How you can resist funding the government →
other ways the government is funded →
borrowing, government bonds
Tax resistance is an important way to stop supporting the government and its activities, but seeing as how these days so many of the government’s activities are financed not by taxpayer dollars but by borrowed ones, it’s worth saying that it’s equally important not to loan the government your money.
Thomas R. Eddlem makes this case over at LewRockwell.com.
Do you have “bonds” in your retirement fund?
Do you know what kind of bonds they are?
Might you be inadvertently letting Congress use your money?
On , I made a visit to my dear friend, Jonathan Farnum, at Uxbridge, who was very far gone in a consumption.
I sat up with him during and in we had some serious conversation together, in the course of which, after mentioning that he had given up all expectation of recovery, and felt resigned in mind, and willing to leave all, even his dear children, he said considerable about the taxes and something about the paper money that he had been much exercised upon these subjects, and it appeared clear to him that Friends ought to have nothing to do with either.
It also appeared to him, he said, that such as took the money helped the people to use the sword, “And oh!” said he, “that Friends may keep their hands clean, and not defile them with blood.”
I suppose his meaning was that the money, being made expressly for the support of war, to give it currency was at least remotely helping forward and promoting war, and in that sense assisting people to use the sword.
Some time after he said: “Such as have tender scruples in their minds ought not to be discouraged, but otherwise.
But how can those who are in the spirit of the world judge of these things?
They must be redeemed before they can be judged.
They must come out of the spirit and reasonings of the world; for it is not reasoning upon policy that is the thing, but waiting to feel what the Lord requires; and there is no way of safety when we have tender scruples, but in attending to them, and not reason and reason ourselves into the dark.
I believe I had, when the first bill was presented to me, a sufficient check, had it been attended to, to have prevented my touching it.
I believe so.
We must have a care of that spirit which says, “We cannot live without taking it.”
David said he had never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread; and I believe God never will forsake the faithful, nor will their seed beg bread.
This spirit of the world — oh! that Friends may be redeemed out of it.”
Having for nearly a year declined taking the paper currency, agreeably to the secret persuasion which I had of my duty therein, as before mentioned, I have now the satisfaction of comparing the different rewards of obedience and disobedience.
For though, from the very first circulation of this money, I felt uneasy in taking it; yet fears and reasonings of one kind or another prevailed on me to take it for a season; and then it became harder to refuse it than it would probably have been at first; but growing more uneasy and distressed about it, at length I refused it altogether, since which I have felt great peace and satisfaction of mind therein; which has, in a very confirming manner, been increasing from time to time, the longer I have refused it: and although I get almost no money of any kind, little other being in circulation, yet I had much rather live and depend on divine Providence for a daily supply, than to increase in the mammon of this world’s goods, by any ways or means inconsistent with the holy will of my heavenly Father: and the prayer of my soul to him is, that I and all his children may be preserved faithful to him in all his requirings; and out of that love of things here below, which alienates from the true love of and communion with him.
About the latter end of , an old acquaintance of mine, being now collector of rates, came and demanded one of me.
I asked him what it was for.
He said, to sink the paper money.
I told him, as that money was made expressly for the purpose of carrying on war, I had refused to take it; and, for the same reason, could not pay a tax to sink it, believing it my duty to bear testimony against war and fighting.
I informed him, that for diverse years past, even diverse years before the war began, and when I had no expectation of ever being tried in this way, it had been a settled belief with me, that it was not right to pay such taxes; at least not right for me, nor, in my apprehension, right in itself; though many sincere brethren may not at present see its repugnancy to the pure and peaceable spirit of the gospel.
I let him know I did not wish to put him to any trouble, but would be glad to pay it if I could consistently with my persuasion.
He appeared moderate, thoughtful, and rather tender; and, after a time of free and pretty full conversation upon the subject, went away in a pleasant disposition of mind, I being truly glad to see him so.
Diverse such demands were made of me in those troublesome times for diverse years: I ever found it best to be very calm and candid; and to open, as I was from time to time enabled, the genuine grounds of my refusal; and that, if possible, so as to reach the understandings of those who made the demand.
At our Yearly Meeting this year, , the subject of Friends paying taxes for war, came under solid consideration.
Friends were unanimous, that the testimony of truth, and of our Society, was clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid Friends manifested a lively testimony against the payment of those in the mixture; which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial grounds, arising and spreading in the authority of truth.
It was a time of refreshment to an exercised number, whose spirits, I trust, were feelingly relieved, in a joyful sense of the light which then sprung up among us.
On the whole, I am renewedly confirmed that, however the burden-bearers of the present generation among us may hold on their way, or fall short and give back, the Lord will raise up a band of faithful followers, who, preferring Jerusalem’s welfare to their chief joys, will press through the crowd of and follow the Lamb whithersoever he leads them.
As internet telephony started to become a real option several years ago, some American war tax resisters realized they could avoid the federal excise tax on telephone service by getting rid of their phone lines and switching over to such internet-based plans.
In , as the U.S. was launching its attack on Iraq, anti-war activists from other countries began to promote a boycott of the products of U.S. government contractors, and even of U.S. companies in general.
“The U.S. economy is strung out across the globe,” wrote Arundhati Roy.
“Its economic outposts are exposed and vulnerable.
Our strategy must be to isolate Empire’s working parts and disable them one by one.
No target is too small.
No victory too insignificant.”
When the Continental Congress imposed a tax on postage stamps to help pay for the revolutionary war effort, Quaker James Mott decided to stop using the mail.
He wrote to a friend:
Must our correspondence by mail be at end, in consequence of the extra postage?
or shall we pay it, and thereby contribute a mite to the support of measures calculated to destroy men’s lives and property?
Perhaps I may be alone in refusing to pay postage on letters.
Only a few cents — what can this do, it may be said, towards enabling government to prosecute the war?
Very little, I own: but the great sum required is made up of littles; and if all those littles are withheld, the effusion of human blood may be at an end. …
I cannot… believe it best for me to pay the present demand of additional postage, little as it is, and alone as I may stand.
Many years later, Congress issued revenue stamps that had to be purchased and applied to certain types of documents.
One Quaker wrote in :
I am one of those (I suppose there are others), who have felt an extreme unwillingness to help maintain our wars by the use of the revenue stamps, which were legalized expressly for war uses.
Our forefathers would have made an emphatic protest against it, if indeed they would not have refused entirely to use the stamps, and borne the consequences, whatever they might have been.
… at least we could restrict the use of checks (for example) wherever possible, and diminish in this way our contributions to the war fund.
Other Quakers began refusing to use or to deal in imported goods, so as to avoid paying import duties that were being directed to military expenses.
Joshua Evans wrote:
About , I understood a law was made for raising money to defray the expenses of war, by means of a duty laid on imported articles of almost every kind. …
I had felt myself restrained, for thirty or forty years, from paying such taxes; the proceeds whereof were applied, in great measure, to defray expenses relating to war: and, as herein before-mentioned, my refusal was from a tender conscientious care to keep clear in my testimony against all warlike proceedings.
Quaker shopkeeper Isaac Martin decided to stop dealing in imported goods rather than pay an import duty:
[A] weighty concern attended my mind on account of a tax on shop keepers, who dealt in foreign articles, to be appropriated towards carrying on the war against England.
I felt much scrupulous in my mind, respecting the consistency thereof with our peaceable principles. …
I believed my peace of mind would be affected, if I paid the said tax.
So I resigned myself to the Lord’s will, let the event be as it may.
But scarcely a day passed, that I had not to turn customers away, who applied for articles which I had on hand, but could not sell, on account of the heavy penalty.
Quaker meetings also had a policy of warning their members against “sharing or partaking in the spoils of war by purchasing or selling prize-goods” — that is, goods seized from the ships of enemy nations by government-sanctioned pirates.
Government bonds are an obvious boycott target for people trying to restrict the resources available to the government.
John Payne wrote a tract in entreating Quakers to divest from government bonds that went to pay for wars:
[T]he King [once] had the power of summoning the barons to the field, and the barons their retainers: by these means armies were raised, fields fought, and blood-stained laurels acquired.
But now immense sums are wanted; and without them War would be an impossibility.
The magnitude of the money necessary, infinitely exceeds any resource which the kingdom can immediately supply: therefore the ingenuity of ministers has recourse to the aid of Funding; that is, of establishing a fictitious capital, which shall bear a certain rate of interest; and any person, purchasing of Government a portion of this fictitious capital, is put into the receipt of interest according to the sum he purchases, and the country is burthened with taxes to support the payment of such interest.
No man hazards his veracity by saying that War cannot be now supported without the Funding System.
As no man then can deny this solemn truth, is it not astonishing to find Quakers holders of stock, not only in their individual, but in their collective capacity?
What then is the conclusion?
The Quakers, at the time they declare their fundamental principles prohibit War, are actively and voluntarily supplying the only prop by which the modern system of War is supported.
Payne himself went even further.
Eager to avoid as much as possible paying money to the British government that was fighting the American revolutionary war, he bricked up a third of the windows of his home to reduce his property tax (which was assessed based on the number of windows), he disabled his coach to avoid its license fee, and he rode miles out of his way to avoid road tolls.
Upset at the government siphoning off a portion of pew rents in establishment churches “to relieve the embarrassments in the city finances, occasioned by an extravagant self-elected magistracy,” some people in Edinburgh around the time of the Annuity Tax resistance there proposed also refusing to rent pews until government spending were to become more responsible.
The “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” movement aims to boycott businesses that profit from Israeli settlement expansion in occupied Palestine.
The “Potato Movement” in Greece is trying to circumvent the over-taxed middle-men of the above-ground commercial market by directly connecting producers and buyers in a way that is mutually-beneficial to them and less profitable to the state.
The British government’s enforced monopoly on tea imports into the American colonies was “equal to a tax” in the eyes of Samuel Adams and his fellow patriots.
Boycotts of monopoly tea were widespread, and were famously backed up by acts like the Boston Tea Party, in which monopoly tea was destroyed in bulk.
Other monopoly British imports that suffered from American boycott included house paint, cloth, glass, paper, and dye.
One patriotic song included the lyric:
The use of the taxables, let us forbear:—
(Then merchants import till your stores are all full,
May the buyers be few, and your traffic be dull!)
Boycotts of British-monopoly goods like salt were also, of course, big parts of the Indian independence campaign led by Gandhi.
During the tax resistance and protests that accompanied the campaign for the Reform Act of , “associations were proposed of persons who would undertake to use no excisable articles.”
In Russia around the time of the Vyborg Manifesto, a report noted that “the peasants are deciding to boycott all state-owned businesses.”
For example: “they have undertaken a concerted abstention from vodka, the manufacture and sale of which intoxicant was made a Government monopoly… [which] has since constituted one of the principal sources of the public revenue.”
Another report said that “[t]he leaders of the workingmen’s organization have taken the lead in placing fresh obstacles in the way of the government raising money at home by advising their followers to refuse to use spirits upon which the government collects an enormous tax.”
In the Vietnam era, “[o]ne pacifist, imprisoned for draft refusal and therefore lacking income to refuse taxes on, gave up smoking because the cigarette tax brings the [U.S.] government more revenue than any other single consumer-commodity tax.”
Another possibility is to obstruct the sale of such goods:
In Wales, truckers blockaded a Chevron refinery and called upon the tanker operators to join them in shutting it down, to protest the government’s tax on fuel.
Farmers in Argentina decided in to “halt sales of grains and livestock for a week, setting up roadblocks and hampering exports to press for lower taxes.”
In Greece, recently, resisters to taxes that were added to utility bills have barricaded the offices of utility companies.
I hope you had better things to do than to watch the State of the Union commercial.
That said, Obama used the occasion to announce that his administration would be launching something he called “MyRA” that is worth a little mention hereabouts.
The initiative is apparently designed to be a stripped-down savings vehicle for low-income folks who are currently discouraged from saving in IRAs and Roth IRAs and who don’t have the opportunity to join 401k plans.
Obama apparently has the authority to launch this program without going through Congress first, and he plans to make “MyRA”s a reality by the end of the year.
Tax-wise, the accounts will work like the Roth variety of IRA, which is to say that any deposits to the accounts will come from the account-holder’s taxable income, but any returns on the deposit while it remains in the account will be tax-free gains.
There will also be fewer restrictions on withdrawals than with a traditional IRA (you can withdraw your deposits at any time without penalty, though you must keep any tax-free gains in the account until you reach age 59½, barring some exceptions).
The new accounts are meant to be a bridge to regular IRAs, sort of like an IRA with training wheels.
Once your “MyRA” grows to $15,000 (or once you’ve had it for 30 years), you have to roll it over into an ordinary Roth IRA (and you can do so earlier if you want).
The advantage of these accounts over ordinary Roth IRAs is that there aren’t any investment fees and the minimum investment is low.
The accounts prioritize safety over returns; the government guarantees that your account won’t lose money, and ensures a fairly predictable and modest interest rate on deposits.
How will it do this?
From what I hear, the plans will be based on the Thrift Savings Plan “G Fund” that the federal government already manages for its employees.
And here’s the catch for tax resisters and those promoting tax resistance: the G Fund is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds.
That is to say, investors in the G Fund (and presumably depositors in the new “MyRA”s) are loaning their money to the government and thereby contributing to the part of the government budget that is debt-financed.
This of course is not something that tax resisters will want to do or to encourage.
This is the fifth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today I pick things up as the United States formally enters World War Ⅱ.
Apparently, one of the initiatives of the Mennonite Central Committee — in anticipation of the war bond drives that the United States would engage in when it entered World War Ⅱ, and in fear of a repeat of the situation during World War Ⅰ when Mennonites who refused to buy war bonds were persecuted — was to quickly create something called “Peace Bonds” where Mennonites could send their money so they could tell people that they too were putting their money in service.
An article in the issue explained:
Very probably many of our people have heard something about “Peace Bonds” or Peace Certificates.
In a letter sent to each pastor of our conference by the secretary of the peace committee, information was given as to where these certificates could be procured.
But further inquiry made by some of the pastors revealed that some people do not understand the exact nature of these so-called “Bonds.”
These certificates are unlike the War Savings Bonds and Stamps in this respect, that they are not a financial investment.
They will be outright donations toward our relief work in France, England, and Poland, or wherever war relief is needed.
We do not forbid using them for our Civilian Public Service camps.
But they will carry more weight with people if they are used directly for war relief.
These “Bonds” are made out in various size denominations from five dollars on up.
You may show them to people, who press you to buy War Savings Bonds or Stamps, and explain that this is our method of working during time of war.
We cannot fight or directly support the war with our money, but we can give money to war relief work in the war stricken areas, where homes have been destroyed and where people suffer for want of food and clothing.
We will build up where others have destroyed.
These “Peace Bonds,” as we have entitled them, may now be procured by writing for them to Rev. P.H. Unruh, Goessel, Kansas.
They have been printed by the Mennonite Central Committee.
If you desire them, speak to your pastor, in order that he may procure them for your church.
A front-page article on Our Duties and Privileges as Loyal Christian Citizens by H.S. Bender appeared in the issue.
It urged Mennonites to practice non-resistance (which also meant not actively resisting the war effort in any way) and noted that “[t]o date, no law or regulation has been passed compelling civilians… to participate in any way in the national war effort.
There is no governmental compulsion to buy war or defense bonds or savings stamps… Therefore anyone who participates in the various phases of the war effort does so voluntarily.
Pressures on our people to take part in these things may be strong, but they are no stronger than the pressures on our drafted men to accept service in the army.
As sincere nonresistant people we should not yield to these pressures and thus compromise our faith and our conscience.
We should not be less steadfast at home than those who are drafted to camp.”
A regular column called “What If They Say” provided rejoinders Mennonites could use to common rhetorical attacks on their peculiar beliefs.
The column on page two of the issue, penned by Walter H. Dyck, read:
What if they say, “If you want to be entirely consistent in your scruples against war, must you not refuse to pay your taxes?”
All tangible property is said to have at least three legitimate owners.
(1) “The earth is the Lord’s.” (2) The governments of given nations own sections of the surface and resources of the earth.
(3) Individuals are said to be rightful owners of given amounts of the world’s goods.
Actually, God is the owner, and the other two are stewards.
Either may act selfishly or willfully and, by the law of consequences, lose his stewardship.
God has set governments as guardians over the civil phase of the “life and pursuit of happiness” of its peoples.
Jesus says: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Paul adds: “For this cause pay ye tribute: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”…
But for the Christian the problem does not resolve itself so easily.
Seeking the Kingdom of God first places demands on revenue one derives from property.
Life represents labor.
Labor represents property.
The Christian is concerned that revenue from his labors be used wisely.
Both God and Caesar have the right to given proportions of it.
A Christian protests against the idea that Caesar’s levies are crowding God out of the picture, especially when Caesar destroys what God has set out to save.
A Christian pays taxes, realizing that the government is responsible for its use, but lamenting the fact that all of it is not being used for “protection through goodwill.”
We are conscious of the fact that the human and material resources of the nation are being marshaled by our government in a total war effort, and that we shall be expected and asked, possibly in some matters commanded, to participate in it… [W]e do not see how we can consistently participate in this national war effort, much as we purpose in all other respects to be obedient, loyal, and productive citizens.
We are deeply grateful for the continued recognition of our religious conscience…” e.g. in alternative service to conscientious objectors to the military draft, “[and] we are confident that in all lesser demands a similar freedom and protection of conscience will be extended.
This, we believe, will apply… to participation in war financing through the purchase of war or defense bonds and savings stamps… We shall continue to plead before our authorities for deference to sincere conscience in the practical application of our nonresistant position in [this] and similar points as need may arise, remembering that as yet… [no] compulsion [has] been exercised or even proposed.
Meanwhile we desire to appeal to our people…
That we do not purchase war and defense bonds and savings stamps, but rather purchase civilian government bonds and savings stamps as they are provided.
Appendix
Inasmuch as the question of the purchase of government bonds and savings stamps is now before many of our people, we suggest the following to meet this situation:
That M.C.C.
certificates of donation for relief and civilian public service, and M.C.C. donation stamps, might serve as alternates to defense bonds and savings stamp purchases, particularly for those with limited means and for children.
That those who are able to purchase government bonds of substantial size might make use of a statement of readiness to purchase civilian bonds when they become available.
The following form might be useful for this purpose:
Statement of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds
In consistency with my religious belief and conscientious convictions, I cannot aid or abet war or give voluntary support to the national war effort, and for these reasons cannot purchase government obligations the proceeds of which are used for war purposes.
However, I do wish to support my country with such means as are at my disposal, for constructive ends and particularly in works or relief of human need and suffering, and am accordingly prepared and ready to purchase $⸺ par value of government obligations that may become available for such purposes, when and as they are approved by the Mennonite Central Committee to this end.
I will subsequently make additional purchases as my circumstances and the general situation may warrant.
Signed ⸺
Walter H. Dyck was back again in the issue with another “What If They Say” column on a familiar subject, which suggests that this was a Frequently Asked Question:
What if they say, “Is there any difference between the payment of taxes which go for war purposes and the voluntary financing of war operations?”
A true Christian pays “tribute to whom tribute is due”… A tax is a “charge laid upon a person or property for public use” (Webster).
Refusal to pay taxes brings the eventual and rightful confiscation of property.
In this sense taxes are compulsory.
In general, all other causes appeal to the willingness to contribute, and are supported to the extent that interest is aroused for them.
Appeals for foreign and home missions, war sufferer’s relief, civilian public service, as well as appeals for help in the propagation of the war remain voluntary.
The state is responsible for the use of funds collected by taxes.
But so is the Christian for every other dollar asked of him.
He is willing to render services for his country and contribute financially to causes not contrary to the spirit, life, and teachings of Christ.
He will give so that methods of love may abound.
He will give to those in need, distress, or suffering.
He wishes to sacrifice positively.
To him “Christian liberty” means “permission to do” what others neglect, regard as unimportant, or even scorn as “helpful to the enemy,” such as the feeding of innocent women and children in conquered lands.
This may be the cue to our answer.
If it is a tax, then the state is responsible.
If it is an appeal, then an enlightened Christian conscience will dictate whether we may “lend” a helping hand in the name of Christ.
The Peace Section Secretary, J.W. Hoover, reported in the issue that they were still working on coming up with a satisfactory civilian bond, but that in the meantime, “we encourage the increased use of the Contributor’s Certificate and the Statements of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds.
These two expedients have proven effective in the relief pressure to buy Defense Bonds in most cases that have come to our attention where they have been wisely employed.”
In the issue, Hoover gave more details:
Judging from the constant flow of inquiries, there is obviously a rather general misunderstanding concerning the purpose and use of bonds, certificates and stamps.
The Mennonite Central Committee has adopted a certificate for contributions to Relief or Civilian Public Service.
This serves as a form of receipt for contributions to the services administered by the
M.C.C.
for the various cooperating groups.
The minimum contribution for which these certificates were formerly issued was ten dollars.
This has now been changed, so that any gift of five dollars or more will be recognized by a certificate.
For smaller amounts or for those who prefer the stamp-album plan stamps have been provided as a receipt for contributions.
When stamps have been accumulated to the amount of five dollars, a certificate will be issued if desired.
“Possession of… certificates and stamps by individuals who cannot conscientiously participate in the financial side of the military program, indicates their eagerness to support an alternative program of constructive service to their country and their fellowmen.
These certificates and stamps are not officially recognized by the United States Government as alternative to defense bonds and stamps, but they are significant to the extent that they represent genuine sacrifice on the part of the contributors, and support to national service which they can conscientiously give.
“Neither the certificates nor the stamps are redeemable.
Their only dividend is satisfaction in a service of good-will rendered in behalf of human freedom and welfare.”
The certificates and stamps are simply evidence of gifts made to this testimony for peace and good-will, which is the spirit of Christ and is done in His name.
Such evidence of support given to such humanitarian and constructive causes as are sponsored by the
M.C.C.
should have its effect in relieving pressure to contribute or lend to military purposes.
But these are not officially recognized as alternatives to defense bonds.
As a direct answer to growing pressure to buy defense bonds the
M.C.C.
and other interested groups through the National Service Board are seeking to have a special issue of civilian government bonds or notes from the U.S. Treasury Department, which will be ear-marked for civilian services instead of for war.
There is reason to believe that such will eventually be available from the government.
But this is not yet certain.
These bonds are not yet available.
When they are issued, information as to where and how to obtain them will be given.
Meanwhile, the continued and consistent use of the “Statement of Readiness to Purchase Civilian Government Bonds” is encouraged.
These have provided temporary relief of pressure in most cases where wisely applied.
These are simply what the name implies, an indication that the individual is willing to purchase Civilian Government Bonds if and when such are issued.
It is well to read carefully the statement which is carried on these.
It should be self-explanatory.
When new developments come information will be given.
Until then, it should help substantially to relieve pressure if you have evidence of generous contributions to the relief and Civilian Public Service program now being carried on by the Mennonite Central Committee.
Note: General Conference Mennonite churches should get their certificates and stamps from Rev. P.H. Unruh, Goessel, Kansas.
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter… suggesting the issue of bonds for civilian purposes.
Many suggestions similar to the one made by you have been made for the issuance of a special obligation, but such suggestions have not been adopted.
The moneys received by the Treasury from the sale of War Savings bonds, as well as from the sale of all other public debt obligations of the United States, are deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and mingled with all other moneys received by the Treasury from the collection of taxes or from other sources.
All expenditures of the Government are paid from the general fund pursuant to appropriations made by the Congress.
The President, in his Budget Message of , made the following statement:
In a true sense, there are no longer non-defense expenditures.
It is a part of our war effort to maintain civilian services which are essential to the basic needs of human life.
In the same way it is necessary in war time to conserve our natural resources and keep in repair our national plant.
We cannot afford waste or destruction, for we must continue to think of the good of future generations of Americans.
For example, we must maintain fire protection in our forests; and we must maintain control over destructive floods.
In the preparation of the present Budget, expenditures not directly related to the war have been reduced to a minimum or reoriented to the war program.
During the current fiscal year it is estimated that more than six billion dollars will be spent by the Government for other than war purposes, including payments to maintain the agricultural program, general public works, etc. In view of these substantial payments for other than war purposes, persons who desire to purchase War Savings bonds can do so with the knowledge that substantial parts of the Government’s receipts are being devoted to “maintain civilian services which are essential to the basic needs of human life,” as stated by the President in his Budget Message.
The Postal Savings System accepts deposits and funds placed with that System are utilized by the Government.
Also, there are available for purchase the regular issues of Treasury Bonds, Tax Series Notes and other obligations which do not bear any descriptive designations relating to our War activities.
Below this was news from First Mennonite Church, Beatrice, Nebraska: “More than thirty Peace Certificates have been issued to date.
Nearly $1,200 () has been contributed by our congregation for War Sufferer’s Relief and Civilian Public Service .
Ask for your certificates or stamp album today!”
So it looks like a variety of alternative-giving programs had been set up.
The issue reported this news:
Bulletin, First Mennonite Church, Reedley, Calif., “Miss Florence Aurenheimer, who has taught the Week Day Bible School for four weeks, was called to resume the responsibility of Camp Dietitian at Placerville.
This camp (C.P.S.) is to be opened by .”
As kindergarten teacher in the Reedley school system Miss Aurenheimer refused to sell defense stamps to the pupils.
Her resignation was requested, and she tendered it.
Might all Christians be as true to their convictions!
Hunting for some more information about Florence Aurenheimer, I found this article from the California Mennonite Historical Society Bulletin.
After a brief stint at the Camino Civilian Public Service camp, Aurenheimer ended up working for the rest of the war as a teacher at the Tule Lake internment camp for Japanese Americans, where she advocated for better treatment for those confined there.
The cover story in the issue concerned the ways Mennonite congregations were responding to the pressure to participate in war bond drives.
This largely consisted of pledges to purchase civilian bonds when they become available.
In the meantime the National Service Board for Religious Objectors continues to work on plans for a civilian bond.
This week eastern Friends, Brethren, and Mennonite bankers and lawyers are meeting to see what types of bonds other than those used to finance the war might be made available.
Plans… for a civilian bond have not gone through, not because the Treasury Department has been hostile, but because there have been technicalities that have interfered… In Canada, however, civilian bonds have been made available, and the money derived from this source is used for purposes other than war financing.
A note by J. Winfield Fretz in that issue claimed that conscientious objection was in general much stronger among rural than among urban Mennonites.
“The same thing held generally true in the matter of adults buying liberty bonds [in World War Ⅰ] at least if one judges by the records of those who were punished for not buying them.
Will the same situation pertain in the matter of buying defense bonds in the present war?”
Fretz was back to make this claim in the issue.
80% of the boys who opted for civilian public service camps instead of military training came from rural communities rather than cities, he said, and “our town and city people tend to tacitly support the war efforts by buying defense bonds and stamps more readily than do our rural people.”
He speculated on the various pressures that make conscientious objection more difficult for Mennonites in the city: including less economic self-reliance, more interactions with a non-Mennonite majority, and more conformist pressure in general.
It seems some progress was being made on the “civilian bonds” front.
This, from the issue:
Since last week’s press release of Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Morgenthau Jr.’s letter of to Paul French, naturally many inquiries have come to
M.C.C.
headquarters as to the necessary next steps in taking advantage of this announced provision for purchase of non-war Bonds.
A committee representative of the several groups most interested in this has held a number of meetings and is in process of completing arrangements with the Provident Trust Company of Philapelphia to serve as intermediary in this matter.
It is expected that the detailed plans to make the arrangement effective will be ready for submission to the responsible agencies in these several groups by .
It is hoped that fully detailed information will be available for any one interested in using this provision before .
Naturally, all who are concerned in this problem are appreciative of the Treasury Department’s attitude.
And this, from the issue:
Civilian government bonds have been approved by Henry Morgenthau.
The lowest denomination will be $50. They will be registered bonds with approximately the same rate of interest and maturity date as the war bonds.
They will be marketable, but not redeemable before maturity date.
If you work on the payroll plan, you will have to tell your office girl about these bonds.
She will accumulate your money and then send it to the Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, Pa., and you will be sent a bond within thirty to sixty days.
The moment your deposit reaches the bank, you will be sent a postal receipt.
You pay the face value when you buy, but then you will get your interest semi-annually.
The bank must have a flat rate of $1.50 for each deposit, no matter whether for $50, $100 or up
A “Jotting” from the issue, taken from The Conscientious Objector, noted that “State administrators of the War Bond drives in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have authorized pacifists to contribute to the support of the C.P.S. system or to relief agencies as a substitute for the purchase of war bonds.”
To me, “authorized” seems an odd word to use for something that was still being represented as an ostensibly voluntary bond drive, so coercion of some sort must have become a big factor at this point.
A concern for some such plan was first noted and discussed by the National Service Board for Religious Objectors in , at which time a Committee was appointed to study possibilities.
For many months all contacts with Treasury Department officials seemed fruitless.
, it was agreed that those groups most concerned should address their petitions in writing to secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau, and that Paul Comly French of the Committee would then present these letters in person.
Among these was the following prepared under the direction of the Mennonite Central Committee:
In the attached statement of the position of the Mennonite Church on “Peace, War, and Military Service,” adopted at its General Conference at Turner, Oregon, in , you will note… the following: “We can have no part in the financing of war operations through the purchase of war bonds in any form or through voluntary contributions to any of the organizations or activities falling under the category described immediately above, unless such contributions are used for civilian relief or similar purposes.”
… All of the Mennonite bodies cooperating through the agency of this Committee hold substantially this position…
…The purpose of this letter, however, is to bring to your attention the quotation noted above with the request that your office give consideration to some technique by which our members could consistently aid their government with the loan of financial means at their disposal without violating conscience.
…Inasmuch as our constituents in Canada were faced with a similar situation earlier than we, and since the Canadian government arranged to make available to them two special types of investments (a Series B, non-interest-bearing, non-negotiable certificate whose proceeds were designated for reconstruction and relief work; and special stickers for the regular Victory Bond Series, which served to designate such funds for the same purpose), it was our earlier assumption that perhaps similar offerings might be made available to our members in the United States.
Through Mr. French, however, we now learn that your Department has investigated this Canadian provision and has stated that such provisions would be too expensive from the standpoint of administrative cost.
Representatives of the Treasury Department in Ottawa have advised our own leaders in Canada of their satisfaction with the arrangement and of their appreciation of the subscriptions to date.
From the angle of our own position such an arrangement as is provided in Canada would be entirely satisfactory.
In the matter of the cost of administration to the government in making such or similar offerings available to our people here, we believe also that a plan could be worked out to cover this administrative cost by and within our own group.
We have also been advised by Treasury Department representatives that the type of certificate, bond, or evidence of indebtedness which would meet these purposes is not available in the United States and could not be made available except by an act of Congress.
On this point, we of course, recognize that you yourself would be in the best position to know what might be best or could be arranged.
It has occurred to us, however, — inasmuch as our Government does continue to have financial needs along a number of civilian lines as heretofore — that perhaps some form of special, long-term, low-interest-bearing, non-negotiable Treasury Note might be made available… bearing a statement on its face to the effect that the amount of money in question represents aid to the Government in certain of its continuing civilian interests.
We think, for instance, of the budget requirements allowed to Selective Service — Camp Operations Division — by which funds are provided for the “Work of National Importance” technical agencies cooperating with our present Civilian Public Service program… We would be happy to have the proceeds of loans made by our people so indicated on the face of the aforementioned Treasury Note.
The provision of such an arrangement… would also imply that the Treasury would recognize local subscriptions to these on the part of our members as acceptable in lieu of subscriptions to the regularly offered Defense Bond Series; in fact, it would be entirely satisfactory to us to have such subscriptions channeled through the regular local soliciting agencies as is being done in Canada.
A second letter from French to Morgenthau read in part:
…[M]embers of the religious groups represented by the National Service Board for Religious Objectors who feel conscientiously unable to purchase Defense Bonds… understand that there are continuing expenses for the regular functions of the Government, totaling some six billion dollars annually.
Would it be possible for us to purchase regular issues of Treasury bonds and notes and then redistribute them to our people in smaller denominations through a non-profit corporation we are organizing?
Any rate of interest established by the Treasury is agreeable to us, but we would prefer a rate lower than that paid on Defense Bonds.
We are willing to accept notes with any maturity date which seems right to you.
We would handle all subscriptions, and the Treasury would not be required to assume any additional clerical burden on our behalf.
If this plan is satisfactory to you, would it be possible for us to explain to our neighbors that we are aiding in the financing of the Government in ways that our consciences permit and that the United States Treasury has approved our plan?
Morgenthau responded positively, but was careful not to explicitly say that the money invested in these civilian bonds would not go to the war effort.
Instead he noted that the government continues to have a lot of ordinary expenses not directly connected with the war, that the Treasury issues various bills, certificates, notes, and bonds to cover government expenses in general and that these “are not designated by their terms as ‘war issues’ ”, and that “[t]he Treasury would be willing to have the funds to be subscribed by your people invested” in such things.
But during World War Ⅱ the vast majority of federal government spending would be explicitly for the war effort.
It’s not clear to me that even war bonds were being actually earmarked for the war as opposed to put in the general spending budget along with everything else (I believe that they evolved from “defense bonds” which evolved from “baby bonds” and the name changes were for marketing purposes rather than being indicative of how the money was explicitly targeted).
So what this seems to amount to is that there would be two types of bonds and stamps offered to the public.
One set would have the words “war savings bond” printed on the front; and the other wouldn’t; and purchasers of each could imagine their money would be spent accordingly, but really it wouldn’t make much difference.
Be that as it may, the Mennonite Central Committee and several “constituent groups” were reportedly “practically unanimous in favoring the plan.”
The government bond purchases were to be supervised by a committee including one representative from the
M.C.C.,
one from the Brethren Service Committee, and one from the American Friends Service Committee.
The issue reprinted a note from Fellowship reminding readers “that legally the purchase of war bonds is entirely voluntary” and another from The American Friend in which Quakers were urged to buy the new not-explicitly-for-war-bonds:
Friends to whom the use of their money is as much a matter of conscience as the use of their hands, should act immediately… so that this opportunity (Civilian Bonds) now opening to us as Friends is met with an enthusiasm which clearly indicates that we are worthy of the rights granted to us as a very small minority in American life.
On the Conference of Mennonite and Affiliated College Administrators issued A Statement of Position and Proposals for Action concerning “the problems which face our colleges as a result of the war”.
They pledged “[t]o support the sale of Civilian Bonds as made available by the government through the Mennonite Central Committee,” but said they “find ourselves unable to accept… [p]romotion of the sale of war bonds or stamps.”
The Young People’s Organization of the Middle District Conference resolved at its conference: “With other people saving their pennies and investing them in defense stamps, it is imperative that we invest in Civilian Bonds, or better, make generous gifts toward the successful continuance of the program.”
(It’s ambiguous from the context whether “program” means the Civilian Bonds program or the Civilian Public Service Camps.)
The issue mentioned that $108,400 had been subscribed to the not-explicitly-for-war bonds through “M.C.C. constituencies.”
The issue reported that the total number of sales of such bonds as of amounted to $347,250. By , the total had risen to $527,100 (85% from Mennonites).
This brings us to the end of the first year of America’s declared entry into World War Ⅱ.
On the one hand, there is much more awareness in The Mennonite of the theoretical conflict between Mennonite pacifism and the purchase of war bonds than there was during World War Ⅰ.
But on the other hand, this conflict seems to have been resolved by offering Mennonites the fig leaf of not-entirely-for-war-at-least bonds that they were told they could enthusiastically invest in without scruple.
This may have meant that fewer Mennonites would actually resist paying for war this time around.
In future episodes of this series, we’ll see how attitudes evolve as the war continues.
This is the sixth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we find ourselves in the middle of World War Ⅱ.
The issue included a clip-out form that readers could use to order “Civilian Bonds”:
A callout earlier in the same issue included this curious note on how to use the form:
The donor may specify for what the gift is to be used:
For our Peace Committee for C.P.S. support; or
As the Conference or its Executive Committee may deem best; or
It’s not entirely clear to me what’s going on here.
I think what’s happening is that the reader is being asked to purchase some “Civilian Bonds” (ordinary U.S. Treasury bonds, but without any “war bond” designation on them) but at the same time donate those bonds to the Mennonite General Conference.
The note says that in return for your order you will get “a receipt” (not the bonds themselves), so I think I’m correct at least when it comes to the bonds going to the Conference, not to the donor.
But I find it a little mysterious that the donors are being asked to specify what they want done with the gift.
Is this telling to Conference how they should allocate the interest and eventual return of principle from the bonds once they mature?
Or maybe they could use the bonds as some sort of currency-like instruments and put them directly toward certain goals?
An article in the gave more hints:
In The Mennonite of , it was announced that “Civilian Bonds” might be donated to the General Conference in three different ways.
I [C.E. Krehbiel] am now told that there are almost as many bonds in the treasury, for which the cash has been paid out, as at present can well be used in this way.
Kind donors are therefore requested to continue to make further gifts to the General Conference; but please either leave it to the Conference or its Executive Committee to specify for what they shall be used, or do as one has done, add the words “at maturity,” which makes it possible to accept any amount of bonds, including those you have already bought and want to donate to the Conference by assigning them to it.
Another article in that issue
explained that the Civilian Bond Committee were investing all civilian bond subscriptions in “the new F and G United States Savings Bonds” excusing this by saying that they “are not designated as ‘war issues’ ”.
This verifies my suspicion that both these bonds and “war bonds” had the same practical effect, just with different labels.
$859,400 in such bonds had been subscribed as of , $712,500 of which came from Mennonites.
The issue made note of the confusion caused by war bonds and not-explicitly-war bonds being so similar:
Many of our people are being told they can buy the same bonds locally.
Much confusion has arisen in consequence.
Certain of the Bonds which formerly were War Bonds are no longer in this category.
This is true only of the new issues.
And these new issues were to be released only after the old ones were exhausted.
As a special concession to the Peace Churches, the Treasury released these new issues of non-War Bonds… to be used in our Civilian Bond program.
So far as we know, these new non-War issues are not yet on the general market.
We fear that some conscientious people may have unknowingly subscribed to War Bonds.
The article noted that only by buying these bonds through the Civilian Bond program would the Treasury be kept informed of how many “conscientious” bond purchasers there were out there.
“It is definitely marked as conscience money.
It leaves a witness of our convictions in relation to finances.”
This idea of a “witness of sensitivity” was made more explicit in a note in the issue:
Bonds purchased through the church-approved plan are registered with the United States Treasury as having been bought by persons conscientiously unable to finance war.
A witness of sensitivity is thereby made to the government relative to the problem.
This testimony is lost when the bonds are bought locally since the United States Treasury does not recognize such bonds as having been bought by persons with a conscience against war financing.
The earlier article noted that “the new Bond Drive has seven offerings.
These are rather widely varied.
Some are probably not objectionable in themselves; but the line of distinction, which is already thin enough, diminishes almost to the vanishing point.
If subscribed through the regular War Bond solicitor, there is no witness of conscience against war financing.”
So they recognized how small a fig leaf they were offering, apparently.
The mystery is how they thought they could be effective witnesses for conscience when anyone could tell (certainly anyone in the Treasury) that it was only the names of the bonds that were different, not their effects.
That just serves to make Mennonite “conscience” look like subservience to silly taboos.
A mere “witness of sensitivity” might as well be no witness at all.
We are still striving for a better plan.
We hope eventually to get a bond issued, the proceeds of which will go for relief and reconstruction.
The only way that we can probably convince the Government that such a bond issue will pay is by our liberal response to the available program…
When a better plan is approved, it will be made generally known.
Meanwhile we urge you to cooperate in trying to keep what we have until we get something that is proven better.
Otherwise we may be in jeopardy of losing the advantages thus far gained by much effort.
At this distance it’s hard to know for sure, but is this really how the game is played?
Give the government what it wants (your money, to spend how it likes), and in return it gives you some purely symbolic concession (the words “war” and “defense” don’t appear on the face of the bonds).
Then, having given the government everything it wants without much of a fight, expect the government to make further concessions to you?
Wouldn’t it have been more effective to say to the government “sure we’ll pay, but on our terms; meet us half-way”?
In the French and Indian War he refused to pay war taxes, but he proposed raising a fund to develop friendship with the Indians and relief suffering of plundered settlers.
He vigorously opposed the practice of paying a substitute for war service as was the custom at that time.
To such people he asked: “What is it you are objecting to?
Do you just object to yourself being drafted? or do you object to the whole method of war?
If it is the first you cannot logically claim a religious motive.
If it is the second, you cannot put another man into the ranks in your place.”
The issue made note of the new federal income tax withholding program, and how this would reduce people’s take home pay and therefore the amounts they were likely to tithe.
For this reason, the article urged church officials to make an effort to let their congregations know that, on their year-end tax returns, they could deduct as much as 15% of their income for tax purposes by making voluntary contributions to churches and other such nonprofits, and thus be eligible for a tax refund.
No hint was given that this might be considered a conscientious tax resistance strategy.
While many of our people are finding it very humiliating to stick to their Christian convictions as they face scrap drives and war bond campaigns, the members of Woodland Mennonite Chuch at Warroad, Minnesota, have agreed upon a fine cooperative solution to such problems.
Ten Per cent of Each Cream Check
The church members have agreed to the suggestion of their pastor, Arthur F. Ortmann, that they instruct the local creamery to deduct 10 per cent of every cream check.
The pastor collects this once each month and orders bonds through the Provident Trust Co. Since cream checks here are the main source of income and since members supplement these bond investments with money from other farm projects, the community feels that the Mennonites are helping the government and at the same time witnessing to their Christian convictions.
School Officials Impressed
Instead of collecting scrap iron and rubber the Mennonite school children in Warroad are buying peace stamps from the
M.C.C.
and are collecting clothing for relief.
School officials here are impressed with this Christian testimony.
Of course, here too, there have been expressions of hostility by a minority, but under the leadership of a fearless shepherd, the Mennonite here keep right on working, loving, and worshiping in the name of and for the sake of the Prince of Peace.
A note in the issue about how things were going on the other side of the Canadian border, mentioned “Victory Loan Bonds with a sticker attached (designating the use of the funds for relief work)” so there seems to have been some parallel effort to work around Mennonite scruples there as well.
This is the seventh in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite.
Today we find ourselves in the closing years of World War Ⅱ.
In the issue comes the first concrete evidence that some Mennonites were not going along with the “Civilian Bonds” alternative to war bonds that was being championed by the Mennonite Central Committee.
Excerpts:
Civilian Bonds are series F and G bonds registered through the Provident Trust Company.
While the same series may be secured through local channels, Provident Trust Company is the only fiscal agent authorized to register them as “conscience money.”
Civilian bond subscriptions are officially reported to county chairmen and there should be no difficulty to buy them in lieu of war bonds.
The provision for civilian bonds is based on the fact that the U.S. Government has an annual budget of over six billion dollars to maintain civilian services.
Civilian bonds enter the U.S. Treasury as do other bonds but differ in that they are registered as investments from conscientious objectors to war.
The civilian bond plan is not entirely satisfactory and negotiations are under way to secure a more satisfactory plan.
Until a better arrangement is secured the plan will remain as before.
To members who feel that they cannot buy civilian bonds, relief certificates and stamps are recommended.
Relief certificates and stamps are, however, donations and not investments.
The negotiations seem to have been fruitless.
After all, the Mennonites had seemingly already largely surrendered to buying ostensibly-not-war bonds, so what was left to negotiate?
From the issue:
The following statement has been prepared by Jesse Hoover, secretary of the Peace Section:
“The Peace Section has been trying for several months to interest the Treasury Department in a special Relief Savings Bond to finance the Congressional appropriation for United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association.
Recently we received what appears to be the final reply from the Treasury officials.
There does not seem to be any prospect of obtaining such an issue.
“With the probability of another Bond Drive in the not too distant future, we will have nothing more to offer our Churches than the plan followed previously.
And while it has not been entirely satisfactory to many of our people, we do want to urge again that if investments are made in government securities, we should leave our testimony of non-support of war by registering such investments through the Provident Trust Company, by the plan which has been in operation.”
Released
M.C.C.
Headquarters, Akron, Pennsylvania
The sixth War Loan Drive began on .
An editorial in the issue urged the people in charge of the “civilian bonds” program to “make clear” to “members of our churches” “what kind of civilian bonds can be purchased and how.”
An essay by Carl J. Landes — “Let Him Take up His Cross” — appeared in the issue.
He appealed to Mennonites not to accept the safe and impotent ways of expressing faith, but to be as challenging and dangerous to the established order as their esteemed predecessors.
One section concerns recent Mennonite experiences with conscientious objection:
The fact that Jesus was crucified, Menno Simons hunted for eighteen years, his followers put to death by the thousands, while most of us today are safely tucked away in C.P.S. camps, on the farm, or in our own homes where we “keep still,” while voicing loyalty to the same doctrines, is evidence that whatever our words, our practice is not the same.
I am certain that when [Jesus] called on authorities — civil and religious — he was not calling upon them to see what the easiest terms of “alternate service” might be, or if he could buy “civilian bonds” to pay the president’s salary so that Mr. Du Pont’s taxes might swell the total of his war bonds, in providing machine guns and tanks.
Mennonites delude themselves when they pay their taxes, and think they have “rendered unto Caesar.”
When part of our money — either in taxes or civilian bonds — is given to government, a part of us is already in government.
That money represents our toil, our sweat, our life, it is a part of our very self.
We can cut off that part of ourselves, and give the responsibility to someone else.
But that doesn’t settle the score with God, Whose stewards we are.
Can you imagine Jesus paying taxes with money He earned in the carpenter shop, and saying, “I have no further responsibility?”
How can we withdraw at the point where the spirit of the Cross is needed most?
Robert Kreider, in the issue, asked “Do We Take a Stand on Nonresistance?”, reflecting on the current state of pacifist practice among Mennonites, and hoped that the upcoming General Conference would reaffirm and bolster the traditional nonresistance position:
Let us now be completely honest one with another.
In regard to Biblical nonresistance, we have not been of one mind.
Our testimony has been varied, perhaps confused.
Thirty-three percent of our young men choose Civilian Public Service.
Fifteen percent choose noncombatant service.
The remaining fifty-two percent choose straight military service.
Many of our folk decline to purchase war bonds on grounds of Christian conscience; but other Mennonites, because of a sense of civic responsibility, participate and even lead in war bond drives.
Some Mennonites work in war plants, while others quit their jobs in plants which turn to the manufacture of military material.
Most ministers wholeheartedly support CPS and the nonresistant position; some ministers are cool if not antagonistic to CPS.
Some preach and teach nonresistance; some give no pastoral instruction on this doctrine.
Amid this diversity, amid this confusion — what is the witness of our General Conference Mennonite group?
We can state clearly the historic position of our Church, but can we declare what our position is now in this hour of war?
Can we say that our brotherhood is unitedly opposed to participation in war?
No, that we cannot say.
Is nonresistance, then, only of incidental importance in the life of the Christian?
Is our position, then, that nonresistance is to be encouraged as a desirable attribute of the Christian life but really of only secondary significance?
Shall we let it be said that our church and church members are so lacking in agreement on this issue that to avoid the criticism of hypocrisy we should abandon our nonresistance?
(Our brethren in Holland, Germany, France, Switzerland have done just that.)
Shall we continue to affirm that nonresistance is the scriptural, the preferred position of the brotherhood, but beyond that permit each member to have complete freedom to pursue his chosen course?
Our fellowship would then frankly embrace Christians of both pacifist and non-pacifist persuasion.
Or shall we strive as a Church toward a new unity of conviction on nonresistance and a new purity of fellowship?
Our Conference reiterated its Peace Resolution at its recent session at North Newton.
In that resolution we read, “We can have no part in carnal warfare… We believe that this means that we cannot bear arms personally nor directly aid those who do so, and… we cannot accept service under the military arm of the government, whether it be combatant or noncombatant.”
In view of the fact that only 27 per cent of our drafted men were classified as Ⅳ‒E, with one district conference having only 6 per cent in C.P.S., does the above resolution sincerely express our belief?
It can hardly be assumed that the percentage of those who refused to purchase war bonds or work in war factories, is larger than the 27 per cent.
We wonder why the Conference reaffirmed the above resolution?
It is sometimes stated the noncombatant takes his position because he wants to be in the war camp with one foot and in the pacifist camp with the other.
May it be that the majority of our conference would like to stand in full support of their government’s wishes with their practical foot, and in obedience to Peter’s suggestion, “We ought to obey God rather than man” with their idealistic foot?
Doesn’t it seem somewhat difficult to serve God and mammon at the same time?
When one of our ministers made a rather forceful talk in defense of full support of our Mennonite peace teachings, rumors were later on heard that this brother is “radical,” the speech was “uncalled for.”
When that sentiment prevails at a Mennonite conference, what justification remains for us to continue as a separate denomination?
Do not other Protestant churches also have peace teachings?
Was our Conference sincere when the above resolution was re-affirmed?
One of our Mennonite young women recently related the following account of her experience as a school teacher.
She had been teaching school until recently in one of the mid-western states in a non-Mennonite community.
In this community she was urged to join the various scrap drives and she was expected to urge her students to do so.
All of the teachers were expected to buy war bonds, and all of them did, but this one Mennonite teacher who because of her refusal to buy prevented the school from being awarded the pennant for being 100 per cent behind the war effort.
Her superintendent while not agreeing with her views on war, nevertheless, very much admired her courage in being loyal to her convictions.
As of , the amount of money subscribed for civilian bonds in the U.S. Treasury was $6,501,627.14. Of this amount, $4,706,026.50 was subscribed by Mennonites.
That brings us to the end of World War Ⅱ.
In the post-war, Cold War, Atomic Age, a new war tax resistance movement will emerge.
In the coming episodes we’ll see how The Mennonite participates.
The Gospel-Visiter (later Visitor) started publishing in 1851, and its archives go back further than any other Church of the Brethren magazine I’ve yet come across on-line.
So the hunt begins.
As always with this sort of thing, disclaimers apply: I’m not reading through each issue but using some simple text searches against magazines that have been scanned with optical character recognition software.
Many of these old pages are difficult for such software to understand, and so some things are bound to be missed.
When searching for terms associated with taxation and commutation fines, the earliest examples I find are mentions of the usual bible verses about rendering to Cæsar, the miracle of the coin in the fish, and Romans 13 — and there’s no hint of tax resistance sentiment in how these episodes are interpreted.
(For a good example of this, see “Essays on the Civil Law” starting on page 38 of the issue.)
In 1861, a reader wrote in to ask for an explanation of Romans 13:1–5.
This time, the response from the editors was uncharacteristically wiggly, suggesting that Paul had penned this notoriously lickspittle passage for mostly pragmatic reasons and that we should not take it too strictly (source):
The Jews in the apostolic age were of a very rebellious disposition, and exceedingly opposed to the Roman government, and even pleading conscious in refusing to pay tribute, or showing any other mark of subjection; considering themselves as the subjects of God alone, and that all other authority over them was mere usurpation, and such as ought to be opposed.
This spirit would be too apt to spread itself among the Gentile converts to Christianity, and might thus bring the Christians into inconvenience, and the more so, as Christians were considered at first as nothing more than a sect of the Jews.
The apostle therefore teaching Christians to be subject to the laws of civil governments, as being ordained by God.
We must understand the apostle to mean that the general principle of civil government is ordained by God, for the good of mankind, and that Christians should give their sanction to such government, as something that is in itself useful.
But we must not suppose that the apostle meant that all the laws enacted by civil authority are ordained of God, and are to be obeyed by Christians.
For it would be very absurd to suppose the apostle would teach Christians to obey all the wicked laws that are made by ungodly tyrants.
The apostles themselves did not obey every requirement which those in authority enjoined upon as will be seen in the fourth chapter of the Acts.
A letter from John Kline, dated from rebel-held Virginia, is the first mention I found of fines for conscientious objection from military service (source):
Times however, dear brethren, are truly pretty squally and things uncertain.
What will at last be the final result no man on earth can tell.
Our brethren truly have much to pay, so much so, it will be a considerable burden for them to bear.
Those that are able have paid for substitutes before the law of fines was in existence to rid themselves from going to the arm, from $600 to $1500, and now to help those that have not to pay, to pay the $500 fine falls heavy, yet it may be the means to relieve the brethren from some of the worldly burden, and do us good, and wean our affections to the heavenly treasures.
The magazine reprinted a letter from an Indiana government official who was responding to complaints about the operation of the conscription law and the exemption fines (source).
The letter gives some details about how the mechanics of the exemption fine process worked (and how the law could be ambiguous in some ways), but what I found most interesting about the letter is how the writer makes it explicit that the exemption fines could be used to recruit substitutes to serve in the place of the objectors.
(Sometimes elsewhere it was stated or implied that such fines would only be used by the government to pay for humanitarian expenses.) Excerpt:
The number raised by draft will probably fall one thousand below what was anticipated… This deficit can be properly supplied by paying the $200 equivalents of the conscientious exempts to an equal number of volunteers.
There are probably one thousand of such drafted exempts able to pay the equivalent.
Thus the able-bodied man who is exempt from military duty on conscientious grounds, furnishes the means by which another is induced to go, and the militia of the State is relieved from an unequal burden.
As the conscientious exempt cannot volunteer or induce others to volunteer — as he cannot be drafted or aid any drafted man in procuring a substitute — as he cannot contribute money to war purposes — as his conscience forbids him to render any active aid to any war, the constitution requires some compensation for these exemptions…
There are about 1,250 drafted conscientious men in the State, who are required to pay $200 each, if able to pay it, if not able they are released from service without payment.
Probably one thousand of those drafted are able to pay the sum required.…
If any one thinks $200 dollars is more than an equivalent for exemption, let him ascertain the present price of substitutes, and he will be satisfied on that point. If the Government would permit all persons to be exempted on the payment of $200 each, thousands would avail themselves of the privilege.
In a petition to the Ohio legislature was prepared by some “German Baptist” elders (I think that’s the same as Brethren or Dunkers) that urged the legislature to institute a commutation tax (source). Excerpt:
[W]hile we love our country, and are as loyal to our government, and pay our taxes, our tribute &c. as cheerfully as any of our neighbors, and do not wish for any privilege, that we would not as freely accord to all, we feel bound in our consciences to refuse taking up arms against our fellowmen, and beg and entreat an honorable Legislature therefore to pass such a law, by which we could be exempted from what we cannot do conscientiously, that is from personal military service, from hiring substitutes, which still would put us under the ban of being disobedient, and if in order to perfectly equalize us with our fellow-citizens, your honorable body sees fit to lay upon us some extra burden for exempting us from such personal service, we would humbly suggest to lay an extra-tax on the property of non-combatants, as is the case in Canada and many European states and countries.
A letter from editor Henry Kurtz to a West Virginia legislator, dated mentioned some Brethren men who had been jailed in Virginia there the previous year for refusing to cooperate with press gangs (source), and noted their willingness to pay a commutation tax when it was finally made available. Excerpts:
Congressmen and others of high standing became interested in their case, and finally a law was passed, that such conscientious people should be exempted from military service by paying a fine of Five hundred Dollars.
The papers stated that this fine had to be paid in specie, but this appears to have been incorrect, because it would have been impossible.
The fine was paid in Confederate money or scrip, and the prisoners were liberated and dismissed to go home.
We have learned since, that they were no further disturbed or required to perform military service: though they have suffered and still suffer much from the inevitable concomitants and consequences of war.
That those who are able should pay an equitable sum of money for the boon of exemption, we freely admit; but what shall those do who have not the means to pay such an equivalent, and are as conscientious as their wealthier brethren?
We have been informed, that in Rockingham and adjoining counties our wealthier brethren had to pay their own fines, and besides contribute for the poor of their church to the amount of thousands of dollars.
Not saying anything of the hardness of the case this may be possible in old settlements, where people had time to accumulate wealth; but it would be impossible in new settlements, such as are in your own new state, and many other places, where people have had scarcely time to open a farm in the wilderness, and make an honest living.
If these cannot be exempted on such terms that they possibly can fulfill, we see no other way but they must emigrate to some other country, where they will be permitted to enjoy liberty of conscience to the full extent of the word.
Should not a wise government prevent the expatriation of her best, most useful and most loyal citizens?
Another letter , from Henry Kurtz of Ohio (source) advocated that Brethren chip in to help each other pay these commutation fines, and proposed an example formula a congregation could use for this purpose. Excerpt:
To make the matter as plain as possible, we will suppose a church contains 150 brethren, one hundred enrolled, and twenty of the latter drafted, and fifty exempt on account of age &c.
Now suppose again, of those twenty drafted, who altogether would have to pay $6000, fifteen could pay their own shares fully with $4,500 — it might be asked, would it be right, would it be fair and equal, would it be bearing one another’s burden in fulfillment of the law of Christ, if the church required of them the full payment of their own fine, and perhaps even ask of them a farther contribution toward the $1500 for those five (5) unable to pay? — Was it not much better, more according to the Gospel and more lovely, when brethren last fall distributed the whole sum to be paid among all according to the “true avails of their property” and according to the willingness of the mind, so that each bore an equal share of the burden?
(Another letter, from Philip Boyle, in an 1865 edition, shared a formula adopted by the Brethren at Pipe Creek, Maryland for sharing the cost of commutation fines across the congregation, and encouraged others to adopt something similar.)
An interesting letter to the editor from E.A. Teter, dated challenged Brethren to consider more carefully how to avoid the draft in a morally consistent way without voluntarily paying for war (source). Excerpts:
There was a draft to be made but in order to shun this draft, designing men of each township got up a subscription and went around to each man, telling them if they would pay so much, there would no draft be made.
And now the brethren pay their share in with the world.
And what is this money for?
Why, it is to hire men to go to war.
And what have we done now?
Why, we have given our money to hire men to go yonder and kill our fellow beings.
And is this according to the Gospel and our profession? “O yes,” methinks I hear a brother saying, “we must be subject to the laws of our land.” But must we take advantage of the laws of our land as it is in the case now before us; we will say, for instance, if every man in the township pays twenty dollars then we will be free from the draft this time.
But brethren, is this right? and is there no more harm in paying volunteer money, or to hire substitutes, or to go to the battle field; than to pay our fine after being drafted?
Some of our brethren here think the former plan the best, because it don’t take so many of our rusty dollars, to which our hearts are inclined to cleave so fast: while some of our brethren think it to be very wrong and inconsistent with the Gospel and the profession of our faith.
We profess to be a harmless and inoffensive people: then why do we not live up to our faith?
And why are we so easily made afraid? It looks as though we feared man, poor, feeble man more than we fear our heavenly Father.
…We are taught not to be conformed to this world, and in 1 Cor. 6:14. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers;” which we fear has been done in paying money to hire substitutes, when we knew for what purpose it would be used.
The editor responded sympathetically but vaguely, and recommended that the question be brought up at the next Yearly Meeting.
In the issue appeared a note about a letter the magazine had received from “J.H.” in response to Ms. Teter (source).
J.H. pushed even further in the direction Teter was urging:
“Is there no more harm in paying bounty-money, or in hiring substitutes, or in going to the battlefield, than to pay a fine after being drafted?” — as proposed by a sister some time ago.
The sister’s opinion was that the last proposition was least objectionable, namely to wait till drafted, and then pay the fine.
Brother J.H. is of an entirely different opinion, and asks: Suppose a brother is drafted, and then goes to pay his fine, does he not thereby subject another of his friends and neighbors to take his place? and adds, Where is a brother’s charity, who pays his fine under these circumstances?
We would fain give the brother’s whole letter, but our limits forbid, and other questions have taken the place of these.
Hence we give only the conclusion of it.
“Let us be consistent. If there are those, as no doubt there are, who will wait and see whether God will strengthen their faith to hold out to the end after being drafted, I say their resolution is commendable.…[”]
In the edition, the editors gave a more concrete answer to Ms. Teter’s query, one that steered the conversation back from its increasingly radical direction:
In case a town or township agree to raise funds sufficient to prevent a draft, the question occurs, may brethren or non-resistants contribute to such fund with a good conscience? — In the fear of God we would reply, if no more than money is asked of us, and if we do, what we do, from a proper motive, not only to screen ourselves but our neighbors also from the draft in a lawful manner, we verily believe this can be done with a good conscience.
What is done with the funds is no more our concern, as is our concern, what is done with other taxes we have to pay.
Best let every one act according to his own faith, and not condemn others, if they act differently from the same principle.
A letter from “A.
Pilgrim” (source) in the edition concerned the ethics of investing in government bonds.
Excerpt:
I beg the privilege of calling the brethren’s attention to the query No. 16, of the last Annual Council, relative to the investment of money in government bonds.
The answer was “considered not wrong to do so.”
Then refer to query No. 35, relative to voting and paying bounty money.
The answer to that query was, “We exhort the brethren &c.”
(See answer to query 35, minutes of 1864.)
I fully concur in the decision of the latter query, but I am sorry to say I cannot altogether agree with the decision of the former.
Our non-resistant principles are indeed very dear to us all as true subjects of the Prince of peace, but as we are all fallible creatures, we sometimes have to realize our short-sightedness in giving counsel.
The advice not to encourage in any way the practice of war, seems to have been overlooked in the former query.
According to my opinion, there is not much difference between paying bounty money and investing money in government bonds; both are voluntarily given and answer the same purpose in general.
We are all aware that the government needs money for the prosecution of the war, and is applying it for that very purpose.
The government is also paying from $600 to $700 bounty for recruits, and how very likely may some of this money be used to make up some of this bounty.
It is true, we have no right to ask for what this money is intended, and indeed it would be unnecessary, for we know it is to encourage the war, and answers the means to prolong this unhappy struggle.
Why should we not then rather withhold money and wait till the demands are made in the forms of taxes and fines, which the gospel requires of us to pay?
Some say it is our duty to sustain the financial credit of our government.
I find nothing in the gospel to enjoin such a duty upon us, but it requires us to honor the profession we make, by being holy as the Lord God is holy. If we live circumspectly in all our ways and actions, we present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable before God, and thus sustain the credit of the kingdom of Christ in which we are the proper subjects.
It may be a very safe deposit, and besides that a profit of 7 30—100 per cent annually, convertable into gold-bearing bonds, and is exempt from state and municipal taxation; but I hope my brethren will not suffer themselves to be tempted to yield to these liberal offers, if inconsistent to our non-resistant principles.
An article titled “Non-Resistance Defended” by “H.D.” appeared in the edition.
It took a hard line on Christian non-resistance, saying for instance that because “[a]ll officers in the government are supported by the sword, and their duties discharged by virtue of its power,” that non-resistant Christians ought not to hold such offices, or vote for those who do, or petition those officers for assistance or redress.
Nevertheless such Christians “are in duty bound to be obedient to all their laws and regulations, and to pay all taxes, duties, fines, or whatever rates or levies the government may see fit to impose upon them.”
This duty the apostle Paul says, we shall make conscience of, not from fear of the penalty which would follow a refusal, but for conscience’ sake.
The kingdom of this world has power over the things of this world, and whatever portion of its goods we have possession of, when they ask it of us, it is our duty to give it.
It is theirs, and they only ask their own when they demand it of us.
The article also touched on bounty money, hiring substitutes, and things of that nature, and tried to figure out where to draw the line:
We do not recognize those as true non-resistants who profess to have conscientious scruples about bearing arms, and yet… will not go to the battlefield themselves, but will hire substitutes to go and do that for them, which they say they dare not do themselves…
Since the commencement of the present war, when the war department called for fresh levies of troops, and when our own state was threatened with invasion, people have collected money to arm and equip militia for local or state service, and also for bounty to induce men to volunteer in the National service.
This is not inconsistent for the world, or such as profess that it is the duty of christians to take up arms in defence of their rights and country.
But it is certainly inconsistent in those who profess to be non-resistants to pay, or arm others to go and do what they say is wrong for themselves to do.
…how can those who profess to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and say as such, Christ has forbidden them to fight, join in with our opponents and pay men to go and fight for them or in their stead?
Any one can see that there is no consistency here.
If it is wrong for me to go, it is wrong for me to pay another to go for me.…
It is urged that we pay the commutation fee and the war tax and that these are used for war purposes, and that the case is parallel with that of paying to induce volunteering or buying substitutes.…
The commutation fee, and what is called war tax, is no more war tax than any other tax we pay to keep up the government, and I am no more violating my non-resistant principles if I pay one, than I do if I pay the other.
I have said before all the estate or property we own we hold only by the tolerance and authority of the powers that be.
The civil powers have authority over all property, and have right to demand so much of it as they have need of.
This we acknowledge, and have no right to refuse giving it to them, or to ask what use they intend making of it.
If I buy property with a ground rent or lien of any kind on it, that part or amount is not mine any more than if I had not bought the property.
I have no right to withhold the payment of that money any more than I have a sum of money that I have borrowed, or any other debt contracted.
Thus it is with land and all property.
The government originally owned all the land.
It sold it to settlers under its patent.
They hold it on condition of paying such rates and levies as the government may demand.
Then when we pay whatever tax is asked of us, we only give to it its due, as we would pay any other debt due.
And for this reason Paul says, “we shall do it for conscience’ sake.”
Every honest man makes conscience of withholding anything which is due to another, and so every true christian makes conscience of returning his property fairly and faithfully to the officers of the government, and punctually paying what it requires of him with as little right to ask or inquire what use they design making of it, as they have to ask what use the person proposes to make of the money he has borrowed of us.
There is therefore a very great difference between what we pay voluntarily, or without sanction of law, and what we pay on demand of the powers.
If a person comes to me and solicits a donation as a bounty to induce men to volunteer in the army, or to equip men to go and fight, by giving it I give a testimony that I have an interest in, and desire the cause to progress, when at the same time I do not know that I am not arming men to fight against what God designs to do.
But if I owe a man a sum of money as a debt, and he comes and demands it, and tells me he intends it to arm and equip himself to go to war, I have no right to withhold payment, it is his own, and he has a right to do with it as he pleases.
I would make no difference between paying a man to go to war, or going myself.
And that takes us up through the end of the American Civil War, where I’ve stopped for now.
Today I continue observing the evolution of attitudes toward war taxes and related subjects in the Church of the Brethren via archives of Brethren periodicals, this time from the 1876–1899 period.
The Primitive Christian and The Pilgrim merged in 1876.
In , the magazine republished a series of articles representing a debate between a Baptist and a “Tunker” (Brethren) over whether Brethren doctrines were sound Christianity.
One of these touched on war taxes briefly, as the author defending Brethren wrote (source):
Our brethren cheerfully paid “tribute” to civil authorities wherever they were during the uncivil war and paid the fines imposed upon them, whether North or South, but did not take part in the quarrel and did not shed human blood.
(The debate, and that quote, also appeared in The Brethren at Work that year.)
Another article in an issue detoured briefly to recap some of the debate in the church about war taxes during the American Revolution (source). Excerpt:
At the beginning of the Revolutionary war, various difficulties arose in the church.
One was in regard to the paying of tax. — Some seem to have thought that our peace principles would be compromised by paying the tax that would go to support the war.
Others viewed the subject differently.
The counsel of our ancient brethren in regard to this matter, was similar to that given by the apostle in cases we have referred to.
They thought the tax might be paid according to the example of Christ, Matt. 17:24–27, but they say, “If one does not see it so, and thinks, perhaps, he, for his conscience’s sake could not pay it, but bear with others who pay in patience, we would willingly leave it over, inasmuch as we deem the overruling of the conscience as wrong.” See Minutes of Annual Meeting, .
In the magazine reprinted a local news article about a “German Baptist or Dunkard” named George Grisso.
It mentioned that during the War of 1812 Grisso had been drafted “but as his church opposed all war and taught that all disputes should be settled by peaceful methods, he hired a substitute…”
The Brethren at Work began publishing in .
An issue covered a debate between a Baptist and a Brethren, and in the course of so doing, described the Brethren position on war taxes thusly (source):
We obey man when it does not conflict with God’s teaching, but prefer obeying God rather than man.
We pay tribute, and in this way respect those who are over us, but take no part in war.
We do not resist, but submit.
The Primitive Christian and The Brethren at Work were absorbed into Gospel Messenger in .
In searching for mentions of taxes in these various archives, I frequently came across debates having more to do with congregations taxing themselves to raise funds for various things.
This in turn was tangled up in concern about a hireling ministry, and about the corruption of wealthy churches of other denominations that seemed parasitic on their flock.
The position that the church ought to be supported by voluntary donation only was defended by a D.E. Cripe in an article (source). Excerpts:
We hold that taxation is contrary to the teaching and principle of the Scriptures; that it is unjust, and takes away the blessing of giving.
In conclusion, we would say, there is no instance recorded in all the Scriptures where God approved of a taxation.
Jehoiakim taxed Israel to pay tribute to Pharaoh, but he was a very wicked king.
The Roman emperors also taxed Israel, but we have no account that any of God’s servants ever did.
Ananias and his wife died, not because they kept back part of their property and did not pay a stipulated sum, but because they tried to deceive the apostles and make them believe they paid in all their money, when they had not done so.
If the Brethren once feel sure their money is required for a good cause and will be judiciously applied, then they will contribute freely, without being asked.
This anti-tax point of view was in the specific context of the debate over mandatory church tithing, and is not indicative of a broader anti-tax sentiment, but I thought it was noteworthy.
(For a good statement of the ordinary render-unto-Cæsar teaching, see this column from an issue.)
Some Civil War reminiscences by B.F. Moomaw were published in .
One chapter begins with the narrator remembering matter-of-factly that “a distant relative of mine, — Jacob P. Moomaw, now an elder in the church, then in the army in Eastern Virginia, asked me to assist him in getting [hiring] a substitute” to take his place in the army.
The author later writes:
Shortly after, the question was moved in Congress to repeal the substitute law, upon which another brother and myself went to Richmond, to get up an influence against its repeal.
This we attempted by getting some of the members of the house, who were our friends, to try to prevent its passage, but the advocates of the bill were too many, and our cause failed.
Then the only alternative was for the boys to refugee, and they went over the line by the hundreds.
This seems to suggest that hiring substitutes was not frowned on nearly as much as previous excerpts I had found have suggested.
Another data point in that regard is an obituary for John Brenneman in the edition, which noted that in , while in Indiana, “he was drafted, and a substitute cost him $1000.00.
This crippled him financially and he never fully recovered.”
While it would be a violation of the principles of the Gospel, to give anything voluntarily, or in any way encourage carnal warfare, yet it is our duty, by way of taxation, to give all we have, if demanded, and give up ourselves, rather than resist; and let them do with us, and our property, as they may see proper.
The issue relates an incident that has a whiff of the apocryphal about it, but the gist of which is this: During the Civil War, two recently-converted Brethren were drafted, and at first their attempt to pay a $300 commutation fine for conscientious objector status was denied, with the authorities asserting that they had become Brethren in order to evade the draft and that their scruples were not genuine.
Two members of the church intervened on their behalf by visiting the state (Indiana) governor, and eventually persuaded him to allow the draftees to pay the fines and get exempted.
The Spanish-American War of was accompanied by a menu of new war taxes.
The first mention of these I found was in the Gospel Messenger, in an article which began: “Only a few days ago the war revenue tax went into effect, but already it is evident that the aggregate amount, to be realized by this measure, will be far in excess of the anticipations.
While the tax is comparatively small, it is so well and thoroughly distributed over the entire population that vast sums will be thus obtained.
It is an illustration of the fact that large amounts can readily be secured if all are willing to give systematically, even a few cents only, from time to time.” (source).
Hold your breath… will this be a call for war tax resistance? But no.
There is “a lesson to us as a church” to be drawn from this war tax, but that lesson apparently is that Brethren should be tithing to the church every week, even if they can only do so in small amounts.
The lead editorial in that issue also excitingly announced the latest war bonds, with nothing said to discourage people from investing in them:
Some time ago the Government decided to issue bonds to meet the expenses of the war with Spain.
Two hundred million dollars is the amount to be issued.
The bonds will bear three per cent and may be paid by the Government at the expiration of ten years, though they do not fall due for twenty years.
The intention is to make this a popular loan.
And to accomplish that purpose blanks have been sent out to all money order post offices and to about all the banks.
No one is allowed to subscribe for more than five hundred dollars of the bonds.
The Government has not tried this time to get more than the face value of the bonds, as it has done heretofore, and as it could easily do now.
Those whose subscriptions are received first, will be first served.
Subscriptions will be received by the Government up to .
If by that time the small subscribers have not taken all of the issue, larger subscribers will have a chance.
It seems now that there will be no bonds left for those who subscribe more than five hundred dollars.
This gives persons of small means an opportunity to make an investment that is absolutely safe.
The interest they will receive is the same as is regularly paid by banks.
The interest is payable quarterly, and the principal is entirely safe, which is not always the case where money is put in banks.
Hitherto only wealthy, and in most cases extremely wealthy men, have held the bonds.
This fact has led some people to think that the wealthy persons were favored by the Government.
Such was not the case.
The Government wanted gold, and so sold the bonds to the men who could furnish it.
This time any kind of money now issued by the United States will be received in payment.
The way in which the bonds are being subscribed for shows the confidence all classes have in our Government.
Every bondholder feels directly interested in the affairs of our country, and will be anxious to have the finances of the United States on a good basis.
This popular loan is wise policy from more than one standpoint.
A follow-up editorial in the issue doubled down on the enthusiasm with still no hint that there might be a problem.
In addition, a query in the asked whether it would “be better for the Mission Board to lend the endowment funds to the Government, and get Government Bonds, rather than the way they are now doing?” (source).
The response did not mention anything about possible ethical problems with loaning the government money, but simply said that it did not make business sense to buy such bonds at that time.
The impression I get is that the problem of paying for war had fallen so far off the radar since the Civil War that even voluntary payments for war bonds did not seem to raise any debate.
In , war tax resisters in the Church of the Brethren were eager to find precedent for their beliefs and actions in the history of the Brethren as they pressured the church to dip its toes into corporate resistance by divesting itself of U.S. government bonds.
In the issue, the Messenger reproduced an excerpt from the script of a play by Gary Rowe that dramatized a dilemma for Brethren conscientious objectors during the American Civil War (source).
While, as far as I could determine, in historical fact Brethren typically paid the commutation tax to avoid service without complaint, in the play this became a contested issue.
Excerpts:
Thomas:
The great house of this nation is torn apart into two hostile camps.
I fear that tonight I will divide the house of my own father.
For that, I pray forgiveness.
I cannot stand with my brother [who joined the military].
Nor can I accept the offer my father made to me today, the offer to pay the tax to exempt me from service in the army.
William:
(Jumping up) Then let us pay it!
Thomas:
Thank you, but I cannot permit that either.
Jacob:
You are aware, Brother Thomas, that our brotherhood has recommended that each church help its members who are drafted to pay the tax?
Thomas:
I know that, too.
But I want to stand before you now, not with you but in front of you, to bear witness to my own faith.
I hope that some of you may find it in your hearts to stand with me.
William:
But Sister Wolfe does have a point, Thomas.
Wouldn’t it be easier to pay the tax and avoid this danger?
Thomas:
Yes. It would be easier. But would it be true to our faith?
Jacob:
Our churches have declared that our members may pay the tax in order to avoid military service.
Thomas:
But is that why our fathers came to this country?
They came to get away from coercion.
They came to a land where they could obey their conscience, without being punished by the state!
Now… are we to bear arms in violation of our covenant as a people of God?
The answer must be no.
But are we also to pay taxes levied on us to avoid that service, taxes that burden us for holding fast to God’s Word?
Does the state have the right to punish us, in any way, for our faith?
To tell us we can believe what we like as long as we pay for others to violate those beliefs?
Adam:
(His head still lowered) Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God—
Thomas:
(Retorting) Shall I give my life, my blood, to serve Caesar, or shall I lay it down for God? (Pause) This matter involves more for us than the simplicity of giving up a coin in our pocket!
Brethren peace activists were eager to find or imagine precedents for their stand in Brethren history.
Later the same year, T. Wayne Rieman would write (source):
The early Brethren were conscientious objectors to the coercive practices of the state and church: compelling people to join or leave the church of Christ, baptizing children before they understood its meanings, forcing people to take oaths, conscripting for the military, and levying war taxes.
To all of these the Brethren answer was: No!
The overruling of the conscience is wrong — always wrong.
The Brethren… supported government, paid taxes without opposition (except war taxes)…
But the older Brethren practices I have noticed around war taxes (though I’ve only been looking at the U.S., and only back as far as the mid-19th century) were much more ambiguous than this, and if anything, promoted paying taxes willingly whether they were called war taxes or not.
Please be informed that as a matter of conscience we cannot pay that portion of our income tax which has not been withheld.
We would hold ourselves unjust if, after having seen how this war has been both reflection and cause of the unwholeness of Americans; having seen almost daily the evidence of the vast destructiveness of the war in terms of human life and the ecology of Indochina; having recognized the militaristic use of a large percentage of public monies — a use which makes war more not less inevitable; after having been taught by Anabaptist Brethren heritage that all war is evil and madness and contrary to God and man; and after having tasted of the life-giving spirit whose joy is love and forgiveness, we would indeed be unjust hypocrites if, after all this, we supported with our taxes what we hold with all our heart, mind, and soul to be an abomination in the sight of God and an offense against man.
War tax resistance and the long-ignored issue of war bonds came up at the Annual Conference that year.
The Messenger reported (source):
Attempts to force the Board to sell all U.S. bonds and to refuse to pay the telephone tax which is used for war purposes, were unsuccessful.
A later letter-writer gave some details about how this came about, expressing frustration that Brethren activists were not putting forth their efforts in a way that was calculated for success (source):
Many of us learned with some surprise that among the holdings of the General Board there are war bonds.
We would have been eager to support a motion instructing the Board to dispose of these bonds at its earliest convenience.
But we did not get that motion.
Instead we were offered a motion by the Brethren Action Movement that we do not accept the report of the Board until they first dispose of such bonds.
Very few of us are willing to use our approval for last year’s work as a weapon to hold over the heads of the Board until they do our will on a new item.
A later National Youth Conference, however, tried to keep the item on the agenda (source):
[T]he conference voted to “affirm anew our faith and allegiance in the Lord Jesus Christ and in so doing oppose war and the support of war in all forms.
Consistent with this faith… we commend the General Board to immediately dispose of, at any cost, all U.S. government bonds under its jurisdiction and control…
We call upon the church to have the courage to be Brethren.”
The Church of the Brethren decided to divest from U.S. government bonds, and considered engaging in corporate phone tax refusal as well, and in the debate began to spill over into more conservative branches of American Brethren.
Chuch Investment in U.S. Bonds
In , the Church of the Brethren General Board met, and among the items on the agenda was Church investments in the war industry and in U.S. government bonds.
The Messenger covered this in its edition (source).
Excerpt:
Government bond ownership by the church, like the war that bonds are said to support, may be winding down, but not winding up — as some persons are urging.
Replying to the National Youth Conference resolution calling on the church to dispose of all government bonds, the General Board rejected a proposed reply from its investment committee and asked the Administrative Council to bring further options in March for handling fiscal operations without the use of bonds.
Board members also called for the investment committee to consider selling any stocks held with the dozen top corporations supplying war materials.
The rejected proposal would have put the board on record as reconfirming its opposition to war, not purchasing additional bonds as long as the national budget is so heavily military oriented, permitting the sale of bonds held as cash needs arise, and opposing immediate liquidation of the remaining bonds held.
Board views ranged from those who sought to dispose of the $617,933 in bonds held by the church “as a witness to the nation” for peace, to those who saw the bonds supporting many good things of government.
Other arguments against disposal included the cash liquidity on short notice of the bonds, the loss that would be suffered in the sale of the bonds, and the fact that $259,880 of the total is pledged for a Bethany Seminary loan.
One staff member challenged the assumption that the bonds are a means of financing the war, but rather lend stability to the government.
Another indicated that the cash put into a savings account could be invested by the bank in bonds anyway, and that the church owed a fiscal responsibility to donors of the money in not risking a financial loss in any premature sale of the bonds.
“The government bonds in the investment portfolio are not considered war bonds,” noted the board’s investment committee, “but are issues which were put out from time to time for general government operations, including programs that we enthusiastically support.”
Many of the bonds held by the Brethren were purchased in the 1950s, and no further purchases have been made since 1965.
During the past fiscal year the church sold half a million dollars in government bonds.
Likely to come before the Cincinnati Conference next year is a query from Southern Ohio that the church investigate payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities which are believed to support war.
The issue brought more details about where these queries were coming from (source).
Excerpt:
Southern Ohio district is bringing a query to the Conference asking for a study of the payment of the telephone tax and the holding of U.S. government securities by the church’s national offices.
Likewise, the Pacific Southwest Conference, at the initiation of some youth and the Lynnhaven, Phoenix, and Glendale, Ariz., congregations, has requested Annual Conference to “consider the moral question of holding United States Savings Bonds when we as a church are trying to divorce ourselves as far as possible from the military-industrial complex.”
The General Board gave in to the pressure, as reported in the issue (source).
Excerpt:
The Church of the Brethren General Board will sell its stock holdings in corporations directly producing defense or weapons-related products and its governmental securities that are believed to channel funds into military appropriations.
Meeting at Elgin, Ill., in , the board also tightened its investment guidelines, declaring that words and acts should be brought together “so that the clearest possible witness can be given to the inclusive reconciling love of Christ.”
The statement recognized, however, that “at any given moment the commitment can be one of direction only — it cannot be one of absolute achievement.”
The implication is that mergers and company reorganizations sometimes bring into the firm products or ideals inconsistent with the Brethren stance.
Based on market prices the divestment of stocks represents four percent of the general investment portfolio and 6.5 percent of the pension fund portfolio.
US Treasury bonds being sold amount to $248,813.
The board declined, however, to sell the $274,894 in bonds pledged for a loan to Bethany Theological Seminary.
They will be sold only as they are released from escrow.
Board treasurer Robert Greiner estimated a loss of $18,300 instead of an $18,000 gain that would have been realized if the bonds had been held until maturity.
Any possible loss on the stock investments being sold and reinvested was not known.
Last year’s National Youth Conference in a resolution urged the board to sell its
US Treasury bonds.
And in the National Council of Churches’ Corporate Information Center, in which the Brethren participate, divulged the stock-holdings of ten denominations in the top 60 firms in military sales.
The Church of the Brethren had investments in nine such companies, totaling $329,258 in cost value prices.
The church’s pension fund also held $613,303 of common stocks in 13 corporations appearing in the list.
The revised guidelines now declare that the board will not knowingly invest in corporations producing defense or weapons-related products; in companies which fail to practice fair and equal employment opportunities; nor in banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Similarly prohibited are investments in the tobacco and alcoholic beverage industries and companies making excessive profit.
More positively, the guidelines stipulate the board will invest in companies working to improve the environment, in government agencies that are clearly non-military, and in such industries as food, housing, clothing, utilities, education, and medical supplies.
When the board discovers that it has holdings in a company that does not meet the religious, racial, or social ideals of the church’s official statements, the investment committee may approach the company or speak at stockholders’ meetings.
Failing to effect a change in company policy, the stocks are to be sold.
Producing the sharpest disagreement was the question as to whether government bonds contribute to the Vietnam war effort or simply toward regular government operations.
Still, a strong majority of the board believed that the bonds directly supported the war effort and should be divested.
Such action, some contended, bespeaks a “disengagement from the US government” and fails to recognize that a large part of the federal budget goes toward programs of which Brethren could heartily approve.
On the other hand, a couple speakers noted that even in such nonmilitary programs as agriculture and economic development, government policy can be repressive and manipulative and divergent from Brethren ideals.
Moderator Dale W. Brown of Lombard, Ill., said that the church needs to confess its credibility gap. “I’m calling for an acknowledgment that we haven’t done our best.”
Among a few board members disassociating themselves from the majority action was Jesse H. Ziegler of Dayton, Ohio.
He described the sale of the government bonds as a “divisive act that finally will drive the Church of the Brethren to the point of increasingly making people ask what we’re about.”
He pleaded for the board to take healing and compromising action that would leave room for various views among the membership.
The board’s officers were instructed to estimate any loss of principal or income that may accrue from the divestment of Treasury obligations and issue an appeal for interested members to make special contributions so that the ongoing ministry of the church or the equity of the pension funds will not be curtailed.
The guidelines are also commended to other church agencies and to individuals.
Despite the eight hours over two days of sometimes intense debate, David B. Rittenhouse of Dunmore, W. Va., expressed the feeling of most board members in saying that he voted for divestment of the stocks and bonds not with enthusiasm, but out of genuine humility, struggle, and soul-searching.
The discussion of the issue at the General Conference was covered in the issue (source):
Investments: What is Caesar’s, what is due to God?
⋮
the General Board voted (not unanimously) to divest itself of government bonds and stocks in corporations involved in defense-related contracts.
The action resulted in some loss of income and brought severe criticism from many individuals and from some congregations.
Conference delegates, however, voted to approve the Board’s investment guidelines which state that the Board will not knowingly purchase securities in corporations or industries that are “direct producers of defense or weapons-related products; involved in tobacco and alcoholic beverage produce: involved in unfair employment practices; or involved in excessive profits.”
In reporting to the Conference the Board indicated that it had decided to sell all US Treasury bonds or notes except for those pledged to secure a loan for Bethany Theological Seminary.
Disposing of these prior to their maturity resulted in a loss of more than $20,000.
The church’s holding of US Government bonds was questioned at its last Annual Conference and forcefully opposed by the national conference of Brethren youth.
In commending the Cincinnati conference for its support of the Board’s action, the Rev. Wendell Flory, a delegate from Staunton, Virginia, noted the persistence of youth in their opposition to war and urged them to help make up the financial loss resulting from following the new investment policies.
War Tax Resistance
In addition to the bond investments issue, ordinary war tax resistance was also a topic of discussion.
The inaugural issue of included a profile of Church of the Brethren moderator Dale W. Brown (source) that noted: “He refuses to pay his telephone tax because it was levied specifically for war.”
The issue noted (source): “The La Verne, Calif., church board voted to support the Southern California Telephone War Tax Suite, involving the withholding of the ten-percent federal excise tax.”
The Annual Conference debate over whether the Church of the Brethren should resist the phone tax corporately was covered in the issue (source):
Telephone tax: Delegates decline to counsel tax refusal
…[D]elegates in are not quite ready yet to counsel tax refusal for their Board and its offices.
They were made aware that a growing number of individual Brethren as well as some Brethren institutions have been refusing to pay the telephone excise tax, which they say is specifically designated as a “war tax” helping support the Vietnam war.
The Conference agreed to appoint a committee of five to study “the problem of the Christian’s response to taxation for war.”
But they voted down a proposal directing the General Board to withhold payment of the tax on the telephone service to its Elgin, Ill., headquarters.
Board officers said that the tax, which amounts to about $130 a month, currently is paid under protest.
Earlier conference statements on the payment of war taxes, while deploring the use of tax monies for war purposes and recognizing the right of tax refusal, noted several optional choices and left the decision up to individuals.
General Board member Leon Neher, Quinter, Kan., said in the floor debate that he regarded refusal to pay war taxes as being compatible with a positive attitude toward government.
He said “resistance comes because of our love for our nation.”
Other delegates noted that a study was needed so that members could be aware of the legal implications as well as the moral implications of tax refusal.
(The members selected “[t]o study a response to taxation for war” were Dene E. Denlinger, Galen Detwiler, Vemard Eller, James F. Meyer, and Robert B. Myers.)
The issue brought this news: “In Illinois the York Center congregation has voted to ‘instruct the church treasurer not to pay the federal excise tax on the church telephone as an act of conscience against the Indo-China war, and that the Internal Revenue Service be informed of the decision.’ Pastor Dean Miller noted, ‘We felt we’ve tried all [other] channels open to us.’ ” (source)
All this while I’ve been scanning through issues of the Elizabethtown College student newspaper, The Etownian to see if there has been any mention of tax resistance there.
Finally, in the issue, there’s a mention of “A Tent (‘Freedom’) City” that was being erected on campus and hosting teach-ins (source).
The first one on the agenda: a 45-minute discussion of “tax resistance.”
A later report (source) said that a rainstorm had cut into attendance, but that the teach-ins had gone on:
Ted Landon started the morning by speaking on the background of resistance and its meaning for the individual who practices it.
Bob Blatt enlarged on this as it related to tax resistance.
He pointed out that 61% of the nation’s yearly budget is spent for military matters, and that all other pressing bills must be paid from the remaining 39%.
The stodgy Brethren Evangelist was forced to take note when the General Board of the Church of the Brethren decided to divest from military industries and U.S. government bonds, though they merely reprinted a wire service dispatch about it (source):
Brethren Will Drop Defense Investments
Elgin, Ill. (EP)—
All holdings in corporations directly involved in defense or weapons-related industries will be dropped by the General Board of the Church of the Brethren.
The vote, not unanimous, was seen as an attempt by the denomination to bring its investment practices into line with its peace pronouncements.
The church officials also voted to sell $248,813 in U.S. Treasury bonds and not to purchase new governmental securities that might channel funds into military appropriations.
The board of 25 members also voted to withhold investments from companies failing to practice fair and equal employment opportunities, and from banks or firms which transact business with governments having apartheid policies.
Even the Bible Monitor finally added its voice to the debate.
It included an article on “The Christian’s Relation to the Nation” in the issue that touched on the war tax resistance issue:
The Christian also obediently pays his taxes (Romans 13:6,7; Luke 20:25).
One pacifist used his “fist” against the government by calling upon Christians to withhold some of their taxes (war taxes) by saying that when Christ said, we are to “render… unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar’s,” He did not say how much.
May we remember that Christ did tell us how much to pay to the state when He said that we should render that which bears his image.
Therefore, when the nation asks for it, we give it to them and it is never our responsibility to tell the government how it may use its money.
If I owe a person some money, I have no right to refuse to pay it on the grounds that he will not use it properly.
Nor can I refuse it unless he promises to use it the way I say he should.
While we find it our duty to pay Ceasar his required tax, it would be contrary to the principle of the Scripture to voluntarily or otherwise invest in war bonds, thereby becoming an investor in the war program.
No non-resistant person would want to make a profit on the war.
I researched the holdings of several of the most popular “socially responsible” mutual funds, including funds that explicitly screen out investments in military contractors and weapons manufacturers.
I found that most of them loan money to the Pentagon by including treasury bonds in their holdings.
How can war tax resisters invest without inadvertently extending a line of credit to the warfare state?
