Will We Allow Slavery in the Form of a Draft?
Last year Rep. Charles Rangel sponsored legislation to reinstate the draft. Edwards endorsed the idea of conscription for both military and non-military purposes during a speech back in May. Now George Bush is considering the Draft to maintain troop levels in Iraq.
“One of the things we ought to be thinking about” Edwards said, “is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America — not just the poor kids who get sent to war — are serving this country.”
“Mandatory service” is called slavery. No ifs ands or buts about it.
This is one of the worst attacks on our civil rights that I can imagine. I’m appalled by the lack of dissent to these ideas. Are parents just going to sit back and let their children be abducted by the government? If you are not able to sustain troop levels required to fight your war, then you may want to reconsider the validity of it. And if you are concerned about the socio-economic status of the majority of military recruits; making everyone a slave is going to create greater ethical problems than it claims to repair.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
The draft is far from being slavery. Its a shame that Charlie Rangel used the term to push an agenda or to make a point that perhaps those who serve in congress would be less willing to support a war if their children were in the military. Edwards is Edwards, will the idea of a draft be his newest bumper sticker slogan?
A draft can become neccessary, and for those who served during previous periods where it was in place, often refer to it as a fond memory where they learned to be men and traveled to some pretty interesting places. If you want to consider this, where would the country be now if there had not been a draft during the Second World War? More than likely, the West Coast would have a Rising Sun flag flying over its lands, while a Nazi flag would be flying over the Midwest and Eastern Shores. So much time has passed since that conflict, some fail to realize what dire straits the world was in back in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
If the military had not been at full strength during the 1950’s through the 1960’s, what actions would the Soviet Union had taken, with the percieved notion that our forces where week at the pinnacle of east/west friction? Would they have really backed down during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Or was it the presence of a strong military, not only in NATO countries, but in the air, on and below the seas? We had large forces then, because of the draft.
Before the original bombing that took place at the World Trade Center, the last attack on American soil took place on two islands that were part of the territory of Alaska, not even a state yet. This country is in a war, recognize it, or follow the appeasement plans that are out there, but realize we have been attacked on continental soil for the first time since the War of 1812. We do need stronger border patrols, fenses and enforcement of laws already on the books, instead of turning a blind eye to the problem.
When you call the draft a form of slavery, you belittle the men and women who not only served during these trying times in our country’s history, and you lessen the value of the sacrafice when they paid the ultimate price to preserve the freedoms you enjoy today.
Mason
June 25th, 2007 at 10:03 am
As Laurence Vance put it:
“What else are you going to call the draft if it is not slavery or involuntary servitude? A young person is told that he must join the military. He is then told when to go to bed and when to get up. He is told when to eat and when to sleep. He is told to move here or move there. He is told what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. And worst of all, he is told that a certain group of people is the “enemy” and therefore must be bombed into submission or killed.”
The thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution reads:
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
the draft is involuntary servitude: service that is NOT voluntary. it’s abundantly clear that conscription is unconstitutional. And this argument is secondary to that of individual liberty: The fact that the draft undermines the concept of self-ownership. Once drafted, you become the property of the state.
Immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor there was a surge in the number of men voluntarily enlisting in the military, for obvious reasons.
Men who are drafted against their will make poor soldiers, require disciplinary incentives, and fight solely to survive. A completely voluntary military is the most efficient.
Claiming that I’m belittling draftees by equating the draft with slavery is the same type of nationalist propaganda used by our government, and others, to garner support for such an awful breach of individual rights. Besides that, it is completely ignoring the moral implications of conscription, and thus involuntary servitude.
From The Anti-Conscription Manifesto, signed by Albert Einstein and Gandhi, among others:
“The State which thinks itself entitled to force its citizens to go to war will never pay proper regard to the value and happiness of their lives in peace.”
June 25th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
To say you become property of the state is a far stretch when comparing the draft to slavery.
To qoute Laurence Vance is almost scary, for a man who wrote an article with the title “O’ Little Town of Baghad”, with the words:
God rest ye merry soldiers
Let nothing you dismay,
Remember, the U.S. military
Still fights on Christmas day;
To kill those darn Iraqis
Because they have gone astray.
O tidings of destruction and death,
Destruction and death.
O tidings of destruction and death.
O Uniform! O Uniform!
I can kill when I wear thee.
O Uniform! O Uniform!
I can kill when I wear thee.
Not only when the summer’s here,
But also when ’tis cold and drear.
O Uniform! O Uniform!
I can kill when I wear thee.
O come all ye soldiers
Joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye to Baghdad.
Come and behold them,
Muslim worshippers of Allah.
O come, let us bomb them,
O come, let us maim them,
O come, let us kill them,
Ragheads galore.
It came upon the midnight clear,
That horrible sound of old,
Of soldiers flying near the earth,
With bombs to drop from their hold.
“Peace on the earth, goodwill to men
From America’s mighty military!”
Iraq in solemn horror lay
To hear the bombs zing.
Soldiers from the U.S. military,
Fire your weapons o’er all Baghdad.
Ye who seek to kill for glory,
Now have a chance to make your heart glad:
Fire your weapon,
Fire your weapon,
Fire your weapon for Bush the king!
O little town of Baghdad
How still we see thee lie;
Above all thy destruction
The U.S. air force flies.
And in thy dark streets shineth
America’s military might.
The bombs and bullets of all us here
Will be unleashed on thee tonight.
The first bullet, George Bush did say
Was for certain poor Iraqis in deserts as they lay,
In sand where they lay all night in a heap
On a March ‘03 night that was so deep.
Oh well, Oh well, Oh well, Oh well;
Now is the time for us to blow you to hell!
The man basically calls the American people stupid for supporting the troops. If “war brings out the worst in young men” as he claims in the piece, why is it those that fought in World War II, and those who worked in the factories at home, are called America’s Generation? Then he attacks the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as “Blasphemy in Song”. You have got to come up with better ammo than Vance to persuade me.
As a historian, the Thirteenth Amendment was not part of the original Constitution, but added as a result of the slavery isssue, during the American Civil War and its aftermath. For goodness sake, Vance wants you to believe that, “Uncle Sam Wants You, to die for a lie”. What lie is that, the same one believed by the Clintons, that there were WMD’s in Iraq? Or the fact that Saadam violated upteen different restrictions in place by the United Nations. Please dont even say we are there for the oil when we are paying three dollars a gallon for gas.
Where was the surge of enlistees after the bombing of of the Twin Towers? Where is patriotism of years past, remember those of Hollywood who served in the war, I don’t seem to recall Jimmy Stewart complaining about the draft. Has he been replaced by Hanoi Jane? And those who enlisted like Detroit’s own Hank Greenberg, the first major league baseball player to enlist after Pearl Harbor. The years that man would have had if he had stayed in baseball like so many others. Where are the other “Pat Tillman’s” of today? Tragically killed by friendly fire yes, but does not diminish the fire that the man felt of pride in his country.
Once upon a time, there was a saying, paraphrased, that you just dont discuss in a bar, if you wanted to avoid a fight, just dont say anything about politics and religion. There have been several issues on the blogs that I wanted to respond to, but thought best left unsaid. This was a little too much to swallow.
I will leave that, as it is, my final word.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I am completely capable of discussing these issues without getting into a fight. I’m not sure what you were suggesting in that last paragraph.
I think you mistook the use of a quote by Laurence Vance as evidence that he is my guiding light. This is a poor assumption on your part. I simply found that quote relevant, and wanted to give credit where it was due. So I hope you didn’t spend too much time researching him. You probably now know more about him than I do. But I will say that posting that portion of his column without any context will undoubtedly mislead people.
“You have got to come up with better ammo than Vance to persuade me.”
Wasn’t Albert Einstein and Gandhi enough for you…what about Milton Friedman, HG Wells, or Bertrand Russel. Is it not enough that conscription is USING FORCE to take another persons’ freedom and liberty, and sometimes even their life? NO man should EVER be able to force another man to fight against their will. There is something so fundamentally wrong with this. I can’t see why it is so unclear to anyone.
I’m not sure what you were trying to say about the thirteenth amendment. it doesn’t matter when or for what specific reason it was added to the Constitution. It applies to the draft because the draft is INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE! It doesn’t matter what color the person’s skin is, or what type of tasks that person is being FORCED into doing, it’s wrong.
I respect your opinion, but there is nothing that would ever convince me that confiscating ones freedom — when they have done nothing wrong — is necessary or beneficial. This is axiomatic to me. slavery is wrong, no matter what euphemisms are used to describe it and no matter what person or people are victimized by it. I put the value of each individual human being far above that of any country. What good is a country without free people?
“A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.”
—Daniel Webster, Speech in the House of Representatives, January 14, 1814
June 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Personally, I don’t think that you have anything to worry about. It is my understanding that Congress must authorize a draft. So, I think that there is zero chance that a Democratic Congress would even consider reinstating the draft.
And I don’t think that President Bush would ask for a draft. This war has such meager support in the general population that the second a Republican asks for a draft is the second that the Republicans guarantee themselves a bloodbath on election night 2008.
Personally, I think that your argument that conscription equals slavery is bogus. My wife just received a jury duty notice in the mail. My dad got one a few weeks ago. We need representative juries for our justice system to run effectively. Jury duty is not slavery.
A local town government can require you to cut the lawn. That is not slavery.
During the winter, when the snow plows need to go through, a government can require you to move your car off of the street. That is not slavery.
The government can make you do lots of things that are not slavery. The crafters of the anti-slavery constitutional amendment did not intend to abolish the draft. The has been supported by much case law.
Fortunately for you, President Bush did such a terrible job of building support for the War in Iraq that all of this is moot.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
One more example: Police officers, firefighters and teachers cannot legally strike in the state of Michigan. Is that slavery?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:20 am
I wasn’t aware that teachers couldn’t legally strike in Michigan. In fact, I work near the Detroit Public Schools Headquarters, and believe me, they strike. It’s a yearly event for them. Maybe they are doing it illegally. I don’t know. But, assuming it is illegal, it is not slavery. No one is being unwillingly forced into anything.
That is part of their contract. It’s not much different than not being able to drink alcohol at work. Most of us make an agreement with our employers to abstain from certain action while working. It is a mutual agreement between two parties. Neither is being forced into the agreement. The only difference between this example and the one you gave is that police, firefighters, and teachers are employed by the state, which turns these contractual issues into public policy. They become public policy because their salaries are paid for with tax dollars. In some sense, they are theoretically employed by the people, which opens up a completely different can of worms.
Slavery is being deprived of liberty.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
No. It is illegal for teachers, firefighters and police officers without a contract to strike. So, despite not having an agreement, the government requires them to work. Does that match your definition of slavery?
The point is that the government can require people to do many things. It is the way we keep from being taken over by foreign governments or domestic criminals.
So, philosophically, I think that the government should be able to institute conscription.
However, I think that it would be a terrible decision in the current situation, given the lack of public support for the current war and the miniscule chance that it would help what is going on in Iraq.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
BTW, the government also keeps lists of health care workers who would be conscripted in the event of a public health emergency or biological attack. These people might not want to work, but if they don’t, a public health emergency might bring down society. I think that the government should have that option. It’s for the common good.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
that is assuming all the health care workers would run and hide if such a “public health emergency” ever did occur. when there is a natural disaster like a hurricane, no one needs to conscript lumber manufacturers or carpenters to repair the homes destroyed by the storm. Carpenters flock to the damaged areas. If there is a shortage of carpenters, they will likely be making abnormally high wages or salaries which will entice more people to jump into the carpentry business, maybe only for a short duration. There would be more than enough labor. We don’t have the problems with shortages in the private sector. absurd notions like that of conscripting health care workers during a public health emergency could nly come from government officials dealing with professions that are being overrun by bureaucracy. it’s clear that most government officials do not understand the laws of supply and demand. It is a law no different than that of gravity.
“I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes as common as the grass.”
– Lao Tsu
“America’s abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes.”
– Ayn Rand
June 27th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I might be wrong, but I think the Edwards stuff was taken out of context. If I recall, he was trying to make two points. One was that military service falls disproportionately to the poor because they have limited options and often see military service as one road to bettering their condition in the long run. The other point was that he wasn’t talking solely of a military draft. He was talking about the need for Americans to serve their country in some capacity — which could mean domestic service like AmeriCorps and other organizations. This was sort of what Kennedy envisioned with the Peace Corps and the suggestion that you ask not what you’re country should do for you, ask what you should do for your country. He felt everyone should do some public service.
I’m not sure I would agree it should be mandatory, but I agree with the concept of greater public service.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I mentioned that Edwards was proposing mandatory service for both military and non-military purposes. And I do acknowledge that both he and Rangel made these propositions with the supposed intent of eliminating the socio-economic bias (whether or not such a bias currently exists is debatable) of military enlistees. However, this, in no way, justifies slavery in the form of a draft. I am not suggesting that charity is in any way undesirable. In fact I think that helping your fellow man is a virtuous gesture. What is not virtuous, is forcing one person to help another. If an individual uses force to get one individual to help another, he would be arrested; and rightly so. I fail to see how this same action could be regarded as acceptable, let alone virtuous, if carried out by the government, or any number of people from any constituency.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I just read comments posted by mike that I had missed.
this is not MY definition of slavery. I don’t understand how people cannot see that forcing a person to do something is slavery, no matter who is using coercion.
ALL government employees must realize that by accepting a government position they are bound by the policies of the government. that is their contract. again, this is a problem (one of the many) inherent in the socialization of any industry.
the way we are protected from domestic and foreign attacks on our rights should be by the law (just laws, as opposed to unjust laws) and those who enforce the law, not by institutionalizing these attacks on our rights. we give the ruling class the power to trample on our rights.
you did not give a reasonable philosophical argument in favor of conscription. you gave an unbacked argument that it is “the way we keep from being taken over by foreign governments or domestic criminals.”
you said:
“It is my understanding that Congress must authorize a draft. So, I think that there is zero chance that a Democratic Congress would even consider reinstating the draft.”
according to the Constitution, Congress must also authorize war. that didn’t seem to stop Bush, not to mention, many before him, from doing just that. you are assuming that politicians are bound by some sort of legal document…perhaps a Constitution.
you also seem to be attempting to justify the draft by offering, less intrusive, ways in which government requires mandatory service. They may not be as harmful and atrocious as a draft, but they are involuntary servitude nonetheless.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:28 am
“Why is it that the state’s moral codes can feign views of black slavery in the South as the greatest tragedy of mankind, yet it consistently promotes all-color, all-kinds slavery in service of the state? In 1943, this Popeye ad was used to convince Americans that military conscription was a right of the state because it owns you.”
“On the other hand, the same propagandists deride private producers for marketing to children such evil products as soda pop and tasty cereals.”
The rest here:
http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002471.html
November 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
At least with the draft Americans and Politicians wouldn’t be so terribly ignorant about the war they are currently waging. It is quite convenient to mainly send the hugely non-voting, least-earning quartile of the population away to fight and to hire mercenaries, if you wan’t people to not react to unpopular wars that you wage anymore. With a draft America would already be out of Iraq. Despite Americans were up to this war always abstinate from using mercenaries. The Hessians used by the British against Washingtons troops were the root of that mistrust. Clausewitz also warns that mercenaries bring more chaos than they solve. The draft is after all also a drastic form of Checks and Balances assuring that the military policy is not strongly detached from the democratic process (something that also happened when the Roman Republic started collapsing).
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I don’t care how the servicemen and women were brought into the military, ignorant wars should not be fought. your argument seems a little silly.
the draft is a form of checks and balances? that is the most bizzare defense of the draft i have ever heard. forcing people to fight in wars they may not support is democratic? what it is, is a serious civil rights violation. and i’m astounded that people defend this kind of war-mongering, anti-individual rights nonsense.