. . . Thanks again for your note and please write more often.
Yours very truly,
George Bush, M.C.
The most controversial vote of my four years in the House of Representatives was the Open Housing Bill of 1968, which was an extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Almost all of my constituents were opposed to it, as were most in the Texas congressional delegation. I still had some constitutional concerns about the bill, just as I did in 1964, but the problem of discrimination troubled me deeply. I became particularly passionate on the issue after my tour in Vietnam, where I saw young black soldiers fighting and dying for love of their country while affluent white kids ran away or got deferred, letting others go in their place. Were we supposed to tell these black soldiers when they came home that they couldn’t buy houses in our neighborhood? The day Martin Luther King died, I scribbled this note to Chase Untermeyer, who had urged me to vote for the bill.
April 4, 1968
Dear CGU,
I am most grateful for your “unsolicited views” on open housing.
. . . I’ll vote for the bill on final passage—Have misgivings—giant political misgivings—also constitutional—also I know it won’t solve much . . . but I’m for much of the bill and in my heart I know you’re right on the symbolism of open housing.
The mail is more on this than any subject since I’ve been in Congress—all against except 2 letters—500 to 2 I’d guess.
But this will be my character builder and friend antagonizer—and your letter helped me decide—
Thanks,
GB
April 11, 1968
Charlie-me-boy [Untermeyer]:
. . . Yesterday, I voted for the Civil Rights bill. Today, I am being fitted for my lead underwear. And Sunday, I go back to Houston.
Adios,
GB
I did go back to Houston to face my angry constituents. When I arrived at an open meeting, I was greeted with catcalls and boos, and at first they wouldn’t even let me speak. Eventually they calmed down enough so I could at least be heard. No one was more shocked than I when, at the end, they gave me a standing ovation. This is the speech I gave:
And now I’d like to frankly discuss my recent vote of the civil rights bill, a vote which has brought some approval and much concern. . . .
On this bill I received over 1100 letters—most of it against the bill, much of it centered on the discriminatory real estate agent provisions21 and much of it in response to advertisements both locally and across the state.
The real estate mail was good mail—it was forceful and factual and most of it stated the powerful case well.
Much of the other mail was persuasive and well done—some of it was filled with hatred.
Since the vote, there has been quite a lot of mail—Some of it is favorable—
A lot of it disagrees with my vote and tells me why in a forceful but extremely fair way.
But much of it was filled with venom and vitriol.
The unsigned letter.
The threat.
The “sell-out” approach
The phone call
The “nigger-lover”—this in 1968 with our country ripped apart at the seams.
The base and mean emotionalism that makes me bow my head in sadness.
There is an irony here—much of the mail comes from people who have written me in favor of the Dirksen amendment for prayer in schools—an amendment I have introduced in the House—and you should see what it says about Senator Dirksen, who supported this Bill in the Senate, and of course what it says about me.
Much of it says the Congress succumbed to pressure in the light of the riots, though the Bill passed the Senate almost 11/2 months ago by almost 4 to 1 with but 3 Republicans voting against it—and it was scheduled in the House for April 10th—3 weeks before the riots and the tragic assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Some thought the house should change its schedule because of the riots—and they have a point but, I don’t feel this great body should change its schedule under pressure of any kind.
It has been suggested that were it not for the riots, the Bill would have lost in the House—this is not true—look at the Senate majorities.
Here is my position—
I liked some of the provisions—I didn’t like others—
I liked the provisions making it a federal offense to interfere with a man exercising his Constitution given rights to peacefully petition and peacefully demonstrate.
I like the part making it unlawful to exclude people from schools because of race, color, creed or natural origin—or to keep people from voting—or attending school.
I liked the provisions to bring the full power of Federal law against those who teach others to make, or who ship firearms, or Molotov cocktails or similar devices “knowing they will be used in a civil disorder”—a riot if you will.
I like the part protecting firemen and policemen as they try to quell riots—
If ever we needed full protection in the Law for these men, it is now. I especially like the part making it a federal crime to cross state lines or to use interstate communications (TV, radio, telephone) to incite a riot, or organize a riot or to aid people in rioting. . . .
On open housing—I voted first to send the Bill to conference where it could be amended. (The only section I received mail on) So did the leadership.
Under the Bill the individual home owner is exempt—most of my mail does not reflect a knowledge of this important fact.
My view is that the Bill discriminates against the real estate people. After December 31, 1969, it prohibits individual owners, free to discriminate under the Bill, from using a real estate agent to sell as he wishes.
I opposed this and wanted to see the Bill amended.
When the vote to send the Bill to conference failed and the Bill passed, I promptly introduced legislation (HR 16626) to correct this major inequity—I hope this makes some headway . . .
Many fear that this new legislation will radically alter their living pattern in Houston. I understand this concern, but I urge you to look at the 20 plus states which have more sweeping legislation on the books than this Bill—New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, just to name three. There is no drastic change in their pattern of living.
What this Bill does do in this area is to remove an obstacle—what it does do is try to offer a promise or a hope—a realization of The American Dream.
In Vietnam I chatted with many Negro soldiers. They were fighting, and some were dying, for the ideals of this Country; some talked about coming back to get married and to start their lives over.
Somehow it seems fundamental that this guy should have a hope. A hope that if he saves some money, and if he wants to break out of a ghetto, and if he is a good character and if he meets every requirement of purchaser—the door will not be slammed solely because he is a Negro, or because he speaks with a Mexican accent.
In these troubled times, fair play is basic. The right to hope is basic. And so I suggest that there are things wrong with this Bill and there are things right with it.
I have been accused of killing the Republican Party. With one of the more conservative voting records in the House, I am now accused by some of killing the Republican party by this one vote.
But I don’t believe it. All Republican Senators voting except 3 voted for this Bill—
100 out of 184 Republicans in the House voted for it.
Richard Nixon and about every national Republican leader advocated its passage. . . .
I may not be right on this vote—only time will tell—
But I voted from conviction.
I see the shortcomings of the Law—but I also see its strengths.
I see its invasions of property, but I see its strong provisions against inciting civil disorders.
I see its discrimination against the real estate business but, I see its several riot control provisions—and I see a ray of hope—not a handout—not a gift�
�but a ray of hope for the Negroes locked in by habit and sometimes regrettably by prejudice alone.
And so I voted . . . not out of intimidation or fear, not stampeded by riots—but because of a feeling deep down in my heart that this was the right thing for me to do. That this was the right thing for America.
I know it was not a popular vote—the strong and fair protest in the mail tells me this.
But, as I read this hatred—as I hear a great leader of our party ridiculed for going to a man’s funeral22—as the venom surfaces and the veneer is torn away from some—showing a base and ugly prejudice, I feel a deep sadness in my heart.
I don’t ask agreement on this or any issue—I worried and struggled about this vote.
I knew it would be unpopular—I knew it would be emotional—but I did what I thought was right—what more can I tell you!
This letter I wrote to Jimmy Allison on the plane back to Washington showed just how violent some of the reaction was.
Dear Jimmy,
. . . I never dreamed the reaction would be so violent. Seething hatred—the epithets—the real chicken shit stuff in spades—to our [office] girls: “You must be a nigger or a Chinaman”—and on and on—and the county crowd disowning me and denouncing me and wondering if they could “still continue to support me”—and at the Gridiron Dinner the snubs by legislative candidates who were wanting my support and fawning all over me a couple of months ago . . .
Tonight I got on this plane and this older lady came up to me. She said, “I’m a conservative Democrat from the district, but I’m proud, and will always vote for you now” . . . and suddenly somehow I felt that maybe it would all be OK—and I started to cry—with the poor lady embarrassed to death—I couldn’t say a word to her . . .
[copy unsigned]
I wrote this letter to a friend, Richard Mack, who had written me a very antiwar letter.
Easter Sunday
Dear Dick,
I am writing this at home—self typed I’ll have you know—and at a great big loss because I regret to say I have lost your magnificent letter, and thus cannot give you the detailed reply that a concerned letter like that deserves. I put the letter in my brief case to answer on the plane, but it has been lost—probably amongst the literally hundreds of letters I have gotten on the Civil Rights Bill. I voted for the bill and the roof is falling in—boy does the hatred surface. I have had more mail on this subject than on Viet Nam and Taxes and sex all put together. Most of the mail has been highly critical of my vote—emotional and mean—but a little has been reassuring. Anyway, your letter on War and Peace is buried somewhere and this makes me sad for I wanted to send you a respectable reply.
Let me make a few points. I think you are wrong on the immorality aspect of it all. I just don’t buy that this is an immoral war on our part. If you want to argue that all war is immoral—fine; but this selectivity and this blind willingness to emphasize the weaknesses of the South Viet Nam government while totally overlooking the terror of the VC and the past slaughters by Ho23 and the boys I can’t buy.
. . . If I felt we were seeking permanent ground in this country I might buy the immorality theory—but I don’t feel that. From a military standpoint I think we are fighting the wrong war. I think in retrospect that we should have learned from the history books; but this is not a comment on the war’s morality or lack thereof.
I think the peace talks might well lead to peace—these efforts are deep and there is private evidence that Ho wants to stop the level of fighting—so let us hope the problem is further on its way to solution than when your letter was written. I am convinced that the military pressure has compelled Ho to take a look at least at peace talks—it wasn’t the fact that the country is divided. It wasn’t the fact that there were voices here for unilaterally turning this country over to the North Vietnamese—rather it was the cruel and hard fact that Ho was getting hurt.
. . . I am hopeful that the Geneva Accords can provide a basis for understanding which will move the talks along faster than they moved in Korea. The situation is so taut though that the whole talk thing could blow sky high—I of course hope it doesn’t.
. . . In summary all I ask is an objective look. I can recognize the lack of viability of the government in the south but I recognize its improvement. Bobby Kennedy, knowing damn well they start drafting 18 year olds in May—talks about their failure to draft 18 year olds. He doesn’t mention the percentage of their youth in the military, he doesn’t talk about the vast improvement24 . . . He as much says they are lousy fighters and cowards and yet everyone I talked to over there—not the big brass—but the little American sergeant who is risking getting his ass shot off side by side with these troops, say they are good fighters—who have improved considerably and who will continue to improve.
I think the biased reporting on this stinks . . . In this regard all I call for is balance—fairness—but no, the emphases is on our round that falls short—or the brutality of the South Vietnamese—or the civilians killed by our napalm. When I went to V.Nam I thought every hamlet had been devastated by our napalm—how grossly unfair this turned out to be. . . .
And so when we want the war over, we can want it over for different reasons. We can want it over because we don’t want to fight ourselves—or because we think it is immoral . . . or because we think it is diverting funds from other purposes, or because this country shouldn’t involve ourselves in this type of massive effort in a country not suited to resisting guerrilla and terror tactics. The thing that amazes me often is the arrogance and total lack of compassion on the part of some doves who suggest that those who don’t want to turn tail and quit really don’t want the war to end—Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today25—how brutal can a critic be . . . I detest this suggestion that the President really doesn’t care about human lives. Look, I don’t go [for] LBJ, I vote against him all the time, but I’m not going to take that mean step which strips the man of any feeling and assigns to him unthinkable motives—and all the time these smart critics are immune to the repeated abuses, the sheer terror and torture of the VC. Good god Dick there must be some fair play somewhere in all this.
Lastly you get all over the Congress—all I can tell you, and you can believe it or not, is that there is deep concern. Not many congressmen want to haul ass—to quit—some few did but very few, but I don’t know any who want to see these peace talks fail and I know a hell of a lot who feel that only by keeping the pressure up as long as we have could we get any kind of reasonable chance for talks—most felt and I think rightly so, that to pull back or retreat would only further strengthen the resolve of Hanoi. The protests at home (and I’m not saying here they shouldn’t be) have definitely strengthened Hanoi’s will, but the pressure remained on and it hurt and now maybe they will try for a peace—not that they’ll go away for they may try to gain at the table which they couldn’t gain in the field, but at least we can stop the slaughter and the spending and hopefully we’ll learn from the past.
I have concluded there is no easy answer. And that is where we differ—you think there is. I am not a “Communism is monolithic”26 man; but nor am I one who feels the Communists have renounced their clearly stated goals for world revolution or world takeover. I am hopeful over the split between Russia and China and I’d like to see it widen; but I am not about to believe that either suddenly thinks we’re OK and that they will support this. The next struggle will be in the Middle East. Let us then hear from those on the campuses who say war is immoral or perhaps their selectivity will apply—time will tell.
I’ve gone on too long . . . As I close I know I am leaving unanswered many of the excellent points you raised in your letter, and this depresses me.
Let me give you a word of unsolicited advice—if you think the Congress is so screwed up—why don’t you get in there and do something about it—run I mean—I’ll send the first campaign contribution and I’ll come out to your district and wage an aggressive campaign against you, whi
ch should guarantee your election. I am serious, though—get involved. The water’s great . . .
My concluding statement—in spite of the riots and the dissent and the fiscal problems and the worries—POGO27 put it very well when he said “We are faced by insurmountable opportunity”—The opportunity is here that is for sure.
Best Ever
Poppy
Now I solicit your views on the riots. If you were Pres. What would you do. Please sit down and write. GB
In the midst of all the turmoil, I tried not to forget to make time for what truly counts in life, including staying in touch with old friends. I sent this telegram to my Yale baseball coach, Ethan Allen, the day he announced his retirement:
May 15, 1968
All of us .300 hitters read today’s Times with mixed emotions. Regret Yale will be losing a great coach but happiness is knowing that you will continue to make a significant contribution to American sports in whatever you decide to do. Regret that “time marches on” but great happiness in the many wonderful memories we will always have of baseball at Yale under your coaching. One of the great experiences of my own was playing at Yale during your first three years. I will never forget the spirit we had, the pure enjoyment of it all, and the great benefits I felt that I got as a person in playing for a wonderful coach, a real gentleman, and most important a warm and close friend. Bar joins me in sending our love to Doris. On this significant occasion my thanks to you for everything you did for me and for Yale baseball.
Congratulations and warmest regards.
George Bush Member of Congress.
In May I went to visit Resurrection City, the encampment on the Mall in Washington of tens of thousands of people who were in town as part of the Poor People’s March. After my visit, I wrote this letter to one of the leaders, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy.
May 28, 1968
Dear Reverend Abernathy:
All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings Page 12
