In the United States, Anabaptists (a group that included Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites) were afforded legal status as conscientious objectors (COs), though what that status entailed varied considerably depending on the conflict. I’ll talk about the twentieth century here, as that’s what you asked about and my main area of expertise on this topic. In World War I, many COs were forced to serve in non-combatant roles in the military. During the second World War, the bulk of COs were part of the Civilian Public Service, a government organization that tried to make war objectors do civilian work for the federal government and ran a series of labor camps. In Vietnam, local draft boards often allowed Anabaptist COs to avoid service entirely. I have written a bit about conscientious objectors in the United States on this site before, and all of that is applicable to Anabaptists.

Legal Status of Anabaptist Conscientious Objection

There is no constitutional right to avoid military service. The Selective Draft Law Cases of 1918, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of conscription, made clear that religious freedom was not grounds for challenging the draft. Provisions for conscientious objection are left to legislatures.

Generally, the United States has chosen to provide these legislative protections. They did this due to respect for religious conviction. They also did it because having religious minorities refuse to fight and then being punished for it tends to be very corrosive for morale.

You asked about the relation of conscientious objection in Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case allowing the Amish to not send their children to high school. As far as I know, that case has no bearing on conscientious objection. There have been a few Supreme Court cases on conscientious objection, but these were mostly over the legislative choice to limit the status to theists and they did not particularly effect Anabaptists.

Anabaptists in Relation to Other Pacifist Religious Groups

Men from these Anabaptist groups were afforded CO status not because of Amish restrictions on using modern technology, but because they were religious groups with long-held objections to all warfare. Anabaptist theology expressly forbade violence and participation in armed conflict, seeing these things as incompatible with the faithful practice of Christianity. These objections to war existed from early on Anabaptist history, and appear in the 1527 Schleitheim Confession, a major statement of Anabaptist principles that is considered important to all Anabaptist groups.

Anabaptists had a critical difference from other pacifist Christians, like Quakers. While Quakers combined political activism and pacifism, Anabaptists typically saw their pacifism as one part of a necessary Christian separation from politics and connection with the wider world, which they regarded as un-Christian. Some Anabaptists claimed to be non-resisters, rather than “pacifists,” a term they saw as too political.

You mentioned the film Hacksaw Ridge, which is about Seventh-Day Adventist Desmond Doss, who won the Medal of Honor in World War II while serving as a medic in the Pacific. It’s worth observing that Doss and many other Seventh-Day Adventists objected to killing in war but not uniformed military service. Anabaptists, like Quakers, typically refused to do uniformed military service of this kind, seeing any assistance of the military as a violation of their beliefs.

Because of their beliefs, Anabaptists were given same legal status as Quakers and the Brethren. After World War I, three groups, Quakers, Mennonites, and the Brethren, dubbed themselves “Historic Peace Churches” and began to lobby the federal government together. Together these groups formed the National Service Board of Religious Objectors, which ran the Civilian Public Service work camps where conscientious objectors were interned in World War II.

What Distinguished the Anabaptist Experience from other Pacifist Religious Groups?

While the Anabaptist experience largely mirrors the experience of other Christian pacifists, there are a few differences. Anabaptists were far more likely than other religious groups to claim conscientious objector status. This is probably the result of the fact that many Anabaptist communities were very separated from the wider American culture. There was intense social pressure on Hutterite and Amish men in particular to not serve.

During World War I, when many pacifists were forced into noncombatant service in the military, a sizable number of Anabaptist men fled to Anabaptist communities in Canada. To my knowledge, they are only religious group that undertook such a migration. Most returned following the war.

Because many Anabaptists were farmers in World War II, Anabaptist men were often furloughed from Civilian Public Service to go back to farming, which was seen as necessary for the war effort. Anabaptists did not see continuing to farm as inconsistent with their convictions.

Anabaptists were often German speakers. In World War I and World War II, they were often suspected of being sympathetic to Germany (and in a few cases, this suspicion was justified). This often led to their neighbors harassing them and they were frequently subjected to violence. It also made the government far leerier of protecting them.

Conclusion

The Anabaptist experience of conscientious objection is like that of most other Christian pacifists in the United States. The government made some accommodation of their beliefs, but could also be heavily repressive. The move to an all-volunteer military in 1973 largely ended the need for special conscientious objector status, though many Anabaptists still refuse to register for selective service.

Recommended Readings

Bush, Perry. Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Gingerich, Melvin. Service for Peace: A History of Mennonite Civilian Public Service. Akron, PA: The Mennonite Central Committee, 1949.

Juhnke, James C. Vision, Doctrine War: Mennonite Identity and Organization in America, 1890-1930. Scottdale, PA, 1989.

Keim, Albert N. “Mennonites and Selective Service in World War II: An Ambiguous Relationship.” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 66, no. 4 (October 1992): 508–24.

Rempel, John D. “The Unity of the Church and the Christian Peace Witness: A Mennonite Perspective.” In The Fragmentation of the Church and Its Unity in Peacemaking, edited by Jeffrey Gros and John D. Rempel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.

Toews, Paul. “The Long Weekend or the Short Week: Mennonite Peace Theology, 1925-1944.” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 60, no. 1 (January 1986): 38–57.

Edit: Made a few edits to avoid juxtaposing the Brethren and Anabaptists, because the Church of the Brethren is often classified as part of the Anabaptist movement.