History The Morality of the American Revolution

[Shipmaster Sane]

Actually, there is. I believe that Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio showed how natural inequality leads to the right to rule. You are correct that an agreement is to be made, but I argue that the agreement has not been broken in the case of America Revolution. The main thrust of the Revolution - that "taxation without representation is tyranny" - is utterly unfounded. I find no reason why government must be "representative" at all. Most throughout history weren't.

The only legitimate authority derives from God and acts in accordance with God. Got it, that precludes the english.
Not that I give a shit about your "It's in the bible therefore it's natural law" appeal to authority.

 

[FriedCFour]

By 1775, the rebellion was in the full swing of things, my dude. From the King's perspective, the colonists threw a violent fit and then sent him a letter asking for him to basically back down. He had no reason to accept it.

Well to end violence, but I guess apparently if you fire one bullet you are now justified in total war.

Again, America was a colony of Britain, so it was represented by the whole of Parliament. That is how colonization works, and the Americans were no different from Britain's other colonies in that regard.

That's, again, fucking retarded. The Americans were absolutely different because they hadn't been represented by parliament for the bulk of their history. They were left as autonomous, and then suddenly made to not be.

And, again, Britain, at no point, "deprived the citizens who had committed no crimes of their means of self-defense and protection." The colonists believed this was the case, but that was an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, as Bernard Bailyn pointed out. You can read some of the story in Mencius Moldbug's essay on libertarianism.

I'm sorry, it was not a conspiracy theory that the British tried to take the colonists weapons when they marched through Lexington.

But all of this - the conspiracy theory, the misunderstanding of how the English constitution works, - all obfuscates a single point: There's no such thing as a right to be represented by your government. That's the root of our argument. You assume "no taxation without representation" is a given, and I don't. I suggest you actually focus on this if you want to actually get through to me this argument. Because, again, this is the core of our disagreement.

You've totally ignored my point over and over and over. That is not the root of the argument. The root of my argument isn't in "taxation without representation". I've brought up and pushed like 8 different points that also caused rebellion. Taxation was just one point. Even then, the question of whether or not you can tax without representation doesn't matter. The point is that England HAD a representative government, and refused to allow the colonists to be any part of it, while simultaneously destroying the privileges and system that the colonists did have, reducing them to second class citizens. People chose to be colonists in the first place for those privileges, and then the whole system was suddenly removed. Representation only becomes an issue within that context of destroying the autonomy they once had. Sure, you don't need representation. But when you have representation, and you refuse to grant it to this group of people who you also are now treating as though they are British citizens for the purposes of resource extraction and not as citizens in terms of what you give them in return. Things like vice admiralty courts, where merchants were tried under a wholly different court system the brits were not. That is the issue here. It's the sudden unilateral upheaval of the previous system while refusing to give any concessions reducing a massive group to second class citizens.

Actually, there is. I believe that Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio showed how natural inequality leads to the right to rule. You are correct that an agreement is to be made, but I argue that the agreement has not been broken in the case of America Revolution. The main thrust of the Revolution - that "taxation without representation is tyranny" - is utterly unfounded. I find no reason why government must be "representative" at all. Most throughout history weren't.

Because you continue to ignore that it was a government that purported itself to allow representation but didn't for this massive group of it's citizens who would qualify for it. It's the treatment of you as a British subject only where it negatively impacts you, but you suddenly aren't one when it would benefit you.

Yes, because America has never done anything like that in its history.

Yeah sorry New Zealand is still much worse. Britain is vastly worse. Australia is worse. Canada is worse. The structure of their system of governance is overall worse.

Okay, first of all, on the British mistreating American POWs while the latter was fair and good to them: that's neglecting the context. Because the British thought of the Americans as traitors to their own people, they were not treated well (though your claim of MUH HOLOCAUST is hysterical; word to the wise: comparing anything to the Holocaust or the Gulag will not tug at my heartstrings and will actually make me laugh at you). Americans treated British soldiers well for the most part because they saw themselves as a separate people fighting against the British. They treated Loyalists about the same as the British treated Patriots (i.e. not very well).

I'm saying that because the sheer death toll that the prison ships had and the conditions they were in. It's not hysterical, I've read accounts of conditions in all three, they are fairly similar. Do any reading on the accounts of what it was like aboard these ships and the death rate. More American soldiers died as POWs than in any other way in the revolution, and the conditions were pretty terrible. And no, they weren't treated as traitors. If they were treated as traitors, they would receive a swift summary execution. They received worse than that, slow agonizing death by being thrown into a crowded, disease-ridden ship, fed virtually nothing and allowed to die slowly. If you have any belief in Just War theory, which as a Catholic I'd imagine you do, you'd see that the Americans were far more exemplary of it than the Brits, especially on the whole "Be merciful to those who surrender" bit. And no, even Loyalists were treated far better than Americans were by the British.

 

[Deleted member 88]

By 1775, the rebellion was in the full swing of things, my dude. From the King's perspective, the colonists threw a violent fit and then sent him a letter asking for him to basically back down. He had no reason to accept it.

Again, America was a colony of Britain, so it was represented by the whole of Parliament. That is how colonization works, and the Americans were no different from Britain's other colonies in that regard.

And, again, Britain, at no point, "deprived the citizens who had committed no crimes of their means of self-defense and protection." The colonists believed this was the case, but that was an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, as Bernard Bailyn pointed out. You can read some of the story in Mencius Moldbug's essay on libertarianism.

But all of this - the conspiracy theory, the misunderstanding of how the English constitution works, - all obfuscates a single point: There's no such thing as a right to be represented by your government. That's the root of our argument. You assume "no taxation without representation" is a given, and I don't. I suggest you actually focus on this if you want to actually get through to me this argument. Because, again, this is the core of our disagreement.


You're a traitor if you go against your government. Objectively speaking, the Founding Fathers were traitors and rebels, and I'd say that even if I thought their Revolution was justified. And yes, the "cake stealing" example is producing further demands.

Shay's Rebellion was put down through violent military insurrection and led to the establishment of a stronger, more centralized state. Shay and his supporters got off easily, yes, but to say that Congress conceded to them was kind of missing the wider context, which is running theme for you.

Okay, first of all, on the British mistreating American POWs while the latter was fair and good to them: that's neglecting the context. Because the British thought of the Americans as traitors to their own people, they were not treated well (though your claim of MUH HOLOCAUST is hysterical; word to the wise: comparing anything to the Holocaust or the Gulag will not tug at my heartstrings and will actually make me laugh at you). Americans treated British soldiers well for the most part because they saw themselves as a separate people fighting against the British. They treated Loyalists about the same as the British treated Patriots (i.e. not very well).


Yes, because America has never done anything like that in its history.


All things that either never happened or were totally justified.



LOL No. No, it wasn't.



Well there's your problem them. Silly Protestants and their multiple denominations.


They are "related" in that they both involve fighting and bloodshed. But stating that "because they both involve bloodshed, they are the same thing, and therefore Vichy France must submit to Nazi Germany" is not a valid argument.

Again, no rebellion is a just war because no rebellion can be a war, period. To say "war of rebellion" is like saying "square circle" or "married bachelor." The Just War Theory as Catholics have understood it always involves public authorities of foreign powers.


Culturally distinct they may be, they were British whether they considered themselves to be such or not. They existed under the crown, and there was never a time where they did not do so.


Right now, the entirety of the United States is on quarantine lockdown. Do you think that, if Hillary Clinton was elected in 2016, she wouldn't have done the same thing NZ did?


Where's this argument for the right to be represented in your government if you're a taxpayer? I don't recall a single Enlightenment thinker arguing for such a thing, so could you refresh my memory?

George III was Anglican. From a strict Catholic perspective he was a heretic. So...rebelling against him is only bad if you believe as I said, kings should be obeyed regardless because God has decreed them. Do you believe the Anglican Church circa 1775 adequately explained God's laws? Or preached them?

Rebellions often occur in the context of wars, and vice versa. Rebellions are supported by outside powers, or used by them. The French as early as the 1760s saw the colonies increasing tension with Britain as a chance to knock them down a peg. Okay wars don't have to be international or against foreign powers to be "wars". That's just stupid and asinine. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems Catholic just war theory ignores civil wars.

Did they? The DoI seems to indicate otherwise. Southerners didn't feel "American" in 1861. Jews didn't consider themselves Roman subjects in 69 AD. Even if they were legally, they had rejected such designations by rising up.

Non-sequitur. Quarantines have precedent in natural law and historical custom. And as for Hillary-would she have tried? Perhaps, its speculative yes but the republicans and supreme court would have stood her down and said no. That we can say for sure did not happen in NZ. NZ has no guarantee of freedom of speech or expression. Neither does Britain. The government "grants" these rights. And as shown, can retract this guarantee whenever the public is effectively corralled, distracted or manipulated by tragedy. Or even in contrivance to public will.

Government is a social contract. It requires the consent of the governed. Taxation is a function of this contract. If the governed are not given their rights, then the functions performed by government are illegitimate.

 

[King Krávoka]

LOL No. No, it wasn't.

The pasttime of their government is lethally mishandling the affairs of the common man in the name of whatever's trendy, malthusian economics, eugenics, corporate diversity. It's not treason, it's self defense.

 

[ShieldWife]

The pasttime of their government is lethally mishandling the affairs of the common man in the name of whatever's trendy, malthusian economics, eugenics, corporate diversity. It's not treason, it's self defense.

I’m not sure about all of that stuff, but I do think it may be a bit unfair to judge 18th century Great Britain by the modern version, which would unquestionably justify revolution.

 

[FriedCFour]

A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

What Aquinas had to say on sedition @The Name of Love .Think that describes Britain and King George III pretty accurately.

Here is some more reading for you on Just War specifically from probably the greatest work of Catholic Theology.

www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

I think the best thing for you to do is ask the question of what was the good in King George’s conduct, was it for the private good of the ruler, if his actions were simply so that he and parliament could rule more securely over them, and whether it was to the injury of the multitude of the colonists. Did they benefit in any way, shape, or form from his actions? Did they receive harm from his actions? Did this harm largely result in the betterment of the private good of the ruler?

And then go take a look at the rules.

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.

now you may say that negates it but as we see sedition is not inherently wrong. So if the answer to the question on sedition is yes, then this is also a yes for the colonists as their government did allow for it. It would also necessarily apply for the British.

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Britain was acting to compensate for the costs of the unjust war they had fought previously, given it avenged zero wrongs and was in large part a territorial grab. What it has seized unjustly applies pretty well to the colonists though.

here’s my favorite one.

Those who wage warjustly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you waragainst, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Given one side petitioned for peace that the other did not even bother to read, I think it’s pretty unarguable who followed this better.

I think it’s better for you to look to theology rather than to just make up your own doctrine on what God allows for war, and when it’s justified to rebel, wouldn’t you agree?

BTW the philosopher is Aristotle. If you’d like we can go to what he said about just war too, but I think it’s pretty clear from both Aquinas and Augustine, probably the two biggest heavy weights of the Catholic theology you believe in, that the American revolution was a just war while the British attempt to put down the revolution certainly was not. The latter is certainly a guarantee given just how utterly they failed in seeking peace which you have pretty much admitted they failed at.

 

[The Name of Love]

Explain what you mean by "ought to do" or "ought not to do".

From a Christian perspective, does this mean we can rise up if the government cracks down on evangelizing?

Because this command supersedes any law to submit to earthly authority.

We can certainly disobey the government if it cracks down on evangelizing, yes. In fact, we ought to disobey the state in this way. Though I'd say, with all things, that violence ought to be the last resort.

The only legitimate authority derives from God and acts in accordance with God. Got it, that precludes the english.
Not that I give a shit about your "It's in the bible therefore it's natural law" appeal to authority.

That it "precludes the English" is precisely what's being debated here. I don't believe "taxation without representation" is objectively immoral.

That's, again, fucking retarded. The Americans were absolutely different because they hadn't been represented by parliament for the bulk of their history. They were left as autonomous, and then suddenly made to not be.

Just because the master doesn't give any commands doesn't mean that they aren't the master. Also, repeating an assertion isn't an argument.

I'm sorry, it was not a conspiracy theory that the British tried to take the colonists weapons when they marched through Lexington.

If by "take the colonists weapons" you mean "disarm a bunch of violent criminals," then yes, they were out to "take the colonists weapons" because the colonists in question were criminals.

You've totally ignored my point over and over and over. That is not the root of the argument. The root of my argument isn't in "taxation without representation". I've brought up and pushed like 8 different points that also caused rebellion. Taxation was just one point. Even then, the question of whether or not you can tax without representation doesn't matter. The point is that England HAD a representative government, and refused to allow the colonists to be any part of it, while simultaneously destroying the privileges and system that the colonists did have, reducing them to second class citizens. People chose to be colonists in the first place for those privileges, and then the whole system was suddenly removed. Representation only becomes an issue within that context of destroying the autonomy they once had. Sure, you don't need representation. But when you have representation, and you refuse to grant it to this group of people who you also are now treating as though they are British citizens for the purposes of resource extraction and not as citizens in terms of what you give them in return. Things like vice admiralty courts, where merchants were tried under a wholly different court system the brits were not. That is the issue here. It's the sudden unilateral upheaval of the previous system while refusing to give any concessions reducing a massive group to second class citizens.

Where to begin?

How about with some quotes from Mr. Hutchinson.

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of a trial by jury.

Offences against the Excise Laws, and against one or more of late Acts of Trade, are determined without a Jury in England. It appears by the law books of some of the Colonies, that offences against their Laws of Excise, and some other Laws, are also determined without a Jury; and civil actions, under a sum limited, are determined by a Justice of the Peace. I recollect no cases in which trials by Juries are taken away in America, by Acts of Parliament, except such as are tried by the Courts of Admiralty, and these are either for breaches of the Acts of trade, or trespasses upon the King’s woods. I take no notice of the Stamp Act, because it was repealed soon after it was designed to take place.

I am sorry, my Lord, that I am obliged to say, there could not be impartial trials by Juries in either of these cases. All regulation of commerce must cease, and the King must be deprived of all the trees reserved for the Royal Navy, if no trials can be had but by Jury. The necessity of the case justified the departure from the general rule; and in the reign of King William the Third, jurisdiction, in both these cases, was given to the Admiralty by Acts of Parliament; and it has ever since been part of the constitution of the Colonies; and it may be said, to the honour of those Courts, that there have been very few instances of complaint of injury from their decrees. Strange that in the reign of King George the Third, this jurisdiction should suddenly become an usurpation and ground of Revolt.

For Transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences.

I know of no Act, but that of the 12th of the present reign, to prevent the setting fire to his Majesty’s Ships, Docks, Arsenals, &c. to which this article can refer——But are these pretended offences?

By an Act of Parliament made in the 35th year of King Henry the Eighth, all treasons committed in any parts without the realm, may be tried in any county of England; and in the reign of Queen Anne, persons were condemned in England for offences against [25] this Act in America; but the Act does not comprehend felonies.

The offences against the last Act are made felony; and as it is most likely they should be committed in times of faction and party–rage, the Act leaves it in the power of the Crown to order the trial of any offence committed without the realm, either in the Colony, Island, Fort, where it may be committed, or in any County within the Realm.

An opinion prevailed in America, that this Act was occasioned by the burning of the King’s Schooner, Gaspee, by people in the Colony of Rhode Island; but the Act had passed before that fact was committed, though it was not generally known in America, until some months after. The neglect of effectual inquiry into that offence, by the authority in Rhode Island Colony, shews that the Act was necessary; but when it passed, there does not appear to have been any special view to America, more than to the forts and settlements in Europe, Asia, or Africa.

So much of the "tyranny" that you're pointing out was actually the British cracking down on criminal activity, and in a way that the colonists themselves would have approved of were it not being done to them.

As for your argument, I find it even less convincing than the natural rights one, if that were possible. Britain did not have universal suffrage at the time, so they had no reason to extend the franchise to all the British colonists. They did not enshrine the right to elect an MP for the British parliament. And any difference in treatment was justified by the circumstances. I'm not sure how else to put it.

Yeah sorry New Zealand is still much worse. Britain is vastly worse. Australia is worse. Canada is worse. The structure of their system of governance is overall worse.

You saying that doesn't make it true.

I'm saying that because the sheer death toll that the prison ships had and the conditions they were in. It's not hysterical, I've read accounts of conditions in all three, they are fairly similar. Do any reading on the accounts of what it was like aboard these ships and the death rate. More American soldiers died as POWs than in any other way in the revolution, and the conditions were pretty terrible. And no, they weren't treated as traitors. If they were treated as traitors, they would receive a swift summary execution. They received worse than that, slow agonizing death by being thrown into a crowded, disease-ridden ship, fed virtually nothing and allowed to die slowly. If you have any belief in Just War theory, which as a Catholic I'd imagine you do, you'd see that the Americans were far more exemplary of it than the Brits, especially on the whole "Be merciful to those who surrender" bit. And no, even Loyalists were treated far better than Americans were by the British.

Okay, let's suppose that the British mistreated the American prisoners during the war. That doesn't in itself mean that the American Revolution is justified. You can't use what happened during and after the Revolution as a moral justification for the Revolution.

George III was Anglican. From a strict Catholic perspective he was a heretic. So...rebelling against him is only bad if you believe as I said, kings should be obeyed regardless because God has decreed them. Do you believe the Anglican Church circa 1775 adequately explained God's laws? Or preached them?

Romans 13 was talking about the pagan Roman Empire, which was persecuting Christians at that time. The state can actively persecute its citizens and still be a legitimate authority according to Scripture.

Rebellions often occur in the context of wars, and vice versa. Rebellions are supported by outside powers, or used by them. The French as early as the 1760s saw the colonies increasing tension with Britain as a chance to knock them down a peg. Okay wars don't have to be international or against foreign powers to be "wars". That's just stupid and asinine. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems Catholic just war theory ignores civil wars.

Catholic Just War Theory does ignore civil wars and rebellions, yes. That's because these things were seen as being of a different species of conflict according to the theory. The line may be blurred in certain instances (such as when a foreign power incites a rebellion within your country), but they are conceptually different things.

Did they? The DoI seems to indicate otherwise. Southerners didn't feel "American" in 1861. Jews didn't consider themselves Roman subjects in 69 AD. Even if they were legally, they had rejected such designations by rising up.

What they "felt" was unimportant.

Non-sequitur. Quarantines have precedent in natural law and historical custom. And as for Hillary-would she have tried? Perhaps, its speculative yes but the republicans and supreme court would have stood her down and said no. That we can say for sure did not happen in NZ. NZ has no guarantee of freedom of speech or expression. Neither does Britain. The government "grants" these rights. And as shown, can retract this guarantee whenever the public is effectively corralled, distracted or manipulated by tragedy. Or even in contrivance to public will.

The United States doesn't guarantee freedom of speech either, and if you think that a written constitution that's been trampled upon time and again throughout our history does guarantee it, then I don't know what to tell you.

Government is a social contract. It requires the consent of the governed. Taxation is a function of this contract. If the governed are not given their rights, then the functions performed by government are illegitimate.

That's liberal theory in a nutshell. Unfortunately, I don't believe the state is a social contract, so the argument falls apart there.

The pasttime of their government is lethally mishandling the affairs of the common man in the name of whatever's trendy, malthusian economics, eugenics, corporate diversity. It's not treason, it's self defense.

Even if the British became as bad as Nazi Germany after the rebellion, that wouldn't have justified the rebellion right then and there.

What Aquinas had to say on sedition @The Name of Love .Think that describes Britain and King George III pretty accurately.

Here is some more reading for you on Just War specifically from probably the greatest work of Catholic Theology.

www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

I think the best thing for you to do is ask the question of what was the good in King George’s conduct, was it for the private good of the ruler, if his actions were simply so that he and parliament could rule more securely over them, and whether it was to the injury of the multitude of the colonists. Did they benefit in any way, shape, or form from his actions? Did they receive harm from his actions? Did this harm largely result in the betterment of the private good of the ruler?

And then go take a look at the rules.


now you may say that negates it but as we see sedition is not inherently wrong. So if the answer to the question on sedition is yes, then this is also a yes for the colonists as their government did allow for it. It would also necessarily apply for the British.


Britain was acting to compensate for the costs of the unjust war they had fought previously, given it avenged zero wrongs and was in large part a territorial grab. What it has seized unjustly applies pretty well to the colonists though.

here’s my favorite one.

Given one side petitioned for peace that the other did not even bother to read, I think it’s pretty unarguable who followed this better.

I think it’s better for you to look to theology rather than to just make up your own doctrine on what God allows for war, and when it’s justified to rebel, wouldn’t you agree?

BTW the philosopher is Aristotle. If you’d like we can go to what he said about just war too, but I think it’s pretty clear from both Aquinas and Augustine, probably the two biggest heavy weights of the Catholic theology you believe in, that the American revolution was a just war while the British attempt to put down the revolution certainly was not. The latter is certainly a guarantee given just how utterly they failed in seeking peace which you have pretty much admitted they failed at.

For the last time, war and rebellion are completely different things. So even if I wanted to justify the American Revolution morally, I wouldn't be able to use just war theory to do so.

Now, the question is this: was King George III and Britain acting in the common good? I'd say yes, because punishing criminals is within the common good. You'd say no, because you think that the colonists weren't criminals in spite of their breaking various laws. To assert "oh, this totally describes King George" just begs the question.

 

[FriedCFour]

For the last time, war and rebellion are completely different things. So even if I wanted to justify the American Revolution morally, I wouldn't be able to use just war theory to do so.

Which is why I attached the article on sedition. And that is nonsense. It’s still a war of two distinct political entities at that point. That’s such a total cop out to ignore just war. A war is a war. Please by all means, show it as different.

Now, the question is this: was King George III and Britain acting in the common good? I'd say yes, because punishing criminals is within the common good. You'd say no, because you think that the colonists weren't criminals in spite of their breaking various laws. To assert "oh, this totally describes King George" just begs the question.

Is it in the common good to impose all the restrictions that they did in the first place? Is it in the common good to deny representation? You keep repeating that Britain doesn’t have to. Sure. But who’s betterment is denial to, the private good of the leaders or the common good of the people? Is denying them any concessions and seeking to extract resources from the colony in order to pay off the debt of an unjust war in the common good of the people or the common good of the ruler? We are talking 42 specifically here, sedition, and the justifications for sedition.

Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

Encouraging discord and sedition. You can’t just say “he was punishing criminals, therefore good.” What were those “criminals” responding to? Were the acts for the betterment of the whole? Or was it for the private good of the King and Parliament? Given how utterly and deeply unpopular these were and how they harmed colonists while giving literally nothing in return, I think it’s fairly easy to say that by what is justified sedition the colonists were in the right. So even ignoring Just War, Britain was not acting with the perspective of the betterment of the whole.

www.newadvent.org/summa/3042.htm

 

[The Name of Love]

Which is why I attached the article on sedition. And that is nonsense. It’s still a war of two distinct political entities at that point. That’s such a total cop out to ignore just war. A war is a war. Please by all means, show it as different.

The United States was not a separate legal entity from Britain. Britain did not go over to America and try to conquer it like the Nazis did France or the Soviets did the Balkan states. Benign neglect doesn't imply independence. It just means that the master is letting his servants do as they please.

Is it in the common good to impose all the restrictions that they did in the first place? Is it in the common good to deny representation? You keep repeating that Britain doesn’t have to. Sure. But who’s betterment is denial to, the private good of the leaders or the common good of the people? Is denying them any concessions and seeking to extract resources from the colony in order to pay off the debt of an unjust war in the common good of the people or the common good of the ruler? We are talking 42 specifically here, sedition, and the justifications for sedition.

You keep bringing up the French and Indian War as if it's a big gotcha. It was a territory dispute in the Ohio River area that had been brewing for almost a century and was sparked by the general-governor of New France at the time forcing British traders off of the land that was in dispute as though it was unambiguously theirs. I fail to see how this was some unjust war that the colonist had no stake in since it was happening right at their doorstep.

Encouraging discord and sedition. You can’t just say “he was punishing criminals, therefore good.” What were those “criminals” responding to? Were the acts for the betterment of the whole? Or was it for the private good of the King and Parliament? Given how utterly and deeply unpopular these were and how they harmed colonists while giving literally nothing in return, I think it’s fairly easy to say that by what is justified sedition the colonists were in the right. So even ignoring Just War, Britain was not acting with the perspective of the betterment of the whole.

www.newadvent.org/summa/3042.htm

It was for the betterment of the whole, because the criminals were rebelling on the grounds that they were being taxed too much when really, they were being taxed about the same rate as British citizens on the isles.

 

[FriedCFour]

The United States was not a separate legal entity from Britain. Britain did not go over to America and try to conquer it like the Nazis did France or the Soviets did the Balkan states. Benign neglect doesn't imply independence. It just means that the master is letting his servants do as they please.

Is ending benign neglect for the betterment of the people or for the private benefit of the rulers? The master does not get to do whatever the hell he wants. It has to be for the betterment of the people over his own private good. When it isn’t you are justified in sedition.

You keep bringing up the French and Indian War as if it's a big gotcha. It was a territory dispute in the Ohio River area that had been brewing for almost a century and was sparked by the general-governor of New France at the time forcing British traders off of the land that was in dispute as though it was unambiguously theirs. I fail to see how this was some unjust war that the colonist had no stake in since it was happening right at their doorstep.

It was happening on their doorstep in part because of the wars going on in the mainland and because of the politics of parliament. Certainly Britain assisting Prussia in annexing Saxon land wasn’t all too just

It was for the betterment of the whole, because the criminals were rebelling on the grounds that they were being taxed too much when really, they were being taxed about the same rate as British citizens on the isles.

While also being denied any of the benefits of being a citizen on the isles. Hence, the lack of common good, and the betterment of the private good of the ruler. That’s the key issue with the lack of representation. It makes Americans second class citizens, and the reason to deny it was to prevent them from having a voice or any kind of say in what happened in Britain, who suddenly wanted to have total say of what happened in America. You could call that lording over them more securely. That’s called Tyranny, and that means that Britain was seditious and not America.

 

[The Name of Love]

Is ending benign neglect for the betterment of the people or for the private benefit of the rulers?

The betterment of the people.

It was happening on their doorstep in part because of the wars going on in the mainland and because of the politics of parliament

It was happening because some French governor treated some British colonists living on disputed land as though they were trespassers.

While also being denied any of the benefits of being a citizen on the isles. Hence, the lack of common good, and the betterment of the private good of the ruler. That’s the key issue with the lack of representation. It makes Americans second class citizens. That’s called Tyranny, and that means that Britain was seditious and not America.

No, I don't think two-tiered legal systems are inherently a bad thing.

 

[FriedCFour]

The betterment of the people.

How. How is it better to lose the way of life you cultivated and fought for basically on your own for roughly two hundred years?

It was happening because some French governor treated some British colonists living on disputed land as though they were trespassers.

And escalated when Britain assisted Prussia in annexing Saxon territory. If it had remained a purely colonial conflict, Britain wouldn’t have occurred the debt it suddenly wanted to exact from the colonists.

No, I don't think two-tiered legal systems are inherently a bad thing.

Sure not inherently. Like when you receive increased autonomy, for example. But how is it just and for the betterment of the whole to deny a voice? How does it benefit the whole to extract from them while giving nothing in return?

 

[FriedCFour]

@The Name of Love I get it. You reject enlightenment philosophy, America is the greatest success and embrace of enlightenment philosophy. You therefore don’t want to say the war is justified, but come on man. The Catholic teachings here are pretty clear and it’s obvious who was in the right.

 

[The Name of Love]

How. How is it better to lose the way of life you cultivated and fought for basically on your own for roughly two hundred years?


And escalated when Britain assisted Prussia in annexing Saxon territory. If it had remained a purely colonial conflict, Britain wouldn’t have occurred the debt it suddenly wanted to exact from the colonists.


Sure not inherently. Like when you receive increased autonomy, for example. But how is it just and for the betterment of the whole to deny a voice? How does it benefit the whole to extract from them while giving nothing in return?

But they aren't?

You can blame the idea of balance of power on that move. Britain undertook the alliance with Prussia in order to forestall war. Naturally, the balance of power is kind of a sham, but they had no way of knowing that at the time.

The parts exist for the good of the whole. If Britain had not paid off its war debts or kept troops in America, then they could have their territory taken.

@The Name of Love I get it. You reject enlightenment philosophy, America is the greatest success and embrace of enlightenment philosophy. You therefore don’t want to say the war is justified, but come on man. The Catholic teachings here are pretty clear and it’s obvious who was in the right.

You have a bad habit of begging the question.

 

[Deleted member 88]

We can certainly disobey the government if it cracks down on evangelizing, yes. In fact, we ought to disobey the state in this way. Though I'd say, with all things, that violence ought to be the last resort.


That it "precludes the English" is precisely what's being debated here. I don't believe "taxation without representation" is objectively immoral.


Just because the master doesn't give any commands doesn't mean that they aren't the master. Also, repeating an assertion isn't an argument.




If by "take the colonists weapons" you mean "disarm a bunch of violent criminals," then yes, they were out to "take the colonists weapons" because the colonists in question were criminals.



Where to begin?

How about with some quotes from Mr. Hutchinson.



So much of the "tyranny" that you're pointing out was actually the British cracking down on criminal activity, and in a way that the colonists themselves would have approved of were it not being done to them.

As for your argument, I find it even less convincing than the natural rights one, if that were possible. Britain did not have universal suffrage at the time, so they had no reason to extend the franchise to all the British colonists. They did not enshrine the right to elect an MP for the British parliament. And any difference in treatment was justified by the circumstances. I'm not sure how else to put it.



You saying that doesn't make it true.



Okay, let's suppose that the British mistreated the American prisoners during the war. That doesn't in itself mean that the American Revolution is justified. You can't use what happened during and after the Revolution as a moral justification for the Revolution.


Romans 13 was talking about the pagan Roman Empire, which was persecuting Christians at that time. The state can actively persecute its citizens and still be a legitimate authority according to Scripture.


Catholic Just War Theory does ignore civil wars and rebellions, yes. That's because these things were seen as being of a different species of conflict according to the theory. The line may be blurred in certain instances (such as when a foreign power incites a rebellion within your country), but they are conceptually different things.


What they "felt" was unimportant.


The United States doesn't guarantee freedom of speech either, and if you think that a written constitution that's been trampled upon time and again throughout our history does guarantee it, then I don't know what to tell you.


That's liberal theory in a nutshell. Unfortunately, I don't believe the state is a social contract, so the argument falls apart there.


Even if the British became as bad as Nazi Germany after the rebellion, that wouldn't have justified the rebellion right then and there.



For the last time, war and rebellion are completely different things. So even if I wanted to justify the American Revolution morally, I wouldn't be able to use just war theory to do so.

Now, the question is this: was King George III and Britain acting in the common good? I'd say yes, because punishing criminals is within the common good. You'd say no, because you think that the colonists weren't criminals in spite of their breaking various laws. To assert "oh, this totally describes King George" just begs the question.

From that argument, rebellion is bad always and forever.

Conceptually yes, in the physical world of flesh and blood it is never so clear cut.

They rejected the legal identity they had been so given. You could say the same thing about Christians refusing to do their duty and make sacrifices to the Emperor. When the law requires you be something you reject, you reject the law and the identity it gives you.

Barring exceptional circumstances and slow erosion, it has worked. Does this mean it is some magical shield against tyranny? No of course not, but its a lot better guarantee than the Canadian constitution.

The argument doesn't fall apart, you simply have categorically rejected the premise of the argument to start with. That's your concern, not mine.

 

[The Name of Love]

From that argument, rebellion is bad always and forever.

How?

Conceptually yes, in the physical world of flesh and blood it is never so clear cut.

Right. That's why it's important to separate them and treat them accordingly when we're dealing with moral justification for action.

They rejected the legal identity they had been so given. You could say the same thing about Christians refusing to do their duty and make sacrifices to the Emperor. When the law requires you be something you reject, you reject the law and the identity it gives you.

The Emperor gets his authority from God, so if there's a difference of opinion between the two, you side with God. But otherwise, you serve the Emperor.

Barring exceptional circumstances and slow erosion, it has worked. Does this mean it is some magical shield against tyranny? No of course not, but its a lot better guarantee than the Canadian constitution.

Your argument is contingent on our having no hate speech laws, which is only a product of the judges interpreting the constitution, not the constitution itself.

The argument doesn't fall apart, you simply have categorically rejected the premise of the argument to start with. That's your concern, not mine.

You have to actually, you know, argue for the social contract theory. You can't just assert it.

 

[FriedCFour]

The parts exist for the good of the whole. If Britain had not paid off its war debts or kept troops in America, then they could have their territory taken.

Sure. What is the betterment in denying representation or redress or listening to what the people in question want? And no, keeping troops in America has nothing to do with territory being taken. Americans and their militia were orders of magnitude more powerful than anyone else continent side. That’s nonsense. You don’t get to just harm one part to help yourself, which is who was helped. Parliament and the king, given the colonists received zero benefit from the war and took all the brunt, whereas the ruler secured for himself a whole bunch of new territory.

You have a bad habit of begging the question.

Hardly. I think I’ve taken in the whole context of events and relied on far more than just one guy and what he said about the situation.

 

[The Name of Love]

Sure. What is the betterment in denying representation or redress or listening to what the people in question want? And no, keeping troops in America has nothing to do with territory being taken. Americans and their militia were orders of magnitude more powerful than anyone else continent side. That’s nonsense. You don’t get to just harm one part to help yourself, which is who was helped. Parliament and the king, given the colonists received zero benefit from the war and took all the brunt, whereas the ruler secured for himself a whole bunch of new territory.

Because what the people want in this case is unreasonable. They desired a return to a status quo of benign neglect, something that could not realistically happen. They wanted representation in parliament, something that 1) would not have appeased them because a single vote would mean nothing and 2) they were a colony and not a province of Britain, so they had no right to such a privilege under the English constitution.

And yes, they did gain a benefit: they got the benefit of not losing their land. Because that's probably what would've happened had the French won. Again, you ignore how the British declared war on France for the benefit of colonial traders operating in a disputed territory. Had the British lost, we might all be speaking French right now.

Hardly. I think I’ve taken in the whole context of events and relied on far more than just one guy and what he said about the situation.

Begging the question is when you assume that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises. So when you say this:

@The Name of Love I get it. You reject enlightenment philosophy, America is the greatest success and embrace of enlightenment philosophy. You therefore don’t want to say the war is justified, but come on man. The Catholic teachings here are pretty clear and it’s obvious who was in the right.

you're begging the question. It's "pretty clear" and "obvious" that what the subject of the debate is whether or not the Catholic teaching justifies the American Revolution. I've presented my argument time and again and you've not refuted it once. From my view it's "pretty clear" and "obvious" that the British were in the right.

 

[FriedCFour]

Because what the people want in this case is unreasonable. They desired a return to a status quo of benign neglect, something that could not realistically happen.

Of course it could and it could very easily. You just had to not take it away.

They wanted representation in parliament, something that 1) would not have appeased them because a single vote would mean nothing and 2) they were a colony and not a province of Britain, so they had no right to such a privilege under the English constitution.

And they received no right because it was to the detriment of the private good of parliament and the king. They got no representation because it was to the detriment of that as well.

And yes, they did gain a benefit: they got the benefit of not losing their land. Because that's probably what would've happened had the French won. Again, you ignore how the British declared war on France for the benefit of colonial traders operating in a disputed territory. Had the British lost, we might all be speaking French right now.

Total nonsense. The French had no means to take the colonies, no desire to. The British did not declare war at that point. Your timeline is messed up. It was a colonial war, not a full fledged war up until the British made war with Prussia and fought those wars, and then decided to extract from the colonies to pay for it.

you're begging the question. It's "pretty clear" and "obvious" that what the subject of the debate is whether or not the Catholic teaching justifies the American Revolution. I've presented my argument time and again and you've not refuted it once. From my view it's "pretty clear" and "obvious" that the British were in the right.

As a Catholic and an Aristotelian I’d imagine you’d care more about what Aquinas, Augustine and Aristotle had to say on war and rulership, but I guess you’d rather substitute your own and ignore what they and by proxy what Catholic Church doctrine is.

 

[Deleted member 88]

How?


Right. That's why it's important to separate them and treat them accordingly when we're dealing with moral justification for action.


The Emperor gets his authority from God, so if there's a difference of opinion between the two, you side with God. But otherwise, you serve the Emperor.


Your argument is contingent on our having no hate speech laws, which is only a product of the judges interpreting the constitution, not the constitution itself.


You have to actually, you know, argue for the social contract theory. You can't just assert it.

Because you are essentially saying the will of the king or emperor is divine and must be followed. Simply because they wear a crown on their heads. "The king said so, follow him", "why?", "because he's the king".

In the physical world they often aren't separate though? Rebellions often come on the heels or through foreign attack. Sometimes foreigners are used in pursuance of uprisings or internal coups or civil wars. The roman empire is a large case in point. Your making a distinction that historically has rarely been so clear.

My point is that identity is not simply what the state or law says it is. Southerners in 1860 and Jews in 69 AD rejected the lawful identity they had been given or had appointed. It was a feeling, but it was also a declarative action of rejecting the identity they had officially. Same applies to the colonists.

Hate Speech laws are fundamentally based upon the notion that speech must be regulated for communal harmony. Especially applied in modern multicultural societies. The constitution is more concerned with individual rights, then say in Canada where the law and enforcement is dictated by, "will this trigger a riot", "or will people offended by this burn down the suburb"? In the US social pressure and official sanction can mean certain ideas will be driven out anyway-but they do not suffer legal reprisal. Simply for being spoken.

Human beings have inherent rights. And worth. Thus they have the right to decide who governs them and how. The governors are obligated to respect their wishes. Social contract is predicated upon respect for the human person and the sacrosanct protection of the dignity of those governed. If human beings have no inherent dignity or worth, or some have more than others then nothing is impermissible.