Could the American Revolution ever be justified?

[Secret_Square]

That comparison doesn’t hold up that well. We would celebrate their birth because they are made in the image and likeness of God regardless of how they are conceived. National Holidays on the other hand, are not automatically in of themselves good. If we were French, as good Catholics how in the world could you celebrate the French Revolution that persecuted the faithful? I’m not saying that the American and French revolutions are on par, but you see my point that not all National Holidays can be automatically good. But everyone’s birthday may be celebrated because God gave them their life. What I really want to know is if as good Catholics, is it okay for us to celebrate the 4th of July?

I don’t see why not. What the 4th of July celebrates is not the carnage of the Revolutionary War, but the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the principles contained in it (including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Of course America hasn’t always lived up to those principles, and it still doesn’t do so completely, but we can still celebrate and honor them – just like you can celebrate your baptism day even if you don’t always live up to your baptismal vows perfectly.

Now, if a national holiday were put in place specifically to celebrate an entirely evil event – for example, if Jan 22 became a national holiday specifically to commemorate the legalization of abortion – or to mock or insult Catholics (such as Guy Fawkes Day, Nov. 5, in England), that would be another story. In those cases I would say a Catholic could not, in good conscience, celebrate those events.

As for Bastille Day (July 14), that might be a bit less cut and dried, given the outcome of the French Revolution. If it’s meant as a celebration of the good principles that the French Revolution originally aspired to (even though it obviously fell short) and/or a celebration of French culture and national identity in general, then I would not have a moral problem with celebrating it, if I were French.

The history of ANY nation is going to contain a mixture of good and bad, and the notion that we can never celebrate or commemorate in any way any person, nation, or event that ever did or caused something bad at any time is IMO ridiculous.

 

[petra22]

I’m in favour of /b/. Particularly if it were a Revolution to become part of the United Kingdom again.

Europe is in big trouble and you want the US to become part the UK again? Is that what I read here???
Don’t you like the USA? It’s not perfect but becoming part of the UK again wouldn’t help the USA in any way, IMHO!!! It might help the UK???

 

[PolarGuy]

Interesting that all the Americans who trash the USA never seem to want to answer these questions:

1. Why haven’t you left yet? -and-
2. Where would you rather live?

 

[mikekle]

Interesting that all the Americans who trash the USA never seem to want to answer these questions:

1. Why haven’t you left yet? -and-
2. Where would you rather live?

For me, its mostly financial, now that Im in my early 40s, I am simply ‘stuck’ here, Its too risky moving to an entirely new country with no job prospects, knowing no one there, leaving your whole life behind…thats the problem.

Trust me though, If I had the financial means, I would be on a plane tomorrow, for me, it would be the British Virgin Islands.

I do think a second revolution probably is justified thru the constitution, but people are not the same as they were at the first revolution, oddly, this is mostly due to our Govt, they have basically ‘conditioned’ far too many people into taking their side on everything, its really perfect if you think about it, the best way to avoid a people rising up with revolution is to make them think their govt has their best interest in mind.

Most people have not recognized this for what it is, as its been done very slowly, methodically over many years, and now we a type of society that reports anything that is even remotely seems suspicious to authorities…this would have never happened in decades past.

I have a feeling this was all planned out long ago and nothing happening today is coincidence, I mean, look at our Govt, it is stretching its grip into areas govt would have never gone in the past, they want total control and power over the people and they want the people to fear this authority.

 

[PolarGuy]

Mikekle, in some respects you’re correct: people are “different” today. Perhaps less self reliant, or more apt to rely on the government.

However, I would add that many thousands of people worldwide are still risking everything - for example, walking away from their entire way of life - to come to the USA. Why? Because our country offers a better way of life than theirs does.

I’d add that, with due respect to your position that you’d leave if you could, the fact remains that many have left families, businesses, etc., to come to the US, but Americans aren’t leaving.'The day people actually leave the US for somewhere else is the day that nation is superior to it.

 

[mikekle]

Mikekle, in some respects you’re correct: people are “different” today. Perhaps less self reliant, or more apt to rely on the government.

However, I would add that many thousands of people worldwide are still risking everything - for example, walking away from their entire way of life - to come to the USA. Why? Because our country offers a better way of life than theirs does.

I’d add that, with due respect to your position that you’d leave if you could, the fact remains that many have left families, businesses, etc., to come to the US, but Americans aren’t leaving.'The day people actually leave the US for somewhere else is the day that nation is superior to it.

Id say the reason for most of the immigration to the US is purely financial, yes there are those who are coming due to freedom, but I think for the most part, people trying to come here, realize the US is very generous when it comes to taking care of poor people.

They see americans owning homes, owning cars, making what is a lot of money in their opinion, they see the shopping malls filled with all kinds of cool stuff, money flowing around left and right, etc.

I think more people would leave if they could, but just like me, many people get ‘comfortable’ in their lives, in their jobs, etc. hard to give all that up on a chance, even if it means compromising on a few things you believe. Plus, most people by the time they reach early 40s are in debt, they have families, so they have no choice but to continue going to work each day, year after year, very tough to just up and leave…I dont think any of this is coincidence either, I think the way things are here were specifically ‘designed’ to be this way (if that makes any sense, hard to explain what I mean by this).

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Interesting that all the Americans who trash the USA never seem to want to answer these questions:

1. Why haven’t you left yet? -and-
2. Where would you rather live?

If you can’t stand perfectly justified criticism of the USA, maybe you should leave yourself. After all it is your childish idea as a solution.

 

[PolarGuy]

You’re awfully touchy, jeffrey, considering it was you who resorted to namecalling.

When people call names, they announce “I don’t like what you said, but I am not articulate enough to explain why, so I’ll namecall.” So really, you’ve paid me a backhanded compliment: you don’t like what I said but aren’t up to explaining why. Anyway, thank you for the compliment.

Why would I want to leave?!? I don’t, because I’m smart enough to know that USA is still the greatest county on earth and the best place to live.

Perfect? No. Best? Yes.

But as usual, jeffrey, you didn’t answer where you’d rather live and why you haven’t left.

 

[PolarGuy]

Further, my questions are not “childish,” they are perfectly legitimate.

Posters on the moral theology board fall all over themselves answering questions like “is it a mortal sin to swat a fly?” With that as a backdrop, there is absolutely nothing childish about asking Americans, “if you think america is so bad, why haven’t you left, and where would you prefer to live?”

 

[Usagi]

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.

At one time I agreed with you, and I do think the outcome of the Civil War led to an unfortunate trend of increase in Federal power that has yet to stop.

However, now I think I was (and you still are) locating the nexus of moral sovereignty wrongly. States don’t have rights. People do. And the southern states were greatly wronging a group of their people, to an extent we can barely imagine today.

It’s true that the North did not fight only to end slavery (though that was certainly one aim, and an outcome that followed swiftly upon the heels of the war), but the South very much seceded and fought to protect the terrible evil of slavery.

I don’t like some of the powers that the Federal government has accreted to itself since the 1860s. But I think the basic principle that the Feds must step in when the states mistreat their people (who are, after all, American citizens), as eventually laid down in the 14th amendment, is a vital one. In addition to the slaves themselves, the southern states were wronging all those Americans within their borders who never wanted to form another country.

(And yes, that last bit could be applied to the issue of the American Revolution, as the decision to declare independence was made by a relatively small group and imposed on everyone else, even the Loyalists. Unlike some of you, I am greatly pleased that our Founders succeeded in their aims, and think they managed to create an amazing ideal of governance even if we have rarely lived up to that ideal in practice, but I do not necessarily agree with the ethics of their every method.)

 

[PolarGuy]

A fine post, usagi. Thank you.

 

[Usagi]

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?

Um, do you mean “the people” as an abstract entity, the way democracies and republics (and, unfortunately, communist states) use the term? Because every society is ruled by people. Monarchs are people.

Remember, God may have given us Jesus through the royal line of Israel, but He didn’t originally want the Israelites to have a king like their pagan neighbors. Giving them one was a concession, not His perfect will. (Not that they had a representative government either, of course; just that there’s nothing especially holy about human kings.)

Just as we have learned over time to apply the natural law and the golden rule to more and more people (women, funny-looking foreigners, even followers of other religions), we have leaned that while a good and godly king may be the best sort of ruler, the chances of getting one are slim enough, and the consequences of getting a bad king are bad enough, that it is better in practical terms to spread the responsibility and authority around. We still have leaders and decision-makers, but they are (in theory) more obviously answerable to those they rule over, without the populace having to behead anybody as the only way to make changes.

 

[Usagi]

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).

Good consequences, even really good ones, cannot make an evil action into a good one in Catholic moral theology. Some acts of war can be morally justified in extreme circumstances (hence why we have a just war teaching at all), but targeting civilians to cause mass fear is never permitted even if it ends a conflict. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more justified in the Church’s eyes than was 9/11.

 

[Widlast]

Well we won the war so their must have been a serious prospect of success. The Declaration of Independence outlines the reasons we went to war. If we had taxtation w/o representation today many people would be very upset.

We live in a fascist oligarchy, we DO have taxation without representation.
And the sheeple are asleep.

 

[PolarGuy]

Unfortunately, usagi, I strongly disagree that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were merely to cause fear and/or to target civilians. To the contrary, a) both cities were industrial centers producing war goods; b) Nagasaki was the home of a large naval base; and c) the line between civilians and soldiers had blurred - with civilians being armed by the military and actively looked to to defeat an invasion - to the point that both cities were legitimate military targets.

Further, I don’t believe the just war view requires that each and every act within the war be just for the war to be just.

Comparing the bombings of those cities to 9/11 is way, WAY beyond the pale.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

You’re awfully touchy, jeffrey, considering it was you who resorted to namecalling.

Why would I want to leave?!? I don’t, because I’m smart enough to know that USA is still the greatest county on earth and the best place to live.

But as usual, jeffrey, you didn’t answer where you’d rather live and why you haven’t left.

**My apologies for saying that your suggestion that I leave the country was “childish.”

Let me explain it this way. This thread is about our American Revolution which in turn was about securing certain liberties. Now if we find ourselves unable to practice those liberties, then what good was it?
For instance, one of those great liberties was freedom of speech. And in that regard, if a citizen of the USA feels that his country has wrongly engaged in a criminal war, that person is free to express that thought.
No one has the right to expel him from his country just because he spoke out.

In ancient times we notice that a certain Prophet criticized his country’s ruler about an illegal marriage.
Would you have told that Prophet to pack up and leave instead of speaking out?

So, with all so respect, I find your question of “why I haven’t left my country” and “where would I rather live” off the thread topic, pointless, and, to tell the truth, a little insulting.
I served in that illegal war and certainly feel that I have earned the right to live in the country where I was born and raised.
That I choose to express my thoughts about it doesn’t give anyone the right to question my residency here or suggest that I don’t belong in the USA.

As for your own choice of residency, if you really don’t want to be among citizens who sometimes express their strong disapproval of their government’s engagement in certain wars, allow me to suggest North Korea.
You won’t find much open dissent there.

**

 

[pnewton]

** USA murdered over three million people…**

This statement says all anyone needs to know about the way you think and the futility of discussion.

 

[Matthew91]

Judging this intellectually honestly as an American who loves this country, I really don’t see how the American Revolution was justified. The requirements for just war do not seem to be met except for the portion that requires serious prospect of success which was evidently the case based on the victorious outcome for the colonists.

We are left to wonder how things would have been different if there was no Revolution. Here are some things to consider:

There may have been no American Civil War. Britain would abolish slavery a few decades after the revolution began and this would be applied to the American colonies if they were still under British rule. Southern colonies may have tried to rebel, but by that time Northern anti-slavery sentiment may have prevented a full rebellion from all of the colonies.

France may not have experienced their bloody revolution. France’s participation in the American Revolution put them into further financial trouble which led to the revolution that resulted in a blow to the Church in France that was so severe the Church has never returned to the place of prominence it had since that time.

America would probably have ended up independent anyway. Much like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, it’s likely America would be an independent country like it is today, revolution or not.

 

[Secret_Square]

For a fictional take on what might have happened if the American Revolution had failed, check out the novel “For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga” by Robert Sobel. It was published in 1973 and is written in the format of a college-level textbook (complete with imaginary footnotes citing imaginary works by imaginary scholars!) covering American history from 1763 to 1971. Unlike many real history textbooks, it’s pretty interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_%28novel%29

Spoiler alert: the French Revolution also fails in Sobel’s book,

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

This statement says all anyone needs to know about the way you think and the futility of discussion.

**If the rebellion had not happened then the colonies would have remained within the British Commonwealth as did Canada.
When England went to war against Germany in WW I all of the Commonwealth was, perforce, entered into that war.
By separating from the British Commonwealth the USA was not obligated to enter into WW I, and if that refusal had been honored as President Wilson had promised, then I would have to say that the American Revolution was justified.
But Wilson reneged on his promise not to drag the USA into that war, so what good to us was the Revolution?

BTW: “the way I think” is based on a truthful reading of history.
The vast majority posting on CAF call the destruction of a single human cell which cannot even remotely be seen by the human eye “murder.”
That I call the wanton killing of 3 over three million human beings for nothing more than satisfying the political agendas of the US Democratic Party “murder” is, in my mind, far more realistic.
I can document, but, as noted, Mr. Newton finds a rational discussion “futile.” **