See full scan at the bottom of the page.
This striking, two-sided yellow flier from the Vietnam War era calls on readers to take bold, confrontational steps against the military draft. Featuring large block letters—“confront the draft”—and listing a series of teach-ins and protests scheduled for March 16–20, it culminates in an “all-day action” on March 19 at area draft boards in Dayton, Ohio. Below, the flier prints a quote (attributed to Daniel Webster) condemning “the uncontrolled power of military conscription,” setting the tone for grassroots efforts that combined civil disobedience, phone-in “rap sessions,” and mass picketing to disrupt the selective service system.
Historical Context
By the late 1960s, widespread disillusionment with the Vietnam War fueled a nationwide anti-draft movement. Student activists, clergy, parents, and veterans joined in calling for an end to conscription, viewing it as both unjust and emblematic of deeper societal ills, including imperialism and class bias. Demonstrations targeting local draft boards were a signature tactic, as protestors hoped to stall their operations, challenge individual board members, and embolden potential draftees to resist induction.
This flier originates from the broader wave of “Stop the Draft” weeks that cropped up in cities around the country. The mention of teach-ins—popularized by antiwar organizers—illustrates how in-depth discussions, debates, and educational forums were crucial for recruiting new participants and shaping public opinion.
Strategy and Organization
- Direct Confrontation
The leaflet repeatedly uses the word “confront”—urging participants to show up in person, call draft boards, and “tie up phones.” This emphasis on face-to-face and direct-action tactics reflects the era’s increasing militancy, where peaceful protest often blended with civil disobedience to challenge authority structures. - Targeting Draft Board Officials
An entire section, labeled “AREA DRAFT BOARD MEMBERS,” lists individuals by name, occupation, address, and phone number. Publicizing such private details was intended to pressure these local gatekeepers of the draft system. Protesters could phone them, picket their homes or workplaces, and otherwise make it uncomfortable for them to continue their role without scrutiny. - Teach-Ins, Petitions, and Leafletting
Before the main action on March 19, the flier calls for a week of teach-ins, petition circulations, and compliance or “comply-in” actions to educate the public and spur individual draft resistance. This approach combined broad-based community outreach with targeted strategic hits. - Messaging as Disruption
The flier encourages tactics ranging from mailing bricks to the draft board (forcing the recipient to pay for shipping) to daily phone calls, explicitly seeking to clog administrative processes. Such creative “culture jamming” was common among activist groups who believed symbolic demonstrations alone were insufficient to halt conscription.
Language, Imagery, and Symbolism
- Bold Headlines
The largest text—“confront the draft”—is a visual rallying cry. It signifies anger, urgency, and moral conviction, instantly alerting any passerby to the flier’s purpose. - Date-Specific Action
The mention of “March 16–20” and “all-day action at draft board March 19” signals an organized, time-bound campaign. By anchoring events in a specific window, organizers created momentum and pressed supporters to commit to immediate participation. - Quoted Insult to Conscription
The flier highlights a scathing remark condemning the draft as “ridiculous” and “abominable,” linking this viewpoint to an American statesman (Daniel Webster). That historical gravitas underscores the antiwar argument that forced service is an affront to individual liberty. - Rough, Mimeographed Aesthetic
These typed, mimeographed sheets were emblematic of grassroots movements of the era: quickly produced, easily shared, and designed for immediate impact. The utilitarian layout emphasizes action over refined visual style.
Impact and Legacy
Events like the one advertised here contributed to a growing tide of draft resistance, culminating in high-profile draft card burnings, large-scale protests in major cities, and increased public questioning of the war’s legitimacy. While the draft continued throughout most of the Vietnam conflict, persistent antiwar activism forced policy shifts and eventually led to the end of conscription in 1973.
In contemporary movements, we see echoes of this style of direct action, from phone zaps to targeted campaigns identifying key decision-makers. The flier’s straightforward tactics—call, disrupt, protest—remain part of many activists’ toolkits. For historians and present-day organizers alike, documents like this highlight how grassroots efforts used personal pressure, mass rallies, and local interventions to shape national policy debates.
Special thanks to the USC Digital Imaging Lab for their support in digitizing this item.
