During the American Civil War, conscription laws were passed that provided for exceptions. Can lessons be learned from this for Ukraine today?

Ukraine has been forced to expand conscription in recent months as it continues to fight an enemy that has more soldiers.

The age at which Ukrainians can be drafted has been reduced from 27 to 25, and conscripts must now provide their data to the military authorities. Those who fail to comply face driving bans, bank account freezes, harassment and imprisonment by conscription squads.

The Confederate States also resorted to a strict conscription policy during the American Civil War (1861–1865) in order to be able to continue fighting each other in an increasingly exhausting conflict.

In this war, the 11 states that had seceded from the United States called themselves the Confederate States of America and went to fight against the remnants of the USA for their independence. The Confederacy began by conscripting white men between the ages of 18 and 35. As the war progressed, it developed and expanded its conscription policy to recruit more men for the Southern armies.

Conscription undoubtedly helped the Confederacy to fight its battles for a long time, but it also exacerbated social divisions by, for example, offering some high-status men the opportunity to be exempt from military service.

While there are deep differences between the Confederation and Ukraine today, when Ukraine reviews its conscription policy—which is likely to happen again—Kiev officials could reflect on the Confederation’s experience.

The problem with exceptions

Conscription is inevitably a balancing act. States that use it in times of war must balance the needs of their armed forces against the disruption and unrest caused by removing large numbers of men from their homes, communities and civil society.

Politicians and the military have an important tool at their disposal to master this balancing act: exemptions. However, exemptions can lead to frustration if they are perceived as unfair or open to abuse.

Exemptions can cause the deepest divides between classes. In April 1862, the Confederate Congress passed the first national conscription law in U.S. history. Soon after, a number of exemptions were introduced for certain occupational groups, and that same year, some white men who owned or supervised 20 or more slaves were also exempted from conscription.

This divisive politics shows how difficult the balancing act of conscription can be. During the American Civil War, fears about agricultural productivity, food shortages, and possible rebellions by the enslaved population were used to justify exempting plantation owners and overseers (actually white plantation managers). Thousands of black Americans, it must be noted, actually fled the plantations and joined the Union Army.

In Ukraine, the problem of exceptions or bias was less obvious but still felt. There were allegations of corruption and bribery, practices that always favour those with greater economic and social connections and more power.

There are some reports that Ukrainian enforcement efforts have focused on working-class neighborhoods rather than wealthier ones. One draft dodger reportedly said he moved to a wealthy part of Kyiv because draft officers tend to work in poorer neighborhoods. His wife agreed, saying, “The military doesn’t come here. Our compound is an island of survival. In Ukraine, being poor is tantamount to death.”

Such sentiments would certainly have resonated with lower-class Confederates who felt that the burdens and sacrifices the war demanded of them were too much for them and their families.

Some Ukrainian men likely to be drafted have left the country or are trying to hide from the system. Meanwhile, officials are being sent out to search for those who evade the draft.

Before this latest mobilization campaign, more than 20,000 men are said to have fled the country to avoid military service. A small proportion of them drowned while trying to cross from Ukraine into Romania. Parallels can also be found in the south, where the civil war was raging, where men hid in forests, swamps or mountains to avoid military service.

Faced with these escape attempts – and sometimes even violent resistance – Confederate and state authorities sent teams to search for draft dodgers and deserters (and sometimes their families), who were treated increasingly harshly by those tasked with apprehending them. At the time of writing, Ukraine has responded to the problem of escape attempts with a campaign to increase the number of volunteers.

If ads and social media posts don’t generate enough volunteers, Ukraine will have to weigh the pros and cons of violence and coercion. As the Confederates’ experience shows, this comes with risks.

The areas of the South that were most opposed to conscription were those that tended toward “Unionism,” areas with stronger ties to the Union and a belief that the breakaway slave-holding Confederacy was somehow illegitimate.

Yet even among those who were not fundamentally opposed to the Confederate cause, attempts to forcibly compel men to serve in the military could damage morale and confidence in government, particularly when the policy was viewed by some as class-unjust or as causing suffering for those left behind.

Tony Ingesson, a political scientist at Lund University in Sweden, believes that the “legitimacy of conscription is closely linked to the legitimacy of the state that uses it in the eyes of its citizens.” For now, Ukraine’s reluctant soldiers may be tired of war, worried about the consequences of their absence for their families, or afraid of ending up as cannon fodder, but most want victory.

Historical experience teaches that any future expansion of conscription and resort to draconian coercive measures could deepen social divisions in Ukraine and, in the eyes of some, damage the legitimacy of the government.

As the war in Ukraine continues and the need for men inevitably increases, the balancing act of conscription will undoubtedly become more precarious.