by Paul R. Spitzzeri
The use in our country of the military draft began in the Civil War, with four separate calls made in 1863-1864, after voluntary enlistments were not sufficient to keep troop levels where needed. As Peter Levine wrote in 1981, there were more than three quarters of a million men called up, though only about 47,000 actually served, while around 20%, or some 160,000 evaded the draft, many of whom headed north to Canada. Because of provisions for substitutions or the payment of a $300 commutation fee (that could be a year’s wages for many workers), anger over the “rich man’s war” led to such responses as the New York City draft riots in July 1863.
The next major conflict was the Spanish-American War in 1898, but there was no draft as the force was relatively small, at about 280,000, and the war’s duration was very short compared to others in the nation’s history. When seeking reelection in 1916, President Woodrow Wilson campaigned on keeping America neutral and out of the First World War ravaging much of Europe, but, within months of the election, he called for the United States to enter the conflict on the side of the western European allies against Germany and others and Congress, following the dictates of the Constitution, declared war on 6 April 1917.
Because the troop levels for the American Expeditionary Force, led by General John J. Pershing, were high and the mobilization rapid, a draft was instituted following a mass registration process that took place on 5 June 1917. As was the case in the Civil War, there were some who evaded the call-up, but the difference from the earlier conflict was that there was a fairly substantial number who called themselves “conscientious objectors,” including those citing religion (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites and Quakers, while leftists including Socialists and members of the International Workers of the World also claimed this status. One source notes that around 4,000 were sent to military camps to make their claims, with about a third choosing to serve, a little under that given farm exemptions and little more court-martialed or confined until war’s end.
The featured artifact for this post is a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department booking card from 10 May 1918 for Joseph Henry Braverman. One side contains his fingerprints, signature and physical information (prisoner 11395 was a 23-year old baker, standing almost 5’11” and weighing just shy of 160 pounds), as well as the remark “Arrested at San Diego SLACKER from Mexico”—note the capitalization. On the reverse is the date of booking, location, prisoner number and comment of “charge Slacker, arrested at San Diego from Mexico,” this hearkening to the fleeing of evaders to Canada during the Civil War, “no disposition shown,” meaning the final adjudication of his case.
Before we go into the specifics of his situation, it is worth noting that wartime references to “slackers” in local papers includes the Los Angeles Tribune of 2 June 1917 reprinting a warning from the President that cited the Selective Service Act of 18 May that any draft evaders “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor” and, upon conviction in a federal court, “be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year and shall thereupon be duly registered.”
The Los Angeles Express four days later asserted that,
Los Angeles will probably lead the country with the smallest number of slackers in proportion to registration it developed late today when United States Marshal C[harles].T. Walton and Sheriff John C. Cline announced that they are investigating only 130 cases in which men believed to be between the ages of 21 and 31 failed to register.
The officers reported that 87,000 men were registered the prior day, while it was added that “most of those under investigation are Mexicans,” though why was not stated. There was a comment that “it also probably will develop . . . that of the number reported many may be over the age limit and furnish proof of the fact.”
In its edition of the 12th, the paper informed readers,
Relying on patriotic neighbors and acquaintances to aid them by supplying information concerning draft dodgers, the police today are prepared to round up slackers.
Chief [John L.] Butler said that it would be impractical to stop men on the street and demand to see their registration cards, as some had suggested.
He said that the officers counted on information from citizens . . .
The chief asserted his confidence that any mother whose son had registered and who gained knowledge that some other young man had evaded his duty would promptly give the officers the name and address of the slacker.
Federal Marshal Walton told the Express that hundreds of slacker cases were investigated, but remarked that “so far we have found that only a small percentage of the reports were proven correct, and this percentage has been quickly taken into custody,” while he also commented that “many cases of alleged slackers . . , [were] found to be only spite work on the part of enemies of those reported.” This was not surprising, if reliance on citizen informants was the order of the day.
An early example of the apprehension of alleged evaders was reported in the Los Angeles Times of the 17th, as three Latinos were seized in Fullerton, with one saying he was sick on the 5th and did not register, while “the other two appear to have lacked knowledge of what was expected of them.” A week later, Marshal Walton was quoted in the Los Angeles Record as warning suspected slackers of complacency, warning:
It will be open season for slackers any time. The government in its own good time will pick them up. The law will be enforced and the young man who has not registered may expect to be arrested any time day or night.
The marshal continued that there was a sort of grace period for those that appear to register and avoid arrest, but concluded “six months from now the police will be asking to see young men’s registration cards much oftener than they are now.” Whether this was to be a consequence of the problem of relying on citizen information or increased resources for checking cards was left unexplained.
In succeeding months, there were occasional reports of arrests, but also of convictions of more serious charges of desertion, involving courts-martial and lengthy sentences, such as that in November of Vane V. Dart of Santa Ana, who was handed a 10-year sentence at the federal prison at Alcatraz Island, formerly owned by the Workman and Temple family and now the subject of talk of a potential reopening.
That month also included reports that those seeking to cross the border into México, which was in the midst of a revolution in which conflicts with American troops took place, were required to provide a passport, as well as that British expatriates in the region were subjected to investigation as to why they did not join the colors of their home country or otherwise “suffer the penalties imposed upon draft slackers of American citizenship.”
The 2 December number of the Times informed readers:
Under the new draft rules and regulations effective December 15, men convicted of failing to register on last June 5, will be dealt with more harshly than under the old system . . . such men, instead of being given jail sentences . . . will be so listed by draft boards as to insure their call with the first increment [of draftees] summoned after the new rules are put in force.
This meant that suspected slackers were more likely to be shipped overseas when draft calls were issued and it is notable to observe a “Pen Points” remark in the paper a couple of weeks prior which warned that “the local officers are running down the draft slackers and they will be chased clean to the German western front if necessary.”
As 1918 dawned, arrests continued with the New Year’s Day issue of the Times reporting on a pair of “self-confessed slackers” nabbed and held on $1,000 bail by a federal commissioner. One, Willie Reilly, “is a colored boy, and says he is religiously opposed to the draft,” though the paper added that “it has been held that in such instances a man may arrange to keep his scruples in leach [?] during the termination of the war, or spend a year in the County Jail.”
The 9 March number of the paper, under the headline of “Quick Action For Slackers,” noted that
Draft slackers would be inducted immediately into military service when arrested and proved to have evaded their obligations instead of being taken back to their home districts for trial, under an amendment to the draft act now being drafted by the Provost-Marshal General’s office at the suggestion of the Department of Justice.
The concern was the hundreds of arrested men were in cities other than where they were registered and processing was deemed inefficient, while also causing or worsening jail overcrowding. It was added, though, that most admitted their mistake, saying they’d been transferred in their jobs and were willing to join the AEF.
The Record of 4 April cited a state draft official, who asserted that “ninety per cent of the draft slackers in California are foreigners” and that “the Greeks lead all other nationalities in proportion to population” followed by the Italians and Portuguese, though why this was considered necessary to know is an unanswered question.
Not quite a month later, in its edition of 2 May, the paper with the heading of “EVERY DRAFT SLACKER WILL GO TO FRONT,” reported that “a nationwide roundup of draft registrants escaping military service through unfair classification” was ordered at Washington, D.C. It was remarked that the numbers of men claiming to be farmers or “indispensable government workers” drew scrutiny and those found to be evaders would be sent to an AEF camp. Moreover, it was asserted that anyone of draft age claiming to be “indispensable” could be replaced by men outside the draft age or by women.
With respect to Braverman, little is known about him, though he was very likely an Ashkenazi Jew, with a heritage from eastern Europe. His draft registration card, completed on 14 November 1917, stated that he was a native of Chicago and, as his booking card stated, he was a baker for a tavern in San Francisco, where he resided about where the Children’s Creativity Museum stands today.
The 10 April 1918 edition of the San Francisco Call-Bulletin briefly observed the arrest of several alleged draft evaders and noted that “Joseph H. Braverman is under indictment by the federal grand jury today on a charge of refusing to submit to physical examination for the draft,” while the same day’s of that city’s Chronicle recorded the same information.
It was apparently then that Braverman headed south for the border as the San Diego Sun of the 29th reported that,
Joseph Braverman registered at San Francisco, but skipped out when ordered to report for medical examination, so was indicted by the federal grand jury and was arrested here yesterday by Special Inspector Dave Gershon of the department of justice. He will be sent north.
Why Braverman was transported to Los Angeles and booked by the county sheriff’s department appears to relate to the aforementioned investigation reference involving Sheriff Cline and federal Marshal Walton, the latter likely having jurisdictional supervision over cases like this. What is not clear is whether Braverman was trying to reenter California from México when he was nabbed at San Diego.
In any case, the Call-Bulletin of 23 July briefly remarked that “Joseph Braverman, who claims to be a conscientious objector, has been arrested as a deserter by the federal authorities and turned over to the military authorities,” having “failed to register, or submit to physical examination under the draft.” The San Francisco Examiner added, however, that “he was caught by the authorities at Tia Juana [sic], having gone to Mexico and returned since the draft law went into effect.”
The paper continued that a federal trial was scheduled the prior day, but a federal assistant district attorney “declared that it was a case for the the military officers,” so the federal judge dismissed the existing charge. As noted above, Vane Dart was given a decade sentence on a desertion conviction from a court-martial, so it looked as if Braverman, who may have been held at Los Angeles County jail from May to July, could face a similar lengthy prison term.
Nothing was located about his case until the end of the year, with the Examiner of 18 December recording that “Private Joseph H. Braverman” was handed a quarter-century sentence “on charges of theft and desertion,” though what the first involved was not stated and no coverage of his court-martial was located. The same day’s Call-Bulletin, though, remarked that,
Because there was no competent evidence to show that the accused had ever been legally inducted into the military service, Major General [John F.] Morrison today ordered the release of Joseph H. Braverman, U.S.A., unassigned, found guilty by court martial of desertion and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Braverman was accused of deserting in San Francisco March 30. He surrendered at San Diego April 30. The court martial which tried Braverman and whose findings were disapproved by General Morrison sat at the Presidio.
With this conclusion and his release from detention, Braverman disappeared from the public record and nothing could be located of him after this point. On a general level, notable developments occurred through the end of the war and afterward regarding draft evaders. The Times of 8 June 1918, for example, published an account of how Chester North of the Navy Reserve and his mother Annie Metcalf were employed by federal officials to entrap suspected slackers.
In its number of 5 September, the Express cited wire accounts from the nation’s capital that a Senate investigation was underway concerning “draft slacker raids in New York City” as it was reported that “several Senators had vigorously denounced the raids as illegal and unwarranted,” while the military committee’s chair and others, including California’s Hiram Johnson, a former governor, were on record as “criticizing such round-ups in New York and elsewhere.” Another senator, however, strongly defended authorities, “declaring he was glad to see slackers caught and expressing the opinion that accounts of hardships on innocent men had been greatly exaggerated.”
The following day’s Times noted that the “slacker hunt” continued, despite the hearings and critical comments, because of orders from Attorney General Thomas W. Gregory and A. Bruce Bielaski, head of the Bureau of Investigation, predecessor of the F.B.I. While details were not available, it was estimated that some 70,000 suspects were arrested since the raids began, though of these only some 4-6% were inducted into service or held for trial. No figures were cited for those found guilty.
The Times of the 27th reported that ranchers operating on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border committed to doing what they could “to discourage the draft slackers who are expected to stream over the border to escape the latest call to duty,” following the second mass registration, held on the 12th. Ranchers were encouraged to deny asylum or employment to any alleged evaders or face blacklisting within their agricultural association because “a wholesale arrival of the cowards is expected in the near future.” Several days later, the paper noted that Justice Department agents were readying for “draft slacker raids,” though “ample opportunity will be given for belated registration.”
The war ended on 11 November, but efforts continued to track down, investigate and, if deemed warranted, try and punish draft dodgers. The 5 December issue of the Express recorded that,
Up to July 1 Department of Justice investigators had rounded up 23,439 draft evaders, causing their induction into the service. More than 220,000 cases of men who had failed to fine questionnaires or appear for physical examination were investigated.
The Times of 28 April 1919 ran a feature under the title of “UNCLE SAM TABS EVADERS,” as it was reported from Washington that “the government is about to start a great round-up of draft evaders and deserters who are to be tried and punished as fast as apprehended.” What was referred to as the “final separation of the sheep from the goats among all these delinquents” included an automatic classification of them as deserters was noted.
Notably, however, despite the “as fast as apprehended” remark, it was asserted that officials were careful “to avoid injustice” through “painstaking investigation” with the creation of 15 categories, all but one of which was to lead to a recommendation that desertion charges be dropped. Among those 14 types were those found to have subsequently enlisted, those inducted by mistake, those disqualified because of physical issues, those in the process of induction at war’s end, alien enemies, those who died in the meantime and those who reported to draft boards and whose process of registration was incomplete when the armistice was signed.
The article recorded that military records showed that, through 20 December 1918, there were about 457,000 desertion reports, of which around 12,000 were determined to be unexplained. Of the remainder, about 68,000 were said to have been arrested or their cases handled locally, which meant that not far under 300,000 were considered “at large.” In the four months since, there were some surrenders and apprehensions, while that process of working through the 15 classifications would work through the rest.
It was remarked that “only a comparatively small number have been brought before a court-martial,” but it would be interesting to know how many convictions from these proceedings were reversed, as with Braverman. It is important to note, though, that the question about his status as actually inducted or not is reflected in the statement that,
“Slackers,” men who failed to register, and “delinquents,” those who failed to return their questionnaires or to report for physical examination, are civil, not military offenders. Only a registered man who failed to obey an order to report for military duty was classed as a “deserter.”
Through that December date, Department of Justice agents investigated almost 221,000 “slackers” and “delinquents,” with about 10%, or 24,000, of offenders inducted into service. A Bureau of Investigation official added that prosecutions were only carried out in cases of “clearly willful” incidences and it was remarked, “the purpose of the law was to fill the army and not the jails.” Lastly, it was mentioned that some 10,000 investigations into “slackers” were begun prior to June 1918 and some were still pending.
On the first anniversary of Armistice Day, the Times’ “Pen Points” column contained the tidbit that,
If the Mexican bandits [revolutionaries?] should capture a bunch of the draft slackers who are still lingering along the border line we don’t know but we should be in favor of a vote of thanks. It is quite certain that nobody would ransom the bunch.
With respect to pending investigations into “slackers,” the Times of 12 May 1920, with a header of “TO CLEAN UP CASES OF DRAFT SLACKERS,” reported that United States Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who’d recently conducted the notorious raids, part of a wider “Red Scare,” that targeted suspected leftist radicals, anarchists and others, ordered a “final drive against the draft slackers.”
This was because there was a three-year statute of limitations, dating from 5 June 1917, with special federal agents taking on north of 100 cases of men suspected of violations of the Selective Service Act. As was noted above, there were assumed to be examples of those “not willfully negligent of his duty, by reason of a variety of circumstances,” otherwise, cases were to be quickly presented to grand juries. The piece concluded,
It will be necessary to comb all of Southern California to get a line on many of the delinquents, as they have disappeared from their old haunts and homes.
This booking card in the Museum’s artifact holdings is an important one in understanding the conditions relating to the mass mobilization through drafts during World War I, as well as how the military, federal, state and local governments handled issues related to suspected evasion or dodging of the draft.
The 20% evasion rate of conscription during the Civil War is an intriguing figure. It led me to wonder why people from the same nation came to hate each other so deeply. When I think about the earlier precedents of both the Pilgrims and, later, America as a whole separating themselves from the United Kingdom in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Southern tendency to care more about their individual states than the Union itself in the 19th century begins to make more sense.
However, after years of brutal warfare, the constant threats of death, amputation, and destruction created a profound conflict between moral concern and mortal concern. In the meantime, momentum declined, enthusiasm cooled, and the desire to avoid possible sacrifice became increasingly widespread.
In reality, most people dislike military service even in the absence of direct danger, largely because of its strict discipline, limited freedom, harsh drills, and the loss of precious youthful years. These burdens are generally unpopular among young people, regardless of whether they may one day become presidents, senators, or simply remain ordinary citizens.
Having personally experienced mandatory military service, I understand these feelings quite well. Many of us tried every possible means to avoid service or postpone it by remaining in school longer. Even after being called into the military, we still eagerly looked for opportunities to volunteer for alternative assignments simply to avoid endless drilling or constant control.