|
ABSOLUTIST
CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR WRITINGS W. J. Sidis [Various mimeographed handouts, total 20p, presumedly unpublished, some archived in Eichel Papers, Swarthmore College Peace Collection, most found in Helena Sidis's files, 1977.] |
LEGAL PROVISIONS
From Selective Service Act of, 1940:
Sec. 5 (g) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the land or naval force of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. Any person claiming such exemption from combatant training and service because of such conscientious objection whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, if he is inducted into the land or naval forces under this Act, be assigned to noncombatant service as defined by the President, or shall, if he is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, in lieu of such induction, be assigned to work of national importance under civilian direction.
PRESENT POLICY
At present "absolutist" objectors (those who refuse all war work not merely bearing arms) are not assigned to actual "work of national importance," but are sent to forestry camps under control of certain religious sects, such as Quakers and Mennonites, who are mostly out of sympathy with "absolutists," though having some among their members. At these camps the objectors are required to do heavy physical labor at long hours. There is not merely no pay for the arduous labor; the objectors are required to pay $35 per month for being there, failing which, they are sent to a prison where the punishment is much milder.
OBJECTIONS TO THIS POLICY
Many absolutist objectors feel, and rightly, that it is better to go to prison than to what is becoming known as the "concentration camp," because (a) normal prison labor is easier; (b) they are not charged money to go to prison.
Some objectors feel that, if there is any "national importance" at all in their forestry work, it is something related to participation in "the war effort," such as, possibly, clearing army camp-sites.
Again, a large proportion of objectors cannot raise $35 a month to pay for the "privilege" of imprisonment at hard labor.
Others, again, are in no physical condition to stand the arduous work entailed at forestry camps. True, they have passed draft-board "screening," but everyone knows that nothing but the most obvious physical defects are shown up at "screening" tests, while the more through physical examinations given at induction centers are never given to objectors destined for the camps. To such a person, the $35 a month is to pay for being bodily torn apart.
Again, the "national importance" being obviously purely a matter of executive definition (unathorised by the Act), many of the absolutists feel that they are being assigned this work for its very uselessness, and to single them out for ridicule as doing work obviously of no importance to the nation as a whole.
The Selective Service Act calls for no such anomalies, and at least the spirit of the Act is being violated. The present policy is being carried out in a spirit of administering punishment for what is not actually in violation of the law―punishment so severe that some prefer prison sentences.
In England (where it will be agreed that the crisis is more serious), "work of national importance" is construed in many cases to justify assigning an objector back to his own job, if there is "national importance" to it.
It is also objected that
many objectors' talents are unused, and become rusty, in forestry camps.
The Selective Service Act has no requirements that a conscientious objector must pay for the privileges of being assigned work. This is purely a matter brought it by administrative regulations, and tends to make freedom of conscience a luxury for the rich, to be denied to poor who cannot find a rich backer.
Nor is there, as some think, any legal requirement of segregation. Conscientious objectors who object, as many do; to conscription in any form, seeing in it a form of slavery, are no more likely to submit to forestry conscription than to military conscription.
HISTORY OF THE QUESTION
We have had conscientious objectors with us from our earliest times. Pennsylvania was founded by pacifists of various sects―including the very ones now running the forestry rackets―who refused to participate in war in any form. In its first years, the at colony had no army, and, instead of being thereby subject to Indian attacks, they won respect of the tribes by their peaceful intentions where others attacked.
America started out with the volunteer tradition of building up its armed forces. This was adhered to in most parts during the Revolution; though some localities attempted conscription, and encountered difficulties. There was no attempt at national conscription till the Civil War, when there were many draft riots, especially in Boston, New York, and Detroit; at that time, the only provision for conscientious objectors was that those of recognized pacifist sects were allowed "non-combatant" army service. The absolutists, or the "individual" objectors (those who were not actually enrolled in established pacifist sects) went to prison, and at that time, were usually held for the duration of the war without trial.
In 1917, the draft was tried again, and the same difficulty occurred once more. Hundreds of absolutist and individual objectors were held in camp guardhouses and military prisons, such as Leavenworth, Forth Douglas, and Alcatraz, and treated with considerable brutality; numbers of them are still alive to tell the tale, and most of these still maintain their old anti-war attitude. Many were not released until 1923.
The individual objectors, as well as the absolutist, came in for more attention in the period since that time. At present all important churches in America―including the Catholic, the Jewish, and many of the important Protestant sects―have been maintaining a register of conscientious objectors, or have objector organizations within their ranks (such as the Catholic society entitled "Pax"). Other peace organizations have been maintaining registers of conscientious objectors who do not belong to recognized denominations, and who are frequently more sincere because it is their own thought-out personal opinion than many who are members of pacifist sects and who simply follow because it is the thing to do in their sect.
At present the test is not sect membership so much as individual conviction. However, there is no uniformity in practice of the various draft boards―some ignore all "conchie" claims; others maintain the rule (approved in Washington headquarters) that any sincere conviction is "religious belief" within the law; while still others are very technical about what is "religious" and what is not, as though there were any way to tell any real difference. Again, there is no absolute test of sincerity; and persons trying to dragoon everyone into the army are likely to misunderstand the whole issue and judge sincerity by the most fantastic ideas or what the objector is supposed to think if sincere. But it is now individual convictions, not mass beliefs of sects, that count.
Conscientious objectors vary in degree and kind. Their grounds for anti-war belief are widely different in origin; with some, the morality is carefully reasoned out; while others simply fall back on an unquestioned commandment in which they have implicit faith. Some will accept such "non-combatant" army service as medical corps duty or a position with the quartermaster; others, at the other extreme, would not accept a position with a firm that there is any suspicion might have a war contract. The absolutist is nearer the latter end of the scale, and there is no intention of attempting to satisfy his demands, though his beliefs are quite as sincere as anyone else's. Each objector has to decide for himself just where he will draw the line in a situation where very variety of work has some taint of war connection, and no two agree entirely on where that line is.
NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF A SOLUTION
It is obvious, if the nature, grounds, and extent of conscientious objection to war differ widely from one individual to another, that no fixed program of work can be uniformly imposed on them without encountering an unnecessary amount of resistance―like attempting to fit all persons with the same size of shoes. A large variety of projects is absolutely essential to a solution. While some objectors seem to go for the camp plan; many feel it is as extremely unjust, and many refuse. It is impossible to expect all objectors to fit in with one style of work―especially with tribute exacted for doing the work.
To satisfy the greatest number of conscientious objectors, a variety of projects, urban as well as rural, would be necessary. They should not be government-owned, as most objectors would be suspicious that such projects are really military in nature. And, preferably, they should be self-supporting, and incorporate the original intention of the Selective Service Act that objectors, who cannot be fitted into the military program be fitted usefully into the economic life of the country in some other way. (Very few "conchies" would object to that principle.) Work should be of importance either in relief service in war zones (a few objectors want that specifically), or, what is much better, useful in connection with building up the country for after-the-war contingencies―we will have that problem with us, win, lose, or draw. It should not be confined to physical labor, as tat present; this is unfair to those who are not physically robust.
As the forestry camps were built on the analogy of the old CCC, the urban projects could be best worked out by starting with the old UPA projects as a basis. Whatever variety of project is started with, it should have room to spread to other things. The best basis would be that conscientious objectors should be allowed to volunteer for the projects; if the forestry camps are reserved for those who do not volunteer, or cannot qualify, the objections to them will have much less force. And, as many objectors would be suspicious of work that is purely war-time, prevision should be made to carry on such work beyond the war into the peace that we all believe will follow.
The best for of management is a democratic form of government by those working for the projects; it will get the maximum of co-operation, where any direct government control or ownership would get resistance.
PROPOSED PLAN
The drawer-up of the following plan offers to volunteer organizing it if it is adopted along lines substantially as indicated. He is ready to consult on further details regarding the plan, anywhere within reasonable distance of Boston.
(1) Charter (or have the initiators of the scheme form) an organization under same title as General Projects, with powers including the organization and maintenance of projects in urban centers of work of national importance. It is to be a membership organization (whether incorporated or otherwise) and not for profit, with dividends forbidden; no members excepted those admitted to work in the projects, and no stock to be issued or dues charged. Names of incorporators will be supplied if there is any prospect of putting through this plan.
(2) For the duration of the present war, it will recruit membership from the ranks of conscientious objectors to war who refuse non-combatant army service. For this purpose, draft boards to allow objectors to volunteer before being assigned to forestry camps; while, in the case of those who have joined before being classified or assigned, they shall be considered as in the "work of national importance" already, not to be re-assigned as long as they are with the Projects. Similarly, arrangements could be made with various federal attorneys in regard to such cases as non-registrants or other objector cases that come before them, so that those cases could be dealt with by probation or parole instead of by prison sentence. Conscientious objectors above or below draft age, or those not yet classified, could be taken in; and, at such time as their case comes before the draft boards, the Projects might have the opportunity of reporting on the man's sincerity of convictions, the draft boards give consideration to such report when passing on the status of the man involved.
(3) The Projects would undertake, within a certain time limit, to adopt a constitution providing for a democratic and federal form of government within themselves; till then, to be governed by the original organizers or incorporators, or such of them as actually actively participants.
(4) The first projects to be the designing and printing of a series of guide-books dealing mainly with transportation systems of various large cities in the United States. For this purpose, the drawer-up of the plan offers to contribute a new guide-book system which gives much more transportation information useful to both residents and visitors than has ever been attempted before in any city guides. Several such volumes are ready, or nearly so, to go to print as soon as the Projects are underway, with more to follow; so that the projects can bewgin to pay for themselves at a very early stage. There is not much stretch of imagination in classifying this as "work of national importance."
(5) In line with (4), it is suggested that the plan be tried first for the Massachusetts area, then for a Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area, then for the New York City metropolitan area, before it is attempted to apply it to the rest of the country.
(6) Rules could be provided whereby, through the draftboards, conscientious objectors now at forestry camps might be given opportunity to transfer to the Projects when a vacancy occurs in the Projects.
(7) It might be best―at least first―if only those from urban areas are sent into the Projects. This is because urban residents would be most useful in the Projects, and are the least asset to a forestry camp.