Was the American Revolution justified?

[StudentMI]

Monarchy is intrinsically a Catholic institution by its very nature — it most closely resembles the relationship of Christ to His Church, and monarchs are not “leaders”, they are “rulers” — subjects are not led , they are ruled , just as Christ does not lead us, he rules our hearts, minds, souls, and lives.

Agreed. Vivat Christus Rex!

 

[Dan_Defender]

Since it was an aristocracy run by a landed gentry before and after independence, there was no revolution. What happened is that the rulers became independent.

I agree with this. Also, one has to remember that those who fought for the British and wanted to remain British were allowed to move to Canada, just like that. In a real revolution, they would have been imprisoned or killed.

 

[Dovekin]

As long as we are discussing this, let me put a Catholic perspective on it.

In 1715, an uprising in Scotland sought to return the Stuarts to the throne. The son of James II claimed the crown as James III. In 1745, his son Charles led another uprising. These were miserable failures, and many Jacobite supporters were exiled to the Carolinas.

After the 1745 revolt, Charles’ younger brother Henry was ordained and made a Cardinal. (1747) For the next 60 years, the Duke of York as he was known rose in the ecclesiastical hierarchy to become Secretary of State in the Vatican. As Archpriest of St Peter’s he presided over the deaths of his father and brother, and placed a monument to King James III and Charles III in St Peter’s.

At the time of the American Revolution, there were already doubts about the legitimacy of King George. Some colonists were already accustomed to fighting against him and his predecessors. Others has come to America to get away from the British government, like the pilgrims.

I would not rest any claims about the legitimacy of the American Revolution on the existence of a King of Britain in Rome. But I do think the Jacobite claims need to be figured into these judgments. The legitimacy of the Georges was already being questioned.

 

[VonDerTann]

Imagine a British North America, welcoming all people of the world, comprised of everything from Nome to Key West, from Alert to San Diego. That’s what it could have ended up looking like.

–When you say “welcoming all people of the world,” it might seem to impliedly envision this “British North America” as some sort of utopia with a benevolent, cultured UK at the center of it, where the world gets all the perks of the UK and none of its weaknesses. We can always imagine some utopia. How realistic is that? IMHO not at all. If history is any guide, an argument can be made that the best historical analogy to prolonged English rule might be the UK and India, or the UK and Ireland, where the latter is exploited and its people treated as second class citizens at best.

As to the question, I’d go with Dolphin’s answer. I also think #4 (likelihood of success) was present, moreso than people then might have then envisioned, given the enormous cost to the UK to keep and supply a large army in the colonies, particularly in the face of demands elsewhere in the world.

 

[StudentMI]

…or the UK and Ireland, where the latter is exploited and its people treated as second class citizens at best.

Indeed the discrimination against Catholics that existed in the colonies would likely have continued under the British. However one must keep in mind the threat of ‘popery’ that was fueled by the simple fact that in Quebec Catholics were granted rights.

 

[phil3]

Again the problem is subjectivity. Our Pope today may feel very differently than the Pope of 1176.

But look at all the conditions. Each and every one is subject to subject interpretations. Just take 1, what is certain? What is grave? what is prolonged? Take each one of these and they mean different things to different leaders and people.

 

[StudentMI]

As I said on the other thread Catholic social teaching is not subjective. It’s not an optional pick and choose. It’s part of the moral teaching of the Church.

 

[Pattylt]

I don’t think so. It’s not too hard, in history, to find both just causes that have lost and unjust causes that have won. We live in a fallen world, I don’t think the outcome determines the justness.

I agree that there are examples of just cause wars that have lost as well as the opposite. I just think in the case of the American Revolution, had we lost, there were too many facts available that wouldn’t justify It as a just war.

I also think that we were hopelessly optimistic in thinking we could defeat the British. On paper, we probably shouldn’t have and at several points, almost didn’t. We had quite a bit of luck with us in that George couldn’t focus solely on us.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Imagine a British North America, welcoming all people of the world, comprised of everything from Nome to Key West, from Alert to San Diego. That’s what it could have ended up looking like.

–When you say “welcoming all people of the world,” it might seem to impliedly envision this “British North America” as some sort of utopia with a benevolent, cultured UK at the center of it, where the world gets all the perks of the UK and none of its weaknesses. We can always imagine some utopia. How realistic is that?

It’s not. “Utopias” are not realistic by their very nature and the definition of the word. I had in mind more a Canada writ large, a decent, compassionate empire (at least where Quebecois weren’t concerned ) under the Crown. Didn’t turn out that way. I said “welcoming all people of the world” to reflect the reality on the ground of both countries, which have been largely nations of immigrants. Defending the rights of First Nations just goes without saying.

If history is any guide, an argument can be made that the best historical analogy to prolonged English rule might be the UK and India, or the UK and Ireland, where the latter is exploited and its people treated as second class citizens at best.

I have to question this, in that the colonists were by and large transplanted Britons — the same people on both sides of the Atlantic — and not natives of the lands under subjection. What the UK did to Ireland is without moral excuse. I don’t blame Ireland one bit for not wanting to be part of the Commonwealth — why in the world would they feel otherwise?

As to the question, I’d go with Dolphin’s answer. I also think #4 (likelihood of success) was present, moreso than people then might have then envisioned, given the enormous cost to the UK to keep and supply a large army in the colonies, particularly in the face of demands elsewhere in the world.

There is a school of thought, that says the whole American colonial thing was getting to be more trouble to Britain than it was worth, that Britain wasn’t terribly disappointed to be rid of the colonies.

I am a monarchist on general principles, but I am not going to choose to die on this hill. Maybe things turned out the way they should have, the ideological errors notwithstanding. Maybe it’s a good thing that Upper Canada existed as a kind of “safety valve” for Loyalists to migrate to. Both countries have a good symbiotic relationship and the world’s longest shared border in peace and friendship, and in this world, that’s no small achievement.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I have a children’s cartoon for you to watch: Liberty’s Kids. It discusses much of what you are asking, though not from a specifically Catholic viewpoint. It does not hide the ugliness that happened during the revolution. Slavery, capital punishment, and mistreatment of Indians are all touched on.

 

[phil3]

Who decides " all other means of redress have been exhausted"? Who decides "it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution”? Who decides, “all other means of redress have been exhausted”? who decides, “there is well-founded hope of success”? Who decides, “such resistance will not provoke worse disorders,”?

 

[WingedHussar]

Yes the revolution was justified. Read the Declaration of Independence, and you will find that taxes were just one issue out of many. Incidentally, if the Empire had treated colonists as the Englishmen which they were, instead of running the colonies solely for the benefit of the mother country, they would have had far less trouble.

In the end however, the American Revolution happened because the English lost the loyalty of the local elites.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Yes and no.

Was the American Revolution justified in:

1.) Revolting against Crown Rule of a Christian King (Anglican, yes, but anointed King in the same ceremony used since Charlemagne). No.

2.) Blaming the Crown (as representative of the entire British Government), for being tyrannical, oppressive, etc. No.

3.) Creating, in effect, the first democratic republic since ancient Rome, that a flowering of liberty may shine forth in a world overwhelmed by usurpations and corrupt governments. Yes, if that liberty is guarded by piety.

4.) Birthing the first government (perhaps ever) that was officially neutral in matters of religion, due to the multifarious, fractious Protestant sects fighting for supremacy, and the deeply Masonic connections of the Founding Fathers. Thus paving the way for secularism and the disintegration of Christendom. No.

5.) Protecting their “natural rights as Englishmen”, which were elucidated by Locke and Hume, Blackstone and other philosophers as inherent to being human. Maybe, for the nobility in England had ever contended with the Crown to protect their rights and privileges. This is simply an extension of those rights to the common man. This was inspired by the 1689 (Protestant) English Bill of Rights which granted certain rights to the people and subjected the Crown to Parliament (from and American perspective an imbalance of power in the which the legislative was given power over the executive).

At the end of the day, while I am a monarchist at heart, I remain an American to the core and will gladly put down my life in the defense of true liberty, the highest form of which is slavery to Christ and His Holy Will.

 

[VonDerTann]

–If a person is a “monarchist,” is a rebellion against the king ever justified? And if so, when?

–For that matter, why be a monarchist? Why would someone favor one-person rule where the ruler is not picked by the people, and is replaced by generational succession?

 

[Thom18]

As a Knight or Columbus, I would not say no. But it’s important to note that the revolution was about more than tea, lest anyone get the wrong idea.

 

[StudentMI]

For that matter, why be a monarchist? Why would someone favor one-person rule where the ruler is not picked by the people, and is replaced by generational succession?

There’s actually quite a few good arguments in favor of monarchy from a political and economic perspective. At the end of the day I am a monarchist for two reasons: in the paraphrased words of Charles Coulombe I’d rather be ruled by a person who fears he’s going to go to hell if he treats me wrong than as a taxpayer to be milked dry by politicians; and most importantly because as Homeschool Dad pointed out and I fervently believe, it is the model that most closely aligns with our Catholic faith as Christ is our King.

 

[VonDerTann]

I can think of many reasons monarchy is terrible. No check and balance on power; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; every few years or decades there’s invariably a war over who is the rightful king; it creates a system of justice where some are more equal than others; good work is not always rewarded and bad acts are often unpunished; the list goes on.

 

[StudentMI]

I can think of many reasons monarchy is terrible. No check and balance on power; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely…

It’s actually weird cause you’d expect that, but the size of the state under monarchy compared to our modern nation states is striking. We have bloated leviathans where monarchies had quite limited governments.

 

[VonDerTann]

Monarchy is not good…unless the Queen was Queen (formerly Princess) Diana of Wales. She could have been my queen any day. And Charles loved Camilla instead. What WAS he thinking?

Plus, although I’m not sure about this, I don’t think you can marry into becoming queen. Isn’t the English King’s wife the queen consort? Just wondering…

Monarchy? Way too complex!

 

[dochawk]

But it’s important to note that the revolution was about more than tea , lest anyone get the wrong idea.

“They make us drink tea, and keep the best beer for themselves!” :crazy_face:

and iirc, the actual bill of complaints included being taxed as much as one part in a hundred of a man’s income . . .

Isn’t the English King’s wife the queen consort?

Generally, she to the title “Queen,” but not much power, whereas men get the title “Prince” (also without power).