Has there ever been a just war?

[GEddie]

False on so many levels.

First, 622,000 was the total number of deaths. I don’t think the Southerners were giving their lives to end slavery.

The war was fought to keep the South in the union. Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address that he’d support an amendment keeping slavery. He just wanted the Southerners to keep paying their taxes. Lincoln only used slavery as a political tool to gain support when he needed it. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued to keep European powers out of the war. The end of slavery was a by product of the war, not the justification for starting it.

I’m not sure taxation had that much to do with it. Remember, income taxes did not exist until 1916.

AL knew that if secession were allowed, America would not survive either as a nation or a community of nations; “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. The mélange of sovereign North American nations that resulted from unchallenged secession would lead ultimately to the domination of all of them by one or more stronger powers.

No, he was not a priori an abolitionist, but slavery was the tripwire for secession. That made the war finally about slavery.

ICXC NIKA

 

[robwar]

I don’t think the question can be answered with certitude because the definition of “just war” has changed over time. The tendency is to judge the past by current standards … for not only war but anything. Plus, few make the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

thank-you. This was the best answer on the thread. Definition and points of view have changed over time. Is the OP a pacific? Why such a vague question?

 

[JIB]

Lincoln didn’t start the war. He tried to prevent it, and waited patiently, but was forced to respond when the militia of a state fired on the armed forces of the federal government at Ft. Sumpter. That was inssurection, and it demanded a military response. One does not fire on a federal military facility and not expect a commensurate response.

It was God’s will that the slaves be freed. Lincoln understood that. Lincoln didn’t start the war but he knew that one way or another, if and when there was war, that it would eventually result in the ending of slavery in the United States.

You keep speaking of Lincoln’s first innagural address. His second innagural address cannot then be ignored and the relevant parts have already been quoted on this thread. Scroll back.

The war was just. Lincoln clearly unerstood that.

-Tim-

Lincoln’s first inaugural is the one that matters. The war was nearly over when he made his second address. The war was started to forcibly keep the Southern states in the union against their will. It was not started to end slavery. Ending slavery was a byproduct of the war, not the reason for it.

It’s similar to people saying WW2 was just because it put an end to the Holocaust. You can’t find a justification for war after it’s already been started. The war was not fought by the union to end slavery. That’s a fact.

 

[tabycat]

I would say so if the goal is to remove him from power not kill him

Hitler committed sucide when the allies were about to take him out of power.

 

[austenbosten]

It’s similar to people saying WW2 was just because it put an end to the Holocaust. You can’t find a justification for war after it’s already been started. The war was not fought by the union to end slavery. That’s a fact.

Mute point, the Wansee Conference didn’t happen until 1942. 3 years into the war.

 

[SonCatcher]

The war of 1812 when the USA invaded Canada

I guess since we couldn’t convince you to join our little act of treason 36 years earlier we wanted to give you another chance.

 

[tabycat]

Oh Lord not another one of these Pat Buchanan-esque, League of the South talking points, historical revisionism with no facts to back it up.

Pretty hard to back up that claim when the entire Republican party platform was the abolition of slavery. Also do you think as racist the North was at the time, Lincoln could get America to go with a war by just saying “I’m gonna free the slaves!” you know how badly support for the Iraq War was lost when no major WMDs were found and the war was all about freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

One of the reasons that WMDs were not found was becouse they had been used on Hussin’s own people and on Iran during the Iraqi-Iranin War. Or maybe the ones who were gassed just thought they were gassed.

A main plank of the Demacratic party platform was to keep slavery. They were the ‘anti-war’ party.

 

[JIB]

I’m not sure taxation had that much to do with it. Remember, income taxes did not exist until 1916.

AL knew that if secession were allowed, America would not survive either as a nation or a community of nations; “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. The mélange of sovereign North American nations that resulted from unchallenged secession would lead ultimately to the domination of all of them by one or more stronger powers.

No, he was not a priori an abolitionist, but slavery was the tripwire for secession. That made the war finally about slavery.

ICXC NIKA

A few things.

I never said income taxes. I said taxes. I should have been more precise to say “duties and imposts” which is the language Lincoln used. Income taxes did exist before the 16th amendment. Income taxes were imposed during the Civil War, but didn’t last post-bellum.

“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere”

You’re right about Lincoln for the most part. He understood the implications of allowing people to govern themselves and secede from the union. Whether or not it would be a good idea to allow people to secede and govern themselves is another debate, but the idea that the union entered the war to end slavery is fiction. There can be no debate on this topic. Some people think there can be.

 

[austenbosten]

One of the reasons that WMDs were not found was becouse they had been used on Hussin’s own people and on Iran during the Iraqi-Iranin War. Or maybe the ones who were gassed just thought they were gassed.

I said major WMDs. There were chemical weapons and materials to create WMDs found in Iraq. When I say WMDs I’m talking about a lot full of SCUD missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical warheads.

 

[tabycat]

I said major WMDs. There were chemical weapons and materials to create WMDs found in Iraq. When I say WMDs I’m talking about a lot full of SCUD missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical warheads.

And I said that most of the WMDs had been mixed up had been used on his own people and on the Iranin people. Or maybe they do not count because they were not us.

 

[JIB]

And I said that most of the WMDs had been mixed up had been used on his own people and on the Iranin people. Or maybe they do not count because they were not us.

There were no WMDs of the kind the Bush administration expected. The war was started unjustly as the reasons for war turned out to be based on false information.

Of course Iraq had some chemical and biological weapons at some point. The US government gave them to Iraq. The reasoning behind the war was the Iraq was an imminent threat due to WMDs that it turns out they didn’t have.

 

[Dubay]

As well the war for our Independence for the United States was well worth it. I never wanted to be British controlled anyway.

The bumper sticker saying war is not the answer is foolishness.

 

[JIB]

As well the war for our Independence for the United States was well worth it. I never wanted to be British controlled anyway.

The bumper sticker saying war is not the answer is foolishness.

In many ways it would be better to be a British subject than an American citizenship.

 

[austenbosten]

And I said that most of the WMDs had been mixed up had been used on his own people and on the Iranin people. Or maybe they do not count because they were not us.

That’s not the point. The casus belli for the Iraq war, was they were harboring WMD and posed a serious threat to international affairs…not they were using chemical warfare in the past. I’m not denying Iraq had WMDs which it used on Iranians and Kurds. What I am saying is that despite few WMDs and materials of WMDs being found, the evidence did not hold up to the assumptions of Western intelligence agencies.

 

[fastenatingguy]

There were no WMDs of the kind the Bush administration expected. The war was started unjustly as the reasons for war turned out to be based on false information.

Of course Iraq had some chemical and biological weapons at some point. The US government gave them to Iraq. The reasoning behind the war was the Iraq was an imminent threat due to WMDs that it turns out they didn’t have.

If it had been a poker game, Saddam had a bad hand, but played it better than W, who used bad info and drew the wrong conclusions when listening to his “homeys” (including some Dems and foreign allies).

 

[Seamus_L]

Americans were the bad guys in Kosovo.

 

[JRKH]

Since the title is very general, this is what I will answer…

Has there ever been a just war? No - war by it’s very nature is unjust.
Has there ever been a just defense? Yes - defense against an aggressor can certainly be seen as just where it’s intent is to minimize those things in war that are inherently unjust.

Peace
James

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, there has been a just war.

The Catholic Church declared that the Crusades were just wars fought to preserve and protect the Holy Land and Catholics visiting the Holy Land - the land sanctified by Our Lord’s own footsteps.

Catholic pilgrims who were visiting the Holy Land were being persecuted and slaughtered. Thus, the Crusades were fought to defend the great place of heritage and Christendom, and to protect Catholic pilgrims.

I would agree with you that the Crusades were jus ad bellum (just cause), however given the massacre which followed the capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade (year 1099), I cannot agree with you that it was jus in bello (just conduct). Have you read the sources written by Christian witnesses of that? Hmm…

After the massacre however, the Christians treated the Muslims and Jews very well - so tolerant in fact were they of their religions and personal/economic freedoms that we have Muslim chroniclers who explain that most Muslims of the area would rather have lived under the Latin Catholics than the Islamic lords.

That nonetheless, does not excuse the massacre. It wasn’t any different to massacres commited by Islamic armies - they were both largely the same. Neither were exemplary in conduct by modern, international standards.

To be fair, we cannot and should not impose the Geneva Convention on ancient and medieval peoples (or even Early Modern peoples). The Catholic Church has always had a Just War doctrine that in essentials has never changed, however it has developed like all doctrine does with the passage of time. All armies of the era believed in making an example to the enemy.

TBH I think that we can find quite a few historical wars that were jus ad bellum although far less that were jus in bello.

 

[sedonaman]

…
TBH I think that we can find quite a few historical wars that were jus ad bellum although far less that were jus in bello.

In fact, winning has become immoral, at least for the liberal democracies.

 

[Dubay]

In many ways it wou ld be better to be a British subject than an American citizenship.

Appreciate the opinion but no, no interest in that. Happy to fight and die for freedom.

Wallace; : Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM!