So it looks like it kind of happened like this. Congress passes the Selective Service Act and a draft of young men occurs in the country, requiring them to register with local draft boards. There is a provision in the Act for conscientious objectors on religious grounds, but they needed to be "members of pacifist religious organizations" (such as the Quakers). Moreover, if objector status is granted by one's local draft board, one would need to accept whatever non-military alternative service is required of them.
Attempting to obey the "law of Caesar", young Bible Students register with their local draft boards. Some local boards accept their status as "members of a pacifist religious organization", but others do not. Why? There were problems with every portion of the legal requirement. First of all, how can it be demonstrated that these men were members of a religious organization? The Society, as set up by Pastor Russell, explicitly eschewed having a "membership roll"; this was because Russell did not believe that his group was an organized religion started by a man but nothing less than the last-days gathering of the elect. Thus their names are "written in heaven". The Bible Students did make a distinction between "consecrated" and "non-consecrated" followers, and there was the smaller group who had signed their Vow. But as Joseph Rutherford admitted on the stand, there was no objective way of verifying that someone had been consecrated. He instead said that you can tell after five minutes of conversation whether the person is or not; this is a subjective determination. This situation was deemed very unsatisfactory to the draft boards. After all, if conscientious objector status be granted to the Bible Students, basically anybody out there who wanted to avoid the war can just simply say that he is a consecrated member of the International Bible Student Association and there wouldn't be an objective way for the draft boards to verify this -- other than possession of religious literature. Indeed, this in fact happened; a certain Charles W. Person wrote to the Society asking to become a member because "I am one of the draft unfortunates ... and I want to get out of the camp and all that goes with it, just as soon as I can. Can't you help me get away from here? I understand that you are trying to help men to get out of camps, particularly this one at Upton .... If you can help me get out of this, you will have a friend for life".
It also wasn't clear to draft boards that the ISBA was a pacifist organization. This was because the Bible Students had no creed that members had to agree to. Anti-war statements or articles in publications were not deemed a sufficient basis for determining that the ISBA was a specifically pacifist organization. In response to this problem, secretary-treasurer William E. Van Amburgh scrambed to write a form letter to local draft boards which contained an "Affidavit of Person Whose Discharge is Sought" which explained that the ISBA was a pacifist organization containing a "creed" against participation in war:
"I, Mr. So-and-so, do solemly swear I am XXX years old and reside at XXX and that Serial No. XXXX was given me by Local Board XXXX on the day XX of 1917, on the ground that I was a person who was a member of a well recognized religious sect or organization, organized and existing May 18 1917, whose then existing creed or principles forbade its members to participate in war in any form and whose religious convictions are against war or participation therein, in accordance with the creed or principles of said well organized religious organization.
"I do further solemly swear that I am a member in good faith and good standing of the International Bible Students Association which, on the 18th day of May, 1917 was organized and existing as a well recognized religious sect or organization, whose existing creed or principles forbade its members to participate in war in any form...."
In contrast to Russell's denial that they had a creed of any form, Rutherford on the stand quite openly spoke of the pacifist "creed" of the Bible Students. Finally, it was not clear to some draft boards that the ISBA was a religious organization that operated like a church. It instead appeared to simply be a publishing company of religious material. There were other religious presses, but they were not recognized as valid religious organizations or denominations. It would be like someone who purchased a copy of Spurgeon's Sermons claiming to be a member of the religious press merely because he bought a book.
In light of this confusion, there were young Bible Students (consecrated or not) who were conscripted and sent to boot camp. They didn't know what to do, so they wrote to the ISBA for help. Some disobeyed orders on their own accord. Others received letters from members of the ISBA advising them to disobey the orders of their commanding officers if they want to be subject to Christ as their true "commander". John DeCecca wrote to one conscript: "We can serve only one Master. If we obey the earthly captain we must disobey our Heavenly captain. If we obey our Heavenly captain, we must disobey our earthly captain, one of the two, which shall we obey?" Rutherford wrote to another: "If you feel you cannot have anything to do with the present war, you will refuse and let the officials take their course. You probably will be confined or shot". The government however did not look very kindly to this advice. Encouraging desertion of duty and insubordination was against the law. Hence, the first count of the indictment was "wilfully causing insubordination, disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States of America when the United States was at war". There was also an aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy as well. The Bible Students believed that this war, the Great War, was the war of Armageddon in the Bible. DeCecca wrote: "If we believe that this war is the last one, and that all the kingdom must go down, so the kingdom of Christ be established, should we have any part in the military service?" Since Jesus foretold that "they shall lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake" (Luke 21:12), the Bible Students believed that their arrests were prophesied long ago by Jesus and must happen before the end comes. After telling a Bible Student that he would probably be confined or shot for refusing service, Rutherford went on: "Probably the Lord wants some of His saints in prison for a while to tell the element they meet there that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand and soon all their sufferings will cease ... If you are shot because of the stand you take for the Lord, that will be a quick method of entering His glorious presence".
Such a stand however meant that faithful Bible Students were not only to refuse military duties, but they were also to refuse peaceful alternative service, such as working in a hospital. As DeDecca put it: "If the General or anyone else should say to me, 'Well, we understand your position, we know that you conscience will not permit you to do wrong, to do to fight, etc. but we will give you some work that would not be war.' I would answer, 'That there was nothing that it was not war! To me was all War!' And if he should say, 'I will give you a hospital work, would you like to do that?' I would answer 'No'! And if he say to me, 'Why you would not work in the hospital!' I would answer thus: 'Because to me is all WAR!' ". The Society held a similar policy for the rest of the 20th century, requiring all conscripted JWs to refuse even civil alternative service. This was a new position at the time, for Pastor Russell did not consider it wrong for Christians to receive military or alternative service.
"If, therefore, we were drafted, and if the government refused to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare (as they have heretofore done with 'Friends,' called Quakers); we should request to be assigned to the hospital service or to the Commissary department or to some other non-combatant place of usefulness; and such requests would no doubt be granted. If not, and we ever got into battle, we might help to terrify the enemy, but need not shoot anybody" (Zion's Watch Tower, 1 July 1898, p. 204).
"Obedience to the laws of the land might at some time oblige us to bear arms, and in such event it would be our duty to go into the army, if unable in any legal and proper manner to obtain exemption, but it would not be our duty to volunteer. We are soldiers in another army, which battles not with carnal weapons, and whose contests are from an entirely different standpoint and in an entirely different spirit. There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army. Wherever we would go we could take the Lord with us, the Captain of our salvation, and wherever we would go we could find opportunities to serve him and his cause. If it came to the point of battling we above all would be obliged to draw the line when commanded to fire, and we could not, in harmony with the divine program, fire upon a fellow-creature with the intention of taking his life. If we fired we should be obliged to fire either into the air or into the ground....The governor of the state has the right, under the laws, to call for and to conscript, if necessary, soldiers for the defense of the state and of the nation; and if such requisition be enforced upon us we must render our dues and take our share in the trials and difficulties of the service, whatever they may be" (Zion's Watch Tower, 15 April 1903, p. 120)
Rutherford however adopted an very different hardline position that the Society stuck with until the 1 May 1996 Watchtower, which again reverted to older position and made it permissible for conscientious objectors to accept alternative service. The position that Rutherford adopted in 1917 overrode the consciences of those who otherwise could have opted for civil service and was the raison d'etre for the arrests and imprisonment of the WTS directors. In this repect, I believe the criticism of Rutherford and the directors is well-deserved. Following the change in position, the Society placed the blame of the "feeling of having suffered needlessly" on the JWs themselves who should otherwise feel appreciative for taking an unnecessarily strong stand for Jehovah rather than on the organization itself for wrongly imposing restrictions that it now admits were unnecessary (15 August 1998 Watchtower, p. 17). These restrictions originated in the fall of 1917 and they caused much suffering for JWs around the world for several generations.
