What Would Be a Just War?

[elt1956]

and

i am curious how the american revolution was a just war?

i am also curious how the civil war was not?

the first one had more to do with money and property.

the second one at least had an element of freeing an entire race of people from slavery (although not the main goal, it was a factor).

Hi Bengal, don’t know if this is the right place to discuss this, but here goes. Don’t know too much about the Am. Revolution except that those who were to become citizens of the US felt they were being taxed without representation. There was a lot going on I haven’t studied, but I “think” the British government was treating its US colonies much as they later treated India. We had no voice in the government, or what England taxed us on, the materials produced etc. While the Civil War was here on US soil and while the emancipation of the slaves was one factor, also the fear that I believe the Missouri Compromise was going to be overturned, (Stephen Doublas) and slavery was going to be introduced into the recently annexed states, ie. bloody Kansas, was among several other factors. I am not sure if the ballyhoo was really about slavery, or the number of representatives each state would have in Congress/Senate. (There were strong abolitionists in the North and some in government) Also the war wasn’t going very well for the North. England and France were about to step in on the side of the South because of the North’s embargo on cotton. Lincoln was waiting for a victory in a battle before he could present his emancipation proclamation as he was afraid if he announced it before that happened, we would appear this was a last ditch effort to get countries on our side. Then I believe it was after Burnside had the battle with the Southern forces at Antietam and although neither side could really claim victory, the North did claim it to be so. Then and only then did Lincoln free the slaves living in the SOUTH ONLY through the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. There were still slaves in Maryland and I believe Delaware, Northern States and maybe some even in New York. Also as I have read, there were not many in the South who owned slaves. Many of our Southern boys only knew their homes were being “invaded” by the North. The States Rights issue. So I have real issues with this war on both sides. Peace.

 

[RWMorris]

Please provide the list of proclamations the Church has made regarding all wars declaring the just and unjust wars.

Think of those who challanged the flat earth, or earth centric theory, witches and invisable germs or the right of slavery or any such notion that has a long accepted by the population of any given age. Some times…often times the accpeted view of things held as absolute are wrong. A very good example is what the Jews thought the Messiah was going to be.

As far as I know, there is no list of just and unjust wars. You have to read to find such information. Some people have said that the Civil war, or the Vietnam war was unjust. The Church never said that. Some within the Church, including Popes have expressed their opinions concerning certain wars, but those opinions are just that, opinions.

Now concerning revisionist thinking, your own statement, “… the Civil War was about money and property more than any other reason” is revisionist, because it ignores what has been written by scholars much brighter than you or me. I’m not putting you down, we all try to simplify complex situations; it is human nature.

 

[bengal_fan]

I consider it Just because it was a legitimate right of self determination by the people who were being denied that right by England. What made it Just is the Declaration of Independence- we made the declaration before waging the war in self defense.

i am still confused. really, i am not trying to be difficult here. it just sounds like we are making an excuse for ourselves. we were a collection of colonies. we were under the authority of the english government. we weren’t being “oppressed” like the african americans enslaved by us were. we were being overtaxed and we wanted to rule ourselves. isn’t this one of the arguments against protestantism? that we want to rule ourselves? anyway, it was about wanting to do what we (and by “we”, i mean the wealthy, white, male, landowners) wanted to do. “no taxation without representation” was the cry.
now, the english troops were brutal in many ways, but so were ours. i just can’t see how the american revolution fits into the just war category. i am not trying to argue this, i am really looking for a better explanation.
also, i am glad that i don’t live in an english colony.

I consider it unjust because because there were other options available and unexplored. England and Spain did not fight a war to end slavery and other than the human tragedy of slavery the Civil War was about money and property more than any other reason.

i don’t think it was so much about money and property as the general theme of the states wanting to govern themselves (the slavery issue is what set the conflict off in many ways). again, the “wanting to do what we want to do” attitude. the federal government did not want to lose half of the country (it would have been devastating to the economy). lincoln definitely used the slavery issue to his advantage but good came out of it. much more good than the revolutionary war in my opinion. if we had remained colonies, the civil war might never have taken place. but, then again, we would not have grown into the power we have and the nazi’s might not have been stopped. but, then again, the germans might have won WWI so hitler might never have grown to power in the first place. who knows what might have been, it’s all speculation and hindsight is always 20/20. it’s just that i don’t see at all how the revolutionary war was just and i can somewhat see how the civil war was.

 

[LRThunder]

i am still confused. really, i am not trying to be difficult here. it just sounds like we are making an excuse for ourselves. we were a collection of colonies. we were under the authority of the english government. we weren’t being “oppressed” like the african americans enslaved by us were. we were being overtaxed and we wanted to rule ourselves. isn’t this one of the arguments against protestantism? that we want to rule ourselves? anyway, it was about wanting to do what we (and by “we”, i mean the wealthy, white, male, landowners) wanted to do. “no taxation without representation” was the cry.
now, the english troops were brutal in many ways, but so were ours. i just can’t see how the american revolution fits into the just war category. i am not trying to argue this, i am really looking for a better explanation.
also, i am glad that i don’t live in an english colony.

If the issue was just taxes, you’d be correct. But we also had what is known as the Boston Massacre (where British troops fired on a crowd), which was probably a misunderstanding and loss of control than deliberate murder.

But after the Boston Tea Party (which was a crime), the British began to crack down, at least against Massachusetts. I think they ordered the port in Boston closed until payments were made regarding the Boston Tea Party; troops who were accused of crimes against colonists no longer had to be tried in the colonies; troops could force colonists to allow them to sleep in their homes (the Quartering Act); and I think the colony legislature was suspended.

Before the Boston Tea Party, it was just about taxes; afterwards, the British government took action that even moderate colonists could no longer tolerate. While the reaction was aimed mostly at Massachusetts, the other colonies saw this as an attack against them as well.

 

[bengal_fan]

If the issue was just taxes, you’d be correct. But we also had what is known as the Boston Massacre (where British troops fired on a crowd), which was probably a misunderstanding and loss of control than deliberate murder.

But after the Boston Tea Party (which was a crime), the British began to crack down, at least against Massachusetts. I think they ordered the port in Boston closed until payments were made regarding the Boston Tea Party; troops who were accused of crimes against colonists no longer had to be tried in the colonies; troops could force colonists to allow them to sleep in their homes (the Quartering Act); and I think the colony legislature was suspended.

Before the Boston Tea Party, it was just about taxes; afterwards, the British government took action that even moderate colonists could no longer tolerate. While the reaction was aimed mostly at Massachusetts, the other colonies saw this as an attack against them as well.

so, if our government did this type of stuff today, we would be within the confines of just war to rebel? so was the branch davidian fiasco in waco a “just war” on the davidians’ side? they felt a law was wrong and they ignored it (like the boston tea party analogy). the government came to enforce the law and the davidians rebelled.
i am just trying to get a grasp on the logic.
the colonists broke the law. the british (the lawkeepers) enforced it. some horrible things were done (on both sides). the quartering act is still alive in some sense today (although not often used). in the event of something extraordinary, the army can use your home if it wants. so do we have the right to rebel?
i guess, the more i think about this (it’s not a subject i’ve really considered… i’m more thought about our wars today), i don’t think we were justified in the revolution.

 

[Joe_5859]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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;

• 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 modem 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.

If you’re interested in learning more about the Crusades, there are lots of great articles here that help to clear away the confusion:

Catholic Educator’s Resource Center

 

[elt1956]

As far as I know, there is no list of just and unjust wars. You have to read to find such information. Some people have said that the Civil war, or the Vietnam war was unjust. The Church never said that. Some within the Church, including Popes have expressed their opinions concerning certain wars, but those opinions are just that, opinions.

Now concerning revisionist thinking, your own statement, “… the Civil War was about money and property more than any other reason” is revisionist, because it ignores what has been written by scholars much brighter than you or me. I’m not putting you down, we all try to simplify complex situations; it is human nature.

I am no scholar, by a loooooooong shot, but this is my take on the US Civil War. As far as the war being about money and property, after the war, there was nothing left in the South that anyone would want. Remember Sherman’s March to the sea? The South’s industry of cotton was destroyed, their homes were destroyed and their method of industry, mostly slaves was gone.

While the Civil War was here on US soil and while the emancipation of the slaves was one factor, also the fear that I think it was the Missouri Compromise was going to be overturned, (Stephen Douglas) and slavery was going to be introduced into the recently annexed states, ie. bloody Kansas, was among several other factors. I am not sure if the ballyhoo was really about slavery, or the number of representatives each state would have in Congress/Senate and could therefore vote slavery in these new states. (There were strong abolitionists in the North and some in government Stanto, I believe. Also the war wasn’t going very well for the North. England and France were about to step in on the side of the South because of the North’s embargo on cotton. Both countries needed the raw material for their industries. Lincoln was waiting for a victory in a battle before he could present his emancipation proclamation as he was afraid if he announced it before that happened, we would appear this was a last ditch effort to get countries on our side. Then I believe it was after Burnside had the battle with the Southern forces at Antietam and although neither side could really claim victory, the North did claim it to be so. Then and only then did Lincoln free the slaves living in the SOUTH ONLY through the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. There were still slaves in Maryland and I believe Delaware, Northern States and maybe some even in New York. Also as I have read, there were not many in the South who owned slaves. Many of our Southern boys only knew their homes were being “invaded” by the North. The States Rights issue. So I have real issues with this war on both sides. Peace.

 

[RWMorris]

… So I have real issues with this war on both sides. Peace.

I have many of the same misgivings about the Civil War. You should read The Lincoln Legacy – Revisited for a reasoned discussion of some of the issues you’ve raised.

Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?

• Alexander Hamilton, at the Constitutional Convention

 

[elt1956]

I have many of the same misgivings about the Civil War. You should read The Lincoln Legacy – Revisited for a reasoned discussion of some of the issues you’ve raised.

Hello, went to the website and read the article by Mark Alexander. Is the Patriot a newspaper you subscribe to? Have always wondered if Lincoln’s support of Major Anderson at Ft. Sumter was a calculated push for the South to react. Also didn’t Lincoln suggest, before the war started, that each slave owner be given $400.00 for each slave in return for that slave’s freedom? I know numerous attempts by the government in the south were made to try to reconcile differences with the North. ie. Let us go and we won’t fight, or something like that, which Lincoln refused to do. A really sad affair. Peace.

 

[RWMorris]

Hello, went to the website and read the article by Mark Alexander. Is the Patriot a newspaper you subscribe to? Have always wondered if Lincoln’s support of Major Anderson at Ft. Sumter was a calculated push for the South to react. Also didn’t Lincoln suggest, before the war started, that each slave owner be given $400.00 for each slave in return for that slave’s freedom? I know numerous attempts by the government in the south were made to try to reconcile differences with the North. ie. Let us go and we won’t fight, or something like that, which Lincoln refused to do. A really sad affair. Peace.

Yes, I subscribe to it. Hey, it’s free.

While I am not prepared to call the Civil War an unjust war nor bash an American icon like Lincoln, I do believe he should have done more to avoid that horrible conflict.

 

[elt1956]

Yes, I subscribe to it. Hey, it’s free.

While I am not prepared to call the Civil War an unjust war nor bash an American icon like Lincoln, I do believe he should have done more to avoid that horrible conflict.

Hello there. Thanks, I think I will try it. Yes, I think the only positive result of the US Civil War is that it began ,in a very small measure, to make whites aware of the inhumanity of slavery. Peace.

 

[RWMorris]

Hello there. Thanks, I think I will try it. Yes, I think the only positive result of the US Civil War is that it began ,in a very small measure, to make whites aware of the inhumanity of slavery. Peace.

Isn’t it amazing how 150 years of history make it possible for most folk to discuss, without so much acrimony, the justness or unjustness of a war, even one many Americans still have strong emotions about?

 

[elt1956]

Isn’t it amazing how 150 years of history make it possible for most folk to discuss, without so much acrimony, the justness or unjustness of a war, even one many Americans still have strong emotions about?

I have had little exposure LATELY to white folks of what is called “the South”. Years ago, I found emotions still ran high among Southern folk, MAYBE, moreso that Northren folk. What do you think? I had a GG Grandfather a GG Uncle and a seventeen year ole G. Uncle who fought in the Union Army. But all my relatives, on my Dad’s side, migrated from the Southern States, NC. VA, TN, KY. What have you found? It was a hideous war. Not far from where I live, North of the Mason Dixon line, there is a new subdivision named of all things, Gettysburg Estates. Each street is named for a battle area at Gettysburg, such as Missionary Ridge, Little Round Top etc. Each time I go by, I wince. I feel like sticking a board up at each street asking if anyone knows how many of “our boys” were killed there. Most people have no idea. Peace.

 

[RWMorris]

I have had little exposure LATELY to white folks of what is called “the South”. Years ago, I found emotions still ran high among Southern folk, MAYBE, moreso that Northren folk. What do you think? I had a GG Grandfather a GG Uncle and a seventeen year ole G. Uncle who fought in the Union Army. But all my relatives, on my Dad’s side, migrated from the Southern States, NC. VA, TN, KY. What have you found? It was a hideous war. Not far from where I live, North of the Mason Dixon line, there is a new subdivision named of all things, Gettysburg Estates. Each street is named for a battle area at Gettysburg, such as Missionary Ridge, Little Round Top etc. Each time I go by, I wince. I feel like sticking a board up at each street asking if anyone knows how many of “our boys” were killed there. Most people have no idea. Peace.

I grew up in Georgia and most of my relatives live in Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. I visit a few of them at least once a year. My GG Grandfather fought with the Alabama Infantry and was wounded. Even while growing up in the 1960s in Georgia I and many of my friends were discovering through studying history in high school and college that maybe, just maybe, the south was, oh-my-god, in the wrong. Now don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of people who “swore allegiance” to Dixie and would rather die than admit those “damned Yankees” held the moral high ground. I’m sure there are a large minority of those folk still around. But I think most white southerners today, ever-proud of their fore-fathers courage, know the south did not hold the moral high ground.

I visited Gettysburg in 2003 as a teacher with a group middle school students, and a park ranger from western Pennsylvania gave us a tour of the battlefield. His ability to bring those events to life captivated those middle school students, they listened to his “reenactments” of the battles in rapt silence. He made sure we understood the incredible bravery and sacrifice that was evident from both sides, in the bloodiest 48 hours this country has ever experienced.

Was it a necessary war? I don’t know. Was it a just war? I wasn’t alive then and I wasn’t in Abraham Lincoln’s shoes. That burden is on his shoulders. But what was done, was done, and I believe for the right reasons; and the Republic held the moral high ground. God Bless America.

 

[elt1956]

I grew up in Georgia and most of my relatives live in Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. I visit a few of them at least once a year. My GG Grandfather fought with the Alabama Infantry and was wounded. Even while growing up in the 1960s in Georgia I and many of my friends were discovering through studying history in high school and college that maybe, just maybe, the south was, oh-my-god, in the wrong. Now don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of people who “swore allegiance” to Dixie and would rather die than admit those “damned Yankees” held the moral high ground. I’m sure there are a large minority of those folk still around. But I think most white southerners today, ever-proud of their fore-fathers courage, know the south did not hold the moral high ground.

I visited Gettysburg in 2003 as a teacher with a group middle school students, and a park ranger from western Pennsylvania gave us a tour of the battlefield. His ability to bring those events to life captivated those middle school students, they listened to his “reenactments” of the battles in rapt silence. He made sure we understood the incredible bravery and sacrifice that was evident from both sides, in the bloodiest 48 hours this country has ever experienced.

Was it a necessary war? I don’t know. Was it a just war? I wasn’t alive then and I wasn’t in Abraham Lincoln’s shoes. That burden is on his shoulders. But what was done, was done, and I believe for the right reasons; and the Republic held the moral high ground. God Bless America.

Hello RW. I visited Gettysburg ca. 2006. I found even then, most people in my tour group were little interested in the Southern point of view and such CSA Generals as Lewis Armistead, who for some reason I admire. Then perhaps they hadn’t heard of him, so I’ll try not to judge. I just feel a bit ill when I think of all those lives lost. Peace.