From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!cw
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: More Historical Material on Universal Service
Article-I.D.: eagle.599
Posted: Thu Nov  4 22:27:54 1982
Received: Sat Nov  6 05:17:10 1982


Once again, there is a net article which is mistaken about the 
historical basis of the draft.  I hesitate to be quite so hard on
Phil Karn because he has an office only two doors away, but he 
has failed to understand the basic problem of slavery and the draft
just as Roberts' original submission did.

I begin with a quote from Karn's article:

     True, the original US Constitution gives the Congress power to raise a
     military; however, the 13th amendment prohibits "involuntary servitude".
     If a military draft isn't "involuntary servitude", what is?

To be precise, "involuntary servitude" is slavery and is specifically not
military service under the draft.  Let me say why.

First, legal terms are technical terms with precise meanings not necessarily
those of the words taken individually.  "Involuntary servitude" is one
such phrase.  Further, it is specifically the role of the courts to define
such terms when the legislature does not.  The fact that you don't want
to go into the army and that when you get there you are serving does
not make what you are doing "involuntary servitude" legally.  I always
have trouble understanding why programmers have difficulty with the
use of legal terms; we use jargon with precise (and non-obvious)
meanings in our work all the time.

Second, a standard principle of legal interpretation is use what
the legislature that passed the law thought it meant.  Since the
same Congress that passed the 13th Amendment also passed a number
of very strong draft laws, one can only assume that they did not
believe "involuntary servitude" and the draft were the same thing.

Third, the draft is not involuntary in any case.  You may break
the contract with the community and not be drafted.  Of course,
to do so you must give up your citizenship and leave the country.
This seems eminently fair; if you will not serve, why should the
rest of the community extend its protection?

Now to speak to a few of Karn's thoughts about slavery.  First,
the courts did not recognize slavery out of "practical necessity,"
though its continuance may have based on that reason.  Slavery was
part of the economic fiber of the US from the beginning and all
the political theorists of the day knew that, though some did not like it.
Second, domestic slavery did not vanish because of an economic
awakening but because of the Civil War (although that was not
the original purpose of the war in most people's--and certainly
not in Lincoln's--minds).  There was little domestic slavery in
the North by 1860, but southern agricultural slavery was thought
still to have room for growth.  Third, the industrial revolution
was well underway 100 years before the Civil War and it was
precisely that revolution that allowed the North to win and
expand economically at the same time.  Indeed, the South
stagnated economically for most of the next century, a 
backwater of the Industrial Revolution.  It might also be noted that
southern tenant farming was about as close to slavery as one can come
without laws; one might almost argue that slavery did not leave the South
until World War II finally awoke the region.

Now Phil may well be correct that if the US would renounce a 
standing army (drafted or volunteer), other ways of resolving
international differences might be found.  But that is a matter
of policy.  Work for the policy if you wish, but your success or
failure does not abrogate your requirement to serve your
community if it calls.

Please all note as well that a draft does not, in itself, imply
military service.  As a point of fact, I happen to favor universal
service with the draftee choosing the branch of service--military,
conservation, medical, inner city, Peace Corps, what have you.
For many (myself included), it would provide an experience not
otherwise available and (I am quite sure) likely to be extremely
valuable.

One final point.  Universal includes women.  I have never understood
why women are exempted from the draft.  The Supreme Court seems
to feel they should be, but I think that they are mistaken and that
the ruling will eventually be reversed.  I also do not understand
why women can not perform in combat.  Few people know that in World
War II, a Soviet tactical air support unit of about 3000 women
fought on the Eastern Front.  Tactical support units provide close
(very close) fighter plane support infantry and armored units.  Women
filled all roles, including pilots and gunners. The reason this is not 
well known is that the women were nothing special--one way 
or another--which is exactly how it should be.

Charles