Beehaw
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
inkican ( inkican@kbin.social )  to Today I Learned@kbin.social · 3 years ago

TIL that in 1916 there was a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution that would put all acts of war to a national vote, and anyone voting yes would have to register as a volunteer for service in the

www.huffpost.com

external-link
message-square
23
link
fedilink
136
external-link

TIL that in 1916 there was a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution that would put all acts of war to a national vote, and anyone voting yes would have to register as a volunteer for service in the

www.huffpost.com

inkican ( inkican@kbin.social )  to Today I Learned@kbin.social · 3 years ago
message-square
23
link
fedilink
Failed Amendment Would Have Put War To National Vote, Forced Those Who Voted 'Yes' To Enlist
www.huffpost.com
external-link
Failed Amendment Would Have Put War To National Vote, Forced Those Who Voted 'Yes' To Enlist
alert-triangle
You must log in or # to comment.
  • Anomandaris ( Anomandaris@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 years ago

    Can you imagine what would have happened during WW2 if that had passed? There were a number of Americans sympathetic towards the Nazis, and a much larger number of Americans sympathetic towards the Allies, but not sympathetic enough to risk the lives of their sons, fathers, and husbands. I struggle to see a world where a national vote would have resulted in a large enough majority.

    I imagine it would have extended the war by at least another five years. I do think the Nazis would still have lost eventually, as they struggle to maintain control over the entirety of Europe whilst also trying to destroy the UK and Russia. But it would likely have been a Pyrrhic victory, leaving both victors almost completely decimated too.

  • kestrel7 ( kestrel7@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 years ago

    Not a bad idea, but how would it work with the right to an anonymous vote?

  • FaceDeer ( FaceDeer@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 years ago

    The US hasn’t formally declared war since 1942, I expect this amendment would have simply pushed that date earlier.

  • argv_minus_one ( argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) Banned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 years ago

    This doesn’t seem particularly useful in the modern day. If you want to win a war today, you do it with highly trained soldiers and highly advanced equipment, not by handing rifles to a bunch of green volunteers or conscripts.

    • Joe ( Joe@kbin.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      Plenty of jobs going in the military. If you support the war, support the war

      • argv_minus_one ( argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) Banned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        Not that many jobs. If fully half of the country supported an act of war, there would be nowhere near enough military jobs for them to fill.

        • 8565 ( lemmy@lemmy.quad442.com ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          Your a rifleman first.

          • argv_minus_one ( argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) Banned
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            I was going to say they don’t even have enough rifles for that many riflemen, but then I remembered that the United States has more guns than people, so… 🤷‍♂️

    • 5 Card Draw ( RedCanasta@lemmy.fmhy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think you missed the point…

    • parrot-party ( parrot-party@kbin.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      That’s only because we haven’t actually gone to war in a long time. Showing off our shiny toys in Desert Storm wasn’t a full scale war. Nor have any of our other excursions been. But a fight with China? You bet your ass we’d need a never ending line of barely trained soldiers to keep up with the bloodshed. We can only hope such an event never happens.

      • argv_minus_one ( argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) Banned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        A fight with China would be over within hours, leaving both countries reduced to radioactive craters. We won’t even need soldiers for that, let alone cannon fodder.

  • JelloBrains ( JelloBrains@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    I’m pretty sure they just did an end run around this when they knew it wasn’t going to work by making the Selective Service Act of 1917, where all men over 18 have to be registered for the draft. I had to sign up for selective service even though the draft no longer exists because they might one day bring it back, especially now they can’t meet the recruitment numbers.

  • exohuman ( exohuman@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    I like the idea, but in today’s world of perpetual warfare it would not work.

  • TheDeadGuy ( TheDeadGuy@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    With a larger aging population it wouldn’t work very well, but what if was an income tax instead? Like maybe 2%

    • bumbly ( bumbly@readit.buzz ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      If the aging population wants to go fight a war, let them.

  • wet_lettuce ( wet_lettuce@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    How fucking old is this story?

    This is from 2013.

    • KBTR1066 ( KBTR1066@kbin.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 years ago

      So? Today this person learned about. It doesn’t say “Today I and Everybody Else Also Learned”. I’d never heard of this proposed amendment, why does it matter that the article is old?

      • bumbly ( bumbly@readit.buzz ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 years ago

        @wet_lettuce knew it, so therefore everybody had to have known of it. That’s how human knowledge works: one human learns it and thus do all humans.

        It is known!

  • bumbly ( bumbly@readit.buzz ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Queue the “I’d rather send those less fortunate than myself to war and treat veterans like shit when they get back” comments

  • grey ( grey@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Bring this back.

  • DaGuys470 ( DaGuys470@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I kinda like that

Today I Learned@kbin.social

TodayILearned@kbin.social

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !TodayILearned@kbin.social

Post direct links to interesting facts that you just learned about today

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 1 user / day
  • 1 user / week
  • 1 user / month
  • 1 user / 6 months
  • 119 local subscribers
  • 120 subscribers
  • 102 Posts
  • 366 Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • BE: 0.19.15
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code