Revolutionary War: Justified?

[DixiesFinest]

LOL someone might wrongly point out that you mean the “Civil War” and wrongly say that the south went to war to “preserve slavery” so, no it was not justified.

All I can say is that the south’s war for independence is as likely justified as the war for American independence, since the south appealed to the same prinicipals as their revolutionary forefathers.

Someone might also reveal an incredible ignorance and bias for history …how unfortunate…

 

[Bennie_P]

Someone might also reveal an incredible ignorance and bias for history …how unfortunate…

One thing I know I had two ancestors that were living peacefully on the Virginia frontier and they were pushed into a war started by greedy business men and rich farmers to fight in the “first” war of “independance”. After the war being finding themselves new citizens in a new country, they moved a little further into the mountains, then a few decades later thier descendants got roped into fighting in the “second” war of “independance” and when they got home, the one out three that lived, he find himself in a new state. All they wanted to do is farm, hunt and raise kids.

I moved a lot futher west, I not looking for another “war of independance”, but I find myself in a self-centered culture war that seems to me centered on those same ideas that started back in 1776.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One thing I know I had two ancestors that were living peacefully on the Virginia frontier and they were pushed into a war started by greedy business men and rich farmers to fight in the “first” war of “independance”. After the war being finding themselves new citizens in a new country, they moved a little further into the mountains, then a few decades later thier descendants got roped into fighting in the “second” war of “independance” and when they got home, the one out three that lived, he find himself in a new state. All they wanted to do is farm, hunt and raise kids.

I moved a lot futher west, I not looking for another “war of independance”, but I find myself in a self-centered culture war that seems to me centered on those same ideas that started back in 1776.

I have seen it all now!

In a discussion on Iraq, someone always says, “My brother (uncle, cousin, sister-in-law) just got back from Iraq and he disagrees with you.” So I invite that brother (uncle, cousin, sister-in-law) to log on and tell his own story, but no show.

In a discussion on security in prisons, someone always says, “My brother (uncle, cousin, sister-in-law) is a prison guard and he disagrees with you.” So I invite that brother (uncle, cousin, sister-in-law) to log on and tell his own story, but no show.

In discussions on poverty, education, and so on, someone always says, “My brother (uncle, cousin, sister-in-law) is a social worker, educator, professor of whatever, and he disagrees with you.” So I invite that brother (uncle, cousin, sister-in-law) to log on and tell his own story, but no show.

But this is the first time someone has told us his ancestor who lived over 200 years ago disagrees with us!

BTW - did your ancestor live in Greenbriar County, in the Anthony’s Creek district? Have him say “Howdy” to Samuel Humphrey and wife, Grizzela for me.

 

[Bennie_P]

But this is the first time someone has told us his ancestor who lived over 200 years ago disagrees with us!

BTW - did your ancestor live in Greenbriar County, in the Anthony’s Creek district? Have him say “Howdy” to Samuel Humphrey and wife, Grizzela for me.

Don’t take it wrong I’m all American, and proud that I have ancestors that fought for this country from its beginning and my descendants probably will too. I don’t know if they disagree with you or not, but I think my ancestors would be shocked to see today’s culture in America.

My ancestors were from Orange County Va then moved south west to the Pipe Stem Area of WV, Indian Ridge - Mercy and Summers County. During the Civil War I had ancestors that fought on both sides of the conflict. My great, great, great-grandfather had a cousin that died in Andersonville, while he was a POW at Fort Delaware, they both had the same name.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t take it wrong I’m all American, and proud that I have ancestors that fought for this country from its beginning and my descendants probaly will too. But I think my ancestors would be shocked to see today’s culture in America.

My ancestors were from Orange County Va then moved south west to the Pipe Stem Area of WV, Indian Ridge - Mercy and Summers County. During the Civil War I had ancestors that fought on both sides of the conflict. My great, great, great-grandfather had a cousin that died in Andersonville, while he was a POW at Fort Delaware, they both had the same name.

So have them log on and tell us their side of the story.

 

[Nevarlander]

So have them log on and tell us their side of the story.

Um, vern… they’re dead. They fought in the Civil War.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Um, vern… they’re dead. They fought in the Civil War.

Um, Nevarlander, that’s the point. Citing the opinions of sources who are dead or don’t exist is kind of like, well, you know, not kosher.

 

[Bennie_P]

Um, Nevarlander, that’s the point. Citing the opinions of sources who are dead or don’t exist is kind of like, well, you know, not kosher.

Isn’t that what we are trying to do here? Like I hear so many talk about how this or that founding father intent was on this issue or that issue? When in reality we are just interjecting our personal ideas and beliefs into past events?:ehh:

 

[vern_humphrey]

Isn’t that what we are trying to do here? Like I hear so many talk about how this or that founding father intent was on this issue or that issue? When in reality we are just interjecting our personal ideas and beliefs into past events?:ehh:

When we talk about the Founding Fathers, we can back it up with their published writings and fully attested historical acts. And those who attempt to falsely inject their personal ideas and beliefs can be challenged to provide documentary evidence.

But Great-great-great-great-aunt Tilly didn’t leave any published writings, nor is her life documented in history. She may not even exist.

So we cannot cite her as an authority in serious debate.

 

[Bennie_P]

When we talk about the Founding Fathers, we can back it up with their published writings and fully attested historical acts. And those who attempt to falsely inject their personal ideas and beliefs can be challenged to provide documentary evidence.

But Great-great-great-great-aunt Tilly didn’t leave any published writings, nor is her life documented in history. She may not even exist.

So we cannot cite her as an authority in serious debate.

Is that what is really going here, a serious debate? I’m yet to hear how the revolutionary war was justified based on the Just War Theory. there has been a lot patriotic flag waving, about how great this nation is, but was the war justified under the Just War Theory? That is was it really necessary? Could the differences been worked out, or did our founding fathers even want to work it out? or was thier motivation mainly grounded in economics?

 

[Bennie_P]

Given English “treatment” of Catholics in the United Kingdom and occupied (for centuries) Ireland, England’s harrasment of Spanish shipping and commerce in the New World, English attacks and conquest of New France, I would say any rebellion against the English monarchy was justified.

Remember that Aquinas’ Just War Theory cannot be applied to all situations for all time - Pope Benedict XV was stridently against World War I, but one of the results of that was was the recreation of the nation of Poland, which had been partitioned for 123 years.

Being from Loyalist Ontario, where the Crown is the backdrop for all 400-series highways, rebellion against Mother England may still seem extreme, but not to us.

The Founding Fathers were not perfect men, or perfect Christians for that matter. However, they did produce some excellent documents which laid the foundation for our nation.

These are the same documents which are now being used to suppress the freedom of speech of the Church against the Church which were suppose to protect the freedom of religion and speech. and the same documents that are being used to justify legalized murder of the unborn - the use of the word “excellent” is overstated don’t you think?

Though England was an imperfect nation and had a lunatic for a King, England outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and abolished it completely by August, 1st, 1834, more then 30 years before it was abolished in the United States.

Then of course in 1803 the United States purchased from France the Louisanna Purchase, helping a defiant anti-clergy France continue thier war against England.

Is Just War to take in all the consequences resulting from a war, in order to be considered Just? If so I don’t see how the Revolutionary War can be, in hind sight, considered just.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Ferrara is a “rad trad”…

ad-hominem - I’d rather see you critique what he wrote in the article than just label him a “rad-trad” and pass over it all. He raises some interesting points. And “rad-trad” or not, he is a fellow Catholic, and hence, deserves a little better than that, eh?

…who would like to see a Catholic monarchy established. No, thanks.

Does sound crazy to modern ears (and a side issue to the question of whether the Revolutionary War of the U.S. was just or unjust). But to examine it for a moment, let’s go back and look was the Church has taught about the prevailing current form of government in the West. Pope Leo XIII’s Libertas written in 1888 is very, very interesting (and prophetic)…15. …The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. … The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. … But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. …
16. Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption…
18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments…

(Libertas, Pope Leo XIII, June 20, 1888) I found paragraphs 15-22 really interesting in Libertas. At first, it’s kind of a shock to the system - but then it makes so much darn sense!

Ever wonder how in the world this country - “the Greatest Country on Earth” - can justify the slaughter of millions of innocents in the womb (among other things)? There may just be a fatal flaw in the philosophy it is founded upon. Worth thinking about anyway.

…It wasn’t just then-Catholic France who assisted the Americans. It was Spain as well. Spain battled the British in the Carribbean and kicked the British out of the Mississippi Valley. In the Treaty of Paris, Spain regained Florida, which she lost to the British in 1763. Spain later sold Florida to the USA in 1821.

I’m no history expert, so can’t really comment on the political alliances you speak of here - but the first thought that comes to mind is the old saying - “An ememy of my enemy is my friend”. Can work against you in the long run.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Zooey]

Just to make this interesting…

how many feel that the War for Southern Independence was justified?

Well, I do! The sovereign state of Virginia was invaded by the Northern army, for economic reasons. The North could not afford to let the South go; the South provided the raw products for the mills & factories of the North.
And before someone says the War was about slavery, it was not any such thing. There were plenty of slaveholders in the North, not the least being one Ulysses Grant. (Whose wife, Julia, refused freedom to her slaves, even after a constitutional amendment ordered it!).

LOL someone might wrongly point out that you mean the “Civil War” and wrongly say that the south went to war to “preserve slavery” so, no it was not justified.

But the War had nothing to do with slavery; that became a topic only when the North found itself trying to defend itself against the (perfectly true!) charge, that Washington DC was behaving an awful like the British of the century before.

All I can say is that the south’s war for independence is as likely justified as the war for American independence, since the south appealed to the same prinicipals as their revolutionary forefathers.

Same principals, same problems. The only difference being, of course, that the right side won in the 18th C, and the wrong side won in the 19th C.

Is that what is really going here, a serious debate?

Yes.

I’m yet to hear how the revolutionary war was justified based on the Just War Theory.

Back up, & re-read my posts.

there has been a lot patriotic flag waving, about how great this nation is, but was the war justified under the Just War Theory? That is was it really necessary?

Yes, it was. See my previous posts. We were, as it happens, invaded by violent foreigners, whose only reason for trying to hang on to us, was $$$$$!!

Could the differences been worked out, or did our founding fathers even want to work it out?

The Founding Fathers did everything possible to work things out, in an equitable manner. America did not want a Revolution; we wanted to be treated as human beings, not the contents of a safety deposit box.
England was having any; she was too busy planning what to tax next, in order to fill her pockets at our expense. (Did you know that the reason many old homes are so dark, is that England taxed Americans for every door & window in a building? We couldn’t afford windows any more. How would you like to live through a New England winter with only oiled paper & old rags blocking the snow & cold out? Because the alternative was to lose your house to the gov’t in London?? Or to swelter in airless rooms in Georgia in August, because the only way to keep your home, was to take out the windows, brick the openings, & turn the glass panes in, to the British tax collector, as proof that you weren’t using them??

or was thier motivation mainly grounded in economics?

Our motive was self preservation, and our own safety from ruthless & violent attacks by rovings bands of Yahoos in red coats.
The motive of the British was, most definitely, $$$$$$. You want to ask anybody about an Unjust War, I suggest asking it of the folks on the ***east ***side of the Pond. Money, money, money, money,money…
We were fighting in defense of our homes, our families, & our lives. What was England’s excuse???

 

[Proletarian]

Is that what is really going here, a serious debate? I’m yet to hear how the revolutionary war was justified based on the Just War Theory. there has been a lot patriotic flag waving, about how great this nation is, but was the war justified under the Just War Theory? That is was it really necessary? Could the differences been worked out, or did our founding fathers even want to work it out? or was thier motivation mainly grounded in economics?

CCC 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

Over taxation may lead to considerable, evils especially when done in a way that deprives a community of enough resources to survive. However British taxation of the American colonies was relatively minor; with many of your founding Fathers stating that it was the fact that this taxation was “without representation” that was offensive, rather than the taxation itself.

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

The majority of British colonies were able to gain independence without the use of arms.

• there must be serious prospects of success;

Granted; based on the nature of the conflict there was a real chance of success on the part of the continental forces.

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

What’s worse; over taxation, or a war that claimed thousands of lives? “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (Timothy 6:10) Love of money drove these people to war.

 

[a_priori]

LOL someone might wrongly point out that you mean the “Civil War” and wrongly say that the south went to war to “preserve slavery” so, no it was not justified.

All I can say is that the south’s war for independence is as likely justified as the war for American independence, since the south appealed to the same prinicipals as their revolutionary forefathers.

The Revolutionary War began because a group of people wanted to have their own way.

The Civil War/South’s War for Independence/War Between The States also began because a group of people wanted to have their own way and didn’t want someone else telling them what to do. Fine. No problem. Perfectly understandable concept. But to make the case that slavery wasn’t a major factor in them wanting their own way is, well, simply wrong.

The whole concept is almost Darwinian. People leave England and take land from the Native Americans because apparently God likes Europeans better. They (we) don’t like being told what to do by the King (and again God likes us better) so we jettison him.

Then we absorb the better part of a continent through Manifest Destiny because God gave it to us, apparently at the expense of its indigenous people. Fine. That’s life. The guy with the best military technology and the philosophical framework that enables him to apply it, wins.

The whole discussion is more about the simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand exercise of power rather than justice in the form of a “just war” concept… But it’s ok. People have been doing this since there have been people.

I love America. My people came in 1632 and were part of starting the whole thing. This is a great country and I’m glad to be here. But we should be honest about how we got here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is that what is really going here, a serious debate?

I’m serious. If you say you’re not, I’ll take you at your word.

I’m yet to hear how the revolutionary war was justified based on the Just War Theory.

If you were debating seriously, that would have already been plain to you.

there has been a lot patriotic flag waving, about how great this nation is, but was the war justified under the Just War Theory? That is was it really necessary? Could the differences been worked out, or did our founding fathers even want to work it out?

Read the Declaration of Independence – which sets forth the case clearly. But read it seriously.

or was thier motivation mainly grounded in economics?

The economic exploitation of a nation is grounds for war – unless you can live on air.

 

[a_priori]

LOL someone might wrongly point out that you mean the “Civil War” and wrongly say that the south went to war to “preserve slavery” so, no it was not justified.

All I can say is that the south’s war for independence is as likely justified as the war for American independence, since the south appealed to the same prinicipals as their revolutionary forefathers.

The Revolutionary War was fought because some people didn’t want to be told what to do by some other people.

The War Between The States/The South’s War For Independence/Civil War was fought because some people didn’t want to be told what to do by some other people. Fine. No Problem. Perfectly understandable.

But anyone who suggests that slavery wasn’t a major problem in the “don’t tell us what to do” equation is on shaky ground.

 

[DixiesFinest]

The Revolutionary War was fought because some people didn’t want to be told what to do by some other people.

The War Between The States/The South’s War For Independence/Civil War was fought because some people didn’t want to be told what to do by some other people. Fine. No Problem. Perfectly understandable.

But anyone who suggests that slavery wasn’t a major problem in the “don’t tell us what to do” equation is on shaky ground.

Slavery was a large problem in the “dont tell us what to do” debate…however, it was not the reason we went to war

 

[Bennie_P]

The economic exploitation of a nation is grounds for war – unless you can live on air.

The colonies was part of a nation that was doing the so-called “exploitation” AKA “taxes” which were minimal and implemented to pay for the cost of defending the colonies against the French in the French/Indian wars. We would be so lucky to have such “high” taxes today.

When we talk about the Founding Fathers, we can back it up with their published writings and fully attested historical acts. And those who attempt to falsely inject their personal ideas and beliefs can be challenged to provide documentary evidence.

But Great-great-great-great-aunt Tilly didn’t leave any published writings, nor is her life documented in history. She may not even exist.

So we cannot cite her as an authority in serious debate…

I didn’t cite your Aunt Tilly, nor my ancestors. I just expressed how the different wars affected my family and its history and I pretty much can know that my fore-fathers were only subsistence farmers which lived in the wilderness, the known frontier of the time,(I do have documents on that) and whom didn’t have much of a say, nor a choice about the revolutionary war, nor the civil war, but just got caught up in them because of some greedy business men, plantation owners and self-proclaimed liberators. They, my ancestors, were not politicians, nor the educated, nor the wealthy, but they were the willing canon fodder for an unnecessary and unjustifiable war.
My family history is not something I made up, to justify my argument, unlike the made up injustices sighted by our founding fathers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The colonies was part of a nation that was doing the so-called “exploitation” AKA “taxes” which were minimal and implemented to pay for the cost of defending the colonies against the French in the French/Indian wars. We would be so lucky to have such “high” taxes today.

Care to back this claim up with some actual facts or is this just something that you have been told in your family?

What was the actual rate of taxes as compared to the actual income at the time?

Part of the issue also goes to the fact that some of the taxes levied by the British government where on non-British imports of which they included things from the colonies in.