THE DRAFT IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND THE INDOCHINA WAR The draft in American history Karl Hess and Tom Reeves, in The End of the Draft, offer this definition of conscription: "Conscription is confiscation. It is the process wherein the established authority of a nation-state confiscates not the material property but the very lives of its citizens. Its purpose is to defend that established authority and the process it represents." Many of our ancestors came to America to escape European military conscription, unwilling to be pawns of the militarists. During most of our history, conscription was considered alien to American principles of fredom. George Washington proposed compulsory militia but was rejected by the emergency national leadership. During the War of 1812, Congress opposed drafting men from the militia into the regular army. Daniel Webster was the leading opponent, asking, "Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of a free government? No, Sir, indeed it is not .. During the Civil War, the first American draft law was adopted. Men were drafted from those communities which failed to produce a predetermined quota by voluntary means. Men could hire a substitute or pay the government $300 to prevent being drafted. Two percent of the army was made up of draftees. Draft riots occurred in New York, Boston, Rutland, Vermont, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Wooster, Ohio. The draft ended in 1864 and no further conscription law was adopted until World War I. In World War I conscription met extensive discussion and significant Congressional opposition. Congressman John Nicholls from North Carolina stated, "In my state they have a feeling that a conscript is a slave. And I want to ask you this question: Would this not be a great government to go to Germany and free slaves with an army of slaves?" The Selective Service Law was adopted on May 18, 1917. Conscientious objectors were exempted from combat only if they were members of a well-recognized sect whose principles forbade its members to engage in war. Of those called in the first draft, 50.62% put in claims for exemption. More than a quarter million or eight percent failed to appear at all and succeeded in escaping arrest. Thousands failed to appear to register and thousands more refused to appear when called. So many men left the country to escape the draft that an order was issued prohibiting this. So many had their teeth extracted in order to disqualify physically for the draft that the War Department issued a warning to dentists that they were liable to prosecution for aiding draft evasion. Conscription ended with the war. In 1940 the United States adopted a selective conscription law under which conscientious objectors were exempted and allowed to do civilian work of national importance, provided their objection was by virtue of religious training and belief. Opposition was very strong in the U.S. since conscription was seen by many as leading to America's entry into the war. The 1940 law was adopted for one year only. On August 18, 1941, the Selective Service Extension Act was adopted in the House by a one-vote margin 203–202. Fifteen thousand men went to jail during World War II for selective service violations. The law expired in March, 1947 but was reinstated in June, 1948. Attempts to terminate the law have failed. The law remains intact at present except for one section which expired last June, that which gives the President the authority to induct. Vietnam and the draft The peacetime draft allowed the war to be escalated without the consent of Congress. Unlimited supply of manpower meant more war power. During Vietnam draftees made up 11 percent of the Army; 25 percent of combat troops in Vietnam; and nearly half the combat deaths. The draft discriminated against the poor, minorities, and the uneducated. Only seven percent of those eligible were ever called to active duty. We were a nation of draft dodgers-legally deferred. Those with money and position could receive medical deferments from sympathetic doctors. "Legal" dodges were widespread and blatant. Joe Namath wes exempt because of a "trick knee" and actor George Hamilton was exempt because he was the "sole support of his mother." Millions of young men escaped through educational deferments not available to poorer youths. Conscientious objection was not an alternative for a great many registers. A CO must be opposed to all wars, not just the Indochina War. Up until 1970 one had to be part of an orthodox or traditional religion. The case of Welsh vs. U.S. determined this was not essential-too late for thousands of war resisters. Many would-be CO's were turned down by draft boards which identified patriotism with carrying a gun. One applicant was told by his draft board, "We've never granted a CO since we've been in operation and we're not going to start with you." Draft counselors report that such arbitrary and capricious judgments were in fact very common. Soon dissent against the Selective Service System moved to resistance. David Miller was the first person prosecuted for draft card burning. In 1965 Congress prosecuted at first but stopped when draft card burning became commonplace. More and more young men, when called up for induction, refused to take the symbolic step; in some localities only a fraction of those drafted reported for induction. The number of young men who upon becoming 18 deliberately failed to register for the draft is unknown and adds a large uncertainty to estimates of the number of people eligible for amnesty. No draft can be fair a fact admitted to by General Hershey when he was Selective Service Director. A discussion of amnesty for Selective Service violators cannot be fair without a thorough study of the Selective Service System and its inequities. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Our next witness is Mr. Polling on behalf of the Church of the Brethren. TESTIMONY OF JAMES N. POLING ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN GENERAL BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH E. SMETZER, CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN, AND WARREN HOOVER, CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN Mr. POLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am joined by two of my colleagues who are only here to help, if necessary, Mr. Ralph Smetzer, who works for the Church of the Brethren, and Mr. Warren Hoover, who is also a member of the Church of the Brethren. I hope that you have copies of my testimony and I would like to summarize the testimony and answer any questions, if you have any. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Your testimony is quite brief. If you care to give it in its entirety, it will be quite acceptable. Mr. POLING. Thank you, I will read certain paragraphs here, which I do think catch the meaning of the paper. My name is James Poling from Thomasville, Pa. I am the pastor of the West York Church of the Brethren, which is a small church with about 86 members. Today I have been invited by my denomination, the Church of the Brethren and its general board to represent the roughly 1,000 congregations that this board represents across the country. The Church of the Brethren in its 1973 annual conference last June voted support for a full and unconditional amnesty for all our citizens suffering alienation and disadvantage because of acts of conscience related to participation in the war. Our complete conference statement is attached and is a part of our testimony. I might add at this point also that the delegated body of our church is predominantly laymen and not clergy and that the vote was nearly 90 percent in favor of the statement that is presented to you today. The first section on amnesty for our members, we have had a number of members who have refused to cooperate with the Selective Service System and who have been convicted as felons. These and others who have said no to military service in other ways have had the strong and the official of our denomination and such position of our church does go back to our founding over 250 years ago. It is for these members particularly that we appeal to you for a total and unconditional amnesty. But our concern is not only or even especially for our own members. As we have struggled with the war in Southeast Asia, we have become aware of many others who have strong and sincere convictions about war although perhaps coming to their positions from quite different backgrounds than ours. We have learned to have a deep and abiding respect for their conscience and the belief. And we believe that our Nation is stronger for their contribution as citizens. And so for these persons especially we appeal to you for total and unconditional amnesty. As we understand amnesty-and I would say at this point I am not a lawyer or historian-as we understand amnesty, it is a legal provision for restoring the rights of a group of persons without necessarily resolving the issue which caused the alienation or without placing blame or declaring total innocence. It is a legal approach, which is appropriate when reconciliation of persons and groups is a preferable political and moral alternative to continued conflict and retribution. Therefore, in order that many persons might have their full opportunities as citizens restored and in order that our Nation might move toward unity and reconciliation in these troubled times, we urge you to authorize legislation that gives a full and unconditional amnesty to all who are alienated from our Nation because of war. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you for your statement. Mr. POLING. I would like to add just a few statements, if possible. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes, all right. Mr. POLING. I think I have already submitted for the record has been this book called Religious Statements on Amnesty which has been collected by the National Inter-Religious Service Board for conscientious objectors. [The document referred to follows:] INTRODUCTION The National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors is pleased to present this compilation of official religious statements on amnesty. To the best of our knowledge, all recent amnesty statements by national religious groups are included. Nearly all of these statements call for some form of unconditional amnesty. The reader will find expressions which vary in scope and intensity, such as: "calling for an act of reconciliation" or "supporting men of good conscience" or "calling both the President and the Congress to act" as well as some excellent suggestions for religious groups on "providing a supportive community for all persons". The spirit of reconciliation pervades these statements. They also reflect a growing uneasiness with some of our nation's emphases in the recent past and an indication that religious communities are intent on looking to the future and grappling with the present. Our hope, in providing this compilation, is that people everywhere might better understand the motivations of war objectors and resisters, the needs of stigmatized veterans and the significance of amnesty. This booklet is part of a larger collection of information provided by NISBCO's Amnesty Information Service and is included in the NISBCO Amnesty Education Packet. Prices for single copies of this booklet - $.35 (prepaid) and for the Packet $1 (prepaid). Contact NISBCO for special rates on bulk orders. (see back of booklet for address) Warren W. Hoover Executive Director James E. Tomlonson Editor January 1974 |