Was the American Revolution a just war?

[vern_humphrey]

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear - I wasn’t suggesting that the A&S Acts had anything to do with the Revolution, but merely noting the irony of so recent a group of revolutionaries having zero tolerance for a group so much like themsevles. It’s different when you are the target of the revolution.
[/quote]

The irony is noted – and was noted at the time. But it has no revelance to the nature of the Revolutionary War.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

Who attacked who?

Did we send an army to England to attack them, or did they send an army to America to subjugate and attack us?

We were the victims. They were the ones acting illegally.

“WE” were British subjects in 1775.

And the Crown would have had a case to identify the mob leaders and put them on trial. They did not have the legal right to rescind colonial charters.

Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne gave an opportunity for the rebels to rescind their sedition with the exception of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the two ringleaders of rebellion the Generals wanted to hang.

The colonial charters were part of Parliment and were only valid as part of English law. The 13 British colonies in America were part of Great Britain, they were not a seperate nation!

Nope – the Crown acted illegally. The Crown sent an army to America. The Americans did not send an army to England.

Segments of the British Army had been in the 13 British colonies since Jamestown and increased during the French & Indian Wars, which ended in 1765, and the British Army had always remained in their British colony. Nothing illegal about it at all!

Just like the woman with tight skirt brought it on herself, eh?

The woman in the tight skirt was supposed to be England and the colonists the rapist. So England is the victim in your metaphor! The American Revolution was not just but an act of treachery!

Which makes my point – there is no justification for mass punishment.

That is a historical truism. So what’s your point?

Not to denegrate Franklin’s contribution, the defeat and destruction of Burgoyne’s army in 1777 did a lot to pursuade the French that the war was winnable.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

If you are referring to Saratoga in 1777 Burgoyne won the first battle and routed the colonial militia. It was only through General Burgoynes arrogance and complacency did he make simple errors and lost. Burgoyne’s Army was not even remotely destroyed in 1777, but marched out virtually intact.

In the recent movie BLACK HAWK DOWN, where two military helicopters were shot down by rebel militia in Somalia describes a similar situation, because now the Somalis are claiming to have defeated a superpower, the United States, because they shot down two whirlybirds. It is as similar to claim to have destroyed Burgoyne’s Army in 1777 by a ragtag bunch of colonial militia after being defeated, to then benefit off the stupid mistakes made by the British General then through sheer hyperbole claim a total victory.

In fact Benjamin Franklin was not aware of the battle of Saratoga or of Washington crossing the Delaware when he was at the court of King Louis the XVI, but he managed to produce the Franco/American Alliance of 1778 nevertheless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“WE” were British subjects in 1775.

Yup – and upholding our rights as Englishmen.
Bobby A. Greene:

Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne gave an opportunity for the rebels to rescind their sedition with the exception of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the two ringleaders of rebellion the Generals wanted to hang.

And this happened BEFORE the fighting started?

"The colonial charters were part of Parliment and were only valid as part of English law. The 13 British colonies in America were part of Great Britain, they were not a seperate nation!

The Colonial charters were the fundamental law of the Colonies, and not subject to change without the consent of the colonies themselves.

"Segments of the British Army had been in the 13 British colonies since Jamestown

No – in fact there was no true “British Army” as we understand it in 1607. The modern British Army dates from the Restoration, and the Ancient and Honorable Company of Artillerists of Boston is the oldest English-speaking military unit in continuous existance (albeit the British Army is prone to make up stories to pretend they are older.)http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

"and increased during the French & Indian Wars, which ended in 1765, and the British Army had always remained in their British colony. Nothing illegal about it at all!

Except when the troops were used to subjugate the population, and reinforced for that purpose.

"The woman in the tight skirt was supposed to be England and the colonists the rapist. So England is the victim in your metaphor! The American Revolution was not just but an act of treachery!

Wrongo! We sent no army to England. They sent one to America.

"If you are referring to Saratoga in 1777 Burgoyne won the first battle and routed the colonial militia.

Much good it did him.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

"It was only through General Burgoynes arrogance and complacency did he make simple errors and lost. Burgoyne’s Army was not even remotely destroyed in 1777, but marched out virtually intact.

Really?

In the first Battle at Saratoga, generally referred to by historians as Freeman’s Farm, the British lost two men for every one American casualty. In terms of ground gained, however, both sides fought to a draw. The second Battle, otherwise known as Bemis Heights, British losses were four to one. The rebels’ victory was overwhelming.
After protracted negotiations, Burgoyne officially surrendered on October 17. He returned to England in disgrace, and was never given another command.

earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/maps/saratogamap/

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

Yup – and upholding our rights as Englishmen.

And subject to English law, as was the Australian colony, the Indian colony, the colony in Jamaica, in the British West Indies, and Canada.

And this happened BEFORE the fighting started?

Just as the fighting started. Right after we were defeated at Bunker Hill.

The Colonial charters were the fundamental law of the Colonies, and not subject to change without the consent of the colonies themselves.

The colonies were not seperated from England, they were part of England and subject to any interpretation of law as Americans are today by the supreme court.

No – in fact there was no true “British Army” as we understand it in 1607. The modern British Army dates from the Restoration, and the Ancient and Honorable Company of Artillerists of Boston is the oldest English-speaking military unit in continuous existance (albeit the British Army is prone to make up stories to pretend they are older.)http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

There has been a British Army since the fall of Rome in ~476 A.D., they were called knights then. It was the British army under King Henry V which defeated the French in 1415 at Angincourt.

Except when the troops were used to subjugate the population, and reinforced for that purpose.

Yes, that’s true. It has always been true in British history and every other European country before the development of a police department. Again, so what’s your point?

Wrongo! We sent no army to England. They sent one to America.

No. Britain sent an Army to her thirteen British colonies in America to protect British subjects from Indians and to protect their British colonies from French imperialism on their North American trade. Segments of the British Army have always been present in England’s thirteen British colonies. England sending an army to her colony is a normal proceeding.

Much good it did him.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

True. But it had no bearing on the decision for France to send economic and material aid to the British colonies in America. In fact, France had clandestinely sent a small volume of aid to the British colonies as early as 1776 just before Franklin arrive in France, but this was done by wealthy individual French noblemen without official approval.

Really?

Yes, really! Burgoyne’s army was not utterly destroyed as taught in 8th grade history courses.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

And subject to English law, as was the Australian colony, the Indian colony, the colony in Jamaica, in the British West Indies, and Canada.

They were chartered Colonies. Their rights were spelled out in the charter. The Crown illegally abrogated those rights.
Bobby A. Greene:

The colonies were not seperated from England, they were part of England and subject to any interpretation of law as Americans are today by the supreme court.

The English did not hve a supreme court as we have one.
Bobby A. Greene:

There has been a British Army since the fall of Rome in ~476 A.D., they were called knights then. It was the British army under King Henry V which defeated the French in 1415 at Angincourt.

Dead wrong.

First of all, the term “knight” isn’t British at all – it’s Germanic. Secondly, there was no standing army of any kind for about a thousand years. English forces which fought in the Hundred Years War were all ad hoc forces which disbanded at the end of the war or campaign. They left no direct line of descent.
Bobby A. Greene:

Yes, that’s true. It has always been true in British history and every other European country before the development of a police department. Again, so what’s your point?]/quote]

You seem to think that anything the government does is legal. That’s not true, and it’s especially not true in the case of the actions of the Crown to subjugate the American colonies.
Bobby A. Greene:

No. Britain sent an Army to her thirteen British colonies in America to protect British subjects from Indians and to protect their British colonies from French imperialism on their North American trade.

Wrongo – the French and Indian War was over. The need for troops in the colonies proper was nil. New units were sent to subjugate the people, and for no other reason.
Bobby A. Greene:

Segments of the British Army have always been present in England’s thirteen British colonies. England sending an army to her colony is a normal proceeding.

Wrong again – the forces were sent to subjugate the people.
Bobby A. Greene:

True. But it had no bearing on the decision for France to send economic and material aid to the British colonies in America. In fact, France had clandestinely sent a small volume of aid to the British colonies as early as 1776 just before Franklin arrive in France, but this was done by wealthy individual French noblemen without official approval.

W

hen news of the American victory reached Europe, France entered the war on the side of the patriots. Money and supplies flowed to the American cause, providing Washington’s Continental Army with the support necessary to continue its fight against Great Britain.
Britain’s loss at Saratoga proved disastrous, in that it signaled to the European powers that the rebels were capable of defeating the English on their own. More than any other single event, it would prove decisive in determining the eventual outcome of the War.
Bobby A. Greene:

Yes, really! Burgoyne’s army was not utterly destroyed as taught in 8th grade history courses.

Wrong again-- Burgoyne surrendered. His Army went into captivity until paroled, and his guns, arms and supplies became property of the United States. Neither he nor his Army ever fought again.

When you kill or capture the entire enemy army, you have destroyed it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Cedric Drudge:

I’ve been reserching aspects of the Just war theory. Using its “rules” I am unable to categorize the American Revolution as a just war. I’d like to hear others’ opinions.

Correct: it was a rebellion. Washington and the rest should have been hanged for treason. Unfortunately, they were not. It is therefore certain that, unless they repented, they are in Hell, which is where unrepentant traitors belong. They may have ecaped the gallows and the executioner in this life - but they cannot escape the Hatred of God in the next.​

 

[vern_humphrey]

## Correct: it was a rebellion. Washington and the rest should have been hanged for treason. Unfortunately, they were not. It is therefore certain that, unless they repented, they are in Hell, which is where unrepentant traitors belong. They may have ecaped the gallows and the executioner in this life - but they cannot escape the Hatred of God in the next. ##

And, as we now know, the infant Republic never thrived, but suffered from God’s displeasure, and never amounted to anything.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[m134e5]

Whether it meets the “just war criteria” or not- it happened. What were the founding fathers supposed to do? Sit there and let the English government tax them but not give them representation in the government? Search and/or occupy their homes with little to no warning? Force them to submit to the English Monarch? Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think the only time war is appropriate is when another nation is physically attacking our country.

Would it be a just war if we knew without a doubt that another nation had nuclear weapons and intended to use them on us- and that we knew without a doubt that talks would not work (and had tried them, and they had failed), also, we knew without a doubt that we could stop them and spare our own country (though it may leave parts of their country seriously damaged, and cost lives on both sides of the field)?

 

[Brendan]

Bobby A. Greene:

There has been a British Army since the fall of Rome in ~476 A.D., they were called knights then. It was the British army under King Henry V which defeated the French in 1415 at Angincourt.

That’s interesting, because the British military themselves considers their beginning to be Cromwell’s New Model Army.

The forces prior to that, such as at Agincourt, were English, not British. The fought for the King of England, as there was no United Kingdom of Great Britain at the time.

Officially the UK (and hence Britian as a nation, not just the name of an island) began with the Act of Union, but from a practical perspective the UK existed from Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland in 1650-51.

The thus when the British army began.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brendan:

That’s interesting, because the British military themselves considers their beginning to be Cromwell’s New Model Army.

The forces prior to that, such as at Agincourt, were English, not British. The fought for the King of England, as there was no United Kingdom of Great Britain at the time.

Officially the UK (and hence Britian as a nation, not just the name of an island) began with the Act of Union, but from a practical perspective the UK existed from Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland in 1650-51.

The thus when the British army began.

I think we are struggling with a concept of history that you won’t find in any books.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

I think we are struggling with a concept of history that you won’t find in any books.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

No, you just make it up as you go along.

The American revolution was an act of treachery, and unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution was not just.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Brendan:

That’s interesting, because the British military themselves considers their beginning to be Cromwell’s New Model Army.

The forces prior to that, such as at Agincourt, were English, not British. The fought for the King of England, as there was no United Kingdom of Great Britain at the time.

Officially the UK (and hence Britian as a nation, not just the name of an island) began with the Act of Union, but from a practical perspective the UK existed from Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland in 1650-51.

The thus when the British army began.

The Knights and their conscripts who fought for England were a de facto British Army.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

No, you just make it up as you go along.

Do you have a degree in history?
Bobby A. Greene:

The American revolution was an act of treachery, and unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution was not just.

Then the only honorable thing for you to do is leave this treacherous nation and surrender yourself to the British crown.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

Do you have a degree in history?

Yes, an M.A.

Then the only honorable thing for you to do is leave this treacherous nation and surrender yourself to the British crown.

The more I study the origins and rationale for the American Revolution the more I would have been a loyalist back in 1776.

"Weakening a power by assisting her defiant colonies was an established European practice, and in 1768 England had been only too happy to supply the Corsicans in their Paoli-led battle against the French. (Versailles had threatened to retaliate by inciting rebellion in New York and Boston.)" ‘A GREAT IMPROVISATION: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America’ (c.2005) by Stacy Schiff

The Sons of Liberty and the Committee of Correspondence were a minority of dissidents in Boston spreading hate & discontent against their government throughout the colonies for over ten years. The sheer length of time of protest without a visible motive or monetary support suggests a behind the scenes influence such as the Freemasonry conspiracy theory or the French *agent-provocueteur * conspiracy theory. In analysis the Sons of Liberty did not have a valid reason for rebelling against their government and not all thirteen colonies rebelled. Upon careful examination, the American Revolution was based on some very fishy reasons, if you look closely at the arguments they are all a pretence.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

The difference between a revolution and a rebellion is whether or not you win or lose.

Yes, as our professor said in graduate history class: The difference between a patriot and a terrorist is a winner and a loser.

AND, remember the golden rule of history - Them that has the gold makes the rules. (OR them that has the guns makes the rules).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

Yes, an M.A.

Then you should have a better grasp of this subject. Having both the degrees and having taught American History at the college level, I am amazed at many of the things you hold to be “true.”
Bobby A. Greene:

The more I study the origins and rationale for the American Revolution the more I would have been a loyalist back in 1776.

Why not be one now, and go to England?
Bobby A. Greene:

The Sons of Liberty and the Committee of Correspondence were a minority of dissidents in Boston spreading hate & discontent against their government throughout the colonies for over ten years.

Aside from the use of loaded terms (like “spreading hate & discontent”) and the assumption that the government of England was “their” government (while implicitly denying that the Colonial governments were their government as well), you fail to encompass the totality of the Colonist’s efforts and greviences.
There was a lot more than the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence.
Bobby A. Greene:

The sheer length of time of protest without a visible motive or monetary support suggests a behind the scenes influence such as the Freemasonry conspiracy theory or the French *agent-provocueteur *conspiracy theory.

Back to conspiracy theories, are we?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Where’s the evidence?
Bobby A. Greene:

In analysis the Sons of Liberty did not have a valid reason for rebelling against their government and not all thirteen colonies rebelled. Upon careful examination, the American Revolution was based on some very fishy reasons, if you look closely at the arguments they are all a pretence.

The Sons of Liberty were not the governments of the Colonies – you seem to see all plots and no structure.

 

[Brendan]

Bobby A. Greene:

The Knights and their conscripts who fought for England were a de facto British Army.

But there was no British nation prior to the Act of Union, was there. So how could there be a British Army.

There were English armies, and Welsh armies, and Scots Armies, both actual and de factual.

But no ‘British’ Army, there was no British Crown, only and English one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brendan:

But there was no British nation prior to the Act of Union, was there. So how could there be a British Army.

There were English armies, and Welsh armies, and Scots Armies, both actual and de factual.

But no ‘British’ Army, there was no British Crown, only and English one.

There ya go again, using history.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

Then you should have a better grasp of this subject. Having both the degrees and having taught American History at the college level, I am amazed at many of the things you hold to be “true.”

On a professional level, an M.A. and above, the student of history is now required to generate a unique or “novel” finding of events which will contribute something unique to the overall knowledge pool. Every graduate student’s Master Thesis is a unique contribution to education or else the thesis committee would not grant the masters. This is true for all disciplines, from Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Business, and even History.

So the M.A. places the student of history a little higher than the 9th grade history taught in a civics course to indoctrinate pupils into citizens. No Vern, Washington did not throw a dollar across the Potomac nor did he ever cut down a cherry tree, and Washington did tell a few lies. So one must be able to distinguish myths, or revisionism, within history at the graduate level and beyond. The internet is a poor source of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of historical documents.

I spent two years sifting through primary sources at the Massachusetts State Archives (1985-1987) for documentation for my graduate thesis. It is even more excessive for your PhD dissertation. History is one of the hardest subjects in the liberal arts curriculum.

Why not be one now, and go to England?

Because neither the United States nor England are the same countries as they were in 1789 when the U.S. emerged from a confederacy after the Revolutionary War to the current U.S.A. There would be no advantage to becoming an expatriate. So I’ll just form a group of minutemen to rebel against our current dictatorial federal government and demand a return to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution and send an emmisary to China requesting intervention to achieve this goal.

Aside from the use of loaded terms (like “spreading hate & discontent”) and the assumption that the government of England was “their” government (while implicitly denying that the Colonial governments were their government as well), you fail to encompass the totality of the Colonist’s efforts and greviences.

Vern, you seem unable or unwilling to grasp that all colonies, including the current American dominions of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the thirteen BRITISH colonies located in North America are all allowed to have home rule in their internal affairs. This home rule did not make the thirteen British colonies sovereign and independent from their parent government. The thirteen colonies were British and Paul Revere, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Otis,* et. al*. were all British subjects required to obey British law!

There was a lot more than the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence.

Actually no. These were the two major sources of dissent within the thirteen colonies. In one regard it was quite an achievement for the Committees of Correspondence to keep up their agitation against their government for over ten years when most political movements throughout history lose their impetus within weeks, months, if not within a single year. That is what makes the Committees of Correspondence so suspicious upon closer examination, there was something driving their ‘patriotic’ motivation to endure for over a decade of agitation.

Back to conspiracy theories, are we?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I correctly identified my assertions as conspiracy theories so as to not mislead the reader.

Where’s the evidence?

This question wouldn’t have been asked by an advanced student of history since it is in the very nature of any conspiracy theory to lack evidence, such as invading Iraq for its oil. All conspiracy theories are sheer supposition, therefore they become “working theories”.

The Sons of Liberty were not the governments of the Colonies – you seem to see all plots and no structure.

I never indicated they were? The Sons of Liberty were no more the local colonial government than PETA, or the ACLU is the government of Massachusetts today. But like PETA or the ACLU, The Sons of Liberty were a group of dissidents spreading hate & discontent against their government to invoke change. The Sons of Liberty certainly acted like they new better than all the members of their government, Parliment!

So it is safe to say that with no French Intervention, there would have been no American Independence.

 

[karlgreen]

I’m not looking to start a war but I’m losing confidence in our government. They have all but destroyed what our founding fathers intended and seem to be indifferent to what citizens want. I’m wondering about when and what is the proper response of a Christian when the government wants to take God out of our daily lives. I feel morally obligated to some kind of civil disobedience and was wondering your thoughts.