Hire to Fire
In 1863, Abraham Lincon signed the infamous Enrollment Act. It ordered states to draft a list of men to serve in the American Civil War. All male residents and male immigrants who wanted citizenship, between the ages 25 and 45 were to be drafted. The official statement read something like this.
“all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and persons of foreign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws * thereof, between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, except as hereinafter excepted, are hereby declared to constitute the national forces, and shall be liable to perform military duty in the service of the United States, when called out by the President for that purpose.”¹
Drafted men were put in two distinct classes. The first class contained men between the ages of 20 and 35; single men between 35 and 45. The second class included married men between the age group 35–45 that was reserved for use only after the man-power from the first class was exhausted.
Get Vijay’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Some were exempted from the draft that included:
- The only son of a widow,
- Father of a child who is not yet 12
- Son of an elderly parent
- And more
One interesting fact about this act was that it allowed the draftees to dodge compulsory service if they could find a substitute for them. Draftees took this opportunity and ran ad campaigns promising a potential substitute as high as $1500! It sparked a huge debate and led to slogans like “rich man’s war and poor man’s fight”. Those who hired a substitute included prominent people like Chester A. Arthur (21st President of the United States), Andrew Carnegie, father of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland (22nd and 24th president of the United States), J.P.Morgan.
As the matter heated up, a new draft law was passed. It did not eliminate the practice of hiring substitutes but allowed the draftees to pay a sum of $300 to the government if one does not want to serve. As one would expect, it drew even more flak as it seemed to put a price on human life with government sanction.
It raises an interesting question, should one be allowed to hire a substitute for war? Is it not class discrimination? Most of you reading this would not agree to vote in favour of such a bill. Everyone would insist on a voluntary recruit, not paying someone to fight on their behalf. If it is unfair to pay someone to fight your battles, is it justified for the military and politicians to recruit people to wage war spending taxpayer’s money? The method of recruiting is different in this era, but the central philosophical question remains the same.
[1]. https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/conscription-act-facts/
