An anti-conscription amendment (RAR!)

[Zor]

Let's say that some time around the 1880s or so for whatever reason an amendment to the constitution is made, passed and similar. What it does is explicitly bans conscription. Everyone who serves in the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and (when it is formed) Air Force are to be volunteers.

What would be the consequences of such a development?

Zor

[Gandalf]

At some point, someone just declares that in "times of war" (meaning any time the US is sending someone somewhere for violence) the particular amendment is suspended. Life goes on for most.

[The Romulan Republic]

At some point, someone just declares that in "times of war" (meaning any time the US is sending someone somewhere for violence) the particular amendment is suspended. Life goes on for most.

I think you underestimate how bull-headed Americans can get about our Constitutional Rights.

Then again, in my opinion, any reasonable interpretation of the 13th. Amendment (which prohibits both slavery and "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime) would already prohibit the draft.

[Gandalf]

At some point, someone just declares that in "times of war" (meaning any time the US is sending someone somewhere for violence) the particular amendment is suspended. Life goes on for most.

I think you underestimate how bull-headed Americans can get about our Constitutional Rights.

Oh I know, but I also know that "time of war" overrides a lot in the American psyche.

[The Romulan Republic]

In most peoples' psyches, really.

[Sea Skimmer]

Then again, in my opinion, any reasonable interpretation of the 13th. Amendment (which prohibits both slavery and "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime) would already prohibit the draft.

Only if you also believe the 13th amendment bans taxation and mandatory schooling of children is that idea remotely sustainable.

But hey, I'm sure you'd just love it if the south won the civil war because the union never invoked the draft. Real brilliance that would have been.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

At some point, someone just declares that in "times of war" (meaning any time the US is sending someone somewhere for violence) the particular amendment is suspended. Life goes on for most.

I think you underestimate how bull-headed Americans can get about our Constitutional Rights.

Then again, in my opinion, any reasonable interpretation of the 13th. Amendment (which prohibits both slavery and "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime) would already prohibit the draft.

Or legalize it. That "punishment for a crime" loophole, remember? It was used in the post-Reconstruction and Jim Crow South to maintain the instution of slavery(mainly through the prison-industrial complex), and it would be just as useful in the conscription of slave soldiers/penal legions.

[Broomstick]

But hey, I'm sure you'd just love it if the south won the civil war because the union never invoked the draft. Real brilliance that would have been.

The OP stated the amendment was from the 1880's. The Civil War was 1861-1865, before the amendment.

[Marko Dash]

depends on the war. IMHO, the US hasn't been truly 'At War' (fully moblized with wartime economy) since WWII. everything since has been fought with the nation on a peacetime footing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Then again, in my opinion, any reasonable interpretation of the 13th. Amendment (which prohibits both slavery and "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime) would already prohibit the draft.

Only if you also believe the 13th amendment bans taxation and mandatory schooling of children is that idea remotely sustainable.

I'm skeptical as to how (outside of libertarian la la land, and they already believe taxation is slavery) such an interpretation of the 13th. Amendment would prohibit taxation. I suppose you could make a round about argument that being forced to pay taxes on your income is "involuntary servitude" (and I've heard exactly that from libertarian "taxes are slavery" wing nuts), but after all, no one is forcing you to make enough money to owe taxes. So technically voluntary. Also, such an argument would at most only apply to income tax, not things like sales tax.

But hey, I'm sure you'd just love it if the south won the civil war because the union never invoked the draft. Real brilliance that would have been.

Um, the 13th. Amendment was not passed in Congress until the war was nearly over, and was not ratified until even later. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Emancipation Proclamation?

[The Romulan Republic]

At some point, someone just declares that in "times of war" (meaning any time the US is sending someone somewhere for violence) the particular amendment is suspended. Life goes on for most.

I think you underestimate how bull-headed Americans can get about our Constitutional Rights.

Then again, in my opinion, any reasonable interpretation of the 13th. Amendment (which prohibits both slavery and "involuntary servitude" except as punishment for a crime) would already prohibit the draft.

Or legalize it. That "punishment for a crime" loophole, remember? It was used in the post-Reconstruction and Jim Crow South to maintain the instution of slavery(mainly through the prison-industrial complex), and it would be just as useful in the conscription of slave soldiers/penal legions.

Correct. Such a reading of the 13th. Amendment would permit the use of penal legions. Mind you, I question the wisdom of relying on convicts for one's military force, but I also question the quality of troops (and the effects on public support) that you'll get from a draft. I am a firm believer in the merits of the professional volunteer military.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I agree with you 100%, Rom, a volunteer professional military is much more preferable to a conscript force(just ask the Argentines), especially given the inequalities of the draft(in the United States)engendered. Using the loophole in the 13th Amendment in the place of a Selective Service Act would engender and exacerbate those same inequalities.

The only good the draft might have done was to raise the necessary numbers to fight in World War II, though a great many of those who fought in that conflict volunteered after Pearl Harbor(such as my dad, lying through his teeth about his age).

[Tribble]

IMO Finland is an intersting case to compare with. IIRC they have had full conscription for ages with the choice of military or civilian service and very few choose to avoid it (even the wealthy and/or famous). It also seems to be very popular given that as a democratic country all the people would have to do to get rid of it is elect a government which campaigns on repealing it.

Mind you they have Russia as a next door neighbour so perhaps they really don't have much of a choice if they want to stay independant.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree with you 100%, Rom, a volunteer professional military is much more preferable to a conscript force(just ask the Argentines), especially given the inequalities of the draft(in the United States)engendered. Using the loophole in the 13th Amendment in the place of a Selective Service Act would engender and exacerbate those same inequalities.

The only good the draft might have done was to raise the necessary numbers to fight in World War II, though a great many of those who fought in that conflict volunteered after Pearl Harbor(such as my dad, lying through his teeth about his age).

The draft did provide much-needed manpower in service of a just cause in both WW2 and the US Civil War, though it should be noted that in the Civil War, at least, the war could likely have been won in '62, before the draft was implemented, if McClellan wasn't such a chickenshit/possible traitor.

That said, I think that at the very least, drafts should be reserved for genuine national emergencies where there is a clear and immediate threat to the survival of a people or country that can be answered only by more manpower than can be readily provided through volunteers or mercenaries. And even then, there should be very broad provisions for people to opt out (perhaps being assigned some non-military service instead, which would free up other people for combat duty).

Edit: I'll also add that the US would perhaps have had less need for conscripts if it had done the sensible, non-white supremacist thing and allowed black troops to enlist from the get-go.

[Elheru Aran]

IMO Finland is an intersting case to compare with. IIRC they have had full conscription for ages with the choice of military or civilian service and very few choose to avoid it (even the wealthy and/or famous). It also seems to be very popular given that as a democratic country all the people would have to do to get rid of it is elect a government which campaigns on repealing it.

Mind you they have Russia as a next door neighbour so perhaps they really don't have much of a choice if they want to stay independant.

Finland is a very different animal though in that it's a minuscule fraction of the size of the US, and correspondingly the actual number of the population that has to go through military or civil service every year is pretty tiny. As such it's quite affordable for them to have universal service. In a country the size of the US with a commensurately large population? That's another story.

That said, I have had idle thoughts in the past that some form of 'Universal Service', if offered as an option rather than as a mandatory conscription, might be useful as a way for kids just out of high school to spend a few years working in some branch of government service-- road work, parks, public works, that kind of thing. Give them some career experience and some idea of what they want to study in college.

[madd0ct0r]

I took a brief look at the military history of usa wiki page.

It looks like after 1880 it was a long series of colony actions ranging from the Philippines to cuba. I dont see any reason why a volunteer force would have been any different there.

Im not clear on impact on the navy though.

Ww1 and ww2 others have already commented on.

After that, we get Korea then Vietnam. A professional force here would be interesting - youd get a change in tactics and a lack of engagement from the public that would look more like the second gulf war. A potentially much longer drawn out occupation, with a south Vietnam now matching South Korea.