The February 27, 1864 issue of Harper’s Weekly at Son of the South discussed whether Quakers should be exempted from the draft on conscientious grounds. The editorial respected the Quakers for their beliefs but realized that if anyone could claim a religious exemption that could defeat the war effort. Quakers should be like those who opposed the Fugitive Slave Laws – resist the law and pay the penalty if caught. Here are some bites:
QUAKER EXEMPTION.
THE petition to exempt Quakers from military service, on the ground of conscientious scruples against war, has excited a great deal of thoughtful sympathy. The statement made in it of the undaunted moral heroism and suffering of some Quakers, among the rebels, who had been drafted and who declined to serve is very touching and impressive. In one case a man was tortured and barely escaped with his life. In another, one was ordered to be shot, and when the file of soldiers who were to execute the sentence saw the victim and heard him calmly praying that they might be forgiven for their involuntary crime, they refused to fire. These are incidents which recall the testimony of the early Quakers. They show that the old spirit is not extinct, and that George Fox and James Naylor still survive under other names.
And yet the principle of exempting men from their share of any common public burden merely upon their assertion of conscientious objection to bearing it, is not and can not be admissible. For the evidence of this truth we need look no further than the late proposition in Congress to exempt from service all who were sincerely opposed to the prosecution of the war. That is simply a proposition to submit to the overthrow of the Government, and with it, to the destruction of all the securities of civil and religious liberty. …
Of course we are not saying that a man must submit his conscience to the law, nor denying that very bad and very wicked laws may be often made. …
What, then, is the alternative? It is very plain. It is to acknowledge the necessity of government or of authority, while you refuse obedience to the special claim; and that you do by yielding to the penalty if it shall be enforced. In this country, for instance, the best citizens were conscientiously opposed to Mason’s infamous Fugitive Slave Law. …
If, then, the Quakers are conscientiously opposed to war, at a time when it seems to the people that their rights can be secured in no other way, it is a hard case for both sides. The prosecution of the war requires the draft. If there were any conceivable way of determining whether conscientious scruples really exist, the release from service ought to be willingly granted wherever they were established; because if the mass of the people were sincerely opposed to maintaining their liberties by fighting, they would be sincerely in favor of submitting to the rebellion, and the war would end in the destruction of the Government, the ruin of the nation, and the overthrow of all hope of civil and religious liberty—and this by consent of the people. But there can be no way devised of ascertaining the sincerity of such scruples. It is therefore plainly impossible that the mere assertion of them should he sufficient. And it seems to us that every honest and patriotic Quaker will a thousand times more willingly acknowledge the authority of the Government which he wishes to see maintained, by paying the penalty of disobedience to its law, rather than by asking for legal release from obedience upon grounds which can never be satisfactorily established.
Civil War Home summarizes the North’s response to conscientious objectors:
Greater manpower resources and more tolerant attitudes in general eased the pressures on Northern pacifists. Congress objected to exempting specific religious sects for fear of missing the smaller ones, and a blanket exemption for all conscientious objectors would have invited abuse. Yet the compromise, providing a substitute or paying a $300 commutation fee, violated the principles of men who considered either alternative a contribution to the bloodshed. The Militia Act of 1862 made no provision for conscientious objectors; though the Draft Act of 1863 did, it failed to define “conscientious objector,” again resulting in a flood of individual petitions from draftees. In December 1863 Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton eased the situation by paroling all conscientious objectors held in custody and ordering no more to be called.
143 Quakers reportedly enlisted as Union soldiers, but the majority of their brethren and of all pacifists served in hospitals, cared for sick soldiers in their homes, or worked among the Contrabands. Finally, in Feb. 1864, Congress dealt with the question by ruling pacifists subject to the draft but assuring noncombatant assignments to members of those religious groups whose articles of faith clearly expressed opposition to bearing arms. They were also given the option of paying $300 for the relief of sick and wounded soldiers.
Though neither government solved the problem of how to deal with conscientious objectors, officials for the first time debated the issue at the national level, offering the option of noncombatant service which remained in effect through World War 1.
Tinkle Test
This might just be a story, but it shows the value of Confederate paper money.
From the Richmond Daily Dispatch February 29, 1864:
How they Got him.
–A fellow was brought into the conscript office the other day who pretended to the totally deaf. They tried all sorts of sudden and unexpected noises on him all to no-purpose. Just as they were about to discloses him a new plan occurred to one of the examining board. He look into silver quarters and rattled them behind him.– No sooner was the sound made than the fellow turned round and exchanged, “I’ll give ye ten dollars fur them.” –Maein [Macon?] confederacy.
