Revolutionary War: Justified?

[Bennie_P]

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.

I wish I could find some kind of actually rates, but that is hard, because it boils down to commerce, and not income, nor sales tax which the average American today is burden with. But many of the colonist traders finding themselves very rich at one point, over extended themselves with debt (speculation of trade) based on thier earlier success, then they (colonist traders) passed the cost of thier debt on to the lower classes. Then when England found herself over taxed at home due to the cost of French/Indian Wars and tried to ease some of that burden by placing modest taxes/duties on to the colonist whom benefited from the protection of the crown, physical and in international trade/shipping. The rebellion was spurned on by the refusal of the businessman/traders/merchants to take responsibilty for thier own indebtness and to take the cut in profits that go with the ups and downs in trade.

None of this tax was an actually tax on the individual in the same way today’s tax burden falls upon the individual which is the average working American and not so much on the large business and traders.

During the Stamp Act debate, many colonial commentators, including Ben Franklin, had attempted to delineate the spheres of influence between Parliament and local legislatures by distinguishing “external” from “internal” taxation. This distinction
collapsed once the colonists realized that Townshend’s “external” taxes on imports, rather than regulating commerce, strove to raise revenue much like the “internal” Stamp Act had. The fact that the duties imposed were moderate did not mollify the critics.

tax.org/Museum/1756-1776.htm

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I wish I could find some kind of actually rates, but that is hard, because it boils down to commerce, and not income, nor sales tax which the average American today is burden with.%between%

So the answer is that you have no facts to back up what you are saying here.

And yes they were taxed in Britain, but they had a say in those taxes. The people in the colonies had no say and not only that but they were taxed as non-Britains.

 

[didymus]

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.

I don’t know about Freemason but it was definitely an anti-Catholic thing. Our Founders hated “popery” and they were loyal to the Crown as long as they needed its protection from the Catholic empires to their north (France), west and south (Spain). After the Seven Year’s War the Brits actually made some sacrifices at the negotiating table to make sure their American subjects would be safe, then the ungrateful ratfinks didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes to pay for a war fought (at least in part) for their protection.

Then they got ticked off by the Quebec Act which gave French Catholics equal rights as British subjects (horrors!). Then there were rumors that H.M. was going to create C of E dioceses for the colonies and appoint bishops and they freaked out – you would have thought the Pope himself was going to take up residence in Philadelphia or Boston or Charleston.

Then, finally, they looked around and there were no foreign threats on the horizon so what did they need the King for? Let’s declare independence!

No, the Revolution wasn’t justified under the Church teaching – but I’m glad the traitors did it.

Wait! They won! That makes the traitors heroes and Founding Fathers!

 

[JW10631]

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?

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)…(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.

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

Dear Dustin’s Dad,

I avoided Ferrara’s column on purpose. My reasons are that I have read Ferrara’s writings in Latin Mass magazine and have found him to be supremely arrogant and I disagree with Ferrara about EWTN. I don’t see Ferrara starting a Catholic television network that suits his point of view, just criticizing someone else’s work.

I disagree that I made an “ad hominem” attack on Ferrara. I detest the idea of a monarchy and I think anyone who wants one is nuts.

So Pope Leo didn’t like the prevailing form of Government in the West. I don’t like monarchies, especially the British Monarchy that stuck its nose in the business of every corner of the world for centuries, harassed, tormented and even outlawed the Catholic Church for centuries. Bah.

Would Pope Leo have preferred the Tsar of Russia?
Or what succeeded it? Monarchies in Europe were always getting entangled in wars.

I don’t claim our form of government is perfect. The abortion debate is a side bar - an overstepping of bounds by the Supreme Court, which has become a legislative body in its own right thanks to those people who despise religion.

Great Britain ended slavery before the United States, but it sure didn’t bother Great Britain too much to establish it here when the US were still British colonies. The English aristocracy in the South sure did make use of that slave labor when the Union Jack flew on these shores.

 

[a_priori]

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

There’s no way to know, but a reasonable person might argue that if there had been the continued, total acceptance of slavery across the board in the country at the time, there would have been no war.

The concept of a just war in the American context is a little weird to me anyway. It’s all very Darwinian in the first place. Was it “just” for Europeans to come to America and kill native Americans while wresting their land from them?

Any people who have superior military technology and a philosophical frame of mind that allows them to apply it in order to improve their position, will do so. It has happened since there have been people.

They repelled the British because they wanted their own way. Makes perfect sense. I’m glad they did because I now live in a great country. Was it “just”? I don’t even know what that ultimately means. The whole concept seems starkly utilitarian in this context.

 

[DustinsDad]

…I avoided Ferrara’s column on purpose.

Then it would have been best not to comment on it my friend. .

…I disagree that I made an “ad hominem” attack on Ferrara. I detest the idea of a monarchy and I think anyone who wants one is nuts.

If you’d have read the article, you would have noticed no call for a monarchy - but the argument that the Revolutionary War was a philosophical one at heart and not one about merely “taxation without representation.”

…So Pope Leo didn’t like the prevailing form of Government in the West. I don’t like monarchies, especially the British Monarchy that stuck its nose in the business of every corner of the world for centuries, harassed, tormented and even outlawed the Catholic Church for centuries.

I don’t think the pope’s writings had anything to do with “liking” a particular form of government…the warnings/critiques were theological in nature and go the very philosophical foundation of the secular republic. We are raised with this notion that the secular government - complete seperation of church and state - majority rule governments we live in are some kind of divinely established form, and that the Consitition is divinely inspired perfection…it’s a hard notion to break, even to ponder it is uncomfortable.

…Monarchies in Europe were always getting entangled in wars.

Were they anything like what we see today, what we saw in the last century? Was there anything like the holocaust of abortion or the mass loss of the faith or morality in that world? Think about it. It’s pretty deep, but think about it.

I don’t claim our form of government is perfect. The abortion debate is a side bar - an overstepping of bounds by the Supreme Court, which has become a legislative body in its own right thanks to those people who despise religion.

But in a majority rule secualar government, abortion* can* exist, precisely because the majority accept it and the majority determines “truth” in this society. And there’s nothing you can do about it but try to convince the majority their wrong - while the slaughter continues and continues and continues.

I’d write more, but I gotta go to Mass.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Nevarlander]

Just stirring the pot again.

1. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t see what the purpose of this argument is - America’s a fait accompli, and it’s probably going to be here for a while. If you really think America is founded on unjust principles and care about it as much as some of the people here seem to, I’d suggest moving to England, our mother country, or if you want a working monarchy, to Nepal.
   It’s like with the people who think the US government set up 9/11 - why would you want to live under people responsible for such horrible things?
2. For monarchists, and I know we’ve had one or two post in this thread - what kind of monarchy would you want set up in the place of what we have in America? I think that the system we have guarantees a safe mediocrity, while most forms of monarchy either near-Paradise or horrors of the epic variety. Thoughts?

(And I don’t argue in this thread because I believe in non-rational knowledge and my beliefs about the American system fall under that category. Some people who’ve posted in here would refuse to engage on those grounds.)

 

[a_priori]

Just stirring the pot again.

1. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t see what the purpose of this argument is - America’s a fait accompli, and it’s probably going to be here for a while. If you really think America is founded on unjust principles…

(And I don’t argue in this thread because I believe in non-rational knowledge and my beliefs about the American system fall under that category. Some people who’ve posted in here would refuse to engage on those grounds.)

Maybe you could define and perhaps expand on “unjust principles” with respect to “non-rational knowledge” so that those of us who aren’t following your thinking can do so?

 

[Nevarlander]

I can try. I argue more for the American Revolution being justified because the arguments against it just “feel” wrong. And there are those who, in this thread, have stated that they believe America is founded on all sorts of unjust principles (a revolution fought out of greed, a Constitution founded on Freemason beliefs, etc). If you live in a nation whose beginnings are based on that, why would you live there if you believe they’re wrong?

 

[a_priori]

I can try. I argue more for the American Revolution being justified because the arguments against it just “feel” wrong. And there are those who, in this thread, have stated that they believe America is founded on all sorts of unjust principles (a revolution fought out of greed, a Constitution founded on Freemason beliefs, etc). If you live in a nation whose beginnings are based on that, why would you live there if you believe they’re wrong?

I think I understand. It’s probably fair to say that most societies have been established at someone’s political/economic expense. We who are alive now had nothing to do with how we got here. Since presumably the sins of the political fathers are not visited on the sons, we should accept where we are and go from here.

I just think in an objective sense, one man’s noble cause can be the destruction of another man’s entire way of life. I’m just not certain about what the concept of a “just cause” is in a metaphysical sense and how we know we seem to always be the good guys.

But I am thankful to be an American.

Thanks for your clarification.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One who denies the American Revloution was a just war need only read the Declaration of Independence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When I attended British and Scottish schools in Egypt, I was treated to history lessons from the British point of view. At one point the teacher told us the Americans were wrong – because the British were only trying to get the Americans to “pay their share” of the Seven Years War.

At that point, something inspired me to say, “You got Canada and India as booty. They were worth a million times more than you spent. What more did you want?”

And I never heard another word about how the Americans “owed” the British.

 

[a_priori]

One who denies the American Revloution was a just war need only read the Declaration of Independence.

I think that’s fair. I don’t weep for the British. They had it coming. My discomfort is with the way Native Americans were treated and, by extension, the overall concept of justice. But I guess that wasn’t the OP’s question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think that’s fair. I don’t weep for the British. They had it coming. My discomfort is with the way Native Americans were treated and, by extension, the overall concept of justice. But I guess that wasn’t the OP’s question.

Yes, Indians were treated badly – but they were treated badly before the Revolution, too.

 

[a_priori]

Yes, Indians were treated badly – but they were treated badly before the Revolution, too.

I certainly agree. Our emergence into a nation occurred along a continuum fraught with moral highs and lows. Along this continuum there have been some very utilitarian actions taken under the guise of “just causes” that may or may not withstand the sniff test.

But yes, the Revolution had to happen.

 

[Zooey]

One who denies the American Revloution was a just war need only read the Declaration of Independence.

When I attended British and Scottish schools in Egypt, I was treated to history lessons from the British point of view. At one point the teacher told us the Americans were wrong – because the British were only trying to get the Americans to “pay their share” of the Seven Years War.

At that point, something inspired me to say, “You got Canada and India as booty. They were worth a million times more than you spent. What more did you want?”

And I never heard another word about how the Americans “owed” the British.

Good for you, Vern!! I have noticed again, & again, that there are so many people willing to cry foul on us Americans, whose entire knowledge of this country’s history, is based on British schoolbooks. What were they expecting the British to do? Write the truth about the way they treated their colonies?
We had no choice, but to throw them out. It was necessary to our survival. We were nothing to them but a cash cow, & they were furious when we refused to cooperate in our own inevitable destruction at their hands.
We fought, at times, with pikes instead of guns, and with no shoes or boots on our feet. But we fought back!! Unlike any other people that they ever had known before, the Americans whom the British so despised, fought back. We turned the tide of history against them.
The world has never been the same. Wherever free men breathe free air, they need to stop, now & again, & thank the men who stood their ground against the forces of tyranny.
God bless them, every one of them.
http://bestsmileys.com/usa1/13.gif

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

anti-Catholic Freemasons rebelling against a lawful (albeit protestant) monarchy to create a secular and nationalistic republic just doesnt seem right.

the problem with this is that most of the founding fathers were totally against nationalism. i see the grounds for this war as an excellent example of the catholic doctrine of subsidarity. things should be taken care of at the lowest level.

the colonies were originally mostly of english decent but they had different faiths. you had puritans in new england who kicked out the quakers. it was a war over self rule and autonomy. these faiths didn’t get along and compromised with religious liberty.

i find it funny how much we’ve changed. now were governed by big buisness and big government. the civil war for the north was unjust in my opinion because it was over nationalism. i think it can be rightly defined as the war of northern aggresion.

the revolutionary war was fought aganist nationalism. it can be seen as just because the english didn’t respect the colonies right to self rule.

 

[boppaid]

Being familiar with the fate of Ireland, a nation completely under England’s control, I find it hard to think that we would be better off had we not declared our independence.

I agree with you that we are better off after we declared our independence. That being said, I still don’t believe it fit the criteria the Church gives for a “just war”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree with you that we are better off after we declared our independence. That being said, I still don’t believe it fit the criteria the Church gives for a “just war”.

Read the Declaration of Independence. There is a detailed justification of the War.

 

[avflf]

On a lighter note …

George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended
(God be praised!) the Georges ended.

Walter Savage Landor (1775 -1864)