill they were entitled to equal benefits.  The separate but equal doctrine required blacks to attend all black colleges and universities.  Because of the large influx of students after WW II, black colleges in the south were quickly filled.  However, this answers how Southern States were able to refuse to grant black veterans the same equal benefits of the GI will.  Why?  The thought that hundreds of thousands of blacks would become educated and compete with whites for professional, middle class jobs most likely was the cause of this continuing discrimination.  It wasn’t until Brown v. the Board of Education broke the chain of “separate but equal.”  That ruling ensured that the federal government would enforce access educational opportunities for blacks heretofore available only to whites.

4. Why do you think this bill only applied to the veterans and not all the other unemployed citizens during the Great Depression?

The bill was enacted to benefit those who fought in WW II and defended the United States.  The Unites States government has always rewarded it veterans to the best of its ability.  After the revolutionary war, veterans received land grants.  After WW I, because of the Great Depression, veterans were not paid their Bonus, a problem that caused protests in Washington D.C.  During the Great Depression, FDR’s New Deal provided as many work projects and aid to the unemployed that the government could afford, but economy was such that it could not provide the level of assistance available after WW II.  By the end of WW II, the American economy was booming and there was no need to extend the GI benefits to the nation as a whole.  The purpose of the GI Bill after WW II was to assist veterans in making the transition from war to peace.  If they flooded the job market, the economy could have been thrown into a recession.  To give veterans job training opportunities ensured not only a more highly qualified employee, but raised professional standards across the country.  And finally, it was a way for America to honor its veterans.  The impact of the bill transformed a generation.