Civilian Public Service and Mennonite Pacifism
Understanding principled opposition to warfare requires understanding ideas – theology, philosophy, principles, belief. However, it also requires looking at what happens in actual life, in human experience.
The experience of American conscientious objectors to World War II serves as a particularly helpful test case for understanding Anabaptist pacifism. This was a test for pacifist principles that affected the entire American Anabaptist community. Here we see what pacifism meant in practice for Mennonites. The need to respond to America’s call to arms touched everyone’s actual life. Pacifism at that time had to do not only with the theories of theologians and pastors and denominational leaders or only to do with the practices of a few activists or those who found themselves caught in the crossfire of a local conflict. It had to do with everyone. So, we still have much to learn from that experience.
I will focus on what happened during World War II – the Anabaptist experience in alternative service. I also want to raise questions of how that experience might sharpen our reflections on the meaning of pacifism for us today.
The First World War had tested American pacifists. Peace church people did not realize until too late that the government would induct conscientious objectors (COs) into the military. Only then would people be allowed to take a CO stand. By taking that stand within the military, COs faced hostility, harassment, and worse. In the most extreme case, two young Hutterite men lost their lives due to the treatment they received from the U.S. military. Horrified peace church leaders worked hard during the 1920s and 1930s to prepare their young people for war’s return.
In the late 1930s, as war grew imminent, peace church leaders lobbied Congress for liberal CO provisions. Legislation in 1940 allowed for Civilian Public Service camps (CPS) as an alternative to military service. This saved pacifists from having to join the military. Instead of civilian governmental agency (such as the Interior Department) providing oversight for CPS, though, Congress put Selective Service in charge. Hence, CPS stood in ambiguous territory, operated by an agency whose first priority was procuring soldiers for the military.
Selective Service placed COs in remote camps doing forest and agricultural conservation. Near the end of the War, some gained permission to work in mental hospitals, public health, and a few other forms of “detached service.” The director of Selective Service, General Lewis Hershey, stated that he wanted to keep the COs out of the public eye. He would not allow them to do work that would appear too attractive. If alternative service became too well known or too appealing, more people might opt for alternative service instead of the military.
The draft began in early 1941, almost a year before the December 7 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the formal beginning of American involvement in the War. From the beginning, peace church people faced surprises. On the one hand, many fewer men from their churches than expected chose CPS. Only about 50% of the drafted and inducted men from the various Mennonite groups performed alternative service. The other 50% joined the military as combatants and non-combatants. Fewer than 10% of Quaker and Brethren draftees joined CPS.
On the other hand, draftees from a large diversity of other church groups chose to perform alternative service. This number included men from mainline groups such as Methodists, Catholics, and Episcopalians. However, it also included men from dozens of obscure groups such as Black Muslims, Christadelphians, Russian Molokans, and various Pentecostal groups. As well, several hundred Jehovah’s Witnesses joined CPS.
Nearly 12,000 men took part in CPS. About 40% were Mennonites. Brethren, Quakers, and Methodists each made up about 10%. Six thousand COs went to prison, either because their draft boards did not recognize their CO claims or they chose not to cooperate with the draft in any way. Jehovah’s Witnesses made up about 75% of the number of COs in prison.
Now, let’s look more closely at Mennonites in CPS. I will consider three main themes: their attitude toward the state, their major sources of influence, and the most distinctive fruits of their experience. As I go along, I will make a few comparisons with COs from other traditions. I am speaking of “typical Mennonites;” certainly not all Mennonites fit with my description.
Attitude toward the State, Social Change, and CPS
Mennonites rejected direct involvement in the state’s military activities. Yet, they did not oppose the government’s right to institute conscription, even in peacetime. Mennonites believed that they could give their testimony of love even within the framework of conscription. They voiced a philosophy of responding to governmental authority by “going the second mile.”
A Mennonite CPS leader described this philosophy. “In place of gaining its point by law…[our pacifism] operates on the level of love which restores the broken fellowship. It does not insist on personal rights, but rather gives thought to the obligations and duties that one has when under the Spirit and direction of Christ. When compelled to go one mile, the non-resistant Christian does not resist the compulsion, but rather stands prepared to volunteer the services of the second mile.”
Mennonites respected state authority. They readily cooperated with Selective Service in CPS. Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) served as the Mennonite agency for administering work camps. Mennonites willingly accepted the government’s terms. MCC did reserve the “right of conscience to reject forms of service which contribute to war or coercion in any form or to any other social evil.” However, it did not feel a “nonresistant church” could appropriately make further demands of Selective Service or actively oppose it.
Mennonites generally supported alternative civilian service in place of military service. Most officially preferred, on the one hand, to reject noncombatant military service (such as being medics) as being too militaristic. On the other hand, they also rejected resistance to alternative service itself as being too rebellious. Some non-Mennonite COs felt the government had no right to conscript people at all. Most Mennonites, though, objected to war, not to conscription per se.
Mennonites posed no threat to the alternative service system. One of the MCC camp newspapers contained an editorial declaring: “CPS is a privilege!…We intend to serve our country to the best of our ability. And we intend to do that without the unjustified grumbling and complaining that has been evidenced among some COs.”
Some Mennonites even expressed gratitude to the government for its tolerance. Some Mennonite bishops wrote as follows to General Hershey at the close of the War. “We must thank God that we live in a nation whose Constitution grants us the precious privilege of religious freedom. We appreciate the work that your department has done in setting up the Public Service camps. We are happy that amicable relations existed between our unit and the Government so that defenseless Christians had no need of violating their consciences and could do something that was of National importance.”
Mennonites commitment to non-involvement in warfare took priority over social change. They strongly emphasized performance of deeds of service to people in need and to the land. They did not directly connect this concern for service with notions of social change.
This contrasted with the attitudes of many non-Mennonite COs. For these, conscientious objection was part of a broader agenda of transforming the world. These COs hoped that CPS would prove to be a means of significant political activism.
CPSer Walter Forster, a Methodist, expressed these sentiments: “We must indelibly impress upon our minds the fact that we are only a few thousand in number who must convert millions to our way of thinking.…We must change the hearts and minds of [people] all over the world so that they will believe this also. It is up to us in CPS to germinate the seeds for such a dynamic aggressive peace movement on an international scale so that in the not too distant future the militarists, rather than the pacifist, will be the minority.”
Mennonites did not think in such global terms. They viewed war and conscription as part of the basic pattern of society as it actually existed. They focused on doing works of service within the framework of such a society more than dramatically changing that society. Mennonites had little concern with applying their pacifism to affairs of state. Vocational and relief training blossomed, but not attempts to raise political concerns.
Many Mennonites worked on educational programs in CPS. Mennonites focused on Bible study and church history, particularly the history of their tradition. One Mennonite CPSer referred to his CPS experience being “as educational as going to college.” However, the education he referred to did not include political action.
An incident that illustrates Mennonites’ approach to a major social problem (i.e., racism) occurred in 1944. MCC agreed to set up and administer a new public health unit in Mississippi limited to white assignees. It argued that an interracial camp would be impossible in that situation. MCC argued for carrying on a program that served both white and black families, and quietly demonstrating a belief in human solidarity. In this way, they could accomplish more toward solving the race problem in the South than by having no project at all. Mennonite assignees appear to have supported this stand. The unit had full staffing and continued after the War was over as a volunteer service of MCC.
Dallas Voran, the educational director of a Mennonite CPS camp, explained the rationale for MCC’s attitude about the unit in Mississippi. “We do not agree that if we can not have an ideal arrangement – in this case racial equality – at the outset, we should stay out. We do not agree that more good can be done by refusing to go into such a situation than by going in and trying to improve conditions by working on the local scene. Just as men in CPS must believe that by being in CPS they are doing the most possible under existing conditions to live their convictions about war, so we believe that by going into Mississippi rather than staying out, we can live our ideals on race most effectively under existing conditions.”
Mennonites did not deny the existence of injustices in the CPS system, but they still felt it was the best of possible choices. They hoped through the work projects to contribute materially to the conservation of both the human and the natural resources of the world.
CPSer Dwight V. Yoder issued a representative endorsement. “There is a positive side to CPS. To us, it is an expression of our willingness to serve our country so long as the service does not contradict Jesus’ teaching. It gives us an opportunity to show that living our convictions is more important than where, or under what circumstances we are permitted to live them, and that following in Jesus’ steps is more important than gratification and fulfillment of selfish desire. To the world it is proof of the strength of our faith while we stand the test of the pressure of war and public ridicule. For the church it gives opportunity to rethink in practical ways our principles of peace as based on the word, and preserves for the church of the future a principle that has been a major factor in its origin, growth, and witness. To men in CPS it gives opportunity to apply the principles of peace and nonresistance in their close association with others of various beliefs and practices who have been thrown together because of this strong common interest.”
Elmer Ediger’s statement characterizes Mennonites’ acceptance of the CPS system. “I am convinced that I can and should accept CPS under wartime or peacetime conscription. Even if I were fully convinced that conscription in itself would inevitably lead to great evils, I would still accept CPS. The basic Christian principles that helped me most: (1) As a Christian I can obey and comply with unchristian methods used on me, even though it would be a sin for me to use those methods on others. (2) The ‘second mile’ and ‘good for evil’ principles teach me as a Christian to accept compulsory service and then seek to reconstruct this compulsion into a voluntary service of good will. (3) I believe government (not anarchy) is desired by God to make for orderly group living, and therefore I obey government except when I am asked to sin.”
So, Mennonite pacifism during World War II focused not so much on political activism as on finding ways to do peaceable service in a warring society. Mennonites were respectful toward the state so long as they were not asked to fight in the War.
Sources of Central Influence
Mennonites emphasized the New Testament, especially the teaching of Jesus, as their most important influence. Nevertheless, for most of them this reading occurred through the eyes of their church tradition. Their experience of growing up in pacifist communities and retaining the strong support of those communities influenced them decisively. These influences shaped both how they read the Bible and how they put that reading into practice.
Most Mennonite COs were conditioned from an early age to make the CO commitment. When asked later why they chose to be COs, many spoke of expectations of their churches and families. Still, often Mennonite COs had brothers who went into the military. This step usually came after a decision not to join the church. Hence, a Mennonite did not automatically become a CO. However, once he joined the church, he most likely would refuse to join the military.
Wilbur Miller represents many Mennonites’ experience. He had a conversion experience at age 18, just before facing the draft. This experience emboldened him to take a CO stand. Mennonites usually assumed, based on church teaching, that God’s will required them to be nonresistant. A personal conversion experience would move a person toward that stance. The Mennonite not taking that stance likely did not claim a close spiritual relationship with God. Spirituality served as the crucial locus of a commitment to nonresistance – much more than formal theology, ethical principles, or political convictions.
Mennonites had a practical spirituality, stemming from teaching and example seen beginning in early childhood. Mennonite CPSer J. Mark Martin recognized this reality: “Why am I a conscientious objector? First, I was taught to live peaceably with all men from childhood. Certainly, I am grateful for the fact of having Christian parents who instilled in me the principles of a nonresistance stance. Second, I have witnessed the practice of the nonresistant life as exemplified in the lives of others. Third, I have found the principle of nonresistance to be practical in my own life. Truly the practice of nonresistance is essential to a happy Christian life.”
Of the factors that contributed to maintenance of Mennonites’ positive attitude toward CPS, the support of their home communities had enormous importance. Knowing the support of family, friends, and fellow church members significantly affected morale. This contrasted with many non-Mennonite COs. For them, the decision to become a CO was usually a lonely decision, often made in opposition to the wishes of family, friends, and fellow church members.
Mennonite CPSers received many tangible expressions of support from their home communities. For example, they often received food from home communities. A CPSer might open his lunch out on project and see on the label of some canned fruit the name of someone he knew, perhaps even his mother. This proved to the young man that he did not carry his conviction alone. It showed to him that the church, the folks at home, and he were all in a cooperative way practicing their pacifist faith.
Mennonite communities and their CPS camps both worked at maintaining a sense of connectedness. They did this by publishing and distributing camp newspapers. They also see it by sending campers to churches to speak. This is one typical report: “Furlough time was used to good advantage by campers who appeared on the conference programs at Tabor College and Hesston College during the past week. The annual Tabor Bible Conference featured a session devoted to the discussion of CPS. Campers from Denison, IA, gave a picture of their camp in the Saturday session. Sunday afternoon men from both camps joined in a forum discussion about the camps. On Monday afternoon the men from this camp appeared on the program. Jesse Harder discussed the peace testimony and the CO position. Ray Schlichting reviewed CPS history and discussed the community relationships of the camp. Robert Kreider spoke on the values of camp life. The annual Christian life conference at Hesston provided an opportunity for Ernest Kauffman, Glen Greaser, and Orie Gingerich to participate in discussions of CPS. The young people’s group voted to include in its budget $125 for the support of CPS camps. The conclusion of the campers who had these experiences was that the home communities are eager to know more about the challenges and the possibilities of CPS.”
Roman Catholic sociologist Gordon Zahn, himself a World War II CO, confirms this communal support. He surveyed the responses draftees made on the forms Selective Service required them to fill out to substantiate their CO claims. Mennonite replies to questions asking COs to substantiate their claims show a distinct contrast to those given by the Friends. Instead of being intellectualized arguments for a personal stand against war, the Mennonite statements are brief and direct. They are often limited to scriptural quotations citing chapter and verse, giving the impression of being “form answers” prepared in advance and made available for draftees.
Many draftees stated that they received help from their pastors or other official advisors provided by the church. This trend may account for the close similarity of expression among the different Mennonites. These men likely received strong encouragement and support in their stand against the war. Hence, they could confidently turn to members of their religious community for direct aid in the preparation of these crucial documents.
Many Mennonite COs surveyed after the War said the church had not provided adequate peace education. In Zahn’s view, this reflects how these respondents had internalized their peace traditions. They did not fully recognize the education they had received.
A personal account which highlights the communal nature of Mennonite CPSers comes from Richard C. Hunter. He was a CPSer from a Methodist background who found himself in a Mennonite CPS camp early in the War. “I began to recognize that [CPS] Camp #5 [in Colorado Springs] was not just a camp for a collection of unrelated COs operated by MCC, but that it was a Mennonite community, within which non-Mennonites were permitted to reside. I began to see that “Mennonite” was not just a name of a church denomination. It was a church-centered culture which commanded far greater loyalty and allegiance among its constituents than I had ever experienced as a member of the Methodist Church. I could tell the difference between Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska Mennonites. However, there were some well-defined and encompassing boundaries which brought together those who were on the inside and established for me my place on the outside.”
Hunter questioned the reality of true personal commitment to pacifism among the bulk of the Mennonite campers at first. This was due in large part to their apparent lack of individual focus and expressiveness. “I was developing a great deal of respect for the leadership of the church as I had an opportunity to observe it in people like Albert Gaeddert, our first camp director and fellow campers such as Robert Kreider, Ray Schlichting, and Elmer Ediger. However, I had questions about whether the rank and file among the campers who had grown up in a tightly-controlled culture were objectors on the basis of their own conscience or of the community from which they came. Pacifism was not actively discussed as it might have been in a college dorm. It was difficult to comprehend the depth of a conviction that was never verbalized. I tended to question the personal commitment of people who seemed to be able to go on day after day patiently putting up with the discomforts of camp and the disruption of their lives. It was then a revelation when one day, an Amish crew leader out in the field on an assignment, proceeded without any discussion to load his crew into the trucks at midday and bring them back to camp when he and others realized that they were involved in the initial stages of preparing for what later became Ft. Carson. There was not a lot of talk and debate, nor was the action dramatized for public consumption. When conviction called for action, it was taken quietly and effectively.”
A later CPS assignment helped Hunter to see in a deeper way the value of the communal orientation of Mennonite CPS. “[After Colorado Springs,] for a year I served in the Methodist-operated unit in Asheville, NC, as a ward attendant. Working conditions were reasonably good. Living conditions were certainly better than barracks. The members of the unit and the hospital staff were congenial and intellectually stimulating. However, it was a situation in which I was neither an insider nor an outsider, for there was no group standard or expectation. I was one of several individuals, each having his own personal convictions. It was a group lacking in the strength and character of an organized culture. Consequently, when, after ten months in Asheville, I received an inquiry from MCC about my possible interest in a position in the Marlboro, NJ, State Hospital, I accepted without hesitation [in order] to return again to the happy role of ‘outsider’ in a Mennonite unit.”
Mennonite COs would usually cite the New Testament as their central influence. However, what most distinguished Mennonites from other COs was the strong community support they had for their pacifism. The practical and emotional support they received were central to their expression of pacifism.
For Mennonite COs, we can see two types of distinctive fruit that came out of their experience. The amount of work done at the base camps is one fruit. Mennonites committed themselves to the work more than many other CPSers. A second fruit emerged from their work in mental hospitals. This was the establishment of alternative mental health institutions, in contrast to other COs’ efforts to transform the existing mental health system.
The conditions they found in mental hospitals appalled the COs who worked in them. Many came to the conclusion that changes were necessary. Some founded the Mental Hygiene Program of CPS to focus on seeking changes in the existing system. This Program evolved into the National Mental Health Foundation. The Foundation continued after the War ended as a tool for reforming the U.S. mental health system. This became the life-work of several COs.
MCC supported this program and provided four staff people for the program from MCC-administered camps. However, only one of those staff people was a Mennonite, and that person did not continue in that position after the War ended. The other three staff people came from other traditions. Mennonites themselves took a different approach. They developed parallel institutions, a different kind of response to social problems.
This approach reflects Mennonites’ tendency not to make attempts to force institutions to change. Rather, Mennonites would simply focus on creating alternative institutions. They have seen this approach to provide a better context for doing works of service.
Mennonites saw an opportunity in the mental health area to do something constructive. About 1,500 Mennonite men and many of these men’s spouses had served in mental health institutions by 1946. Many emerged from this experience convinced that they must, as Christians, do something for those unfortunate people in the hospitals. By 1947, MCC started Mennonite Mental Health Services (MMHS). MMHS began work to open three mental hospitals, one in the East, one in the Midwest, and the other on the West Coast. This happened in 1954 – and several more have opened since.
So, out of this encounter with an area of human need, we see two responses. A reformist response, focused on changing existing institutions. A second, that Mennonites took, focused on creating alternative institutions. In general, reformists tended to see pacifism as a tactic for social change. Mennonites focused on positive service possibilities more than directly changing the social system. Faithfulness to their tradition took priority over political effectiveness.
Conclusions and Implications
Strengths. In looking at the experience of Mennonites with CPS, we may note several strengths in the pacifist tradition of this group.
(1) Strong community roots. Mennonite churches formed communities that together, in some sense, stood against the state. Mennonite COs gained power from the sense that they did not stand alone. They shared their commitment with many other COs and had the backing of family, friends, and church communities. This support system might have meant Mennonites need not have as much personal strength to maintain their commitment as did other, more isolated COs. However, the support system also meant that many more Mennonites were able to withstand the pressures that pushed other COs to give up their commitment.
For Mennonites, being a CO during World War II usually meant being in harmony with the values of their church. Hence, they were able to gain full emotional and material support from that community. Virtually everyone in most Mennonite churches actively supported CPS. Church members gave millions of dollars and uncounted pounds of food and clothing. They also gave strong emotional support via letters, visits, pastoral support, and aid for families of COs. This reality supports the thesis that pacifism needs a communal context to flourish during adversity and across generations. Pacifism requires more than simply an individual choice.
(2) Realism about the state and social change. Many non-Mennonite COs bumped up against an intransigent state during the war and suffered as a result. They saw their stance as a means to construct a new social order. The Selective Service, on the other hand, saw alternative service as at most a way to have work done that might not be done otherwise. Mostly, Selective Service wanted ways to remove dissidents from the public eye. In this conflict between idealism and reality, the idealists usually found themselves frustrated by Selective Service intransigence.
Mennonites certainly did not accept that it was legitimate for them to be out of sight and out of mind during wartime. Nonetheless, they did not expect the government to embrace their values either. Consequently, they spent less time bumping against Selective Service, focusing more on the work they were able to get done. They had a productive experience in CPS and, in time, did contribute to social change, both by creating alternative mental health facilities and by their long-range contribution to liberalizing the conscription practices of the US government.
(3) Mennonite peace theology. The point here is not that Mennonite theologians had developed a sophisticated rationale for pacifism, because essentially they had not. However, Mennonite COs exhibited an impressive unanimity of theological rationale for their pacifism, impressive considering the diversity among the various Mennonite groups.
We might criticize their lack of theological sophistication. However, we should look at their theology in the context of the communal strength of the Mennonite tradition and its realism about the world Mennonites lived in. Mennonites understood God to be revealed in Jesus and as best understood in pacifist terms. This theological affirmation helped to buttress and sustain Mennonite pacifism in the face of great pressure to give it up.
Questions. Along with these strengths, however, I need to identify some questions.
(1) Mennonites worked creatively within government restrictions because they never really expected much more. However, Mennonites may also have been naive about the state. They realistically doubted that COs could use CPS as a direct tool for social change in effecting a “pacifist revolution.” However, in naively assuming that the government did them a favor in allowing alternative service due to a tolerant respect for religious liberty, they failed to see the anti-democratic character of a government at war. This warring government used Mennonites themselves actually to support some of those anti-democractic tendencies through CPS.
(2) Certainly Mennonites’ strong communal sense strengthened their pacifism. However, we may wonder about the role of shame and external expectations in enforcing pacifism. How many COs took that stand simply out of fear of their church community condemning them if they did otherwise? How much personal ownership did Mennonite COs have?
Such personal ownership often emerged over time. Many Mennonite families sent one or more sons to the military as well as to CPS, indicating CPS was a choice. Many COs evolved in their views during their alternative service, taking a CO stand due to external expectations but developing more and more personal ownership as time went on. Many CPSers years later spoke of sustaining of a strong, and clearly deeply personal, pacifist commitment over the decades following the War, often expressed in various service activities.
(3) Related to the strength concerning Mennonites’ simple but effective peace theology, we wonder about the intellectual basis for their pacifism. Mennonites had little to say that would be persuasive to outsiders. We might wonder if their influence might have been broader. Had they had more intellectual content to go with their impressive peaceable way of life and service involvement they might have more of an impact. They certainly had an unprecedented audience.
1. This essay is drawn from my Ph.D. dissertation, “Saying No to the ‘Good’ War: An Ethical Analysis of Conscientious Objection to World War II” (Berkeley, CA: Graduate Theological Union, 1988).
2. See James C. Juhnke, Vision, Doctrine, War: Mennonite Identity in America, 1890-1930 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 208-242; Perry Bush, Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 26-55; and Gerlof D. Homan, American Mennonites and the Great War, 1914-1918 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1994).
3. Neal W. Wherry, Conscientious Objection (Washington, DC: Selective Service System Special Monograph #11, vol. 1, 1950), 1-2.
4. Quoted in Mulford Q. Sibley and Philip E. Jacob, Conscription of Conscience: The American State and the Conscientious Objector, 1940-1947 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1952), 310. This book remains the authoritative history of conscientious objection to World War II. More recent and quite helpful studies of CPS include Mitchell Lee Robinson, “Civilian Public Service During World War II: The Dilemmas of Conscience in a Free Society” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1990), and Albert N. Keim, The CPS Story: An Illustrated History of Civilian Public Service (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1990).
5. Quoted in Sibley and Jacob, Conscription, 313.
6. Albert N. Keim and Grant M. Stoltzfus, The Politics of Conscience: The Historic Peace Churches and America at War, 1917-1955 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1988), 121.
7. Quoted in Lawrence S. Wittner, Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1941-1960 (New York: Columbia University, 1969), 82-83.
8. Cited in Willard Hunsberger, The Franconia Mennonites and War (Franconia: PA: Franconia Mennonite Conference, 1951), 137.
9. Walter Forster, “The Place is Here and the Time is Now!” Camp Walhalla News 1.4 (Dec, 1942), 7.
10. Interview with Ralph Kaufman, Phoenix, Arizona, December, 1986.
11. Dallas Voran, “CPS in Mississippi,” Box 96 1.12 (March 1945), 2, 4.
12. Dwight V. Yoder, “CPS at the Crossroads,” Skyliner 1.10 (Oct. 1943), 3.
13. Elmer Ediger, “Is It Right to Accept CPS?” The Snowline 3.4 (April 1945), 2.
14. E.g., interviews with Paul Davidhizer, Vincent Krabill, Eugene Hershberger, and Ralph Kaufman, Phoenix, Arizona, December, 1986.
15. Interview with Wilbur Miller, Phoenix, Arizona, April 1987.
16. J. Mark Martin, “That’s Why!” The Turnpike Echo 1.13 (Aug. 17, 1942), 5.
17. See Larry Gara and Lenna Mae Gara, eds., A Few Small Candles: War Resisters of World War II Tell Their Stories (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1999).
18. Hunsberger, Franconia, 102, 104.
19. “Campers Speak at Conferences,” Pike View News 1.11 (Feb. 7, 1942), 1.
20. Gordon Zahn, “A Descriptive Study of the Social Backgrounds of Conscientious Objectors in Civilian Public Service During World War II,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1953), 117-118.
21. Zahn, “Descriptive,” 285.
22. Richard C. Hunter, “From the Inside Out,” in If We Can Love: The Mennonite Mental Health Story, ed., Vernon Neufeld (Newton, KS: Faith and Life, 1983), 296.
23. Hunter, “From,” 297.
24. Hunter, “From,” 297-298.
25. Bush, Two, 102.
26. William Keeney, “Experiences in Mental Hospitals in World War II,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 56 (1982), 15.
27. Samuel Floyd Pannabecker, Open Doors: A History of the General Conference Mennonite Church (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1975), 250-251. See also Vernon Neufeld, ed., If We Can Love: The Mennonite Mental Health Story (Newton, KS: Faith and Life Press, 1983).
28. Paul Toews, Mennonites in American Society, 1930-1970: Modernity and the Persistence of Religious Community (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1996), 140-141.
29. The first comprehensive theological rationale for the Mennonite peace position was only published near the end of World War II: Guy F. Hershberger, War, Peace, and Nonresistance (Scottdale, PA: 1944).