Читать книгу The Mennonites in WW1 - Jonas Smucker Hartzler - Страница 56
ОглавлениеNonresistance the Only Issue
National honor, safety for democracy, and a few things of lesser moment were usually given as the issues at stake in this war, and it should be clearly understood that the nonresistant people were not unmindful of these issues, but there was another issue which they were made to face, and which vitally concerned them just at this time. Government was making demands without regard to class or religion. Nonresistant people wanted to comply with these requirements just as far as they could, but they were nonresistant. They held that the Bible taught them this. They must obey God at all hazards. This brought on an issue between them and Government.
It should also be clearly understood that the only issue that was between the Mennonites and Government as to^the war had its root in the one word, nonresistance. That was the issue in the home community and in the camp. The Church aimed to maintain this time-honored, Gospel-founded principle. It was deeply planted into the old and young. People who did not hold to that doctrine could not understand this attitude, and believed that these nonresistants were slackers, cowards, pro-German, or to say the least, were not properly taught. The slogan of many in the home community and in the camp was, "Break his will," little realizing that when one was tortured so that he would yield to what in his mind was opposed to a vital principle, that the injury was permanent. Many a young man will be worth less to himself, to his country, and to the Church, both mentally and physically because he was compelled to pass through such dire experiences that he finally yielded.
It was not a question of the Church giving up her young men, much as she loved them no, not even if she knew that she would never see them again if she could be conscious that she was giving them by divine approval. But she could not believe that God would have her give them to take human life, either directly or indirectly, under any circumstances. She felt that war was wrong in principle and contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. With her it was absolutely, "God first." The main issue with the Church was not boys, not money, not sacrifice, but obedience to God.
Noncombatant Service Defined
Evidently Government considered that there was quite a difference between combatant and non- combatant service, but the Church considered that the principle involved was the same. No doubt Government supposed that most of the religious objectors would consent to noncombatant service, and that at best the political objector would have to be dealt with individually. March 20, 1918, nearly one year after this country had entered the war, President Wilson officially defined noncombatant service. The text of his definition is as follows:
"I hereby declare the following military service to be noncombatant service:
a. Service in the medical corps wherever performed. This includes service in the sanitary detachment attached to combatant units at the front; service in the divisional sanitary trains composed of ambulance companies and field hospital companies, on the line of communication, at the base in France, and with the troops in the the hospitals in the United States; also with the service of supply and repair in the Medical Department.
"b. Any service in the Quartermaster Corps, in the United States, may be treated as noncombatant. Also in the rear of zone operations, service in the following: Stevadore companies, labor companies, remount depots, veterinary hospitals, supply depots, bakery companies, the subsistence service, the clothing renovating service, the shoe repair service, the transportation repair service, and motor truck companies.
"c. Any engineering service in the United States may be treated as noncombatant service. Also in the rear of zone operations, service as follows: Railroad building operation, and repair; road building and repair; construction of rear- line fortifications, auxiliary defense, etc., construction of docks, wharfs, storehouses, and of such cantonments as may be built by the Corps of Engineers; topographical work; camouflage; map reproduction; supply depot service; repair service, hydraulic service, and forestry service."
Attitude toward Noncombatant Service
It was very clear, even before noncombatant
service was defined, that it could not be generally accepted. While it would not be carrying a gun, it would be directly connected with and under the military department, and that had for its purpose the taking of human life and the destruction of property and therefore could not be consistently accepted by nonresistants. Again, a careful scrutiny of much of this work suggests service back from the line of danger. This was spurned by many of the nonresistants since it would suggest that they accepted it because they were afraid of danger, and that was not true. With them it was not danger, or even life, but principle.
Human Reconstruction
When it was found that this line of service did not meet the issue the War Department offered work in the reconstruction hospitals of the medical corps. Evidently this plan was expected to be satisfactory. The text reads:
"It is found that there are certain men, evidently sincere in their objections to accepting any existing form of non- combatant service, would be willing to accept work in the aid of men who themselves are not to be returned to military service. Men assigned to such work should be granted a certificate limiting their service to this particular service of the medical corps."
This had many commendable paints. It was not fitting men for war; it was helping humanity and especially those in need, and it gave excellent opportunity to do religious work. All these our brethren would have been glad to do, but from a nonresistant viewpoint there were too many objectionable features. It required the wearing of the military uniform, was directly under the military establishment, and the work must be accepted voluntarily. To willingly take up any activity so vitally a part of the war was simply to endorse the whole military affair not by the service rendered, but by willingly becoming a part of the military establishment.
Misrepresented Motives
Some have made capital of the position of the nonresistants, charging that they would not work in the camps because they were lazy, stupid, dull, bovine, or because of a number of other reasons not very complimentary; that they would not buy liberty bonds nor war saving stamps; not donate to the Red Cross, Y. M. C. A., etc., because they re fused to part with their money. This is so far from the truth that it would be useless to try to refute it. Witnesses to the contrary can be produced by the hundreds. The issue was not money, not work, not mental incapacity, but the unscripturalness of war.
A few did not take this position. A small per cent considered it a duty to buy bonds and donate to Government. Some of the young men thought that they owed it to their government and to their fellowmen to take some part, even though they could not kill. They applied for noncombatant service on arrival at camp.
There were members who did not live up to the standard of nonresistance upheld by the Church. Here and there were those who thought it their duty to support such war measures as the purchase of liberty bonds, war stamps, etc. Some of the draftees took noncombatant service willingly.
On the other hand there were those who put a more rigid construction upon the doctrine of non- resistance than the body of the Church was willing to do, even questioning the right of nonresistant people to register, and in camp absolutely refusing to do anything, even to keep their own quarters clean or to prepare their own food.
Application of the Principle
Some of the brotherhood made stringent applications of the nonresistant doctrine, refusing to sell horses for war purposes or to sell their produce to parties who were known to buy expressly for the war. They refused to in any way support war measures except in the payment of taxes, etc. Some of the young men in the camps refused to do anything, even to keep their own quarters clean or prepare their own food. (The latter were principally from one of the smaller branches of the Mennonite Church.)
All along the line between these two extremes the greater body of the Church was to be found. Some with very little persuasion were ready to donate to war charities or purchase interest-bearing war papers; others yielded only at the threat of violence, while the great majority stood for the principle of doing nothing which would have for its prime purpose the helping along of the war and suffered rather than yield to what they believed to be wrong. All believed in the main issue nonresistance but in minor details they did not all make the same application of that issue to the conditions at hand.
More will be given concerning the attitude of the brotherhood with its results in later chapters of this book.
