Legitimacy of Declaration of Independence?

[kweschnz]

( Not sure if this should go here, or in Philosophy, or in Sac. Scr., so please reroute it if I’ve mischosen. Thanks.)

kweschnz:

I have a question based on this interesting thread. In light of Romans 13 (esp. verse 1b!), I’ve heard it argued that the American Revolution was totally wrong…which would of course mean—gasp!—that this gov’t. has been illegitimate for over 200 hundred years! To me, it’s a real conundrum.

Arguments pro or con?

(A related question would be the more general “Is it ever [biblically] lawful for people to overthrow a [rotten] government?” Like, were Stauffenberg & Co. wrong?)

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Declaration of Independence does not determine the legitimacy of the US government. In my estimation even if the Declaration of Independence was illegal and immoral sedition and the American Revolution was treason, once the British government recognized American independence it became a reality (if not before).

 

[George_Stegmeir]

This whole thing is nonsense. History has prooven that our declaration of independance was the correct, moral route for the people of what became the United States. And any argument based on biblical sources is the result of an uneducated mis-interpretation of Holy Scripture.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

History has proven that our declaration of independence was the correct, moral route for the people of what became the United States. And any argument based on biblical sources is the result of an uneducated mis-interpretation of Holy Scripture.

When you say “History has proven…” are you referring to American history after the revolution? If so, then I must disagree with your statement. The morality of any action can never be justified by what happened after it. (That is the basis of the “ends justify the means”.) The Catechism is clear that one may never use immoral means to achieve a good end - no matter how good that end is. So looking at American history after the revolution is irrelevant to the question being posed. No matter how good America has been, and no matter how much benefit it has been to the rest of the world, the question of this topic has not been answered.

Note that I am not claiming to answer that question one way or the other. I just don’t want to see a flawed answer used to answer this question. If you really want to answer it, you have to answer it using only information that was known at the time the decision was made, using moral principles. So forget everything you ever learned about American history starting with the revolution and put yourself in the place of the people at the time and make the judgment based on the moral teachings of the Church about when revolution is justified.

 

[sw85]

( Not sure if this should go here, or in Philosophy, or in Sac. Scr., so please reroute it if I’ve mischosen. Thanks.)

Yes, I think it’s very clear that the American Revolution was illegitimate.

There is also a natural law case to be made, since the American Revolution was raised on the basis of the violation of “natural rights” that do not exist, and which followed logically only from gross intellectual errors perpetrated centuries before.

That said, that the Revolution succeeded itself endows it with authority it now possesses and must now wield for the greater good.

 

[sw85]

This whole thing is nonsense. History has prooven that our declaration of independance was the correct, moral route for the people of what became the United States. And any argument based on biblical sources is the result of an uneducated mis-interpretation of Holy Scripture.

And yet it led to what we have today: legalized (indeed publicly subsidized) abortion, homosexuality, greed, the corruption of children’s moral sensibilities, obscenity, blasphemy, etc.

Are these things separable from the principles that led to our nation’s founding? If so, when did the separation occur, who is responsible for it, and why has our nation succumbed so violently to it? If they aren’t (and I argue they aren’t, because the sole difference between the classical liberalism of the Founders and the modern liberalism of today is time), then this nation was obviously founded on moral error.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

And yet it led to what we have today: legalized (indeed publicly subsidized) abortion, homosexuality, greed, the corruption of children’s moral sensibilities, obscenity, blasphemy, etc.

Are these things separable from the principles that led to our nation’s founding? If so, when did the separation occur, who is responsible for it, and why has our nation succumbed so violently to it? If they aren’t (and I argue they aren’t, because the sole difference between the classical liberalism of the Founders and the modern liberalism of today is time), then this nation was obviously founded on moral error.

An interesting point, which raises the question: what would be the moral remedy? Repudiate our independence, resume allegiance to the British crown – possibly with the help of a papal interdict suspending all Masses and sacramental availability in the country until we surrended our independence?

 

[Contarini]

This whole thing is nonsense. History has prooven that our declaration of independance was the correct, moral route for the people of what became the United States.

How can “history” prove anything of the sort?

I agree with C. S. Lewis that what moderns call “the goddess history” our ancestors rightly reviled as “the strumpet fortune.”

Success, even success in promoting some morally good things, does not determine the morality of an action.

Edwin

 

[sw85]

An interesting point, which raises the question: what would be the moral remedy? Repudiate our independence, resume allegiance to the British crown – possibly with the help of a papal interdict suspending all Masses and sacramental availability in the country until we surrended our independence?

Not necessarily; as I said, that the revolution itself was illegitimate (as all nearly all revolutions must be) does not mean the authority is established is, as well.

The Bible is quite clear on this, and natural law agrees: except in VERY limited circumstances, ALL authority is to be obeyed, whether the duty of a child to his parent or a citizen to his community, state, or nation, because all authority is consecrated by God. And the government of the United States, by virtue of its success in the revolution, is now unquestionably a center of authority.

That said, I think there is a good case to be made that we ought to be moving back in a more monarchical direction (though I would object to reunion with England). That case is purely pragmatic, though; I think it’s quite clear democracy is too short-sighted to be really effective, and it requires a repository of memory who can restrain democratic passions.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

An interesting point, which raises the question: what would be the moral remedy? Repudiate our independence, resume allegiance to the British crown – possibly with the help of a papal interdict suspending all Masses and sacramental availability in the country until we surrended our independence?

As I recall the Pope issued a decree relieving all of their oaths of allegience to Queen Elizabeth II. It would seem that that made Britain an illegitimate government to which we owed no duty.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

While I think Queen Elizabeth I was a horrible ruler and an apostate to boot,
I think the Holy Father grossly over-stepped his bounds in that matter,
at least in the civil sense. Religiously, he had every right as successor of Saint Peter
to require faithful Catholics to have nothing (other than civil obedience) to do with
that apostate woman.

Search the New Testament high and low.
The Roman Government at the time of the apostles was an evil, oppressive,
pagan government that passed and enforced grossly wicked laws and permitted and
encouraged the most wicked behavior imaginable among it’s citizens, including public orgies and the barbaric diabolical brutality of the gladiatorial games in the Colisseum.
Yet nowhere in New Testament Scripture do the apostles EVER encourage the Christians, even implicitly, to join movements that have taken up arms to
overthrow the oppressive and wicked regime by force, revolution, or sedition.
Christians simply do not have apostolic or scriptural permission to participate in violent
revolutions, period.
Of course, this opens a whole “nother” can of worms.
The English government was familiar with the teaching of Christ at the time of
the American revolution. But the notion that our founding fathers were all a bunch
of theologically orthodox, born again and/or Catholic Christians, is a largely untrue
myth fostered by the Christian (mostly evangelical protestant) Right.
A great number of our founding fathers were active Freemasons, which is not compatible with orthodox Christianity and exclusive religious allegiance to Christ and the Church.
Others, such as Benjamin Franklin, were widely believed to be immoral (carnally-speaking) and were open deists, i.e., doctrinal heretics, who denied the Trinity, Original Sin, etc.
All that being said, I am glad we have the country we have (or have had until recently).
A very great deal about this nation, and about the majority of it’s people and the majority of it’s laws and principles, is really noble, kind and good.
Most American people are neighborly and generous to a fault, regardless of their race or religion, even if very few of us are saints or not guilty at times of serious sins.
I love the U.S.A. and I pray that God turns this country and it’s government into a godfearing and loving government filled to overflowing with the Divine Mercy
of the Sacred Heart of Jesus for all it’s people, the good, the not so good, and even the bad (where compassion is possible without endangering innocent people).
God bless the U.S.A.
And God save the Queen, too, while we’re at it. She’s not a bad lady.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Aelred_Minor]

As I recall the Pope issued a decree relieving all of their oaths of allegience to Queen Elizabeth II. It would seem that that made Britain an illegitimate government to which we owed no duty.

I assume you mean Queen Elizabeth I.

Even if a Pope has the authority to absolve someone of their civic duties (an interesting question for another thread), would this apply to future monarchs. Even after James II, England and Scotland’s last Catholic king, almost a century after Elizabeth? I don’t think so. I assume you were joking though.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Personally my political views trend in a sort of patriarcho-monarchist direction (yes I made up that term, as far as I know), so I have a hard time sympathizing with those who associate “king” with “dictator”. On the other hand I’m also an anti-imperialist, in that I think a ruler and his subjects should be members of the same basic people. Foreign rulers might not be inherently illegitimate, but they can make the relationship between ruler and subject that much more distant and impersonal.

My impression is that in the 1770s you had a situation in which over the last century a sense of unique American identity had been slowly supplanting old-world national identities, in which the role of the British government had just undergone an unwelcome increase after a period of benign neglect, and with (very moderate) taxation without representation, which even many Whigs in England agreed was illegal under British law (and the Tory argument in favor of its legality seems particularly weak, from what I’ve read). Furthermore apparently a majority of Americans really did favor independence, including many who remained Loyalists out of either moral conviction (thinking independence should be pursued legally) or pessimism about the rebels’ chances. Some of my ancestors were among the ranks of those Loyalists and suffered great loss of property at the hands of vicious rebels (and some great-great-…-great uncle was killed in battle against them, I believe).

I’m sure this impression of history could be improved, but as it is I’m torn between legitimist/monarchist and anti-imperialist sentiments, and between my own national patriotism and my family history (though in my direct line of descent I go back to England by the early 20th century, so…). I guess this is a question it would take a great deal of in-depth study of the nitty gritty facts, and a lot of moral soul-searching too most likely, to determine which side was right.

In any case though, by this point it’s all ancient history. Virtually all Americans and Britons have recognized American independence and the legitimacy of the American government by now, as have all relevant legal bodies as far as I know, as well as the Vatican. You have to judge these things by the current situation, not by the history through which the current situation came about. If we judged legitimacy by how a State came into existence probably no government would be legitimate, including the British government, which has its origins in various invasions and revolutions.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I assume you mean Queen Elizabeth I.

Thanks for the correction. Don’t know how I got that extra I.

Even if a Pope has the authority to absolve someone of their civic duties (an interesting question for another thread), would this apply to future monarchs. Even after James II, England and Scotland’s last Catholic king, almost a century after Elizabeth? I don’t think so. I assume you were joking though.

He didn’t mention their civic duties. He released them from a solemn oath, which I think is within his authority.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thanks for the correction. Don’t know how I got that extra I.
He didn’t mention their civic duties. He released them from a solemn oath, which I think is within his authority.

I assumed the one was tied to the other. What exactly what the nature of the solemn oath?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I assumed the one was tied to the other. What exactly what the nature of the solemn oath?

I think it binds under pain of mortal sin since one has called upon God to witness it. The pope then can release one from the moral obligation.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

One poster, above,
said basically that once a government succeeds in gaining power,
it is, by that fact, consecrated by God with authority.

I really have a hard time with that, even though I believe that scripture does not
provide any grounds for Christians participating in revolutions.

I’ll tell you why I have a hard time with that.
Some governments are downright totally EVIL.
The Nazi’s came to power through the electoral process.
These evil, mostly apostate former Catholics (Hitler and 19 of his top men had been
raised Catholic and apostasized, including Himmler, Goering, et al).
This government, you’re going to tell me,
every enjoyed some, even remote, Divine-consecration of authority upon it??
Like heck it did. I’ll believe THAT when pigs fly.
The same with the demonic Soviet empire and the demonic Ceaucescu regime,
and all those other satanically directed communist regimes, including the Khmer Rouge.
No way do I believe, nor will I ever believe, that God consecrated these thugs,
these mostly apostate-christian thugs, with Divinely-given authority.
In a pig’s eye !!! I just don’t – and won’t – believe such a horrible thing.

Paul’s statement that there is no authority apart from God,
must not be taken in an absolutist sense. That would lead to many
absolutely unthinkable conclusions.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[sw85]

One poster, above,
said basically that once a government succeeds in gaining power,
it is, by that fact, consecrated by God with authority.

I really have a hard time with that, even though I believe that scripture does not
provide any grounds for Christians participating in revolutions.

I’ll tell you why I have a hard time with that.
Some governments are downright totally EVIL.
The Nazi’s came to power through the electoral process.
These evil, mostly apostate former Catholics (Hitler and 19 of his top men had been
raised Catholic and apostasized, including Himmler, Goering, et al).
This government, you’re going to tell me,
every enjoyed some, even remote, Divine-consecration of authority upon it??
Like heck it did. I’ll believe THAT when pigs fly.
The same with the demonic Soviet empire and the demonic Ceaucescu regime,
and all those other satanically directed communist regimes, including the Khmer Rouge.
No way do I believe, nor will I ever believe, that God consecrated these thugs,
these mostly apostate-christian thugs, with Divinely-given authority.
In a pig’s eye !!! I just don’t – and won’t – believe such a horrible thing.

Paul’s statement that there is no authority apart from God,
must not be taken in an absolutist sense. That would lead to many
absolutely unthinkable conclusions.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

The Romans tortured and killed the son of God, and yet Christians were still commanded to obey the empire. Render unto Caesar.

Yes, all authority is consecrated by God. We have the word of Scripture, the testaments of the apostles, human nature and natural law to tell us all this. The alternative is the mob, and the mob is a thing of the Devil. See the French Revolution.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Romans tortured and killed the son of God, and yet Christians were still commanded to obey the empire. Render unto Caesar.

Yes, all authority is consecrated by God. We have the word of Scripture, the testaments of the apostles, human nature and natural law to tell us all this. The alternative is the mob, and the mob is a thing of the Devil. See the French Revolution.

The Roman Emperors are a good example. They were evil rulers, like virtually all temporal rulers of that time or indeed of any time, but they were legitimate rulers over those territories that acknowledged their rule.

The fact that a ruler is a sinner doesn’t disqualify his reign. If it did there would be no legitimate secular authority in the world. Now, sometimes the State may order things it has no right to order, like telling people to do something sinful. In that case one would have no obligation to obey, but indeed would have an obligation to refuse to obey, because civil authority is subsidiary to God’s authority and civil law to natural law.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think it binds under pain of mortal sin since one has called upon God to witness it. The pope then can release one from the moral obligation.

Interesting, but even if the Pope can take away a sort of additional ecclesiastical penalty attached to violating your oaths there remains the civil illegality of breaking the oath, and the immorality of breaking the civil law.