EARLY U.S. TAX HISTORY

"Before the Revolutionary War, the colonial governments had only a limited need for revenue."¹ Colonies used a combination of head taxes, property taxes, and taxes on the basis of occupation to raise revenue. In order to pay for the Revolutionary War, congress passed excise taxes on such items as sugar, tobacco, distilled spirits, legal documents, and property sold at auctions.

These taxes were abolished in 1802, and there were no internal revenue taxes collected for the following ten years. At the beginning of the War of 1812, Congress passed taxes which remained in effect until 1817, when they were repealed. Taxes notwithstanding, the war caused an increase in the national debt to two-and-a-half times its former level. No further revenue laws were passed until the Civil War in 1861.

Military spending during the Civil War increased nearly forty times its previous level, amounting to 93% of the federal budget.² To cope with the demand, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which doubled customs taxes, reinstated excise taxes, and taxed personal incomes for the first time. The personal income tax affected less than 3% of the population, but was unpopular enough that it was dropped after the war.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1913, allowed the U.S. Government to impose income taxes directly on the population. Under this amendment, less than 1% of the population was required to pay income taxes. The entry of the U.S. into WWI just four years later, greatly increased the government's need for revenue. The federal budget in 1917, for example, was nearly equal to a total of all the federal budgets between 1791 and 1916.

To increase public awareness and acceptance of the income tax, the Bureau of Internal Revenue "...used volunteer public speakers to persuade the American people that paying taxes was their patriotic duty to support the war effort. One-third of the cost of the war was paid for by income taxes."³

Additional funds needed for the war effort were provided through war bonds, liberty loans and other government borrowing.

WORLD WAR II AND U.S. TAX HISTORY

World War II had a big impact on the federal income tax system. According to the IRS, "the need for high defense spending led to the passage in 1940 of two tax laws that increased individual and corporate taxes."⁴

In 1941, the Revenue Act lowered exemption levels, which included millions of Americans into the pool of those required to pay taxes for the first time. An article in The Nation's Business noted that the wealthy could not bear the entire burden themselves. Thus "the Kansas wheat farmer, the lumberjack and the boys around the cracker barrel in the corner grocery are going to have to pay the tax bill this time."⁵ As a result, the number of taxpayers grew from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945.

Revenues also increased dramatically. In 1941 the government collected $7.4 billion in taxes. By 1945, the tax total had increased to $43 billion.

The urgent need to pay for the war also led to another innovation in the income tax system. At the beginning of the war, taxes were paid in quarterly installments the year after the income had been earned. The situation is described in the April, 1990 issue of Changing Times.

"It was World War II and the U.S. was in danger of running out of money. The nation's system for collecting income taxes was so chaotic that billions of dollars escaped the Treasury's net while middle-income taxpayers struggled to shoulder their burden. In short, things were a mess and the war effort itself was on the line."

In this context, Beardsley Ruml introduced the "pay as you go" concept, which gave the government much quicker access to income tax dollars. In 1943, employers were first required to withhold income taxes from employees' paychecks.

The reasons for these various revenue measures are several; to supply money to finance the war, and to prevent inflation. The demands of the war had drawn millions of new Americans into the paid labor force. This injected new money into the economy at the same time that the government instituted strict rationing of food and other essential items. Thus taxation and the sale of war bonds were also calculated to "...absorb enough private income to relieve inflationary demands."⁶

There was, however, yet another implicit goal to the war bond drives and income tax acts of World War II. Treasury Secretary Morgenthau noted that through the war bond campaign, "the Treasury could make the country war-minded--there just isn't any other vehicle to do it."⁷ Morgenthau's biographer states the position of the Treasury this way: "A willingness to pay higher taxes and to buy more bonds would demonstrate the deep involvement of civilians in the fight."⁸

Bringing millions of citizens into the pool of taxpayers for the first time, however, required both education and persuasion, tasks which the government took seriously. The print media carried scores of stories on the new income tax laws and the need to pay for the war. Headlines such as "How You Will Pay for the War" (Nation's Business, February, 1942) were commonplace in Newsweek, The New York times, and other publications.

The government also made use of the arts. The U.S. Treasury Department contracted the services of song writer Irving Berlin, who wrote a song linking the payment of income taxes to the war effort. The lyrics were:

"You see those bombers in the sky, Rockefeller helped to build them, so did I, I paid my income tax today."⁹

In the movie, Donald Duck is very proud of America and his status as an American until he hears on the radio that his first duty is to pay higher income taxes. This causes considerable agitation and depression.

"But his deflation gives way to a new outburst of patriotism when he sees the coin stacks to which he has contributed turn into the smoke stacks of munitions factories which presently roll out guns and tanks and ships and airplanes to strike down the enemy."¹⁰

THE U.S. INCOME TAX AND WAR TODAY

Fifty years after the institution of the mass income tax, it has become a permanent feature of our lives. The role of the federal government is infinitely larger today than it was when it relied on the occasional tax to raise money in the early years of nationhood. Today our taxes support a variety of programs which attempt to provide for the basic health and welfare of our people. Examples include social security, food and education through programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) and HEAD START, as well as the infrastructure of roads and communications which we rely on daily.

These realities tend to blunt the notion that income taxes in the 1990's are directly related to war and military spending. Indeed, we could ask the question whether the origins of the income tax and its relation to military spending has any relevance to our consideration of the income tax today.

While our particular response to this issue is discussed at the end of this paper, we must acknowledge here that income taxes are still the single most important tool which the government has to raise money for wars. The fact that income taxes have also become a significant mechanism to help our government respond to other legitimate needs, does not negate this fact.

Contemporary references to the income tax as a "war tax" are perhaps more subtle than was the case fifty years ago, but no less real. President Bush's 1992 State of the Union message left little doubt that the income tax is essential to our nation's military prowess.

...but let me tell you something I've been thinking these past few months. It's a kind of roll-call of honor, for the cold war didn't "end"--it was won.¹¹

...And there's another to be singled out, though it may seem inelegant. I mean a mass of people called the American taxpayer. No one ever thinks to thank the people who pay a country's bills or an alliance's bills. But for half a century now, the American people have shouldered the burden and paid taxes that were higher than they would have been to support a defense that was bigger than it would have been if imperial communism had never existed.¹²

Following the Korean War, the percentage of income tax dollars used by the military declined slowly, then leveled off at about 69% throughout the Vietnam War years. After the Vietnam War, the military percentage declined to a low of 44.8% in 1978. The Reagan military buildup in the early and mid 1980's raised these figures to over 50%.¹³

MENNONITES, U.S. WAR BONDS, AND THE INCOME TAX

In both WW I and WW II, the U.S. government issued special bonds to help fund the war effort. While these bonds were issued for voluntary purchase, intense community pressure to purchase the bonds as a sign of patriotism existed in many areas. The mass media, schools, and local community associations, used both carrot and stick to ensure participation. Yet many Mennonites chose not to comply, seeing the obvious link between their dollars and the destruction of human life in war. There are thus numerous stories of Mennonites (and others) who endured questioning and harsh treatment from neighbors or community businesses rather than purchase war bonds.¹⁴

Edward Yoder, former professor at Hesston College explains that at least one Mennonite institution benefitted from the war bond drives.

"The administration building on the campus was built very largely from the extreme profits made by farmers during the war years, 1917-1918. Numerous men who by local pressure were induced to buy Liberty Bonds were willing to salve their conscience by giving to the school's building fund."¹⁵

...favors using the utmost effort to have an issue of U.S. Civilian Government Bonds, isolated from the National War Effort.

While awaiting government consideration of a plan to create "civilian bonds," MCC Peace Section recommended that Mennonites sign statements such as the one below, and present them to local war bond solicitors.

In consistency with my religious belief and conscientious convictions, I cannot aid or abet war or give voluntary support to the national war effort, and for these reasons cannot purchase government obligations the proceeds of which are used for war purposes. However, I do wish to support my country with such means as are at my disposal, for constructive ends and particularly in works of relief of human need and suffering, and am accordingly prepared and ready to purchase $_______per value of government obligations that may become available for such purposes, when and as they are approved by the Mennonite Central Committee to this end. I will subsequently make additional purchases as my circumstances and the general situation may warrant.¹⁶

The Civilian Bond Committee hired a secretary to work in the offices of the Provident Trust Company in Philadelphia, PA. The secretary compiled the bond subscription data by state, county, town, and church group, and furnished it to the Treasury Department. This data was then sent back to the state and county officials who provided it to the local bond chairmen.

In 1944, it became clear that hopes for civilian bonds to be used as designated funds for relief were not to be realized. The Peace Section report to the December 28, 1944 MCC Annual Meeting states:

All efforts to secure a more satisfactory method for investment by those conscientiously opposed to helping finance the war effort met with disappointment. Our request for a special issue of Relief Savings Bonds was courteously refused by the Treasury Department.

Thus by the end of 1944 total civilian bond subscriptions amounted to over $5 million. Of this total over $4 million (more than 80%) came from MCC constituents.

Another example of concern about paying for war during the WW II time-period comes from the CPS camps. Camp Snowline was located near Placerville, California, a fruit growing area. CPS workers were assigned to prune pear trees for the Placerville Fruit Association. Individual farmers paid the government sixty cents an hour for the work. CPS workers became concerned when they learned that the money from their labor might be placed in the U.S. treasury, where it would be available for military spending.

According to Melvin Gingerich in Service for Peace,¹⁸ the group at Camp Snowline was divided over this issue. Some felt that the National Service Board and MCC should be trusted to make an agreement with the government regarding the use of the funds, and that the tree pruning work should continue. They argued that to refuse their labor out of fear that the government would use the money for the war effort, would also lead to refuse the payment of income taxes.

Others in the camp stated that to continue the tree pruning work before the use of the funds had been determined was too great a compromise.

At the end of the war, negotiations to use the fund for the relief of needy children in Europe failed. Instead, the funds were turned over to the general treasury.

Despite the great concern which Mennonites had regarding conscription, or the use of their dollars for war via war bonds, MCC and Peace Section minutes make no mention of concern about the use of income taxes for war. In fact the earliest mention of the WW II era income tax as a war tax in U.S. Mennonite periodicals is in an article written by Daniel Graber which appeared in The Mennonite ¹⁹. This article noted that Mennonites in Elkhart County, Indiana probably give as much to the military via income taxes as to the church via tithes and offerings.

According to the War Resister's League, this lack of concern among pacifists about the war tax issue was not unusual.

A number of organizations, such as Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and American Friends Service Committee protested this tax but did not resist its payment...(Ernest) Bromley and a few other pacifists did not pay income taxes during World War II, but there was no movement of war tax refusal nor much interest in the subject.²⁰

There was also no apparent concern about the requirement for employers to withhold income taxes from employees' paychecks. MCC and Peace Section minutes make no mention of this requirement in 1943 and 1944. The withholding tax appears as a line in the 1944 financial report (Dec. 1, 1943-Nov. 30, 1944) when $811.90 was withheld from MCC employees' paychecks.

Inter-office correspondence at MCC during 1943 also treats the withholding requirement as a routine matter. A July 2, 1943 memorandum from H. Ernest Bennett introduces employees to the W-4 form from the Treasury Department, and explains that the withheld taxes combine the income tax and victory tax into one tax.

An additional reference to this issue is found in the CPS Camp Director's Bulletin (March 13, 1944), which printed portions of the IRS ruling exempting CPS workers from paying income taxes on their small cash allowances. This, in turn, exempted employers from the withholding requirement for CPS workers.

While it is not our purpose to stand in judgment over those of another generation, it is hard to ignore the question of why the relationship between income taxes and war was seemingly not a topic of concern for Mennonites in the 1940's. Several reasons come to mind.

The 1940's were times of great upheaval, and Mennonites struggled to respond to the cataclysmic events which touched their lives. Military conscription was carried out on a mass scale. In response, Mennonites and others put enormous effort into alternate service negotiations, and into the administration and support of Civilian Public Service Camps. Mennonites also struggled to respond to the community pressures placed upon them by war bond drives. These events consumed creative energy, and demanded a tremendous amount of hard work. Indeed it is doubtful that Mennonites would have had much time or energy to devote to the income tax issue if it had been raised as a concern.

Another likely reason is the scriptural injunction to pay taxes, over which we continue to have honest disagreements today. Two kingdom theology presumes a legitimate role for government in relation to national defense, and discourages the church from questioning this role. Thus while the voluntary purchase of war bonds was seen as direct complicity with a system which destroyed life, the payment of income taxes was likely understood as an act of subjection to human government which collects the taxes we are commanded to pay.

Finally, it is possible that our rural, simple living in the 1940's made us largely exempt from the requirement to pay income tax when it was first introduced as a mass tax. If this were the case (and it is difficult to know with any certainty) it would also add to the explanation of why Mennonites did not react to the tax in the same way as they responded to war bond drives.

Canadian Income Tax History and Mennonite Responses

In 1917, the Income War Tax Act was passed, marking "...the first time in Canadian history Ottawa would be dipping directly into individual Canadians' back pockets."²¹

World War I also presented Canadian citizens with the first opportunity to buy low-interest government bonds known as Victory Loans. According to David Fransen, these bonds were quite popular, and always oversubscribed. In 1918, for example, Canadians voluntarily contributed $690 million.

"Not surprisingly, pacifist, German-speaking Mennonites came under great pressure to buy. Mennonite leaders...approached the Minister of Finance in October, 1918. Would he guarantee that if they bought Victory Loan bonds the proceeds would go to alleviate the suffering of civilians? The Minister agreed, and specially marked bonds were made available for Mennonite purchasers."²²

I think that our people should see that any money loaned to the Government will be only a part of all the funds that are used by the Government for all purposes. What is given for one purpose will release that same amount for other purposes, and even for war purposes. But if what our people give is pledged by them to be used only for food or for relief, we are guiltless if the money is used for any other purpose.²³

As in the U.S., however, war bonds were not the only source of income used by the government to finance the war effort. The income tax proved to be the most critical source of funds. According to Fransen, during the years between the World Wars (1918-1939), the largest amount collected in any single year via the income tax was $47 million dollars. However in 1943 alone, $700 million was collected, more than during all the interwar years combined.

Automatic deduction of federal taxes at the source of income was introduced in 1942.

At no time during the World War II period, however, did Canadian Mennonites raise concerns about the use of their income tax dollars for war. It appears that Mennonites viewed the payment of income taxes as an obligation to which they could not object. As noted by S.F. Coffman as early as 1918:

The money bears the stamp of the Government and belongs to them. They might compel us to give it and we could not help ourselves. They might tax us and there would be no chance to object.²⁴

The French tended to view these wars as a "struggle between rival British and German imperialisms." This forced politicians to "adopt a much more muted tone, particularly in Quebec, when introducing or defending new taxes designed to finance the overseas military effort."²⁵ Rather than highlighting the contribution which higher taxes made to the war effort, politicians preferred to acknowledge the contribution which farmers, especially French farmers made to the war effort through the production of food.

Growing wheat during World War I, and producing bacon, poultry and dairy products, and hundreds of other agricultural products urgently needed during World War II, was repeatedly acknowledged as being far more helpful to the war effort than manpower conscription or the paying of taxes.²⁶

While the public perception regarding the relationship between income taxes and war was weak, Professor Regehr states that some tension existed among Canadian Mennonites over the relationship between farm products and the war effort. In some congregations, carpenters and other tradesmen could not accept employment to construct prisoner of war camps, or new buildings at strategic airports. Farmers, however were permitted to sell their dairy products to these same institutions. Some viewed this as a form of class discrimination within the church.

In summary, the political realities of French-English Canada, along with a host of seemingly more immediate issues, resulted in Canadian Mennonites giving little attention to the relationship between income taxes and war during WW II.

REFLECTIONS/QUESTIONS

1. War Bonds and War Taxes: Semantics or Substance?

In the year 1579, the Hutterian Brethren wrote a letter to Lord Frederich von Zerotin of Moravia regarding their convictions against paying taxes for war. Noting that this refusal resulted in the government's seizure of their cows, horses, and other goods each year, the Hutterites asked if there was not another way that they could help their country which was not against their conscience.

Our greatest fear, however,...is that only the name, but not the tax would be changed, so that we would be led into it before we could turn around. If we then discovered that it was used for war or other purposes we oppose, this would distress us greatly...We say this in the fear of God, for we pay no taxes for vengeance...²⁷

2. Personal Conscience and Institutional Risk

In a much more recent incident, we meet the question of how institutions relate to their employees' conscience against war. The diary of Paul Comley French, Executive Secretary of the National Service Board for Religious Objectors recalls a conversation with MCC Executive Secretary Orie Miller on May 13, 1943. Apparently forty-five Mennonite CPS workers had refused to thin beets at Fort Collins because they understood (erroneously) that the beets were to be made into al cohol for military purposes. Miller's response is recorded by French.

"He (Orie) said to tell (Col.) Kosch that they were willing to move the camp at once if he wanted to, or it was satisfactory with them if he felt the boys should go to jail, but they would not ask them to do something they felt conscientiously unable to do."²⁸

3. Faithfulness and Persecution

Also worthy of note is Orie Miller's apparent readiness to accept jail for the young men as the price for following their consciences. Miller seems to accept this price as a natural consequence of faithfulness to Christ in the context of WW II. It is doubtful that North American Mennonites of today are as ready to accept this equation. The 1989 Mennonite and Brethren in Christ profile reports that only 66 percent of those surveyed believe that we "should follow the lordship of Christ even if persecuted." In other words, roughly 35 percent of the respondents would rather abandon faith commitments than suffer undesirable consequences.

Have 50 years of economic and cultural accommodation to North American society made us less willing to endure hardship for reasons of faith and conscience? If so, how important a factor is this in explaining why most North American Mennonites do not resist the payment of war taxes?

4. Peace Witness and Self Interest

This paper has referred briefly to the suffering and difficult pressures which Anabaptist groups in the U.S. and Canada faced during World War I. The alternate service arrangements of World War II were no doubt a welcome reprieve from this suffering, despite the tremendous efforts necessary to carry them out.

As a church, we have long enjoyed the benefits of this past suffering in the widely-used provisions for conscientious objector status. Furthermore, more recent government policy to rely on a volunteer army means that these benefits can now be enjoyed with comparatively little cost in time, energy, or concern.

In this context, if we limit our peace witness to the arena of conscientious objection, we are particularly vulnerable to the temptation to act primarily out of self-interest. It is relatively easy to respectfully ask our governments to continue to honor our conscience against killing. It is also a routine matter to compile supportive documents for an individual's conscientious objector file. These activities are important and should be continued. Yet if they represent the primary expression of our public peace witness, we must search our motives carefully.

We now have unprecedented opportunity to act out of compassion and concern for the peace and well-being of others. Thankfully, there are many in our faith community whose lives and acts of service have made the peace of Christ practical, both in North America and around the globe. War tax resistance is also a part of this impulse, yet focuses more on the oppression or violence inherent in our structures. War tax resistance provides one way to speak to our own economic and political structures about our friends who suffer from the wars we supply and finance. War tax resistance, including legal options such as reduced incomes, helps bind us in spirit to our sisters and brothers in Christ who continue to face what our faith community faced in World War I.

As our World War I and World War II experiences fade from memory, we can still determine their legacy. War tax resistance may not have been considered an option by the leaders of that era, but it may help save us from the temptation of self-interest lurking in the privileges which their efforts have provided.

5. War Tax Resistance and Violence

We have presumed that one of the reasons Mennonite and Brethren in Christ leaders of the World War II era did not consider the link between income taxes and war was simply the press of issues which consumed their time and energy. There is a sense in which a similar argument could be made today. The number of ways in which violence confronts the would-be peacemaker today is astounding. There is violence and abuse in our homes, violence to unborn children, violence and crime in our communities, violence on our TV and movie screens, as well as the violence of racism, poverty, hunger, and war.

It is unfair to suggest that one of these arenas is more deserving of our attention than another. The peace of Christ is desperately needed in our homes and communities, as well as on the international scene.

I would like to suggest, however, that war tax resistance does touch on something which contributes to many of these problems. The wars fought by the U.S. and its allies provide the larger-than-life drama in which we learn that problems can be solved by smarter bombs, more advanced missiles, and greater force. Tremendous human effort, a vast military industrial network, and billions of tax dollars support this supposition each day. It is not surprising that millions of North Americans apply this message to their own lives. In this way the United States has become both the world's greatest military superpower, and the world's most violent society.

Thus the payment of war taxes does not buy "national defense" alone, but it also buys and distributes an overpowering message about the benefits of violent assertion of power. Resisting the payment of war taxes will not quickly change this reality, but can help unmask the cruel deception that violence will protect us from harm and bring peace to our communities.

In giving attention to war tax resistance, we affirm responses to conflict which do not rely on "superior violence", but which reflect the life and vision of Christ. War tax resistance is thus part of a larger spiritual task which says no to violence and oppression at all levels, from the personal to the international.

5. 1940-1993: A Time of Significant Change

There have been tremendous changes since the 1940's which are important to note as we consider our response to war taxes in the 1990's. These changes perhaps explain why there is more discussion about the relationship between income taxes and war than in the 1940's, and also suggest why there is considerable ambivalence about the issue.

a. We do not face the upheaval of universal military conscription. Indeed, our governments can now fight both major and minor wars by relying entirely on a volunteer army. The church is therefore not confronted with the need to organize and administer a large alternate service program such as CPS. This provides opportunity or "space" to consider the war tax issue today which did not exist in the 1940's.

b. In contrast to the 1940's, many Mennonite and Brethren in Christ people have entered the mainstream of economic and cultural life. This, coupled with the growth and proliferation of church agencies has helped raise the war tax issue in both personal and institutional terms.

c. Our awareness of the multi-national character of the church has increased dramatically since the early 1940's. Thanks to our shrinking world brought about by technological advances in travel and communications, we are blessed with an abundance of information and personal contact with the rest of the world. MCC programs, denominational mission efforts, and personal travel have all contributed to this. Greater international awareness brings new reasons to consider the war tax issue, as noted in points "d" and "e" below.

d. U.S. citizens have grown accustomed to "superpower" status, due to the dominance and projection of U.S. military power around the globe. The use of this military power is often defined in terms of protecting our economic interests and "way of life." It is sometimes possible to trace the military hardware manufactured in our home communities to places around the globe where it brings pain to our brothers and sisters. This kind of information elicits feelings of responsibility from us which would have been more difficult to generate in the world of the 1940's.

e. Many of the wars in the world have a direct impact on local Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches or partners of church agencies. Our church papers refashion the news headlines about wars in distant places, into personal stories of suffering and hope from our brothers and sisters in Christ.

f. Recent wars, especially "low-intensity" conflicts, have relied more directly on highly technical military hardware than on the American or Canadian foot soldier. This places a greater focus on the conscription of money via income taxes, than on the recruitment or conscription of personnel. We have been placed in the sobering position of providing the weapons and the funds for wars in which other nationalities do all or most of the dying.

g. U.S. citizens in particular are continually reminded of the heavy toll which past wars and high military spending have taken in our own society. Vietnam War veterans, tragically, have committed suicide in astounding numbers. Combat veterans are also disproportionately represented among the homeless, and among those in prison. The rates of infant mortality, homelessness, unemployment, lack of health insurance and grinding poverty have all increased during the 1980's, bringing pain to families and communities during a time of high military spending. While cause and effect cannot be presumed, the billions of dollars spent on the military were not available to address our nation's pressing social problems.

h. There has been a tremendous increase in federal spending and social programs over the past 50 years. The infrastructure of roads and communications, as well as programs which provide assistance in housing, education, nutrition, and employment are all part of this legacy. The result is a greater number of ways in which present-day citizens can benefit from their income tax dollars. Thus while our peace theology may make us feel ambivalent about paying income taxes used for war, the many ways in which our tax dollars promote the general well-being of individuals and communities often elicits a desire to pay our fair share.

These changes have perhaps sparked more concern and discussion about war taxes than was possible in the 1940's. Indeed in the past 20 years we have seen significant efforts in education on this issue. Books, newsletters, study guides and articles have been written. The U.S. Peace Tax Fund has gained sympathy and support. A similar effort in Canada, while not as developed, has also gained significant support from Mennonites. A number of individuals have reduced their tax liability, or illegally withheld a portion of their income tax dollars.

In addition, the General Conference Mennonite Church took significant action in support of several employees who could not conscientiously pay their war taxes. The Mennonite Church also made provisions to act in a similar way in a statement adopted at its church conventions in 1989 and 1991.

These actions notwithstanding, we still face another question. Do the changes and experiences of the past 50 years call us to commit ourselves to war tax resistance in the same way that Mennonites of the World War I and World War II eras committed themselves to conscientious objection to military servitude? Does faithfulness to God, the scriptures, and to the reality of war in our times call us to a mass movement of war tax resistance?

The answer to this question lies not in political or historical analysis, but in the discernment of the Christian community. This paper has focused on the historical developments because these are often missing from our writing and discussions. The task of the church is to discover the meaning of faithfulness on this issue through prayer and study. Many excellent resources are available to help with this task. It is my prayer that this paper will make a contribution to this larger task of discernment.

Notes

[1] Understanding Taxes, 1983, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, IRS Publication 21.

[2] War Tax Resistance: A Guide to Withholding Your Support from the Military, War Resister's League, New York, NY, 1991, p. 15

[3] Understanding Taxes, 1983, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, IRS Publication 21.

[4] Understanding Taxes, 1983, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, IRS Publication 21.

[5] The Nation's Business, February, 1942

[6] Years of War, 1941-1945, From the Morgenthau Diaries, John Morton Blum, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass, 1967.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] The Golden Egg, Gerald Carson, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1977.

[10] The New York Times, January 27, 1942

[11] New York Times, January 29, 1992, A16

[12] Ibid.

[13] The Military Tax Bite, Paul Murphy, April, 1985

[14] Seeking Peace, Titus Peachey and Linda Gehman Peachey, Good Books, 1991

[15] Edward Yoder, Pilgrimage of a Mind, Pub.: Ida Yoder, Wadsworth, OH, and Virgil Yoder, Irwin, PA, printed by Herald Press, Scottdale, PA., 1985.

[16] MCC Annual Meeting, January 2-3, 1942

[17] Ibid.

[18] Service for Peace, Melvin Gingerich, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA, p. 132

¹⁹The Mennonite, March 19, 1957, Newton KS

[20] War Tax Resistance: A Guide to Withholding your Support from the Military, War Resister's League, New York, NY, 1991, p. 64.

[21] "A Question Never Asked: Mennonites and Income Tax During Two World Wars", David Fransen

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Fax from Ted Regehr, Professor of History, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, April 15, 1993

[26] Ibid.

[27] Seeking Peace, Titus Peachey and Linda Gehman Peachey, Good Books, Intercourse, PA, 1991, p. 46.

[28] Mennonite Life, December 1990, p.6