Page 2
Friday Aprii '26, 1963
meri(Ba9 Anita-Draft
c
THE DAILV taR HEEL
A
i
4lJ
76 Years of Editorial Freedom
Bill Amlong,. Editor
Don Walton, Business Manager
mmHmmmmmmmi''llimmm'
Maddox Brand Racism:
Well-Meaning Ignorance
It isn't easy to just come right
out and damn Lester Maddox.
Sure, it's justified to condemn
him as a racist. Further, he's so
paranoid about communism that he
sees subversives under every bed.
And he's just about as simplistic
and politically unsophisticated as
one man can get.
But there's more to Lester Mad
dox than that.
For the Georgia governor, who
spoke to 1,000 students in Carroll
to the Carolina Political Union,
Hall Wednesday night and later
isn't all bad as much as we'd
like to say he is.
Indeed, Maddox embodies most
of the qualities we find despicable
in Deep South politicans.
But he also has a deep-felt and
rather apparent conviction that his
way is the right way, and that
he is going to use this way to
do all he can to help the people
of his state.
And this prevents him from
being simply an evil man.
INSTEAD, LESTER MADDOX
fancies himself a latter-day
Horatio Alger hero who rose from
Depression poverty, through middle-class
comfort, to the Georgia
governor's mansion.
And he doesn't think there's any
reason that anybody else black
or white can't do the same.
For example, when asked at
the CPU session about the extreme
poverty of Southern Negroes, Mad
dox responded by citing the suc
cess story of James Brown, the
millionnair.e. J50uL.singer who . rose
from being 'a shoe shine boy, and
of a Negro corporation president
who told him that the lack of civil
rights hadn't hindered him in
building up a $14 million-a-year
plastics firm.
And from the look on his face,
the tone of his voice, it is quite
believe that: he really doesn't see
any intrinsic disability in being
born black, in being socially and .
politically descriminated against.
IT WAS THE same way when
Maddox told the CPU meeting that
he was convinced that the late ..
Dr. Martin Luthur King, Jr. was
if not a full fledged Red, at least
a Communist dupe, and that the
non-violent civil rights movement
was indeed the spawning grounds
for riots and communist-inspired
revolution.
Once again, you could tell by
looking at him, by listening to him,
that Lester Maddox really, sin
cerely believes that stuff.
He was as obviously sincere,
as sure of his ground on these
points as he was when he spoke
of how Georgia prisons had needed
reform and were getting it, of how
education had needed and was get
ting a larger share of the state
budget, of how the state govern
ment of Georgia was really being
cleanedup and made into an agen
cy that would serve its con
stituents. And Lester Maddox has done
these things: his ad
ministration only 15 months old
has made rather notable strides
in all these areas, plus others.
HE HAS BEEN, all things con
sidered, probably one of the best
governors Georgia has had in
terms of benefitting the state. He
has been honest, sincere and
dedicated.
All the while, though, there
loom the questions of Maddox's
Horatio Alger orientation to
economics, his paranoiac suspi
cions of communists' being in the
hierarchy of every liberal,
humanistic movement; and, of
course, his history of opposing in
tegration of his Atlanta chicken
restaurant, axe-handle-in-hand.
These things are not put aside,
forgotten easily nor should they
be.
For it is this facet of Lester
Maddox which today must stand
paramount in any assessment of
him.
Lester Maddox is, in his heart,
a good and sincere man, we feel,
somewhat loathe to condemn
him.
BUT CONDEMN him we
must.
For Lester Maddox as sincere
and benevolent as he might
be lacks the understanding of
those problems peculiar to black
Americans today, and therefore is
refusing to attack them
specically.
And it is this crucial stance
on the part of white America in
general and her elected officials
in particular that is causing the
black ghettoes to fester into riot
areas is causing them to do so
by not treating their peculiar pro
blems intelligently.
It is the Lester Maddoxes not
the Martin Luther Kings who are
breeding violence, and courting the
possibility of racial warfare in this
nation.
And for this we must, damn
him.
UNC Peons!
vs.
I CPU Mite 1
The real Lester Maddox finally
stood up Wednesday night, called
the late Dr. Martin Luther King
a communist and accused the non
violent civil rights movement of
being a mockfront for . riot and
rebellion.
But only about 75 of the 1,000
or so persons, who crowded Carroll
Hall to hear him got a chance
to see and hear the real Maddox,
freed from his prepared speech
text.
The statements all came as
replies to questions asked of him
at a session with the Carolina
when any questions were allow
ed. Gov. Maddox was whisked
away from the Carroll Hall stage
to 011 Peabody, immediately after
he finished his speech and before
ne naa time to answer any ques
tions from the audience.
THIS DOES NOT seem at all
in keeping with the spirit of a
University whose main purpose is
to be a place where all of its
studentsnot just a select few
members of the CPU can
participate fully in the learning
process.
Although the CPU's closed
meeting with visiting speakers,
following their public addresses',
are usually defended as back-stage
meetings where interested (i.e.,
chosen) students can discuss mat
ters with the speakers, off the
record, they generally serve to
deny the student body at large
the chance of a longer audience
with the speaker.
Wednesday night's in
cidentduring which no question-and-answer
period whatsoever was
provided in Carroll Hall seems to
be the most flagrant demonstration
of the elite CPU's "privilege."
Something good did come out
of it, though: Student Body Presi
dent Bob Travis recognized the
absurdity and unfairness of the
situation, and sent a letter to
Carolina Forum director Scott
Goodfellow directing that in the
future no speaker is to be removed
from the stage for an audience with
any single group.
In other words, the peasants
are finally getting in their licks.
By GEORGE VLASITS
Special to The Daily Tar Heel
During most of the history of this
country military conscription has been
considered antithetical to the principles :
of freedom. Speaking during the War
of 1812 Daniel Webster said of a proposed
draft "The people of this country have
not established for themselves such a
fabric of despotism. . .have not purchas
ed at a vast expense of their
own. . .blood a Magna Charta to be
slaves."
During the period prior to the Civil .
War, ancestors of many thousands of ;
Americans fled European military con
scription and came to America, believing
that conscription was oppressive and
fostered tyranny and war. When a limited ;
draft law was adopted for the Civil
War, it led to draft riots in New York,
in Boston, in Rutland, Vt., in Portsmouth,
N.H. and in Wooster, Ohio. Even as
late as 1917, when Congress debated
the proposal to adopt conscription as
a means of providing troops for WW
I, there was extensive and significant
opposition. Congressman John Nicholls
of N.C. said: "In my state they have
the feeling that a conscript is a slave."
Rep. George Huddleston from Alabama
observed: "Conscription is state
slavery". Congressman Carl Hayden
from Arizona confessed: "Much as I
dislike to believe it, yet I am convinced
that most of the propaganda in favor
of selective conscription is founded not
so much upon a desire to win the
war as it is to accustom the people
to this method of raising armies and
thereby to establish it as a permanent
system in this country." And Senator
Charles Thomas of Colorado said, "Op
position to compulsory military service
is characteristic of every government
fit to be called a democracy.
That opposition to the draft was
widespread among the people, is in
dicated by the fact that eight per dent
of those called, failed to appear at
all and succeeded in escaping arrest.
And so many men left the country
to escape the draft that an order was
issued prohibiting this.
In the period between the two World
Wars, the Soviet Union, Italy and Nazi
Germany instituted compulsory military
training. When the United States' turn
came there was again strong opposition
to conscription on the grounds that it
would enable the President and the
(Editor's Note: The following letter
and accompanying statement have been
sent to Congressmen, Senators, the Presi
dent, and the Justice Department.)
we wish to cad your attention to
the enclosed statement, now signed by
more than 500 faculty members, teaching
assistants, instructors, campus chaplains,
and others at colleges in North Carolina
in support of your men whose conscience
and convictions have left them no choice
but to refuse to serve in a war they
consider terribly misguided, immoral and
inhumane, if not also illegal. There are
now some 10 or 12 men in North Carolina
who in recent months have neither turn
ed in their draft cards or have refused
induction. Those of us who know them
(most of them are students) can testify
that they are among the brightest, best
informed, most socially concerned, and
idealistic young men of their generation;
many of them are also the natural
leaders of today's youth.
It is entirely possible that many of
you in Congress, not having close contact
FOR 60VERM0R. Rt 0 () ' -ms.
vote... OI I f
military leaders to involve the U.S. in
foreign wars without Congressional ap
proval. Even under the conditions in
1941 the Selective Service Extension Act
was adopted in the House by a one-vote
margin of 203 to 202.
During the Second World War, 14
million men were procured for the Arm
ed Forces through the Selective Service
System under the direction of General
Lewis Hershey. In 1944 a group of top
officers of the U.S. Army, with support
of the American Legion and a coalition
of business and financial leaders laun
ched a campaign for a postwar
peacetime universal military conscription.-
Congress turned down this idea
but retained the idea of selective con
scription. Since then the law has been renewed,
in essentially the same form in 1948,
1950, 1951, 1955, 1959, 1963 and 1967.'
Several attempts by the army to extend
the term of service and to broaden
the draft to a universal basis have
been defeated in Congress.
The present Draft Law requires that
all male citizens and resident aliens
register with the Selective Service
System within a five day period after
their 18th birthday. Failure to register
carries a maximum penalty of 5 years
in jail and-or $10,000 fine.
Once registered an individual goes
into the pool of those eligible for in
duction, unless he has a deferment. He
remains in this pool (which includes
1-A, 1-A-0, and 1-0) until he is drafted
or reaches the age of 26 (for those
who have held any deferments, the age
limit is extended to 35). Once he has
served or passed the age of liability
for military srrvice, he is classified
either TV-A or V-A and is no longer
eligible for induction.
The present order of call takes delin
quents first, then volunteers, then men
in the 18 1-2 to 26 age group, oldest
first. Unless there is a national emergen
cy, this means that an individual, once
passed his 26th birthday, will not be
called sinde it is unlikely that the pool
of 18 1-2 to 26 ' year olds will be
exhausted.
Classifications are determined by the
local draft boards, composed of volun
teers who are appointed by the President.
Deferments are granted by these boards
on the basis of information submitted
by the registrant or in his behalf by
interested parties, and on the basis of
with the college population, are not yet
aware of the depth of the problem or
of its extent, for as yet the number
of young men who have, for conscientious
reasons, returned their draft cards or
refused induction is quite small only
a few thousand throughout the country,
so far as is known to us. It may also
seem that, with President Johnson's
recent decisionl not to seek another term
and with what may be the beginning
of serious negotiations to end the war
in Vietnam now taking place, that the
problem is being resolved by the course
of events. We believe that such a view
might be dangerously in error. For every
man who has already refused military
service, there are a number who have
signed statements pledging that they
will do so if that choice is confronted.
As you are all aware, up until recently
the college population has mot been hea
vily drawn upon to fill the country's draft
quotas. That situation has already chang
ed, of course, and the effects of the
new policy will begin to be felt this
summer and in the fall, when large
From The Greensboro Daily News
the board members interpretations of
the Selective Service Law and the direc
tives of the National Director. Some
deferments are mandatory (although it
is still up to the local board to determine
if the individual qualifies) and other
are left up to the discretion of the
local boards.
Under the 1967 draft law a few
changes in the restrictions for board
membership were made. No person may
now serve on a draft board for more
than 25 years or after his 75th birthday.
Sexual restrictions for board membership
were lifted. However, there was no at
tempt to make boards more represen
tative of the community. (One of the
major criticisms of the board make-up
has been systematic exclusion of certain
groups negroes, the poor, and dissen
ters). Every registrant is entitled to the
lowest classification for which he is
eligible (for example, a conscientous ob
jector, who is also a student, is entitled
to a II-S since that classification is
seniors or first-year graduate students
will be called for the draft. The war
which so many find so preposterous
and so out of keeping with the true
ideals of America will in all likelihood
still be with us then, and may even
numbers of the men who aire now college
last fox another year or more.
Of course it is the present war, a
war which has been denounced by many
from its onset and by an ever greater
number as it has continued, that has
been the immediate cause of the problem
now brought to our attention. But the
fault which brings so many young men
into a serious conflict between the
demands of conscience and common
sense, on the one had, ad duty to
country, on the other, resides in the
terms of the Selective Service System
itself, which makes completely in
adequate provision for the rights of in
dividual conscience and belief. That law
must be changed. Perhaps we can give
up "the draft altogether, as some have
argued. But if the draft is continued,
the least that can be done is to make
some form of alternative service
completely divorced from the military
available to men whose profound
beliefs must lead them to refuse military
ssrvice or to accept that duty at serious
cost to thei moral integrity and their
faith in our society and form of govern
ment. The most tragic consequence of the
present situation is not that a few
thousand young men will spend years
in jail that might be so much better
spent in other uses of their time and
talents; both they and the country can
bear this loss. But neither we nor any
nation can bear the widespread
disrespect for law itself that must come
when laws are felt by many to be
stupid and unjust; no nation can well
afford to have a sizable segment of
its most capable young people brought
to cynicism and despair and alienation
from society. It is up to you who have
been elected to positions of responsibility
to take quick steps to eliminate this
needless injustice which poses uch a
threat to our nation.
A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF STUDENT CONSCIENTIOUSLY
REFUSING MILITARY SERVICE
By Concerned Faculty and
Staff Members at Colleges
in North Carolina
We are shocked and dismayed that
young men of conscience must either
serve in a war they believe is unjust
or face jail. The young men who turned
in their draft cards to the Department
of Justice on October 20 have brought
it to our attention that young men face
such a choice right now; many, including
some in North Carolina, have already
chosen to follow their consciences and
risk jail.
lower than a IS.) Appeals for change
in status can be made anytime a new
classification is assigned to a registrant
or when the registrant experiences a
change in status which would affect
his classification.
Under the new draft law, an attempt
has been made to reduce the possibility
of a registrant obtaining deferments all
the way through until age 26. This has
been accomplished by limiting graduate
deferments to the health fields and put
ting occupational deferments at the
direction of local board. There is no
way to tell at this point, what effect
this change will have on local board
decisions.
There are three basic alternatives
to military service for the individual
who is not eligible for a deferment:
Conscientious Objection, immigration to
Canada, and non-cooperaton. All involve
consequences intended as deterants but
are being chose by increasing numbers
of individuals as objection to the draft
and the Vietnamese war increases.
From The University of Alabama
iz :
It is not a failing in the seriousness
of these young men, but a failing in
our laws, that forces them to make
this choice. They would gladly serve
their country in ways that do not involve
what seems to them needless killing
and destruction. The Selective Service
Law, as amended last summer, denies
them such an alternative. It had been
hoped that the law would be modified
to recognize the validity of conscientious
objection to war on grounds of profound
personal and philosophical belief. Instead,
however, amendments to the law seek
to restrict even further the recognized
grounds for conscientious objection. The
law permits exemption from military
service only to those who conscientiously
oppose participation in war of any form
and under all circumstances; there is
no provision whatever for those "who
object to a particular war as unjust,
illegal, or inhumana. Moreover, the only
recognized opposition to war must stem
from "religious training and belief";
it must not be based on "political,
sociological, or philosophical views or
a merely personal moral code."
We believe that all men, regardless
of their views about the war in Vietnam,
should uphold the right of an individual
not to serve in a war he believes is
unjust. We hold with Robert Lowell:
"I would not undertake to advise any
young man to resist the draft that's
too terrible a responsibility. But if one
did, I would feel a coward if I didn't
support him."
We shall work to change a law that
is neither compatible with individual
conscience ncr shows sufficient respect
for it. But unCil the law is changed, we
must support those who can maintain
their self-respect and moral integrity
only by refusing to serve in a war
they must condemn. We believe that
in conscientiously refusing, these young
men are behaving as morally com
mitted citizens who cannot absolve them
selves of compliciy in a war they see as
unjust, even though their government
would absolve them.
Finally, we believe that our statement
is the sort of speech that under the
First Amendment must be free. We
must fulfill our obligations to the men
and women we teach and to cur country
and its freedoms. We call upon others
to join us. ' .
Signatures accumulated in support of
the statement include from UNC;162 full
time faculty members, four campus
chaplains and 104 part-time instructors,
teaching assistants and others.
Other area school totals include, Duke
63; Davidson, 23; Shaw Universty, 7;
Salem College, 10; East Carolina
University, 13; UNC-C, 17; and Wake
Forest University, 16, plus others totaling
overall 495.
' - - 1 -I .. -,c ..... ,