I do not think those words and phrases were used in unusual ways. They always fitted the definitions you gave rather well, except the one instance of “sneak” out, but then the definition was simply not complete.
Do you know how dictionary entries are made? The dictionary writer searches through all kinds of historical books and documents to find instances of the word in question; he then looks at their contexts and takes notes of how he would put the word in different words in each context. That will give him a long list of possible rewordings/synonyms/translations. He will then look at the list, and try to see whether he can summarize the entire list in one short description, X. If that is not possible, because the list is too diverse, he will have to define the word by several different descriptions, separated by commas: X, Y, Z. If two descriptions are very different, he will put semicolons between them. If he feels there is a very deep split between descriptions, he might even number them:
- X, Y; Z, A
- B; C, D, E, F
If he saw an even sharper division, he could add Roman numerals:
I. 1. B, Z
II. 3. C; D, F, Y
And if a word has two different meanings that have completely different origins, he would make them separate entries in the dictionary.
As you can see, it is all a matter of degree. A definition in a dictionary is not a “fact”, not a set of exact parameters: it is rather a vague pool of ways in which a word can be used, which the dictionary writer has tried to put some order into. So you should not focus too closely on the details of definitions.
Conscription comes from Latin conscribere, to write together, to write up; it has been used to write up lists of participants in an activity; then it came to be used mainly for compulsively joining the army, which is the first thing that would come to mind for any present-day reader. So a present-day reader would think it referred to that even in your first quote - but if context points him in another direction, this reader will say “oh, well, I see it is used to refer to a non-compulsory or non-military subscription here” and that’s all there is to it.
Note that the Oxford English Dictionary, the most respected one in the world, gives only a single definition that it does not call obsolete:
“a. The compulsory enlistment of men for military (or naval) service; esp. where the liability to serve is legally established; an application of this method of obtaining recruits.
The word was introduced in connexion with a law of the French Republic, 5 Sept. 1798, which provided that the recruits required for service should be compulsorily obtained from the young men between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, whom it declared to be legally liable to serve in the army. Hence it has become a general term for methods of compulsory enlistment; but, technically, as distinguished from universal military service, it implies the enrolment by lot of a fixed number of those liable to service, with the option given of procuring a substitute.
b. The body of conscripts collectively.”
As for why some people are not too happy about the kind of questions you ask, what do you think is the cause of that? They are all bad and you are blameless? Consider the question I asked you earlier in this thread. Did you answer it? Do you think your answer satisfied me? Oh, well.