Which American wars fall under the Just war doctrine?

[Petergee]

Firstly, I should note that I forgot to mention that there is a significant number of Catholic theologians who claim to support the Just War Theory in theory, but who do not believe that any war the U.S. has ever waged was a just war. Most of these people are stealth pacifists; some just have a threshold for just war so high that they are effectively pacifists. (Many Catholic opponents of the Iraq War fall into this category.)

To this group, it goes without saying, all American conflicts would fall into the “probably unjust” or “clearly unjust” categories.

True, but I hope you’re not putting me inj that category. I basically agree with your classification of US wars other than the relatively minor quibble i mentioned.

Even after the war was over and Jeff Davis was imprisoned, Pius IX continued to send ex-President Davis sympathetic messages, including one with his photograph, autograph, and the Latin text of Matt 11:28! The old “crown of thorns” story appears to be untrue, but it is beyond historical dispute that Pope Pius IX was a strong sympathizer of the Confederate cause – beyond doubt their strongest proponent among European heads of state.

He showed mercy and Christian concern, yes. He certainly was not a “proponent” or “supporter” urging the Confederate army to fight and asserting that they were fighting a just war; much less commanding Catholics in Europe and elsewhere (not even any of his own subjects in the papal States) to support them. Matt 11:28 is a call to repentance.

Firstly, the war started when Congress declared war, in accordance with their national obligations under the law of nations.

OK, so the US did not do a “Pearl Harbour” style sneak attack befoire declaring war. That does not make it a just war.

The precipitating cause of the declaration (among others), however, was the illegal capture and enslavement of American citizens by the British, who were then impressed into service in the Royal Navy. This is clearly an attack on American citizens – clearly an act of war.

Even American historians in modern times have rejected this mythical excuse which you have put so emotionally. Britain had ceased the practice of capturing US ships on the high seas (no Americans were ever captured elsewhere), and had signed a binding international treaty formally renouncing any right to interfere with US ships anywhere in the world) a long time before the US unilaterally attacked British teritory without any immediate provocation.

As for the military outcomes, I find it very difficult to see a British victory when all three of their invasions were repulsed and became long-running stalemates.

Well yes if you can describe it as “repulsed” when the British and Canadians easily pushed aside US resistance and entered the US capital city, sacked it and burnt the President’s palace (later called the White House because the Anmericans whitewashed it to cover the burn marks), then freely returned home taking as much loot as they could carry.

 

[Petergee]

No mention of Serbia/Kosovo? Come on, guys, you want reconciliation with the East, that’s one place to start.

That act of aggression was pure evil to the core. On the local level, differing factions were learning to peacefully co-exist. On the government level, they were well on their way to taking care of their own problems. Clinton/Albright/Clarke chose to bomb, anyway, and then handed power to the region to a known terrorist. Can someone explain?!?!?

The short answer is that after Clinton and co had massively underreacted to Serbian genocide in Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, they tried to make up for it a few years later my hamfistedly overreacting to Serbian aggression in Kosovo.

 

[duffyk4]

So what I’m getting out of this discussion is that the definition of “just war” is so ambiguous that the Church will rarely if ever come out and explicitly state that a war is not just? Then what is the point of the doctrine in the first place?

 

[runningdude]

So what I’m getting out of this discussion is that the definition of “just war” is so ambiguous that the Church will rarely if ever come out and explicitly state that a war is not just? Then what is the point of the doctrine in the first place?

To get nations to actually think about the consequences of war?

This conversation is frustrating, but i don’t think the Church will outright condemn or justify a war; too much is outside the Church’s control, and if they give what appears to be a “green light” to one side, and the side they support then does something horrific, guess who get the blame?

War is so ****** a solution to everything, that “just war” is almost a platitude. A war’s cause might be noble, but individual battles or actions may not be. People die. So many things have broken down already, to the point that shooting people seems like a good idea!?! There is very little good or justifiable about war, except that a proportionate “peace time” evil is hopefully suppressed.

Simply put, “just war”, is a kind of an elaborate way of saying self defense, but rarely is one side totally innocent before the armed conflict begins.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So what I’m getting out of this discussion is that the definition of “just war” is so ambiguous that the Church will rarely if ever come out and explicitly state that a war is not just? Then what is the point of the doctrine in the first place?

To allow people a way to form their consciences. The Church is not in the best position to know all the circumstances and intelligence of a particular conflict. The Church does not generally involve itself in particular legislative issues either, in the sense of saying, e.g. “Senate Bill X is immoral because it will have this effect and that on the economy”. The Church does not even say any particular person is in hell, as obviously deserving as some might have seemed of it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Simply put, “just war”, is a kind of an elaborate way of saying self defense, but rarely is one side totally innocent before the armed conflict begins.

I don’t know that this is quite true. Certainly, it speaks of “aggressors”, but aggression can be against other countries or even the population of the aggressor’s nation. The Church does not forbid defending others.

 

[runningdude]

I don’t know that this is quite true. Certainly, it speaks of “aggressors”, but aggression can be against other countries or even the population of the aggressor’s nation. The Church does not forbid defending others.

I know, its tricky. A just war has to defend a higher principle, self defense being the easiest to describe. Of course, this higher principle is defended in morally difficult ways (bombs…). Best not to give an unconditional approval to any act of aggression.

 

[elts1956]

Catholic thinkers have debated every one of those wars since before they were fought. They continue to debate them today. Because the rightness or wrongness of each war is a particular judgement rather than a moral principle, it is impossible to reach an absolutely certain, yes-or-no, infallible answer.

But, if you want my opinion, distilled by much reading of all sorts of Catholic just war theorists and pacifists and such, here it is:

Clearly Just - jus ad bellum and jus in bello are rarely seriously disputed:
[none]

Probably Just: despite frequent and enthusiastic disputes, probably just under JWT:
World War II (point of contention: atom bomb, firebombings)
Civil War (for the Union) (point of contention: right of secession; fun fact: the Pope supported the South)Iraq War (point of contention: whether peaceful recourse was possible; so-called “preemptive war doctrine” [a grave misnomer, btw])
Gulf War (see above)
Afghan War (point of contention: …various. Impossible to judge an ongoing war.)
Korean War (point of contention: did we have any business waging war in East Asia?)
War of 1812 (point of contention: America was attacked, but Americans seemed eager for war)

Morally Questionable / Ambiguous - Catholics are thoroughly divided on these:
American Revolution (point of contention: does taxation justify bloodshed?)
Vietnam War (point of contention: was this a winnable conflict?)

Probably Unjust:
Mexican-American War
Texan Revolution
World War I

Clearly Unjust:
Spanish-American War

The Pope supported the South? Would like to read about this. Got a source? Perhaps it was because he, the Pope, saw the little guy being run over by the big guy? Slavery aside, that is.

 

[elts1956]

Catholic thinkers have debated every one of those wars since before they were fought. They continue to debate them today. Because the rightness or wrongness of each war is a particular judgement rather than a moral principle, it is impossible to reach an absolutely certain, yes-or-no, infallible answer.

But, if you want my opinion, distilled by much reading of all sorts of Catholic just war theorists and pacifists and such, here it is:

Clearly Just - jus ad bellum and jus in bello are rarely seriously disputed:
[none]

Probably Just: despite frequent and enthusiastic disputes, probably just under JWT:
World War II (point of contention: atom bomb, firebombings)
Civil War (for the Union) (point of contention: right of secession; fun fact: the Pope supported the South)
Iraq War (point of contention: whether peaceful recourse was possible; so-called “preemptive war doctrine” [a grave misnomer, btw])
Gulf War (see above)
Afghan War (point of contention: …various. Impossible to judge an ongoing war.)
Korean War (point of contention: did we have any business waging war in East Asia?)
War of 1812 (point of contention: America was attacked, but Americans seemed eager for war)

Morally Questionable / Ambiguous - Catholics are thoroughly divided on these:
American Revolution (point of contention: does taxation justify bloodshed?)
Vietnam War (point of contention: was this a winnable conflict?)

Probably Unjust:
Mexican-American War
Texan Revolution
World War I

Clearly Unjust:
Spanish-American War

My answer is very simple.If they plan to walk in and take over its a “just war”
Simple

Ger

Kidding right?

 

[elts1956]

And that second one should read “War of 1812”, not 1813.

Well, I would think it started when the individual joined. Now isn’t that the way we are supposed to think these days?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have long thought of the Revolutionary War as more of a secession than a revolution. If you think of it in terms of the most immediate offenses by the Brits, the taxation wasn’t all that heavy, most Brits weren’t truly represented in any democratic sense anyway, and a very big part of the cause was British prohibition of colonization beyond the Appalachians. Those don’t really quite seem to work as just causes.

But on the other hand, British rule really was a tyrannical system at the time, and the Founders really did want to establish something far freer than what the Brits had to offer, and to guarantee rights that, for Brits, were not (and still aren’t) guaranteed against infringement. There was then a sense of the “rights of Englishmen” beyond the Continental notion of it, based on legal precedent and ancient documents like the Magna Carta, but there was no particular guarantee of them. To this very day, Parliament is all-powerful and can give and take away rights at will.

And it has to be admitted that the existence of the U.S. certainly provided a refuge and opportunity for a lot of people, and that was foreseeable at the time. It was fairly clear the British would have constrained that.

The fact that we presently are wondering whether our Constitution has any real meaning in the face of over-powerful and increasingly intrusive government, and that we are horribly overtaxed (in my opinion at least) does not change the fact that the American Revolutionaries really did intend a very significant elevation of the freedom and dignity of the individual, and did their best to achieve it. Did that justify a war? Well, England really couldn’t win that war even if it “won” it. British success would have been temporary, almost no matter what. The casualties and destruction were piddling by today’s standards. On balance, then, it seems to me it would qualify as a “just war”.

 

[portarica]

War of Northern Aggression

Can’t we restrict the discussion to wars that have ended in the minds of both sides?

Peace

 

[Wowbagger]

True, but I hope you’re not putting me inj that category. I basically agree with your classification of US wars other than the relatively minor quibble i mentioned.

Nope – it was just something I forgot to add to my first post.

I’ll be reading some more on the War of 1812 in light of your reply about impressment. You run starkly against my high school history text… but, then, I don’t really trust textbooks anymore.

 

[Petergee]

I have long thought of the Revolutionary War as more of a secession than a revolution. If you think of it in terms of the most immediate offenses by the Brits, the taxation wasn’t all that heavy, most Brits weren’t truly represented in any democratic sense anyway, and a very big part of the cause was British prohibition of colonization beyond the Appalachians.

Which was an undertaking Britain had made to France and Spain (who owned the trans-appalachian territories) in order to avoid war with them. Then ironically, France and Spain supported the revolt of the British colonists, without which support the revolt would not have succeeded. And that support was not foreseeble (which removes the “sanguine hope of success” requirement for a just war.)

Those don’t really quite seem to work as just causes.

But on the other hand, British rule really was a tyrannical system at the time, and the Founders really did want to establish something far freer than what the Brits had to offer, and to guarantee rights that, for Brits, were not (and still aren’t) guaranteed against infringement. There was then a sense of the “rights of Englishmen” beyond the Continental notion of it, based on legal precedent and ancient documents like the Magna Carta, but there was no particular guarantee of them. To this very day, Parliament is all-powerful and can give and take away rights at will.

Wow, you’ve got a lot to learn about the British system of government.

And it has to be admitted that the existence of the U.S. certainly provided a refuge and opportunity for a lot of people, and that was foreseeable at the time. It was fairly clear the British would have constrained that.

The fact that we presently are wondering whether our Constitution has any real meaning in the face of over-powerful and increasingly intrusive government, and that we are horribly overtaxed (in my opinion at least) does not change the fact that the American Revolutionaries really did intend a very significant elevation of the freedom and dignity of the individual, and did their best to achieve it. Did that justify a war? Well, England really couldn’t win that war even if it “won” it. British success would have been temporary, almost no matter what. The casualties and destruction were piddling by today’s standards. On balance, then, it seems to me it would qualify as a “just war”.

You’re confusing the revolt of the colonists with the development of democracy. The two are not really related, despite the hagiographic histories which are fed like pap to US schoolchildren, portarying their country’s founders as impossibly idealistic and impossibly good visionaries. The revolt was basically led by a clique of rich white landowners who formed a small minority of the colonies’ population, joined by others who thought they could make a buck out of it. Most of them had little interest in democracy or general human liberty.

The revolutionaries certainly discussed instituting some very undemocratic forms of government for their new cpountry. It was not until three generations after the Revolution that the USA became anything like democratic, even for white males - and that move was hotly disputed at the time. Catholics were barred from voting or standing for election into the late 19th century in parts of the USA, and non-landowners well into the 20th century.

 

[Petergee]

Can’t we restrict the discussion to wars that have ended in the minds of both sides?

That would leave us with a list with no entries in it.

 

[Petergee]

American Revolution
War of 1813
Texan Revolution
Mexican-American War
Civil War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Gulf War
Afghanistan War
Iraqi War

Which, if any, or if all, of these wars would be considered just wars?

Why did you leave out arguably the most unjust of all, the war against the native Americans?

 

[duffyk4]

Why did you leave out arguably the most unjust of all, the war against the native Americans?

There was no one war that I could put up on that list. It was more like a slow, but effective, genocide that all but wiped an entire ancient civilization from the planet. I don’t think anyone would be willing to argue for that being just.

 

[stevegravy]

.
You’re confusing the revolt of the colonists with the development of democracy. The two are not really related, despite the hagiographic histories which are fed like pap to US schoolchildren, portarying their country’s founders as impossibly idealistic and impossibly good visionaries. The revolt was basically led by a clique of rich white landowners who formed a small minority of the colonies’ population, joined by others who thought they could make a buck out of it. Most of them had little interest in democracy or general human liberty.

The revolutionaries certainly discussed instituting some very undemocratic forms of government for their new cpountry. It was not until three generations after the Revolution that the USA became anything like democratic, even for white males - and that move was hotly disputed at the time. Catholics were barred from voting or standing for election into the late 19th century in parts of the USA, and non-landowners well into the 20th century.

Not so fast with the revisionist histories. I am well aware of the simplistic jingoist pap as you call it but let us not forget:
• The colonies were semi-autonomous for a very long time and several colonies had long traditions of electing their own legislatures and handling local affairs independent of parliament including taxation, judicial administration and self-defense i.e. militias.
• Trouble really didn’t begin to start until the King started appointing governors who felt the need to reign in the freedoms the locals enjoyed. And why were these Governors needed: The Navigation Act gave rise to wide spread smuggling, The Veto of the Parsons Act, The Sugar act, The Currency Acts, the Stamp Act, The Quartering Act, The Townshend Act
• The Royal Proclamation of 1763, a big source of contention was the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains that the King reserved for the Indian’s following the French & Indian War
• The Declaratory Act, the colonist were no fools, they knew the kindly fate the Irish and others enjoyed from the mercy of Parliament. They were in no mood to suffer such English benevolence.
• Finally the deal breakers the Intolerable Acts

While the current fad of a rich mans war poor mans fight might be appealing in the revisionist world they forget, the history of Ireland and Scottland were known to all the colonist and everyone of those mother sons could see for themselves how their own relations with the mother country were going. The ideals of republicanism and the rights of Englishman were bandied around hot and heavy in alehouses and inns and what have you. The folks who would do the bleeding and dieing knew what they were getting into and what they expected out of it. Was the country or the Constitution that was finally born in 1788 perfect? No, that is why there are amendments.

As far as motivations of the folks who led and fought for the revolution in the public square I believe if you read their biographies and diaries this cynical attitude is way off base, especially in regards to Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.

 

[stevegravy]

There was no one war that I could put up on that list. It was more like a slow, but effective, genocide that all but wiped an entire ancient civilization from the planet. I don’t think anyone would be willing to argue for that being just.

I agree in there can be no justification of a generational war spanning three centuries where numerous acts of barbarism were committed by both sides. Nevertheless, what no one wants to say aloud, who ever controls the land controls the future. I believe it was for control of the land the wars were inevitably fought.

 

[Petergee]

Not so fast with the revisionist histories. I am well aware of the simplistic jingoist pap as you call it but let us not forget:
• The colonies were semi-autonomous for a very long time and several colonies had long traditions of electing their own legislatures and handling local affairs independent of parliament including taxation, judicial administration and self-defense i.e. militias.
• Trouble really didn’t begin to start until the King started appointing governors who felt the need to reign in the freedoms the locals enjoyed. And why were these Governors needed: The Navigation Act gave rise to wide spread smuggling, The Veto of the Parsons Act, The Sugar act, The Currency Acts, the Stamp Act, The Quartering Act, The Townshend Act
• The Royal Proclamation of 1763, a big source of contention was the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains that the King reserved for the Indian’s following the French & Indian War
• The Declaratory Act, the colonist were no fools, they knew the kindly fate the Irish and others enjoyed from the mercy of Parliament. They were in no mood to suffer such English benevolence.
• Finally the deal breakers the Intolerable Acts

Yes, but that doesn’t make the facts that I stated “revisionist” or “cynical”.

While the current fad of a rich mans war poor mans fight might be appealing in the revisionist world they forget, the history of Ireland and Scottland were known to all the colonist and everyone of those mother sons could see for themselves how their own relations with the mother country were going.

More than 90% of the colonists were ethnic Englishmen. They could hardly care less about the oppression of the Scots and Irish.

The ideals of republicanism and the rights of Englishman were bandied around hot and heavy in alehouses and inns and what have you. The folks who would do the bleeding and dieing knew what they were getting into and what they expected out of it.

And that was probably a major reasn why only a minority of the colonists supported succession.

Was the country or the Constitution that was finally born in 1788 perfect? No, that is why there are amendments.

I didn’t say that none of the rebel colonists supported democracy in any way. I am merely rejecting the near-universal stereotype that the rebellion was all about, and virtually identical with, a struggle for democracy, liberty, universal brotherhood and human rights.

Btw some of Britain’s colonies such as those in Australia attained full democracy (for white males and even for blacks and women) before the supposedly more democratic USA did.

As far as motivations of the folks who led and fought for the revolution in the public square I believe if you read their biographies and diaries this cynical attitude is way off base, especially in regards to Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.

I find it a bit nauseating to read the diaries of men who piously trumpet the universal rights of man whilst in real life acting contrarily.