Does anyone worry that the American Revolution and the Mexican-American War were grossly unjust wars of aggression initiated by Americans?

[GEddie]

I’m surprised at the naiveté expressed by some people, and how it always seems directed at the US as bad guy

I challenge anyone to show a major conflict in history that did not have economic or realestate drivers at it core. It’s a fact of humanity and not a unique sin of one country or church.

As a world, we have gotten much smarter in preventing major wars

Not really. It’s just that the physical destruction would be so severe in another world war that no one wants to start it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Contarini]

One arguement for a philospher king: The philospher king is making a decison based on morals; the elected one is making a decision based on election counts.

Yes, but “quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”

You can easily argue for this kind of government by presupposing the ideal “philosopher king.” In fact, such beings are rare if nonexistent.

Plato recognized this. I believe that there’s considerable debate as to whether Plato seriously intended his Republic to be a manual for training philosopher kings–the point may have been that this was, in fact, simply impossible, because the kinds of social circumstances that would produce such people could not be replicated without radical and unrealistic social engineering.

I think this is the majority way of reading the Republic, but I am willing to be corrected by those who are better Plato scholars than I am!

Another argument: History has shown that there has been very little abuse in monarchial soicieties.

But it hasn’t. How is this even an argument, when, as you admit, you provide no evidence for it?

Monarchical societies are full of abuses of numerous kinds. Are they worse than those in democratic societies? Maybe not as much worse as Americans typically assume. But I certainly don’t see how you can say that there has been “very little.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sadly, I think many Americans suffer from a severe lack of patriotism, which has had detrimental effects on society at large, but I may be wrong about this.

I find this a terrifying opinion, because what strikes me about American society is its rabid “patriotism.”

But then, I live in Indiana. There was plenty of patriotism in New Jersey too, but it was a bit more symbolic and less ferocious. I certainly didn’t notice any lack of patriotism in that very blue state.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes they were. Read a history book

What history book? Author, publisher, etc., would be nice.

.

Yes, it justifies it. The Brits imposed arbitrary and punishing taxes which we simply could not tolerate.

Why?

Were they more arbitrary and punishing than the taxation imposed by Romans on the Jews? Can you explain why the principle “give Caesar what belongs to Caesar” did not apply in the 1770s? Or can you tell me just how Jews were represented in the Roman imperial government?

What baffles and (in my lighter moods) amuses me is that conservative Americans are very happy to quote “give Caesar what belongs to Caesar” to justify their own blind nationalism, but seem very unwilling to apply it to the actual issue Jesus was talkign about–taxation!

Your young mind has been obviously filled with a bucket load of liberal mush.

You do realize, don’t you, that this isn’t a form of argument and is unlikely to persuade anyone.

You are simply shouting propaganda lines.

How about actual argument and evidence? It may anger you that you have to provide this, but I’m afraid you do if you want to persuade those not already persuaded.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No freedom of religion. In many places Catholics couldn’t hold public office or own land.

One of the intolerable grievances that provoked the American colonists was the Quebec Act, and one of the reasons it was so horrifying was that it guaranteed Catholics in Quebec religious liberty. The “liberty-loving” American colonists were afraid that this abominable provision might possibly come to be applied to them as well.

So I’m afraid that argument won’t wash as a defense of the Revolution.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Most of Libertarian philosphy does follow Catholic teaching - not most Libertarians. Read the ACTON series, better yet Tom Woods, evern better yet Fr. Sirico’s current book “In Defense of Free Markets” and the very very very best by Bastiat “The Law”. Oh! one last one Centisimus Annus - I think it was written in 1991 by our late great Pope

Of course, if you are a scholar, read all the works of the Late Scolastics (1250 to 1500).

How can libertarianism fit with Catholic theology when libertarians deny the concept of the common good?

And it’s interesting that libertarians are very interested in the late scholastics and basically ignore Aquinas.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, if there ever was a propoganda success it has been the portrayal of the American Indians as a peace loving people. May I a recommend “War Before Civilization” by the Anthropologist Lawrence H. Keeley. He like so many liberals bought into the notions that the American Indians were above the rest of humans. After studying locations in Europe where war and fightings had taken place he was taken aback when he found idenical evidence convicting the American Indians of being Human.

This does not forgive our past taking of lands but adds insight into what maybe some forgiveness when more data is collected. “We’ve all sinned and fallen…” even American Indians.

I don’t see that this is relevant.

The argument is not “Native Americans were sinless, therefore we should not have stolen their land.”

The argument is, “It’s wrong to steal people’s land.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The fact is that most people today know almost nothing about the Mexican-American War, and thus it has virtually no bearing on their political motivations.

Right. And the OP’s excellent point is that it ought to.

I think it’s very important to be familiar with the past, but then again, there are plenty of reasons today to oppose unchecked immigration or to support the nation-state. And like it or not, there is no shortage of Mexicans who long for a Reconquista.

And again, if the Mexican-American War was indeed unjust on the U.S. side, then a desire for a “reconquista” (when this is to be achieved by peaceful means, not war) is hardly unreasonable or unjust.

Being Catholic does not come at the expense of being a patriot of one’s nation. Neither the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, nor Sacred Tradition teaches any such thing.

Nor has anyone on this thread suggested otherwise. What we’re objecting to (the OP and I) is an unreasoning patriotism that overrides considerations of justice and natural law.

Edwin

 

[vz71]

The argument is, “It’s wrong to steal people’s land.”

Edwin

At this stage in the game, it would be theft to try to return land.

 

[GEddie]

Right. And the OP’s excellent point is that it ought to.

And again, if the Mexican-American War was indeed unjust on the U.S. side, then a desire for a “reconquista” (when this is to be achieved by peaceful means, not war) is hardly unreasonable or unjust.
Edwin

When have the results of war ever been undone without another war?

Do you think the US President will ever turn to his opposite number in Mexico City and say, “Oh, we were wrong in 1847, you can have the square mileage back”???

How do you think the 75,000,000 Americans who now live in the region affected would take such a statement?

ICXC NIKA

 

[reconman]

What history book? Author, publisher, etc., would be nice.

Pick any of them. It’s common knowledge that the Brits brutally oppressed the Americans.
Do your own homework. That’s not my job.

Were they more arbitrary and punishing than the taxation imposed by Romans on the Jews?

Now you’re sticking up for the Romans?

Can you explain why the principle “give Caesar what belongs to Caesar” did not apply in the 1770s?

That’s easy. We gave to “Caesar,” again and again and again. We got tired of it. You’re confusing your socialist liberal theology with reality.

Or can you tell me just how Jews were represented in the Roman imperial government?

They weren’t. They were essentially slaves.

What baffles and (in my lighter moods) amuses me is that conservative Americans are very happy to quote “give Caesar what belongs to Caesar” to justify their own blind nationalism, but seem very unwilling to apply it to the actual issue Jesus was talkign about–taxation!

More socialist nonsense. What a surprise.

You do realize, don’t you, that this isn’t a form of argument and is unlikely to persuade anyone.

Certainly not you, that’s obvious.

How about actual argument and evidence? It may anger you that you have to provide this, but I’m afraid you do if you want to persuade those not already persuaded.

Again, it’s easy. Our rights were given to us by God. We Americans don’t need to persuade you or anyone else in order to exercise these rights.

The fact that we did this instead of continuing to behave like liberal sheep as you would have us do, is of no consequence to us.

 

[JNdoum]

I find this a terrifying opinion, because what strikes me about American society is its rabid “patriotism.”

But then, I live in Indiana. There was plenty of patriotism in New Jersey too, but it was a bit more symbolic and less ferocious. I certainly didn’t notice any lack of patriotism in that very blue state.

Edwin

Honestly, I refer mainly to the youth of today, as I am a youth myself, and also through comparison to patriotism apparent before the 20th century, where pride in the nation drove people towards trying to better it. Honestly, I’ve never even been to Indiana, or most of the nation; I’ve only been up and down the east coast. I based my opinion more on what I perceive to be the ethos of the modern person, less one o pride in one’s country, and more one of piggybacking off the government as opposed to contributing. But, once again, I am no expert, and cannot claim to speak for everyone, or even most people.

 

[JNdoum]

I don’t see that this is relevant.

The argument is not “Native Americans were sinless, therefore we should not have stolen their land.”

The argument is, “It’s wrong to steal people’s land.”

Edwin

In all fairness, while America did sort of force Mexico’s hand, it did not truly steal the land. America did not simply randomly claim Texas; the citizens of Texas did not want to live under Mexican rule, so they revolted, and it was the active desire of those citizens to be annexed into the United States. The United States showed much restraint by not annexing Texas for years, until the war finally broke out (which America did in fact indirectly provoke). However, at the end of the war America repaid the Mexican government for the lands which is took in the war, even though it did not actually have to do so. On top of this, America paid for damages on Mexico incurred from the war. On a side note, there is a large area in that region which belongs to America only because of an unrelated business deal, in which a private business bought some land to build a rail road.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And again, if the Mexican-American War was indeed unjust on the U.S. side, then a desire for a “reconquista” (when this is to be achieved by peaceful means, not war) is hardly unreasonable or unjust.

I’m not sure how “reconquista” is going to happen without war. But however one promotes it, one has to ask to whom the land is to be given. Certainly not to Mexico, which took the land away from others, or at least claimed it, though it really didn’t control most of it. So, to whom?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t see that this is relevant.

The argument is not “Native Americans were sinless, therefore we should not have stolen their land.”

The argument is, “It’s wrong to steal people’s land.”

Edwin

In some cases in the U.S., one could say the land was “stolen”. But in some cases there were no true residents. In my part of the country, the former inhabitants were driven out and killed by a Siouan tribe, recently arrived from the north, and was treated simply as a hunting preserve. Very few actually lived here, and nobody actually had any significant part of it under their control. They actually lived well north of here. That Siouan tribe eventually moved west of its own accord as other Indians moved west and game became more scarce. I understand Kentucky was basically the same way…just a wilderness where the agricultural tribes of the Ohio valley went to hunt when they wanted to do it. Those Ohio Valley tribes killed anybody they found in that hunting ground, until the number of white settlers moving in simply became too great. The Great Plains were virtually devoid of human population before the horse, which enabled tribes from elsewhere to move into it to hunt buffalo.

The Ohio Valley? Yes, I can agree that it was populated and controlled by a native population. But a great deal of the U.S. was not really in the “possession” of anyone.

 

[epan]

In the American Revolution of 1776-1781, the Americans were all British citizens who had a duty to honor and respect the British government. The British government was not enslaving or raping Americans (White Americans were doing that to Black Americans, but that is a different matter.) They were not carrying out genocide or running concentration camps. The British government simply imposed taxes that some of the people in the 13 colonies did not like. But today, we have taxes that some Americans do not like. There will always be taxes that lots of people will not like. Does taxation really ever justify shooting government soldiers in the head with a rifle–because that is what the American soldiers in the American Revolution did.

In the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, President Polk carried out a plan of his own making to obtain by force the Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico. He had earlier tried to obtain those states by negotiation and payment, but the Mexican government refused to even meet with the emissary that President Polk sent to Mexico City to make a deal. The Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico were larger than the current-day USA states of California and New Mexico. The Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico contained, besides today’s California and New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. President Polk’s plan was to provoke a conflict over the dispute over southern border of Texas, and then to use that fighting in southern Texas (down by the Rio Grande) to justify an invasion and occupation of the the faraway Mexican-states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico, and to also justify an invasion and occupation of all the major cities of Mexico. The US government refused to end its occupation of Mexico City until the Mexican government agreed to cede to the USA all the 2 Mexican states that President Polk had tried to buy from Mexico before the war. In the end, the US government got the 2 Mexican states and paid a few million dollars to the Mexican government. But since the deal was done “at gunpoint,” it was not a valid sale per all forms of law in all countries and in all times. Abraham Lincoln, was was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, publicly condemned President Polk for his dishonest and unjust actions and motives in starting the Mexican-American War. Later, Ulysses S. Grant, who was an officer in the Mexican-American War, condemned it as the most unjust thing he’d ever seen.

About 1/3 of the land in the lower 48 states of the USA was thus obtained by theft and murder. Or so it seems. The professional historians all seem to know this, yet few Americans seem to know this.

And I really never hear anyone asking if the American Revolution of 1776-1781 was perhaps, by Catholic just war standards, an unjust war.

In 2003, Blessed Pope John Paul II strongly condemned as unjust the planned and ultimately carried out 2003 USA and UK invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yet, it seems like virtually no one in the USA paid any attention to that.

It seems like we have been deceived. It seems like we pay no attention to what our Church teaches, and just listen to “patriotic” propaganda.

Professor Zinn makes a persuasive argument that the reason for the American Revolution was to transfer wealth from the Brits like Lord Baltimore, and Lord Fairfax to the new American upper class. George Washington was the wealthiest man in America. Jefferson had more than 200 slave. According to Zinn, the taxation argument was used to motivate the masses. Sounds a lot like, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”, or the also compelling arguments that Roosevelt had advance notice of the Pearl Harbor attack, but failed to act. “Remember the Maine?”

You are wrong, if you think that the great European powers did not shed blood to expand empire. Consider the history or Spain in the Caribbean, Central America, and Mexico alone. I’d bet if you add it up, they killed more people than the entire population of Spain at the time. Consider what the British have done in Africa, India and Hawaii.

But as I understand it, these reasons have nothing to due with the “justness” of a war. I agree with you that both the American Revolution, and the Mexican American wars were “unjust”. I don’t worry about it.

I do feel some remorse for having fought in Iraq. I was duped just like everyone else at the start of it. For subsequent deployments, I felt a sense of duty to try to put right what we had broken. Balanced against that was the knowledge that the Saddam regime caused a lot of suffering. It is a good thing that he no longer rules that country. This is a good reason for a mandatory service requirement. If everyone’s kid had equal potential to be in the military, then there might be a lot more discussion and consideration before deciding to start killing people overseas.

 

[DLG123]

In the American Revolution of 1776-1781, the Americans were all British citizens who had a duty to honor and respect the British government. The British government was not enslaving or raping Americans (White Americans were doing that to Black Americans, but that is a different matter.) They were not carrying out genocide or running concentration camps. The British government simply imposed taxes that some of the people in the 13 colonies did not like. But today, we have taxes that some Americans do not like. There will always be taxes that lots of people will not like. Does taxation really ever justify shooting government soldiers in the head with a rifle–because that is what the American soldiers in the American Revolution did.

In the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, President Polk carried out a plan of his own making to obtain by force the Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico. He had earlier tried to obtain those states by negotiation and payment, but the Mexican government refused to even meet with the emissary that President Polk sent to Mexico City to make a deal. The Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico were larger than the current-day USA states of California and New Mexico. The Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico contained, besides today’s California and New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. President Polk’s plan was to provoke a conflict over the dispute over southern border of Texas, and then to use that fighting in southern Texas (down by the Rio Grande) to justify an invasion and occupation of the the faraway Mexican-states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico, and to also justify an invasion and occupation of all the major cities of Mexico. The US government refused to end its occupation of Mexico City until the Mexican government agreed to cede to the USA all the 2 Mexican states that President Polk had tried to buy from Mexico before the war. In the end, the US government got the 2 Mexican states and paid a few million dollars to the Mexican government. But since the deal was done “at gunpoint,” it was not a valid sale per all forms of law in all countries and in all times. Abraham Lincoln, was was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, publicly condemned President Polk for his dishonest and unjust actions and motives in starting the Mexican-American War. Later, Ulysses S. Grant, who was an officer in the Mexican-American War, condemned it as the most unjust thing he’d ever seen.

About 1/3 of the land in the lower 48 states of the USA was thus obtained by theft and murder. Or so it seems. The professional historians all seem to know this, yet few Americans seem to know this.

And I really never hear anyone asking if the American Revolution of 1776-1781 was perhaps, by Catholic just war standards, an unjust war.

In 2003, Blessed Pope John Paul II strongly condemned as unjust the planned and ultimately carried out 2003 USA and UK invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yet, it seems like virtually no one in the USA paid any attention to that.

It seems like we have been deceived. It seems like we pay no attention to what our Church teaches, and just listen to “patriotic” propaganda.

No they were not unjust…

The British government was not raping or enslaving people? The Brits were the largest slave traders in the world at that point. So yes the British were slave traders and not only that the were the most RUTHLESS military in the world… They gave the world such tactics as slash and burn… They were notorious for locking entire town in the church and burning it with them in it.

Your contempt for America is striking. If you live in Europe… your welcome for all the protection that the American soldiers have given you. Dont forget WE are the reason Europe doesnt speak German.

 

[epan]

No they were not unjust…

The British government was not raping or enslaving people? The Brits were the largest slave traders in the world at that point. So yes the British were slave traders and not only that the were the most RUTHLESS military in the world… They gave the world such tactics as slash and burn… They were notorious for locking entire town in the church and burning it with them in it.

Your contempt for America is striking. If you live in Europe… your welcome for all the protection that the American soldiers have given you. Dont forget WE are the reason Europe doesnt speak German.

I have dealt with a lot of French people. In my experience with them, they were quick to throw into conversation the legacy of slavery in the US, and our civil rights problems. The ironic thing is that I also found them to be quite bigoted about racial difference compared to Americans, and also more sexist. This is based on working with a team of about 100 of them. European criticism of America can have merit, but my experience is that it is often based on stereotypes, and it rings hollow to me.

 

[DLG123]

Guess I’m the odd man out here.

Yes, I do think the American Revolution was a bad thing. I don’t think it would or could pass muster by the relatively strict standards of a just war. I think the Founders were deist, Freemason traitors of the sort who went on to persecute Catholics in Calles-era Mexico (which, everyone seems to forget, was conducted with American aid). I think modern America in all its vile, Satanic antiglory is the logical fulfillment of the principles on which it was founded.

I don’t worry about it, though. I certainly don’t disobey it. Illegitimate though its founding was, it is now the authority of the United States, and we are enjoined to obey it, except when it commands us directly to sin.

This is by far the saddest thing I have read in a while… This is what we get from our “education” department… WOW such contemp for the most prosperous, generous, caring nation in human history. Do we have out faults and sins, absolutely but what you describe is not the nation I know… Maybe you should move to a nice country like Iran or Russia… might change your opinion…

Very sad

 

[Ridgerunner]

Professor Zinn makes a persuasive argument that the reason for the American Revolution was to transfer wealth from the Brits like Lord Baltimore, and Lord Fairfax to the new America n upper class. George Washington was the wealthiest man in America. Jefferson had more than 200 slave. According to Zinn, the taxation argument was used to motivate the masses. Sounds a lot like, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”, or the also compelling arguments that Roosevelt had advance notice of the Pearl Harbor attack, but failed to act. “Remember the Maine?”

You are wrong, if you think that the great European powers did not shed blood to expand empire. Consider the history or Spain in the Caribbean, Central America, and Mexico alone. I bet if you add it up, they killed more people than the entire population of Spain at the time. Consider what the British have done in Africa, India and Hawaii.

Claiming that the American Revolution was essentially a revolt of American plutocrats doesn’t really work. If that was true, then the trans-appalachian settlers would never have fought the British. But they did, and did it well. At the time, Americans were the wealthiest people on earth, man for man, because of widespread ownership of land and the relative freedom to enter into business and industry unimpeded by royal “charters” and monopolies. It was the British system, not the American, that concentrated wealth into the hands of a few with everyone else being paupers or near-paupers.

And certainly the Europeans directly killed some Indians (who had killed other Indians to take their land) but the overwhelming majority that died were killed by disease. Massive deaths by disease were inevitable, no matter what. Had some Mayans, say, sailed from Yucatan to Europe or Africa and returned, the result would have been exactly the same. Same if some Chinese had sailed to California. It was only a matter of time before Eurasian diseases were introduced into the Americas with catastrophic results, and time ran out.