WI : Woodstock was militarily evacuated by Governor Rockefeller?

1969’s Woodstock was declared a disaster area at the time by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Organizers failed to construct fencing and ticket booths in time, allowing the site to be overrun by 400,000 people when only half that many were expected.

The influx of attendees to the rural concert site in Bethel created a massive traffic jam. Fearing chaos as thousands began descending on the community, Bethel did not enforce its codes.

To add to the problems and difficulty in dealing with the large crowds, recent rains had caused muddy roads and fields. The facilities were not equipped to provide sanitation or first aid for the number of people attending; hundreds of thousands found themselves in a struggle against bad weather, food shortages, and poor sanitation

On the morning of Sunday, August 17, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller called festival organizer John Roberts and told him he was thinking of ordering 10,000 New York State National Guard troops to the festival. Roberts was unsuccessful in persuading Rockefeller not to do this. He was successful IOTL.

What if Sullivan County declared a state of emergency, as IOTL, but ITTL asked the Governor for help.

What does happen and what would be the political and cultural butterflies?
 
Last edited:
The Governor might order such and the State Guard may respond but as far as actually resulting in the gathering being ended? Dispersed? Not likely. The hippies would just stick a flower in the bore of each rifle and offer a good joint for each Guardsman. The New York State Guard would likely just join the festivities. My opinion only.
 
The Governor might order such and the State Guard may respond but as far as actually resulting in the gathering being ended? Dispersed? Not likely. The hippies would just stick a flower in the bore of each rifle and offer a good joint for each Guardsman. The New York State Guard would likely just join the festivities. My opinion only.

How many, if any, of those National Guards were people who would have otherwise been facing service in Vietnam? Because if they were, that would likely make them pretty keen on following whatever orders they were given.
 
People often forget this but the majority of those hippies were young middle class whites. Not working class or minority groups. That makes a big difference especially when it comes to how media depicts them and how people see them. Police and crowd/protest breakers were common in many areas of the US even in the 80s. Cops and national guard can be and have been rather aggressive with unions, protestors, or civil obedience of any type. Look at Appalachia and King’s work with unions in the south. Lower class people and minorities will often just get baton or dogs without question. Beating hell out of or even being aggressive with a bunch of college age kids some of which come from families with money can have a much worse public reaction. Anyone else notice how the civil rights people got the water hose and dogs while the hippies most of the time did not? I also think region plays into this. Something like Woodstock would never be legally allowed in most places in the south and if it was you could see the hippies get treatment that looks more like Kent State or civil rights protest. The police and politicians up north and out west will only use more aggressive means if it becomes more political or they get too much out of hand(riot behavior).
 
People often forget this but the majority of those hippies were young middle class whites. Not working class or minority groups. That makes a big difference especially when it comes to how media depicts them and how people see them. Police and crowd/protest breakers were common in many areas of the US even in the 80s. Cops and national guard can be and have been rather aggressive with unions, protestors, or civil obedience of any type. Look at Appalachia and King’s work with unions in the south. Lower class people and minorities will often just get baton or dogs without question. Beating hell out of or even being aggressive with a bunch of college age kids some of which come from families with money can have a much worse public reaction. Anyone else notice how the civil rights people got the water hose and dogs while the hippies most of the time did not? I also think region plays into this. Something like Woodstock would never be legally allowed in most places in the south and if it was you could see the hippies get treatment that looks more like Kent State or civil rights protest. The police and politicians up north and out west will only use more aggressive means if it becomes more political or they get too much out of hand(riot behavior).

The majority of Hippies, period, were upper-middle or upper class. The working class and Middle-class Whites had to work for a living. They didn't get a check from mommy or daddy to meet expenses or bail out of jail nor were they able to get them out a jam by talking to the right people.
 
The majority of Hippies, period, were upper-middle or upper class. The working class and Middle-class Whites had to work for a living. They didn't get a check from mommy or daddy to meet expenses or bail out of jail nor were they able to get them out a jam by talking to the right people.
And when the working class did take part in civil disobedience usually in the form of unions they often got beaten. The only reason they calm down on that is because the more we get into the modern day the more publicized it is and their more subtle means over using force like back in the day. They just go to other states or overseas when they want. People in Appalachia has civil issues during this time too and they got beaten or killed. They calmed down in the cities in the 60s and 70s because of cameras and media. The US authorities often act different depending on the group and context. They do take public reaction into account
 
Last edited:
Top