A lot of you can't remember the war in Vietnam, but it was an extremely divisive time. The issue wasn't just about the war itself, for many of the activists it was about how corrupt, racist, imperialistic and generally unredeemable America was. As such, the battle was all the more bitter. People live during that time often felt traumatized for years after. An interesting book to read is E. J. Dionne's Why Americans Hate Politics. As Dionne describes the period, the liberals weren't fighting with the conservatives , but with the New Left. He remarks the the New Left demolished the Old, and the conservatives picked up the pieces.

In 1971, the question of amnesty for draft resistors thousands of whom had fled to other countries and deserters from the armed forces ("self-retired veterans") became a hot issue. Richard Nixon had taken office in January 1969, elected in part on the promise that he had a plan to end the war. Obviously, not a very quick plan, but people were thinking ahead to the aftermath. The organization Safe Return, formerly the Citizens Commission of Inquiry, found out that self-retired veteran John David Herndon, who had been living in France, had decided to return to the United States and surrender to the Army. They decided to make his a test case, hoping that either the Army would be forced to either try him, which they would try to turn into political theater, or would be forced to free him, setting a valuable precedent for others. In the end, the Army did neither, rather giving him a bad conduct charge and declining to prosecute, but Herndon still became voice against the war, appearing on radio talk shows, for example. Reston chronicled the issues, Herndon's life, and the outcome in this book.

The difference between how soldiers were sometimes viewed then and now is almost mind-boggling. Before accusations of cowardice or failure to do their duty can be launched, let me point out that both Reston and Herdon served in Vietnam; Herndon was wounded three times. He deserted after the Army planned to send him for a second tour, which I had understood was supposed to be voluntary, but I guess we have all heard about military volunteers.

I didn't like this book much when I read it more than forty years ago, perhaps I have mellowed. The thing which both infuriates and amuses me is the inability of people to grasp someone else's point of view. I have known people who cannot seem to grasp, even in the face of raging controversy, that other people, at least people without horns and a tail, have a different point of view. The main issue for Reston, et al., was that they wanted to obtain what they called a Universal Amnesty, which would mean that the fugitives could return without any penalties or requirements for alternate service. This was as opposed to a General Amnesty, which might require a case-by-case evaluation or service. Where I think Reston was a little delusional is his conviction that a Universal Amnesty also meant that the government admitted that it was wrong and the anti-war faction was right, and took responsibility for all the horrors of the war. (see page xv.) Actually, only the government, to the extent that something as changeable as an elected government can collectively decide something, determines what it admits or takes responsibility for. Certainly, amnesty does not imply an admission of guilt. From Black's Law Dictionary, amnesty is "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted."

Reston uses as an example the amnesties issued at the end of the Civil War: Lincoln's forgiving the common soldier, and Andrew Johnson's forgiving the the Southern leaders. Certainly they were not apologizing for defeating the Confederacy and keeping the Union together. And since Andrew Johnson was considered to have been a staunch opponent of rights for the freed slaves, he opposed the 14th amendment granting them citizenship, his amnesty was not universally admired.

In the end, Gerald Ford extended a Conditional, or in Reston's terms, General Amnesty required alternative service for most, and Jimmy Carter extended a Universal Amnesty for almost everyone. Neither one took responsibility on behalf of the country or government for being wrong, but at least there was an amnesty and some people came home, without too much animosity, as far as I can remember. ( )