Talk:Conscription in the United States

message: I'm going to spin off this article into a new one, there's enough history, information, and external links to justify expanding the article more AStudent 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Care Draft

message: We will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week ---- we will have an all-volunteer army!
--Dubya's own supporters bail him out of a verbal snafu, Daytona Beach, Florida, Oct. 16, 2004
:That was a slip of the tongue- someone beside him stopped him and he immediately corrected himself. JeremyMcCracken 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DubyaSpeak.com

message: Unfortunately, Kerry's 100 day plan has disappeared from his site.  I still prefer the John Kerry forum URL I posted because it is an exact quote, obviously a cut and paste of the original.  The quote is also preserved several other places on the web, just search google:
:::   "100 day plan" kerry
Here is a URL that references a fact sheet:
Iowa Caucus candidate news
Bush in the second debate, practically did a "read my lips" that he would not implement a draft.  Kerry is far more likely to implement a draft. He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others. In addition to his "100 Day Plan to Change America" where he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...". Then look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area.  I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe  Bush is less likely to institute a draft based on his and Kerry's personal historys. Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also--Silverback 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: John Kerry's Plan

message: Herewith my explanation for reverting Alkivar's latest edits:
# Quotation from Bush: It was earlier cited to a CNN transcript.  It's better to cite to Wikisource if available.  I changed the citation to Wikisource and conformed the quotation to the text as found therein.  The first sentence of the previous quotation was redundant, so I deleted it; the second sentence is where Bush states his position.
# Anderson citation: Please refer to my comments above about your objections to the source about the lawsuit.  Here again we're not offering anyone's opinions as gospel truth.  The article cited, although it is an opinion piece, is asserting an objective fact, that Anderson has made certain statements.  I'm not going to go off on another search.  If you have any kind of evidence that USA Today misreported Anderson's position, feel free to present it and we'll investigate.  Until then, there's no reason not to link to this source. JamesMLane 17:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: The external links have included this one: "Dan Smith article in FCNL".  I expanded "FCNL" to Friends Committee on National Legislation, but then, when I went to check the link, it turned out be a list of a whole bunch of articles.  It wasn't immediately obvious what was being linked to here, or why.
The closest match I could find was this one.  Although it's titled "Rock the Draft", it's more about campaign-related issues than about conscription itself.  (It's about the Republican National Committee trying to intimidate Rock the Vote.)  This link might belong in one of the campaign articles, but it doesn't seem to be appropriate here.  I'm removing the link.  If the reader should be directed to a different article on the FCNL site, the link should be restored but with a more precise URL. JamesMLane 06:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re FCNL link

message: Removed the Hagel quote because the link-footnote does not contain it - it just goes to Wes Pruden's latest column. Certainly if a correct link can be found the quote can go back in.
:Nevertheless, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) stated that a military draft may be necessary "in the future." 
Ellsworth 00:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagel Quotation 

message: Some people feel that the draft is unfair because only males are required to register with the Selective Service, and it's only males that could potentially be drafted.  The draft has been perceived by some as unfairly targeting the poor and lower middle classes.  Because of college deferments, children of wealthy and upper middle class families that could afford to send them to college could avoid the draft.  The fact that President Clinton had avoided military service through the use of a deferment caused controversy during his campaigns and during his time in office.
Some children of wealthy families wished to avoid a perception of avoiding military service.  Those individuals would often sign up for the National Guard.  The fact that some were able to use their family's connections to gain a position when spots in the guard were limited also led to a perception that the wealthy were using the National Guard to ensure that their children were assigned low risk duty in the states.  This is an issue that has affected President George W. Bush - some of his critics contend that his family influence gained him a spot in what was called the Champagne unit of the Texas National Guard rather than being drafted.
Also, the draft system itself in the United States was not entirely a fair and impartial system.  There have been cases where local draft boards misused their authority in the past.
While the government had instituted reforms to deal with what were perceived to be the worst abuses, some people feel that more can still be done. Others feel that any military draft is inherently unfair because only a small percentage of eligible draftees are needed at only one time.  One leading opponent of military draft restoration, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The draft hurts military efficiency by substituting well motivated volunteers for unmotivated draftees, undermines military pay and benefits by removing the need to attract volunteers, and creates anxiety and unrest among tens of millions of people who will never serve. It is a dangerous psuedo-solution to a non-existent problem."
The provisions for conscientious objection to the draft have also been viewed as unfairly descriminatory, favoring religious objection over non-religious objection, and favoring those who value peace and non-violence over those who value freedom.  Alternative mandatory service can assuage objections based on peace and non-violence, but do nothing for those who objections arise from strongly held convictions about freedom.  Many who object to the draft find it directly conflicts with the liberty clause they committed themselves to in the Pledge of Allegiance.
</blockquote>
:I hadn't noticed this discussion when I deleted a paragraph from this section earlier today, nonsense originally added to the Conscription article from a known vandal and then copied here. Problems of unfairness are documented and can be referenced. I am also in favor of removing the speculation in this section and replacing it with citable information. JonHarder 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perception of the Draft as Unfair

message: There is a conscription template. Shall we use it? Zeimusu 00:12, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
:I don't think it improves in any way on the normal methods of linking related articles.  It's not really an appropriate subject for a template.  What does the template accomplish that couldn't be done with internal wikilinks or, if absolute need be, a category? JamesMLane 01:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: conscription template

message: Under the section Perception of the Draft as Unfair, the article says "Also, the draft system itself in the United States was not entirely a fair and impartial system. There have been cases where local draft boards misused their authority in the past." I think this statement by itselt does not belong in the article. Examples of misused authority should be provided. Some guy 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs additional explanation

message: In 1775 the Town or Pownalborough, Maine issued a proclamation requiring "all able-bodied men resident in the town to be enlisted in the Militia: as a defensive measure given the only Court House in Maine at the time was in Pownalborough.  The Town Council proclamation also listed the organization of the Militia and the names of those so "drafted".  This remarkable document can be found in the Massachusetts Archives in the Town Hall records for Pownalborough.  Please remember that in 1775, as with today, a "Town" in Maine includes the whole township.
:Yes, states sometimes used the draft during the American Revolution when enough militiamen didn't report for duty. I've added this to the article. —Kevin 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A History of the Draft 

message: This section (added by 67.171.144.181) is taken from a Selective Service website, and is copyrighted by them.  I don't know if it is considered public domain because it is a work of the US government.  I am going to delete this section until this issue is resolved.  --JW1805 16:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women and the Draft in America 

message: as i understand one could buy a deferment from the draft in the civil war, also i heard a reference to such a practice during the vietnam conflict.  Can anyone learned in this matter post relevant info?
:I think in the civil war, you could pay someone to serve in your place.  I haven't heard of buying a deferment, then or later, but I haven't delved into this aspect much.--Silverback 19:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was called "buying a substitute" & many did; only about 25% of those drafted (from what I've read) actually served. Can't say if it persisted; urban legend has it, some gangsters did it as late as Vietnam.  Trekphiler 00:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See Conscientious objector#United States for some on this, including a reference to source material. JonHarder 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buying Deferments 

message: 2 things. During 'nam, if you volunteered, you had a much better chance of choosing your specialty & much less chance of getting sent to the war; recall, the U.S. was deployed worldwide, especially Europe. And, doesn't "stop loss" violate contract law? One party (USG or DoD) isn't permitted to arbitrarily change the terms without the consent of the other...& damned if I'd agree to staying in Iraq after the Pres lied to the country to get it in there.  Trekphiler 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafty 

message: I posted a suggestion that Selective Service be merged into this article.  Both deal with identical topics and I noted a lot of repitition between the two.  Jtmichcock 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: I saw where statements in the article had been placed about Clinton's draft deferments as he was attending college had been the source of controversy.  If we are going to mention Clinton by name, then in the interests of balance, I think we should also mention how Bush's service in the National Guard has also attracted controversy that wealthy and powerful were able to use the National Guard to get low risk state side assingments.
JesseG 22:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention Clinton, then mention Bush 

message: I've always wondered this. If you already served your 4 years active duty and 4 years inactive duty, and was honorably discharged, if a draft law is passed, can you actually be redrafted into the military?
Yes, you can be, although it would have to be very bad.. Like the US mainland being invaded or the such.
:Had that situation ever happened before? I mean, not the US mainland being invaded but had completly seperated former service men be redrafted in before in US history?
There must be some WW1/WW2 and WW2/Korea vets who would know this - probably from sad personnel experience. Even Kores/VietNam cases must exist - real young in one war and middle aged in the next. I have never heard that being in a war was a draft deferment - at least officially. A veterans organization would know maybe - neat to see if there were appreciable numbers that we have never heard of ( noone ever thought to ask the question I bet )159.105.80.141 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No vets would qualify.  The draft ages are limited from 18 to 25 (inclusive).  In theory one could be drafted twice, but this has to come from 2 different draft orders by congress.NYCDA 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Investigate "Stop Loss" which many believe is an outrage and breach of contract. Drafts are for a time when the prison system is too powerful to obtain recruits. If those enlisted supported this, why the cadence:
"Get on Back Home I don't know why I left. But I must've done wrong. And it won't be long 'Till I get on back home. Got a letter in the mail. Go to war or go to jail."<- Frustrated undertone. 97.43.195.22 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can VETs get drafted also? 

message: The first paragraph really misses the point:
"The U.S. armed forces are now designated as "all-volunteer", although, in 2004 as well as during the 1991 Gulf war, some enlisted personnel were involuntarily kept in the Army after their initial voluntary enlistment commitments had expired."
The point of a volunteer force is that its members voluntarily ENTER it.  In doing so, they freely and knowingly forego a right to exit at will.  Explicitly, enlistment contracts state circumstances wherein they can be extended unilaterally by the government (this can often occur when a ship is at sea, the sailor's enlistment is extended until the ship returns to port.) There is nothing inherently contradictory about this.  Please enlighten me why the statement should not be removed? -pbs
This might help provide some explanation, PBS: *The draft would weaken the world's best military, The Wall Street Journal editorial, November 25, 2006 Asteriks 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:pbs's analysis.  The questionable sentence should not be in the lead paragraph.  Since voluntary contracts were entered into by private citizens enlisting, and those contracts included provisions for extension of service under certain conditions, the exercise of that clause by the government does not a conscript make.  N2e 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  all volunteer force questioned? 

message: There are currently about 30 non-indexed footnotes in this article.  Adding  tags to what's there will take some effort that I can't expend right now (because it's bed time).  I'll do it sometime in the next few days if someone else doesn't get to it first.  Erielhonan  07:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote Section?

message: I don't know who the quote in the first paragraph is from.  If it's just a student at Emerson College, it needs to be removed.  No offense to the opinion, but an undergraduate is not a sufficient authority to get top billing on the page.  I'm going to remove it but if there is more here, feel free to put it back with an explanation. Papercrab 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Quote 

message: I wonder if it would be of any interest to post pics of selective service/draft cards from various eras? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so sure. There was a lot of patriotism, & I'd bet a lot of lying by underage guys to get in. Also a lot of enlisting for the bonus & prompt desertion...  TREKphiler hit me ♠  03:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective Service & Draft Cards? 

message: Please merge relevant content, if any, from [ Poverty Draft] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poverty Draft.   (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.)  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 07:47Z
:Why does Poverty Draft redirect to Conscription in the United States, rather than Conscription, Military Service or National Service? Is it because the term "Draft" is not used in English speaking countries outside of the US?--Darrelljon 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Poverty Draft]] 

message: Is it me, or does the opening paragraph of this website sound familiar (hint: the beginning of this page). They could be taking it from here, but it seems more likely that somebody took it from there.
Kasey Klynstra (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you gave the URL of the site you are talking about.  It may just be one of many Wikipedia echoes.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Plagiarism 

message: Are there any laws governing under what conditions a draft can be reinstated?  For example, I've heard that, after the disaster of Vietnam, a law was passed that forbade reinstatement of the draft barring an invasion of U.S. soil.  In fact, I've heard this so many times, from so many people, that I thought it was true.   But there's nothing about that here, and no such law exists as an amendment to the Constitution.  Is that whole "invasion of U.S. soil" thing merely the political science equivalent of an urban myth?  In any case, if there any laws governing under what conditions a draft can be reinstated, that would seem to be a glaring omission in this article.  Minaker (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Important Information Missing 

message: I read the Rod Powers article listed in the external links.  It's worth pointing out that the article, while highly informative in terms of objective facts, makes an argument (that there is no danger that the draft will be reinstated) which is partially based on extremely flawed logic.  Note that I'm not saying whether or not I agree with Mr. Powers's conclusions, I am merely pointing out the problem with the article's logic.
One piece of evidence Powers uses is the current administration's repeated and unequivocal public statements that it does not support the draft, which Powers says makes the administration's views on the draft "very clear."  The problem with this argument is:  How many times has the current administration repeated unequivocal claims about policy that have been outright lies?  I won't get into a "Bush is bad, no he isn't" argument here, but whoever thinks the Bush administration has been 100% truthful in its public statements simply hasn't been paying attention, end of story.
Another piece of evidence Powers uses to prove that the draft will not be reinstated is that reinstatement of the draft would simply be a "bad idea," a major point which Powers then goes on to defend quite convincingly.  However, the logical flaw here is that Powers is assuming that just because something is a bad idea means that it won't be put into action.  Just some food for thought.  Minaker (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rod Powers article 

message: *Strongly oppose.  Conscription is military, only.  National service is not, and there is a  moral differnece. Pustelnik (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with National Service

message: Can somebody have a look at the "draft induced" volunteerism? It's implying a causal relationship I'm unsure exists. If drafted, the Army chose where to send you; if you volunteered, you got some choice. I'm not sure the draft caused it as much as the desire to avoid getting sent to Vietnam (or am I splitting hairs?).  TREKphiler hit me ♠  03:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that during both WWII and Vietnam, there were people who "volunteered" in order to (hopefully) get a preferred assignment, either in terms of where you served or the military specialty you were trained in. It might be difficult to determine to what extant "volunteers" were influenced by the existance of a draft. I doubt the military kept any records of this and lacking that, the only way to research this would be to conduct interviews of "volunteers". I might add that I served in Nam with an individual who volunteered in order to be stationed in Germany. Probably he did get sent to Germany - after serving in Nam. At least I didn't have a 3 year commitment and actually got RIF'ed after only one year. 69.29.207.109 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Spring '65 college grad, without confirmed postgrad education plans (at the moment of the fastest expansion of the draft, military and escalation in-country), I lost my student deferment. My impending draft/induction (my draft orders would have come in early July) was the entire reason for application to, with subsequent acceptance in, Navy OCS - which, also increased my probability of getting a preferred assignment - depending on my performance. There was a 5 month waiting list to get into NAVOCS which was producing 200 ensigns per month. I suspect the A.F. and Army were producing at least those numbers. When I reached my assignment on a smaller ship, only the CO and XO were regular Navy, the other 11 junior officers that composed the "Wardroom" were all OCS grads (USNR on active duty vs. USN from the Academy and ROTC) from various colleges and universities like myself (for flavor of the 10, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Emory, Notre Dame, U.GA, U.MN and U.MS were represented). We were all there for the same reason - answering a call when we'd rather be doing other things and with the ability to do those other things, but not one of them ever complained or failed to give their jobs their full effort and commitment - heavy burdens on a small ship and more so under our busy deployment schedule. Most left the service after their 3-yr active duty and follow-on 3-yr reserve commitments. So, yes, I can say with little doubt that, insofar as the officer corp, "draft induced" volunteerism was a big factor in supplementing the academies and ROTC programs in providing junior officers for the military during Vietnam. (Whether our service constituted high patriotism in the eyes of others, frankly, I don't give a damn, but we all understood the reciprocal obligations of citizens and country as well as the notion that, to whom more is given, more is expected - even if it cost some of the best years of our lives.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Feelin' a draft

message: Was that what it acutally said, or has somebody "corrected" it in a false attempt at propriety to make the page suitable for the sensitive eyes of parents of easily-offended six year olds?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: F*&^ off, [[Sharky's Machine (film)|Sharky]]

message: The article has a section headed "World War I and World War II" yet it begins with 1926, eight years after World War I ended. There is no discussion of the draft during World War I. I have a copy of the 1917 registration card of my grandfather, so I know some sort of draft existed.
I request that some knowledgeable person add a discussion of the draft for World War I.
Thank you. Boardstiff (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft for World War I 

message: Proposal for a new section (maybe a History subsection) that reviews what terms of conscription, from both gov't and soldier POVs, at each of the periods in the History section.  There are some key questions not currently addressed in the current article.  Here are a few that could be great for a table. Given a current period:
* who could be conscripted?
  - age
  - main exemptions
* what was required of conscripts?
  - how long?
  - serve in any branch, or is Army the default?  
  - other terms?  
  - basically, what choices if any, if conscript did not enlist voluntarily?
Marquess (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically, you could end-up in any branch, but most Vietnam Era Processing Centers were only designed to split the men into two groups. The men were evaluated by sight as they come in, and are directed to a line painted on the floor.  In most cases men would request one service or the other, and be directed to the line. The Marines had one line, the Army the other. There was generally more volunteers for Marines then they had allotments for, so some were sent to the Army, even though they wanted to be Marines. The Drill Sergeant at the door made the selection by sight. By design, the Army got all the rejects because they could handle more. K5okc (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New (sub)section proposed: 'Terms of Service' 

message: This was touched on, but not fully developed. Volunteers currently enlist for four years, but have an obligation for six years. Before the Gulf war, this was a moot point, as there was no such thing as "stop loss." So, while previously, people got out after four years and were enrolled in the inactive reserves, this changed after 1990.
Today, people can get out of the service, get married, have kids, and be out of shape, and find themselves ordered back to military service. While this doesn't fit the definition of conscription (they volunteered), the effect is the same. These people (men and women) are sent to the front, and their infants and jobs are left behind.  Many return to find their jobs gone, and their spouses divorced.
I believe there needs to be a section that outlines this modern "draft" technique. K5okc (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft in Reverse 

message: The primary google response, I came here looking to understand how the draft worked throughout our history.  I was very disappointed with this article.  It does not describe in detail how the draft was conducted at various times and spends way too much effort on anti-war and anti-draft narrative.  
For example, how were local draft boards composed and how did they pick and choose candidates?? What were the mechanics of selection throughout our history, with it's faults and successes.  How were men selected just prior to the Vietnam lottery?
There's a citation "President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an executive order on July 11, 1953 that ended the paternity deferment for married men".  Paternity deferment??  How did that work?  When did that start??  The article does not even list the various Vietnam era classifications and deferments available.   
Wikipedia is way too political.  "Conscription in the United States" should describe the history and mechanics of the draft.  The protests and anti-war types and anti-service types had an influence but it should not be the focus of the article.  Dubiousofwiki (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Evaluation 

message: I created Draft board because I think it deserves its own artcicle. I don't really know much about it though, I think some editors of this article could add a lot more to it.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  draft board 

message: I was born in January 1957 and upon registering to vote in 1975 I distinctly remember receiving a draft status (inactive).  So, I believe that the statement regarding the end of the draft needs to be revised to include at least "early 1957".WallyFromColumbia (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Last birth year cohort to be drafted

message: Not sure if this should be included, but should there be a reference in the article about people who are autistic, and if they are exempt from the draft? Thank you.--It's Senior Year! (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we reference this? 

message: For WW II, I was checking the original source - the Wiki article claims that Flynn gives
"n the massive draft of World War II, 50 million men from eighteen to forty-five were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.[9]"
However, I just checked his book via a search at amazon, and what I found was
"From October 1940 to 31 March 1947, when the draft finally ended, SS registered 49 million men, selected 19 million, and saw 10 million inducted."
I could not find the 36 million classified quote (not sure even what that means? Is that those who took the reading and math ability tests?  Those who were physically examined for fitness?).  And as can be seen he says 49 million, not 50 million.
LetterRip (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong quotation?? 

message: under current circumstances, there is little need for the draft, and little demand by the military or Congress.  However, the Iraq war taught the lesson that the occupation of a hostile country requires a large military presence -- 100,000 soldiers were too few for Iraq.  An American or NATO occupation of some large country is hypothetically possible, and would require hundreds of thousands of new American soldiers, they would not have to be highly trained to operate advanced equipment.  They would have to be boots on the ground.  That would be the formula for a new draft.Rjensen (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Predicting the need for the draft in US

message: Last month, Slate published an interview with J.E. McNeil. It looks to me to be a pretty reliable source - a mainstream publication and so on. Perhaps someone who is more interested in the topic might want to include some of the information from the article into this article. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate article - a new RS 

message: It's true that among drafted men, African-Americans were proportionately over-represented in both world wars.  But their overall proportion of the armed forces was actually lower than the percentage of black men of military age in the U.S. at the time.  
Prior to the outbreak of war, in both cases, the armed forces were overwhelmingly white.  During WW I, for example, there were only about 10,000 black soldiers in the Regular Army, which had some 500,000 men by the time voluntary enlists were ended.  The National Guard, which brought in about 435,0000 men, included only about 10,000 black personnel.  Navy, which ended up with over 500,000 men, also had no more than about 10,000 African-Americans, while the Marine Corps, with nearly 80,000 men, had no black personnel at all. So of the first 1.5 million or so men who were either already in the service when war was declared, or who came in through the National Guard or voluntary enlistments, not more than 30,000 were African Americans.  This meant that the pool of draftable men had proportionately more black men than whites, so that African Americans constituted about 13 percent of the men drafted, several points more than their proportion in the general population.  
I have never seen a full-scale study of this, but see my short essay, "Black Americans and the Draft in World War I",
 at http://www.strategypage.com/cic/docs/cic56c.asp
Al-Nofi (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: African-Americans and the Draft in the World Wars

message: In the section titled World War II, we have conflicting statements about the maximum registration age:
"requiring the registration of all men eighteen to sixty-four years of age"
"amended the act to require all men from 18 to 65 to register"
I don't know which is correct, so I'm not going to do the edit myself.
By the way, just for those who might enjoy trivia: I happened across this article because we found draft registration cards for one of my wife's relatives from *both* WWI and WWII. The man was born in 1887--just right to have to register for both wars! Don't know whether he served or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum registration age 

message: The facts stated in the second paragraph are at odds with the facts stated in the Wikipedia article on "The Selective Training and Service Act". Suggest that the differences between these two statements be resolved in favor of the actual facts and brought into line with each other. Also, as with the STSA article, there is no distinction made between draftees and volunteers with both being subsumed under the term and numbers "inducted", a term that can mean either the taking of an individual under coercion of law (a draftee) or the processing of all individuals (draftees and volunteers) entering service regardless of motivation. Those numbers should be separated and reported as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II draft

message: The SSA website tells how 39 state governments (this includes Guam and the Virgin Islands) require that minor boys applying for learners permits and first drivers licenses are required to have their personal information sent to the SSA in Washington, D.C.  Isn't this technically pedophilia?Godofredo29 (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See the article on Pedophilia. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: States Requiring Gathering Of Information On Underage Boys

message: 7 years later, this completely unreferenced and very POV-pushing section is still kicking around with no improvements. Since no one has stepped up to make it more than just a rant, it needs to go. Likewise, the following section, Controversies since 2003, is full of undue weight and almost completely unnecessary in an article about the draft overall. Most of the points made are little more than trivia anyway; the best thing to do would be to contextualize current events with historical ones. Foxyshadis(talk) 08:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you weren't around during the Viet Nam era, or at least were too young to be aware. There was certainly a lot of perception that the draft was unfair. Whether or not it was in fact unfair is a different question, but certainly a lot of people argued it was unfair and should be done away with. Not sure if this was true for  other wars as I wasn't around for WWI or WWII, and too young to notice during Korea. Wschart (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "Perception of the draft as unfair" 

message: I think this word, as the standard opening for letters informing a man of his being drafted, should be mentioned. i believe it was universally recognized, and i suppose feared.(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.101.138.130 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Greetings"

message: The earliest instance of conscription by the government was the impressment of men into the Continental Navy. If captains of American naval vessels were unable to fill their crew quotas from soliciting volunteers, they were allowed to conscript people into the navy through means known as impressment. For this article to be complete it should include details on impressment by the American navy during its early existance.
XavierGreen (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Conscription by the Continental Navy

message: The WWI section contains a serious problem. 
It currently states the following: "The military attempted to socialize and Americanize young immigrant recruits, not by forcing "angloconformity", but by showing remarkable sensitivity and respect for ethnic values and traditions and a concern for the morale of immigrant troops. Sports activities, keeping immigrant groups together, newspapers in various languages, the assistance of bilingual officers, and ethnic entertainment programs were all employed..."
This is demonstrably not the case and the cite used to back up the claim is not from a serious historian. There was very well documented and systematized Anglo conformity directed at WWI draftees. Sober Secondary sources are full of documentation of this. To discuss that on this articles main page would turn the WWI draft section into a long discussion of ethnic conformity and I propose to just remove the absurd text I cited.14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: WWI "Ethnic sensitivity 

message: The entire article reads like journalism, and second-rate journalism at that. "Finally, marriage and family were exempted because of its positive societal consequences."  What does that mean - that marriage and family were applicants?  "The United States breathed easier with the Korean War Armistice on July 27, 1953; however, technology brought new promises and threats." Breathed easier? The topic is conscription, not constriction. "President Kennedy's decision to send military troops to Vietnam as "advisors" was a signal that Selective Service Director Lewis B. Hershey needed to visit the Oval Office." The inanity of this sentence speaks for itself. And so on. Orthotox (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Egregious Style, Even for Wiki

message: In March (in my edit summary I erroneously said April) an editor replaced the first paragraph of the Vietnam War subsection with a long-winded paragraph enclosed in quotes.
Here is the diff.
I have reverted this. Not because I think the previous paragraph was good (it has had a citation needed tag on it since 2012 and is not terribly well-written), but rather because what it was replaced with seems to be a quote from somewhere -- one that is completely unattributed. Whereas poor prose with weak citations isn't great, possible copyvio is serious.
There were no sources in the user's edits so they don't put the article on firmer footing, but if any editor wants to look at what he wrote and see if any of the content can be salvaged, please do so.Eniagrom (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam War 

message: Until just now, the article said that
:In the massive draft of World War II, 50 million men from 18 to 45 were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.[23]
Cite 23 is a 1993 book, The Draft, 1940–1973 by George Q. Flynn.  Google Books will shows me snippets of that, and the key passage appears to be on page 85 and reads "During the war the nation had peacefully registered 49 million men, selected 19 million, and inducted 10 million."  I have accordingly changed the article to say 49 million.
But as was just pointed out in a Reference Desk thread, this number still seems to be too large.  See pages 57 and 156 of this Census Department PDF.  If the total US population in 1940 was only about 132 million, and 18.2% of them were aged 15–24 and 30.1% were aged 25–44, then the number of males who were within the range 18–45 at some time when the US was involved in the war should have been something like 32 million, not 49 million.  The higher number only makes sense if the draft registration involved a large number of people who were not males aged 18–45 and resident in the US.
I'm flagging this as dubious for now.  What's the explanation? --76.69.45.64 (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor point and this doesn't come close to accounting for the difference but although the source says "during the war" I wouldn't be surprised if it was including those registered in 1940 before the US entered in to the war. So people 21 - 45 in November 1940 would likely be included, not just those from December 1941. Anyway more importantly only including people age 45 seems wrong since both Conscription in the United States#World War II and Selective Service System#1940 to 1947 seem to suggest the maximum age was either 64 or 65 at some stage after the US declaration of war. E.g. "After Pearl Harbor the STSA was further amended (December 19, 1941), extending the term of service to the duration of the war and six months and requiring the registration of all men 18 to 64 years of age". This seems to be supported by sources like . The part quoted above says 49 million men were registered, not that 49 million men age up to 45 were registered, so it seems likely it would be including all people who registered regardless of age (and mostly because they were required to). It sounds like people aged above 45 were never liable for immediate induction but the source simply says registrationregistered, not registered and liable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the article to better reflect the source and remove the dubious tag. It's possible it's still dubious, but I'm lazy to check the figures. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of people registered during WW2 

message: The Kennedy book title link contains a typo. Where it says Worm it should read World. 
I would fix it myself, but there is a Soviet Socialist allowed to censor articles lest readers be affronted with the knowledge that the WWII German regime was run by the National Socialist party who would probably undo my correction. Until that entity's credentials are cancelled, I am disinclined to invest much more effort. translator (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in Kennedy book title 

message: A small missing fact from the article is that Gerald Ford ended Draft registration.   The fact that Carter reinstated it is, however, in the article.  So, it's a bit confusing.  If I can find some reliable sources on Ford's ending the requirement to register for the draft I will add it to the "End of Conscription" section. 
ZeroXero (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Draft Registration Under Gerald Ford Is Missing 

message: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (November 30, 2016) contains important information on recent developments in United States conscription policy. Title V, Subtitle F (sections 551–555) is of particular interest. Gmarmstrong (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

message: Relative to Russia, during the Vietnam & Korean Wars, there was also a cold war vs USSR.  But "cold war" seems inappropriate for Korea & Vietnam with all the body bags.  (PeacePeace (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Article err by calling Korean & Vietnam Wars "Cold War"? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In doing a lookover of writeup of the lottery of 1969,  I have not seen the aim of correcting the born-early-in-year problem.  This refers to the greater tendency to draft those born earlier in the calendar year. Carlm0404 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born early in year? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I was looking at the Cold War section and saw this reference after wanting to check the source for more context: 
:Morris, Brett. (2006). The Effects of the Draft on US Presidential Approval Ratings during the Vietnam War, 1954–1975 , Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa).
I checked out that reference and noticed that a vast amount of material there was identical to what appears in this article. After suspecting a copyright violation, I checked the edit history and found that the material was added by DrBrett1 - presumably the author of the doctoral dissertation - who made 20 edits over a two hour period in July 2008. (HERE] is his edit history.) I don't have any objection to the material, but I am wondering if this violated WP:OR in that the editor cited his own material rather than the original source. Not sure any of it really matters, but I'll leave this for those who understand the subject matter and Wikipedia policies a bit more than I do. - Location (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I looked up this Conscription article hoping to answer my question related to this section title, but the article does not supply this information, which in my opinion, it SHOULD. The article makes clear that draft registration was reinstated for birth-year 1960 by Jimmy Carter, but not what earlier birth-year had been the last to HAVE registration previously (the process by which, I presume, one would be issued a "draft card"), and thus, what period of birth-years, ending with 1959 obviously, were exempt. It does address what birth-years men were actually drafted, but not when they no longer had to even register. Somebody please answer my question, and include this information in the article! 2601:545:8201:6290:0:0:0:2EB7 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last birth-year for draft ''registration'' before it was suspended in the 1970s 

message: I think the only periods of federal drafting before 1917 were during the Civil War, under the Militia Act of 1862, Enrollment Act of 1863, and Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864? I've been trying to get stats on how many men were drafted during this time, and I'm running out of time to continue searching. Some sources that might have this info, if anyone else is interested in tracking it down:
* We Need Men: The Union Draft and the Civil War. By James W. Geary. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1991. Pp. xi-264. review
* History of military mobilization in the United States Army, 1775-1945 by Marvin A. Kreidberg and Merton G. Henry. [Washington] Dept. of the Army, 1955.
* The Evolution of Military Conscription in the United States. Timothy J. Perri. The Independent Review. Vol. 17, No. 3 (Winter 2013)
* Footnoted sources on STUMBLING TOWARD TOTAL CIVIL WAR: THE SUCCESSFUL FAILURE OF UNION CONSCRIPTION 1862-1865
-- Beland (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-1917 statistics