>

Today we shall explore what the Nation's policy should be toward them.

And as we address this question, we must recognize that it is as emotional a question as the busing issue that the Senate will decide this afternoon.

On every college campus, the question of amnesty is one of the first a political leader must answer.

And in thousands of homes of World War II veterans, the issue of amnesty produces angry reactions.

What we hope is that we can begin to provide a rational understanding of the many questions that must be answered by the Nation in resolving the issue of amnesty.

Is today the right time for amnesty to occur, or is it when the last soldier leaves Vietnam, or should it be on the same date that the draft expires?

Do we provide the same conditions or lack of conditions to deserters as we do for draft evaders?

How do we distinguish between those who based their actions on strong moral convictions and those among the deserters who have fled for other reasons?

These are difficult, complex and emotional issues.

We shall look first to history to give us an understanding of what our own traditions have been. For 29 times since independence, we have offered amnesty. Less than a dozen years after the new Nation's Constitution was ratified, President Washington offered the first amnesty to those men who had participated in the 1794 Whiskey Insurrection.

Between that date and the Civil War, a half-century later, seven more amnesties were proclaimed by American Presidents. And it is important to recall that in at least one of those cases in 1830, President Jackson offered unconditional amnesty to deserters.

But it was the Civil War experience that I believe presents the most compelling parallel to the situation today. Then, the division. within the Nation went to the point of rebellion. The Southern States left the Nation and while the Supreme Court ruled that it was an act of rebellion, the Congress passed laws calling it treason. And in the aftermath of that war, many were indicted for that offense.

But throughout the war, President Lincoln and then President Andrew Johnson understood that the future of the Nation would not be built on a permanent rupture between the people of this land. It was not merely a question of victor and vanquished, but rather of men on both sides who had followed their beliefs in what was right.

And so, President Andrew Johnson, on Christmas Day 1868, proclaimed "Unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person, who directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States. . . .”

Clearly, it was recognized then, despite the furor which followed that act, that the Nation must bind up its wounds and seek to move forward in union, that those who had placed conscience so far above country that they had withdrawn from the country, should be wel comed back into the country.

Then, it was an expression of strength, of the willingness of the Government to declare its strength by its grace and to declare its compassion by its willingness to forget the penalty that the law would otherwise demand.

And today we have many of the same concerns. For we too have had young men follow their consciences to prison and to exile. We too have seen a nation divided against itself and we too must look to the future.

But besides our tradition, there are other compelling reasons as well for an inquiry into the possibility of amnesty.

These young men believed the war was wrong. They were willing to go to prison or to cut themselves off forever if necessary from family and friends. Those were not easy decisions. They were the moral decisions of principled young men whose commitment and consciences might offer a great deal to the Nation in the future. Our national reservoir of moral initiative and determination is not so ample that we can afford to shut them out.

And for those of us who have condemned the war as an outrage, it is difficult to conceive of denying amnesty to those young men who saw the things we now see, but saw them sooner and who did the only thing they could. Faced with the dilemma of violating the. selective service law or violating what to them were moral imperatives against participating in a war they saw as evil, they chose prison or exile.

What we must ask is whether the Nation wants to offer reconciliation to a generation of young Americans, to their families and to their communities, whether we are strong enough to be compassionate and understanding, whether we have enough faith in our market place of ideas to welcome minds that have disagreed with us, whether our own commitment to a generation of peace is firm enough to include peace with our own children.

These are the questions we will discuss today.

And, as we do, we might well ponder the Easter sermon of the late Cardinal Cushing:

Would it be too much to suggest that we empty out our jails of all the protesters the guilty and the innocent-without judging them; call back from over the border and around the world the young men who are called deserters, drop the cases that are still awaiting judgment on our college youth? Could we not do all of this in the name of life, and with life, hope .. Wherever our young people, even for reasons we do not know, stand in need of mercy let us reach out to them.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Henry Steele Commager of Amherst College, perhaps the most distinguished historian of our country today. He has charted a course of scholarship and wisdom in his books and lectures for half a century. So it gives us a great deal of pleasure to introduce him today.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, could I make a statement, too? Senator KENNEDY. I recognize the Senator.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, the involvement of the United States in Indochina has brought and is continuing to bring mixed reactions from all sections of our society. To say that this war has been an unpopular one is indeed an understatement.

Our involvement amounted to a peak commitment of over one-half million men at one time. In fact, when President Nixon assumed office there were over 550,000 men in South Vietnam. The President has courageously reduced our manpower involvement to an expected 69,000 as of May 1 while at the same time has maintained the integrity of this country and of South Vietnam. He has revealed a peace proposal which would totally end our military participation while at the same time bring home prisoners of war being held by the North Vietnamese.

This country made the decision to preserve the freedom of South Vietnam, a country which, except for our assistance, would have long since been crumbled by Communist aggression. Future historians will debate the wisdom of our involvement in Indochina and the wisdom of our strategy once we became engaged. The fact is we did become involved just as surely as we became involved in World War I. World War II, and in the Korean Conflict. As of September 30, 1970, over 2.5 million men had served in Vietnam. This figure does not include the millions who have served in a supporting role here and abroad.

Throughout the history of our Nation we have drafted men into the Armed Forces. Likewise, throughout our history there have been those who have evaded serving their country one way or the other. We should be proud that the vast majority of Americans who have been called to serve in the military have served honorably and with exceptional distinction.

Regretfully, however, as with regulations and requirements in other areas of our society, there have been and will be those who fail to serve when they are drafted, and there are those who have deserted after they have entered the military.

Lawlessness and disregard for the law is one of the serious ills of our society. Strict enforcement of the law and just punishment of offenders is absolutely necessary and is demanded under our constitutional system. We should apply the same system of justice to those who break the law requiring military service as we apply it to those who break any other law.

In my opinion, which I feel is shared by many others, there is no greater service a man can render his country than to serve in the Armed Forces. Equally important is the service we all can render by showing respect for the law. This service demands that those who disobey the law be appropriately punished.

The law provides that draft evaders and those who desert from the Armed Forces be appropriately punished. Retrospective politics of our involvement in Vietnam should not alter this.

Many men who served in Vietnam differed with our Government's decision to send them there. Many of them were wounded, some are maimed for life. Many were killed. Some are being held as captives by the North Vietnamese. In the face of these sacrifices how can we possibly consider an amnesty for those who took the unlawful way out by evading the draft or by deserting? The possibility of administrative amnesty should not even be considered until we have brought home all our men from combat zones and from prisoner-ofwar camps. Then the primary problem will be to mete out justice

to those who violated draft and desertion laws. In my judgment there will be very few who, through unusual extenuating circumstances, might qualify for amnesty.

As I stated yesterday, those who were conscientious objectors did not have to go to Canada, Sweden, or some other country. We have provisions in our law to arrange for special consideration for this type of person. So those who went either went erroneously when it was not necessary if they were conscientious objectors or they are not willing to fight for their country. In my judgment, a man must be willing to fight for his country in time of war. I have little patience for those who are not willing to do so. It is very unfair for those who are forced to go and allow others who are not willing to serve to be excused and then grant an amnesty.

Yesterday, the distinguished chairman, it seems, related the War Between the States to this situation and insinuated, if not called, those who fought on the Southern side traitors. If I am incorrect, he can correct the record. He later said that some called them traitors, but I believe the record itself, in his first statement, referred to them as traitors.

Now, again, I want to say today that no section of this country is more patriotic than the South. In World War I, my State had, I believe, more Congressional Medal of Honor men than any other State in proportion to its size. The South has always fought for America. The South did have its differences back when the South seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860, I believe that the first ordinance of secession was approved and then the rest of the South withdrew.

As I stated yesterday, they were following what they considered constitutional rights, the right of a State, the right of the State to join the Union, which it did. It did not have to join the Union. And they felt when they joined voluntarily, they had a right to secede voluntarily, and that is exactly what they did.

But I want to say this, that they did not just secede and run off to some other country; they seceded and fought for what they believed in. That is far different from today.

These men who run to Canada and Sweden and other places have fought for neither side. They have just evaded military service. There was an honest difference in men who were willing to fight for and did fight for it back during the War Between the States. I cannot imagine anybody today calling those people traitors. It is an outrage. And I think anyone who called those people traitors are cowards themselves and I do not care who it applies to. I am convinced that those people were just as patriotic and loved their countries just as much and loved America just as much. And no people of this country underwent the sacrifices they did after that war. They were under military rule for 10 years. They suffered enduring hardships. Yet they supported this country and supported its government and provided fighting men in every war this country has fought. And today, the South, I think, is the heart of patriotism. I do not know what this country would do today if it were not for the South.

The South is doing more today, I think, to hold this country to

gether than any other section of this country. I think they are the most loyal people; they believe in the constitution to a great extent and they stand for the principles that made this country great. And when anyone refers to those who fought on the Southern side as traitors, I think they are indeed exaggerating the situation and they are making false statements and they simply do not know history.

I want to make this statement to clear up what was said yesterday and the record will speak for itself. The reporter took the record and that will speak for itself and others who heard the record-that will speak for itself.

But I want to be perfectly clear on this point that there is no relation to the war between the South and the North that began in 1861, or maybe actually in 1860, and the present situation. Today, these men who ran off to Canada and Sweden and other places were not willing to fight for their country. And I repeat, if they were conscientious objectors, they had a remedy here at home. Why did they go? I think the public can answer that question.

Senator KENNEDY. In the meantime, we will hear from Mr. Henry Steele Commager. Perhaps he can add insight into the history of this situation.

STATEMENT OF HENRY STEELE COMMAGER, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, AMHERST UNIVERSITY

Mr. COMMAGER. Gentlemen, traditionally, it is the Executive that has taken the initiative in granting amnesty, but recent Executives have displayed less interest in amnesty than was customary in the 19th century: thus there was no amnesty after the Korean war and has been none so far in this war. It is therefore reassuring to see the Congress take the initiative in this matter so fraught with importance to the harmony of society and to the sense of justice. The American people should be grateful to Senator Taft for raising this issue in practical form, and for proposing a solution, even if partial and in some respects inadequate. We should note at once that Senator Taft's proposal does not embrace military deserters. As I think desertion and draft evasion are inextricably part of the same pattern and the same problem, what I have to say this morning will apply to both categories of offenders.

We do not have, and, in the circumstances we cannot have, accurate statistics of desertion and draft evasion for the past 7 years. It seems probable that desertion has been higher in the war in Southeast Asia than in any war in which we have ever been involved with the possible exception of the Civil War, desertion in the North was 11% in the South 10%; the comparison is faulty. However, in the North it was possible to buy substitutes. Without that, it would have been greater. In 1970 the desertion rate in Vietnam was 52 per thousand-twice the rate, by the way, of the Korean war; up to September 1971 it was 73.5 per thousand; many of these deserters were subsequently returned to military control. As for draft evaders estimates run from fifty to one hundred thousand, but as many potential draftees took cover before being formally inducted, these figures are almost meaningless. This high incidence of desertion and