Draft Resistance in the Vietnam Era Introduction In this paper I will look at the men who resisted the draft during the Vietnam war years, and compare various aspects of their collective experience with draft resistance during other U.S. wars of the 20th century. I will examine the number of men who resisted, the types of evasion, and the reasons they gave for resisting. From this research I will answer the question "Was the draft resistance of the Vietnam era different from the resistance of prior wars?" During the next three sections, I will examine how the quantity of protesters varied over the years, delineate what constitutes a "just" war, and discuss some of the ingenious ways desperate young men tried to avoid the draft. Number of Draft Resisters The Vietnam War era produced unprecedented numbers of war resisters. If we examine the ratio of objector exemptions to actual inductions (per 100 inductions), we see very low numbers: World War I was 0.14 and World War II was 0.15. However, in the Vietnam years, these numbers went up, reaching 25 in 1970, and over 130 in 1972. This means that toward the end of the Vietnam War, conscientious objector (CO) exemptions reached previously unthinkable proportions. In 1972, more young men were exempted from the draft than were inducted into the armed services. The following chart illustrates the growth of legal objections: Ratio of Objector Exemptions to Actual Inductions Year/War (per 100 Inductions) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ World War I 0.14 World War II 0.15 1966 6.10 1967 8.11 1968 8.50 1969 13.45 1970 25.55 1971 42.62 1972 130.72 1973 73.30 Another indication of the rapid increase of CO during the Vietnam war was the fact that, in 1966, whereas about 200 CO's were completing their two-year civilian service each month, twice that number were embarking on it. In addition to the many men who worked with the government to obtain the legal conscientious objector exemption, there were thousands of men who resisted the draft. Such refusal to cooperate with the Selective Service System was illegal, and it led to the indictment of over 20,000 men for draft law violations. The human tidal wave of all these resisters and objectors, each one protesting the Vietnam war, was much larger than any anti-war movement in the United States for the other wars of the 20th century. Having shown that there were many more resisters during Vietnam than in earlier wars, let us now turn our attention to the categories and classifications of the Selective Service System, and the ways men devised to beat the draft. Various Types of Draft Deferment, Evasion and Resistance During wars prior to Vietnam that the U.S. fought in the 20th century, there was not much talk of draft "evasion" or "resistance." If a young man did not want to fight, he would seek a deferment by getting a defense-related job. Just being a student was not enough to keep him from being called to fight during World War II, unless he was studying a "defense- related" field, such as Japanese or Nuclear Physics. During the induction process, a few young men would fail the physical exam, due to bad eyes or low height, and would "feel ashamed as `unfit' to fight." Also, WW II was considered a "just" war; the U.S. was justifiably responding to the aggression of Germany and Japan. We've seen how the World War II era men, for the most part, were proud to be able to go off and fight for their country, and that a young man who failed his army physical would often feel ashamed. Also, due to the "just" nature of the conflict, there was no protest to the actions of the United States military, who were seen as the defenders, not the aggressors. Now, we will examine the types of resistance used by men during the Vietnam era. To avoid being drafted to fight in Vietnam, young men in America could choose from four basic types of draft evasion: ethical deferment, un-ethical deferment, conscientious objection, or full resistance. Normal, healthy 18-year-olds were classified as I-A, which means they were available for military service. A young man was required by law to register for the draft within five days of his eighteenth birthday. After registering, the Selective Service System would assign him a classification, using the following codes: Classification of Inductees A. Class I 1. I-A: available for military service 2. I-A-O: CO available for noncombatant military service 3. I-C: already in the military 4. I-D: reserve or ROTC 5. I-O: CO available for civilian work 6. I-S: student 7. I-W: CO performing civilian work 8. I-Y: other (catch-all classification) B. Class II 1. II-A: Occupational deferment 2. II-C: Agricultural deferment 3. II-S: Student deferment C. Class III 1. III-A: Extreme hardship, i.e. has a child or children D. Class IV 1. IV-A: Prior active service or sole surviving son 2. IV-B: Official deferred by law 3. IV-C: Alien not currently liable for military service 4. IV-D: Minister of religion or divinity student 5. IV-F: Registrant not qualified for military service E. Class V 1. Registrant over the age of liability for military service The first method, ethical deferment, meant playing the "deferment game." Men could stay in college (II-S), become a minister (IV-D), or claim hardship (III-A) by having a child or being the sole support of your old, crippled mother. The second way of avoiding the draft was for men to play the game, but "cheat." There were a wide variety of ways to mislead the Selective Service System. There were legal loopholes in the draft law that allowed some men to avoid being drafted by simple failing to register. Since men were required by law to carry their draft card with them at all times (or risk being arrested on the spot), some men found ways to obtain fake draft cards or other forged documents. The induction physical also was full of ways to escape, if one was creative or persistent. It was possible, sometimes, to bribe a doctor into writing a letter to your draft board, excusing you from the war. If no willing doctor could be found, some men chose to fake an illness (mental or physical), or even to inflict harm to themselves (such as shoot themselves in the foot) in an attempt to fail the physical. Men went on very extreme diets and then came to the physical underweight and malnourished. Of course, drugs (legal and illegal) were often used to throw off the doctors' readings. On the mental side, some men would show up for induction with a very bad stutter, or even go so far as to dress in female underwear. Still other men found their escape by becoming a minister for a mail-order church, or by failing the literacy test. One sure way to get a IV-F classification (unfit for military service) was to commit a felony. There is an apocryphal tale of three students at the University of California at Berkeley, who spent their vacations hunting the American eagle in Colorado. It is a felony to kill the American eagle; felony conviction keeps you out of the military. All of the above methods were used by young men to try to convince their draft board that they were not classifiable as I-A. Sometimes the "cheat" worked, but sometimes it didn't. For example, there was one evader who soaked six cigarettes in black ink, dried them out, and smoked them all just before showing up for his induction physical. The chest X-ray taken during the exam showed several enormous spots on his lungs. The examiner gave him a IV-F right on the spot, and told him to report to his family doctor or a city health clinic before he died of TB. Another young man tried the same ruse, but was not as lucky. The examining doctor, suspecting something, ordered him held in an army hospital for three days; his "TB" miraculously disappeared, and he was inducted. The third way, conscientious objection, was the path of choice for those young men who objected to killing, but were willing to work within the government bureaucracy. To be a conscientious objector, a young man must: (1) be "religious," (2) object to all wars; and (3) be sincere in his or her application. Some men, such as Seventh Day Adventists, were willing to work for the military in noncombatant roles. They got classified as I-A-O. But most didn't want to be in the army at all, and so got classified as I-O, and went to work in hospitals and poverty programs or for the AFSC. It is no secret that draft boards, for the most part, asked a number of trick questions designed to show that the registrant has no objection to killing but is mainly concerned with avoiding military service. For example, the draft board examiner might ask "What would you do if you saw your mother threatened with a knife by an intruder?" The registrant could answer that he would defend her with any means he had, to any extent necessary, including killing the adversary. In requesting conscientious objector status, it was not required that a person be an absolute pacifist. Finally, the fourth way was to resist. "Hell no, we won't go!" they would yell as they burned their draft cards. Some would go to jail, some would disappear "underground" or some would flee to Canada. My family offered a room in our barn to one of these draft resisters. He was a Quaker, about 20 years old at the time. He had chosen a course of total non-cooperation. In due course, the police came and arrested him. I was in high school at the time, and it made a big impression on me to see the cops come and drag away this kind, gentle man, who had become my friend. He was sentenced to four years in jail. When we compare the deferments of the 1940's to the spectrum of ways that men sought to avoid being drafted in the 1960's, it becomes clear that almost everything about evading military conscription had changed. I've now shown evidence regarding numbers of resisters and types of resistance. In the following section I will explore some of the reasons that would cause a man to endure the hardships of draft dodging. Some Reasons for Resisting the Draft In the first half of the 20th century, anti-war activists were concerned primarily with the abolition of war. It was very hard to be a war resister in the early part of this century. Most of society mocked and ridiculed anyone who didn't want to go off and fight. The courts were very harsh on men convicted of draft evasion, and often sentenced them to very long (sometimes "life") prison sentences. While the reasons for being "anti-war" were mostly religious during the First and Second World Wars, in the 1960's, the reasons given by young men who were resisting the draft included not only religious beliefs but ethical considerations as well. Consider the example of two New York City men: Paul Carling, 20 years old, a practicing Roman Catholic; and Ben Koenig, 24 years old, a nonpracticing Jew. Both applied for CO, but were turned down, and then appealed. Paul's reason was: "I believe in a personal God and Father of man and His Son Jesus Christ who by becoming man made brothers of all men." Ben's reason was: "My belief is wholly my own," he informed his board. "It is my credo and my religion. I will not kill." In previous wars, most of the resistance was made up of men who were opposed to war for religious reasons. However, in the Vietnam war, the number of men who resisted on moral grounds exceeded the number of men with religious objections. Robert Smith, who (in 1994) works for the Brandwine Peace Community, was a draft resister in the late 60's. He turned 18 in 1968, and registered as required by law. When his draft card came a few weeks later, he returned it to the Selective Service. This illegal act might have caused him to be arrested, but before he could be indicted for non-cooperation, the lottery was instituted, and his number was high, so he was not called for service. According to Mr. Smith, for most resisters, the Vietnam war did seem different from past wars. "The U.S. was the aggressor." Mr. Smith also commented that the Vietnam war utterly failed the "Just War Theory" as set out by St. Augustine. There are ten points, all of which must be met if a war is to be considered "just." The conditions are variously stated, but could be summarized as: 1. Gross injustice by one party 2. Gross formal moral guilt on one side 3. Undoubted knowledge of this guilt 4. Don't declare war until all else has failed 5. A proportionality between punishment and guilt 6. Moral certainty that justice will win 7. Intention to further good and avoid evil 8. Means employed kept within limits of justice and love 9. Respect for rights of neutral parties 10. Legitimate authority declares war in the name of God So, for many young men, the war in Vietnam was morally bankrupt, and totally indefensible. To them, the U.S. was the "bully," and it became a moral or religious necessity that they confront the military war machine. Whereas in past US wars, the main reason for not joining the army was "to end war," the Vietnam era saw many diverse reasons for avoiding or even actively resisting the Selective Service. In the first section, we saw how the number of resisters to the Vietnam war was huge when compared with prior U.S. wars. Next, we took a look at the types of draft avoidance that were popular in the 60's. In this final section we examined some of the reasons for draft resistance. Each of the three sections began with a look back at the first half of the century to see how these issues played out during the First and Second World Wars. The sections each ended with a look how the Vietnam era compared to WW I and WW II. Conclusion My research has shown that in all three areas (number of men who resisted the draft, types of draft evasion used, and reasons for resisting the draft) the experience of the young men who resisted the draft in the 1960's was profoundly different from that of resisters in previous wars in the 20th century. The motivating forces for young men moved from the tenets of organized religion to the philosophies of personal morality and the methods of resistance expanded accordingly.