These thoughts were sent by Stephen L. Hall.
***
Making this subject topical, the U.S. Senate considered a bill which would remove the exemption from women for having to register for Selective Service in light of the recent restrictions being removed from women serving in combat positions.
The question worth considering is whether one has a legal, not a moral, duty to serve their country or whether the government is constitutionally prohibited from demanding such public service from their citizens. Or is military service somehow different from other types of service such that said service my legally be compelled against one’s will?
“The United States first employed a form of conscription during the War of 1812, though a draft Act was formulated in The First National Conscription Act in 1792. The imposition of a draft during the American Civil War touched off the New York Draft Riots in July 1863. The Confederate States instituted conscription in 1862, and resistance was both widespread and violent, with comparisons made between conscription and slavery. Both sides permitted conscripts to hire substitutes.”
While there was conscription after the Civil War, there was also passed a certain Constitutional Amendment passed shortly after the Civil War which directly bears on the issue. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” 13th Amendment, US Constitution.
While most people gloss over the involuntary servitude words in favor or the word slavery, just as they gloss over the exception which is omitted by the ellipses above, I would ask the reader to consider the language of the involuntary servitude.
The prohibition against involuntary servitude does not limit itself to private servitude as opposed to public servitude. Military service is without dispute a type of servitude, and conscription is likewise unquestionably involuntary. I am hardly the first to make this observation.
Of course, conservatives typically come across the issue of military service when dealing with leftists in the context of the 2nd Amendment, not the 13th Amendment. In particular, the statists want to limit gun ownership to the militia. Who is the militia? Essentially, everyone.
“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . .” 10 U.S. Code §311(a). And with females being subject to both combat and potentially the draft, there is no longer any legitimate reason to deny women membership in the militia.
We currently have an all volunteer force, and are proud of that fact and their service. I do not want to address the moral duty of citizens to support their nation. Humans are a tribal species, and the very concept of nation states is an expression of this tribalism. The nation being the tribe, where does one’s duty to the tribe end in deference to the duty to oneself? There are certain nations, such as Israel, where military service is compulsory and universal for every citizen after their graduation from high school.
What if the cause to which one’s nation becomes devoted is morally reprehensible to the citizen? The United States allows for exceptions to compulsory service based upon moral and religious objections, a conscientious objector. Until such time as it comes to baking a cake. Recent comment on the internet suggest that there is decreasing respect for individual moral objections having merit, so how long will such exemptions be allowed to continue under our increasingly statist culture?
But this distracts us from the involuntary servitude question of conscripted military service. The question also comes up with public service requirements in public schools as a condition of graduation. Leftist call it mandatory volunteerism . . . and they actually manage to say that ignorance with a straight face.
One of my favorite mini-series on television was Shaka. In that show, King Shaka inquires of Lt. Farewell, “Who owns life?” Lt. Farewell asserts that each man owns his own life. Reasoning that, even in England, the king can declare war, and as a man may die in war, therefore it is the king who owns life. As it is with any dictatorship, the life of any person may be forfeit at the will of the dictator.
But in a free society, does the state own life? Or is every man’s life really his own? Does the 13th Amendment prohibit conscription and assert the principle that no man may be forced to serve the state, even in the military? Who owns your life?
