Revolutionary War: Justified?

[DustinsDad]

In honor of Independance day, I pose the question:

Was the Revolutionary War a just war according to the Just War Theory?

 

[Blackbog]

For reference:

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;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[Caesar]

In honor of Independance day, I pose the question:

Was the Revolutionary War a just war according to the Just War Theory?

Yes.

No.

I dont know much about your American Revotution, but something about anti-Catholic Freemasons rebelling against a lawful (albeit protestant) monarchy to create a secular and nationalistic republic just doesnt seem right.

 

[Catholig]

I dont know much about your American Revotution, but something about anti-Catholic Freemasons rebelling against a lawful (albeit protestant) monarchy to create a secular and nationalistic republic just doesnt seem right.

Well I don’t know. I’ve heard a lot of stuff on this forum saying that the American Government is all wrong and that a Catholic Monarchy is the only way to go - and I am uncertain if I agree with this.

One reason - as I articulate earlier today is that unlike JWs or other Cults the Catholic Church and Catholic Schools foster good morals and national pride. They develope the students to be good Americans.

I’m not saying that the United States doesn’t have problems or is the best nation on earth however I don’t think that the ideas on which the US was founded are entirely opposed to our Catholic faith. In fact there is a theory that they were actually infulenced by Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine and Thomas Aquinas to boot.

Catholig

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You touch on an irony, Caesar, esp. for our fundamentalist evangelical brethren: by and large, the Founding Fathers were masonic Deists, not the orthodox Christians they’re made out to be.

An interesting question came to my mind: COULD we call the monarchy of George III at that state legal in the eyes of the Church? When did Henry Bendedict Cardinal Stuart die? I’ll look that up really quick.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Whoops, never mind. The papacy recongnized the Hanoverian line in 1766, though the Cardinal did not die until 1807.

 

[Caesar]

One reason - as I articulate earlier today is that unlike JWs or other Cults the Catholic Church and Catholic Schools foster good morals and national pride. They develope the students to be good Americans.

That is good, but I must say (as a student myself) that I would much rather the Catholic schools develop good Catholics.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t think “just war” is the right doctrine exactly. This has more to do with rebellion against a tyrant (which is what they argued George III was).

What does St. Thomas Aquinas say about regicide/sedition/etc. and when it is lawful (I’ve read it at some point, but I can’t remember )?

 

[Icarus210]

According to Cobbett (History of the Reformation) a big influence was that England wanted the fledgling US to pay the horrific interest bills the Jews demanded through the new Bank of England when Henry V111 and Eliz 1 (I think) agreed to selling the estates she had stolen of the catholic church to the “new” bishops.

 

[Nevarlander]

I dont know much about your American Revotution, but something about anti-Catholic Freemasons rebelling against a lawful (albeit protestant) monarchy to create a secular and nationalistic republic just doesnt seem right.

You be quiet, you’re Canadian.
And it wasn’t an “anti-Catholic Freemason” thing, it was Protestants against Protestants.
Personally I don’t think it was a prudent war, because the problems could have been solved much better, but there’s no use emo-ing about it now, America’s here and it doesn’t look to be going away.

 

[Catholig]

You be quiet, you’re Canadian.
And it wasn’t an “anti-Catholic Freemason” thing, it was Protestants against Protestants.
Personally I don’t think it was a prudent war, because the problems could have been solved much better, but there’s no use emo-ing about it now, America’s here and it doesn’t look to be going away.

Well one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was Roman Catholic.

Catholig

 

[CatholicNick]

…John Adams, one of the founders of American Independence wrote the following to his wife Abigail about a trip to a Catholic Church:

This afternoon, led by curiosity and good company, I
strolled away to mother church, or rather to grandmother
church. I mean the Romish chapel. I heard a good,
short moral essay upon the duty of parents to their children,
founded in justice and charity, to take care of their
interests, temporal and spiritual. This afternoon's entertainment
was to me most awful and affecting ; the poor
wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin not a word of
which they understood ; their pater nosters and ave
Marias ; their holy water ; their crossing themselves perpetually;
their bowing to the name of Jesus, whenever
they hear it; their bowings and kneelings and genuflections
before the altar. The dress of the priest was rich
with lace. His pulpit was velvet and gold. The altar-
piece was very rich; little images and crucifixes about;
wax candles lighted up. But how shall I describe the picture
of our Saviour in a frame of marble over the altar,
at full length, upon the cross in the agonies, and the blood
dropping and streaming from his wounds! The music,
consisting of an organ and a choir of singers, went all the
afternoon except sermon time. And the assembly chanted
most sweetly and exquisitely.
Here is everything which can lay hold of the eye, ear,
and imagination — everything which can charm and bewitch
the simple and ignorant. I wonder how Luther
ever broke the spell. Adieu
-John Adams, letter #47 to Abigail

From athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/07/american-revolution-in-perspective.html

Good essay/blog post on the revolution, by an American.

 

[Zooey]

An interesting question came to my mind: COULD we call the monarchy of George III at that state legal in the eyes of the Church? When did Henry Bendedict Cardinal Stuart die? I’ll look that up really quick.

Whoops, never mind. The papacy recongnized the Hanoverian line in 1766, though the Cardinal did not die until 1807.

(ahem!! cough, cough) Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart was the last true king of England. I have no idea where your information comes from, but the fact is, that the pope was the one who gave the king sanctuary in the Vatican States, at a time when the Electors of Hanover were still seeking to take him prisoner.
It is somewhat difficult to “rebel” against the Elector of Hanover George, since he was never a king at all!! Moeover, even if he had been king, the extreme cruel offenses against the lives & the basic human rights of all Americans, which were carried on by the representatives of said Elector of Hanover, were such that they more than justified the Revolution: they positively demanded it!!
The American Revolution was the perfect epitome of a just war; it might be said to define the term.
George the 3rd, so-called, had about as much right to the throne of England as** I** do. He had no rights in America. None. Not. One. Right. In. The. World.
[SIGN]
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/5.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/15.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/17.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/18.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa2/6.gif
[/SIGN]

 

[JKirkLVNV]

(ahem!! cough, cough) Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart was the last true king of England. I have no idea where your information comes from, but the fact is, that the pope was the one who gave the king sanctuary in the Vatican States, at a time when the Electors of Hanover were still seeking to take him prisoner.
It is somewhat difficult to “rebel” against the Elector of Hanover George, since he was never a king at all!! Moeover, even if he had been king, the extreme cruel offenses against the lives & the basic human rights of all Americans, which were carried on by the representatives of said Elector of Hanover, were such that they more than justified the Revolution: they positively demanded it!!
The American Revolution was the perfect epitome of a just war; it might be said to define the term.
George the 3rd, so-called, had about as much right to the throne of England as** I** do. He had no rights in America. None. Not. One. Right. In. The. World.
[sign]
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/5.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/15.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/17.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/18.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/usa2/6.gif
[/sign]

I don’t know if you have your tongue in your cheek or not, but my information came from Wikipedia. You’re free to examine the citation. It’s under Henry Benedict Stuart. Are you saying that in 1766 the Pope did NOT recognize the Hanoverians? I’d be interested in your citation.

Also, the Cardinal was actually BORN in Rome, he didn’t flee there. He was baptized on the day he was born by Pope Benedict XIII.

 

[sneakers]

I dont know much about your American Revotution, but something about anti-Catholic Freemasons rebelling against a lawful (albeit protestant) monarchy to create a secular and nationalistic republic just doesnt seem right.

The Crown treated it’s Colonies like, let’s just call it, an “illegitimate child”. The colonists were happy as British subjects until the King started the outrageous taxation. That money helped to pay old debts from the French and Indian war, but also paid for much that had nothing to do with the colonies - money that made England richer but did not benefit the colonies from which it was collected. The Founding Fathers came together to address this and try to work it out by many peaceful means, but the situation just got worse.
Eventually, the crown sent soldiers to Massachusetts, where they set themselves up in peoples homes, and took away rights they already had. It became an unbearable situation. The Americans had already had a hundred and fifty years of freedom and self-determination. It was not wise for the King for force his arm against them.

As to the “secular and nationalist republic”. We had already become an accepting society where all religions were accepted. The Founders were of many faiths - including Catholic. Our rule of law is based on Judeo-Christian law, and our First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion. Unlike England, where the Church of England was the state religion. Nationalistic? Yes. That “nationalism” is what helps to keep us strong and free - and that’s a thing worth fighting for - if we can only hold on to it. De Toqueville said “America will cease to be great when she ceases to be good”. I just hope we keep that in mind. We have started to slip!! And yes we are a Republic - not a Democracy, and not a Monarchy, for which I am forever thankful. We should neither be ruled by the “tyranny of the masses”, nor by one human who thinks he (or she) has the right to dole out our rights at their pleasure.

It was time for a break from England.

Oh! My husband is a Canadian too. He’s been here long enough to understand what we Americans are all about and -you know what? -he understands a lot better now, and he looks forward to our big4th of July birthday party every year as much as I do. In fact, he’s as much a patriot as I am! LOL!! In fact, he’s also a Catholic now - and he loves that as well! In fact, his parents live here too and they went from a somewhat of an anti-American bias to flying an American flag in their yard. All because they understand us a lot better now. Mind you, they are still proud to be Canadian - as they should be - but they love America too. Now if I could just convince them to join the Catholic Church too… LOL!!

 

[Zooey]

I don’t know if you have your tongue in your cheek or not, but my information came from Wikipedia. You’re free to examine the citation. It’s under Henry Benedict Stuart. Are you saying that in 1766 the Pope did NOT recognize the Hanoverians? I’d be interested in your citation.

Also, the Cardinal was actually BORN in Rome, he didn’t flee there. He was baptized on the day he was born by Pope Benedict XIII.

The entire Stuart family took refuge in Rome; it was always in their minds, I would imagine, that Charles I had been beheaded…because he was Catholic!! That was the essence of the Jacobite Risings; those who recognized the lawful kings were doing so, despite the inconvenient fact that the Stuarts were Catholic. The people supporting the Hanover upstarts were staunch anti-Catholics. (They are the ones who enthroned the still-extant law that the heir to the throne of England cannot be, nor marry, a Catholic. They could be, as far as that goes, atheists, Druids, or El Qaeda’s elite; they just can’t be Catholic).

The decisions made by the pope in the 18th Century, were made, so far as I am aware, as the political head of the Vatican States, not as Pope. It was a political decision. It probably saved Stuart lives.
But this is also true: Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart’s proper title was “Your Majesty, Cardinal Stuart”…used, I would imagine, with grinded teeth by the English ambassadors.
He was, you see, the true king. In the eyes of God, he was a king.His bloodline was not negotiable by any act of parliament.** It was a fact**.
Even I would have greeted him as “Your Majesty”. Mind you, I would still have raised arms against the British. But then, you see, the rest of my blood is Irish!!

 

[Zooey]

The entire Stuart family took refuge in Rome; it was always in their minds, I would imagine, that Charles I had been beheaded…because he was Catholic!! That was the essence of the Jacobite Risings; those who recognized the lawful kings were doing so, despite the inconvenient fact that the Stuarts were Catholic. The people supporting the Hanover upstarts were staunch anti-Catholics. (They are the ones who enthroned the still-extant law that the heir to the throne of England cannot be, nor marry, a Catholic. They could be, as far as that goes, atheists, Druids, or El Qaeda’s elite; they just can’t be Catholic).

The decisions made by the pope in the 18th Century, were made, so far as I am aware, as the political head of the Vatican States, not as Pope. It was a political decision. It probably saved Stuart lives.
But this is also true: Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart’s proper title was “Your Majesty, Cardinal Stuart”…used, I would imagine, with grinded teeth by the English ambassadors.
He was, you see, the true king. In the eyes of God, he was a king.His bloodline was not negotiable by any act of parliament.** It was a fact**.
Even I would have greeted him as “Your Majesty”. Mind you, I would still have raised arms against the British. But then, you see, the rest of my blood is Irish!!

ETA: My tongue is most certainly NOT in my cheek!! The Jacobite line was the true royal family. The current lot are, so far as I can see, still a lot of usurpers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I dont know much about your American Revotution, but something about anti-Catholic Freemasons rebelling against a lawful (albeit protestant) monarchy to create a secular and nationalistic republic just doesnt seem right.

Yet nothing seems wrong with a monarchy where it is illegal to be a Catholic? That seems pretty anti-catholic to me.

 

[CatholicNick]

Yet nothing seems wrong with a monarchy where it is illegal to be a Catholic? That seems pretty anti-catholic to me.

Did you read what I posted of what one of your ‘founding fathers’ thought of Catholics and Catholicism?

Hardly pro-Catholic.

…On the other hand, the colonists neither believed in the freedom of religion, nor in the unity of faith that preserved small government in the middle ages. They numbered amongst the “Intolerable Acts”, which Britain had committed, granting the Catholic Church freedom of worship in Quebec. That the American Revolutionaries found this as intolerable as high taxation should be food for thought for any Catholic tempted to revere them. In Connecticut or Massachusetts, Catholicism was illegal until about 1830, the same time that England lifted the restrictions. If you were a Catholic traveling to those states, and it was found out, you would be kicked out, and have a “P” for papist branded on your head. They didn’t like the Society of Friends either, since they branded “Q” for Quaker on their heads as well.

To further illustrate the point, John Adams, one of the founders of American Independence wrote the following to his wife Abigail about a trip to a Catholic Church:

This afternoon, led by curiosity and good company, I
strolled away to mother church, or rather to grandmother
church. I mean the Romish chapel. I heard a good,
short moral essay upon the duty of parents to their children,
founded in justice and charity, to take care of their
interests, temporal and spiritual. This afternoon's entertainment
was to me most awful and affecting ; the poor
wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin not a word of
which they understood ; their pater nosters and ave
Marias ; their holy water ; their crossing themselves perpetually;
their bowing to the name of Jesus, whenever
they hear it; their bowings and kneelings and genuflections
before the altar. The dress of the priest was rich
with lace. His pulpit was velvet and gold. The altar-
piece was very rich; little images and crucifixes about;
wax candles lighted up. But how shall I describe the picture
of our Saviour in a frame of marble over the altar,
at full length, upon the cross in the agonies, and the blood
dropping and streaming from his wounds! The music,
consisting of an organ and a choir of singers, went all the
afternoon except sermon time. And the assembly chanted
most sweetly and exquisitely.
Here is everything which can lay hold of the eye, ear,
and imagination — everything which can charm and bewitch
the simple and ignorant. I wonder how Luther
ever broke the spell. Adieu
-John Adams, letter #47 to Abigail

From athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/07/american-revolution-in-perspective.html

 

[JW10631]

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.