General Lewis B. Hershey and Conscientious Objection during World War II

Chapter 9: Hershey and the Legacy of Alternative Service

Chapter 9´ ´ ´ ´ Hershey and the Legacy of Alternative Service A s CPS demobilized, Hershey began to muse on the successes and failures of the alternative service program. In the final days of CPS, Hershey and Kosch discussed with the Peace Churches what they believed had worked and what should be changed in the future. Many people involved in those evaluations concluded that had someone other than Hershey been in charge of conscientious objectors during World War II, the tale of COs probably would have been much different and perhaps even tragic. However, not everyone took a celebratory view of Hershey’s role. Throughout Hershey’s term as director, the concept of alternative service for conscientious objectors remained intact, though there was a brief period of deferment for COs during the early years of the Cold War. There were changes, such as when the Supreme Court fundamentally altered what defined a conscientious objector in the case United States v. Seeger (1965), but alternative service remained firmly entrenched. By firmly outlining the service duty of all eligible men, Hershey’s administration of conscientious objection during World War II established the principle that even if a man objected to military service, his national obligations must be fulfilled. That tenet remained firmly in place until President Richard Nixon removed Hershey as director in 1970. After a long and sometimes tenuous six years of CPS, Selective Service Director of Camp Operations Lewis Kosch pondered the question 147 148 Lewis B. Hershey and Conscientious Objection of the best alternative service policy for the future. Kosch felt that the church administration made things entirely too difficult. He and Hershey wanted the COs to work directly for the government rather than the Peace Church service agencies. They both believed that COs should receive pay, dependency benefits, and workmen’s compensation. Furthermore , alternative service should not be seen as inferior to service in the armed forces. In their eyes, the government should sponsor a civil service program equal to the armed services but less confusing and convoluted than the numerous administrative groups and projects sponsored by various government agencies.1 About the same time as Kosch met with French in July 1946, Philip Jacob and Mulford Sibley, interviewed Hershey for their book, Conscription of Conscience, which would become the standard history of conscientious objection during World War II. In the interview, Hershey echoed some of Kosch’s views, but Hershey had more to say on other topics as well. Hershey believed that COs should be paid and the funds should come from the government, though a CO receiving higher pay than an army private could cause a public relations problem. He also believed that the most efficient way to ensure CO compensation was probably a governmentcontrolled camp system rather than the cumbersome dual administrative roles of CPS. However, he also supported “private agencies and individuals ” developing and supporting CO programs without pay, if men chose to work in those endeavors. Hershey also commented “in vigorous language” that he supported dependency and compensation payments to CPS assignees, reaffirming the position he had put forth to Congress.2 However, Hershey eventually changed his mind about the camps. For the remaining years of conscription in the United States, the Selective Service did not use work camps as a means of alternative service. It did, however, retain control over conscientious objectors. In his evaluation of CPS and the Selective Service’s handling of conscientious objectors, Hershey was cognizant of his own responsibility for both CPS and the assignees. He noted that President Roosevelt’s executive order had placed the responsibility for the conscientious objector on him. Although he delegated some of his authority to men like Lewis Kosch, any problems that emerged landed on Hershey’s desk no matter the circumstances, and his was the final decision. He was grateful to the Peace Churches for their help in developing CPS because he believed that they knew better than anybody else the nature of the objectors.3 Hershey was the federal government’s authority on conscientious objection and became the architect of alternative service. Though he had to 149 Legacy of Alternative Service compromise at times and delegate his authority, his voice rang above all others on the matter, whether in public or behind closed doors. Hershey also evaluated the role of the Peace Churches in administering CPS. He had glowing remarks for the Mennonites. He believed that they had the best...