A Question For Catholics: Was the "American Revolution" Wrong?

[MindOverMatter2]

Was the “American Revolution” Wrong?

If not, why not.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Well, it’s a pretty wide open question, but I’d say that the colonists had valid reasons to want to break off from England. A Revolution was the only way. It’s hard to be totally objective, being that I am American and was always taught about the Revolution through that lens.

 

[starshiptrooper]

These are the requirements for a just war. The American Revolution fits each of them.

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

Read the Declaration of Independence. If only a quarter of the complaints against the British are true, the Americans had a just cause.

All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

This was taken from the Declaration of Independence.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

The Americans tried to talk, but that failed.

There must be serious prospects of success;

The Americans won.

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

After the war, we founded the greatest republic the world has ever known, replacing a British tyranny.

The American Revolution was a just war.

 

[Big_Ro]

I think Starshiptrooper has it right. I just think the question makes no sense. I have a poli sci degree. We studied the American Revolution from several positions. What caused it? Was it it justified? Did the republic that it produced in 1789 fulfill the aims and goals of the revolutionary warriors? Did it constitute a true revolution or was it merely a changing of the guard? These are a few of the thought provoking questions that scholars have posed regarding the American Revolution. I am struggling to understand your question. SST is assuming that you are asking from an ethical or moral vantage point. If he’s correct, then his answer is right on. I especially like that he quoted from the grievences enumerated in the Declaration. That was my first reaction. Read the list of grievences. They are repleat.

 

[kimmielittle]

These are the requirements for a just war. The American Revolution fits each of them.
Read the Declaration of Independence. If only a quarter of the complaints against the British are true, the Americans had a just cause.
This was taken from the Declaration of Independence.The Americans tried to talk, but that failed.
The Americans won.
After the war, we founded the greatest republic the world has ever known, replacing a British tyranny.

The American Revolution was a just war.

 

[josephback]

Was the “American Revolution” Wrong?

If not, why not.

Thomas Paine; in his bestselling book ‘Common Sense’, called monarchy “the Popery of government”, and then exhorted his fellow Americans to throw off the king. The South during the Civil War felt that they were fighting the second war of independence. A case can be made that it’s true. But does that mean we should accept the second American Rebellion, or re-think the first?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Thomas Paine; in his bestselling book ‘Common Sense’, called monarchy “the Popery of government”, and then exhorted his fellow Americans to throw off the king. The South during the Civil War felt that they were fighting the second war of independence. A case can be made that it’s true. But does that mean we should accept the second American Rebellion, or re-think the first?

Accept the American Revolution, and rethink the Civil War. I don’t want to derail this thread, but the Confederate States of America started the Civil War to protect slavery. The US fought the war to bring back the Southern states and then outlaw slavery. If anyone is interested in this issue, please start another thread or pm me.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

As a direct descendant of both Loyalists who fought for and supported the British during the American Revolution, and of Americans that agitated for independence, and fought for independence from Great Britain; and as a dual citizen of the United States of America and of Canada, I suspect that I am somewhat uniquely qualified to answer this question.

Was the American Revolution justified?

Yes, because every attempt to get redress in Great Britain failed. There were some 3 million colonists, who had no representation at all in the British Parliament. Taxes were levied, soldiers were forced upon homeowners to support, colonies were occupied, trade was literally shut down, and anyone that complained was fined, threatened with imprisonment and in many cases had their property confiscated without trial.

The American “Bill of Rights” was written because each and every one of the things protected by that “Bill of Rights” had been either denied to the colonists, forced upon them or was the standard practice of the British Government.

Great Britain learned a great lesson from the American Revolution, and it changed the way it dealt with its other colonies afterward. Colonies were given significantly more autonomy, they did not have taxes and other things imposed on them like the Americans had, and they had some form of representation in Britain. Of course, these rights did NOT apply to the native peoples of wherever the colony might be located, but only to those Europeans that accepted British rule.

By the modern standards of a “Just War”, the ONLY criteria that would NOT be met was a liklihood of success. In the beginning, there was every reason to believe that Britain would send over a LOT more soldiers than they did, and just wipe out the revolutionaries. But, thankfully, they had other problems, and could never give the Americans their full attention.

If they had been able to do that, Washington, Franklin, etc. would be in our history books as traitors that were justifiably hanged for treason.

 

[PiousTemplar]

You’ll probably get a tonne of biased answers on this thread…

The American Revolution has a common picture of Saints vs Demons… Just look at ‘The Patriot’.

 

[vsedriver]

Yes, because every attempt to get redress in Great Britain failed. There were some 3 million colonists, who had no representation at all in the British Parliament. Taxes were levied, soldiers were forced upon homeowners to support, colonies were occupied, trade was literally shut down, and anyone that complained was fined, threatened with imprisonment and in many cases had their property confiscated without trial.

To understand the American Revolution you have to know about the French and Indian War. The British sunk a ton of money into the colonies to protect them from the French. The British expected the colonies to pay for this war. The British, without colonial (name removed by moderator)ut decided that the colonies would pay for the war through taxes on imported British made goods and to ensure the collection of those taxes the British made laws limiting the colonists’ home grown industries.

On one hand the colonists were told they were British subjects but on the other they weren’t given a fair voice in Parliament.

In many ways the American Revolution was about money. The British gained Canada but expected the colonies to pay for it. They now had access to a vast wealth of cheap natural resources that allowed the British to produce a wide range of finished goods and they had the means to transport those goods all around the world. They were the China of the 18th century.

If the British government had been willing to ‘share the wealth’ or if the colonists had had a voice in the government so they had access to some of the wealth there never would have been a War of Independence.

 

[coolduude]

Actually, the Americans did not have a serious prospect of winning going into the conflict. They were the underdogs and the world knew it. Just because they won does not mean they went into it knowing they would win.

Think about it:
13 colonies against the largest empire in the world (which included the best army and navy). Even within the colonies themselves there was descent with Loyalists and Patriots; not even agreed on independence (in fact, only about half did).

The Americans would certainly have lost had not France entered the fray. And what made them enter the fray was the American victory at the battle of Saratoga which I’m sure required skill but it also required luck. Once the French were in though it was over for GB.

But I wouldn’t say the Americans had a serious prospect of winning going into it all.

 

[coolduude]

To understand the American Revolution you have to know about the French and Indian War. The British sunk a ton of money into the colonies to protect them from the French. The British expected the colonies to pay for this war. The British, without colonial (name removed by moderator)ut decided that the colonies would pay for the war through taxes on imported British made goods and to ensure the collection of those taxes the British made laws limiting the colonists’ home grown industries.

On one hand the colonists were told they were British subjects but on the other they weren’t given a fair voice in Parliament.

In many ways the American Revolution was about money. The British gained Canada but expected the colonies to pay for it. They now had access to a vast wealth of cheap natural resources that allowed the British to produce a wide range of finished goods and they had the means to transport those goods all around the world. They were the China of the 18th century.

If the British government had been willing to ‘share the wealth’ or if the colonists had had a voice in the government so they had access to some of the wealth there never would have been a War of Independence.

The British had a point though. They figured that since they protected the colonies the colonies should at least chip in to pay back war debts. Seems reasonable The taxes that were charged in the colonies were significantly less than those charged in England, too. It seems like a lot of times the colonists were being crybabies

What really got to the colonists, though, was when England reversed it’s position on salutary neglect, which had been in place for over 100 years. When this was taken away from the colonies Britain really became jerkey and enforced everything which ended up hurting the economy of the colonies. It also took away rights that the colonists were used to (such as a fair trial. If I remember correctly, England eventually began trying citizens of the colonies essentially in front of military tribunals, which always resulted in the colonist being convicted. If an Englishman was tried in front of a tribunal he was almost always acquitted).

In the end, I do suppose it was about money, but it was also about rights and freedom. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t lie

 

[vsedriver]

The British had a point though. They figured that since they protected the colonies the colonies should at least chip in to pay back war debts. Seems reasonable The taxes that were charged in the colonies were significantly less than those charged in England, too. It seems like a lot of times the colonists were being crybabies

Yes, the British had a legitimate right to have the colonists pay for their rescue or we would all be speaking French.

What really got to the colonists, though, was when England reversed it’s position on salutary neglect, which had been in place for over 100 years. When this was taken away from the colonies Britain really became jerkey and enforced everything which ended up hurting the economy of the colonies. It also took away rights that the colonists were used to (such as a fair trial. If I remember correctly, England eventually began trying citizens of the colonies essentially in front of military tribunals, which always resulted in the colonist being convicted. If an Englishman was tried in front of a tribunal he was almost always acquitted).

Yes it was foolish to expect the colonists to pay higher taxes while at the same time wrecking the local economy.

In the end, I do suppose it was about money, but it was also about rights and freedom. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t lie

Rights and freedoms are what allow people to be entrepreneurs, who then generate wealth.

When you come down to it, all wars are about money.

 

[coolduude]

When you come down to it, all wars are about money.

World War II? Punic Wars? Peloponnesian War? What about the Persian invasions of Greece (during which the battle of Thermopylae was fought)?

 

[vsedriver]

World War II? Punic Wars? Peloponnesian War? What about the Persian invasions of Greece (during which the battle of Thermopylae was fought)?

Certainly. What started WWII? Germany’s destroyed economy.

All those early wars were wars of territory. With territory comes wealth through the spoils of war. How do you think Rome became so great? They had a war machine that kept the government coffers filled. Why did all the great men of Rome strive for military authority?

Yes, when you reduce it to the bare essentials all wars are about money.

 

[starshiptrooper]

What about the Crusades?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Certainly. What started WWII? Germany’s destroyed economy.

All those early wars were wars of territory. With territory comes wealth through the spoils of war. How do you think Rome became so great? They had a war machine that kept the government coffers filled. Why did all the great men of Rome strive for military authority?

Yes, when you reduce it to the bare essentials all wars are about money.

The Crusades were not about money.

 

[josephback]

Accept the American Revolution, and rethink the Civil War. I don’t want to derail this thread, but the Confederate States of America started the Civil War to protect slavery. The US fought the war to bring back the Southern states and then outlaw slavery. If anyone is interested in this issue, please start another thread or pm me.

Well said, for the most part. I just refuse to tow the official line that the First American Rebellion founded this supposedly glorious republic, even though it produced a practically atheist constitution. Most of the things we fight with today, from the relationship between church and state to the endless clamor for “rights”(created out of thin air), all stem from this act of sedition. The idea that if we don’t like our government we can just throw it off is dangerous, and the Jews payed for their version when they tried to throw off Rome. The only rebellion I would support is one like the Maccabees, where the Greeks were trying to outlaw Judaism. THAT was a “just war”. Disputes over “rights” and property alone are petty, hardly a reason to support governmental overthrow. Jesus came to give up his rights, so the real question is, how do we measure up to that? Food for thought.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Well said, for the most part. I just refuse to tow the official line that the First American Rebellion founded this supposedly glorious republic,

I have towed that official line quite happily. After all, the Constitution was an amazing achievement. The people literally designed their own unique government. This government was built to protect the rights of the people, not to take them away.

even though it produced a practically atheist constitution.

The Founding Fathers acknoweledged in the Declaration of Independence that our rights were God-given. They wrote the Constitution with that in mind.

Most of the things we fight with today, from the relationship between church and state to the endless clamor for “rights”(created out of thin air), all stem from this act of sedition.

No, it stems from the fact that we have lost sight of the truth that our rights our God-given, that we have handed power over to the central government, and that we are no longer a virtuous people.

The idea that if we don’t like our government we can just throw it off is dangerous,

Correct, which is why the Founding Fathers gave listed our numerous and grave complaints against England. The Americans rebelled, not because they detested the British, but because the British government was taking away our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

and the Jews payed for their version when they tried to throw off Rome. The only rebellion I would support is one like the Maccabees, where the Greeks were trying to outlaw Judaism. THAT was a “just war”.

It sounds like you disagree that the American Revolution meets the requirements for a just war. Which requirement does it fail to meet?

Disputes over “rights” and property alone are petty, hardly a reason to support governmental overthrow.

If I decide to become a criminal, people like you will be my targets. After all, your right to life, and property are simply petty.

Jesus came to give up his rights, so the real question is, how do we measure up to that? Food for thought.

Jesus came to redeem us. He then said that salvation would be found through the Church, not through being a doormat!

 

[JDaniel]

Accept the American Revolution, and rethink the Civil War. I don’t want to derail this thread, but the Confederate States of America started the Civil War to protect slavery. The US fought the war to bring back the Southern states and then outlaw slavery.

Starshiptrooper:

While I don’t fully disagree with this, I do disagree: it wasn’t quite that simple. Slavery, in the South, was almost completely married to the South’s various forms of economy. Southerners rightly believed that the outlawing of slavery would bring a rather violent end to the South’s way of life. Had the US modeled its extrication from that economic form, as Brazil did, under one of the Kings Phillip, I believe, we might not have the racial problems we currently have. I think the US’s problem was less a problem of humaneness and more a problem of political-ness.

The genteel life of the land-endowed, of the South, was not well liked by the not similarly endowed Northerner. The racial inequality/inhumanity argument was a straw-man: at that time. Such an argument would not be a straw-man now.

Interestingly, there were slaves kept in areas of the North as well; except, the enslaved were white. Take a tour through Carbon County Pennsylvania. From what I saw, it would appear that those enslaved whites were perhaps much more mal-treated than the enslaved blacks in the South.

Again, I argue NOT for slavery, but, for the lost potentiality of undoing that wrong while maintaining the economic systems of large areas of the US. Had the American Revolution been fought solely for the purposes of Freedom, then the AR would have been a moral duty for the Catholic; although there probably were some Catholic citizens and statesmen who embraced that view.