Conscientious objection to war has been part of the American experience since the colonial era, if not before. By World War I, though, it had been found necessary to establish some rules to determine and define who counted as a conscientious objector and who did not, and generally to shape how the government should deal with young men refusing to fight. Walter Guest Kellogg (1877–1956) was put in charge of this operation in 1917, being then a major in the Judge Advocate General’s office; he had a Columbia law degree and as an undergraduate senior at the same school had been the class poet. The Conscientious Objector (1919) is his account of his work, and became a West Point textbook. Kellogg finds conscientious objectors repellent on the whole, but nevertheless describes their stories with vivid precision. The case of Richard L. Stierheim—a private from Ingomar, Pennsylvania—seems to him “like a page of romance” rather than a legal problem. Stierheim refused to fight and deserted his unit; but his bravery was so conspicuous that military authorities had to bend their own rules, suspending what otherwise might have been his death sentence.
THE story of Richard L. Stierheim reads like a page of romance. Stierheim, although an objector, had probably never received the offer of noncombatant service provided for by the Executive Order; on the other hand, it seemingly nowhere appears that he had advised his commanding officer that he claimed to be an objector. He was sent overseas in Company D, 315th Infantry. Finding himself in a combatant unit and his company about to go into action against the enemy, he left his organization and remained absent until apprehended on the Spanish border some days later.
When tried by court-martial for his desertion he testified that he had left his company because he didn’t believe in war. He said: “By going up to the front and being killed I didn’t see how I could stand up on Judgment Day and say I died fighting for God Almighty.” He admitted that his object in deserting was to avoid the necessity of going into battle.
The following facts are shown by letters from his Commanding General and others:
“On the night of November 3, 1918, during an attack of his company and organization against Hill 378, north of Verdun, Stierheim volunteered to go out into ‘No-Man’s Land’ at night to rescue wounded men. He rescued six wounded men unassisted, while a great number of machine guns were firing at him. One wounded man who had been shot six times was behind a tree from which he could not move; Stierheim walked over and brought him in. After his company had been relieved and was in the rear under cover from shell fire, he volunteered to go forward again with the regimental chaplain to help bury the dead. Thereafter he volunteered to be one of a litter party to carry wounded to a Battalion Aid Post, maintained by Captain Bulford in a dugout in a valley below a farm house; and thence to the Regimental Aid Post. This valley was under considerable shell fire during most of the time, and it was often quite difficult to get patients to the Aid Post, and also to evacuate them to the Regimental Post, because of the shell fire, and also because of mud, shell holes and steep grades; but during the following eight or nine days, and until the declaration of the armistice on November 11, 1918, Stierheim conducted many patients through the valley, and showed an absolute indifference to danger. He also made many trips to the farm house for water for the wounded men, under heavy fire.”
Lieutenant Gallagher, his company commander, in writing of Stierheim’s conduct, says: “I have never seen such bravery, and feel that a man of his caliber deserves some consideration,” and recommends clemency “for his conspicuous gallantry, unselfish and untiring efforts.”
Captain Bulford writes of him: “This man showed courage and devotion to duty far above the average and it is desired that the Commanding Officer be informed of his courageous work.”
Stierheim deserved “some consideration” and he got it. General Pershing, Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces, forwarded the record of Steirheim’s trial to the Judge Advocate General with this statement:
“I have not confirmed the sentence because, while the evidence clearly shows that the accused was guilty of desertion as charged, and the sentence was therefore warranted, his subsequent voluntary and meritorious service in action, as more particularly referred to in the above mentioned letter of the Commanding General of the 79th Division, and the recommendation of the accused’s company commander, prompt me to recommend that the entire sentence be remitted, and that he be restored to duty and assigned to noncombatant service. With this recommendation I transmit the record for the action of the President.”