"These men, who refused to register under the draft law, were sentenced by Judge Landis at Chicago,
who called them 'whining puppies' because they refused to 'submit' themselves as potential soldiers.
They must serve one year at hard labor in the Chicago workhouse."
Dana has a sizable swath of his microfilm reels devoted to newspaper clippings, many of which dealt with the prosecution/persecution of conscientious objectors (COs). Below, I've featured a smattering of examples.
One may note the way COs were portrayed in the media and, in turn, conceived of in the American public's mind (or, perhaps, vice-versa). That is to say, whether or not journalists' collective portrayal of controversy is representative (or merely fuel to the fire) of a given historical context's national atmosphere is already open for debate. In modern parallel, I have to wonder if the Trump fervor is as strongly felt as we're led to believe and/or his prominence is due to the spotlight news outlets afford his outlandish pronouncements. But I digress.
COs were often cast as weak, puerile, lazy, traitorous, self-righteous, over-educated liberals. Simultaneously, individual cases were presented in a sympathetic light – unlikely heroes and student protesters. Indeed, an alliance with socialists must have produced an unusual animal at which the average American could gawk. The seeming follies of COs are what evoked the idea of the whining puppy who, even grown up, would still end up a traitorous dog.
Box 2 [Reel 71.1] Folder 6, Page 39, 41, 43, 45: Conscientious objector newspaper clippings
in the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Dana Papers (DG 011), Swarthmore College Peace Collection.
"[C]onscription is unconstitutional because the Thirteenth Amendment forbids slavery and involuntary servitude [...]"
"[A]ny man who urges another not to register on June 5, or argues that the registration order is illegal and need not
be obeyed, or who intimates that one required to register can safely refrain from registering [...] has committed the
crime of treason against the United States and may be punished by death."
This page is first in a series of materials (mostly newspaper clippings) that pertain to the controversy surrounding conscientious objection at the dawn of America's involvement in World War I and HWLD's obvious investment in the cause. Additionally, a line of correspondence concerning Franklin Roosevelt, a man named 'Ned,' and the Office of Naval Intelligence ambiguously dated Monday October 21st was included – this particular item may have something to do with the Zimmerman Telegram (stay tuned).
The initial reason these primary sources caught my eye was that it was unusual (thus far) to find a jumble of smaller papers grouped together on the reels – typically, there's one document per page/per scan. Looking more closely, I was excited to find draft registration cards (I have a passion for bureaucratic forms; it must be the sociologist in me). In the images below, the section for race on the second example provides important insight into how race was conceived at the time and, in turn, institutionalized (or vice versa). Apparently, one could be either 'White,' 'Negro,' 'Oriental,' or 'Indian (citizen or noncitizen)' – the rigid distinctions are noteworthy. Could someone check off more than one race? Of all the races, it's ironic (or perhaps grimly understandable) that American Indians would be specifically compelled to divulge their citizenship status as part of their racial identity when it's their land that the United States occupies.