Alternative Service in the United States: The Legal Institutionalization of Conscientious Objection to Military Service
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to provide a comprehensive historical and legal analysis of the formation and development of conscientious objection to military service in the United States in the twentieth century, as well as the evolution of alternative (non-military) service models as a mechanism for safeguarding freedom of conscience under conditions of mass conscription.
Methodology: The study employs general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison), special legal methods (formal-legal, historical-legal, interpretation of legal norms), and case-law analysis. The source base includes federal draft and selective service legislation, subordinate regulations and administrative procedures of the Selective Service System, governmental reports, materials of religious and civic organizations, and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Research Results: The article establishes that the institutionalization of alternative service in the United States progressed through the gradual refinement of legal criteria and administrative mechanisms for recognizing conscientious objectors during key periods of mass mobilization. It is shown that during World War I the prevailing approach was a “limited religious exemption” without a stable alternative-service program; during World War II a systematic model of civilian labor of “national importance” (CPS) was formed in cooperation between the state and the “historic peace churches.” In the postwar period (Korean War), the system shifted from camps to a decentralized model of civilian assignments, and during the Vietnam War a qualitative transformation occurred—from a purely religious test to the recognition of moral and ethical convictions—consolidated by U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence (Seeger, Welsh), while simultaneously reaffirming the requirement of opposition to “war in any form” (Gillette). The era of alternative service as an element of the mobilization system ended with the termination of the draft and the U.S. transition to an all-volunteer force in the 1970s.
Theoretical Significance: The study conceptualizes the American model of alternative service as a product of interaction between religious pacifist traditions, state mobilization policy, and constitutional and legal guarantees of freedom of conscience. It identifies the stages of the evolution of conscientious objection—from a denominational exemption to a broader legal approach accommodating ethical convictions, and finally to the end of the conscription paradigm.
Practical Significance: The findings may be used to improve legal and procedural mechanisms of alternative service in democratic states, including the development of criteria for assessing the “sincerity of beliefs,” appeal procedures, a transparent list of permissible forms of civilian service, and safeguards against discrimination of conscientious objectors.
Value of the Research: The research demonstrates that legitimate and effective alternative service requires a balance between a state’s defense needs and human rights, as well as a clear administrative infrastructure for civilian assignments capable of minimizing arbitrariness in decision-making and reducing the social stigmatization of conscientious objectors.
Type of Article: theoretical (historical-legal).
Keywords: religious organizations, freedom of conscience, alternative (non-military) service, religious beliefs, legal regulation, national security, national defense, military service, USA.
Downloads
References
American Friends’ Reconstruction Unit. (1917). Bulletin on “L’Equipe Reconstruction” / The Unit (No. 1). (Hosted by American Friends Service Committee). URL: https://afsc.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bulletin%20on%20L%27Equipe%20Reconstruction%20-%20No.%201%20-%201917_0.pdf
An Act to authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military Establishment of the United States. (1917). United States Statutes at Large, 40 Stat. 76 (Pub. L. No. 65–12). URL: https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/40/STATUTE-40-Pg76.pdf
Annual report of the Director of Selective Service. Berkeley Law Library (LawCat)Selective Service System. (1975). – bibliographic record. URL: https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/223989
Center on Conscience & War. (1992). The Heritage of American Objectors: Conscience Since Colonial Times. Blog. URL: https://centeronconscience.org/heritage-american-objectors/
Conscientious Objectors. World War I: American Experiences (Exhibition). Library of Congress. (n.d.). URL: https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/world-war-i-american-experiences/about-this-exhibition/over-here/raising-an-army/conscientious-objectors/
Executive Order 10328 – Prescribing Regulations Relating to Civilian Work in Lieu of Induction. (1952). Truman, H. S. The American Presidency Project (UC Santa Barbara). URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10328-prescribing-regulations-relating-civilian-work-lieu
Executive Order 10420 – Amending the Selective Service Regulations Relating to Civilian Work in Lieu of Induction.Truman, H. S. (1952). The American Presidency Project (UC Santa Barbara). URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10420-amending-the-selective-service-regulations-relating
Executive Order 8570 — Selective Service Regulations. (1940). Roosevelt F. D. (The American Presidency Project (Gerhard Peters & John T. Woolley, eds.). URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-8570-selective-service-regulations
Executive Order 8675 — Authorizing the Director of Selective Service to Establish or Designate Civilian Work Contributing to the Maintenance of the National Health, Safety, or Interest. (1941). Roosevelt, F. D. The American Presidency Project (Gerhard Peters & John T. Woolley, eds.). URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-8675-authorizing-the-director-selective-service-establish-or-designate
Fancher, A. The Condemnation of the Forgotten: Conscientious Objectors and the World War Two Era. (Blog). URL: https://ycphistpolisci.com/the-condemnation-of-the-forgotten-conscientious-objectors-and-the-world-war-two-era/
Fox, R. P. (1982). Conscientious Objection to War: The Background and a Current Appraisal. Cleveland State Law Review, 31, 77. URL: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol31/iss1/7
Galvin, B. (2019). Conscientious Objection to the Korean War. The Reporter for Conscience’ Sake, 76. The Center on Conscience and War. URL: https://www.centeronconscience.org/files/Reporter_2019.pdf
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. U.S. Selective Service System (case summary in “Conscientious Objectors”). United States Supreme Court. (1971). URL: https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/
Goossen, R. W. (1997). Women Against the Good War: Conscientious Objection and Gender on the American Home Front, 1941–1947. University of North Carolina Press.
Gutiérrez, E. A. (2014). Between Acceptance and Refusal – Soldiers’ Attitudes Towards War (USA). 1914-1918. International Encyclopedia of the First World War (Freie Universität Berlin). DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.10215. URL: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/between-acceptance-and-refusal-soldiers-attitudes-towards-war-usa/
Haile, A. (2022). Reconsidering Selective Conscientious Objection. University of Richmond Law Review, 52, 831. URL: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss4/4
Hall, M. D. (2016). A History of Accomodating Religious Objections to War. Learn Liberty. URL: https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/a-history-of-accomodating-religious-objections-to-war/
Hemmingray, P. Conscientious Objection in North America (11). Tidings (Tidings Publishing Committee). URL: https://tidings.org/resources/conscientious-objection-in-north-america-11/
Kellogg, W. G. (1919). The Conscientious Objector. Boni and Liveright. (Internet Archive). URL: https://archive.org/stream/conscientiousobj00kellrich/conscientiousobj00kellrich_djvu.txt
Kessler, J. K. (2015). A War for Liberty: On the Law of Conscientious Objection. In M. Geyer & A. Tooze (Eds.), The Cambridge History of the Second World War, Vol. 3: Total War: Economy, Society and Culture. Cambridge University Press. URL: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2533
Krehbiel, N. A. Conscientious Objection. The Civilian Public Service Story (CPS Archive), Mennonite Central Committee. URL: https://stcpsarchive.z9.web.core.windows.net/cpsarchive/storybegins/krehbiel/conscientious-objection.htm
Military Selective Service Act (P.L. 80–759, Approved June 24, 1948 (62 Stat. 604)). United States Congress. (1948). Compilation of the Social Security Laws (Social Security Administration). URL: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F080-759.html
Military Selective Service Act Amendments of 1971. (1971). United States Congress. Berkeley Law Library (LawCat) – bibliographic record. URL: https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/193212
Military Selective Service Act of 1967 (1967). (P.L. 90–40; 81 Stat. 100). United States Congress. GovInfo (U.S. Government Publishing Office). URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-81/pdf/STATUTE-81-Pg100.pdf
Opposition to War: An Encyclopedia of U.S. Peace and Antiwar Movements. (2018). Bloomsbury Publishing. Bloomsbury Publishing. URL: https://www.google.com.ua/books/edition/Opposition_to_War/xOTNEAAAQBAJ
Schleif, L. (2014). Conscientious Objectors. 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War (Freie Universität Berlin). DOI: 10.15463/ie1418.10259. URL: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/conscientious-objectors/?format=pdf
Selective Draft Law Cases (Arver v. United States), 245. (1918). U.S.United States Supreme Court. 366. U.S. Reports. URL: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep245/usrep245366/usrep245366.pdf
Selective Service System (2003). Office of the General Counsel. Compilation of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.). URL: https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MSSA-2003.pdf
Selective Service System. Conscientious Objectors. U.S. Selective Service System. URL: https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/
Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. (1940). United States Statutes at Large, ch. 720, Pub. L. No. 76–783, 54 Stat. 885 (September 16, 1940). URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-54/pdf/STATUTE-54-Pg885-2.pdf
Stentiford, B. M. (2023). Selective Service Before the All-Volunteer Force. Military Review (November–December 2023). URL: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2023/Selective-Service/
Sullivan, M. P. (1992). Conscientious Objection in an All-Volunteer Military: An Impermissible Accommodation of Religious Freedom? Mercer Law Review, 43(2), Article 8. URL: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol43/iss2/8
Supreme Court of the United States. Ex parte Milligan. (1866). 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2. Teaching American History (Ashbrook Center). URL: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/ex-parte-milligan-2
Taylor, S. J., Kanter, A., & Ferri, B. A. (2009). Acts of Conscience: World War II, Mental Institutions, and Religious Objectors. Syracuse University Press. (JSTOR). URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1j5d899
Conscientious Objectors and the Civilian Public Service. The National WWII Museum (New Orleans). URL: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/conscientious-objectors-civilian-public-service
The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress (R44452). (2021). Congressional Research Service. (Updated version). URL: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44452/R44452.17.pdf
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163. FindLaw (case text). United States Supreme Court. (1965). URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/380/163.html
Universal Military Training and Service Act (P.L. 82–51; 65 Stat. 75). United States Congress. (1951). Congress.gov (Library of Congress). URL: https://www.congress.gov/82/statute/STATUTE-65/STATUTE-65-Pg75.pdf
Walker, S. (2012). The Birth of the Civil Liberties Bureau and the National Civil Liberties Bureau, 1917–1919. University Archives, Princeton University Library. URL: https://universityarchives.princeton.edu/2012/09/the-birth-of-the-civil-liberties-bureau-and-the-national-civil-liberties-bureau1917-1919/
Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. U.S. Reports (GovInfo) United States Supreme Court. (1970). URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-398/pdf/USREPORTS-398-333.pdf
World War I Draft Registration. National Archives (U.S.). URL: https://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww1/draft-registration
Abstract views: 251 PDF Downloads: 86
Copyright (c) 2026 Yaroslav Kotylko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication (Download agreement) with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR, etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process of viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
