American Revolution

[mrsfuddlywink]

Okay, just a thought for this Fourth of July. Did our American Revolutionary War meet the Church’s criteria of a just war? I like history and I have often wondered about this. Any thoughts?

 

[JohnDamian]

No.

Just cause. No Just cause. Unfair taxation is not a legitamate excuse.
Comparative justice. USA did observe Comparative Justice.
Legitimate authority. There was no Legitimate authority to rebel.
Right intention There was no Right intention. Economic gain / prosperity is not a right intention.
Probability of success USA did have probability of success.
Last resort Arguably, USA did have last resort.
Proportionality Arguably, USA did not have proportionality.

The Revolutionary was was not a Just war because it did not have Legitimate authority to start a war, it did not have Right intention, and it did not have Just cause, and it did not have proportionality.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Sooooooo . . . . .I guess that makes it a mortal sin just to *be *an American? And the post-confession penance would be . . . seek British citizenship?

 

[JohnDamian]

Sooooooo . . . . .I guess that makes it a mortal sin just to *be *an American? And the post-confession penance would be . . . seek British citizenship?

Good heavens no.

You didn’t personally take part in the war, unless you are very old. And the people who took part in the war most likely did not realise it was immoral, and thus were not committing mortal sins.

Incidentally, seeking British citizenship is never a bad idea, it’s called *Great *Britain for a reason.

 

[Rascalking]

You didn’t personally take part in the war, unless you are very old.:

Hey now-quit talking about my father like that!

I always tease my pops by saying, “When you where a young men, the ink was just about dry on the declaration of Independence!”

And, since I am ethnically a one hundred percent pure bred Brit-I always wear sunglasses because the sun NEVER sets on the British Empire!

 

[Ponyguy]

No.

Just cause. No Just cause. Unfair taxation is not a legitimate excuse.
Comparative justice. USA did observe Comparative Justice.
Legitimate authority. There was no Legitimate authority to rebel.
Right intention There was no Right intention. Economic gain / prosperity is not a right intention.
Probability of success USA did have probability of success.
Last resort Arguably, USA did have last resort.
Proportionality Arguably, USA did not have proportionality.

The Revolutionary was was not a Just war because it did not have Legitimate authority to start a war, it did not have Right intention, and it did not have Just cause, and it did not have proportionality.

Not a surprising answer, coming from a Brit…

 

[mrsfuddlywink]

That is a well thought-out answer, JohnDamien. The question of legitimate authority is what always had me wondering. Can an insurrection to overthrow a governing body ever be considered a just war in any circumstances. I would think that in some circumstances it would be justified but Catholic teaching seems to imply that only an established, legitimate authority can commit an act of war.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Revolutionary was was not a Just war because it did not have Legitimate authority to start a war, it did not have Right intention, and it did not have Just cause, and it did not have proportionality.

An Englishman upset that us Yanks whipped them twice – what a shock.

In my mind, yes it was a just war. Read the Declaration of Independence for the specific reasons (we Americans took the time to spell it out) .

A good study of Charles Carrol – the only Catholic signer of the Declaration – may provide good insights. A biography is available here. Also, here is a Catholic look at a number of Founding Fathers and the Revolution.

One interesting thing that is pointed to is the illegitimacy of the English authority following the usurpation of the crown from James by William in 1689. Following that it went really downhill for Catholics. For example, Charles Carrol had to go to France for his education because a Catholic education was forbidden in Maryland following the Act of Religion of 1692 and subsequent legislation and policies by the unlawful government set up by the Protestant rulers in England against the rightful proprietor of Maryland, Lord Baltimore.

 

[DWC_RC]

Tea time.

 

[pinctor]

Nevertheless, notwithstanding, anyway, moreover and whatever

HAPPY BIRTHDAY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA//COLOR]]

 

[JMJ_coder]

Just cause. No Just cause. Unfair taxation is not a legitamate excuse.

Read the Declaration for the full list of grievances.

Comparative justice. USA did observe Comparative Justice.

What is this?

Legitimate authority. There was no Legitimate authority to rebel.

Huh? This actually isn’t a part of Just War theory. But, see the above cited works on this topic.

Right intention There was no Right intention. Economic gain / prosperity is not a right intention.

That was not the primary intention of the Revolution.

Probability of success USA did have probability of success.

Given that fact that we won, I’d say there was a high probability of success.

Last resort Arguably, USA did have last resort.

The King had already denied the colonial appeals on numerous occasions.

Proportionality Arguably, USA did not have proportionality.

What is this?

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

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

I think the Declaration makes clear that this is fulfilled.

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

The King had denied all the numerous colonial appeals.

• there must be serious prospects of success;

Hey, we won!

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

I think the American Revolution is unique in the history of the world that the government that came out of it was not a dictatorship or blood-thirsty or oppressive.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

The Revolutionary War was a coup d’état as much as America reaffirming that it always considered itself independent, except for the loyalist. I don’t about the Tories but the many of the early settlers were persecuted in Britain, like the Quakers. If the British had won they would had found another reason to persecute the Quakers in America they would probably have to move to another country, and without the Quakers in Pennsylvania with their belief in religious tolerance, the Catholic Church wouldn’t have florished there, no St. John Nepomucene Neumann, no St. Catherine Drexel. And with no Quakers there would be no Abolishionists working for the end of slavery. If you look at the history of Ireland I think America had just cause.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hey now-quit talking about my father like that!

I always tease my pops by saying, “When you where a young men, the ink was just about dry on the declaration of Independence!”

And, since I am ethnically a one hundred percent pure bred Brit-I always wear sunglasses because the sun NEVER sets on the British Empire!

What is a pure bred Brit?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That is a well thought-out answer, JohnDamien. The question of legitimate authority is what always had me wondering. Can an insurrection to overthrow a governing body ever be considered a just war in any circumstances. I would think that in some circumstances it would be justified but Catholic teaching seems to imply that only an established, legitimate authority can commit an act of war.

The question should be, “what defines a legitimate authority and was the leaders of the British empire a legitimate authority?” Is it who ever happens to be in power at some particular time? That seems pretty arbitrary and convenient to me. I think there is a tendency for the powers that be to abuse church teaching for the use of justifying oppression; and they do this by labeling themselves as having a divine right. But if Hitler is anything to go by, then it is evident that such a right is conditional on how a leader treats his or her community. Be sure to seek the right answers and avoid being brainwashed by people who love their country more than their faith and confuse the two as being synonymous.

 

[JohnDamian]

What is a pure bred Brit?

Someone of pure British Descent, that would be someone descended from indigenous British people, so someone pure-Irish, Welsh, Scotch, Cornish or Manx. English people are not indigenous citizens of the British Isles.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Someone of pure British Descent, that would be someone descended from indigenous British people, so someone pure-Irish, Welsh, Scotch, Cornish or Manx. English people are not indigenous citizens of the British Isles.

It seems to me that the human race originally came from Africa, so that definition seems pretty arbitrary and relative to me. A more relevant definition would be to say that a British person is somebody born in Britain.That seems more correct.

 

[JohnDamian]

It seems to me that the human race originally came from Africa, so that definition seems pretty arbitrary and relative to me. A more relevant definition would be to say that a British person is somebody born in Britain.That seems more correct.

In Law, a British subject is one who is born into, or otherwise accepted (through marraige, immigration etc.) citizenship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, people born in Eire are not British Citizens, even though it is part of the British Isles.

I was pointing out what a “pure bred” British person was. Just like someone who would be a “native” American, or a “native” Australian. A “Pure Bred” American would probably be one who had purely indigenous Native American anscestry. Even though, as you rightly point out - all people migrated to these locations from a central point (usually attributed to Africa).

As I am English/Irish I would not be a “native” or “pure bred” British Person, I would be of Germanic/British Descent – even though I am a British Citizen, and was Born in the Isles.

This is somehow going off the point… So I shall return to this;

The question should be, “what defines a legitimate authority and was the leaders of the British empire a legitimate authority?”

A Legitimate Authority with regards to declaring war is a recognised nation. North America was not a nation, but instead a colony of the nation of the (at the time) Great Britain (which has since become the UK). America has since become a Legitimate Authority, although at the time of the War it was only a colony.

Great Britain was recognised both internationally and by the Pope as a Legitimate State, Pope Alexander II recognised William’s claim to the Throne of England in 1066, so the State of England had Legitimate Authority, which it exersised in taking the whole of Great Britain in the act of the union 1707, forming GB. In the same way as a constituant country of the UK (such as Scotland) could not secede from the union, North America did not have the Authority to secede, or engage in war.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Great Britain was recognised both internationally and by the Pope as a Legitimate State,

What makes something a legitimate state. The pope obviously didn’t pull it out of his hat. The pope had a reason for saying that. According to your definition of British, “England” did not begin as a legitimate state, since they were not indigenous to population.

 

[JohnDamian]

What makes something a legitimate state. The pope obviously didn’t pull it out of his hat. The pope had a reason for saying that. According to your definition of British, “England” did not begin as a legitimate state, since they were not indigenous to population.

Originally illigitamate Angle settlers from what is now Germany landed and killed/relocated/conquored the indigenous populations of Celt’s and any remaining Romano-British at around 500AD, the general consensus is that the leaders of the Indigenous peoples were murderd by the Angle settlers (which was very un-British) and the Heptarchy was formed, which eventually was united by King Ecgberht around 825-830 AD. The southern part of the British Isles split into a general heptarchy, which all obtained supreme authority over their areas, and then exersised this authority to absorb one another untill the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex became the overall ruler of England, in 825-830 AD under Ecgberht.

Unlike the US however, the Kingdom of Wessex had Legitimate authority to found the Kingdom of England. However the Kingdom of Wessex was illegitimatly founded by Saxon settlers. Similarily, the US originally was founded illigtimately, however now it has the legitimate authority to exersise an act of war. Just like the founders of Wessex, the founders of the US were not the highest civil authority when they founded their countries, for Wessex the indigenous people were, and for the US the British Empire was supreme civil authority. However, after their illigitemate conquests both Wessex and the US rose to become the highest civil authority in thier areas, and were able to exersise Legitimate Authority.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Unlike the US however, the Kingdom of Wessex had Legitimate authority to found the Kingdom of England.

If they didn’t have legitimate authority to begin with why would they have legitimate authority now?

However the Kingdom of Wessex was illegitimatly founded by Saxon settlers. Similarily, the US originally was founded illigtimately, however now it has the legitimate authority to exersise an act of war. Just like the founders of Wessex, the founders of the US were not the highest civil authority when they founded their countries, for Wessex the indigenous people were, and for the US the British Empire was supreme civil authority. However, after their illigitemate conquests both Wessex and the US rose to become the highest civil authority in thier areas, and were able to exersise Legitimate Authority.

It seems you are admitting here that they all began as fake authorities.