Could the American Revolution ever be justified?

[pnewton]

The fat lady has not sung yet.

She has for all involved.
**
**
Therefore the government felt justified in trying to recoup some of that expense though increased taxes on its colonies.

I wonder what the excuse was for the rest of the imperialism and oppression. Whether the Revolutionary War qualified under current Just War doctrine, the tyranny of empire building needed to be opposed.

 

[pnewton]

See, according to “natural rights” it is indeed justified, but that is a very protestant way of thinking politics.

From the Catechism.

**1956 **The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

 

[Crusaderbear]

England was a monarchy, America was fighting for rule by the people. Justification enough for me.

 

[powerofk]

War is complicated. I doubt that there is any war that has ever been fought that either side has fully followed just war doctrine, as known now. And even if it was just for the nation to declare war, that doesn’t matter every action committed by that nation to be justified. For instance, there generally is no objection to the US joining World War II (though WWI is a separate issue). But, according to just war doctrine, neither the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki nor the firebombing of Dresden could ever be considered justified, because they targeted civilian centers (and, according to just war doctrine, the use of nuclear weapons is never justified, because the radiation kills civilians long after the war is declared over).

Regardless, people fought the American Revolution for different reasons. For some (I imagine a very few, actually - primarily New England merchants), it was about taxation and control of commerce. For others, it was primarily about the right for a people to rule themselves (because after about 150 years with an ocean separating the colonists from the British, the colonists had started to think of themselves not as British, but as their own people). For still others, their homes, families, and livelihoods were directly threatened by the British army. So some colonists (and even delegates to the Continental Congress) had more justified reasons to go to war than others.

 

[PolarGuy]

Powerofk, you are absolutely correct that war is complicated. I’ve said the same thing myself elsewhere.

I’d add, by way of illustration, that a strong argument can be made (and I make it!) that the atomic bombings of Japan were absolutely morally justified, in part because they ended the war before an invasion of Japan - which would have caused carnage on a scale never seen before or after in the history of the world, including the ordered deaths of all allied POWs in Japan proper (who were scheduled to be executed on an invasion occurring).

My point is not to debate the morality of the atomic bombings, per se. My point instead is to point out that, indeed, war is complicated. Since what’s immoral to person X may not be immoral to person Y, the same would seem to hold true as to nations and wars as well.

 

[Athlete34]

As I stated before, if you didn’t read my post. The colonies had been governing themselves for more than 150 years. It was the British Government that was being tyrannical. Because of all the debt that British Government had received due to its long war with France, they imposed the Stamp Act on the colonies in order to raise more money. This was a violation of the original charter made by the King. Finally, the King sent British troops to Boston to assert his authority. Go read the Declaration of Independence. It’s a long list of offenses that the British Government committed against the colonies. Were they supposed to endure unjust tyrannical power. How is that not a grave cause? Thomas Jefferson stated himself, “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”(Declaration of Independence).

The argument that the American War for Independence was an immoral one is a poor argument at best.

 

[EveningSkye111]

The colonies had been governing themselves for more than 150 years. It was the British Government that was being tyrannical. Because of all the debt that British Government had received due to its long war with France, they imposed the Stamp Act on the colonies in order to raise more money. This was a violation of the original charter made by the King. Finally, the King sent British troops to Boston to assert his authority. Go read the Declaration of Independence. It’s a long list of offenses that the British Government committed against the colonies. Were they supposed to endure unjust tyrannical power. How is that not a grave cause? Thomas Jefferson stated himself, “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”(Declaration of Independence).

The argument that the American War for Independence was an immoral one is a poor argument at best.

Positively a great answer! Thank you.

 

[Petaro]

Don’t worry about the justice behind the American Revolution. Rather, look for justice in the American evolution. It is a sunny day… take a torch…

 

[ialsop]

As usual the US gets a bum rap. The history of Europe can be distilled to "let’s start a war every 20 years or so for no good reason, for several hundred years, until we start a war so terrible that 50 million people die; whole cities are leveled; and we need the USA to bail us out."

By comparison, US wars are a lot more morally defensible generally speaking.

Tell all that to Iraq.

 

[ialsop]

England was a monarchy, America was fighting for rule by the people. Justification enough for me.

Funny, because the Catholic Church was a huge defender of monarchy.

WHERE, I ask, from Christian teaching, do you get that PEOPLE ought to rule society?

 

[Robert_Sock]

The American Revolution acted as great motivation for Americans, something that the British wanted to happen. Come on, how could the unorganized and very weak early Americans defeat the very powerful British forces?

 

[pnewton]

How is that not a grave cause?

I think when we use the Catholic Just War doctrine, we are obligated to use the Catholic understanding of “grave”. Economic reasons for war are hard to justify as grave. “Tyranny” is relative. There was no genocide, no enslavement, no sexual abuse. The idea that the killing of five protestors is considered a massacre should indicate the level of rhetoric at the time. Now I do believe the moral argument could be made for the war, as the just war doctrine did not apply then, but I cannot see how it can be said it was over grave matter.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

She has for all involved.

---

I wonder what the excuse was for the rest of the imperialism and oppression. Whether the Revolutionary War qualified under current Just War doctrine, the tyranny of empire building needed to be opposed.

**Imperialism?

That’s when a foreign power invades and enslaves another country for its own benefit, as in what France did to Vietnam.
The Native Americans might have justly viewed the English expropriation of their lands as imperialism, but English citizens settling in America would hardly be correct in making that claim.
They themselves were the “oppressors” and the “imperialists.”

It must also be noted that about one third of English colonists refused to join the rebellion.
As their reward, they were kicked out of the country by their so-called free and democratic new government. **

 

[PolarGuy]

Tsk, tsk, Ialsop, I expected better reasoning from you.

–As to Iraq, have you ever read about the truly despicable and depraved actions carried out by Saddam Hussein’s sons (i.e., raping brides on their wedding days, in full view of their husbands and guests), all of which ended courtesy of the US, to say nothing of Hussein’s no longer making offensive wars on Iraq’s neighbors like Kuwait? Further, the average Iraqi’s life is enormously better for the US toppling Hussein (Baghdad now has power, courtesy of the US Army corps of engineers; how about elections being held, too, and an actual constitution?).

–Further, even if you want to attack one US war – which is all you do – I’d point out that Europe’s history is much, much darker, on a factor of like 1000: Europe has given the world 2 horrific world wars. I notice you didn’t comment on either of those, or on Europe’s long history of wars started for petty reasons (if there were any real reasons at all).

–If you think democracy is so bad, do you really think monarchy is better? I mean, really, in 2016?

 

[pnewton]

**Imperialism? **

**That’s when a foreign power invades and enslaves another country for its own benefit, …****. **

Correct, as in the British Empire.

 

[PolarGuy]

Now, here’s the REAL reason the US won the war of independence:

Their diet? Tea and crumpets.
Our diet? Squirrel meat and corn whiskey.

 

[exnihilo]

I think that’s about all we need to deny the American War for Independence was a just war.

It was lasting. It was certain. But not grave. A lack of representation is not, in and of itself, grave matter. It can lead to worse things. But the colonists made much worse of it than was just. They threatened, injured, and vandalised their rightful rulers in the name of a “right” they never needed before. In fact, that very few people until very recently have had the chance to appreciate. And we’re probably going to lose it again in the near future.

The only reason to recognise the sovereignty of the United States is because the United Kingdom does. And it only did so in 1783, in Paris.

I agree with you. I don’t think it was justified. And it seems to me the current government is far worse then the colonial government. I’d give anything to pay the ‘outrageous’ taxes of King George.

BTW - I also do not think the Civil War would meet today’s criteria, but it seems to be a moral war.

The War Between the States was moral for the southern states who as sovereign states had a right to leave the federal government and form a new political union. This is especially so given the founding narrative of the US. This terrible war started the Union on its immoral policy of total war which it continues to use today.

 

[PolarGuy]

I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread degenerated into Americans saying, proverbially, “everything my country has done is immoral…”

…while failing to recognize all the good it’s done, like saving the world from Nazism, Communism, and the Japanese warlords; the despotic and narcissistic Kaiser Wilhelm; and slavers like Jefferson Davis…

…and while ignoring aggressive wars started by Europeans; Asian Communists; and Islamic radicals.

Happy now, Johnnt3000?

 

[pnewton]

The War Between the States was moral for the southern states who as sovereign states had a right to leave the federal government and form a new political union. This is especially so given the founding narrative of the US. This terrible war started the Union on its immoral policy of total war which it continues to use today.

My opinion was that it did not meet the criteria of Just War, namely, for the reason that means of peaceful settlement were not exhausted. When during the war were the peace talks, and the attempts at a cease fire so that negotiations could commence to arrive at a peaceful solution? That is all I meant. Yes, there was the moral component of stopping a gravely immoral practice in the South. Morally, I see no comparison between the cause of a certain form of government and chattel slavery.

 

[exnihilo]

My opinion was that it did not meet the criteria of Just War, namely, for the reason that means of peaceful settlement were not exhausted. When during the war were the peace talks, and the attempts at a cease fire so that negotiations could commence to arrive at a peaceful solution? That is all I meant. Yes, there was the moral component of stopping a gravely immoral practice in the South. Morally, I see no comparison between the cause of a certain form of government and chattel slavery.

Not to get the thread sidetracked but since the Union specifically disavowed it was making war to end slavery that couldn’t be a justification. Like with the American Revolution they drill noble claims like that into your head in school but the facts don’t support the narrative.