September 4, 1974

Requirement Of Law Determines Amnesty

No matter how fervently we wish it, amnesty can not be a matter of compassion.

The practicality of law - the preservation of an orderly society - can not be brushed aside easily.

President Gerald Ford's desire to reconcile the controversy created by 70,000 self-exiled U.S. draft dodgers in foreign countries is commendable.  Yet he must make certain he does not create a precedent whereby citizens in the future may safely evade unpleasant responsibilities.

The President's trial balloon proposes "earned" amnesty in return for 18 months of "national service" in hospitals and conservation camps.

This slap on the wrist infuriates the two and a half million Americans who served in the Vietnam war and those who fled or deserted.

On the one hand it is an insult to those who were killed and wounded.  In addition it implies guilt to the shirkers who assert their superior morality.

It is not likely, therefore, that Congress can find a formula for amnesty based on token work.  Nothing, but nothing, can come close to the ultimate sacrifice paid by 60,000 young Americans who did what they were told.

President Ford is justified in seeking an amnesty solution.  The question is whether he suggests forgiving too much too soon.

There have been 34 separate incidents of amnesty in U.S. history dating back to George Washington's 1795 pardon of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion but subsequently gave it up to obey the law.

There has never been an unconditional amnesty of draft dodgers or deserters following any war!  There was no amnesty of any kind after the War For Independence nor after Korea.

After World War I, in 1924, President Coolidge provided amnesty for 100 deserters-but all had deserted their units after the November 11, 1918, armistice.  They were peacetime deserters.

Fifteen, years after the WW I Armistice, in 1933, President Roosevelt granted amnesty to 1,500 individuals convicted of espionage act and draft law violations and who had completed their sentences.

Two years after World War II; President Truman provided pardons for 1,523 draft law violators - from a total of 15,803 - whose cases had been taken up with individual recommendations.

His 1952 Christmas amnesty dealt only with peacetime deserters - men who had left their units between V-J Day and the outbreak of Korean hostilities on June 25, 1950.

The Civil War "amnesties" most often cited by proponents of Vietnam amnesty are particularly weak.

First, they never dealt with draft dodgers.  Second, all of President Lincoln's and President Johnson's amnesties dealt with Confederates, or, deserters from the Union Army - and none of them was unconditional.  General Robert E. Lee, whose home was confiscated for Arlington National Cemetery, died without pardon even though he had requested it.

Lincoln offered pardons to the Confederates while the Civil War was at its height in an attempt to weaken the southern armies.

To Union military deserters in 1865, Lincoln offered pardons contingent upon their return to their units within 60 days to serve out a period of time equal to their original period of enlistment.  Punishment set by Congress for not returning within 60 days was permanent forfeiture of the rights of citizenship!

The principal occasion on which Lincoln's government dealt with draft resisters was in the City of New York where thousands rioted in March of 1863.  The Federal answer to this draft demonstration was marshalling troops which put down the riots with gunfire, killing between 500 and 1,000 protesters.

Shortly after taking office, in May 1865, President Johnson granted full pardon to all Confederates (with exceptions) who took an unqualified oath of allegiance.  Similar proclamations were issued in 1867 and 1868.  In July 1866, more than a year after the war's end, President Johnson allowed deserters to return to military duty, without punishment, but with forfeiture of pay.  Not until 1898 did the Universal Amnesty Act remove all disabilities against all former Confederates.

It is interesting that the attitude of the government was more lenient toward the organized rebels than toward individual Union citizens.

The key to this difference in attitude was based on law.  The Confederate acted under the laws of his government, while the northern deserter and draft evader acted outside the law of his government.

For this same reason we usually end up treating our former enemies more leniently than our own draft law evaders.

This history of amnesty in the United States suggests two principal reason's why Ford's present proposal faces determined opposition.

First, it comes too close to the event.  Hostilities continue in Indo-China where we sought to halt the march of anti-democratic communism.  There has been no time to dull our normal and righteous indignation toward those who let others shoulder the mortal burden of national interest.

Second, a new element of morality has been built up to justify cowardice and evasion of duty.  We seem to have forgotten that our entry into the Indo-China war also was originally based on moral responsibility.

Morality descends upon the winners of war and the outcome of the Vietnam conflict is still in doubt.

In the end, the necessity of law will prevail.

Case-by-case review will exonerate a few draft dodgers.  Reduced prison terms will free deserters.

But amnesty based on any hint of reversal of right and wrong is still a long way off.

Author: Lindsey Williams