tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post242641458462103524..comments2023-05-07T02:34:30.801-07:00Comments on One Quaker Take: The Quaker DraftTmothy Travishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02788311873771605510noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-36192907583718189552010-06-07T19:41:24.964-07:002010-06-07T19:41:24.964-07:00Tim, and Marshall, The Civil War
should be so-call...Tim, and Marshall, The Civil War<br />should be so-called, because it was<br />a war between two federal regimes.<br />War between the States is a Southern euphemism.<br />Conscientious objectors were indeed treated terribly in the<br />South during that war. Some North<br />Carolina Quakers who didn't pay<br />their commutation fees were taken<br />into military service, and when<br />they refused to serve, were tortured and died. After this,<br />most who could not or would not<br />pay the fees either tried to escape<br />to the North, or "bushwhacked" in<br />their own areas. Also, many<br />were improperly denied recognition,<br />and Friends in Richmond had to try<br />get them out of the military (usually successfully). A member of the Church of the Brethren<br />was assassinated when returning<br />to his home after a lobbying trip.<br /><br />The situation in the North was very<br />different. Secy. of War Stanton<br />grew up in a Quaker home. President Lincoln had Quaker ances-<br />tors, and knew it. When either of<br />these men got word (from Friends)<br />that Quaker conscientious objectors were in military service, whether because they had refused to pay the fees or in error had not been recognized as<br />CO's, they ordered these men dis-<br />charged. There are no known ex-<br />ceptions to this.<br />Now the draft riots in New York<br />City are another matter entirely.<br />N.Y.C. had a "copperhead" (i.e.,<br />pro-Sourthern) mayor, and a large<br />Irish Catholic population, which<br />certainly did not wish to be drafted or to fight in a war. They<br />were so angry that they rioted;<br />they destroyed draft offices and<br />the Quaker-run Colored Orphan<br />Asylum. Many people died in these<br />riots. Several people--mostly also Irish, we read---took their lives in their hands to rescue the<br />orphans in the asylum. Eventually, if I remember right---I don't have my books now---federal troops were called out to quell the rioting, arson, and destruction. The Quaker<br />orphan asylum had to be rebuilt<br />far from the middle of the city.<br />All this had nothing to do with<br />conscientious objection, as it is<br />generally understood. JeremyJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-52010299202725219452010-06-04T12:54:16.362-07:002010-06-04T12:54:16.362-07:00Another comment from Jeremy Mott,
The truth is tha...Another comment from Jeremy Mott,<br />The truth is that far more sons of members of Congress are serving now, voluntarily, than were serving in the Vietnam war, when<br />the draft was in effect. This is mainly because the war on terror is popular now. It's also because those in the National Guard---like both Palin's and Biden's sons---are actually called up and sent overseas.<br />Perhaps the war on terror will become unpopular soon, as the Vietnam war did in summer 1965 (one<br />could almost feel the change). We<br />mustn't count on it, with or without a draft. And we mustn't<br />think we can easily end such a big<br />war, whether or not it's popular.<br />The fact os that a big war is a wickedly difficult thing to fight against. Especially if it's popular, probably one best first <br />convince people that it's wrong,<br />rather than seem to stand in the<br />way of the war, and help those<br />in the military in difficulty.<br />I hope that Friends will come up<br />with leaders who can help show<br />our nation the way.<br /> Peace, Jeremy MottJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-65146748059883975922010-06-04T12:32:18.395-07:002010-06-04T12:32:18.395-07:00Jeremy leaves another comment:
It's just not t...Jeremy leaves another comment:<br />It's just not true that the sons of Congressmen were threated or actually drafted or served during the Vietnam war. From one end of<br />that war to the other, 1965 to 1975, let's say, only a tiny handful<br />ever was in the milirary. I'm sure far more are serving now, without a draft. This is mainly because the war on terror is much more popular than the Vietnam war <br />was. It's also because the Natl.Guard is no longer a good way to avoid service overseas. Now<br />the Guard is called up and serves.<br />Maybe the war on terror will be<br />less popular soon; the Vietnam war<br />became unpopular in the summer of 1965; one could almost feel it.<br />Yet even an unpopular war is a <br />a wickedly difficult thing to fight. During the Vietnam war, the anti-war movement, mainly pacifists in this case, managed fairly easily to destroy the draft; but we never could end the war.<br />Do we really want to seem to stand in the way of a popular war? A war that most Americans seem to<br />think is justified? Or do we want to try to change people's minds<br />first, and meanwhile to help the<br />numerous people in the military<br />who are in great difficulty?<br />Remember that war is popular mainly<br />because it is part of the popular<br />religion of nationalism? That<br />is something that is almost beyond challenge. Peace, Jeremy MottJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-88988861105895933672010-05-30T20:05:44.353-07:002010-05-30T20:05:44.353-07:00Chuck and Tim Travis:
Let's try to think caref...Chuck and Tim Travis:<br />Let's try to think carefully, without holding on to the illusions that we may have held<br />during the Vietnam war.<br />First, practically any draft system has deferments and exemptions, whether for students, for certain occupations such as war industry, for divinity students and priests, and for fathers. During the Vietnam war,<br />as usual, many took advantage<br />of these things. The government often wanted this; Selective Service called it "channeling."<br />Second, plenty of men were dis-<br />qualified, as usual. Sometimes<br />more, sometimes less, as the military wished and men responded<br />with medical and "moral" evidence (i.e. criminal record), etc.<br />Third, when there still was surplus manpower, as was true by<br />Nixon's day in 1969, the government<br />institued a lottery system. Only<br />those with low lottery numbers were going to be called; the pressure was removed from most<br />other men. I can remember the<br />almost audible gigantic collective<br />sigh of relief that went up after<br />the first lottery (and later ones too). The lottery system was a<br />partial death for the draft; it was the beginning of the end; in <br />the draft counseling world we knew<br />this, partly because Selective Service told us so. Fourth, men<br />were allowed to enlist throughout<br />the war, and millions did this<br />for many reasons, including patriotism. The Navy and the Air<br />Force were entirely volunteers, and<br />the Marines almost entirely. Even<br />the Army was probably more enlistees than draftees; I don't know. By 1971 or 1972, we did<br />as much or more military<br />counseling as draft counseling;<br />we changed our name from MCDC to<br />Midwest Ctte. for Military Counseling. Sound familiar?<br /> The truth is that from 1971 on<br />the situation was almost the same<br />as now: almost no draft, and<br />no draft after mid-1972 except for<br />ending posponed inductions, and<br />no draft whatever after January<br />1973. Yet the terrible war ground<br />on and on relentessly, even after<br />the "peace" of early 1973.<br /> The anti-draft movement did<br />a good thing, I believe; for all<br />practical purposes, we ended the<br />draft. Yet for all our sound and<br />fury, for all our effort and heart-<br />ache, the anti-war movement had<br />almost no effcct on the war.<br /> Peace, Jeremy MottJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-29989833270808029852010-05-29T16:35:39.181-07:002010-05-29T16:35:39.181-07:00Jeremy makes still more remarks:
(1) Recognition o...Jeremy makes still more remarks:<br />(1) Recognition of conscientious objectors is as old as U.S. history. In every British colony in America, Quakers (and members of the other peace churches where there were any) were recognized.<br />Often Friends weren't satisfied; <br />often CO's had to pay a fee and<br />many refused. Only in World War<br />II were all religious objectors<br />recognized; but that was not always strictly interpreted. My<br />father, then non-religious, was<br />recognized as a CO during WW2.<br />In fact, pacifist conscientious objection is an unwritten part of the U.S,Constitution. Madison tried to put it in the Second Amendment; he might have succeeded<br />except that the states had their<br />own CO provisions.<br />(2) J.E.McNeil, a Quaker lawyer,<br />is execuive director of the Center on Conscience and War. See their<br />website. She argues passionately that we should work to get selective conscientious objecotors recognized. I agree with her. <br />From Constatine's day until now,<br />the great majority of Christians<br />have been selective conscienious<br />objectors (or at least claimed to<br />be), not pacifists.<br />(3) Travis,and Chuck, stop and <br />think. To the military, the draft<br />is simply a tool. They do not have<br />to use it. They use it only when<br />they think it will be advantageous to themselves. In 1971. use of the draft almost ceased in the United States; a handful were drafted until early 1972; then<br />inductions practically ceased until1973 when they did cease. It's true that the draft had aroused<br />great resistance. Yet it's also<br />true that the Army had an enormous<br />surplus supply of manpower by this time. The draft was not needed and probably wouldn't have been<br />used, no matter what.<br />(4) The Vietnamese Communists, North and South, never stopped fighting until they won the war.<br />And that's why they won, not any-<br />thing that the U.S. peace movement<br />did or didn't do. Sometimes we're<br />too big for our breeches.<br /> Peace, Jeremy MottJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-27542270529036081002010-05-29T16:03:23.211-07:002010-05-29T16:03:23.211-07:00Jeremy Mott remarks again:
Fourth, I think it'...Jeremy Mott remarks again:<br />Fourth, I think it's obvious that in AFSC there were many, mostly not Friends, who sided with the<br />Communists in Vietnam, even with<br />the Cambodian Communist in some<br />cases. Yet this wasn't true else-<br />where in the Quaker world, or even<br />throughout AFSC by any means. At<br />CCCO, where I worked, practically all were pacifists, objecting to<br />all war on principle. And I do<br />believe that AFSC, in the last 15<br />or 20 years, has become a truly<br />pacifist organization again. It<br />has regained its birthright.<br />Fifth, it's easy to be holier-than-thou about those who conscientiously oppose only some<br />wars, or no war that their government engages in. After all,<br />Friends were not pacifists, as a<br />group, until 1660, when we were<br />about 12 years old. (We supported the Commonwealth men, the revolutionaries, in England; and many Friends fought for them.)<br />The words of our Peace Testimony<br />are not quite true, to be blunt<br />about it. Almost all Friends, in<br />both North and South, supported the North in the Civil War; so it's easy to see why many younger Friends---maybe half---in the<br />North fought for the Union. In both World Wars, CO's were in the <br />minority---though a substantial<br />one---among American Friends; CO's were much more numerous among Con-servative and Gurneyite Friends than among Hicksites, by the way.<br />Right now, conscientious objection<br />flourishes among the evangelical<br />(and similarly-minded) Friends of<br />Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Congo, El<br />Salvador, and Guatemala. It's not hard to see why.<br /> This year is the 350th anniversary of the Quaker Peace<br />Testimony. On the 300th, in 1960,<br />I was one of about 2000 Friends,<br />from virtually every yearly meeting in North America, who surrounded the Pentagon in a silent vigil. I can only find<br />one Quaker group---North Carolina<br />(FUM)---on the web that is observing the 350th. Yet Friends<br />are doing more peacework and service work worldwide than ever. <br />Just take a look beyond the borders<br />of the United States.<br /> Peace, Jeremy MottJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-23793680804703324562010-05-29T14:38:00.638-07:002010-05-29T14:38:00.638-07:00Jeremy Mott remarks: During the
Vietnam war I did...Jeremy Mott remarks: During the<br />Vietnam war I did alternative service, then was imprisoned for<br />draft refusal, and finally spent<br />almost four years in draft counseling and publishing a newsletter for counselors. I will say several things:<br />First, the idea that the draft is a good way to spur opposition to war is a good example of doing evil so that good may come. It<br />doesn't work well at all.<br />Additional evil comes. Second,<br />the idea of a fair draft is a<br />chimera; it is impossible. Even<br />in World War II, any man who wished---at least any white man---<br />could get a job in a war industry and get an occupational deferment,<br />Fathers of 3 children were not<br />drafted until 1944; so several<br />million extra children were born<br />during the first part of the war.<br />And just as in Vietnam, one could<br />get a doctor's letter and game the <br />system. Third, it's meaningless<br />that there was no federal CO provision until late in the Civil<br />War---because there was never a federal draft before then. Until late in the Civil War, and in all earlier wars, there was a state-by-state militia draft. Every state which had a Quaker population had a CO provision, often enshrined in <br />the state constitution. You can read about this in any of Peter<br />Brock's classic histories of U.S.<br />pacifism. I'll have more later.<br /> Jeremy MottJeremy Mottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-41120706408463818252010-05-29T14:05:35.293-07:002010-05-29T14:05:35.293-07:00Jeremy Mott remarks:
In the Vietnam war I first di...Jeremy Mott remarks:<br />In the Vietnam war I first did alternative service, then was was<br />a draft resister in prison, then <br />spent almost four years in draft<br />counseling and publishing a draft counselor's newsletter. I'll say several things. First of all, one must not do evil so good may come of it. That is the basic "restore-the-draft" argument. It is false, as wars for a good cause repeatedly<br />show. Second, a fair draft is an utter chimera; it has never happened and will never happen.<br />Even in World War II, many men were able to get occupational deferments just by working in war<br />industries. Fathers of three or<br />more children were placed far down <br />in the order of call until 1944;<br />many many children were born so that their fathers would escape<br />being drafted. And just as in<br />Vietnam, those who wished to game the system could get a doctor's<br />letter. Third, it's true that<br />there was no federal CO status <br />until the Civil War, only because there was no federal draft. Until<br />late in that War and in all earlier wars, a state=by=state<br />militia system was used; and<br />every state with a Quaker population had s CO provision.<br />Read Peter Brock's classic books<br />on Quaker and Mennonite and Brethren pacifism. I'll continue.Jeremy Motthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14107954654832001813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-80673405079277595362010-05-27T18:52:26.264-07:002010-05-27T18:52:26.264-07:00Good points and true--all.
The "peace" ...Good points and true--all.<br /><br />The "peace" testimony (in regard to war) meant staying out of wars as testimony to the change brought about in Friends by the removal of the sinful state of mind ("lust") which is at the root of war. Actually, war--internationally and in hour homes--grows from several sinful states of mind--pride, anger and so on.<br /><br />The fact that there were a lot of Quakers who did not oppose the war in Vietnam (and that there have been a substantial number of Friends who have fought in every war since the movement began) does not diminish the reality of the testimony or the witness of those who are not swept up in the martial spirit/power--it only points to the fact that the transformation by Christ is not immediate or permanent. The sinful states of mind can still overcome the leadings of Christ in those not perfected/mature and can even, if they are not wary, cause those who are to regress.<br /><br />You are correct that the peace testimony does not relate simply to "war" and that it is not manifest in those who, for tactical reasons, do not fight or who support the weaker side.<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.Tmothy Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02788311873771605510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-1351678408466234282010-05-27T18:30:38.867-07:002010-05-27T18:30:38.867-07:00"Apparently Viet Nam galvanized our religious..."Apparently Viet Nam galvanized our religious Society to embrace the peace testimony as no generation had done in a very long time."-Marshall Massey<br /><br />I'm not sure about that. In the first place, being anti-war is not the same as embracing the peace testimony. I think many who came to Quakers were doing so because Quakers were anti-war but did not embrace the peace testimony.<br /><br />I think of a "nonviolent" action program run by AFSC. The staff running it did not embrace the peace testimony or nonviolence more than as a tactic for the moment. They were openly for military victory for the other side. They were not even anti-war; they were just on the other side of it.<br /><br />Secondly, in fact there were a lot of Quakers who did not oppose the Vietnam War.Bill Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752443575410023776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-13937324466307875722010-02-16T14:19:52.941-08:002010-02-16T14:19:52.941-08:00Thanks for the comment, Chuck, and I will look for...Thanks for the comment, Chuck, and I will look forward to looking at the newsletters to which you refer me. <br /><br />You are right that re-instating conscription (even if it were for more inclusive re gender and class than ever before) would not end war and would not put us a step closer to the Kingdom. <br /><br />I do think, though, that it would require almost everyone in the country to pay attention and be engaged when the war talk starts instead of just turning up the music and going on with the party.<br /><br />We are all enmeshed in these wars. It just doesn't seem that way because those who see themselves (mistakenly) as benefitting from these wars have arranged things so that almost all of us are insulated from the truth about what is going on and how our hands are in it clear up past the wrists.<br /><br />Thanks, again, Chuck, for both the comment and for your good work.Tmothy Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02788311873771605510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-66172240946965097412010-02-16T08:51:10.742-08:002010-02-16T08:51:10.742-08:00Hey, Tim, sorry to come to this so late.
I can re...Hey, Tim, sorry to come to this so late.<br /><br />I can relate to your concern. Awhile back I found in an archive file a brochure from an anti-draft lobby group from about 1970. It argued that ending conscription would make it harder to fight illegal imperial wars, a prediction that has been utterly refuted by the experience since.<br /><br />I'm still uneasy about a return to conscription, but it's an uneasiness about conscription as the proper remedy for a very serious civic disease the diagnosis of which we agree on.<br /><br />I've struggled with these issues twice in the Quaker House Newsletter; you can find the relevant pieces online at:<br /><br />http://quakerhouse.org/newsletter-list.htm<br /><br />click on the issues of Autumn 2006 & May 2007.<br /><br />And count me as caught right on the horns of this dilemma.Chuck Fagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049779603153152188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-20494063808458096392010-02-01T06:54:23.266-08:002010-02-01T06:54:23.266-08:00Hi, Timothy!
Yes, there was no legal recognition ...Hi, Timothy!<br /><br />Yes, there was no legal recognition of C.O.s in the draft law during the War Between the States. That did not begin until World War I.<br /><br />C.O.s in the War Between the States suffered terribly. And this may have been part of the reason for the New York draft riots of July 13-16, 1863, which were the largest civil insurrection in U.S. history. People are most likely to fight when they are cornered, and a law (like the draft law of that time) that leaves people with no choice except to fight, kill and die in a war they do not believe in, or be imprisoned, be starved and beaten, and very possibly die, for refusing to fight, is going to make them feel very cornered indeed. In the end, it took several regiments to subdue the city of New York.<br /><br />You ask about factors other than the draft that contributed to young people’s opposition to the Viet Nam war. Since you were there at the time, I am sure you can think of them yourself, as well as I, but I will list them for discussion all the same:<br /><br />1) The Viet Nam war was the product of a mythology, originally developed for the war against Hitler, that painted the opposition between the “Free World” and the “Communist Bloc” in terms that ought to have been reserved for fantasies like <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>. Most U.S. residents bought into this mythology, but kids being asked to fight and die had a natural motive to question it, and as it happened, there were a lot of facts emerging from Viet Nam that controverted it. The argument that the U.S. activity in Viet Nam was a “just war” became less and less convincing as time went on.<br /><br />2) Moreover, there was a vital counter-mythology in the U.S., inherited from the days when Communism and Socialism had been real popular movements in this country. The counter-mythology portrayed the U.S. ruling class as the real source of world oppression.<br /><br />3) Feeding into the counter-mythology was the U.S. civil rights movement, which passed its peak after 1965, but had already won the hearts of idealists young and old in the U.S. It was possible, indeed credible, to argue that the ruling class oppression of workers throughout the world, the white oppression of blacks in the U.S., and the U.S. effort to subdue Viet Nam, were three faces of the same evil.<br /><br />4) Would-be social reformers moved back-and-forth between civil rights and the anti-nuclear-weapons movement all through the 1950s and 1960s, and the anti-nuclear-weapons movement provided an additional ideology, based on fear of nuclear armageddon, to support the anti-Viet-Nam-war movement.<br /><br />So what happened to these four factors? One thing is that the anti-Viet-Nam-war movement’s underlying ideologies lost a lot of credibility through entanglement with gratuitous street violence, armed insurrections, drugs, free sex and marital infidelity, and general drop-out irresponsibility. The younger brothers and sisters of the Viet Nam protesters looked at that entanglement and said, uh-uh, not for me.<br /><br />Another thing was that the right wing of American culture used propaganda with increasing effectiveness to discredit the anti-Viet-Nam-war ideology. Socialism, it argued, was provably unworkable; communism was demonstrably tyrannical; protesters were observably not too bright, etc.<br /><br />Some illogical things fed in there too. Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme was more emotionally attractive to most people than left-wing alienation. A philosophy of succeeding in business held more popular appeal than defeatism.<br /><br />By the time George W rose to power, there was nothing like the surviving Socialism of the Fifties, and the civil rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties, to build on.Marshall Masseyhttp://journal.earthwitness.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-20522980426984992772010-01-29T10:36:13.801-08:002010-01-29T10:36:13.801-08:00Can't disagree with much you wrote, Marshall, ...Can't disagree with much you wrote, Marshall, and I appreciate your taking the time to comment. The "other" wars of America had their detractors but they were never as unpopular (and for so long) as the Vietnam War became and so, by my thinking, these wars passed the test I think that the draft imposed on them in a democracy.<br /><br />I wonder why the Vietnam war was so unpopular as to put so many people in the street--largely people who were subject to the draft. Of course, I was there, in the middle of some of the largest demonstrations and "actions" and I clearly remember the the anti-draft sentiment. I also counseled young men facing the draft and, in the absence of independent evidence that corroborates such and admission, I can say I helped one or two along that "underground railroad" to Canada.<br /><br />I'd like to follow up, though, on the one point, in your last paragraph, about the young people's opposition to the war in Vietnam being perhaps traceable to factors other than the draft.<br /><br />What do you think those factors were and where did those factors go such that, after all this time in Iraq, there is no popular movement against it?<br /><br />I do think that contrast between the popularity of the CO position during the Vietnam War and during the Civil War could be explained in that during the latter there was no official recognition of a CO and being one no bearing on whether one would be drafted or not (although I have also read that they could "buy their way out" by paying a "tax" to buy munitions and if they could not pay were not often accommodated). <br /><br />Do you know anything more about the CO option during the American Civil War?<br /><br />I have read accounts of Quakers being placed between Union and Confederate troops just prior to battles beginning (especially by Confederate troops), but I cannot verify that. I guess that was an alternative provided to CO's, if it actually happened.<br /><br />Thanks, again, for the comment.Tmothy Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02788311873771605510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-50277626032456895092010-01-29T07:39:20.207-08:002010-01-29T07:39:20.207-08:00I too appreciate the impassioned sincerity of this...I too appreciate the impassioned sincerity of this essay, Tim.<br /><br />I am not so sure as you, however, that the end of the draft, and the rise of the professional army, are the cause of a decline in young Friends’ interest in the peace testimony.<br /><br />I am mindful that even in the French and Indian War there was a strong minority of Friends in colonial Pennsylvania that supported the war and, in many cases, voluntarily took up arms. There was a fraction of Friends who split off from the main body because they supported the Revolutionary War. There was a fraction who left our Society because they supported the Northern war effort in the War Between the States.<br /><br />A study has shown that in World War I, two-thirds of eligible young Quaker males enlisted, or let themselves be drafted, into the armed forces. And my elderly Iowa Quaker friends tell me that in World War II, only a minority of their generation became COs.<br /><br />So the existence of a significant number of young Friends who are unconvinced of the peace testimony is not a new development; it is a return to the norm.<br /><br />Apparently Viet Nam galvanized our religious Society to embrace the peace testimony as no generation had done in a very long time. But that was not a phenomenon limited to our Society alone. I’ve read that at in the last years of the Viet Nam war, far more than half the young men registering for the draft were filing for CO status, an absolutely unprecedented fraction. I’ve also read that this was a major factor driving the Nixon administration to end U.S. involvement in that war.<br /><br />I would guess that the Viet Nam war was unprecedented in U.S. history in terms of popular opposition to the war, and especially in terms of young people’s opposition, for reasons other than it involved a draft and that kids under 21 could not vote. After all, in the War Between the States, World Wars I and II, and the Korean War, there was also a draft, and kids under 21 could not vote; and although there was strong popular opposition to the War Between the States, the CO position was never anywhere near so popular.Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C])http://journal.earthwitness.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24917443.post-68622834407912611632010-01-27T10:26:08.706-08:002010-01-27T10:26:08.706-08:00Tim, this is a very thoughtful post. I was an ant...Tim, this is a very thoughtful post. I was an anti-Viet Nam war activist; it informed the entirety of my young years from High School through College. I got married as a Freshman in College and I can attest that the draft was always on our minds and kept a fire under our commitments to oppose the war. I was an atheist during those years, so the option of Conscientious Objection was not available, making the commitment to oppose the war more sharp.<br /><br />I too have sensed a lack of commitment to the Peace Testimony among younger Friends; but also among Friends in general. There are exception; the New York Yearly Meeting released a testimony against the use of torture which is beautiful and stirring; you can find it on Youtube. <br /><br />Still, the enormity of what the U.S. has done in Iraq seems to elude many Friends. To deliberately lie an entire nation into war against a country that was no threat is a great crime. The U.S. attack on Iraq under Bush II is a great brutality and places the U.S. in the ranks of the barbarians.<br /><br />I would add to your general observations about the volunteer military the ongoing privatization of warfare; the most famous example of which is Blackwell. They are unaccountable for their behavior and their behavior is often highly questionable. They are unanswerable to the normal electoral process. And they are better paid than the regular military grunts. I think that this privatization is a logical extension of removing the military and the consequences of military action from the populace at large.<br /><br />Thanks again for your thoughtful words.<br /><br />In the light,<br /><br />Jim WilsonJim714https://www.blogger.com/profile/06135451195351824085noreply@blogger.com